While I may not agree, thanks for actually putting effort into a reply.
Sure, to summarize some of the points raised in this thread (while undoubtedly forgetting others)
- Alignment treads on player choice: Yes, even in 5e, I have personal experience with a DM threatening to change my character's alignment because he didn't agree with how I was playing it. Surprisingly, it didn't have anything to do with the good-evil axis - the DM felt that certain actions by my character were Chaotic rather than Lawful. Not this did not have any mechanical effect on the game at that time! Because I don't think alignment is useful and had only added it because the DM asked, I dropped the issue. But having the DM intervene in my character still rankled, and would have rankled even more if I had cared strongly about my character's alignment.
That's a bad DM. Period. Unfortunately, there are bad DMs out there. It's also quite odd, I've never had nor heard of a DM dong that.
I guess it's their prerogative as DM, I don't see the point. I also wouldn't care.
- Many deep characters don't fall neatly on the alignment spectrum: This was the cause of the above dispute. None of the alignments were a really good fit for my character, so I chose the one that seemed like the best fit. As a player, I want to play a deep character, and as a DM, I want to DM for deep characters, so telling players to choose an alignment makes it harder to develop those deep characters, and makes it more likely that the DM will tread on player choice (see 1).
Alignment is broad and, as the books state, only a few adhere to their alignment 100% of the time. Seems to me you're making alignment a straightjacket if this is an issue. It's not, it's a general guideline.
In my games, alignment is optional. On the other hand I don't try to push my preferences on character type on other people.
I've also had PCs that adhered to an alignment while also being quite complex. My current vengeance paladin is still CG, for now he uses his anger for betterment but there are times I feel him sliding towards CN. I'll never go truly evil based on personal preference. But alignment is just one of his starting points.
- Players tend to be particularly sensitive about moral issues IRL: You tell someone IRL that you think an action they think is good is really evil, you are going to get pushback. What is more, the game is going to stop while both sides debate ethics. These debates are inevitable, because there isn't a single morality that everyone agrees on. I gave an example from one of my play sessions above, where one character killed an unarmed person. He believed that he was morally responsible for the actions committed by Evil people he let go. These issues are a lot easier to deal with if you don't address them in moral terms.
I don't see how this is affected by alignment. I have a no evil policy in my game and will continue to do so even if alignment is removed from the game.
If I think someone is about to cross a line (torture is one of those things) I'll simply tell the player what I think. It's one of the DM's jobs to make rulings what is "evil" is one of those things.
It has nothing to do with alignment. I simply want a game about heroes, not mafioso or criminals.
- Put alignment on the sheet, and many players will play to the alignment, not the character: I've seen this over and over again. People say that the alignment you choose is supposed to reflect your character, not vice-versa, but we humans like shortcuts, and time and time again, instead of asking themselves what "Kelemvor the Magnificent" would do, people will simply treat "LG" as the be-all and end-all of moral issues for their characters. This reminds me of the story I described upthread about the warlock. The other characters kept on trying to use Insight to identify the warlock's alignment instead of judging her by her actions. The only reason they did this because they assumed that she had a big scarlet E next to her name.
Isn't part of role playing attempting to play a role? Become another person, possibly one with strong convictions? In your story alignment was a stand-in for motivation (possibly misguided) but you just would have rearranged the furniture a bit so to speak if alignment wasn't part of the game.
The other players would have still been trying to figure out the motivations, they just would have used different terms to describe what they were trying to figure out.
- Alignment encourages shallow NPCs: I can't remember the last time I encountered a LN NPC that wasn't interchangeable with every other LN NPC, and that wasn't a poor Inspector Javert cliché. There is a middle-season episode where the Simpsons go to Florida, and they meet the sheriff, played by Dietrich Bader. His quote: "During spring break, the alcohol companies pay me to look the other way on the shenanigans by springbreakers. Rest of the year? I'm a real hard-a**". That is a really interesting one-note (maybe two-note) NPC that doesn't fit well in the alignment system.
-
A lot of people build shallow characters either because they don't really care and lack incentive, simply don't see the need or don't have the imagination to do so.
D&D is not, in general, about "deep complex" characters. It's about Rogar the Mighty who is a bit of a cartoon character. A lot of people would rather play Rogar than Meliphilous the Complex because they play the game to escape from the complexity of the real world.
Sometimes I play complex characters, sometimes I don't. Some people never ever play complex characters but that's okay because people play for different reasons. It has nothing to do with alignment.
Alignment encourages static NPCS (and characters): There is an interesting example from Critical Role. Because of the lead time between publishing the "Explorer's guide to Wildemount" and their weekly podcast, you can see how the world changed from the moment it was created due to the characters' actions. In particular, an NPC Essek, is listed as have a LE alignment in the book. The players had no idea of this when they met him, and have always treated him warmly, helped him and befriended him. Though it is acknowledged that the character had shady dealings in the past, the character as he exists now, probably wouldn't qualify for his book alignment. Matthew Mercer is a really great DM. But I know many DMs who would have seen that LE tag and probably played the character as clearly evil, thus pre-empting a really interesting character interaction.
I don't see shifting alignment as a bad thing. Of course I don't care either - I don't know what alignment my player's PC's alignment is. If I had a PC that changed alignment over the course of their career, so what? I might change it, I might not.
I've had players totally screw up long term plans by befriending and slowly changing a PC that was supposed to be a BBEG. It was fantastic. On the other hand, just because Essek is nice to the PCs, it doesn't mean he isn't killing puppies in his spare time, it just never surfaced in the story.
Where does it state that alignment is set in stone?
- Alignment as moral determinism (or as personality): Here's another one I frequently see. Alignment is supposed to reflect your position on the major issues (good v. evil, individualism v. collectivity). Yet, time and time again, even in this thread, people are acting like it has a major influence on minor issues (will I try to cheat the adventurers who enter my shop? will I support the king's tax on adventurers?)
I view alignment as helping define how someone sees the world. How they organize what they see around them. It doesn't predict all behavior.
But here's my point. I don't expect you or
@Maxperson to agree with these arguments. If you did, we would probably be in agreement about alignment. These are all things I believe in good faith, and many of them have been raised by other posters, also acting in good faith. So acting like those who dislike alignment simply want to "remove a toy they don't like" or are "acting petty" (note, you didn't use these terms, so this is not directed at you specifically, but people who agree with you have used these terms), is simply disingenuous.
My point is that alignment is just a tool. One aspect of what makes a PC, NPC or monster what they are. The more complex, the more fleshed out a creature is the less it matters; it's proportional to all the other descriptions we have.
Alignment is no more or less important than ideals, bonds, flaws or any fluff text and history. I will agree that in early versions of D&D alignment was probably over-emphasized. I suspect that in many cases the issues people see with alignment are holdovers from how alignment was written way back in the late 20th century.
The way I explain it to new players is that alignment is just one way of helping them flesh out a character as an aid to making that PC a real, living (fictional) being. It's how they see the world which for some people can be useful. If it's not useful to them, don't bother. It's the same with ideals, bonds, flaws, a backstory. Completely optional fill it out if you want. Or just play Rogar the Mighty and have fun if that's what you want.
I primarily use alignment for NPCs and monsters because it clues me in on their world view at a glance. As the MM states " alignment provides a clue to its disposition and how it behaves in a roleplaying or combat situation". But it's just a clue, a broad descriptor, not a dictate of every action ever taken.
P.S. You seem to be stating that complex is inherently better than simple. I disagree. Different people play for different reasons. Are they having fun? Are they a fun member of the group? Why would I care how "deep" their character is? Because frequently "complex/deep" PCs that were just emo antisocial pains in the ass (at the table, not in person). Other PCs that were one dimensional were a blast.
[EDIT: it always seems like people conflate everything they see wrong about PC behavior with alignment.]
. It was a fun campaign but the point is.
