D&D General Why do people like Alignment? (+thread)

[Celebrim]

What exactly rewards alignment? 3rd edition Paladins and Clerics weren't rewarded, it was the constant Sword of Damocles over their heads. Aligned weapons were no reward, since they cut both ways. Aligned spells, likewise. So...what's the reward perspective here? I'm genuinely coming up empty on this one.

I give small XP rewards for taking actions that advance particular alignments, destroying altars, holy/unholy objects, or restoring lost objects to the proper cults. For example, a minor magic item might be evil aligned. A good character gets an XP reward for destroying it rather than keeping it. If a player starts taking actions which suggest that they have misaligned the character on the character sheet, such as a chaotic neutral character that consistently shows no reluctance in harming others in pursuing what they want, then I'll say something like, "OK, that is a particularly rotten act. I'll give you 100 XP if you change your characters alignment from CN to CE."

 

[cbwjm]

It makes a big difference on what the afterlife is like.

If it is 4e D&D where Asmodeus lives in Hell, is a real god with powered clerics, and death sends you to the Shadowfell before moving on to the unknown it makes no difference on your afterlife if you worship him or a good god.

In Dante's Hell, where sinners are eternally punished it is set up to be a disincentive to evil.

If you turn into a D&D 3e style outsider when you die you might want to hang out with succubi for eternity rather than lantern archons.

Evil gods might offer actively attractive afterlives as rewards for their faithful. The Eternal BDSM Club for Loviatar followers or Forgotten Realms Tyranny God Bane might give entire dominions to his followers as their afterlife.

I can't remember where I read this, it might have been in a 3e book or dungeon article, but one of the things about the 9 hells was that even though they might be suffering now, the souls want to be there. The enticement of future power and moving up in the fiendish hierarchy is worth a millennia or so of suffering.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I give small XP rewards for taking actions that advance particular alignments, destroying altars, holy/unholy objects, or restoring lost objects to the proper cults. For example, a minor magic item might be evil aligned. A good character gets an XP reward for destroying it rather than keeping it. If a player starts taking actions which suggest that they have misaligned the character on the character sheet, such as a chaotic neutral character that consistently shows no reluctance in harming others in pursuing what they want, then I'll say something like, "OK, that is a particularly rotten act. I'll give you 100 XP if you change your characters alignment from CN to CE."

Alright. The former strikes me as not really much of a reward--it's just an exchange, giving up short-term power for long-term power, in the context of destroying an opposite-alignment magic item.

The latter, however, is a reward--and strongly resembles how Dungeon World did alignment. There, alignments are moves you have, which identify your nature or interests. So a Good Druid might have "Help something or someone grow", while an Evil one might have "Draw forth Nature, red in tooth and claw". Fulfilling your alignment in a given session gives +1 XP--which is a lot, seeing as how you only need (7+current level) XP to gain your next level. It's also one of the only sources of XP that the player is essentially in complete control of, so long as some kind of opportunity pops up in a given session.

So I can see where you're coming from now. That definitely seems like a way to sprinkle in some judicious alignment stuff. I could also see some weight thrown in the opposite direction too, e.g. rewarding particularly faithful representation of a PC's alignment, or feeling temptation, considering it, and then giving principled resistance. Perhaps some kind of recognition value, so that the reward differs? E.g. if adhering to one's Chaotic principles, even when it is costly because it means you have to turn down official aid or reward, then perhaps that's a brownie point that cashes out down the line, when the party encounters a Chaotic being and it recognizes the sustained affinity that that character has for Chaos.

 

[Bae'zel]

I remember as a kid cringing at a Dragonlance book when an antagonist referered to their own side as "the forces of evil".

Now, stories that show how the desperate, the downtrodden, the oppressed or brainwashed have a gradual descent into aligning with truly awful causes or cults makes more sense, especially with ever increasing acts of "banal" evil.

Also some deities offering "relief" from pain and suffering if an individual sells their souls to them. Shar promising to remove grief and despair. Nurgle offering to remove pain and suffering from disease (still being carriers, of course, but no longer having such a bad time). Murder cults offering the victimized an easy way to have revenge.

 

[Celebrim]

@EzekielRaiden: The important thing is what this does to table dynamics, not the impact it has mechanically on the game.

I have seen a lot what I think you are talking about where some players, usually playing in pawn stance, whose whole approach to the game is "win by whatever means necessary" and who think that there is no cost in having a reputation as murder hobos and liars, play PC's that lie, cheat, steal, murder, and whatever to get what they want, but who have on their character sheet something like Neutral Good. And if the DM calls them out they are like, "Hey, none of this is evil because I'm playing for team good. See I'm wearing the white hat." And all that leads to is a table argument about what it means to be good and a lot of sophistry and sometimes hurt feelings.

But, the bribe settles the question every time. Because players that are really trying to play their character aren't motivated to get ahead by any means necessary, so they like turn down the bribe (and generally aren't a problem anyway, because they are being thoughtful about "is this right?" and "is this what my character would do?"). But, if the real motivation is to get ahead, once they realize they can get ahead with something else written on their character sheet, once "Lawful Good" doesn't feel like the winning selection on alignment and is just part of their "win at all costs strategy" they take the bribe and put something on their character sheet that is actually reflective of their attitude - "advance my own cause at all costs". If you are playing your character like a lie is always the safer, better, thing than telling the truth, and as if killing all the prisoners is always the safer, better thing, then don't try to tell me you think good is stronger and better than evil. It's annoying. This approach reliably gets us on the same page without argument.

UPDATE: The other thing I find I have to repeatedly deal with as a DM, is players trained by a DM with a "The GM is Satan" mindset who always go out of their way to punish any good deed and use fiat to just ruthless punish any act of mercy or honor. Paroled prisoners always try to avenge themselves no matter how overmatched they were the first time. Everyone lies to the party and betrays them at the first opportunity. Trust is always punished. Any act of honor is treated as foolish disregard of ones own interest. The universe always conspires to punish the good like that twisted version of a morality tale by Mark Twain. It's really hard to get players out of that mindset if they are used to that sort of adversarial GMing.