Because if you've established a consistent pattern about how your character has acted in the past. Then they are more likely to act in a similar manner in the future.
Which is to say "Alignment should dictate how your character acts, and if you break your alignment the DM should punish you for it"
There's simply no reason for this archaic system anymore save for nostalgia and tradition. Either you're a good enough player not to need it, or there's so many better ways to help focus initial character exploration. Here - let me give you one.
I don't particularly like filling out Quirks/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws right away before I've ever played a character. I prefer to give it a little time, perhaps three to five sessions, to see where this person I've invented actually wants to go before locking those things down. But what I can do is choose three words that I want to try and make into cornerstones of this emerging personality. Three descriptors that I want to keep in mind for this person when seeing where they go - two positive ones, and one negative one.
Let's say I'm playing Ragnorf Manbeard, dwarven clanholder and a fighter of (future) renown. I could decide his two positive words are Stalwart and Generous. Ragnorf is a courageous man who gives no ground and will always stand in protection of his allies, and he's unafraid to share his wealth and strength with those who need them. His negative word, though, is Prideful. Ragnorf's easy to offend, he takes his clan's honor more seriously than he should, and his generosity sometimes comes with a sting.
The cool thing is the other players at the table don't have to agree with what your words mean. They don't even have to know them, and probably shouldn't. Even the DM doesn't need to know. Your three words are for you, they're a lighthouse you're using to orient your way around this new person until you know them better. Put them at the top of your sheet, or somewhere else easy to remember and where you'll constantly see them while playing. A good way to do this on DDB where you can't necessarily write them across the top of the sheet with a marker (or at least you shouldn't, your poor monitor q_q) is to put them in front of your character's gender in the "Gender" field of Description. That way it shows up right under your character's name on the sheet, like so:
That way your words stay as private as your character sheet does. And if that's not viable for you? Sticky notes. Whatever it takes to keep your three chosen cornerstone words in front of you until you feel like you've got a better grip on your character. Or however long you want them there.
Some people like to keep their character's motivation there, instead. "Seek Glory", or "Avenge the Fallen", or "Accrue Wealth", or whatever else the character's core reason for adventuring is. They find that an easier way to anchor their characterization than personality traits or Moral Absolutist Cartesian Alignment, and it gives them the flexibility to let their character's persona develop however it may as they play. The anchor is what they want, on a fundamental level, and that informs what they do.
All of which is going to do better for you than picking one of nine Pregenerated Galactic Standardized Inflexible Uncaring Permanent and Unchangeable Forever Alignment Boxes And Their Corresponding Completely and Utterly Inflexible and Immutable Personality to which your character must at all times conform or cease to exist as a person because the moment you break alignment the DM will snatch up your sheet and feed it to the beaver family he keeps in his back yard specifically so he can feed them the character sheets of those arrogant players who dare to not conform to their prewritten alignment in his game.
Because if you've established a consistent pattern about how your character has acted in the past. Then they are more likely to act that way in the future.
I can do that without alignment, though. In fact, alignment (specifically the part where I need to guess at how "evil" or "lawful" or whatever some behavior is) would just slow that process down, and make it inherently less consistent --- because it's less precise than just describing my character in normal terms.
But alignment is two words. A description is 2+ paragraphs. You can give that same creature you gave a description, an alignment as well in five seconds.
Also, alignment could help you create the description.
If you're saying that tracking alignment when it changes would slow the process down, then tracking the description would as well. Because a creatures general behavior can change, and then you'll have to change the description (since it describes their general behavior) just as much as you will have to track alignment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 & explainHERE.
Because if you've established a consistent pattern about how your character has acted in the past. Then they are more likely to act that way in the future.
I can do that without alignment, though. In fact, alignment (specifically the part where I need to guess at how "evil" or "lawful" or whatever some behavior is) would just slow that process down, and make it inherently less consistent --- because it's less precise than just describing my character in normal terms.
Think of alignment as like an abbreviation or a set of keywords that can be used as a set of roughly codified two-word descriptions. That’s all it is.
Because if you've established a consistent pattern about how your character has acted in the past. Then they are more likely to act in a similar manner in the future.
Which is to say "Alignment should dictate how your character acts, and if you break your alignment the DM should punish you for it"
*Ahem* (whispers) “Your hyperbole is showing again.”
Because if you've established a consistent pattern about how your character has acted in the past. Then they are more likely to act in a similar manner in the future.
Which is to say "Alignment should dictate how your character acts, and if you break your alignment the DM should punish you for it"
The only punishment the DM can really give is to force you to change your alignment to something more accurate?
But I don't think it should be viewed as a punishment, it should be be viewed as a (perhaps overly) formal way of recognising that something about your character as changed. Maybe they're no longer such an upstanding citizen, or maybe they're more of one than they were before?
In and of itself alignment doesn't actually do anything mechanically except for a rare few exceptions (a few magical items, a few spells etc.), so you shouldn't worry about it changing unless it's a change you realise you don't want for the character, though even that can be fun as they seek to redeem themselves, find someone who can perform ceremony etc.
I don't particularly like filling out Quirks/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws right away before I've ever played a character. I prefer to give it a little time, perhaps three to five sessions, to see where this person I've invented actually wants to go before locking those things down. But what I can do is choose three words that I want to try and make into cornerstones of this emerging personality. Three descriptors that I want to keep in mind for this person when seeing where they go - two positive ones, and one negative one.
I'm actually the opposite; I like filling out ideals/bonds/etc. early on as it's part of how I build my character (or rather finalise them ready for the first session). A lot of the backgrounds are really good at giving you a decent mix of suggestions, and I love these because often I'll go through the list and think "this doesn't feel right" or "yum yum yum, yes I'll all five of these delicious flaws!".
Just as with alignment, bonds/flaws etc. can be used to inform your character, but they can also be used to reflect how they've changed; if your bond is tied to an NPC that you later resolve something with during the campaign then it absolutely should change. Personality traits and flaws may be things you character doesn't like about themselves, or comes to realise are things they need to work on, and wants to change, or they might just be something that doesn't feel right when you're actually playing them.
For example, I once played a character who originally had a trait or flaw of liking to keep secrets, but when I actually came to roleplay as them I went way more earnest and unfiltered, so ended up actively spilling secrets to everyone they met, so I dropped that trait/flaw and swapped it for the opposite.
To be clear, I'm not trying to say prefilling these is the correct way to do it; a couple of my group's regular players don't feel in any of this stuff, and the DM usually just gives them an alignment if it ever matters (someone uses detect evil and good or whatever). Just for my personal preference I like to fill these things out, then change them if necessary if anything feels wrong later on, I guess I just like to have something that helps me be the character initially until I get a feel for it.
I have a character for an upcoming campaign who's currently set to be chaotic evil, with my thought process being that he's totally without conscience, and on his own he has always just done whatever wanted to or had to, without worrying about right and wrong. But in a party that doesn't mean I'll be derailing everything or killing every NPC I meet, it's really just a free license to go ballistic if someone rubs him the wrong way, but will probably tend towards a different alignment over time (unless the party actively encourages him to be chaotic evil, I guess we'll see).
I really like the idea of putting characteristic keywords on the sheet for all to see; gives me some interesting ideas for characters that have different inner and outer personalities (or even a secret identity…). 😄
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Because if you've established a consistent pattern about how your character has acted in the past. Then they are more likely to act that way in the future.
I can do that without alignment, though. In fact, alignment (specifically the part where I need to guess at how "evil" or "lawful" or whatever some behavior is) would just slow that process down, and make it inherently less consistent --- because it's less precise than just describing my character in normal terms.
But alignment is two words. A description is 2+ paragraphs. You can give that same creature you gave a description, an alignment as well in five seconds.
If I want to keep it to just words, it's much much easier to use whatever words fit ("normal terms") than to try to shoehorn in a third party concept of "law vs chaos" or whatever.
Alignment makes all this harder.
Also, alignment could help you create the description.
For me, it would hurt, not help. Because first I'd have to somehow encode complex behavior within a primitive 2D moralistic system to come up with an alignment, then re-interpret that to something more original and complex to write the description. The alignment is nothing but loss of fidelity.
If you're saying that tracking alignment when it changes would slow the process down, then tracking the description would as well. Because a creatures general behavior can change, and then you'll have to change the description (since it describes their general behavior) just as much as you will have to track alignment.
Yes, indeed. And changing the description would be much easier, much more accurate, and much more precise than involving alignment.
The only case where alignment makes sense is when there is a cosmic set of ideals to align to --- the thing that doesn't actually exist in 5e and that people in this thread keep saying doesn't prescribe anything / never prescribed anything. As I think that would be bad worldbuilding, I also have no use for alignment.
Because if you've established a consistent pattern about how your character has acted in the past. Then they are more likely to act in a similar manner in the future.
Which is to say "Alignment should dictate how your character acts, and if you break your alignment the DM should punish you for it"...
All of which is going to do better for you than picking one of nine Pregenerated Galactic Standardized Inflexible Uncaring Permanent and Unchangeable Forever Alignment Boxes And Their Corresponding Completely and Utterly Inflexible and Immutable Personality to which your character must at all times conform or cease to exist as a person because the moment you break alignment the DM will snatch up your sheet and feed it to the beaver family he keeps in his back yard specifically so he can feed them the character sheets of those arrogant players who dare to not conform to their prewritten alignment in his game.
No one here ever said that your alignment must remain the same forever and you can't change it at all. Again, people change, and so their alignment will as well.
If your DM plays by saying that you can never change you alignment, and that you cannot do anything that on an alternate universe, could look like it doesn't make sense with your alignment - then that's the DM taking a tool and turning it into an iron cage while saying, "Here, I love finding way's to make useful tools a torture device for my players."
It's not the alignment systems fault that one DM doesn't understand it and uses it terribly. It's the fault of the one DM who used it in such a way.
Because if you've established a consistent pattern about how your character has acted in the past. Then they are more likely to act in a similar manner in the future.
There's simply no reason for this archaic system anymore save for nostalgia and tradition. Either you're a good enough player not to need it, or there's so many better ways to help focus initial character exploration. Here - let me give you one.
To say that alignment is only for new players doesn't make sense. If I find it is the best way for me to get a sense of my character, then I'm going to use it. Does that mean that I'm inexperienced, or someone who is not "a good enough player not to need it?" No. It simply means that I find the alignment system helpful, and decide to make use of it.
Because if you've established a consistent pattern about how your character has acted in the past. Then they are more likely to act in a similar manner in the future.
there's so many better ways to help focus initial character exploration. Here - let me give you one.
But what I can do is choose three words that I want to try and make into cornerstones of this emerging personality. Three descriptors that I want to keep in mind for this person when seeing where they go - two positive ones, and one negative one.
Let's say I'm playing Ragnorf Manbeard, dwarven clanholder and a fighter of (future) renown. I could decide his two positive words are Stalwart and Generous. Ragnorf is a courageous man who gives no ground and will always stand in protection of his allies, and he's unafraid to share his wealth and strength with those who need them. His negative word, though, is Prideful. Ragnorf's easy to offend, he takes his clan's honor more seriously than he should, and his generosity sometimes comes with a sting.
The cool thing is the other players at the table don't have to agree with what your words mean. They don't even have to know them, and probably shouldn't. Even the DM doesn't need to know. Your three words are for you, they're a lighthouse you're using to orient your way around this new person until you know them better. Put them at the top of your sheet, or somewhere else easy to remember and where you'll constantly see them while playing. A good way to do this on DDB where you can't necessarily write them across the top of the sheet with a marker (or at least you shouldn't, your poor monitor q_q) is to put them in front of your character's gender in the "Gender" field of Description. That way it shows up right under your character's name on the sheet, like so:
That way your words stay as private as your character sheet does. And if that's not viable for you? Sticky notes. Whatever it takes to keep your three chosen cornerstone words in front of you until you feel like you've got a better grip on your character. Or however long you want them there.
Some people like to keep their character's motivation there, instead. "Seek Glory", or "Avenge the Fallen", or "Accrue Wealth", or whatever else the character's core reason for adventuring is. They find that an easier way to anchor their characterization than personality traits or Moral Absolutist Cartesian Alignment, and it gives them the flexibility to let their character's persona develop however it may as they play. The anchor is what they want, on a fundamental level, and that informs what they do.
All of which is going to do better for you than picking one of nine Pregenerated Galactic Standardized Inflexible Uncaring Permanent and Unchangeable Forever Alignment Boxes And Their Corresponding Completely and Utterly Inflexible and Immutable Personality to which your character must at all times conform or cease to exist as a person because the moment you break alignment the DM will snatch up your sheet and feed it to the beaver family he keeps in his back yard specifically so he can feed them the character sheets of those arrogant players who dare to not conform to their prewritten alignment in his game.
But using that system has its flaws too. It's not exactly very in depth, and it's hard to make a fictional character feel like a real, 3d person, with just a few words.
(That's why alignment is not used on its own but in conjunction with other features, because if you use it on its own, it's to little to successfully predict or help determine how one creature will act in a given situation.)
If you find this helpful, sure, go ahead and use it instead of alignment. No one's stopping you. But alignment always helps me loads, and until someone can create a system that I think works better than it + personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws, then I'm gonna keep using it.
Because if you've established a consistent pattern about how your character has acted in the past. Then they are more likely to act in a similar manner in the future.
I don't particularly like filling out Quirks/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws right away before I've ever played a character. I prefer to give it a little time, perhaps three to five sessions, to see where this person I've invented actually wants to go before locking those things down.
Are we debating this now? I think that the personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws system is incredible. It, like the system you just created, helps establish goals & and character weaknesses, while making your character feel real and interesting.
For characters or NPC's who I view as incredibly important, you can give a description, alignment, and the personality traits, bonds, etc., and though this takes a lot of work, anyone reading it will have an excellent idea of how to play them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 & explainHERE.
For characters or NPC's who I view as incredibly important, you can give a description, alignment, and the personality traits, bonds, etc., and though this takes a lot of work, anyone reading it will have an excellent idea of how to play them.
Actually I'd say the benefit of alignment, ideals, traits, bonds, flaws is that it can take minutes to fill out a character if you have some idea of what they're like; most backgrounds have a good range of options so if you have the inkling of an idea for the character you can usually pick things that feel or sound right, then customise later. It's far from a perfect system, but you can very quickly build a character from something you can play (mechanically) to something you can roleplay.
That's why I like filling these things out as I often have very loose ideas of what I want at first, then I can flesh it all out later, but it's still good to have some idea going in about what a character is like at the most basic level, as it can help you have a different experience with every character.
My main problem with alignment is that the rules could really do with a simple quiz to help you pick the right one. This is why I like to think of it as selfless (good) vs. selfish (evil) and freedom (chaotic) vs. law/rules-abiding (lawful) as this is pretty easy. And it really only needs to be two questions; "Would you harm another to get what you want?" (yes = evil, never = good, it depends = neutral), and "Do you value freedom or order?" (freedom = chaotic, order = lawful, balance = neutral). Done!
There's also always the option to just pick a neutral alignment (or leave it blank), then adjust it later as you play the game; alignment affects so little mechanically that chances are it won't even come up in the first few sessions, and when it does you'll have an entire group to help you decide based upon what your character has actually done, how you've played them etc.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
So, let me get this straight. The reason people don't like alignment is that it restricts them and their players/DMs use it in a way that forces them down a set path. I can understand that. Sometimes the people I play with get very bad ideas or impose bad rulings on me, and sometimes I don't like how the system restricts me.
I like using alignment because it gives me cool RPG vibes, and helps me get a better connection to the character than a whole paragraph of backstory would(though I still use an entire page of backstory oftentimes). I know it's not like that for other people, and I would suggest if alignment is that much of a downside to your group, don't use it. It is so easy is D&D(unless you're in AL) to just change the things you don't like. If your party thinks that since it's in the books you have to use it, then talk to them about it and explain that D&D isn't set rules. You'd have to talk to them even if alignment didn't exist, because then you would have to discuss all of the character traits and stuff that you're using to replace alignment. It's harder to add things back in once they're gone, and that's why I don't want it entirely removed. I realize it's probably not going to be removed, but I hope that sharing my point of view can help others.
Also, by the way, I view alignment as a description for your character, not something your character has to be. As a DM, I would make sure my players understood that I might change their alignments based on their actions. Sacrifice a person to a fiend? Sorry, even if you have good intentions, your alignment is getting bumped one towards evil. And I don't even force my players to use alignment, since I removed all of the alignment restrictions from weapons. Alignment is still a part of the system I run D&D in, but it's not something I force my players into.
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Countershere(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
Think of alignment as like an abbreviation or a set of keywords that can be used as a set of roughly codified two-word descriptions. That’s all it is.
Think of alignment as an artificially limited set of keywords. Giving monsters a small number of keywords to describe their actions isn't a terrible shorthand, but is there some reason to limit yourself to a vocabulary of five words? Why shouldn't I give my monsters an alignment of 'Hungry'?
Think of alignment as like an abbreviation or a set of keywords that can be used as a set of roughly codified two-word descriptions. That’s all it is.
Think of alignment as an artificially limited set of keywords. Giving monsters a small number of keywords to describe their actions isn't a terrible shorthand, but is there some reason to limit yourself to a vocabulary of five words? Why shouldn't I give my monsters an alignment of 'Hungry'?
Hungry is more of a short term goal than the type of morality the creature might employ in attaining it.
A hungry beast will eat whatever it can, a hungry adult black dragon however might take particular delight in eating someone from a nearby town simply because it is able to, a hungry lawful good cleric is probably only going to resort to cannibalism if their only other choice is to die (and may choose to die).
Alignment is more like a guideline for how the creature behaves generally; every creature can have other goals that either fit within that alignment, or are exceptions to it. Alignment doesn't limit you unless you choose for it to do so.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Think of alignment as like an abbreviation or a set of keywords that can be used as a set of roughly codified two-word descriptions. That’s all it is.
Think of alignment as an artificially limited set of keywords. Giving monsters a small number of keywords to describe their actions isn't a terrible shorthand, but is there some reason to limit yourself to a vocabulary of five words? Why shouldn't I give my monsters an alignment of 'Hungry'?
“Hungry” is a temporary physical feeling, not a description of morality based on a long-term trend of actions.
“Hungry” is a temporary physical feeling, not a description of morality based on a long-term trend of actions.
There are a fair number of monsters that are pretty much roving eating machines, such as a purple worm.
Which is why they’re Unaligned.
Which is more informative: calling a creature Unaligned, or calling a creature Hungry?
Unaligned. That tells me it is neither Good, Evil or Neutral, nor Chaotic, Lawful or Neutral. Hungry just tells me what it is right now until it gets a snickers. Unaligned tells me what it does when it’s hungry and why it does other things as well. Besides, as the DM I determine whether or not it’s hungry, and when.
I tend to think of alignment as your base moral direction. Your fallback no matter what you temporarily do.
Either pick your background and drives and then pick your alignment to match that or the other way around. Pick alignment and then write up your background. Either way they should line up and reflect each other.
And if you do not like alignment for any reason then fine. You do not have to use it in anyway. But just realize that other people do.
As an avid player it might just come up in your future playing if you join another group that does use it. I have personally found its extremely educational if you join new groups sometimes and learn their styles.
Personally in this thread not one person has given a game or rules reason to not use alignments other than 'I don't like them. They are to restraining. I don't want to be forced to do something.'
Personally in this thread not one person has given a game or rules reason to not use alignments other than 'I don't like them. They are to restraining. I don't want to be forced to do something.'
My reason was that it's poorly explained, which is not helped by the community, and thus it presents a barrier to entry and should go away. Fairly sure that's a bit more than just, "I don't like it."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Personally in this thread not one person has given a game or rules reason to not use alignments other than 'I don't like them. They are to restraining. I don't want to be forced to do something.'
My reason was that it's poorly explained, which is not helped by the community, and thus it presents a barrier to entry and should go away. Fairly sure that's a bit more than just, "I don't like it."
To be frank, you're the only one who has discussed that aspect. Everyone else has basically said "I don't like it, so I don't use it, therefore it shouldn't be there".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Personally in this thread not one person has given a game or rules reason to not use alignments other than 'I don't like them. They are to restraining. I don't want to be forced to do something.'
My reason was that it's poorly explained, which is not helped by the community, and thus it presents a barrier to entry and should go away. Fairly sure that's a bit more than just, "I don't like it."
Poorly explained is a legitimate issue (the descriptions in the PHB are not very good), but ditching alignment altogether isn't the obvious solution to that; the obvious solution is to explain it better, or encourage players to think about it in a different way, e.g- tell them how to arrive at a simple answer, so they have somewhere to start from.
Like I said above it really boils down to two simple questions, each of which has three possible answers (yes, no or maybe). Those questions are basically; "would you harm another to get what you want" (yes = evil, no = good, maybe = neutral) and "do you value freedom at the expensive of order" (yes = chaotic, no = lawful, maybe = neutral).
Answer those two questions and you've got your basic alignment. They could then have descriptions like they have now placed after, so there are some concrete examples of what shares your current alignment, (druids in the neutrals, devils and demons in the evils, dragons all over the place etc.).
That's not to say that morality is as simple as that in D&D; a starting alignment is just the most basic prompt/guide. You still have to figure out what your character stands for within it, or in spite of it, which is something that evolves as you play them, and can lead to a change alignment when it no longer feels like the right fit.
Some of the languages in the current rules does imply that alignment, bonds, flaws etc. aren't mandatory, but that could definitely be reinforced, with notes on doing it retroactively, or just to reinforce that it's intended as a springboard to help you get started, not a constraint on how you're allowed to play as some people seem to think it is.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Which is to say "Alignment should dictate how your character acts, and if you break your alignment the DM should punish you for it"
There's simply no reason for this archaic system anymore save for nostalgia and tradition. Either you're a good enough player not to need it, or there's so many better ways to help focus initial character exploration. Here - let me give you one.
I don't particularly like filling out Quirks/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws right away before I've ever played a character. I prefer to give it a little time, perhaps three to five sessions, to see where this person I've invented actually wants to go before locking those things down. But what I can do is choose three words that I want to try and make into cornerstones of this emerging personality. Three descriptors that I want to keep in mind for this person when seeing where they go - two positive ones, and one negative one.
Let's say I'm playing Ragnorf Manbeard, dwarven clanholder and a fighter of (future) renown. I could decide his two positive words are Stalwart and Generous. Ragnorf is a courageous man who gives no ground and will always stand in protection of his allies, and he's unafraid to share his wealth and strength with those who need them. His negative word, though, is Prideful. Ragnorf's easy to offend, he takes his clan's honor more seriously than he should, and his generosity sometimes comes with a sting.
The cool thing is the other players at the table don't have to agree with what your words mean. They don't even have to know them, and probably shouldn't. Even the DM doesn't need to know. Your three words are for you, they're a lighthouse you're using to orient your way around this new person until you know them better. Put them at the top of your sheet, or somewhere else easy to remember and where you'll constantly see them while playing. A good way to do this on DDB where you can't necessarily write them across the top of the sheet with a marker (or at least you shouldn't, your poor monitor q_q) is to put them in front of your character's gender in the "Gender" field of Description. That way it shows up right under your character's name on the sheet, like so:
That way your words stay as private as your character sheet does. And if that's not viable for you? Sticky notes. Whatever it takes to keep your three chosen cornerstone words in front of you until you feel like you've got a better grip on your character. Or however long you want them there.
Some people like to keep their character's motivation there, instead. "Seek Glory", or "Avenge the Fallen", or "Accrue Wealth", or whatever else the character's core reason for adventuring is. They find that an easier way to anchor their characterization than personality traits or Moral Absolutist Cartesian Alignment, and it gives them the flexibility to let their character's persona develop however it may as they play. The anchor is what they want, on a fundamental level, and that informs what they do.
All of which is going to do better for you than picking one of nine Pregenerated Galactic Standardized Inflexible Uncaring Permanent and Unchangeable Forever Alignment Boxes And Their Corresponding Completely and Utterly Inflexible and Immutable Personality to which your character must at all times conform or cease to exist as a person because the moment you break alignment the DM will snatch up your sheet and feed it to the beaver family he keeps in his back yard specifically so he can feed them the character sheets of those arrogant players who dare to not conform to their prewritten alignment in his game.
Please do not contact or message me.
But alignment is two words. A description is 2+ paragraphs. You can give that same creature you gave a description, an alignment as well in five seconds.
Also, alignment could help you create the description.
If you're saying that tracking alignment when it changes would slow the process down, then tracking the description would as well. Because a creatures general behavior can change, and then you'll have to change the description (since it describes their general behavior) just as much as you will have to track alignment.
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.Think of alignment as like an abbreviation or a set of keywords that can be used as a set of roughly codified two-word descriptions. That’s all it is.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
*Ahem* (whispers) “Your hyperbole is showing again.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The only punishment the DM can really give is to force you to change your alignment to something more accurate?
But I don't think it should be viewed as a punishment, it should be be viewed as a (perhaps overly) formal way of recognising that something about your character as changed. Maybe they're no longer such an upstanding citizen, or maybe they're more of one than they were before?
In and of itself alignment doesn't actually do anything mechanically except for a rare few exceptions (a few magical items, a few spells etc.), so you shouldn't worry about it changing unless it's a change you realise you don't want for the character, though even that can be fun as they seek to redeem themselves, find someone who can perform ceremony etc.
I'm actually the opposite; I like filling out ideals/bonds/etc. early on as it's part of how I build my character (or rather finalise them ready for the first session). A lot of the backgrounds are really good at giving you a decent mix of suggestions, and I love these because often I'll go through the list and think "this doesn't feel right" or "yum yum yum, yes I'll all five of these delicious flaws!".
Just as with alignment, bonds/flaws etc. can be used to inform your character, but they can also be used to reflect how they've changed; if your bond is tied to an NPC that you later resolve something with during the campaign then it absolutely should change. Personality traits and flaws may be things you character doesn't like about themselves, or comes to realise are things they need to work on, and wants to change, or they might just be something that doesn't feel right when you're actually playing them.
For example, I once played a character who originally had a trait or flaw of liking to keep secrets, but when I actually came to roleplay as them I went way more earnest and unfiltered, so ended up actively spilling secrets to everyone they met, so I dropped that trait/flaw and swapped it for the opposite.
To be clear, I'm not trying to say prefilling these is the correct way to do it; a couple of my group's regular players don't feel in any of this stuff, and the DM usually just gives them an alignment if it ever matters (someone uses detect evil and good or whatever). Just for my personal preference I like to fill these things out, then change them if necessary if anything feels wrong later on, I guess I just like to have something that helps me be the character initially until I get a feel for it.
I have a character for an upcoming campaign who's currently set to be chaotic evil, with my thought process being that he's totally without conscience, and on his own he has always just done whatever wanted to or had to, without worrying about right and wrong. But in a party that doesn't mean I'll be derailing everything or killing every NPC I meet, it's really just a free license to go ballistic if someone rubs him the wrong way, but will probably tend towards a different alignment over time (unless the party actively encourages him to be chaotic evil, I guess we'll see).
I really like the idea of putting characteristic keywords on the sheet for all to see; gives me some interesting ideas for characters that have different inner and outer personalities (or even a secret identity…). 😄
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Yes, indeed. And changing the description would be much easier, much more accurate, and much more precise than involving alignment.
The only case where alignment makes sense is when there is a cosmic set of ideals to align to --- the thing that doesn't actually exist in 5e and that people in this thread keep saying doesn't prescribe anything / never prescribed anything. As I think that would be bad worldbuilding, I also have no use for alignment.
No one here ever said that your alignment must remain the same forever and you can't change it at all. Again, people change, and so their alignment will as well.
If your DM plays by saying that you can never change you alignment, and that you cannot do anything that on an alternate universe, could look like it doesn't make sense with your alignment - then that's the DM taking a tool and turning it into an iron cage while saying, "Here, I love finding way's to make useful tools a torture device for my players."
It's not the alignment systems fault that one DM doesn't understand it and uses it terribly. It's the fault of the one DM who used it in such a way.
To say that alignment is only for new players doesn't make sense. If I find it is the best way for me to get a sense of my character, then I'm going to use it. Does that mean that I'm inexperienced, or someone who is not "a good enough player not to need it?" No. It simply means that I find the alignment system helpful, and decide to make use of it.
But using that system has its flaws too. It's not exactly very in depth, and it's hard to make a fictional character feel like a real, 3d person, with just a few words.
(That's why alignment is not used on its own but in conjunction with other features, because if you use it on its own, it's to little to successfully predict or help determine how one creature will act in a given situation.)
If you find this helpful, sure, go ahead and use it instead of alignment. No one's stopping you. But alignment always helps me loads, and until someone can create a system that I think works better than it + personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws, then I'm gonna keep using it.
Are we debating this now? I think that the personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws system is incredible. It, like the system you just created, helps establish goals & and character weaknesses, while making your character feel real and interesting.
For characters or NPC's who I view as incredibly important, you can give a description, alignment, and the personality traits, bonds, etc., and though this takes a lot of work, anyone reading it will have an excellent idea of how to play them.
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.Actually I'd say the benefit of alignment, ideals, traits, bonds, flaws is that it can take minutes to fill out a character if you have some idea of what they're like; most backgrounds have a good range of options so if you have the inkling of an idea for the character you can usually pick things that feel or sound right, then customise later. It's far from a perfect system, but you can very quickly build a character from something you can play (mechanically) to something you can roleplay.
That's why I like filling these things out as I often have very loose ideas of what I want at first, then I can flesh it all out later, but it's still good to have some idea going in about what a character is like at the most basic level, as it can help you have a different experience with every character.
My main problem with alignment is that the rules could really do with a simple quiz to help you pick the right one. This is why I like to think of it as selfless (good) vs. selfish (evil) and freedom (chaotic) vs. law/rules-abiding (lawful) as this is pretty easy. And it really only needs to be two questions; "Would you harm another to get what you want?" (yes = evil, never = good, it depends = neutral), and "Do you value freedom or order?" (freedom = chaotic, order = lawful, balance = neutral). Done!
There's also always the option to just pick a neutral alignment (or leave it blank), then adjust it later as you play the game; alignment affects so little mechanically that chances are it won't even come up in the first few sessions, and when it does you'll have an entire group to help you decide based upon what your character has actually done, how you've played them etc.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
So, let me get this straight. The reason people don't like alignment is that it restricts them and their players/DMs use it in a way that forces them down a set path. I can understand that. Sometimes the people I play with get very bad ideas or impose bad rulings on me, and sometimes I don't like how the system restricts me.
I like using alignment because it gives me cool RPG vibes, and helps me get a better connection to the character than a whole paragraph of backstory would(though I still use an entire page of backstory oftentimes). I know it's not like that for other people, and I would suggest if alignment is that much of a downside to your group, don't use it. It is so easy is D&D(unless you're in AL) to just change the things you don't like. If your party thinks that since it's in the books you have to use it, then talk to them about it and explain that D&D isn't set rules. You'd have to talk to them even if alignment didn't exist, because then you would have to discuss all of the character traits and stuff that you're using to replace alignment. It's harder to add things back in once they're gone, and that's why I don't want it entirely removed. I realize it's probably not going to be removed, but I hope that sharing my point of view can help others.
Also, by the way, I view alignment as a description for your character, not something your character has to be. As a DM, I would make sure my players understood that I might change their alignments based on their actions. Sacrifice a person to a fiend? Sorry, even if you have good intentions, your alignment is getting bumped one towards evil. And I don't even force my players to use alignment, since I removed all of the alignment restrictions from weapons. Alignment is still a part of the system I run D&D in, but it's not something I force my players into.
I hope you all have a great day!
Subclass Evaluations So Far:
Sorcerer
Warlock
My statblock. Fear me!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Counters here(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
Think of alignment as an artificially limited set of keywords. Giving monsters a small number of keywords to describe their actions isn't a terrible shorthand, but is there some reason to limit yourself to a vocabulary of five words? Why shouldn't I give my monsters an alignment of 'Hungry'?
Hungry is more of a short term goal than the type of morality the creature might employ in attaining it.
A hungry beast will eat whatever it can, a hungry adult black dragon however might take particular delight in eating someone from a nearby town simply because it is able to, a hungry lawful good cleric is probably only going to resort to cannibalism if their only other choice is to die (and may choose to die).
Alignment is more like a guideline for how the creature behaves generally; every creature can have other goals that either fit within that alignment, or are exceptions to it. Alignment doesn't limit you unless you choose for it to do so.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
“Hungry” is a temporary physical feeling, not a description of morality based on a long-term trend of actions.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There are a fair number of monsters that are pretty much roving eating machines, such as a purple worm.
Which is why they’re Unaligned.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Which is more informative: calling a creature Unaligned, or calling a creature Hungry?
Unaligned. That tells me it is neither Good, Evil or Neutral, nor Chaotic, Lawful or Neutral. Hungry just tells me what it is right now until it gets a snickers. Unaligned tells me what it does when it’s hungry and why it does other things as well. Besides, as the DM I determine whether or not it’s hungry, and when.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I tend to think of alignment as your base moral direction. Your fallback no matter what you temporarily do.
Either pick your background and drives and then pick your alignment to match that or the other way around. Pick alignment and then write up your background. Either way they should line up and reflect each other.
And if you do not like alignment for any reason then fine. You do not have to use it in anyway. But just realize that other people do.
As an avid player it might just come up in your future playing if you join another group that does use it. I have personally found its extremely educational if you join new groups sometimes and learn their styles.
Personally in this thread not one person has given a game or rules reason to not use alignments other than 'I don't like them. They are to restraining. I don't want to be forced to do something.'
My reason was that it's poorly explained, which is not helped by the community, and thus it presents a barrier to entry and should go away. Fairly sure that's a bit more than just, "I don't like it."
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
To be frank, you're the only one who has discussed that aspect. Everyone else has basically said "I don't like it, so I don't use it, therefore it shouldn't be there".
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Poorly explained is a legitimate issue (the descriptions in the PHB are not very good), but ditching alignment altogether isn't the obvious solution to that; the obvious solution is to explain it better, or encourage players to think about it in a different way, e.g- tell them how to arrive at a simple answer, so they have somewhere to start from.
Like I said above it really boils down to two simple questions, each of which has three possible answers (yes, no or maybe). Those questions are basically; "would you harm another to get what you want" (yes = evil, no = good, maybe = neutral) and "do you value freedom at the expensive of order" (yes = chaotic, no = lawful, maybe = neutral).
Answer those two questions and you've got your basic alignment. They could then have descriptions like they have now placed after, so there are some concrete examples of what shares your current alignment, (druids in the neutrals, devils and demons in the evils, dragons all over the place etc.).
That's not to say that morality is as simple as that in D&D; a starting alignment is just the most basic prompt/guide. You still have to figure out what your character stands for within it, or in spite of it, which is something that evolves as you play them, and can lead to a change alignment when it no longer feels like the right fit.
Some of the languages in the current rules does imply that alignment, bonds, flaws etc. aren't mandatory, but that could definitely be reinforced, with notes on doing it retroactively, or just to reinforce that it's intended as a springboard to help you get started, not a constraint on how you're allowed to play as some people seem to think it is.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.