Piracy And Other Malfeasance

[Voadam]

I think alignment is fine as is as a vague narrative descriptor in 5e. Actively overall good, actively overall evil, somewhere in between is a fine range even though many will disagree on the lines and what factors go into good and evil.

As a player if you want to use alignment as a characterization hook for your character it is fine if your views do not match others, play your version of Lawful Neutral and go.

As a DM it does not matter if others have a differing view of what a Chaotic alignment means, you can still use your own view as a possible guide in characterizing monsters or NPCs.

The punitive restrictions to play within your written alignment as the DM judges it are gone from the game as are class alignment requirements. It is now 98% an optional characterization hook and it does not need to match between different people's judgments.

 

[payn]

I somewhat alluded to this earlier, but I think one of the "issues" with D&D alignment is that it is based upon tangible in-game-world factors that the characters interact with, yet those factors may not always mesh with how contemporary culture categorizes morality.

That I believe an action to be good/evil may not necessarily correspond to what a particular D&D plane, magic spell, or magic item views as good/evil.

I don't feel that I need 50 shades of personality tests (as someone mentioned upthread) to categorize a character, but a little more guidance than two letters on a sheet is (for me) better for covering a wider range of characters and archetypes found throughout literature (or history).

I think D&D alignment might be a good starting point to get a broad idea of where a character might generally fall. However, I prefer how other ttrpgs handle morality and personality.

I'll use GURPS as an example because that's a game I'm most familiar with. For someone like the pirates mentioned upthread, there may be mental "disadvantages" such as "sense of duty: [insert nation]" or "Bloodlust (when fighting the Spanish)" or "Code of Honor (Pirate's)."

For a hypothetical character including my three hypothetical examples, what that would mean is that Captain Examplo of the H.S.S. Murder Hobo feels a sense of duty toward the nation for which he sails. As such, even if he's normally a bloodthirsty marauder of the high seas, he tends to lawfully and faithfully serve the needs of his nation (and is posdiblyeven inclined to be generous and helpful toward citizens of said nation). In contrast, Captain Exemplo is especially vicious and cruel when boarding a Spanish galleon. Yet, in either case, he does abide by a loose code of honor that compels him to ensure that loot is divided up fairly among his crew. (In away from books and forget exactly what the pirate code covers).

Is Captain Exemplo evil? Maybe he is. His victims certainly think so, and I imagine he has a rather nefarious reputation in Spain, but perhaps he is also known as a cordial and heroic individual among the Dutch -as well as a firm but fair captain among his crew.

To me, that paints a better picture of who the character is and what their interactions with others will be.

My problem is that's a fine for a very specific campaign in a bespoke like experience, but its not well rounded. It doesnt inform me in a myriad of instances of choices an RPG character is going to make. Also, Ive had experiences where folks get either caricature like behavior because of the specificity, or they go metagaming and try to fill their play with experiences they see as positive ones and limit the negative ones. In this case avoid Examplos nation ships and increase likelihood of Spanish ones.

Also, it relies entirely on relative morality. Evil for some, hero for others. Where as alignment is a fair arbiter to all in that killing folks to take their stuff isnt ever good. Perhaps you were attacked first, or in an existential crisis that lead to the action that makes it less evil in intention, thus allowing a neutral or good alignment to stick. Though, if Exemplo is taking delight in giving it to the Spanish, thats evil. It doesnt matter if they are Spanish, or Portuguese, Dutch, etc.. either. If exemplo enjoys killing folk for no other reason then allieving them of their stuff, thats easy to see as evil.

I feel that D&D 4th Edition's Artifacts and Legendary Items did a pretty good job of this too. The descriptions of the items would include what sort of behaviors and actions taken by the wielder would make the item either happy or unhappy.

I also feel that D&D 4E's descriptions of the good in the PHB did a good job of describing the general ballpark of what a god(des)'s area of interests were, while also leaving enough wiggle room to fill in more detail within a character.

For example, is Erathis (deity of civilization and cities) a representative of good or evil? That depends. Civilized advancement and law can be good, but bureaucracy bending law to favor the few or a sprawling city encroaching upon a rain forest might also be evil. I find that type of dichotomy & conflict to be interesting and a great source of inspiration for writing a story -especially an interactive adventure story in which there are several paths to how a party might solve a problem. I can imagine two paladins of Erathis adventuring in the same party, to protect the city from a rampaging and ravenous horde of gnolls, but also coming to blows in the end -as they disagree on the post-crisis path forward.

TLDR: A bunch of thoughts about how more nuance than two letters can be better for adventure. I think the two letters is an okatly starting point, but a little extra detail helps a particular character feel more like an actual person. Also, musing about examples of how non-D&D games might do, as well as how other D&D editions have covered morality.

The two letters are general on purpose so that they can be applied to all situations and in a fair manner. How you role play the character is up to you.

 

[Argyle King]

...

The two letters are general on purpose so that they can be applied to all situations and in a fair manner. How you role play the character is up to you.

I suppose that's one way to look it it, but it is a view that I feel is alien.

That being said, I can accept that my views differ from others. It's not unusual that my views are among a minority.

However, what I find strange is that -to me- those letters are not applied to all situations in a fair manner, not even just within D&D.

There are a lot of characters and archetypes not well covered. Another example that was mentioned some pages ago would be the mercenary for hire who works for the highest bidder. If adhering to a strict code of doing the job, I am inclined say that is more "lawful" than good/evil, and perhaps LN. Though, I'm inclined to believe you would disagree. Which is fine, and there are very valid arguments for why I am wrong.

My point is that knowing even a few bare-bones details such as "code of honor: stays bought"; "charges double for working on the sabbath"; and "quirk: insists upon proper burials for clergy" tells me more about the character's moral compass.

I believe that some of the disconnect comes from a gap between how good/evil is defined in-universe (that is, inside a world that functions like a D&D setting) and how good/evil is defined outside of that universe. Certainly, there are areas of overlap. But there are also noticeable areas of conflict.

I would agree that how a person roleplays a character is up to them.

At the same time, I think that an alignment system (or some other measure of morality) should be more meaningful than just picking which "protection of..." spells interact with my character.

If it weren't for altering what D&D items my character may be able to use or changing how some spells work, I'm not sure I would care much at all about the two letter system. It only makes sense in a world where those letters are connected to tangible things. Anywhere else, it may be a nice shorthand to get a general idea about a character, but I don't find it as valuable.

Even inside of a (D&D) world that's supposed to have tangible things attached to those letters, I'm not convinced that what they stand for in-universe has a lot of overlap with the contemporary audience's views (or even those of the people currently writing the game). Efforts to change lore and alter core assumptions about those worlds reflect that a gap exists.

 

[Reynard]

I think alignment is fine as is as a vague narrative descriptor in 5e. Actively overall good, actively overall evil, somewhere in between is a fine range even though many will disagree on the lines and what factors go into good and evil.

As a player if you want to use alignment as a characterization hook for your character it is fine if your views do not match others, play your version of Lawful Neutral and go.

As a DM it does not matter if others have a differing view of what a Chaotic alignment means, you can still use your own view as a possible guide in characterizing monsters or NPCs.

If you are going to do that you might as well use 2 other descriptive words in place that actually tell you something about the character:
Honest but Cruel
Kind but Proud
Helpful and Brave
and so on.

 

[Voadam]

At the same time, I think that an alignment system (or some other measure of morality) should be more meaningful than just picking which "protection of..." spells interact with my character.

In 5e protection spells don't interact with alignment but creature type. Do you play 3e/Pathfinder where they interact with alignment?

If it weren't for altering what D&D items my character may be able to use or changing how some spells work, I'm not sure I would care much at all about the two letter system. It only makes sense in a world where those letters are connected to tangible things. Anywhere else, it may be a nice shorthand to get a general idea about a character, but I don't find it as valuable.

In 5e it is mostly mechanically vestigal, a few magic items interact with alignment.

Even inside of a (D&D) world that's supposed to have tangible things attached to those letters, I'm not convinced that what they stand for in-universe has a lot of overlap with the contemporary audience's views (or even those of the people currently writing the game). Efforts to change lore and alter core assumptions about those worlds reflect that a gap exists.

Demons are evil. Angels are good. Most undead are evil. That seems to match up to most expectations I would think.

I find the description of the specific lore actions and motivations of say the good elven god Correlon in the 5e Mordenkainen's book does not really correspond in a bunch of ways to my views of good, but mostly D&D good and evil seem fairly open to naturalistic uses of good and evil in general to me.

 

[payn]

I suppose that's one way to look it it, but it is a view that I feel is alien.

That being said, I can accept that my views differ from others. It's not unusual that my views are among a minority.

However, what I find strange is that -to me- those letters are not applied to all situations in a fair manner, not even just within D&D.

There are a lot of characters and archetypes not well covered. Another example that was mentioned some pages ago would be the mercenary for hire who works for the highest bidder. If adhering to a strict code of doing the job, I am inclined say that is more "lawful" than good/evil, and perhaps LN. Though, I'm inclined to believe you would disagree. Which is fine, and there are very valid arguments for why I am wrong.

While I dont believe personal codes are strictly the realm of Law, I dont see an issue with this depiction. A merc relies on being hired by folks that pay for work. Thats a pretty structured system on its own. A society that promotes such is one a lawful person is going to want to be part of. A merc needs to also be a bit morally flexible so neutral seems spot on for such a folk.

My point is that knowing even a few bare-bones details such as "code of honor: stays bought"; "charges double for working on the sabbath"; and "quirk: insists upon proper burials for clergy" tells me more about the character's moral compass.

I love things like this and highly encourage players to create them for themselves and enjoy such traits in PF style. My philosophy though stops short of rewarding for mechanical use of them. I dont like XP mechanically. For example, I dont believe giving XP is needed to make a rogue pick a lock, Bard negotiate a deal, or a fighter to fight something. The mechanics are the character's tool kit and they dont need to be lead to use them. Though, I do know some folks need less ambiguity and to be informed on the intent of play, so XP is very instructive and encouraging to them.

I believe that some of the disconnect comes from a gap between how good/evil is defined in-universe (that is, inside a world that functions like a D&D setting) and how good/evil is defined outside of that universe. Certainly, there are areas of overlap. But there are also noticeable areas of conflict.

I think the disconnect is not the definitions, but the desire to justify decisions. There is a congnative dissonance about being an evil character who brings about good outcomes. Conversely, also a good character who fights in a war. This entire thread attests to the idea anyway.

I would agree that how a person roleplays a character is up to them.
At the same time, I think that an alignment system (or some other measure of morality) should be more meaningful than just picking which "protection of..." spells interact with my character.

If it weren't for altering what D&D items my character may be able to use or changing how some spells work, I'm not sure I would care much at all about the two letter system. It only makes sense in a world where those letters are connected to tangible things. Anywhere else, it may be a nice shorthand to get a general idea about a character, but I don't find it as valuable.

I do want to point out you just tossed together an example of a merc within the alignment system likely off the top of your head. Thats pretty useful to a GM who needs to make countless characters in a myriad of instances.

Even inside of a (D&D) world that's supposed to have tangible things attached to those letters, I'm not convinced that what they stand for in-universe has a lot of overlap with the contemporary audience's views (or even those of the people currently writing the game). Efforts to change lore and alter core assumptions about those worlds reflect that a gap exists.

I believe this is overthinking alignment and consequentialism is rearing its ugly head again. If you examine actions historically in D&D its pretty much murder, theft, selflessness, heroism, selfishness, indifference, etc.. If you focus more on the individuals intent (which makes sense because alignment isnt everyones morality) and less on their outcomes it makes better sense. YMMV.

 

[Argyle King]

@payn

I somewhat agree with the comments you made about awarding XP. Some of the games in thinking about during this conversation don't even use XP (or even levels).

I did come up with an example off the top pf my head. Trying to figure out what two-letter alignment they were came second and took more thought than trying to think of a plausible character in a story.

@Voadam

I have played PF and 3rd Edition. I've also played 5th. I'm likely getting a bit rusty on my 5e knowledge after not keeping up with more recent products.

I think that spells keying off of types is an example of a good change.

Though, in older/other editions, law/chaos & good/evil were tangible in-universe categories just as much as creature types or classes.

Some of that view of cosmology (with morality as a tangibly present thing) so exists in D&D 5e. Less so than before, but that's actually part of my point.

 

[payn]

If you are going to do that you might as well use 2 other descriptive words in place that actually tell you something about the character:
Honest but Cruel
Kind but Proud
Helpful and Brave
and so on.

Thats basically BIFTs aint it?

 

[Reynard]

Thats basically BIFTs aint it?

Those tend to be long statements, but sure, the idea is the same. I was specifically talking about how alignment "helps" the Gm roleplay the creature or character with those two alignment words. I am saying that two actually descriptive terms would be more useful. "Chaotic Good" is so potentially broad as to be useless compared to "Undisciplined but Good Hearted" versus "Raging Against the Machine" or whatever.

 

[payn]

Those tend to be long statements, but sure, the idea is the same. I was specifically talking about how alignment "helps" the Gm roleplay the creature or character with those two alignment words. I am saying that two actually descriptive terms would be more useful. "Chaotic Good" is so potentially broad as to be useless compared to "Undisciplined but Good Hearted" versus "Raging Against the Machine" or whatever.

I can see how some folks might find that helpful. For me, the alignment tells me how they view culture and society, and more importantly, the things they are willing to do to achieve their goals. So, if the machine isnt involved, or discipline doesn't matter in the moment, I still have a good idea of how the character will act. The bonus is it takes very very little room on a stat block or character sheet.

BIFTs fail for me because they are so specific and like a series of "raging against the machine" statements. Nobody really remembers them at the table. Since alignment is so broadly general yet well defined, it works at a quick glance and is easy to recall. Of course, I like alignment and have read over the description for years and years. Its become second hand.