D&D (2024) Oh Ye of Little FAITB

[FitzTheRuke]

IMO, Alignment is more useful for a DM than players, as a shorthand for notes or a Setting/Adventure product to quickly indicate how an NPC will react and interact with the party.

It works - okay - for that purpose, but a quick point-form (say, three points, on average) of the NPC's goals and how they relate to the PC's goals (the adventure), would work much better.

There's no reason that an "Evil" NPC wouldn't help the party - if it were in their interest to do so. Conversely, there's plenty of reason for a "Good" NPC to even FIGHT the party, if their goals clash.

 

[Parmandur]

It works - okay - for that purpose, but a quick point-form (say, three points, on average) of the NPC's goals and how they relate to the PC's goals (the adventure), would work much better.

There's no reason that an "Evil" NPC wouldn't help the party - if it were in their interest to do so. Conversely, there's plenty of reason for a "Good" NPC to even FIGHT the party, if their goals clash.

For sure, but a two letter abbreviation in a long list of characters, it can communicate a lot fast. In particular, I'm thinking of the Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, which includes a large number of NPCs for each location and peganization, and the inclusion of their Alignment does a lot in shorthand to help in fleshing out why a given NPC might do what rheybare doing.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

For sure, but a two letter abbreviation in a long list of characters, it can communicate a lot fast. In particular, I'm thinking of the Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, which includes a large number of NPCs for each location and peganization, and the inclusion of their Alignment does a lot in shorthand to help in fleshing out why a given NPC might do what rheybare doing.

You've a good point. It can be useful shorthand for individual NPCs at a quick glance.

 

[Parmandur]

You've a good point. It can be useful shorthand for individual NPCs at a quick glance.

Actually, to your point about an Evil NPC helping the party...thanks to Wildemount, I know that one of the Mighty Nein'sclosest friends and allies is...Neutral Evil! At least, according to the DM notes used to make that book. I think the PC might have changed thar NPCs alignment by the end of the campaign, without maybe know that they did...

 

[payn]

It works - okay - for that purpose, but a quick point-form (say, three points, on average) of the NPC's goals and how they relate to the PC's goals (the adventure), would work much better.

There's no reason that an "Evil" NPC wouldn't help the party - if it were in their interest to do so. Conversely, there's plenty of reason for a "Good" NPC to even FIGHT the party, if their goals clash.

Yes, what exactly that evil character will do to help the party is going to be much different than a good one. Also, a fight against a good character will be different than an evil one. The good character is going to resolve the situation without death if possible. Though, I am aware most folks make zero distinction in their murderhobo games.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yes, what exactly that evil character will do to help the party is going to be much different than a good one. Also, a fight against a good character will be different than an evil one. The good character is going to resolve the situation without death if possible. Though, I am aware most folks make zero distinction in their murderhobo games.

Yes, that's true too.

 

[Scott Christian]

I personally feel that FAITB has been great for roleplayers. I've known many that use them as guides for in-game decision making. And that is the crux of why they exist. I know many experienced roleplayers that simply revert back to their personalities when it comes to danger/reward decisions or impulse/consequence. A quick glance at your sheet that says, "I follow orders even if I think they're wrong," helps that player make a decision that follows a personality trait. This helps experienced and novice players alike.

It also helps players develop a sense of narration. A PC's whose flaw is, "I have a tell when I'm lying," could be nothing. But to a payer that is learning how to describe how their character looks while socializing, this is a great tool to assist in that process.

And please, I know they are broad, and someone can come along and say, "Follow orders? What if they told you to kill another PC? They're too vague or limited." That statement is only true if you believe the people playing D&D are morons. No one is discussing truisms here. We are discussing a roleplaying aid that could easily be baked into class and/or background skills/abilities.

The other thing I would point out is that if the players actually use these, it's very easy for the DM to work them into the story. It can help create a bond. It can stir up conflict. It can even teach a newer DM how to avoid conflicts they may not want at their table, such as a PC attacking a guard.

 

[GMMichael]

BIFT and alignment build on each other to inform the nuance of your character, but they're still just descriptions of what supposedly is already meant to be there so i don't know why so many people feel constrained by them.

I'll take a stab at why the BIFT(A) feels constraining: it's (was) regimented. The same five categories occur every time, and those categories of character details follow two or three rules: they're either a d8 roll, d6 roll (see Basic Rules) or a selection from a grid (3x3).

I know - the word "suggested" shows up about 18 times regarding background characteristics, and it's actually a good idea to provide some assistance on creating character backgrounds/personalities for those who need it. But I recall an old D&D table of 100 characteristics for NPCs, and I'd rather just roll on that a couple of times than sort through the above suggestions.

With that said it does a nice job of handling wouldn't unless without can't because... Well... Because then steps back enough for the group to work out an unless or alternative among themselves.

Um, what?

 

[tetrasodium]

Um, what?

I think this is the exact wording . Good/evil and law/chaos were originally team colors type things that stood on their own doing basically the same thing until they got combined in one two axis mess of good guy/bad guy/good guy/badguy pegged to some weird absolute morality concept that is still in 2014's rules

 

[Clint_L]

I don't use any of them, particularly alignment, though players are free to do what they want. WotC has made it perfectly clear that alignment is now an optional idea, and one that they are uncomfortable with. For example, even creatures like fiends now have the word "typically" attached to their alignment.

All I ask is for players to give me a backstory that includes a "want" that explains why they have become an adventurer, and to think about flaws in terms of a "need" - something that would make the character complete, that they currently lack. For example, maybe the character became an adventurer because they want revenge against someone who wronged them, but they need to learn to see the world in less black and white terms.

Some players use the flaws, bonds, ideals, etc. charts to roll up ideas as a starting place, which is fine (whatever works), though I think the ones WotC uses are really basic. I think much more attention should be paid to helping players come up with compelling characters.