I think it would be best if RAW is more clear on its position on alignment. While it is neglected for the most part, it still has a few mechanical effects tied to it for a few magic items, and it is talked about in the BR/SRD as if it is key to character background/creation. I do not like alignment and I think it should be buried in obscurity, but I do not think it is necessary to eliminate it completely either.
Instead of being part of the BR/SRD, I think it should be moved to the DMG as an optional rule like flanking, alternative rest mechanics, spell points, etc.; ideally, I want alignment to be even more buried and just put them in setting books as an optional mechanic like piety, since not every D&D setting cares about alignment.
... ideally, I want alignment to be even more buried and just put them in setting books as an optional mechanic like piety, since not every D&D setting cares about alignment.
Actually, this is a great idea. For settings like Forgotten Realms, good and evil are fundamental motivators. For others, like Dark Sun, not so much.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
Or just use it or not use it in each setting but leave it in the basic rules and improve the descriptions. And explain that is like ALL rules, its optional at any particular table according to the DM's ruling.
Demons aren't generally servitors of a god. Devils might be. But I do prefer the way prior editions classified them, where they really are the same class of being.
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.
They've had 40 years and 5 editions to try and explain it better. What's obvious to me is that they've already implemented a much better alternative In Personality, Flaws, Ideals, and Bonds. I think that system works so much better for a PC.
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).
Yeah no, I don't think you've really cleared that up very much at all. I could poke so many philosophical holes in this.
Look, I will give you that The Nine are ehhh .... kinda okay for NPC's, so I guess I wouldn't mind it sticking around for them, but not for PC's.
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!
They've had 40 years and 5 editions to try and explain it better. What's obvious to me is that they've already implemented a much better alternative In Personality, Flaws, Ideals, and Bonds. I think that system works so much better for a PC.
It works better because the traits themselves are specific examples; it should also really come first in the order since many backgrounds suggest alignments from their traits so it's weird for them to come second when your choice may determine your alignment for you.
Just because they've done it badly for a long time, doesn't mean it can't be better, or should be axed unnecessarily.
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).
Yeah no, I don't think you've really cleared that up very much at all. I could poke so many philosophical holes in this.
Philosophy has nothing to do with it, because we're supposedly talking about quickly establishing a starting alignment since people (including you) keep claiming it's somehow a barrier to entry; I'm showing why it really isn't. Ultimately all a new character needs is a starting point, as their alignment can and should change at any time when it no longer feels correct.
Your position on the grid is simply whatever seems to fit most of the time, but there is a lot of play within each position.
Being good doesn't mean you never harm others, it means you should have a reason to make exceptions, just as being evil doesn't mean that you must harm others, only that you don't really care if you do. Preferring freedom over order is what allows a character to simply do as they please, without worrying about the rules, or what others think; it lets an otherwise good character take extreme action if they believe they're doing the right thing (for the greater good or whatever).
Feel free to refine the questions if you like, but the point is that picking your starting alignment is only as complicated as you make it, so stop making it complicated; the questions are intended to give a quick and easy answer to solve all of the problems people here claim to want to solve. As I said in the other paragraphs you seem to have ignored, it's not the end of the issue, it's the start; if the player is unsure they should still look at examples of what officially belongs in each alignment (as they may reconsider, or realise another is a better match), but if the goal is to quickly get them a starting alignment, then this is a way to do it.
Once you've got a starting alignment, use it to inform but not control your actions, and change it when it makes sense to. The alignment is not intended to tell you everything about who the character is, it's just a simple guide to your position on that simplified moral grid in case it comes up. Who the character is, how they act etc. is informed by character building, but not bound by it. You can leave these sections blank and only deal with it if it comes up, and that's an entirely legitimate way to play if you're comfortable doing that.
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.
They've had 40 years and 5 editions to try and explain it better. What's obvious to me is that they've already implemented a much better alternative In Personality, Flaws, Ideals, and Bonds. I think that system works so much better for a PC.
It works better because the traits themselves are specific examples; it should also really come first in the order since many backgrounds suggest alignments from their traits so it's weird for them to come second when your choice may determine your alignment for you.
Just because they've done it badly for a long time, doesn't mean it can't be better, or should be axed unnecessarily.
That Personality, Flaws, Ideals, and Bonds (hence, PFIB) encapsulates everything you need from alignment and works better means that alignment itself is unnecessary and superfluous. Getting rid of unnecessary and superfluous systems just makes sense.
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).
Yeah no, I don't think you've really cleared that up very much at all. I could poke so many philosophical holes in this.
Philosophy has nothing to do with it, because we're supposedly talking about quickly establishing a starting alignment since people (including you) keep claiming it's somehow a barrier to entry; I'm showing why it really isn't. Ultimately all a new character needs is a starting point, as their alignment can and should change at any time when it no longer feels correct.
Your position on the grid is simply whatever seems to fit most of the time, but there is a lot of play within each position.
Being good doesn't mean you never harm others, it means you should have a reason to make exceptions, just as being evil doesn't mean that you must harm others, only that you don't really care if you do. Preferring freedom over order is what allows a character to simply do as they please, without worrying about the rules, or what others think; it lets an otherwise good character take extreme action if they believe they're doing the right thing (for the greater good or whatever).
Feel free to refine the questions if you like, but the point is that picking your starting alignment is only as complicated as you make it, so stop making it complicated; the questions are intended to give a quick and easy answer to solve all of the problems people here claim to want to solve. As I said in the other paragraphs you seem to have ignored, it's not the end of the issue, it's the start; if the player is unsure they should still look at examples of what officially belongs in each alignment (as they may reconsider, or realise another is a better match), but if the goal is to quickly get them a starting alignment, then this is a way to do it.
Once you've got a starting alignment, use it to inform but not control your actions, and change it when it makes sense to. The alignment is not intended to tell you everything about who the character is, it's just a simple guide to your position on that simplified moral grid in case it comes up. Who the character is, how they act etc. is informed by character building, but not bound by it. You can leave these sections blank and only deal with it if it comes up, and that's an entirely legitimate way to play if you're comfortable doing that.
Right, so what you've just described there is something that as a tool does nothing to guide how you play your character and as a descriptor is too broad to add anything actually interesting to a character. On top of that, in supplying more nuance to your initial, too broad, questions you've just contradicted yourself and lost your new player in confusion. All for a tool that doesn't actually add anything of value. Honestly you're making my point for me.
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!
That Personality, Flaws, Ideals, and Bonds (hence, PFIB) encapsulates everything you need from alignment and works better means that alignment itself is unnecessary and superfluous. Getting rid of unnecessary and superfluous systems just makes sense.
Except they don't; background traits may give suggestions as to what alignment they're intended to fit (or recommend) but that's not the same as filling the same role in the game as traits/bonds etc. are specific character detail, alignment is a basic morality, they're two entirely different things.
Right, so what you've just described there is something that as a tool does nothing to guide how you play your character and as a descriptor is too broad to add anything actually interesting to a character. On top of that, in supplying more nuance to your initial, too broad, questions you've just contradicted yourself and lost your new player in confusion. All for a tool that doesn't actually add anything of value. Honestly you're making my point for me.
I have described literally the opposite; I have told you how simple it can be to pick a starting alignment (counter to your claims it isn't) and I've described how it can inform how you play your character by expanding upon it. If you're going to quote me, please read what I actually said.
It strikes me that you've chosen your conclusion, and are working backwards from there, so this is going to get real pointless, real quick.
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.
Put it this way: even when I was brand new and assembling my very first D&D character - when I knew the least I would ever know about this system - alignment did not help me one little tiny stitch. I assigned the character CG because the rules demanded you give the character an alignment, but "Chaotic Good" never once, during those eight or nine months spent running through Lost Mine of Phandelver, informed my play. At not one single point did I pause and say "I don't know what to do here...what's my alignment? My alignment will tell me what I need to do!"
What helped my play in almost every session was knowing my character's goal/motivation, what 5e would call their "Ideal": he wanted to live up to his favorite heroes of story, the clever and guileful champion renegades and benevolent tricksters of his mentor's tales. That helped center me, helped me sort what he'd do, and informed his actions many a time. "Chaotic Good"? Those two words were utterly meaningless to him and his player both.
A personal anecdote certainly, but everybody keeps saying that alignment is absolutely essential for new players, who willl otherwise be completely lost and not have any clue whatsoever how to play a character. When I was a new player, alignment didn't help me figure out my character in the slightest. So, if it's impossible to figure out how to play a character without giving them an alignment to serve as a guiding post...how did I manage it?
Well no reason you agree with or would change your mind.
Do you at least agree it should be left in the game for others if they want it?
No. And I've explained why, in this thread and in many others.
Alignment retained in the game and shoved into every stat block contributes to the idea that every last single creature of any given kind/nature/people/species are completely identical. It encourages monocultures and dismissal of anything that doesn't align with its stated Kin's alignment. And no, no matter how much people protest otherwise, no matter how often people say "that's just somebody using it wrong!", it doesn't matter. If hundreds of thousands of people use it the "wrong" way, if it's used the "wrong" way so often that proponents of the tool have to constantly explain the "right" way, if the "wrong" way to use the tool is the intuitive first thing everybody thinks to do with it? Then it's not the fault of users - it's the fault of a badly designed tool. Caerwyn spoke to the dangers of what he called "Racial" alignment a few pages back, and even as a supporter of retaining alignment he called Racial Alignment out as a bad toxic idea whose time has more than expired.
I'm honestly fine with getting rid of alignment for large groups. But it can be extremely helpful when building individual NPC's.
Well no reason you agree with or would change your mind.
Do you at least agree it should be left in the game for others if they want it?
if you want to keep using alignment, if you want to keep perpetuating the idea that every single person has a specific, fixed, always-there moral-absolutist code they will not and cannot break? You do you. But I do not want it in my books anymore if I can help it, and I will support products that dispense with it more than I will support products that don't.
As we said, your alignment can be "broken" and changed, and in many cases, it should be. I don't really think that "hundreds of thousands of people" who run alignment use it as a code that your character must always adhere to no matter what, and punish you harshly if you break it.
Also, even if a few hundred thousand people play alignment in this absurd way (which I don't think is accurate), then that is a tiny amount of the world at large D&D players who do so, because about 50 million people play the game. If as many as 200,000 people play alignment like this, then that means that about 1 in 250 D&D player's play that way.
What about all those other people who play alignment and enjoy it? Do you want to get rid of alignment just because a few people use it in a bad way?
Put it this way: even when I was brand new and assembling my very first D&D character - when I knew the least I would ever know about this system - alignment did not help me one little tiny stitch. I assigned the character CG because the rules demanded you give the character an alignment, but "Chaotic Good" never once, during those eight or nine months spent running through Lost Mine of Phandelver, informed my play. At not one single point did I pause and say "I don't know what to do here...what's my alignment? My alignment will tell me what I need to do!"
What helped my play in almost every session was knowing my character's goal/motivation, what 5e would call their "Ideal": he wanted to live up to his favorite heroes of story, the clever and guileful champion renegades and benevolent tricksters of his mentor's tales. That helped center me, helped me sort what he'd do, and informed his actions many a time. "Chaotic Good"? Those two words were utterly meaningless to him and his player both.
A personal anecdote certainly, but everybody keeps saying that alignment is absolutely essential for new players, who willl otherwise be completely lost and not have any clue whatsoever how to play a character. When I was a new player, alignment didn't help me figure out my character in the slightest. So, if it's impossible to figure out how to play a character without giving them an alignment to serve as a guiding post...how did I manage it?
No one said alignment was "absolutely essential " for new players, or that "it's impossible to figure out how to play a character without giving them an alignment to serve as a guiding post." We said it could help someone determine their characters actions.
If it didn't help you when you were new, then ok. It's helped me when I was new, and it's helped a bunch of other new players as well.
Just because alignment didn't help you doesn't mean it doesn't help anyone else.
That Personality, Flaws, Ideals, and Bonds (hence, PFIB) encapsulates everything you need from alignment and works better means that alignment itself is unnecessary and superfluous. Getting rid of unnecessary and superfluous systems just makes sense.
Except they don't; background traits may give suggestions as to what alignment they're intended to fit (or recommend) but that's not the same as filling the same role in the game as traits/bonds etc. are specific character detail, alignment is a basic morality, they're two entirely different things.
PFIB's don't give suggestions as to alignment, because alignment is not a necessary assumption here. You're the one making that assumption.
And when it comes to morality, anytime anyone tries to make it "basic" it fails on the face of it. Morality is nuanced. Any morality that tries to be as simple as The Nine ends up being meaningless.
See both The Nine and PFIB are there to serve as roleplaying aids, to help a player get into character and understand their character better. The Nine fail at that, requiring a player to indoctrinate themselves through some few hours of searching through online debates and deciding where they fall among the various camps of thought, which is unnecessary work and thus a barrier to entry. PFIB, on the other hand, work basically as stated on the tin. Personality tells you how you generally behave, Flaws tells you a weakness in your personality, Ideals (which is the closest to Alignment while doing a better job) tells you what you believe in, and Bonds tells you the things or people that you care about.
Right, so what you've just described there is something that as a tool does nothing to guide how you play your character and as a descriptor is too broad to add anything actually interesting to a character. On top of that, in supplying more nuance to your initial, too broad, questions you've just contradicted yourself and lost your new player in confusion. All for a tool that doesn't actually add anything of value. Honestly you're making my point for me.
I have described literally the opposite; I have told you how simple it can be pick a starting alignment (counter to your claims it isn't) and I've described how it can inform how you play your character by expanding upon it. If you're going to quote me, please read what I actually said.
It strikes me that you've chosen your conclusion, and are working backwards from there, so this is going to get real pointless, real quick.
I never said it's hard to pick a starting alignment, that's as easy as throwing a dart at the alignment grid, but you see how you just said that in order to inform how you play your character you have to expand upon it? That's what I'm talking about is the extra work that it takes to make sense of what The Nine even mean. Why should a new player have to expand on the system that is meant to aid them in roleplaying? Why should they have to sit and ponder internet philosophy debates in order to just use a bit of their character sheet? No, see I think you are so steeped in the system that it comes easily to you, but that is not so for many other players.
I actually did read everything you wrote and I summed it up. I feel like your level of experience is not allowing you to see the system from the fresh eyes of a newcomer.
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!
PFIB's don't give suggestions as to alignment, because alignment is not a necessary assumption here. You're the one making that assumption.
You might want to go look at some backgrounds; a lot of them literally say chaotic, good, evil etc. on their ideals. Take Acolyte as an example.
And when it comes to morality, anytime anyone tries to make it "basic" it fails on the face of it. Morality is nuanced. Any morality that tries to be as simple as The Nine ends up being meaningless.
You keep saying things like this without ever justifying it; I have given multiple examples now of the types of things that fit within one of these broad categories, because that's what they are, and that's what they're intended to be. I have talked about when the alignment can and should change, I have talked about making exceptions that don't necessarily "fit" your alignment but still do as an overall trend etc. etc.
It seems to me like you're determined to make alignment overly complicated for new players to choose, while also being simultaneously too simple to ever use, yet in both cases you are going out of your way to say this is the case while refusing to listen to examples of why it isn't.
The Nine fail at that, requiring a player to indoctrinate themselves through some few hours of searching through online debates and deciding where they fall among the various camps of thought, which is unnecessary work and thus a barrier to entry.
Once again, this is an example of where it can be improved by a simpler setup and clearer examples, it is not proof that it should be removed.
I never said it's hard to pick a starting alignment, that's as easy as throwing a dart at the alignment grid, but you see how you just said that in order to inform how you play your character you have to expand upon it?
Personality traits, bonds, ideals etc. should also be expanded upon (and potentially changed) as you play the game, otherwise they're just as meaningless as you claim alignment is. You're supposed to be roleplaying a character not running a predetermined script.
I actually did read everything you wrote and I summed it up.
No you didn't, you made arguments I didn't and came to conclusions based on things I didn't say. It's called straw-manning, and I don't appreciate it.
I feel like your level of experience is not allowing you to see the system from the fresh eyes of a newcomer.
I was a new player once as well, and I found the alignment simple enough and useful as an aid to my character creation, which is why I still use it today, and recommend new players in my groups consider as well (while offering to help if they're not sure).
You realise that the anecdotes of the anti-alignment crowd aren't the only valid ones, right? Plenty of people have found it valuable as a creation aid, the ones who didn't aren't the only ones who matter; their experiences should be used to improve the system, not as grounds to burn it to the ground simply because they didn't like it.
I have a player in my groups who doesn't set alignment or traits/bonds/etc.; so should we get rid of all of those as well? He also almost always takes the same background, or uses custom backgrounds, so should we get rid of backgrounds too? His favourite class is barbarian and he doesn't usually enjoy playing others, shall we get rid of all of them?
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.
PFIB's don't give suggestions as to alignment, because alignment is not a necessary assumption here. You're the one making that assumption.
You might want to go look at some backgrounds; a lot of them literally say chaotic, good, evil etc. on their ideals. Take Acolyte as an example.
The PFIB's aren't suggesting alignments there, that is starting from alignment and taking a suggested trait. The description of the trait itself is where the meat of the roleplaying guidance comes from and can stand on it's own without the alignment tag added onto it.
And when it comes to morality, anytime anyone tries to make it "basic" it fails on the face of it. Morality is nuanced. Any morality that tries to be as simple as The Nine ends up being meaningless.
You keep saying things like this without ever justifying it; I have given multiple examples now of the types of things that fit within one of these broad categories, because that's what they are, and that's what they're intended to be. I have talked about when the alignment can and should change, I have talked about making exceptions that don't necessarily "fit" your alignment but still do as an overall trend etc. etc.
Yes, I know. You keep pointing out how the whole system has so many points of exception and contradiction and I'm just replying that something that is built on so many exceptions and contradictions is about as clear and useful as mud on a character sheet.
It seems to me like you're determined to make alignment overly complicated for new players to choose, while also being simultaneously too simple to ever use, yet in both cases you are going out of your way to say this is the case while refusing to listen to examples of why it isn't.
Disagreeing is not the same thing as not listening. I've heard. I've read. I disagree. Again, I don't thin it's complicated for a player to choose an alignment, I think it's complicated for a player to understand what alignment even is. Choosing alignment is as easy as picking one and then ignoring it ever after, that's not hard I'll give you that.
The Nine fail at that, requiring a player to indoctrinate themselves through some few hours of searching through online debates and deciding where they fall among the various camps of thought, which is unnecessary work and thus a barrier to entry.
Once again, this is an example of where it can be improved by a simpler setup and clearer examples, it is not proof that it should be removed.
Ok so we agree that reaching an understanding of The Nine does take reaching outside of the actual text and doing one's own research. Good.
You understand hw this is a barrier to entry, right? Especially when PFIB is right there and does everything that is needed in providing a roleplaying framework for a character without having to do this extra work. Why are we trying to justify an obsolete and redundant system when we already have a replacement in operation?
I never said it's hard to pick a starting alignment, that's as easy as throwing a dart at the alignment grid, but you see how you just said that in order to inform how you play your character you have to expand upon it?
Personality traits, bonds, ideals etc. should also be expanded upon (and potentially changed) as you play the game, otherwise they're just as meaningless as you claim alignment is. You're supposed to be roleplaying a character not running a predetermined script.
You are shifting the goalpost. The difference is that The Nine require personal research to expand upon it before it can even be understood in the first place. What you're talking about is how PFIB are changed and expanded during play, after character creation. Yes of course those things change with play, but that's not the issue at hand. The issue is something that poses an obstruction to understanding and play before play has even begun.
I actually did read everything you wrote and I summed it up.
No you didn't, you made arguments I didn't and came to conclusions based on things I didn't say. It's called straw-manning, and I don't appreciate it.
"What you've just described there" is me summing up what I think your statement means, not me trying to put words in your mouth. I don't claim to know what your intentions are, but I can read and summarize. You're always free to correct me, just as I am always free to disagree. These things are not arguing in bad faith.
I feel like your level of experience is not allowing you to see the system from the fresh eyes of a newcomer.
I was a new player once as well, and I found the alignment simple enough and useful as an aid to my character creation, which is why I still use it today, and recommend new players in my groups consider as well (while offering to help if they're not sure).
You realise that the anecdotes of the anti-alignment crowd aren't the only valid ones, right? Plenty of people have found it valuable as a creation aid, the ones who didn't aren't the only ones who matter; their experiences should be used to improve the system, not as grounds to burn it to the ground simply because they didn't like it.
I have a player in my groups who doesn't set alignment or traits/bonds/etc.; so should we get rid of all of those as well? He also almost always takes the same background, or uses custom backgrounds, so should we get rid of backgrounds too? His favourite class is barbarian and he doesn't usually enjoy playing others, shall we get rid of all of them?
I'm not sure where you're going with this, my argument isn't based on anecdotes.
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!
I never said it's hard to pick a starting alignment, that's as easy as throwing a dart at the alignment grid, but you see how you just said that in order to inform how you play your character you have to expand upon it?
Personality traits, bonds, ideals etc. should also be expanded upon (and potentially changed) as you play the game, otherwise they're just as meaningless as you claim alignment is. You're supposed to be roleplaying a character not running a predetermined script.
I don't think anyone is complaining about needing to update alignment as you play (and thus, "you also need to update traits, bonds, and ideals" isn't much of a counterargument).
"Expand upon it" in this case means "do extra reading to interpret what it means" right off the bat, to even have a starting point. "My character is lawful and good." OK. Whose laws? Whose standards of good? These are complex questions that the system can only answer through extracurricular reading and debate, so they are failing to provide a simple entry point. I can take my own personal definitions of "good" or "lawful" or whatever, but if I'm going to personally interpret it, why bother with the categories? Why not use words and combinations outside of the grid? The grid is useless if it is subjective, and the system fails to provide objective definitions.
And when it comes to morality, anytime anyone tries to make it "basic" it fails on the face of it. Morality is nuanced. Any morality that tries to be as simple as The Nine ends up being meaningless.
You keep saying things like this without ever justifying it
Let's revisit this for a second. Now, I've only taken some basic philosophy courses so maybe you're more educated than I am, but I thought this was something that was fairly well obvious. Have you watched The Good Place? It's a wonderful show, but it also does a great job at explaining some of the basic issues of grappling with morality as a human being in this world. I have had so many arguments with my husband because I agree a bit more with Kant's Categorical Imperative, while he is much more of a consequentialist.
The Nine Alignments are notoriously as meaningful as an online personality test. Maybe even less meaningful than horoscopes.
I mean let's take the Law and Chaos axis, right? Is someone Lawful if they follow all laws? Only the laws of their own country? If they go to another country and disagree with the laws does that make them Chaotic? What about someone follows the law because they are scared of the consequences of breaking the law, but would break them if there were no consequences? Those are all rhetorical, please don't try and answer them, I honestly don't want to get into it. It's just an example of how each axis on The Nine is basically gibberish.
In order for someone to use it they either need to have an understanding that is very shallow or they need to basically do a mini research paper on it to come to their own understanding of it. If the former, then any sort of hint or clue will do and PFIB works much better. If the latter, then again it's an unnecessary barrier to entry and why do it when we already have PFIB?
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!
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.
They've had 40 years and 5 editions to try and explain it better. What's obvious to me is that they've already implemented a much better alternative In Personality, Flaws, Ideals, and Bonds. I think that system works so much better for a PC.
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).
Yeah no, I don't think you've really cleared that up very much at all. I could poke so many philosophical holes in this.
Look, I will give you that The Nine are ehhh .... kinda okay for NPC's, so I guess I wouldn't mind it sticking around for them, but not for PC's.
I believe you are over complicating it. I get that because the order in which it is often presented in character creation. but it is short hand, it is not the end all be all. where character are concerned your alignment can change. really isn't that important except when it come to Paladins and Clerics.
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.
They've had 40 years and 5 editions to try and explain it better. What's obvious to me is that they've already implemented a much better alternative In Personality, Flaws, Ideals, and Bonds. I think that system works so much better for a PC.
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).
Yeah no, I don't think you've really cleared that up very much at all. I could poke so many philosophical holes in this.
Look, I will give you that The Nine are ehhh .... kinda okay for NPC's, so I guess I wouldn't mind it sticking around for them, but not for PC's.
I believe you are over complicating it. I get that because the order in which it is often presented in character creation. but it is short hand, it is not the end all be all. where character are concerned your alignment can change. really isn't that important except when it come to Paladins and Clerics.
It can help you determine your characters actions though, because it is based off what they have done in the past, it can help predict or inform what they will do in the future.
But yes, alignment can, and in many cases should change. And as you said, it is just one factor when determining your characters actions, and does not solely determine what they do.
Also, Ophidimancer, I genuinely don't understand, why, if you are fine with alignment for NPC's, are you not fine with it for PC's? What's the major difference on alignment between these two?
PS-If anyone uses PFIB instead of alignment, then why not have both? Writing your alignment down takes just five seconds and it can work with the PFIB system to help determine how your character acts. It's not like it's one or the other, you can always have both.
Lets say you have the graph lawful/chaotic, Good/Evil. North south east west orientations.
Can you find yourself on that graph? Normally not exceptionally. Everyone can. No matter what.
Now take someone from a totally different culture. Can you place them on the very same graph? Normally not exceptionally.
Its the same with any political graph.
It doesn't matter what society your in or the morals of that particular society. The graph just gives you a reference against something you know to gauge someone else.
I can see that a lot of people do want to be the kind of person who judges other people or cultures. But sorry, EVERYONE does it, at least subconsciously. Its human nature. You can stand there and claim you don't judge people by how they look or act or their moral or political view but you do. Name the culture that does not judge serial murderers as bad or evil(not killings but outright murder for no reason). Or the culture that looks at charity as bad or evil.
salām, sholom, peace.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think it would be best if RAW is more clear on its position on alignment. While it is neglected for the most part, it still has a few mechanical effects tied to it for a few magic items, and it is talked about in the BR/SRD as if it is key to character background/creation. I do not like alignment and I think it should be buried in obscurity, but I do not think it is necessary to eliminate it completely either.
Instead of being part of the BR/SRD, I think it should be moved to the DMG as an optional rule like flanking, alternative rest mechanics, spell points, etc.; ideally, I want alignment to be even more buried and just put them in setting books as an optional mechanic like piety, since not every D&D setting cares about alignment.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Actually, this is a great idea. For settings like Forgotten Realms, good and evil are fundamental motivators. For others, like Dark Sun, not so much.
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
Or just use it or not use it in each setting but leave it in the basic rules and improve the descriptions. And explain that is like ALL rules, its optional at any particular table according to the DM's ruling.
Demons aren't generally servitors of a god. Devils might be. But I do prefer the way prior editions classified them, where they really are the same class of being.
I do prefer the way 3e just classified them all as outsiders.
They've had 40 years and 5 editions to try and explain it better. What's obvious to me is that they've already implemented a much better alternative In Personality, Flaws, Ideals, and Bonds. I think that system works so much better for a PC.
Yeah no, I don't think you've really cleared that up very much at all. I could poke so many philosophical holes in this.
Look, I will give you that The Nine are ehhh .... kinda okay for NPC's, so I guess I wouldn't mind it sticking around for them, but not for PC's.
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!
It works better because the traits themselves are specific examples; it should also really come first in the order since many backgrounds suggest alignments from their traits so it's weird for them to come second when your choice may determine your alignment for you.
Just because they've done it badly for a long time, doesn't mean it can't be better, or should be axed unnecessarily.
Philosophy has nothing to do with it, because we're supposedly talking about quickly establishing a starting alignment since people (including you) keep claiming it's somehow a barrier to entry; I'm showing why it really isn't. Ultimately all a new character needs is a starting point, as their alignment can and should change at any time when it no longer feels correct.
Your position on the grid is simply whatever seems to fit most of the time, but there is a lot of play within each position.
Being good doesn't mean you never harm others, it means you should have a reason to make exceptions, just as being evil doesn't mean that you must harm others, only that you don't really care if you do. Preferring freedom over order is what allows a character to simply do as they please, without worrying about the rules, or what others think; it lets an otherwise good character take extreme action if they believe they're doing the right thing (for the greater good or whatever).
Feel free to refine the questions if you like, but the point is that picking your starting alignment is only as complicated as you make it, so stop making it complicated; the questions are intended to give a quick and easy answer to solve all of the problems people here claim to want to solve. As I said in the other paragraphs you seem to have ignored, it's not the end of the issue, it's the start; if the player is unsure they should still look at examples of what officially belongs in each alignment (as they may reconsider, or realise another is a better match), but if the goal is to quickly get them a starting alignment, then this is a way to do it.
Once you've got a starting alignment, use it to inform but not control your actions, and change it when it makes sense to. The alignment is not intended to tell you everything about who the character is, it's just a simple guide to your position on that simplified moral grid in case it comes up. Who the character is, how they act etc. is informed by character building, but not bound by it. You can leave these sections blank and only deal with it if it comes up, and that's an entirely legitimate way to play if you're comfortable doing that.
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.
That Personality, Flaws, Ideals, and Bonds (hence, PFIB) encapsulates everything you need from alignment and works better means that alignment itself is unnecessary and superfluous. Getting rid of unnecessary and superfluous systems just makes sense.
Right, so what you've just described there is something that as a tool does nothing to guide how you play your character and as a descriptor is too broad to add anything actually interesting to a character. On top of that, in supplying more nuance to your initial, too broad, questions you've just contradicted yourself and lost your new player in confusion. All for a tool that doesn't actually add anything of value. Honestly you're making my point for me.
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!
Except they don't; background traits may give suggestions as to what alignment they're intended to fit (or recommend) but that's not the same as filling the same role in the game as traits/bonds etc. are specific character detail, alignment is a basic morality, they're two entirely different things.
I have described literally the opposite; I have told you how simple it can be to pick a starting alignment (counter to your claims it isn't) and I've described how it can inform how you play your character by expanding upon it. If you're going to quote me, please read what I actually said.
It strikes me that you've chosen your conclusion, and are working backwards from there, so this is going to get real pointless, real quick.
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.
Put it this way: even when I was brand new and assembling my very first D&D character - when I knew the least I would ever know about this system - alignment did not help me one little tiny stitch. I assigned the character CG because the rules demanded you give the character an alignment, but "Chaotic Good" never once, during those eight or nine months spent running through Lost Mine of Phandelver, informed my play. At not one single point did I pause and say "I don't know what to do here...what's my alignment? My alignment will tell me what I need to do!"
What helped my play in almost every session was knowing my character's goal/motivation, what 5e would call their "Ideal": he wanted to live up to his favorite heroes of story, the clever and guileful champion renegades and benevolent tricksters of his mentor's tales. That helped center me, helped me sort what he'd do, and informed his actions many a time. "Chaotic Good"? Those two words were utterly meaningless to him and his player both.
A personal anecdote certainly, but everybody keeps saying that alignment is absolutely essential for new players, who willl otherwise be completely lost and not have any clue whatsoever how to play a character. When I was a new player, alignment didn't help me figure out my character in the slightest. So, if it's impossible to figure out how to play a character without giving them an alignment to serve as a guiding post...how did I manage it?
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm honestly fine with getting rid of alignment for large groups. But it can be extremely helpful when building individual NPC's.
As we said, your alignment can be "broken" and changed, and in many cases, it should be. I don't really think that "hundreds of thousands of people" who run alignment use it as a code that your character must always adhere to no matter what, and punish you harshly if you break it.
Also, even if a few hundred thousand people play alignment in this absurd way (which I don't think is accurate), then that is a tiny amount of the world at large D&D players who do so, because about 50 million people play the game. If as many as 200,000 people play alignment like this, then that means that about 1 in 250 D&D player's play that way.
What about all those other people who play alignment and enjoy it? Do you want to get rid of alignment just because a few people use it in a bad way?
Sources (for the numbers I gave):
1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robwieland/2021/05/19/2020-was-the-best-year-ever-for-dungeons--dragons/?sh=4fb39da94f37
2.https://webtribunal.net/blog/how-many-people-play-dnd/#gref
3. https://www.google.com/search?q=50 million divided by two hundred thousand&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS782US783&oq=50 million divided by two&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j6.4295j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
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.No one said alignment was "absolutely essential " for new players, or that "it's impossible to figure out how to play a character without giving them an alignment to serve as a guiding post." We said it could help someone determine their characters actions.
If it didn't help you when you were new, then ok. It's helped me when I was new, and it's helped a bunch of other new players as well.
Just because alignment didn't help you doesn't mean it doesn't help anyone else.
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.PFIB's don't give suggestions as to alignment, because alignment is not a necessary assumption here. You're the one making that assumption.
And when it comes to morality, anytime anyone tries to make it "basic" it fails on the face of it. Morality is nuanced. Any morality that tries to be as simple as The Nine ends up being meaningless.
See both The Nine and PFIB are there to serve as roleplaying aids, to help a player get into character and understand their character better. The Nine fail at that, requiring a player to indoctrinate themselves through some few hours of searching through online debates and deciding where they fall among the various camps of thought, which is unnecessary work and thus a barrier to entry. PFIB, on the other hand, work basically as stated on the tin. Personality tells you how you generally behave, Flaws tells you a weakness in your personality, Ideals (which is the closest to Alignment while doing a better job) tells you what you believe in, and Bonds tells you the things or people that you care about.
I never said it's hard to pick a starting alignment, that's as easy as throwing a dart at the alignment grid, but you see how you just said that in order to inform how you play your character you have to expand upon it? That's what I'm talking about is the extra work that it takes to make sense of what The Nine even mean. Why should a new player have to expand on the system that is meant to aid them in roleplaying? Why should they have to sit and ponder internet philosophy debates in order to just use a bit of their character sheet? No, see I think you are so steeped in the system that it comes easily to you, but that is not so for many other players.
I actually did read everything you wrote and I summed it up. I feel like your level of experience is not allowing you to see the system from the fresh eyes of a newcomer.
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!
You might want to go look at some backgrounds; a lot of them literally say chaotic, good, evil etc. on their ideals. Take Acolyte as an example.
You keep saying things like this without ever justifying it; I have given multiple examples now of the types of things that fit within one of these broad categories, because that's what they are, and that's what they're intended to be. I have talked about when the alignment can and should change, I have talked about making exceptions that don't necessarily "fit" your alignment but still do as an overall trend etc. etc.
It seems to me like you're determined to make alignment overly complicated for new players to choose, while also being simultaneously too simple to ever use, yet in both cases you are going out of your way to say this is the case while refusing to listen to examples of why it isn't.
Once again, this is an example of where it can be improved by a simpler setup and clearer examples, it is not proof that it should be removed.
Personality traits, bonds, ideals etc. should also be expanded upon (and potentially changed) as you play the game, otherwise they're just as meaningless as you claim alignment is. You're supposed to be roleplaying a character not running a predetermined script.
No you didn't, you made arguments I didn't and came to conclusions based on things I didn't say. It's called straw-manning, and I don't appreciate it.
I was a new player once as well, and I found the alignment simple enough and useful as an aid to my character creation, which is why I still use it today, and recommend new players in my groups consider as well (while offering to help if they're not sure).
You realise that the anecdotes of the anti-alignment crowd aren't the only valid ones, right? Plenty of people have found it valuable as a creation aid, the ones who didn't aren't the only ones who matter; their experiences should be used to improve the system, not as grounds to burn it to the ground simply because they didn't like it.
I have a player in my groups who doesn't set alignment or traits/bonds/etc.; so should we get rid of all of those as well? He also almost always takes the same background, or uses custom backgrounds, so should we get rid of backgrounds too? His favourite class is barbarian and he doesn't usually enjoy playing others, shall we get rid of all of them?
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.
The PFIB's aren't suggesting alignments there, that is starting from alignment and taking a suggested trait. The description of the trait itself is where the meat of the roleplaying guidance comes from and can stand on it's own without the alignment tag added onto it.
Yes, I know. You keep pointing out how the whole system has so many points of exception and contradiction and I'm just replying that something that is built on so many exceptions and contradictions is about as clear and useful as mud on a character sheet.
Disagreeing is not the same thing as not listening. I've heard. I've read. I disagree. Again, I don't thin it's complicated for a player to choose an alignment, I think it's complicated for a player to understand what alignment even is. Choosing alignment is as easy as picking one and then ignoring it ever after, that's not hard I'll give you that.
Ok so we agree that reaching an understanding of The Nine does take reaching outside of the actual text and doing one's own research. Good.
You understand hw this is a barrier to entry, right? Especially when PFIB is right there and does everything that is needed in providing a roleplaying framework for a character without having to do this extra work. Why are we trying to justify an obsolete and redundant system when we already have a replacement in operation?
You are shifting the goalpost. The difference is that The Nine require personal research to expand upon it before it can even be understood in the first place. What you're talking about is how PFIB are changed and expanded during play, after character creation. Yes of course those things change with play, but that's not the issue at hand. The issue is something that poses an obstruction to understanding and play before play has even begun.
"What you've just described there" is me summing up what I think your statement means, not me trying to put words in your mouth. I don't claim to know what your intentions are, but I can read and summarize. You're always free to correct me, just as I am always free to disagree. These things are not arguing in bad faith.
I'm not sure where you're going with this, my argument isn't based on anecdotes.
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!
I don't think anyone is complaining about needing to update alignment as you play (and thus, "you also need to update traits, bonds, and ideals" isn't much of a counterargument).
"Expand upon it" in this case means "do extra reading to interpret what it means" right off the bat, to even have a starting point. "My character is lawful and good." OK. Whose laws? Whose standards of good? These are complex questions that the system can only answer through extracurricular reading and debate, so they are failing to provide a simple entry point. I can take my own personal definitions of "good" or "lawful" or whatever, but if I'm going to personally interpret it, why bother with the categories? Why not use words and combinations outside of the grid? The grid is useless if it is subjective, and the system fails to provide objective definitions.
Let's revisit this for a second. Now, I've only taken some basic philosophy courses so maybe you're more educated than I am, but I thought this was something that was fairly well obvious. Have you watched The Good Place? It's a wonderful show, but it also does a great job at explaining some of the basic issues of grappling with morality as a human being in this world. I have had so many arguments with my husband because I agree a bit more with Kant's Categorical Imperative, while he is much more of a consequentialist.
The Nine Alignments are notoriously as meaningful as an online personality test. Maybe even less meaningful than horoscopes.
I mean let's take the Law and Chaos axis, right? Is someone Lawful if they follow all laws? Only the laws of their own country? If they go to another country and disagree with the laws does that make them Chaotic? What about someone follows the law because they are scared of the consequences of breaking the law, but would break them if there were no consequences? Those are all rhetorical, please don't try and answer them, I honestly don't want to get into it. It's just an example of how each axis on The Nine is basically gibberish.
In order for someone to use it they either need to have an understanding that is very shallow or they need to basically do a mini research paper on it to come to their own understanding of it. If the former, then any sort of hint or clue will do and PFIB works much better. If the latter, then again it's an unnecessary barrier to entry and why do it when we already have PFIB?
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!
I believe you are over complicating it. I get that because the order in which it is often presented in character creation. but it is short hand, it is not the end all be all. where character are concerned your alignment can change. really isn't that important except when it come to Paladins and Clerics.
It can help you determine your characters actions though, because it is based off what they have done in the past, it can help predict or inform what they will do in the future.
But yes, alignment can, and in many cases should change. And as you said, it is just one factor when determining your characters actions, and does not solely determine what they do.
Also, Ophidimancer, I genuinely don't understand, why, if you are fine with alignment for NPC's, are you not fine with it for PC's? What's the major difference on alignment between these two?
PS-If anyone uses PFIB instead of alignment, then why not have both? Writing your alignment down takes just five seconds and it can work with the PFIB system to help determine how your character acts. It's not like it's one or the other, you can always have both.
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.Lets say you have the graph lawful/chaotic, Good/Evil. North south east west orientations.
Can you find yourself on that graph? Normally not exceptionally. Everyone can. No matter what.
Now take someone from a totally different culture. Can you place them on the very same graph? Normally not exceptionally.
Its the same with any political graph.
It doesn't matter what society your in or the morals of that particular society. The graph just gives you a reference against something you know to gauge someone else.
I can see that a lot of people do want to be the kind of person who judges other people or cultures. But sorry, EVERYONE does it, at least subconsciously. Its human nature. You can stand there and claim you don't judge people by how they look or act or their moral or political view but you do. Name the culture that does not judge serial murderers as bad or evil(not killings but outright murder for no reason). Or the culture that looks at charity as bad or evil.
salām, sholom, peace.