5e Alignment and Personality Traits

[Tanarii]

I've noticed a tendency from players and DMs to outright ignore and instead free form many parts of the PHB. (And the corresponding parts in the DMG in many cases.) Most of them jump out at me because I'm a grognard, and by default treat D&D as a psuedo-wargame, combat-as-war, semi-sandbox scattered with level appropriate zones. In other words, for Dungeon Delving and Wilderness Exploration. As such things like marching order, environmental hazards, careful time tracking, detailed exploration (hex or square crawling) as opposed to hand-waving travel, etc etc all seem natural to me and surprise me when they're overlooked. That's not to say I think it's bad-wrong-fun not to use them. I just understand where they come from, what very classic style of play they support, and it's the one I learned to play D&D with. I also understand the styles in which they can be easily ignored without hurting the game.

But one I don't understand why players ignore it regularly, is the 5e Alignments and/or Personality Traits, or at least the concept it represents.

The 5e Alignment and Personality Traits personality system is a new & groundbreaking (to D&D) explicit way to get into character, the same way that skilled actors do. By providing a set of 5-6 simple and short motivations for the character across a variety of motivational categories. They specifically break it out into moral/social attitudes (aka Alignment), 1-2 general Personality 'quirks', an Ideal (typically closely tied to Alignment), something they consider important (Bond), and way they are flawed (Flaw). Even if you don't like the specific categories, you can easily create your own motivations. And that's what I usually see players leaving out. Clear and concise motivations for their character, for the way he typically behaves.

The concept of a set of simple & short statements of motivation is the easiest and best way to get in character. It's easy to remember, easy to communicate to others through making character decisions based on it in game, as well as taking actions and talking. (Also known as "Role-playing". RP isn't just talking. It's every decision made, action taken and word spoken for your character, done for in-character reasons.) And that's what brings a PC to life during game play. Motivations turn characters into more than just two-dimensional "mechanics + backstory" sheets of paper.


Okay. Rant done. Been needing to get that off my chest for a while. But I'm also looking forward to y'alls various counter-rants telling me why I'm wrong. :smallbiggrin:

[OldTrees1]

I've noticed a tendency from players and DMs to outright ignore and instead free form many parts of the PHB. (And the corresponding parts in the DMG in many cases.)

-snip-

The concept of a set of simple & short statements of motivation is the easiest and best way to get in character. It's easy to remember, easy to communicate to others through making character decisions based on it in game, as well as taking actions and talking. (Also known as "Role-playing". RP isn't just talking. It's every decision made, action taken and word spoken for your character, done for in-character reasons.) And that's what brings a PC to life during game play. Motivations turn characters into more than just two-dimensional "mechanics + backstory" sheets of paper.

Personally I find that the ideal method of character personality generation differs from person to person. It also becomes easier as one practices. For me I ignore that section of the PHB/DMG when creating a character because I am replacing it with my own system that works better for me (Who am I at my core and what derives from that?).

So I am glad that D&D includes an example method, but I expect most to replace it with methods that work better from themselves(what I think you called free form)

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

While I don't completely ignore the Personality traits, and do not treat them as if they require any sort of enforcement. To me they are simply inspirational prompts for players who lack the motivation or creativity to create a character that is more than a page of mechanical abilities. But if a player wishes to write and play out their own character, I give them all the freedom they want to do that.
I am a bit more of a stickler when it comes to alignments though. Mainly as a check on my lazier or more gamist players who would simply act in whatever way is most expedient for their immediate goals. Like my Lawful Good Oath of Devotion Paladin who need to be reminded that, while lying and murder could solve their current problem, she previously decided her character follows a code of honor and would be repulsed by any such behavior.

[Tanarii]

Personally I find that the ideal method of character personality generation differs from person to person. It also becomes easier as one practices. For me I ignore that section of the PHB/DMG when creating a character because I am replacing it with my own system that works better for me (Who am I at my core and what derives from that?).Sounds to me like you're using your own system of motivations.

What I'm ranting about is people that:
A) Insist Alignment is useless, because they don't understand that in 5e it's designed to be a part of a set of character motivations to keep in mind for your use during play.
B) Try to determine what Alignment their character is, either during play or defining motivations/backstory, because they don't understand Alignment is designed to be part of a set of character motivations to keep in mind for your use during play, not derived or determined by actions or backstory or other personality traits & motivations in general. (Obviously excepting Traits & motivations resembling the category of "Ideal", which is explicitly a linked concept because it's so often related to moral/social outlook and attitudes.)
C) Insist that the Personality Traits somehow limit how they RP their character, because they don't understand it's designed to be a part of a set of character motivations to keep in mind for your use during play.
D) Insist that backstory is important, but write a back-history for their character, leaving out clear motivations.

[Regitnui]

I'd actually tie the Alignment, Traits, Background, Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws to the inspiration or action points system. You play to your character, get a tangible advantage. Don't play to your character, and you run out of inspiration sooner than others.

[Tanarii]

I'd actually tie the Alignment, Traits, Background, Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws to the inspiration or action points system. You play to your character, get a tangible advantage. Don't play to your character, and you run out of inspiration sooner than others.
Ya. But IMX inspiration is another thing that tends to get ignored, by players and DMs.

I play with it. But I allow players to make their own specific motivations, as long as they have a sufficiently diverse set of them. They don't *have* to fall into the explicit 5 categories the PHB has, as long as they understand the underlying concept. Inspiration is the carrot to drive using the concept of getting in character via motivations. If you're inflexible with how you reward it as a DM, you end up turning it into a straight-jacket, which is the most common complaint about Alignment and Personality Traits.

[OldTrees1]

Sounds to me like you're using your own system of motivations.

What I'm ranting about is people that:
A) Insist Alignment is useless, because they don't understand that in 5e it's designed to be a part of a set of character motivations to keep in mind for your use during play.
B) Try to determine what Alignment their character is, either during play or defining motivations/backstory, because they don't understand Alignment is designed to be part of a set of character motivations to keep in mind for your use during play, not derived or determined by actions or backstory or other personality traits & motivations in general. (Obviously excepting Traits & motivations resembling the category of "Ideal", which is explicitly a linked concept because it's so often related to moral/social outlook and attitudes.)
C) Insist that the Personality Traits somehow limit how they RP their character, because they don't understand it's designed to be a part of a set of character motivations to keep in mind for your use during play.
D) Insist that backstory is important, but write a back-history for their character, leaving out clear motivations.

Ah, good rants to be sure.

Although I would disagree a bit about (B). If one takes alignment as prescriptive the novice will tend to end up viewing alignments as mere caricatures rather than the nuances and great variety/variance within each concept. Sure more experienced players might recognize that the character's attitudes and perceptions about "what ought one do" greatly shape how one acts. Although even there the judgement of the character based upon their intent/actions/consequences plays a vital role in describing how the character's perceptions align/don't align with reality. 5E focused on Ideals there in order to try to avoid the caricatures while also suggesting incorporation philosophy into character personalities.

[Tanarii]

Although I would disagree a bit about (B). If one takes alignment as prescriptive the novice will tend to end up viewing alignments as mere caricatures rather than the nuances and great variety/variance within each concept. Sure more experienced players might recognize that the character's attitudes and perceptions about "what ought one do" greatly shape how one acts. Although even there the judgement of the character based upon their intent/actions/consequences plays a vital role in describing how the character's perceptions align/don't align with reality. 5E focused on Ideals there in order to try to avoid the caricatures while also suggesting incorporation philosophy into character personalities.The section on Alignment is clear it is typically the way creatures of that alignment act, but not always, nor perfectly or consistently. So yes, they're caricatures if played as something that defines or underlies every action a PC makes, or the result of actions. Which was what I was trying to say in B. Alignment gives the player a very rough and broad behavior motivation in a single sentence, and is explicitly not a straight-jacket, nor defined or derived from by any specific actions taken, but rather a broad brush that helps inform getting in-character. All for the player to consider along with the more specific personality traits.

I read 5e Alignment as a general summation of beliefs espoused by the character on social and moral issues. And yes, I agree, Ideal is generally fleshing out a character's general moral/social attitudes (ie Alignment) with some details specific to the character, although some times Ideal doesn't align with Alignment.

The other personality traits flesh out the character too, but those other traits aren't as often something akin to Alignment. They're more often non-moral-attitudes, non-social-attitudes, or they are personal quirks that break the mold of Alignment. Which is exactly why a creatures behavior doesn't necessarily perfectly or consistently match their Alignment in the first place.

[OldTrees1]

The section on Alignment is clear it is typically the way creatures of that alignment act, but not always, nor perfectly or consistently. So yes, they're caricatures if played as something that defines or underlies every action a PC makes, or the result of actions. Which was what I was trying to say in B. Alignment gives the player a very rough and broad behavior motivation in a single sentence, and is explicitly not a straight-jacket, nor defined or derived from by any specific actions taken, but rather a broad brush that helps inform getting in-character. All for the player to consider along with the more specific personality traits.

Um, "Typically the way creatures of that alignment act" is a caricature. No "if played as ..." required. Each alignment is a big enough area that assigning a "typical" behavior in your mind tends to blind one to the alignment nuances. When one realizes that alignment needs to be compatible with fallible humans comprising of the broad spectrum of prioritization of different goods, one quickly realizes that alignment cannot do its job with only 9 very rough and broad behaviors. This is why people jump to using alignment as a descriptive rather than prescriptive statement. Descriptive can account for more variety in moral agent behavior than prescriptive because it does not attempt to have the 9 boxes describe only 9 very rough and broad behaviors. This does not mean that characters can't/are not motivated by their moral beliefs and their beliefs about morality, rather it says that 3 LG characters (say Aristotle, Kant, and Bentham*) can disagree fundamentally about morality.

*Actual alignment of those individuals might be different. Replace with a LG follower of that class of moral theories if you disagree with one of them.

[Tanarii]

Um, "Typically the way creatures of that alignment act" is a caricature. No "if played as ..." required.Fine. They're a caricature. That's exactly why they're defined as typical behavior, but not required, consistent nor perfectly followed. Because not every creature behaves exactly the same way within an alignment, nor all the time. My point was if you insist that every action derives from Alignment, or insist that every action RESULTS in Alignment, or insist that you always do the typical behavior, then yes, you're following a caricature.


Each alignment is a big enough area that assigning a "typical" behavior in your mind tends to blind one to the alignment nuances. When one realizes that alignment needs to be compatible with fallible humans comprising of the broad spectrum of prioritization of different goods, one quickly realizes that alignment cannot do its job with only 9 very rough and broad behaviors. This is why people jump to using alignment as a descriptive rather than prescriptive statement. Descriptive can account for more variety in moral agent behavior than prescriptive because it does not attempt to have the 9 boxes describe only 9 very rough and broad behaviors. This does not mean that characters can't/are not motivated by their moral beliefs and their beliefs about morality, rather it says that 3 LG characters (say Aristotle, Kant, and Bentham*) can disagree fundamentally about morality.
If you realize it's a broad typical behavior that doesn't drive everything about your character, it is automatically nuanced by the fact you have 5-6 other personality traits that affect your behavior. 9 very rough and broad behaviors that are not required to determine or result from every action is the ONLY way it can do it's job properly, within the constraints of a dual-axis 3 component moral/social attitudes classification being used at all. (Which is done because tradition.)

That's why Alignment was such a problem in every previous edition. People jumped to using it either as derived from actions done, or prescribing actions allowed. This edition didn't have to keep it ... Ideal covers large chunks of what Alignment is already. But they WAY they kept it is the best way I've ever seen Alignment handled in D&D, since they were going to keep it anyway. It's very clear it neither derives nor proscribes. It very roughly guides ... while keeping the players in the traditional team mentality of Team Lawful vs Team Chaos, Team Good vs Team Evil, and of course Team PC vs Team Monster. And it doesn't interfere with the other Personality Traits, it works very well in conjunction with them.

Edit: That's why the DMG has alternate Alignments suggestions. Because Alignment, at it's root, it about setting the "Teams" for your campaign. Traditional to D&D is Law vs Chaos, Good vs Evil. But you can easily set it as any teams you want. Team Magical vs Team Technology. Team Civilized vs Team Wilderness. Team Elf vs Team Dwarf vs Team Orc (with Human's in the middle screwed). Then you provide the players with something to indicate the very rough general behavior typical of their Team, for identity purposes.

[OldTrees1]

Fine. They're a caricature. That's exactly why they're defined as typical behavior, but not required, consistent nor perfectly followed. Because not every creature behaves exactly the same way within an alignment, nor all the time. My point was if you insist that every action derives from Alignment, or insist that every action RESULTS in Alignment, or insist that you always do the typical behavior, then yes, you're following a caricature.


If you realize it's a broad typical behavior that doesn't drive everything about your character, it is automatically nuanced by the fact you have 5-6 other personality traits that affect your behavior. 9 very rough and broad behaviors that are not required to determine or result from every action is the ONLY way it can do it's job properly, within the constraints of a dual-axis 3 component moral/social attitudes classification being used at all. (Which is done because tradition.)

Maybe it is just my familiarity with philosophy speaking, but I don't understand why you think the D&D alignment system requires restricting the world to only 9 moral characters. Sure those moral characters can be very rough and broad, but doing so eliminates almost everything of merit from an alignment system. Take the Devotion vs Vengeance Paladin thread, in that thread we had examples of LG philosophies that fundamentally disagreed with each other (there were non LG examples but we had at least 1 example from each of the 3 major schools of moral thought and that was within the same Oath). The majority of that thread only examined details significant to one axis. I don't understand why you think limiting the world to 9 moral characters is required for using a 2 axes alignment system.

Although maybe it has something to do with wanting to use alignment more as an allegiance system than as a moral system. An allegiance system would have a number of very rough and broad personality factors related not to the number of sides, but to the number of sides / how restrictive each side's codes of conduct is for its members.

[Tanarii]

Although maybe it has something to do with wanting to use alignment more as an allegiance system than as a moral system. An allegiance system would have a number of very rough and broad personality factors related not to the number of sides, but to the number of sides / how restrictive each side's codes of conduct is for its members.
I'll have to check the PHB and DMG and get back to you, but I'm fairly sure that's explicitly the primary purpose for D&D Alignment. IIRC it's not necessarily clearly stated in the Alignment section, but rather in the alternative alignments description.

Problem is, I'm having trouble remembering exactly where the alternative alignments thing *is* right now. :)

So yeah, my contention is that Alignments primary purpose is to align PCs into categories or teams or group, based on a broad 2 axis, 3 point system, which are derivatives of complex moral/social attitudes. And to provide a rough identity for each category or team or group, but not one that's too limiting or constraining in terms of personality.

I think they've achieved that goal. How *useful* that is ... well clearly that's a point of debate. That's why I don't argue it shouldn't be discarded ... but rather that knowing the intent is crucial to character development. It's pointless to ask 'what alignment is this character' after describing a bunch of motivations. Better to choose an alignment with behavior you think is useful in conjunction with your already decided on motivations, then proceed to play using the general behavior and other traits as your total sum of character motivations, getting into character. Or discard alignment if you've already got enough moral/social attitude motivations and ideal motivation and bond or other 'team' motivations for your character.

[OldTrees1]

So yeah, my contention is that Alignments primary purpose is to align PCs into categories or teams or group, based on a broad 2 axis, 3 point system, which are derivatives of complex moral/social attitudes. And to provide a rough identity for each category or team or group, but not one that's too limiting or constraining in terms of personality.

At the restrictive view of each alignment that you are using, it is actively detrimental to character development to keep calling those factions by words that mean something important in RP. Aka don't call it Good, Neutral, Evil, Law, or Chaos if you restrict those to the point that the "Good" faction does not include the majority of good personalities.

Having a faction vs faction allegiance system can be valuable (provided every character was intended for such, which is not assumed) but avoid overloading a word by borrowing your terms from moral systems.

[Tanarii]

I think you've got it backwards. 5e Alignements and their typical behavior are intentionally written broad and flexible enough to be inclusive, not restrictive. It's when people attempt to make them prescriptive (specific actions must arise from them) or descriptive (specific actions create them) that they become restrictive.

Edit: If the goal is to provide a way to get in character via motivation, and you think Alignment is getting in the way, I think you *should* discard it. I just think that it can be used as an additional tool to provide motivations for getting in character, along with other personality traits.

[Oramac]

I fully admit to having a hard time playing specific character traits, as outlined on the character sheet. Especially those related to alignment.

Generally, I end up playing a character as myself, with small tweaks here and there to flavor it as a different person. I'm also very new to Role-Playing though, and find it the most difficult part of D&D.

[Tanarii]

It can be very hard as a new player, especially if you don't have any background in acting. Treating your character as personal extension of yourself, in terms of making decisions the way you would, if it were you (the player) with all your personality quirks and beliefs, is very common. Unsurprisingly, trying to make decisions as *not* you is quite difficult. ;)

IMO that's why 5e has so much space dedicated to a formal system for concise one-sentence motivations. Because new AND many veteran players find it so difficult. And making decisions in-character is the very definition of Role-Playing, so they need to spend time helping players who want to play a character that isn't them do so.

Note: I'm not saying just playing as yourself is bad, or not Roleplaying. Its role play too. The character you're getting into is easy, since it's you. You're Roleplaying you, in the in-game universe.

But if you want to Roleplaying someone else, the easiest way is jot down some motivations, and try to keep them in mind when deciding to do anything. I'd suggest that if alignment bothers you, if 4 sentences of personality is too much to remember, cut it down to 1 or 2 personality 'hooks'. Try to make them things that affect your decision making for bonus fun.

As an example of simple and fun character hooks: Indiana Jones hates snakes. He always goes back for his hat.

Edit: rereading your post, it sounds like you already do the hooks thing, just referring to them as tweaks? Sounds like you're already Roleplaying someone that isn't you to me if that's the case. But if the formal motivation categories aren't working for you, make up your own that you can remember! :)

[Oramac]

Edit: rereading your post, it sounds like you already do the hooks thing, just referring to them as tweaks? Sounds like you're already Roleplaying someone that isn't you to me if that's the case. But if the formal motivation categories aren't working for you, make up your own that you can remember! :)

This is more or less true. I like your idea of taking just a couple hooks, as you call them, to guide how the character acts. Typically what I was doing was looking through the Background lists and finding things that sounded fun without contradicting each other. It helped, since they were fun, but was still a lot to remember.