D&D 5E Do you find alignment useful in any way?

[imagineGod]

Good to see at least some people in the community find alignment useful.

Almost thought I was one of the unwanted undesirables in this community, simply for still wanting to play fantasy games of law-vs-chaos and good-vs-evil.

The big reveal will be the 50th Anniversary of D&D Monsters Manual in 2024. A balance between nostalgia and Generation post-Z

Then will finally know if people who enjoy alignment are still welcome in the hobby.

Bring unwanted is not a good feeling.

 

[Libertad]

Alignment is a simplified morality system written to hit on basic media tropes as opposed to an in-depth discussion on social conduct. Philosophers and theologians Gygax and Arneson were not.

As such, it's too vague, contradictory, and subject to change in the mind's eye of gaming groups to have any consistent meaning. One could say the same for a lot more well-thought out moral codes, but alignment is particularly pernicious due to the fact that players often project their own value system onto it given its overall vagueness. It's for these reasons I don't find it useful.

Disentangling alignment from game mechanics was a step in the right direction for 5e. No other game mechanic has caused as many arguments in D&D's history, so lessening its influence and leaving it up to to gaming groups how important to make it in their own games is a good thing.

 

[Aging Bard]

Alignment can be very useful, particularly when defining some society's or group's base behavior. But the older definitions were quite cliché or even gonzo. Some more sensible definitions can increase alignment's usefulness. These are my solutions to the alignment question; you may of course disagree.

Most societies have notions of "law & regulations" and "right & wrong". Alignment does not directly determine what these are, but helps guide a society towards figuring them out.

The Good-Evil axis is about personal agency: a Good person agrees that the needs and wants of others are as valid as their own, and an Evil person does not. That does mean the Evil person is a murdering psychopath, though it could. Rather, it means they are unreliable, particularly when it really matters. When up against the wall, they will save themselves first, give up their associates, and generally view others as a means to get them out of a jam. Evil tendencies will usually need to be hidden to get along, but will manifest in small ways: blaming others, casual bigotry, a rush to punish, and so on.

The Law-Chaos axis is a bit more subtle. It is about the validity of external law. A Lawful person believes that external groups can define The Law and that this process can be valid. There are many ways to define The Law, of course, which will differ by place, but these arrangements are all valid even if one disagrees with their conclusions; they will still follow The Law. A Chaotic person accepts no external source for The Law: only their own internal code is valid. This does not mean Chaotic people are crazy. Chaotic people are perfectly able to operate in Lawful societies (which is most of them), they just never respect the authority of The Law. So they are more likely to ignore "bad" laws, or to do what they believe is "right", which will probably get them into more trouble than a Lawful person.

Neutral alignments reflect indifference or unimportance. So a Chaotic Neutral person, instead of being a complete lunatic, is simply someone who follows their personal code first and foremost; how it impacts others is of secondary concern. That makes their decisions unpredictable unless you understand their code.

I came to these definitions by wanting to answer a different question: what does it mean that most of elvish society has been canonically Chaotic Good since 1st Edition? What does a cohesive Chaotic society even look like? There are virtually no real world examples. But with these definitions, I worked towards an answer. And that answer is frankly quite mad. Elfish society must be very weird compared to what humans are used to. And I love that result!

 

[Mistwell]

This poll of course is incredibly biased. A person may easily find some use for alignment whilst feeling that it is an unneeded awkward relic or even an detriment.

Now, it is perfectly possible, even likely, that majority of people want the alignment to be in the game, but this poll doesn't answer that.

For what it's worth, I was not trying to answer that with this poll and I don't think it was biased for what it was asking. This was inspired by someone saying alignment was never useful in any way and I was curious if others agreed with that sentiment.

 

[Hex08]

Yes. Alignment is not a straight jacket binding your character to a rigid morality but more of a high level overview (an elevator pitch) to help describe your character.

It's no more restrictive than saying your character is from a poor, uneducated family or descended from a noble lineage. Both of those are guidelines to help you play your character, not the end all - be all of your characters background and growth potential. Also, not all players are created equal and sometimes alignment or other short character descriptions help keep players on track and in character.

As an example: my gaming group consists of myself (I buy the games we paly and am the most well versed in the rules and settings and have the deepest understanding of the hobby), the other DM (who uses my stuff and knows a lot but still leans on me for help but has a really good grasp on the hobby) and three to four other players who have never picked up a rule book outside of character creation and just know what they learn along the way and are of varying skill as role-players. One of that last group was playing a lawful good paladin in a Pathfinder game and decided he wanted to to kill an NPC, which would have amounted to assassinating a local government official who was hindering the party's objective. He was not evil, just in the way. The existence of alignment and a general description of what a Paladin is was very handy in helping me point out to the player that his actions might not be appropriate (real life stresses were impacting his play style). On the other hand, I never used alignment to bludgeon him.

D&D and it's clones are, at their core, all about heroic fantasy. Yes, you can tell other types of stories using the game(s) but at their core they are about the noble knight fighting the evil wizard to save the princess and alignment is an easy way to show who is a black hat or white hat. Alignment helps with that, especially with novices or less skilled role-players..

 

[Shadowedeyes]

This poll has been interesting. A significant amount of people like alignment, or I guess, find it useful. I do hope that alignment if kept around would stay similar to how it used in 5e, mainly not having a huge mechanical effect on player characters. No restrictions for character classes, that sort of thing. Other than that, it's mostly whatever for me.

Okay, I'll admit I'm still annoyed that Zeus was CG in 3e, that was just mind boggling for me. At least that was also changed in 5e.

 

[Azzy]

Even in this thread we've seen wide variances in the description of alignments—particularly on the law/chaos axis. Alignment is like a Rorschach test. What it means depends on the individual and their subjective philosophical biases.

If D&D were going to keep the concept, I think it could be replaced by something a little less open to interpretation and better at defining motivations.

 

[Aldarc]

If D&D were going to keep the concept, I think it could be replaced by something a little less open to interpretation and better at defining motivations.

I have proposed something more akin to active allegiance to the cosmological forces of the D&D mythos (e.g., demons, devils, angels, etc.) and then using a Theros-like piety system. As you go up in Alignment score, you get perks based on your faction, but it also attracts heat from the opposing faction(s).

 

[Oofta]

Even in this thread we've seen wide variances in the description of alignments—particularly on the law/chaos axis. Alignment is like a Rorschach test. What it means depends on the individual and their subjective philosophical biases.

If D&D were going to keep the concept, I think it could be replaced by something a little less open to interpretation and better at defining motivations.

There are many, many "fuzzy" aspects to D&D. I don't think it hurts in any way. In fact, I think it's one of the games strengths. That, and I don't see a vast chasm between definitions of alignment for people that find it useful.

 

[Quickleaf]

I use alignment in two ways...

What flavor is a PC's reputation (or even a party's reputation)? A Lawful Good reputation might be great among the paladin order or a particularly lofty noble court, but another grittier noble court – or even certain members in a noble court – might view that PC as an ungrounded idealist without the stomach to make hard choices.

How do planar-ideal-monsters like celestials and fiends initially respond to the PC? A deal-making devil might be particularly cagey when presenting a contract to a lawful character, whereas with a more chaotically minded character, they might gloss over details hoping to entrap them with lies of omission.