D&D General Which edition handled alignment best?

[payn]

Well that's my point.

Alignment is only good for forming factions and reaction rolls

Evil Hobgoblins won't align with CE gnolls because the hyenamen might eat or betray them in battle in a way the death cultists won't.

A lot of that will depend on setting. In Eberon for example, hobgoblins are less likely to fit in with gnolls because they are a lawful militarily driven society, while gnolls are more chaotically nomadic. Though, necessity can drive the strangest of bedfellows. Enemy of my enemy is my friend as the saying goes. Alignment isnt a trust system, although it should inform one on the distance they keep and trust amongst their allies. Even in 3E, it is mentioned a paladin may have to align temporarily with an evil character if the situation demands it.

 

[Scribe]

I went with 2e. I would say anything from 2/3/3.5/PF1 would work for people who actually are looking to use Alignment, instead of want to ignore it.

 

[Minigiant]

A lot of that will depend on setting. In Eberon for example, hobgoblins are less likely to fit in with gnolls because they are a lawful militarily driven society, while gnolls are more chaotically nomadic. Though, necessity can drive the strangest of bedfellows. Enemy of my enemy is my friend as the saying goes. Alignment isnt a trust system, although it should inform one on the distance they keep and trust amongst their allies. Even in 3E, it is mentioned a paladin may have to align temporarily with an evil character if the situation demands it.

Who is what depends on setting.

But I more or less see it like a wargame.

Sorta how Space Marines and Necrons might team up against Nids but be hard pressed to ally with Chaos.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Oh wow. The edition that is both current and popular among users of this forum is the one folks think did it best.

I am shocked. Shocked! ...well, not that shocked.

 

[Scribe]

Oh wow. The edition that is both current and popular among users of this forum is the one folks think did it best.

I am shocked. Shocked! ...well, not that shocked.

In this case its more 'the edition that downplays something that those people disliked, is favoured'.

Its like asking a Vegan what their opinion on Steak is.

 

[Theory of Games]

Well that's my point.

Alignment is only good for forming factions and reaction rolls

Evil Hobgoblins won't align with CE gnolls because the hyenamen might eat or betray them in battle in a way the death cultists won't.

"Only good" for your table. Many of us use RAW alignment just fine

 

[Minigiant]

"Only good" for your table. Many of us use RAW alignment just fine

The question was

"Which edition handled alignment best?"

My opinion was 4e where it was just a monster encounter faction tool.

Your table can do whatever y'all want.

 

[payn]

Who is what depends on setting.

But I more or less see it like a wargame.

Sorta how Space Marines and Necrons might team up against Nids but be hard pressed to ally with Chaos.

I dont understand the words coming out of your post, but I think II get the gist. Everything is contextual, but alignment isnt a deep dive into a personality. Its a top level view of the character's philosophy of society and methodology within it. Alignment doesnt force a character to do anything. The best part of alignment is how characters choose to act in the face of contrariness when the situation is pressing.

 

[Azzy]

Because "I don't like alignment" is a different answer from "I like how 5e handled alignment." An answer of "none" would show if people actually think 5e hits the sweet spot, or are just contrary to the concept.

That doesn't follow what I was quoting: "i think it's a real shame there are so many people saying things to the effect of '5e does it best by not doing anything with it'"

 

[FrozenNorth]

Oh wow. The edition that is both current and popular among users of this forum is the one folks think did it best.

I am shocked. Shocked! ...well, not that shocked.

Well, 4th edition is in an honourable 3rd place within spitting distance of 2nd.