D&D General So how about alignment, eh?

[BRayne]

No-one prevented Vex from stealing stuff. Laura had full control over her character. There was just a consequence in the world from doing so. And it's not like the change affected anything mechanically (although it might have done so down the line, when they started getting involved with divine stuff).

They fought a rakshasa while her alignment was neutral so she did miss out on bonus damage there.

 

[Lanefan]

Alignment is a great descriptive tool, but as anything else, it fails miserably.

The days of "but that's what my character would do," alignment restricted classes, Helm of Opposite Alignment (or whatever the hell it was called,) failing paladins, and all the other associated garbage that came with it should be swept up and incinerated.

Then sweep them over here, please, as all of those are things I like in a game.

The mistake people make with alignment is treating it as a straitjacket. It isn't. But I want (some) alignment-restricted classes, aligned items and places that feel.work differently for some characters than others, fallen paladins, forced alignment change, and all that. But I also want it possible for a character to change its own alignment slowly as an organic part of its story/development, thus I won't punish such unless it's obviously being done only for meta-advantage.

 

[Lanefan]

Not to make everything about Critical Role, but at one point of Campaign 1 Matt Mercer forced an alignment change on Laura Bailey's character Vex'alia, moving her from chaotic good to chaotic neutral. This was in reaction to a number of things, but primarily Vex stealing a coveted magic item, a flying broom, from a trusting ally. Laura Bailey was not best pleased by this, or so it seemed, and the event definitely spurred some conversations about the role of the DM in "policing" alignment. Mercer is a bit of an old-school DM, but I don't think we would see him handle the situation the same way today.

What do folks who use alignment think about the DM stepping in like this? I tend to think it was justified, given that they were playing a campaign with alignments more strictly built into the setting.

The DM stepping in announcing the change is over the top, but the DM quietly making notes that don't agree with what it says on the character sheet is not only more than fair game, it's essential. She'll find out the hard way that she's slipped when some Goodly item rejects her or when someone casts Know Alignment and tells her what she pulls as.

 

[Lanefan]

Modern players tend to believe more that they are fully in charge of their characters.

Sure, but they're not in charge of how other characters - or the universe in general - perceive them. And that's where alignment matters: in how other people and things perceive you. What do people get from you when they cast Know Alignment? Does the evil-consecrated ground bother you or not? Does the Good-aligned sword accept you or reject you or bite you? And so on.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Then sweep them over here, please, as all of those are things I like in a game.

The mistake people make with alignment is treating it as a straitjacket. It isn't. But I want (some) alignment-restricted classes, aligned items and places that feel.work differently for some characters than others, fallen paladins, forced alignment change, and all that. But I also want it possible for a character to change its own alignment slowly as an organic part of its story/development, thus I won't punish such unless it's obviously being done only for meta-advantage.

So... to fix the problem of it being a straitjacket is to keep all the parts that make the straitjacket onerous and frustrating?

 

[Hussar]

See the Vex example illustrates exactly the problem with alignment.

And the problem is enforcement.

Because when you as DM tell a player, “your alignment is changed” or “that good aligned item doesn’t work for you” then you are telling the player that your understanding of their character is the right one and they are wrong.

That’s a conversation that very rarely goes well. Doesn’t matter if you are 100% right and can cite a hundred examples. You are telling a player that they are playing their character wrong.

And that’s a conversation that should never, ever be had.

 

[Andvari]

Matt never said she was playing her character wrong or demanded she play her character differently. Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive.

 

[Aldarc]

TLDR: I personally dislike alignment as Personality Type (e.g., MBTI, astrological sign, etc.) for PCs and monsters; however, I enjoy alignment as Moorcock-style Cosmic Factions, especially when it is done well.

I dislike having Good/Evil as a separate axis from Law/Chaos, because (IME) the former conflict tends to greatly trivialize the latter.

I like 4e's alignment setup (i.e., LG, G, UA, E, LE) as that resonates more with (1) the World Axis setting's Chaoskampf themes, and likewise (2) it fits fairly well IMHO with the worldview and mythos of ancient Mediterranean cultures (again, the Chaoskampf motif) and how wickedness leads to cosmic disorder, chaos, and the unmaking of the created order, which is regarded as "good."

I also like Law vs. Chaos alongside Balance/Neutral/Unaligned. It makes for a more interesting conflict, especially in the absence of good vs. evil to fall back on.

 

[RareBreed]

I use the 9, but I don't.

In early AD&D, when I was not even a teenager yet, I decided that alignment is weird. People argued about whether some was this alignment or that, nobody could agree on anything, and it seemed weird that we tried to reduce everyone to just 9 different buckets. So, I eliminated it. I realized Magic was the only place where the mechanic of alignment mattered, and for the most part it was clerical magic. So, I decided that evil was going to be what the God that granted the magic thought was wrong, and good was what that God thought was right. And it functioned incredibly well in AD&D, 2E and 3E ... once you got used to it.

I was in your boat. I too played AD&D before I was even a teenager and also felt like alignment was odd, though I couldn't put my finger on it. By the time I got to my teens, I didn't like it at all.

The problem was new players that had played in other games took a bit to drink the Kool-Aid. I had the same conversations over and over and over and over and over and over and over .... until people had played with me for a bit and understood. I just got tired of that conversation, so when 4E came back with their simplified buckets of alignment I put it back into my game.

I think it infects players perceptions more than just with D&D. The kool-aid also made some of my players scratch their heads why other game systems didn't have it. This is why I rue the stranglehold that D&D has on the TTRPG ecosystem.

I think that an alignment system in this day and age is kind of beyond the pale. If the argument about making Orcs not fully "evil" was to get away from stereotyping about "races", is the problem with the stereotyping of races, or is it also fundamentally with the classification of alignment along 3 axes? I'd be just as concerned with calling a race Neutral Good...because what does that even mean to be Neutral Good?

If the argument is that alignments give color and "it's just a game", I would say that there are better alternatives. When I bought Pendragon around 1984 I think, I found their Principles system infinitely better than D&D alignments. Even the short lived The Riddle of Steel's Passion mechanic was far superior to an alignment system. I can't think of any game (that isn't a D&D derivative like Pathfinder) made after the mid 80s that even has an alignment system. That D&D has carried it forward for almost 50 years is telling. It is telling to me, because I think D&D has maintained this because it has existed inside an echo chamber for so long.

 

[Oofta]

See the Vex example illustrates exactly the problem with alignment.

And the problem is enforcement.

Because when you as DM tell a player, “your alignment is changed” or “that good aligned item doesn’t work for you” then you are telling the player that your understanding of their character is the right one and they are wrong.

That’s a conversation that very rarely goes well. Doesn’t matter if you are 100% right and can cite a hundred examples. You are telling a player that they are playing their character wrong.

And that’s a conversation that should never, ever be had.

Which is why I don't know my player's PC's alignment and don't care. I ban evil characters, but that has little to do with any alignment system. I simply don't care for antiheroes and don't want to run a game for villains so I let people know before they join my game that it's off the table. But if someone has LG on their character sheet but everything they do is CN (a bit self centered but not cruel while making their own rules, not chaotic insane), I don't care.

Alignment is there for the player to use as an aid to roleplaying and putting themselves into someone else's thought process and view of the world if they find it helpful.

 

[Oofta]

I was in your boat. I too played AD&D before I was even a teenager and also felt like alignment was odd, though I couldn't put my finger on it. By the time I got to my teens, I didn't like it at all.


I think it infects players perceptions more than just with D&D. The kool-aid also made some of my players scratch their heads why other game systems didn't have it. This is why I rue the stranglehold that D&D has on the TTRPG ecosystem.

I think that an alignment system in this day and age is kind of beyond the pale. If the argument about making Orcs not fully "evil" was to get away from stereotyping about "races", is the problem with the stereotyping of races, or is it also fundamentally with the classification of alignment along 3 axes? I'd be just as concerned with calling a race Neutral Good...because what does that even mean to be Neutral Good?

If the argument is that alignments give color and "it's just a game", I would say that there are better alternatives. When I bought Pendragon around 1984 I think, I found their Principles system infinitely better than D&D alignments. Even the short lived The Riddle of Steel's Passion mechanic was far superior to an alignment system. I can't think of any game (that isn't a D&D derivative like Pathfinder) made after the mid 80s that even has an alignment system. That D&D has carried it forward for almost 50 years is telling. It is telling to me, because I think D&D has maintained this because it has existed inside an echo chamber for so long.

Maybe they carry it forward but give it no teeth because some people find it a useful quick descriptor that they can use or easily ignore?

As far as monsters, D&D oversimplifies everything. The alignments listed in the MM are just defaults, even if that clarification is buried in the intro.

 

[MNblockhead]

I still find alignment a useful lingua franca in the sense that when I say "no chaotic evil or neutral evil" characters, it sets a pretty clear table rule.

The problem comes when the rubber meets the road though. Because ask three people whether something is good or not and you'll get 4 different answers. And then the endless arguments start. I can't think of another element in the game that has caused more flaming rows at the table than alignment. Not because people are being unreasonable or asshats or anything like that (although that's one aspect too) but simply because trying to neatly categorize morality is something that thousands and thousands of years of some really smart people haven't been able to do and expecting five sixteen year olds hopped up on caffeine and cheetos to figure it out is ... well... let's just say that's not going to happen.

Emphasis added.

But that is also an argument FOR alignment. How often do you get a group of middle/highschool kids to debate morality? Alignment provides a baked in way to force those conversations and make them part of the game. I still find it to be an interesting role play mechanic. I don't mind those discussions and arguments at the table. I find it much more interesting than arguing about cover, use of fire magic underwater, and the myriad other edge case rules lawyering.

There are other mechanical ways to accomplish the same thing, but alignment has worked fine for me for over 35 years.

 

[Aldarc]

But that is also an argument FOR alignment. How often do you get a group of middle/highschool kids to debate morality?

IME, play games without alignment and you get the same result.

So what positive does alignment actually add to that discussion?

 

[MNblockhead]

What do folks who use alignment think about the DM stepping in like this? I tend to think it was justified, given that they were playing a campaign with alignments more strictly built into the setting.

It depends on the campaign. In some campaigns we don't really use it. In my current campaign, it is an important mechanic that is connected to homebrewed rules regarding reputation, followers, concordance, and magic. I'm running an old-school inspired adventure/setting (Rappan Athuk) which has areas and magic items that can affect characters differently based on their alignment. I took that an ran with it and made alignment part of the cosmology and social organization.

So, in this game I "police" alignment in a way, but it would never come as a surprise to a player because they'll see their faction points, concordance, and followers change based on their actions or inactions. This makes it more organic as it is coming from NPC perceptions and social norms. Once most of society sees you as "good" or "evil" or "lawful" or "chaotic", etc., it really isn't a surprise if not long after you find that certain magic items don't work for you, certain wards affect you differently, you god forsakes you, etc.

 

[MNblockhead]

So... to fix the problem of it being a straitjacket is to keep all the parts that make the straitjacket onerous and frustrating?

To you onerous and frustrating, to many others interesting and fun.

All rules are a straitjacket to some degree. If I didn't want to play with any rules I'd join an improv troupe that doesn't enforce that "yes, and..." straitjacket.

5e handles this well. If you like the rule use it, if not, don't. I suppose I could accept alignment being relegated to the DMG as a variant rule, put I would not want it take out of the game completely for those who like it.

 

[MNblockhead]

See the Vex example illustrates exactly the problem with alignment.

And the problem is enforcement.

Because when you as DM tell a player, “your alignment is changed” or “that good aligned item doesn’t work for you” then you are telling the player that your understanding of their character is the right one and they are wrong.

That’s a conversation that very rarely goes well. Doesn’t matter if you are 100% right and can cite a hundred examples. You are telling a player that they are playing their character wrong.

And that’s a conversation that should never, ever be had.

If the DM is ham fisted about it, sure. But really, it is more about how society sees you, how the cosmology of the world works. Yes, it gives the DM a lot of power over how the world reacts to and affects the player, but that is the case with most of the game. So I disagree with this being a conversation that should never be had. As long as expectations are set at session zero, it can be part of the fun.

 

[MNblockhead]

IME, play games without alignment and you get the same result.

So what positive does alignment actually add to that discussion?

Mechanics.

Actual mechanical repercussions for the PC's actions.

 

[Aldarc]

Mechanics.

Actual mechanical repercussions for the PC's actions.

Except that's not true. People are quick to tell you here that it has practically zero mechanical weight in 5e so tables can easily ignore it. So can you explain what are the "actual mechanical repercussions for the PCs's actions" when it comes to alignment in 5e D&D? What are the actual mechanics for alignment in 5e? Can you explain how alignment exists as a game mechanic in 5e?

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Note that a ton of RPGs don't have anything like an alignment system and it isn't really missed. I don't use it in D&D and it isn't missed. Even my extra-planar entities are not "lawful good" or "chaotic neutral" or whatever.

This. I generally consider extraplanar entities as unknowable about why they do what they do

 

[RareBreed]

Maybe they carry it forward but give it no teeth because some people find it a useful quick descriptor that they can use or easily ignore?

As far as monsters, D&D oversimplifies everything. The alignments listed in the MM are just defaults, even if that clarification is buried in the intro.

I think some of this betrays D&D's roots as a wargame system. You needed to easily distinguish who the "bad guys" were so the players could promptly kill them. Unless of course your players were a bunch of murder hobos anyway

As D&D evolved past dungeon looting, I think that's when the alignment system got more problematic. That's why I like either ignoring it all together, or if push came to shove, for spell reasons like for detecting someone with malicious or harmful intent as "detect evil".