D&D 5E Do you find alignment useful in any way?
- Thread starter Mistwell
- Start date
- Status
Vaalingrade
Legend
When you get right down to it, I honestly don't find moral or ethical standing all that compelling as elements of a character personality.
I figure unless you're specifically making a villain or antihero (ie: villain the audience roots for) morality defaults to 'decent enough' and ethos usually swings wildly depending on the situation; people being generally 'chaotic' toward things they don't find important and 'lawful' towards things they have a passion for.
Things that are WAY more important:
introvert or extrovert
sense of humor
views on propriety
level of politeness
level of formality
I figure unless you're specifically making a villain or antihero (ie: villain the audience roots for) morality defaults to 'decent enough' and ethos usually swings wildly depending on the situation; people being generally 'chaotic' toward things they don't find important and 'lawful' towards things they have a passion for.
Things that are WAY more important:
introvert or extrovert
sense of humor
views on propriety
level of politeness
level of formality
Sword of Spirit
Legend
I find alignment to be an essential part of D&D. It defines the cosmic forces of the multiverse, and connects them to the concerns of mortals.
Alignment, used correctly, is simply a labeling of in-world realities. 3e had the best presentation of alignment, and 5e's original presentation was basically a simplified (yet compatible) version of that.
That presentation of alignment never demanded that individuals were fixed to a specific alignment, outside of rare cases, such as celestials, fiends, undead, etc. Even those who were described as "always <alignment>" came with the caveat that once in a million exceptions happen. For everyone else, alignment had notes such "often" or "usually", with exceptions being common. Orcs for instance, were "often chaotic evil", and elves were "usually chaotic good".
That presentation of alignment had very few mechanical implications (and 5e reduced them further, which I generally approve of), but plenty of cosmological implications. In the Planescape/Great Wheel cosmology--what I consider the epitome of D&D identity--alignment tells us how the various locations of the afterlife function, and how one's behaviors will tend to determine where one ends up, and where one would be comfortable ending up. It explains story-rich possibilities for conflicts between various flavors of evil, such as devils versus demons, as well as philosophical disagreements amongst angelic sorts of beings.
It provides a cosmological canvas rich in potential in a variety of ways, but it is also useful and used on a regular basis in pretty much every session I run. The nine alignments provide a simple short-hand description of how an individual of that alignment is likely to behave on a couple of basic spectrums. If you tell me that an NPC is neutral evil, then even though there are a wide variety of different personalities of individuals that might be classified as neutral evil, it still tells me important things about that individual that I can use to adjudicate NPC decision-making. It's not a set of rules I have to keep referencing, but it's a quick and easy way to remember certain basic concepts about a particular NPC while I'm getting their character properly fleshed out and developed in my head.
This is exactly the same way it works for groups of beings within the D&D settings. It describes how the group functions. Like we might say the Scarlet Brotherhood is LE. That doesn't mean that all members of the Scarlet Brotherhood are LE, and certainly not everyone that lives in their lands is LE, but it gives us a quick mental image, in the same way as saying "they're like Greyhawk's Nazis" does.
D&D species are sometimes that way also, almost always because of the religion centered on their creator deities.
For anyone, grognard or new blood, whose understanding of alignment doesn't include thorough familiarity with how it was presented in 3e, I refer you here: 3.5e Alignment. Since the original 5e version presentation is closer to that than to any other version, you will better understand that presentation by referring to 3e rather than older versions which haven't been official since last century.
Alignment, used correctly, is simply a labeling of in-world realities. 3e had the best presentation of alignment, and 5e's original presentation was basically a simplified (yet compatible) version of that.
That presentation of alignment never demanded that individuals were fixed to a specific alignment, outside of rare cases, such as celestials, fiends, undead, etc. Even those who were described as "always <alignment>" came with the caveat that once in a million exceptions happen. For everyone else, alignment had notes such "often" or "usually", with exceptions being common. Orcs for instance, were "often chaotic evil", and elves were "usually chaotic good".
That presentation of alignment had very few mechanical implications (and 5e reduced them further, which I generally approve of), but plenty of cosmological implications. In the Planescape/Great Wheel cosmology--what I consider the epitome of D&D identity--alignment tells us how the various locations of the afterlife function, and how one's behaviors will tend to determine where one ends up, and where one would be comfortable ending up. It explains story-rich possibilities for conflicts between various flavors of evil, such as devils versus demons, as well as philosophical disagreements amongst angelic sorts of beings.
It provides a cosmological canvas rich in potential in a variety of ways, but it is also useful and used on a regular basis in pretty much every session I run. The nine alignments provide a simple short-hand description of how an individual of that alignment is likely to behave on a couple of basic spectrums. If you tell me that an NPC is neutral evil, then even though there are a wide variety of different personalities of individuals that might be classified as neutral evil, it still tells me important things about that individual that I can use to adjudicate NPC decision-making. It's not a set of rules I have to keep referencing, but it's a quick and easy way to remember certain basic concepts about a particular NPC while I'm getting their character properly fleshed out and developed in my head.
This is exactly the same way it works for groups of beings within the D&D settings. It describes how the group functions. Like we might say the Scarlet Brotherhood is LE. That doesn't mean that all members of the Scarlet Brotherhood are LE, and certainly not everyone that lives in their lands is LE, but it gives us a quick mental image, in the same way as saying "they're like Greyhawk's Nazis" does.
D&D species are sometimes that way also, almost always because of the religion centered on their creator deities.
For anyone, grognard or new blood, whose understanding of alignment doesn't include thorough familiarity with how it was presented in 3e, I refer you here: 3.5e Alignment. Since the original 5e version presentation is closer to that than to any other version, you will better understand that presentation by referring to 3e rather than older versions which haven't been official since last century.
Rikka66
Adventurer
In general, I don't care about or even particulary like alignment. I have two uses for alignment.
1. It's a guideline for players, especially new players, in determining their character's personality, behaviour, and how the react to a given situation. That last one is the biggest, again especially for new players. They aren't beholden to their alignment, but it can help guide their RP. (Caveat: In reality the experienced players don't need it and the players who struggle with RP still struggle with it, and they don't even think to take my advice on the situation. There's also that group that never get into really engaging with the world as a breathing thing, and treat it like they do Skyrim: killing everyone who slightly annoys them.)
2. It helps me judge the likely responses the PC's will have to a given situation or NPCs. This works out better than #1 does at my tables. It should be noted that Neutral and Chaotic Neutral are useless in this regard, and Chaotic end up mostly interchangeable.
In both cases, if it seems a PC and their alignment aren't matching up, I'll talk to the player and mention my observations, and ask if their isn't a better choice of alignment for the character. Very frequently there is, or decide their behavior hasn't been fitting their image of the character and the readjust.
I wouldn't mind seeing alignment go, though I think keeping it at the very mild level of presence it has in 5e is overall better for the marketability of the game, if only for the pop culture/meme recognition. I'd also prefer if they had kept the stripped down version of 4e, as I found it did well in cutting the chaff and worked better in practice. I do think one day I might run a game that takes alignment very literally, as an actual force in how the world worked.
1. It's a guideline for players, especially new players, in determining their character's personality, behaviour, and how the react to a given situation. That last one is the biggest, again especially for new players. They aren't beholden to their alignment, but it can help guide their RP. (Caveat: In reality the experienced players don't need it and the players who struggle with RP still struggle with it, and they don't even think to take my advice on the situation. There's also that group that never get into really engaging with the world as a breathing thing, and treat it like they do Skyrim: killing everyone who slightly annoys them.)
2. It helps me judge the likely responses the PC's will have to a given situation or NPCs. This works out better than #1 does at my tables. It should be noted that Neutral and Chaotic Neutral are useless in this regard, and Chaotic end up mostly interchangeable.
In both cases, if it seems a PC and their alignment aren't matching up, I'll talk to the player and mention my observations, and ask if their isn't a better choice of alignment for the character. Very frequently there is, or decide their behavior hasn't been fitting their image of the character and the readjust.
I wouldn't mind seeing alignment go, though I think keeping it at the very mild level of presence it has in 5e is overall better for the marketability of the game, if only for the pop culture/meme recognition. I'd also prefer if they had kept the stripped down version of 4e, as I found it did well in cutting the chaff and worked better in practice. I do think one day I might run a game that takes alignment very literally, as an actual force in how the world worked.
Mind of tempest
(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
look I am not a curry liking guy but peoples opinion on curry is anything but apathetic where I am from so I do not see the logic.
Flamestrike
Legend
Yaarel
🇮🇱 🇺🇦 He-Mage
In my view, "Lawful" doesnt mean "legalistic".
For example, a mafia is extremely "Lawful" − but they break laws routinely.
What is happening is, the members of the mafia are self-identifying with "the group", namely their family. And they prioritize the expectations of this group over anything else.
For example, a mafia is extremely "Lawful" − but they break laws routinely.
What is happening is, the members of the mafia are self-identifying with "the group", namely their family. And they prioritize the expectations of this group over anything else.
Thing is, like most attempts to say "It's really this simple.", it doesn't come down to that. Good need not be nice, evil can be friendly and chummy.
For me, alignment has some nostalgia value, but that's about it. It doesn't really add much to the game, attempting to pin it down took the game to some really, REALLY stupid places (Dragonlance's Cataclysm or the Book of Exalted Deeds, anyone?) and I'm quite happy not to get endless debates on the alignment of Batman or Darth Vader.
- Status
Similar Threads
- Poll
