I got inspired by DR episode 40 and their talk about alignments.

I got inspired by DR episode 40 and their talk about alignments.

I got inspired by DR episode 40 and their talk about alignments. Im thinking of changing the Alignment section in my DWCK v2 to “Alignments/Drives”.

I will leave all the original Alignments for those that like to play RAW and add Drives to all the classes.

Drives for me are like alignments but without the mechanical good vs evil and chaos vs law implication. Essentially what “drives” you to adventure.

Whats your character core motivation or belief.

If you have suggestions to help me fire the inspiration foundry please comment.

I would like to have 3 or 4 solid choices per class so any help is welcomed.

Keep clear of the setting or environment specific things. I want every class to have a chance to hit their aligment/drive xp in any situation if they play properly.

30 thoughts on “I got inspired by DR episode 40 and their talk about alignments.”

  5. Vincent Quigley, not really. An alignment/bond requirement is something you could theoretically accomplish in play every session.

    Your could go with “*Wronged* Make concrete progress towards finding the ones who wronged you and make them pay.”

    Even then, it’s a bit subject to the whims of the GM or the setting of the session.

    Personally, I think a good alignment/bond requires action that the player can almost always initiate themselves. And it should involve an observable, clear outcome more than just a motivation.

    A bad drive:

    Excitement: Take an unnecessary risk just for the hell of it. (hard to tell whether it was an unnecessary risk, or what their motive was)

    A better drive:

    Excitement: Cause trouble for your allies by taking an unnecessary risk. (pushes similar behavior, but we can pretty easily tell if trouble was caused and in retrospect whether the risk was unnecessary)

    Another thing to try and avoid is a requirement that that basically amounts to “play your class.”

    Best bad example I can think of is the Neutral Fighter’s “defeat a notable enemy.” Of course that’s gonna happen, and without the fighter going out of their way for it. Better would be something like “*Challenge*: Provoke a fight with a notable enemy, just you and them.” That actively pushes actions a Fighter wouldn’t necessarily take just by virtue of being a Fighter.

    I’m also fond of Drives that actively play against type. For example, giving a Fighter a drive of “*Peace*: Settle a dispute or end a fight without bloodshed.” Or a Paladin “*Doubt*: question the tenets of your faith, of the law, or of your order.”

    Hmm. Apparently I have opinions.

  6. Vincent Quigley, not really. An alignment/bond requirement is something you could theoretically accomplish in play every session.

    Your could go with “*Wronged* Make concrete progress towards finding the ones who wronged you and make them pay.”

    Even then, it’s a bit subject to the whims of the GM or the setting of the session.

    Personally, I think a good alignment/bond requires action that the player can almost always initiate themselves. And it should involve an observable, clear outcome more than just a motivation.

    A bad drive:

    Excitement: Take an unnecessary risk just for the hell of it. (hard to tell whether it was an unnecessary risk, or what their motive was)

    A better drive:

    Excitement: Cause trouble for your allies by taking an unnecessary risk. (pushes similar behavior, but we can pretty easily tell if trouble was caused and in retrospect whether the risk was unnecessary)

    Another thing to try and avoid is a requirement that that basically amounts to “play your class.”

    Best bad example I can think of is the Neutral Fighter’s “defeat a notable enemy.” Of course that’s gonna happen, and without the fighter going out of their way for it. Better would be something like “*Challenge*: Provoke a fight with a notable enemy, just you and them.” That actively pushes actions a Fighter wouldn’t necessarily take just by virtue of being a Fighter.

    I’m also fond of Drives that actively play against type. For example, giving a Fighter a drive of “*Peace*: Settle a dispute or end a fight without bloodshed.” Or a Paladin “*Doubt*: question the tenets of your faith, of the law, or of your order.”

    Hmm. Apparently I have opinions.

  13. Druid: Eco Warrior Intercede between the Land and its despoilers.

    Druid: Grey Morality Choose between the Land and its People.

    Not sure if I’m getting this right Jeremy Strandberg and Maxime Lacoste

  14. Druid: Eco Warrior Intercede between the Land and its despoilers.

    Druid: Grey Morality Choose between the Land and its People.

    Not sure if I’m getting this right Jeremy Strandberg and Maxime Lacoste

  25. So, would you use these to replace alignments? How many would each character get to choose from? I might give them two, to help define their characters better. How were you intending it?

  26. So, would you use these to replace alignments? How many would each character get to choose from? I might give them two, to help define their characters better. How were you intending it?

  27. The intent is that Drives completely replace Alignment. So instead of picking an Alignment, you pick one of the Drives available for your class.

    If you let your players choose 2 drives, you’ll need to decide whether they can get a max of 1 or 2 XP at the end of each session.

    I.e., do you get 1 XP if you met either of your Drives’ requirements? Or do you get 1 XP for each of your Drives’ requirements that you met? The latter will probably have more impact on behavior, but will also result in more XP per session and thus faster leveling.

  28. The intent is that Drives completely replace Alignment. So instead of picking an Alignment, you pick one of the Drives available for your class.

    If you let your players choose 2 drives, you’ll need to decide whether they can get a max of 1 or 2 XP at the end of each session.

    I.e., do you get 1 XP if you met either of your Drives’ requirements? Or do you get 1 XP for each of your Drives’ requirements that you met? The latter will probably have more impact on behavior, but will also result in more XP per session and thus faster leveling.

  29. Jeremy Strandberg​ I will probably let them pick two, but only get a maximum of 1 XP per session from hitting either of them. That will make it easier to get that XP but won’t increase the speed of leveling. I’m also using flags instead of bonds, due to the campaign having a potentially frequently shifting roster.

  30. Jeremy Strandberg​ I will probably let them pick two, but only get a maximum of 1 XP per session from hitting either of them. That will make it easier to get that XP but won’t increase the speed of leveling. I’m also using flags instead of bonds, due to the campaign having a potentially frequently shifting roster.

Comments are closed.