Alignment alternatives

[ewancummins]

The next time I start a Ravenloft game, I'll very likely replace alignment with a corruption/taint scale.

Good versus Evil is the core Gothic conflict, so nothing is lost by ditching Moorcockian Law and Chaos.
And True Neutral has never made much sense to me in any setting.


(I think druids in Ravenloft should lean toward Evil, much as they do on the old five point alignment diagram.)


How do you guys handle alignment in Ravenloft?

[Mistmaster]

Why should a Druid lean towards Evil? Nature isn't Evil. I Prefer to keep the 9 alignments in theyr place.

[Cromstar]

So, I'm going to spoiler this first bit because I think I'm about to ramble on and wax philosophical etc. This first bit is just about the whole alignment thing in more general terms. Specifics about how Ravenloft and alignment tie together below the spoiler.

VIEW CONTENT:

I legitimately think the number one problem with the D&D alignment system is that 90%+ of people don't bother to look past the alignment names, and I'd include a lot of people who work on D&D in that statistic. The terms of alignment are game terms, and as such they don't mean simply their plain text meaning. 'Lawful good' holds the same place in D&D rules as 'THAC0' or 'Weapon proficiency' or 'Class'. But because people have a more solid understanding of what the terms 'lawful' and 'evil' mean in normal speak, they more easily apply those by default to alignment than they might to the phrase 'armor class' or 'armor rating'. In other words, people think they know what 'chaotic evil' means in D&D because they know what those words mean outside of the context of D&D, and that does a disservice to the D&D alignment system.

Maybe in the very earliest versions of D&D, the alignments were much more strict in what the designers meant them to mean, but in the era of AD&D and the 3x3 alignment grid, the devs put effort into trying to dispel that notion. Good, evil, lawful, chaotic, and neutral are game terms in those alignments and are not definitive. Honestly, its very easy to re-cast the terms of the alignment system. I believe one of the 2nd Edition sources notes that 'good vs. evil' can be rewritten as 'selflessness vs. selfishness' without losing anything. 'Law vs. Chaos', while inspired by Moorcock's stories, could also be characterized as 'collectivism vs. individualism'. Importantly, lawful does not mean 'law abiding' and 'chaotic' does not mean 'totally random'. Yes, those are often associated with those alignments, but they are not the sum total of those alignments. Much like 'all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares', lawful does not always mean law-abiding.

I honestly think Dragonlance is a perfect example of how the people behind D&D themselves can be so terribly wrong about alignment. In the later portions of the meta story for Dragonlance, chaos was conflated with evil and law with good...but honestly, if you look across the entire storyline and products, the evil in the DL setting is almost always much more lawful and the forces of good chaotic, especially in the original adventures, where a huge part of the story is that all the organized and lawful groups on Krynn are complete and utter failures at doing anything. But they just conflated chaos with evil because...Moorcockian morality? I assume that's why.

Another issue is that I think too many people view alignment as a controlling constraint, when its actually a reactive trait. A character does not do an action because he's lawful good, he's lawful good because he does the action. The correct response as a DM to a paladin breaking his oath is not to stop the player from doing the action, its to change the character's alignment; the lose of their status as a paladin is the result of their own actions, not the result of the alignment. I sometimes think that alignment would work better as a behind-the-screen trait the DM tracks instead of something on the character sheets the players have, and if your players have problems with alignments in general, I would probably recommend this.

I think True Neutral is most heavily misunderstood because the source books never do a good job really explaining it, and in large part because 'True Neutral' is also more than one thing. I do think a lot of people make this fairly natural mistake of assuming that all TN characters are the same, but they really aren't and the fact that gets glossed over just makes explaining the entire alignment like untying the Gordian knot.

Ultimately, alignment is a tool to help a player or DM decide the kind of actions a character would take. Lawful good and chaotic good don't have to be in conflict...but sometimes they can be. The same holds true across the alignment spectrum. You might think that LG and CE (or CG and LE) would always be opposed, but there are certainly situations where they could have common interests. Alignments are a tool for players and DMs and, IMO, are a very important one that help shape a quick response to a moral question (this is especially true for a DM where not every single intelligent being you have in a campaign is going to be fully fleshed out).

In Ravenloft, as its born out of the Gothic literature genre, there's a great deal of emphasis on the good vs evil. And that's good, but there's also a lot of grey area in that fight...and in some ways, this is where the law vs. chaos spectrum comes into play, to my mind.

Imagine the following scenario:

Someone has been infected with lycanthrope and begun hunting the people of the town they live(d) in. The person is a victim here: they were in no way evil, but cannot control the werewolf when it breaks free during the full moon. The players know the werewolf is a danger and needs to be stopped and are hired to track down and kill the creature. Along the way, they learn that there's a possible cure for the lycanthrope, but that its a dangerous trip...and they would have to take the infected person with them. Ultimately they have two choices presented to them:

1. They can hunt down and kill the infected person, putting them out of their misery and ensuring no one else becomes infected.
-or-
2. They can hunt down and take the infected person into their custody and set out on a journey to seek the cure, but doing so puts themselves and unknown other people at risk of death or infection with lycanthrope, and there's no guarantee they can find the cure or that it will work.

Which is the right choice? Is it right to risk the lives of others to save just one person? Is either of them right?

Those aren't questions answered by the conflict between good and evil...they fall on a different spectrum entirely. I honestly like when Ravenloft stories contradict the expectations of simple good vs. evil. That's why I think some of the fan-made darklords based around the concept of 'the monster hunter becomes the monster' have so much potential, but the monster hunter doesn't have to become evil to be in conflict with players: people of good character can still have their differences of opinion, and when there are literal lives on the line, those differences of opinion matter a lot.

[ewancummins]

Why should a Druid lean towards Evil? Nature isn't Evil. I Prefer to keep the 9 alignments in theyr place.

The burning man and other human sacrifices.

[Mistmaster]

Those are part of some druidic cult; not all druidicults do the same things.

[ewancummins]

Those are part of some druidic cult; not all druidicults do the same things.

Yes, makes sense. It's a DM call or setting detail.

I prefer my druids a bit more on the historically-inspired side, so they do sacrifice human beings. One can argue whether this makes them evil-aligned, but in Ravenloft I'd think such human sacrifices would provoke powers checks.

[Mistmaster]

And that is sure.

[ewancummins]

So, I'm going to spoiler this first bit because I think I'm about to ramble on and wax philosophical etc. This first bit is just about the whole alignment thing in more general terms. Specifics about how Ravenloft and alignment tie together below the spoiler.

Snipped for length. But I enjoyed reading it all.

I think that ditching the nine point alignment system in no way removes or discourages any of the moral choices and questions you describe. These same considerations of what is the right thing, what is necessary, what the heroes should do will arise with or without the nine point alignment rules system.

Alignment in D&D is really about sides in a cosmic struggle. Some characters and creatures are firmly on one side of the war and others are in the middle. The struggle in Ravenloft is a moral battle between the forces of light and darkness, in the human soul and in the manifest world. Moorcockian conceits don't fit that too well.

Ravenloft has its own rules system for morality based on choices and consequences: powers checks and related corruption levels. By violating the moral order of the world, characters open themselves to physical and spiritual corruption, and can even become monsters if they remain unrepentant and commit vile acts. Evil cannot directly be detected by magical means in Ravenloft. Nor can good. By their fruits shall ye know them.

One other thing to consider is Innocence. I think it should be very rare in adult persons, as the rules suggest. But I also think it should be the default for most natural animals. Some animals, at least in some domains, are associated closely enough with evil forces so as to not count as Innocent.


But if you prefer nine point alignment, roll with it. I've always used it in past Ravenloft games.

[Five]

The next time I start a Ravenloft game, I'll very likely replace alignment with a corruption/taint scale.

Good versus Evil is the core Gothic conflict, so nothing is lost by ditching Moorcockian Law and Chaos.
And True Neutral has never made much sense to me in any setting.

How do you guys handle alignment in Ravenloft?

For Ravenloft I agree that a moral sliding scale alignment could probably be a better fit, at least, for those campaigns that focus on Good versus Evil. In fact I've been lazy thinking the idea for a while now. I last looked at Star Wars 5E's Force Alignment rules (SW 5E Expanded Content - Variant Rules) as inspiration. It has Benevolence and Corruption tiers, both minor and major, similar to RL's Powers Checks. A DM just needs to Ravenloft the tiers. Also has some cool rules on Destiny and destiny points that could play well in such a campaign.

You can find Star Wars 5E online, for free:

https://sw5e.com/rules/variantRules

[ewancummins]

The next time I start a Ravenloft game, I'll very likely replace alignment with a corruption/taint scale.

Good versus Evil is the core Gothic conflict, so nothing is lost by ditching Moorcockian Law and Chaos.
And True Neutral has never made much sense to me in any setting.

How do you guys handle alignment in Ravenloft?

For Ravenloft I agree that a moral sliding scale alignment could probably be a better fit, at least, for those campaigns that focus on Good versus Evil. In fact I've been lazy thinking the idea for a while now. I last looked at Star Wars 5E's Force Alignment rules (SW 5E Expanded Content - Variant Rules) as inspiration. It has Benevolence and Corruption tiers, both minor and major, similar to RL's Powers Checks. A DM just needs to Ravenloft the tiers. Also has some cool rules on Destiny and destiny points that could play well in such a campaign.

You can find Star Wars 5E online, for free:

https://sw5e.com/rules/variantRules

Ah, this might be useful! Thanks!

[Five]

No problem.

Some further thoughts (to be discarded at will):

In 1E and 2E, healing spells (cure X wounds) are considered necromantic by nature. Arguments can be made against, but I don't consider magic natural in RL and I would carry this theme over. Interfering with the natural world, stepping in between cause and effect and actively altering that effect, should be a razor's edge for anybody to walk, including altruistic healers as they magically, brazenly wave Death away from those under their charge. As such, and especially if using a less punishing Powers Check as indicated by something similar to the Force Alignment rules mentioned above, casting these spells should come with a price. Simply put, magic is not the only form of healing available, and there are other options the healer can take, such as feeding and sheltering the sick and homeless, to help balance their soul. Magic is and always should be a shortcut, or, emergency option. A piece of their soul for the greater good...

People of RL are wary of magic for a reason, even if on a subconscious level. Seeds of truth wrapped and buried in superstitions. And those who use magic should be viewed with great suspicion, for one never knows how deep the taint of their souls goes.

Spellcasters of RL are among the top of the list for corruption in Ravenloft. It's subtle, sure, but it's their choice to trade bits for pieces!

Healing potions, blessed water and the much rarer alchemy-based, are great substitutes IMO if you want to keep throwing your frontline scrappers into the jaws of Evil.

As to True Neutral, it could very well be that the Dark Powers are the only True Neutral entities in the multiverse. They may not be able to or even want to stop the gods from granting their favoured subjects their divine essence (spells and the like), but they can both read and enforce the fine print found in Natural Order to highlight such cosmic violations within their sphere of influence. Gods and their subjects both choose sides in the Great War and the consequences of these extreme choices is what the Dark Powers highlight. They do not punish or reward, they simply reveal the souls' true form, in a sort of artistic social commentary.

Why then are the domain rulers all Dark Lords of such intense evil? Simply because the want to rule over others, in every form of social construct, is an inherently selfish choice. And there are many roots that will snag the feet of even the most pious of men and women along that road. The true outward form of these rulers' souls are a power beyond most, for it is easier to fall down the mountain and stay down than it is to stand and claw your way up. And those who want to be on bottom are those who fight the hardest to be on bottom. It is also why the Dark Powers sometimes open a doorway into other worlds to offer a challenge to those capable of opposition. It's simply equilibrium within their commentary. And they never force. They just bid the travellers welcome and watch, waiting with their mirror. Thing is, they can't leave until they take a good hard look at their reflection...

[Mistmaster]

Healing magic shouldn't be penalized, in my hopinion.

[Five]

Yeah, I'd say the vast majority would agree with you on that. I just happen to prefer RL as everyman horror for the most part (though still framed in fantasy). Their battle against the darkness might arguably be said to be more futile, less impacting than the average D&D PC, but I say their call to arms is more heroic.

[Mistmaster]

Good clerics already battle the darkness on call from theyr deities, thought; why agravate them further?

[Five]

A move such as that would be for thematic reasons. Depower the protagonists to empower their heroics. To add a bit of grit to RL and to tip the hat to authors such as James, Lovecraft, Hodgson, and Howard. The latter being a sort of pulpish bridge from Ravenloft to Dungeons and Dragons.

And speaking of grit, I've also been looking at Grit and Glory (5E), more specifically its Healing and Resting/Recovery rules, to see if I can't inject something similar to my RL.

Also lazy looking into a system where firearms will be equally dangerous to a 20th level character as a 1st. Armour bypass, deflection bonuses, non-leveled wound or injury points after leveled hit points (which could even be armour-based), something along that vein. A lot of thought needs to go into it obviously.