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

[Sword of Spirit]

The title of the post might imply I have a specific proposal, but I'm really just looking for different takes and new ideas. The alignment discussions over on the Pages from the PHB topic had some really good thoughts (unusual for an alignment thread, sadly) and it got me thinking.

I'm really a fan of alignment in D&D, and I'm intending for this thread to be for others of that mentality. If you hate alignment or want to replace it with something else entirely, this isn't for you.

First, I like the way that 5e appears to be treating alignment. It has no mechanical effect, but is assumed to exist, and spells that previously dealt with alignment simply deal with creature types now, such as celestials and fiends.

The introduction of Ideals, Flaws, and Bonds seems like a great way to help players define a character's alignment. Maybe that's why little descriptors like, "lawful" were given in the example chart. You don't choose alignment first--you choose your Ideals, Flaws, and Bonds, which then point you in the direction of possible alignments. You don't have to pick any specific alignment, but it gets you thinking. If you picked a bunch of chaotic traits, but you think the description of a lawful alignment better fits your character, how does that work out in his actions and personality? What does that say about him? It adds depth and I think helps alignment be descriptive rather than prescriptive.

One of the traditional weaknesses of alignment was brought up on the other topic: people can play artificial characters because they are using alignment as prescriptive rather than descriptive. Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws might help out with that if they are intended to.

I'm brainstorming how I want to handle PC alignment in my campaigns. It can actually be a real pain when the DM and player disagree about alignment, but it can also be a real pain to create a complex legal document specifying exactly how alignment is defined. Leaving it more flexible, but with clear principles, I feel is a better way to do it, but then you end up with a greater risk of players not seeing it the same way as you do. And if you don't discuss alignment at all before the campaign starts, you risk having little common ground. For instance, I had a player create a True Neutral character and express that he thought that meant they could do whatever they want. Not my idea at all. In fact, "I do whatever I want" is a pretty good definition of chaotic evil in my interpretation.

I'm trying to come up with a way to let the players determine how much they want alignment to affect their character, while still preserving the effects I want it to have on the game. The primary effects that are important to me in my campaigns are that it gives me a quick reference for interpreting NPC individuals and groups, that it has an effect on philosophies and religions, and that it has an effect on what happens to your character when you die.

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?

Here are a few different thoughts I'm rolling around:
1. Ask each player whether they want to declare an intended alignment at character creation, or just play their character and see what happens.
2. Ask each player whether or not they want me to inform them when their alignment is drifting.
3. Ask each player how much info they even want me to tell them about how I interpret alignment.

Based on their answers, I'd need to make sure they understand and are willing to accept occasional consequences. Let's say they don't want to choose an alignment, don't want me to tell them about it, and aren't interested in hearing anything about it other than the one or two sentence blurb in character creation. They need to be willing to accept that they might find themselves getting in trouble with an organization they choose to affiliate with because they didn't realize that that group considers parts of their behavior to be unacceptable according to their ideals. In a perfect campaign this can be handled without direct reference to alignment--but a game rarely runs perfectly. A player who wants to talk with me extensively about how I view alignment before we start, can have a basic idea of the likely alignment of that group, and make their character's decisions from that perspective. And I sometimes enjoy playing through a character's journey to the afterlife while awaiting resurrection. (I think it sets up that connection to the multiverse I find enjoyable; and then forgetting all about it when you come back refocuses the game, while leaving the players with a feeling of being a smaller part of a greater world.) It probably would be rather annoying for a player to find out after their character dies that I view their actions as putting them in Ysgard or Limbo when they were aiming for Arborea or the Beastlands.

As I've mentioned before, I prefer alignment to be something that is determined by a character's actions, rather than something they pick and try to act according to. In practice that can be a difficult mindset to actually interpret your character from, however.

So, thoughts?

 

[Agamon]

I personally don't like alignment as the DM's sword hanging over the players heads. "Play this way, or else!" Even if they are the ones picking it.

The DM already controls the entire world an nearly all of its inhabitants. The players only control their PC. So as a DM, I let them control it. If there are consequences to their actions, they will be in game, not as the result of an alignment violation.

Not to say that this is the "right" way to play. Just that, this way, alignment becomes far less of an issue at the table.

 

[tuxgeo]

My take on the matter: In any specific DM's campaign, alignments mean whatever that DM says they mean. (As the game was built, the alignments weren't for philosophical exploration, but they were part of the structure of the world.)

Based on that supposition:
(1) If the DM doesn't say what alignments mean, then they have no meaning in that campaign;
(2) If the meanings of alignments are subject to change over time within a campaign, then that isn't fair to the players;
(3) Clearly-stated alignments are best when kept simplest, because multiple clauses within any one alignment can conflict with each other.

IMHO, each DM needs to decide which (few) criteria to include when describing alignments. Some examples that have been used, or could be used, are:
Helpful vs. Hurtful; Sacrificial vs. Selfish; Dutiful vs. Whimsical; Centralized Control vs. Distributed Control; Industrious vs. Appreciative. (Of course there are many others.)

To all of the above, the matter of "strength-of-alignment" should be added. The WotC developers have been going in the direction of saying that most PCs are weakly aligned at most -- indeed, undetectably aligned. Again IMHO, the only PCs that should have even a moderately strong alignment are the classes that originally had restrictions: LG Paladins, Lawful Monks, and non-Lawful Bards and Rogues.

 

[jcrowland]

I fail to see the need for a discussion with the players if there are no mechanical consequences. If I say "True Neutral" and play in such a way that you say "Chaotic Evil", so what? Have NPCs who are aware of his actions treat him as CE and let the player think whatever he wants to think. Its the behavior (in game, of course) that counts, not the label. I agree "do whatever I want" is CE, but I also agree that such a character could easily think he's "True Neutral".

If I were you, do option 1: Nothing. Let the players play their PCs as they wish and you play the NPCs accordingly. As a DM you need to be aware of all casts of characters, and alignment helps put each NPC in its "place", so I like alignment for that reason. Its DM shorthand for NPC behavior. But players play one character. Alignment doesn't really matter, they play that one character and it is what it is (alignment-wise). let it roll.

 

[Bawylie]

I have a set of morals that I aspire to live up to. Part of that is recognizing that I'm a flawed person. I sometimes want to do things I consider wrong. Sometimes I want that a lot. But I try not to act on that. And sometimes I fail & feel bad about failing or about giving in.

So, for instance, maybe I feel like I'm NE, but I try my best to be CG. I often fail, or stumble. But I don't quit. What's my alignment?

Do I always have to behave a certain way to be a good person? And what if I really am bad at heart but work hard not to be?

In practice, alignment systems tend toward a limited view of morality. But we're quite complex. What if you had an X-Y grid with an axis for good-evil and law-chaos? You'd place a dot somewhere in the graph for each action you take that's aligned (not like eating or whatever). After a few sessions of play, you see you're generally aligned - trending in one direction or another. Maybe 2.

Once you have a picture representing your moral trend, maybe you attract benefits that correspond. Like, somewhere on these axis-es-es, there's little boons. So a strongly-good-aligned character might receive additional healing (+1 per die rolled to heal). And maybe a strongly lawful-good-aligned character might get bonus AC for protecting the innocent or bonus smite damage vs evil.

But the trick is, you keep accumulating these dots on your graph. Your morality evolves. Perhaps you get a new graph every other level. A new graph would have a single plot point, representing your latest moral stance.

I don't know. I just don't care for a straight jacket.

 

[Wangalade]

In my games, alignment refers to the viewpoint of the character. I don't have it refer to good or evil, as that can be subjective, instead I only include Lawful, neutral, and chaotic. Not in that the characters act lawfully or chaotic(meaning random and without reason), but it just how they view law, order, and government. A lawful character feels government is necessary, and that laws are for the protection of people. A chaotic character feels that laws are restrictive, government is corrupt and only there to empower those already in power, and that chaos is the natural order of things. A neutral character either doesn't really have a strong opinion or sees a balance between law and chaos.

Because good and evil can't really be quantified, I use the next best thing, a person's beliefs or perspective on the world. The descriptions of lawful or chaotic above are extremely basic and each could merit its own essay, but I think they convey the general idea. In play this has caused some interesting combinations because one character may try to help the king/lord/government while the other character thinks the group should assassinate/disrupt the king/governmentand they have to convince the rest of the neutral party to take sides(most people are neutral in that they really don't care).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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.

 

[Elf Witch]

I like alignments as a tool for character development I use them in my game. I always ask the players what their alignment is and what it means to them. I also at the start of the game give a brief write up on the laws and morality of the area the players are from.

I don't believe alignments should be straight jackets nor should things me as rigid as some people believe. Take the whole paladin lying issue. To me that does not mean that a paladin can't lie as part of a mission as a cover what it means is a a paladin does not lie to get out of trouble that he is responsible for or to get something for selfish gains. I also belief that motivation plays a lot into it not just actions. To me there is a world of difference using dominate to stop someone from hurting themselves or other people and using it to control someone for your convenience.

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.

 

[GMMichael]

I'm trying to come up with a way to let the players determine how much they want alignment to affect their character, while still preserving the effects I want it to have on the game. The primary effects that are important to me in my campaigns are that it gives me a quick reference for interpreting NPC individuals and groups, that it has an effect on philosophies and religions, and that it has an effect on what happens to your character when you die.

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?

What is "alignment?" A label, or a mechanic?

If it's just a label, let players pick whatever they want. If the gods care about that alignment, it's your job to run the gods.

If alignment is a game mechanic, then the flavor doesn't really matter. It's just a mechanic. Does it say that a "good" character does double damage against "evil" characters? It's just a rule. Don't take it personally.

Regarding your primary use: how does alignment help you interpret NPCs? Do lawful-good NPCs walk around with their fingers steepled? I think of NPCs by career first: an innkeeper, wandering minstrel, and brigand are likely to have different reactions to my PCs. I don't really care what their alignments are.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Regarding your primary use: how does alignment help you interpret NPCs? Do lawful-good NPCs walk around with their fingers steepled? I think of NPCs by career first: an innkeeper, wandering minstrel, and brigand are likely to have different reactions to my PCs. I don't really care what their alignments are.

Well, there is a significant difference between innkeepers. One regularly overcharges his customers for rooms, refuses to clean his kitchen and serves rats to people as meals while claiming them to be chicken. Another one barely gets by himself because he feels that it's his holy duty to the God of Travel to provide travelers the absolute best accommodations for the lowest price possible as well as providing free healing to wounds sustained during their travels.

Their career is one aspect of an NPC. Their alignment tells you how moral they are and their views on life.

It helps you make decisions as that NPC. If the PCs show up asking questions about someone they are looking for, a good aligned character might try their best to help them out. A Chaotic character might believe that everyone has the right to privacy and they shouldn't be sharing any information without asking the person first. An Evil character might see a bunch of suckers who don't know what they are looking for and purposefully steer them towards their business associates in the thieves guild to be robbed.