Alignment in D&DN...

[Hussar]

A nice guideline.


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.

I agree. The problem is, it doesn't work. Like I said, you can make very credible, reasonable arguments for the alignment of pretty much anything. How is that a guideline? How can a character be reasonably described with completely opposite alignments and still consider alignment to be a descriptive term with any real value?

If a character can legitimately be described as LG and CE at the same time then I'd argue that alignment as a guideline is a failure.

 

[Sunseeker]

I agree. The problem is, it doesn't work. Like I said, you can make very credible, reasonable arguments for the alignment of pretty much anything. How is that a guideline? How can a character be reasonably described with completely opposite alignments and still consider alignment to be a descriptive term with any real value?

If a character can legitimately be described as LG and CE at the same time then I'd argue that alignment as a guideline is a failure.

Because the actual execution of the guideline is either top-down(DM decides, tells people how it goes), or the group decides.

As for your reference to your guy, that sounds more like he just didn't understand his alignment....BUT, and here's a big BUT, playing a chaotic neutral character doesn't mean they're gonna be chaotic when working with the party. There's sort of a sticky metagame issue here. Working with your group, in and out of character, goes a long way to preventing trouble and forwarding the overall story. I would say the vast majority of players want to work with the rest of the party, regardless of alignment. Even if you got a whole bunch of Chaotic Evil Drow together, as a party they'd still tend to work together.

 

[FireLance]

If a character can legitimately be described as LG and CE at the same time then I'd argue that alignment as a guideline is a failure.

I think the key issue is: are you describing the character or the action? Even if a character could be described as both Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, do the descriptions apply to the same point in time? (Or, with respect to a fictional character, to the same writer? ) If alignment is seen more as a guide to or description of behavioral tendencies instead of as as behavioral straitjacket, then good characters can do evil acts (and would usually feel bad about them) and alignment can change with character development (or writer).

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I don't understand why people keep calling alignment a straightjacket. I've never heard of a DM saying "You can't do that, you're LG" (With the possible exception of paladins) With the exception of 1E, I haven't seen any penalty for changing alignment either. So you have LG on your sheet and you want to be NG? So what? Just do it.

I've always thought of alignment as a description of past actions and something to keep in mind in decision making more than strict prohibitions. Being LG doesn't mean you never do bad things. It means that overall you do a lot more good than bad.

With this is mind, I'd like to see strongly/weakly added to alignment, e.g. Strongly Lawful Good. Strongly aligned would be for creatures that never act against their alignment, such as angels or demons, weakly aligned would be for the rest of us.

 

[Essenti]

A nice guideline.


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.

I'm sure that you are not intentionally explaining it this way, but this is very cyclic logic. I feel like I'm sitting in a classroom being taught to teach teachers how to teach teachers to teach teachers how to teach teachers to teach. Morality guidelines and frameworks for maintaining morality are essentially the same thing or at least self-referential concepts.

I would prefer if WoTC does not choose to add something to the core if the only apparent value is that it is being added to the core... Basically, if alignment shows up in the core, has broad sweeping implications upon the rest of the game mathematics/mechanics, and does not perform that function elegantly while improving game play... well... then I hope they make it 100% transparent and without out any implications on the rest of the mechanics so that it is easy to remove if a group of players don't want to use it.

I'm mostly impartial to which--if any--alignment system they choose to include in 5e, but I do sincerely hope that it is as modular as possible to support any of the types of alignment systems that have been discussed in this thread (including none)

 

[RigaMortus2]

Also, without some sort of alignment mechanic, you are removing the traditional spells such as Detect Evil and Protection from Evil...

Alignment is not subjective (see my sig below)...

If someone casts Detect Evil on a murderer, they are going to ping evil. Its not like you can argue "Well, I'm not in the middle of murdering anyone right now, so since I am not doing anything evil that means I am not evil (right now)".

I like the fact that a Paladin can use such abilities to his advantage.

 

[Kynn]

Also, without some sort of alignment mechanic, you are removing the traditional spells such as Detect Evil and Protection from Evil...

That's a feature, not a bug. Those traditional spells are traditionally awful.

 

[Grydan]

Also, without some sort of alignment mechanic, you are removing the traditional spells such as Detect Evil and Protection from Evil...

To me, and I imagine many others who don't want mechanical alignment, this is to be considered one of the benefits.

Alignment is not subjective (see my sig below)...

If someone casts Detect Evil on a murderer, they are going to ping evil. Its not like you can argue "Well, I'm not in the middle of murdering anyone right now, so since I am not doing anything evil that means I am not evil (right now)".

I like the fact that a Paladin can use such abilities to his advantage.

Unless I'm misinterpreting their statements, some of the people who are advocating for alignment in this very thread think alignment is subjective, to some degree or another.

I could go off on a rather lengthy tangent about the problems that your murderer example raises, but I'll leave it at this for now:

Is every homicide murder, and if not, what distinguishes one from the other?

 

[Hussar]

That's a feature, not a bug. Those traditional spells are traditionally awful.

DING!

Exactly. One of the biggest jokes in D&D is that any mystery is pretty much dumped in the ditch by all these alignment spells. It makes it fairly easy to find the traitor in your midst when you have a paladin pinging the evil radar.

And then you up the ante by having anti-detection magic (Belkar and his lead shield being the joke here).

And then it gets taken yet another level by the players who figure out ways to foil the anti-detection magic....

 

[amerigoV]

Even the illustration (in the Basic book) of the Lawful character stopping the Chaotic character from killing a goblin(?) prisoner while the neutral character remains disinterested illustrates this.

Of course, you don't have to play it that way, and many don't.

You are mis-interpreting the picture. The Dwarf is clearly helping guide the Chaotic character's hand.

"Yer aimin' to low, ye idgit!"




Funny, though. I ran a one-shot Village of Hommlet using Savage Worlds that finished up last night. Even though Lareth surrendered in battle, the PCs still killed him. Old D&D habits die hard