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

[Oofta]

Calling it evil is absolutely a moral judgment. What I’m saying is, if the description tells you what behaviors the creature engages in that make it evil, then the fact that it’s evil should be self-evident. Like, if a monster entry says “these things eat babies,” I don’t really need an alignment system to tell me they’re evil. I can work that out for myself pretty easily.

I can see the convenience argument if the description doesn’t say why the monster is evil. It saves word count as well as reading for the DM, so while if isn’t my preference, I can see where one who does prefer that approach might be coming from. But if the description does say why they’re evil, as I would prefer, I don’t see how labeling them evil makes any difference.

But at a certain point you're going to describe behaviors that most people do consider evil. No description is ever going to be entirely objective, all descriptions that indicate meaningful things about behavior are going to be subjective. Is causing pain and suffering in others rewarding for you?

For the vast, vast majority of people that play D&D it would be considered evil. D&D is not an advanced philosophy course for people to plumb the depths of what morality means, it's a game. One that uses oversimplification and glosses over details constantly. As always if you don't like alignment ignore it.

 

[Oofta]

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

But ... but ... a DM once told him how to play his character, it's totally not the fault of a bad DM!

 

[Cadence]

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

But ... but ... a DM once told him how to play his character, it's totally not the fault of a bad DM!

Early on we are warned in the 3.5 PhB that:

And so, for example:

(see also Barbarians, Clerics, Paladins, etc...)

So, anyway, we do have the previously quoted "not a straight jacket"

But the very next paragraph seems relevant to @Vaalingrade 's experience.

The "not a straightjacket" seems to mean that one shouldn't nit-pick and rules lawyer behavior. It doesn't say the DM shouldn't enforce the rules so that the rules for paladins, and detect evil, and... don't function. In fact it explicitly says "the DM may decide that your character's alignment has changed" because of the characters actions.

Reading that way (in conjunction with the time requirement in the DMG) makes one of the atonement spell options make more sense. It feels like it doesn't make sense at all to me if the characters can willy-nilly change alignment.

Moving on to the DMG we get more of where it feels like @Vaalingrade 's DM might have been getting things. (Granted this is 3.5 not 3):

The "you" in "you are in control" is the DM. And while they aren't a straightjacket (as per the PhB), they also "aren't garments you can take off and put on casually" (above).

While Alignment is a tool in 3.5 to help players, it also seems that the rules have it serving as a DM moderated tag that can have a variety of implications.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I view allignments for players more in the same vein as bonds traits ideals and flaws, it helps provide a shorthand summary to inform the basic nature and predisposition of actions of a character, As i understand them the various allignments could probably be summarised as such:

LAWFUL: consistently obeys and follows a strict code or set of rules, even when going against them would be beneficial to the individual, the rules in question may be the local law, divine or infernal commandments or just a personal code, so long as they are consistent and are followed, however a lawful entity may use the laws in service of their own intentions or apply them in circumstances against the spirit of the law.
L/C-NEUTRAL: typically obeys rules and orders unless given a reason or it would be in their benefit not to, but are not overly inclined to enforce them either unless, again, it is to their their benefit to/detriment not to.
CHAOTIC: has no consistent code of conduct and generally does as they wish in any given moment irregardless of any laws, customs or expectations that might otherwise hinder them, this does not mean they will not exploit any existing laws or suchlike if it is to their benefit to do so.

GOOD: tries to improve, protect, respect and benefit the lives and circumstances of others, generally without expectation or motivation of rewards for doing so, sometimes but not inherently, even at a detriment to their own lives or circumstance.
G/E-NEUTRAL: cares about and considers their own lives and circumstances before considering other people's, however they will not seek to needlessly inflict suffering or try to benefit themselves at the cost of others, they may also go out of their way to assist or benefit others if it is in turn to their own benefit or at least not significantly to their own detriment to do so.
EVIL: seeks to improve the lives and circumstances of themselves (and generally their own close company) without caring about the effect on others in order to do so or seeks to harm the lives and circumstances of others, may go out of their way to needlessly inflict suffering and strife for no inherent reason, does not respect or care about the lives or circumstances or rights of others.

The measure of 'what is good and evil, lawful or chaotic' is laid out by the game rules and thus in and out of universe that is how those terms are defined for the purpose and the context of DnD, and they are broad and all-encompasing enough that even if you choose not to or outright refuse to actively assign any allignment to your character that doesn't mean they don't allign with one anyway, either that or you're playing them inconsistently.

(As it is now, and i understand it has been different in the past or at least has been used to do so) Your allignment isn't something that controls your character, it is something that is defined by them and their actions.

 

[Vaalingrade]

There was an announcement a while back that older versions had been moved to the separate sub forum "D&D Older Editions".

EDIT: @Vaalingrade

There is a 5e tag and a General tag. The thread starter stated their intention. This is not the hill to die on in the Alignment Crusade.

 

[payn]

Mostly, though, I'm of the opinion that when 4e got rid of the last mechanical effects of alignment they should have dropped it entirely, that 5.5e (or whatever it's called) should get rid, and that if we could go back and start over it's one of the things that would be better off left out.

I am the opposite. I hope they come up with an optional module that allows you to make alignment more impactful in 5.5!

 

[payn]

I have a hypothesis that people who like alignment play mostly just D&D and those who do not like it play other games too. Because if you're used to handling personalities and motivations in a freeform way, the alignment system trying to 'help' you with that seems about as helpful than phrenology.

I'll bust that to pieces. I play all kinds of RPGs and love alignment. I do not, however, enjoy generic systems all that much. I like games that try and provide a unique experience and have mechanics that work towards that goal. For me, the thing that makes D&D unique is the alignment system. Though, ill never shy away from a freeform system either.

Also, I love some of the postings above that talk about cosmic place of alignment and how mortals are bit fickle. It is part of the setting and helps make them interesting. I do agree with many complaints of some of the mechanical impacts of the past. I prefer they dial those back which is what 5E has done. Crossing fingers for an alignment module in 5.5E!

Though, really alignment is a great shorthand that tells me more than descriptive paragraphs ever could. I get an idea of how that being views a preferred society, and what methods they are willing to employ in said society. That leaves more room to tell me specifically what makes that being unique as opposed to wasting that space over and over again describing untold numbers of things. YMMV

 

[Oofta]

Early on we are warned in the 3.5 PhB that:
View attachment 151156

And so, for example:
View attachment 151157
(see also Barbarians, Clerics, Paladins, etc...)

So, anyway, we do have the above quoted "not a straight jacket"
View attachment 151158

But the very next paragraph seems relevant to @Vaalingrade 's experience.
View attachment 151159

The "not a straightjacket" seems to mean that one shouldn't nit-pick and rules lawyer behavior. It doesn't say the DM shouldn't enforce the rules so that the rules for paladins, and detect evil, and... don't function.

It even feels like one of the options under the atonement spell doesn't make sense if the characters can willy-nilly change alignment or ignore them.
View attachment 151160


Moving on to the DMG we get more of where it feels like @Vaalingrade 's DM might have been getting things. (Granted this is 3.5 not 3):

View attachment 151161
View attachment 151162
The "you" in "you are in control" is the DM.

I guess I don't really see the point of discussing rules from previous editions unless the thread is specifically about a previous edition. My assumption is that unless it's specifically stated otherwise that we're talking about the current edition since that's what 98% of people are actually playing nowadays. The majority of people playing D&D now have never seen a previous edition.

Where that comes into play is that many of the arguments around this are from DMs that I feel overstepped their bounds as a DM in games that were played decades ago. I think it's a good thing 5E went away from alignment requirements for classes and things like detect alignment. It was the right move. You can still get some of that, paladins have oaths now that could (if the DM cares) be violated. Outside of the rare "your paladin is risking their paladin-hood" I've never seen it come up in a game. YMMV of course.

P.S. on a related note my "no evil PCs" rule would exist in any game I ran whether or not we have alignment. I don't personally care for stories about anti-heroes.

 

[Cadence]

I guess I don't really see the point of discussing rules from previous editions unless the thread is specifically about a previous edition. My assumption is that unless it's specifically stated otherwise that we're talking about the current edition since that's what 98% of people are actually playing nowadays. The majority of people playing D&D now have never seen a previous edition.

Where that comes into play is that many of the arguments around this are from DMs that I feel overstepped their bounds as a DM in games that were played decades ago. I think it's a good thing 5E went away from alignment requirements for classes and things like detect alignment. It was the right move. You can still get some of that, paladins have oaths now that could (if the DM cares) be violated. Outside of the rare "your paladin is risking their paladin-hood" I've never seen it come up in a game. YMMV of course.

P.S. on a related note my "no evil PCs" rule would exist in any game I ran whether or not we have alignment. I don't personally care for stories about anti-heroes.

A poster brought up an experience playing 3 in a thread tagged general (and not tagged 5e or old) and said it was 3 and was emphatically told they had the 3/3.5 rules wrong. I was just addressing that.

 

[Lyxen]

While Alignment is a tool in 3.5 to help players, it also seems that the rules have it serving as a DM moderated tag that can have a variety of implications.

Of course, actions in the game will have consequences, including on the character stats. But does it say anywhere that the player is not allowed to do what he wants ? So no, it's not prescriptive, it's just a record. After that, all the advice in that section is to remind people that you are indeed roleplaying a character who, unless completely insane, does not vary his behaviour one day to the next, and in particular does not change on a player's whim because he suddenly wants to be able to wield the new intelligent magic sword that the party has found...