D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

Not open for further replies.
Not mention, if alignment is reducing moral outlooks to 3 boxes and that's bad, why is getting rid of alignment and reducing moral outlooks to 4 choices(trait system) so much better? If 1 more box makes that much difference, then 3 is still good, and 7 is fantastic.
C’mon, man! Stop with the bad faith posting!

In alignment, there is one box and three choices for that box*. In PIBF, there are 4 boxes, and unlimited choices for each box.

*In this discussion, we were specifically talking about moral outlook, which is why I only indicated Good, Neutral or Evil. Obviously, in full alignment, we are talking about 2 boxes with 3 choices for each box.

I can’t believe I have to explain this to someone who claims to understand alignment!

log in or register to remove this ad


Morkus from Orkus
C’mon, man! Stop with the bad faith posting!
I'm not in any way, shape or form bad faith posting. Stop with the insults or I will report your posts.
In alignment, there is one box and three choices for that box*. In PIBF, there are 4 boxes, and unlimited choices for each box.
It doesn't matter. Ultimately, you end up down to 4 boxes that describe your morality. Period. 3 boxes vs. 4 boxes.


I prefer treating the actual problem rather than the symptoms.

I believe that having a conversation like grown-ups about play expectations and boundaries is what stops it rather than pretending that saying "no evil" does anything. The latter is basically a placebo.

And that's awesome, but that is you setting out the play expectations and tone of your campaigns, i.e., heroic, rather than alignment actually doing or solving anything in that regard. Because as you say, the problem that's being described is a fundamentally an interpersonal problem rather than alignment. My issue in this conversation pertains to using alignment as a "disciplinary rod" to be used to address player problems that are best solved with communication. This is not to say that you use alignment in this way, because I know that you prefer using alignment as monster MBTI.

How did you get those insinuations out of what I wrote? Oofta. I'm not accusing you of being a control freak or tyrant DM. Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't. I don't honestly care either way. I'm simply saying that setting expectations through discussing it like grown ups is more key to solving the problem of disruptive players than alignment, particularly in regards to the tone.

Saying "no evil" is just one way of stating what your expectations are. Telling people that "pro-heroic" and "discuss like adults" is "better" implies that using "no evil" is somehow wrong.

Yet again, alignment has nothing to do with it. I use "no evil" in a very generic sense, alignment is never used as a "disciplinary rod". Older versions of alignment had that, I ignored it back then and it's no longer relevant to the way the rules currently work.


Mod Squad
Staff member
C’mon, man! Stop with the bad faith posting!
Mod Note:

The best method you can see to get your point across is to say that folks who don't agree with you are just lying? If you are correct, there is nothing more of value to be gotten out of this conversation, and we are done. If you are incorrect, then we are clearly at loggerheads, and still, we are done.

This was hardly the only report on this discussion. Thread closed.

Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement