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

[jmartkdr2]

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!

The terms are too embedded in the culture of gaming to go away - if form this day forward WotC stopped using the word "lawful" in anything they print - we'd still call paladins 'lawful good' until we stop playing entirely. Are we "using" alignment then?

I don't want to dive to far into semantics here - the middle of the curve seems to be "it's just a way to describe characters" which works well in most cases.

But the idea of enforcing alignment died some time in the 3x era. (And good riddance says I)

 

[Maxperson]

Technically the game allows a CN druid, but tell people here they are bad DMs for disallowing an alignment. I dare you.

I've yet to see anyone actually disallow that alignment. What people here mean when they say "No CN" is "I'm banning douches that use CN as an excuse to be a douche." Virtually every time someone says that, it's followed with, "The player used it as an excuse to..." The alignment itself is fine if played appropriately.

And the bard was LN in the DM's eyes. Full stop. If they entered play, I could theoretically play them as non-boring, but I'd be an Ex-Bard until the change happens per RAW.

That's an abuse of DM authority. Full stop. A code isn't enough on its own to shift alignment if the DM is adhering to RAW. If he ignores the rest of RAW and simply uses the portion allowing alignment change out of context(abuse of authority), he can do as you say.

Have you seen the 3e Fighter and Unarmed fighting rules?

Yes.

The Balance card says you have to play the new alignment.

It does not say that it ignores the context of alignment. You are allowed to play alignment as non-prescriptive per RAW and still be playing LN, so long as the majority of what you do is LN.

1) level loss is not a rule in 3e for alignment.

The Balance card itself says it.

2) Level 1 loses a level. Okay.

That's actually ideal. It would take very little exp to go to 1st level and you'd be only a little weaker than the level 1 PCs.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

The problem is that most of the time you are being very lawful. Maybe you are LN most of the time, but you have some very specific(and perhaps common) triggers which when you encounter them, cause you to completely lose it and wipe out everyone within sight. When calm, you're clearly LN. When out of control(again fairly common), you're CE.

The point is any semi-realistic personality is going to be consistently falling outside of the one alignment box written down and will have behaviors in multiple other alignment boxes. And even in 3e this was not enough to justify the DM changing alignment, per RAW.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

The terms are too embedded in the culture of gaming to go away - if form this day forward WotC stopped using the word "lawful" in anything they print - we'd still call paladins 'lawful good' until we stop playing entirely. Are we "using" alignment then?

I don't want to dive to far into semantics here - the middle of the curve seems to be "it's just a way to describe characters" which works well in most cases.

But the idea of enforcing alignment died some time in the 3x era. (And good riddance says I)

So the idea is more of a threat than actually coming across it. Because most of us play with people we like, know, and possibly even respect. If there is an issue, I feel confident that we can have a constructive conversation about it. So we either trust our DM, or we find one that we do.

Stop me if I'm getting too far into semantics...

 

[delericho]

I am the opposite. I hope they come up with an optional module that allows you to make alignment more impactful in 5.5!

Actually, I think my ideal would be both - remove it completely from the default, but have the impactful version as an opt-in module.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The point is any semi-realistic personality is going to be consistently falling outside of the one alignment box written down and will have behaviors in multiple other alignment boxes. And even in 3e this was not enough to justify the DM changing alignment, per RAW.

Yes. And that’s why alignment is an utterly useless as a descriptor or predictor of behaviour.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Actually, I think my ideal would be both - remove it completely from the default, but have the impactful version as an opt-in module.

You know how the setting books have each introduced a new setting specific mechanic?

Planescape.

 

[Weiley31]

Yes, indeed I do use Alignment+True Neutral. And that also includes everybody's favorite: Chaotic Evil Drow and Chaotic Evil Orcs.

However, I tend to make it know that there are cases that are not always the typical alignment. So, for me, I don't mind if the 5E monster stat blocks now include Typically as that still allows me to keep my 3.0/3.5 old school mindset in regard to Alignment and what has which Alignment, while still offering people the freedom to have the non-typical if need be.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've yet to see anyone actually disallow that alignment. What people here mean when they say "No CN" is "I'm banning douches that use CN as an excuse to be a douche." Virtually every time someone says that, it's followed with, "The player used it as an excuse to..." The alignment itself is fine if played appropriately.

I feel like in this, and the adjacent “no evil characters” discussion, alignment obfuscates the real issue, which is players behaving disruptively. Banning the disruptive behavior, rather than the alignment, is I think much more effective. Obviously some disruptive players will try to use their character’s alignment as a shield (the “it’s what my character would do” defense), but if the behavior rather than the alignment is banned, it leaves room for people to play the alignment in a way that does not involve the banned behavior.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. And that’s why alignment is an utterly useless as a descriptor or predictor of behaviour.

It's not meant to be, though. If you're using it for that, you're failing to use it properly. Alignment is just a vague RP tool to HELP you with your RP, not do it for you or predict behavior.