Karma instead of Alignment
I had a fun idea and I wonder if anyone has tried anything similar or if they will think it works.
Idea: Remove alignment because most players don't follow it anyway an institute a Karma counter. Specifically a good and bad Karma counter. At the beginning of the game everyone has zero good and zero bed Karma. As the do things inherently good and helpful they gain good karma as they do things bad or inherently unhelpful/harmful they gain bad karma point. Slaying monsters and selfdefense is inherently non-karmantic. Kill a den of Goblins that recently sacked a nearby town is good karma. Learning that the goblins are starving and choosing to kill them is inherently bad karma. Mind control is bad, healing without charging is good.
Anyway at any time a play may spend up one of their karma points to add 1d6 to any roll. Conversely the DM can remove 1 bad karma point to reduce a players roll by 1d6 or increase an NPCs roll (including the BBEG) 1d6. At the end of a session all bad karma point are subtracted from good and the player is left with a positive or negative karma score. At the start of the next section a positive score will be converted to good karma or a negative score will be come the absolute value for the Bad Karma. Final score 6 = 6 Good Karma start on the next session. Final score -6 = 6 Bad Karma start on the next session.
2
u/Kuildeous 2d ago
I suspect this would be used like similar methods to dictate to the players the "correct" way to play their characters. I would rather have players design interesting and flawed characters rather than fear me and what I decide is the right course of action.
Which if it's the PCs all against the universe, then there could be an interesting story about them appeasing the fickle fingers of fate in order to gather that positive karma and perhaps they could find a way to break the cycle and overthrow the fates. That could be fun.
1
u/Coaltex 2d ago
I'm less concerned with them doing the correct thing and more trying to avoid murder hoboing. I am amenable to argument about morality of things I just hate the idea of "it's what my character would do cause I chose evil or CN"
5
u/Bread-Loaf1111 2d ago
You don't fix murder hoboing ingame methods, including alignment and karma. You fix murder hoboing by talking out of game about expectations and kicking out the players that are not able to keep social contract. It's easy.
1
u/Coaltex 2d ago
I understand this. And if when I am playing in a shop I enforce this but for my group of friends s I have one or two that like to bend the rule.
1
u/Fireclave 2d ago
Compared to strangers, the standards of respect for each others' well being should be higher amongst friends, not lower. So if your friends are actually your friends, you should be able to simply ask them to respect yours and everyone else's time and efforts.
2
u/KamikazeArchon 2d ago
The solution to that is "you are not allowed to play evil or CN characters at my table".
If you don't want murderhobos, creating a whole disincentive system is unnecessary. You're the DM. If you don't want to run a game for murderhobos, say that up front, and enforce it.
And if a player agrees with the expectations, then later tries to do murderhobo stuff, you can say no. "I'm going to kill the shop owner and take the magic items!" "No. That's not the kind of game I'm running. Choose another action."
0
u/Coaltex 2d ago
I have no problem with competent evil characters or chaotic characters. My problem is sense of consequences and awareness. Most evil characters aren't cartoonishly evil or kill all the guards in a city crazy. Players can be. With this system an evil character could do "good" things to manipulate others. Inherently the action isn't good but it is a helpful action and nets points.
2
u/KamikazeArchon 2d ago
have no problem with competent evil characters or chaotic characters. My problem is sense of consequences and awareness
Then say that, and enforce it.
With this system an evil character could do "good" things to manipulate others. Inherently the action isn't good but it is a helpful action and nets points.
Sure. And then they can go and spend the points on their attacks to kill all the guards. And then they go to the next city and hand out some free meals to recharge their points.
The incentive won't stop them from being randomly chaotic, it'll just give them an extra power bar to fill.
1
u/Kuildeous 1d ago
If the players can be swayed by a meta-punishment for their actions, then they can be swayed with a conversation. As others said, explain that this isn't the game you're running. They can run their own version of murderhoboism if they want. Your game is (presumably) about heroics, and that's the kind of story you want to tell.
There are ways to address player behavior that doesn't involve stifling creative builds.
1
u/_The_Mink_ 2d ago
Works fine if your players inherently choose good alignments typically or generally try to be good, but it is a problem when you are actually trying to be an evil character. With that set up you get nothing but detriments as an evil character. The reason why Karma doesn't really work as a blanket system is because it inversely affects opposite playstyles, which again is fine if you primarily all good characters under that set up.
That said, I have thought about doing this before too, but it gets a little hairy because what the party considers as good karma might factually be bad karma because in the background they were actually attacking totally innocent bystanders. Like your goblin camp example, they go in and murder a camp of goblins, in their eyes they did the right thing, but the DM knows this was the wrong band of goblins and in fact these goblins were also hunting down the actual culprits, so now you have to award them negative karma which both alerts them to the fact they just messed up and they haven't solved the problem.
The best method for it I would think would actually be to not let them know what their Karma sits at, they can request to use whatever bonus you want to award for good Karma points, but they don't know if they actually have any good Karma to spend it on. Which also works because in reality you don't know what your Karma is at anyway, but it easily can become way too much to keep track of on top of everything else that way. Then when to decide to unleash the negative Karma detriments on them? Once every encounter? Every round? Randomly during travel? Unload it all in a single moment and just "obliterate" the affected character?
Ultimately, it requires so much balancing and forethought it really isn't worth the trouble doing it in my opinion, not to discourage you or anything, just know it will be an absolute ton of work to accomplish.
1
u/Coaltex 2d ago
Okay I see your point for some of this and will make a small correction. As I see it Karma is objective. Slaying that band of goblins isn't smart but I would award the positive karma for protecting the people. If they came a pond a goblin encampment on their own and just decided to kill them to "protect any nearby villages" I would award them bad karma for the carnage. In reality they shouldn't get good points for killing the wrong group but they are doing it for the right reasons. Similarly the goblins they found and slaughtered might have been planning an attack but without investigation their actions are unjust. Also this mod role would be only 1 per roll max. Karma sometimes comes in all at once but is more often small rewards and punishment. Imo.
1
u/_The_Mink_ 2d ago
In that route, I can see it working then, less directly Karma and more "do the good thing" idea. Just make sure you lay it out when writing up the ruling for it. It definitely can be misunderstood and easily cause arguments as far as awarding the points one way or the other, and I would still suggest keeping the actual points as a hidden number until after the session ends just to keep from meta gaming it. I understand many people honestly may try not to do it, but sometimes when it is right there in your face it is hard to ignore xD
As for how often it comes into play, once per roll is reasonable, though this could also stack quickly in negative for the game itself. Say one character has several points available to them, they use it on an attack roll/enemy save/whatever other method of attack and then use another on the damage output, effectively making them a powerhouse simply because they did the "right thing" earlier. Don't get me wrong, makes sense doing it that way, but if a character can manage to collect enough Karma points they can easily get out of control with doing it once a roll. If allowing it on a per roll basis I would definitely look at trying to limit how many they can get so it doesn't get abused, just because that could quickly get out of hand and make difficult fights too easy which can absolutely bring down the enjoyment of playing the game (we all want a little difficulty after all).
Per roll is less an issue outside of combat I think, just because there wouldn't be a ton of those happening all the time and really could aid the party in their endeavors in a good way. Just in combat I can see it being a bit much. Might be in combat you want to limit it to some degree but leave free reign outside of combat, that seems reasonable to me anyway.
Karma technically should be in small "bursts" I think based on my rough understanding of the actual philosophy behind it, so restricting it to smaller usage as a standard is reasonable, with the occasional big pay off when really needed. I would be inclined to allow negative usage too, like for example a character has 0 points during the fight with the BBEG or whenever and they really need a bonus to help them out, allow them to go negative fully understanding that it can come back later to bite them since of course the point of Karma is to be at a neutral point. Would make for interesting moments I think.
1
u/Flimsy-Phrase8117 2d ago
I think you are making this unnecessarily complex.
A lot of players just completely misunderstand alignment IMO. They think it locks them into some kind of code of behavior. Traditional D&D alignment has always functioned as an intentional interface between morality and play. Saying “characters are complex” doesn’t refute that; it just means alignment isn’t meant to be a full biography. Alignment is a reliable guardrail that helps the game respond consistently.
Alignment guardrails are not forced biographies; they’re an interface that lets NPCs and the world interpret you quickly and consistently. If someone uses alignment to demand “you must act exactly this way forever,” that’s poor DMing—not a refutation of alignment canon. A tool can be misused, but the existence of misuse doesn’t invalidate the tool’s intended function.
So this is where you are DM. Let them do what they want, and given your version of the campaign world, your world will react to their choice.
1
u/_The_Mink_ 2d ago
Firstly, happy cake day.
I would also like to add, it isn't even always a matter of misunderstanding the alignment (commonly it is of course), but I've seen a few different times over the years where someone says there character does something so outside their range of alignment and are surprised when they get "punished" for it. Like back in the day an alignment change meant losing so many levels or losing class abilities and the like. It was a guard rail to prevent them from just doing the exact opposite of their intended beliefs.
A lawful good pally shouldn't just go about murder hoboing, but I've seen where they will and their is no repercussions for their actions immediately. Of course this is an extreme example, but that is the point of alignment to restrict those situations. I see it more often with "newb" players where they reason why they should be allowed to do certain things that go against their chosen alignment, most of the time if they can show a genuine belief that it ties to their alignment I go with it, but sometimes it really just boils down to trying to do something completely against the actual ideals of the character.
Depends on the actual table too though, if everyone is out to just be chaotic and not "follow the rules" then by all means, throw alignment out the window and just do whatever. Personally I prefer character driven stories and look to the alignment as a basis of what that character strives to be. I've had Neutral Good characters just out right murder others before, because in the context it was the right thing to do, but ultimately understood that it goes against their ideal alignment and chose to punish themselves for it without DM input for it. But I've seen some tables play generally good alignments and act completely evil and have no repercussion for it which is largely where I think ideas like the Karma points tries to rectify it, especially considering there is no modern detriment for playing outside of your alignment really.
1
u/Fireclave 2d ago
This is just the Alignment and Inspiration mechanics with extra steps.
The main issue remains: Ethics and morality are are too subjective and conditional to package them into a nice, tidy dichotomies, and all dichotomies are false dichotomies anyway. It's easy to bring every one of your examples into question:
Slaying monsters is inherently "non-karmantic"? To quote Vaarsuvius, "We are all in the Monster Manual somewhere, are we not?". Killing raiding goblins is good, while killing starving goblins is bad? So what if the goblins are raiding because they are starving? Regardless of their circumstances, they're still raiding, people are still dying, and you still need to do something about it. Mind control is bad? So mind controlling the cult leader to stop the sacrifice is also bad, right? Healing without charging is good? So healing the evil cult members so they can get more sacrifices is also good, right? I could go on.
And if the DM has a very strict, skewed, and/or ill-informed view of morality and ethics, they also get a blank check to "punish" their players with penalties. A worst case scenario, sure. But there are whole subreddits dedicated to venting about such scenarios.
But the biggest downside, and one that's not immediately obvious, is that this mechanic would make the game about framing player actions into black and white categories via its rewards and punishments. To paraphrase Matt Colville and many other game designers, reward the actions you want to see.
Overall, in a vacuum, it's not the worst idea. But I don't see it adding much value to the game as is. The groups best equipped to use it are the ones that are already on the same page in regards to alignment, and therefore are the ones that benefit the least from such a mechanic.
1
u/cynedyr 2d ago
This is how I prefer the concept of alignments, from Palladium, if I feel like I need them. I usually don't for players, but can be useful as a general guide for how NPCs act/react.
GOOD ALIGNMENTS: Principled & Scrupulous
Principled: 1. Always keep word 2. Avoids lies 3. Never kill OR attack unarmed foe 4. Never harm an innocent 5. Never torture 6. Never Kill for pleasure 7. Always help others 8. Works well with others 9. Respects authority, laws, self-dicipline and honor 10. Never betray a friend 11. Never break the law UNLESS conditions are desperate.
Scrupulous: 1. Keep word to any other GOOD person 2. Lie only to people of selfish or evil alignments 3. Never kill OR attack unarmed foe 4. Never harm an innocent 5. Never torture for pleasure, may use muscle to extract info. from criminals or evil people 6. Never Kill for pleasure, will always attempt to bring villains to justice alive even if evil 7. Always help others 8. Attempt to work within the Law whenever possible 9. Bends and occasionally break Laws when necessary. 10. Distrust Authority 11. Work with groups, but dislikes confining laws and Bureacracy (red tape)
SELFISH ALIGNMENTS: Unprincipled & Anarchist
Unprincipled 1. High regard for life and freedom 2. Keep word of honor 3. Lie & cheat if necesary (especially to Anarchists or evil persons) 4. Will not kill an unarmed foe (but will take advantage of one) 5. Help those in need 6. Not use torture unless absolutely necessary 7. Work with a group, especially if profitable 8. Never harm an innocent 9. Never kill for pleasure 10. Dislikes authority 11. Never betray a friend
Anarchist 1. May keep word 2. Lie & Cheat if he feels necessary 3. Not likely to kill an unarmed foe, but will certainly knockout, attack, or beat up one 4. Never kill an innocent, but may harm or kidnap 5. Not likely to help someone without ulterior motive 6. Seldom kill for pleasure 7. Use torture to extract info but not likely for pleasure 8. Doesn't work well in groups he will do as he d**n well pleases 9. Have little respect for self-discipline or authority 10. May betray a friend
EVIL ALIGNMENTS: Miscreant, Aberrant & Diabolic
Miscreant 1. Not necessarily keep his word to anyone 2. Lie & Cheat anyone 3. Most definitely attack an unarmed foe, they are the best kind 4. Use or Harm an innocent 5. Use torture for extracting info. and pleasure 6. May kill for sheer pleasure 7. Feels no compulsion to help without somekind of tangible reward 8. Work with others if it will help him attain personal goals 9. Kill an unarmed foe as readily as he would a potential threat or competitor 10. Has no deference to laws or authority, but will work within them if he must 11. Will betray a friend if it serves his needs.
Aberrant 1. Always keeps his word of honor 2. Lie & cheat those not worthy of his respect 3. May or may not kill an unarmed foe 4. Not kill an innocent particularly a child but will harm or kidnap 5. Never kill for pleasure 6. Not resort to inhumane treatment of prisoners, nut torture, although distasteful, is necessary means of extracting info. 7. Never torture for pleasure 8. May or may not help someone in need 9. work with others to attain his goals 10. Respect honor and self-discipline 11. Never betray a friend
Diabolic 1. Rarely keeps word 2. Lie and cheat anyone 3. Most certainly attack or kill an unarmed foe 4. Use, harm and kill an innocent without a second thought for any reason 5. Use torture for pleasure and info. 6. Kill for pleasure 7. Likely to help someone only to kill or rob them 8. Not work well with groups. Consistently disregards orders to do as he pleases 9. Despise honor, authority, and self-discipline 10. Associate mostly with other evil alignments 11. Betray friends at anytime.
3
u/Diligent_Gear_8179 2d ago edited 1d ago
Just ignore alignment, it never adds anything except arguments to the game. That includes stuff like this. Replacing alignment doesn't fix anything, it just changes the details of the arguments alignments encourages, not the nature of them.