D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Manbearcat]

RE the bolded phrase:

No imaginary people exist, whether the game being played is trad D&D, or doctorbadwolf's D&D, or Dungeon World played as @Manbearcat does. That's inherent in them being imaginary.

On the other hand, just as in doctorbadwolf's D&D game the various participants imagine various character existing beyond the perception and interaction of the PCs, so do the participants in Manbearcat's DW game.

So the only relevant difference I can see in the neighbourhood of the bolded phrase is that Manbearcat decides what happens in the moment of play whereas doctorbadworld decides what happens in advance of the moment of play.

I don't see any particular reason to think that alignment is more helpful in the second rather than the first of those two approaches to play. I can decide in advance what a character will do without needing an alignment label.

The last time I GMed a game that uses alignment was 4e D&D. My approach to GMing was closer to Manbearcat's than doctorbadwolf's. I used the alignment labels to help me make decisions in the moment of play - eg if I though that a given moment of play would be enhanced by introducing a chaotic antagonist into the situation, I would use the alignment labels on the lists of candidate antagonists to help decide which one to use.

As Manbearcat has said, or at least implied, one consequence of this was that the game didn't focus much on interpersonal or character-focused drama of the sort he has described in his DW game. Rather, the focus tended to be on politics, history and cosmology. I think that's a natural direction for a game with D&D-type alignment to drift into. I would never think of using D&D-style alignment in a game that I wanted to be character-focused or "close" and personal in the way that Manbearcat's DW game seems to be.

Consider your Paladin Thurgon of the Order of the Iron Tower vs @darkbard 's Paladin Alastor of the Fraternity of Truth.

* They're both of a Lawful and Good bent as orthodox D&D alignment would have it.

* They both belong to Order/Fraternity and are at/near the apex of the hierarchy.

* They both see providence in the world and act upon it.

* They both wear heavy armor and a shield.

However, there are distinct differences as well:

* While they also both confront hierarchical corruption, it is at opposite ends of the caste system (Thurgon a king and his chamberlain and Alastor a laborer and his employer). Its not clear to me that either would be involved/devoted to the other's causes if the situations were inverted.

* While its not clear to me how much Thurgon is emotionally volatile/vulnerable (it seems not much, though play never wandered inward with respect to Thurgon), the character of both Alastor's inward reflections/communion and his outward expressions of divine authority reveal a level of volatility/humility/vulnerability (though not a lack of outward conviction) that isn't Paladin SOP. I could see Alastor being a reformed alcoholic/addict whose nature is entirely "un-Paladiney" and he fights tooth and nail every day to sustain. Meanwhile, Thurgon was lucky enough to be born the rock that the tide breaks upon.

* In our play, Thurgon's Order was already accepting of female Knights. Perhaps it was always this way or perhaps Thurgon only recently propelled this change. Meanwhile the legacy of Alastor's order is the inverse (exclusively males) and he is taking it on providence that it is his place to change this. Its unclear if this will work or not (it may fail dramatically...the next several sessions will sort that out).

---

The point is, there are many, many conceptions and manifestations of a Paladin. There is ample drift/divergence (both outwardly and inwardly) between Thurgon and Alastor (and surely more still tha I've noted above) that are at tension with the homogeneity expressed in Law and God discretely and especially the expectations that arise from the intersection of those two.

D&D culture has this tendency toward "Paladin homegeneity", when in reality, (a) THAT SUCKS AND IS BORING, (b) that isn't how people are (in genre or reality), and (c) actual compelling Paladin play rests upon BOTH the genre conceits of Paladinhood AND the struggles of a human (or whatever) aspiring to meet an impossible purity test.

 

[Helldritch]

The idea that alignment is a particularly strong tool for giving a shorthand description of personalities or dispositions is just not plausible.

This is where you err.

Dwarves are clannish, gruff but ultimately soft-hearted. LG adds nothing to that.

Fluff text. Is good. What about that fluff but add CG for a particular dwarf. Now we're talking.

Elves are flighty but not malicious. CG adds nothing to that.

And if that elf is LE?

Orcs are rude, crude, crass, generally obnoxious and prone to violence on top of that. CE adds nothing to that.

Ho, and what about LG? Intriguing isn't it?

Devils are deceitful manipulators that win trust by making promises which they keep only by twisting theirs and others' words. LE adds nothing to that.

My favourite. How about a CG devil?

Alignment was invented by Gygax to establish "sides" in a wargame (Chainmail) and to connect those sides to a grander cosmological struggle. In post-Chainmail D&D play the idea of "sides" continues and alignment also itself becomes a focus for skilled play: the more lawful and/or good you are the more constrained your permitted suite of action declarations but the better your access to helpful NPCs (including healing magic). And while I doubt the coherence of Gygax's Outer Planes (as per Appendix IV of his PHB) there's no disputing that they are evocative and colourful.

Historically accurate. But it does not diminish the usefulness of the system.

But this idea that alignment is useful primarily as a characterisation tool, and that's why we should keep it and use it, looks like an attempt to retrofit an ill-fitting rationale onto a legacy element. If you've dropped the idea of cosmological "sides", and the Gygaxian Outer Planes, and aren't particularly interested thematically in order vs chaos (and the idea that the playing out of this on earth is a mirror of its playing out in the heavens), then why the hell stick with the alignment conceit?

The alignment system is not an end to all means. It is one of the tools available to the DM and players alike. I repeat ONE of the Tools! It creates expectations and gives rough guidelines for both the newbee and the veteran so that they have common ground. It may not be good for you and your group(s). But I introduced litterally hundred of people into the hobby over the years and alignment has always been useful. Always.

Yes, it is personal experience. But at that level, I can safely say that its usefulness has been proven. It is simple and to the point.

 

[pemerton]

This is where you err.

Fluff text. Is good. What about that fluff but add CG for a particular dwarf. Now we're talking.

And if that elf is LE?


Ho, and what about LG? Intriguing isn't it?


My favourite. How about a CG devil?


Historically accurate. But it does not diminish the usefulness of the system.


The alignment system is not an end to all means. It is one of the tools available to the DM and players alike. I repeat ONE of the Tools! It creates expectations and gives rough guidelines for both the newbee and the veteran so that they have common ground. It may not be good for you and your group(s). But I introduced litterally hundred of people into the hobby over the years and alignment has always been useful. Always.

Yes, it is personal experience. But at that level, I can safely say that its usefulness has been proven. It is simple and to the point.

If you explain alignment to some players, and tell them that it will be a predominant consideration in the way that you present NPCs, and that they are expected to respond to it, and deploy it, in their own play, then I'm sure that those players do their best to pick up on it.

But the same thing would be true if, instead of law and chaos (from pre-AD&D) we just used good and evil (which is one way of interpreting 4e). Or if instead of L/C and G/E we used (say) peaceful/violent and selfish/generous. Or equanimous/greedy and cruel/kind.

There's an unlimited number of two-by-two descriptor sets that might be used to create shorthand personality descriptors. There is nothing distinctively useful or insightful about using the ones that Gygax came up with for a completely different reason.

If I want to say that this dwarf is not particularly clannish because she finds clans stifling of her creativity, I can do that without needing to resort to the CG label.

 

[Aldarc]

The alignment system is not an end to all means. It is one of the tools available to the DM and players alike. I repeat ONE of the Tools! It creates expectations and gives rough guidelines for both the newbee and the veteran so that they have common ground. It may not be good for you and your group(s). But I introduced litterally hundred of people into the hobby over the years and alignment has always been useful. Always.

Yes, it is personal experience. But at that level, I can safely say that its usefulness has been proven. It is simple and to the point.

Again, it's "useful shorthand" in much the same way that MBTI or Astrology provide "useful shorthand" about individuals and their motivations. It's undoubtedly easy to make sales pitches for alignment when you too are convinced of its magic. And if you as the GM are convinced of it being useful, then you will likely reinforce that sense of its "usefulness" to players through the NPCs you run and how you telegraph gameplay. So there tends to be a lot of confirmation bias at work here. IME, a lot of the attested "usefulness" typically come from people who have personally invested themselves into the system already rather than whether these systems genuinely contribute to a meaningful (or even pragmatic) understanding of complex human behaviors and associated moral frameworks.

My gaming territory is Austria, where many players don't necessarily count D&D as their first RPG, but, rather, Der Schwarze Auge. There is no alignment or equivalent, as far as I can tell, to be found in the game. Though some of my past gaming groups here were familiar with D&D alignment due to internet memes, they found it unnecessary when they were first introduced to D&D: "why do we need this?" If anything, they tended to discuss it variously as an impediment, crutch, or hand-cuffs that interfered with their roleplay rather than aid it in any useful manner. So I tend to think that the people who are most convinced that D&D alignment is useful are those who are heavily encultured in its use.

 

[pemerton]

D&D culture has this tendency toward "Paladin homegeneity", when in reality, (a) THAT SUCKS AND IS BORING, (b) that isn't how people are (in genre or reality), and (c) actual compelling Paladin play rests upon BOTH the genre conceits of Paladinhood AND the struggles of a human (or whatever) aspiring to meet an impossible purity test.

Thurgon's character changes with system. (Unsurprising: system matters.)

It's hard - probably not impossible, but hard - in 4e D&D to make social class matter. The tier system pushes really strongly against that, because inherent in the tier system is that paragon tier PCs hobnob with kings and epic tier PCs hobnob with gods. The whole thrust of the system (in its default form: something like Dark Sun can subvert this in ways we've discussed elsewhere) is that kings per se are fine and even desirable, and it's only bad kings who are a problem (qv Theoden and Aragorn in LotR). So 4e Thurgon is a noble paladin who is never forced to question social class or allegiance.

Burning Wheel Thurgon finds himself in a completely different situation. Something as everyday as cooking a meal, or returning home to meet his family after years of errantry, has the potential to throw his commitments and self-conception into doubt. Because that's what BW play is all about.

I haven't played enough DW Thurgon to get a true feel for him, but I'm sure he would differ from @darkbard's Arastor. I suspect he would be sterner. Perhaps more insistent on propriety (without meaning to suggest that darkbard dabbles in impropriety!). Moved more by a sense of duty (not legal duty - duty to god, and self, and others) than a sense of compassion.

There's room for all this in LG, and different approaches to play open up space for different sorts of contrasts. In earlier posts in this thread I've commented that alignment is of little help when there's disagreement at the table in respect of the sort of stuff that's going to come up as a focus of play. But your post makes the point that it is also of little use when there are going to be multiple PCs of the same alignment. If darkbard and I play a two-paladins game, what does it add to say that we're both LG? That's not where the action is!

 

[Manbearcat]

But your post makes the point that it is also of little use when there are going to be multiple PCs of the same alignment. If darkbard and I play a two-paladins game, what does it add to say that we're both LG? That's not where the action is!

Great post. Agreed with everything, but I'm excising the rest and quoting only this.

If you could distill my efforts in this thread to just three sentences, the above would capture my intent.

I think it would be very useful and interesting for folks to consider those three sentences and comment.

 

[Emerikol]

But the same thing would be true if, instead of law and chaos (from pre-AD&D) we just used good and evil (which is one way of interpreting 4e). Or if instead of L/C and G/E we used (say) peaceful/violent and selfish/generous. Or equanimous/greedy and cruel/kind.

There's an unlimited number of two-by-two descriptor sets that might be used to create shorthand personality descriptors. There is nothing distinctively useful or insightful about using the ones that Gygax came up with for a completely different reason.

If I want to say that this dwarf is not particularly clannish because she finds clans stifling of her creativity, I can do that without needing to resort to the CG label.

Well if nothing else we have tradition for the system in place.

I think most of the trouble is over Law and Chaos and not Good and Evil. We might argue on the finer points about what is Good or Evil but we know in the broad sense what those mean.

To me Law represents the establishment. To the degree it promotes Good, it could be considered a LG establishment and to the degree it promotes evil it could be considered a LE establishment. For the most part historically most are LN. They view themselves as good of course but their outcomes are in the middle.

The problem is that when you say you are lawful, it's kind of meaningless if you don't mention the social order to which you adhere. If you are a human in a drow city beneath the earth, then you are likely chaotic with respect to the drow authority structure. If you are above the surface living in your home country you may be lawful.

In fact as a shorthand, some people view the lawful vs chaos argument to imply the most favorable social structure. So what are you in a nation that you generally consider your homeland. If you are still highly skeptical of power and generally oppose the government becoming more powerful, then you are chaotic. If you favor the power structure and think it needs to be even more effective then you are lawful.

I find for me it is easier to ask PCs who they owe allegiance to and who do they care about. When they answer those questions then I know their alignment.

 

[Oofta]

Consider your Paladin Thurgon of the Order of the Iron Tower vs @darkbard 's Paladin Alastor of the Fraternity of Truth.

* They're both of a Lawful and Good bent as orthodox D&D alignment would have it.

* They both belong to Order/Fraternity and are at/near the apex of the hierarchy.

* They both see providence in the world and act upon it.

* They both wear heavy armor and a shield.

However, there are distinct differences as well:

* While they also both confront hierarchical corruption, it is at opposite ends of the caste system (Thurgon a king and his chamberlain and Alastor a laborer and his employer). Its not clear to me that either would be involved/devoted to the other's causes if the situations were inverted.

* While its not clear to me how much Thurgon is emotionally volatile/vulnerable (it seems not much, though play never wandered inward with respect to Thurgon), the character of both Alastor's inward reflections/communion and his outward expressions of divine authority reveal a level of volatility/humility/vulnerability (though not a lack of outward conviction) that isn't Paladin SOP. I could see Alastor being a reformed alcoholic/addict whose nature is entirely "un-Paladiney" and he fights tooth and nail every day to sustain. Meanwhile, Thurgon was lucky enough to be born the rock that the tide breaks upon.

* In our play, Thurgon's Order was already accepting of female Knights. Perhaps it was always this way or perhaps Thurgon only recently propelled this change. Meanwhile the legacy of Alastor's order is the inverse (exclusively males) and he is taking it on providence that it is his place to change this. Its unclear if this will work or not (it may fail dramatically...the next several sessions will sort that out).

---

The point is, there are many, many conceptions and manifestations of a Paladin. There is ample drift/divergence (both outwardly and inwardly) between Thurgon and Alastor (and surely more still tha I've noted above) that are at tension with the homogeneity expressed in Law and God discretely and especially the expectations that arise from the intersection of those two.

D&D culture has this tendency toward "Paladin homegeneity", when in reality, (a) THAT SUCKS AND IS BORING, (b) that isn't how people are (in genre or reality), and (c) actual compelling Paladin play rests upon BOTH the genre conceits of Paladinhood AND the struggles of a human (or whatever) aspiring to meet an impossible purity test.

Which has little or nothing to do with how those two characters view the world and why they do what they do, their alignment. It would only an issue if alignment was the only descriptor for these two paladins. It's not.

When creating complex characters I don't stop at alignment. Sometimes I don't think about alignment, or only after I have a few other things figured out. On the other hand for the 2-dimensional NPCs and monsters that only have a cameo in the game? I don't want two paragraphs to sift through and deeply consider, I want a short-hand that matches their importance to the story.

But again, if you don't find it useful, ignore it. Done. Just leave it for us that do find it useful. Easy peasy.

 

[Emerikol]

Great post. Agreed with everything, but I'm excising the rest and quoting only this.

If you could distill my efforts in this thread to just three sentences, the above would capture my intent.

I think it would be very useful and interesting for folks to consider those three sentences and comment.

I do think in the case of a Paladin, the power structure that he owes his allegiance to is his religion. If it comes down to a fight between his faith and the kingdom assuming it's not a good/evil issue, he is going to side with his faith. That doesn't mean of course that he doesn't respect a good government with a king devoted to the faith.

Saying that something is not useful because it doesn't create any conflict in party, seems odd. I tend to prefer my adventuring groups to be extremely loyal to each other. Those that are not tend to die off. So alignment is more of a question of how the group interacts with the outside world.

 

[Oofta]

If you explain alignment to some players, and tell them that it will be a predominant consideration in the way that you present NPCs, and that they are expected to respond to it, and deploy it, in their own play, then I'm sure that those players do their best to pick up on it.

But the same thing would be true if, instead of law and chaos (from pre-AD&D) we just used good and evil (which is one way of interpreting 4e). Or if instead of L/C and G/E we used (say) peaceful/violent and selfish/generous. Or equanimous/greedy and cruel/kind.

There's an unlimited number of two-by-two descriptor sets that might be used to create shorthand personality descriptors. There is nothing distinctively useful or insightful about using the ones that Gygax came up with for a completely different reason.

If I want to say that this dwarf is not particularly clannish because she finds clans stifling of her creativity, I can do that without needing to resort to the CG label.

I highlighted the bit that people keep going off the rails. To repeat: alignment is just one descriptor of many. In some case it's enough, just like in some cases the phrase "Gruff bartender with an eyepatch" is all I need because that bartender is simply not that important.

If you want to say that the dwarf finds their creativity stifled ... congratulations! You can say exactly that because it has little or nothing to do with their alignment. It may affect how they deal with the issue in my games based on how important alignment is to them. A dwarf that is lawful will probably be more likely to go through the system, try to get the rules changed or get special dispensation. A chaotic one is probably more likely to rebel against the system or try to find a loophole in the clan laws. But again, alignment is only one descriptor and the story you want to tell with this particular dwarf.