D&D General IMO, Alignment should be "Fill in the blank"

[overgeeked]

We play games because we want to win

You might. The other poster might. I don't. I'm not out to "win" D&D. You can't really win at D&D other than by actually playing the game, which includes not being able to act from time to time. There's no listed win condition in the books. If I've missed it in the various editions of the game, I'm happy to be given a page reference to look up and read. But D&D isn't chess. Nor is it backgammon. Nor is it tennis. Nor baseball, hockey, or sumo. It's not a sport and it's not a competitive game you win. It's more like playing tea party or dress up. It's closest to improv theater. You "win" by playing along.

I, the player, don't want to lose. I, the player, don't want to build towers of dice. I, the player, want to have a say in what happens on screen.

Again, you can't lose D&D. Spending a round unconscious or having a round of bad dice rolls resulting in you accomplishing nothing is not losing.

I'm perfectly fine with my character losing everything they hold dear, as long as I am still in play.

You just don't ever want to be unable to do something. So never hampered in any way. I don't see the distinction between being unconscious for a round and missing your attack(s) for a round. If one is acceptable, then the other must be. You failed some roll so you don't get to do something productive that round. There's no real functional difference.

But since in D&D my character is my only way to have a say in what happens on screen — if she's unable to act for any reason, that means I am unable to act too — well, protecting her is high on my priority list.

Right. But risk is part of the game. You seem to define winning by being able to accomplish something in game, so by that definition any time you cannot, whether it's failing a roll and missing your attack(s) or failing a roll and being unconscious, you're losing. That's a bizarrely competitive point of view to have about an elfgame. Is always winning really what motivates you to play D&D?

I'm also fine with with my character being unable to act sometimes — naughty word happens, but that doesn't mean I'll not try to avoid it when I can.

Sure. But people don't usually define being unable to act as "losing" D&D. Are you just using the word loosely? Or literally? Like a rabid sports fan "holy @#$%#$% my @#%$%#&%^ team @#$%^& LOST @@#$%!@" *table flip? That's intentionally extreme and I don't imagine that's what you mean. But how is D&D about winning and losing? It's not a sport or a competitive game. It's about playing the role of a character that's not you in a fantasy world. You can't "lose" at that. Not acting (or acting ineffectively) for a round isn't losing. Nor is having to make a new character. That literally does not compute.

 

[loverdrive]

You might. The other poster might. I don't. I'm not out to "win" D&D. You can't really win at D&D other than by actually playing the game, which includes not being able to act from time to time. There's no listed win condition in the books. If I've missed it in the various editions of the game, I'm happy to be given a page reference to look up and read. But D&D isn't chess. Nor is it backgammon. Nor is it tennis. Nor baseball, hockey, or sumo. It's not a sport and it's not a competitive game you win. It's more like playing tea party or dress up. It's closest to improv theater. You "win" by playing along.

Again, you can't lose D&D. Spending a round unconscious or having a round of bad dice rolls resulting in you accomplishing nothing is not losing.

You just don't ever want to be unable to do something. So never hampered in any way. I don't see the distinction between being unconscious for a round and missing your attack(s) for a round. If one is acceptable, then the other must be. You failed some roll so you don't get to do something productive that round. There's no real functional difference.

Right. But risk is part of the game. You seem to define winning by being able to accomplish something in game, so by that definition any time you cannot, whether it's failing a roll and missing your attack(s) or failing a roll and being unconscious, you're losing. That's a bizarrely competitive point of view to have about an elfgame. Is always winning really what motivates you to play D&D?

Sure. But people don't usually define being unable to act as "losing" D&D. Are you just using the word loosely? Or literally? Like a rabid sports fan "holy @#$%#$% my @#%$%#&%^ team @#$%^& LOST @@#$%!@" *table flip? That's intentionally extreme and I don't imagine that's what you mean. But how is D&D about winning and losing? It's not a sport or a competitive game. It's about playing the role of a character that's not you in a fantasy world. You can't "lose" at that. Not acting (or acting ineffectively) for a round isn't losing. Nor is having to make a new character. That literally does not compute.

You're arguing semantics with someone who's learned English by Netflix.

Okay, to hell with "losing".

Intentionally making my character, say, imprisoned or killed prevents me from continuing playing the game for a considerable amount of time.

If my character gets imprisoned, sure, naughty word happens, but I will not actively choose a course of actions that most likely will lead to my character being imprisoned.

And, also, there's a very important difference between deciding to make an attack and missing and being unable to decide anything while the character is lying on the ground unconscious.

 

[overgeeked]

You're arguing semantics with someone who's learned English by Netflix.

Apologies. That’s really impressive. Your English is far better than my Ukranian/Russian. Again, apologies if I’m wrong, I’m going off the Cyrillic text in your sig.

Intentionally making my character, say, imprisoned or killed prevents me from continuing playing the game for a considerable amount of time.

Killed, yes. Imprisoned, no. Playing your character is the game. Role playing your character (in jail) is (sometimes part of) the game.

If my character gets imprisoned, sure, naughty word happens, but I will not actively choose a course of actions that most likely will lead to my character being imprisoned.

That’s a big blanket statement. So never go against an evil ruler? Or anyone with the power to imprison your character? That takes a lot of potential play off the table.

And, also, there's a very important difference between deciding to make an attack and missing and being unable to decide anything while the character is lying on the ground unconscious.

There’s no functional difference between failing a save and going unconscious and failing an attack. Either way, you do nothing.

I think my glitch in understanding is that you seem to be saying only in active success do you affect the story. That’s not accurate. Even in failure you and your character still affect the story. When it’s your turn you either lying on the ground bleeding is the story or you sinking two arrows into the bad guy’s face is the story. Both can be just as meaningful to the story.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

TL;DR = I think for D&D, the 1e Alignments work perfectly fine. For other games, ymmv.

In my own fantasy RPG (based on Darkurthe Legends system) I have a "Good versus Evil" dicometric (?) stat; one side is Corruption, one is Purity. Corruptions is a negative number, Purity is a positive number. I also have Alignment. A Character has an Alignment...with 'something'. This can be a god, a guild, a family, an ideal look on life, or virtually anything else...even a goal or long-term task. The Corruption/Purity number indicates both how 'much' the character is devout (the higher the number, the more devout/determined), and the 'how' that the character behaves in regards to trying to live up to or attain his Alignment.

E.g., a PC may have "The God, Thor" and have a Cor/Pur score of +7. This is simple enough, and the tenants of what makes up the belief, moral and other 'rules for worship' of Thor are generally pursued in a "Goodly manner" (positive numbers are Purity, remember?). But, you could also have a PC with "The God, Thor" and have a Cor/Pur score of -7. This PC is just as devout in his/her reverence of Thor, but this PC generally pursues this worship in an "Evil manner". The "Good" Thor priest may help people in the name of Thor, trying to avenge those harmed by others, trying to help with attaining prosperity via opening a mine for ore in order to help build weapons and armour, etc. Likewise, the "Evil" Thor priest may wage war against others in the name of Thor, asserting the values of battle and victory over the consequences to those being conquered, using force and might to wrest the riches from nearby towns/cities/countries, etc.

I've found that my Alignment system works great for MY fantasy RPG game system...but would distract from the 'feel' of D&D. The Alignment system of AD&D and B/X is, imnsho, very much a HUGE part of what makes D&D feel like D&D.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Charlaquin]

You might. The other poster might. I don't. I'm not out to "win" D&D. You can't really win at D&D other than by actually playing the game, which includes not being able to act from time to time. There's no listed win condition in the books. If I've missed it in the various editions of the game, I'm happy to be given a page reference to look up and read. But D&D isn't chess. Nor is it backgammon. Nor is it tennis. Nor baseball, hockey, or sumo. It's not a sport and it's not a competitive game you win. It's more like playing tea party or dress up. It's closest to improv theater. You "win" by playing along.

When I said “we play games to win,” I was speaking generally about games, not about D&D specifically. No, D&D doesn’t have a “win condition” as such, but that’s a semantic argument. D&D is a game, and generally when playing it, the players try to achieve goals. Usually some combination of personal character goals and story objectives. You never “beat the game” of D&D, but every quest completed, every personal goal achieved is a victory, and when your goals become impossible to achieve (usually because your character has died or become completely incapacitated, but sometimes because the conflict was dynamic and the opportunity to successfully resolve it has permanently past), you’ve lost. Or at least achieved a failure state. Generally, players strive for those victories and try to avoid those failure states. Of course you accept that both will happen sometimes. But clearly one is desirable and the other is undesirable.

 

[overgeeked]

When I said “we play games to win,” I was speaking generally about games, not about D&D specifically. No, D&D doesn’t have a “win condition” as such, but that’s a semantic argument.

I disagree. You can’t play to win a game with no win condition. That’s not semantics, that’s pointing out D&D is fundamentally not that kind of game. So using those terms is a misuse and leads to bad assumptions about the game and how to play it.

D&D is a game, and generally when playing it, the players try to achieve goals. Usually some combination of personal character goals and story objectives. You never “beat the game” of D&D, but every quest completed, every personal goal achieved is a victory, and when your goals become impossible to achieve (usually because your character has died or become completely incapacitated, but sometimes because the conflict was dynamic and the opportunity to successfully resolve it has permanently past), you’ve lost.

I disagree. You haven’t lost the game of D&D. Your character in the game has failed or died. There’s a huge, relevant difference between those. Your character failing isn’t you losing the game. Your character dying isn’t you losing the game.

I think making a clear distinction between you as the player and your character is really important. Your goals sitting at the table and your character’s in-game goals are not the same thing. You want to have fun playing an role-playing game, while your character wants to slay the dragon, rescue the prince, or marry the unicorn.

You the player can have fun even if your character fails. This is a fundamental aspect of the game that’s apparently been lost over the years. Likewise, suboptimal characters can be fun. Characters with terrible stats can be fun. Your character does’t have to win for you to have fun.

Or at least achieved a failure state. Generally, players strive for those victories and try to avoid those failure states. Of course you accept that both will happen sometimes. But clearly one is desirable and the other is undesirable.

Not clearly. A fun and engaging play experience is desirable. That can include failure to achieve goals and character death. D&D is a game where you tell stories about fantasy characters with your friends. As long as you’re telling fun and engaging stories, you “win”. Loss, failure, death, and tragedy can all fun and engaging.

 

[Charlaquin]

I disagree. You can’t play to win a game with no win condition. That’s not semantics, that’s pointing out D&D is fundamentally not that kind of game. So using those terms is a misuse and leads to bad assumptions about the game and how to play it.

It’s literally a semantic argument, but whatever.

I disagree. You haven’t lost the game of D&D. Your character in the game has failed or died. There’s a huge, relevant difference between those. Your character failing isn’t you losing the game. Your character dying isn’t you losing the game.

I think making a clear distinction between you as the player and your character is really important. Your goals sitting at the table and your character’s in-game goals are not the same thing. You want to have fun playing an role-playing game, while your character wants to slay the dragon, rescue the prince, or marry the unicorn.

You the player can have fun even if your character fails. This is a fundamental aspect of the game that’s apparently been lost over the years. Likewise, suboptimal characters can be fun. Characters with terrible stats can be fun. Your character does’t have to win for you to have fun.

Not clearly. A fun and engaging play experience is desirable. That can include failure to achieve goals and character death. D&D is a game where you tell stories about fantasy characters with your friends. As long as you’re telling fun and engaging stories, you “win”. Loss, failure, death, and tragedy can all fun and engaging.

You can also lose a football match and still have fun. Obviously the ultimate goal is to have fun, and that goal can be achieved whether you win or lose, D&D is not special in that. But generally speaking, you strive to achieve success and avoid failure. If one isn’t preferable over the other, it’s impossible to create a challenge because all outcomes are equal.

 

[Scott Christian]

that's amazing. Alignment has only provided endless arguments for my groups (granted, this is mostly playing as a pre-teen, but still)

I honestly think you may find as your player group ages, that alignment will be a pretty easy agreement. Now whether the halfling can lift the goliath over his head... that's another story.

 

[Scott Christian]

Like I said, the problem occurs when you try to use alignment in a setting that doesn’t have an objective moral standard. Then you end up, like others have expressed, in disagreements over what it means to be “good,” “evil,” “lawful,” or “chaotic.”

I would honestly love to hear an argument about what it means to be good or evil in the context of D&D. And even more importantly, what it actually means to the outcome of the game the players are sitting around the table enjoying.

It might be just me, but I fail to see how this has any impact on playability or interactions. Outside of detect alignment, which I think most have just used as a mental truth serum, it seems to have no affect. It only affects the DM, who may use it to adjudicate an action or employ a tactic or build a setting.

 

[Scott Christian]

I've honestly never seen anyone actually use ideals, bonds, flaws at the table. Most people seem to take a quick glance at the recommendations listed from their background, grab one that sounds alright, and then it never gets used or referenced ever again. For all the use I've seen, the space on the character sheet would be more useful if it could be used for notes or doodles. I'm not saying that no one uses it, just never in any of the games I've played or run. It's five extra things for the GM to theoretically remember, per character. If you have six players, that's 30 things. That's something fast and easy for the GM to just disregard.

For generic monsters... yeah, I can see the utility of saying orcs tend to be chaotic evil or whatever, in the MM. But for individuals in an adventure, I'd prefer something a little more in-depth. It's fine to short hand in an old fashioned style alignment, but telling me something about the creatures loyalties and morality might be apt in many adventures.

I am with you about the individuals in an adventure. I was just curious.

And if you get a chance, try having your players use the ideals, bonds, etc. as a guide for every action they do. Seriously, try it out. The DM doesn't have to remember them. They are there for the players to help guide PC actions. If you are a player, try it, just for one session. You might be amazed at how versatile, yet powerful they can be.

I tried it with one character. Never deviated. It took me, as a roleplayer, in very different territory than where my impulses generally take me. It was very refreshing, quite fun, and a bit of a challenge at times. But definitely worth a try.