D&D 5E Removing alignments

[DMZ2112]

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.

 

[DM_]

There's the use of alignments as a shorthand, rule-of-thumb description of the motivations and behavior of critters including PCs. It's clunky, but I prefer it to Meyers-Briggs or Enneagram.

And then there's cosmology. In 1E, the distinction between books providing a game system, and books providing a setting, was not so clear, and there was One True Cosmology for all D&D games, at least according to the books. In that cosmology, the Prime Material Plane hung in the balance between Positive and Negative.

In such a world, every intelligent creature is aligned one way or another with those all-pervading influences, just as a compass needle has an ongoing pull to stay aligned with the Earth's magnetic field. Any individual can claim not to care, but look, if you're a cleric, then either you turn undead or you command undead, it's objectively testable.

So, first decide if your setting hangs between powerful, intrinsic, multiplanar structures of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos. If it does, then every creature, intentionally or not, is in some sort of relationship to those qualities.

If that's not the basic structure of the world, then you have other options.

I've always enjoyed using the MBTI for fleshing out important NPCs but then it has been kind of a pain to do on the fly. Your post however has me contemplating an elemental energy based alignment system. "You sense an aura of necrotic fire" "The mirror allows you to see the truth of your soul, you appear to be composed of radiant water"...etc

 

[Anth]

CN is a pretty selfish position where your options are more about "What's in it for me?" than anything else.

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

 

[Thunderfoot]

I love alignment, but as a DM I use it as a GUIDELINE; not a hard and fast rule. For example, a CN character would walk into town, see three temples to a "good" god and "one" to an evil god, by rights his neutrality says to even the score and his chaotic nature says by any means necessary, so two arsons later, we have balance and the CN character is happy, right? Wrong, because CN means the person holds no true views, the above example is one possible outcome, but another perfectly logical one would be to ignore it. CN is usually the one that gets away with the most stuff because the morality is the "norm" for most gamers.

So same situation, only we have a LG pally walking into the town and sees a temple to an evil god, what do they do? Walk in and attack? Burn it down? NO those are non-lawful acts, but some people think LG means lawful stupid equate evil alignment to automatic death by pally sword. The right answer, he does nothing, maybe evangelize to the fold of the evil church on changing their ways before it's too late, but murder and property damage isn't the answer - but a large proportion of people would say otherwise.

I don't think alignment is the problem, it's people's poor understanding of the same. But that's just my opinion.

As to a non-aligned game? Impossible, even if it's not on the character sheet, people have made up their minds how their characters acts in a given situation, almost to a fault. So it's there, just not written in neon.

 

[txshusker]

I was watching that Chris Perkins DMd game video another thread highlighted; he did for Gametrailers recently... and in that, the rogue that goes off by himself is roleplaying his character traits; alignment didn't even come in to play - or rather didn't come up - even when killing the rather innocent native. So even the DMs DM kind of glossed over alignment in that particular case.

I would, like others, keep track of the actual play vs what's printed on the sheet. But every game is different. I can see where players who do play to the alignment - lawful good paladins sacrificing themselves to the detriment of other characters or rogues stealing from comrades while they are the only person on watch during camping - can add spice to the campaign, bring in otherworld powers for fun interaction, build "reputation" etc.

 

[Authweight]

I'm firmly in the camp that alignments are both unrealistic and unfun, so I've been running all my games without alignment for a while. No problem at all.

 

[Joe Liker]

The inclusion of alignment in the 5e rulebooks is nothing more than lip service for those who expected it to be there -- to avoid the massive surge of complaints WotC would see if they left it out.

In practical terms, it's safely ignored, and the game is better without it.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

A situation came up yesterday in the game I DM, that actually touches on how I try to handle alignment these days. Spoilers for LMoP follows.

I am running LMoP and the PCs had just cleared out the Redbrand thugs from Phandalin. In the process they captured the leader of the Redbrands (Glasstaff) and had him imprisoned. The PCs have of course become heroes of the village and everyone are celebrating their accomplishments and giving them free lodging and beer. The day after their victory, they decided that they should question Glasstaff and find out what he knows about the Black Spider. The most chaotic of my players (that is real life chaotic, not necessarily in-game, although his current Warlock character is CG) decided to handle the interrogation while the other three PCs did other stuff. The interrogation started of civil enough, until the PC decided to jam a dagger into the prisoner's leg to get him a bit more talkative. Long story short, Glasstaff told what he knew and the PCs took off towards their next goal (Cragmaw Castle).

Now my thought are, that I am not going to change the character's alignment (at least not openly). Instead I am going to give the PCs a quite different welcome than they are used to, when they return to Phandalin. They left before anyone learned about their interrogation methods (the PC was alone with Glasstaff), but when the villagers find out how they treat prisoners, not even the biggest PC fanboy can look at the PCs quite the same way as before. The free beer will have dried up and people will be talking about them behind their back, sending glances their way.

I think this is a good way to show the players, that their actions have consequences, besides a perhaps minor shift in alignment, and the way the players seemed to like the adoration their characters were receiving, I think/hope "the lesson" will actually sink in.

Tl;dr - I am trying out showing the PCs the consequences of their actions, rather than just telling them to shift their alignment one step.

 

[DMZ2112]

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

To be fair, this is one of the alignment questions that players everywhere have the most trouble with: "Where does selfishness belong on the wheel?" In my opinion, if you subscribe to the classic "crazy bastard" definition of Chaotic Neutral, what you're describing isn't really selfishness -- the crazy bastard Chaotic Neutral character is no less hidebound than a Lawful Neutral character -- he's just bound to do whatever is most disruptive instead of what is most appropriate. I mean, technically the Lawful Neutral character is also being selfish -- presumably he behaves the way he does because it is what he wants, at least on some level.

I've always found it a little odd that the community has accepted the selfish Chaotic Neutral character to the extent that they have. I've never seen anyone arguing against the Neutral Good character being devoted to good for good's sake, or the Neutral Evil character being devoted to evil for evil's sake, or the Lawful Neutral character being devoted to law for law's sake, but for some reason the Chaotic Neutral character is just viewed as a rugged individualist rather than devoted to chaos for chaos' sake.

Wrong, because CN means the person holds no true views

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.

 

[jimmifett]

but when the villagers find out how they treat prisoners, not even the biggest PC fanboy can look at the PCs quite the same way as before. The free beer will have dried up and people will be talking about them behind their back, sending glances their way.

Same thing with my players, only they killed their prisoner and the town master found out, causing trouble for sildar.While they were attacking the manor and glassstaff, they took a long rest and missed saving the family by 2 hours, so not only coming back to town with the mayor riling up the ppl against them, the are bringing back corpses of beloved townsfolk they couldn't save. They got the cold shoulder quick.