D&D General Do you use Alignment in your D&D games?

[jmartkdr2]

In general, it's just a personality descriptor - it's no more mechanically relevant than writing "whimsical" or "stingy" on your character sheet.

For classes with behavior restrictions, like clerics and paladins, I work out the details for each character individually. A cleric would already know what is and isn't appropriate behavior for a cleric of their deity - and that means the player needs to know, in a lot more detail than "does good."

For magic items that require a certain alignment, I judge them based on what the creator of the item would think "good" means.

 

[Maxperson]

The DM following the rules for alignment or RAW. Even the DoMT was from the books. The only non-RAW part was Paladine being a jackhole to someone who isn't his sister.

Alignment isn't prescriptive. If your DM was playing it that way, he was wrong.

As for RAW, forcing your fighter brawler to be a monk isn't RAW, Barbarians being unable to have a code of honor isn't RAW(it doesn't make you LN by itself), that Bard could have been an alignment other than LG, so that wasn't RAW, and not allowing the CN eco terrorist druid isn't RAW. So each and every one of your examples involved the DM breaking RAW. It was entirely a DM problem.

 

[Oofta]

The DM following the rules for alignment or RAW. Even the DoMT was from the books. The only non-RAW part was Paladine being a jackhole to someone who isn't his sister.

It would never have happened in any game I ever ran or played in. You had a bad DM, stop blaming the system.

 

[Oofta]

What I've found useful in describing characters (PCs or NPCs) is to use three adjectives. So my current 5e character is described as "independent, charming, reckless."

That doesn't tell me anything about their motivation, what their moral compass is. If this were an NPC it tells me little about how they would react in unexpected situations. This in combination with alignment would tell me quite a bit more.

No system is perfect, alignment is just a general guideline.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Alignment isn't prescriptive. If your DM was playing it that way, he was wrong.

Nothing in the 3e PH says it isn't prescriptive. That's your interpretation to defend the system.

As for RAW, forcing your fighter brawler to be a monk isn't RAW,

He said it was better. Didn't force it. That's also factually true. a Fighter has to eat a feat to just 'not fail' at being a pugilist and nothing in 3e (not 3.5, 3e) got you better than that.

Barbarians being unable to have a code of honor isn't RAW(it doesn't make you LN by itself),

The rules are open enough that it can. gain, your interpretation of a completely open, vague rule.

that Bard could have been an alignment other than LG, so that wasn't RAW

Same.

, and not allowing the CN eco terrorist druid isn't RAW.

~Looks at all the people in the thread that disallow evil characters~ Okay, you tell them they're bad DMs.

This comes up time and time again in alignment threads: people claiming their interpretation to the vague rules is correct and right and everyone else is doing it wrong. Except if every one is doing it wrong and you really are a paragon genius of DMing, maybe the rules aren't good enough to be grokked by everyone else. Even the people declaring themselves to know the REAL alignment don't agree with each other.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm curious if there's a significant correlation between disliking Alignment and having a lot of experience as a player, as well as liking Alignment and most often being a DM.

I'd expect this would be the case, especially for people who played pre-4E editions where Alignment had more of a mechanical impact on PCs.

I don't think so as my group is almost all DMs who play in each others games and the feeling ranges from 'don't mind it' to 'actively building a time machine expressly to prevent its inception'. The away team are almost all new, younger folks and pretty much see it as a meme and enjoy declaring Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Stupid, and especially Chaotic Hungry as jokes.

 

[Oofta]

Nothing in the 3e PH says it isn't prescriptive. That's your interpretation to defend the system.

He said it was better. Didn't force it. That's also factually true. a Fighter has to eat a feat to just 'not fail' at being a pugilist and nothing in 3e (not 3.5, 3e) got you better than that.

The rules are open enough that it can. gain, your interpretation of a completely open, vague rule.

Same.

~Looks at all the people in the thread that disallow evil characters~ Okay, you tell them they're bad DMs.

This comes up time and time again in alignment threads: people claiming their interpretation to the vague rules is correct and right and everyone else is doing it wrong. Except if every one is doing it wrong and you really are a paragon genius of DMing, maybe the rules aren't good enough to be grokked by everyone else. Even the people declaring themselves to know the REAL alignment don't agree with each other.

Good thing this is a 5E specific sub forum then. Why are you so concerned about something that was published two decades ago?

 

[Maxperson]

Nothing in the 3e PH says it isn't prescriptive. That's your interpretation to defend the system.

"A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment" - PHB page 103
General is not prescriptive. You can in fact do things outside of alignment when you like.

"Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character." - PHB page 103
I mean, come on man, it says it straight out right there.

I think I'll stop looking at the 3.5 PHB now. That's enough to prove that I am correct.

He said it was better. Didn't force it. That's also factually true. a Fighter has to eat a feat to just 'not fail' at being a pugilist and nothing in 3e (not 3.5, 3e) got you better than that.

Then this wasn't an issue at all, alignment or otherwise. You could have played your fighter the way you wanted.

The rules are open enough that it can. gain, your interpretation of a completely open, vague rule.

You get to choose and you can in fact choose an alignment other than LN and have a personal code.

Same.

Exactly.

~Looks at all the people in the thread that disallow evil characters~ Okay, you tell them they're bad DMs.

I said it was a RAW violation. Nothing in RAW restricts you. Bad or good, it was a DM issue and nothing more.

 

[Maxperson]

Good thing this is a 5E specific sub forum then. Why are you so concerned about something that was published two decades ago?

It doesn't matter. He's wrong about the 3.5 PHB not saying that it's not prescriptive.

 

[Cadence]

Good thing this is a 5E specific sub forum then. Why are you so concerned about something that was published two decades ago?

D&D general for this one?