I was wondering if anyone is experimenting with moving away from alignment and the classic representation of good and evil in campaigns? It seems to me that alignment is a really poor representation of the psychology of different creatures, and you might get a much more nuanced and ethical campaign out of a more sophisticated representation. Has anyone done this kind of work on the rules already?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Netherlands, GMT +1 // “Absorb what is useful, discard what is not, add what is uniquely your own.” — Bruce Lee
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
It should be noted that alignment isn't intended to be used in isolation, but to complement the Traits, Bonds, Ideals and Flaws system, at least for PCs and NPCs. For generic monsters etc, you probably don't want anything much more complex as it won't get showcased before they're run through with your Stabby McStabby.
If you're talking about your PC, I find that no system that can fit in a box or two on your character sheet will ever be sufficient. I tend to use alignment and the TBIFs as a reminder for the first session or so, then they get ignored as I have a much better mental image of my character than I could ever depict on a character sheet of reasonable length.
There are improvements to alignment that could be made (especially the mess that they made in writing them in 5e), but to be honest, given the timescale they're actually useful, I'm not sure it's worth the effort to make it much more complex. They're intended to act as prompts and springboards for making your character a more developed and complex one, and not really to describe them or, worse, to prescribe their actions. As such, do you really want to spend ages making a more complex system when you'll only use it for about 5 minutes total?
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.
You can just flat out ignore it, that’s what I do. There’s a handful of magic items that have alignment restrictions, but otherwise you won’t notice. What you really need is for your players to commit to being consistent in their characters’ motivations. If they can do that without an alignment, it works just fine. As for the magic items, either just don’t include them, or say something like: This sword seems to reject attuning with you. You get a sense it would work if you had less respect for authority figures. Or something like that.
I was wondering if anyone is experimenting with moving away from alignment and the classic representation of good and evil in campaigns? It seems to me that alignment is a really poor representation of the psychology of different creatures, and you might get a much more nuanced and ethical campaign out of a more sophisticated representation. Has anyone done this kind of work on the rules already?
The first thing I would like to say is that while you may or may not want to use alignment, anyone at the table who wants to use the tool as a helpful role-playing aid for their character should have the right to unless they're somehow using the guideline as a way of getting in the way of fun for everyone else (in which case they're probably just a problem player using alignment as an excuse for being a jerk).
But anyways, there are plenty of alternative systems and things that you can use instead of alignment. For one, you can just not use alignment. You can also write about your character's alignment instead of picking something on the axis. Or you could use an alternate system or chart to replace alignment, it's likely that there are plenty of these available after a bit of research Online.
P.S. I would like to second something Linklite mentioned at the start of his comment, which is that alignment should be used in conjunction with other factors. The system determines a character's morality, which is only a part of their personality. Additionally, you can always have multiple factors to assist alignment in helping you role-play your character in morality complicated situations if need be.
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.
I mean, you can chuck alignment out the window and it won't hurt much mechanically in 5e, but as people have said it's a useful building block for fleshing out a character and personally I think it's a good touchstone if a campaign wants to start dealing with the big cosmic forces, since it provides a quick reference point for the characters' positions relative to things like Celestials, Fiends, and Fey, although in that last example it's a lot more case-by-case.
There are still some sections of the game which are quite bound by the alignment system, like the Planes, what happens beyond death, extraplanar creatures, spells like Protection From Good and Evil, the Gods, Clerics and Paladins. It’s pretty extensive, and as a DM to take it all out and generate more lore to cover these things is not a trivial task.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Netherlands, GMT +1 // “Absorb what is useful, discard what is not, add what is uniquely your own.” — Bruce Lee
Alignment is a bad moral compass. However, in its beginnings, the alignment was really that: An alignment with one of the cosmic forces that govern the universe. That is, a person with legal alignment was aligned with the legal forces in the eternal cosmic war. That disappeared in 3e, when WoTC bought TSR and radically changed the tone of D&D (which in 1e and 2e was more grimdark than heroic).
I explain this so that you understand that alignment is a vestige of the past that no longer makes sense. I completely ignore it in the official WoTC settings, and only bring it back in my own settings or if I adapt AD&D settings (Greyhawk and Blackmoor basically).
There are still some sections of the game which are quite bound by the alignment system, like the Planes, what happens beyond death, extraplanar creatures, spells like Protection From Good and Evil, the Gods, Clerics and Paladins. It’s pretty extensive, and as a DM to take it all out and generate more lore to cover these things is not a trivial task.
Afterlives aren't covered in detail in 5e; Outer Planes have a bit of interaction, but it's optional and they're not a regular part of games; deities have an alignment serving as a general indicator of their attitudes, but there's no longer any RAW interaction or restriction between a deity's alignment and that of their paladins or clerics; PFGaE doesn't actually check or interact with alignment anymore, it's based on creature type. It is still useful and relevant as a broad stroke data point in character building, informing a DM on behavior trends for monsters, and for interactions with fiends, celestials and the like, but there's only a few magic items and abilities that check and/or interact with it.
There are still some sections of the game which are quite bound by the alignment system, like the Planes, what happens beyond death, extraplanar creatures, spells like Protection From Good and Evil, the Gods, Clerics and Paladins. It’s pretty extensive, and as a DM to take it all out and generate more lore to cover these things is not a trivial task.
Protection from good and evil has nothing to do with alignment, despite its name. Clerics and paladins can be any alignment. The outer plains are mentioned as having an alignment, and have an optional effect on creatures based on alignment, yes. How often do you have a campaign that visits one of the outer plains or where it actually matter what happens after death? It can come up, yes, but it’s so rare that it’s pretty much going to be a major plot point you’ll develop and want to homebrew. There’s really not much it has an impact on. It used to matter, but it really doesn’t anymore.
I do use it - but not as a hard rule. I like bringing "noobs" into the game and it can be a good "rough-guide" for character creation, but as an actual "hard rule" in-game it's not been relevant for a while. The exception is Role Play relevant, "would your character really do that?" kinda thing - but it's "easily" circumvented by playing with a group of people that are "pro-game".
The problem with alignments is that they don't really tell you how your character should behave. We intelligent beings are complex and contradictory, and in no case do we conform to such a rigid pattern. Although a person tends to be legally good (ie, honorable, respectful, and kind), he is not always going to be so in all situations. And there are also degrees of honor, kindness and respect. If you want to play that legal good character, how would he behave before a legitimate, but evil authority? Would he respect her for being legitimate, or would he fight her for being evil? Any answer is good, so alignment is not meant to be used as a guide for interpreting your character's behavior.
So I go back to what I said before. The alignment only makes sense in the context of a confrontation of cosmic forces, and to know which side you support (consciously or unconsciously). Not as a behavior guide.
As an example, Elric of Melnibone, typically chaotic evil, often behaves against that alignment. But that doesn't stop him from being chaotic evil, because that doesn't respond to his behavior, but to his alignment.
Reputation. In my settings, even the Planes and deities cannot read people's hearts, but they can judge actions. Alignment is just a personal guide if players want a quick reminder of their target personality and a basic superficial gauge of what they might expect from something. Otherwise, it's all about their reputation. Deities and Planes know what you did last Summer... but not why.
The way I see it is that deities have all the same drama as people including deceiving each other. So, all they have to go on is what people do. They're less likely to trust what people say given people's rampant dishonesty (just look at their politicians), but they're more likely to trust what people do (just look at their politicians).
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
The problem with alignments is that they don't really tell you how your character should behave. We intelligent beings are complex and contradictory, and in no case do we conform to such a rigid pattern. Although a person tends to be legally good (ie, honorable, respectful, and kind), he is not always going to be so in all situations. And there are also degrees of honor, kindness and respect. If you want to play that legal good character, how would he behave before a legitimate, but evil authority? Would he respect her for being legitimate, or would he fight her for being evil? Any answer is good, so alignment is not meant to be used as a guide for interpreting your character's behavior.
So I go back to what I said before. The alignment only makes sense in the context of a confrontation of cosmic forces, and to know which side you support (consciously or unconsciously). Not as a behavior guide.
As an example, Elric of Melnibone, typically chaotic evil, often behaves against that alignment. But that doesn't stop him from being chaotic evil, because that doesn't respond to his behavior, but to his alignment.
As has been repeatedly said, alignment is meant to be a loose indicator of behavior tendencies used in conjunction with other character building tools. There is more to it than just the cosmic, but it’s a descriptive indicator, not a proscriptive one. The fact that a wide range of temperaments can fall under any given heading is a feature, not a flaw.
I use alignment to paint a broad stroke about a culture and then let individuals vary.
As an example, a LE hobgoblin nation would have NPC's that are, at the least, a Lawful alignment, or an Evil alignment depending on how they resonate with their society. This let's me have LG hobgoblins (they share the focus on Law with their culture) and it avoids "all hobgoblins are evil" tropes.
For player characters, I let my friends choose whatever they want, but also give them the awareness of their culture's broad stroke on alignment.
The problem with alignments is that they don't really tell you how your character should behave. We intelligent beings are complex and contradictory, and in no case do we conform to such a rigid pattern. Although a person tends to be legally good (ie, honorable, respectful, and kind), he is not always going to be so in all situations. And there are also degrees of honor, kindness and respect. If you want to play that legal good character, how would he behave before a legitimate, but evil authority? Would he respect her for being legitimate, or would he fight her for being evil? Any answer is good, so alignment is not meant to be used as a guide for interpreting your character's behavior.
So I go back to what I said before. The alignment only makes sense in the context of a confrontation of cosmic forces, and to know which side you support (consciously or unconsciously). Not as a behavior guide.
As an example, Elric of Melnibone, typically chaotic evil, often behaves against that alignment. But that doesn't stop him from being chaotic evil, because that doesn't respond to his behavior, but to his alignment.
Alignment may not be useful to you, but it should remain in the Player's Handbook as an option for people like me who find it to be helpful. Alignment is really just a helpful tool for the player to have a guideline on what their character's morality is. Of course your character won't always act like their alignment in situations where the system is relevant. However, it can still be useful to have an extra thing to predicate your character's choices in complex situations.
Also, you and your Dungeon Master should both be able to change your alignment at any time, though the latter individual should be a lot more careful and discuss the change instead of just outright declaring it.
As for the example you gave, I would like to say that's when you turn to factors outside of alignment - like ideals, bonds, quirks, flaws and backstory - so that you can make a more informed decision. As your example shows, alignment can't always be used on its own and certainly flawless. However, it is still helpful for people like me and it should be an option for us to use as one part of a behavioral guide if we want to.
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.
I’m not sure I’d say alignment should be able to change at “any time”. That’s not to say I view it as a great immovable pillar, but the implication of a fundamental shift in attitude is such that I’d say both the player and DM need to discuss the matter and agree and it shouldn’t be shifting particularly frequently.
I’m not sure I’d say alignment should be able to change at “any time”. That’s not to say I view it as a great immovable pillar, but the implication of a fundamental shift in attitude is such that I’d say both the player and DM need to discuss the matter and agree and it shouldn’t be shifting particularly frequently.
To be honest, if it is changing frequently, that would tell me that the player either doesn't really grasp his character or isn't really roleplaying and is instead just being whimsical. Alternatively, they don't understand alignment.
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.
I the past we used alignment quite a bit. Though for the most part we just used it as a good/neutral/evil gauge.
Yes clerics and other characters can be of any alignment but their deity or patron would be the same or close to their alignment. If you act against your deity for too long your deity may just forsake you and take away some of your powers. At this time a more suitable deity might just pick you up and grant those powers back.
As pointed out large areas of magic and other associations depend on it and dropping those dependencies is a huge move.
For us we also used it as a general gauge for how others reacted to you. We all know that feeling we get from someone when we first meet them. That feeling might be wrong but it generally is correct. If we meet someone and we think they are bad guys it generally turns out that they are. Its the start of someones reputation in the campaign. And reputation is very important. It greatly effects the jobs and deals one could be offered.
No it does not limit a characters actions but if they want a certain reputation then yes it does influence them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was wondering if anyone is experimenting with moving away from alignment and the classic representation of good and evil in campaigns? It seems to me that alignment is a really poor representation of the psychology of different creatures, and you might get a much more nuanced and ethical campaign out of a more sophisticated representation. Has anyone done this kind of work on the rules already?
Netherlands, GMT +1 // “Absorb what is useful, discard what is not, add what is uniquely your own.” — Bruce Lee
I use the MtG color wheel personally, as it has aspects of good and evil within it.
Red: Freedom, Passion, Action, Short-Sighted, Destruction, Rage.
White: Community, Order, Peace, Authoritarian, Traditional, Uncreative.
Blue: Logic, Intelligence, Technology, Manipulation, Control, Inaction (spending too much time thinking, in this case)
Green: Instinct, Interdependence, Growth, Naivete, Wild, Uncontrolled/Untamed.
Black: Ambition, Power, Sacrifice (of self or others), Refusal to give up on anyone's terms but one's own, Parasitism, Amorality, Paranoia.
In varying amounts, these colors can inform how a character may act with far more nuance compared to the Alignment Grid.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
It should be noted that alignment isn't intended to be used in isolation, but to complement the Traits, Bonds, Ideals and Flaws system, at least for PCs and NPCs. For generic monsters etc, you probably don't want anything much more complex as it won't get showcased before they're run through with your Stabby McStabby.
If you're talking about your PC, I find that no system that can fit in a box or two on your character sheet will ever be sufficient. I tend to use alignment and the TBIFs as a reminder for the first session or so, then they get ignored as I have a much better mental image of my character than I could ever depict on a character sheet of reasonable length.
There are improvements to alignment that could be made (especially the mess that they made in writing them in 5e), but to be honest, given the timescale they're actually useful, I'm not sure it's worth the effort to make it much more complex. They're intended to act as prompts and springboards for making your character a more developed and complex one, and not really to describe them or, worse, to prescribe their actions. As such, do you really want to spend ages making a more complex system when you'll only use it for about 5 minutes total?
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.
I moved away from alignment over 30 years ago
though I will hold certain classes to a standard of behavior.
You can just flat out ignore it, that’s what I do. There’s a handful of magic items that have alignment restrictions, but otherwise you won’t notice. What you really need is for your players to commit to being consistent in their characters’ motivations. If they can do that without an alignment, it works just fine.
As for the magic items, either just don’t include them, or say something like: This sword seems to reject attuning with you. You get a sense it would work if you had less respect for authority figures. Or something like that.
The first thing I would like to say is that while you may or may not want to use alignment, anyone at the table who wants to use the tool as a helpful role-playing aid for their character should have the right to unless they're somehow using the guideline as a way of getting in the way of fun for everyone else (in which case they're probably just a problem player using alignment as an excuse for being a jerk).
But anyways, there are plenty of alternative systems and things that you can use instead of alignment. For one, you can just not use alignment. You can also write about your character's alignment instead of picking something on the axis. Or you could use an alternate system or chart to replace alignment, it's likely that there are plenty of these available after a bit of research Online.
P.S. I would like to second something Linklite mentioned at the start of his comment, which is that alignment should be used in conjunction with other factors. The system determines a character's morality, which is only a part of their personality. Additionally, you can always have multiple factors to assist alignment in helping you role-play your character in morality complicated situations if need be.
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.I mean, you can chuck alignment out the window and it won't hurt much mechanically in 5e, but as people have said it's a useful building block for fleshing out a character and personally I think it's a good touchstone if a campaign wants to start dealing with the big cosmic forces, since it provides a quick reference point for the characters' positions relative to things like Celestials, Fiends, and Fey, although in that last example it's a lot more case-by-case.
There are still some sections of the game which are quite bound by the alignment system, like the Planes, what happens beyond death, extraplanar creatures, spells like Protection From Good and Evil, the Gods, Clerics and Paladins. It’s pretty extensive, and as a DM to take it all out and generate more lore to cover these things is not a trivial task.
Netherlands, GMT +1 // “Absorb what is useful, discard what is not, add what is uniquely your own.” — Bruce Lee
Alignment is a bad moral compass. However, in its beginnings, the alignment was really that: An alignment with one of the cosmic forces that govern the universe. That is, a person with legal alignment was aligned with the legal forces in the eternal cosmic war. That disappeared in 3e, when WoTC bought TSR and radically changed the tone of D&D (which in 1e and 2e was more grimdark than heroic).
I explain this so that you understand that alignment is a vestige of the past that no longer makes sense. I completely ignore it in the official WoTC settings, and only bring it back in my own settings or if I adapt AD&D settings (Greyhawk and Blackmoor basically).
Afterlives aren't covered in detail in 5e; Outer Planes have a bit of interaction, but it's optional and they're not a regular part of games; deities have an alignment serving as a general indicator of their attitudes, but there's no longer any RAW interaction or restriction between a deity's alignment and that of their paladins or clerics; PFGaE doesn't actually check or interact with alignment anymore, it's based on creature type. It is still useful and relevant as a broad stroke data point in character building, informing a DM on behavior trends for monsters, and for interactions with fiends, celestials and the like, but there's only a few magic items and abilities that check and/or interact with it.
Protection from good and evil has nothing to do with alignment, despite its name. Clerics and paladins can be any alignment.
The outer plains are mentioned as having an alignment, and have an optional effect on creatures based on alignment, yes. How often do you have a campaign that visits one of the outer plains or where it actually matter what happens after death? It can come up, yes, but it’s so rare that it’s pretty much going to be a major plot point you’ll develop and want to homebrew. There’s really not much it has an impact on. It used to matter, but it really doesn’t anymore.
I do use it - but not as a hard rule. I like bringing "noobs" into the game and it can be a good "rough-guide" for character creation, but as an actual "hard rule" in-game it's not been relevant for a while. The exception is Role Play relevant, "would your character really do that?" kinda thing - but it's "easily" circumvented by playing with a group of people that are "pro-game".
https://wulfgold.substack.com
Blog - nerd stuff
https://deepdreamgenerator.com/u/wulfgold
A.I. art - also nerd stuff - a gallery of NPC portraits - help yourself.
The problem with alignments is that they don't really tell you how your character should behave. We intelligent beings are complex and contradictory, and in no case do we conform to such a rigid pattern. Although a person tends to be legally good (ie, honorable, respectful, and kind), he is not always going to be so in all situations. And there are also degrees of honor, kindness and respect. If you want to play that legal good character, how would he behave before a legitimate, but evil authority? Would he respect her for being legitimate, or would he fight her for being evil? Any answer is good, so alignment is not meant to be used as a guide for interpreting your character's behavior.
So I go back to what I said before. The alignment only makes sense in the context of a confrontation of cosmic forces, and to know which side you support (consciously or unconsciously). Not as a behavior guide.
As an example, Elric of Melnibone, typically chaotic evil, often behaves against that alignment. But that doesn't stop him from being chaotic evil, because that doesn't respond to his behavior, but to his alignment.
Reputation. In my settings, even the Planes and deities cannot read people's hearts, but they can judge actions. Alignment is just a personal guide if players want a quick reminder of their target personality and a basic superficial gauge of what they might expect from something. Otherwise, it's all about their reputation. Deities and Planes know what you did last Summer... but not why.
The way I see it is that deities have all the same drama as people including deceiving each other. So, all they have to go on is what people do. They're less likely to trust what people say given people's rampant dishonesty (just look at their politicians), but they're more likely to trust what people do (just look at their politicians).
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
As has been repeatedly said, alignment is meant to be a loose indicator of behavior tendencies used in conjunction with other character building tools. There is more to it than just the cosmic, but it’s a descriptive indicator, not a proscriptive one. The fact that a wide range of temperaments can fall under any given heading is a feature, not a flaw.
I use alignment to paint a broad stroke about a culture and then let individuals vary.
As an example, a LE hobgoblin nation would have NPC's that are, at the least, a Lawful alignment, or an Evil alignment depending on how they resonate with their society. This let's me have LG hobgoblins (they share the focus on Law with their culture) and it avoids "all hobgoblins are evil" tropes.
For player characters, I let my friends choose whatever they want, but also give them the awareness of their culture's broad stroke on alignment.
Alignment may not be useful to you, but it should remain in the Player's Handbook as an option for people like me who find it to be helpful. Alignment is really just a helpful tool for the player to have a guideline on what their character's morality is. Of course your character won't always act like their alignment in situations where the system is relevant. However, it can still be useful to have an extra thing to predicate your character's choices in complex situations.
Also, you and your Dungeon Master should both be able to change your alignment at any time, though the latter individual should be a lot more careful and discuss the change instead of just outright declaring it.
As for the example you gave, I would like to say that's when you turn to factors outside of alignment - like ideals, bonds, quirks, flaws and backstory - so that you can make a more informed decision. As your example shows, alignment can't always be used on its own and certainly flawless. However, it is still helpful for people like me and it should be an option for us to use as one part of a behavioral guide if we want to.
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.I’m not sure I’d say alignment should be able to change at “any time”. That’s not to say I view it as a great immovable pillar, but the implication of a fundamental shift in attitude is such that I’d say both the player and DM need to discuss the matter and agree and it shouldn’t be shifting particularly frequently.
To be honest, if it is changing frequently, that would tell me that the player either doesn't really grasp his character or isn't really roleplaying and is instead just being whimsical. Alternatively, they don't understand alignment.
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.
I the past we used alignment quite a bit. Though for the most part we just used it as a good/neutral/evil gauge.
Yes clerics and other characters can be of any alignment but their deity or patron would be the same or close to their alignment. If you act against your deity for too long your deity may just forsake you and take away some of your powers. At this time a more suitable deity might just pick you up and grant those powers back.
As pointed out large areas of magic and other associations depend on it and dropping those dependencies is a huge move.
For us we also used it as a general gauge for how others reacted to you. We all know that feeling we get from someone when we first meet them. That feeling might be wrong but it generally is correct. If we meet someone and we think they are bad guys it generally turns out that they are. Its the start of someones reputation in the campaign. And reputation is very important. It greatly effects the jobs and deals one could be offered.
No it does not limit a characters actions but if they want a certain reputation then yes it does influence them.