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

[Celebrim]

The only people who will change are the ones who are disingenuous jerks.

I would totally support a "Come to the Shepherd God" moment in a tRPG. Repentance, maturation, wisdom, becoming disillusioned with ones former cynicism are all great story lines. I just never see them come up. No one ever plays a character that way.

One reason why is that IME, only about 20% of players are capable of playing anything but themselves. Their characters have their same beliefs and morality and so to really see those characters change, you'd have to have a real change in the person as well - which is perhaps too much for a mere vain leisure activity to aspire to.

Of the 20% or so that can play something other than themselves, those players most the time are wanting to explore some personality or ideology at length and don't want to just give up on the idea at the first opportunity. Unlike in media, the vast majority of people who want to play a paladin really want to try to successfully be Steve Rogers and win the admiration of all by their grace and honor and courage and gentle warrior virtue. Likewise, if they want to play a rogue then they don't just envision themselves being a confused rogue that in a heartbeat is going to change their character. So ultimately of the 20% that are roleplaying maybe 20% think of their character in terms of a narrative and only some tiny percentage of those think of the narrative they want to construct as being having a major change at some point in their character. Rather they typically have a goal to accomplish as their narrative - reclaim their families honor or land, wed and found a house, get rich, discover the secret of their birth, etc. Conservatively I'd bet you'd have to go through several hundred characters to get a player that wanted the heel-face turn story arc and was capable of pulling it off, or who in the course of play realized it would be cool to pull a heel-face turn based on events that occurred. Believe me, I've tried, but while I can sometimes coax a good and heroic act out of a player who isn't predispositioned to do so by making them care for an NPC or seeing the profit in being a useful ally to someone, rarely does it stick as new belief system, because really it's just them playing themselves.

As for what is rewarding, it very much depends on the aesthetics of play of the particular player. Some players are playing almost entirely to solve puzzles and win. Other players are playing to receive the adulation of their peers for doing something cool. Only a few players are really primarily in it for the story and in particular in it for a story as self-expression that they create as opposed to the experience of watching a story unfold the way they watch a TV show. Exactly how you induce a player to do something with rewards depends on the player. But a player that conceived of his character being part of a heel-face turn story doesn't need a bribe to do that, just a plausible series of events that lead to it which I would happily arrange as subtly and writerly as I could. (Tony Stark or Hon Solo being decent examples of gradual transformations to less and less self-centered and more and more benevolent personalities.) That isn't to say that there might not be some rewards for being good along the way. I'd happily bribe someone who had moved from CN to CG by being actively participating in furthering the weal of others with XP as well. It's just... I don't see it happen.

 

[Celebrim]

I aspire to what I consider a higher standard, where it is possible for people to change toward good, not just away from it, because they are given a reason to see it as worthwhile. People don't do things they don't think are worthwhile. That doesn't mean the reward needs to be pecuniary or materialistic, but it does need to be rewarding, in SOME way, or else there's literally no point.

As an addendum to my prior response, in general there is no social, emotional or mechanical incentive to put "Evil" on your character sheet and then play a good character. I have seen it happen once, but it wasn't because of an incentive. The player in question could only play himself and he himself was "Lawful Good". When the group decided to play a pirate theme gamed, he deliberately tried to create as evil themed of a character as he could - a half-orc "assassin". But in actual play, he might as well been still playing his Paladin. The closest he came to skullduggery was just being tactical when outnumbered. It pained him to participate in piracy even though his character was supposed to be in theory a pirate.

So while in theory you could have a character with Evil on the character sheet, but a player consistently showing mercy, generosity, kindness, empathy, and so forth, I just don't think I'm ever going to see that and have to deal with it.

But there are strong social, emotional, and in some cases mechanical reasons to have "Good" on your character sheet, even though you are continually merciless, selfish, violent, short tempered, and cruel. So that's what I generally have to deal with.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As an addendum to my prior response, in general there is no social, emotional or mechanical incentive to put "Evil" on your character sheet and then play a good character. I have seen it happen once, but it wasn't because of an incentive. The player in question could only play himself and he himself was "Lawful Good". When the group decided to play a pirate theme gamed, he deliberately tried to create as evil themed of a character as he could - a half-orc "assassin". But in actual play, he might as well been still playing his Paladin. The closest he came to skullduggery was just being tactical when outnumbered. It pained him to participate in piracy even though his character was supposed to be in theory a pirate.

So while in theory you could have a character with Evil on the character sheet, but a player consistently showing mercy, generosity, kindness, empathy, and so forth, I just don't think I'm ever going to see that and have to deal with it.

But there are strong social, emotional, and in some cases mechanical reasons to have "Good" on your character sheet, even though you are continually merciless, selfish, violent, short tempered, and cruel. So that's what I generally have to deal with.

The point wasn't disingenuous players choosing X when they really mean Y.

It was players knowingly choosing X, but then having reasons to reconsider, to change their minds, to do something else.

But frankly, from what I'm seeing, the only thing that would achieve that is becoming more evil, and (possibly) more chaotic. Becoming more lawful is detrimental, not beneficial. Becoming more good is very detrimental, not beneficial. There wouldn't be a reason to do it, so nobody ever will. There is only decay, there's never rebuilding.

 

[Celebrim]

Becoming more lawful is detrimental, not beneficial. Becoming more good is very detrimental, not beneficial.

I disagree very strongly. That's not something I see playing out in my game. In my experience, being evil is hugely detrimental and not beneficial. I've rarely if ever seen a player or a party cut their own throat or sabotage their own success through an excess of honor or kindness, but I frequently almost every other session see players and parties sabotage their own success through ill-advised backstabbing, betrayal, attempts at deception, selfishness and so forth. What really gets a party in a death spiral is lack of party cohesion and every man for himself or running into a situation where you need a haven to fall back on but you've betrayed every potential ally that could be helping give you a respite.

In my last D&D campaign I can't think of one problem that was solved by being more evil, but I can think of several problems that were solved through honorable behavior and taking heroic risks.

When I ran open tables at the LFGS the thing that led to the most player deaths was players trying to score some loot that they wouldn't have to share and either pulling a group of adds into an already tense situation, or springing a trap while in combat. Functionally, evil and chaos just lead to situations where you have split the party even when the party is together.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The point wasn't disingenuous players choosing X when they really mean Y.

It was players knowingly choosing X, but then having reasons to reconsider, to change their minds, to do something else.

But frankly, from what I'm seeing, the only thing that would achieve that is becoming more evil, and (possibly) more chaotic. Becoming more lawful is detrimental, not beneficial. Becoming more good is very detrimental, not beneficial. There wouldn't be a reason to do it, so nobody ever will. There is only decay, there's never rebuilding.

Rebuilding rarely fits into the D&D play loop.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I disagree very strongly. That's not something I see playing out in my game. In my experience, being evil is hugely detrimental and not beneficial. I've rarely if ever seen a player or a party cut their own throat or sabotage their own success through an excess of honor or kindness, but I frequently almost every other session see players and parties sabotage their own success through ill-advised backstabbing, betrayal, attempts at deception, selfishness and so forth. What really gets a party in a death spiral is lack of party cohesion and every man for himself or running into a situation where you need a haven to fall back on but you've betrayed every potential ally that could be helping give you a respite.

Keeping a promise when it hurts you is detrimental. I agree that getting a reputation for breaking promises can be a problem. But that's ill-advisedness, not the evil in general.

I've frequently seen people fall down that slope. The thing you described above: people telling lies because lies are easier, simpler, faster. Because shanking a prisoner is so much less work than keeping them until you can get them to a proper jail cell. Because swindling shopkeepers and then disappearing into the night is easy, and gets you a ton of valuables.

You only build a reputation if you keep working with the exact same people over and over again. Adventurers frequently don't ever see the same people more than two or three times total. Even then, all you have to do is break promises "for a good reason" and suddenly all is forgiven. Attempts at deception are a dime a dozen. Selfishness? Everyone's selfish, why would that be such a horrible thing?

It seems to me that you've presumed a world where everyone knows everyone's extensive moral-choice history. I don't see how you enforce that.

In my last D&D campaign I can't think of one problem that was solved by being more evil, but I can think of several problems that were solved through honorable behavior and taking heroic risks.

Frankly, a lack of imagination argument isn't a very strong one.

When I ran open tables at the LFGS the thing that led to the most player deaths was players trying to score some loot that they wouldn't have to share and either pulling a group of adds into an already tense situation, or springing a trap while in combat. Functionally, evil and chaos just lead to situations where you have split the party even when the party is together.

So, they were done in because they were either Chaotic Stupid, or Stupid Evil.

I think you'll find that if you add in the Lawful Stupid and Stupid Good possibilities, they balance out more than adequately. Which then leaves the places where people aren't being stupid--and when you're doing it smart, Evil is always more net-productive than Good in the short term, and D&D characters live their lives on short-term interactions: monsters die after single encounters, shopkeepers are rarely if ever seen again, whole continents might be traversed if necessary. Moving to a new place where you have no reputation is as easy as continuing to adventure, which the players were going to do anyway.

 

[Fifinjir]

With D&D often feeling like even magic and gods are brute facts that only exist because of magical particles bumping into each other, alignment gives some sense of a telos beyond all this multiversal mess. Not saying it does a good job of it, but it does a job.

I also don’t think moral instincts are reducible to individual minds, and alignment kind of gives a way to model motives that come from outside the self. Once again, far from perfectly.

 

[Bae'zel]

So video game RPGs have inspired me to ditch "alignment" in my games entirely in favor of "faction relationships". By factions I mean a combination of actual living organizations (eg the Harpers, the Zhentarim) or mythological forces (eg "Hope", "Despair") or, for Wrath and Glory (40K), ideologies (Heretical, Iconoclast and Dogmatic). Moving along any axis in a campaign offers bonuses or penalties with the factions in the setting. Eventually gaining favors or boons from like-minded factions or problems (help out the Harpers too much, the Zhentarim will flag you as an opponent and take action).

Works just fine and it gets interesting when different party members have conflicting allegiances.

As an aside, I regularly encounter players, in just about any RPG, who seem to LOVE to intimidate and threaten NPCs, even in subtle investigations. I don't "punish" them for this, but it definitely has consequences (eg, peasants fear the PCs and wince in fear when they arrive). When the world reacts to cruel bully PCs, it's interesting to see the look on the players' faces when they realize that they're acting like villains, not loveable rogues ("why are the farmers acting so afraid of us?" well, because you threatened to burn down their homes and torture them when you were interogating them last session, remember?)

 

[RealAlHazred]

I was just wondering, if you were to add a third axis to D&D alignment, what would it be? Nature/Civilization?

 

[Aldarc]

I was just wondering, if you were to add a third axis to D&D alignment, what would it be? Nature/Civilization?

At that point, especially if I was Wizards of the Coast, I would just port the MtG Color Pie.