D&D General Why do people like Alignment?

[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.

 

[Willie the Duck]

To start with, there is value in a 'shorthand' for something, even if it is inexact.

Likewise, cosmic forces of 'good' & 'evil' (or 'law' and 'chaos') can be fun, even if (perhaps sometimes because) they don't line up with the actual real deal -- certainly other fiction like Charmed and the Buffy/Angel-verse have repeatedly mined the notion that the cosmic forces of good aren't always the good guys. See also Babylon 5 for cosmic forces vying to 'win the argument' through battle with humanity and their analogs caught in the middle/used a pawns.

Forgive me for the segue, but this was always my issue with evil deities and those who serve them. If, in a D&D world, you know Gods are real, you can see their powers manifest by Clerics, and you know darned well that Asmodeus makes him home in a literal Hell, why would any sane person choose to worship an evil god?

I would think that, were an afterlife confirmed to exist, you'd want to make sure you got into one of the good ones...

Realistic answer is that you worship evil gods to appease them. And in IRL polytheistic religions, there seemed to be a fair amount of this -- at least with a god's more malign aspects. Take Greek myth -- even if not explicitly evil coded, Poseidon does quite a bit of drowning people and Artemis has hunters who stumble upon her bathing turn into deer and be eaten by their dogs and Pan and Dionysus turn people crazy with regular frequency. Making prayers and offerings to keep the gods' negative gaze from turning your way is just good sense. I think D&D turning polytheistic gods into more singular archetypes (where one is strictly good or evil) is probably the place where this nuance gets simplified.

I feel like D&D worlds might be slightly more likely to produce mustache-twirling villain types than reality. So the answer could well be that promised power now in return for eternal suffering some time in the future (that might not come to pass, if you can transition to lich/demon/ageless thing/god yourself). That said, I think in-world there should be more disinformation suggesting that evil gods shower their own faithful with incredible reward in the afterlife, and it's only souls those folks have captured/bought/etc. that end up being tortured in the evil outer planes.

In the end, though, this might take some worldbuilding. The evil outer planes are built with the notion of PCs going there and adventuring (so they have to be hellscapes) more than they are in explaining why anyone would ever commit to anything that might send them there. Likewise, a lot of the afterlives of good gods are just shy of pure bliss, said gods don't have rules against suicide, and every moment spent in your normal life is another moment you might get killed by a hellfire weapon and get dragged to Styx as a lemure or whatever. The default world might make not aligning oneself with a LG or NG deity and then offing oneself at first opportunity a foolish endeavor.

 

[DragonLancer]

For me, alignment is one of those sacred cows that is part of the fundamental nature of what makes Dungeons & Dragons. I've never used it in the direct manner in which it has been portrayed in earlier editions. Alignment, unless we are talking daemons, celestials, dragons, undead and fey, is just a guide to consider. Player agency still takes over.

In that case why keep it? Because to me it is part of the experience of Dungeons & Dragons, and without it, it isn't the same game.

 

[Distracted DM]

certainly other fiction like Charmed and the Buffy/Angel-verse have repeatedly mined the notion that the cosmic forces of good aren't always the good guys. See also Babylon 5 for cosmic forces vying to 'win the argument' through battle with humanity and their analogs caught in the middle/used a pawns.

I'd say that it works better with Law/Chaos rather than good/evil, except that most cases (Moorcock's eteranl champions) more often than not Law was the "right" side and chaos was the "bad" one. I imagine that one could say it was because Chaos was always disrupting the Cosmic Balance cuz it's... chaotic.

 

[Aldarc]

I'd say that it works better with Law/Chaos rather than good/evil, except that most cases (Moorcock's eteranl champions) more often than not Law was the "right" side and chaos was the "bad" one. I imagine that one could say it was because Chaos was always disrupting the Cosmic Balance cuz it's... chaotic.

Yeah. Jedi believe that the Force should be in balance, but they focus more on the Light side of the Force because they believe that's what actually helps keep the Force balanced with all the Dark side shenanigans going on the universe. Similar principle.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@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.

Disingenuous players will always be a problem.

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.

I guess I just see a pretty substantial problem there because, as a result of this, you'll literally never see players decide to change teams the other way.

The only people who will change are the ones who are disingenuous jerks. There will never be a reward for switching to a different path, nor will there be anything but punishment if they stick to the path they initially wrote.

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.

People can change. I'd like to see people change toward good, especially if they never expected to do that.

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.

Oh, yes, this is one hundred million percent an extremely serious problem in TTRPGs. I've railed against this many, many times on this site. It's genuinely pleasing to hear someone else making the same points! The phrase I've usually used for this is "Mercy is a sucker's game."

The frustrating thing is, most of the GMs who do this...like they're really really mistaken and often kinda willfully blind, but they at least are aiming at a reasonable motivation: actions have consequences, your choices matter, being a good person is not a cakewalk, etc. The problem is that they exaggerate this to such a ludicrous extent that it transforms into something else entirely: consequences are always harmful (so you'd better make sure there are no survivors who could bring those consequences to bear on you), your choices will always matter harmfully (so get what you can NOW because you'll pay for it either way), being a good person is actively stupid (so the only people who act/appear good are fools or liars--decide whether you want to be foolish, dishonest, or evil).

And yet so, so many of these GMs, ironically, don't apply their own logic to themselves. They don't see how their actions have consequences. They don't see how their choices matter. They don't realize that being a good GM is not a cakewalk. And then they complain when their players simply mirror back to them what they've been taught.