D&D General Which edition handled alignment best?

[CreamCloud0]

BIFTs just seemed entirely half baked to me. I’m always shocked to hear people mention it.

oh i agree that they're a bit half-baked, but that doesn't prevent them from being the base of something good, they just needed a little more time in the oven.

 

[Theory of Games]

Sometimes logical thing to do would go contrary to alignment. And then you can get punished by DM. I always viewed TN as someone who "doesn't stink, doesn't smell".

And when a character repeatedly breaks alignment, a DM should change their alignment. Behavior determines alignment, not the opposite. I don't know how a DM "punishes" players, but I'd find a new DM.

Debates revolved around universal vs relativistic morality when dealing with good and evil.

Which has nothing to do with D&D alignment or how it works in a setting with dragons, elves and magic.

 

[GobHag]

And when a character repeatedly breaks alignment, a DM should change their alignment. Behavior determines alignment, not the opposite. I don't know how a DM "punishes" players, but I'd find a new DM.

No. Anything the player does should only change the alignment if they want it too. Steal a candy from a baby, immediate chaotic evil or become lawful good if they want it to. Or nothing

 

[Maxperson]

And Chaotic Stupid Antipaladins (if we include pf1 with 3.x).

One of the reasons i never liked alignment is tying mechanics to characters personality and moral and ethical code. It pidgeonholes them and punishes people who like to play with complex shades of grey morality characters. Not to mention how many debates on morals and ethics it sprung during the years. It becomes specially grating when player and DM have different opinions on borders between alignments (or morals in general).

Only if misused, though. From 3e on alignment has not been a straightjacket like that.

3e: "Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has even if that’s not lawful or good behavior. People are also not consistent from day to day. A good character can lose his temper, a neutral character can be inspired to perform a noble act, and so on."

4e: "Certain personality traits have moral weight, particularly those that influence how you interact with others. Cruelty and generosity can be considered personality traits, but they’re also manifestations of your beliefs about the importance and worth of other people. A character who aspires to good might have a cruel streak, but if that streak manifests too frequently or in extreme ways, it’s hard to say he’s really upholding his moral ideals."

5e: "These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment."

Heck, even in 1e Gygax had creatures and people with X alignment, but Y alignment tendencies, so it wasn't even a straightjacket back then. It was just that AD&D penalties for changing alignment and DM interpretation of when things went too far caused people to stay in the lane and not really deviate.

 

[FrozenNorth]

3e. Alignment was a cosmic force and there were mechanical implications, such as DR that was bypassed by good, lawful, chaotic, or evil weapons, or weapons that did extra damage against a certain alignment, etc. Yet it wasn't a straight jacket for pcs, and for most characters, it could never have an impact on how the character worked (clerics, paladins, etc aside).

Clerics, paladins, bards, barbarians and monks aside. So just around 40% of the classes aside.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it is a terrible roleplaying tool and leads to inane debates and simplistic NPCs. It would be better if it did not exist at all. It puts people on the wrong way of thinking from the get go.

Since I've used it well and seen players use it well, I am going to disagree with your assessment. Outside of online forum debates like this one, I haven't seen an alignment debate since the early days of 3e, and even then only in relation to paladins.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Because "I don't like alignment" is a different answer from "I like how 5e handled alignment." An answer of "none" would show if people actually think 5e hits the sweet spot, or are just contrary to the concept.

« It’s the best of the options offered » is a defensible position.

 

[Maxperson]

My point is that in play that difference isn't oblivious unless your DM or World Builder forces it via a major plot point.

If the king is mostly seen as good, you don't see the NG and CG guys as very different unless you force a niche issue, a special action, or make one of them fanatical. Both say the King Edd is good unless you make the CG guy say "BUT I HATEZ KINGS".

Same with LE and NE. NE is often the mercenaries who mostly honors contracts but doesn't care about from whom or the villains who hide their evil in the darkness or the outskirts until the final stages. So 90% of the time, you can barely tell the difference between LE and NE.

And since most NPCs and monsters are used only once or twice, the difference between LE & NE or NG & CG never show up unless the DM or WB forces it

Therefore you only need LG and CG separations from good and evil as they are most obvious in a single interaction.

No alignment is obvious unless you spend a good amount of time in the person's presence. Especially since alignment isn't a straightjacket and people can and do often step outside of their alignment. If you do spend a lot of time with someone, they are all pretty apparent, because you can see how that person generally behaves.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I'm old school. I expected the results that are currently in the poll, as this site schews towards the newer the better type of idea. However, I chose 1e rather. Preferences on this site seem to tend to choose 3e and 5e as the top choices.

As this site tends to skew to older gamers (those who started pre-4th edition) I suspect pre-5th edition results are overrepresented compared to the wild.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I went with 2E, primarily because that is the approach that shaped my view of alignment