Metagame role of PoL compared to alignment

[FourthBear]

For me, as a DM, alignment is a two-character part of the stat block that tells me more about how to roleplay a creature than any number or special attack.

I have to admit this something I've never understood. By the time you understand enough about a creature's motivations and behavior to assign alignment (it is descriptive, not prescriptive, right?), why do you need alignment? The behaviors that are consistent with each two letter alignment code are so varied that every time a real world or fictional character is queried as to what alignment they have, we inevitably get long arguments.

If you've got fluff about the ogres of Hilltop being brutal and savage, does it really help to have CE written on their sheet? Will they act similarly to a CE rebel fighting against the Evil Empire who has gone too far? If in a module you have a merchant with CN written next to his name, what does that mean for your roleplaying? Is he more likely to cheat the PCs? Is he more likely be sympathetic to a rebellion? What if the rebellion was from the former king (and a putative Lawful character)? Is he some sort of anarchist or is that too much of a stereotype?

If the purpose of alignment is these contexts is to somehow inform the DM as to NPC roleplaying, I don't think it is particularly useful. I would much rather have the two letter code expanded to include descriptors that would allow for far more specificity than our nine options. Letters for Greedy/Generous, Honest/Liar, Cruel/Softhearted, Aggressive/Fearful and such would be far more useful to me than knowing that the tailor is LN.

Actually now that think a bit more about it, I could imagine special attacks that would help me more on how to roleplay a creature than alignment. If it was able to read minds silently, I would find knowing that much more useful than reading LE on the sheet. Heck, if it had the ability to drain life with a touch, I'd rather know that too, given the propensities for some PCs during conversation.

 

[NewfieDave]

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

This seems to be very setting specific. My personal take on PoL does not have communities 100% isolated from other areas. It still makes sense for communities to have relationships with each other, particularly trade relationships. The fact that there are vast expanses of dangerous terrain between trade partners makes for some excellent adventure hooks. Traveling merchants need to be heavily guarded, and it could prove to be lucrative work for a group of adventurers.

With all that said, there is one motivation tactic that has worked better than any other from the time I started to play D&D: "You guys are adventurers, and you like adventure." When I DM, my players WANT to adventure. That's why we're sitting down at the table with dice and character sheets. Sure, I'll throw in some good vs evil or whatever from time to time, but all I NEED to do is provide something exciting for the players to do. The fact that it is exciting is its own motivation.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This seems to be very setting specific. My personal take on PoL does not have communities 100% isolated from other areas. It still makes sense for communities to have relationships with each other, particularly trade relationships. The fact that there are vast expanses of dangerous terrain between trade partners makes for some excellent adventure hooks. Traveling merchants need to be heavily guarded, and it could prove to be lucrative work for a group of adventurers.

With all that said, there is one motivation tactic that has worked better than any other from the time I started to play D&D: "You guys are adventurers, and you like adventure." When I DM, my players WANT to adventure. That's why we're sitting down at the table with dice and character sheets. Sure, I'll throw in some good vs evil or whatever from time to time, but all I NEED to do is provide something exciting for the players to do. The fact that it is exciting is its own motivation.

Off course most players will have their PCs work together and "go adventuring". But it's nice if their is actually a valid in-game reason for PCs of different areas, cultures and background to work together instead of constantly distrusting each other.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

The traditional difficulty that alignment resolves is the following: why does this group of close friends spend its time engaged in acts of murder and robbery? And how did they become friends in the first place, given their disparate racial and social backgrounds? Alignment, by positing the boon companions as Good and their victims as Evil, provided a short-hand answer to both questions.

In 28 years of playing D&D, alignment has never done this for me. I have never played in a game where people ask each others alignment as if it were a tangible thing like nationality. In most games I've played alignment has been information shared only between the player and the DM. The player uses it to help guide roleplaying of their PC under certain circumstances, the DM uses it to help understand how the player might run his PC.

I do not believe I have ever played in a game where the reason the PCs adventure together is because they have compatible alignments.

I have played in games where the PCs adventure together to thwart evil, but they didn't run around checking alignments to see if they were doing so, they did it the way that it works in the real world, by perceiving the behavior of their opponents:

The orcs slaughtered the caravan drivers, lets go get the orcs.
Someone has been kidnapping the children of the townspeople. We need to find who is behind this and stop them.
Someone has tried to assassinate the king!​

Just because someone no longer has "Chaotic Evil" attached to their stat block does not mean they will no longer act in a CE manner. The main difference with eliminating alignment is that the CE person can suddenly act in a NG manner when it suits them and people will not scream and holler that they are acting against their alignment.

 

[Imaro]

If you've got fluff about the ogres of Hilltop being brutal and savage, does it really help to have CE written on their sheet? Will they act similarly to a CE rebel fighting against the Evil Empire who has gone too far? If in a module you have a merchant with CN written next to his name, what does that mean for your roleplaying? Is he more likely to cheat the PCs? Is he more likely be sympathetic to a rebellion? What if the rebellion was from the former king (and a putative Lawful character)? Is he some sort of anarchist or is that too much of a stereotype?

If the purpose of alignment is these contexts is to somehow inform the DM as to NPC roleplaying, I don't think it is particularly useful. I would much rather have the two letter code expanded to include descriptors that would allow for far more specificity than our nine options. Letters for Greedy/Generous, Honest/Liar, Cruel/Softhearted, Aggressive/Fearful and such would be far more useful to me than knowing that the tailor is LN.

Actually now that think a bit more about it, I could imagine special attacks that would help me more on how to roleplay a creature than alignment. If it was able to read minds silently, I would find knowing that much more useful than reading LE on the sheet. Heck, if it had the ability to drain life with a touch, I'd rather know that too, given the propensities for some PCs during conversation.

I disagree with you here, though I will readily admit it's probably a preference thing. Let's take your example... Ogres of Hilltop are brutal and savage... These are two of the definitions I found on an online dictionary.

Brutal: Harsh; unrelenting
Savage:Ferocious; fierce:

These words could describe a highly regimented (lawful civilization) just as easily as a wild and unstructured social group (chaotic). These words could also describe a benevolent (good) empire or a tyrannical (evil) empire. What alignment does for me is put this description into context. So no I don't believe alignment alone is enough. However, I feel it, with the description, is a good tool.

If these Ogres are CE, it means they will be brutal in an unorganized and sometimes haphazard way even when logic says they should run, work together or surrender. They are Fierce but without advanced strategy or tactics to best utilize that fierceness. The Evl descriptor tells me they have little if any morality to govern their brutality and fierceness, and will probably turn it on anyone they percieve as weaker than them or a threat. And the alignment descriptor does this succinctly and quickly.

I just don't get how a special abilitiy tells me more about a creatures society or habits. A giant can throw rocks so his society must be...??? As far as the descriptors you suggested, they're great for important and individualized NPC's...but don't really make since when trying to give a framework for a species culture but leave it broad enough for the DM to dress it up.

 

[KarinsDad]

This seems to be very setting specific. My personal take on PoL does not have communities 100% isolated from other areas. It still makes sense for communities to have relationships with each other, particularly trade relationships. The fact that there are vast expanses of dangerous terrain between trade partners makes for some excellent adventure hooks. Traveling merchants need to be heavily guarded, and it could prove to be lucrative work for a group of adventurers.

It's actually not very setting specific at all. Sure, the DM can make the world anyway he wants to. But, assuming that humans are actually human, competition, not cooperation, is the basis of most low tech human endeavor. Nearby "tribes" or communities might use trade, but tribes from 1000 miles away, just like historically in real life, wouldn't in a plausible setting. Instead, they would have different customs and each group would compete and wars would break out and most people, especially in a PoL setting, would mistrust people from far away.

Sure, there would be exceptions. But, a PoL world where many communities trust each other wouldn't be very plausible knowing how humans historically in our world compete. Resources would be closely and heavily guarded against friend and foe alike because monsters roam the wilderness. Mistrust would be the name of the game in such an environment. It's hard to trust others in dangerous environments where resources have to be protected.

This, of course, assumes the DM wants to make the world plausible instead of unusual. A game where each PoL is friends with every other PoL is not only unusual, but a bit boring. The PCs come into a strange town. No worries. They are welcomed with open arms. Hmmm.

It's easier to trust people in a higher tech world (like our own) where resources are easier to obtain. And even in our world, customs and competition for resources still result in constant war (and even small scale conflict) in multiple parts of the world at all times.

With all that said, there is one motivation tactic that has worked better than any other from the time I started to play D&D: "You guys are adventurers, and you like adventure." When I DM, my players WANT to adventure. That's why we're sitting down at the table with dice and character sheets. Sure, I'll throw in some good vs evil or whatever from time to time, but all I NEED to do is provide something exciting for the players to do. The fact that it is exciting is its own motivation.

True enough.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

Well said. I think a lot of people will have only read your first, arguable stuff about Alignment, though. Certainly PoL does replace Alignment's role in many regards very nicely. Probably the best argument I've heard for PoL actually.

 

[KarinsDad]

This is not the case in canonical PoL, as set out in W&M, which discusses the role of the different points of light as safehavens for all members of PC races. (Thus the importance of the removal of inherent enmity between races.)

The need to protect all these safehavens is what (on my analysis) gives the PCs a motivation to adventure together despite their diverse origins.

...

In the canonical descriptoin of PoL this is not the case.

...

Part of the conceit of PoL, as set out in W&M, are that there are no such organisations. Thus, protection depends upon small bands of adventurers doing heroic things. Thus, we can explain the motivation of the PCs to band together, despite their diverse origins, without needing to appeal to alignment considerations.

Could you quote the relevant sections from W&M?

I haven't read it yet, just perused it.

And actually, what you describe is not really traditional roleplaying PoL. It appears to be a specific form for DND 4E. This is ok, but a bit unusual sounding because by definition, PoL should be a setting where organizations should form (i.e. church groups to protect the flock, thieves guilds to protect against the city watch, the city watch to protect against foreigners and thieves, etc.).

It sounds a bit metagamey for all "PC races" to be all close friends, just in order to get rid of alignment.

Sure, in a given setting, the Elves and Dwarves might be friends due to the Dwarves sending an army to help the Elves out 50 years ago when they were attacked by Orcs.

But, in a PoL setting, the PC races should be spread out. It should be hard to get near other races easily. By definition of PoL. There should be little in the way of cooperation with foreigners because of the fact that the world is dangerous.

This PoL definition that you are indicating sounds forced and fake and implausible. IMO.

More forced and fake than the historical use of alignment in the first place.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

The PoL setting is D&D brought into the post-Iraq-occupation era. North Americans are now much more aware of situations where diverse groups of different goals can have practical, shifting, temporary alliances outside of particular ideological frameworks.

 

[KarinsDad]

The PoL setting is D&D brought into the post-Iraq-occupation era. North Americans are now much more aware of situations where diverse groups of different goals can have practical, shifting, temporary alliances outside of particular ideological frameworks.

DND is not typically a game of temporary PC alliances. It's typically a game of permanent PC alliances.