D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Helldritch]

As an aside, lex talionis has a complicated and muddled history because "laws as written" were not necessarily "laws as enacted," and we have a long and diverse body of textual evidence that supports this idea even from the time of Hammurabi and following. I have had multiple instructors in Near Eastern/West Asian Studies make the point, for example, that Law Codes were sometimes more about rulers projecting their principles of fairness as a lawgiver rather than an accurate glimpse into the contemporary judicial system and proceedings. So we have to tread carefully when talking about lex talionis in terms of both principle and praxis.

And??????
A nice summary of what I was saying. More detailed yes, but still the same. Thanks for the precisions.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Law/ Chaos isnt necessarily about respecting or rejecting legitimate authority, just like its not about respecting or rejecting local laws.

And it can't be about rejecting working together either. Which really makes it very very narrowly defined. Narrow enough to not really be useful.

What 'alignment stick'?

Calling torture (and those that practice it in the game world) evil?

Telling a player that their character is now evil, and then making that character an NPC and taking it away from them. Maybe not something you specifically said you did, but something that was said on this thread.

I'm not advocating for torture. I'm advocating that if you don't want torture, just saying "that's evil and you shouldn't do it" is far less effective than removing the reason that PCs end up torturing people. @tetrasodium laid out a perfect set of other things that they could do, rather than playing chicken with the people who just killed all of their friends by relying on "You are the good guys, and I surrendered, so I'm 100% safe, unless you want to be evil."

Its not 'my' conception of alignment. It's how the alignments are, and how I intend to rule and adjudicate them for any alignment related effects.

The fact that alignment is one of the most commonly and hotly argued topics, really makes it doubtful that you can objectively say exactly what they are.

There are a ton of game rules that key off alignment:


A non exhaustive list.

So yeah. Alignment matters. And I'm well within my rights as DM to make rulings on alignment.

I always love lists like this. Let me go ahead and go through this list.

Spoiler: Spoiled for length

• Demilich: first time a non-evil creature enters the demilich's lair they take 3d10 necrotic damage (MM 49)

So, firstly, this only applies if the party happens to have an Evil member, something that most tables don't allow in the first place. Secondly, this involves basically auto damage for approaching an enemy the party might have no idea is there, so many DM's will ignore this, since just randomly causing the players to take damage with no save is sure to trigger reactions and slow down gameplay as they retreat and try and figure out which effect it was that just causes them damage and how they can prevent it.

• Lemure: returns to life in 1d10 days unless killed by a good creature under effects of bless or sprinkled with holy water (MM 76)

There are nearly endless Lemures in the Hells, even if you "kill" one there are millions and millions more of them. This is effectively meaningless hoops. Especially since you could accomplish the same goal by sprinkling the Lemure with Holy Water, no alignment needed.

• Night Hag: evil creatures killed by Nightmare Haunting have soul trapped in bag (MM 178)

Doesn't affect the party at all, because if they are killed by the Hag, the party will be attempting to revive them, and unless they are Evil (which they aren't because most tables don't allow Evil PCs) then they are immune anyways. This even makes them less useful as a plot device, because any soul the Night Hag has is evil, and therefore not someone the party will really care about saving.

• Lycanthrope: PC becoming lycanthrope has alignment changed to appropriate alignment (MM 207)
  

Pointlessly forcing a character to be something they weren't by dint of a curse that most players want removed as soon as possible, because it isn't fun to be forced to attack and kill their party members or be forced to be an NPC.

• Rakshasa: vulnerability to piercing damage from magic weapons wielded by good creatures (MM 257)
  

Pointless hoop jumping. Especially since it just makes them weaker and requires defining if you are "good enough" to have them take double damage. Which, if the players know about, will just have them extolling all their virtues. Nothing is lost by ignoring this.

• Shadow: non-evil humanoids killed by Strength Drain become shadows in 1d4 days (MM 269)

Again, does nothing if no one in the party is Evil. And, even if they are Evil, they will likely have been hiding that fact, leading to them being treated the same way. Seems pointless

• Sprite: can detect creature's alignment on failed DC 10 cha save (MM 283)

Detecting Alignment doesn't do anything if alignment doesn't mean anything. Also, as someone with a Chainlock Sprite Familiar, I'll go ahead and let you know that A) Getting this to land is nearly impossible without tipping your hand, because the Sprite becomes visible and the target knows what is happening and B) 80% of the time, it is pointless, because I can tell who my enemy is.

• Unicorn: regional affects maximize healing and suppress curses on good creatures (MM 293)

Never really encountered a Unicorn, but these seem like really mild effects. And raises an amusing point. If you are cursed to be Evil, is your curse suppressed? Like say, your alignment changed to Evil because you became a werewolf, now you are Evil and can't have the curse that made you evil suppressed. It could be amusing though, so we'll give a +1 for actually finding something that matters

• Vampire: PC becoming vampire has alignment changed to lawful evil (MM 295)

They also become a thrall unable to reject the commands of the master vampire, can't cross running water, and burn and die in the sun. None of this is worth the trouble and if the dead player wasn't made an NPC, they are going to seek to remove this curse as soon as possible, when they are allowed to do so by their utter mind-control by the master vampire. Which, by the way, can only be broken by drinking the master vampire's blood.

• Gold Dragon: regional mist assumes ominous shapes to warn non-evil creatures of evil creatures present (PHB 115)

All this amounts to is a way for the DM to signal to the players "bad guys approaching" which... if they want to do, they will do anyways. Pointless.

• Candle of Invocation: creatures with same alignment as candle's deity have advantage on attack rolls, saving throws and ability checks, clerics or druids with same alignment can cast 1st level spells at-will (DMG 157)

A single item that is either very powerful or utterly useless. Might as well just have it act on allies of the Diety, since the only time this is going to be more than "one side of the fight is super buffed" is when good people are fighting good people, and someone activates the candle. And you should have given plenty of other signs that that was happening. Also, "here is a powerful magical item, you can't use it because you need to be Neutral Good to use it and you are Lawful Good" is kind of just a jerk move.

• Book of Vile Darkness: non-evil make DC17 cha save or alignment change to neutral evil (DMG 222)
  

"Hey, I just removed your PCs agency by forcing you to be something you aren't". Always a terrible idea.

• Book of Exalted Deeds: requires attunement by a good creature, evil creatures take 24d6 unavoidable radiant damage (DMG 222)

If no one is Evil, then this does nothing. And anyone powerful enough to be going after this artifact isn't stupid enough to attune to it and nearly die in the process. So, basically plot armor for why the bad guy can't use the good relic.

• Blackrazor: requires attunement by a non-lawful creature (DMG 216)

Seems to be another pointless resctriction on who can use the cool magical item

• Deck of Many Things: Balance card reverses alignment (DMG 162)

Taking away player Agency by forcing them to be something they aren't again. Also, changing alignment doesn't do anything except completely rewrite a player character, so no loss in no longer being able to force people to become NPCs

• Talisman of Pure Good: requires attunement by a good creature, neutral/unaligned creatures take 6d6 radiant damage, evil creatures take 8d6 radiant damage (DMG 207)

Pointless resctrition on who can use the cool magic item. Also, this item has only a single power that can be used if you aren't using it as a spellcasting focus. "Kill evil creature". So... Kind of a pointless item anyways, unless you want to have your final boss one-shotted.

• Talisman of Ultimate Evil: requires attunement by an evil creature, neutral/unaligned creatures take 6d6 necrotic damage, good creatures take 8d6 necrotic damage (DMG 207)

The bad guy version, great for giving an item to the villain that can one-shot PCs, preventing them from being resurrected (no remains) and then denying the party loot. Why you would even want this item in the game, I have no idea. Seems like terrible DMing, unless the party is high enough level to circumvent the item via True Resurrection or Wish

• Robe of the Archmage: requires attunement by a character of the appropriate alignment (DMG 194)
  

Only useful if you want to deny the party loot, but still want the bad guys to have magical items.

• Moonblade: requires attunement by a neutral good elf or half elf (DMG 217)

Pointlessly restrictive way to either make sure only a single party member can use the loot, or to prevent anyone from using it.

Classes

"Here are classes you can deny access to, in the DMG, because only 'bad people' have these abilities." . They are also in the DMG. It was literally just a suit of options for making villains, and the alignment restrictions are kind of pointless.

• Mount Celestia: good creatures gain effects of bless while on plane and lesser restoration on long rest, optional (DMG 59)

Buffing the party if they go to Mount Celestia, where I have to wonder who they are fighting? Like, Bless only works if you are attacking or saving, and if you want everyone blessed for a fight, there are other ways to do it, plus, it only blesses some of the party if people are neutral, and that feels a bit weird if they are, say, fighting to protect the place.

• Bytopia: DC 10 wis save or non-lawful/neutral good creatures changed to one of these alignments, optional (DMG 59-60)

"Here, I altered your character for you, now you have to play this character"

• The Abyss: DC 10 cha save or become corrupted, corrupted creatures become chaotic evil after 1d4+2 days, optional (DMG 62)

"Here, I altered your character for you, now you have to play this character"

• The Nine Hells: DC 10 cha save or become lawful evil, optional (DMG 64)

"Here, I altered your character for you, now you have to play this character"

• Mechanus: DC 10 wis save or become lawful neutral, optional (DMG 66)

"Here, I altered your character for you, now you have to play this character"

• Spirit Guardians: good and neutral casters do radiant damage, evil do necrotic (PHB 278)

Since "No Evil PCs" is the rule, this is pointless. And, I can't think of any point to making evil characters deal necrotic damage except to weaken the spell, since it makes it easier to get resistance.

• Glyph of Warding: can trigger based on alignment (PHB 245)

It can also trigger off proximity. The only point in having it be based off alignment is so you can have an explosive trap the PCs don't trigger, which is pointless because....

• Nystul's Magic Aura: masks alignment to magical effects that sense alignment (PHB 263)

A 2nd level spell removes every single item restriction and makes Glyph of Warding based off alignment pointless

• Ceremony: Atonement restores alignment of creature that has had alignment change (XGTE 151)

And a 1st level spell to reverse all the forced alignment changes that you shouldn't have been doing anyways.

TL;DR out of 30 effects we have

8 (nearly 1/3) that force a personality change on a PC, taking away player agency
9 (another 1/3) that prevent a player from using options or items because they are the wrong alignment
6 (1/5) that do nothing unless you have a mixed party of good and evil PCs.

That leaves 7 effects, including 1 that is a way to reverse alignment change, 1 that is a way to detect alignment, and 1 that is a way to change your alignment appearance for any of the previous effects.

So... kind of pointless.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The part where it says tends slightly towards chaos over law? Yeah. Pretty much. A dollar and a penny is slightly more than a dollar. "Slight" might as well not exist for all the real effect it has. In any case, 5e doesn't even have "slight" in there. There's no pre-disposition to chaos in 5e. None.

And $2 is slightly more than a $1 too. But it is also double the amount, so rejecting the entire thing out of hand because of the word "slightly" (and only after I confront you about it a second time) is... frankly, I don't know why I'm bothering. You want to be right, and I'm not wasting hours and hours trying to make you admit the obvious.

You have no evidence that sorcerers in 5e tend towards chaos. There's literally nothing for me to refute. All you have is "slight" from 3e.

There was nothing for me to disprove.

I provided evidence. You take umbrage with the fact that the sorcerer tended chaotic in 3rd, but only "slightly" as though that means they had no tendency at all. You ignore the clear sign posts to their chaotic nature, and I'm not wasting more time with you on this.

 

[Aldarc]

And??????
A nice summary of what I was saying. More detailed yes, but still the same. Thanks for the precisions.

You seemed to be saying that there was a time when lex talionis was quite acceptable, but that gives a historically inaccurate sense of how the principle was applied in praxis.

As a further aside, I don't know why moral philosophers and ethicists have bothered their scholarly works since the 1980s when apparently D&D has already solved and satisfactorily answered "what constitutes good?", as evidenced by players having been able to successfully (though inconsistently and controversially) apply it to fictional characters as circular, self-referential proof that the system works and is, indeed, not broken and, in fact, useful as a moral framework.

 

[FrozenNorth]

We have had this conversation before and as long as you keep applying modern sensitivities to medieval fantasy dark age... we will never reach an agreement. Hell we are talking about a time when children were brought to public executions and tortures to show them what happened to criminals (and often the crime was only theft of a loaf of bread.) And yet, the people would help each others in times of trouble and famine. I do not think they were evil. They simply did not have the ease of life we have today, our understanding and our modern day point of view and knowledge.

It seems to be that the (completely reasonable) approach to morality you describe is inherently at odds with the absolute morality in D&D.

If you can have Good lawmen that have no objection to torture, and don’t believe in innocent until proven guilty, than Good, Neutral and Evil are just inadequate to describe characters.

 

[Coroc]

....

People who say alignment worked in 2e are ignoring such gems from the rulebook as “TN implies that the druid character may switch from combatting evil to combatting his former companions if he believes Good is getting too powerful”. Also ignoring “Chaotic Neutral is the alignment of children and madmen” and “In order to decide whether to rez his fallen colleagues, the Chaotic Neutral character may flip a coin”.

....

Well nothing stops you from playing that way, doesn't it? Of course this shouldbe somehow agreed upon upfront because it's not everyones prefered style, at least most of the time. So imho your example do just express that probably many players in 2e with TN or CN alignment did not play true to their alignment.
It does not prove that alignment does not work in 2e.
In fact 2e handled alignment quite fine, in implicating such things, but also the Pala an Thief in one party dilemma or the rules about divine classes might become fallen.

 

[FrozenNorth]

So, you’re employing a completely different model of play than what most people would consider normal D&D play, in a game that very much isn’t D&D, and wondering why a D&Dism doesn’t line up with your play goals?

I would say that although some of what Manbearcat has written is mechanic-driven, a lot isn’t. The point about moral ambiguity and inherent contradictions in character in particular, is system-neutral.

 

[Coroc]

You have a very superficial understanding of what philosophical or political anarchy actually are, but I can’t really get into it without discussing politics.

If you want to argue about political philosophies, I’m sure someone on Twitter would love to oblige you.

Oh thanks for the guidance, i did not want to argue about politics because once it is not feasible on this board, and even if it were, to many people mistake feelings for facts these days, so that would further turn me down from it.
My intention was just to write down some very basic definition, which could apply in a hypotethical simplified fantasy universe, but if you want to go philosophic i suggest you would love to read some of the classics like Plato or Hegel or such. They got more substance than Twitter.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Well nothing stops you from playing that way, doesn't it? Of course this shouldbe somehow agreed upon upfront because it's not everyones prefered style, at least most of the time. So imho your example do just express that probably many players in 2e with TN or CN alignment did not play true to their alignment.
It does not prove that alignment does not work in 2e.
In fact 2e handled alignment quite fine, in implicating such things, but also the Pala an Thief in one party dilemma or the rules about divine classes might become fallen.

Some arguments about alignment tend to elide the fact that alignment, as a mechanic, varies greatly from edition to edition, to the point that many people who find alignment acceptable in 5e, probably wouldn’t find it as acceptable in previous editions (if run as described in the books).

This also demonstrates my skepticism of alignment arguments generally:

• the fact that the people who created alignment mechanics could get it so wrong weakens the argument that alignment is clear, people are just playing it wrong;
• the argument that “alignment is core to D&D” is weakened by the fact that each edition had a very different take on alignment.

 

[Oofta]

One of the things I discuss in my campaign is that justice is often swift and harsh. Punishment may vary from public shaming, flogging, indentured servitude for a period of time or execution. While there are jails for those waiting trial, there are effectively no prisons.

Given that, killing bad guys is not particularly evil because there is not a better alternative. They aren't going to be arrested and put in prison (which is it's own kind of evil).

My campaign world is not a comfy idealistic society so I don't necessarily judge what people do, I judge why people do it. I don't apply modern morality because some aspects of modern morality simply don't apply to that world.

On the other hand there are limits to that; you can kill out of necessity but murder and torture are still evil. I'm not going to set up trolley car problems, I'm also not going to set up "moral dilemmas" where prisoners surrender, there is no realistic way to bring them to justice and you know that if you let them go they'll just continue to murder innocents.

 

[Umbran]

I was replying to the first sentence only. You can view the world through their eyes and try to understand them. (This last part is what I was referring to)

I never said that slavery, rape and murder were good. You are putting words into mouth again and you obviously did not read the whole post and got so upset at what you thought I was implying ( and was not) that you got blind and only saw what you wanted to see.

You are passionate about humans' rights and that is good. But you also have to learn to set aside your personnnal views to understand how things worked before our time of enlightenment.

So, here's a possibility you may not be entertaining: In the past, people thought¹ these things were okay. And they were wrong.

Hear me out - if slavery was ever really okay, you'd not have had slave rebellions. If rape and murder were actually okay, you'd not have revenge vendettas for harms done to family members.... because if it were actually okay, it wouldn't be harmful.

And that's the central point - you are effectively arguing "some ancient culture didn't have rules against this, so it was morally okay" - but that is equating Law and Good, assuming that the rules (either governmental or societal) of a culture define what is good and bad. But in so doing, you are disregarding the harm to the victim, and that the rules may be there to allow some people to cause harm without facing repercussions.

The rape victim is still left traumatized. The dead person... is still frelling dead! Those people are harmed. It is harming folks that makes things evil, not whether the laws tell you it is okay.



1. Surely, you aren't passing over the fact that the rules are made by a ruling class, and those rules are generally made for the benefit of that class - so they are going to tell you those things are okay. But they have a certain vested interest in those things being okay, so maybe they shouldn't be trusted on the matter, hm?