D&D 5E What if the only 4 alignments were NE, LN, CN and NG? (No true neutrals).

Particle_Man

Explorer
I mean from the highest to the lowest level.

For one thing, even animals would be different, I guess (I suppose one might go for the dodge that "unintelligent" = unaligned. Or one could just go whole hog and say there really are "good" dogs and evil chickens). ;)

For another, we lose many gods, all devils and demons (daemons are still around), many LG/CG outsiders too.

Anyway, this is off the top of my head. What are your thoughts?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


My initial thought is: "Why?"

If you want to trim alignments, then just trim them all. Make it an alignment-less system. People (and gods) have complex motivations, which can't be easily pigeon-holed into good or evil.

You're fundamentally proposing four alignments: Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic. Seems inelegant to me; you can be Lawful, but not Good? What does that even mean? You'd be better off going the old BECMI route and just making it Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic. Good and Evil then become arbitrary value judgements.

If you're proposing this as an intellectual exercise (i.e. what would happen if all the other alignments suddenly vanished in some kind of Rapture), then I can't help you. My own alignment is Lawful Evil, so I no longer exist.
 


If you want a simplified alignment system, I'd be OK with Good <->Neutral <-> Evil, but anything beyond that? I prefer the original 9 point alignment system quite strongly.
 

It would be madness INCARNATE. Everything would be COBALT or CERULEAN in color. We'd have to open our CHAKRAS. Improving our class abilities would be ESSENTIAL
 

The alignment system was expanded from Law/Neutral/Chaos (which was really Good/Neutral/Evil) to the nine alignment system for a reason. Alignments are meant as an RP tool, and limiting them to 3 wasn't enough. Going down to four would create the same problem.

Also, you'd still have devils and demons... they would just be Fiends (just as all Celestials are one group).
 

D&D 4E has five alignments: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil.

I agree with "unintelligent = unaligned". The actions of a lion might appear evil to us (it kills and eats people), but it doesn't have a moral code, just the imperatives of life to survive and reproduce.

Alignment is a very coarse measure. Dividing people into five or nine boxes is good for narrative purposes, but isn't very good for modelling how real people act. From a storytelling point of view, it is convenient to say things like "The Joker is chaotic evil, Darht Vader is lawful evil".

The nine-box alignment system isn't too bad. It does match nicely to one of the theories for motivation (as discussed in easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html).

As long as you remember that alignment is a really coarse measure, and that two lawful good people could be quite different, it is fine for a game.
 
Last edited:

D&D 4E has five alignments: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil.

This was a decent scheme, too, but losing the iconics in LE (Darth Vader) and CG (Robin Hood) kinda sucks.

I'd accept a scheme that only allowed LG, CG, N, LE, CE before eliminating combined ethical/moral alignments, but I still like having all 9.

Besides, we'd lose things like this.
 

If I was going to shrink alignment, I would more inclined to have LN (E), LN (G), CN (E), CN (G), NE (L), NE (C), NG (L), and NG (C). Everyone has a major and minor tendency.

Possibly setting up a more complicated afterlife. When you die, you start out in a transitional plane (say Arcadia), and your post mortal activities may allow you to be one of the select few to make into Mechanus or Mt. Celestia. It makes it funny that people are trying to get into the Abyss or the 9 Hells.
 

Remove ads

Top