D&D General Designing Morality Systems

[Krachek]

I would prefer a motivations system for what a character do,
rather than morality that rely on don’t do!

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Using a morality line, like in 4e, works well for those kind of things:

+50​	+25​	0​	-25​	-50​
Lawful Good​	<-Good​	<-Unaligned->​	Evil->​	Chaotic Evil​

I think that despite what we see on forums, most people understand the general difference between evil and good. So the DM just have to track the points (karma, fate, whatever) and choose the appropriate unlockable bonus with each category.

 

[Scribe]

Using a morality line, like in 4e, works well for those kind of things:

+50​	+25​	0​	-25​	-50​
Lawful Good​	<-Good​	<-Unaligned->​	Evil->​	Chaotic Evil​

I think that despite what we see on forums, most people understand the general difference between evil and good. So the DM just have to track the points (karma, fate, whatever) and choose the appropriate unlockable bonus with each category.

But wait, what about Chaotic Good??

 

[Oofta]

I use alignment as it's intended in 5E. It's a general descriptor and guideline, that's all. A roleplaying aid similar to TIBF. Sometimes useful, sometimes ignored.

So I guess you could say I don't see a need for any alignment system.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

But wait, what about Chaotic Good??

its just Good now. You know, those passively good people, like most of us. You dont put a incredible amount of effort at enforcing goodness, but your are still interested in promoting the good sides of humanity. In this here case, lawful good is when you go out of your way to stay loyal to your principles or those of a party you have faith and conviction in. The extremes (LG and CE) are what I like to think of as ''actively engaging in your alignment''.

Its basic enough that most players who dont want to find loopholes or argue about everything might work with this, I think. Dont have to overthink the whole thing and all that.

This comes with the idea to offer various bonus when you are on a category or another instead of penalty for not being in the ''right'' category.

 

[Scribe]

Hmm. OK. Cant get behind that, but OK.

 

[CleverNickName]

I use alignment as it's intended in 5E.

So I guess you could say I don't see a need for any alignment system.

This seems like a pretty obvious contradiction.
You're suggesting the game designers created a mechanic that they didn't intend to be used?

 

[Oofta]

This seems like a pretty obvious contradiction.
You're suggesting the game designers created a mechanic that they didn't intend to be used?

I may well have said that wrong. I view alignment as practically optional for PCs is all.

I do think it's useful for NPCs and monsters as a general indicator of morality. I think D&D's alignment system works well enough for that.

I haven't had time to watch, I'll make time tomorrow.

 

[CleverNickName]

I may well have said that wrong. I view alignment as practically optional for PCs is all.

I do think it's useful for NPCs and monsters as a general indicator of morality. I think D&D's alignment system works well enough for that.

I haven't had time to watch, I'll make time tomorrow.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I was genuinely confused there.

 

[Minigiant]

I promised myself if I ever do a Greek game as DM, I would do a wrestling alignment system with the Greek Gods as the audience. So it would less important to be good or evil or lawful or chaotic. The most important thing would be having the Gods love or hate you or staying completely invisible to them..

You'd get more boons based on how many gods care about you. Characters would fight for the favor or hatred of the gods.

"Everyone here in Athens SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKSSS! You are all a buncha nerds!. Did my +1 spear become +2? Thanks Ares the VASTLY Superior war god with the better hairdo."

The fact that D&D doesn't have a Babyface-Heel variant rule is a shame.