D&D 5E So what's the problem with restrictions, especially when it comes to the Paladin?

[JamesonCourage]

There's no need to go off on some long diatribe. The only reason for this exercise is so that people can come to an improved understanding of RP gaming concepts and techniques. I'm simply pointing out that a much more general system can provide all of the things the alignment system now does, and can with suitably named descriptors emulate it (and do a lot more on top of that). I have not the slightest clue how that threatens your gaming preferences.

What? Did you read my "diatribe"? I said "Now, I'm not saying that you can't dislike, or even hate, the alignment system. Feel free to hate it.", "your system has its merits, and I don't mind it being explored", "Again, feel free to advocate what you want", "I get the merit for the carrot over stick approach. But, to me, both have their place in design, and I hope both get used when appropriate", and "'I'm open to talking about options. I'm open to talking about carrots. I'm open to talking about points to spend to use / enhance Lay On Hands, or whatever."

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that what you're talking about threatens my gaming preferences; I don't even play D&D, and my RPG doesn't have alignment.

AFAICT a system like what I outlined would both entirely obviate the need for a separate alignment system to satisfy you vs some other thing to satisfy me. You'd just use traits called "law-chaos" and "good-evil" and I'd do some other different thing with traits in my game, and Pemerton and etc can do some third thing if it pleases them, all without needing to write 86 different modules and sidebars.

Show me what you have in mind, in a little more detail, and I'll tell you whether or not it works for me as another option that I might use, or my opinion on whether or not it'll work for others. Tell me that it should replace the pre-4e nine alignments completely, even as an option, and I'll voice my disagreement.

I'm willing to work constructively on the ideas that other people have. I didn't mind Balesir's idea on "shady" Paladin fall mechanics, for example, and wouldn't mind using them. If you want to bring stuff up as a way to save us from having tons of options, then I'm for it. If you want to convince me that I really don't want the nine alignments, all I can say is that you're wrong, and why that is. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

One option is to avoid vague statements about "Mercy" or "innocent", to use your examples. A rule that the only interaction you can have with goblins or hobgoblins is to kill them or die trying isn't vague. A rule that you can't kill or allow someone else to kill people who surrender to you isn't vague. A rule not to eat fish except at religious ceremonies is only vague if there's some argument about what a fish is.

But, even that's problematic. A foe that is unconscious and bleeding to death for example. Do you patch him up and take him prisoner? Let him bleed out? After all, the paladin is the one who's stuck pointy metal bits into that foe, so, the paladin would certainly be responsible for his death. Has that target surrendered or not?

And a rule that says you have to commit genocide? All goblins must be killed? That's about as far from Lawful Good as you can possibly be.

 

[Warbringer]

Out of curiosity, then, what is the point of alignment in this system?

That sir, is an excellent question. A combination of legacy and fitting into the Alignment system as it interacts with spells and monsters. To me the issue is one of clarification and granularity for characters and how players interact with the story and the system.

I think I'm generally more optimistic about new players and new groups being able to work out what they want to do with the game, without needing GM force to get them there.

You are clearly are more than I.

An interesting approach which I think has some merit is the Burning Wheel "trait vote" approach - at the end of X sessions (where X has been agreed in advance based on an overall sense of campaign pacing), the whole table votes to add traits to or remove traits from each PC. Any player can lobby in respect of his/her PC, or another's PC. This way a PC can gain or lose the Faithful trait, gain or lose the Evil or Generous or Hopelessly Confused trait, etc, but not unilaterally. Interpretation of PC personalities and morality is given to the custody of the group as a whole.

I take a similar approach, but leave it up mainly to the player and informal table conversation

That's an interesting analysis. It has something like the same structure I suggested above for a paladin confronted with a greater good that requires violating the Code (which, as I said, is different from a geas).

.. snip…

Whereas I have played under GMs who take the view that once a PC drifts into territory that the GM labels as evil, that PC must be abandoned to become an NPC.

See I think that is because Alignment id given an important role and then is poorly defined. This leaves the DM in a position that DM force tends to wielded as a blunt instrument. The rules should empower tables to have better clarity of what an alignment means and how to deal with it (such as Paladin moral conflict)

 

[jrowland]

Which is why I think that linear alignment (L-N-C or LG-G-U-E-CE) is superior - because it makes alignment a descriptor for a cosmological position-taking, and doesn't purport to have any resonance or heft outside that particular cosmological framing.

Well, linear (L-N-C or LG-G-U-E-CE) is essentially duality with shades of grey, which of course has a resonance outside the D&D cosmological framing such as Taoist Yin and Yang (with shades of grey). Unfortunately, we are trapped in our own cosmological framework, so we can always find corollaries.

That said, no need to drive a wedge where there is a wide open gap: Alignment is not a catch-all morality, but simply a game device. MMO's have gotten a fair amount of mileage with "factions". I find alignment and factions to be fairly interchangeable in terms of game-mechanics.

I prefer something more than a duality of factions, but I think the planescape wheel of factions is far too many. Or at least, far too many to worry about in most campaigns. I don't care how you define L, G, C, or E, nor do I care how the Game Developers define them. What matters is that L opposes C, G opposes E, and L or C are neutral to G and E, whatever the definition. There is no adventure in harmony.

 

[Sunseeker]

But, even that's problematic. A foe that is unconscious and bleeding to death for example. Do you patch him up and take him prisoner? Let him bleed out? After all, the paladin is the one who's stuck pointy metal bits into that foe, so, the paladin would certainly be responsible for his death. Has that target surrendered or not?

I think this is where it's important to differentiate Paladins on the basis of Code passed down from their religion or god. A Paladin whose cause is one of healing might offer aid to a wounded enemy, even give aid to an enemy unable to choose for themselves(unconscious). A Paladin of a more war-like god or cause might do nothing when their allies drop a surrendered enemy, war is cruel. And so on and so forth.

And a rule that says you have to commit genocide? All goblins must be killed? That's about as far from Lawful Good as you can possibly be.

It works when you assume a very trope-based universe whereing goblins and the like are naturally evil. Where they're basically demons-lite.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But my argumenative strategy is to use this thin edge to drive in the whole wedge!

That is, once we recognise that alignment isn't a portable, universal, catch-all system for describing moral/political outlooks, then the focus turns (or, at least, should turn) from alignment to the particular cosmology, mythic history etc of the campaign world in front of us.

Which is why I think that linear alignment (L-N-C or LG-G-U-E-CE) is superior - because it makes alignment a descriptor for a cosmological position-taking, and doesn't purport to have any resonance or heft outside that particular cosmological framing.

Yeah, and oddly that was the purpose of the original L-N-C OD&D alignment system. It was all about Moorcockian cosmological order vs chaos, but mostly it was just a quick way to know that an orc wasn't your friend. Its a nice virtue of a linear scale, you pick your enemies and its pretty clear who's on what side, most of the time. Or you can just mostly ignore it. I don't even ask my players what alignment they wrote on their sheets, we just seem to naturally put a couple attributes on each character and not worry about cosmic whatever. It becomes more of a factor at high levels, if you want, but I don't really even consider the 4e style system to be very relevant to PCs. They're just pawns in an ancient war.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What? Did you read my "diatribe"? I said "Now, I'm not saying that you can't dislike, or even hate, the alignment system. Feel free to hate it.", "your system has its merits, and I don't mind it being explored", "Again, feel free to advocate what you want", "I get the merit for the carrot over stick approach. But, to me, both have their place in design, and I hope both get used when appropriate", and "'I'm open to talking about options. I'm open to talking about carrots. I'm open to talking about points to spend to use / enhance Lay On Hands, or whatever."

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that what you're talking about threatens my gaming preferences; I don't even play D&D, and my RPG doesn't have alignment.

Show me what you have in mind, in a little more detail, and I'll tell you whether or not it works for me as another option that I might use, or my opinion on whether or not it'll work for others. Tell me that it should replace the pre-4e nine alignments completely, even as an option, and I'll voice my disagreement.

I'm willing to work constructively on the ideas that other people have. I didn't mind Balesir's idea on "shady" Paladin fall mechanics, for example, and wouldn't mind using them. If you want to bring stuff up as a way to save us from having tons of options, then I'm for it. If you want to convince me that I really don't want the nine alignments, all I can say is that you're wrong, and why that is. As always, play what you like

Oh, I agree. I assume it as a given that you're going to go on about playing what you and how you want. Even if I was some sort of weird ego-maniac who felt compelled to have everything pretend to be an elf using my particular preferences I seriously doubt that would come to pass...

I'll have to think a bit about what I mean, because there are a few ways of doing this sort of thing, and I am still thinking about what exact approach to take. I think we can safely assume that there would be descriptors, which would be intended to help define the character's personality, morals, etc. So, I would imagine 'honorable' might be one of them for instance, which could be interpreted (I'd say by the player, but some consensus will have to exist of course) to mean the character fights according to a code, giving their opponents a chance to defend themselves for instance. If the decides to fight orcs honorably then perhaps he can acquire some sort of 'point' for that, which is good as a plot coupon. How that would be used might vary depending on the theme and tone of the game. If it is say fantastical knights and maidens then virtue attracts a reward, the player might describe some plot circumstance which offsets giving the orcs a chance to arm instead of surprising them (maybe some allies happen by). The logic could be understood as something like the gods reward faithful adherence to their precepts, the faithful paladin in that paradigm would literally expect virtue to be rewarded, and it would be!

Now, that could be turned around and used to support alignment. A character could have lawful and good attributes, and again acquire plot coupons for acting in accordance with that (either as the player, the DM, or some prior agreement dictate). In this model the character might use these coupons to wield 'holy powers', so again honor might be rewarded with divine healing or etc at a key point.

I'd note that PERSONALLY I advocate for a more free and open-ended architecture for the game. One where exactly what sorts of boons PCs get are less strictly laid out by class design and more based on narrative logic. Truthfully a 'paladin' might literally be simply a fighter who makes certain in-game choices in essence. So dedicating yourself to a code of honor and leveraging the resulting attributes to get plot coupons and using them to do 'holy things' would effectively be the pattern of a paladin. Class is likely to be more a matter of presentation and supplying a repertoire of appropriate descriptors to pick from.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It works when you assume a very trope-based universe wherein goblins and the like are naturally evil. Where they're basically demons-lite.

Yeah, and its very easy to imagine a dualistic type of world that was like that too. OTOH it becomes old quickly if the world doesn't contain shades of gray. Of course you can go further and look at medieval Christian views, which emphasized that everyone has a place in the world and that everything is part of a plan. The knight behaves in the way the plan dictates. Fighting with your neighbors may be in some sense not ideal, but that's the lot of the soldier. Likewise farmers bust clods, etc. Goblins would fit into that scheme in a very black and white fashion of course. I've just never seen a game stay within those bounds for any length of time. It might have been a successful worldview in its time, but its not a real winner on the table top over the long haul.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'll have to think a bit about what I mean, because there are a few ways of doing this sort of thing, and I am still thinking about what exact approach to take. I think we can safely assume that there would be descriptors, which would be intended to help define the character's personality, morals, etc. So, I would imagine 'honorable' might be one of them for instance, which could be interpreted (I'd say by the player, but some consensus will have to exist of course) to mean the character fights according to a code, giving their opponents a chance to defend themselves for instance. If the decides to fight orcs honorably then perhaps he can acquire some sort of 'point' for that, which is good as a plot coupon. How that would be used might vary depending on the theme and tone of the game.

[SNIP rest of good post]

Some interesting stuff here (sent some XP your way), and this is something I can get behind. Take my RPG, for example. It has a meta resource called Luck Points, and they can be spent to reroll, force rerolls, add to or subtract from a roll, etc. Luck points can be awarded in a variety of ways, including taking a risk (socially, in combat, etc.), pursuing your Driving Force (what drives you to act), being inhibited by your Challenge (something that inhibits your character), or exploring your Mystery (something you don't know but want to find out).

So, let's roll up a random DF/CH/MY, and see what we get: DF: Protect nature, CH: Code of conduct, MY: Is the world wicked? So, this guy is driven to protect nature, follows a code of conduct (let's say it's your "honorable in combat" example), and wonders if the world is wicked. Every time he acts to protect nature, he'd get a Luck Point for pursuing his Driving Force; every time he lets his honorable nature hurt him (letting the orc retrieve his weapon, not ambushing someone when he could, etc.), he gains a Luck Point; and every time he explores whether or not the world is wicked (in his eyes), such as by seeing if a captured enemy will redeem himself, he gets a Luck Point.

I like this type of mechanic, and it's not dissimilar to your "traits" description. You could have a Driving Force of "Do good" and then play that as it makes sense to the table / your character. Same for a Challenge that is "Do good", really; if you refuse to commit an evil act even though it would greatly help you, you'd gain a Luck Point.

Of course, we can make the mechanic more in-tune with the game world (your divine intervention take), or leave it more meta-based (my Luck Point mechanic). And, yes, we can even let people affect the world around them, giving them some amount of control over the story (I have something called Fame points that fill this role).

It's not a bad alternate system, in my opinion, but I'm curious what you'd tweak. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I don't even ask my players what alignment they wrote on their sheets

All but one of the PCs in my game is Unaligned - from time to time the odd one out like to remind everyone that he's the only Good character in the party. But I think he's also rules non-compliant - he is a fighter multi-class cleric and paragon path Warpriest of Moradin, and by the rules I think he has to be LG.

Of the unaligned, one is a chaos-wielding demonskin-wearing Primordial Adept; one a devotee of the Raven Queen in her Fate aspect; one a devotee of the Raven Queen obsessed by death; and one a deva invoker who serves a whole range of gods (Erathis, the Raven Queen, Ioun, Vecna, Bane, and Levistus) and wields the Sceptre of Law.

So alignment is certainly not playing a very big role among the players - I use it more as a GM, because I treat the alignment of creatures as a shorthand personality and cosmological allegiance descriptor.

It becomes more of a factor at high levels, if you want, but I don't really even consider the 4e style system to be very relevant to PCs. They're just pawns in an ancient war.

My players might query the "pawn" descriptor, but otherwise I agree and I think what I've just described bears out what you say. It's the cosmic allegiances that matter, and alignment is at best some sort of proxy for or pathway into that.