Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
By the book alignment, in a simple, satisfying manner
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6311885" data-attributes="member: 6677017"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>at all</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>Here are a few different thoughts I'm rolling around:</p><p>1. Ask each player whether they want to declare an intended alignment at character creation, or just play their character and see what happens.</p><p>2. Ask each player whether or not they want me to inform them when their alignment is drifting.</p><p>3. Ask each player how much info they even want me to tell them about how I interpret alignment.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>So, thoughts?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 6311885, member: 6677017"] 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 [I]at all[/I] 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
By the book alignment, in a simple, satisfying manner
Top