D&D (2024) One D&d and alignment: new approach

[CreamCloud0]

Sorry I lost track of the discussion; why are we trying to one word describe the alignments which are one word description themselves?

Mostly because the official alignment monikers are actually a bit vague and highly open to interpretation, whereas what i was trying to identify was the actual core conceptual trait of each alignment.

And as Gorck identifies above, ‘evil’ as a character descriptor is highly suspect to demonisation and is more often than not banned at tables as a result without considerations in a way selfish or self-centred is not.

 

[payn]

I suppose because, for PC's sake, there's only really 6 alignments to play. It's difficult to truly play an "evil" character in a party (the black cowboy hat is a dead give away). Whereas, in my example of Selfless vs. Selfish, it would be perfectly fine to play a Selfish character and not be someone who might "kill the whole party in their sleep while on watch." Raistlin in Dragonlance is a good example of a character that would be considered "selfish," yet not completely "evil."

But, of course, Selfish and Selfless both begin with "S" so it would be hard to reduce them to convenient 2 letter acronyms.

Mostly because the official alignment monikers are actually a bit vague and highly open to interpretation, whereas what i was trying to identify was the actual core conceptual trait of each alignment.

And as Gorck identifies above, ‘evil’ is highly suspect to demonisation and is more often than not banned at tables as a result without considerations

Gotcha, I always thought it strange how folks view good and evil in the game. I mean, many many characters I have seen marked down as good don't really do anything particularly good. Good meaning helping people, respecting life, being willing to put their life on the line for others. While evil on the other hand, is expected to steal candy from every baby and kick every puppy or turn in their evil card immediately.

I think the black hat cowboy is pretty easy actually. It's the assassin who has a code to only kill bad guys. I consider them evil because their problem solving skill set doesn't just include murder, but starts with it. As long as the other PCs are generally good people, they have nothing to fear from the assassin. Then, you get those tasty moral discussions between characters like the when Daredevil meets the Punisher. This dynamic is difficult in a group that is perhaps pulled in different directions. You need a certain amount of selflessness to be willing to go both ways at different times to satisfy each character arc. If you are too selfish, you are better off with characters that are in alignment with each other so the groups goals and procedures never conflict.

Perhaps, the selfish/selfless moniker is better applied to the actual player than their character?

 

[Mephista]

I've come to feel that there should be only 5 PC alignments. CN has yet to prove itself PC friendly to me. Even the CN plane is filled with the antagonistic Salad compared to, say, indifferent modruns.

And I've also come to feel that LN is played as Lawful Evil-lite, the PC friendly version of evil.

 

[Andvari]

And I've also come to feel that LN is played as Lawful Evil-lite, the PC friendly version of evil.

AKA Raistlin mode.

 

[Clint_L]

I know that alignment is a legacy item that will probably always be in the game. But as someone who has not used it in decades, I can vouch that it has no meaningful impact on the game. It could vanish from the rulebooks tonight and most folks wouldn't even know it was gone. So it's one of those things that I can't get too excited about debating. Every tabletop will define its own moral universe, and that's how it should be.

 

[Mecheon]

CN has yet to prove itself PC friendly to me.

Its technically workable but tricky. Its pretty much the closest to really get to the selfish loner who's just here because they want to do stuff and get paid

last time I played a CN character, a sorceress back in 3E, they were annoyed with having to go on a mission at night and cast Light on their famillier. Completely forgetting they were travelling with a Drow and blinding the poor elf they were with for a few moments, before giving a half-hearted "Sorry, but, I literately cannot see"

 

[Illithidbix]

I've spent the last twenty odd years being militantly anti-alignment but I've mellowed and am now somewhat less evangelical about the position. Probably in part because 4E and 5E massively cut down the mechanical implications of Alignment which made it easier to run games without a very weird and specific cosmology baked into it.

Back in 2015 I did a compilation of all the mechanical effects in the 3 core rulebooks and posted it here.
Aside from a few scant mentions in spells and monster powers most of them turn up in the DMG in the descriptions of the Outer Planes (understandable) or in the Magic Item sections, mostly around artefacts and intelligent items.

Personally I quite liked Personality, Bond, Ideal and Flaw as a set of training wheels for new players to think about what their character cares about, but would be interested to know if new players actually did find them useful.

How do I think Alignment will appear in One D&D? - In short I don't think it'll be much of a new approach.
Based on:
1) 1D&D seems intent to be reasonably restrained with changes.
2) The 9 Alignment is a core part of the identity of D&D* and has entered pop culture parlance. Even if the role, rules and definition of the Alignments have changed substantially over the five decades.
3) Alignment hasn't been mentioned much in supplements unless they involve the Outer Planes. They're still in monster & NPC stat blocks but it seems more and more common to see "any alignment" listed as there is some effort to move away from biological essentialism.
4) From what I've seen the DMG is going to receive the most changes out of the core 3 books as Crawford et al are the least satisfied with it. I don't have a single source to quote for this however.

I am pretty sure the nine alignments will be kept but will have an even more diminished roll. Maybe some of the few spells, monster abilities and magic items get rewritten to entirely erase mechanical effects.

Alignment (or PBIF for that matter) hasn't been mentioned in the single PDF we've got. But this isn't exactly surprising since there isn't anything really to playtest.

(*Well more AD&D, as Looking at PDFs of older editions of Basic I didn't realise that Moldvay 1981, Metzer 1983 and Rules Cyclopedia 1991 all kept the original 1974 "Law vs Neutrality vs Chaos" and that Holmes 1977 appeared to have 5 alignments LG, CG, N, LE, CE but not NG, LG, CG, NE. Likewise I always thought that 4E's Lawful Good, Good, Neutral, Evil, Chaotic Evil worked well.)

What would I like to see Alignment will appear in One D&D?
Whilst I would have said "Gut it out of the system like a fish"..
... My ideal approach would to essentially be an optional rule and have Alignment in the PHB solely at the end in the Appendix alongside the Great Wheel's planes of existence.
Then have a similar entry in the DMG which includes discussion and optional rules of how to make Alignment more relevant in games but perhaps alongside other optional morality systems such as Honour and Corruption (probably a better name than Sanity).

 

[aia_2]

I've come to feel that there should be only 5 PC alignments. CN has yet to prove itself PC friendly to me. Even the CN plane is filled with the antagonistic Salad compared to, say, indifferent modruns.

And I've also come to feel that LN is played as Lawful Evil-lite, the PC friendly version of evil.

This is where i ended as well: in the game i am writing there are 4 alignments and they are not defined as a single concept, they are areas where a character can move from an extreme position (like the utmost-evil) to mild ones up to the opposite (like the light-evil mentioned above)... This reflects one concept: a character is a "marked" creature who can act very differently according to the circumstance but will not go far from his intimate nature... More details will follow...

 

[aia_2]

I've spent the last twenty odd years being militantly anti-alignment but I've mellowed and am now somewhat less evangelical about the position. Probably in part because 4E and 5E massively cut down the mechanical implications of Alignment which made it easier to run games without a very weird and specific cosmology baked into it.

Back in 2015 I did a compilation of all the mechanical effects in the 3 core rulebooks and posted it here.
Aside from a few scant mentions in spells and monster powers most of them turn up in the DMG in the descriptions of the Outer Planes (understandable) or in the Magic Item sections, mostly around artefacts and intelligent items.

Personally I quite liked Personality, Bond, Ideal and Flaw as a set of training wheels for new players to think about what their character cares about, but would be interested to know if new players actually did find them useful.

This is what is also present in all the previous editions... It has not changed over time. And this is what i have always found a leak in D&D... And this is notwithstanding the illuminated concept Gygax had since the very beginning (there is an article in the Strategic Review which show how outstanding was the way he thought about alignments!).

IMHO alignment is both a very powerful feature to leverage on fun and playability and a very cardinal concept on which game mechanics should be based.