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

[CreamCloud0]

I disagree with this. I think a lot of unpleasant characters get labeled Evil when they should be Neutral. I often see characters described as "they're evil, but they only hurt people that deserve it", which is not a definition for evil that I would use. To me, evil explicitly does evil acts to the innocent and the helpless- the undeserving. I probably have fewer evil characters in my world than most, because they are explicitly Evil- they go out of their way to perform evil acts, and because I have a larger view of Neutral than most. Conan was a pirate who attacked merchant vessels, but he wouldn't be evil in my setting, as he doesn't meet the criteria.

I think you misinterpreted my point, you seem to be saying there ‘well alot of evil characters should actually be considered neutral’ but I’m saying ‘evil pc characters are often banned wholesale from games because of the problems caused by evil aligned characters, but it is actually the players of those evil characters responsible for their behavior and who can play problematic characters of any alignment rather than the evil alignment itself’

Evil to me is more about valuing yourself and what you care about (which can include the party) above anyone or anything else, not specifically committing atrocities or stabbing random NPCs for funzies.

 

[Oofta]

I don’t think alignment is any sort of inherent character straight-jacket, just that it has baggage from previous generations where it was misused as such both by GM’s, PC’s and on entire species, i think it is a fundamentally useful concept when used correctly for both quickhand character reference and an interesting factor tied to the outer planes and the denizens thereof.

One of the main problems alignment has had IMO is personal interpretations, the irl people who conflict over what is good or chaotic or neutral bringing their own personal interpretations rather than remembering these are in-universe tangible forces which have established definitions there, people try to make things relative with ‘well my character was raised in an evil community so their definition of good actually validates backstabbing and deception’ and things just head south from there.

Also i think it’s entirely possible to have evil characters in a group without problems, just that the players who want to screw over their group used it as an easy excuse for their own problematic actions.

All I can say is that when players actually played evil, it was not something I want to do as a social activity. Struggle with your dark side? Done evil in the past? You're likely neutral.

But truly evil? Nope. Been there, Done that, don't want the crappy t-shirt.

 

[CreamCloud0]

But, using the term "bartender" would also give a clue to the NPC's disposition and how it would behave in a roleplaying or combat situation. No need to determine how he views Cosmic Order of Everything.

Being a bartender tells me they’re a bartender, what alignment tells us is if they’re the sort of bartender who’ll start shortchanging me after i get tipsy, or who’ll gamble my night’s tab on if i can beat em in a game of cards or who waters down the beer and overcharges for a pint.

Alignment tells me that when my character approaches the bar absolutely plastered if they’ll say ‘head home son, you’re drunk’ or ‘as long as you’re paying for em I don’t care how many you drink’ or just gives me a free one because inside they grinning and they know I’ll have the mother of all hangovers tomorrow morning

 

[CreamCloud0]

All I can say is that when players actually played evil, it was not something I want to do as a social activity. Struggle with your dark side? Done evil in the past? You're likely neutral.

But truly evil? Nope. Been there, Done that, don't want the crappy t-shirt.

There seems to me to be a fairly large middle ground of ‘moderate, but tolerably evil’ that you seem to be skimming over there between ‘goth edgy backstory’ and ‘compete psychopath monster’

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't understand why Alignment is such a divisive element of the game. It's one of the easiest elements in the whole Player's Handbook to add/change/ignore as needed. Maybe they should just move it to the DMG as an "optional rule," right next to Firearms, Spell Points, and hopefully Psionics...I think that would be the least-controversial way to handle it.

 

[Marandahir]

I don't understand why Alignment is such a divisive element of the game. It's one of the easiest elements in the whole Player's Handbook to add/change/ignore as needed. Maybe they should just move it to the DMG as an "optional rule," right next to Firearms, Spell Points, and hopefully Psionics...I think that would be the least-controversial way to handle it.

Unfortunately, hiding it in the DMG means a lot of players aren’t familiar with a core assumption in the game (that cosmic entities and planes exist in the multiverse that represent the 9 alignments and stages in-between). The Planar Orrey and four setting pantheons are in the PHB appendices for a reason: Clerics and Warlocks at the very least have the Outer Planes and their inhabitant Powers baked into their class flavour. Remove alignment from PHB and you don’t have an easy way of saying “these are the hero gods and these are the villain gods; please don’t worship the villains at my table unless we set the ground rules for that first.” Without the planes and alignment, Warlock conflicts with their patrons become a quite a bit more complicated if you can’t say Fiends and GOOs are almost always evil or at least inscrutable, and Archfey are mercurous at best.

And Paladins especially deal with inner conflict alignment as part of their core class story. Monks, Clerics, Druids, and Tieflings sometime, too.

Plus, Tieflings and Ardlings build alignment and outer planes into their lineage origins!

 

[CleverNickName]

Unfortunately, hiding it in the DMG means a lot of players aren’t familiar with a core assumption in the game (that cosmic entities and planes exist in the multiverse that represent the 9 alignments and stages in-between).

You're not wrong. But if there is a such thing as a compromise between "leave Alignment in the Player's Handbook" and "remove Alignment from the game entirely," the Optional Rules section of the Dungeon Master's Guide is probably what it looks like.

If alignment is going to be as important in your campaign as you describe, it should be in the DM's wheelhouse to customize and explain to the players anyway...trying to force a single core assumption for Alignment and apply it to all campaigns and game tables would be an exercise in futility.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't understand why Alignment is such a divisive element of the game. It's one of the easiest elements in the whole Player's Handbook to add/change/ignore as needed. Maybe they should just move it to the DMG as an "optional rule," right next to Firearms, Spell Points, and hopefully Psionics...I think that would be the least-controversial way to handle it.

I think because, and I don’t know if there’s a better way for me to phrase this but, there might be a fair few players around with ‘trauma’ (or traumatised from alignment horror stories) from it’s misuse and exploitation in previous editions, Either as a weapon between GMs and players trying to find ‘creative’ ways to outwit the other, bad implementations from misinterpretations of how to use it or merely as the touchpaper for heated philosophical conflicts

The idea that alignment might be included at all threatens to them that all that negative baggage will be brought along with it

 

[Oofta]

There seems to me to be a fairly large middle ground of ‘moderate, but tolerably evil’ that you seem to be skimming over there between ‘goth edgy backstory’ and ‘compete psychopath monster’

Edgy backstory isn't evil in an of itself is my point.

But it's just a preference. I don't find antihero fiction enjoyable, whether it's a book, tv or any other entertainment. I'm quite up front about it when inviting people to my games so it's never been an issue.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Unfortunately, hiding it in the DMG means a lot of players aren’t familiar with a core assumption in the game (that cosmic entities and planes exist in the multiverse that represent the 9 alignments and stages in-between).

I don't see that as a bad thing.