Some people think Alignment in D&D is practically useless. I just think it needs to be used better.
#dnd #ttrpg #OSR

I blogged about this:

https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/09/08/alignment-in-role-playing-games/

Alignment hearkens back to Anderson and Moorcock. Overt conflict between universal forces fought in our world. D&D's alignment system is a tool for incorporating those struggles in our own game worlds. Plenty of games out there without it, only a few with it. I think it lends greater depth and meaning to our RPGs, but it doesn't need to be in every game. It's one particular element of the genre.

Quote from: Baron on April 19, 2023, 12:56:53 PM
I blogged about this:

https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/09/08/alignment-in-role-playing-games/

Alignment hearkens back to Anderson and Moorcock. Overt conflict between universal forces fought in our world. D&D's alignment system is a tool for incorporating those struggles in our own game worlds. Plenty of games out there without it, only a few with it. I think it lends greater depth and meaning to our RPGs, but it doesn't need to be in every game. It's one particular element of the genre.

Despite cosmic good existing, I have no particular requirement for an alignment system in my game because players are expected to create heroes embodying heroic virtue, ordinary folks are basically good, and villains are clear-cut and easy to discern (and always NPCs).

I understand that the Alignment system is supposed to emulate the opposing cosmic forces of good vs. evil and law vs.chaos, but it feels clunky.

I'd certainly welcome a better system to represent this dynamic in my games.

OK, I'll bite. What is the actual 'system' in D&D that represents the cosmic struggle, and how is it clunky?

Far as I can tell, there are nine alignment combinations, players profess one and (assumedly) attempt to support their side through word and action. The players and the DM can agree on what behavior is appropriate for each.

It's pretty much all non-mechanical roleplay and seems simple enough. I know in 1e AD&D the DM is tasked with evaluating the players' behavior in light of their professed alignment. Don't know if there are any actual mechanics in later editions.

Now what I'd like to see is nations and large groups acting as per a particular alignment, and having that reflected in the politics and hostilities at that level. I don't know how often that happens at the table, though. Still, it's not mechanical.

Hi, Baron.
I agree there isn't really a system. There are some guidelines about what each of the 9 alignments represent and how to roleplay them, but mostly it seems to be a system to determine what spells affect an individual (i.e. Protection from Evil, etc.)

That's what bothers me. Alignment just kinda feels tacked on to D&D instead of central to a character's personality and drives.

I see what you're saying. I'll add that Gygax writes in the DMG that even characters who have professed no deity are unknowingly serving the interests of one or more deities of their initial alignment. Not that it clarifies things much.

You're right. I should write something up. Thanks for the inspiration. :-)

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 19, 2023, 06:35:55 PM

Quote from: Baron on April 19, 2023, 12:56:53 PM
I blogged about this:

https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/09/08/alignment-in-role-playing-games/

Alignment hearkens back to Anderson and Moorcock. Overt conflict between universal forces fought in our world. D&D's alignment system is a tool for incorporating those struggles in our own game worlds. Plenty of games out there without it, only a few with it. I think it lends greater depth and meaning to our RPGs, but it doesn't need to be in every game. It's one particular element of the genre.

Despite cosmic good existing, I have no particular requirement for an alignment system in my game because players are expected to create heroes embodying heroic virtue, ordinary folks are basically good, and villains are clear-cut and easy to discern (and always NPCs).

Did you watch my video? Because I talk about how you can do alignments in that kind of setting/genre better.

Quote from: GamerSince77 on April 19, 2023, 11:26:24 PM
I understand that the Alignment system is supposed to emulate the opposing cosmic forces of good vs. evil and law vs.chaos, but it feels clunky.

I'd certainly welcome a better system to represent this dynamic in my games.

Did you watch the video? Because I show you several examples of how to do it better in your games.

Alignment is always a source of arguments. Nobody can agree on what certain alignments even represent. And it is one of the most abused aspects of D&D because of it.

In D&D 5e, Alignment basically does nothing. There are no tools given to the DM on how to enforce it. No suggestions about using it in the game. It is just there.

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 20, 2023, 07:27:18 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 19, 2023, 06:35:55 PM

Quote from: Baron on April 19, 2023, 12:56:53 PM
I blogged about this:

https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/09/08/alignment-in-role-playing-games/

Alignment hearkens back to Anderson and Moorcock. Overt conflict between universal forces fought in our world. D&D's alignment system is a tool for incorporating those struggles in our own game worlds. Plenty of games out there without it, only a few with it. I think it lends greater depth and meaning to our RPGs, but it doesn't need to be in every game. It's one particular element of the genre.

Despite cosmic good existing, I have no particular requirement for an alignment system in my game because players are expected to create heroes embodying heroic virtue, ordinary folks are basically good, and villains are clear-cut and easy to discern (and always NPCs).

Did you watch my video? Because I talk about how you can do alignments in that kind of setting/genre better.

Yes, I watched. I'm saying I find alignment in general to add nothing to my setting that isn't already there.

PCs are to embody heroic virtues (which I discuss for a couple pages), NPCs are mildly good (but too weak to stand up to threats outside the safety of civilization) and monsters are obviously monstrous (dress like black-red clad Romans, wear the skulls of their foes, are the literal walking dead, are ravening beasts, etc.).

It's not intended to be some grey morally compromised world where it's unclear who is aligned with what faction. Black is clearly black and white is clearly white.

What does adding a further label like alignment to already obvious categories add to anything? Does adding an alignment line saying "Virtuous" to PC sheets make them more virtuous when the only PC option to put in that slot is "virtuous"?

Does adding "Anathema" to an alignment stat on the undead monsters make them moreso than the page-and-a-half I spent discussing how the Undead are the literal Anathema of life itself created as an act of spite by the Satan expy before being cast into the abyss?

Does applying it to the demons make those who are already described as absolutely and irredeemably evil and seek to tear down the world (including those foolish enough to summon them from the abyss into which they were banished) out of sheer spite more monstrous?

Does adding a "neutral" alignment line to all the animals with an "empty set" sign for their Intellect score (indicating they are only capable of animal reasoning) really do anything to add to my system or setting?

No. It does not. It is useless information in my setting that add no new details and only takes up space that could be better spent on other things.

I mean that literally. I have 250 monsters that average 10 stat lines each... I could add a useless alignment line or I could add about 25 more monsters for the same page count. Which do you think would be more useful to GMs of my system given the above information?

Here is an old post of mine about alignment, might be relevant.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-alignment-part-i-alignment-origins.html

The difference between Anderson and Moorcock's views is what drives the confusion (it is good and evil in Anderson and two opposing dangerous factions in Moorcock).

Personally, nowadays I barely use alignment except as a weak indicator that the NPC is religious or will fight for honor instead of only gold. I also considered adding other words to alignment to make it more useful, such as TN (bestial), LG (loyal to king), LG (loyal to deity), LG (loyal to nation), LG (loyal to friends), etc.

Interesting video! I quite like the idea of alignment and you've given me something to think about. The asshole vs. boy scout axis is a good idea I might steal.

The problem with alignment is that the main example (D&D) is abstract. It only resonates with people who already want to play in world where there's a struggle between Law and Chaos or Good and Evil. People who want to play in a more immediate setting tend to ignore it.

But the D&D example is just one example.

Thinking about the word "alignment," I would not be the first to suggest that alignment can be anything that a player "aligns" their character to. Some type of guiding principle. A lot of other options start to make sense if we broaden our definition of alignment.

Take Twilight 2000 (4th ed. by Free League) for example. Your character has a "big dream" and you get XP if you took action to get closer to your big dream. You choose your big dream and can change it between sessions. A big dream could be anything like: find a way home, open a bar, confront my nemesis, do good, etc. It helps the player role play and provides a carrot/reward. So, I consider it a kind of alignment.

Another broad example is a credo or a statement of guiding principle. I've asked players to decide this and write it down. It can create interesting role play when faced with a situation that conflicts with a chosen credo. Any you can choose any of the D&D alignments as a credo. But you can also choose something less cosmic.

So I'm starting to prefer alignment as Sound Dues. Declare the taxable value of your cargo. Declare a credo. Be honest because the King has the option to buy you cargo at the declared value. Be honest because the GM can reward/penalize you based on how well you follow your credo.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 20, 2023, 09:11:10 AM
Here is an old post of mine about alignment, might be relevant.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-alignment-part-i-alignment-origins.html

The difference between Anderson and Moorcock's views is what drives the confusion (it is good and evil in Anderson and two opposing dangerous factions in Moorcock).

Personally, nowadays I barely use alignment except as a weak indicator that the NPC is religious or will fight for honor instead of only gold. I also considered adding other words to alignment to make it more useful, such as TN (bestial), LG (loyal to king), LG (loyal to deity), LG (loyal to nation), LG (loyal to friends), etc.

True. In my settings i pretty explicitly use Moorcockian alignment and it works pretty well.

Just watched the video. Yes, vices and virtues are clearer than alignment. A CN (wrathful) and a CN (greedy) are completely different beasts, but both more useful than simply saying "Chaotic Neutral".

Off the top of my head: LG (naïve), LG (charitable), LG (just), LG (loyal), LG (pacifist), LG (zealot)... tell a lot about a NPC using a single word.

And LG (proud), LG (wrathful) or even LG (cowardly) are interesting twists...