D&D 5E (2014) Alignment

[Nightfly]

Use it. Since 5e has very few cases where alignment makes a mechanical difference, it rarely pops up -- but every now and again, it's important. My party just found a sentient Chaotic Evil sword, now being welded by a good-aligned character. Hijinks will presumably ensue!

 

[Hussar]

Abandoned alignment years ago and have never really looked back. It has no mechanical impact in 5e, and it just a hold over sacred cow with about as much use as the human appendix.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So who keeps standard alignment, and who discards it?

I don't currently run D&D, but if I did, I'd discard standard alignment in a heartbeat. It sucks at doing the things it's intended to do.

What do you use instead? Does this affect the standard cosmology based upon alignment?

Dungeon World is a useful place to start. Alignment there is a "carrot" rather than a "stick": if you fulfill your alignment move during a session (which generally should be doable), you get +1 XP. (You never need more than 16 XP to gain a level, so +1 XP is a lot.) Alignment moves are tailored to each class, though there are also some generic options. For example, the Paladin has the following official options.
Lawful: Deny mercy to a criminal or unbeliever.
Good: Endanger yourself to protect someone weaker than you.
These are actionable, clear descriptors of specific behaviors. Demonstrating them earns you XP.

I have already expanded on these somewhat even in just my DungeonWorld game, and will continue to refine them. More or less, I think Alignment should encourage players toward an ideal. And if the character's ideals have truly changed, their alignment should change! Then there's no question of whether the character "really is" their alignment or not, and the only "punishment" for not demonstrating your alignment is the failure to get the benefits of fulfilling it, rather than having to take things away.

Thoughts and discussion.

Alignment is controversial, repeatedly shows difficulty in implementation and usage, and frequently leads to perverse outcomes. Better to start from scratch and try something else. Monsters and baddies don't need it, if they're worth opposing in context then that should be clear, and if they aren't worth opposing other than because of their alignment jersey, that in itself is one of the perverse outcomes.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Use it. Since 5e has very few cases where alignment makes a mechanical difference, it rarely pops up -- but every now and again, it's important. My party just found a sentient Chaotic Evil sword, now being welded by a good-aligned character. Hijinks will presumably ensue!

Genuine question: Why couldn't the sword just be...murderous and corruptive? Why does it need to be "Chaotic Evil" specifically? What does labelling it "Chaotic Evil" do that calling it "tainted" or "corrupted" or "morally hazardous" would not?

 

[Raith5]

We dont really use it. I prefer to play were we monitor in game allegiances, commitments and obligations as a roleplaying element rather than abstract 'mechanic' (I am not sure it is a mechanic anymore). Ie if you murder someone it is a roleplaying problem involving the guard, not the DM or the gaming table.

 

[JEB]

We used alignment, but it was descriptive, not prescriptive. Just a role-playing prompt like background traits, and just as easily changed to reflect the way the character was actually being played.

A few players in our campaign also never bothered writing an alignment down, and it was no big deal.

 

[CleverNickName]

I've kept the standard alignments in my games for almost 30 years...I've never found a compelling reason to stop using them. (That said: I did adopt the 10th alignment, "Unaligned," when we switched from Pathfinder 1E to D&D 5E.)

 

[beancounter]

In my campaign, the only PCs that are required to strictly stay within the boundaries of their chosen alignment are Paladins and Clerics. If they don't, the power of their oath fades away and/or their god becomes very disappointed with them....

All creatures native to the Planes outside the prime material plane are their alignment. You just can't have a chaotic evil angel from the 7 heavens or a lawful good demon from the Abyss...

And yep, the orcs and Drow in my world are evil...

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I absolutely despise alignment and remove it from my games. If one of my players really wants to list their character as a certain alignment, I'll let them. However, I won't have it affect the campaign at all.

I've always considered simplifying morality into a 3 by 3 grid whose definitions differ from edition to edition and setting to setting as absolutely nonsensical, and the controversy around it is well deserved. Thus, I see no reason to keep it besides tradition, and this game already adheres too strongly to its sacred cows.

 

[MGibster]

While I like alignment, D&D has been steadily moving away from it for a while now. As such, I have moved away from it as well. I don't use alignment in my games, though I still have a no evil rule.