Alignment changes ...

[Olgar Shiverstone]

From the news ... does "unaligned" = neutral?

With no mention of the law/chaos axis, does anyone think that the nine alignments of D&D are gone? While I agree with making the game less alignment dependent -- I've always used alignment as a general guideline for RP, but not a hard straightjacket other than where it is required mechanically to adjudicate spell effects -- this is another mechanical link do D&D's past.

 

[Xethreau]

Well, I can't speak officially, but here are my thoughts.

Neutral and Unaligned are very, similar in terms of how you would use it and where it would go, but there is a difference.

Neutral vs. "Unaligned" is like Zero vs. Null. Zero is the mid point of the number line. Null is a lot like zero, except instead of a 'neutral' value, there is 'no value.' Undefined, if you will.

So, an Unaligned character does not have an alignment, as opposed to the Neutral character, who's an alignment is somewhere in the middle of Good/Evil or Law/Chaos.

 

[Fifth Element]

I've always used alignment as a general guideline for RP, but not a hard straightjacket other than where it is required mechanically to adjudicate spell effects

I hope that's how most people use it, since that's exactly how it's described in the PHB.

 

[Rechan]

I've always used alignment as a general guideline for RP, but not a hard straightjacket other than where it is required mechanically to adjudicate spell effects

... and class abilities, class restrictions, magical items...

I've always hated alignment with the intensity of a thousand suns, and am now glad that the emphasis has been withdrawn to a few mitigating spells. Now morality is almost purely in the realm of the story, the context, and the DM's campaign setting where I like it.

 

[EvilPheemy]

Alignment is perhaps the rule that is most improperly used in D&D. For decades, poor GMs have used it like a hammer, and for every bad experience that comes from "Lawful Stupid" or "Chaotic Crazy", the impression that Alignment is a straightjacket is reinforced. So much so that now, even if you point to the text that states how Alignment should be used as a guideline, the response is often "but no one I know plays alignment that way". It's like "Vancian Magic" in a way. Enough players have had bad experiences (or have been convinced that the experience of others have been horrible) that the myth has replaced history (so to speak).
Personally, I like Alignment as a tool. It helps new players retain continuity in their characters' personalities. And it provides a crib note for GMs to keep track of NPCs and Adversaries.

 

[Rechan]

Alignment is perhaps the rule that is most improperly used in D&D. For decades, poor GMs have used it like a hammer, and for every bad experience that comes from "Lawful Stupid" or "Chaotic Crazy", the impression that Alignment is a straightjacket is reinforced.

Or players use it as a weapon. The ever popular "I use my detect evil, and anyone who pops up on the radar is getting harassed/is the clear bad guy in this situation".

 

[Umbran]

I think the "unaligned" category is more for clarity, possibly to help dispel the last lingering remnants of the idea that neutral was an active balance you had to maintain.

I don't think the "Zero/Null" analogy works, unless Unaligned and Neutral are both allowed states. I'm expecting, instead, that unaligned is replacing what we used to call neutrality.

 

[Irda Ranger]

From the news ... does "unaligned" = neutral?

I wouldn't think so. If it was, they'd just call it "Neutral"

I think "unaligned" is what is says. "Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun."

 

[Xethreau]

I wouldn't think so. If it was, they'd just call it "Neutral"

Agreed.

 

[MerricB]

Will we have alignment meaning an active swearing of an oath of fealty to the gods?

Cheers!

 

[DaveMage]

With no mention of the law/chaos axis, does anyone think that the nine alignments of D&D are gone?

Yep.

Although I like alignment in the case of monsters (especially undead, demons, and devils), I don't really see a need for it for PCs - except perhaps clerics of a particular deity.

If the designers eliminated alignment altogether, though, I think that would be a mistake, and it would be (as you said) yet another separation from D&D tradition.

 

[KingCrab]

I hope that's how most people use it, since that's exactly how it's described in the PHB.

It may be described a certain way, but the mechanics say otherwise. In 3.x there were spells that only damaged people of non-lawful or non-chaotic alignment. Since I still haven't found two people that agree on exactly what it meant to be lawful, this was a bad thing. Does it mean you follow the code of society? The one you're in, or the one you're from? Does it mean you act logically? What if logic goes against what most believe is lawful? Suppose you have a strict code that seems chaotic to others?

In real life things aren't black and white. People don't easily fall into an alignment category. Almost everyone acts differently at different times. I'm fine if they keep alignment in the game, just don't make me take a bunch of damage based on someone's arbitrary decision of what lawful means.

 

[TarionzCousin]

But, mocking Chaotic Neutral selfish-crazy PC's is one of the "sacred cows" of D&D!!! They can't take it away!

In real life, I will be happy to have less "alignment" in my D&D.

 

[Malcadon]

From the news ... does "unaligned" = neutral?

With no mention of the law/chaos axis, does anyone think that the nine alignments of D&D are gone? While I agree with making the game less alignment dependent -- I've always used alignment as a general guideline for RP, but not a hard straightjacket other than where it is required mechanically to adjudicate spell effects -- this is another mechanical link do D&D's past.

WOOT!!! HELL YEA!!!

I totally agree with you! I never liked how Alignment was handled in D&D (in any edition!).

I switched over to Allegiance years ago as I find it to be a better fit to me (and its more flexible too).

 

[Malcadon]

oops! sorry it dubble posted me.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I'm guessing being "aligned" involves something a lot more specific than being a nice guy or a jerk. Like, being "evil" might require actually trafficking with dark forces - making deals with devils, raising undead, etc. And being "good" might require a pact with a god or angels.

I could see it working so being a level 1 paladin doesn't require any alignment, but some of the Paragon paths for the two classes require you to actually align yourself... but I have trouble imagining an infernal warlock who isn't evil. I mean, deals with freakin' devils.

 

[Klaus]

Maybe it's more like Allegiances in d20 Modern.

If you write Allegiance: Law and Good, you're Lawful Good.
If you write Allegiance: Chaos, you're Chaotic Neutral.
If you write Allegiance: Neutrality, you're True Neutral.
If you don't write any allegiance, you're unaligned.

 

[Li Shenron]

Alignment is perhaps the rule that is most improperly used in D&D. For decades, poor GMs have used it like a hammer, and for every bad experience that comes from "Lawful Stupid" or "Chaotic Crazy", the impression that Alignment is a straightjacket is reinforced. So much so that now, even if you point to the text that states how Alignment should be used as a guideline, the response is often "but no one I know plays alignment that way".

I think that it doesn't matter how many times they explain it in bold lines in the PHB, many gamers will still use Alignment as a straightjacket and blame it on the rules.

Only when they will finally eliminate alignment, those gamers will be happy, and near everyone will play Chaotic Neutral (Evil?) without rules-based repercussions.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think that it doesn't matter how many times they explain it in bold lines in the PHB, many gamers will still use Alignment as a straightjacket and blame it on the rules.

Only when they will finally eliminate alignment, those gamers will be happy, and near everyone will play Chaotic Neutral (Evil?) without rules-based repercussions.

The problem is that alignment has always tried to have it both ways.

D&D is supposed to be a world where absolute good and absolute evil exist and you can detect such a thing via spells. However, Evil people can act good all they want, since alignment isn't a straightjacket.

And that's the problem. Alignment is supposed to describe the way someone acts. But they don't have to act that way. So it doesn't mean anything at all unless they act the way their alignment describes.

It creates a circular argument whereby either characters have to be forced to act within their alignment or you have to change their alignment with nearly every action to properly reflect how they are acting. Neither of which is a good answer.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Maybe it's more like Allegiances in d20 Modern.

If you write Allegiance: Law and Good, you're Lawful Good.
If you write Allegiance: Chaos, you're Chaotic Neutral.
If you write Allegiance: Neutrality, you're True Neutral.
If you don't write any allegiance, you're unaligned.

This is precisely how I see the new alignments. Except I do not believe there will be an allegiance to Neutrality. It's simply that there are 4 major powers in the universe: Good, Evil, Law, Chaos. You can declare that your character has an allegiance to one or more of them(but likely not opposing ones).

Or you can declare that your character doesn't feel strongly about promoting any of them.