Quote from: jibbajibba;839184I think alignment is really useful.

It gives me a shorthand for the base behaviour of an NPC a monster, a kingdom.
I see it as a really useful tool for that right up there with Traveller Tech and Law Levels

You could substitute astrology for alignment, and it would have the added benefit of at least 12 broad categories instead of 9 or fewer.

Quote from: rawma;839451You could substitute astrology for alignment

It would be an interesting variant.

Anyone ever try this?

Quote from: rawma;839451You could substitute astrology for alignment, and it would have the added benefit of at least 12 broad categories instead of 9 or fewer.

If you want to get into personality types you could use the court cards from Tarot (I have tried that in Amber), Myers-Briggs, etc etc.

However, none of these determine your Good versus Evil position or your Law versus Chaos. In an RPG I want to know
i) if there a strict set of laws in this nation
ii) Are these monsters good or evil
iii) If the PCs steal from this shop will the townsfolk get a posse together
iv) Will this guy fight fair in the Circle or poison his blade

etc

Now knowing that they are an extrovert who like to be at the centre of attention but can secretly become anxious if they don't get the support of their family might be useful but it doesn't really tackle the things I need to know in a D&D game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;839460However, none of these determine your Good versus Evil position or your Law versus Chaos. In an RPG I want to know
i) if there a strict set of laws in this nation
ii) Are these monsters good or evil
iii) If the PCs steal from this shop will the townsfolk get a posse together
iv) Will this guy fight fair in the Circle or poison his blade

etc

Only (ii) is really answered by alignment, and that's because the question is what their alignment is. The rest of them could go either way for widely disparate alignments; look at the 140 message thread about lawful evil. I list relevant information on what NPCs might do in as compact a form as I can, especially where it's relevant for game mechanics, but I don't find alignment a very helpful summary beyond "good guy" versus "bad guy" (both of which are relatively rare). Curious? suspicious? eager to trade? hates their job? reckless? greedy? etc

Alignment was used to describe racial and community tendencies as well. It's not, and has not, been strictly tied to the individual. And it is also fluid because it  accepts that individuals within may differ, even within an alignment.

Your reading of alignment is strict in comparison to the large corpus of text over the years. Still valid for a campaign as any other, just very narrow.

Quote from: rawma;839585Only (ii) is really answered by alignment, and that's because the question is what their alignment is. The rest of them could go either way for widely disparate alignments; look at the 140 message thread about lawful evil. I list relevant information on what NPCs might do in as compact a form as I can, especially where it's relevant for game mechanics, but I don't find alignment a very helpful summary beyond "good guy" versus "bad guy" (both of which are relatively rare). Curious? suspicious? eager to trade? hates their job? reckless? greedy? etc

So answer those 4 questions using:
Chaotic Good
Chaotic Evil

Then try using:
Aquarius
Virgo
Cautious, selfish, will take a bribe if offered over 50 gp.

.....

Quote from: jibbajibba;839601So answer those 4 questions using:
Chaotic Good
Chaotic Evil

Then try using:
Aquarius
Virgo
Cautious, selfish, will take a bribe if offered over 50 gp.

.....

I don't have any knowledge of astrology, so I'll pass on those two. But the third description gives a good answer to the very practical question of "how much of a bribe does this NPC expect?", which alignment doesn't. My approach permits many more possible descriptions, so you don't have the newspaper horoscope issue, where there's only twelve possible things that could happen to anyone today. What's the alignment of the cautious, selfish, bribe-accepting NPC? How many other very different NPCs share that alignment?

The first question ("a strict set of laws in this nation"?) isn't answered by the description of NPC alignments; I'd attach different descriptions to nations than to characters, of which "authoritarian" would be a natural one. But given how few nations most worlds have, I would just go with more complete descriptions for each, which ought to describe major institutions like the legal system. I think you're treating Lawful-Chaotic as the answer to this question, but it doesn't seem so certain to me; did you read the lawful evil thread?

The second question is effectively where the NPC is on the Good-Evil axis, so that's a cheat, as I already noted. (The answer would be neutral, since I would attach a specific description to indicate the relatively rare "good guy" or "bad guy" - that's more an indicator of how PCs should be expected to interact with them.)

The third question is better. But it's really more about how the other townspeople feel about the shopkeeper than any given person's alignment. Lawful people might defer to established authority and not form a posse, while Evil people might do so for the chance to murder the PCs rather than any concern for the shopkeeper. The townspeople probably don't like the cautious, selfish, corrupt NPC; he never went out on a limb for them, he thinks only of himself, and he can be bought. And his caution and selfishness would not put him on any posses, either, unless someone paid him over 50 gold pieces.

The fourth question is up in the air; I assume you meant to imply "having promised to fight fairly" or even "having promised not to use poison" or that not using poison is implicit in the locale. A Lawful Good character could believe that poison is appropriate to test the opponent, like snake handlers demonstrating their faith. The cautious NPC will probably avoid any dueling.

Quote from: rawma;839615I don't have any knowledge of astrology, so I'll pass on those two. But the third description gives a good answer to the very practical question of "how much of a bribe does this NPC expect?", which alignment doesn't. My approach permits many more possible descriptions, so you don't have the newspaper horoscope issue, where there's only twelve possible things that could happen to anyone today. What's the alignment of the cautious, selfish, bribe-accepting NPC? How many other very different NPCs share that alignment?

The first question ("a strict set of laws in this nation"?) isn't answered by the description of NPC alignments; I'd attach different descriptions to nations than to characters, of which "authoritarian" would be a natural one. But given how few nations most worlds have, I would just go with more complete descriptions for each, which ought to describe major institutions like the legal system. I think you're treating Lawful-Chaotic as the answer to this question, but it doesn't seem so certain to me; did you read the lawful evil thread?

The second question is effectively where the NPC is on the Good-Evil axis, so that's a cheat, as I already noted. (The answer would be neutral, since I would attach a specific description to indicate the relatively rare "good guy" or "bad guy" - that's more an indicator of how PCs should be expected to interact with them.)

The third question is better. But it's really more about how the other townspeople feel about the shopkeeper than any given person's alignment. Lawful people might defer to established authority and not form a posse, while Evil people might do so for the chance to murder the PCs rather than any concern for the shopkeeper. The townspeople probably don't like the cautious, selfish, corrupt NPC; he never went out on a limb for them, he thinks only of himself, and he can be bought. And his caution and selfishness would not put him on any posses, either, unless someone paid him over 50 gold pieces.

The fourth question is up in the air; I assume you meant to imply "having promised to fight fairly" or even "having promised not to use poison" or that not using poison is implicit in the locale. A Lawful Good character could believe that poison is appropriate to test the opponent, like snake handlers demonstrating their faith. The cautious NPC will probably avoid any dueling.

I think you are fishing on a lot of those.

I have used an alignment as a short hand for an awful long time and it gives me a rough personality profile or the rough space of a town or kingdom that informs me how that kingdom or person would react in the vast majority of situations that are likely to occur in game.
I can flesh out both those things and expand but the shorthand - Lawful kingdom has a strong legal frame work and locals will enforce laws whether out of fear or reprisal, for the greater good or because of a code. Chaotic kingdom is anarchic, poor rule of law, little central control, inhabitants will be unlikely to try to intercede on unlawful actions unless those actions cause harm in a good society.
Its really easy to do all that through just 2 letters.

Now I can see that different people might take different interpretation of alignment, as in the LE thread (have you read it by the way?)  but I don't have any internal conflict so to me it's a great tool that does exactly what I want it to do.

Quote from: jibbajibba;839617Now I can see that different people might take different interpretation of alignment, as in the LE thread (have you read it by the way?)  but I don't have any internal conflict so to me it's a great tool that does exactly what I want it to do.

If it's purely for your own benefit, then more power to you. I have abbreviations for common templates but I translate them into descriptions or actions as appropriate when playing, rather than expect players to learn my categories and have the same interpretations. I think my players have a more interesting/challenging time understanding or predicting the behavior of NPCs (even in the absence of shortcuts like detect alignment) than they would if I had only a few categories (alignment or otherwise).

I don't much care for alignment when fussing about it for its own sake consumes game time, when it gets elevated in the game mechanics, or when it leads to dispute among players due to differing interpretations.

Generally, I like alignment.  But I tend to prefer alignment to be less codified rather than more, more reactive rather than proscriptive, and not necessarily tied to morality.

Quote from: RPGPundit;840077Generally, I like alignment.  But I tend to prefer alignment to be less codified rather than more, more reactive rather than proscriptive, and not necessarily tied to morality.

What's your opinion of the factions in the D&D 5e Forgotten Realms setting?

Alignment makes perfect sense when viewed as an abstraction of real philosphical ideas.

Law and Chaos refer to your position on the deontology - consequentialism scale. Lawful characters believe that morality is a matter of following right rules. Chaotic characters believe that morality is a matter of achieving right outcomes. Neutral characters believe that morality must balance rules and outcomes.

Good and Evil refer to your position on the altruism - egoism scale. Good characters place the needs of others above their own. Evil characters concern themselves only with their own needs. Neutral characters place their own needs above those of others, but do not entirely ignore the needs of others.

The alignments are named from the point-of-view of a Lawful Good person. A Chaotic Evil person might consider himself Pragmatic Reasonable and call the opposing (LG) alignment Dogmatic Unreasonable.

A Lawful Evil person might translate the Good/Evil axis as Slavish/Masterful and the Law/Chaos axis as Honorable/Dishonorable. An Honorable Masterful noble would look askance on a Dishonorable Slavish peasant preacher.

A True Neutral person might translate the Good/Evil axis as Vainglorious/Virtuous/Vicious, and the Law/Chaos axis as Rigid/Proper/Capricious. They'd consider themselves Properly Virtuous, would think a LG paladin to be Rigidly Vainglorious, and a CE blackguard to be Capriciously Vicious.

Quote from: amacris;840769Alignment makes perfect sense when viewed as an abstraction of real philosphical ideas.

Law and Chaos refer to your position on the deontology - consequentialism scale. Lawful characters believe that morality is a matter of following right rules. Chaotic characters believe that morality is a matter of achieving right outcomes. Neutral characters believe that morality must balance rules and outcomes.

Good and Evil refer to your position on the altruism - egoism scale. Good characters place the needs of others above their own. Evil characters concern themselves only with their own needs. Neutral characters place their own needs above those of others, but do not entirely ignore the needs of others.

The alignments are named from the point-of-view of a Lawful Good person. A Chaotic Evil person might consider himself Pragmatic Reasonable and call the opposing (LG) alignment Dogmatic Unreasonable.

A Lawful Evil person might translate the Good/Evil axis as Slavish/Masterful and the Law/Chaos axis as Honorable/Dishonorable. An Honorable Masterful noble would look askance on a Dishonorable Slavish peasant preacher.

A True Neutral person might translate the Good/Evil axis as Vainglorious/Virtuous/Vicious, and the Law/Chaos axis as Rigid/Proper/Capricious. They'd consider themselves Properly Virtuous, would think a LG paladin to be Rigidly Vainglorious, and a CE blackguard to be Capriciously Vicious.

I like this.

Quote from: amacris;840769Alignment makes perfect sense when viewed as an abstraction of real philosphical ideas.

Law and Chaos refer to your position on the deontology - consequentialism scale. Lawful characters believe that morality is a matter of following right rules. Chaotic characters believe that morality is a matter of achieving right outcomes. Neutral characters believe that morality must balance rules and outcomes.

Good and Evil refer to your position on the altruism - egoism scale. Good characters place the needs of others above their own. Evil characters concern themselves only with their own needs. Neutral characters place their own needs above those of others, but do not entirely ignore the needs of others.

The alignments are named from the point-of-view of a Lawful Good person. A Chaotic Evil person might consider himself Pragmatic Reasonable and call the opposing (LG) alignment Dogmatic Unreasonable.

A Lawful Evil person might translate the Good/Evil axis as Slavish/Masterful and the Law/Chaos axis as Honorable/Dishonorable. An Honorable Masterful noble would look askance on a Dishonorable Slavish peasant preacher.

A True Neutral person might translate the Good/Evil axis as Vainglorious/Virtuous/Vicious, and the Law/Chaos axis as Rigid/Proper/Capricious. They'd consider themselves Properly Virtuous, would think a LG paladin to be Rigidly Vainglorious, and a CE blackguard to be Capriciously Vicious.

I like this, this makes sense.

Quote from: rawma;840748What's your opinion of the factions in the D&D 5e Forgotten Realms setting?

I haven't seen that yet so I can't really say.