D&D 5E Removing alignments

[GX.Sigma]

Here's how we use alignment in my current 5e game:

In character creation: everyone writes an alignment on their character sheet.
In play: we occasionally make jokes about it.

 

[txshusker]

An additional note, in previous editions, alignment was about the only "rule" from a book that helped character development/backstory, unless the players went to the trouble to create a backstory for themselves... which I highly doubt. 4e touched slightly on backstory. With the almost mandatory 5e addition of backgrounds (to get some extra skills, etc) with multiple traits, features, flaws, the basis for roleplaying is better developed... the traits themselves have "(chaotic, lawful, good, etc)" next to them. So if you're roleplaying using the traits from the background development and are true to them, you're playing an alignment - whether or not it matches the one written down at the top of the 1st page is besides the fact.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

In MM the Yugoloths are described as having only one question in their mind: "whats in it for me". They are Neutral Evil.

Neutral evil has only one intent - evil. They will do evil things for evil's sake. They'll step on a baby rather than over it, if given a chance, even if no one offers them something to do so.

Chaotic Neutral likes freedom and isn't as fixed to the 'greatest benefit for everyone' or 'more power to me' aspects of good & evil, rather they choose something of either depending on which outcome is more advantageous.

 

[Fralex]

Alignment is a part of any character design with depth, whether you use two words or 500 words to describe it. Removing an arbitrary system of binomials and acronyms from the game doesn't magically eliminate the concepts of law and evil. Alignment or no alignment, players of "good" characters are going to try to get away with crap they shouldn't get away with and dungeon masters are going to have to take them to task for it. That's our job. The only thing that changes with the removal of alignment mechanics is that a few clumsy tools have been removed from our arsenal.

Spoiler: It's not going to save the players.

I don't think anyone here is trying to remove the concepts of law and evil so that they can do whatever they want. Some people just think it's a more realistic story when the literal philosophical concepts of ethics and morality aren't "built in" to every creature. Like you say, removing alignment from the game doesn't magically eliminate these concepts; it just makes it so that whether someone is "good" or "evil" or "lawful" or "chaotic" is something you conclude based on the sum of their parts.

I must confess though, some of the things you're saying kind of worry me... from what you say, it sounds like you don't really trust your players to play their characters correctly and rely on the alignment system as a way to fight them. You really shouldn't have to weaponize rules just to keep players in line. Is this typical of games you run? If so, perhaps you should try to clear the air with your group and see if you can improve the overall playing environment? You'll probably have more fun with the players if you only fight them through the monsters. I don't want to impose or anything, though. It just seems like there might be something keeping you from getting full enjoyment out of the game. I want people to enjoy it as much as they can! :>

 

[Fralex]

"What's in it for me?" on its own, is more of a Neutral sentiment than an Evil one. You're just acting on your own self-interests, like plenty of other creatures do. Evil would be something along the lines of "You don't want me to crush you just for being in my way? What's in it for ME?" Chaotic Neutral isn't the alignment of doing random things for no reason; it just means you believe any sort of attempt to control the behavior of others, whether Good or Evil, is wrong and just takes away your freedom.

But see what's happening here? This is what the alignment system does to people! By assigning specific labels to nine distinct philosophies, it just encourages people to argue over how to define each label correctly! If there wasn't an official in-game classification for these viewpoints, the only people who'd be arguing would be people who really liked identifying the philosophical beliefs of fictional characters.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I like alignments in game, they are cultural builds that reflect the positives and negatives of it. What is evil by one culture may not be evil by another, then in game you have gods, paladins, monsters, etc. that you have to consider.

(my soapbox) Define what is evil in your games, this should relate to your local gods.

Things like:

• slavery (includes mind control)
• freedom
• separation of state and church
• cold blooded murder
• torture (includes rape)
• cannibalism
• pornography
• women being equal
• followers of a certain god / leader / cult / political group (Nazis)
• a race (American Indian, Orcs, etc.)
• oath breakers
• kin slayers
• horse thieves
• sheep farmers

If you are building a barbarian culture, the only evil acts may be oath breaking and kin slaying. In another, cold blooded murder is not evil if part of vendetta (god of realm: domain). In the game, you then have the kingdom next door and how they view that culture.

In my games I have a way to tell how evil someone is, I also have a list of evil acts or possible exception in game. One to three difference will not cause much problems but too many and you then start to have conflict. Worship and acts of faith can clean the slate or impact healing of evil characters or in the case of assassins; hide evil acts.

 

[Thunderfoot]

This is a great example of the opinion I don't understand. Why is Chaotic Neutral the one alignment that is exempt from holding true views? I acknowledge that this is personal perspective, but if I were playing a devoted Chaotic Neutral character I would leave all four churches intact and work to increase the discontent the imbalance must cause. Now, if any of them were /lawful/ churches, /those/ would get the torch -- the same way a devoted Lawful Neutral character would do everything in his power within the law to get a chaotic church closed, its members arrested, and the religion banned from the city.

Of course that is also a completely legitimate option
[MENTION=371]Hand of Evil[/MENTION] - That is an excellent point of view and a great example of guideline versus hard and fast. <Obi-Wan> You will find that a lot of what we hold true is based on our point of view </Obi-Wan>

 

[DMZ2112]

I must confess though, some of the things you're saying kind of worry me... from what you say, it sounds like you don't really trust your players to play their characters correctly and rely on the alignment system as a way to fight them. You really shouldn't have to weaponize rules just to keep players in line. Is this typical of games you run? If so, perhaps you should try to clear the air with your group and see if you can improve the overall playing environment? You'll probably have more fun with the players if you only fight them through the monsters. I don't want to impose or anything, though. It just seems like there might be something keeping you from getting full enjoyment out of the game. I want people to enjoy it as much as they can! :>

You mean... treat my players like they're... people?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My problem is that there are multi ways to play each alignment, and if you really aren't on the same page as another player or DM it can cause problems...

example 1: I play lawful evil, I look out for myself first, but I still have friends and family. I would never go out of my way to help a random person, and I don't care if the town of what ever it's called is over run by orcs... but I do keep my word, and understand it is in my best interest to build allies, favors, and I do care about some people. SO I go along with the group, and I get talked into doing good sometimes by someone appealing to my own interest or sense of honor. If someone goes after one of my friends or family I track them down and make them pay. But then the DM or another player says "Wait, your evil why are you doing this" or "How can we trust you"

example 2: I want to play Neutral Good ranger based on robin hood. Then in an adventure, a sheriff goes to arrest us on trumped up charges. SO I shoot to kill, and another PC flips "Dude your good you can't do that

 

[DMZ2112]

But see what's happening here? This is what the alignment system does to people! By assigning specific labels to nine distinct philosophies, it just encourages people to argue over how to define each label correctly! If there wasn't an official in-game classification for these viewpoints, the only people who'd be arguing would be people who really liked identifying the philosophical beliefs of fictional characters.

Well, this is a discussion forum, Fralex, it's the place for considered argument. Legitimate excuses are optional.

But at the table, I agree. Alignment is just like any other rule -- the dungeon master has final say. A player is free to dictate the actions of their player, but what those actions mean in the context of the local, global, and cosmological setting is entirely the dungeon master's call.