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

[Faolyn]

Can you say those things? Every one of the traits you listed has been used as a pejorative to describe a group. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would not appreciate being referred to as prone to aggression, hot-tempered, or highly emotional, especially as a group.

I'd say so. You're not describing actions, but tendencies. If you also say that because of that tendency, they make for good athletes, artists, etc., then you are also showing how the tendency can be beneficial. The problem is when you only link those traits to negative actions, which is what usually happens in these settings: "orcs are aggressive, so they make for violent raiders." Not "orcs are aggressive, so they can make for staunch defenders."

And you can further refine it by saying "many orcs..." or "orcs have a reputation for being..."

Plus, any of them are much better than being described as even "usually evil."

 

[pumasleeve]

This is how I recently described how alignment is used to a new group - " If your not sure what alignment to pick, ask yourself if your character prefers order (law) or freedom (chaos), or balance (neutral). Then your willingness to harm others determines where you are as far as good and evil. if you are altruistic or fight only for self defense or against oppression or tyranny- good. If you will harm or kill others for pleasure or profit- evil, or if you think mortal life is not of the greatest importance but still has value- neutral. Also your alignment is not a straight Jacket, but serves as a guide."

This seemed to work pretty well to help them grasp the concept and how it is used in game.

 

[Reynard]

I think they should reorient alignment as a sort of faction thing. They aren't Evil, they are The Horde. Like that.

Or, do what I have been doing for years: treat it like astrology. You were born under an alignment sign and that determines where you fit in the cosmic order, but it doesn't say anything about what you do and who you are. You might be a chaotic evil paladin. All that means is that the powers of evil and chaos laid claim to you in the never-ending battle for control of the multiverse, and yeah, you are going to have to confront that one day, but you will be damned (lol) if you aren't going to do as much good in the world as possible up until that time.

 

[Dragonsbane]

Great for decribing monster's viewpoints. Also good for a PC to describe their current morals and ethics. Also great for planar stuff, spells, and so on.

Oh. And it tames murder-hobo paladins. Best ever!

 

[Wyldekarde]

I voted for the 9 point system of the past volumes. I did especially like the numeric version of this wherein there were levels of sorts to each alignment. Weirdly, I don't remember which version this came from though..maybe 3.5. (ex. 1 rating in good was extremely good while 3 was good but bordering to neutral). It gave it a clearer idea of the character in some way. Another example is like a Paladin who is Law 3, which shows he is leaning a bit closer to Neutral.

I've always looked at alignment as a reminder to the players that yes, your characters have more to them than their stats and that they should have a set of personal rules they live by. Having run many games without alignment systems, there is a huge disparity in how they act when there is a guide on their personality and when there is none. Of course, experienced and skilled role-players don't need these guides but unfortunately, the average player has some difficulty with it.

Just my 2 cents

 

[FrozenNorth]

What should be done with alignment?

Is shave its belly with a rusty razor an option?

 

[Oofta]

I think they should reorient alignment as a sort of faction thing. They aren't Evil, they are The Horde. Like that.

That works if you have one defining world or world assumptions. D&D doesn't work like that. My cosmology, organizations and world-building is partly my own creation, partly stolen from Greyhawk, partly loosely based on Norse mythology and a large chunk of my own invention.

If I had a Horde, it wouldn't be FR's Horde. If the Horde were just a generic concept then it's not much different from alignment. In addition, there are hundreds of entries for monsters, do you create organizations for all of them?

 

[Reynard]

That works if you have one defining world or world assumptions. D&D doesn't work like that. My cosmology, organizations and world-building is partly my own creation, partly stolen from Greyhawk, partly loosely based on Norse mythology and a large chunk of my own invention.

If I had a Horde, it wouldn't be FR's Horde. If the Horde were just a generic concept then it's not much different from alignment. In addition, there are hundreds of entries for monsters, do you create organizations for all of them?

Factions can be vague, you know, especially if you are presenting them as a generic alternative to alignment.

Alignment as "personality description" doesn't do anything a couple words in the stat block won't do ("cruel" and "cowardly" in a goblin entry, for example). And as a designation of inherent morality -- well, the less said about that, the better. It seems silly to keep it unless it actually means something, but none of the things it traditionally has meant work in today's landscape.

 

[Oofta]

Factions can be vague, you know, especially if you are presenting them as a generic alternative to alignment.

Alignment as "personality description" doesn't do anything a couple words in the stat block won't do ("cruel" and "cowardly" in a goblin entry, for example). And as a designation of inherent morality -- well, the less said about that, the better. It seems silly to keep it unless it actually means something, but none of the things it traditionally has meant work in today's landscape.

Alignment gives a general clue to inner moral compass, factions don't do that for me. That, and alignment is simple and easy not only as a filter but to get a general sense at a glance.

If factions are vague enough to replace alignment they become alignment with a different hat.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm kind of split.

You can make alignment a central theme to the campaign, like Dragonlance (edit: or Warcraft, for another example) does, and done well that can really add something cool to the story. When alignments matter in-universe to the characters we're interacting with, they can be used to make great games.

But if it's not going to be a central theme, it's best to use it as little as possible - as a personality descriptor, no more. If being "lawful" isn't impactful to the game as a whole, deciding if a given character is "lawful" isn't important.

Alignment is only actively harmful when people treat the words as clear and unambiguous.