Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="roguish" data-source="post: 9508979" data-attributes="member: 7046843">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.</blockquote>

Verification