Smallest TTRPG: Improv with GM

I'm interested in collaborative story telling in the purest sense so I took improv classes but they lack some things I like about TTRPGs. So I made my own system that is as small as possible. It's easiest to start with the entire rules then examples and explanations.

Here is the entire rule set:

1 person is a game master the rest are players. Each player controls their character and the game master sets the scenario, controls the world (NPCs), and decides if players succeed at uncertain tasks. Each person is improvising everything (it need not be comedy). Each player should have equal parts. The GM may talk more or less than a player depending on your style.

That's it. That's the whole thing. But it's a little hard to understand and has some implications that I'll now work through. Starting with some examples:

GM: "Bob: You stand under the window of the house of your girlfriend."

Bob: "I climb up the wall and open the window."

Alice: "Bob? What are you doing here?"

Bob: "I'm sneaking in so we can be together."

Alice: "I can see that but my parents are still home."

Bob: "Not to worry, I brought a door stop."

Does that sound boring? Then you've probably never done improv. This game may not be for you but here's a spicier example that you can't do in improv:

GM: "The dragon breaths fire down on you."

Bob: "I hold up my shield."

GM: "The fire proofing protects you entirely."

Bob: "I counter attack with my sword. Stabbing at the heart."

GM: "The dragon's hide is too thick and you sword only leaves a bruise. He slashes down with his claws."

Bob: "I stab at the hand as it comes towards me."

GM: "Too slow. Your shield is knocked away."

So why not just regular improv?

Most of the system is just improv but having a GM causes some key differences. Failure is impossible in improv (everyone must agree) but a GM's word is law. You can still cause yourself to fail but since the GM is an outside force you can now feel like you are "winning" since you can overcome challenges. Improv is short for improvisational comedy for a reason: comedy makes the most sense. You could also do slice of life and romance but not much else. A GM controlling the outcome of uncertain actions adds conflict which causes suspense and allows for action genre. A GM controlling the world allows for mysteries. A GM controlling any number of NPCs allows for more plot.

What if I don't need failure?

Then you don't need this system. Just do regular improv. Although a GM may still be useful for plot, it might not be a big enough gain.

How much should the GM talk? The 2 examples are opposite in that.

The goal is for everyone to have fun. The GM should talk as much as they like for the genre they are running in order for all players and the GM to have fun. A GM may opt to say as little as possible so that the end result would look like a play: character focused (NPCs are minor characters) with some narration. Or a GM may talk as much as possible so that it ends up looking like a choose your own adventure: lots of text with decisions (but open ended instead of multiple choice).

How is failure determined?

The GM decides based on the situation. Does it make sense? Would it be fun or drive the plot forward? They should not be using randomness like flipping a coin. If the genre is comedy then pick whichever is more funny. If the genre is action then pick whichever is more exciting (not too easy and not hopeless). It is possible for the GM to setup a puzzle where there is only a few ways to succeed and the PCs have to figure it out.

Can there be PC death?

Yes but since there's no character creation process the player can immediately enter the scene as a new character (if the situation and genre allow it).

What's the dividing line between what the GM vs players control?

As with this entire system: it depends on the situation and the group. A player shouldn't have to ask for permission to drink a beer and should be able to control what objects they have on hand. But there needs to be a group consensus on the matter which may adjust on the fly. Once you know each other better it might become obvious when to pause for an answer. PCs might be able to do some very unlikely things just because the genre expects "rule of cool" (or "rule of funny" etc). So there is no specific action that will always need permission. If the GM is tired of saying "yes, please continue" or a player tired of pausing for response then you should have more things be assumed to succeed.

How could there be plot if everything is improvised?

There can't be as much as a book but there can be more than regular improv. More rail roads means more plot but less freedom. That trade off will be determined by the group. But even with lots of freedom the GM controlling all NPCs and major events can direct certain things to build up and pay off. A GM can plan out how NPCs will act in certain situations and knows what the players won't be able to do. "No. As a normal human you aren't able to jump over the castle walls" is less freedom but not considered unreasonable since it's enforcing consistent in-universe physics but even a simple restriction like that allows a GM to plan what's possible (in regular improv you could totally jump it if you wanted).

This sounds really easy/hard.

This system can be easier than regular improv. If you are a very social person without social anxiety then regular improv might be as easy as walking (but that doesn't make it unfun). On the other hand, if you're like me with minor social anxiety but the desire to socialize then regular improv is both easy and hard. It's super easy because I can't be wrong: say anything I think of and everything is fine. It's hard because it's hard to say what I'm thinking. So there's a war in my mind whenever I do this (just like any social interaction). This system can be easier than regular improv because giving more structure makes it easier to make decisions. However a GM can also make a particular encounter within a game hard to win.

Why not just play Fiasco RPG?

Fiasco looks like a fantastic game and I would recommend it. It has more restrictions than this system which is both good and bad. It makes plot easier but only allows certain settings and styles.

Do I have to mime objects and actions?

No. You can if you want but don't have to. I don't like miming stuff, I'd rather describe what I'm doing while sitting at a table. This reason is why I consider this to technically be a TTRPG sorta.

Is this really a TTRPG?

Not really but I don't have a better term for it. Fiasco just says "RPG" but that uses dice and paper so it's easier to claim the "table top" part of TTRPG. As for "roleplaying game": you make a character and act them out so it certainly has as much roleplaying as the group likes. As for game: I technically wouldn't consider any TTRPG to be a game since there are no win/lose conditions but that's semantics.

Why do we have D&D alignment?

This is a follow up on https://skyspiral7.blogspot.com/2022/07/my-take-on-d-9-alignments.html so read that first.

By now you should be thinking about so many factors that it's hard to keep track of them and you might ask "isn't there a more simple way to accomplish the same thing?". And that is exactly what I wanted you to ask. But to answer it we first need to know: what exactly is alignment trying to accomplish? As the Cheshire cat points out in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" by Lewis Carroll if you don't know where you are going then it doesn't matter which path you take.

First it's time to go back to Bob's point 1 which is that character alignment is based on player choices which can change over time. Dan agrees with this as do I. If alignment was fixed at the beginning and never changes no matter what the character/player does then that alignment would represent "the original state of mind of the character" which is useless information. Of course not all characters are static, for ones that are dynamic their alignment needs to also be dynamic.

The 3 of us agree that alignment needs a specific definition if it is to be useful because an ambiguous definition wouldn't have enough support to provide the information desired. Bob and Dan both state that alignment is important but that's something I doubt is true.

First it's important to recognize that alignment is being phased out of D&D. 1e alignment had few options (law, neutrality, chaos) and characters were expected to be lawful. 3e had the 9 options allowing character to be a wider range but certain classes had alignment requirements and characters were still expected to not be evil. There were mechanics that used alignment such as "detect evil" and "protection from good" and all monsters had alignments. In 5e characters are expected to fill in the boxes for personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws which together take the place of alignment but there's still an alignment box which is supposed to be the overall picture of those other boxes. Although you are still expected to not be evil, classes no longer restrict alignment and fewer (if any) mechanics use alignment. It seems like Wizards of the Coast recognized that personality/motivation is complex (and started allowing more and more possibilities) and that alignment wasn't doing all that it should be doing (bonds etc fix that issue). In 5e I'm not aware of any reason to actually fill out the alignment box at all (even clerics/paladins can be any alignment with any god). It seems to only exist so that the community didn't freak out because alignment was removed. After all, if alignment didn't exist how could we get into philosophical discussions like this one? There are things that alignment could do that we can do even better without alignment which is to say that we need "something like alignment".

Let me start by stating things that alignment shouldn't do. "this game feature requires that alignment" is bad for role playing: if I have a character concept that makes sense then I should be allowed to play it (even though it doesn't match the usual alignment). In D&D 3.5e monks are required to be lawful and if they stop being lawful they lose their magic kung fu (yes I know magic kung fu doesn't fit medieval European fantasy but it's in the default setting of D&D anyway). A free style martial artist hero who uses a variety of improvised moves and is chaotic is a fine character concept but isn't allowed in this edition for no apparent reason.

Another bad use of alignment is mechanics that interact with it. If a villain is not currently doing anything wrong should detect evil detect him? Is there some sort of naturally forming karma aura that is based on actions that people universally agree are good or evil or do all the gods agree on what counts as good and they watch every single person all the time and judge accordingly? Don't get me wrong moral relativism is BS (look up the trials against post WW2 Nazis) but being able to use magic to enforce morality means you have no need to get to know the person which is bad for roleplaying unless the spells weren't 100% accurate but at that point you'd be better off playing with the idea of "can a demon be good?". If you had spells for "detect demon" that would be fine because that would be telling you facts. There are plenty of ways to play with morality but "detect evil" (and alignment in general for that matter) makes that kind of impossible. If you don't want to play with morality then your villains are going to be obvious so that "detect evil" isn't useful except for surprise villains who are weirdly immune to detect evil to avoid ruining the surprise. The only good use for detect evil I can think of is if something was supposed to be obvious but the players aren't seeing it but in that case there are other clues you could drop.

Another problem is that in D&D 3.5e there's a certain curse that flips a character's alignment. While a ray that makes evil people good or good people evil is a classic trope, it brings up too many roleplaying questions. A person's entire mind is made from a combination of nature and nurture. Your inherent DNA determines some things (drugs and injury are bigger physical factors) but most of it is from your experience. Perhaps you had a childhood trauma or no one has ever treated you like an adult or whatever it is. With that in mind how would a player roleplay their character's alignment flipping? The character hasn't been changed physically and the memories are the same so how am I, as a player, supposed to understand his motivations of this alignment that doesn't fit everything else? Additionally from a gameplay perspective if this wasn't asked for and is permanent (as some of them are) then this is effectively killing the character. That character has that alignment for a reason, switching that alignment is like replacing him with a new character which the player might not like.

Alignment also encourages "my guy syndrome" which is where a player does something consistent with the character but it ruins the game. D&D etc is a game played for fun and socializing. It is better for a character to act in a way that doesn't make sense than it is to ruin the fun or start a player fight. My guy syndrome is possible with any character concept but an alignment makes some people think "what's the most lawful or chaotic thing to do" which is much more dangerous than "how would my character's oaths influence his behavior".

But alignment isn't all bad: there are some good uses for it. I'll talk about how to do these things without alignment. The first thing is "your god/society thinks you are too evil". The thought behind this is accountability for your actions. Actions having consequences is totally valid but it's easy to see that this is possible without alignment. You can keep track of some kind of reputation for people's default attitude toward the character. Likewise a god can threaten "you're straying too far from my teachings, if you don't repent I'll cut off your magic" (you may need to have a conversation with the player too). This is where my alignment definition's actual good vs viewed good comes into play. An evil person can have a good reputation because people aren't aware of everything he is doing. Having an alignment doesn't make this paragraph any easier to do (in fact it's a distraction). For example if a god has a list of rules and the cleric is being very lawful but not following those specific rules then the god can complain even though the alignment is perfectly fine. Likewise reputation isn't as simple as an alignment. Maybe someone has a reputation of being a drunkard, gambler, ladies' man, promise breaker, always late, or being easily angered. Or for something positive like for always having the most interesting stories to tell (although reputation is usually bad instead of good). Reputation can also be used to address the issue of murder hobos. Alignment doesn't cause murder hobo behavior so I won't define what that issue is (it's selfish based but any alignment can be selfish especially if it's killing "bad guys").

Another way that alignment is useful is for character creation brainstorming. Some people like to start with alignment and flesh out the character from there. This can be easily replaced with 2 brainstorming questions: "how does your guy feel about structure and order" and "how does your guy treat others". Another big one is "what motivates your guy". Of course there are tons of possible questions but these 3 are a fine starting place. Your character must have motivation of some kind. Chaotic lazy is not an acceptable character concept.

If you're running a game like D&D 3.5e the alignment restrictions can be removed easily and spells like "detect evil" can be replaced with "detect outsiders that are stereotypically evil" (demons, devils, etc). For character creation (in any game) there are plenty of questions that can be asked (too many to list but you can look up a few). And be sure to keep track of character reputation and consequences of actions taken.

And that's it. Don't stress over trying to label "good" and "lawful". For example the Joker (from DC Comics) is well organized and makes plans that he follows exactly even with backup plans and outsmarting people with traps. Yet he's also seemingly impulsive and seemingly insane and there's very few (if any) things that he won't do. Arguing whether or not he counts as lawful does nothing to help the understanding of the character nor the ability to write Joker stories (or roleplay). Edge cases like this are good examples for why labels are not helpful because character concepts and keeping track of reputation are easily done for the Joker (for extreme versions of the Joker, no one will trust him under any circumstances regardless of if you consider him lawful). There's no doubt he's evil (he enjoys the suffering of others and will take risks to make that happen) but a label that obvious is especially useless.

Another example of useless alignment labels is Kyubey: this paragraph has spoilers for Madoka★Magica. First watch the show (or first 2 movies) then the 3rd movie "Rebellion". Kyubey is obviously Lawful throughout: he's strict with his promises and rules and acts in an orderly manner. World 1 Kyubey has a goal of saving the universe therefore his motivation is good aligned however this method is "the lesser evil" which is not allowed by Christian morality but may be permitted by alignment systems (I didn't cover this in mine because it's more of an edge case and opinion). World 2 Kyubey performed an experiment of trapping someone in suffering in order to see if he could make something, that already had a solution, "better". There's really no excuse for that: it's evil. World 3 Kyubey was trying to save the universe from chaos and did nothing immoral (as of the end of Rebellion). So Kyubey goes from debatably good to definitely evil to definitely good. But this isn't character development: he is exactly the same in all 3 cases however the alignments fail to reflect that and arguing over the alignment will do nothing to help understand his complex character. You could describe him as: seeks the survival of the universe at all costs, lacks compassion, and will allow suffering for the sake of saving the universe in the "most efficient" way possible. Which I guess isn't that complicated but is more than a 9 square alignment system can handle.

That's not to say you can't have any kind of label. You can write down simple notes (like I did for Kyubey above) like: never kills, greedy, or no respect for authority. D&D 5e has a system of bonds etc and Mutants and Masterminds 3e has a system of complications. These are flexible and vague enough to prevent my guy syndrome and allow describing more complicated characters than 9 alignment squares can.

Note that despite all this I still use the phrase "stereotypical lawful good" as an easy way to start describing something because it allows me to start from common ground even though the rest of the description won't follow alignments. So stereotypes can be a useful short hand but most things don't follow them. The alignment definitions I have in my previous post is the best definitions I can come up with but they are still useless.

My take on D&D 9 alignments

Intro

The 9 alignments of D&D have been the source of much internet debate. The reasons for these debates is that people disagree on the definitions of the alignments and judging whether or not someone meets the criteria is subjective.

If you haven't played a game like Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) and don't know what the 9 alignments are then this post is going to be useless and hard to follow. If you want to read it anyway here's a quick and dirty description (better descriptions later) of alignment. Alignment is a category in which your character's morality and personality fit. Alignment is 2 dimensional: lawful vs chaotic and good vs evil. A character's alignment is a 2 word description such as "LE (lawful evil)" or "NG (neutral good)". If a character is in between the 2 extremes the word neutral is used. The same word is used for both dimensions with "neutral neutral" instead being called "true neutral" (which is abbreviated with just N). Typically the 9 alignments are organized in a square with good on top and lawful on the left:

LG	NG	CG
LN	N	CN
LE	NE	CE

"the extreme corners" refers to LG CG LE CE and "the neutral plus" refers to the rest.

For my take on alignment I'm going to examine 2 YouTube videos which inspired me to write this post, then I'll give my own definitions, then I'll answer the most important question "Why do we have D&D alignment?". To give away the answer I think we shouldn't have alignment at all but pieces of it are useful, therefore I need to first talk about the existing definitions and why they are lacking (including my own). You don't need to watch these videos since my dissection should be detailed enough but feel free to give the videos the views they deserve.

Bob

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN0xD9cfkw
"How GYGAX Ruined Alignment" by Bob World Builder

Bob explains the D&D 1e alignment was belief based and the subjective nature made it useless until they are tested. However 3e was action based which removed motivation which lead to problems. Therefore he redefined alignment as:

1. (will be covered in "Why do we have D&D alignment?")
2. law/chaos: how your character acts. via a code of conduct or not
3. good/evil: why your character acts. selfless or selfish

Honestly this definition is strong. After my own (obvious bias but will be explained) this is the second best definition of alignment I've seen. It's simple and it just works to the extent that I found it hard to explain the issues with it. If you use his definitions you'll be better off than the majority.

The first problem (and the one that's easier to explain) is that it has neutral be "everything in between" rather than giving criteria for them. This leaves it open to interpretation what counts as neutral. One extreme interpretation is "your character is 99% lawful, since he isn't 100% he's in between and thus neutral". This judgement makes it nearly impossible to be anything except true neutral and makes the 9 alignments pointless since it's basically only 1 alignment. The opposite extreme is "your character is 51% lawful which is mostly lawful hence why I say he's lawful". This judgement makes it nearly impossible to be in the neutral plus instead having characters jump between the corners. While 4 alignments is better than 1 it still isn't the intended 9. Looking at percent makes the problem obvious but when you actually are judging alignment you don't have math. Instead you'll be looking at a list of actions from the character and trying to decide if it falls "in the middle" which is vague. This is why it would be more helpful if there was a clear difference between neutral and the others.

The second problem (or "my second problem with it" since this is more like a philosophical opinion) is "how" vs "why" but the issue is hard to explain. He states that belief is useless until tested. Does he think that his new definition of good vs evil is only useful when tested and the law vs chaos is always useful? I'll cover how/when alignment is useful in "Why do we have D&D alignment?". I assert that alignment should be defined by a person's heart and seen by actions (Luke 6:43-45) therefore law vs chaos should also be defined by "why" since motivation causes actions. If a person swears by a code but doesn't know every rule then does something without knowing that it happens to follow that rule then that person has not behaved in a lawful way (even though an observer may wrongly think that he has). Lawfulness should be defined based on how strongly you intend to follow a principle and not based on how well your action actually meets the criteria.

The third problem is that I disagree with "good" and "selfless" being synonymous. Although being good often requires a degree of selflessness it is more than that. Selfless means to deny yourself but it does not require helping others. Good should be defined as helping others AND being selfless. As opposed to Mormons and Catholics who might help others for personal gain (unlike Christianity which doesn't allow such motivation).

As for Bob's self critique that his definitions would consider self defense to be "evil": morality is big and complex. No matter how well defined your religion or philosophy is there will always be edge cases and confusing scenarios so don't get hung up on "I found 1 example where this doesn't work". It's fine. Although it is fair to point out a known weakness.

Guild Master Dan

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYECCocnJ1syH0UDgpnU2wZoTz_z8ssR7
"Dungeons & Dragons: Alignment Done Right" (playlist) by GuildMasterDan

His definition is in the first video but further detail and explanation is provided by the other videos in the playlist.

He defines the alignments as

• Lawful (renamed to principled): has some kind of code
• Neutral: has a world view instead of rules
• Chaotic (renamed to unprincipled): doesn't have any rules

• Good (renamed to selfless): doesn't seek self interest AND seeks to help others
• Neutral: doesn't seek self interest OR seeks to help others (but not both)
• Evil (renamed to selfish): does neither

While he does provide definitions for neutral he makes the same mistake of conflating selfless and good. His definitions appear to be action based but when talking about details and examples they appear more motivation based. So most of my critiques overlap with Bob's alignment definition.

However Dan provides a better example of the issue with conflating selfless and good. This can be seen in his LN video's "expected" example character. He claims that Samara (from Mass Effect) is LN because she's inconsistent about being selfless when in fact she's perfectly selfless but not always to the benefit of others. My above description of his definitions have more detail than his stated definitions because he doesn't realize that selfless doesn't mean good. In this case Samara executing a criminal for the benefit of the many at the expense of an individual is a moral edge case and thus not one that can be easily measured against "helping others". His ending example of the LN "black knight" is a better example of his view since such a person would follow evil orders just because they always follow orders and not because they want to do evil and thus is selfless (since they suppress or lack their own feelings) but aren't being "good". Personally I would consider this black knight to be evil since if they know the acts are evil and continues to allow/support evil then they are evil even if they aren't doing it because they enjoy evil.

---

My definitions

• Actual Lawful: likes rules and follows them as much as possible
• Actual Neutral: views rules more like guidelines and will ignore them sometimes. an impulsive person doesn't think about rules and falls in here as well.
• Actual Chaotic: hates rules. sometimes rebellious and sometimes ignores them but thinks that rules shouldn't exist

• Actual Good: selfless benevolent: likes other people
• Actual Neutral: selfish but not hateful or selfless that isn't for the sake of others
• Actual Evil: malevolent: hates people (selfish or selfless)

• Viewed Good: beneficial
• Viewed Neutral: useless
• Viewed Evil: harmful

If you've read this far these definitions should be little surprise but I'll need to go into some details. The first thing to address is the 1 thing that may have surprised you: why are there 2 definitions for good vs evil? The reason is that I'm making a distinction between what your alignment actually is vs what people think it is. To be truly good you must be selfless but people can't read your mind (and you may even fool yourself) so people can think of you as good even if you have selfish motivations (as long as you don't make them obvious). This distinction between what you are vs what people think you are will be important for "Why do we have D&D alignment?" (and by now it should be obvious why that I made this post first). You'll notice that the actual law dimension and the actual good dimension are both based on motivation because motivation is what determines your actual alignment.

You may wonder why there's no viewed law dimension. Well there is but I didn't list it above because it wasn't needed to address my concerns and the definition is simple: do people think you fit the actual lawful etc. So technically yes, there's an actual 9 alignments for how your soul is judged (ie who you really are) and a viewed 9 alignments for reputation. However viewed law is more vaguely defined and less useful anyway so meh.

Another difference between actual good and viewed good is that while generally speaking actual good is also viewed as good this isn't always true. If you are trying to help but cause a lot of damage due to incompetence you are actually good but possibly harmful.

A detail about actual good vs evil that's missing above is that of dedication level. Actual good is someone who will be willing to go out of their way, take risk, and sacrifice for someone's good. Actual evil is someone who will be willing to go out of their way, take risk, and sacrifice for someone's harm. Actual neutral may do things that are good/evil but is not too much effort, low risk, and low cost. This means that actual good is a little more heroic and that most people fall into actual neutral (more on that later). This dedication level is part of what it means to be selfless vs selfish: being selfish doesn't mean refusing to do something easy that helps someone.

The actual law dimension is not based on how many rules you have but how strongly you hold them. If a lawful character runs into a situation that his rules don't cover he isn't required to make a rule before he can act (although he is allowed to make a rule if he wants) which is to say that a lawful character can act and make decisions without needing to always depend on rules. However a lawful character has such respect for rules that if a rule is clear he'll want to follow it if possible. A lawful character need not subscribe to all rules (which would be impossible anyway) but he would typically appreciate the idea of the rule even if it's in a code that he doesn't follow. Conversely a chaotic person hates rules perhaps because he feels like rules restrict freedom (which is not always the case). Someone who thinks rules are mostly pointless would be neutral.

Lawful can be applied to all types of advice: philosophy, religion, common sayings, code of conduct, governmental laws, personal advice, plans, blueprints, instructions, or guidelines. Even though guidelines is in my definition of neutral the difference is how you view them not how the rules are written. A book with very general advice can be taken as gospel by a lawful person or a very specific book can be taken not very seriously by a neutral person. I'll use a vacation as an illustration but keep in mind that this is how such people might react and is not always the case since personality is much more complex than an alignment chart (also see "Why do we have D&D alignment?"). Alice prefers to join tour groups because she likes the way everything is planned out and she can look at the schedule to see what's next. Following structure like this makes her feel safe like everything is under control. Her love of rules makes her lawful. Carol likes to get an example itinerary online then quickly notes which items are important and edits in time to explore and do her own thing. If this is how she tends to treat all rules in life she would be neutral because she's using rules as a basis for her own ideas (which are not as rigid). Eve is given an itinerary. This makes her unhappy because the list makes her feel restricted, trapped, and controlled even though she enjoys all of the things on the list. Her hatred for rules makes her chaotic.

If a person thinks rules are good and opposes those rules because they want bad things to happen that would be evil but doesn't affect law/chaos. Although you certainly can respect the rules of others doing so doesn't affect how lawful you are. If a person is trying to overthrow society and makes a complex plan for how to do it then follows that plan exactly then they would be a lawful anarchist. This sounds like an oxymoron but it is because they have such respect for their own plan even though they have no respect for government's law. Recall that lawful only requires a positive view of rules of any kind (but not all kinds) in this case it is for their plan. A chaotic person wouldn't have a plan and a neutral person might make a vague plan but then improvise (without being forced to do so) just because they changed their mind about how some part should be done.

By my definition (ignoring "viewed") the average person would be true neutral. I consider this a strength of my definitions since most people are not heroes or villains. They don't think about morality much and live a normal life sometimes being good but only if it isn't too much too ask. Villains/antagonists would also rarely be evil (since selfish is the most common). I consider this to be a strength as well: most villains aren't evil and don't consider themselves evil. If a selfish villain gets what he wants then he may settle down. Whereas a truly evil villain is never satisfied because hurting people was the whole point (rather than a means to an end).

I feel like this is the best possible definition for alignment because it answers every issue I can think of. But you still shouldn't use alignment (see next post: "Why do we have D&D alignment?").