Alignment of enemies in modules

[pemerton]

alignment is a mechanism to legitimise player action. You're not meant to question the validity of the labels...

The moment you do, you get the kind of problems you outline - viking clans that have no real claim to the moral high ground being given a moral label. Or samurai - that in their own eyes would probably see themselves as good - being labelled evil to legitimise the players slaughtering them.

Alignment is a design which allows dark ages freebooters or medieval warriors some simple moral certainties when they are being played by 20th century Winsconsin insurance underwriters. The game isn't really set up to challenge those certainties, just to legitimise the resulting killing and looting.

This all makes sense. And it works for heroes vs orcs.

So I guess maybe my OP is really a type of lament - why hamstring the potentially interesting situations these modules offer by bringing in the needless alignment mechanics? It's like a deliberate refusal to present your work as the best it could be.

 

[Manbearcat]

This all makes sense. And it works for heroes vs orcs.

So I guess maybe my OP is really a type of lament - why hamstring the potentially interesting situations these modules offer by bringing in the needless alignment mechanics? It's like a deliberate refusal to present your work as the best it could be.

Because they were predicting Burning Wheel would come out in 17 years (ish) and were secretly hoping for a Vikings and Samurai indie revolution!

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, in the end it's just another reminder why I never felt that D&D's alignment system was a good idea. Eberron and D&D 4e did a slightly better job of it, but it really should go the way of the Dodo, imho; it's a holy cow waiting to be slaughtered...

 

[MarkB]

I think it's as much a GM tool as anything else. Maybe the samurai clan or the Viking clan as a whole are of varied alignment, but these particular individuals are villainous and won't be prepared to deal peaceably with the PCs.

Basically, they're there to be fought, not to present a moral quandary.

Whether that's good or bad depends​ upon what your group were looking for from the module.

 

[Lylandra]

Well, in the end it's just another reminder why I never felt that D&D's alignment system was a good idea. Eberron and D&D 4e did a slightly better job of it, but it really should go the way of the Dodo, imho; it's a holy cow waiting to be slaughtered...

Well, I have to break a lance for the idea of alignment (not necessarily of the mechanical system) as a "compass of what to expect" of a person who's having alignment x. Alignments can also act as a guideline for inexperienced players who don't exactly know what morales to follow.

However, I'm really against restrictive alignments which state stuff like "all members of race/class X will ALWAYS have alignment Z". I do want my redeemable demons, likeable red dragons and morally ambivalent angels.

 

[Lanefan]

If the modules say that every individual member of clan x or tribe y has the same alignment, that's a flaw.

If, however, they say merely that clan x or tribe y trends toward a certain alignment that's fine, as you can still throw in individual variances if you like. (well, you could have anyway, but here you're not contradicting the module-as-written)

Lanefan

 

[Jhaelen]

Alignments can also act as a guideline for inexperienced players who don't exactly know what morales to follow.

I think we're in agreement, here, but there's definitely better ways to achieve that.

Personally, I really like how Ars Magica implements Personality Traits: You can pick as many of them as you want, and give them a rating from -3 to +3. And if you're acting in accordance (or contrary) to them, you get the rating as a bonus (or a negative modifier) to your action. And if you want your character to feel really strong about something, you can pick from a list of Virtues and Flaws.

Instead of cardboard characters who are universally 'chaotic-evil' or 'lawful-good', you can create characters that seem like real persons, with (sometimes) conflicting morals and motivations, grounded in game mechanics that are simple but make sense.

I.e. I'm not against having a system that helps players (and the DM) to decide how their characters (or NPCs) should act in a given situation, but against the 'classic', restrictive and often obscure implementation of D&D's alignments.

 

[pemerton]

Basically, they're there to be fought, not to present a moral quandary.

I don't feel this is fully responding to my point.

Just because something is not cartoonish in its nature doesn't mean there's a moral quandry. In the Night of the Seven Swords, for instance, the PCs are pledged to bring the artefacts to the inn. If someone attacks them to try and stop them doing that, there is no moral quandry in resisting, out of a combination of self-defence and sense of duty.

You don't need to make the attacker evil in order to achieve this.

 

[MarkB]

I don't feel this is fully responding to my point.

Just because something is not cartoonish in its nature doesn't mean there's a moral quandry. In the Night of the Seven Swords, for instance, the PCs are pledged to bring the artefacts to the inn. If someone attacks them to try and stop them doing that, there is no moral quandry in resisting, out of a combination of self-defence and sense of duty.

You don't need to make the attacker evil in order to achieve this.

For some players, that would be a moral quandary. If they have to fight and kill people who aren't bad guys and are just doing their job, simply in order to fulfill a contract, how are their own actions not evil? But if the people they're fighting are themselves evil and villainous, it's not such a dilemma.

 

[pemerton]

If they have to fight and kill people who aren't bad guys and are just doing their job, simply in order to fulfill a contract, how are their own actions not evil?

Well, they're fighting at least partly in self-defence - ie they were happily taking the artefacts to the rendezvous point as agreed, and the others attack them and try to stop them.

For some players, that would be a moral quandary.

Some players might also be pacifists in real life, and so worry even about using violence against villains. But how big is either set?

I don't say this to be snide. If the players are worried that fighting in self-defence, against NPC assailants trying to take the artefacts to the person those NPCs are sworn to, is evil; then are they going to think it's all OK if the defensive violence is against evil villains? Are that many players wary of defensive violence but sympathetic to retributive violence?

To me, the worry doesn't seem that great. Which is why I don't feel the issue is one of moral quandry. Rather, I feel it's about cheapening and flattening out the fiction. The fiction is more interesting if the rival viking clan, or rival samurai, are themselves parallels of the PC, but owing duties to a different family or lord. This needn't lessen the intensity of the rivalry; and - for the reasons I've given - needn't be seen as changing the permissibility of violence (which is about self-defence in both cases); but it makes the enemies more realistic and comprehensible as characters, which opens up richer possibilities (eg social interactions during the conflict or following defeat/surrender etc) without otherwise damaging the general thrust of the modules.