D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Flamestrike]

Torture, as I pointed out, seems mostly to come about when the DM gives you a prisoner who refuses to cooperate, and the players come down to either wasting their time or doing what it takes to get information. And, again, they are on a time limit, so they go for the first expedient option. You want less torture have fewer prisoners who refuse to answer questions.

Groan.

 

[Manbearcat]

How does labelling an assassin neutral evil or lawful evil or whatever possibly tell me why s/he kills only bad guys? How is labelling the assassin evil going to provide any explanation of his/her morally-motivated restraint?

I’m running a game of Dungeon World for @darkbard and his wife.

During the 1st session of play, his Paladin (Alastor) came across a grisly scene of a father and his two children murdered (Covingtons). Many sessions later we all have discovered that the father was journeying to secure a loan to pay down a debt (loan from rancher-lender Clemente Shaw) he took on because his ranch/farm has struggled horribly the last few seasons.

When darkbard’s Paladin and the eldest daughter (Rose Covington) were taking half of the crippled ranch’s cattle to a neighboring ranch to sell them, a posse of the big shot lender-rancher accosted them (mechanically, because of a Journey move complication) to take the cattle outright (because they are worth more than the Coin you liquidate them for).

After the sale of the cattle, darkbard’s Paladin and the daughter returned to confront the lender and pay off the debt. The ensuing social conflict immediately escalated with an I Am the Law move from darkbard’s Paladin. The big shot rancher-lender fled with his men attacking.

The daughter shot the rancher-lender dead even though he wasn’t in the fight. But she paid the Coin owed (a hefty sum in DW) to his ranch hands (who surrendered after the fight turned against them) to clear up the debt because “her Pa.”

What alignment is she? I (the GM) sure as hell didn’t know. I fleshed her out this way off the cuff because I found it thematically provocative given the character of the situation.

What about names? Is it the fact that her name is Rose and one of his Bonds was with his Goddess; “I shall find the Weeping Rose of Memna and give her comfort.” Her mother (Widow June Covington) broke down in ruinous grief at the news of her fallen family, but Rose did not cry at the news as she comforted her mother. Yet the Paladin took this as Providence so she is now darkbard’s protege into his faith (which, prior to this event, all the Priests were male).

Would alignment have helped him make this decision?

Would an alignment system or a (non) distributed authority system at the table whereby the GM unilaterally judges PC (a Paladin’s especially) action and renders fiction x (you’re a heretic) and gamestate change y (you lose your divine powers and authority) have helped play?

If the answer to any of the above (What is Rose's alignment and therefore what social/physical moves should I make with her? Is the Paladin taking her on an act of heresy or providence?) is not helped by alignment or unilateral GM authority around alignment...in a situation that should be about D&D Alignment 101) what the hell good is it?

 

[pemerton]

My table, my rules, my definition. At your table, you can do you.

You haven't explained what is usefully brought to the table by alignment rules in circumstances where there is significant disagreement, at the table, over how to morally judge the events that come up in play.

 

[pemerton]

@Manbearcat

In your scenario I wasn't sure who of the various characters (paladin, lender rancher, borrower rancher, daughter, etc) was a PC and who wasn't.

But I don't see that alignment adds much to it. Your description of how you handled it looks to me like Czege 101:

I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat

In your scenario I wasn't sure who of the various characters (paladin, lender rancher, borrower rancher, daughter, etc) was a PC and who wasn't.

But I don't see that alignment adds much to it. Your description of how you handled it looks to me like Czege 101:

I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​

That’s exactly correct. Alignment (as constructed in classic D&D) has no place in it.

Edited the post above for clarity:

PC/protagonist (Alastor) - darkbard’s Paladin

NPC (Covington’s) family - The murdered father and his children, killed while attempting to secure a second loan to save his ranch/farm.

NPC - Widow Covington

NPC Turned Follower - Rose Covington (daughter)

NPC Antagonist - Rancher-lender Clemente Shaw (owned the very late, very interest accrued loan on the Covington ranch).

 

[pemerton]

@Manbearcat

Your NPC names sound more like DitV than DW! ( @darkbard's PC, on the other hand, has a traditional FRPG name, though I note it's not on the DW name list for paladins.)

 

[Maxperson]

Gotcha. I still consider it evil, its killing someone as a method of problem solving. Good characters might fall to this as any only means or best possible means type of action. Though, if the characters entire role and purpose is to just keep lists of people to kill thats evil in my book.

Lawful executions in the name of justice are not evil. They may not be good, but they are not evil. Good people can do neutral things and still remain good. There aren't a whole lot of avenues to walk down, but it is possible to be a good assassin.

 

[pemerton]

Lawful executions in the name of justice are not evil.

In the real world, this question of moral philosophy is of course up for grabs!

My own view is that, in FPRGing, a rather strict retributivist approach to punishment probably better supports the genre. Though it's striking that in LotR Aragorn's quality as a king is in part shown by the way that he is able to blend mercy with justice in his meting out of punishments.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat

Your NPC names sound more like DitV than DW! ( @darkbard's PC, on the other hand, has a traditional FRPG name, though I note it's not on the DW name list for paladins.)

It’s possible that there may have been a Dungeon in the Vineyard joke made during play!

 

[FrozenNorth]

An evil assassin who only kills bad guys is very different from a good assassin who only kills bad guys. Specifically, in terms of roleplaying, characterization, personality, interaction with characters with different personalities and ideologies, etc.

I would say an evil assassin who is given some depth who only kills bad guys is different from a good assassin who is given some depth who only kills bad guys. If an NPC, an assassin who kills bad guys is going to have a reason for why they act that way. If a PC, I will ask for the reason for why they act that way.
In both cases, saying they are LE, CN or LN, is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition.