Does alignment ever matter in your campaigns?

[Gastronomie]

NOTE-Here I mean alignment as in "Good and Evil", not "Chaotic and Lawful".

So, I was reading through this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?501578-Good-Murder-Hobos-How-far-is-too-far), and while the various arguments certainly were interesting, I also felt most of it really got nowhere. I wondered why I thought so - and realized that the reason is because I have never been in, or run, a campaign where alignment ever matters.

In one campaign, the world itself is gritty and cruel, with discrimination and tyranny widespread. 4 out of 4 player characters are criminals, both by that world's and by this world's laws, and 3 out of 4 are also morally ambiguous/leaning towards Evil. The party is generally ruthless, willing to kill everyone in their path, and half of the party originates from a death cult.

In another campaign, the characters were forced into joining an evil criminal organization ruled by aberrations, having these weird parasites infected in their brains that will kill you the moment you attempt rebellion. While half of the characters were aligned "Good" on their character sheets, and the other half were "neutral", all of them took morally gray actions at some points in the campaign, including demon-summoning (UA spells).

Of course, the above two are examples in which the characters were never meant to be heroic figures from the start, so it might be natural that alignment has never been an issue during gameplay. But apart from that, I've also had fun in supposedly "good-aligned" campaigns where the party relied on ambush, torture and hostage to keep the game going (yeah, only against the EVIL!!! enemies, but still). One of the characters was a Fiendlock after all, and another was also an Assassin, but no one ever cared. As long as they concealed their identities to the NPCs, all was fine.
While the criminals were doing their crimes, my Chaotic Good Bard never did anything to stop them, frantically jotting down notes about how the criminals do their jobs smooth, being like "I CAN USE THIS INFO IN THE NEXT PIECE I'M GONNA WRITE". I supposed he was CG because at the neck all he wants to do is entertain people with his stories (imagine Kishibe Rohan from Jojo's Bizarre Adventures), and no one really objected to it.

Discussing about alignment may be interesting to read, but I've never experienced it being a problem in actual gameplay. At least I wouldn't care if my players in my games started doing immoral actions, as long as they fit the situation and character. I think that being too strict with alignment can narrow down the actions of the players too much (of course, doing actions that don't fit the concept of a character will be frowned upon, but that's another matter), and I think that it's possible for a good person to do malignant or immoral deeds at times, while an evil person can also be caring for others in certain situations.

I suppose I simply don't like the concept of Alignments. When I look at the character sheet, it's generally just there to indicate whether someone is Chaotic or Lawful. The only case in which I as a DM will ever think about good and evil is if a particular character is a Devotion or Ancients Paladin, but players who play those characters will probably not take evil actions in the first place.

So, how many of you actually care about alignment? If you do care, why?
And is alignment an important issue in your campaign worlds? If so, how does it affect the campaign and characters?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I've never found it a particularly useful piece of information for... anything, really. I ignored in in 3e, and I'm glad that 5e has come as close to removing it altogether as any edition of D&D is likely to do.

[Tanarii]

Yeah it matters. Because my main campaign is centered around the players wanting to be heroes. I ask players to stick to the good and LN/N alignments when creating characters. Henchmen can be LE or CN, but players have to deal with the potential problems that causes.

That said, given my view on Alignments as merely on facet of personality driving in-character decision making, I don't get twisted about actions taken. I just make sure PCs face the any consequences for the in-game actions, as appropriate. Often they could (and have) gotten away with things that are more driven other factors than Alignment, because in a wilderness frontier with dungeons setting, theres often no one around to see, let alone punish. Except for the rest of the party, of course.

I find as a whole when you tell players the reason behind your alignment restriction, they tend to cooperate. Especially when I explain how I view alignment and it's not a limit on actions, but rather a request for one aspect in the personalities they'll bring to the table.

[Sigreid]

Not at all to me. If a player wants to write down and alignment for their own use as a RP tool, cool. I've never asked for someone's alignment and have no need for them to write it down. They just need to play their character.

[mephnick]

I've never found it a particularly useful piece of information for... anything, really. I ignored in in 3e, and I'm glad that 5e has come as close to removing it altogether as any edition of D&D is likely to do.

Agreed. Some of my players still use it as a general descriptor during character creation, but otherwise it never comes up.

[MrStabby]

This is a hard question. I think it matters, a bit.

Alignment itself doesn't really matter. What matters is how your actions are perceived in the eyes of the NPCs of the world. If you have a pact patron, or a god I am including them in the NPC category. Alignment isn't so much a thing in itself but it is a useful, if crude, model of charter behaviour and what might irk a patron.

I also have some strongly aligned planar beings have a moral sense - if you are "Evil" you may be more likely to be contacted by a fiend looking for a favour and so on.

Characters don't start out fully developed and a starting alignment is a useful way for all players at a table to get to grips with what other people are playing. I also find it useful as a DM to help understand a character's history in the early sessions.

[MeeposFire]

Yeah it matters. Because my main campaign is centered around the players wanting to be heroes. I ask players to stick to the good and LN/N alignments when creating characters. Henchmen can be LE or CN, but players have to deal with the potential problems that causes.

That said, given my view on Alignments as merely on facet of personality driving in-character decision making, I don't get twisted about actions taken. I just make sure PCs face the any consequences for the in-game actions, as appropriate. Often they could (and have) gotten away with things that are more driven other factors than Alignment, because in a wilderness frontier with dungeons setting, theres often no one around to see, let alone punish. Except for the rest of the party, of course.

I find as a whole when you tell players the reason behind your alignment restriction, they tend to cooperate. Especially when I explain how I view alignment and it's not a limit on actions, but rather a request for one aspect in the personalities they'll bring to the table.

I have found that lawful evil mind sets can be dealt with so long as the player is being smart about it (just like any good evil mastermind should).

Anyhow I have not seen alignment be a problem unless it is tied to losing something like your class. Then I have found problems if a player or DM tries to use that on a player's character on purpose or on accident. When it just brings tension everything is cool but sometimes it spill over into problems that we would rather not have dealt with out of game when somebody loses his powers forever and is thinking he was doing the right thing the whole time and nobody can get to an agreement on it.

[Tanarii]

I have found that lawful evil mind sets can be dealt with so long as the player is being smart about it (just like any good evil mastermind should).I just didn't feel like "methodically take what they want" as a motivation fit the flavor I was looking for, even "within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order" /shrug

Edit: I agree that it's a very playable character motivation.

[Vogonjeltz]

NOTE-Here I mean alignment as in "Good and Evil", not "Chaotic and Lawful".

So, I was reading through this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?501578-Good-Murder-Hobos-How-far-is-too-far), and while the various arguments certainly were interesting, I also felt most of it really got nowhere. I wondered why I thought so - and realized that the reason is because I have never been in, or run, a campaign where alignment ever matters.

In one campaign, the world itself is gritty and cruel, with discrimination and tyranny widespread. 4 out of 4 player characters are criminals, both by that world's and by this world's laws, and 3 out of 4 are also morally ambiguous/leaning towards Evil. The party is generally ruthless, willing to kill everyone in their path, and half of the party originates from a death cult.

In another campaign, the characters were forced into joining an evil criminal organization ruled by aberrations, having these weird parasites infected in their brains that will kill you the moment you attempt rebellion. While half of the characters were aligned "Good" on their character sheets, and the other half were "neutral", all of them took morally gray actions at some points in the campaign, including demon-summoning (UA spells).

Of course, the above two are examples in which the characters were never meant to be heroic figures from the start, so it might be natural that alignment has never been an issue during gameplay. But apart from that, I've also had fun in supposedly "good-aligned" campaigns where the party relied on ambush, torture and hostage to keep the game going (yeah, only against the EVIL!!! enemies, but still). One of the characters was a Fiendlock after all, and another was also an Assassin, but no one ever cared. As long as they concealed their identities to the NPCs, all was fine.
While the criminals were doing their crimes, my Chaotic Good Bard never did anything to stop them, frantically jotting down notes about how the criminals do their jobs smooth, being like "I CAN USE THIS INFO IN THE NEXT PIECE I'M GONNA WRITE". I supposed he was CG because at the neck all he wants to do is entertain people with his stories (imagine Kishibe Rohan from Jojo's Bizarre Adventures), and no one really objected to it.

Discussing about alignment may be interesting to read, but I've never experienced it being a problem in actual gameplay. At least I wouldn't care if my players in my games started doing immoral actions, as long as they fit the situation and character. I think that being too strict with alignment can narrow down the actions of the players too much (of course, doing actions that don't fit the concept of a character will be frowned upon, but that's another matter), and I think that it's possible for a good person to do malignant or immoral deeds at times, while an evil person can also be caring for others in certain situations.

I suppose I simply don't like the concept of Alignments. When I look at the character sheet, it's generally just there to indicate whether someone is Chaotic or Lawful. The only case in which I as a DM will ever think about good and evil is if a particular character is a Devotion or Ancients Paladin, but players who play those characters will probably not take evil actions in the first place.

So, how many of you actually care about alignment? If you do care, why?
And is alignment an important issue in your campaign worlds? If so, how does it affect the campaign and characters?

I would say that I care substantially about alignment insofar as it ought to reflect the actual ways in which a character would act.

So, while the "good" characters you mention above appear to not have even a passing familiarity with the concept (torture isn't made ok because it is done to someone themselves evil. It's just as awful then), for me being good or neutral or evil would actually impact the choices my character makes and the path they take.

[Sabeta]

Characters like Rohan Kishibe fall under Orange-Blue morality, and are better expressed through the Personality system than Alignment. I wouldn't really call Rohan a "Good" person.

Let's use Gon Freecs for my example, because he's such an interesting character.

Most people wouldn't really have a problem calling Gon Lawful Good. He's the protagonist of a Shounen Manga/Anime, he's generally good-natured, and tries to do the right thing. However, Gon really doesn't care if other people do the wrong thing. When Gon met with the Phantom Troupe (Arguably CE for the entire group) he got along with them quite well. He didn't hate them, and he had no desire to interfere with them or stop them. It wasn't until the Troupe learned that one of their own had died, and then mourned him that set Gon off.

Why? Because Gon had assumed that the Phantom Troupe was able to commit such atrocious crimes because they simply didn't know what kind of pain they were inflicting on people. Being good-natured, he wanted to help them understand that and hoped that they would change their ways, but as soon as he saw them cry at the loss of a comrade he knew that that wasn't true. He knew then that they were irredeemable and decided then and there that they should die.

Gon's alignment shifts frequently based on his moral code. Gon has absolutely no qualms about killing people. He's not even above killing Good people depending on the situation, as long as that person gives him a reason that they should die. For example, if a Good character told Gon that he can't fight an Evil character because he'll die, Gon might be willing to fight that person to the death if he felt that the Evil person needed to be taken out that badly.

I personally prefer playing this type of character. A "mostly good" character who slides along the alignment chart as their personal morals are challenged.

tldr: Alignment doesn't really matter. Role-Playing is what matters, and people who tell me that alignment is super-duper important and say things like "if you do this I'll change your character sheet in INK" are just control freaks who think that role-playing must be done in exactly one way.

[Vogonjeltz]

Characters like Rohan Kishibe fall under Orange-Blue morality, and are better expressed through the Personality system than Alignment. I wouldn't really call Rohan a "Good" person.

Let's use Gon Freecs for my example, because he's such an interesting character.

Most people wouldn't really have a problem calling Gon Lawful Good. He's the protagonist of a Shounen Manga/Anime, he's generally good-natured, and tries to do the right thing. However, Gon really doesn't care if other people do the wrong thing. When Gon met with the Phantom Troupe (Arguably CE for the entire group) he got along with them quite well. He didn't hate them, and he had no desire to interfere with them or stop them. It wasn't until the Troupe learned that one of their own had died, and then mourned him that set Gon off.

Why? Because Gon had assumed that the Phantom Troupe was able to commit such atrocious crimes because they simply didn't know what kind of pain they were inflicting on people. Being good-natured, he wanted to help them understand that and hoped that they would change their ways, but as soon as he saw them cry at the loss of a comrade he knew that that wasn't true. He knew then that they were irredeemable and decided then and there that they should die.

Gon's alignment shifts frequently based on his moral code. Gon has absolutely no qualms about killing people. He's not even above killing Good people depending on the situation, as long as that person gives him a reason that they should die. For example, if a Good character told Gon that he can't fight an Evil character because he'll die, Gon might be willing to fight that person to the death if he felt that the Evil person needed to be taken out that badly.

I personally prefer playing this type of character. A "mostly good" character who slides along the alignment chart as their personal morals are challenged.

tldr: Alignment doesn't really matter. Role-Playing is what matters, and people who tell me that alignment is super-duper important and say things like "if you do this I'll change your character sheet in INK" are just control freaks who think that role-playing must be done in exactly one way.

Being nice occasionally doesn't have anything at all to do with alignment.

This Gon character as described would be Chaotic Neutral, following his own whom and valuing his own personal freedom to do what he wants above all else.

[Gastronomie]

So far it seems like a lot of people don't care, just like my table…
I would say that I care substantially about alignment insofar as it ought to reflect the actual ways in which a character would act.

So, while the "good" characters you mention above appear to not have even a passing familiarity with the concept (torture isn't made ok because it is done to someone themselves evil. It's just as awful then), for me being good or neutral or evil would actually impact the choices my character makes and the path they take.I see > define actions

Well, but I think this is probably one place where opinions differ from person to person. I honestly think that torturing and killing evil humanoids and humans will be considered acts of justice in a dangerous world where civilization is almost constantly at risk of being overrun by orcs, conquered by dragons, or sacrificed by demonic cults. Modern concepts of good and evil exist only in wealthy and generally peaceful countries where the people don't need to be afraid of hobgoblin raids or getting eaten alive by ogres, or being tyrannized by a powerful Beholder or Lich Lord. Just like most people are okay with killing terrorists and executing/imprisoning criminals, people in D&D worlds will gladly kill orcs or goblins.

Since the basis of the world is different, I think it's really pointless to view the people in D&D using morals and laws of the wealthy 21st century.

@Gon's alignment: I think Gon is something like True Neutral (you don't need to be Good to be angry at evil acts), but yeah, he's an example of a super-interesting character who has nothing to do with alignments. I think characters like him who have nothing to do with evil nor good are really interesting.

[Sabeta]

And the fact that three different people can interpret Gon in three different ways shows how pointless arguing about Alignment is. Everyone is going to have their own preconceptions depending on how they view society. In my opinion, this makes alignment especially difficult for DMs. If one of my players says "I'm Lawful Good", but then shows me his character sheet's ideals and bonds are basically that of a Communist Dictator I'd be dubious. If he told me "people have a tendency to hurt each other when they're given freedom. I understand that most people will think of me as evil, but it's for the good of everyone that I do this", i'd let him keep that alignment. However, people wouldn't necessarily be okay with that. He may end up raising armies of people who view his ideals as Good, and compete against armies of those who find is rationale Evil.

A cold war campaign where alignments are constantly called into question might actually be kind of fun...

[Gastronomie]

And the fact that three different people can interpret Gon in three different ways shows how pointless arguing about Alignment is.lol, true.


If one of my players says "I'm Lawful Good", but then shows me his character sheet's ideals and bonds are basically that of a Communist Dictator I'd be dubious. ...(snip)... A cold war campaign where alignments are constantly called into question might actually be kind of fun...Well, my view is that not many people who are considered evil by others really ever had any "malice" in their actions.

For instance, I don't think many would question that Hitler is considered evil by modern standards, but I think it's impossible for someone to kill millions of people thinking it's a wrong or evil act. The person needs to believe it's the right thing to do, for him to commit such terrible deeds.
I think Hitler firmly believed that his actions were justice, and that he was making Germany, the country he loves, a better place for his people. His love for his country itself was probably nothing vile, just too strong, and leading to a direction that most modern people would say "F*** NO" to.
Discrimination against Jewish people and an eerie tendency to storm towards war were nothing uncommon back then, after all. Both were done by quite a lot of countries back then, just that Hitler and Nazi Germany were a bit especially excessive with it. In fact I think problems with similar roots still exist in a lot of powerful countries of the present day... but that's another matter, and I feel it might get off topic, so let's stop here.

The idea that people can be inherently evil, or that people will willingly worship an evil god knowing it's evil and the wrong thing to do honestly makes no sense. It simply seems unrealistic for me. Unless it's a Demon or something that's otherwise an "embodiment of pure evilness", I think not many characters should understand that what they're doing is wrong.

Just because you think you're doing the right thing, doesn't mean you're always a good influence for the wold.

For instance, I'm thinking of someday using a Necromancer Stalin in one of my campaigns. He grew up seeing whole villages starving to death, and now believes that his job is to kill off all of the idle and slothful, reanimating them as skeletons (of course, magically cleaned so that they don't carry germs or anything) that will work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, allowing crops to prosper and the people to get enough foods, or alternatively, work in forges or transport goods across the land, or otherwise do any of the jobs that do not require brains.
The guy eventually becomes a powerful figure in his lands, and becomes its ruler, creating a utopia run by skeleton labor.
However, he starts to go too far.
The thing is that sometimes, Necromancer Stalin hears rumors of rebellion. When he does, he will have the villagers report of the rebels, and kill them all, then proceed to make them skeleton workers. 99% of them may be innocent, but if even 1% of them are real rebels, he will say this massacre was a success (this is something the real-life Stalin actually said. I mean, I can't believe it myself, but...). He will also ruthlessly kill any of the disabled, or even the old, and again, re-animate them as zombie farmers or factory workers.
The skeletons in this world are not very well-built, and will start to become decrepit after several to a dozen years. Thus the society needs to constantly provide dead bodies. If there's not enough people dying from natural causes, the people may report someone they don't like to the headquarters, and that person will be killed and re-animated as a worker. This sort of society. While no one can deny the fact that after Necromancer Stalin became the ruler of these lands, the people have prospered and stopped dying of hunger, it's obviously a terrible dystopia.

Necromancer Stalin thinks he's Lawful Good. He's a really nice person to meet and talk with, and he thinks he's for the good of the people.
If real-life Stalin looked at this, he'd probably also say he's Lawful Good.
But he's actually more Lawful Evil.

...Stuff like that.

[djreynolds]

I don't think anyone sane thinks they are evil, I mean even mobsters have wives and kids.

But if someone is consistently doing as they please, that's chaotic. Nothing wrong with that.

If someone is consistently doing things that they know are wrong, like murder, that's evil... regardless of their reasons.
And the players at the table will have to judge that.

And that is the key, who are the players at the table?

But if you want to play lawful good, say, then play it to the best of your ability...what would a lawful good person do in this situation. That's part of the fun of the game.

Evil players should be doing what they want and sometimes its to the benefit of them or to others, but a lawful evil or neutral evil player should have a motive behind what they do.

I would think chaotic evil is very tough to "play" and requires a practiced hand, an experienced player... but if it ruins the game for others, stop it.

Just enjoy playing a character, if you are a paladin and die, well that's what paladins do, they often get the party in trouble and everyone dies. That's the game, next time try a fighter.

[Sabeta]

There are plenty of people who might consider themselves evil.

The Thieve's Guild is probably full of people who for one reason or another want to step outside the law. Some of them might fancy themselves Chaotic Good people like Robin Hood, but more of them are probably motivated by Greed. A Merchant of Death, who spurs and incites conflict while also arming both sides so that the combat can escalate is probably extremely evil. His motivation may be nothing more than gold, and found that starting wars was the most enjoyable method, but that doesn't make him insane.

Basically, if the player themselves are motivated by greed, hatred, or other selfish desires then they probably have no qualms considering themselves Evil, and probably have no issues when others call them that too.

If a player does things that are morally questionable, but does so out of a selfless desire to help the week; they may consider themselves good. Whether or not others find them that way is up to society.

[Beleriphon]

I like to look at the Good/Evil dichotomy through a Star Wars filter.

Is the Emperor evil? Yes. I think we can all agree he's some variety of D&D Evil. Does he think of himself as Evil? Probably not, but he also probably don't think of himself as Good either. He thinks he's right, he'll do what he wants to rule the galaxy, because gosh darnit he's right the Jedi are wrong and those dopes deserve to get slaughtered. Does he think Obi-Wan is Good? Maybe, but more than likely he thinks that Obi-Wan is an idiot that deserves all the horrible stuff that happens to him.

Is Obi-Wan good? Yes. I think we can all agree he's some variety of D&D Evil. Does he think of himself as Good? Probably he does, because he goes out of his way to help people, and protect the helpless. He also thinks the Emperor is Evil, not just because he's a Sith Lord but because the Emperor hurts people for no reason other than revenge and power.

[smcmike]

Not really. In my current campaign, there are a range of good and neutral characters, and the primary difference is that the good characters generally seem more bloodthirsty.

[Arkhios]

I've got two campaigns I run.

The other is set in a same homebrew world my own DM runs his campaign, so I try to keep it consistent with his rules.

In the other campaign, set in the post-apoclyptic future of alternative earth, I chose to eschew alignments completely. In a world where you may have to make difficult decisions to ensure survival, I felt that extreme alignments altogether might lead to unwanted conflicts when theres a-plenty already.

[Biggstick]

There are 4 instances where alignment absolutely matters in a campaign, and those instances are: Book of Vile Darkness, Book of Exalted Deeds, Talisman of Pure Good, and the Talisman of Pure Evil. Your alignment must match up with what you'd expect from each item to be able to successfully attune to it (Book of Vile Darkness will actually change your alignment to NE).

Generally when I see someone doesn't throw an alignment on their sheet, this means they don't want to be bound by any restrictions that "alignment" supposes. So guess what that means? They're CN. Yep, the issue of not putting an alignment on a character sheet has been solved!

Personally, I love the alignment system. It adds another layer of fun to the roleplay. Getting the Lawful Good Paladin, Chaotic Good Bard, True Neutral Druid, and Lawful Evil Fighter to all agree on something can be an interesting challenge imo. Alignment most definitely ups the fun factor in a game for me.

[Gastronomie]

Not really. In my current campaign, there are a range of good and neutral characters, and the primary difference is that the good characters generally seem more bloodthirsty.lol, that's pretty damn funny. But it might also be pretty truthful - "neutral" characters might be more ignorant, while people who consider themselves good will try to change things around, possibly through violence. In a way it might show how benevolence does not always lead to peace or the good of the world.


There are plenty of people who might consider themselves evil.

The Thieve's Guild is probably full of people who for one reason or another want to step outside the law. Some of them might fancy themselves Chaotic Good people like Robin Hood, but more of them are probably motivated by Greed. A Merchant of Death, who spurs and incites conflict while also arming both sides so that the combat can escalate is probably extremely evil. His motivation may be nothing more than gold, and found that starting wars was the most enjoyable method, but that doesn't make him insane.

Basically, if the player themselves are motivated by greed, hatred, or other selfish desires then they probably have no qualms considering themselves Evil, and probably have no issues when others call them that too.

If a player does things that are morally questionable, but does so out of a selfless desire to help the week; they may consider themselves good. Whether or not others find them that way is up to society.I think this may differ from character to character, but perhaps you're right that people who work solely for themselves can at times understand they're immoral. Hitler and Stalin are both politicians after all, and politicians are supposed to fight for the good of the country. Criminals don't have that sort of call of duty.

But some theives and evil merchants may think in a way similar to the character Greed from Fullmetal Alchemist (I know, his name... to be fair, he's one of seven characters named after the Deadly Sins): basically, "greed isn't a bad thing at all". Greed claims that be your goal be to save the world, or to revivify a lost love, or to simply gain lots of money, they all boil down to a "wish" that comes from the bottom of your heart, and that you should be honest about it.

Or they might just not care or even realize that what they're doing is a bad thing. Ignorance of the people they kill with the wars they start and stuff.

@Arkhios: Yeah, alignment could get in the way with post-apocalyptic campaigns.

[smcmike]

lol, that's pretty damn funny. But it might also be pretty truthful - "neutral" characters might be more ignorant, while people who consider themselves good will try to change things around, possibly through violence. In a way it might show how benevolence does not always lead to peace or the good of the world.


Yeah, the neutral characters aren't so concerned about what future evil captured enemies might perpetrate, and are therefore more willing to, say, make a deal with a goblin.

[OldTrees1]

What is alignment and to what degree does it exist at my table?

Alignment is a 2 dimensional judgement that a player makes about an action/character/event in the game (although obviously characters can also make such judgements). Since WotC is not playing at my table their judgement has been discarded in favor of the actually relevant judgements.

1) Player - Character interaction
Some players will try to create characters that fall within a certain pattern of their judgement (Examples: moral exemplar, realistic evil, Blue/Orange, struggling to be good, falling, ...)

Other players will create characters and then see how they would judge those characters when those characters are played in scenarios.

2) Character - Character interaction
Beliefs about what is right and wrong are nigh ubiquitous factors in social interactions (this rises to literally ubiquitous when including disbelief in morality). As such the characters' judgement can easily become relevant in cases of disagreement or even merely cases the characters believe to have moral significance.

3) Player - Player interaction
None that is not merely Character - Character interaction. Even a paladin's goddess(as created by the DM) disagreeing with the cleric(as created by a player) ala Miko is a Character - Character interaction.

[Draco4472]

Alignment is never important in relation to a campaign. What it does matter for, is the PC's that go through it. This and whatever personality they've constructed determine how their characters interact with the world, the campaign, and the rest of the party.

[gkathellar]

Only in Planescape games. Otherwise, there's no reSon to touch it w/a 10-foot pole.

[Sigreid]

Since alignment languages are no longer a thing, the characters and NPCs probably don't have any concept of this "Alignment" thing, and couldn't care less. They know Sir Ulric can be counted on to try to do right by even strangers, even if it costs him. They know that Rasputin the wizard cares little to nothing to what happens to strangers as long as he gets what he wants. They know Heratio the merchant doesn't care what happens to others, but his word is his bond, whether he wins or looses.

[Naanomi]

In my campaigns, alignment-based Outsiders can sense people's alignments and care a lot about them; and some magic items may care (especially if the come from the Outer Planes); but the whole concept is intentionally left pretty Alien... an Archon berates you for being Evil and you don't see yourself that way, and are loved in your community... but in the Archon's eyes it is as clear as your hair color and as is the defining trait on how they interact with you. The perception of Slaad and Modrons are even more incomprehensible by mortal standards (and Rilmani are even worse; and the are worst Kamarel worst of all!)

Note that Alignment's mechanical effects are not *completely* removed from 5e; a Sprite (and thus a Warlock's Sprite familiar) can read alignment.

[Safety Sword]

I grew up with Dragonlance where good and evil aren't concepts. They're actually factions struggling for control of the world.

Team Evil knows what they are. They strive to further the transparent agenda of the Gods of Evil.

Wizards are organised into conclaves depending on their alignment. Priests (clerics if you like :smalltongue:) know exactly what their gods want them to do as their part of the plan.

It plays well because you can choose a side and off you go. DMs can tailor the experience depending on your alignment choices easily.

I have never found Forgotten Realms to play that way. It has a lot more factions and smaller struggles which has it's advantages and disadvantages all of which can skip alignment as a requirement.

[Pex]

Just limiting to my two 5E groups:

One DM uses alignment as Ye Olde Team Jerseys, will describe NPCs and monsters based on alignment, and has NPCs use alignment terms. I find it really annoying in breaking the fourth wall. It doesn't ruin the game for me, but it's like nails on chalkboard.

The other DM hardly references it all. The only time it comes up is in a homebrew race called Quarterlings (half-human, half-halfling) where it is a racial feature that they can only be Good-aligned. It is impossible for them not to be. We just play our characters. We're all rascals in our individual ways, but we're also Good-Guys.

[Hrugner]

I've only ever used it as a pre-game set up mechanism. Evil games, and non-chaotic games are pretty common set ups just to make sure everyone's character is inline with the basic plot being run. It isn't uncommon for people to fill in their alignments with something silly like "totally metal" or "feckless yesman"

[djreynolds]

If you choose an alignment, then it should be important, but it isn't set in stone. Harrowing adventures and near death experiences should change your PC.

A paladin is normally lawful because he has oaths to fulfill. If doesn't fulfill them he/she breaks his oath.

For me, very humbly, IMO, this is fantasy realm, and you chose this character, race and class, etc.

How is a dwarf different if he is chaotic over lawful, or neutral over good?

It shouldn't be a struggle to play a "character", it should be fun.

Your paladin should go through dilemmas and have questions of morality they must answer. Your fighter has to make a choice of whether to stand with the paladin or not. The fighter may feel its not his problem, he's just there for the glory and loot. He may have a spiritual epiphany.

Your alignments can change, you may begin to agree with the paladin or you may resent him. The paladin may falter, that's the fun.

The dirty rogue may save the villagers, because deep down inside he isn't a scoundrel.

[TheButterSwan]

Any campaign I play we dont really care too much about alignment as much as we do your specific motive. Alignment just helps a few people out by letting them establish where that characters motives actually are. Some people at my table dont even write theirs down because they tend to make their motives fairly ambiguous. However, when it comes to spells like Dispel Evil and Good we typically put your alignment up to vote for you. The alignment you put on your sheet is typically just what your character thinks his alignment would be.

[gkathellar]

The only time that alignment is worth paying attention to is in a Planescape game. Otherwise, it's best discarded.

[Grey Watcher]

To me, it's mainly a roleplaying aid, like BIFTs (Bonds, Ideals, Flaws, and Traits): it's a more concrete thing to keep in mind when deciding how your character reacts to <stimulus>. For good characters, it makes little difference to me personally: my default mode in games is to cast my character as a hero, doing hero-y things. It's handy when playing Neutral and the rare Evil character as a reminder that "Right, as a self-imposed challenge, you're trying to play against your typical instincts". Still, BIFTs are more useful by virtue of being more specific. Having an Ideal of "Protect those who cannot protect themselves" and a Bond to your Paladin sister (ie, "What would Sitara do?") have a similar function to "being Lawful Good", but by being more specific, you more readily get your character's answer to "What should we do with the prisoners?" and the DM can put more specific hooks for you in (eg "The squishy NPC just fled to the basement; your sister just charged up the stairs to fight the bad guys. What do you do?")

Still, I will admit to having a certain... sentimental attachment to alignment, so I kinda prefer it being there, but it does end up being mostly decorative.

[Demonslayer666]

No. It's there for a role-playing guideline.

[Tanarii]

No. It's there for a role-playing guideline.

Interesting. That counts as mattering in my campaigns.

[Addaran]

In my game, very little effect. Often i won't even be sure of someone's alignment or won't agree with it. I don't like alignment detection or requirement, so i keep them very rare. (gods, powerful demon seeing if you're "corrupted" already, etc)


Interesting. That counts as mattering in my campaigns.

I see it as helpful for those who needs it but useless for those who don't, kinda like little wheels on your bike when you're a kid.

I usually have a clear idea of what motivate my character and how she/he'd react. I don't need to think if the character is good/evil or chaotic/lawful. Especially since it's so subjective to the person (see all the alignment threads). That way, i can play as complicated character as i want. I can have conflicting alignment, bonds, ideals, flaws, etc depending on the situation. Wich tend to be how people are in real life.

[Tanarii]

I see it as helpful for those who needs it but useless for those who don't, kinda like little wheels on your bike when you're a kid.

I usually have a clear idea of what motivate my character and how she/he'd react. I don't need to think if the character is good/evil or chaotic/lawful. Especially since it's so subjective to the person (see all the alignment threads). That way, i can play as complicated character as i want. I can have conflicting alignment, bonds, ideals, flaws, etc depending on the situation. Wich tend to be how people are in real life.Personally I find that most players need training wheels. Because they don't ever come up with decent motivations for their characters, instead concentrating on backstory / history.

That said, I agree that Alignment specifically isn't necessary for roleplaying guidelines. What I meant was roleplaying guidelines, or aids, or tools, or whatever, matter. Because playing the role of someone that isn't you is difficult. Not that Alignment specifically as a roleplaying guideline matters.

[Addaran]

Personally I find that most players need training wheels. Because they don't ever come up with decent motivations for their characters, instead concentrating on backstory / history.

That said, I agree that Alignment specifically isn't necessary for roleplaying guidelines. What I meant was roleplaying guidelines, or aids, or tools, or whatever, matter. Because playing the role of someone that isn't you is difficult. Not that Alignment specifically as a roleplaying guideline matters.

That's true. Usually it takes experience before the player stop needing training wheels. And they need to actually want to RP. Some see D&D more as tactical combat and listening to a story with a little side of RP.

Re-reading your earlier answers, I see you use alignment more to help the players fit the story and help them RP then having it actually matter in-game. In your heroic game, it doesn't seem it would matter if the characters are LG or CG, as long as they are good and want to help. And it doesn't seem you'd have a problem even if a player is acting LG while his sheet say CG.

[Tanarii]

That's true. Usually it takes experience before the player stop needing training wheels. And they need to actually want to RP. Some see D&D more as tactical combat and listening to a story with a little side of RP.Tactical combat is still Roleplaying, as long as the decisions made are done in-character. However, I agree it's fairly common for players to want to play the game as themselves, instead of as another character that isn't them. This is true for all aspects of the game, in the so-called combat, exploration and social pillars. But it does have a tendency to become more pronounced in combat and especially if using a battle mat.

(Edit: I also think even experienced players fail to properly think through motivations. ie why and when they're going to make in-character decisions different from ones they'd make themselves.)


Re-reading your earlier answers, I see you use alignment more to help the players fit the story and help them RP then having it actually matter in-game. In your heroic game, it doesn't seem it would matter if the characters are LG or CG, as long as they are good and want to help. And it doesn't seem you'd have a problem even if a player is acting LG while his sheet say CG.Helping the players have their characters fit the story and RP is mattering in-game. It's helping them more accurately portray their in-game character the way they want to, and when they make in-character decisions (ie Roleplay) they directly impact the in-game world as a result.

If you mean direct ramifications in-game for being one alignment or another, generally speaking, no. Consequences follow from actions, not alignment. At most, they follow from actions causing other creatures to perceive you as being a "good" or "evil" person, in their judgement.

No, I wouldn't have a problem with a player apparently ignoring his LG and being closer to CG. I might at some point, if it was being done regularly, ask if they were trying to play their character as LG or not, and if they thought they were start a discussion to find out why I thought they weren't and they thought they were. Now if I thought a player was trying to play their character as NE and they thought they were playing LN, it'd be an issue, and we'd have to have a discussion for sure.

[asstout]

Only if he's a paladin.

[Laurefindel]

Good and Evil typically have a central role in my games. Order, tradition and honour are also important, and so are freedom, emotions and wilderness. As for character, I expect players to come with a concept and a personality. If they want to use the alignment system as a guide, up to them, but I wont be policing or enforce it.

[Vogonjeltz]

Well, but I think this is probably one place where opinions differ from person to person. I honestly think that torturing and killing evil humanoids and humans will be considered acts of justice in a dangerous world where civilization is almost constantly at risk of being overrun by orcs, conquered by dragons, or sacrificed by demonic cults. Modern concepts of good and evil exist only in wealthy and generally peaceful countries where the people don't need to be afraid of hobgoblin raids or getting eaten alive by ogres, or being tyrannized by a powerful Beholder or Lich Lord. Just like most people are okay with killing terrorists and executing/imprisoning criminals, people in D&D worlds will gladly kill orcs or goblins.

Since the basis of the world is different, I think it's really pointless to view the people in D&D using morals and laws of the wealthy 21st century.

@Gon's alignment: I think Gon is something like True Neutral (you don't need to be Good to be angry at evil acts), but yeah, he's an example of a super-interesting character who has nothing to do with alignments. I think characters like him who have nothing to do with evil nor good are really interesting.

The description of Gon doesn't fit Neutral; He is explicitly described as taking a moral stance on things, but a mutable one (he has no code to which he is apparently adhering) that puts him in Chaotic Territory, and he's described as taking offense when his own personal choice is restricted. Ergo, Chaotic Neutral is the best fit to the description provided.

And it's inappropriate to conflate killing with torture.

In the right circumstances killing can be merciful, compassionate, or just.

Torture is never any of those things.