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

[Maxperson]

I’ll take that as a yes

I got to 4 myself in another thread. The most I've seen is 7.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

Think my biggest issue with fill-in-the-blank alignments is it makes alignment a fifth personality trait
It's one more descriptive sentence to remember, and each character's is different

 

[Oofta]

Think my biggest issue with fill-in-the-blank alignments is it makes alignment a fifth personality trait
It's one more descriptive sentence to remember, and each character's is different

Fill in the blank just becomes "write a few sentences about your character". You can always do that, there's no reason to call it alignment.

 

[BookTenTiger]

So, you seem to be describing someone who claims to hold a philosophical belief, but doesn't actually do so.

How would this be different if the character claimed to be Lawful Good, but didn't put that into practice?

I always liked the idea of an Alignment system that goes:

People think I'm _____, but I'm actually _____.

People think I'm Lawful Good, but I'm actually Chaotic Evil.

People think I'm Neutral Evil, but I'm actually Lawful Neutral.

You'd need more alignments than the standard nine, but it could produce a fun game.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm not sure how or when or why Alignment has become such a...nexus for disagreement or consternation for so many in the past few decades/iterations of the game.

It really isn't a complicated, nor a "worthless," thing. It is the ethics and morals of the character. A pretty darn important piece of the character really. Whether you want an intense, detailed game of dealing in all the moral greys. Or just want a "surface" game of good guys v. bad guys and in depth examination of motivations or permutations of good/evil/law/order/chaos (/neutrality?) is completely glossed over.

That's what alignment is. That has really never been in question.

If the issue is, "It's not fair that my cleric or paladin has to XYZ....," then, the solution there is....don't play a cleric or paladin. Adherence to alignment and matching the tenets of your religion (/faith/philosophy/ideal/ however you like to fluff your "divine magic" people) is an innate and inherent part of those classes. Their definitions and descriptions...for the entirety of their existence in this game.

Not acting with sincere devotion, and appropriate actions to back it up, means lessening or losing your magic/powers. That's just part of the story of those types of characters...that's not "punishment." By definition, those classes, those characters, WANT to serve and show and spread the powers they represent/devotions they have. NOT doing so is something, from the character's perspective (not the player's whims), their alignment is something they put EFFORT into keeping/furthering...usually because that's what their deity, who they seek communion/connection with beyond all things, "says so." But that fluff is all mutable.

Are they the ONLY ones who can have that be part of their story? Certainly not. But for clerics/paladins, it is a much more ingrained and inexorable part of their type of character. If that ruffles your feathers, for some/whatever reason...play something else.

If the issue is, "It doesn't really do anything but give DM's some arbitrary 'control' over my character" [Which, for the record, I have NEVER actually seen a DM use arbitrarily or abuse] and/or the "It's just some letters on my character sheet" argument... then, seems to me, the simplest solution there is to give Alignment an actual mechanic for all the "game-as-mechanics" people.

It can/could be super simple. Even just a...pfft, I dunno, five point scale. 1-thru-5 points on some chart.

1 = The player did a terrible job adhering to your character's stated alignment/acted in direct opposition to it
and 5 = perfectly exemplified your alignment.
2 and 4 = you leaned notably more one way or the other.
3 = you didn't really lean any given direction, but didn't do anything egregiously unethical or amoral (for your alignment) either. The evil guy might have a moment of compassion or kindness. The good guy might tell a lie to get past the guard as part of the big plan for a "greater good" result, etc...

You get assigned those points at the end of each session and they accumulate.

These points are usable in your sessions (giving the player agency):

• reroll a failed save (1 point)
• or reroll a failed attack roll (2 points)
• or may add 1 to 3 points (player's choice) to an initiative or skill roll.

On the DM's side, these points are tallied up per...well, let's say 5 again... 5 sessions. There are consequences for your character's ethical and moral choices and actions (giving the DM their appropriate role and power as final adjudicator):

• If you do not accumulate a minimum of 15 Alignment points over 5 sessions, your alignment is changed/altered one shift along the Law-Chaos or Good-Evil axis. Dm's determination based on your character's actions.
• If you have only 5 points after 5 sessions, you are automatically shifted to the diametrically opposed alignment. If true Neutrality is proposed, you are shunted into a Lawful Good/Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good/Chaotic Evil alignment, depending on the DM's assessment of your actions.
• If you have 25 (or 20+?) points after 5 sessions...there's some kind of -tangible, mechanical- reward/boon (that I'm not coming up with right now because this is already too long).

Poof. Alignment "means something" and has automatic tangible consequences and [mechanical] benefits/penalties within the game.

 

[Umbran]

I always liked the idea of an Alignment system that goes:

People think I'm _____, but I'm actually _____.
...

You'd need more alignments than the standard nine, but it could produce a fun game.

Sure. This is akin to World of Darness games, that have Nature and Demeanor - one's Demeanor is how you act towards the rest of the world. One's Nature is the more central personality needs. So, certainly you can run such a game.

I was more commenting on how there being a difference between stated alignment and alignment seen in play is not a function of the alignment system, but instead comes from the player - whatever personality/morality system you use, a player can have one thing on the sheet, but play differently.

 

[Stattick]

I always liked the idea of an Alignment system that goes:

People think I'm _____, but I'm actually _____.

People think I'm Lawful Good, but I'm actually Chaotic Evil.

People think I'm Neutral Evil, but I'm actually Lawful Neutral.

You'd need more alignments than the standard nine, but it could produce a fun game.

People think I'm an a-hole, but I'm actually a maniac.

I like it!

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure. This is akin to World of Darness games, that have Nature and Demeanor - one's Demeanor is how you act towards the rest of the world. One's Nature is the more central personality needs. So, certainly you can run such a game.

I was more commenting on how there being a difference between stated alignment and alignment seen in play is not a function of the alignment system, but instead comes from the player - whatever personality/morality system you use, a player can have one thing on the sheet, but play differently.

I embrace this when I use alignment. I make it clear that the alignment you write on your sheet is your character’s ideals, but any mechanics that care about your alignment reference your alignment as determined by your behavior.

 

[Umbran]

I embrace this when I use alignment. I make it clear that the alignment you write on your sheet is your character’s ideals, but any mechanics that care about your alignment reference your alignment as determined by your behavior.

For D&D, I took it to be that, unless the player contradicted it with backstory, the alignment they write on the sheet is correct, and denotes the judgement of the universe up to the point that play begins. After that, I'd usually be discussing alignment status with the players - because even if the character is not aware, I don't want to surprise players with alignment change. Not that I found it necessary frequently, but the policy was in place.

 

[Charlaquin]

For D&D, I took it to be that, unless the player contradicted it with backstory, the alignment they write on the sheet is correct, and denotes the judgement of the universe up to the point that play begins.

I believe that’s the default assumption, yes. If it wasn’t clear, I was describing a house rule. And under that house rule, it isn’t that the alignment on your sheet isn’t “correct,” it’s that it describes what your character strives for, whether or not they live up to it. In WoD terms, it’s Demeanor, not Nature.

After that, I'd usually be discussing alignment status with the players - because even if the character is not aware, I don't want to surprise players with alignment change. Not that I found it necessary frequently, but the policy was in place.

That’s reasonable. Frankly, I don’t really use alignment any more, but if I was going to, I would make the character’s “true” alignment unknown unless detected by magic. I wouldn’t take anyone’s class features away because of an alignment shift though. It’d be more for things like attuning to magic items, or certain magical effects that target creatures of specific alignments. Since 5e has next to none of that, I usually don’t bother, but it might be relevant for the right campaign. Curse of Strahd, for example, has an unusually large number of effects that care about alignment for 5e.