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

[Maxperson]

Nope.

My very first game was in 3e. I sat down, looked through the alignments and realized that only CG, CN, NG and LE would be fun for me to play. DM said no Evil or CN -why were they even in the book then? Fine CG. As long as I don't have to be Lawful non-evil because they sound like jackholes and not in the fun way.

Second session Paladine himself makes us pull from the Deck of Many Things. I pick 3. I get a dwarf fighter friend (cool), a keep (which would have been cool but we never actually got a chance to go find it) and the Balance card. What that? My character is LN now. And I'm expected to play as LN.

So he 'accidentally' closed in combat with some draconians as a sorcerer because hell if I was going to be LN.

I roll up a bard, an advisor to a noble house, fiercely loyal and a proctor to the children. DM says the concept is LG and bards can't be LG.

Fine. Barbarian who is basically a Klingon, all concerned with honor and his family. DM say that's LN and Barbarians can't be LN. I'm confused how either of these were lawful considering they were interesting, but fine.

Fine. Druid. Read the entry. Druids can't be CG. How can I be an eco-terrorist and not be CG, CN and CE, all of which are off the table with this DM.

Fine. Fighter who is a barefisted brawler. DM says that's better was a Monk.

Monks have to be Lawful.

I leap out of a window.

Problem DMs are bad news. I feel for you.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That's why I don't play with DMs that use alignment or who put any special importance in RAW.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Nope.

My very first game was in 3e. I sat down, looked through the alignments and realized that only CG, CN, NG and LE would be fun for me to play. DM said no Evil or CN -why were they even in the book then? Fine CG. As long as I don't have to be Lawful non-evil because they sound like jackholes and not in the fun way.

Second session Paladine himself makes us pull from the Deck of Many Things. I pick 3. I get a dwarf fighter friend (cool), a keep (which would have been cool but we never actually got a chance to go find it) and the Balance card. What that? My character is LN now. And I'm expected to play as LN.

So he 'accidentally' closed in combat with some draconians as a sorcerer because hell if I was going to be LN.

I roll up a bard, an advisor to a noble house, fiercely loyal and a proctor to the children. DM says the concept is LG and bards can't be LG.

Fine. Barbarian who is basically a Klingon, all concerned with honor and his family. DM say that's LN and Barbarians can't be LN. I'm confused how either of these were lawful considering they were interesting, but fine.

Fine. Druid. Read the entry. Druids can't be CG. How can I be an eco-terrorist and not be CG, CN and CE, all of which are off the table with this DM.

Fine. Fighter who is a barefisted brawler. DM says that's better was a Monk.

Monks have to be Lawful.

I leap out of a window.

I like alignment as a DM as it informs a lot about the planes (plus I really like focusing on Law vs Chaos instead of Good vs Evil), but I'm also glad 4E got rid of Alignment as a prerequisite for playing a class and glad/surprised 5E did as well. As a rule I hate getting in the way of player agency.

I also don't let Clerics or Paladins or Warlocks lose their powers for a similar reason (and I'm honestly a little annoyed that Matt Mercer set the precedent for Warlocks losing their powers in Critical Role, which I'm sure has informed a lot of DMs to do the same thing). It's more fun in this case for the PC's patron to send agents to confront them and/or have their patron's enemy try to become their new patron.

 

[aco175]

I used alignment the other day making a couple NPC henchmen for the PCs. I gave them both a good alignment and thought they would act a certain way because of it. I toyed with giving one a neutral alignment and thought he would act another way in combat or when left alone, but decided to just make both good.

I guess there is some use for it. Guidelines

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I'm curious if there's a significant correlation between disliking Alignment and having a lot of experience as a player, as well as liking Alignment and most often being a DM.

I'd expect this would be the case, especially for people who played pre-4E editions where Alignment had more of a mechanical impact on PCs.

 

[Maxperson]

I voted Not for PCs, but for NPCs and Monsters, Yes.

I couldn't care less if the players use alignment or not. I just want them to make believable personalities for their characters, and no realistic personality is going to fall entirely within 1 or even 2 alignments. If they want to use alignment for the vague RP tool that it is, then that's fine. Alignment works great as the non-prescriptive tool that it is for those who want to use it.

For my side of things, I find alignment to be invaluable. 99% of the monsters and NPCs of the world aren't detailed out for me and alignment helps me get a quick idea of that being's personality for me to build on a bit.

 

[Maxperson]

That's why I don't play with DMs that use alignment or who put any special importance in RAW.

Alignment wasn't the problem with anything you described, though. It was entirely the DM.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Alignment wasn't the problem with anything you described, though. It was entirely the DM.

The DM following the rules for alignment or RAW. Even the DoMT was from the books. The only non-RAW part was Paladine being a jackhole to someone who isn't his sister.

 

[Oofta]

I'm curious if there's a significant correlation between disliking Alignment and having a lot of experience as a player, as well as liking Alignment and most often being a DM.

I'd expect this would be the case, especially for people who played pre-4E editions where Alignment had more of a mechanical impact on PCs.

We pretty much always ignored alignment, except for paladins. Even then, it was more of a guideline.

I'm glad it's been deemphasized, things like detect alignment were always annoying. I think it works best as we use it now, a helpful descriptor of you want, ignored if you don't.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

The DM following the rules for alignment or RAW. Even the DoMT was from the books. The only non-RAW part was Paladine being a jackhole to someone who isn't his sister.

I agree. That's why, even though I also like Alignment, I am glad it's not tied to PC rules anymore.

I want it for monsters and world building inspiration, not to tell players they can't be a Chaotic Good (or even Chaotic Evil) Paladin or a Lawful Barbarian.

I will say I'd like monsters described as Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil to have something in their description to back it up. Like, why is a meazel Lawful Evil? I'm all for monsters in general trending Neutral Evil with Lawful and Chaotic being more rare.