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

[aco175]

I would be careful with your idea of each alignment and the players ideas. I mean, take Darth Vader. Most people think he would be LE since he has his code but also does evil things like choke generals without going through the court marshal system- so maybe he is more CE and just likes killing people. Did Anakin start off as LE or was young padawan more LN since he had dark thoughts and occasional pushbacks against the structure- so maybe he is more CN. Eventually he gave himself over to the dark side, but eventually he redeemed himself and became a benevolent ghost who seems more LG/NG something.

Few players are going to tell the DM that since you did not let me find this McGuffin to save my NPC wife, I'm going to become evil now and work with the bad guys. Can we play another campaign where I play the secret son of this guy who will eventually save him from evil.

I can picture some posters here already thinking that Vader is another alignment or Anakin is something else, or ghosts cannot be good. Now what would your players feel if you chose for them?

 

[Emerikol]

For me, historically, I never played that alignment was prescriptive except for people with divine ties like clerics and paladins. Choosing those classes meant you were choosing to play that way in my games.

Most alignment based spells and magic items, I did use but typically the spells would only detect paragons of the alignment. And magic items with alignment restrictions were for paragons to use. People while leaning one way or another wouldn't show up using detect alignment or detect evil/good.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I can picture some posters here already thinking that Vader is another alignment or Anakin is something else, or ghosts cannot be good. Now what would your players feel if you chose for them?

please, everyone knows anakin/vader's true alignment is Dramatic Angsty.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

The only purpose (IMO, of course) is for there to be things like magic items that only attune to characters of certain alignments. Ideally, a variety of these, so that playing one alignment doesn’t just give you access to more stuff than others.

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 mean, I basically agree. I think alignment is pointless if it doesn’t have mechanical implications. But, those implications need not be punitive.

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.

Again, I basically agree in principle, I just don’t like this rule as the way of giving alignment “teeth,” because it locks the player in to one alignment.

 

[payn]

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?

I like alignment, but I dont like this. Can make PCs too caricature like. Might lead to mother-may-I routines with the GM to wiggle in and out of the "deeds".

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

Thats a great breakdown.

 

[payn]

I would be careful with your idea of each alignment and the players ideas. I mean, take Darth Vader. Most people think he would be LE since he has his code but also does evil things like choke generals without going through the court marshal system- so maybe he is more CE and just likes killing people. Did Anakin start off as LE or was young padawan more LN since he had dark thoughts and occasional pushbacks against the structure- so maybe he is more CN. Eventually he gave himself over to the dark side, but eventually he redeemed himself and became a benevolent ghost who seems more LG/NG something.

Few players are going to tell the DM that since you did not let me find this McGuffin to save my NPC wife, I'm going to become evil now and work with the bad guys. Can we play another campaign where I play the secret son of this guy who will eventually save him from evil.

I can picture some posters here already thinking that Vader is another alignment or Anakin is something else, or ghosts cannot be good. Now what would your players feel if you chose for them?

Well, first of all, folks can alignment shift. Secondly, whats going on in a person's head isnt all that material, its about what they finally choose to do and how they view society that makes up their alignment. Having a code for example, doesnt mean anything. A chaotic or neutral person can also have a code.

I let my players pick their own alignments and let their actions do the talking. If a player wants to have a father gone evil and they want to try and turn them back, thats fine. Its not predetermined its going to happen though, they have to play the game to make it happen. I dont do story reenactments in my RPGs for that reason. I dont think this is what the OP intends for their alignment system either.

 

[Voadam]

I would just go with rewards and not penalties.

Maybe go with the WoD vice thing and if you play an aspect of your alignment to your detriment you get inspiration. So a LE character not profiting because they kept their word. A good character helping someone even though it ticks off an NPC.

Just be careful of encouraging behavior that disrupts the game or leads to game play you do not want. Chaos for chaos sake that hurts the party is a natural consequence of such a system. Sticklers for codes of honor for lawful characters can go the same way.

Playing to alignment in a way that helps the group or plot may be a better goal for many groups. The LE works a technicality to the group's benefit. A chaotic character flummoxes an adversary with a surprise move. A good character's act of kindness works to get an NPC to open up. An evil character intimidates an NPC to cough up information.

 

[Xeviat]

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

I feel like I may have explained myself poorly. My idea is still descriptive.

Evil character eats baby, it makes them feel good.
Good character eats baby, they feel bad.

Character growth is still there. If someone keeps getting those feel bads, then they know to switch their alignment to better represent how they're playing their character. If they don't want to change their alignment, then they get to roleplay the guilty feeling.

For instance, I consider myself a lawful person. If circumstances encourage me to break a rule, let's say I'm late so I do a California rolling stop through a stop sign at an empty intersection, I feel guilty about it (but that's a chaotic act, not a chaotic deed, so it wouldn't be part of this).

 

[lall]

Thoughts?

1. Musician exists, so players may be less interested if the carrot is HI.
2. Everyone who has ever existed, exists, or will exist has different definitions of alignment, especially when an incentive or punishment is on the line.
3. Let players opt out. Many players enjoy having as much control of their characters as possible. This lessens that as it’s one more way for the DM to rule against them.

 

[Voadam]

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.

Sort of Aristotealean habit of virtue.

I would again suggest though having alignment be only a virtue that grants a good feels inspiration "carrot" benefit when you practice it. Even if the virtue is evil or neutrality. Making a penalty turns it more prescriptive and as DM feels like telling people they are playing their character's nature wrong and trying to actively "stick" them into playing it right. Just use minor carrots here and mostly leave it up to PCs to roleplay how they want to.

I suggest leaving the vice part of the WoD virtue vice to the existing flaws element of the character sheet as the temptation benefit for their flaws.