Alignment in D&DN...

[Odhanan]

By your own statement, there is already strife. Modifying these elements might resolve some strife and create new strife. That might be move the discussion towards consensus, though.

I don't believe so. Part of the disagreement between fans is that a game like 4e "went too far", "does not feel like D&D", was too much of a break from the tradition of the game.

Nevermind whether you think it's right or wrong to feel that way: it's a FACT they DO feel that way.

I think going for a whole series of major changes would basically double-down on the reason why so many fans are looking elsewhere for their D&D fix now. It would be marketing suicide on WotC's part.

The premise of bringing the fans together only works if the Next game is D&D through and through to its very core, and provides from there modular options so that people wanting to take D&D in other places might do so without having to house rule the entire game system.

So really the solution in this case would be to provide the 9 alignments, and then provide options describing for instance how you can use only the Law-Neutral-Chaos axis in the game, or the Good-Neutral-Evil axis, and/or take both off the game completely, along with the precise consequences this would have on other elements of the game (i.e. aligned spells, magic items, the paladin class, and so on, so forth) so that the DM can make aware decisions about his campaign instead of shooting in the dark with his rulings.

That's the way to make it work, IMO.

 

[Mattachine]

So really the solution in this case would be to provide the 9 alignments, and then provide options describing for instance how you can use only the Law-Neutral-Chaos axis in the game, or the Good-Neutral-Evil axis, and/or take both off the game completely, along with the precise consequences this would have on other elements of the game (i.e. aligned spells, magic items, the paladin class, and so on, so forth) so that the DM can make aware decisions about his campaign instead of shooting in the dark with his rulings.

That's the way to make it work, IMO.

So you agree with me: the alignment system does need to be modified for the new edition. For instance, presenting options about using alignment (different systems, or using it at all) would be different than any existing edition of the game.

Glad to see some consensus.

 

[Hussar]

I look at it like this.

We've had alignments in the game since pretty much the get go. And, in all that time, decades of play, thousand upon thousands of hours of discussion in Dragon magazine, Internet forums etc, we still cannot even agree on the basics of what an alignment means. At what point should we step back and say that this is a mechanic that just doesn't work?

I mean, when you can make a legitimate argument for all 9 alignments for Batman:

just how descriptive is alignment?

No single mechanic has caused more problems at tables than alignment. I'd venture a guess that alignment has caused more issues than all other mechanics combined. It slows down play, doesn't actually define anything, and becomes fodder for endless Internet wanks. Why are we still stuck on this? At what point can we finally put a bullet in this and write it off as a mistake?

Or, to put it another way, what is actually being added to the game by having alignments? Do people actually need these descriptors to portray their characters? Are DM's so bereft of ideas that ALIGNMENT is the defining characteristic of an NPC?

Alignment. Huh. What is it good for? Good god Y'awl.

 

[erf_beto]

Codes of Conduct, Aspects or even a simple Vice/Virtue (like in WoD2) would probably work better as roleplaying crutches, but I think we should have the iconic alignment system in D&D, be it classic 3, 9 or 5.
Even though a lot of people complain about them, it's clear there are lots of people who are very adamant about them staying, and like CleverNickName said, it will be a lot of work to plug them in into every monster statblock for those who do like them, while it should be breeze to ignore them for those who don't.
For me, it doesn't really matter. I like them as guidance, but I recognize they fail their purpose when it comes to roleplaying. And they are not really noob friendly: at least 80% of all people I got into D&D would choose Chaotic Good. They wanted to be Good, as most heroes are, but didn't want to be restricted by Law or "told what to do". Also, most Chaotic Good examples from literature, comics, movies, etc are way too cool to pass up. Would you rather be Cyclops or Wolverine? It took some time to realize that's not everything...

[edit] Just thought of something: what if alignment, the restrictive or really important/defining kind, become simply a keyword, something like Origin or Type? Only critters who really need them should have them (like Devils, Demons, some Undead, most Angels, a lot of Paladins, the True Neutral Must-Keep-The-Balance Druids, etc). Everyone else is Unaligned.

 

[Odhanan]

So you agree with me: the alignment system does need to be modified for the new edition. For instance, presenting options about using alignment (different systems, or using it at all) would be different than any existing edition of the game.

Glad to see some consensus.

So you agree the 9 alignments should be the default choice. I'm indeed glad we have consensus.

 

[I'm A Banana]

just how descriptive is alignment?

Look, I think it's important to note that in this -- like in many D&D debates -- there is no one true right answer. The people that don't like alignment don't like it for some pretty good reasons. The people that do like alignment do like it for some pretty good reasons. A rational person could do either. There is no convincing the other party, because there is no one right answer -- just a preference.

To me, part of the fun of alignment is its inherent ambiguity (something Planescape taught me). Bastard angels (which D&D has a tradition of dating back to 2e at least) and Batman being all alignments are examplars of this ambiguity: Lawful Good doesn't mean nice. Chaotic Evil doesn't mean you can't save an orphanage. In Planescape, the Harmonium was a group of mostly lawful-good folks, some of who wanted the world to look like an Orwellian police state (while still being Lawful Good). The Doomguard is a group of people who believe that the ultimate fate of everything is to be destroyed (like 4e's demons), but you didn't need to be Chaotic Evil to believe that. Alignment is a lot of fun for me on that deep, ambiguous level. You can't determine where someone stands on the cosmic scale very easily from a limited example of their actions. It's a more "social science-y" tendency.

5e seems to be predicated on the idea that you can use your preferences to build a game that YOU want. Becuase someone could like alignment or not, I imagine the basic rule books will contain options for both gameplay. Arguing over which one is "core" and which one is "add-on" is pointless validation-seeking. It doesn't matter. What is core is what you say is core in your games. Play What You Want (tm).

 

[nightwalker450]

I think alignment should be on the character sheets, but not in the books...

It can reside between eye color and hair color, and have just as much impact on my game. Except all (non-colorblind) creatures get the ability to detect eye color/hair color... nobody can read my alignment. But what all creatures can do is judge me on their own beliefs based on my actions. If the GM decides that the deities are active enough in his campaign, then he can choose to have the dieties judge me just as any other NPC.

 

[Sunseeker]

If the NPCs have some sort of alignment (alignment traits, alignment notes, personality traits, personality notes, whatever we call it) so why shouldn't the characters have it? It would encourage consistent roleplay.

Hmmm, I think you're missing some of my argument.

For starters: Alignment for both players and NPCs is an issue of perception. Your idea of "good" and my idea of "evil" may very well be the same thing. Who's right? While "lawful" and "chaotic" may be something easily enforced at the table based on the laws of the fantasy kingdom in question, good and evil are not so easily policed. This is why I suggest they remain as guidelines, they serve as a general guide to how you feel your character should play out, but they shouldn't be hard-fast rules on how your character must play out.

NPC alignment only exists as a mirror upon which players can reflect upon their own choices. If the important NPC is evil, and we're trying to stop them, are we causing more evil in order to do so? Is a little evil OK in order to catch this NPC? And so on and so forth. NPCs of any importance are basically plot devices.

And finally, as one of my favorite quotes goes: "Consistency is good. Except when you're consistently wrong." Which referencing the issue of subjective viewpoints above, means that someone is always going to be wrong according to someone else. Honest role-playing is better than consistent roleplaying, consistent roleplaying gives us problems such as Lawful Stupid, or Chaotic Jerkface. In short the assumption that because you are lawful good, you can never consider doing anything that's not makes you naive. Same with chaotic and evil, chaotic evil doesn't necessarily mean you're going to kill babies at random. It may just mean you have a tendency towards evil and are incredibly selfish.

Players who NEVER act outside their alignment may be consistent in their roleplaying, but they're not really giving their characters the dignity of treating them like real, living beings. I would rather every character put their alignment down as "grey" and then act like people who have to make difficult decisions from time to time, then have to play Lawful Stupid or Chaotic Jerkface. Alignment should be a guidelineto how you feel your character would be, it shouldn't be a hard-fast rule.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Arguing over which one is "core" and which one is "add-on" is pointless validation-seeking. It doesn't matter. What is core is what you say is core in your games. Play What You Want (tm).

This is only true if you only play, or plan to play, at your home table. Maybe a majority of the fan base falls under those restrictions, but certainly not everyone. More importantly, at some point everyone is new and those new or potentially new players and DMs care about what's core and what isn't. The core rules help define the game and until DMs and players alike can understand the core rules, they shouldn't start changing them.

 

[tuxgeo]

Well, 5e is all about customization, right?

Base Rule: Characters are assumed to not have an alignment.
< . . . snip . . . >
Add-On: A DM can add the following alignment-based powers to the game for various classes. For instance, the Holy Word cleric power damages evil creatures, and the Detect Evil paladin power reveals their presence. (LIST)
< . . . snip . . . >

And a cleric having the Good domain can gain the Holy Smite spell, which is required to Enchant a sword to have the "Good" descriptor -- which gives the enchanted sword combat benefits against Evil creatures.