D&D 5E By the book alignment, in a simple, satisfying manner

[Unwise]

Not contributing much to the topic, but I had great fun playing a Chaotic Evil Half-Fiend who was geased to act in a Lawful-Good manner and was punished if ever he tried not to. It was hilarious to play. Telling the little kids you just saved "I want to eat your face!...argh...I mean, I want to see you safe!".

It also confused all of the priests, as the guy was essentially a paladin and the most virtous guy they had ever met, but he detected as diabolically evil every time he entered holy ground. The GM worked it into the campaign well too, as the BBEG was prophesied to be unkillable, because no righteous person could ever kill him and no evil person would every willingly hurt him.

 

[Raith5]

I find that having an alignment helps players role play their characters. I do use consequences in my games if you go around being a bad guy or just a selfish out for yourself guy don't necessarily expect the cleric of Pelor healing spells to work on you. There should be consequences both good and bad for the actions your character takes in the game.

I think in game consequences of PC behaviour is essential - but you dont have to have an alignment system for the DM to roleplay the NPCs appropriately when the behaviour of PCs is known. But the idea that unknown/secretive behaviour should be detectable by NPCs or punished by the DM - I think that is just too metaphysical for me unless some magical pact is made with a demon or such.

I have never been a fan of DM determined alignment - it is just too abstract for me. I still think the allegiance system in one of the 3rd ed books (?) is best because a PC can subscribe to ethos (alignment) or something more political (like a King) etc. It serves to anchor the PC to the world rather than to a gaming mechanic.

 

[sidonunspa]

Alignments are unclear and promote conflict within a group.

The best set of fantasy alignments I've ever seen are here: http://gelvgoldenaxe.proboards.com/thread/23

Clear and based on a game. (I don't like the not lying part, but that's one out of eleven parts of the "code", so you could play that alignment even if you did occasionally lie.)

Actually I don't like that game system in general, but its alignment rules should be looked at as a model.

I sooooo wish they would make that system open source, if they ever did I think it would quickly become the most popular alignment system...

 

[Halivar]

Alignments are no good as a strait jacket. All it is in my games is an indication by the player to me as to how their character will naturally respond to certain things in the game, so that I can plan accordingly.

If Joe-Bob (I live in Georgia) is playing a Chaotic Neutral Rogue, I know ahead of time he's going to pickpocket at the royal ball.

If Cleetus (actually, I don't really know anyone by these names, sorry) is playing a Lawful Good Fighter, I know that his inability to lie to the evil despot about the whereabouts of the noble rebels will provoke a fight.

This is why I hate when players play against alignment. It's not breaking a rule per se, but it is against a quasi-contract you make when you create your character: in exchange for detect evil not registering you and protection from evil not hurting you, you commit to not performing evil acts. It just makes sense.

 

[Thaumaturge]

(actually, I don't really know anyone by these names, sorry)

Stop ruining my perceptions of the world.

This is why I hate when players play against alignment. It's not breaking a rule per se, but it is against a quasi-contract you make when you create your character: in exchange for detect evil not registering you and protection from evil not hurting you, you commit to not performing evil acts. It just makes sense.

I hadn't ever thought of it in social contract terms, but you're right. And that probably explains why evil characters tend to be so disruptive, the players have an excuse to break any and all social contracts. (I've had players who haven't, but they seem to be the exception).

The alignment also stands in for all of the minutiae we know about our friends and family that don't get fleshed out in character backgrounds. I know how my close friends, the ones I'd want to have at my back in a life or death situation, would react to a lot of ethical and moral situations. I'm not going to mandate "character bibles" for each character at my table and then mandate the reading of each.

"LG" is a good facsimile for "this guy does his best to uphold law and order, he gets things wrong, but he mostly does what is right by our shared moral standard, based upon my time knowing him." And "CG" is short for "this lady doesn't like to be told what to do, because she's had specific problems with authoritarian figures before, but she wants to help people."

I agree people with people who say alignment being mind-control or a straightjacket is no fun. We just don't use them that way at my table.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Alignments are unclear and promote conflict within a group.

The best set of fantasy alignments I've ever seen are here: http://gelvgoldenaxe.proboards.com/thread/23

Clear and based on a game. (I don't like the not lying part, but that's one out of eleven parts of the "code", so you could play that alignment even if you did occasionally lie.)

Actually I don't like that game system in general, but its alignment rules should be looked at as a model.

The problem is those is that whilst clear, and accommodating most PCs, they have some fairly big gaps, like "lawful jerk" (an alignment a surprising number of RL people seem to have - ironically, rarely lawyers!), where following the law is vastly more important than whether something is morally/ethically right or wrong.

I do enjoy the fact that by it's methodology, most political leaders are some variety of evil, though!

Plus I *never* saw an alignment debate in any Palladium game, though hilariously, it sounds like in Siembieda's own games, not only were there a lot of them, but he ruthlessly forced alignments and penalties for changing alignment on people (sounds like he, oddly, ran it very differently from how it was written!).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Interestingly, this thread has got me wondering why I want alignment in my D&D games. I don't use it in any of my other role-playing. I don't miss it in any of my other role-playing. So why D&D?

A part of it is simply cosmology. The conflict of the various moral and ethical forces is part of a cosmology that is D&D to me. That still makes it easy to accommodate alignment having no mechanical effect on normal races. Sure, you might have a little bit of it flowing through you, but it's just enough to tug your soul towards the right place after you die. Only creatures completely saturated by it (such as celestials and fiends) register to alignment-affecting magic.

So why do I want to write an alignment on a PC's character record as a DM, even if the player doesn't know what it is? Why don't I just analyze what happens after they die based upon the way they lived their life after that life?

Part of it is a short-hand for telling player what kinds of characters are acceptable in a campaign. It's easier to say "no evil alignments" that it is to go into more details. However, even with that I think I'm going to try to avoid it and instead give more relevant guidance. In my next big campaign I want heroes who will be willing to stick together, want to save the world, and aren't causing mayhem and evil. I can say, "no evil alignments, and neutral characters need a reason to be heroic." Or I can just describe it how I did.

I guess there is a stick to hit characters with based on alignment. It's the "your character isn't appropriate for this campaign," stick.

Other ideas?

 

[Elf Witch]

I think in game consequences of PC behaviour is essential - but you dont have to have an alignment system for the DM to roleplay the NPCs appropriately when the behaviour of PCs is known. But the idea that unknown/secretive behaviour should be detectable by NPCs or punished by the DM - I think that is just too metaphysical for me unless some magical pact is made with a demon or such.

I have never been a fan of DM determined alignment - it is just too abstract for me. I still think the allegiance system in one of the 3rd ed books (?) is best because a PC can subscribe to ethos (alignment) or something more political (like a King) etc. It serves to anchor the PC to the world rather than to a gaming mechanic.

I found that having an alignment system does help. There are players who without one will play what is ever convenient for the situation, now there is nothing wrong with playing a morally ambiguous character like this except when they are playing a cleric, paladin or view themselves a good characters.

As for the detect evil or detect good spell in my games that only works on massively evil or good things like clerics or planar creatures. For a non cleric to detect they have to be extremely evil and have done a lot of evil acts.

In my games you could technically not have done anything evil yourself say your alignment may actually be neutral but if you worship or serve an evil god you are tainted with the evil that god and his followers have done how strongly the taint depends on how actively you have acted in that god interests.

I also use alignment for mechanical purposes for example an evil person will take damage from a good aligned weapon or item. So in my game that neutral PC who follows an evil god will detect evil for taint but a holy smite won't work on them. I should add that I have a house rule that clerics have the same alignment as their gods.

 

[Unwise]

Alignments are unclear and promote conflict within a group.

The best set of fantasy alignments I've ever seen are here: http://gelvgoldenaxe.proboards.com/thread/23

Clear and based on a game. (I don't like the not lying part, but that's one out of eleven parts of the "code", so you could play that alignment even if you did occasionally lie.)

Actually I don't like that game system in general, but its alignment rules should be looked at as a model.

Nut Torture ?!?!

What sort of wierd alignment system makes exceptions for the case of testicle abuse?

And I quote "6. Not resort to inhumane treatment of prisoners, nut torture, although distasteful, is necessary means of extracting info."

I can just see it now
"No Grob! Stop punching that prisoner, it offends my code of honor."
"But we need the information!"
"If we do this, we do it the honourable way! Take off his pants and pass me those tiny clamps. You know, like a gentleman"

 

[I'm A Banana]

What sorts of suggestions would you guys give for how to allow players to choose their own level of alignment interaction while preserving my campaign ideas?

Step #1: Determine the functional role you want alignment to have in gameplay. How do you want to use it? Some possibilities might be "I want to make a clear line between the good guys and the bad guys!" or "I like the struggle to live up to a code" or "I just want a quick way for characters to define their overall approach to life" or "I envision a universe where morals and ethics are potent sources of magical energy." Or whatevs.

First thing you wanna do is lock down why you want alignment in your game, on a functional, utility level. That'll help point you in the direction of how you want to use it.