D&D (2024) Alignment, Traits, and Roleplaying bennies

[Xeviat]

I'm really happy that the 5.5/2024 DMG describes alignment as descriptive rather than prescriptive. It's a good explanation of alignment for new players, and a good reminder for vets.

At the same time, having played in games DMed by other people, I realize I was really bad at giving out inspiration for things. I'm wanting to codify heroic inspiration a little more for my own games, to make sure I use it and to help my players be aware of how to get it.

I've long wanted to incorporate something like the World of Darkness virtue and vice system. Each session, if you act toward your virtue in a way that doesn't benefit you, you get all of your willpower back. Each scene, though, if you act on your Vice, you get a point of willpower back. Thus, your vice is always a constant temptation.

I want to do something similar for alignment (as well as traits and flaws from 2014). Once per scene, if you act on your alignment or one of your traits or flaws, you get a heroic inspiration. But, I also want a minor penalty for when you act in a way opposed to your alignment.

This relates to my alignment explanation: The Warm Fuzzies and the Bad Feels. When a LG character does a lawful or a good deed, they feel good, and if circumstances make them do a chaotic or evil deed, they feel bad. Similarly, a CE person might feel cheated or ripped off if they have to do a good or lawful seed, while doing a chaotic or evil deed feels good.

So, I want a little penalty that represents that feeling of guilt or wrongness when you do something opposed to your alignment. If someone regularly acts outside their alignment, this penalty eventually becomes so annoying that they change their alignment to stop receiving those penalties.

I don't want the penalty to be big, and I don't want it to be permanent. I also don't want it to be something that gets meta gamed too much.

Could it be as simple as "if you perform a deed opposed to your alignment, you lose your heroic inspiration and cannot gain Heroic Inspiration until you complete a short rest"? This way it hurts regardless of if you currently have inspiration or not, and the penalty is similar to the bonus.

I would also want to define "deed" in regards to this. A good deed, or chaotic, evil, or lawful seed, is something big, not something minor. It should come at a cost, like donating a fair sum of money or going out of your way to bring a criminal bounty back alive instead of just killing them.

The Neutral alignment exists as a place for people who don't get those penalties, but their bonuses are harder to get. That would call for a True Neutral deed.

Thoughts?

 

[Clint_L]

I mean, I hate alignment and wouldn't have included it at all the DMG. I would have strongly preferred that they label it as what it is: an optional system that is not needed to play the game and leads to highly contrived and basically silly character descriptions and behaviours. IMO. I don't even mention it to my players.

But setting that aside, if you are going to use alignment, your idea for making it mean something by tying it to heroic inspiration is clever. It would promote gameplay that is antithetical to what I prefer, but different strokes for different folks.

 

[Scribe]

Could it be as simple as "if you perform a deed opposed to your alignment, you lose your heroic inspiration and cannot gain Heroic Inspiration until you complete a short rest"? This way it hurts regardless of if you currently have inspiration or not, and the penalty is similar to the bonus.

I would also want to define "deed" in regards to this. A good deed, or chaotic, evil, or lawful seed, is something big, not something minor. It should come at a cost, like donating a fair sum of money or going out of your way to bring a criminal bounty back alive instead of just killing them.

The Neutral alignment exists as a place for people who don't get those penalties, but their bonuses are harder to get. That would call for a True Neutral deed.

I like the concept, if you Session 0 to make sure everyone is on the same page as to Good/Evil, Law/Chaos.

I personally also drop Neutral, and go with Unaligned instead.

You can be LG, or LN, but the N doesnt matter, you are really just L. True Neutral just isnt workable to me but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

leads to highly contrived and basically silly character descriptions and behaviours. IMO. I don't even mention it to my players.

Used properly, Alignment doesn't lead to anything, it is the result of character behaviors. Players play their characters however they want, and then Alignment is just a label to describe the actions that they take.

I think the OP's suggested system could be really fun for the right group of players who have a concrete vision of their character, but personally I don't love it. It veers too close for my tastes to dictating what actions the players are "allowed" to do and punishing players for playing "incorrectly".

In practice it may actually work out ok though. Only pick Lawful or Good if you know you plan to play your character in one or both of those ways, and if you want to do whatever the hell you want then just pick Chaotic Neutral

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, this system makes alignment prescriptive, which I’m not a fan of

 

[Clint_L]

Yeah, this system makes alignment prescriptive, which I’m not a fan of

Sure...but why even have alignment in the game if it's not going to be prescriptive? As a very vague and illogical way to come up with a personality for a character? As a method of describing creature behaviours in the most generic, absurdly reductionist way possible? The only reason for alignment is as some way of making certain character actions enforceable, so I think the OP's idea actually takes the alignment system towards its logical conclusion. It's basically just a system designed to give DMs more control over player choices.

I teach creative writing and I'm very familiar with the literature. I have not seen a single, solitary writer describe or recommend creating a character by starting with an "alignment," or anything like it. It would be just as meaningful to start with their zodiac sign (actually, more so, since there are more zodiac signs). I mean, it's just a goofy concept if your goal is to create a believable character. So I don't think that's what it's for. It's all about narrative control. OP's suggestion gives that some teeth. Not to the extent that Gygax suggested, but a little bit, anyway. It's a good idea if that's your table's preferred style, and bless.

 

[roguish]

Thoughts?

I'll emphatically say don't.

Ages ago (AD&D 2nd Edition), our DM gave out XP bonuses or penalties, for roleplaying according or contrary to your alignment. Not for every little thing, it only came up a few times. A few were enough. It was by far the WORST d&d rule I've ever had to deal with. I called it The "Character development shall be forbidden" Rule.

It actively discouraged personal growth, or roleplaying anything remotely complicated and nuanced, or responsive to external factors (such as the people your character interacts with, new experiences they gain, new things they learn, new perspectives they acquire in their travels and adventures: all these things can change a person). You'd put yourself in a little box at the start of the campaign, and you were supposed to stay there, or get punished by the rules of the game. I hated it with a burning passion.

I believe that any variant of the rule (different bonuses/penalties, inspiration given/taken, etc) will follow the same rationale. It will pigeonhole the characters, and discourage them from changing outlook, even when it would make perfect sense for the character to change outlook (after this event happened and shook them, or that person became their friend or mentor and influenced them, or a million other things).

There are plenty of ttrpgs with narrative-related mechanics. Achieve this goal you set and you get a boon, promote this ideal you chose and you get a bonus. And I am not opposed to the concept, it can work really well. But I NEED the implementation to be flexible and nuanced, otherwise all it does is restrict roleplaying. Alignment, imo, is the worst way to implement it. Because it's static (unlike new goals that you can set, for example), it can't be responsive to events that happen in game. But your character can, and frankly should: it's bad roleplaying if you don't.

If you play with alignment (in case it wasn't clear, I don't and I'm all the happier for it, but I do have lots of experience with it), I strongly suggest you treat it as descriptive and not prescriptive*. Like a suggestion, or a source of inspiration, but not like a straitjacket. And don't be afraid of alignment shifts, or treat them as a bad thing! If done right, it's character growth and development, which is a mighty good thing. (Assuming you like roleplaying. If you only use alignment like ye olde wargaming rule, for telling who's on whose team when they fight, I got nothing for you.) Bonuses and penalties should have nothing to do with it, imo.

Besides, the last thing you need in your game is endless alignment debates. "Was this act evil?" and "what is chaos, really?", ad nauseam, will NOT enrich your gaming experience.

And if you want a narrative mechanic, you can easily give bonuses (mmmaybe not penalties) for goals and ideals and such, and let players revisit them as the story progresses. Because again: character growth and development is a good thing. Don't discourage it.

*
Descriptive alignment: you ate that baby, therefore you are Evil.
Prescriptive alignment: you are Evil, therefore you must eat that baby.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Sure...but why even have alignment in the game if it's not going to be prescriptive?

There are some (very few, but they do exist) mechanics in the game that impact depend on character alignment. With Rules As Written these mechanics are so rare that your route of ignoring alignment would not ever miss much, but I also try to homebrew in mechanics that depend on alignment, to make it worthwhile without being prescriptive.

Also, I find that having an alignment label to describe characters' past behaviors is convenient for making NPCs react to them appropriately (assuming they have enough renown that an NPC would've heard of them). "NPC doesn't trust Character because they're LE" is easier to remember on the fly than "because Character did X,Y,Z bad things that the NPC would know about".

 

[Distracted DM]

Sure...but why even have alignment in the game if it's not going to be prescriptive?

I was going to disagree, but when I went to examples in my head.. they're all prescriptive. Michael Moorcock's eternal champions are all set on their path by what they are. With DCC characters, you choose your Law/Neutral/Chaos alignment at level 0, before the game starts. How can alignment be descriptive if you haven't actually played the character yet? I guess it could be descriptive of what little background you might have given them? It seems to be a choice that you make because you want your character to be aligned with that choice... not something assigned to your character because of how they've behaved.

I've tried doing descriptive alignments, but then it's not so much the player that's going to be judging the characters' alignments, it's the GM... and I've had players that were displeased by a decision that "your character is not lawful." I guess that can happen with prescriptive alignments, but at least with those the player is guided by their choice. Maybe alignment prescription helps the player separate what they want, from what their character would want? A roleplaying guideline?

 

[CreamCloud0]

interesting premise but vaguely dissatisfied with the execution, i'll try to give a better explaination later.