d24454_modern
Explorer
What does this solve?
D&D (2024) One D&d and alignment: new approach
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
The main difference is that it puts any sense of good-evil-etc. "alignment" squarely in the eye of the beholder. What @Minigiant gives here are descriptors, and one's own in-fiction viewpoint would tell one whether these descriptors generally represent good or evil or whatever. For example, a rebel might think the Usurper faction are the good guys while a Loyalist would likely see them as the evil enemy.d24454_modern said:
What it doesn't allow for (and IMO in so doing dispenses with the best part of the alignment system) is the concept of good evil etc. being universal standards, thus allowing spells and items and so on to use and-or trigger off of their presence or absence. I love alignment-based items and spells!
Oofta
Legend
What does it mean to be a villain? How do you differ between the motivation and morality of The Kingpin vs The Joker? Face vs heel is just another term for good guy vs bad which doesn't tell us anything.
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
Hero is what I ask my players to make, I typically tell them not to create an evil character because you are all heroes, so I guess that might be the extent of my use of alignment, no evil. In general, I ask that my players are heroes who work together, what exact alignment they are isn't that big a deal, just so long as they're the "Good Guys".
Marandahir
Crown-Forester (he/him)
What happens when the good guys become the very villains they swore to destroy?
I.e., what happens when the Paladin starts committing war crimes For Great Justice? There's only so many times someone could set you up the bomb.
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
Luckily, that's not the sort of thing that really happens in my games. My players and I are fairly laid back and I think that's reflected in the games I run and the characters that are played in those games. There's no running around murdering innocents, just stopping the bad guy and their minions.
They have different and clearer motivations.
For example, Loyalty is just Loyalty. In one world, it could be loyalty to one's guild or government. The Disloyal would sell secrets and harm the group for their benefit. Whereas the Usurpers would be out to destroy and replace it. In an Olympic them world,Loyalistswould be loyal to the status quo with Zeus as head. Disloyalists would be pro-Hades or pro-Posiedon, the other kings. Whereas the Usurpers are worshiping Chronos or plotting with Ares to be the next son to take out their father.
Face and Heel are also a different from Good and Evil. Faces do what the "Audience" cheers for whereas Heel do what they boos. Now who is te Audience? Society? The People? Or are both sourced by the Gods as they made the rules? Eddie Guerrero was sometimes a Babyface who lied cheated and stole. Because the Audience cheered him, he was allowed to cheat.
Warpiglet-7
Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
They characterize humans as highly driven achievers.
Call it force of will or destiny of mankind or whatever and have it do “stuff”
CreamCloud0
One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
I don’t think alignment is any sort of inherent character straight-jacket, just that it has baggage from previous generations where it was misused as such both by GM’s, PC’s and on entire species, i think it is a fundamentally useful concept when used correctly for both quickhand character reference and an interesting factor tied to the outer planes and the denizens thereof.
One of the main problems alignment has had IMO is personal interpretations, the irl people who conflict over what is good or chaotic or neutral bringing their own personal interpretations rather than remembering these are in-universe tangible forces which have established definitions there, people try to make things relative with ‘well my character was raised in an evil community so their definition of good actually validates backstabbing and deception’ and things just head south from there.
Also i think it’s entirely possible to have evil characters in a group without problems, just that the players who want to screw over their group used it as an easy excuse for their own problematic actions.
One of the main problems alignment has had IMO is personal interpretations, the irl people who conflict over what is good or chaotic or neutral bringing their own personal interpretations rather than remembering these are in-universe tangible forces which have established definitions there, people try to make things relative with ‘well my character was raised in an evil community so their definition of good actually validates backstabbing and deception’ and things just head south from there.
Also i think it’s entirely possible to have evil characters in a group without problems, just that the players who want to screw over their group used it as an easy excuse for their own problematic actions.
RuinousPowers
Hero
I disagree with this. I think a lot of unpleasant characters get labeled Evil when they should be Neutral. I often see characters described as "they're evil, but they only hurt people that deserve it", which is not a definition for evil that I would use. To me, evil explicitly does evil acts to the innocent and the helpless- the undeserving. I probably have fewer evil characters in my world than most, because they are explicitly Evil- they go out of their way to perform evil acts, and because I have a larger view of Neutral than most. Conan was a pirate who attacked merchant vessels, but he wouldn't be evil in my setting, as he doesn't meet the criteria.
Similar Threads
