D&D General Which edition handled alignment best?

[I'm A Banana]

That sounds like calling ideology alignment, rather than actually doing something interesting with alignment.

To drill down a bit: the big thing PS did was it made monsters into characters first. Those monsters included, for instance, fiends. Any D&D player can tell you that fiends are always evil, but in PS, being "evil" didn't mean they weren't nuanced characters first. It maybe told you what team they were on, and not to trust 'em because they're looking for an avenue to exploit, but being "evil" didn't mean you that you could just slay them and move on with your day, that they couldn't be useful, that you didn't have to deal with them like people. Being evil didn't mean they were monolithic or one-dimensional. PS interrogated that "evil" label, specifying what it meant, and how this particular individual creature might have embodied it (or not!). "Evil" was not just a label you applied to the things you wanted to point your sword at, it was a description of a (relatable!) way of thinking.

So, I don't think there was anything like "calling ideology alignment." The setting added nuance and personality to what it meant to be called "evil" in the rules of the game and in the rules of the multiverse. Not stuff that was relevant to a simplistic kind of "kill the evil cultists" kind of adventure, but PS was interested in other kinds of stories.

 

[Minigiant]

Only if you misuse alignment as a straightjacket, which it has technically never been and actually never been since 3e.

Well that's my point.

You need more than just the description of alignment. IMO Alignment is too basic for anything but grouping forces. At no point is seeing LN or CG enough. I'd want to lore of the LE modrons or the grievances of the CG resistance group leader.

 

[GrimCo]

It was a big one until 3e. Then it was a fairly small one until 4e. And then not at all.

3.x( PF1 included) had fair bit of alignment restrictions when it came to classes and spells. My only problem is DMs authority over alignment changes and it's up to their interpretation if something is in line with alignment or not. On the very basic level, sometimes that alignment change would stop you from gaining new levels in your class, in others, you would loose powers (clerics and paladins).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It was a big one until 3e. Then it was a fairly small one until 4e. And then not at all.

Technically, 4e actually did have an alignment restriction. It was an extremely minor one, but it was there.

Specifically, if you played a Paladin, you had to have the same alignment as your deity. Didn't have to be LG, just had to match.

The 4e BoVD also had some alignment-related stuff. Not sure how extensive it was.

Edit: Actually, apparently there were several Paragon Paths, some Epic Destinies, and some items, which all required specific alignment or forbade categories of alignment (e.g. you had to be some flavor of Good to take the Purple Dragon theme, as it was linked to Cormyr's standing army. So it's not really true that 4e had no mechanical teeth to alignment. It's certainly reduced relative to 3e, but not nearly as eliminated as some folks like to claim.

Of course, you're talking about the interpretation and how DMs were a big part of the problem that made players hate alignment. I'm just noting that alignment being totally eliminated as anything but fluff isn't entirely accurate--and that problems over interpretation of alignment were DEFINITELY still quite big in 3e.

 

[GobHag]

I personally hope that it becomes mmore accurate and I can put Fish Nuggets in my character sheet and everyone laughs since all of them understands how worthless and useless alignment is.

 

[Aldarc]

B/X. Hands down. Keep it simple and streamlined. Law vs chaos. Like Moorcock intended.

I prefer a single axis alignment system reflecting cosmological factions. Keeps it simple. That's why B/X and 4e win for me.

 

[Maxperson]

Well that's my point.

You need more than just the description of alignment. IMO Alignment is too basic for anything but grouping forces. At no point is seeing LN or CG enough. I'd want to lore of the LE modrons or the grievances of the CG resistance group leader.

Why should misuse be a concern? All rules are misused by groups, we aren't changing everything. Alignment is no different. You teach them proper use. You don't change alignment.

 

[Maxperson]

Technically, 4e actually did have an alignment restriction. It was an extremely minor one, but it was there.

Specifically, if you played a Paladin, you had to have the same alignment as your deity. Didn't have to be LG, just had to match.

Yes, but you didn't have to be whatever alignment you chose as a straightjacket. The alignment rules provided for complex personalities falling doing things that fell outside of alignment.

It was the same in 3e. You didn't have to always act LG. You just couldn't voluntarily do evil. If you had non-good personality traits, you were fine as the rules made alignment not a straightjacket.

 

[Maxperson]

3.x( PF1 included) had fair bit of alignment restrictions when it came to classes and spells. My only problem is DMs authority over alignment changes and it's up to their interpretation if something is in line with alignment or not. On the very basic level, sometimes that alignment change would stop you from gaining new levels in your class, in others, you would loose powers (clerics and paladins).

I didn't say that there weren't mechanics dealing with alignment. I said alignment wasn't a straightjacket and the old arguments, at least that I encountered, died with AD&D and very early 3e.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Correlation does not equal causation. There's nothing to indicate that alignment is the reason or even a major reason for the current edition to be popular.