D&D 5E What do you think should be done with alignment?

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I have never had a substantial problem with alignment in any game I've played in or run since 1976 when I started playing. I explain my alignment concerns to players at the outset of any campaign. If something comes up in-game, I explain it again and players make choices while FULLY informed of how I run it and WHY I run it that way. I also have players who don't try to abuse alignment for gain, or push it wildly beyond what it is intended to do and then claim it's broken.

I've written REAMS about alignment over the years. I know what to use it for and how. I ensure my players do as well. Nothing more is needed and the classic 9-alignment system works quite well for the purposes as I have defined them for myself and players.

If you have to read a treatise, I'm not sure what good it is as a shorthand. Can you explain it in 10 minutes or less to a random new person joining your table? More importantly, would they agree with you? If not, its just something you and your buddies understand because of 40+ years of shared experience or you imposing your views on other people and using DM status to declare yourself right (hence the static that often comes from alignment debates).

I'm glad that YOU have developed your own understanding, but I think most adults also have their own ideas of morality and ethics.

 

[Minigiant]

Alignment, Anti-Videogame Rant and Psionics all on the front page.

We're a Fighter/Caster thread away from assembling the Four Horsemen of the D&Dpocalypse.

We'd also need a Ranger thread to finish it off

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

We'd also need a Ranger thread to finish it off

Give em the benefits both subclasses and all spells known, problem solved!

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Can you explain it in 10 minutes or less to a random new person joining your table?

Yes. Short-short version - play your character reasonably, consistently (within obvious constraints/freedoms that alignment DOES grant), and without trying to just be a dick as a player. The rest will usually sort itself out just fine.

More importantly, would they agree with you?

If they don't, they're free to run their own game and do as they like with it. And yes, if they had serious issues about something it would be important for me as DM to hear them out and address that concern one way or another.

If not, its just something you and your buddies understand because of 40+ years of shared experience or you imposing your views on other people and using DM status to declare yourself right (hence the static that often comes from alignment debates).

They don't need 40+ years of experience. I have that. If they want to debate alignment I'm quite happy to hear their thoughts. I've BEEN thinking about it and debating it for 40 years, but maybe they have something to say I want to consider. Sometimes alignment debates can be interesting, especially for those who HAVEN'T considered the topic deeply. But I'm still the DM of my game. See, that's one thing I've concluded in all that time is that most problems with alignment come from how DM's handle it, rarely is it ever players causing problems.

I'm glad that YOU have developed your own understanding, but I think most adults also have their own ideas of morality and ethics.

And morality and ethics in the real world are NOT the same as in D&D. If they doubt that they need only look at the multitude of real world religions, philosophical perspectives, and actual behavior of individuals. For D&D, it doesn't have to be that complicated - and indeed alignment is for NOT NEEDING to write treatises about any character's detailed religious or philosophical beliefs, just a rough indication of how the PC is going to behave and why, pick 1 out of the 9 and let's murderhobo until we're all eating in Valhalla... Again, players who have their own particular detailed ideas of how alignment should/shouldn't be used in D&D are free to run their own games. Chances are good I'll be happy to be a player - as long as I have a reasonably clear understanding ahead of time of THEIR ideas about alignment - because then it's THEIR game to run. If I, as a player, had questions for them, I'd ask, and do my best to play according to their answers. At worst, I'd just abandon an alignment-problematic PC for something less of an issue for us both. My own players in my games would similarly be free to do that.

 

[le Redoutable]

Yes. Short-short version - play your character reasonably, consistently (within obvious constraints/freedoms that alignment DOES grant), and without trying to just be a dick as a player. The rest will usually sort itself out just fine.

If they don't, they're free to run their own game and do as they like with it. And yes, if they had serious issues about something it would be important for me as DM to hear them out and address that concern one way or another.

They don't need 40+ years of experience. I have that. If they want to debate alignment I'm quite happy to hear their thoughts. I've BEEN thinking about it and debating it for 40 years, but maybe they have something to say I want to consider. Sometimes alignment debates can be interesting, especially for those who HAVEN'T considered the topic deeply. But I'm still the DM of my game. See, that's one thing I've concluded in all that time is that most problems with alignment come from how DM's handle it, rarely is it ever players causing problems.

And morality and ethics in the real world are NOT the same as in D&D. If they doubt that they need only look at the multitude of real world religions, philosophical perspectives, and actual behavior of individuals. For D&D, it doesn't have to be that complicated - and indeed alignment is for NOT NEEDING to write treatises about any character's detailed religious or philosophical beliefs, just a rough indication of how the PC is going to behave and why, pick 1 out of the 9 and let's murderhobo until we're all eating in Valhalla... Again, players who have their own particular detailed ideas of how alignment should/shouldn't be used in D&D are free to run their own games. Chances are good I'll be happy to be a player - as long as I have a reasonably clear understanding ahead of time of THEIR ideas about alignment - because then it's THEIR game to run. If I, as a player, had questions for them, I'd ask, and do my best to play according to their answers. At worst, I'd just abandon an alignment-problematic PC for something less of an issue for us both. My own players in my games would similarly be free to do that.

not much of Ambition here ( or hidden on a hunt for the Yeti )

 

[Azuresun]

This Batman discussion is why since this topic, I've gone completely to Wrestling Alignment and not turned back.

I quite like this alternate version:

Good: Righteous
Evil: Wicked
Lawful: Legit
Chaotic: Radical

In this system, if someone is neutral in one aspect of their alignment, they are Totally Righteous / Wicked / Legit / Radical, whereas True Neutral becomes simply Chill.

 

[Oofta]

If you have to read a treatise, I'm not sure what good it is as a shorthand. Can you explain it in 10 minutes or less to a random new person joining your table?

Yes. I have. Well, not a random person (that would be incredibly weird) but newbies.

More importantly, would they agree with you?

Why does it matter? It's not hard to get the general idea through, how they implement it for their own PC doesn't really matter to me as long as they find it useful. If they don't find it useful they ignore it.

It only gets confusing by people who go out of their way to make it confusing by focusing laser like on details and edge case scenarios while ignoring that it's only a general guideline and it's not a straightjacket. That and expecting alignment to be the only thing that defines a PC and taking things to illogical extremes.

If not, its just something you and your buddies understand because of 40+ years of shared experience or you imposing your views on other people and using DM status to declare yourself right (hence the static that often comes from alignment debates).

I'm glad that YOU have developed your own understanding, but I think most adults also have their own ideas of morality and ethics.

It's always worked well enough for everyone I've ever gamed with in person.

 

[RuinousPowers]

I don't see the option I would pick, which is leave it out, but present it as an option in the DM's Guide.

 

[Minigiant]

I quite like this alternate version:

Good: Righteous
Evil: Wicked
Lawful: Legit
Chaotic: Radical

In this system, if someone is neutral in one aspect of their alignment, they are Totally Righteous / Wicked / Legit / Radical, whereas True Neutral becomes simply Chill.

I've always felt that D&D, a game of no officail setting and encouragement of homebrew setting, rarely offers alternative alignment systems in its early GM books.

 

[see]

Incidentally, why no option for the Holmes Basic/1e Monster Manual five-alignment system (CE/CG/LE/LG/N)?