D&D General So how about alignment, eh?

[GSHamster]

I like alignment that's like Good, Mortal, Evil. I like games with supernatural Good/Evil, and when that's actually reflected in mechanics like circles of protection or paladin sensing/smiting evil. Maybe even add supernatural Order and Chaos to the mix.

I like the 3x3 for rough guidelines of how a character or NPC would act. It's especially useful for differentiating two good or two evil people, maybe putting them at cross-purposes.

I am strongly against mixing the two systems above, though. Especially when they use the same terms like Good and Evil.

 

[Umbran]

My intent was not snark and insult.

Mod Note:
Please don't comment on moderation in-thread. Thanks.

 

[MNblockhead]

I’d say the line is pretty clear. Npcs are obviously the realm of the dm. Changing what’s written on a player’s character sheet is not. Factions are perfectly fine and everyone pretty much agrees that the dm is responsible here.

I've always seen alignment as factions on the cosmological level. Further, if I a faction boots a PC becaue of the PC's actions, isn't that also the DM changing what's written on the player's character sheet?

Telling players they are playing wrong isn’t. Policing the players is just a recipe for disaster.

I don't see it as telling a player that they are playing wrong just that based on the PCs action they are seen as being another alignment based on the setting. If using alignment in your game is seen as engaging in bad-wrong-fun, why wouldn't faction rules, codes of chivalry, and rules of religious orders be seen as the same? In any event, I don't see alignment as the DM policing other players in the game. Saying a character is not acting in accordance with a specific alignment is not saying that the player in playing wrong. If there is an argument between DM and player, then there is a disagreement over the game world or poor communication on the DM's part. This is why I think more mechanics for alignment can help. I agree that players should not be surprised when their characters are no longer considered to be of a particular alignment.

In my game, the players will see changes to faction points, concordance, plus there is role playing of NPCs reacting to them and their actions. I'm not pulling rugs from under the players.

The fact that alignment has had zero impact on the game for fifteen years and two editions proves that alignment isn’t needed.

Zero impact? The fact that it has experienced such a slow death and that many players still fight to keep it in the game makes that a bit of an overstatement. It increasingly has been stripped of more and more of its mechanical tethers to the game, but remains part of the games DNA and culture.

I'll agree that it isn't needed, but it remains important to many fans of the game. If the game can make feats optional to accommodate different preferences, I don't think asking to keep alignment as an optional part of the game is too big of an ask.

 

[MNblockhead]

When the player is playing their character in a way they they player sees as good and the DM gets on their case? No there's not.

As a DM, I don't get on the player's case. But the NPCs, monsters, and gods may.

 

[Clint_L]

Zero impact? The fact that it has experienced such a slow death and that many players still fight to keep it in the game makes that a bit of an overstatement. It increasingly has been stripped of more and more of its mechanical tethers to the game, but remains part of the games DNA and culture.

I'll agree that it isn't needed, but it remains important to many fans of the game. If the game can make feats optional to accommodate different preferences, I don't think asking to keep alignment as an optional part of the game is too big of an ask.

I think he meant zero impact in that the game plays the same without it. At this point, it’s just an aesthetic choice.

Which is why I wholeheartedly agree with your statement! Alignment is in the DNA of the game, and some folks love it. It should always be an option, IMO.

 

[ThorinTeague]

Doesn't that just move the definition of alignment one layer away from the characters?

Because now you have to define what "Cormyr" means as an alignment, or "Rohan", or "Tempus", etc.

Bonus points if you can do this without using the words good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or neutral.

The advantage, though, would be that you could easily end up with more or less than 9 "alignments", and they'd be somewhat setting-specific.

The examples I gave move it away from the players but there are many other possibilities. I mean clerics and paladins are pretty much aligned with a particular God anyway, for example. And as it stands right now lawful versus chaotic and good versus evil have to be defined anyway....

I've actually always thought that ordered might have been a better choice of word than lawful, because lawful seems to imply that you follow laws, whereas ordered seems to imply that you have a structure in the way you carry out your business, some kind of regular framework. Many players have some very understandable difficulty getting their head around alignments like lawful evil. He's evil but he follows all the laws.. what?

 

[Vaalingrade]

As a DM, I don't get on the player's case. But the NPCs, monsters, and gods may.

I may be mistaken, but weren't you opining about the lack of mechanical alignment -- ie tools for the DM to get on your case in the meta?

 

[Lanefan]

I've actually always thought that ordered might have been a better choice of word than lawful, because lawful seems to imply that you follow laws, whereas ordered seems to imply that you have a structure in the way you carry out your business, some kind of regular framework.

Interesting.

I've always seen "lawful" as implying one follows external laws e.g. those of a kingdom or temple or whatever, where "chaotic" either follows one's own internal, personal laws or no laws at all.

Many players have some very understandable difficulty getting their head around alignments like lawful evil. He's evil but he follows all the laws.. what?

Easy. An LE person either uses/twists laws to evil ends, or willingly follows and supports (or willingly helps enforce) evil laws, or (if in power) writes evil laws and puts a strict enforcement mechanism in place. That sort of thing.

 

[Andvari]

Many players have some very understandable difficulty getting their head around alignments like lawful evil. He's evil but he follows all the laws.. what?

Do they, actually? It doesn't seem to be something that manifests in practice. I've only seen this type of confusion in theoretical Internet discussions. In my experience, actual players are far more intelligent, reasonable and capable of introspection than some give them credit for. I've never had to explain something like this to anyone, nor have I needed to hide their real alignment out of fear of them being offended that I don't see their murdering psycho or thieving character as lawful good. They tend to either already know or quickly recognize it when it's brought up.

At least the games I've run or played in, alignment changes only occur once it's past the point where debating it is reasonable or because the player adjusts the sheet on their own. (And no, I'm not a super scary person no one dares speak out against. I'm just a regular guy)

 

[Aldarc]

I have to concede that Alignment has been made to not matter mechanically in 5e. It serves mostly as a role play aid. And I agree that simply adding alignment to stats to help with role playing monsters, NPCs, and PCs is weak sauce. In my current campaign, alignment has mechanical effects. But it isn't RAW, I did a lot of homebrew to make it matter mechanically and thematically in a way the my group enjoys. So, I have to concede that if alignment was removed from D&D 5e it would mainly be missed by those who have been playing long enough to be nostalgic about it. Which is why I think putting alignment in the DMG is a good compromise. But if they do that I would hope there are also various optional rules--mechanics--for how to add alignment in the game. To take it out of the game entirely would disappoint me, because I see it as part of the heritage of the game.

There is so much left out the modularity was supposed to cover...

I would not be opposed to putting mechanical rules in the DMG for Alignment or even discusson of different models of alignment (e.g., LvC, 4e's five, GvE, MtG Color Pie, etc.) and allegiance. Again, I think that Theros's piety rules would potentially be a good place to start when it comes to Alignment. My own preference, as I've said before, is Alignment as Faction rather than Alignment as Personality Type. That would also, IMHO, do wonders for a lot of the "monster alignment" discourse.