D&D 5E What do you think should be done with alignment?

[Hexmage-EN]

Both D&D 5E and Pathfinder 2E use alignment as the basis for their entire cosmology (though Pathfinder 2E still has rules associated with alignment, unlike D&D 5E).

Without alignment, the Great Wheel and the Planescape setting have no foundation underpinning them.

I also greatly treasure how unique devils became in D&D and Pathfinder thanks to the Lawful Evil descriptor. They took "make a deal with the devil" extremely literally and developed entire meritocratic bureaucracies that are arguably more important to devils than their evil plans (one Forgotten Realms novel even has a daughter of Glasya and granddaughter of Asmodeus himself worrying over an imp underling filing what is essentially an HR complaint because it'll look bad on her record!).

Hells, with the Blood War (LE vs CE) D&D pretty much established devils as the greatest force for keeping demons from running amok while the forces of Good standby and watch lest they become corrupted (though presumably that frees up celestials to do acts of good rather than fight demons constantly).

 

[Hexmage-EN]

There would then be additional possible mechanical options that people could use in conjunction with these models. For example, something akin to Theros's Piety could be provided for Alignment. You align yourself with a cosmological force (e.g., Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, etc.) and get perks for doing so, but also attract increased heat from forces aligned to the opposing alignment.

Oh this is EXTREMELY good! I'm using this for my next campaign.

 

[Maxperson]

I wonder if part of the problem with using alignment in the same terminology for both individual PC/NPCs and the extra-planar creatures is that a person who likes freedom and hates rules might be chaotic, but they aren't chaotic in the bad guy end of the world sense of the early Elric books, for example. A person who is evil in that they take what they need or are one of the evil protagonists in another thread going on seem very different from a demonic/devilish being whose goal is to actively cause as much pain as possible.

I'm wondering if something akin to the following would be useful?

LAWFUL - Following ones guiding code and working against CHAOS is the most important thing ("extraplanar lawful beings")

Lawful -Tries to always follow their guiding principals, but may have other over-riding concerns ("lawful")

lawful - Likely follows the rules unless they're standing in the way, but doesn't angst over it ("lawful tendencies")

chaotic - Chafes against the rules but doesn't go out of their way to break them just for the sake of doing so (unless they're annoying) or trying to sow randomness ("chaotic tendencies")

Chaotic - Flouts the rules and doesn't follow a personal code. ("chaotic")

CHAOTIC - Overthrowing the order - both local and universal - is the most important thing. ("extraplanar chaotic beings")

and

GOOD - Helping others, and avoiding harming others if possible is the most important thing. ("extraplanar good beings")

Good - Tries to help others when possible but sometimes knows that sacrifices must be made and may have other goals and purposes ("good")

good - Generally dislikes harming others and has an active conscience ("good tendencies")

evil - Doesn't particularly mind harming others and does so without hesitation when it serves their purposes but may have a group they look out for ("evil tendencies")

Evil - Enjoys harming others and causing pain, looking out for oneself is worth hurting others. ("evil")

EVIL - Causing pain, sewing despair, bringing woe, and actively overturning the GOOD are the most important things. ("extraplanar evil beings")

For something in the ballpark of those, should it be impossible to be either LAWFUL or CHAOTIC and also GOOD, since the prime goals would conflict? Would it be hard to be even Chaotic GOOD (as opposed to chaotic GOOD or Chaotic Good)? Would classic paladins be one of LAWFUL Good, Lawful GOOD, or maybe Lawful Good? Is there enough pain that could be sewn by overthrowing order that CHAOTIC EVIL is still a thing? Is there enough pain that can be sewn working within the system that LAWFUL EVIL is still a thing? Do the CHAOTIC EVIL seek the end of all things, so that many classic D&D Demons are actually Chaotic, while the things from the far realms are CHAOTIC?

Are there stories of the fae where they are bound by their oaths and promises, but generally random? How does one fit that in to an alignment scheme? How do needing to be truthful and needing to keep oaths overlap with alignment? How does that transfer to devils?

Is the chaos of the far realms different than the chaos of the devils? Does it lead to entropy and the annihilation of all things?

How do law and order differ? Does one of them lead to stasis and rigidity? Is Balance Lawful, but not LAWFUL?

That seems unnecessarily complex. Chaotic, lawful, etc. already mean all of that and it's up to the DM or player(depending on who has the alignment) to determine which. Alignment not the straightjacket people misperceive it to be. The tighter you define it, though, the more of a straightjacket it becomes.

 

[Maxperson]

I would argue that this does not go far ENOUGH. I don’t think there is CHAOTIC and chaotic, I think there are a dozen traits that fall under “chaotic” but that don’t necessarily strongly correlate with each other.

So, a character can be “chaotic” if:

• flightly, whimsical, incapable of taking most things seriously (Fey);
• strong believers of individual rights and self-determination vs. the collectivity (civil rights lawyers);
• strongly aligned with a Chaotic plane (Marids, Djinn);
• not beholden to society’s laws/their word (criminals/oathbreakers/charming liars)
• prefer to destroy rather than dominate (demons)
• forward, creative, anti-traditionalist (mad scientists);
• impulsive, ruled by their emotions (stereotypical portrayals of barbarians)
• insane (not I strongly disagree with this and just include it because this correlation was emphasized in 2e and 3e).

Note that characters that typify certain of these traits strongly exclude others. Civil rights lawyers are not particularly known for their whimsy, and will take affront to the suggestion that they reject laws or are habitual oathbreakers. Fey, despite being the poster children for whimsy, are also characterized by strict adherence to their own bizarre rules. A barbarian can be from a traditional society and invested in the old ways of doing things and still be a frothing madman on the battlefield. A character may wish for the triumph of the Elysian fields but refuse to stoop to dishonorable methods to achieve them.

Civil rights lawyers don't have to be whimsical, though I'm sure a few were. You don't have to be everything that is a part of being chaotic. It's broad for a reason, and that reason is that alignment is just an aid to roleplay and not a straightjacket to force behavior.

 

[Maxperson]

Yep. And you can make similar list for lawful and then of course many people will have traits from both lists.

Yep. Not that it matters. Having traits outside of your primary alignment is normal and doesn't alter your alignment. Your alignment is where most of your traits broadly fall. If you have 100 traits and 40 of them are chaotic, 15 of them are lawful, 15 of them are neutral and 30 of them are good, you're Chaotic Good.

Not that anyone would be able to break it down like that, but when you choose CG as your alignment and use it to help you roleplay, your personality should mostly fall within those two categories, but a good chunk can fall outside it.

 

[Cadence]

Having traits outside of your primary alignment is normal and doesn't alter your alignment. Your alignment is where most of your traits broadly fall.

It sure did for Paladins in the early works... no Chaos for you!

 

[Maxperson]

It sure did for Paladins in the early works... no Chaos for you!

I'm primarily looking at 5e. Sure, if you go back to 1e and 2e where there were rules for changing alignment and other mechanical limiters, things were different. Right now, and I assume for 4e, alignment is just a broad help to roleplay. That's it. It's a tool, not a beat stick.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yep. Not that it matters. Having traits outside of your primary alignment is normal and doesn't alter your alignment. Your alignment is where most of your traits broadly fall. If you have 100 traits and 40 of them are chaotic, 15 of them are lawful, 15 of them are neutral and 30 of them are good, you're Chaotic Good.

Not that anyone would be able to break it down like that, but when you choose CG as your alignment and use it to help you roleplay, your personality should mostly fall within those two categories, but a good chunk can fall outside it.

How does it help me roleplay? If I know the personality traits of my character, what is accomplished by counting whether 60% of them are chaotic or lawful? I already know how my character behaves based on those personality traits.

 

[Maxperson]

How does it help me roleplay?

I can't answer that for you. It helps a huge number of us, but apparently some are just incapable of seeing it.

If I know the personality traits of my character, what is accomplished by counting whether 60% of them are chaotic or lawful?

No idea. Nobody told you to count them.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Adding allegiance (race, family, clan, tribe, nation, religion, brotherhood, code of honor) and spells with alignment key can hurt enemies with same alignment but different allegiance, for example an orc shaman vs a drow cleric.

Caothic aligment would be attuned to Nature and Primal forces, and the rules about honor only for members of same allegiance.