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

[ph0rk]

With the watering down of effects that key off alignment, the system is all but useless in 5e.

 

[Rikka66]

I keep hear some older DMs lament that younger kids come to their table seeking easy combat with no consequences.

That's a problem as old as the hobby.

 

[Maxperson]

With the watering down of effects that key off alignment, the system is all but useless in 5e.

Only because it is one sentence long. I would still be very useful if it was more in depth like 3e was.

 

[imagineGod]

With the watering down of effects that key off alignment, the system is all but useless in 5e.

You are right with very few magical items attuned to alignment and spells like Detect Evil neutered instead of finding every nearby evil monster, only finding aberrations and their ilk in 5e.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You are right with very few magical items attuned to alignment and spells like Detect Evil neutered instead of finding every nearby evil monster, only finding aberrations and their ilk in 5e.

Yep. And this is excellent. You shouldn't solve moral questions with a spell.

 

[GSHamster]

I think there are actually two traditional Alignment systems, and I like both of them. However, I am not certain that they co-exist easily or well.

First, I like Alignment as cosmic forces. Having Evil be a palpable force in the universe makes for some excellent games. Using circles of protection to keep undead at bay is a classic. Allowing paladins to smite and sense evil is great for their class fantasy.

Second is Alignment as a short sketch of viewpoint and behavior. The 3x3 is classic, and is "good enough" for many purposes, especially how it shows how two good, or two evil people might behave differently or even come into conflict. It's possible to be overly rigid with this form of alignment. But I have always found it's a good method for figuring out how a character should respond to a wide variety of situations, and what sort of situations where she will act against alignment.

However, I'm not sure that both systems work well together. Allowing detect evil, or smite evil from the first system to work on individuals in the second system is a mess. As well, it has a tendency to remove all nuance from the second system. The problem is both systems use the same words and terms, but one system is capitalized and the other lower-case. Lawful Evil and lawful evil, if that makes any sense. It's too easy to mix them together, when the systems work best being separate.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Only because it is one sentence long. I would still be very useful if it was more in depth like 3e was.

I think that what alignment was used for has been superceded by other systems that do it better (with one exception).

In my understanding, alignment is used for Character Behavior, Spell Effects, and Enemy Behavior.

Character Behavior is now mostly motivated by Background, Ideal, Bond, and Flaw, which often uses the language of alignment! There are Ideals which explicitly use "Chaos" or "Evil" in their description.

Spell Effects now use creature type instead of alignment, such as in the spell Protection from Good and Evil.

The one gap I see is Enemy Behavior. That's why I think it should be replaced with some codified traits that a DM could use to easily make decisions about how their enemies act.

 

[Maxperson]

I think that what alignment was used for has been superceded by other systems that do it better (with one exception).

In my understanding, alignment is used for Character Behavior, Spell Effects, and Enemy Behavior.

Character Behavior is now mostly motivated by Background, Ideal, Bond, and Flaw, which often uses the language of alignment! There are Ideals which explicitly use "Chaos" or "Evil" in their description.

The ideals are intended to be used with alignment, which is why they use the alignment descriptors. That said, even those descriptors are not necessarily accurate. Most of then can be used for multiple alignments, depending on how you go about achieving them. Having an actual alignment to go along with your ideal helps you figure out HOW you are going to go about achieving the ideal.

Spell Effects now use creature type instead of alignment, such as in the spell Protection from Good and Evil.

This is not associated with alignment in 5e.

The one gap I see is Enemy Behavior. That's why I think it should be replaced with some codified traits that a DM could use to easily make decisions about how their enemies act.

Alignment is easier for me here. Traits are generally more specific and restrictive than a broad, vague alignment like LE.

 

[Cadence]

I think there are actually two traditional Alignment systems, and I like both of them. However, I am not certain that they co-exist easily or well.

First, I like Alignment as cosmic forces. Having Evil be a palpable force in the universe makes for some excellent games. Using circles of protection to keep undead at bay is a classic. Allowing paladins to smite and sense evil is great for their class fantasy.

Second is Alignment as a short sketch of viewpoint and behavior. The 3x3 is classic, and is "good enough" for many purposes, especially how it shows how two good, or two evil people might behave differently or even come into conflict. It's possible to be overly rigid with this form of alignment. But I have always found it's a good method for figuring out how a character should respond to a wide variety of situations, and what sort of situations where she will act against alignment.

However, I'm not sure that both systems work well together. Allowing detect evil, or smite evil from the first system to work on individuals in the second system is a mess. As well, it has a tendency to remove all nuance from the second system. The problem is both systems use the same words and terms, but one system is capitalized and the other lower-case. Lawful Evil and lawful evil, if that makes any sense. It's too easy to mix them together, when the systems work best being separate.

That conflict between the two types was bothering me to. Posted about it in the other poll thread.

I wonder if part of the problem with using alignment in the same terminology for both individual PC/NPCs and the extra-planar creatures is that a person who likes freedom and hates rules might be chaotic, but they aren't chaotic in the bad guy end of the world sense of the early Elric books, for example. A person who is evil in that they take what they need or are one of the evil protagonists in another thread going on seem very different from a demonic/devilish being whose goal is to actively cause as much pain as possible.

I'm wondering if something akin to the following would be useful?

LAWFUL - Following ones guiding code and working against CHAOS is the most important thing ("extraplanar lawful beings")

Lawful -Tries to always follow their guiding principals, but may have other over-riding concerns ("lawful")

lawful - Likely follows the rules unless they're standing in the way, but doesn't angst over it ("lawful tendencies")

chaotic - Chafes against the rules but doesn't go out of their way to break them just for the sake of doing so (unless they're annoying) or trying to sow randomness ("chaotic tendencies")

Chaotic - Flouts the rules and doesn't follow a personal code. ("chaotic")

CHAOTIC - Overthrowing the order - both local and universal - is the most important thing. ("extraplanar chaotic beings")

and

GOOD - Helping others, and avoiding harming others if possible is the most important thing. ("extraplanar good beings")

Good - Tries to help others when possible but sometimes knows that sacrifices must be made and may have other goals and purposes ("good")

good - Generally dislikes harming others and has an active conscience ("good tendencies")

evil - Doesn't particularly mind harming others and does so without hesitation when it serves their purposes but may have a group they look out for ("evil tendencies")

Evil - Enjoys harming others and causing pain, looking out for oneself is worth hurting others. ("evil")

EVIL - Causing pain, sewing despair, bringing woe, and actively overturning the GOOD are the most important things. ("extraplanar evil beings")

For something in the ballpark of those, should it be impossible to be either LAWFUL or CHAOTIC and also GOOD, since the prime goals would conflict? Would it be hard to be even Chaotic GOOD (as opposed to chaotic GOOD or Chaotic Good)? Would classic paladins be one of LAWFUL Good, Lawful GOOD, or maybe Lawful Good? Is there enough pain that could be sewn by overthrowing order that CHAOTIC EVIL is still a thing? Is there enough pain that can be sewn working within the system that LAWFUL EVIL is still a thing? Do the CHAOTIC EVIL seek the end of all things, so that many classic D&D Demons are actually Chaotic, while the things from the far realms are CHAOTIC?

Are there stories of the fae where they are bound by their oaths and promises, but generally random? How does one fit that in to an alignment scheme? How do needing to be truthful and needing to keep oaths overlap with alignment? How does that transfer to devils?

Is the chaos of the far realms different than the chaos of the devils? Does it lead to entropy and the annihilation of all things?

How do law and order differ? Does one of them lead to stasis and rigidity? Is Balance Lawful, but not LAWFUL?

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

With the watering down of effects that key off alignment, the system is all but useless in 5e.

That is the nice thing about "rulings, not rules" being emphasized. One DM can make alignment mean nothing at all and another DM can make alignment be just as integral as it was in older editions. Like I said in my earlier post, I make alignment matter when it comes to characters like clerics. I keep the One-step rule from 3.x/Pathfinder and there will be consequences when the character violates their deity's wishes. And then for characters like fighters or rogues, I don't care if they follow a deity or adhere to an alignment, as long as they are not jerks or evil in their actions. Now, if a player wants their non-divine character to have a deity and follow their alignment choice for their concept, that is cool too. Maybe their devotion earns them a little divine intervention in the future.