D&D 5E What do you think should be done with alignment?

[doctorbadwolf]

I would use the 4e alignments, except I’d flip Law and Chaos. I don’t actually think that would ever happen, because D&D is fairly married to the whole Law=Good thing, but yeah, it would be a scale from “freedom and equality for all” (Chaotic Good) to “oppression is good when it benefits me” (Lawful Evil).


4e also has the benefit of most creatures being unaligned, and alignment being very strongly a matter of ideology and dedication or allegiance to a cosmic ideal rather than a personality trait.

 

[Iry]

I would just leave it alone.
It's like Green and Red on Christmas. Completely unnecessary, but so ingrained into the brand it has transcended its own source and become a meme. Let it bring a smile to the lips of those that adore the tradition. It's not really hurting anything.

 

[Roadkill101]

I dump alignment with exception for out-siders or deities (and their favored reps/servants), the world is shades of grey with few a exceptions in respect to creatures (native to the prime). I do find that the 5e and 4e implementations of alignment to be easiest to implement of all presented across the various editions when needed.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I don't really use it in my game, so voted to scrap it. Though I'd be fine making it an optional rule. I feel like 5e has pretty much made it optional without explicitly saying so.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

What should be done with Alignment? Alignment.

 

[Faolyn]

Can you say those things? Every one of the traits you listed has been used as a pejorative to describe a group. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would not appreciate being referred to as prone to aggression, hot-tempered, or highly emotional, especially as a group.

Actually, I want to re-reply to this. This isn't directed at you, per se, but to the concept in general.

There really isn't anything wrong with being emotional... except that at some point, society decided that being emotional was a feminine trait, so real men shouldn't be emotional. They should be stoic and fearless and unaffected. Not sad or afraid or anything like that. That's for girls.

So, I say let's have our big strong orcs be emotional!

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Me? I'd use 1e's layout/description/"take" on it.

That said, for "6e", I might toss a nice big "OPTIONAL:" right before "Alignments". Personally, I find them VERY useful and use them all the time when DM'ing. But I also enjoy fantasy games that don't have an 'Alignment' system/stat, so I can see why others might prefer that. I think not using it would be detrimental to giving it that "D&D feel", but maybe someone doesn't want that feel.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Micah Sweet]

Actually, I want to re-reply to this. This isn't directed at you, per se, but to the concept in general.

There really isn't anything wrong with being emotional... except that at some point, society decided that being emotional was a feminine trait, so real men shouldn't be emotional. They should be stoic and fearless and unaffected. Not sad or afraid or anything like that. That's for girls.

So, I say let's have our big strong orcs be emotional!

Oh, I don't think there's anything wrong with being emotional either, but we're concerned with language that has been used as a pejorative for a group, and all of those terms have been at one time or another, even to today. My point is that a lot of things fall into these categories, and finding where to draw the line isn't necessarily cut and dried. As was mentioned above, if D&D races are humans in rubber masks (as has been suggested), then there's nothing we can describe them with that doesn't pigeonhole them in some way. We run the risk of putting so many restrictions on our prose that we end up with very bland material.

 

[Cadence]

I wonder if part of the problem with using alignment in the same terminology for both individual PC/NPCs and the extra-planar creatures is that a person who likes freedom and hates rules might be chaotic, but they aren't chaotic in the bad guy end of the world sense of the early Elric books, for example. A person who is evil in that they take what they need or are one of the evil protagonists in another thread going on seem very different from a demonic/devilish being whose goal is to actively cause as much pain as possible.

I'm wondering if something akin to the following would be useful?

LAWFUL - Following ones guiding code and working against CHAOS is the most important thing ("extraplanar lawful beings")

Lawful -Tries to always follow their guiding principals, but may have other over-riding concerns ("lawful")

lawful - Likely follows the rules unless they're standing in the way, but doesn't angst over it ("lawful tendencies")

chaotic - Chafes against the rules but doesn't go out of their way to break them just for the sake of doing so (unless they're annoying) or trying to sow randomness ("chaotic tendencies")

Chaotic - Flouts the rules and doesn't follow a personal code. ("chaotic")

CHAOTIC - Overthrowing the order - both local and universal - is the most important thing. ("extraplanar chaotic beings")

and

GOOD - Helping others, and avoiding harming others if possible is the most important thing. ("extraplanar good beings")

Good - Tries to help others when possible but sometimes knows that sacrifices must be made and may have other goals and purposes ("good")

good - Generally dislikes harming others and has an active conscience ("good tendencies")

evil - Doesn't particularly mind harming others and does so without hesitation when it serves their purposes but may have a group they look out for ("evil tendencies")

Evil - Enjoys harming others and causing pain, looking out for oneself is worth hurting others. ("evil")

EVIL - Causing pain, sewing despair, bringing woe, and actively overturning the GOOD are the most important things. ("extraplanar evil beings")

For something in the ballpark of those, should it be impossible to be either LAWFUL or CHAOTIC and also GOOD, since the prime goals would conflict? Would it be hard to be even Chaotic GOOD (as opposed to chaotic GOOD or Chaotic Good)? Would classic paladins be one of LAWFUL Good, Lawful GOOD, or maybe Lawful Good? Is there enough pain that could be sewn by overthrowing order that CHAOTIC EVIL is still a thing? Is there enough pain that can be sewn working within the system that LAWFUL EVIL is still a thing? Do the CHAOTIC EVIL seek the end of all things, so that many classic D&D Demons are actually Chaotic, while the things from the far realms are CHAOTIC?

Are there stories of the fae where they are bound by their oaths and promises, but generally random? How does one fit that in to an alignment scheme? How do needing to be truthful and needing to keep oaths overlap with alignment? How does that transfer to devils?

Is the chaos of the far realms different than the chaos of the devils? Does it lead to entropy and the annihilation of all things?

How do law and order differ? Does one of them lead to stasis and rigidity? Is Balance Lawful, but not LAWFUL?

 

[Li Shenron]

Having one or more alignment "systems" is useful to help players "frame" their character better. They are just a roleplaying tool, used reasonably it can make you play a better game, taken too strictly it has an adverse effect (nothing worse than a DM saying "your character is <alignment>, so you can't choose to do that!").

I am not a fan of alignment having rigid mechanical consequences. I do like having occasional spells or magic items working (or not working) on some individuals based on their alignment, but I prefer the idea to be fluid. For example, yes to having a "holy weapon" stop working if you commit a great wrong, until you make up for it, but no to having such weapon simply based on a "tag" on your character sheet.

I am fine with the 3x3 alignment grid, with or without the extra "unaligned" option. I am also fine with MtG 5-colors system for example, and I can definitely allow more of the kind. Using different systems on different characters in the same game is OK, as is using more than one system on the same character.

I don't like very much the original Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic system of early editions however, because with 3 options only (with the middle option feeling rather "undecided") it delivers too much an "us vs them" feel.