D&D 5E Removing alignments
Neuroglyph
First Post
It's kind of funny, but these arguments for and against alignments have been raging on and off since about 1978 when AD&D came out.
Are they important to roleplay? They can be for some players, a hindrance to others.
Can they be dispensed with? Sure, but it makes some spells a little hard to explain.
Do some players get bent out of shape about them? Yes, just like any rule, some gamers like to adhere to them more than others.
But as the guy who designed alignments way back when was fond of saying, "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."
Are they important to roleplay? They can be for some players, a hindrance to others.
Can they be dispensed with? Sure, but it makes some spells a little hard to explain.
Do some players get bent out of shape about them? Yes, just like any rule, some gamers like to adhere to them more than others.
But as the guy who designed alignments way back when was fond of saying, "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."
Oh, a system to look at is "weregilds", where everything has a price. You can do as you like as long as you pay $$$ and/or do trail by combat.
In this system, the lower social classes have less value; kill a slave, replace with a like model - kill a noble, you become a slave or pay 10x weight in gold. Failure to pay, you become an outlaw, and get banishment to a really bad place.
In this system, the lower social classes have less value; kill a slave, replace with a like model - kill a noble, you become a slave or pay 10x weight in gold. Failure to pay, you become an outlaw, and get banishment to a really bad place.
There are only two mechanics that reference alignment in the game - the first is the sprite. They have an ability to read a person's alignment. DMs don't really need that information to describe the players - they know what the players act, and have the sprites react accordingly to what the DM knows, not what's on a sheet. As a PC familiar, the sprite is basically describing NPC attitudes and tendencies in short hand. The second "mechanic" is the Oathbreaker paladin, which the DMG says must be Evil alignment.
In both cases, it has a heavy RP flavor to it, which is fine.
My big problem with the alignment system is that, frankly, the Law-Chaos part doesn't make much sense to me, which muddles up the entire chart. Good-Neutral-Evil makes a lot of sense to me. We can draw up "positive energy" and "negative energy" aligned. I can compare it to the Freudian Id, Ego, and Superego to help with the personalities - actually, that's what the Id, Ego, and Superego are for, describing attitudes and personalities.
But the Law-Chaos bits? Well, umm... there's the Blood War, which is just two evil factions fighting each other. But, you know, evil fighting other evil happens a lot. I just don't see the point of it. The game has solid reasons for there to be a radiant-balance-necrotic system. Everything else leaves me wondering and cold.
In both cases, it has a heavy RP flavor to it, which is fine.
My big problem with the alignment system is that, frankly, the Law-Chaos part doesn't make much sense to me, which muddles up the entire chart. Good-Neutral-Evil makes a lot of sense to me. We can draw up "positive energy" and "negative energy" aligned. I can compare it to the Freudian Id, Ego, and Superego to help with the personalities - actually, that's what the Id, Ego, and Superego are for, describing attitudes and personalities.
But the Law-Chaos bits? Well, umm... there's the Blood War, which is just two evil factions fighting each other. But, you know, evil fighting other evil happens a lot. I just don't see the point of it. The game has solid reasons for there to be a radiant-balance-necrotic system. Everything else leaves me wondering and cold.
Moorcrys
Explorer
I like the alignment system for monsters - and I like alignment as an overall universal/planar framework. Then I like players to decide how they want to fit into the framework - whether they want to choose and stick to an alignment or chuck it and not think about it. Either way alignment helps define the world the characters are in and keeps things less morally ambiguous when they encounter creatures with strong alignment leanings. As a DM it's a lens that helps me decide how a monster is going to behave (in general) at a glance. I tend to lean heavily on alignment when characters encounter other-planar creatures, dragons, mythic creatures (medusas, minotaurs, etc), and fey - it's as though they're created from (or cursed by) the primordial stuff of the universe that is fundamentally aligned and have no ability to deviate from it... any more than we can decide not to use our bones or anymore or stop breathing. Very much a 'scorpion and frog' scenario. That, to me, keeps the alignment spells relevant and has them make sense in the game world.
Deities are locked into this framework fundamentally. To players who love paladins or clerics, for instance, having a strong sense of their god's alignment is often important to them or gives them something simple and strong to adhere to. To some other character classes, not as much.
In other words, I like them as a DM and I like players to know it's there. Some players make good use of it but if they don't care about playing alignment I don't hold their feet over the fire about it.
Deities are locked into this framework fundamentally. To players who love paladins or clerics, for instance, having a strong sense of their god's alignment is often important to them or gives them something simple and strong to adhere to. To some other character classes, not as much.
In other words, I like them as a DM and I like players to know it's there. Some players make good use of it but if they don't care about playing alignment I don't hold their feet over the fire about it.
Last edited:
WayneLigon
Adventurer
As far as I'm concerned, 5E did away with alignments. As you may have found by now, there are no alignment-based spells, no [Evil] spells, no alignment-based class restrictions (bards can be lawful, paladins can be chaotic evil or whatever) and the paladin ability Detect Evil doesn't... detect evil
Literally the only place I can find (so far) where alignment comes into play is the effect with certain monsters - an evil person entering the domain of a unicorn, for instance, or a good person in the domain of a Lich. As far as anything else goes, it's just a descriptor now.
Moorcrys
Explorer
As far as I'm concerned, 5E did away with alignments. As you may have found by now, there are no alignment-based spells, no [Evil] spells, no alignment-based class restrictions (bards can be lawful, paladins can be chaotic evil or whatever) and the paladin ability Detect Evil doesn't... detect evil
I think you're absolutely right when it comes to PCs. But they certainly didn't do away with alignments when it comes to the Monster Manual, where every creature has a listed alignment, and the DMG, where all of the outer planes are heavily aligned. It's still all over the place there. That's pretty much why I consider it a DM tool and a worldbuilding tool if you care to use it - and the players can make as much or as little of it as they care to for their particular character.
Primitive Screwhead
First Post
Mephista said:
The way I read the Law/Chaos dicotomy is basically the question of loyalty to a system.
Lawful beings follow the rules of their society/clan/organization even when they disagree with them. When they disagree they will try to work within the system to change what they disagree with. They are loyal to the system itself.
Chaotic beings follow the rules of their society/clan/organization when they agree with them. If they disagree they tend to either ignore the rule or leave the society/clan/organization in search of one that they agree with more. Rarely they will attempt to change the rule, and when they do attempt the gloves are off and no tactic is left off the table. They are loyal to themselves.
In play, this dicotomy is a spectrum
YMMV
DMZ2112
Chaotic Looseleaf
I think a lot of people think the way you do, but I, at least, see that as a false dichotomy. You seem to be saying that Lawful is always Lawful and Chaotic is also Lawful but Chaotic when it is convenient.
I mean, you wouldn't say, "Evil beings do what is right when they want to and if they don't want to, leave the society in search of one they agree with more; rarely they will attempt to act immorally."
I think the real dichotomy is between the Lawful you describe and the following Chaotic definition:
Chaotic beings never follow the rules of their society/clan/organization even when they agree with them. They will always disrupt the system to change what they disagree with. They are loyal only to bringing down the system.
You're totally right about character personalities being a spectrum across this dichotomy -- not every Chaotic character is an anarchist, just like not every Lawful character is an armchair paladin. But I think your definition of absolute Chaos is anemic. Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos all have equal propensity for extremism as well as compromise.
Similar Threads
