Philosopher
First Post
Read beyond the thread title.
Would you die for D&D? For EN World? Alignment and groups.
- Thread starter Philosopher
- Start date
Read beyond the thread title.
Philosopher
First Post
It's not exactly the same. The allegiance system did not specify how one would behave towards those in the out-group.
Congratulations, you just realized why alignments have always been a bad idea (at least for creatures who have a choice in the matter).
Now, instead of trying to come up with 'contextual' alignments, just take the next step and get rid of them altogether. Everyone has every alignment (or none, if you prefer that view).
How about just thinking about and describing your character's personality? Make up a list of traits that (currently) apply.
Once you've got a good idea about your characters personality you'll know how to behave in regard to whatever new group or situation she learns about. You'll also know when the right moment has come to change your character's views.
For a real person nothing is ever fixed, the only constant is change. So in order to portray a realistic character, relying on alignment(s) is useless.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
This is an excellent idea, and one that I don't remember seeing discussed before.
It is much more interesting and complex than the d20 modern allegiences, since that was really just talking about groups with positive relationships IIRC.
Extending the alignment system to reflect positive and negative relationships with different groups is a much more nuanced approach.
It gets away with the much-maligned monolithic ALIGNMENT problem, where one phrase covers all your relationships with everything. Your examples of villagers or thieves guilds illustrate nicely how it can be very appropriate and natural for people to have different standards of behaviour with different in and out groups. Heck, you could even understand Paladin behaviour as being 'Lawful Good' within their own faith and 'Lawful Evil' (or worse) towards the orc marauders they fight; avoiding the problem of 'why don't paladins take everyone prisoner and bring them before the courts' issue which regularly crops up.
Anyhow, kudos to you!
wedgeski
Adventurer
I've never really looked at alignment as a behavioural tool -- by which I mean, I wouldn't expect the game to inform me how an NPC would react to a certain, say, racial group. That would instead be part of that NPC's characteristics, and I would RP it appropriately.
Alignment to me has always been that compass I need to decide how a NPC would react in the absence of any other guidance. It's that person's go-to behaviour, the hard-wired circuits in their brain that even they probably don't know are there.
I can get behind the idea that a person's behaviour in one setting suggests an alignment they don't have (your halfling, for example). But an intrinsically evil person -- and yes, I accept the existence of objective good and evil in D&D -- does not become LG just because they do their neighbour's shopping. I'm sure the Krays loved their mommy.
Alignment to me has always been that compass I need to decide how a NPC would react in the absence of any other guidance. It's that person's go-to behaviour, the hard-wired circuits in their brain that even they probably don't know are there.
I can get behind the idea that a person's behaviour in one setting suggests an alignment they don't have (your halfling, for example). But an intrinsically evil person -- and yes, I accept the existence of objective good and evil in D&D -- does not become LG just because they do their neighbour's shopping. I'm sure the Krays loved their mommy.
Philosopher
First Post
Which is exactly how I've always approached my characters. Hence Jasper's behaviour seeming "inconsistent" to those who take alignment too seriously. I just used him as an example to illustrate my point.
While I've sometimes played the game without alignment, I don't think that its limitations (or, perhaps more accurately, the inappropriate ways it is used by others) is a reason to reject it altogether. I could say that my character is studious; the fact some people might take that too seriously and think I'm being "inconsistent" when I decide to hang out at the tavern rather than the library, is no reason for me to stop using the word to describe the character. I use alignment as a tool, as part of an overall description. YMMV.
Thank you! Your example of the paladin gets right to the heart of the issue as I see it.
That's one of the things I like about alignment - it gives me a two letter code to have a quick idea about how an NPC might behave. Of course, there's more to behaviour than alignment, but it helps. All this does is add another layer - a few more letters is enough to flesh out the NPC. And it's NPCs that I'm primarily interested in using this with.
Thornir Alekeg
Albatross!
There is still context to that hard-wiring. Somebody may have an overall respect for life, but then express genocidal behavior towards orcs that killed their family.
I suppose for the purposes of D&D and NPCs, that context should typically be taken in the light of how they would react to the PCs.
Well, I suspect it is more that the original system covered your relationship with the universe (well, multiverse, really, with the alignment planes and all). Alignment there is a thing kind of like mass or electric charge that you accrue through action.
The idea here is intriguing, except for how it can run away with you. You've potentially got a different alignment for every kind of grouping we might make? They aren't all races - you can have alignment vs social classes, alignment vs different religions, vs people in particular professions, vs gender. It could become maddening.
What if I have biases with respect to a race, a social class, and a religion, and they don't match? I'm LG with respect to Halflings, CN with respect to lower-class folks, and NE with respect to followers of the God of Pipeweed, and I see a poor halfling sitting at a Shrine of the Pipe. What am I to think?!?
Maybe the original is too broad a brush. This, though, needs some definite boundaries put on it, or it risks being too nuanced.
I suspect the original system describes which team you played --excuse me, killed and looted the corpses-- for. It was a moral system with all the depth of sporting uniforms.
That said, gamers over the years, after many, contentious, nutty, and wonderful exegeses on the subject of alignment have added on a great deal of depth to the system, and you have to love that, even if it's occasionally a little hard to love (like when the debates get extra contentious).
I haven't used it in a while but I created a system of personality traits which affects characters' social interactions with other characters, organizations, the world, etc.
So, one paladin would be Optimistic, Generous, Polite, and Dedicated while another would be Pessimistic, Hateful, Cruel, and Dedicated.
Each trait had a boon (an advantage) and a bane (a weakness) which the player could use or be exploited by during roleplay for dis/advantage.
This might seem more complicated than freeform, but the interplay of the rules allowed the players to have ideas they wouldn't have thought of otherwise for how to resolve roleplay events.
What you are suggesting sounds alot like this.
So, one paladin would be Optimistic, Generous, Polite, and Dedicated while another would be Pessimistic, Hateful, Cruel, and Dedicated.
Each trait had a boon (an advantage) and a bane (a weakness) which the player could use or be exploited by during roleplay for dis/advantage.
This might seem more complicated than freeform, but the interplay of the rules allowed the players to have ideas they wouldn't have thought of otherwise for how to resolve roleplay events.
What you are suggesting sounds alot like this.
Similar Threads
