D&D General Alignment experiment

[Jmarso]

This is something I was thinking of trying the next time I start a new 5E campaign as DM:

All monsters and NPC's retain their alignment (and behavior based on it) according to the manuals and/or the way they are written for the campaign.

Players: Unless they are a cleric or paladin, do not specify an alignment to start. They just leave it blank, and the way they play their character over time will, in fact, determine their alignment. I'll track it silently as the DM, and use that knowledge when appropriate. What I've found in the past is that alignment, as often as not, is just something players pick during creation based on how they see their character, then play them however they want without regard to the alignment they chose. How many of you have seen a character choose a 'good' alignment and then watch the player either actively or passively accept something like using a helpless prisoner to spring a trap, or something like that?

Players whose power and abilities depend on alignment will have to pick one and actively adhere to it, or suffer the loss of said powers and abilities until atonement is made.

What's the consensus? Good idea? Bad idea? In 5E there are so few alignment restrictions that it seems like trying this wouldn't impact too many character creation choices.

 

[iserith]

I think you're better off just replacing Ideal with a statement of alignment (as defined in the Alignment section) then awarding Inspiration when the players play to their alignment. This makes it a carrot, not a stick. And if you don't want to be in the position as DM of awarding it yourself, you can use this method here: The Case for Inspiration.

 

[payn]

I do agree with your approach to alignment solidifying as the game plays. I also prefer the 1 paragraph backstory because I like to see the character take life at the table. That said, during session zero I tell the players to choose the alignment of the character at the start, and encourage them to consider it during play onwards with the idea it may change as the character comes to life. I think it would be fun to try out your idea.

 

[Voadam]

Players whose power and abilities depend on alignment will have to pick one and actively adhere to it, or suffer the loss of said powers and abilities until atonement is made.

Which powers in 5e do you see as depending on alignment?

Having alignment be the DM judging seems fine in a system like 5e where it so rarely comes up as opposed to most 3e and older editions where lots of class stuff can be impacted such as loss of powers or inability to level up in specific classes.

 

[Jmarso]

I think you're better off just replacing Ideal with a statement of alignment (as defined in the Alignment section) then awarding Inspiration when the players play to their alignment. This makes it a carrot, not a stick. And if you don't want to be in the position as DM of awarding it yourself, you can use this method her: The Case for Inspiration.

There's no stick involved in what I'm suggesting, or need for a carrot, either. It's simply letting go of a pre-selected alignment at the start of the game, and letting alignment be something that the character demonstrates through their actions, rather than conforms to. The way the player plays their character will determine their alignment, not the other way around. I just think it might be an interesting way to go at it.

Inspiration is something I do not yet use in any of my games. It's a concept in 5E that has just never grabbed me. Clever play is its own reward- it should be one of the primary motivations for playing.

 

[Jmarso]

Which powers in 5e do you see as depending on alignment?

For example, if you worship a LG deity, are lawful good yourself, and then torture (or stand by while another tortures) a prisoner for information, you might just find that your ability to cast spells has gone away...

 

[iserith]

There's no stick involved in what I'm suggesting, or need for a carrot, either. It's simply letting go of a pre-selected alignment at the start of the game, and letting alignment be something that the character demonstrates through their actions, rather than conforms to. The way the player plays their character will determine their alignment, not the other way around. I just think it might be an interesting way to go at it.

Inspiration is something I do not yet use in any of my games. It's a concept in 5E that has just never grabbed me. Clever play is its own reward- it should be one of the primary motivations for playing.

Rewarding clever play tends to encourage more clever play.

Also, losing your powers and abilities for not adhering to alignment also seems awfully like a stick to me. The risk, as it has ever been, is that the DM and the player don't agree on exactly whether the character acted against their alignment since it can be interpreted in many different ways, or that the transgression rises to the level of being stripped of their powers. Better to avoid this issue entirely in my view via the method I suggested. For my Planescape campaign a couple years back, I did exactly this - replacing Ideal with Alignment and Bond with specific faction goals - and it worked well and drove play toward those campaign themes. (I don't do this for other campaigns because alignment and factions aren't as important. But I still use the Inspiration method I linked.)

 

[Vaalingrade]

The DM silently judging you morally for how you play and then hitting you with a stick for not doing what they think is Good or Lawful does not sound like fun to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is something I was thinking of trying the next time I start a new 5E campaign as DM:

All monsters and NPC's retain their alignment (and behavior based on it) according to the manuals and/or the way they are written for the campaign.

Players: Unless they are a cleric or paladin, do not specify an alignment to start. They just leave it blank, and the way they play their character over time will, in fact, determine their alignment. I'll track it silently as the DM, and use that knowledge when appropriate. What I've found in the past is that alignment, as often as not, is just something players pick during creation based on how they see their character, then play them however they want without regard to the alignment they chose. How many of you have seen a character choose a 'good' alignment and then watch the player either actively or passively accept something like using a helpless prisoner to spring a trap, or something like that?

Players whose power and abilities depend on alignment will have to pick one and actively adhere to it, or suffer the loss of said powers and abilities until atonement is made.

What's the consensus? Good idea? Bad idea? In 5E there are so few alignment restrictions that it seems like trying this wouldn't impact too many character creation choices.

This is similar to my preferred way to treat alignment, when I use it. Except instead of (non-cleric-or-paladin) characters not picking alignment, I make it clear that the alignment you pick is essentially a statement of intent. It’s what the character believes to be right, and presumably seeks to live up to. But for the purposes of any game effects that care about alignment, the alignment the DM is secretly tracking based on the cumulative effects of their actions is what matters.

I also don’t take away cleric and paladin powers because of their alignments. You may come into conflict with the organization surrounding your faith if you don’t uphold their values, but you won’t lose your class abilities. Of course, I also prefer to keep the gods distant.

 

[Steampunkette]

So...the question is really three parts.

1) Does alignment matter?
2) Is alignment Descriptive, Proscriptive, or otherwise?
3) Will it be fun to my players to explore these questions?

The first question must be answered as a conditional: It should matter as much as you want it to matter.
Are you intending to make Alignment "Count" within the narrative? Will there be situations where a character's alignment, independent of other aspects, is a deciding factor? Does Alignment act as a roleplaying tool to help center your players on their character's identities rather than their own?

If the answer to these questions are "No" or "Maybe" then alignment is irrelevant and you shouldn't bother going forward. However as you seem to intend to make it at least somewhat relevant (Paladins/Clerics) we should move on to number two.

The second question really determines the weight of alignment.
If Alignment is proscriptive then a character cannot act outside of their alignment without some sort of cosmic backlash, if they can act outside of their alignment at all. But if alignment is descriptive then a character whose actions don't fall within a given alignment just represents an alignment shift from who they were, before, to who they are, now. Changing a character's alignment, therefore, is simply an act of keeping track of their changing identity, and is no more a "Punishment" than a "Reward".

The third question is the big one, though.
If your players aren't interested in playing to specific moral structures then there's really no point in making a story about those moral structures. But if they're interested in exploring the topic of characters falling from grace or rising to it, or whatever other specific direction the characters might go, then leap in with both feet!

If you're going to make alignment matter, though, consider expanding it. Make magical effects that key off alignment more important or functional than they currently are. Add in twists and turns and magic to confuse things. I once had a game where a weapon could only be wielded by the pure of heart, and a NG Player was able to wield it because he was "Pure Good" rather than leaning toward law or chaos... And then the BBEG took the sword and wielded it because he was Pure Evil, NE. Play with people's ideas of who is or isn't "Worthy". Stuff like that.