D&D General Designing Morality Systems

[Amrûnril]

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.

People will agree more often than not on whether an action is good or evil (though perhaps not in the cases where that question is more interesting). Trying to reach a consensus about how many points each act of evil or good is worth, though, is another matter entirely.

And I definitely prefer the framework of viewing Good/Evil and Lawful/Chaotic as orthogonal axes of variation. A character can be strongly commited to good while being firmly skeptical of authority (James Kirk, Harry Potter), or can be profoundly evil while idealizing order and tradition (Tywin Lannister, Grand Moff Tarkin), or can be strongly alligned towards law or chaos while remaining closer to neutral with regard to good/evil (Inspector Javert, Captain Jack Sparrow).

 

[Vaalingrade]

You're suggesting the game designers created a mechanic that they didn't intend to be used?

The designers are hostages to the fan base. They're not allowed to remove alignment.

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​

Important point: 4e have Neutral and Unaligned. Neutral would be your middle point, Unaligned mean uninvolved, unable to have an alignment, or actively opting out. Animals, constructs, average people and awesome folk like the Raven Queen got to be unaligned.

 

[GMMichael]

I don’t think restrictive morality is the right category for D&D alignment. I would peg traditional D&D alignment dynamics as contradictory . . .

Seconded. Or better yet, it's not even a rule. It's a guideline.

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

Hmm. The line works well for politics too. Funny that...

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. . .

Like most of us? Hands that don't put forth effort are the devil's tools. Let's call us neutral and call it a day?

I decided that a D&D-like game needs five alignments: chaos, evil, good, law, and neutrality. And they should be restrictive; your alignment choice has a concrete effect on your character options (but not behavior options). One effect: clerics can't cast spells of the opposing alignment. Another: you can't use a magic item that disagrees with your alignment. Some classes have alignment requirements, like thief and cleric. My favorite: the Circle of Protection spell doesn't protect you if your alignment opposes the caster's, or if you are neutral-aligned.

 

[Fenris-77]

Designers are hostages to the fan base? Blargh. Whatever I guess, the point is not about hostage taking, or being beholden, its about playing the game one way or another. You can certainly pay the game without alignment, without caring about good and bad. However, lots of people like playing the game with notions of good and bad, and its not for any of you to say that's wrong. My game is my game, and unless I'm hurting someone or transgressing a hard line, no one but me and my players get to pick.

 

[Charlaquin]

Seconded. Or better yet, it's not even a rule. It's a guideline.

Well, it’s a non-rule in 5e. Which I said in my post. It’s what this video (apparently, I still haven’t watched it) calls contradictory morality in previous editions, apart from 4e where it’s also just a guideline.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

As usual, someone is misinterpreting how Alignment works in AD&D (and I guess D&D, by proxy), again. Well, according to how I've always seen it since day 5 or 6 back in December of 1980.

The video in question claims D&D is a "restrictive" system. It isn't. That's not how it works. It's more like a combination of Restrictive and Cumulative. Your AL in D&D is what you "fall into" based on your actions. You can do, and are expected to do, whatever your PC, well, would do.

It's that whole "would do" that people get confused on.

FAR too many people think "I want to kick her in the teeth!...but My PC is NG, so I'll just shove her to the ground and threaten to call the watch". Which is fine, if you are interested in playing the "maintain my current alignment" part of the game. BUT... it's just as "correct" to just up and kick the thief/thug/whatever in the teeth because it suits that particular characters personality of having an absolute LOATHING of thieves/thugs from something in their past/background.

The DM then notes this down and the Player keeps playing. It is only when multiple actions (or a handful of 'big' actions) that go directly against the stated AL of the PC that the DM then steps in and says "Er...your character isn't NG anymore after that last little 'incident'. The one involving you pushing the beggar into the well...where he drowned. You're TN now".

That's why I find it strange hearing anyone playing D&D saying "You wouldn't do that! You're [insert AL]" as some sort of immutable rule that precludes a character from doing ABC or XYZ. The PC can do whatever they want. It's their ACTIONS that determine their ALIGNMENT...not the other way around.

Hence... AD&D alignment is a "base" of Restrictive, with actual "play" being Cumulative.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Oofta]

The designers are hostages to the fan base. They're not allowed to remove alignment.

So ... they keep it because a lot of people find it useful? Shocking! They should abolish it because you personally don't care for it.

 

[payn]

So ... they keep it because a lot of people find it useful? Shocking! They should abolish it because you personally don't care for it.

Its really sad that removing the teeth of alignment from the game is not enough for some folks. It seems like a very fair compromise, but folks f#$%ing hate compromise these days.

 

[Oofta]

TLDR: the video just uses different alignment systems to talk about how to set up moral conflicts. I'm not convinced moral conflicts are particularly interesting.

Having watched the video, it's really about setting up conflicts and how to use alignment. However I have to say that I disagree that alignment conflicts are interesting. It's too simplistic for me while also not being universally "interesting" or "fun". I guess maybe it always feels a bit "cheap"? Not sure, it's a concept that's hard to put into text.

Let me put this another way. Using the video's definition, at it's core D&D alignment best falls into the restrictive category. Not that it's actually prescriptive in 5E but in the sense that it starts with a set of ideals and concepts that restrict what kind of actions would fall into that alignment category. We don't have specific elements or actions spelled out, it's kind of a judgement call whether something is good, evil, lawful or chaotic. We don't have Star Trek's prime directive non intervention clause that gets ignored every other episode depending on the series. It's not cumulative because you decide the alignment at character creation, although if the DM allows shifting alignment based on the game it can be.

As a DM, I can always set up trolley car problems. Situations where there is no good choice, no matter what you do either 10 people die or 2 people die. Add in the twist of 10 strangers or the 2 people being your parents for extra funsies. No thanks. To me, that's setting up people to fail.

I remember playing Living Greyhawk (the 3.x open game system) and for whatever reason a bunch of the authors though it was "thought provoking and edgy" to throw fun situations like forcing the players to choose between a literal demon and devil. In another case you were forced to help an obviously bad guy perform an evil deed or the mod was over in about 15 minutes. That's not edgy to me, it's just a giant middle finger to people who want to play heroic good aligned PCs. When we played we fought both the demon and the devil (our DM empathized and gave us the 3rd option) and in the latter case we went home after 15 minutes instead of playing D&D for the day.

The problem I see is that too many DMs think they're good at setting this stuff up when really it's just a railroaded conclusion that has no good choice. Instead of feeling conflicted I just feel like I might as well flip a coin. No matter what I choose, there's no good answer. I remember a DM laughing gleefully because he caused a fight to start between 2 LG factions by ignoring my PC completely who tried to stop the conflict.

So it's rare for me to set up these kind of conflicts. It's a game, it's escapism. There are always going to be times in real life where no matter what choice we make the outcome isn't going to be good.

So it's rare that I set up these kind of conflicts and when I do it's almost never reduced to simplistic binary alignment choices. There will (almost always) be at least a 3rd rail for that trolley car. Maybe that 3rd rail means that the trolley car I'm driving has a significant chance to crash and burn, meaning that I die instead of anyone else, but at least it's my choice.

It also doesn't boil down to something as simple as alignment. I take into consideration the cumulative experiences and decisions made by the party up to this point

Instead I use cumulative alignment, associations, experiences and other ties along with multiple solutions. You can make a deal with the devil, knowing there will be a cost. Or you can tell the devil to go back to hell, your next challenge will just be more difficult. Maybe you can figure out a way to coerce the devil to help you without paying any price whatsoever. Most of the time though the conflicts arise because of connections with people and bonds that people have formed. Even then there will be multiple ways of solving the issue.

When it comes to alignment in D&D, it's just one descriptor of many. A useful shortcut for monsters and NPCs that barely have 15 seconds of fame, something I may use for inspiration for PCs and more complex NPCs or ignore entirely.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So ... they keep it because a lot of people find it useful? Shocking! They should abolish it because you personally don't care for it.

They keep it because loud people find it traditional. Big difference.