Alignment

[JustKneller]

Yeah, any design that pushes you to buy more stuff is good for business. That has nothing to do with being a good game, but it's definitely a solid product.

 

[m7600]

That has nothing to do with being a good game

So it's morality that you want to talk about? Ethics? Aesthetics? What?

 

[JustKneller]

Not really morality, but more psychology. Everyone is signing on to play a game where they don't have to engage in a game. I mean, I'm not judging, I've played Torchlight. But I also only spent $5 on the first two games. Something like Pathfinder can easily run you into the hundreds. It's a lot of investment to put into something you don't want to invest in. It's just ironic.

 

[m7600]

Everyone is signing on to play a game where they don't have to engage in a game.

Well, that depends. What are Poker players doing, then? Not the pros, the folks who just sit at a kitchen table to play some cards and talk about life.

Something like Pathfinder can easily run you into the hundreds.

Nah dude, it's just three basic books. If you buy those three products per group, not per individual, it's a good economic investment for the group.

It's a lot of investment to put into something you don't want to invest in. It's just ironic.

Yeah but that's the part that gets complicated. What better tabletop RPG is there, these days? I like the indie tabletop scene as much as anyone, but if you're gonna streamline it, Pathfinder is the way to go.

 

[JustKneller]

Well, that depends. What are Poker players doing, then? Not the pros, the folks who just sit at a kitchen table to play some cards and talk about life.

At that casual tables I've sat at, they're also playing poker.

Nah dude, it's just three basic books. If you buy those three products per group, not per individual, it's a good economic investment for the group.

Right, but if you want to mindlessly chug through and not have to engage, you need to buy module after module to play. God forbid one has to build something with that machine. I mean, if it's on par or more bits and bobs than 3.5e, I would hate to design a campaign for that. Then again, I'm sure they have a better guide for GMs than B/X. I mean, I like the system, but the manuals are poorly organized and give a GM little to work with. You pretty much just have to design on "GM instinct".

Yeah but that's the part that gets complicated. What better tabletop RPG is there, these days? I like the indie tabletop scene as much as anyone, but if you're gonna streamline it, Pathfinder is the way to go.

Do they streamline it? How so? I thought it was basically 3.5 with a handful of minor tweaks.

I would likely take OSE over anything WotC or Paizo. It's a much cleaner presentation of the classic system with a lot of supporting materials. Of course, this depends on your definition of "better". If the goal is to just follow the bouncing ball through a game with minimal engagement, OSE is rubbish. But, it's probably the best "non D&D" D&D that I've seen.

 

[m7600]

you need to buy module after module to play.

There's a ton of non-official, free content in that sense. And it's way worse than the official Paizo stuff. And, since I have to have this wrapped up by Friday, I'll just download some free non-official adventure, campaign, module or whatever I can find.

You pretty much just have to design on "GM instinct".

My GM instinct is terrible, believe it or not. I'm really bad at improvising it.

Do they streamline it? How so? I thought it was basically 3.5 with a handful of minor tweaks.

Well, let me phrase it like this: it's more streamlined than Philosophical Musings.

 

[Fandraxx]

I feel weird resurrecting this thread 7 months later, but this thread was actually what sparked an idea for a video I just got around to releasing. I found I shared many of the same feelings as many of you, namely in that I like alignment, but am under no illusion that it was a particularly well-designed or executed system.

Video below for anyone interested.

 

[Black Elk]

Cool vid! I wanted to resurrect this thread as well the other day, but then I couldn't find it with the quick scan around, so I dumped my silly alignment chart in the Off Topic section instead hehe. In any case alignment's been on the mind again, so it was nice to see that hop to the top!

A thought I had the other night, for the player or the protagonist there's this idea that 'well you can be anything you want, any sort of character' but then often the main villain or antagonist is already sorta defined by the adventure or campaign, the DM essentially, to fit whatever bill in a one size fits all. I think this can be a problematic sort of asymmetry, because it doesn't ask the interesting question of who would be the best foil for this particular character? Or if trying to do it for a group, perhaps some way to average their alignments to see where, as a party, they might land.

Like not to borrow from tragedy overmuch for this particular goat song, but the key thing there is the agon, the conflict between main player character (or our chosen protagonist) and their principle antagonist, the one who's going to incite and give them something satisfying to overcome.

This is where I think Alignment can be very helpful, because it gives the DM something to work with. A funhouse mirror to reflect back on the player. If the alignment scheme is very simple, without much gradation, it can be hard to pick the right foil. Lets take our classic Good guy Paladin example, if he's merely Good then I guess almost any Evil villain would be fine, but if they are Lawful Good, now we have something more to work with. Do they lean more Lawful or more Good? because if it's the one, then some chaos driven horde of goblins controlled by an unfeeling wraith that explodes their world into a miserable absurdity might be the way to go, but if's the other, maybe an evil charlatan adviser to the king who feigns good but distorts the law towards very orderly but also very evil ends would be a better foil. Gives us some tension, on the lyre or the bowstring there, so that it actually produces interesting sounds, or can harmonize somehow into a broader theme to kick around.

Say we got 3 principle actors, like high water mark Greek tragedy, and 1 DM, we might want some way to delimit the really important conflicts so they stand out. This is where the tables and matrices and overwrought schemes, the baggage as it were, actually feels pretty useful to me. It's not so much about giving the player a way to be all reductive about their motivations for doing what they doing, or being the way they are in any specific situation, but rather it gives them a way to signal to the Dungeon Master what sorts of situations, or what sorts of encounters might be fun. Like to challenge the character there and give them something to brace or push against. I think there is also something about having an all encompassing villain that's out to thwart everything everywhere that can be hard to work up. I mean for example, in BG3 terms, the Brain is sorta boring and Flayers are sorta just Flayer Evil I guess, but then a character like Ketheric Thorm really stands out quite a bit in comparison. Like I don't really know where he falls on whatever chart or graph, but you know probably he's got a quadrant of some sort staked out.

I think it's particularly hard to design a good campaign for would-be villains, and if a villain is not compelling enough to motivate other villains in the agon, I think that's a bit of a miss. I agree though, it's just so much harder to model the Law/Chaos axis because half the time Order is a stand-in for Good and Chaos is a stand-in for Evil at either extreme. What I mean is that if we just asked, 'ok which seems more Evil, Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil?' I feel like everyone would sorta default to Chaotic Evil being somehow more Evil, cause at least the LE devils have like a code. But then you throw Neutral Evil in there too and it's like 'hmmmm, well maybe that then' you know because they like don't even care and are completely indifferent either way. At least the Fiends have a preference lol.

I don't know it's mainly fun I think, because it gives some color to the otherwise bland tropes that get handed down to us for what constitutes proper heroics or villainy. Or a good antihero or antivillain. Unlike most considerations, I think players have a pretty idea usually whether they want to be a Hero or a Villain, like they might not know all the ins and outs or all the specifics, but just for a general vibe, but we don't have a dueling axis for vibes. This is why I'm sorta leaning towards some way to sneak a Z axis in there so we can make it into an Alignment Cube somehow.

 

[O_Bruce]

I've always thought of an alignment as a humble guide rather than something I have to stick to 100% of the time while roleplaying. Mostly, I am thinking of a character's overall moral compass and then play to best reflect that, regardless is the mechanics of "alignment" is implemented or not.

As for implementation, on one hand, it is true that it might have a mechanical purpose (for spellcasting, item use, etc.). On the other hand, a lack of visible alignment means I don't see characters as typecasted as good, neutral or evil from the get go, so I tend to judge them by their words and actions. There is merit to both approaches as well.

Where I rolled my eyes while watching Fandraxx's video was the part, in which he spoke of real-life implications. This is because it takes either performative "morality" or cognitive inability to make a difference between fiction and reality to be concerned about the depiction of fictional races/species and comparing them to real life. People who make this comparison *are* the problem.

 

[JustKneller]

I've essentially dropped alignment from my tabletop games. I questioned its value from the early days. In practice, it often doesn't really guide a character's behavior. Players are going to do what players are going to do. When it comes to linking action and consequence, I've found that "X happened because you did Y" is harder to argue against than "A Neutral Good character wouldn't do Y, and now X happens". Ditch alignment, you cut out the middleman. Cause and effect. In terms of having some kind of moral/ethical compass to guide the players, I prefer to orient them to an ideal, principle, or something like 13th Age does (icons). It cuts to the quick and lowers the odds of table squabbles.

 

[Fandraxx]

I've essentially dropped alignment from my tabletop games. I questioned its value from the early days. In practice, it often doesn't really guide a character's behavior. Players are going to do what players are going to do.

Learning to DM/GM is understanding that most players are basically just playing a version of themselves when it comes to their characters (which is completely fine), IMO