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

[MNblockhead]

I like having the option. But it works best when it is mechanically part of the game. I wish 5e would made it an option rule, like feats, but gave some crunch to it.

In my current campaign, alignment is of central importance and in a very gamist way. Your alignment has mechanical effects. Some magic will only work with some alignments and not others, or will deal more damage to some alignments. Some spells are only available to certain alignments. The gods have alignment driven expectations of their followers.

But, this is not bog-standard 5e. I also add some additional mechanics like "Concordance" from Strongholds & Followers (by MCM) which gives further mechanical support to alignment.

I understand why many dislike the alignment restrictions, but like many rules, the limitations often inspire creativity.

I enjoy games with and without alignment. I prefer that it be kept as an option part of D&D for nostalgia and another crunch option, but it would be nice to have more mechanical support for alignment to matter in 5e, for those who want to use it.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Alignment is less than useful. I find it to be actively detrimental to the game.

If I had a nickel for every player who thought writing "Chaotic" on the character sheet was a valid excuse to be a lolrandumb murderhobo…

 

[Oofta]

Alignment is less than useful. I find it to be actively detrimental to the game.

If I had a nickel for every player who thought writing "Chaotic" on the character sheet was a valid excuse to be a lolrandumb murderhobo…

But won't that just change to "but my flaw says I'm a murderhobo!"?

 

[Jack Daniel]

But won't that just change to "but my flaw says I'm a murderhobo!"?

At least in that scenario, there's an element of honesty and accuracy on the part of the player that isn't present when alignment is used as an excuse for "it's what my character would do"-type That Guy behavior.

(Not that I care for Flaws, Bonds, and Ideals either, just so I'm being clear, but they're an irrelevant flash-in-the-pan compared to alignment.)

 

[Oofta]

At least in that scenario, there's an element of honesty and accuracy on the part of the player that isn't present when alignment is used as an excuse for "it's what my character would do"-type That Guy behavior.

(Not that I care for Flaws, Bonds, and Ideals either, just so I'm being clear, but they're an irrelevant flash-in-the-pan compared to alignment.)

I just tell people "Don't play a jerk, evil or anti-social loner. Remember that it's a team game and you'll be part of a team."

I think alignment gets blamed for people being a$$holes when it's really just an issue with the player.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

For the most part I would agree, but we've had at least a few times where True Neutral has been described as actively changing sides in a fight to maintain "balance", and Chaotic Neutral as the alignment to give to madmen, so there have been times it's been endorsed by the official material, at least a little bit.

 

[MarkB]

For the most part I would agree, but we've had at least a few times where True Neutral has been described as actively changing sides in a fight to maintain "balance", and Chaotic Neutral as the alignment to give to madmen, so there have been times it's been endorsed by the official material, at least a little bit.

Yeah, I've seen that version of True Neutral be used, and it's entirely too self-aware an approach to alignment, consciously balancing one's good deeds and bad. It reminds me of the original Baldur's Gate CRPG where, if you have the True Neutral druid in the party, she'll start protesting "This is not how true heroes act!" if you do too many good deeds, and you have to start acting like a jerk to bring your reputation down far enough for her to stick with you - despite her being scripted as a good person.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh I hate this so much actually. This is what leads to hours-long debates over alignment, when the DM decides you are not playing your character in the correct way and threatens to take away your abilities. Or, conversely, when a player uses alignment for the sake of being anti-social (lawful-stupid, chaotic-stupid, etc). Alignment becomes such a huge drag on game play, and makes both characters and the world one-dimensional.

The DM's definition of alignment is law for that table, so hours-long debates shouldn't happen unless the DM is unclear on her own definitions.

As for lawful-stupid or chaotic-stupid characters, I can play these just as well without alignments as with.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, I've seen that version of True Neutral be used, and it's entirely too self-aware an approach to alignment, consciously balancing one's good deeds and bad. It reminds me of the original Baldur's Gate CRPG where, if you have the True Neutral druid in the party, she'll start protesting "This is not how true heroes act!" if you do too many good deeds, and you have to start acting like a jerk to bring your reputation down far enough for her to stick with you - despite her being scripted as a good person.

I've never seen anyone try that thankfully. It's an impossible task for anyone to try. I mean, how many times do you have to help a little old lady across the street in order to balance an arson? For that matter, what's the evil weight of an arson of an abandoned building compared to an orphanage? 10x 100x 1000x 4746543x It's a silly position to take with the neutral alignment.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

Yah, I don't disagree that it's a pretty silly idea. Just that it has, officially speaking, been how True Neutral has been defined before.