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

[MGibster]

But what if it was an Evil baby?

Trick question. All babies are evil.

 

[abirdcall]

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.

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.

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.

So there are no lawful good characters who exist in an authoritarian controlled realm. Lawful goods gods have no access to that place because any influence they have would be chaotic and so against their nature.

Modrons would explode due to the paradox upon stepping foot in the borders.

Similarly devils would not be able to take any action in a lawful good realm.

Etc.

 

[Charlaquin]

So there are no lawful good characters who exist in an authoritarian controlled realm.

There are surely characters within that realm who hold to lawful good ideals. But, while living under authoritarian rule, one’s only options are to take revolutionary action against the system (which would be chaotic), to fall to complacency (which would be neutral), or to uphold the system (which would be evil). It would probably be in the best interest of those within such a society who hold lawful good ideals to ally with those who hold chaotic good ideals, if only temporarily, in order to put as swift an end as possible to the state of affairs which prevents them from living in accordance with their ideals. Any relevance to current real-world geopolitics is purely coincidental.

Lawful goods gods have no access to that place because any influence they have would be chaotic and so against their nature.

Modrons would explode due to the paradox upon stepping foot in the borders.

Similarly devils would not be able to take any action in a lawful good realm.

Etc.

A lawful good god would have a pretty hard time exerting any influence over a society in which the law was inherently evil, yes. This is why gods need mortal agents; mortals have the unique ability to define their own nature. For the beings of the wider cosmos, alignment is prescriptive. An Angel cannot be evil or chaotic, for to do so would be to become a devil or an empyrian. But the mortal follower of a lawful good god? They have the moral agency to determine that, in this instance, the good must temporarily take precedence over the law, lest the forces of evil turn it to a weapon against good, and stamp out the influence of the lawful good gods. They can defeat the evil tyrants so that lawful good can once again established a foothold, and a new, just order can be established.

 

[abirdcall]

There are surely characters within that realm who hold to lawful good ideals. But, while living under authoritarian rule, one’s only options are to take revolutionary action against the system (which would be chaotic), to fall to complacency (which would be neutral), or to uphold the system (which would be evil). It would probably be in the best interest of those within such a society who hold lawful good ideals to ally with those who hold chaotic good ideals, if only temporarily, in order to put as swift an end as possible to the state of affairs which prevents them from living in accordance with their ideals. Any relevance to current real-world geopolitics is purely coincidental.

A lawful good god would have a pretty hard time exerting any influence over a society in which the law was inherently evil, yes. This is why gods need mortal agents; mortals have the unique ability to define their own nature. For the beings of the wider cosmos, alignment is prescriptive. An Angel cannot be evil or chaotic, for to do so would be to become a devil or an empyrian. But the mortal follower of a lawful good god? They have the moral agency to determine that, in this instance, the good must temporarily take precedence over the law, lest the forces of evil turn it to a weapon against good, and stamp out the influence of the lawful good gods. They can defeat the evil tyrants so that lawful good can once again established a foothold, and a new, just order can be established.

Yes, so a lawful good celestial may not do anything when they are in an authoritarian realm because doing so would be, according to your view, chaotic and they may not be chaotic. But they also can't be lawful good so they just cease to be.

A lawful good god also wouldn't exist because there would be no lawful good mortals in that realm.

Trying to overthrow the tyrant would be turning their back on their god's lawful natures by being chaotic which is against their own nature.

It just all doesn't work at all in D&D.

Why can't an action against being lawful evil be lawful good? Why must it be chaotic? Is the same true of chaos? Are all who oppose demons lawful beings?

It's nonsensical to me.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i think what would determine more if a lawful character would try to work towards making their environment follow their chosen rules more is if the rules themselves they have chosen to follow are intended to be applied to the larger populous, like laws obviously function like that and a lawful person will likely impose compliance around them, but someone who's chosen rules are more stuff like never lying, always keeping their word, or everyone gets one screw up forgiven which are more internally sourced are far less likely to make others live up to those same expectations.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, so a lawful good celestial may not do anything when they are in an authoritarian realm because doing so would be, according to your view, chaotic and they may not be chaotic.

Correct.

But they also can't be lawful good so they just cease to be.

Well, no, they just hold no direct power there. Which is likely just as the infernal beings and their servants wanted it.

A lawful good god also wouldn't exist because there would be no lawful good mortals in that realm.

Again, mortal followers of a lawful good god have the moral agency to behave in chaotic ways in the short term, in order to make it possible for their god’s power to take root there again. This is why mortal followers are a very important thing to have.

Trying to overthrow the tyrant would be turning their back on their god's lawful natures by being chaotic which is against their own nature.

Temporarily engaging in chaotic behavior in order to make it possible for the power of lawful good to re-establish itself there is not turning one’s back on those gods.

Why can't an action against being lawful evil be lawful good? Why must it be chaotic?

It can be, when the law supports good. You were specifically asking about the context of an authoritarian state - a place where the law is itself evil. In a just society where the law was in support of good, opposing evil in a way that is in accordance with law would be trivial. Indeed, in such a case the law would be designed specifically to support the opposition of evil. Lawful good vs lawful evil is the stuff of wars. Subversive action against lawful evil from within is a story of chaotic good vs lawful evil.

Is the same true of chaos? Are all who oppose demons lawful beings?

Maybe, though not really in the same way. Law is restrictive by nature. For one thing, a place where chaos and evil reigned could barely be said to constitute a society. The closest thing I can picture is some kind of Randian anarcho-capitalist dystopia, though even that has some element of law, in order to preserve any concept of personal property. At any rate, I do think lawful good beings would have an easier time acting in opposition to the dominant chaotic evil powers-that-be than chaotic good individuals would. Since lawful good could combat said powers by attempting to impose a just order, whereas chaotic good individuals would have to try to combat evil without the benefits of centralizing power. Probably that would make for less effective resistance, but not impossible.

 

[Xeviat]

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.

Oooh, now THAT'S an interesting idea! Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, and Neutral could all have a little benefit (saving throw bonuses against specific things maybe?) that nudge characters in one direction or another.

 

[Hriston]

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.

Yes, it's nice to see it being stated explicitly.

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.

I award inspiration in my D&D 5.0 games. I think it works best when treated something like a compel in Fate, if you’re familiar with that system. As DM, I make it one of my main jobs to present situations that test/are adverse to the PCs’ personal characteristics, alignments, goals, etc. I try to make it hurt for them to stay true to these things, but when they do, they get inspiration to compensate, so it's a tradeoff. Either you avoid a complication by betraying one of your personal characteristics, or you accept the complication and gain inspiration. My goal as DM is to keep the inspiration flowing by pushing on the PCs' personal characteristics which drives the action forward.

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.

I would avoid telling the players how their characters feel. People act the way they do for all kinds of reasons, and I think it should be up to the players what those reasons are.

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.[/QUOTE[
In my games, the penalty for not staying true to your PC's personal characteristics is not getting inspiration. I try to make the game challenging enough the players miss the extra bonus if they don't have it.

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 1E DMG distinguishes between minor and major actions when discussing charting PCs' alignments. When I DM, I'm focused more on what I think would qualify as minor actions. For instance, in a current game, it's been established the party has a goal of exploring a dungeon to find treasure, so every time they push deeper into the dungeon, exposing themselves to more danger in the hope of getting rich, I award inspiration.

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 imagine a neutral deed would involve remaining neutral or advocating for neutrality, perhaps by counterbalancing some deed that strongly expresses another alignment. Beyond that, I think it's situational.

Thoughts?

I don't plan on playing D&D 5.2, and one of the main reasons is the lack of formal personal characteristics (traits, ideals, bonds, flaws) in that system. I think they're one of the more innovative features of 5.0, but they seem to clash with some popular playstyles so are frequently ignored as far as I can tell.