Let's talk about Alignment

[Yrnes]

This topic came up in the RPGnet forums, and it’s one I’d love to get input on here.

I have a confession. I’ve been playing D&D for twenty years… and I hate the concept of alignment.

I understand alignment can be a good roleplaying guideline and helpful for new players getting a feel for their character, but it's something I've always hated. The choices your character has to make are still your choices, and sometimes difficult choices mean violating alignment. For that matter, not everything wraps up neatly into one of 9 alignment portfolios presented. That's why I like "unaligned" as opposed to Neutral - it's not that you are neutral towards law / chaos, good / evil, it's that you don't view the world on that spectrum.

I feel like anytime a character has to make a decision "because that's what my character would do" defeats the purpose of roleplaying. If your character feels pigeon holed into making a decision because a couple words on your character sheet tells you to, you've lost the opportunity for dynamic storytelling. Sometimes lawful characters need to cheat, sometimes bad guys do nice things.

Additionally, I can't say how many freaking times back in 2nd or 3rd edition we got into fights over alignment violations for classes that required adherence to them (paladins, etc). I'm so glad that restriction was dropped in the later editions.

So what do you guys think? Is alignment a hard and fast rule you use in your games? Or is it something that floats in the background? Is it a volatile topic, or one mostly ignored?

I’m curious on your thoughts.

[aceynn88]

Alignment should be a loose guideline for your character. Even an CE character can have moments of LG.

I much prefer making my characters personality, and then picking the alignment that best matches from there.

[some guy]

Detect/Protection from [Alignment], smite were the only reasons I still more or less used alignment in 3.5. I'm very glad nothing in the rules require alignment anymore (as far as I know, anyway).

[MadGrady]

Some of the best storytelling that has occurred in my games have actually come from the whole "I make this decision because that's what my character would do" sentimentality. I believe that is exactly what "role-playing" is. As a player, I often know that the choice im about to make is far from optimal, but if I've built a character that has strong ideals, and I believe that they would make the hard choice, then I think that is EXCELLENT storytelling. I've had characters who died because they believed in something that I as a player knew was not the optimal choice. I don't regret those decisions at all.

Now, to answer the overall question - alignment in our games is not a hard and fast rule. It's more of a guideline, and we often have fun watching a character change from one alignment to another over the course of a campaign. Have a neutral rogue move closer to good as he comes to care for the world around him, or have a mighty knight see the horrors of war and see it crumble his faith. All of these make for excellent story arcs. Alignment is a great way of helping you make those quick decisions for your character - but it's also a great way to help track the course your character takes throughout the long story.

[Draken]

Detect/Protection from [Alignment], smite were the only reasons I still more or less used alignment in 3.5. I'm very glad nothing in the rules require alignment anymore (as far as I know, anyway).

There aren't. Detect Evil and Good and Protection from Evil and Good affect creature types. Same for Dispel Evil and Good (besides other effects). Divine Word is smart targeting and Holy Aura just protects your allies from anything.

[Yrnes]

Some of the best storytelling that has occurred in my games have actually come from the whole "I make this decision because that's what my character would do" sentimentality. I believe that is exactly what "role-playing" is. As a player, I often know that the choice im about to make is far from optimal, but if I've built a character that has strong ideals, and I believe that they would make the hard choice, then I think that is EXCELLENT storytelling. I've had characters who died because they believed in something that I as a player knew was not the optimal choice. I don't regret those decisions at all.

Now, to answer the overall question - alignment in our games is not a hard and fast rule. It's more of a guideline, and we often have fun watching a character change from one alignment to another over the course of a campaign. Have a neutral rogue move closer to good as he comes to care for the world around him, or have a mighty knight see the horrors of war and see it crumble his faith. All of these make for excellent story arcs. Alignment is a great way of helping you make those quick decisions for your character - but it's also a great way to help track the course your character takes throughout the long story.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for things staying in character. Making choices (specifically bad choices you know are bad) to stay in character is fantastic, and true to the spirit of the game.

What I don't like is when a character feels like those choices are already made for them, dictated by their alignment.

[mrumsey]

I completely agree that Alignment is borderline useless. It is good as a character concept tool or starting point. After that, almost every action can be justified into one alignment or another based on intent.

It is hard to tell a player, no you don't think that...let me give punish you for not playing your character. I prefer alignment to be more like how we as flawed real world people opposed to the way the super heroic icons of fantasy experience it. Fluid. Maybe a leaning toward one of the major axis (law or good or chaos..).

So much can happen that it just ruins creativity to not allow players to have freedom with their creations. Especially new players. I have seen so many people start playing DnD and not actually grasp their own character for at least 5 sessions. It really pays off to let the players develop their character.


Sorry for roaming brain, long night and work.

[Ralanr]

I'm glad that the alignment restrictions have been removed from the actual game. I feel that the traits system does a better job than the alignment system did at its intended task. Inspiration is a good motivator for role playing with new people or people who don't normally roleplay (I usually just like combat and had difficult times roleplaying, usually feeling forced. I feel more comfortable with the traits system as I can see situations where things aren't the best for my course of action, but still do them as it's how my character would react.)

That and (for people who like being lawful especially) writing down your lawful ideals/code of honor can be very helpful. My character really only has four rules, one of them pointing out that they should apply to every situation.

[Broken Twin]

Never been a big fan of the system. I much prefer having the characters defined by a few single sentence personality traits at creation, then have their morality be fleshed out in play. The removal of alignment from the core mechanics in 5E made me a very happy camper. Having said that, alignment does work as a creation tool for some people. As long as the players don't treat it as the whole of their character's personality, I'm usually fine with it.

I know I personally repurposed the Alignment box on the character sheet for faction alignment. Something that I tend to consider a lot more important than a dubious moral label.

[silveralen]

As a hard rule with mechanics associated? Not really my cup of tea.

As a way of helping people roleplay by making them think about their character's morality? It isn't awful and I've seen far worse.

I think similar concepts have been handled better. Exalted, scion and nwod (virtue/vice, not the morality system actually) had different variations on alignment that actually managed to have a little game effect without becoming overwhelming or restricting, but alignment itself isn't that awful. It's simple and tends to provide a decent loose guideline.

[Knaight]

I completely ignore it. It's a potentially useful shorthand for some players, as are a ton of other characterization systems in various RPGs. Provided it stays in the background and I personally can completely ignore it (as can other people who dislike it), I have no issue with it. The 5e method where it's basically been removed as a mechanical variable works well here.

[mephnick]

I didn't use it in 3.5 and I sure as heck don't use it now.

My players sometimes talk in alignments still just as a broad description on what to expect from their character, but it has absolutely zero mechanical effect and I never note what anyone's alignment is as a DM.

[SiuiS]

This topic came up in the RPGnet forums, and it’s one I’d love to get input on here.

I have a confession. I’ve been playing D&D for twenty years… and I hate the concept of alignment.

I understand alignment can be a good roleplaying guideline and helpful for new players getting a feel for their character, but it's something I've always hated.

That's because it's not a Roleplaying guideline. It's a team you pick, and has consequences in the cosmic war for spiritual supremacy.

Lawful good isn't "I like goodness but also think there should be some rules" it's "I want Celestia to conquer all other known realms and spread it's way of life through the multiverse". A lot of younger folks (<25) miss that.


The choices your character has to make are still your choices, and sometimes difficult choices mean violating alignment.

Then do so. There will be consequences, sure. Own them. That's what makes good drama.

[auote]
I feel like anytime a character has to make a decision "because that's what my character would do" defeats the purpose of roleplaying.[/quote]

You'll need to explain this to me. I so not understand how role playing, and playing the role based on what your character would do, are somehow different.



Additionally, I can't say how many freaking times back in 2nd or 3rd edition we got into fights over alignment violations for classes that required adherence to them (paladins, etc). I'm so glad that restriction was dropped in the later editions.

This one, definitely. It was always an issue of grammar for us though. Like, we had a paladin fall from grace because he committed a chaotic act; he refused a sanctioned duel with a priest of Hell and tried to smite him instead. Pointing out that only evil acts irrevocably strip your powers, because of the sentence structure, did nothing.

That was weird.



Anyway, I can't answer your question easily. I've been dealing with alignment for over twenty years, too, but I have always been interested in philosophy and perspective. Alignment makes sense as alignment – as what and who you are aligned with. It always has. I've internalized what iit is enough that I can't see what you're having trouble with.

[Rad Mage]

I actually had a player use the phrase "I'm evil. What did you expect?" when asked why she was attacking other members of the party. So pinned her character down and hit them with a Mark of Justice. When she protested we said "Were good. What did you expect."

[mephnick]

That's because it's not a Roleplaying guideline. It's a team you pick, and has consequences in the cosmic war for spiritual supremacy.

Lawful good isn't "I like goodness but also think there should be some rules" it's "I want Celestia to conquer all other known realms and spread it's way of life through the multiverse". A lot of younger folks (<25) miss that.


Eh, I don't really agree with this. I'm not sure the average lawful good low level fighter has any idea what Celestia is, or what it's goals are, if it has any in the first place.

I think it's much more "I'm good and abide by laws", than "I have chosen my side in the universal conflict I know nothing about!"

[Slipperychicken]

I also hate alignment, and would prefer to drop it entirely. Thankfully, the game makes it very easy to ignore; IIRC only a handful of magic items and the oathbreaker paladin even mention alignment in rules text.


Also, I'm pretty sure alignment is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. That means your character makes decisions according to whatever process he uses (which may have little to do with the alignment system's guidelines), and then the players and DM decide which alignment they think best describes the character's behavior and worldview.

[Ralanr]

I actually had a player use the phrase "I'm evil. What did you expect?" when asked why she was attacking other members of the party. So pinned her character down and hit them with a Mark of Justice. When she protested we said "Were good. What did you expect."

Self defense is also a good answer. But I like your story better :smallbiggrin:

[Xetheral]

That's because it's not a Roleplaying guideline. It's a team you pick, and has consequences in the cosmic war for spiritual supremacy.

Lawful good isn't "I like goodness but also think there should be some rules" it's "I want Celestia to conquer all other known realms and spread it's way of life through the multiverse". A lot of younger folks (<25) miss that.

I completely disagree. Yes, a Champion for an expansionist Celestia would likely (but not certainly) be Lawful Good, but not all Lawful Good characters are such Champions. A character who thinks "I like goodness but also think there should be some rules" might well be Lawful Good. Similarly, not all Evil characters are going to want to have anything to do with any of the various Evil outsiders. The Evil character who uses unthinkable ends in order to support the cause of Law or the cause of Good (or both!) is a stereotype for a reason. By your definition, such a character couldn't exist.

Also, depending on the campaign setting, there may not even be a Celestia, and even if there is it might have no desire to conquer the multiverse.

It's certainly possible to design a campaign setting where alignment is defined as factional alignment, but I see no reason to believe that's at all commonplace or the intended reading of the alignment rules.


Also, I'm pretty sure alignment is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. That means your character makes decisions according to whatever process he uses (which may have little to do with the alignment system's guidelines), and then the players and DM decide which alignment they think best describes the character's behavior and worldview.

This, very much this. In my games players can choose for their characters to do whatever they want for their own reasons. If I think that (over a great deal of time) a better alignment describes how they play than the one they chose for themselves, I'll change it on their sheet. (I'll give them plenty of warning beforehand.)

[goto124]

Good and Evil tends to lead to arguments. I've seen systems with much more defined 'alignments', such as individualism vs collectivism (how I see Chaotic and Lawful).

And the whole cosmic battle thing? No one except a very few ever actually follows the 'I want Celestia to win' thing anyway. Sounds like people don't buy into it, or just don't want a highly objective 'alignment' that isn't even meant to reflect 'goodness' or 'evilness'.

(Slightly off-topic, I remember Dishonored. If you kill a lot, you get more and tougher enemies. The system doesn't care if instead of killing your enemies, you sent them to Fates Worse Than Death, which could be considered more evil and cruel than outright murder. It's not a measure of your 'evilness' or 'goodness', only how much you've killed.)

[Ralanr]

I've never even heard of the celestial war thing.

[burninatortrog]

When a character has personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws, alignment is totally unnecessary.

[silveralen]

I've never even heard of the celestial war thing.

That's because it's at best a background detail in most settings, if it even featured at all (for example, nothing to do with darksun, raveloft, or eberron). Even planescape, the one setting where it does make sense, doesn't do much with it. The blood war is the biggest feature, which is demons vs devils, and even that focuses mainly on evil people finding ways to avoid becoming involved not actively choosing to aid them.

I actually can't remember a major book, setting, or adventure that ever did anything more with it than that.

[Slipperychicken]

I've never even heard of the celestial war thing.

I'm pretty sure it's only really a thing in one setting, but fanon extended it to all of D&D. It's a lot like how the Far Realms were widely considered canon, despite it being a variant rule in 3.5.

[Ralanr]

Was this the battle between the forces of chaos and law to determine the wills of mortals? Or am I thinking of something else?