D&D General The Problem with Evil or what if we don't use alignments?

[hopeless]

I don't know if this is addressed at all in the other thread, but what I wanted to ask is would the game be better if alignment wasn't present?

A few months ago I ran a game where the Dawnfather Church was usurped by members of the Strife Emperor Cult.
This had been ongoing for years and past unnoticed due to the influence of the gods was stymied by an event centuries past leaving them needing their followers worship more than its commonly known.

Anyway have you ever run games where the PCs eventually discover the various churches aren't exactly the alignment their god is supposed to be?

If this ever came up in your games how did you or your players react to such a reveal?

Prior to the game I mentioned above I was asked to convert a Ranger into a Cleric for a game, then had my dm mess up my character's back story when he couldn't recognise the potential of the game being run at a hamlet over a large city where heroes or mercenary troubleshooter's are more likely present.

Anyway I got a little into the character that I developed a faith for her, but I'm getting off topic how do you handle alignments in your game?

 

[Yora]

Yes. Alignment only adds problems and doesn't provide a single benefit. After over 40 years, I've yet to see anyone make a good argument for what the purpose of alignment is supposed to be.
Never use it in any of my campaigns. Sometimes players still write it on their character sheets, but I just ignore it, since it never comes up anyway.

 

[CubicsRube]

I have never used alignment in any of my games.

 

[Dragonsbane]

Opinions! Our table uses alignment as a descriptive term, not prescriptive. No one is pigeon-holed to an alignment.

We also use alignment to describe the general views of all the races and monsters - red dragons are CE, as are demons.... angels are usually LG, perhaps NG... some humanoid races are considered generally evil (not everyone folks, don;t get excited). We also use alignment spells such as detect evil, chaos hammer, etc. Alignment also describes all the planes in our homebrew world. Also it helps guide divine classes keep an ethos. We don't allow clerics or paladin to act opposite to their ethos and still keep their spellcasting ability, at least until they switch to a more appropriate deity, atonement, etc.

Personally, as an old school player (and my table too) we love it and see no controversy about it. No one at our table feels alignment was ever used in some racist way, so.... yeah. Some people do, so use it if it fits your game, disregard if not.

Yes. Alignment only adds problems and doesn't provide a single benefit. After over 40 years, I've yet to see anyone make a good argument for what the purpose of alignment is supposed to be.

In 40 years (1983 I think I started) I have not seen a good argument NOT to use it. Just my view (and all my players).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There are lots of RPG systems that don’t use alignments, including my favorite, HERO. However, I have found alignment to be a useful & enjoyable mechanic in D&D*.

And to answer your question:

…have you ever run games where the PCs eventually discover the various churches aren't exactly the alignment their god is supposed to be?

If this ever came up in your games how did you or your players react to such a reveal?

Not ALL churches, but YES, certain churches. Most of the players found it a nifty plot twist.





* the system I started with in 1977.

 

[Minigiant]

That's why I don't use G-E L-C alignment anymore

I have used Wrestling and Humanity alignment for a year or so and it works fine.

Good or Evil, everyone knows the Heels will do anything to win and the Monsters use Monster logic.

 

[Flamestrike]

Alignments are a shorthand guideline for how your character (broadly) acts, with certain in game cosmic ramifications (afterlife etc).

If your character is Good they are (broadly speaking) altruistic, kind, merciful and self sacrificing and avoid harming others. If they're Evil, they're prepared to step over and harm others to accomplish their own ends (whatever ends that may be). If they're Lawful they follow a code of honor, and respect family and tradition. If they're Chaotic they're independent, free spirited, reckless and unpredictable.

I dont have alignment arguments at my table, because this is discussed at session zero.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't know if this is addressed at all in the other thread, but what I wanted to ask is would the game be better if alignment wasn't present?

A few months ago I ran a game where the Dawnfather Church was usurped by members of the Strife Emperor Cult.
This had been ongoing for years and past unnoticed due to the influence of the gods was stymied by an event centuries past leaving them needing their followers worship more than its commonly known.

Anyway have you ever run games where the PCs eventually discover the various churches aren't exactly the alignment their god is supposed to be?

If this ever came up in your games how did you or your players react to such a reveal?

Prior to the game I mentioned above I was asked to convert a Ranger into a Cleric for a game, then had my dm mess up my character's back story when he couldn't recognise the potential of the game being run at a hamlet over a large city where heroes or mercenary troubleshooter's are more likely present.

Anyway I got a little into the character that I developed a faith for her, but I'm getting off topic how do you handle alignments in your game?

The church things yes here's how.

1. The cleric is false/evil posing as a cleric of the other faith. Bonus points if they were raised in the faith they're pretending to be.

2. The god is dead/indisposed and another being is granting the spells or subverting the faith.

3. The god is a liar/trickster or tolerates clergy of a wide variety of alignment.

4. The clergy are heretics or corrupt and haven't yet been exposed or punished for whatever reason. Or the game mechanics allow it Eg Eberron or FR heretic of the faith feat in 3.5.

 

[Shiroiken]

I've used alignment for 30 some odd years with only a few issues. In 1E there were a few problems, as changing alignment voluntarily (i.e. by action, not magical compulsion) had some mechanical penalties involved, but few players did so except after having their alignment magically changed (and they'd forget). Paladins had the potential to cause a great number of problems due to their built in LG requirements, but in AD&D they were pretty rare, so I didn't have too many issues except in 3E. Clerics theoretically can cause an issue, since they're suppose to be at least similar to their deity, but honestly I can only recall 1 particularly problematic character (which was really a problematic player).

I like that 5E has minimized alignment, since it's an excellent tool. As the paladin and 1E shows, however, putting mechanics built into it causes problems. I might be okay with having a few minor mechanics based on alignment, such as an angel's attack that deals extra damage to evil creatures and less damage to good creatures, but they should be pretty rare.

 

[Magister Ludorum]

I stopped using alignment back in 1982. I haven't looked back. Most RPGs do not use an alignment system and get along fine without them.