Results 1 to 30 of 263
-
2021-02-08, 03:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- NYC
- Gender
Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
Alignment has often been a sore spot for me in D&D, and most groups I've played with have either ignored it or wrestled with it (usually unproductively).
In games I run, Alignment is either changed or outright ignored.
How do you all change or replace Alignment to make morality useful in the game?I want you to PEACH me as hard as you can.
-
2021-02-08, 04:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
I do not know of a better moral system than moral, amoral, immoral. Choosing another system sounds like an invitation for misdirection.
-
2021-02-08, 04:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- NYC
- Gender
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
I want you to PEACH me as hard as you can.
-
2021-02-08, 04:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2017
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
Most of the time it's easy to just ignore. On the off chance that your magical effect only works for someone of pure heart it's just as easy for the GM to adjudicate as it is to go off whether the sheet has a G or E on it.
For more in depth characterization, and using 5e character elements as examples, this can go two ways;
If you're talking general character traits (e.g: bonds/ideals/flaws), I like treating them as akin to fate points. If your character's personality traits would make them behave suboptimally, they can ask the GM for a plot point. (This puts the effort in the players hands, meaning that the GM doesn't have to juggle one more thing.) If your character is giving their all for something that's relevant to one of their core personality traits, they can spend a plot point for some advantage. GM adjudication is still required, but it's a much smaller amount.
For mandatory behavior limits (e.g: the tenets of a paladin's oath), dunno. Most of the time it's okay to just let the player make their choices and treat it as a general character trait. If the player intentionally wants to play a fall from grace for narrative reasons, they can talk it over with you. There's the off chance where a character swears a mystically binding oath and then pointedly violates it. Auto-fall complete with lack of class features is excessive while ignoring it is giving up on a very useful bit of characterization, so again can't think of a good general answer for this.
-
2021-02-08, 04:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2019
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
This might be kind of a non-answer, but I prefer to just not formalize characters' morality. A player portrays their character's morality along whatever lines they envision and that's about it. In my experience player having to actually describe (or just act according to) their character's morality is a lot more meaningful and interesting than picking an option of a menu.
-
2021-02-08, 05:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2013
- Location
- Slovakia
- Gender
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
Riddle of Steel provides the character with several "Spiritual Attributes", which act as additional dice for actions relevant to them. Basically: bonus dice for your roll. You also spend them to advance your character (so they act as "level ups").
One of those is "Conscience". You can leave it unspecified or you can specify it - describe the morality system or belief you subscribe to - it can be "heroism", compassion, or just plain "conscience". What it does is that any time you choose the "right" over the "easy" or "profitable" or whatever, you gain a point. If your sacrifice or the danger you get in is significant, you can even get two. Now when the attribute fires up - basically, when you are doing the right thing and there is opposition or difficulty, you add these dice to your roll.
Example: a man you know innocent is being sentenced to execution unless someone steps up to defend him in - unfair - trial by combat. Your character steps up, even though their skill with blade may not be sufficient (let's say you have 10 dice for combat, your opponent is known to have more). By stepping up you prove your Conscience - and GM awards you 2 points. Now you get 12 dice instead of 10 to combat them. The points stay with you unless you spend them or go directly against your conscience (e.g. stealing food from a starving kid... like, really low bar usually).
This works on the "moral vs. amoral" axis. Amoral characters simply choose a different spiritual attribute.Call me Laco or Ladislav (if you need to be formal). Avatar comes from the talented linklele.
Formerly GMing: Riddle of Steel: Soldiers of Fortune
-
2021-02-08, 05:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- 61.2° N, 149.9° W
- Gender
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
Well, thinking about it turned up something funny. I like the Palladium, Pendragon, and Paranoia morality systems best.
However, if you want something to slot into D&D with minimum fuss I once did a rework that turned D&D alignments into explicit magic auras. Went like this:SpoilerDo a find-replace with "good"->"light", "evil"->"dark", and "law"->"order". Then each god has about 10 things they like, 10 things they dislike, and two alignments. Everything below a god can only have one alignment aura at a time. Only gods and magic can apply or change auras. All necromancy spells & effects are "dark", abjuration is "order", evocation is "light", and transmutation is "chaos". Divine casters must have a god, get one of that god's alignment auras, and cannot prepare/know more spells of opposed to their god's auras than they prepare/know of their own aura. Arcane casters have an aura of the highest level aligned spell on them, or of the last aligned spell they cast if they don't have any spells on them. Everyone else only has an alignment aura while under the effect of an aligned spell or effect.
This system is, obviously, completely divorced from subjective/cultural morality considerations. If you want to enforce social mores you do it socially.
-
2021-02-08, 05:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
By "moral, amoral, immoral" I am referring to the answer that the Philosophy branch Ethics is trying to answer. I usually abbreviate it as trying to answer "What ought one do?". It has the supreme advantage of being accurate and the supreme disadvantage of being unknowable. However attempting to guess the unknowable and use that guess is a common practice. That is what I use as the good vs evil axis.
However it is such a complex "axis", even for for the simplest common guess (utilitarian), that I don't think it can be replaced with a simpler system. So I don't think that would solve the arguments you have had. If you replaced it with altruism vs selfishness, then I bet your group would have arguments about exactly when excessive altruism becomes immoral. Thus reinstating the morality axis in addition to the "new axis". This is the misdirection revealed.
Now if you choose to ignore instead of replace, then you might be best served figuring out what you want from an alignment axis. Is the axis basically a personality test? In that case choose questions that fit the campaign (or ignore it too). Consider Fallout for an example, we could have a social vs loner axis.
-
2021-02-08, 07:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Australia
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
What do you want alignment/morality systems to do?
Are you looking for a mechanical effect? What?
If you're not looking for a mechanical effect, probably better if it's just included in the description of the character's personality
-
2021-02-08, 07:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
Playing 5e, I just ignore formal Alignment as anything other than a roleplay guide for players and DMs. It has no cosmological weight[1], I'll never ask a player what their character's alignment is (if they even have answered that question) and I only use it as a very shorthand for shallower NPCs (for a broad "if I don't have anything else to go on, what's going to be their kneejerk reaction" guide).
That doesn't mean I ignore morality or have no consequences for actions. There are consequences, but they depend on who they offended (or helped) and how, based on the motives and belief structure of the groups in question.
I do try to have a working agreement with the players that certain types of actions/campaigns aren't enjoyable to me, so please refrain. Specifically the "baby-murdering, orphanage burning, demon summoning, destroy the world types". That doesn't matter what the character thinks--I just ask that people don't make characters for whom those are in the viable option list. But that's entirely meta.
[1] Literally. No group of beings, whether celestial, infernal, or whatever, has a fixed alignment. Everyone has freedom of will, and uses it. Certain cultures are predisposed to certain behaviors, but they span the spectrum. There are no "designated bad guys", although my players have taken "people who abuse women" and "icky demon things created by the Twisted[2]" as their own "kill on sight" types.
[2] Body-morphing, nonconsensual, living "art" created by a particular demon. Things like the jellyface--a head made out of transparent jelly, with a brain inside, with the face wreathed in jellyfish tendrils. They bite. Or the twisted puffers--take a small dog. Substitute the body for that of a puffer fish, and give them the ability to throw their spines. Or my personal favorite, the goblin baby bomb piles.Last edited by PhoenixPhyre; 2021-02-08 at 07:50 PM.
Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2021-02-08, 09:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Location
- Avatar By Astral Seal!
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
Might I recommend a Swarm of Dog?
I have a LOT of Homebrew!
Spoiler: Former AvatarsSpoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
-
2021-02-08, 09:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- In my library
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
I've pretty much never seen a morality mechanic that works. I've seen alignment work, but only when it's restricted to 'what side of the cosmic conflict are you associated with'.
So I like it in LotFP where it basically boils down to 'are your powers and destiny provided by horrific angelic beings, gribbly demon things, or neither' and days literally nothing about character beliefs or actions. A Magic-User or Elf could be the most moral character ever, but they still count as Chaotic because they use gribbly demon magic.
It's probably better to track reputations and fame, things like (perceived) honour, violent tendencies, uncouth affiliations, contribution to population growth, and whatever else you fancy. Also ask players to state their character's Ideals or Values, and allow them the chance to change them after dramatic situations. 'Vengeance can only be met with vengeance' says a lot more about your character than 'neutral evil', and most people can probably come up with two or three.
-
2021-02-08, 11:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Sweden
- Gender
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
Most RPGs I've played have had no morality/alignment system at all, and it was never missed. They tend to be destructive to storytelling and roleplaying in my experience, they remove more than they add. IMO you'd be better off with zodiac signs.
Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal
-
2021-02-09, 01:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
Were I to be the head designer of a computer RPG that featured a number of different organizations you could cozy up to or oppose, I would use them for the closest thing to an alignment system. In a setting with superheroes (where money shouldn't be the focus) or nobility (where money should be dross) are the expected PCs, I would also use them for the money-equivalent.
"Favor" would be something you accumulate with various groups. Each group's Favor would essentially be its own currency. You get favor by doing things that please that group, and the groups would have strong "alignment" principles, though not necessarily using any specific alignment grid. Just...you can tell what kind of people they are by the group standards, activities, methods, members' personalities, etc.
Comingling this "alignment" / "reputation" thing with currency, you'd expend favor to get, well, favors (goods and services) from the groups.
And your alignment would be colored by the groups with which you have favor; NPCs would react to you based on the groups that you align yourself with, treating you as if you're the kind of person those groups approve of, or even as members of them if you expended favor to join.
-
2021-02-09, 11:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
How do we define morality here, or making it useful? There are many systems with rules to govern characters' values, morals, ethics and convictions, but they rarely assume purportedly objective view like D&D. The norm is, in my experience, stating what the character believes in and how it informs their actions. This might mean morality, like if the rules represent a character's belief in justice and charity - but it might just as well not.
Last edited by Morty; 2021-02-09 at 11:20 AM.
My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.
-
2021-02-09, 02:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
The best thing to do with "alignment" is to ignore it / remove it.
If it has value, ask *why* it has value. Replace it with something that fulfills that need.
The ideas of "power sources", or "reputation", or "favor" (and disfavor) are good ones.
But it depends on the needs of your individual game.
I once ran a game where the quiet woodcutter who secretly murdered elves whenever he could get away with it would have had…
Community: 1
Family: 3+
God of Elves: -5
God of Secrets: 1
God of Murder: 2
But, ultimately, I found the system too much bookkeeping, and abandoned it for "just role-playing".
-
2021-02-09, 08:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2015
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
Simple: The common alignments in the party tell you what sort of campaign this is going to be. Good/Neutral/Evil tells you the type of objectives and Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic give you the approaches.
Honestly I never understood why people hate it so much. Its a fine broad strokes system. There are characters outside of D&D that I will drop an alignment into their description because it can get some of the important ideas across.
Still I wouldn't inject it into a system that needed it. For instance a system I am... playing around with some ideas for? I kind of want to try making it but I don't have time. Anyways there are five "alignments" in this setting and there are cosmological reasons for it but that has also shaped the culture of the setting. And yes you have to pick one... Its a huge part of the culture down to preferred professions and dress.
-
2021-02-09, 08:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- In my library
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
Because by this point it's been played around with too much to give much abroad information. Once most mechanics behind it were removed it became harmless, but more Ideals do the job of alignment much better.
The few times I've seen it matter have generally been in one axis systems, normally Order versus Chaos, and notably the more extreme such systems go the more simplistic they become. At the end of the day I find it's just better to ask what the character believes, what drives them to fury, what they'll sacrifice their life for, what's the one goal they'll drop everything to pursue, what makes them require new trousers, anything that isn't something shared by roughly a tenth of the intelligent creatures on the planet.
You don't have to ask every question you can think of for every character, but these sorts of questions have another major advantage: they encourage proactive characters. Nothing is worse than the party of six detached loners, give me the party of individualistic proactive amoral *******s any day because they'll keep the game moving. And then surprise you when they start coming up with unexpected goals.
-
2021-02-09, 11:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
Mostly by playing games that are not D&D. Players are free to act as players, and NPCs are free to act as humans with all the foibles, failings, and strengths that implies. You never need to worry if Bob would do a thing because of his alignment, only if he would do it because he is Bob.
-
2021-02-10, 12:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
-
2021-02-10, 12:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Gender
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
Okay.
But that still means the alignment system is superfluous and unneeded. At best. At worst its confusing and muddying things away from fun roleplay. Its an extra thing added on top of things produced nothing meaningfully different from what fun roleplay already is. So not really helping its case.Last edited by Lord Raziere; 2021-02-10 at 12:21 AM.
-
2021-02-10, 12:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
Variations on this have been the most game-useful functions I've seen, honestly.
Running in a different direction on the same theme is White Wolf's Exalted 1e/2e and how its Virtue system impacts the (Solar) Exalted. Having a high Virtue stat is good because you can spend the points to aid your relevant rolls; having a high Virtue stat is bad because you might have to succeed at a roll and/or burn a Willpower point to act against that virtue. (For Solars having a high Virtue stat is also bad because encountering extreme situations revolving around that virtue can force you to roll your high stat and successes pile up until you temporarily lose control of your PC.)
-
2021-02-10, 01:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
Objective and approach? OK, let's explore that.
Objective: exploration, knowledge, self-improvement… preserving reality if necessary.
Approach: exploration, study, research, experimentation, hypothesis, experimentation.
Objective: fun.
Approach: sex, drugs, rock and roll, and magic.
Objective: homeland for refugees; survival.
Approach: stealth, diplomacy, violent allies.
Objective: family, family, nation, world, religion, friends, those who have suffered, those who will suffer.
Approach: 5d chess information wars.
Just what ideas does it get across? Certainly not much of what I wrote for "objective and approach", I'd imagine.
Hmmm hmmm hmmm…
Belief: everything seems so unimportant.
Fury: nothing? (Possibly child endangerment)
Sacrifice: reality
Goal: knowledge
Fear: the end of everything
Belief: I am awesome.
Fury: touch my stuff
Sacrifice: friends? God?
Goal: none (meaning? Purpose?)
Fear: being the last man standing.
Belief: loyalty is the currency of the universe - the only one that matters.
Fury: disloyalty, harming his friends.
Sacrifice: … maybe his "children"?
Goal: repay loyalty
Fear: ignorance (very specific), being stretched thin by allies
Belief: reality… may not be - and that is irrelevant.
Fury: sacrifice of others
Sacrifice: friends, allies, strangers, a just cause
Goal: to leave the world a better place
Fear: good works undone
This felt harder to answer.
Few things are better than a world rich with opportunities for my characters to acquire new goals!
-
2021-02-10, 02:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2019
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
Agreed. I feel like alignments are either interpreted so strictly they become confining or so loosely that they become almost meaningless.
I mean, just look at OotS. Roy, Durkon, Miko, Hinjo, O-Chul and Lien are all Lawful Good. Does that label really tell us anything meaningful about them either as a group or as individuals?
-
2021-02-10, 02:12 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
It tells us that they all actively help innocents in need, and that they all have a preference for following rules.
Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
New Marut Avatar by Linkele
-
2021-02-10, 02:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Gender
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
Okay.
why do we need a label to tell us this? show don't tell, a character is better established through their actions than anything a made up label can do. tons of media already instinctively grasp such distinctions without needing a nine-box chart to tell them. Han Solo is a smuggler on the Outer Rim! Gee I wonder if he will follow the law or not? I can't tell without him being properly labeled. Conversely: Whether or not he was actually a good person was a big part of A New Hope as Han suddenly showing up to fire at Vader was the best part, and it wouldn't have worked if we knew he was a good guy right off the bat, because there is the uncertainty to him, the possibility that he could've left without helping and it would be totally in character for him to do that. You can't have that uncertainty with a system telling you outright what they will probably do in a situation. But Han instead SHOWED he was good at a point when it mattered rather it being known from the start like in alignment. That he is a criminal who doesn't follow the law is blindly obvious that anyone who needs alignment to tell them that is seriously over-relying on it, but whether he is good or not is something intentionally hidden and played for surprise and would be ruined if he was just labeled something that made us able to predict it, no matter what alignment you put on him.
-
2021-02-10, 02:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
The most important part is to not use the same thing to describe behavior and to assign teams.
For behavior there are a couple of ways to include virtues and vices into the rules. That works reasonably way. Just don't expect there to be any not contrieved conflict between team greedy and team chaste. or any such nonsense. If you don't like the traditional virtues and vices because they carry outdated morality, any other behavorial descriptors work as well and can be made into rules. Usually those rules would somehow punish going against your morality or reward going along with it.
If you want team jerseys, it is best, to use group allegiance/loyality tallies instead. Just let teams or sides of a conflict be actual teams/sides.
-
2021-02-10, 03:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2013
- Location
- Slovakia
- Gender
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
You don't. I don't.
Problem is, D&D had this very interesting idea, pretty good for fantasy games, that you could use the alignment in the world. Locks that open only when "good" people touch them, weapons that can be only wielded by "evil" people... hell, the game has 1st level spell called "Protection from Evil", which - surprise surprise - works only on people that wear the tag "evil".
I think it started with the "chaos vs. law", but the system got more complicated down the way.
Now the tag itself is not a problem. But when you get the rules-lawyers, it becomes extremely necessary to have clear rules for these tags - otherwise, these will be argued. So you remove most of these points of argument.
So, they changed the interesting idea to something unworkable. That's why the OP is seeking alternatives.
And yes, you can work with D&D alignments and they can work and be a good addition to RPG - if you accept the underlying assumptions. As Cluedrew stated, they also can provide some basis - not really to tell you the objectives/approaches, but to give you a framework to evaluate those in play. Yes, your character wants the cookie. Would he steal it? Nah, he's lawful good. And yes, you don't need it - you know your character - but from my experience, when players have this framework, their characters experience the dilemmas differently. Not necessarily easier or even better - just different.
That said, I don't use alignments.Call me Laco or Ladislav (if you need to be formal). Avatar comes from the talented linklele.
Formerly GMing: Riddle of Steel: Soldiers of Fortune
-
2021-02-10, 09:00 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
When writing notes that summarize characterization so I can better remember the characterization, using a label is a useful shorthand. I don't want to write a paragraph where a sentence or a word would do. The note is just a reference to jog my memory.
The point of labels is to be able to express a complex idea (possibly via show don't tell), and then reference that complex idea with a word or short phrase as part of another complex idea (again possibly via show don't tell).
That is why stories that touch upon morality frequently use words related to morality. It would be extremely hard to discuss morality without using those words.
So need? No. But can words be useful for storing complex ideas like the characterization someone showed? Yes.
Indeed.Last edited by OldTrees1; 2021-02-10 at 09:01 AM.
-
2021-02-10, 09:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2019
Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)
Sure, but I don't see how alignments are the best choice of words. To use the OotS examples again, we could use "Lawful Good" to describe both Miko and O-Chul or we could use "judgemental, aggressive" for the former and "protective, heroic" to describe the latter. Same amount of words, but I think the latter pair is more useful.