Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
Alignment has been around from the beginning of D&D, but has varied a lot over its 50 years.
So which edition did it best?
So which edition did it best?
D&D General Which edition handled alignment best?
- Thread starter Whizbang Dustyboots
- Start date
payn
Glory to Marik
I think best is a nebulous question and answer proposition. I went with 3E, despite thinking it has some bad flaws in alignment. Namely tying it to class restrictions and the paladin. In my opinion, paladin should be a prestige class buuuut that cat is not going back in the bag. Anyways, besides the issues I dont like, I actually really enjoy mechanics of spells and weapons as they relate to the settings and planar beings. Its a good intersection of mechanics and narrative that I rather enjoyed. Also, I think the descriptions are some of the best across editions.
Reasons other editions lose out are poor execution and/or tacked on easily forgotten and pointless legacy components.
Reasons other editions lose out are poor execution and/or tacked on easily forgotten and pointless legacy components.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
Are you suggesting that it doesn't make sense that there's a Chaotic Neutral language in older editions?
payn
Glory to Marik
CreamCloud0
Hero
i'm not really informed enough on the nuances of alignment in most editions to really cast judgement here but i hope for the edition where alignment manages to achieve the perfect manifestation of being impactful, nuanced, clearly defined, well integrated and enjoyable to use.
Last edited:
R_J_K75
Legend
I chose 2E but that's just personal preference. I like the concept of alignment but I'm glad it's all but phased out of the game for the most part in 5E. It just led to too many disagreements as it was so open to interpretation. Ask 5 people to explain alignment and you'll get 5 different answers. It's just one less thing to worry about while playing or have to explain to new players.
Clint_L
Legend
I think alignment is nonsense so I chose 5e because it makes it optional and pretty much ignores it.
The alignment system is the coccyx of D&D. It maybe served a purpose when people were still trying to wrap their heads around "it's like a war game but you pretend to be the characters," but our understanding of role playing has evolved since then.
Edit: I started out using the analogy of the "appendix" but then remembered that D&D actually has one.
The alignment system is the coccyx of D&D. It maybe served a purpose when people were still trying to wrap their heads around "it's like a war game but you pretend to be the characters," but our understanding of role playing has evolved since then.
Edit: I started out using the analogy of the "appendix" but then remembered that D&D actually has one.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
Other, as it would be the best if it simply wouldn't exist at all, but at least in 5e it is very easy to remove as there are almost no mechanics that refer to it.
jmartkdr2
Hero
I voted 5e because in most games it's got the 'best' alignment system by being the easiest to ignore.
But one can run an interesting campaign where alignment plays a key, core part of the game/story, and in that case I'd want one that's both relatively clear and not 100% tied to behavior - which means 3e or BECMI depending on what you actually want to do with it.
But only if you want to really use it - as a secondary system it's just a load.
But one can run an interesting campaign where alignment plays a key, core part of the game/story, and in that case I'd want one that's both relatively clear and not 100% tied to behavior - which means 3e or BECMI depending on what you actually want to do with it.
But only if you want to really use it - as a secondary system it's just a load.
Similar Threads
