A eulogy for Alignment in CRPGs

[Seigneur Locklear]

Violation of player agency is verboten

It's not, though.
It's as much of a "violation of player agency" as failing a skill check because your character isn't proficient at it.

Except "do something seemingly out of character" isn't a skill, and rolling Will to do that implies some external factor forcing the character's hand. I'd rather take the player to OOC and ask him what the character's rationale could possibly be here, because if I were the DM I'd be confused as fuck unless there was some hint in the character's backstory or previous actions. I'd still let him go through with it, and model appropriate (and likely severe) consequences in-world, because it's better to let players learn from mistakes than refuse to let them make mistakes at all. I'm not going to assume metagaming or other chicanery from one apparent break in character, but no free lunches.

Wow, is that the first sensible post from you? DId you do it all by yourself?
Really though, that's the way to go about it. You really don't want to autismo up the session with needless rolls and such, but players must hold a degree of responsibility when it comes to acting in-character. Alignment system is again, a handy guiding tool here because you can use it as a tool of reference to explain to an ignoramus why his LG paladin shouldn't really steal from a broke ass farmer whose farm he just saved from a horde of rampaging orcs - aka why he shouldn't be a schizo for the sake of meta benefit. It makes for a far less realistic character and turns the campaign into a giant meme session - again, this is something you can derive from a personal experience if you've ever properly DM'd.

I don't however agree with your leniency of simply letting them get away with it and learning from it - it just doesn't work that way. Because from the standpoint of plot, the consequence you impose upon the said player will most likely carry the same dosage of absurdity and silliness the deed you are responding to already does.

I'd advise instead, taking them onto a nice hill, watching a sunset with them, and promptly shooting them in the back of the head when they are least aware.

 

[DraQ]

Violation of player agency is verboten

It's not, though.
It's as much of a "violation of player agency" as failing a skill check because your character isn't proficient at it.

Skill check is resolution, not action. Outcome is result of this resolution, not a decision. And some decisions don't even warrant rolls before failing.
Player doesn't decide outcome, skill checked, or even how it will be resolved (so no "lol, I roll D20 to seduce the door"), but deciding what they are trying to do (and how if there is any ambiguity) is 100% their purview.

Note, mind control and mind affecting status effects doen't count either because the PC is temporarily no longer Player's then.

Except "do something seemingly out of character" isn't a skill, and rolling Will to do that implies some external factor forcing the character's hand. I'd rather take the player to OOC and ask him what the character's rationale could possibly be here, because if I were the DM I'd be confused as fuck unless there was some hint in the character's backstory or previous actions. I'd still let him go through with it, and model appropriate (and likely severe) consequences in-world, because it's better to let players learn from mistakes than refuse to let them make mistakes at all. I'm not going to assume metagaming or other chicanery from one apparent break in character, but no free lunches.

Important caveat (not really addressed at you):
In a cRPG there is no GM to ask.

OTOH cRPG with its (mostly unfortunate) mechanical constraints doesn't suffer from the issue of a chemistry major player trying to explain to GM how they are using reasonably accessible materials and specific mundane actions to manufacture 20 barrels of nitroglycerin (at which point they usually get rocksfallen by the weary GM).

So in the end the only reasonable case where player's agency has to be curtailed is out of character information, but thankfully that's quite doable using dialogue system and some randomization.

 

[DraQ]

Pretty much exactly not what you said though.

Go ahead and try to fix your mistake retroactively. It won’t matter to the codexers who have functioning brains and can read the drivel you wrote with their own eyes.

I wonder how did I mysteriously decipher Kitty's intent.
Might it be because I don't rely on color-coded EZ-mode for this kind of stuff?

Imagine thinking that writing all this shit on your character sheet is better than just marking down “Lawful Good”.

And you still don't get it.

You don't need to write anything anywhere.
You roleplay it. Naturally. Just by behaving in specific ways and making specific decisions when facing various situations as you play the game. And your reputation is how the world (meaning characters) learns what to expect from you and how it should react to you.
In a TT/PnP you don't need specific mechanics, GM should be able to handle it much better by the virtue of being able to think like a living person, while in a cRPG you have a reputation mechanics and the better it is the more nuanced stuff it can pick up.

I only gave you the textbox or sheet of paper because you kept moaning about some sort of mechanical hook for "muh ligament".

I also like how now he’s making up dumb rules about conserving magic like there’s global warming or something. “Sorry, I can’t cast fireball. How about an environmentally friendly magic middle instead?”

What a joke.

I didn't figure you for a particularly well read person.

Guess I was right.
It's actually a pretty established fantasy trope.

 

[DraQ]

Really though, that's the way to go about it. You really don't want to autismo up the session with needless rolls and such, but players must hold a degree of responsibility when it comes to acting in-character.

And at this point alignment system doesn't really add much value, does it?
A responsible player doesn't need two magical letters to stick to their character concept.

Alignment system is again, a handy guiding tool here because you can use it as a tool of reference to explain to an ignoramus why his LG paladin shouldn't really steal from a broke ass farmer whose farm he just saved from a horde of rampaging orcs - aka why he shouldn't be a schizo for the sake of meta benefit.

So, by retards, for retards, basically?

 

[Seigneur Locklear]

I've simply pointed just one of its benefits, again, in the context of running a session with less experienced or less prudent roleplayers.
The fact that your entire conclusion boils down to "Oh, so it's by retards for retards" is more of a self-identifying moment of clarity for you. In other words - on a more intimate, personal level, you manage to realize you need this system as a bike training wheels sort of thing - and that's fine and okay, can't really start improving unless you fail to understand your own shortcomings.

As it has been pointed out times and again, experienced roleplayers comprehend it intuitively and don't really make a big deal out of it - nor do they perceive it as something that curtails your capacity to roleplay a deep, realistic character. They adapt and then mold their concept to fit it instead of going full spastic about the shortcomings that don't really exist.

 

[Drowed]

What I learned on this topic is that some people want to roleplay themselves so, so badly, that they will get deeply angry if someone ever mentions that your character isn't you.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

I wonder how did I mysteriously decipher Kitty's intent.
Might it be because I don't rely on color-coded EZ-mode for this kind of stuff?

Weird how you deciphered his intent by completely making up things he never said, sure. Weird how even Shitty's rambling clarification didn't match what either of you said.

It went from believing in judicious use of magic, to advocating a code, to trying to stop global warming in 3 posts. Shortest game of Chinese Whispers ever.

You're really transparent. You'd think all the retard ratings you've received would clue you in on how pointless this is, and yet you persist.

And you still don't get it.

You don't need to write anything anywhere.
You roleplay it. Naturally.

If that ridiculous Skyrim mod is your idea of roleplaying, I don't think you even know what the word means.

Having a character autistically jump over every other sidewalk crack to serve a pretend deity isn't roleplaying, it's neuroticism.

I also like how now he’s making up dumb rules about conserving magic like there’s global warming or something. “Sorry, I can’t cast fireball. How about an environmentally friendly magic middle instead?”

What a joke.

I didn't figure you for a particularly well read person.

Guess I was right.
It's actually a pretty established fantasy trope.

I didn't realize global warming was part of the fantasy genre. Someone should tell our politicians.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

What I learned on this topic is that some people want to roleplay themselves so, so badly, that they will get deeply angry if someone ever mentions that your character isn't you.

I am not, for better or worse, an amoral bookworm/"mad scientist"-turned-mage so fascinated with discovering what actually constitutes life and living that he became a lich to watch things live and die (and screwed around with everything from attempting to create living, thinking constructs to attempting to perfect the concept of "undeath"). Last character I played. DM told me he was Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil. The character didn't really give a fuck, rarely if ever went out of his way to be a puppykicking villain, rarely saw a good reason to bring a living creature to a swift and untimely end, and had a soft spot for things with short lifespans by human standards. DM got upset when he didn't care enough about some borderline-DMPC cleric dude to kill him, just kind of tossed him through a planar gate into some good aligned plane and basically said "go away, I'm doing science."

 

[DraQ]

BTW:
Having a setting with alien cultural standards really applies a wrecking ball to alignments as useful tool as they completely rely on implicit understanding of shared moral standards by players.

(I believe Morag Tong example was already referenced ITT)

 

[Shinros]

Reason why I like alignments because it aids to the cosmology of the setting and provides a framework to build characters. Often, I find people who want it removed want to do stupid shit, case example in the wrath Alpha people wondering why Lich can't be good or want to be good as you enslave people's souls and damn them for eternity. Such people don't often want to own their evil acts and then whine that alignments are "too restrictive for their roleplay." Where if they were seriously roleplaying, why would you go angel and then decide you want to be chaotic evil? The removal of alignment has invited this throng. While on the other had people who take molding a character seriously and build off an alignment often don't have this problem. Or go crazy stating how restrictive alignments are. Just my opinion. Normally the arguments comes down to "I want to have my cake and eat it too." Such people is the reason why there are Scrolls of Atonement in Kingmaker. It's dumb.

Don't pick a paladin, if you can't roleplay a paladin. Ironically this very discussion is also on the Larian forums, people are trying to justify SHAR of all people.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

I am not, for better or worse, an amoral bookworm/"mad scientist"-turned-mage so fascinated with discovering what actually constitutes life and living that he became a lich to watch things live and die (and screwed around with everything from attempting to create living, thinking constructs to attempting to perfect the concept of "undeath"). Last character I played. DM told me he was Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil. The character didn't really give a fuck, rarely if ever went out of his way to be a puppykicking villain, rarely saw a good reason to bring a living creature to a swift and untimely end, and had a soft spot for things with short lifespans by human standards. DM got upset when he didn't care enough about some borderline-DMPC cleric dude to kill him, just kind of tossed him through a planar gate into some good aligned plane and basically said "go away, I'm doing science."

Sounds like a typical lich by 2e standards.

That DM clearly neither correctly understood alignments or liches.

The lich appears in the AD&D Monstrous Manual (1993), p.222-223, along with the demilich and rare non-evil archlich. They are described as at least 18th level, and possessing a phylactery which stores its life force. It is beyond any mortal sense of good and evil, and ancient liches typically abandon their old name in favor of a menacing pseudonym.

The lich is, perhaps, the single most powerful form of undead known
to exist. They seek to further their own power at all costs and have
little or no interest in the affairs of the living, except where those affairs
interfere with their own

Although the lich has no interest in good or evil as we understand
it, the creature will do whatever it must to further its own causes.
Since it feels that the living are of little importance, the lich is often
viewed as evil by those who encounter it. In rare cases, liches of a
most unusual nature can be found which are of any alignment.

I would be more annoyed that you tried to turn my campaign into a Rick and Morty episode than care whether or not you wanted to kill some random schmuck "because evil".

 

[Shitty Kitty]

I am not, for better or worse, an amoral bookworm/"mad scientist"-turned-mage so fascinated with discovering what actually constitutes life and living that he became a lich to watch things live and die (and screwed around with everything from attempting to create living, thinking constructs to attempting to perfect the concept of "undeath"). Last character I played. DM told me he was Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil. The character didn't really give a fuck, rarely if ever went out of his way to be a puppykicking villain, rarely saw a good reason to bring a living creature to a swift and untimely end, and had a soft spot for things with short lifespans by human standards. DM got upset when he didn't care enough about some borderline-DMPC cleric dude to kill him, just kind of tossed him through a planar gate into some good aligned plane and basically said "go away, I'm doing science."

Sounds like a typical lich by 2e standards.

That DM clearly neither correctly understood alignments or liches.

The lich appears in the AD&D Monstrous Manual (1993), p.222-223, along with the demilich and rare non-evil archlich. They are described as at least 18th level, and possessing a phylactery which stores its life force. It is beyond any mortal sense of good and evil, and ancient liches typically abandon their old name in favor of a menacing pseudonym.

The lich is, perhaps, the single most powerful form of undead known
to exist. They seek to further their own power at all costs and have
little or no interest in the affairs of the living, except where those affairs
interfere with their own

Although the lich has no interest in good or evil as we understand
it, the creature will do whatever it must to further its own causes.
Since it feels that the living an of little importance, the lich is often
viewed as evil by those who encounter it. In rare cases, liches of a
most unusual nature can be found which are of any alignment.

I would be more annoyed that you tried to turn my campaign into a Rick and Morty episode than care whether or not you wanted to kill some random schmuck "because evil".

good thing no one gives a shit about what you do at a table

it was an evil campaign and the cleric was a callback to/deliberate parody of another character I had run a few months prior, who that DM also didn't like

 

[Harthwain]

Turns out Solasta: Crown of the Magister features the alignment system (with some additions). After you pick an aligment you get to pick two out of four personality traits that will define a character's options. So they are essentially doing what I said a bunch of pages back:

The only way I can see alignment sort-of working is enforcing acting in-character by serving as a gateway in context of what options you can take at the moment. Shifts should happen, but the process should be gradual (sliding, rather than falling), unless we're talking about exceptional case. That way it could be its own system. Question is whether we want limitation of this kind to be in place or not in a cRPG (because it's in opposition to the concept "total freedom"). I think an argument could be made that if your own character's stats and skills act as limitators, then there is no reason to not have limitators in other areas.

Some more details about how it works: https://www.solasta-game.com/news/77-dev-update-14-toss-a-coin-to-your-party

 

[Faarbaute]

There seems to be a misunderstanding going on in this discussion.

Dnd is a game. Games have rules. Thats what separates them from makebelieve and larping. To put things into perspective, imagine this thread was about Yahtzee. Either you play by the rules, and that is what playing Yahtzee is, or you are not playing Yahtzee.

Dnd is no diffrent. If you have no rules you have no game. If you prefer to have a storytelling session instead, where your larp and makebelieve together thats fine too, but that is not playing the game.

 

[Shadenuat]

BTW:
Having a setting with alien cultural standards really applies a wrecking ball to alignments as useful tool as they completely rely on implicit understanding of shared moral standards by players.

(I believe Morag Tong example was already referenced ITT)

Eh? MT is LE? Their conflict with Dark Buds is a by the book example of lawful vs. chaotic.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

There seems to be a misunderstanding going on in this discussion.

Dnd is a game. Games have rules. Thats what separates them from makebelieve and larping. To put things into perspective, imagine this thread was about Yahtzee. Either you play by the rules, and that is what playing Yahtzee is, or you are not playing Yahtzee.

Dnd is no diffrent. If you have no rules you have no game. If you prefer to have a storytelling session instead, where your larp and makebelieve together thats fine too, but that is not playing the game.

 

[DraQ]

There seems to be a misunderstanding going on in this discussion.

Dnd is a game. Games have rules. Thats what separates them from makebelieve and larping. To put things into perspective, imagine this thread was about Yahtzee. Either you play by the rules, and that is what playing Yahtzee is, or you are not playing Yahtzee.

Dnd is no diffrent. If you have no rules you have no game. If you prefer to have a storytelling session instead, where your larp and makebelieve together thats fine too, but that is not playing the game.

I guess you can't have a thread about "by retards for retards" stuff without participation awards.

 

[Atlantico]

I guess you can't have a thread about "by retards for retards" stuff without participation awards.

Nothing but autistic ad hominem from you. Fuck you are a dumb shit.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

I guess you can't have a thread about "by retards for retards" stuff without participation awards.

Nothing but autistic ad hominem from you. Fuck you are a dumb shit.

bitches about ad hominem, engages in ad hominem

 

[deuxhero]

inb4 rpg races no longer have racials because that's racist

Turns this post was in not that far before.

 

[Valdetiosi]

Reviving old thread just to say that the only game I've played with alignment system is Planescape: Torment, and I have to say, having it dynamically adjust to how you behave seems way to go with it, gives a sense and no restriction that you are locked into one alingment.
Any other games that I should pick up for alignment system?

 

[Sarathiour]

That would require decent writing in the first place, which is already going to filter out 98% of game related to DnD.

 

[GentlemanCthulhu]

I think traditional D&D style alignment makes a mistake by trying to combine the two concepts of fame/infamy and morality (good vs. evil). The two should be separated and represented by different metrics. This greatly makes up for the rigidity of the old system, while still allowing for useful abstractions.

This allows for characters who "fake" their alignments, for instance a person who is openly lawful, but secretly breaks all sorts of laws for personal gain. The old system restricts you by forcing you to be either lawful/lawless. Obviously, good GM's work around this limitation, but a strict interpretation of the alignment system makes it as if everybody is always constantly aware of your law-abidingness.

 

[Nortar]

I think traditional D&D style alignment makes a mistake by trying to combine the two concepts of fame/infamy and morality (good vs. evil). The two should be separated and represented by different metrics. This greatly makes up for the rigidity of the old system, while still allowing for useful abstractions.

This allows for characters who "fake" their alignments, for instance a person who is openly lawful, but secretly breaks all sorts of laws for personal gain. The old system restricts you by forcing you to be either lawful/lawless. Obviously, good GM's work around this limitation, but a strict interpretation of the alignment system makes it as if everybody is always constantly aware of your law-abidingness.

Alignment has nothing to do with fame. Where did you get that crap?

Do you think alighment system does not let a thief pretend to be a model citizen?
A lawful guy can steal an apple and it won't make him chaotic right away.
I'll tell you more - a professional bandit could be very much lawful.
And a serial murderer could be nice and kind with his dear mumsie.

Alignment is neigher a weathervane, nor a straightjacket.
There are a few exceptions (most notable - paladins) but even then it's more of a tool to keep crazy-loonies in check.

 

[GentlemanCthulhu]

Alignment has nothing to do with fame. Where did you get that crap?

The infamy/fame is a stand-in for lawful/lawlessnes. You can substitute.