How about alignment?

[Recidivism]

Alignment is one of those things that causes a lot of controversial discussions, rules abuse, and essentially adds nothing of note to characterization. Your character is "Good"? How?

It's a totally failed system, worse than THAC0 (which at least didn't detract from the game, even if the math wasn't intuitive).

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Nine alignments is pretty fundamental to D&D so I think it should remain.

If I were going to use something else it would probably be a 4 alignment system, LG, CG, LE, CE to get rid of the wishy washy neutrals, then adding another designator Strong/Weak where rules mechanics only get involved much for strongly aligned creatures/characters.

 

[jsaving]

I think alignment should be a separate "module" that provides no mechanical benefits or penalties whatsoever. No preventing lawfuls from being bards because the bardic wanderlust could never be felt by a lawful individual. No hamstringing good-aligned characters by making them more vulnerable to key attacks from evil monsters. And absolutely no level or XP losses from the "trauma" of changing alignment.

Once that point is out of the way, we can talk about how to make alignment an enjoyable addition to the game rather than the straitjacket it sometimes became in the past.

And on that point, I'd like to see D&D return to the iconic 9-position alignment system. It has entered popular culture; it harkens back to the Gygax/Moorcock roots of the AD&D alignment system; but most importantly, it helps even novice players understand that not all flavors of good are alike. Over the years, I've seen how that last point makes for a a richer experience around the gaming table, and it's something that I hope will be considered as the new edition takes shape.

But, I do think the 5e team needs to think more carefully about what "law" and "chaos" mean. 3e told us that lawful characters keep their word, judge those who fall short in their duties, respect authority, tend to lack creativity, refuse to use poison, and have a code of conduct. This definition combines ethical precepts (keeping one's word), personality quirks (judging others), and aptitudes (lacking creativity) with the notion that one is somehow bound by what others say (respecting authority). When one compares that to the relatively simple and streamlined definition of goodness as "willing to make sacrifices on behalf of others," the contrast is clear.

What I mean by that is, alignment works best when it serves as a shorthand for how characters will act regardless of the campaign setting into which they're placed. If I find out that a particular character is good-aligned, for example, I know immediately that she will generally try to help people, even if two different good-aligned people might disagree on exactly how to do that. But if I find out she's lawful, I need an allegiance-style breakdown of exactly which laws or authorities or codes of conduct she respects before I can say what her general inclinations will be, which defeats the main purpose of having an alignment system in the first place.

This is not to say an allegiance-type system is "bad" -- we've informally used it for years in the 4e campaign I run as well as the Pathfinder campaign in which I participate. But it isn't, and can't be, a substitute for a simple two-word phrase that gives you a setting-free idea of the values for which any given character stands. This might be based on social order versus individual freedom. It might be whether the ends justify the means. It might even be whether one desires modron-like stagnancy or abyssal instability (though I wouldn't personally prefer this). But it has to be something.

With those caveats in mind, I'm hoping for a new and improved 9-position alignment system for 5e.

 

[variant]

I say good, neutral, and evil. To me lawful and chaotic are too arbitrary.

 

[delericho]

Ideally...

Alignment should not exist in the core. And, incidentally, neither should the Paladin class.

Alignment should be presented in an optional module, and presented in various permutations. That is, it should address 3-point alignment on both GNE and LNC axes, 5-point alignment, 9-point alignment, and any other permutation I have forgotten. It should likewise discuss the options of "everyone must have an alignment" and also "most people are just Unaligned".

The optional module should also present a whole bunch of powers, magic items, monsters, and the like that are particularly tied to the alignment system, and use the subsystems in the module.

And the module should present the Paladin class, with the LG-only alignment requirement fully in place.

 

[baradtgnome]

Another vote for the 9 + a separate 'unaligned'.

We have used this as house rule for quite a while.

Characters can choose from any of the standard alignments, or decide to be 'unaligned'. Unaligned is different from neutral. Neutral seeks the balance. Unaligned is simply not interested or committed enough to be one of the standard alignments. Unaligned characters tend to follow social norms and be mostly self interested.​

The most widely used NPC alignment by the DM is 'unaligned'.

I also would like to see Alignment separated mechanically from the rules.

 

[pemerton]

It might be whether the ends justify the means.

As Bertrand Russell once quipped, "What else would?"

Anyway, I think this is as good an example as any why alignment, and especially 9 point alignment, has inherent problems that get in the way of its workability.

In AD&D, for example, Gygax defines Lawful Good in utilitarian terms - the greatest happiness of the greatest number - while defining good in rights terms - he refers to creature rights rather than human rights - thereby engendering the immediate threat of contradiction, given that utilitarianism and other consequentialist moralities are generally regarded as the major alternatives to, rather than instances of, rights-based moralities. And in D&D a character who endorsed the suffering of one as a necessary condition for the well-being of the many (which is one popular understanding of "the ends justify the means") would generally be judged evil, although the permissibility of such occurences is one of the major theoretical commitments of a thorough-going utilitarianism.

a simple two-word phrase that gives you a setting-free idea of the values for which any given character stands

And in my view this is the problem. If you want setting-free or context-free accounts of value, you are straight away in the territory of moral philosophy and moral debate. The game has no need to, and therefore in my view, should not court such controversy.

If there are to be alignments at all, they should be defined within the context of the gameworld (as pre-AD&D did with its Law vs Chaos, and as 4e does with its Gods (and order) vs Primordials & Demons (and chaos)). As a freestanding set of moral concepts, alignment is hopeless.

 

[pemerton]

Alignment should not exist in the core. And, incidentally, neither should the Paladin class.

<snip>

And the module should present the Paladin class, with the LG-only alignment requirement fully in place.

I think this would be a mistake. The paladin speaks to a popular archetype. The idea of a heroic holy warrior is a fairly big part of mainstream European mythology, from Arthurian legends (particularly in the romanticised versions) to romantic depictions of Charlemagne and Richard the Lionheart to certain interpretations of Aragorn in LotR to random fantasy poster of knight on horsebakck #137.

Why should playing that archetype be linked to an optional module presenting the rules that have been probably the most controversial and houseruled and discarded and overlooked in the history of the game, and which are probably responsible for more controversies (and especially GM-player antagonism) in the course of play than any other element of the game?

 

[jbear]

I would prefer a good, neutral, and evil alignment system. I've never dug the law vs chaos dichotomy. Good vs evil is apropos considering individuals lawfulness vs chaos may fluctuate way to frequent with regard to different situations.

Also law is totally ethnocentric. Barbarians may have their own cultural norms that they heed, their own notions of appropriate behaviour that do not fit with the cultural norms of say a city environment. Think about the laws of a drow society. Completely different idea of lawful behaviour. It's not that they aren't obeying the law ... it's that they have different laws.

I don't really get the idea that if I give little importance to the law, governing my actions by what I believe to be right would define me as chaotic. Or if I rose up against a tyrannical dictatorship ... chaotic ... really?

And the whole chaotic neutral thing ... oh, you're a madman who may throw themselves over a bridge when you cross it ...? Because you are chaotic ... rrrrright.

I don't know. Give people what they want I guess, but alignment will never be anything more than descriptive in my game. People are complex. Alignment seems like such an artificial way of defining personality. One day I might be in a bad mood and act like a selfish, mean s.o.b, they next I might be a saint, drive five Km below the speed limit and help old ladies cross the road. I'm not one thing. I don't like my characters to be either.

 

[delericho]

I think this would be a mistake. The paladin speaks to a popular archetype. The idea of a heroic holy warrior is a fairly big part of mainstream European mythology, from Arthurian legends (particularly in the romanticised versions) to romantic depictions of Charlemagne and Richard the Lionheart to certain interpretations of Aragorn in LotR to random fantasy poster of knight on horsebakck #137.

Why should playing that archetype be linked to an optional module presenting the rules that have been probably the most controversial and houseruled and discarded and overlooked in the history of the game, and which are probably responsible for more controversies (and especially GM-player antagonism) in the course of play than any other element of the game?

Because, and this is strictly IMO, that archetype just doesn't work without the LG-only restriction.

Sure, you can play a heroic warrior archetype without the restriction if you want... but in practice, the very instant the Paladin's code becomes an inconvenience the player will suddenly decide that it's just not worth the effort. The code has to have mechanical backing, or it is meaningless.