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

[abirdcall]

I love the tweak that was made to heroic inspiration in 2024.

I've also always loved alignment throughout the editions. For me it is a handy way to help me conceptualize a character, esp. one that doesn't fit what I consider to be in line with my personal alignment (so that I can be reminded to think of situations differently). I also love the Great Wheel cosmology and it relies on alignments. We just started a Planescape game so I asked the players to tell me their PC's alignments so they will have thought of them. I feel like it will could give them a better affinity or comfort with certain planes.

All that said, I don't like your proposed system. And the reason is that it is too loose. I had a problem awarding inspiration in 2014 because of that. A couple things I tried was asking players when they were acting toward their traits and that was too hard. So we switched to acting in line with their backgrounds like BG3 but that came up too seldom and felt forced.

I really like the current system of something brave or something that makes the whole table laugh or be entertained. Feels good to get a mechanical award for that.

I do like the idea of the system of acting either towards their ideals when it doesn't benefit them or indulging in a vice that could get them in trouble. Though...that is basically just the old acting according to ideal and flaw. It is either too vague and so seldom comes up or it will be too easy to get heroic inspiration every scene.

I feel like WoD games really lend themselves to those mechanics to help create the drama while in D&D the drama is happening all the time anyway with the structure of the game.

You could make it work though if you really spent some time on it in session 0. Come up with an ideal that involves courses of action that could get them in trouble. Having a flaw that is significant enough to matter would be something I might work into a Ravenloft game but seems out of theme with typical D&D.

Ultimately what I think I'm going to do is start with the PC bravery and player entertainment bits and then possibly work in playing to character even when the player knows it isn't the best choice as developed during the game. So it isn't something they write down at the beginning but a trait the whole table starts associating with that character that makes them stand out.

Unfortunately for you, I just don't think the game is built around the concept and so it is difficult or maybe even impossible to codify in a satisfying way without making huge redesigns. BG3 makes it work well but it is all programmed in and options are specifically provided to have it take effect. That is way too much work for me to think about doing.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

So, prescriptive. Exactly.

 

[Charlaquin]

So, prescriptive. Exactly.

No. Prescriptive would mean your actions are limited to those within your alignment. Descriptive means you act however you like, and your alignment can change according to those actions.

If I’m using alignment in a game, which I usually don’t do anymore, but there are campaigns where it can be appropriate, here’s how I run it: The alignment you put down on your character sheet is essentially a statement of intent - an ideal your character might strive to live up to. And, it’s where I’ll start your alignment off at for the purposes of tracking it. Over the course of the game, I’ll make note of actions you take that are altruistic (good) or egoistic (evil), and pro-authoritarian (lawful) or anti-authoritarian (chaotic). Whatever you trend towards more often will become your alignment for the purposes of any mechanics that care about your alignment (and if it’s pretty even on either axis, you’ll settle into a neutral alignment on that axis). This can and will change over time, and I’ll keep track of it. But I won’t necessarily notify you about it. To find out what your alignment is, you either need alignment-detecting magic, or to notice it based on how other mechanics that care about alignment respond to you.

Again, this is stuff like whether or not you can attune to certain magic items, or how certain magical abilities affect you, that kind of thing. I generally don’t like having players lose class abilities due to alignment shifts, so for characters like clerics and paladins, I’m more likely have emissaries of their deities demand a penance or something along those lines instead. Though, if the player is interested in roleplaying a paladin falling or something, I’m open to that. But it would be on their terms in that case.

At any rate, it’s purely descriptive. I never say you can’t take a certain action because it’s against your alignment, nor do I give rewards or punishments for acting in accordance with or against your chosen alignment. I just keep track of how your actions relate to each alignment axis, and have alignment-based magic respond to you accordingly. Of course, there is basically no alignment-based magic in 5e, and it’s rare I feel that homebrewing a bunch of such magic will add enough to a campaign to be worth doing. So I rarely bother with alignment anymore, and I don’t think it’s any great loss.

 

[MGibster]

As far as I can tell, Alignment hasn't been a significant part of D&D since 2014 and that trend continues in 2024. (I don't recall if Alignment was at all important in 4th edition.) I like Alignment and part of me misses it, but I haven't used it in ten years. At least not in any meaningful way.

With WoD's vice and virtues, at least it's nice and clear when a player crosses the line in either direction. With your "warm fuzzies" and "bad feels," as a player it'd be a little less clear to me how I'd get that heroic inspiration and how I might lose it. Honestly, as a player, I don't think I'd be motivated by gaining or losing a Heroic Inspiration at all. But that's just me.

 

[abirdcall]

No. Prescriptive would mean your actions are limited to those within your alignment. Descriptive means you act however you like, and your alignment can change according to those actions.

If I’m using alignment in a game, which I usually don’t do anymore, but there are campaigns where it can be appropriate, here’s how I run it: The alignment you put down on your character sheet is essentially a statement of intent - an ideal your character might strive to live up to. And, it’s where I’ll start your alignment off at for the purposes of tracking it. Over the course of the game, I’ll make note of actions you take that are altruistic (good) or egoistic (evil), and pro-authoritarian (lawful) or anti-authoritarian (chaotic). Whatever you trend towards more often will become your alignment for the purposes of any mechanics that care about your alignment (and if it’s pretty even on either axis, you’ll settle into a neutral alignment on that axis). This can and will change over time, and I’ll keep track of it. But I won’t necessarily notify you about it. To find out what your alignment is, you either need alignment-detecting magic, or to notice it based on how other mechanics that care about alignment respond to you.

Again, this is stuff like whether or not you can attune to certain magic items, or how certain magical abilities affect you, that kind of thing. I generally don’t like having players lose class abilities due to alignment shifts, so for characters like clerics and paladins, I’m more likely have emissaries of their deities demand a penance or something along those lines instead. Though, if the player is interested in roleplaying a paladin falling or something, I’m open to that. But it would be on their terms in that case.

At any rate, it’s purely descriptive. I never say you can’t take a certain action because it’s against your alignment, nor do I give rewards or punishments for acting in accordance with or against your chosen alignment. I just keep track of how your actions relate to each alignment axis, and have alignment-based magic respond to you accordingly. Of course, there is basically no alignment-based magic in 5e, and it’s rare I feel that homebrewing a bunch of such magic will add enough to a campaign to be worth doing. So I rarely bother with alignment anymore, and I don’t think it’s any great loss.

I realize I may be starting this thread on the path to arguing about alignment but I feel strongly about the idea that lawfulness /= authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism is a form of ruling which demands obedience from others and seeks to remove their freedoms.

Lawfulness as an alignment is not about subjugating others, it's about how much structure or lack thereof is in their life.

I highly relate to the lawful good alignment.

A couple examples of lawful behaviour:

If I say I'm going to meet a friend at 3pm it is very important for me to be there for 3pm and if I get delayed I feel bad and notify them straight away. I don't demand that of others, though I do think it is courteous to be informed about the status of things if there will be lateness or cancellation.

I decided to stop drinking in 2006. I haven't had a drop since even though at this point it probably wouldn't hurt me to have a drink every now and then. I made it a strict life rule so that I would follow it and now I'm still following it because I decided it was a rule. I do not in any way expect the same for others or judge them for drinking.

 

[Charlaquin]

I realize I may be starting this thread on the path to arguing about alignment but I feel strongly about the idea that lawfulness /= authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism is a form of ruling which demands obedience from others and seeks to remove their freedoms.

Lawfulness as an alignment is not about subjugating others, it's about how much structure or lack thereof is in their life.

I highly relate to the lawful good alignment.

A couple examples of lawful behaviour:

If I say I'm going to meet a friend at 3pm it is very important for me to be there for 3pm and if I get delayed I feel bad and notify them straight away. I don't demand that of others, though I do think it is courteous to be informed about the status of things if there will be lateness or cancellation.

I decided to stop drinking in 2006. I haven't had a drop since even though at this point it probably wouldn't hurt me to have a drink every now and then. I made it a strict life rule so that I would follow it and now I'm still following it because I decided it was a rule. I do not in any way expect the same for others or judge them for drinking.

Thats fair, and I don’t think most lawful characters would actually support authoritarian rule. In fact, I think characters who did would have trouble maintaining an alignment other than lawful evil. I was intending to use authoritarianism not to mean authoritarian rule, but in a broader ideological sense, as in the opposite of libertarianism, like on a political compass. Like, the position that a state is a positive (or at least necessary) thing for a society, and that individuals should be expected to sacrifice a degree of personal freedom for the benefits of a secure society.

 

[abirdcall]

Thats fair, and I don’t think most lawful characters would actually support authoritarian rule. In fact, I think characters who did would have trouble maintaining an alignment other than lawful evil. I was intending to use authoritarianism not to mean authoritarian rule, but in a broader ideological sense, as in the opposite of libertarianism, like on a political compass. Like, the position that a state is a positive (or at least necessary) thing for a society, and that individuals should be expected to sacrifice a degree of personal freedom for the benefits of a secure society.

That is a huge divide among people who use alignment which is probably where most of the arguments about it come from.

Alignment keeps referencing 'society' while begging the question of what that society is. It just assumes, I guess, it refers to the player's society?

I think the character needs to decide what kind of society they have and then it ends up being a personal thing.

2024 says "...the right thing as expected by society." But if they live in a society who believes the right thing to do is something we consider heinous that doesn't make any sense with "...fights injustice and protects the innocent" as that could be entirely against their society to do.

Lawful Neutral has a better description mentioning "personal codes" and "follows a disciplined rule of life" which is more in keeping with how I see lawfulness only I will apply that then to lawful good and lawful evil noting that the nature of the personal codes change.

 

[payn]

I realize I may be starting this thread on the path to arguing about alignment but I feel strongly about the idea that lawfulness /= authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism is a form of ruling which demands obedience from others and seeks to remove their freedoms.

Lawfulness as an alignment is not about subjugating others, it's about how much structure or lack thereof is in their life.

Lawful can certainly be authoritarian, but doesn't have to be.

I highly relate to the lawful good alignment.

A couple examples of lawful behaviour:

If I say I'm going to meet a friend at 3pm it is very important for me to be there for 3pm and if I get delayed I feel bad and notify them straight away. I don't demand that of others, though I do think it is courteous to be informed about the status of things if there will be lateness or cancellation.

There is nothing stopping a chaotic person from feeling bad about letting somebody down or not living up to something they said.

I decided to stop drinking in 2006. I haven't had a drop since even though at this point it probably wouldn't hurt me to have a drink every now and then. I made it a strict life rule so that I would follow it and now I'm still following it because I decided it was a rule. I do not in any way expect the same for others or judge them for drinking.

A chaotic person can quit drinking for personal reasons too. Im not really seeing what is lawful specifically about this. Again, law doesnt mean a person has a code. Anybody can have a code.

That is a huge divide among people who use alignment which is probably where most of the arguments about it come from.

Alignment keeps referencing 'society' while begging the question of what that society is. It just assumes, I guess, it refers to the player's society?

The idea of society. The society everyone ought to live in, even though its not the society that everyone does. Thats the rub, a person is always viewing things from the lens of their alignment and how to effect the world around them. Which is why some characters may completely avoid a place, or they may form a resistance or be a change agent in a place they live if its not ideal. Thats perfect as it gives ground for conflict and lays the seeds for adventure and stories.

I think the character needs to decide what kind of society they have and then it ends up being a personal thing.

No. Its about their personal view of what society ought to be.

2024 says "...the right thing as expected by society." But if they live in a society who believes the right thing to do is something we consider heinous that doesn't make any sense with "...fights injustice and protects the innocent" as that could be entirely against their society to do.

Yeap, that totally tracks. Being lawful doesnt mean following every law written and enforced everywhere. It means you believe in the concept of tradition and rules based society. It doesnt necessitate that you respect every society and every law written.

Lawful Neutral has a better description mentioning "personal codes" and "follows a disciplined rule of life" which is more in keeping with how I see lawfulness only I will apply that then to lawful good and lawful evil noting that the nature of the personal codes change.

The good/evil track is where we get into the personal. It denotes what the character is willing to do to achieve their envisioned goals. A good person respects life and helps people, even when it slows down their own goals. They are not willing to sacrifice the well being of people to achieve goals. Evil doesnt care about the well fare of others becasue the ends justify the means. This is a selfish route that looks at expedience as a virtue. Neutral isnt compelled either way and the situation dictates the action.

The real crust of the arguments folks have is thinking alignment is completely nailed down and specifically definitive. When its really philosophical on the intention end, and deliberate in the action result end. I know that can get confusing when you have mechanical impact of alignment, but the game doesn't anymore so that is somewhat alleviated.

 

[Laurefindel]

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?

My thoughts are that it would incite alignment debates and encourage disruptive behaviour, which are two things I truly hate. Players being jerks and pointing to their alignment to explain « that’s how my character would react » is something I cannot stand, never mind getting some sort of Bennies for it.

Games using flaws as a way to gain in-game benefit are usually built on drama or somehow use inter-character conflicts to drive the story forward, which I guess can become one of the driving themes of a D&D campaign, but otherwise isn’t in D&D’s DNA. Also in my experience, these games are typically bad at rewarding characters who manage to temper their urges, or reward RP toward status quo. A vampire could either lose it completely and regain all their willpower back, or be calmed by his friends after 5 minutes of good RP and nobody gets anything, except perhaps if this RP goes in the direction of somebody else’s virtues.

Even in games that simply reward specific behaviours from positive character traits (rather than flaws), there is a noticeable unbalance toward players who are good at choosing traits that are easily applicable in-game, and tend to reward good role-players who already have an easier time with the game. Shy players now have a social handicap as a player and a XP/resources handicap as a character.

But other than being generally disillusioned with in-game benefits coming from character traits, I don’t have a solution. I feel it should come from the group rather than from individuals, or at least benefitting the group rather than individuals somehow, but I haven’t been able to wrap my mind around it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i would have inspiration granted by adhering to TBIF but then have alignments serve as providing unique ways to spend that inspiration, each of good, evil, lawful, chaotic and neutral all having their own little list of special actions they can redeem for their inspiration.

this way characters can benefit from their alignment but aren't rewarded for acting out causing problems on purpose to fill their alignment boon quota.