I loved the system in 2nd edition, butas it now stands, doing away with it, altogether, would be the best choice. Newer players don't like the restrictions it imposesand WoTc has downplayed to downright gutted the importance of it anyway compared to past editions.
That’s because they don’t understand how it’s sposta work. They think it’s something they have to adhere to instead of something malleabile that’s sposta reflect their actions. I refer you to my previous post:
I’m thinking maybe they should.It’s very restrictive and forces your PCs into a black and white morality mold with no real shades of grey.Maybe replace it with like a Character Nature and Demeanor system like in White Wolf’s World of Darkness games.
If I may, I would like to offer a counterpoint to your premise.
Alignment shouldn’t dictate a PC’s actions, rather the inverse. A PC’s actions dictate their alignment. A player is free to play their character however they like regardless of whatever is listed in the alignment box on their character sheet, and shouldn’t feel restricted. If the alignment box lists L/G, and the player wants their character to beat up shopkeepers and steal their wares then they are free to do so. Their alignment would simply shift over time towards C/E. If they only beat up shopkeepers who cheat their customers and then give their stolen goods to the shopkeepers victims, their alignment would instead shift over time towards C/G instead. If they were to instead get the laws of the land changed to where it is legal to beat up evil shopkeepers and redistribute their I’ll-gotten wealth to their victims, then their alignment would remain L/G. You see, alignment should be mutable, and adjust to fit whatever actions the PC chooses to take, not restrict PC actions. And alignments can shift both ways, forth and back again, depending on what the PC does.
In truth, all alignment truly does is provide a codified representation of a PC’s moral code. A PC’s moral code is set by their player. If the moral code changes, the representative of that code, the PC’s alignment, should simply shift to match. Alignment in no way restricts a PC, it reflects them.
I loved the system in 2nd edition, butas it now stands, doing away with it, altogether, would be the best choice. Newer players don't like the restrictions it imposesand WoTc has downplayed to downright gutted the importance of it anyway compared to past editions.
That’s because they don’t understand how it’s sposta work. They think it’s something they have to adhere to instead of something malleabile that’s sposta reflect their actions. I refer you to my previous post:
Yeah, a lot of times people see the monsters alignment system as always being true, with no chance for it to change or any bit of goodness in an evil character.
No matter how crazy your character or monster is (unless their a phsycopath or sociopath) their going to have good redeeming aspects about them (could be represented in D&D via a personality trait, bond, or ideal) and bad things as well.
Just because a characters alignment says evil, doesn't mean they always do evil things, or that they can't change.
Alignment is one of the more problematic aspects of the game. There are plenty of players who have a very, shall we say, limited view of each alignment, and get frustrated (and sometimes even angry) if another player says “I am of this alignment” but does not adhere to the first player’s inflexible view. I have seen one party torn apart because the two “I must play Neutral Good (like I always do - in the most boring and intolerant way possible)” folks just could not handle the other, more flexible interpretations of “good” within their party.
Alignment often causes more trouble than it is worth… and I absolutely think it should stay.
I play with a lot of new players - every campaign I DM usually has one or more people who heard about D&D from one of the core members of my playgroup and wanted to give D&D a shot. Alignment - as defined by them, not by the most strict possible - helps the new roleplayers get into, understand, and be consistent in playing their characters by giving them a general framework of how they might act.
Like most things in D&D, it is useful as a tool and as a guideline… and only becomes a problem if you treat it as an absolute.
What the Only Four Alignments the DM Will Let You Pick Say About You:
LG: “I’m a puffed-up pompous jackass with delusions of heroism and no clue whatsoever how adventuring works, and I’m going to make it your problem until you assassinate my character in his sleep And you’d better believe I’m gonna throw a tantrum about that when it happens.”
LN: “I’m an impossible anal-retentive rules lawyer and so is my character; ‘um, actually’ is my catchphrase, and I cannot make a decision on which shoe to put on first without consulting my charts and notes for at least twenty minutes. Spontaneity is the greatest sin I can think of, and I’m going to make that your problem.”
CG: “I’ve watched enough anime to know what Shounen Protagonist means and that’s what I’m aiming to be. Rules are for chumps, teamwork is for losers, NPCs are background fodder who’re there specifically to build towns I can look awesome while wrecking. I’m here for Badass Anime Moments and if I don’t get them, I’m going to make it your problem.”
NG: “I’m trying my best to ignore the alignment system and make the decisions a sane and reasonable person would make in this insane and unreasonable world. My tablemates continually harass me about being a fun-hating killjoy and call me Table Mom/Dad and if they don’t stop I’m going to make it their problem.”
Bonus! What Trying to Pick ‘CN’ Says About You: “I have no intention whatsoever of playing D&D; my objective is to troll everyone else at the table for as long as I can before they get fed up with me and throw me out of the game. I think the whole idea of tabletop roleplaying is stupid and I’m gonna make that your problem.”
That's because 5E chucked out the literal books worth of lore about the Planes in favor of one to two sentence blurbs. Also, The Feywild and and Far Realms are the redundant ones, since the Great Wheel predates them significantly.
The discontinuity is not new to 5e. The core problem is that a number of the outer planes were created concept first and then later hammered into the 'great wheel' framework.
Hell is 'we read Dante and thought it was cool'.
Elysium, Arcadia, and Hades are 'we read Greek mythology and thought it was cool'. Probably also Carceri (Tartarus), but not as obvious.
Ysgard is 'we read Norse mythology and thought it was cool' (but not cool enough to deserve multiple planes, which is why we jammed the Jotuns into it).
What the Only Four Alignments the DM Will Let You Pick Say About You:
LG: “I’m a puffed-up pompous jackass with delusions of heroism and no clue whatsoever how adventuring works, and I’m going to make it your problem until you assassinate my character in his sleep And you’d better believe I’m gonna throw a tantrum about that when it happens.”
LN: “I’m an impossible anal-retentive rules lawyer and so is my character; ‘um, actually’ is my catchphrase, and I cannot make a decision on which shoe to put on first without consulting my charts and notes for at least twenty minutes. Spontaneity is the greatest sin I can think of, and I’m going to make that your problem.”
CG: “I’ve watched enough anime to know what Shounen Protagonist means and that’s what I’m aiming to be. Rules are for chumps, teamwork is for losers, NPCs are background fodder who’re there specifically to build towns I can look awesome while wrecking. I’m here for Badass Anime Moments and if I don’t get them, I’m going to make it your problem.”
NG: “I’m trying my best to ignore the alignment system and make the decisions a sane and reasonable person would make in this insane and unreasonable world. My tablemates continually harass me about being a fun-hating killjoy and call me Table Mom/Dad and if they don’t stop I’m going to make it their problem.”
Bonus! What Trying to Pick ‘CN’ Says About You: “I have no intention whatsoever of playing D&D; my objective is to troll everyone else at the table for as long as I can before they get fed up with me and throw me out of the game. I think the whole idea of tabletop roleplaying is stupid and I’m gonna make that your problem.”
It's just guidelines anyway, because its a game, plus if you are trying to be as realistic as possible, for color, everyone does things that are good or bad and some of the most interesting stories are when people start out one thing and evolve into something else. Also, its a game so do what's fun!
Ah so you're the one that resurrected this monster.
I think alignment if it is considered a necessity in a game would be mutable. How a PC acts is what determines his or her alignment rather than having the PCs actions restricted to what their alignment says.
In regards to beings that are not PCs, I still feel alignment is important. Not every orc can or should be evil but there are beings out there that are and SHOULD be evil in every sense of the word. Maybe I'm just being backward and old school but nobody anywhere is going to convince me that Demogorgon is anything but evil. No, he's not misunderstood, he isn't having a bad day, he isn't suffering from mental illness, he is evil.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Alignment in 5E doesn't really even feel like a 'system' to me honestly. It doesn't really affect systems anymore. Spells like protection from good and evil are based on creature type. Paladins don't have to be lawful good, in fact you have subclasses like conquest which can easily lean evil or ancients which is very neutral good leaning. It only really feels relevant when looking at 'great wheel' planes and their denizens specifically, and I"m not really that big of a fan of 'a plane for every alignment' anyway.
I think the ideals, bonds and flaws system is more useful for helping people get into characters than alignment too. They can help a new player define their character in a way that isn't as limiting or ambiguous as the 3 by 3 grid can feel. For monsters, a few sentences describing their typical motivations/behavior is more useful to me than alignment. Goblins and succubi have different behaviors, goals and methods of operating but are both neutral evil for example.
If I had to use a 3 by 3 grid though, I kind of like the way star wars 5E explains it. Good/evil become simply Light = selfless, putting the needs of others above your own. Dark = selfish, putting your needs above others. Where as Chatoic = the ends justify the means and Lawful = the means are as important as the ends.
Alignment in 5E doesn't really even feel like a 'system' to me honestly. It doesn't really affect systems anymore. Spells like protection from good and evil are based on creature type. Paladins don't have to be lawful good, in fact you have subclasses like conquest which can easily lean evil or ancients which is very neutral good leaning. It only really feels relevant when looking at 'great wheel' planes and their denizens specifically, and I"m not really that big of a fan of 'a plane for every alignment' anyway.
I think the ideals, bonds and flaws system is more useful for helping people get into characters than alignment too. They can help a new player define their character in a way that isn't as limiting or ambiguous as the 3 by 3 grid can feel. For monsters, a few sentences describing their typical motivations/behavior is more useful to me than alignment. Goblins and succubi have different behaviors, goals and methods of operating but are both neutral evil for example.
If I had to use a 3 by 3 grid though, I kind of like the way star wars 5E explains it. Good/evil become simply Light = selfless, putting the needs of others above your own. Dark = selfish, putting your needs above others. Where as Chatoic = the ends justify the means and Lawful = the means are as important as the ends.
What about the Dresden Files? They're not D&D so the fact that, for example, the fae are incapable of acting against their own nature isn't relevant to this discussion, nor is the fact that it's nearly impossible to permanently enchant a magic item in that setting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
No, most settings have magic and planar judges that interact with creatures behavior. It's only ever a dilemma when players misunderstand an alignment or don't want to play in character, which you can simply ignore. The players don't need listed alignments, react to their characters by deeds and history, no matter what they wrote.
What about the Dresden Files? They're not D&D so the fact that, for example, the fae are incapable of acting against their own nature isn't relevant to this discussion, nor is the fact that it's nearly impossible to permanently enchant a magic item in that setting.
I was referring primarily to the swords which are arguably good aligned. But there are others.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I was referring primarily to the swords which are arguably good aligned. But there are others.
The swords were created with a purpose. In that particular case the purpose appears to be 'good', but there's no reason an item's purpose needs to have anything to do with alignment.
OK fine, examples from the rules in which alignment matters:
None of which would actually be less functional if you deleted any explicit reference to alignment from the items. Do you really need to note "by the way, using this item makes you evil" when to use the item properly you're required to eat babies or something? The claim is not "evil doesn't exist", it's that "assigning an alignment to every creature is inappropriate for broad classes of creature and not terribly useful on individuals". Show, don't tell. You should describe the villainous deeds of your villains, not just say "yeah, he's evil, just take my word for it".
I loved the system in 2nd edition, butas it now stands, doing away with it, altogether, would be the best choice. Newer players don't like the restrictions it imposesand WoTc has downplayed to downright gutted the importance of it anyway compared to past editions.
That’s because they don’t understand how it’s sposta work. They think it’s something they have to adhere to instead of something malleabile that’s sposta reflect their actions. I refer you to my previous post:
I’m thinking maybe they should.It’s very restrictive and forces your PCs into a black and white morality mold with no real shades of grey.Maybe replace it with like a Character Nature and Demeanor system like in White Wolf’s World of Darkness games.
If I may, I would like to offer a counterpoint to your premise.
Alignment shouldn’t dictate a PC’s actions, rather the inverse. A PC’s actions dictate their alignment. A player is free to play their character however they like regardless of whatever is listed in the alignment box on their character sheet, and shouldn’t feel restricted. If the alignment box lists L/G, and the player wants their character to beat up shopkeepers and steal their wares then they are free to do so. Their alignment would simply shift over time towards C/E. If they only beat up shopkeepers who cheat their customers and then give their stolen goods to the shopkeepers victims, their alignment would instead shift over time towards C/G instead. If they were to instead get the laws of the land changed to where it is legal to beat up evil shopkeepers and redistribute their I’ll-gotten wealth to their victims, then their alignment would remain L/G. You see, alignment should be mutable, and adjust to fit whatever actions the PC chooses to take, not restrict PC actions. And alignments can shift both ways, forth and back again, depending on what the PC does.
In truth, all alignment truly does is provide a codified representation of a PC’s moral code. A PC’s moral code is set by their player. If the moral code changes, the representative of that code, the PC’s alignment, should simply shift to match. Alignment in no way restricts a PC, it reflects them.
I guess I generally agree with this, but then it makes me wonder, what’s the point?
So we’ve hung a label on a character’s behavior. What does that mean? What does anyone do with the information? Outside of a few alignment-restricted magic items, what’s the value of the exercise?
So we’ve hung a label on a character’s behavior. What does that mean? What does anyone do with the information? Outside of a few alignment-restricted magic items, what’s the value of the exercise?
Better than what it did in 3.5e and below, where you have the worldbuilding question of "why don't the authorities just go through town casting detect evil and banish, imprison, or execute anyone it detects" and you can't do a mystery plot without first making all your bad guys immune to detect alignments.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That’s because they don’t understand how it’s sposta work. They think it’s something they have to adhere to instead of something malleabile that’s sposta reflect their actions. I refer you to my previous post:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Alignment is one of the more problematic aspects of the game. There are plenty of players who have a very, shall we say, limited view of each alignment, and get frustrated (and sometimes even angry) if another player says “I am of this alignment” but does not adhere to the first player’s inflexible view. I have seen one party torn apart because the two “I must play Neutral Good (like I always do - in the most boring and intolerant way possible)” folks just could not handle the other, more flexible interpretations of “good” within their party.
Alignment often causes more trouble than it is worth… and I absolutely think it should stay.
I play with a lot of new players - every campaign I DM usually has one or more people who heard about D&D from one of the core members of my playgroup and wanted to give D&D a shot. Alignment - as defined by them, not by the most strict possible - helps the new roleplayers get into, understand, and be consistent in playing their characters by giving them a general framework of how they might act.
Like most things in D&D, it is useful as a tool and as a guideline… and only becomes a problem if you treat it as an absolute.
What the Only Four Alignments the DM Will Let You Pick Say About You:
LG: “I’m a puffed-up pompous jackass with delusions of heroism and no clue whatsoever how adventuring works, and I’m going to make it your problem until you assassinate my character in his sleep And you’d better believe I’m gonna throw a tantrum about that when it happens.”
LN: “I’m an impossible anal-retentive rules lawyer and so is my character; ‘um, actually’ is my catchphrase, and I cannot make a decision on which shoe to put on first without consulting my charts and notes for at least twenty minutes. Spontaneity is the greatest sin I can think of, and I’m going to make that your problem.”
CG: “I’ve watched enough anime to know what Shounen Protagonist means and that’s what I’m aiming to be. Rules are for chumps, teamwork is for losers, NPCs are background fodder who’re there specifically to build towns I can look awesome while wrecking. I’m here for Badass Anime Moments and if I don’t get them, I’m going to make it your problem.”
NG: “I’m trying my best to ignore the alignment system and make the decisions a sane and reasonable person would make in this insane and unreasonable world. My tablemates continually harass me about being a fun-hating killjoy and call me Table Mom/Dad and if they don’t stop I’m going to make it their problem.”
Bonus! What Trying to Pick ‘CN’ Says About You: “I have no intention whatsoever of playing D&D; my objective is to troll everyone else at the table for as long as I can before they get fed up with me and throw me out of the game. I think the whole idea of tabletop roleplaying is stupid and I’m gonna make that your problem.”
Please do not contact or message me.
The discontinuity is not new to 5e. The core problem is that a number of the outer planes were created concept first and then later hammered into the 'great wheel' framework.
😂😂😂😂
Ah so you're the one that resurrected this monster.
I think alignment if it is considered a necessity in a game would be mutable. How a PC acts is what determines his or her alignment rather than having the PCs actions restricted to what their alignment says.
In regards to beings that are not PCs, I still feel alignment is important. Not every orc can or should be evil but there are beings out there that are and SHOULD be evil in every sense of the word. Maybe I'm just being backward and old school but nobody anywhere is going to convince me that Demogorgon is anything but evil. No, he's not misunderstood, he isn't having a bad day, he isn't suffering from mental illness, he is evil.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Oh and magic items.
Have none of your read the Dresden Files?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Ah this thread's back now?
Alignment in 5E doesn't really even feel like a 'system' to me honestly. It doesn't really affect systems anymore. Spells like protection from good and evil are based on creature type. Paladins don't have to be lawful good, in fact you have subclasses like conquest which can easily lean evil or ancients which is very neutral good leaning. It only really feels relevant when looking at 'great wheel' planes and their denizens specifically, and I"m not really that big of a fan of 'a plane for every alignment' anyway.
I think the ideals, bonds and flaws system is more useful for helping people get into characters than alignment too. They can help a new player define their character in a way that isn't as limiting or ambiguous as the 3 by 3 grid can feel. For monsters, a few sentences describing their typical motivations/behavior is more useful to me than alignment. Goblins and succubi have different behaviors, goals and methods of operating but are both neutral evil for example.
If I had to use a 3 by 3 grid though, I kind of like the way star wars 5E explains it. Good/evil become simply Light = selfless, putting the needs of others above your own. Dark = selfish, putting your needs above others. Where as Chatoic = the ends justify the means and Lawful = the means are as important as the ends.
I totally agree with your first paragraph.
What about the Dresden Files? They're not D&D so the fact that, for example, the fae are incapable of acting against their own nature isn't relevant to this discussion, nor is the fact that it's nearly impossible to permanently enchant a magic item in that setting.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
No, most settings have magic and planar judges that interact with creatures behavior. It's only ever a dilemma when players misunderstand an alignment or don't want to play in character, which you can simply ignore. The players don't need listed alignments, react to their characters by deeds and history, no matter what they wrote.
I was referring primarily to the swords which are arguably good aligned. But there are others.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The swords were created with a purpose. In that particular case the purpose appears to be 'good', but there's no reason an item's purpose needs to have anything to do with alignment.
"Hello! Would you like to destroy some EVIL today?"
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
OK fine, examples from the rules in which alignment matters:
Book of Exalted Deeds
Book of Vile Darkness
Dawnbringer
Fane-Eater
Holy Symbol of Ravenkind
Icon of Ravenloft
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Two of those are from Ravenloft, which is a special case.
None of which would actually be less functional if you deleted any explicit reference to alignment from the items. Do you really need to note "by the way, using this item makes you evil" when to use the item properly you're required to eat babies or something? The claim is not "evil doesn't exist", it's that "assigning an alignment to every creature is inappropriate for broad classes of creature and not terribly useful on individuals". Show, don't tell. You should describe the villainous deeds of your villains, not just say "yeah, he's evil, just take my word for it".
I guess I generally agree with this, but then it makes me wonder, what’s the point?
So we’ve hung a label on a character’s behavior. What does that mean? What does anyone do with the information? Outside of a few alignment-restricted magic items, what’s the value of the exercise?
Better than what it did in 3.5e and below, where you have the worldbuilding question of "why don't the authorities just go through town casting detect evil and banish, imprison, or execute anyone it detects" and you can't do a mystery plot without first making all your bad guys immune to detect alignments.