I don't know if this is addressed at all in the other thread, but what I wanted to ask is would the game be better if alignment wasn't present?
Well, it is largely gone from 5e as it is...
I don't know if this is addressed at all in the other thread, but what I wanted to ask is would the game be better if alignment wasn't present?
Which, for me, is the best use. A general descriptor with little or no mechanical impact but that can be useful for broad ideas on how someone is going to approach the world and implement those traits and bonds.Well, it is largely gone from 5e as it is...
If you observe that a player hates NPCs who act on intuition, you don't need the label "lawful" to make use of that observation.But smart DMs figure out the alignment of their players to design good challenges. For example:
- Chaotic players will have a natural hatred for large institutions with rules and regulations
- Lawful players will have a natural hatred for whimsical decisions and NPCs that act on intuition
What if the person believes in in some greater good for altruistic reasons, but thinks that achieving that good requires harming others? Whole eggs and omelettes or 'needs of the many outfighting the needs of the few' thing. Are they good or evil and how does labelling them either way helps us to understand them better?If your character is Good they are (broadly speaking) altruistic, kind, merciful and self sacrificing and avoid harming others. If they're Evil, they're prepared to step over and harm others to accomplish their own ends (whatever ends that may be).
Whose tradition? What if they respect the traditions of their religion and think all other laws are wrong and need not to be obeyed? Also certainly one can easily be reckless and unpredictable and still have honour and respect traditions. Like think of Klingons, super honourable traditionalists, also unpredictable hotheads. Lawful or chaotic? And again, how does labelling them either way make understanding them easier, instead of just confusing and dumbing down things?If they're Lawful they follow a code of honor, and respect family and tradition. If they're Chaotic they're independent, free spirited, reckless and unpredictable.
I would represent that as someone with an ideal of "greater good" with an evil (or perhaps neutral) alignment.What if the person believes in in some greater good for altruistic reasons, but thinks that achieving that good requires harming others? Whole eggs and omelettes or 'needs of the many outfighting the needs of the few' thing. Are they good or evil and how does labelling them either way helps us to understand them better?
Theyre evil. Full stop.What if the person believes in in some greater good for altruistic reasons, but thinks that achieving that good requires harming others?
It would, in that case, give an incomplete picture. The kind of person you're talking about is like the Operative in Serenity. He knows what he's doing is cruel and, from a personal moral perspective, wrong. But he's doing it for a higher ideal. That makes him evil, knowingly so, even if the ultimate goal is something higher.What if the person believes in in some greater good for altruistic reasons, but thinks that achieving that good requires harming others? Whole eggs and omelettes or 'needs of the many outfighting the needs of the few' thing. Are they good or evil and how does labelling them either way helps us to understand them better?
So adventurers killing monsters (i.e. harming others) to stop said monsters rampaging countryside (protecting the countryside being the greater good) are evil?Theyre evil. Full stop.
Honourable but Evil is LE.A culture could be very violent and "evil" - yet heroic and honorable (like the Spartans in 300).
No. Most of use use alignment properly and without problem now that it has had all of its teeth removed. It's simply an aid to roleplay to use or not as you see fit. Removing it from the game would harm more than it helps.I don't know if this is addressed at all in the other thread, but what I wanted to ask is would the game be better if alignment wasn't present?
A few months ago I ran a game where the Dawnfather Church was usurped by members of the Strife Emperor Cult.
This had been ongoing for years and past unnoticed due to the influence of the gods was stymied by an event centuries past leaving them needing their followers worship more than its commonly known.
Anyway have you ever run games where the PCs eventually discover the various churches aren't exactly the alignment their god is supposed to be?
If this ever came up in your games how did you or your players react to such a reveal?
Prior to the game I mentioned above I was asked to convert a Ranger into a Cleric for a game, then had my dm mess up my character's back story when he couldn't recognise the potential of the game being run at a hamlet over a large city where heroes or mercenary troubleshooter's are more likely present.
Anyway I got a little into the character that I developed a faith for her, but I'm getting off topic how do you handle alignments in your game?
This is an objectively false statement, as many people here have offered benefits that it gives them. To declare that it provides not a single benefit(and there are in fact multiple benefits) is flat out wrong.Yes. Alignment only adds problems and doesn't provide a single benefit. After over 40 years, I've yet to see anyone make a good argument for what the purpose of alignment is supposed to be.
Never use it in any of my campaigns. Sometimes players still write it on their character sheets, but I just ignore it, since it never comes up anyway.
Thing about Klingons is they are just as variable as anyone else. To Worf, honor is honor and its achieved by following traditions and tenets. Many other Klingons see honor as more of a malleable concept shaped to the situation and decided by the victor. The Alignment system helps know which is which in shorthand.What if the person believes in in some greater good for altruistic reasons, but thinks that achieving that good requires harming others? Whole eggs and omelettes or 'needs of the many outfighting the needs of the few' thing. Are they good or evil and how does labelling them either way helps us to understand them better?
Whose tradition? What if they respect the traditions of their religion and think all other laws are wrong and need not to be obeyed? Also certainly one can easily be reckless and unpredictable and still have honour and respect traditions. Like think of Klingons, super honourable traditionalists, also unpredictable hotheads. Lawful or chaotic? And again, how does labelling them either way make understanding them easier, instead of just confusing and dumbing down things?
So adventurers killing monsters (i.e. harming others) to stop said monsters rampaging countryside (protecting the countryside being the greater good) are evil?
Yep. This is the way.I still find Alignment to be of use as shorthand for NPCs and monsters. That said, I don't use it as a straight jacket. A listed alignment of a creature in the MM is a starting point, speaking to a "typical" example of said creature. My campaign just culminated in the PCs fighting against a LE angel. I do like that 5e has greatly downplayed the inherency of alignments mechanically.