Mechanical Alignment: How Well Does it Work?

[Jack Daniel]

The alignment system in most versions of the D&D game has generally been a descriptive quality, not a prescriptive one. Even in the earlier editions of the game---where alignments were more like cosmic factions (as in, "Which team do you play for? I'm with the Chaotic Neutrals!") than private moral outlooks, and the DM was encouraged to penalize the experience of players who "didn't play their alignment right"---the alignments themselves were still ultimately a flexible description which could change in response to a new pattern of character behavior. The upshot of this: even with a draconian DM enforcing experience penalties or other punishments (like denying spells to a cleric or ruling a paladin fallen), there is still nothing a DM can ever do, via the alignment system or any other mechanic in the game, to dissuade a character who really wants to play (or violate) a particular alignment from doing so.

As it should be, of course, because the players' freedom to direct the actions of their characters is sacrosanct, within reasonable limits. (By "reasonable limits," I mean anything that squicks out the DM and the other players, the archetypical example being in-game rape. I know of no DM or group of players who would countenance, or suffer to continue gaming with, a player who instigated such a thing. But that's beside the point of this discussion.)

The rules of D&D are basically "neutral" with respect to alignments. By that, I mean that there is nothing in the rules themselves to encourage or discourage particular alignments. Most of the time, for every spell or item or special class feature that keys to a particular alignment, its opposite is also present in the game. The rulebooks can and do point out that evil characters don't work well in adventuring parties, but that's toothless flavor-text. As far as the rules themselves are concerned, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are equivalent.

This is not a problem for core D&D, of course, because it allows for a certain flexibility with respect to creating campaigns. Above all, it allows for the "swords & sorcery" assumptions that underlie early D&D: an amoral world where gold, glory, and power define rightness, and where the choices facing characters often boil down to "bad" and "worse".

But let's say that the DM is aiming for a different sort of campaign. Heroic high fantasy, where the characters are good guys who know compassion and altruism. What might have been called an "exalted" campaign in the halcyon days of 3rd Edition. Further, let's assume that the players are on board. They've bought in, they've anted up, they want to play heroes. What is the best way to keep the campaign focused on heroism and goodness?

In my experience, such campaigns might perhaps start out fine, but as they age, they atrophy. A month or two in, and the players are all essentially running Chaotic Neutrals, doing whatever in the world they can get away with, regardless of whatever alignments they started with. This seems to be endemic to RPGs in general, and D&D in particular. If the players cease to care about the fantasy world that they're helping to create (that is, they dismiss its verisimilitude and stop suspending their disbelief, and they start meta-gaming instead of role-playing), they treat the campaign as a consequence-free environment, knowing full well that consequences for their imaginary characters are not real consequences that matter. Further, self-serving actions often reward the player (with treasure or experience or just plain getting one's way), creating a kind of positive reinforcement that tempts characters away from being good guys. Heroism is hard; selfishness reaps rewards that all too often make the players feel like they're "winning" the game.

My question posed to the community is thus: assuming that the DM and the players desire a heroic campaign, which is better for role-playing, D&D's toothless and utterly non-mechanical alignment system? or some kind of mechanic that serves a similar purpose? In particular, I refer to Dark Side points from Star Wars d20 and corruption from the CODA system Lord of the Rings RPG. (Basically, characters rack up points for committing evil deeds. If the number of points ever exceeds a characters Wisdom in Star Wars or Charisma in LotR, the character is irredeemably corrupted and becomes an NPC.) If Star Wars and LotR share anything in common, it would be that these are heroic high fantasies, populated by good and heroic protagonists and set in universes with a fairly absolute morality. If the group desires a game that feels like this particular genre, are the aforementioned mechanics a better way to emulate it?

More importantly, does the threat of getting "NPC'd" after a certain fixed number, known to the player, of "evil points" are accumulated sufficiently incentivize players to play good characters?

 

[Particle_Man]

The Book of Exalted Deeds has various feats and prestige classes based on those feats. Those feats (and prestige class abilities) go away if the player does something non-good, non-heroic, similar to how paladins can lose their class abilities. Maybe have the characters forced to use those feats and prestige classes to a certain extent (enough that it would hurt to lose them, so they are reminded to stay on the path fo the straight and narrow?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'd rather go "toothless". If the players can't keep to lawful good, maybe they just don't want to. If you have to "punish" them to play in a certain way, you have problems that rules can't solve.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I'd rather go "toothless". If the players can't keep to lawful good, maybe they just don't want to. If you have to "punish" them to play in a certain way, you have problems that rules can't solve.

True, but incentive is the opposite of punishment. Consider the experience mechanics in the various editions of the game.

• 0E/1E awards experience points for treasure. The incentive is for characters to be greedy treasure-hunters and players to be creative, thorough explorers and investigators.
• 2E awards experience points for good role-playing and accomplishing story goals. The incentive is for players to be true to their character concept and characters to be always focused on the outcome of the adventure.
• 3E/4E awards experience points for killing monsters. The incentive is for players to create optimized combatants and for characters to pick and win fights.

So, the question posed is thus: what mechanic might incentivize heroism rather than merely punish wickedness (or, more commonly, mere selfish neutrality)?

 

[MinistryOfGame]

In my game, players are told beforehand that if they play outside the chosen alignment for their character, then their character's alignment will eventually shift. That shift will cost them 2 levels, but otherwise they get to play the character. The exception is if their character turns evil, it becomes an NPC.

I do this more because I see D&D as a team game, and I want people to work as part of the team for positive reasons, and I don't think it's true to the evil alignment to do that (except for limited time and for one's own purposes, or out of fear of other, stronger, party members). The 'lose 2 levels' mechanic means that if someone is playing their character wildly different to their alignment, then it will probably change before they reach second level, and as such it doesn't cost them anything, and their character has probably become the right alignment for them too. Everybody wins.

Two caveats - people who join a game late (and so their characters aren't first level) I will give 1 level's worth of slack to get their alignment straight. People who have found their roleplay guiding their character to an alignment shift over a long period of time (as part of that character's story) can discuss it with me, and if I think it's plot-worthy or just a cool story, then there's no penalty.

Note that I don't run WoD Vampire games like this at all. Those games I see as primarily about individual character development, and evil characters/backstabbing/intriuge/politics are all part of the experience.

While D&D characters in my games all get the opportunity to develop their character, they do so within the confines of the group. If they want to make a character that turns around and backstabs the group, fine! But their character will turn evil, become an NPC, and probably become a mover and shaker in the story to follow.

 

[pemerton]

But let's say that the DM is aiming for a different sort of campaign. Heroic high fantasy, where the characters are good guys who know compassion and altruism. What might have been called an "exalted" campaign in the halcyon days of 3rd Edition. Further, let's assume that the players are on board. They've bought in, they've anted up, they want to play heroes. What is the best way to keep the campaign focused on heroism and goodness?

In my experience, such campaigns might perhaps start out fine, but as they age, they atrophy. A month or two in, and the players are all essentially running Chaotic Neutrals, doing whatever in the world they can get away with, regardless of whatever alignments they started with. This seems to be endemic to RPGs in general, and D&D in particular.

<snip>

My question posed to the community is thus: assuming that the DM and the players desire a heroic campaign, which is better for role-playing, D&D's toothless and utterly non-mechanical alignment system? or some kind of mechanic that serves a similar purpose? In particular, I refer to Dark Side points from Star Wars d20 and corruption from the CODA system Lord of the Rings RPG.

<snip>

More importantly, does the threat of getting "NPC'd" after a certain fixed number, known to the player, of "evil points" are accumulated sufficiently incentivize players to play good characters?

I've not had the experience you describe, and so am not sure what to recommend. If my players want to play a game of heroics, then they do so.

I had a fairly recent thread discussing in some detail why I don't like mechanical alignment at all - because instead of letting the players make the choice to have their PCs be heroic, it simply invites unecessary disagreement between the players and GM over what counts as heroism.

Tenatively - because I don't know you, your experience as a GM or your players - I would suggest having a look at the sorts of scenarios you are running, and the way you try to engage the players. There has been some recent discussion of these issues here and here. The short version - if your problem is that your players are opting for expedience over heroism, present situations where the most salient options are heroic rather than expedient. One way to do that is to inject things that the players have shown they care about directly into the situations you present to your players. Don't use heroism just as a hook or lure ("Look, here's a quest that any heros worth their salt would take on!"). Imbed heroism within the situations.

(Conversely, if the scenarios you run are indistinguishable from a standard kill-and-loot adventure, except the prize in the last room is the princess who needs resucing rather than the dragon hoard, you will push your players back towards an expedient rather than a heroic approach to play.)

A fairly recent example from my own game: I ran an encounter in which the PCs had to stop a ritual to rescue the prisoners they were searching for. The prisoners, as part of the ritual, were located in sacrificial circles at the back of the room, behind the monsters. This encounter design gave the players an immediate choice over whether to act safely - and tackle the monsters first - or act heroically, and try to rescue the prisoners. They started the safe way. Then a round or two in one of the prisoners died, his soul sucked out by magic. The players then had their PCs act much more heroically, taking the risks necessary to free the second prisoner. Their heroism had meaning within the immediate context of the encounter. I would suggest focussing on this, rather than on mechanical systems for regulating PC behaviour.

 

[howandwhy99]

"Squicks out", that's cool. I call 'em table rules. Others call them a social contract. I think most of us basically have our "don't be a jerk" behavior when trying to have fun understanding. But it is useful to spell these things out before any potentially, let's call it "wide ranging", activity.

I use a alignment table. I don't see it as draconian. "Your sword broke"; "You take 6 HP worth of damage"; "You're fatigued after running for the last hour"; These are all draconian by that standard. You take a resource loss. Some are bigger than others, some specialty classes lose class abilities. Losing your character is the biggest, BUT... you can always get them back. Resurrect them, convert them when they are an NPC, hell, kill them, then have the player declare an alignment shift, and then resurrect them. It doesn't matter to me how you do it, but crack the underlying code of the game. Learn how to master it. You can get the PC back, or the HPs, or any of the other resources. It's part of the game.

I would say my game discourages the chaotic alignment. It is NPC-only. You can lose your PC due to alignment shift. But this is accumulated actions against the group who aren't currently holding a Chaotic alignment. It's basically choosing to switch camps and start being an enemy and not an ally. It's a cooperative game. You can declare you won't be helping anyone but yourself, but actively working against them is another thing entirely.

I don't know if this emulates some fiction better than others. Narrative emulation isn't what I'm shooting for anyways. Be in the lawful or neutral camp, neither is in opposition to the other, but it is a cooperation game and cooperative (i.e. lawful) behavior is rewarded in achieving one's ends.

Also, I reward XP by class. And it only effects game resources tied to class abilities. The others are not tied to XP, though they can be traded for with it. "I'll give up some of my skill as a fighter to see in the dark and disappear when I hold my breath" though this is class levels, not XP amounts insufficient to trigger a mechanical change.

 

[ExploderWizard]

True, but incentive is the opposite of punishment. Consider the experience mechanics in the various editions of the game.

• 0E/1E awards experience points for treasure. The incentive is for characters to be greedy treasure-hunters and players to be creative, thorough explorers and investigators.
• 2E awards experience points for good role-playing and accomplishing story goals. The incentive is for players to be true to their character concept and characters to be always focused on the outcome of the adventure.
• 3E/4E awards experience points for killing monsters. The incentive is for players to create optimized combatants and for characters to pick and win fights.

So, the question posed is thus: what mechanic might incentivize heroism rather than merely punish wickedness (or, more commonly, mere selfish neutrality)?

I think you have just provided the answer to yourself. In your post you outlined the type of objectives in each edition that produce the greatest rewards. Create heroic objectives for your game and make that those are the types of activities that get rewarded best.

Some examples:

Treasure-award experience for treasure selflessly given to aid others.

Combat- award higher experience for foes overcome in pursuit of a heroic goal.

Quests- award experience points for heroic deeds and quests completed.

Thus , in this particular campaign getting in a barfight over a slight insult might only be worth a pittance of XP even against a tough foe. If that same foe were doing something foul that required heroic intervention then fighting him would be worth far more XP.

Thus the selfish/unheroic wouldn't get mechanical penalties of any kind. They would instead, simply not reap the levels of reward that a heroic character would.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

True, but incentive is the opposite of punishment.

But that's not what was in the post.

• 0E/1E awards experience points for treasure. The incentive is for characters to be greedy treasure-hunters and players to be creative, thorough explorers and investigators.

Some players enjoy combat. If those aren't the type of players you want, you should ditch them instead of giving them no XP for that.

Personally I would find "treasure hunting" tedious, and one of the least interesting parts of the game. It's the same reason some players don't like puzzles, or intricate tracking of their progress through a dungeon, etc.

(It's one reason I run an inherent bonus campaign; to get away from "twirling towards loot", as one of my players put it.)

• 2E awards experience points for good role-playing and accomplishing story goals. The incentive is for players to be true to their character concept and characters to be always focused on the outcome of the adventure.

2e is probably not a good example. I don't even know if 2e actually had story goal XPs (and is that any different from quest awards in 4e) but to me, "true to their concept" sounds remarkably like "inability to grow or change". (In 2e, you could lose XP from going from NG to LG, and IIRC -- years since I read that -- the DM didn't even warn the player before dinging them XP.)

• 3E/4E awards experience points for killing monsters. The incentive is for players to create optimized combatants and for characters to pick and win fights.

IIRC not only did 1e and 2e also give XP for killing monsters, but in 1e your XP award actually depended on the hit points of the monster killed (a figure might be 75 XP plus 1 per hit point, or something like that). Again, been a long time.

So the example is kind of ... odd.

So, the question posed is thus: what mechanic might incentivize heroism rather than merely punish wickedness (or, more commonly, mere selfish neutrality)?

And is even that such a big deal? It's all the rage in fiction today (That and mental illness in thrillers. Is every thriller hero suicidal?) One could argue that being selfishly neutral is more enlightened than being "lawful stupid" or suffering from Chronic Hero Syndrome.

 

[garrowolf]

I think that exploder wizard has the best idea. If you want a heroic game then only reward heroic actions.

You could try Hero Points that you can only get for doing heroic things. You get none to start with or with your level - only heroic actions.

If you want a "Sin" system you should have a good reason for it in game. Maybe your PCs are gifted by a certain God. He demands a certain level of behavior from his Gifted. That way it make more sense.

You could also do a "karma" system (not like Shadowrun). Basically if you do something that the group or the GM thinks is too cruel then they can give that PC a Dark Mark. This is like the opposite of a Hero Point. Whenever the character rolls a 1 on any roll the effect of that error is magnified. If you normally would have someone throw their sword then make them break it. If they would spill something in a person's face because of a bad social roll they instead trip and drive their fork into the person's throat. Their horse snaps it's neck on a bad riding roll.

There are two keys to this karma system. One is to let any of the players put up the other player's actions for a vote to get a black mark. If only half of the people say yes then they get it. This will make it not you against them but something that they will think about with the whole team.

The other thing is that they have to do something that would normally give them a Hero point to get rid of it and they don't also get the hero point. It is spent in that action. They can't use older hero points until they resolve this either, not in normal actions and not to preemptively get rid of the Dark Mark.

They will be stumbling over themselves to help everyone cross the street and hold doors for every little old lady in town.