D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[pemerton]

I don't want or need multiple paragraphs of text for 90% of my monsters and NPCs.

For the vast majority of monsters and NPCs a two letter abbreviation tells me what I need to know.

It's a general guideline not prescriptive of every single possibility; a foundation for how they make decisions and how they approach the world. Which we've said repeatedly, because as the book says it "provides a clue to its disposition and how it behaves in a roleplaying or combat situation. "

Stop trying to make it into something it's not, it doesn't prove anything other than that you're not discussing in good faith.

I took your post that I've quoted above at face value.

Should I not have? Is it not true that for the vast majority of NPCs alignment tells you all you need to know to work out what they do?

As I posted just upthread, when I run D&D alignment does not tell me all I need to know to work to work out what NPCs do.

When I ran 4e D&D for about 7 years straight, the PCs encountered many Evil creatures. They befriended and allied with some (Duergar), they bargained with some (Hags), they fought some until they received and accepted surrenders and promises of repentance (Goblins), etc. All the Evil alignment does is tell me that these people aren't very nice and might be pretty ruthless when upset.

 

[Maxperson]

How many NPCs and monsters do you have per session? I can have a couple dozen. I am not going to go into details on each and every NPC and monster.

Right. This is primarily what I use alignment for.

 

[Helldritch]

I use a number of considerations to determine how NPCs respond to PCs. Outcomes of appropriate checks (reaction rolls or Diplomacy checks or whatever makes sense in the system) can be one important tool.

When the system I'm running is D&D, and hence the NPCs have an alignment, I don't regard that as determinative. It might set parameters of action (eg an evil person who is hostile may manifest that hostility more ruthlessly than a good person).

Much more important is the social context of the encounter. Are the PCs turning up as assailants? Explorers? Potential allies? Potential customers? etc.

Customers??????????

Welcome adventurers! Welcome Burning Ember! The Red DragonMart. May I introduce you to our very exclusive wares ? Smoked adventurers on the rocks! Princess kebab! Bards on a stick are on sales right now! Get three for the price of one! Yeah, I know they lost a bit of their freshness but good adventurers do not make bards anymore as they used too. Gnomes are particularly in short supply. You don't actually know where we could find some for our store do you? We would pay a handsome fee for gnomes feet to fry. Quite the delicacy believe my. I swear! My mate vouch on the medicinal qualities of these. You should see her scales. Glistening in the morning sun like red gold shine under a magnificent light!

So what will it be?

 

[Helldritch]

How many NPCs and monsters do you have per session? I can have a couple dozen. I am not going to go into details on each and every NPC and monster.

And I do the exact same thing.

 

[Maxperson]

I took your post that I've quoted above at face value.

Should I not have? Is it not true that for the vast majority of NPCs alignment tells you all you need to know to work out what they do?

As I posted just upthread, when I run D&D alignment does not tell me all I need to know to work to work out what NPCs do.

When I ran 4e D&D for about 7 years straight, the PCs encountered many Evil creatures. They befriended and allied with some (Duergar), they bargained with some (Hags), they fought some until they received and accepted surrenders and promises of repentance (Goblins), etc. All the Evil alignment does is tell me that these people aren't very nice and might be pretty ruthless when upset.

Evil isn't an alignment, though. Neutral Evil, Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil are alignments, and those tell you more.

 

[pemerton]

Customers??????????

The first time the PCs in my 4e campaign met with duergars, the duergars were in a goblin stronghold. They had purchased some slaves from the goblins. The PCs arranged to pay the duergar to redeem those slaves.

I think there were other occasions where the relationship between the PCs and some NPCs was essentially transactional.

 

[pemerton]

Evil isn't an alignment, though. Neutral Evil, Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil are alignments, and those tell you more.

Did you notice that I was talking about GMing 4e D&D?

 

[Oofta]

I took your post that I've quoted above at face value.

Should I not have? Is it not true that for the vast majority of NPCs alignment tells you all you need to know to work out what they do?

As I posted just upthread, when I run D&D alignment does not tell me all I need to know to work to work out what NPCs do.

When I ran 4e D&D for about 7 years straight, the PCs encountered many Evil creatures. They befriended and allied with some (Duergar), they bargained with some (Hags), they fought some until they received and accepted surrenders and promises of repentance (Goblins), etc. All the Evil alignment does is tell me that these people aren't very nice and might be pretty ruthless when upset.

I stand by what I said. Most of the time alignment is a foundation to know how the NPC or monster will react. It's all I need or want.

I've given you examples, one of a chaotic, one of a lawful [edit: evil} dragon. Their responses were significantly different and compatible with my understanding of alignment. I have no idea what you do or what you would need. I run a very improv heavy game with a lot of freedom. For a small percentage of actors (around 10%) I go into detail.

I have no clue how you would run it otherwise, either the vast majority are going to have some generic categorization (possibly with different details than alignment) but it would be effectively impossible to stat out every single actor. I'm not going to have a life story for every intelligent creature the party comes across.

 

[Maxperson]

Did you notice that I was talking about GMing 4e D&D?

No, but alignment was one of the things that edition messed up, so I'm not surprised you had problems with it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If the assertion is made that alignment is what I need to know to decide what a person does then it seems a relevant case study.

The assertion was made that a DM can play an NPC using alignment to determine actions. That doesn’t mean alignment works in a vacuum.
No one claimed that no further info was ever needed.

And no general behavioral indicator is going to answer your question, which makes it a bad question even in the use case you’re trying to apply it to.