Metagame role of PoL compared to alignment

pemerton

Legend
An idea about the metagame role of PoL, and its relationship to alignment:

Before there were special alignment-based Outer Planes, and a million-and-one alignment-dependent magical effects, alignment played (as far as I can see) two important roles:

1. It integrated otherwise very diverse parties of PC adventurers (diverse in terms of race and class, and therefore potentially in conflict).

2. It motivated those parties to go and fight particular sorts of foes (orcs, demons, etc ie the dungeons statted up the GM as adventuring sites) while also providing a reason for the game not to degenerate (in the normal case, at least, in which the PCs are mostly non-evil) into an amoral mercanary bloodfest.​

In the absence of these alignment motivations, it might be very difficult to explain why elves and dwarves were adventuring together (luckily, shared Good alignment overcomes an otherwise deep-set racial antipathy) or why those PCs that are part of organisations weren't busy working for those organisations (in AD&D 1st ed this included Thieves and Assassins with their guilds, Druids and Monks with their orders, and Paladins, who according to the PHB like to cultivate relationships with LG Fighter and Cleric nobility).

A difficulty with these alignment motivations, however, is that they can make the game somewhat cartoonish as real social relationships disappear into the background never to be heard of again, and alignment team jerseys become a thin overlay to essentially hack-&-slash play. Various D&D worlds have tried to handle this in various ways - in my view one of the better-thought-out is Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, which ditches alignment altogether and substitutes the actual social relationships of the gameworld as the glue that brings parties together and motivates them to adventure.

"Points of Light", with its history and backstory for each race, its notion of points of light as safe harbours for all PC races, and so on (I am drawing on the description in Worlds and Monsters), appears designed to go a similar way to Monte in solving problem 1: alignment will no longer be needed to integrate racially diverse parties, because there will be enough detail about their social relationships in the gameworld for these to do the job instead. The loosening up of the relationship between classes and in-game social phenomena (eg Paladins moving increasingly away from the rather narrow Arthurian assumptions implict in the 1st ed PHB) will also help here.

But PoL (unlike Arcana Evolved) also solves the second problem that alignment used to: it motivates disparate parties to go on adventures, because they are the only ones capable of dealing with the threats that might otherwise overwhelm their only places of refuge in the world.

To sum up: PoL makes alignment redundant by offering a well-conceived way of integrating adventuring parties and motivating them to adventure drawing purely on the social realities of the gameworld - there is no need to impose the dead and heavy hand of metaphysics upon the gameworld in order to make the game play properly.

PoL does other good stuff to, like facilitate world creation and adventure design, especially for new GMs. But I think the above is probably its more important contribution to D&D as a game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Just because there is no mechanical alignment, doesn't mean that some people aren't good. In 3E (unlike previous editions which had alignment languages, IIRC) alignment wasn't something you declared to a fellow when he potentially joined your adventure group.
If you are a good (morally upstanding) dwarf and you meet an elf with a similar moral outlook, you are VERY likely to get along (and adventure together).
Even with mechanical alignment for all they would still have to get over their racial antipathy before they found out they were of the same alignment. Unless one of them cast detect good- a series of game breaking spells if there ever were!
You do not have to have a mechanical alignment to be motivated to do goo, or evil! That is the reason 4E has got rid of it for all, thankfully
 

mach1.9pants said:
Just because there is no mechanical alignment, doesn't mean that some people aren't good. In 3E (unlike previous editions which had alignment languages, IIRC) alignment wasn't something you declared to a fellow when he potentially joined your adventure group.
If you are a good (morally upstanding) dwarf and you meet an elf with a similar moral outlook, you are VERY likely to get along (and adventure together).
Even with mechanical alignment for all they would still have to get over their racial antipathy before they found out they were of the same alignment. Unless one of them cast detect good- a series of game breaking spells if there ever were!
You do not have to have a mechanical alignment to be motivated to do goo, or evil! That is the reason 4E has got rid of it for all, thankfully
QFT!
And also, what's wrong with a little amoral mercanary bloodfest now and again? :D
 

pemerton said:
In the absence of these alignment motivations, it might be very difficult to explain why elves and dwarves were adventuring together (luckily, shared Good alignment overcomes an otherwise deep-set racial antipathy)

Not the case anymore. W&M states that their are 'no forced race relations' and 'no inherent racial emnity between PC races' (p.14).
 

Not sure I agree

Can't say that I agree with your reasoning.

With alignments, it's harder for players (of not the same alignment) to be together. Alignments seem to lead to uber alignment based clensings.

With POL, folks from different settlements ("points") will have every reason to distrust each other. Each settlement is a unique clan and a unique "alignment".

Ah, but I do agree that the alignments, split roughly as "good" vs "evil", do allow "good" players to band up and fight "evil". From that point of view, alignment never really worked, anyways, as the "Law" vs "chaos" distinction never seemed to matter as much as the "Good" vs "evil". (Does a paladin really have the same attitude towards CG as LE?)
 

pemerton said:
In the absence of these alignment motivations, it might be very difficult to explain why those PCs that are part of organisations weren't busy working for those organisations

...

To sum up: PoL makes alignment redundant by offering a well-conceived way of integrating adventuring parties and motivating them to adventure drawing purely on the social realities of the gameworld - there is no need to impose the dead and heavy hand of metaphysics upon the gameworld in order to make the game play properly.

Points of Light does not explain why PCs do not work for their organizations. It does the opposite.

In a PoL setting, everybody would want to be part of big strong organizations that could protect them. They would not want to be part of small adventuring groups that could easily get killed moving from one community to the next.

Without a small group motivation factor such as Alignment, Paladins would want to be part of a team of Paladins.

Rogues would want to work for a Thieves Guild.

Clerics would want to attend their local flocks.

Nobody would want to work with individuals from other communities. They would not trust outsiders.

Your analysis appears flawed.

Alignment is not redundant because a PoL setting would emphasize the strength of a specific community over that of individuals from disparate communities.

There needs to be other motivating factors in a PoL setting which makes alignment (or other strong small team motivations) even more important.
 

If a campaign needs to invoke alignment to explain why the adventuring are risking life and limb together, I think the DM and players need to sit down and think about the motivations behind the characters. I can't imagine alignment being either necessary or sufficient for this purpose. When I think about the classical adventuring party in Lord of the Rings, they are adventuring due to a variety of reasons of responsibility, personal history and wish for excitement. Most importantly, they are together because external circumstances demand it. Conversely, if the character's personalities and their situation do not lead to a stable adventuring party, I cannot believe that what their character sheet says about their alignment will help.

In this sense, I do think a Points of Light setting will help in motivating characters. The situations that arise will more frequently require them to band together, since it is less likely for them to be able to simply find help from sources other than themselves.
 
Last edited:

Reaper Steve said:
Not the case anymore. W&M states that their are 'no forced race relations' and 'no inherent racial emnity between PC races' (p.14).
cool, don't have that yet (still winging its way to sunny NZ!)- Hopefully the tensions will be with the bad guys ;)
Pemerton: I guess you just run your campaigns different from me, I never use alignment as anything but a bit of background info when I run vanilla; and have homebrewed it out of my last 2 campaigns. I really like the 4E idea of everybody has their own morals and you only have game effects if you commit yourself (paladin or cultist), body and soul, to an ideal. And even then you can't be detected based on it!
 

KarinsDad said:
Points of Light does not explain why PCs do not work for their organizations. It does the opposite.

In a PoL setting, everybody would want to be part of big strong organizations that could protect them. They would not want to be part of small adventuring groups that could easily get killed moving from one community to the next.

...
Man, what you're talking is Armies! :D
First, walking around in groups of 30+ people isn't always feasible, specially because other than an army, you could not join so many people together with the same objectives.
And usually a smaller group has much more mobility and stealth capacity than a big group.

In 3E the world was enough dangerous already, and yet, adventurers kept appearing around. Why do you think in a PoL world there will be no heroic people trying to explore other countries and the unknown?

Finally, a PoL world does not imply big strong international organizations, as places are too much appart to keep contact. Just some alliances. Those organizations only exist inside the city walls.
Btw, I never understood the concept of those 12 omnipresent intercontinental houses in Eberron :confused: ... Oh well... It's fantasy :p
EDIT: Never played Eberron, though :o
 
Last edited:

pemerton said:
Before there were special alignment-based Outer Planes, and a million-and-one alignment-dependent magical effects, alignment played (as far as I can see) two important roles:
1. It integrated otherwise very diverse parties of PC adventurers (diverse in terms of race and class, and therefore potentially in conflict).

2. It motivated those parties to go and fight particular sorts of foes (orcs, demons, etc ie the dungeons statted up the GM as adventuring sites) while also providing a reason for the game not to degenerate (in the normal case, at least, in which the PCs are mostly non-evil) into an amoral mercanary bloodfest.​
Alignment did that? :lol:

For me, what kept the party together was just social/emotional ties and common objectives... Alignment was just a way to (poorly) define general character behaviour...

(Btw, afterlife in a plane based on your alignment... one of the worst ideas in 3E :p Can't I have close friends, completely different than me, with whom I'd love to spend afterlife?)
 

Remove ads

Top