D&D General Alignment experiment

[delericho]

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.

When I designed myself a character sheet I did essentially this - the individual boxes for alignment, traits, ideals, flaws, etc were replaced with one big box, and with players being able to put pretty much whatever they wanted there.

One thing to consider though: there's no reason what they state should have to match with what's in the book - in some ways it's more fun if the player declares what the stated alignment means to that character.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Sure why not? Alignment is after all largely optional already.

I wouldn't even make an exception for Clerics and Paladins. Nothing unusual in a priest of a good deity believing he's good and instead being evil.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

An idea that might be worth a try borrows from the original Way of the Scorpion book for Legend of the Five Rings first edition:

Have something like their Loyalty - as someone suggested, use three statements in order of importance about where their loyalty lies.

Let's say you have a paladin or cleric, and their loyalty is: Church, Kingdom, Family, Party. As a story hook - and NOT a way to abuse a player - work it so those conflict - the family is actively working against the kingdom: who do they choose? And let their actions affect the consequences, good and bad. Do they rat out their family to the Imperial investigators? They get benefits from the Imperials and their family, that was obviously strong enough to move against the Emperor, now is out to get them. Do they side with the family? If so, maybe they're now part of a new kingdom, but also an enemy to any remaining Imperial servants

 

[Oofta]

While I ban evil PCs I don't really care what the PC's alignments are. It's a tool for them to use if they want to.

I ban evil because I've had, shall we say, bad experiences with people that got far too graphic. Technically you can have an evil alignment on your character sheet if you want as long as you don't commit evil acts during the game or describe all the evil deeds you did during downtime. I don't want to deal with it, and I want to be sure everyone at the table is comfortable and having fun.

 

[HammerMan]

We stopped using alignment long ago... we sometimes leave it blank and sometimes we write alignments.

I have seen Neutral Jimmy, Tree Hugger, and my personal favorite Dr Doom written well
I have used Chaotic Goodish, Lawful fun loveing, and pun-isher

 

[Voadam]

and pun-isher

Satire vigilante?

Gains an action point whenever he makes a bad 80s action movie pun?

"He was dying to tell me."

"You get the point."

"I am going to axe you a question."

 

[J.Quondam]

Satire vigilante?

Gains an action point whenever he makes a bad 80s action movie pun?

"He was dying to tell me."

"You get the point."

"I am going to axe you a question."

Bonus points if it's said in a really bad accent of some sort.

 

[HammerMan]

Satire vigilante?

Gains an action point whenever he makes a bad 80s action movie pun?

"He was dying to tell me."

"You get the point."

"I am going to axe you a question."

it was a bard who was grunge and emo but also was out for vengeance (not for his family, he had a wife and 3 kids at home) but for his king who had been assasinated right infront of him.

It was fun to play the Bard who wouldn't sleep with people (he was a married man) and who was dark and broodin, but would use dumb puns as his mockery...

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Judging the PC, not you. And not for how you play, but how the PC acts within the game world. There's a significant difference.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Periodically I repeat to my players that I don't care if they even have alignment. All I care about is that they roleplay a coherent personality for their PCs. To this day every last one of them still picks an alignment. Old habits die hard.

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.

I don't take things away for alignment, but if you betray the tenets of your deity or oath, you can lose your powers/fall. Accidental transgressions are ignored if minor or need to be atoned for if major.