D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[pemerton]

"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."

If that's all you get out of alignment, it's not working right. The reason for that is that they removed the aspect of alignment that helped you differentiate the types of evil beings.

Huh? In fact, double Huh?

4e D&D has two sorts of evil alignment: Evil and Chaotic Evil. Among gods, this differentiates between being ruthless and probably also domineering with a tendency to cruelty (Bane, Vecna, Torog, Zehir, Tiamat, Asmodeus) and being an enemy of creation because either aligned with the Abyss (Lolth, Tharizdun) or wantonly destructive (Gruumsh). Among other creatures, being Evil has much the same meaning as for gods, while being Chaotic Evil tends to mean either wantonly destructive, much like Gruumsh (this is Orcs, most Ogres and Trolls, some Giants), or demonic or Abyssal or otherwise aligned with the metaphysical forces of destructive chaos (eg Gnolls, Demons, Slaads, some other Elementals, etc).

But knowing that a person is ruthless, or domineering, or even wantonly destructive, doesn't tell me what they will do if someone approaches them for a chat, or offers to sell them something, or even asks for a favour. I wouldn't expect it to. I don't look to alignment to tell me a creature's motivations or actions; as an aspect of personality all it does it set some general parameters around where their moral boundaries are, and how self-aggrandising they are likely to be.

 

[Oofta]

But as @Oofta often points out, Alignment is used because he doesn't want to read all those five paragraphs in the MM. So why are we suddenly saying an entire book of more lore is useful?

If more lore is more useful, then wouldn't getting rid of alignment and just using a few sentences of lore to give a more complete picture than two words. Honestly, you wouldn't even have to add anything. The current set up in the MM is more than enough. I've never felt the need to look at something's alignment when I've had their lore to read instead.

An entire unique short story on each and every NPC and creature you come across would be more useful. That doesn't mean alignment is useless.

I don't want to have to read a book on every monster in order to get a general idea of their moral compass.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Do you have in-depth details on every monster and NPC? Spell out exactly how they'll react to every option? Every single one?

I don't use alignment. So, yes, if the players are going to do more than walk up and kill them, I do try and think about what is important for the story. What their motivations and goals are, what are they willing to do to reach them, who they have alliances or bonds with.

If they aren't important enough to give a name or some consideration about, then they are faceless. Usually only applies to things like "The Merchant" who is getting glossed over so I don't need to consider those things about.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Dude! This is why it's so hard to take you seriously when you complain that we accuse you of twisting things. I mean, my very first sentence was, "It doesn't need to be there." and you respond with, "So, you are saying it requires it."

Stop twisting my words.

Then why did you follow that with "It can also be part of a lawful character, though. Lawful can come from other aspects of the character and you can still have a lawful, free spirit that doesn't appreciate authority. It's just going to be far less common than a chaotic person with that trait. "


If you can't tell that it is chaotic, because it could also be lawful, then you are saying that they needed that alignment descriptor there. Because it was somehow vague enough to be a chaotic ideal and a lawful ideal at the same time.

 

[Maxperson]

Then why did you follow that with "It can also be part of a lawful character, though..."

Because................................it can, which is why it doesn't need to be there. Why write something down that will cause a lot of people who will take it wrong to pick chaotic, when they don't have to pick chaotic? Just get rid of it and let people pick how they want. Most will pick chaotic anyway, but some will pick lawful or neutral for that axis.

If you can't tell that it is chaotic, because it could also be lawful, then you are saying that they needed that alignment descriptor there. Because it was somehow vague enough to be a chaotic ideal and a lawful ideal at the same time.

I didn't say that, though. I explicitly said that it just leans(pretty strongly) chaotic, but doesn't have to be.

Stop trying to interpret my words. Just take them as I write them and you will not go wrong so often. You just literally "interpreted" my words to be the exact opposite of what I said and meant.

 

[Maxperson]

But knowing that a person is ruthless, or domineering, or even wantonly destructive, doesn't tell me what they will do if someone approaches them for a chat, or offers to sell them something, or even asks for a favour.

It's not supposed to tell you what to do. It's supposed to broadly inform your thinking so that given the circumstances of the encounter, you can choose an action that fits the alignment and the circumstances.

You keep looking for alignment to tell you what you should say and do, except that's not it's function. It's like looking at money and expecting it to tell you how to spend it.

I wouldn't expect it to.

Now I'm confused. You keep asking us to explain how it will tell you what to do, but now you said that you don't expect it to tell you what to do.

 

[pemerton]

Alignment in 4E never made sense to me. Which goes back to the OP. Lawful vs chaotic has nothing to do with good vs evil.

Alignment in 4e D&D doesn't speculate that there is a connection between law and chaos and good and evil. It stipulates it, as part of the cosmological set-up.

The whole premise of the 4e default cosmology is that life and creation emerge out of chaos, but are constantly vulnerable to destruction by those same chaotic forces. Especially because, somewhere near the beginning of mortal time, the Abyss was created at the heart of the Elemental Chaos which tainted the "purity" of the Elemental Chaos with a destructive, cruel and hateful orientation.

The gods were the ones who imposed order and regularity on the creation that emerged out of chaos, and hence made mortal life feasible.

At least as I have experienced it, this set-up generates questions like how ruthless am I prepared to be in order to prevent the forces of chaos from eroding destruction? and how much am I prepared to flirt with the risk of destruction in order to allow the creative aspect of chaos to manifest? The invoker/wizard in our game answers the first question pretty ruthless and the chaos sorcerer/bard answers the second question quite a bit. Both are Unaligned. The cleric/fighter of Moradin answers not very ruthless (though perhaps a bit more so since having replaced Torog as the god of pain, punishment and imprisonment) and not very much. He is Good, which means that he not only sides with the gods over the Abyss but that he does so out of a moral conviction of the need to avoid mortal suffering, and that conviction informs his day-to-day conduct.

As I already posted upthread, if one were running a 4e game that didn't adopt this default framework (eg 4e Dark Sun) then I think alignment would not only be unnecessary but potentially unhelpful. For instance, in Dark Sun the set-up means that the forces of order (ie the Sorcerer-Kings) also tend to be a cause of suffering rather than wellbeing.

 

[pemerton]

You keep asking us to explain how it will tell you what to do, but now you said that you don't expect it to tell you what to do.

Because @Oofta said, and has reiterated, that typically all he needs to know to run a NPC or creature is that being's alignment. And some other posters in this thread - @Helldritch and you being the main ones but I think @Flamestrike might be there too - have agreed with and/or defended Oofta in respect of this claim.

The fact that I don't have a particular expectation of alignment doesn't change the fact that other posters appear to, and I am asking them to elaborate on that expectation by showing how it would work in concrete instances.

Do you have in-depth details on every monster and NPC? Spell out exactly how they'll react to every option? Every single one?

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.

The number of NPCs I have to consider in a session can vary from a handful to hundreds, depending on what is going on.

Depending on the system I am running and the current trajectory of things, I use different ways to work out how the NPC will act.

For instance, in my Prince Valiant game the scenario I am using often describes how the NPCs will behave, at least by default. I extrapolate from that as necessary, and also apply the consequences of Presence checks made by the players for their PCs.

In my Traveller game I am typically preparing my own scenarios. I might make notes as to what a NPC is likely to do, or what their motivation is. Otherwise I lean heavily into reaction rolls, filtered through the relevant context. I also look to a NPC's background, stats (especially INT, EDU and SOC) and skills to get a sense of their personality: eg someone with low INT but high EDU is likely to be disciplined but lack initiative; someone with mid-to-high SOC and skill in Foil (the bladed weapon) and Leadership is apt to be dashing rather than plodding; etc. If they have low INT then we can add that they may also be a little naive.

In Burning Wheel I will give a NPC up to three Beliefs to reflect their basic orientation and place in the fiction. In Cortex+ Heroic a NPC's Distinctions play a similar sort of role. And of course the results of social interaction also make a difference.

In 4e D&D there is no reaction roll mechanic but like Prince Valiant, BW and Cortex+ Heroic there are social skills. And most creature descriptions also outline the basic disposition of the creature. For NPCs I'm creating from whole cloth, I will generally have an idea of who they are and what they want. As I've posted, alignment can be a way of signalling a cosmological affiliation, and of saying something about how ruthless they are (if Evil) and how indifferent to destructive consequences of their actions (if Chaotic Evil).

It's not supposed to tell you what to do. It's supposed to broadly inform your thinking so that given the circumstances of the encounter, you can choose an action that fits the alignment and the circumstances.

You keep looking for alignment to tell you what you should say and do, except that's not it's function.

I choose actions that fit the personality and disposition of the NPC or creature in question.

 

[Oofta]

I don't use alignment. So, yes, if the players are going to do more than walk up and kill them, I do try and think about what is important for the story. What their motivations and goals are, what are they willing to do to reach them, who they have alliances or bonds with.

If they aren't important enough to give a name or some consideration about, then they are faceless. Usually only applies to things like "The Merchant" who is getting glossed over so I don't need to consider those things about.

My campaign is too dynamic for that. On a fairly regular basis, the darn group doesn't follow the script. Which is probably my fault for encouraging them to do ... interesting ... things.

 

[Oofta]

Alignment in 4e D&D doesn't speculate that there is a connection between law and chaos and good and evil. It stipulates it, as part of the cosmological set-up.

The whole premise of the 4e default cosmology is that life and creation emerge out of chaos, but are constantly vulnerable to destruction by those same chaotic forces. Especially because, somewhere near the beginning of mortal time, the Abyss was created at the heart of the Elemental Chaos which tainted the "purity" of the Elemental Chaos with a destructive, cruel and hateful orientation.

The gods were the ones who imposed order and regularity on the creation that emerged out of chaos, and hence made mortal life feasible.

At least as I have experienced it, this set-up generates questions like how ruthless am I prepared to be in order to prevent the forces of chaos from eroding destruction? and how much am I prepared to flirt with the risk of destruction in order to allow the creative aspect of chaos to manifest? The invoker/wizard in our game answers the first question pretty ruthless and the chaos sorcerer/bard answers the second question quite a bit. Both are Unaligned. The cleric/fighter of Moradin answers not very ruthless (though perhaps a bit more so since having replaced Torog as the god of pain, punishment and imprisonment) and not very much. He is Good, which means that he not only sides with the gods over the Abyss but that he does so out of a moral conviction of the need to avoid mortal suffering, and that conviction informs his day-to-day conduct.

As I already posted upthread, if one were running a 4e game that didn't adopt this default framework (eg 4e Dark Sun) then I think alignment would not only be unnecessary but potentially unhelpful. For instance, in Dark Sun the set-up means that the forces of order (ie the Sorcerer-Kings) also tend to be a cause of suffering rather than wellbeing.

Well I just dislike the 4E version of alignment. I agree with the OP that they're separate. There is no "imposed" order, alignment is just a simplified version of the perceptual framework theory.