D&D 5E PC Alignment, who needs it?

[Erik42]

I'm getting ready to launch a new campaign in the next few weeks, using the 5th Ed rules (as a DM), for the firs time. I'm learning toward getting rid of alignment for the PCs and pretty much for any creature not from the outer planes.

The 5E rules pretty much make it a non-factor (compared to 1E, which is what I'm coming from): There's no such thing as alignment language; there are no level drops for changing alignment; there aren't strict alignment regulations for belonging to classes (I mean, if we can have Paladins who aren't LG and Druids who aren't true Neutral, then is what is the point of PC alignment in this crazy Sodom and Gomorrah that is D&D under WotC.)

I like to emphasize character development. If a PC is properly fleshed out, then alignment isn't really necessary and is more artificial than simple good role playing a well-thought out character. Besides, morals are not absolute and someone can behave in a"good" manner in one circumstance and an "evil" manner in another. Remember, villains are not villains in their own mind. Everyone tends to be the hero of their own story, regardless of how others see them.

I'm leaning toward keeping the absolute alignments of the outer planes, but maybe not for every inhabitant; I haven't decided yet. I'm likely to keep alignment a fixed thing for sentient magic items. I'll use it with NPCs and monsters more as a guideline.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The point of alignment is really just as another way to help flesh out a character. It's a shorthand to illustrate several facets of a PC's attitude and worldview that is more universal, than the specificity that comes with Ideals, Traits, Bonds and Flaws. If you emphasize character development and your PCs *are* properly fleshed out... alignment isn't "necessary" to select per se, but at the same time can easily be identified to a character based upon how it is played. After a couple sessions, the players and the DMs will be able to tell what the PCs' alignments are based upon how they are played. They'll know if they're generally good individuals, or more concerned with freedom and expression than following the rules. So at the end of the day, assigning an alignment is no different than assigning a description. "This character has red hair." "This character can't help but nitpick how other people look." "This character hums tunes when nervous." "This character follows the letter of the law regardless of how it affects others" (Lawful Neutral).

 

[Jaelommiss]

I see alignment as a necessary evil when I am creating a character. It is, in my mind, how an observer would label the character after watching them for an extended period of time.

I always make sure to have a decent sized backstory for my characters before playing, however I do not know for certain how they will respond and act in a given situation until I get a feel for that character's personality. For myself, that takes roughly two sessions. During this time I tend to consider what my alignment says alignment, not to restrict myself, but instead to guide me until I get to know the character. Once I am confident with the character I play how I think they would act and let their actions determine their alignment. More than once I have misjudged my character and changed their alignment after seeing how they actually behaved and the reasons for it.

Something else I do is replace good and evil with selfless and selfish. I find this is more useful because it helps me understand why my character does things instead of merely knowing what he does.

 

[Li Shenron]

Alignment is good as a loose guideline, but IMXP it has always been better to add more specific details to your character, for example in the form of a "code of conduct" or "do's and dont's". These help RPing the PC consistently, which IMHO sometimes makes the game more interesting when a player decides not to choose the easiest/most efficient solution because it conflicts with the PC's decided ethos.

Perhaps what irritated a lot of players in the past was the mechanical consequences of alignment, which are now removed. I think it's still a good idea to use alignment OR more specific ethical/behavioral details (e.g. the traits/flaw/bonds system), otherwise there's always a risk of completely a-moral characters (i.e. character just always doing what is more convenient or efficient = the old chaotic neutral really) but it is a good thing that now it's always free for a player to choose.

 

[JWO]

I got some good, thoughtful responses in this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?392213-Removing-alignments

 

[Shiroiken]

I'm getting ready to launch a new campaign in the next few weeks, using the 5th Ed rules (as a DM), for the firs time. I'm learning toward getting rid of alignment for the PCs and pretty much for any creature not from the outer planes.

First of all: Welcome Back! I started in 1E as well, so I hope I can give you useful info.

AL in 1E was important, because part of the game itself was trying to keep within certain RP bounds defined by the game (1E was far more "game" than "roleplaying" by modern definitions). During 2E, the notion fell into disfavor, and AL became more of a tool than a restriction. By 4E, they pretty much eliminated AL as an aspect of the game (mechanically).

At this point, AL is basically a shorthand descriptor of your character's moral views, but by no means an absolute. Your idea of using AL for Outer Planar beings I think is a good idea, as they generally represent moral absolutes and are much less likely to stray. Items are kinda a wash IMO, because a properly defined item will not need an AL (like a character), but is more likely to be a moral absolute (items being inflexible in my mind).

Good luck with your game!

 

[DMZ2112]

I have three things for you, [MENTION=6782023]Erik42[/MENTION]: a request, a recommendation, and a revision.

- If you remove alignment, please require /more/ than two words of the players in terms of characterization, and not less.

- If you remove alignment, consider redefining the Outer Planes more drastically, because as you note, without the compass rose what's the point? (Where are the points?)

- If you remove alignment, I would advise that villains are not always heroes in their minds. Generally, all villains think they are /right/. That does not mean they think they are /good/.

 

[SirAntoine]

Alignment is as useful as the terms that comprise it. If you don't want to get into those deep things, alignment won't be needed.

 

[GMMichael]

I see OP is in good hands. So I'll just mention two cents' worth:

- when looking up evil spells on the WotC site (to see what alignment does in 5e) I found a first level spell, Inflict Wounds, that I was expecting to say something about evil. And sure enough it is: 3d10 damage. Is that a typo? 3d10 damage for a first level spell?

- Alternate planes of existence, or magical worlds, are where things are supposed to get weird. Cities of rock people, dogs and cats living together, and creatures with an inherent alignment should be occurring in these places.

 

[Dausuul]

5E makes it trivial to remove alignment altogether, and if you want to do so, I say go for it. In my experience, PC alignment is an active hindrance to roleplaying. Players who pay attention to it start thinking about "playing my alignment" instead of "playing my character," and they lean on alignment as a substitute for actual motivations and goals. With the introduction of flaws, bonds, and ideals in 5E, there is no longer any excuse for it.