Replacing Alignment with Character Arcs and Values

[Sacrosanct]

This was spawned by the thread @Gradine created the other day, but I felt I hijacked that enough. I've been thinking of ways to handle character arcs and values instead of using alignment for awhile now (I never liked alignment because people are more complicated than that), but that discussion really opened up some new ideas. I know there are other systems that do this, and here's where I'm landing. I don't know if I'm there yet, but I think I'm close to having something I'm happy with.

Goal: Retain player agency, avoid punitive actions for players who stray, and give additional bonuses for those who get back on track. I'd like to find a way to emulate the Heroic Journey, where heroes hit a valley where they are challenged and have a moment of weakness, but if they come out, they are stronger for it. All the while retaining player agency and not penalizing PCs who don't want to or don't find themselves going that route. Don't worry about the specific bonuses, but more on the overall approach to granting bonuses for character progression. For context, each chapter contains three levels, so every 4th one you advance to a new chapter. Think of them like tiers in D&D.

 

[Darth Solo]

Looks like Railroad the RPG™.

You're using a literary concept (character arc) and imposing it on people playing a game and that isn't railroading?

GM: "Okay so instead of alignment, you pick values and then I'll create scenes where those values force your character to change. The change could be good or could be bad. Doesn't matter though because only the story matters."

I'd just write a book. That way you aren't aggravating the types of players who really don't care about "story arcs and character transformation". Now for groups that enjoy what your suggesting, more power to them but, I'd wonder why they're bothering with rpgs that have Alignment (e.g. D&D or Rifts) instead of going after more narrative-focused rpgs like Hillfolk or The Microscope?

But what really stands out with your "Character Arcs" system is it's actually more restrictive regarding PC behavior than Alignment. If you've read the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide you'll remember that alignment neither dictates PC religious persuasion or general behavior and a DM or player changing a PC's alignment was very possible. But if a PC violates their predetermined Character Arc they lose their Heroic Points. If my Greedy™ Thief decided to toss some homeless children a handful of copper I'd hope that the GM wouldn't penalize me by taking away my HPs and shifting my Arc to Generosity™.

But that's exactly how your system works. Seems pretty punitive to me. How can we fix Character Arcs to make them less of a straightjacket for the players?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Looks like Railroad the RPG™.

You're using a literary concept (character arc) and imposing it on people playing a game and that isn't railroading?

I'd just write a book.

This feels needlessly aggressive.

That way you aren't aggravating the types of players who really don't care about "story arcs and character transformation". Now for groups that enjoy what your suggesting, more power to them but, I'd wonder why they're bothering with rpgs that have Alignment (e.g. D&D or Rifts) instead of going after more narrative-focused rpgs like Hillfolk or The Microscope?

Because D&D-derived games are the dominant form of RPG play and most players wouldn't even know to go looking for The Microscope even if they might enjoy it.

 

[Darth Solo]

This feels needlessly aggressive.


Because D&D-derived games are the dominant form of RPG play and most players wouldn't even know to go looking for The Microscope even if they might enjoy it.

Since GMs actually run the games most players play, more players would indeed know about more narrative-focused rpgs if their GMs introduced them to those games, wouldn't you agree? As GM I've introduced some players to new (to them) game systems that they enjoyed more than D&D/PF.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Since GMs actually run the games most players play, more players would indeed know about more narrative-focused rpgs if their GMs introduced them to those games, wouldn't you agree?

I was using "players" in the broad sense that everyone playing a game, in any role, is a player.

The Microscope is extremely obscure. "If you don't like this rule, you should be playing a game you've likely never heard of" is unrealistic.

 

[bloodtide]

As written this would not 'fix' much

All the Arcs are way to vague. Just like alignment a player can just pick one and then do whatever they want on a whim and then turn ans say I did my arc! And if the DM disagrees, you go right back to the alignment argument.

A player can just cherry pick the easy ones. A player can just pick "knowledge" or "power" as they are easy.

I'm not sure how long the progress is....but it feels too long. Few players will want to be forced to act one way in every game with the hope of someday getting a bonus.

The elvaulation fail. This is the classic, the player does 99 good things, but the DM will say "oh, but one bad" no bonus for you.

And on top of that the bonuses are weak and poorly matched. If I pick "power" for personal power, I don't want a strength bonus.

 

[Darth Solo]

I was using "players" in the broad sense that everyone playing a game, in any role, is a player.

The Microscope is extremely obscure. "If you don't like this rule, so you should be playing a game you've likely never heard of" is unrealistic.

Obscure and unrealistic to you The sun doesn't rise and fall on D&D for many gamers.

 

[payn]

This sounds more convoluted and punitive than the alignment system, to be honest. Alignment is a simple short hand philosophy and has no in game mechanical effects in modern D&D. From a player agency perspective, an arc is approached in game when that philosophical alignment is challenged in game. A player can either bolster their beliefs (maintain alignment) or found a new path (change alignment).

I dont mind what you are attempting here. I am coming around to games that lead a little more mechanically by the nose for a bespoke experience. However, I do not see this as preserving player agency over the alignment system; even traditionally (outside perhaps the 3E/PF1 paladin).

 

[Sacrosanct]

Looks like Railroad the RPG™.

You're using a literary concept (character arc) and imposing it on people playing a game and that isn't railroading?

GM: "Okay so instead of alignment, you pick values and then I'll create scenes where those values force your character to change. The change could be good or could be bad. Doesn't matter though because only the story matters."

I'd just write a book. That way you aren't aggravating the types of players who really don't care about "story arcs and character transformation". Now for groups that enjoy what your suggesting, more power to them but, I'd wonder why they're bothering with rpgs that have Alignment (e.g. D&D or Rifts) instead of going after more narrative-focused rpgs like Hillfolk or The Microscope?

But what really stands out with your "Character Arcs" system is it's actually more restrictive regarding PC behavior than Alignment. If you've read the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide you'll remember that alignment neither dictates PC religious persuasion or general behavior and a DM or player changing a PC's alignment was very possible. But if a PC violates their predetermined Character Arc they lose their Heroic Points. If my Greedy™ Thief decided to toss some homeless children a handful of copper I'd hope that the GM wouldn't penalize me by taking away my HPs and shifting my Arc to Generosity™.

But that's exactly how your system works. Seems pretty punitive to me. How can we fix Character Arcs to make them less of a straightjacket for the players?

This isn’t AD&D, but if it was, you seem to be forgetting the plethora of rules that punish you if you deviate from your alignment. Like being completely stripped of class abilities. And you say what I wrote is more punitive than that?

All this is is a system that rewards PCs following their value system and character arc. That is, progression of the character is more than just more hit points and spells. I don’t see how this is a railroad when players can literally do what they want. Losing heroic points temporarily with the opportunity for greater reward is certainly less punitive then D&D has been for decades.

And the only way you are “forced “ to change is if you keep behaving completely contradictory to what you chose were your values. That’s no different from D&D either, because if you kept acting in a chaotic evil way when you chose lawful good, you’d have to change as well. At least with my proposal you don’t keep getting punished, but instead get rewarded. Even if you fail and redeem, you get an extra reward. I guess by your logic, AD&D is more railroady than this proposal…

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think providing mechanical benefits for the behavior you want to encourage is generally good design. As written, I think this system is probably overly complex -- the fact that it takes three pages to explain is a red flag for me.