D&D General IMO, Alignment should be "Fill in the blank"

[Oofta]

Like I said, the problem occurs when you try to use alignment in a setting that doesn’t have an objective moral standard. Then you end up, like others have expressed, in disagreements over what it means to be “good,” “evil,” “lawful,” or “chaotic.”

Like all rules if there's an issue the DM makes a ruling.

 

[Stattick]

This is why ideals, bonds, flaws, etc. are great for roleplaying. They are the guide.

Alignment is the why or how you might go about doing those things.

It's all useful. I do have a question for @Stattick - do you mean for PCs only or for monsters as well?

PS - You posting this in a new thread is fine. Not everyone here burrows through every single thread written.

I've honestly never seen anyone actually use ideals, bonds, flaws at the table. Most people seem to take a quick glance at the recommendations listed from their background, grab one that sounds alright, and then it never gets used or referenced ever again. For all the use I've seen, the space on the character sheet would be more useful if it could be used for notes or doodles. I'm not saying that no one uses it, just never in any of the games I've played or run. It's five extra things for the GM to theoretically remember, per character. If you have six players, that's 30 things. That's something fast and easy for the GM to just disregard.

For generic monsters... yeah, I can see the utility of saying orcs tend to be chaotic evil or whatever, in the MM. But for individuals in an adventure, I'd prefer something a little more in-depth. It's fine to short hand in an old fashioned style alignment, but telling me something about the creatures loyalties and morality might be apt in many adventures.

 

[loverdrive]

I've honestly never seen anyone actually use ideals, bonds, flaws at the table. Most people seem to take a quick glance at the recommendations listed from their background, grab one that sounds alright, and then it never gets used or referenced ever again.

That's because there's no way to meaningfully reward it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Like all rules if there's an issue the DM makes a ruling.

Thereby creating a moral standard for their world in this case. Again, it’s when you try to have alignment without objective morality that you run into problems.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's because there's no way to meaningfully reward it.

Inspiration...?

 

[loverdrive]

Inspiration...?

Meh. Most of the time it's not worth getting in trouble.

 

[Oofta]

Thereby creating a moral standard for their world in this case. Again, it’s when you try to have alignment without objective morality that you run into problems.

For game purposes why does it matter? Most people have a general understanding of good/evil, law and chaos. Even if it's based on social constructs that are "artificial" does it matter? Why is it a problem in a game with concepts like AC and HP?

 

[Charlaquin]

Meh. Most of the time it's not worth getting in trouble.

Roleplaying your characteristics doesn’t have to get you into trouble (though admittedly it often will with your flaw). Also, Inspiration is extremely valuable if checks always have a meaningful consequence for failure. If checks are something to be avoided when possible and shored up when unavoidable, gaining Inspiration is well worth acting those characteristics out for.

 

[Charlaquin]

For game purposes why does it matter? Most people have a general understanding of good/evil, law and chaos. Even if it's based on social constructs that are "artificial" does it matter?

The problem is, again, that if you try to use alignment in a world that doesn’t have objective morality, it becomes incoherent as a concept and leads to arguments about what counts and what doesn’t. If the group agrees on a moral standard for the world, that isn’t a problem. If the DM imposes a moral standard for the world, that isn’t a problem either (unless the players object to that imposition, which could lead to resentment). It’s when you try to use alignment in a setting without objective morality that you have problems.

Why is it a problem in a game with concepts like AC and HP?

I don’t understand what these concepts have to do with it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It’s when you try to use alignment in a setting without objective morality that you have problems.

My proposal for subjective alignment. I've never tried it out in a game so I don't know if it would create problems or not.