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

[CreamCloud0]

But, why would I want to?

You said you didn’t notice you could vote twice, I just meant that if you had wanted to you could add your second vote

 

[Jer]

I've said before that I consider "alignment" to be "allegiance" to Law/Chaos in a Moorcock sense. So for most worlds I don't think it's useful (OTOH, I'd use it if we were playing old-school Planescape where belief shapes the planes because that's one D&D campaign setting where I think alignment was integrated into the setting in a manner that fits with how I've always viewed alignment). I attribute this to being introduced to both the Basic D&D alignment system and Moorcock at roughly the same time in my youth

For the "traditional" view of a alignment that a lot of people have as "shorthand for character personality" to play at the table - I actually prefer the 5e Trait/Ideal/Flaw system from the Backgrounds. At first I thought it was too constrained because each Background has so few of them but after running it in play with different groups it works quite well to give new folks a hook for their character to play. Even my players who are mostly there to beat up monsters and take their stuff will surprise me by pulling out a trait or an ideal when making a decision for their character.

 

[delericho]

I've said before that I consider "alignment" to be "allegiance" to Law/Chaos in a Moorcock sense.

My understanding is that that pretty much was the original conception of alignment - it was essentially used to define the various factions in Chainmail/early-D&D, and control who was allowed to ally with whom. (So an LG force could ally with other forces who were either Lawful or Good, but not with forces that weren't either. That was why the old restriction that Paladins couldn't have any non-Good allies was important - they were thus much more restricted than normal for LG characters.)

If that is indeed that case, then I really wish they'd chosen something else for their factions, because if they're just team shirts we'd have been able to skip all the hassle that has come of people arguing over definitions of 'good', 'law' and the rest.

 

[Cadence]

You left out Holmes Basic/1E MM Five-point Alignment, not that I would have chosen that option.

I'm not familiar enough with 4E to comment on its alignment system, but it seems well integrated into that game's lore from my cursory exposure.

I chose the option that includes 1E and that I would substantially modify it. The way I would do that is to make it explicitly part of the Multiverse setting and give it real mechanical teeth. I do this in my own 5E games by having the alignments of the PCs and NPCs interact to modify encounter reaction rolls and social interaction DCs.

Incidentally, why no option for the Holmes Basic/1e Monster Manual five-alignment system (CE/CG/LE/LG/N)?

It's added now!

For those who (like me) didn't know...

4e has: LG, G, E, CE, and unaligned
Holmes had: LG, LE, N, CG, CE

 

[Aldarc]

I've said before that I consider "alignment" to be "allegiance" to Law/Chaos in a Moorcock sense. So for most worlds I don't think it's useful (OTOH, I'd use it if we were playing old-school Planescape where belief shapes the planes because that's one D&D campaign setting where I think alignment was integrated into the setting in a manner that fits with how I've always viewed alignment). I attribute this to being introduced to both the Basic D&D alignment system and Moorcock at roughly the same time in my youth

IMHO, the conflict between the Sigil Factions in Planescape makes for more interesting sources of conflict than Alignment itself does.

 

[Jer]

My understanding is that that pretty much was the original conception of alignment - it was essentially used to define the various factions in Chainmail/early-D&D, and control who was allowed to ally with whom. (So an LG force could ally with other forces who were either Lawful or Good, but not with forces that weren't either. That was why the old restriction that Paladins couldn't have any non-Good allies was important - they were thus much more restricted than normal for LG characters.)

This makes sense to me - and it reminded me that when I got the Chainmail rules on DriveThru I saw exactly that in there. Though I will note that looking at it now at least the reprint of Chainmail that they have on DriveThru only lists Law/Neutral/Chaos as the factions available and suggests that neutral figures can be "diced" for to see which side they fight on. Making sense of the "alignment" in that it's a side that they are aligned with and the neutral figures can go either way or remain neutral and stay out of the fight. (Also it talks about "good" and "evil" and is explicitly linking Law to good and Chaos to evil, much like the later post-Holmes Basic sets did. )

If that is indeed that case, then I really wish they'd chosen something else for their factions, because if they're just team shirts we'd have been able to skip all the hassle that has come of people arguing over definitions of 'good', 'law' and the rest.

I think the shift comes from when you're looking at them as factions in a war game trying to simulate the Battle of the Five Armies to when you are putting it down on your character sheet as something that your character believes in. It takes on a whole different meaning in the context of an individual than in a group dynamic. And thus the grand philosophical battles over a system that was designed originally to be "which side are you on"...

 

[Jer]

IMHO, the conflict between the Sigil Factions in Planescape makes for more interesting sources of conflict than Alignment itself does.

I'm thinking more about how alignment relates to the other Outer Planes and how the setting really supports the idea that you can have the Lords of Order coming to knock on the door of your Lawfully-aligned character because it's time for them to take their obligations seriously. (I don't remember if there were hints of a "cold Blood War" on the upper planes in the books, or if it's something we extrapolated while playing the campaign back in the day, but it did really make alignment mean something when your Lawful character is being pulled in one direction by the Archons of Mount Celestia and your friend's Chaotic character is being pulled the other way by the Eladrin courts.)

 

[Oofta]

I've said before that I consider "alignment" to be "allegiance" to Law/Chaos in a Moorcock sense. So for most worlds I don't think it's useful (OTOH, I'd use it if we were playing old-school Planescape where belief shapes the planes because that's one D&D campaign setting where I think alignment was integrated into the setting in a manner that fits with how I've always viewed alignment). I attribute this to being introduced to both the Basic D&D alignment system and Moorcock at roughly the same time in my youth

For the "traditional" view of a alignment that a lot of people have as "shorthand for character personality" to play at the table - I actually prefer the 5e Trait/Ideal/Flaw system from the Backgrounds. At first I thought it was too constrained because each Background has so few of them but after running it in play with different groups it works quite well to give new folks a hook for their character to play. Even my players who are mostly there to beat up monsters and take their stuff will surprise me by pulling out a trait or an ideal when making a decision for their character.

So I just randomly generated TIBF and came up with the following

​

Personality Traits​

It doesn’t matter if the whole world’s against me. I’ll always do what I think is right.​

Ideals​

Promise. My life is no longer my own. I must fulfill the dream of someone who’s gone.​

Bonds​

Everything I do is in the service of a powerful master, one I must keep a secret from everyone.​

Flaws​

I know my future is written and that anything I do will lead to a prophesied end.​

There's some interesting character hooks and ideas for a story here but none of that tells me much about how I'm going to achieve any goals, other than that I'm stubborn. If this were an NPC I don't have a clue to how they would react, what their disposition or moral compass is. Alignment in combination with this is a good starting point. But on it's own? Doesn't really help.

If the PCs make a deal with the NPC how is the NPC going to react when the situation changes? Is the NPC going to stay true to his word? Exploit a loophole or fine print while sticking with the letter of the agreement? Are they just going to shrug and say "I lied" if it suits them? If the PCs want to make a deal should they focus on law and tradition or personal strength and honor?

If you come up with traits that tell me the same things alignment tell me then you've just recreated alignment under a different label. I don't have an issue with TIBF, I just view it as an additional descriptor to alignment, not a replacement.

 

[Aldarc]

If the PCs make a deal with the NPC how is the NPC going to react when the situation changes? Is the NPC going to stay true to his word? Exploit a loophole or fine print while sticking with the letter of the agreement? Are they just going to shrug and say "I lied" if it suits them? If the PCs want to make a deal should they focus on law and tradition or personal strength and honor?

How would you play this same NPC in any other tabletop game that lacked alignment?

 

[not-so-newguy]

I'd rather have alignment tossed out of the core 3 books altogether and reserve Alignment for a setting specific book. I'd love to play in a setting where Alignment is baked into the mechanics of play, something like Dungeon Crawl Classic 3 alignments system. But I would want to keep it purely optional.