Alignment in D&DN...

[I'm A Banana]

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.

What is core for a DM's game is what the DM says is core.

What is core for organized play is what the organizer of the play event says is core.

What is core for a new player? Whatever your DM says is core.

What is core for a brand new DM who never played before? Whatever that DM decides is core (selected from these big books of options called D&D rulebooks, which go over how all these rules work).

5e, I don't think, is defined by what is core. I think D&D in general, and 5e specifically, is defined, in part, by the ability to define for yourself what is core.

I'm pretty excited that WotC is making overtures to getting rid of the inherent condescension in some people's voices when they say that's "just a house rule" by making house rules the only rules.

 

[Zireael]

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.

Did I write that I wanted "good" and "evil" and "chaotic" and "lawful"? No. I wrote that I wanted "personality traits" such as "honest", "cruel", "sadistic", "caring", "brave", "domineering".... and these help roleplaying.
The 9 alignments certainly do not help roleplaying much since they can be interpreted as broadly as you indicated?

 

[Sunseeker]

Did I write that I wanted "good" and "evil" and "chaotic" and "lawful"? No. I wrote that I wanted "personality traits" such as "honest", "cruel", "sadistic", "caring", "brave", "domineering".... and these help roleplaying.
The 9 alignments certainly do not help roleplaying much since they can be interpreted as broadly as you indicated?

None of those help in any bit of a greater way than lawful or evil, they are all equally restrictive and subjective.

Also, I would have responded to your alignments suggestions if you had specified, you just said "alignments", given the conversation was on the 9-alignment system, I assumed that was what you were referring to.

 

[Grydan]

Did I write that I wanted "good" and "evil" and "chaotic" and "lawful"? No. I wrote that I wanted "personality traits" such as "honest", "cruel", "sadistic", "caring", "brave", "domineering".... and these help roleplaying.
The 9 alignments certainly do not help roleplaying much since they can be interpreted as broadly as you indicated?

How honest is "honest"?

 

[RigaMortus2]

The DM. Same as it always was. It's the DM who decides your paladin is no longer LG... or that you have to change alignment because you're roleplaying CG instead of NG...

EDIT: I don't want alignment to be factored into core as a way of balancing classes. I don't want alignment to be a part of mechanics. I want alignment 'cause it helps people roleplay - especially, it helps the DM roleplay the NPCs.

Our group rates each other... We have our individual alignments written down and do not share with one another. Then, after a few sessions, the DM asks each player to rate one another as far as what we feel that person's alignment is. So in a group of 5 players, you get 4 people chiming in what alignment they think you are playing and give examples as to why.

This is just a little exercise we do from time to time. It gives each player a feel for how others think of him. If the consensus is that you are playing way off from your alignment, then you'll either do things to correct it, or change it on your character sheet.

 

[Mattachine]

As for alignments, I like the 9 alignment system, except I also feel an unaligned option should exist, and that MANY creatures and NPCs should have that unaligned option. Not everyone should be on one of the cosmic teams; lots of people and creatures are merely spectators.

I guess you missed that part of my earlier post, Odhanan.

 

[Hussar]

KM - I suspect you are right. Those who want alignment are likely going to get what they want. And, as was mentioned, it's pretty easy to ignore. My real problem with alignment was how much of an issue it was with players. Players would chose alignments based on whether or not they thought the DM could screw them.

For example, I had a player some time ago who put Chaotic Neutral on his character sheet. At the time, I didn't really say anything and, quite possibly didn't even notice. I'm not a big stickler for alignment obviously. But, as time went on I finally turned to the player and had the following conversation:

Me: Umm, it says CN on your character sheet.
Player: Yes. I want to be able to do whatever I want.
Me: Ok, fair enough. But, your character is totally dependable, never acts impulsively, meticulously plans every action and is a total team player. How exactly is this CN?
Player: I want to be able to do whatever I want!
Me: Yes, I get that. But alignment should actually describe your character's behavior.
Player: I want to be able to do whatever I want!
Me: I don't think you're listening to me. I get that you want the freedom. But, apparently, what you want is to play a character that is Lawful Good or possibly Lawful Neutral, at least based on your actions in game.
Player: I want to be able to do whatever I want!
Me: Ummm... Lemon curry?
Player: I want to be able to do whatever I want!

Since alignment doesn't actually accurately describe the behavior of the individual or the group - Orwellian societies might be lawful, but, they hardly satsify the definition of good, and don't even get me started on demons being all about temptation and subtlety - what "good arguments" are there for alignment?

I'm willing to be convinced here. But, after three plus DECADES of this discussion, I'm thinking that trying to define morality in a game is possibly beyond the scope of what game designers can actually accomplish.

 

[Sunseeker]

Since alignment doesn't actually accurately describe the behavior of the individual or the group - Orwellian societies might be lawful, but, they hardly satsify the definition of good, and don't even get me started on demons being all about temptation and subtlety - what "good arguments" are there for alignment?

I'm willing to be convinced here. But, after three plus DECADES of this discussion, I'm thinking that trying to define morality in a game is possibly beyond the scope of what game designers can actually accomplish.

Morality should be defined at the table. A framework for the lines upon which morality can be based should be provided in the game.

 

[Hussar]

Morality should be defined at the table. A framework for the lines upon which morality can be based should be provided in the game.

Why? Why do we need the framework? What does it add to the game?

If the table can come to a consensus on morality (a serious challenge in and of itself without the DM simply dictating), then why does it need to apply that in some sort of framework?

 

[Sunseeker]

Why? Why do we need the framework? What does it add to the game?

A nice guideline.

If the table can come to a consensus on morality (a serious challenge in and of itself without the DM simply dictating), then why does it need to apply that in some sort of framework?

I'm OK with the DM establishing the base morality of the gameworld. The Framework just provides a guideline to establishing that morality and maintaining it later.