D&D General Do you use Alignment in your D&D games?

[Jacob Lewis]

That's an interesting thought.

I wonder if there could be something like where some authors say they don't really find out what a character is going to do until it happens as they write it (like it is just coming out and not a choice).

I get that. Sometimes I have only a vague idea for a character until I have time to walk in their adventuring boots. But I'm still in control of the character. I'm also part of a group of other players, not just more characters in a story. That's the difference between writing a character for a book and creating a character for a roleplaying game. Sure, there is some overlap and you can take queues from one to other. But most RPGs assume a shared narrative between you, the DM, and all the other players.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Looks like the majority prefers to use alignments. Case closed.

While I agree with your later points, I think the numbers tell a different story: 50.5% either don't use alignment or don't have it impact any rules (it's just a description of intent.) In other words, just over half give no mechanical weight to alignment.

That tells me people have it, but don't use it.

 

[Cadence]

I get that. Sometimes I have only a vague idea for a character until I have time to walk in their adventuring boots. But I'm still in control of the character. I'm also part of a group of other players, not just more characters in a story. That's the difference between writing a character for a book and creating a character for a roleplaying game. Sure, there is some overlap and you can take queues from one to other. But most RPGs assume a shared narrative between you, the DM, and all the other players.

Now I need to avoid going back to the satanic panic literature and seeing if there were any where they claimed the characters took over the players or something similar to that...

 

[Oofta]

It feels like it would matter for clerics (and the detection spells) and some of the spells/items that targeted alignment. Did they just not come up very often?

I had to know the alignment of NPCs for things like detect evil (I kinda hated that power). I guess it came up now and then for specific spells, I always had to ask.

Something similar come up in 5E with paladins violating an oath, a cleric/warlock subverting the will of their deity/patron. I just don't see that as being alignment specific.

 

[Maxperson]

If 51% LN and 49% CE is LN, and 49% LN and 51% CE is CE, then the system sure seems useless and inane.

Edit: Now, if they were adjacent alignments, that would feel different. 51% LN/49%LG. But even then wouldn't LN with Good tendencies be a common phrasing? And LN with G tendencies doesn't seem that different from LG with LN tendencies.

The "tendencies" thing went out with 2e. Maybe 1e.

The 3e portions you quoted where the DM can change alignment are true, but out of context. The context that the DM has to(if following RAW) adhere to are what I posted, which say that alignment isn't a straightjacket and you can act outside of your alignment. If the DM isn't following that context and hasn't clearly stated his house rule before characters are made, he's abusing his authority by ignoring the context that the player has been told by the books is RAW.

The issue is that any semi-realistic personality is going to fall in at a minimum 2, probably 3-4 different alignments on a regular basis. The biggest one is his written alignment. For example, a LG character might also have a gambling habit and love to bet on everything, even to the point of flipping a coin at a split in a corridor to see which way he goes. That consistently chaotic behavior isn't enough to change him from LG into anything else. He still keeps his word, tell the truth, help those in need, speak out against injustice, etc. And you can add other behaviors outside of LG while keeping that core as well.

 

[Oofta]

While I agree with your later points, I think the numbers tell a different story: 50.5% either don't use alignment or don't have it impact any rules (it's just a description of intent.) In other words, just over half give no mechanical weight to alignment.

That tells me people have it, but don't use it.

I disagree. I use alignment for NPCs and monsters on a regular basis. It doesn't need to have mechanical impact to be used or useful.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

While I agree with your later points, I think the numbers tell a different story: 50.5% either don't use alignment or don't have it impact any rules (it's just a description of intent.) In other words, just over half give no mechanical weight to alignment.

That tells me people have it, but don't use it.

I guess it depends on your perspective. I don't think it needs mechanical weight to be useful. (I mentioned that pages ago but I don't expect anyone to go digging it up.) But there's been a lot of blanket statements thrown around that basically equates to "using alignments is bad". So if you use them, you use them. And the only option I see for not using them is holding steady at about 21%.

@Oofta ninja'd!

 

[Vaalingrade]

You need to fill in the blank there. I use alignment to help me decide what NPCs do is far different from "I use alignment to force people to play their PCs the way I think they should be played" are completely separate things.

I've seen the former, I haven't seen the latter in this thread or any other time it's come up. If I did I would call it bad DMing.

Not everything needs to have a mechanical effect to have an impact in the game.

Alignments are only guidelines but they have a purpose. Without them, players are free to act whatever manner suits them best at the moment. For some players, this is not a problem as they have clear ideas about who their characters are and how they want to portray them. Others, not so much. If it's a free-for-all kind of campaign, no problem. But if its a heroic campaign where the players are expected to be heroes of some sort, then it helps to have some guardrails in place even if its just to remind players how to be good people. That's more important to me than mechanical effects. In this day and age, I think we need that now more than ever.

 

[Cadence]

The "tendencies" thing went out with 2e. Maybe 1e.

The 3e portions you quoted where the DM can change alignment are true, but out of context. The context that the DM has to(if following RAW) adhere to are what I posted, which say that alignment isn't a straightjacket and you can act outside of your alignment. If the DM isn't following that context and hasn't clearly stated his house rule before characters are made, he's abusing his authority by ignoring the context that the player has been told by the books is RAW.

The issue is that any semi-realistic personality is going to fall in at a minimum 2, probably 3-4 different alignments on a regular basis. The biggest one is his written alignment. For example, a LG character might also have a gambling habit and love to bet on everything, even to the point of flipping a coin at a split in a corridor to see which way he goes. That consistently chaotic behavior isn't enough to change him from LG into anything else. He still keeps his word, tell the truth, help those in need, speak out against injustice, etc. And you can add other behaviors outside of LG while keeping that core as well.

Right, but I would think that being 51% LN and 49% CE clearly isn't a Lawful Neutral core. (Oh crap, next village I need to follow the law instead of massacring folks randomly). Wouldn't that be N or NE?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Right, but I would think that being 51% LN and 49% CE clearly isn't a Lawful Neutral core. (Oh crap, next village I need to follow the law instead of massacring folks randomly). Wouldn't that be N or NE?

It depends.

If you are just randomly alternating between following the law and massacring the folks, that's Chaotic Evil.

On the other hand, if you are following a predetermined set of rules regardless whether you really agree with it (I like this village, but it's the third village I've visited in a month that starts with R, so that means it's a massacre) that's Lawful Neutral.

This has been another in a series of technically accurate, yet completely useless answers to questions that have not been asked.