D&D 5E Alignment working as intended in 5e

Older editions sometimes said things like, "Alignment is a guide to role-playing, not a straightjacket to restrict your character"...but then in practice contradicted that by making rules that reduced your choices or mechanically penalized you based on alignment. To some extent, I was fine with that, though I realize many others weren't.

In 5e, alignment really seems to fulfill that original statement. It has virtually zero mechanical effect. As far as I recall, nothing but sprites (and presumably deities or other similar creatures) and a few powerful magic items can detect, react to, or affect a character's alignment.

Alignment is still a metaphysical concept that influences the D&D multiverse, but how much or little you want to make it a part of your game is basically up to you, since mechanics aren't going to care.

For my campaign, I let the players know that alignment had very little mechanical effect, but that the primary not necessarily obvious effect of it would be influencing where the character's soul goes after they die. I asked the players at the start whether they prefer that I inform them if the direction of their behavior might be causing their alignment to drift, or whether they want me to just silently change it in my DM records, so that what is on their character sheet might no longer be accurate (and they could make that choice individually rather than as a group). They told me they didn't really care, and were fine with me just silently changing if need be. So, so far, so good.

After a year of playing the campaign, I did a mental review of the characters and what alignments their behaviors and attitudes and such would best fit.

I couldn't think of any character who wasn't acting like the alignment on their sheet. Some of the characters could be interpreted as a few different alignments, but the one they were listed as was always one of those options. Their character sheets told me what they thought their characters' alignment should be, and that in and of itself was the biggest deciding and informing factor for me as the DM, since they hadn't given any contradictory evidence in the play of the characters.

I'm not sure if the lack of mechanical impact in 5e encouraged a stress-free environment that contributed to an appropriate correlation between declared alignments and character role-playing, or if it is just that I have great players (which I do), but seeing that alignment was actually working the way it was advertised to work for decades was cool realization.

It's a well-known fact that even the most psychopathic and depraved acts of genocide, torture, infanticide, slavery, necromancy, demon binding, rape and murder are perfectly lawful good.

As long as they are done for 'the greater good' of course. Or if the victim of your brutal violence is probably 'evil'.

I like how they've done alignment in 5E. With less emphasis on mechanical impact, it's just a quick thumbnail guideline to my character's or NPC's outlook on life.

At a quick glance, I know that hobgoblins as lawful evil are more likely to be organized and precise, kind of a monstrous Nazi. Orcs? Orcs are chaotic evil so they have little respect for titles, position or rules, respecting power and strength instead.

Of course there's a ton of leeway and no one appreciates the lawful stupid paladin or the chaotically insane rogue. I once had a PC randomly stab a colleague "just to see what it felt like 'cuz I'm chaotic neutral". That PC (and player) didn't last long.

So using alignment as a general guideline to worldview and approach to life is good. Straightjacket or an excuse to be a jerk bad.

Oofta said:

I like how they've done alignment in 5E. With less emphasis on mechanical impact, it's just a quick thumbnail guideline to my character's or NPC's outlook on life.

At a quick glance, I know that hobgoblins as lawful evil are more likely to be organized and precise, kind of a monstrous Nazi. Orcs? Orcs are chaotic evil so they have little respect for titles, position or rules, respecting power and strength instead.

Of course there's a ton of leeway and no one appreciates the lawful stupid paladin or the chaotically insane rogue. I once had a PC randomly stab a colleague "just to see what it felt like 'cuz I'm chaotic neutral". That PC (and player) didn't last long.

So using alignment as a general guideline to worldview and approach to life is good. Straightjacket or an excuse to be a jerk bad.

Click to expand...

Yep, jerks will be jerks, regardless of the rules or lack thereof.

Sword of Spirit said:

Yep, jerks will be jerks, regardless of the rules or lack thereof.

Click to expand...

And regardless of their alignment.

Oofta said:

I like how they've done alignment in 5E. With less emphasis on mechanical impact, it's just a quick thumbnail guideline to my character's or NPC's outlook on life.

At a quick glance, I know that hobgoblins as lawful evil are more likely to be organized and precise, kind of a monstrous Nazi. Orcs? Orcs are chaotic evil so they have little respect for titles, position or rules, respecting power and strength instead.

Click to expand...

I just never understood why people weren't always playing this way. It's way easier. Getting worked up about the precise boundaries of lawfulness is just borrowing trouble.

This is a thing many of us have struggled with since the 80s.

I like the idea of mechanical impacts of alignment, determined by how a character is played. For example, a cleric or paladin should match their deity in terms of alignment, and if their alignment deviates, the deity should impose a consequence for that schism. The trouble is that the game has never been able to satisfactorily define alignment behavior to be as clear-cut as, say, what constitutes an attack action. There are so many gray areas, it's impossible to adjudicate.

It's one thing when a cleric of Lathander puts an innocent family of halflings into a barn and then the barn to the torch, or a cleric of Oghma organizes a book-burning. Those are so diametrically opposed to their god's ideals it's obvious there should be some consequence. But to determine if the cleric of Lathander was violating a neutral good alignment, or the cleric of Oghma true neutral, is so rife for interpretation. Hell, even the cleric torching the halflings can have shades of gray - if the halflings are carrying some sort of incurable, deadly plague, it could be argued that burning them is the only sane thing to do. But would a cleric of Lathander stand for that sort of thing? More importantly, would Lathander?

For decades now, I've looked at alignment as a roleplaying aid and little more. Not "chaotic neutral = socio- or psychopath," because that's puerile. But chaotic good as "we'll break that law because the greater good demands it," or something like that.

I don't think alignment should be completely throwaway. But in 30 years of musing on it, I've never been able to do anything constructive with it.

Cheers,

Bob

www.r-p-davis.com

Yeah, Alignment is now just an addendum to a character's Personality Traits, Ideal, Bond, and Flaw: a way to help provide interesting role-play opportunities.

I'm fine with that.

Always wanted to play a high level wizard who develops a society where folks are enchanted to be Lawful Good.

''But I'd hate to be brainwashed.''

''Nah, you'll love it. That's kinda the point.''

Gardens & Goblins said:

Always wanted to play a high level wizard who develops a society where folks are enchanted to be Lawful Good.

''But I'd hate to be brainwashed.''

''Nah, you'll love it. That's kinda the point.''

Click to expand...

And the question becomes, what alignment is the Wizard? An argument could be made pretty easily for LN, LE or CG.