Metagame role of PoL compared to alignment

[Remathilis]

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 fear I will miss it dearly.

While at first blush, I want to agree with you, I don't know if I can anymore. I used to make a deep argument for alignment as a guidepost to roleplaying, but lately (since playing a lot of Star Wars) I've wondered what exactly that guidepost pointed to...

A Ogre, Bugbear, Gnoll and Werewolf are all CE. What does that tell you about each of them? Well, it means they disregard life, act on instinct and generally do not play well with others. However, an ogre is a stupid engine of destruction, a gnoll is a sadistic hunter, a bugbear is an oversized bully and a werewolf is a barely sane beast that would just as soon eat you as anything else. But does "CE" tell you that? Does it alone lead you to gnolls being cunning and orge's dumb "smash" types? Does it really tell us anything more than "these guys are evil and generallly anarchist?"

The same goes for LE: a kobold, rakshasa, and hobgoblin are all LE, but what exactly does "lawful" and "evil" tell you about them? What makes them different, what unifies their beliefs?

You can repeat this for each alignment until pretty soon, you see that the L/N/C axis isn't at all useful for determining anything (lawful: obeys laws? organized? code of honor?) and creatures tend to be Good (morally nice), Evil (morally bankrupt), or unaligned (somewhere between good and evil) and pretty soon it starts to look like 4e's alignment.

 

[FourthBear]

I suspect we are going to continue to disagree on this subject.

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.

All of your examples of supposedly Chaotic behavior are just stereotypes (probably informed by the usual depiction of the Ogre in D&D). Why are Chaotic creatures unorganized and without advanced strategy? Two of the most famous Chaotic Evil races are demons and drow, both of which have many examples of large, complicated social structures and the ability to use highly advanced tactics. There is some bits about challenging traditions and desiring freedom in the PH alignment stuff, but not much on the ability to use tactics. In fact, for that I would say that there are indeed numbers in the Ogre's stat block that lets us know far more about its strategic ability than CE: its Int and Wis scores. One of the problems with the nine point alignment system is that it leads to stereotyping and false categorization.

Getting back to our ogres, if they are featured in an encounter or adventure, I have a very hard time believing that context will not be a far more reliable guide than alignment as to their behavior. I am thinking back to all of the various adventures and campaigns I have seen published. I cannot think of any good examples where the alignment tag was not redundant to the description and context of the situation. The only possible cases are minor one-line NPCs, where alignment is only going to be a rather feeble suggestion as to roleplaying character. This is the LN tailor case. I would still think that Greedy and Aggressive would be far more useful to a DM roleplaying this character than LN, which unless played in the most obvious and stereotypical way doesn't aid much.

 

[KarinsDad]

A Ogre, Bugbear, Gnoll and Werewolf are all CE. What does that tell you about each of them? Well, it means they disregard life, act on instinct and generally do not play well with others. However, an ogre is a stupid engine of destruction, a gnoll is a sadistic hunter, a bugbear is an oversized bully and a werewolf is a barely sane beast that would just as soon eat you as anything else. But does "CE" tell you that? Does it alone lead you to gnolls being cunning and orge's dumb "smash" types? Does it really tell us anything more than "these guys are evil and generallly anarchist?"

I think you are looking at differences based on abilities and then saying "Well, they are different".

Of course they are different if their capabilities are different.

It is not how they approach problem solving that makes them all CE, it's how they treat those around them. More personality than capabilities. The dumb Ogre solves problems with his fists, but is still likely to fly into a rage and attack because he is denied something as much as the Bugbear is.

The issue with Alignment is that there are hundreds of different types of personalities and behavioral characteristics and any given creature can display different ones in different situations, but the game system tried to distill that down to 9 types of generic behavior.

As a simplification tool, it works well. As a tool for explaining why a given spell works for or against certain creatures in an area, it works well. As an explanation of what a given creature will do in a given situation, it does not work well. That's the job of a DM and that's probably why some people have problems with it.


I think that Alignment for spells worked a LOT better than the "allies and enemies" Auras of 4E (and some 3E spells like Bless).

In 4E, Elves give a perception bonus to their allies (but not other Elves) within 30 feet. How does this ability distinquish between allies and enemies? We do not know at this point. I suspect that in 4E, it will not even be explained.

It just works that way.

Personally, I think alignment is a better tool than this type of solely nebulous and non-explained game mechanic. I think we will see a lot of WoW-like "Auras" in 4E that work for allies or against enemies. Why do they work that way? Because the book says so. Don't look for a plausible rationale.

 

[Irda Ranger]

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.

For England! And King George!

 

[Lackhand]

I think that Alignment for spells worked a LOT better than the "allies and enemies" Auras of 4E (and some 3E spells like Bless).

In 4E, Elves give a perception bonus to their allies (but not other Elves) within 30 feet. How does this ability distinquish between allies and enemies? We do not know at this point. I suspect that in 4E, it will not even be explained.

It just works that way.

Bardsong also did that, and that was particularly strange, as you'd think an infinitely adaptable tune that fired up the blood and set it to singing in any circumstance would work on the "other side" too. So even if you have explanations, it ain't gonna help, necessarily.

What I'd like to see replace alignment in stat blocks is a one word entry that describes how I should portray the creature, some sort of emotional or behavioral hook. Bestial? Cruel? Hungry? Cowardly?

Sure, it's more than one character, but not by much, and it's a LOT better as a roleplaying guide than LE.

As to who is affected by auras: Elves are affected by each other's aura, they just don't stack. Think bless + bardsong.

I don't see how "all good creatures within 10' get a bonus" is better than "all friendly creatures within 10' ditto" -- I don't see why it's better for the magic to know whether I've been bad or good than for it to know whether the caster considers me an ally, indeed, I know which one I'd rather have.

All you need is one line in the magic chapter -- "you are always considered your own ally, and another creature is considered an ally if you so designate them; anyone else is an enemy. You may change your mind about any number of given creatures once per round."

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't see how "all good creatures within 10' get a bonus" is better than "all friendly creatures within 10' ditto" -- I don't see why it's better for the magic to know whether I've been bad or good than for it to know whether the caster considers me an ally, indeed, I know which one I'd rather have.

"Good" creatures is something that "magic" or the "gods" can presumably ascertain based on a constant property of the creature.

Allies is what? Based on the perceptions of the caster? If so, the 3E version of it should have stated so.

Instead, it is based on the perceptions of everyone else in 3E. In 3E, an Ally is anyone friendly to the caster. It is based on the motivations of other creatures, not the caster, just like Alignment. But unlike Alignment, those motivations can change from round to round (depending on what happens).

I'd say the Allies/Enemies axis is at least equally as disdainful as Alignment and potentially moreso because of this.

All you need is one line in the magic chapter -- "you are always considered your own ally, and another creature is considered an ally if you so designate them; anyone else is an enemy. You may change your mind about any number of given creatures once per round."

This would work if they change the 4E definition of Allies to be based on the perception of the caster, not the perception of the target like in 3E. And it has the downside of illusions and mind affecting magic affecting the results.

But, it should only work for magical or supernatual effects.

Most natural effects should not have Ally/Enemy differentiating "Auras". If the 'Elves add to perception" ability is a natural effect, it should not have this type of distinction. If it is supernatural, it makes more sense.

 

[Mad Mac]

Could you quote the relevant sections from W&M?

I might be able to dig up something.

The settlements of the PC races are usually points of light but aren't necessarily good-aligned. They are places where people can share shelter from the dangers of the wild wide world. There is no inherent racial enmity between PC races and hostile atitudes do not generally go beyond fear or lack of respect

There's some good stuff on community dynamics in points of light, but too much to type out...try to find a few sentances...

Conflict between points of light might be as common as outside threats.

Even outsiders are expected to obey the laws and acknowledge the customs of the community.

Every settlement has a ruler, whether the ruling body takes the form of a council of elders of a local monarch.

Within the power structure of many towns is a built in tolerance for disparate races. Those who carved out the empires of old conquered many different peoples, brining together numerous races under one banner. During such times of unification travel was more common and people learned to accept and even become fond of those different from themselves.

There's some notes on the community dynamics of various races. Some races, (Dragonborn, Tiefling, Half-elves, Gnomes) have no communities of their own, while others may form their own villages and towns.

It should also be noted that one of the goals of the points of light setting is to get away from the "Humans rule the world" set up most campaign settings have. There is a statement somewhere that the last human empire crumpled about a century ago, in the face of a gnoll invasion.

Overall, the general idea seems to be that while the communities may be isolated now, they've been unified at various points in the past and unification could happen again, under the right circumstances. Also, while communities may be in conflict with each other, it's rarely along racial lines.

 

[The Little Raven]

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 fear I will miss it dearly.

I found it to be totally inconsistent.

When I read a devil's description, and his methodical nature is explained away by his Lawful alignment, then see a demon with the exact same methodical nature, but a Chaotic alignment... well... that means it isn't the Devil/Demon's Lawful/Chaotic alignment that really means anything about their personality, it means that different monster creators had different enough opinions of what can qualify as Lawful or Chaotic that it becomes effectively meaningless when two creatures of almost opposite alignment are, personality-wise, exactly the same.

 

[KarinsDad]

Also, while communities may be in conflict with each other, it's rarely along racial lines.

Odd.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Thanks for the thoughtful (and positive!) reply.