Sword of Spirit
Legend
The title of the post might imply I have a specific proposal, but I'm really just looking for different takes and new ideas. The alignment discussions over on the Pages from the PHB topic had some really good thoughts (unusual for an alignment thread, sadly) and it got me thinking.
I'm really a fan of alignment in D&D, and I'm intending for this thread to be for others of that mentality. If you hate alignment or want to replace it with something else entirely, this isn't for you.
First, I like the way that 5e appears to be treating alignment. It has no mechanical effect, but is assumed to exist, and spells that previously dealt with alignment simply deal with creature types now, such as celestials and fiends.
The introduction of Ideals, Flaws, and Bonds seems like a great way to help players define a character's alignment. Maybe that's why little descriptors like, "lawful" were given in the example chart. You don't choose alignment first--you choose your Ideals, Flaws, and Bonds, which then point you in the direction of possible alignments. You don't have to pick any specific alignment, but it gets you thinking. If you picked a bunch of chaotic traits, but you think the description of a lawful alignment better fits your character, how does that work out in his actions and personality? What does that say about him? It adds depth and I think helps alignment be descriptive rather than prescriptive.
One of the traditional weaknesses of alignment was brought up on the other topic: people can play artificial characters because they are using alignment as prescriptive rather than descriptive. Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws might help out with that if they are intended to.
I'm brainstorming how I want to handle PC alignment in my campaigns. It can actually be a real pain when the DM and player disagree about alignment, but it can also be a real pain to create a complex legal document specifying exactly how alignment is defined. Leaving it more flexible, but with clear principles, I feel is a better way to do it, but then you end up with a greater risk of players not seeing it the same way as you do. And if you don't discuss alignment at all before the campaign starts, you risk having little common ground. For instance, I had a player create a True Neutral character and express that he thought that meant they could do whatever they want. Not my idea at all. In fact, "I do whatever I want" is a pretty good definition of chaotic evil in my interpretation.
I'm trying to come up with a way to let the players determine how much they want alignment to affect their character, while still preserving the effects I want it to have on the game. The primary effects that are important to me in my campaigns are that it gives me a quick reference for interpreting NPC individuals and groups, that it has an effect on philosophies and religions, and that it has an effect on what happens to your character when you die.
What sorts of suggestions would you guys give for how to allow players to choose their own level of alignment interaction while preserving my campaign ideas?
Here are a few different thoughts I'm rolling around:
1. Ask each player whether they want to declare an intended alignment at character creation, or just play their character and see what happens.
2. Ask each player whether or not they want me to inform them when their alignment is drifting.
3. Ask each player how much info they even want me to tell them about how I interpret alignment.
Based on their answers, I'd need to make sure they understand and are willing to accept occasional consequences. Let's say they don't want to choose an alignment, don't want me to tell them about it, and aren't interested in hearing anything about it other than the one or two sentence blurb in character creation. They need to be willing to accept that they might find themselves getting in trouble with an organization they choose to affiliate with because they didn't realize that that group considers parts of their behavior to be unacceptable according to their ideals. In a perfect campaign this can be handled without direct reference to alignment--but a game rarely runs perfectly. A player who wants to talk with me extensively about how I view alignment before we start, can have a basic idea of the likely alignment of that group, and make their character's decisions from that perspective. And I sometimes enjoy playing through a character's journey to the afterlife while awaiting resurrection. (I think it sets up that connection to the multiverse I find enjoyable; and then forgetting all about it when you come back refocuses the game, while leaving the players with a feeling of being a smaller part of a greater world.) It probably would be rather annoying for a player to find out after their character dies that I view their actions as putting them in Ysgard or Limbo when they were aiming for Arborea or the Beastlands.
As I've mentioned before, I prefer alignment to be something that is determined by a character's actions, rather than something they pick and try to act according to. In practice that can be a difficult mindset to actually interpret your character from, however.
So, thoughts?
I'm really a fan of alignment in D&D, and I'm intending for this thread to be for others of that mentality. If you hate alignment or want to replace it with something else entirely, this isn't for you.
First, I like the way that 5e appears to be treating alignment. It has no mechanical effect, but is assumed to exist, and spells that previously dealt with alignment simply deal with creature types now, such as celestials and fiends.
The introduction of Ideals, Flaws, and Bonds seems like a great way to help players define a character's alignment. Maybe that's why little descriptors like, "lawful" were given in the example chart. You don't choose alignment first--you choose your Ideals, Flaws, and Bonds, which then point you in the direction of possible alignments. You don't have to pick any specific alignment, but it gets you thinking. If you picked a bunch of chaotic traits, but you think the description of a lawful alignment better fits your character, how does that work out in his actions and personality? What does that say about him? It adds depth and I think helps alignment be descriptive rather than prescriptive.
One of the traditional weaknesses of alignment was brought up on the other topic: people can play artificial characters because they are using alignment as prescriptive rather than descriptive. Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws might help out with that if they are intended to.
I'm brainstorming how I want to handle PC alignment in my campaigns. It can actually be a real pain when the DM and player disagree about alignment, but it can also be a real pain to create a complex legal document specifying exactly how alignment is defined. Leaving it more flexible, but with clear principles, I feel is a better way to do it, but then you end up with a greater risk of players not seeing it the same way as you do. And if you don't discuss alignment at all before the campaign starts, you risk having little common ground. For instance, I had a player create a True Neutral character and express that he thought that meant they could do whatever they want. Not my idea at all. In fact, "I do whatever I want" is a pretty good definition of chaotic evil in my interpretation.
I'm trying to come up with a way to let the players determine how much they want alignment to affect their character, while still preserving the effects I want it to have on the game. The primary effects that are important to me in my campaigns are that it gives me a quick reference for interpreting NPC individuals and groups, that it has an effect on philosophies and religions, and that it has an effect on what happens to your character when you die.
What sorts of suggestions would you guys give for how to allow players to choose their own level of alignment interaction while preserving my campaign ideas?
Here are a few different thoughts I'm rolling around:
1. Ask each player whether they want to declare an intended alignment at character creation, or just play their character and see what happens.
2. Ask each player whether or not they want me to inform them when their alignment is drifting.
3. Ask each player how much info they even want me to tell them about how I interpret alignment.
Based on their answers, I'd need to make sure they understand and are willing to accept occasional consequences. Let's say they don't want to choose an alignment, don't want me to tell them about it, and aren't interested in hearing anything about it other than the one or two sentence blurb in character creation. They need to be willing to accept that they might find themselves getting in trouble with an organization they choose to affiliate with because they didn't realize that that group considers parts of their behavior to be unacceptable according to their ideals. In a perfect campaign this can be handled without direct reference to alignment--but a game rarely runs perfectly. A player who wants to talk with me extensively about how I view alignment before we start, can have a basic idea of the likely alignment of that group, and make their character's decisions from that perspective. And I sometimes enjoy playing through a character's journey to the afterlife while awaiting resurrection. (I think it sets up that connection to the multiverse I find enjoyable; and then forgetting all about it when you come back refocuses the game, while leaving the players with a feeling of being a smaller part of a greater world.) It probably would be rather annoying for a player to find out after their character dies that I view their actions as putting them in Ysgard or Limbo when they were aiming for Arborea or the Beastlands.
As I've mentioned before, I prefer alignment to be something that is determined by a character's actions, rather than something they pick and try to act according to. In practice that can be a difficult mindset to actually interpret your character from, however.
So, thoughts?