PDA

View Full Version : Viewing Alignment as a minigame



Pleh
2019-10-27, 10:30 AM
My goal is to share an idea, basically reframing alignment conceptually. I really don't think alignment needs a mechanical change as much as a better approach in its understanding and implementation.

There's lots of, "leave it behind and forget it forever" out there, but Paladins exist and some players are drawn to it for specifically their alignment focus. I see a minigame for alignment just like how the Rogue has the Stealth minigame and the Ranger/Druid has Survival. I specifically reference Stealth and Survival because:

1 Stealth is a bit of a sacred cow most tables wouldn't dare suggest just completely omitting except in very special circumstances.

2 Survival often isn't mechanically satisfying and is commonly omitted, but few suggest it be discarded entirely.

Disclaimer, most of my experience is WotC style D&D, but I feel the observation is more general in principle.

Some players seek out alignment as a mechanically significant aspect of their character. But we know that mechanical character options are only significant if there is a game mechanic for them to interface with.

Which leads us to examine the mechanics given. Alignment is built quite poorly (in most iterations) because it essentially convicts the player to maintain a certain status quo or bad things happen. Survival often has the same problem that it boils down to, "roll well or bad things happen to you." There are very few proactive options available for doing more than fighting off attrition. You can use survival to track fleeing enemies, but honestly that's about the only proactive option in survival and it's typically not very optimal, getting quickly surpassed by low level divination magic.

Alignment is honestly an even worse deal than survival as a minigame. Survival may be the arcade tax, asking players to put in more quarters to continue if they miss a roll, but alignment is a pay by the minute constant charge on their account.

Because you are expected to play the alignment game at all times flawlessly, or lose your basic functions in the game's Core Loop. This is bad minigame design.

Now, I can see an argument that Combat is not the Core Loop of the game, but instead "acting in character" is the Core Loop. I disagree. This is the reason people think alignment Prescribes your actions rather than Describing them. Roleplaying is something you do AS you play. It isn't as directly HOW you play. Because the Core Loop of RPGs is Resolving Encounters (in sandboxes, you're also somewhat devising what encounters you seek to resolve). You then select from you character's toolbox of character options which minigame to initiate to resolve the encounter (occasionally the DM initiates, but the balance here is fluid).

My point is that completely stripping alignment as a tool for the PCs is a bad move. Alignment may be constructed poorly, but banning it from the game us throwing the babe out with the bathwater.

Survival isn't well constructed, but it still can create fun gameplay if you know how to use it constructively.

I touched earlier that the problem of Alignment's general construction is that it generally operates as a constant tax of resources while providing only the benefit that the player doesn't get spontaneously handicapped. This is like thugs coming to your door with baseball bats requesting a protection fee.

Yet players still have a desire to play to a style above and beyond the standard ethics of adventuring. Some people want to be the shining white knight jedi who follow a higher calling than merely adventure and riches. Why not incorporate mechanical benefits?

So what the alignment minigame needs is rewards for playing the minigame well (besides just keeping your basic adventuring functions). What sorts of rewards do such characters want? I'd say an easy fix is to splice in a Reputation mechanic. The more impressive their conduct to the standard of their code, the more renown they earn and the easier it is for them to command respect or earn favors from important NPCs (even enemies may simply fear crossing you for what repercussions.

I'm also fond of the Master Sword from BotW example. You have limited smites per day, but what if a player were to find certain enemies or fighting for certain causes to give the paladin extra smites for the encounter? Maybe they can earn some Divine Charge they can channel and it can be used to power their class abilities, like gaining extra smite or extra lay on hands.

It's important the bonus to be above and beyond what they normally have, or else it's "buy your basic functions" again in a different skin.

That's all the time I have for now. What do you think?

MoiMagnus
2019-10-27, 11:02 AM
I personally think that shifting the Paladin's alignment restriction to a Vow in 5e was a good move.

One of the problem of alignment is that you ended up having a double standard depending on weather the players was a Paladin or not.
The Paladin was judged by "do your God would agree with this specific action" (because if not, you need to atone, ...), and the other players would be judged by "are your actions in most situations coherent with this alignment, disregarding specific actions" (because that would be stupid to have a character oscillate of alignment after each action)

OldTrees1
2019-10-27, 11:27 AM
The alignment minigame already exists. All you have to do is 3 things:
1) Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. To have a minigame the outcome must be in question (just like the IRL morality test).
2) A player that cares about the minigame. If they don't care, they ignore it.
3) Choices in game that affect the outcome of the minigame in a manner the player cares about.

This can be as simple as "A player made a character that wants to do what is right. The DM runs a campaign with enough choices that some of them are seen by the player (and the character) as moral choices."

Or perhaps the player wants to ponder these moral choices, then there would need to be some moral choices with no obvious correct answer (best achieved by having multiple right answers rather than no right answer).

Congrats, you have achieved the minimum viable alignment minigame without breaking it.

Basically, the reason you don't necessarily need mechanics for this minigame, is that the minigame is an expansion of a proxy game of the IRL morality test and that does not have visible mechanics.