How about alignment?

[steeldragons]

I voted AD&D 9 alignment.

Because that's what I've always used.

Law-Chaos axes, Good-Evil axes...One is "ethics" the other "morals".

That's what I use/have used for decades and it works. Yes, sometimes, it's just background/guidelines. Sometimes, it's all ut philosophic/moral discussion and debate and effects the world and game play a lot.

But that's me and my game/world.

As I've said in numerous of these 5e threads, but I know you love to read my stuff, so I's postin' it agin! lol.

This is another PERFECT place for 5e's proposed modularity/optional nature to shine!

No "core" alignment "rules."

So the DM and/or group gets to choose...will it be....

Option 1: "traditional" 9-point alignment.
Option 2: "classic" 3-point "Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic" or "Good/Neutral/Evil" alignments.
Option 3: 4e-ish 5-point alignment. LG-G-N-E-CE. (though personally, I've always associated Neutral Evil as the "ultimate" evil, not CE. Law or Chaos don't matter, only EEEEEviLLLLL)
Option 4: No alignments. Doesn't come up in game. I don't like 'em. They cause nothin' problems...and/or I wanna play whatever I want without moral or ethical concerns.

No muss. No fuss. Everyone can pick what they want. Everyone's happy.
--SD

 

[Serendipity]

As long as the alignments are decoupled from actual mechanics, I don't care if the alignments are Raspberry, Smurfy, and Coal.
Also, optional would be nice. But I doubt they'll add a subsystem that doesn't do anything.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

9 allignments + unalligned!

 

[Tallifer]

The nine alignments were very useful for roleplaying. It helped to restrain the chaotic evil nature of players who have no real stake in the world of their characters. It was one of the cornerstones of personality alongside race and class.

I like the Fourth Edition, but its alignment system made no sense. Why are there Lawful Good, Good, Evil and Chaotic Evil? Why no Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good, both of which were common alignments for villains and heroes respectively. True Neutral was a bit weird and zen, but there are a lot of weird and zen characters in legends and literature, usually not protagonists though. Better no alignment at all than a mongrel system.

As far as mechanical effects: in a world of gods and real good and evil, I never want to see paladins casually lying and torturing, or assassins adventuring alongside paladins. But perhaps the better idea is the Jester's (on his blog) to grant minor rewards to consistency rather than punish munchkins.

 

[KidSnide]

Nine alignments plus unaligned is probably the right default structure, but we should also see good-to-evil and lawful-to-chaotic 3 alignment structures, the 4e strangeness (where "good" sort of mapped to "chaotic good" and "evil" sort of mapped to "lawful evil"), and a more ad hoc allegiance structure.

Either way, alignment shouldn't have mechanical impact by default, although there should be optional components for "Smite Evil" style abilities for divine characters where the alignment of creatures has a game mechanical effect.

-KS

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Lawful good. Good. Chaotic good
Unaligned
Lawful evil. Evil. Chaotic evil

The best of all worlds

Add in optional extra "alliances"

 

[Mattachine]

I think offering Unaligned in any system is a great compromise.

 

[Raith5]

I would like alignment to die in a fire - it just leads to unnecessary conflicts because of different interpretations about hamfisted moral stereotypes. Furthermore, these sterotypes, once chosen are normally difficult to change.

If you want to play a LG character then play like that at the table, dont write it on your character sheet.

The allegiance system is better than alignment because it was far more nuanced and political, and allowed characters to change their loyalties as play unfolded.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I like the d20 Modern Allegiance system.

I think the pillars of classic alignment should be creature subtypes. Thus, angels are good and demons are evil (and chaotic), and spells and things affect them specially. Most PCs just declare an allegiance, which is not binding and doesn't have many mechanical effects. Unaligned is the default; you have to declare something to be aligned to it.

 

[steeldragons]

Lawful good. Good. Chaotic good
Unaligned
Lawful evil. Evil. Chaotic evil

The best of all worlds

Add in optional extra "alliances"

I think offering Unaligned in any system is a great compromise.

Riiiiight, because rebranding "Neutral" as "Unaligned" makes alllll kindsa difference.

I like the d20 Modern Allegiance system.

I think the pillars of classic alignment should be creature subtypes. Thus, angels are good and demons are evil (and chaotic), and spells and things affect them specially. Most PCs just declare an allegiance, which is not binding and doesn't have many mechanical effects. Unaligned is the default; you have to declare something to be aligned to it.

Not meaning to single you out, Ahnehnois, several people have mentioned this "Allegiance" system....from other games....and that's great...For other games. We're talking about D&D.

D&D has Alignment.

If you [the collective "you", not singling anyone out!] want to play games with these alternate systems...then play THEM! Noone's stopping you!

Saying, I want to play D&D but I want D&D to be like this, other, system...I just...I'm at a loss...I just don't understand it. Play other games if you don't like what D&D has.

End scene.
--SD