I used to always play the lawful good / chaotic good character. I was the paladin with an inner struggle and a drinking problem. I was the hero that wanted to always save the day and didn't need to get paid. Then something changed. After reading again and again about the dangers of lawful stupid and rogue vs paladin, I decided not to be limited. I decided to play the chaotic neutral character, a person motivated differently that didn't really care about ideas like good and law.
In the beginning, it was just a way for me to avoid entanglements with alignment. With a chaotic neutral alignment, no one could argue alignment over my actions. It was the ultimate flexibility. My character was batman without all of the hand-wringing over innocent people.
Then, as a GM, it started to sink in. I played this way because I hated alignment. I hated playing with people that broke the social contract and fought against other PCs. I hated playing rogue vs paladin in the party. Alignment was broken. The problem was that there were few alternatives to standard alignment that seemed to work. As a GM, I aimed my players toward writing back stories.
Reading games like Burning Wheel inspired me. I built a whole new system of backstory for characters to use. I built methods for capturing goals and motivations.
5e Came out and suddenly there way this new way to fix alignment, even though alignment was still there. There was a structured background that supported both story and mechanics. Unfortunately, the problem was that all of that was forgotten in game. Players had no reason to play to their motivation. Heck, most players forgot their background after a session or two. GMs didn't even reward for playing to it, so it got thrown out.
Now I wander back to 13th Age. I am going to read it again, but clearly their ideas regarding background, icons, and relationships make the game better in this respect. It all ties together.
In the end, I realize that I want to play not the flexible character, but the motivated character. I want to do it in a way that intertwines with the mechanics of the game. I want it to be a the forefront of the game and my own mind. I don't want to just use plain old alignment and feel handcuffed to it.
In the beginning, it was just a way for me to avoid entanglements with alignment. With a chaotic neutral alignment, no one could argue alignment over my actions. It was the ultimate flexibility. My character was batman without all of the hand-wringing over innocent people.
Then, as a GM, it started to sink in. I played this way because I hated alignment. I hated playing with people that broke the social contract and fought against other PCs. I hated playing rogue vs paladin in the party. Alignment was broken. The problem was that there were few alternatives to standard alignment that seemed to work. As a GM, I aimed my players toward writing back stories.
Reading games like Burning Wheel inspired me. I built a whole new system of backstory for characters to use. I built methods for capturing goals and motivations.
5e Came out and suddenly there way this new way to fix alignment, even though alignment was still there. There was a structured background that supported both story and mechanics. Unfortunately, the problem was that all of that was forgotten in game. Players had no reason to play to their motivation. Heck, most players forgot their background after a session or two. GMs didn't even reward for playing to it, so it got thrown out.
Now I wander back to 13th Age. I am going to read it again, but clearly their ideas regarding background, icons, and relationships make the game better in this respect. It all ties together.
In the end, I realize that I want to play not the flexible character, but the motivated character. I want to do it in a way that intertwines with the mechanics of the game. I want it to be a the forefront of the game and my own mind. I don't want to just use plain old alignment and feel handcuffed to it.
Comments
Post a Comment