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

[Crimson Longinus]

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

But what if it was an Evil baby?

 

[abirdcall]

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.

Yeah, gaining it after benefiting the group works much better in D&D's framework which is essentially the rules we got for heroic inspiration in 2024.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

For me, if it’s just about personal ethics, it doesn’t rise to the level of affecting your alignment. A character who has a personal code they follow may view themselves as lawful, but until it starts affecting other people, what they view themselves as doesn’t really matter. Under my model of alignment, most rational actors tend to think of themselves as lawful good, but most people’s actual actions tend towards neutral on both axies. You’re not truly good unless you actively make personal sacrifices for the benefit of others, and you’re not truly lawful unless you take political action in support of civic order. What society does alignment care about? All societies. A lawful character should work towards making the world at large a more orderly place.

 

[abirdcall]

For me, if it’s just about personal ethics, it doesn’t rise to the level of affecting your alignment. A character who has a personal code they follow may view themselves as lawful, but until it starts affecting other people, what they view themselves as doesn’t really matter. Under my model of alignment, most rational actors tend to think of themselves as lawful good, but most people’s actual actions tend towards neutral in both axies. You’re not truly good unless you actively make personal sacrifices for the benefit of others, and you’re not truly lawful unless you take in political action in support of civic order. What society does alignment care about? All societies. A lawful character should work towards make the world at large a more orderly place.

The differentiation for me is that a lawful character doesn't need to work towards making the world more like where they currently happen to be living.

They have a personal code of order (which might align with how they were raised or might not) and use that to make the world a more orderly place.

This might actually result in civil disorder in the short term if the current civil order is anathema to the character's personal codes including if it is not orderly enough.

 

[Charlaquin]

The differentiation for me is that a lawful character doesn't need to work towards making the world more like where they currently happen to be living.

No, they need to work towards making the place where they currently happen to be living more like they believe it ought to be. As do chaotic people. If you’re not taking an active part in shaping policy, you’re neutral. In my model, that is.

They have a personal code of order (which might align with how they were raised or might not) and use that to make the world a more orderly place.

As long as “use that to make the world a more orderly place” means something that has a direct impact on the lives of others. If they’re just following a personal code whilst otherwise living and letting live, that’s neutral behavior in my book. Law and chaos are active forces. Passivity is inherently neutral.

This might actually result in civil disorder in the short term if the current civil order is anathema to the character's personal codes including if it is not orderly enough.

You’re talking about, like, a lawful good character working against the interests of an unjust government in hopes of replacing it with a more just one? In my model, its actions, not intentions, that matter. Acting to dismantle an established social order is a chaotic action, even if it is with the intent of later instituting a better, more lawful social order in its place. That’s ok though! A character who holds lawful good ideals may be willing to temporarily engage in chaotic action in service to a longer-term lawful goal, their alignment might even temporarily shift to neutral good or even chaotic good as a result (presumably shifting back when/if those longer term goals are achieved). That’s a compelling story if you ask me!

Alternatively, if the character isn’t willing to compromise their own ethics in the short term, they might maintain their lawful alignment by working within existing power structures, to reform them rather than engaging in revolutionary action to dismantle and replace those power structures. Of course, if those existing power structures are lawful evil, working to reform them from within may require compromise of their altruistic ideals, and their actions may temporarily lead to a shift to lawful neutral or even lawful evil, until they succeed in instituting those reforms and can start moving back towards lawful good.

These sorts of questions are what make for the most interesting roleplaying, in my opinion. What do you do when your own values come into conflict with one another? What do you prioritize when you have multiple drives that are mutually exclusive? Thats the potential power of alignment when used effectively.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I feel that, if you are incorporating flaws and other character traits, "alignment" will be baked into it in a more natural way.

Example: The person who has a Bond of "Anything for my Community" and a Flaw of "I will speak up for injustice, regardless of who it offends"

Can be LG (if the law doesn't support the injustice) or CG (if the law is supporting the injustice). Or you could say the character is leaning into their LG tendencies because they have a strict code to speak up for injustice.

The label is irrelevant. It's the execution that's important and how it affects the story unfolding.

Alignment, flaws and bonds etc... are nothing more than role-playing notes until they complicate the story.

As soon as it complicates something, it directs the story and creates a situation that must be overcome somehow.

IMO - that's when I'd reward a benny.

I don't think "punishing" a player for going against their personality traits is the way to go. Reward them for leaning into it. If you see them taking the easy way out by going against their personality traits, OFFER them a benny for taking an approach that leans into their personality as long as it complicates things.

If you want to go so far as the FATE mechanics, you can offer them a benny for complications and allow them to refuse by paying it off - but that's probably not necessary.

 

[Charlaquin]

I feel that, if you are incorporating flaws and other character traits, "alignment" will be baked into it in a more natural way.

Example: The person who has a Bond of "Anything for my Community" and a Flaw of "I will speak up for injustice, regardless of who it offends"

Can be LG (if the law supports the injustice) or CG (if the law is supporting the injustice). Or you could say the character is leaning into their LG tendencies because they have a strict code to speak up for injustice.

The label is irrelevant. It's the execution that's important and how it affects the story unfolding.

Alignment, flaws and bonds etc... are nothing more than role-playing notes until they complicate the story.

As soon as it complicates something, it directs the story and creates a situation that must be overcome somehow.

IMO - that's when I'd reward a benny.

I don't think "punishing" a player for going against their personality traits is the way to go. Reward them for leaning into it. If you see them taking the easy way out by going against their personality traits, OFFER them a benny for taking an approach that leans into their personality as long as it complicates things.

If you want to go so far as the FATE mechanics, you can offer them a benny for complications and allow them to refuse by paying it off - but that's probably not necessary.

The thing is, rewarding playing to your alignment makes alignment prescriptive. You have an alignment, it’s set in stone, you get a reward when you behave according to it. No room for your actions to define your alignment, only to give or not give rewards. Now, that’s fine if your goal is just to encourage players to act according to a certain set of guidelines, but… why would you want to do that?

Now, I get it, having your alignment change because you took the “wrong” action can feel like a punishment, and that’s no fun. But, the only way for alignment to actually be descriptive is for characters’ actions to be able to change their alignments. The key to making that not feel like a punishment is to have the effects of alignment shifts not be punishing. If you can lose your class abilities or spells as a result of your alignment changing, that’s sure to feel like a punishment. Instead, perhaps you get some sort of passive bonus based on your alignment, and when your alignment changes, you swap that passive bonus for the new alignment’s passive bonus. So it’s still always a positive thing, but it changes according to your actions, instead of being set in stone and occasionally paying you when you dance for it.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

The thing is, rewarding playing to your alignment makes alignment prescriptive. You have an alignment, it’s set in stone, you get a reward when you behave according to it. No room for your actions to define your alignment, only to give or not give rewards. Now, that’s fine if your goal is just to encourage players to act according to a certain set of guidelines, but… why would you want to do that?

Now, I get it, having your alignment change because you took the “wrong” action can feel like a punishment, and that’s no fun. But, the only way for alignment to actually be descriptive is for characters’ actions to be able to change their alignments. The key to making that not feel like a punishment is to have the effects of alignment shifts not be punishing. If you can lose your class abilities or spells as a result of your alignment changing, that’s sure to feel like a punishment. Instead, perhaps you get some sort of passive bonus based on your alignment, and when your alignment changes, you swap that passive bonus for the new alignment’s passive bonus. So it’s still always a positive thing, but it changes according to your actions, instead of being set in stone and occasionally paying you when you dance for it.

I don't see why bonds and flaws can't change over time. Everyone changes as they grow. I wasn't suggesting that players can't ever play in a different way. If they find their characters are changing over time, change it. FATE lets you change these details at every milestone.

 

[Voadam]

One option is to look to Dungeon World for some uses of alignment rewards, I believe they have a system for using it to give out game resource awards in a PbtA framework using D&D type elements.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't see why bonds and flaws can't change over time. Everyone changes as they grow. I wasn't suggesting that players can't ever play in a different way. If they find their characters are changing over time, change it. FATE lets you change these details at every milestone.

Fair enough