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

[overgeeked]

Go back to the old-school alignment of Law, Chaos, and Neutral. Bring back the big Moorcock energy with Lords of Order and Chaos. It's much easier to handle alignment and alignment changes with that set up. Either that or dump the whole thing as it's more trouble than it's worth.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Alignment in all its edition forms is great.
Nostalgia demands we keep it in the book as an option.
And invariably the posters in these threads (like this one) come up with interesting and fun ways on how one may incorporate aspects of it.
Otherwise there is no right or wrong way to use it or not use it.

That's how I feel.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

I suppose alignment is a thing, but if you asked me I honestly wouldn't know what alignment my PCs are.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Quoting myself from another thread because it’s still relevant to what i think and I don’t want to have to retype all that

I view allignments for players more in the same vein as bonds traits ideals and flaws, it helps provide a shorthand summary to inform the basic nature and predisposition of actions of a character, As i understand them the various allignments could probably be summarised as such:

LAWFUL: consistently obeys and follows a strict code or set of rules, even when going against them would be beneficial to the individual, the rules in question may be the local law, divine or infernal commandments or just a personal code, so long as they are consistent and are followed, however a lawful entity may use the laws in service of their own intentions or apply them in circumstances against the spirit of the law.
L/C-NEUTRAL: typically obeys rules and orders unless given a reason or it would be in their benefit not to, but are not overly inclined to enforce them either unless, again, it is to their their benefit to/detriment not to.
CHAOTIC: has no consistent code of conduct and generally does as they wish in any given moment irregardless of any laws, customs or expectations that might otherwise hinder them, this does not mean they will not exploit any existing laws or suchlike if it is to their benefit to do so.

GOOD: tries to improve, protect, respect and benefit the lives and circumstances of others, generally without expectation or motivation of rewards for doing so, sometimes but not inherently, even at a detriment to their own lives or circumstance.
G/E-NEUTRAL: cares about and considers their own lives and circumstances before considering other people's, however they will not seek to needlessly inflict suffering or try to benefit themselves at the cost of others, they may also go out of their way to assist or benefit others if it is in turn to their own benefit or at least not significantly to their own detriment to do so.
EVIL: seeks to improve the lives and circumstances of themselves (and generally their own close company) without caring about the effect on others in order to do so or seeks to harm the lives and circumstances of others, may go out of their way to needlessly inflict suffering and strife for no inherent reason, does not respect or care about the lives or circumstances or rights of others.

The measure of 'what is good and evil, lawful or chaotic' is laid out by the game rules and thus in and out of universe that is how those terms are defined for the purpose and the context of DnD, and they are broad and all-encompasing enough that even if you choose not to or outright refuse to actively assign any allignment to your character that doesn't mean they don't allign with one anyway, either that or you're playing them inconsistently.

(As it is now, and i understand it has been different in the past or at least has been used to do so) Your allignment isn't something that controls your character, it is something that is defined by them and their actions.

I choose 5e and with alterations
I don’t see any big issues with allignment but it needs to decide if it’s either something mechanically relevant or just on the level of BITF, i would like it to be more meaningful to mechanics but I can understand how that might end up going wrong

EDIT: Part of the problem of allignment is that it’s not well enough defined, or at least uses terms that are ambiguous so people end up conflicted philosophising on ‘what is evil, or lawful, or chaotic’ (see quoted post, the second last paragraph for my thoughts on this)

Describing a species as CN or LE doesn’t mean that every member of that species is that allignment just that the culture of that species values or at least ends up instilling somewhat the traits of said allignment into their general populous due to however its structured, like how (i think this is how it was I wasn’t in dnd at the time) early drow were all evil because the underdark was a death world and therefore everyone was out for number 1 first because if you weren’t you wouldn’t survive EDIT: so it’s not that ‘drow are inherently evil’ so much as ‘drow environmental conditions ended up pushing drow society to value ‘evil’ traits for survival purposes, and those traits remain ingrained even after they leave the original environment’

 

[Lyxen]

I suppose alignment is a thing, but if you asked me I honestly wouldn't know what alignment my PCs are.

honestly, I don’t even know the technical capabilities of the PCs at my table. I trust them to play them properly technically, just as I trust them to play a character consistently.

But alignement was never about forcing people to do anything about it. It’s only people who don’t understand it and desperately want to control their players, as well as people who don’t like the concept and want it removed, who represent it that way.

Alignement is only an optional record anyway, so don’t use it if you don’t want it in your game, but for some of us, it’s an important part of the game, ever since it started, for putting in place epic conflicts and/or for running Planescape, one of the best settings ever.

Having it in the game has never forced anyone to use it, it occupies a minimal space, just leave it alone if you don’t use it.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I'll accept alignment is useful when we get 70% interrater reliability on what Batman's alignment is.

People generally don't like having their actions labeled as evil by a peer, so there will continue to be alignment fights/squabbles, etc when not everyone uses the same shorthand. Like - why is poison specifically considered evil in a game of murder and looting?

When the game plays the same if no one writes an alignment on their sheet, it seems time to let the sacred cow be an optional rule or folded into ideals/traits/bonds/flaws. Putting a few personality traits in published material seems more helpful to new DM's than alignment is. It takes a little more space, but adds much more. If an NPC isn't worth a sentence or two on their traits, I don't think a 2 letter alignment will change that.

 

[le Redoutable]

I tend to treat alignment more or less interchangeably with "reputation."

It's a descriptor about how others perceive the characters and to which beliefs/groups they are typically aligned with.

For me, that's the ultimate descriptive but not proscriptive approach.

It would be just as valuable for a player to write it "once effective, now a drunken mess", and that would be the lens through which many of my NPCs would view that PC.

not only Reputation, also Popularity , and Celebrity ( or Visibility )

 

[Lyxen]

I'll accept alignment is useful when we get 70% interrater reliability on what Batman's alignment is.

Batman is obviously LG. However, once more, Alignment is not a straightjacket and every version of Alignement also tells you that "few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.".

This sentence or equivalent has always been in the description of alignment, even in Gygaxian times. And yet, people continue to ignore it, mostly just so that they can criticise it.

Alignment is not for every game, I completely agree with this, but it is appropriate to an epic game of cosmic conflict like D&D aims to be. Of course, there is nothing wrong with playing only dark fantasy at level 1-5 completely ignoring alignment, which you can ignore as much as you are ignoring most of the rules and spells in the game.

 

[le Redoutable]

so perhaps Batman spies using the Illusion that he is Dark in his mind ??
I personally wouldn't spend much of money to this interpretation though

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Batman is obviously LG.

The guy who is anti any authority except his own, doesn't work within the existing power structures, and uses his vast resources and scientific knowledge not to better society as a whole, but rather on a personal quest for vengeance by beating up the mentally ill... is lawful good?

I really do think the law/chaos divide is the biggest area of disagreement in alignment.