Alignment in D&DN...

[Ratskinner]

But then the problem becomes "is that a learned trait or inherant trait"? Now, a debate breaks out if the Orclings can be "saved", which slows down the process of kicking down the next door. Using alignment, one quick Detect Evil or Know Alignment and you put them sword in a merciful way.

I'm not saying its a bad thing to move to traits and to have moral issues - it makes for a deep and interesting game. But alignment brings something that is iconic D&D - you can slaughter orcs without blinking an eye.

Actually, that interpretation should be allowed/encouraged to vary by campaign, IME. Playing a BECMI game recently, we had a great discussion about the fate of some Slept Kobolds. Law vs. Evil isn't as clear as all that, even in Basic. Lawful characters don't automatically get a "free pass" to act vilely to chaotic critters. Law and Chaos aren't just team colors. 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.

 

[Ratskinner]

Exciting thread, it appears. Alignment discussions always seem to be....is "lively" a good word?

In any case, I fully expect some version of the 9 system to be "core" for 5e, but I fervently hope it has little or no mechanical "intertwining" with the rest of the mechanics. (Some easily excised spells or abilities would be fine, though.) I hope that simply because I think multiple alignment-style systems should appear in the DMG (or maybe Unearthed Arcana, even.) I think they can add something to some games, but also need to be easily swapped out for others systems. I could see:

• no alignments at all
• any/all of D&D's historical systems
• 5 Colors of Alignment - for the WOTC Magic/D&D crossover.
• Light Side/Dark Side - like in the Knights of the Old Republic computer rpg (and others).
• Personality Traits - as the OP mentioned
• Allegiances - a la D20 modern
• Aspects - from FATE

and there's probably more. The DMG should also include a general discussion about ways of using alignment systems: Proscriptive, Prescriptive, Descriptive, interactions with other subsystems like magic, etc. and their impacts on the game's play and feel.

 

[Hussar]

The alignment systems should probably be in the DMG instead of the PHB.

Y'know, that's not a half bad idea. Keep it mostly in the DM's notes and a lot of the table issues go away. Maybe. :/

From a purely selfish point of view, I have no problems whatsoever with ejecting alignments from the game. AFAIC, they add virtually nothing and only cause arguments and endless Internet Forum alignment wanks.

The alignment system is such a huge straightjacket on any sort of planar play. For example, I really love the show Supernatural. Now, in the last few seasons (I haven't seen the most recent season yet), they dealt with angels and demons. Now, the demons were pretty much all evil. They're demons, fine and dandy. But, a number of the angels were outright evil bastards too.

Made for fantastic television.

But, if you add in alignments, you can't do that in D&D. An Angel is Lawful Good. He HAS to behave a certain way. He's the paragon of the alignment. You can't have an evil bastard angel in the exact same way you can't have an evil bastard paladin. If paladins lose their mojo if they do anything evil, I'm thinking the right hand servants of a LG God would likely face some pretty heavy penalties (probably of a Miltonian sort) if they step out of line.

But, if alignment is out of the game, or, at the very least, has no mechanical consequences, then you can get evil bastard angels.

And I really, REALLY want evil bastard angels.

 

[Libramarian]

They clearly are going to have some form of alignment; Mearls has mentioned it several times in his bullet point list of key D&D features that appear in every edition.

What they need to do is not punish alignment change, but reward it.

If you are a Paladin, you must be Lawful Good. If you stray from this alignment in your actions, you lose your status as a Paladin for ever.

But then you become an Anti-Paladin/Blackguard...an even cooler class! That you can only access by roleplaying the fall of a Paladin.

 

[Zireael]

Lack of consensus is not always bad, it can make for some seriously compelling games when the DM puts their own spin on the alignment system and forces players to look at things from a very different worldview.


Really I think alignment is pretty optional already. Out of half a dozen games where DMs actually cared for you to put it down, only one of them was brazen enough to dictate how our characters should be played because of it.

Putting down an alignment should be optional in most situations. But it still serves as a good guideline when looking at how certain classes, races, dieties, and kingdoms function. It shouldn't be the rule on how your character must be played, only the guideline.


I agree, if a creature is important enough that it's gonna have a personality, that personality is much better defined by the DM creating it than some arbitrary allegiance system.

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.

 

[Janaxstrus]

This is a ridiculous argument. Clearly the failure or success of 4e was not predicated on whether it had 5, 9, 3, or 0 alignments.

NO, it was predicated on all the changes they made away from previous editions.

It's possible it failed because it just is a coincidence. I'm guessing it's more likely because A) they changed things enough (Vancian magic, alignments, cosmos, rewriting the entire history of elves) to upset people and not give it a fair shake and B) it wasn't good in comparison to previous editions and expectations.

 

[avin]

Scrap Law/Chaos as stupid and incoherent, keep Good/Evil

On the opposite, scrap evil/good, keep chaos/law.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm torn on whether paladins, rangers, bards, rogues, druids and assassins should have alignment restrictions. From a flavor and iconic perspective I definitely like the limits. But from the capacity to make an evil ranger or pure good (not LG) paladin 4e was a step forward.

Well, 5e is all about customization, right?

Base Rule: Characters are assumed to not have an alignment.

Add-On: Alignments are just descriptions you can add to your character to reflect how they act in the world, and what cosmological team they're on. Law/Chaos/Good/Evil are all there, and when making your character you can choose one or two of them to help guide you. The DM can give you guidance about what each alignment means in their game, if you have any questions. You can still not have an alignment: such creatures are "unaligned." (this means that "neutral" doesn't exist -- you're just one alignment, not the other. You're not neutral good, you're just good, or more technically "unaligned good". If you're at the center of it, you are just unaligned)

Add-On: A DM can add alignment restrictions to any class they see fit. Paladins, for instance, may need to be Lawful Good, since they follow a code, embrace civilization, sacrifice for others, and protect the defenseless. The Druids, being lovers of the wild, may need to be Chaotic. Or, being representatives of nature's order, they may need to be Lawful. following are possible examples: (LIST)

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)

Add-On: A DM can introduce the following alignment-based treasures to the game. Such treasures can help creatures of a certain alignment, or hinder creatures of another alignment. These objects represent the powerful magic of the cosmos sealed into a physical form. Examples include the Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds. (LIST)

 

[FireLance]

Actually, thinking a bit more about the "codes of conduct" I mentioned in a previous post, I think this is one way that could improve the concept of alignments in 5e.

A simple law/chaos good/evil descriptor doesn't do enough to flesh out a character, IMO. However, if the player were to build on that, and actually describe what that alignment means to his character and how it influences his actions, then it might be more useful.

So, you can't just write "lawful good" on your character sheet. You've also got to write down at least three things that your character thinks he should or should not do because he is lawful and/or good.

So maybe to one character "good" means always offering mercy to an opponent who surrenders. To another, it might mean always trying to give help to people who need it. A third character might define "good" as heartily smiting the forces of evil. The descriptions should be reasonable, of course. Any player who tries to argue that his character thinks "good" means stealing from everyone he meets should be asked to read a dictionary.

Under such a system, the answer to "You can't do that, you're lawful good." becomes "Well, that doesn't run contrary to what my character thinks lawful good is."

 

[CleverNickName]

I've always used alignments, and I've never had an issue with them. As I've said elsewhere, it wasn't until the Internet came along that I even heard people complain about them.

I want them to include the nine alignments in 5E, mostly because it will mean a lot of extra work for me if they don't: copying the pertinent parts of the older rulebooks and handing them out to the players, writing alignments into the margins for all of the monsters, writing in the alignment requirements for classes, figuring out which spells are alignment-based and then writing said alignment into the margins, and so on.