DnD screws the alignment pooch again

[Naez]

Warning: this is more of a rant than anything though I encourage discussion of this topic both here and at your own tables.

It has been brought to my attention, due to another thread regarding chaotic evil I posted that 5e has once again completely fumbled the alignment system.

I was initially under the impression reading the players handbook and looking at the background and ideals system that they had finally fixed alignment allowing for multiple and interesting interpretation of each alignment allowing for any alignment to be played as a party member, including the controversial CE.

But then the DMG completely screwed over any chance of using any non 2 dimensional​ character by giving only one single line interpretation of each alignment. Now for goody goodies this is no problem because if you color outside the lines DMs usually don't care. However due to this strict and stupid move Evil characters, especially chaotic evil, are likely to never be able to get the chance to be played and developed to a point where they can prove themselves as something other than a cardboard cutout.

[DivisibleByZero]

Thank you for your feedback. A representative will be with you shortly. Please hold.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

I take the one line description as a positive thing - there's not enough "cannon" information to really limit you as a player. I think it shows that alignments are whatever you table agrees alignments are as long as they include the one line they gave you on the subject

[Corran]

Well, I doubt this will be of any help to what you want to discuss, but I think you are looking at it backwards.

I have never thought of playing a character of X alignment, and then tried to build my character around that alignment (except when I was playing paladins in 3e, but phew... this belongs to the past).

I always think of the character, and then sometimes I bother writing an alignment on the character sheet. Or I dont write one down at all.

Then I play my character. I might see them as being chaotic evil, at the same time someone else at the table could argue that they are chaotic good, or sth. And it doesn't even matter one bit.

ps: For the purposes of being allowed to play a character, having this conversation be only based in alignment restriction is a huge mistake anyway. It takes more than for the alignments to agree to have a functional party. Much more. This discussion (session 0) has to be a much broader one anyway.

[Spookykid]

Funny thing is, my character just aquired an item in an official module (pota) and it doesn't have an alignment but it does give a very good description of how anyone possessing the item should act. Why don't they do that more often!

[cZak]

The alignment block on the character sheet means bupkiss...

I've played with (generally) the same group of people for nigh on twelve years.
I had a character I thought of as LE
Other players at the table thought I was the gamut from CG to CE; coincidentally, no one accused me of being LG or N

The only one that counted was the DM
They decide what the morality of the game is and how your actions have consequences or rewards.

[GPS]

The DMG alignment sentences are examples and guidelines, like the PHB alignment examples. There are many variations for each alignmneg.

[eastmabl]

Considering how little alignment actually means in 5E? I'm not concerned.

[Contrast]

The best thing 5E did with alignment was to almost completely ignore it. You play a character with a personality, history and opinions on different issues that vary based on their personal beliefs and prejudices, not one of 9 different flavours of robot.

Off the top of my head I can only think of one thing in 5E that directly links to alignment in rules terms. I'm sure there are others but I imagine most people go campaigns without alignment rearing its head in game.

If you're concerned about it I'd be inclined to leave the slot blank on your character sheet and, if it becomes relevant, ask the DM what alignment they think your character is based on your character history and actions to date.

[JellyPooga]

My first introduction into D&D was when I was about seven. I played a dwarf fighter in an AD&D campaign that was being run for a group of about 9 of us at my cousins house. Fun times.

The next time I played D&D, many years later, it was a brand new computer game that had just hit the shelves called "Torment" (I later realised it was really called Planescape: Torment, but hey, I was just a kid at the time). It was that game that really introduced me to the rules of the game and the concept of alignment. It was also that game that taught me that it's a characters actions that determine their alignment and not the other way around.

So, what has your character been doing that's particularly Chaotic or Evil lately? Do you really need much more than a line or two describing what "counts" as Chaotic and/or Evil to know if you're acting in a Chaotically Evilish manner? It's just a label, not a straight jacket. By being vague on the subject, I think 5ed has dobe a grand job of holding on to that particular sacred cow without shoving it awkwardly in your face at inopportune times (like 3ed did).

[KorvinStarmast]

However due to this strict and stupid move Evil characters, especially chaotic evil, are likely to never be able to get the chance to be played and developed to a point where they can prove themselves as something other than a cardboard cutout. My experience with people who choose chaotic evil characters is that they are sloppy and lazy in their role playing. There may be the occasional exception to this, but I've never seen it. It is a bad sign that you are ranting and getting wound up about CE. (I personally find NE to be a whole lot more dangerous in a PC, but that's another topic).

As the previous post mentions, by JellyPooga, play the character, and then ask the DM how your alignment is tracking.

[Knaight]

The best thing 5E did with alignment was to almost completely ignore it. You play a character with a personality, history and opinions on different issues that vary based on their personal beliefs and prejudices, not one of 9 different flavours of robot.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, as they say.

[Beastrolami]

I like the fact that 5e doesn't say you are alignment x, so act x.

I don't like that there are no mechanical benefits or negatives of alignment. That may sound a bit hypocritical, but bear with me.

An experienced rper will roleplay their character, alignment or not. New rpers have backgrounds to help them get an idea of who they are and where they came from. But, without any mechanical tie in with alignment, maintaining a consistent character is pointless. "After all, it's just a game."
"I stab the peasant."
'You're lawful good."
"Well, the peasant is evil."
"You're evil now."
"Cool whatever, might as well burn down the rest of the village."

Without dm interference, and some form of narrative punishment (i.e. being hunted by the law, etc.) there is no negative to hopping alignments for the lolz. In older editions, you could lose class abilities, could be detected as evil, smited for being evil, protected against, etc. Now... the only benefit, or negative of roleplaying a consistent character is up to DM discretion. Some say absolutely no chaotic evil, and will step in to stop your rp, others allow anything, and a good character might say... hmmm.... that "evil stuff" sounds fun, hey CE character, want to go burn a village to the ground?

Whatever, just my personal rant.

[GlenSmash!]

5e gives two sentences in regards to a specific alignment that along with Personality traits, bonds, Flaws etc form your background are meant to help you decide how to roleplay your character.

If you want to play an interesting Chaotic Evil character, I don't see anything in those two sentences that would stop you.

[ZorroGames]

Warning: this is more of a rant than anything though I encourage discussion of this topic both here and at your own tables.

It has been brought to my attention, due to another thread regarding chaotic evil I posted that 5e has once again completely fumbled the alignment system.

I was initially under the impression reading the players handbook and looking at the background and ideals system that they had finally fixed alignment allowing for multiple and interesting interpretation of each alignment allowing for any alignment to be played as a party member, including the controversial CE.

But then the DMG completely screwed over any chance of using any non 2 dimensional​ character by giving only one single line interpretation of each alignment. Now for goody goodies this is no problem because if you color outside the lines DMs usually don't care. However due to this strict and stupid move Evil characters, especially chaotic evil, are likely to never be able to get the chance to be played and developed to a point where they can prove themselves as something other than a cardboard cutout.

LOL, this matters only if your DM worries about this upfront and with what I see of 5th compared to White Box OD&D not really much of a problem even then. Just make sure the DM and other players are in agreement about the meta game understanding.

[Slipperychicken]

Off the top of my head I can only think of one thing in 5E that directly links to alignment in rules terms. I'm sure there are others but I imagine most people go campaigns without alignment rearing its head in game.

There are a handful of items that interact with alignment (Holy Avenger, Talisman of Ultimate Good, Talisman of Ultimate Evil, etc), and sprites can tell peoples' alignments. That said, the overall impact is minimal. It's pretty hard for characters to even objectively determine peoples' alignments, so it's more or less a non-issue unless your GM goes far out of his way to make it an issue.

I think that WotC/Hasbro took 5e a few steps in the right direction on alignment, but once 6e rolls around they should go further and downgrade it to an optional rule.

[Drackolus]

The older I get, the more I hate the alignment system. We don't even use it anymore.

[Theodoxus]

Alignment is akin to age, sex or hair color on your character sheet. It might have very limited uses in some social interactions, but in general, citing LG or CE on your character sheet has as much importance as whether you're blond or a redhead...

Of course, it also completely depends on how much emphasis a DM places on alignment. But since there are extremely few (none?) mechanics involving alignment interaction, unlike previous editions, it's pretty much a nothing burger in probably 90% of games.

[GPS]

Yo, does anyone have the DMG page for these? I haven't been able to find it all day. It's not even in the index.

[ProphetSword]

i removed alignment from my game, because I trust my players to play their characters however they want. In 5e, you will likely never miss alignment.

The amazing thing about removing alignment is that players tend to spend more time defining why they act a certain way instead of falling back on alignment as a crutch. Most people tend toward neutral with good tendencies when freed from alignment anyway, which was not what I expected.

Try it at your table.

[Slipperychicken]

Yo, does anyone have the DMG page for these? I haven't been able to find it all day. It's not even in the index.

The alignment descriptions are actually in PHB 122. I couldn't find anything in the DMG either.



The amazing thing about removing alignment is that players tend to spend more time defining why they act a certain way instead of falling back on alignment as a crutch. Most people tend toward neutral with good tendencies when freed from alignment anyway, which was not what I expected.


I have to second this. The most morally virtuous PCs I've seen in my roleplaying experience were in games where dnd alignments were not in effect.

[RickAllison]

I played a CE person for a one-shot who was always looking for a prime opportunity to screw over the party to gain wealth or power. Instead, when we reached a room that required a willing sacrifice and no one was willing to step up, he killed himself "out of boredom", but really because while he would have preferred to have the power himself, the world would be better off with one of his companions in power and he likes the world. The DM stated that in the epilogue that he occupied a rather unique position in the afterlife, having dearly wanted to murder everyone around him, but never acting on these impulses and ultimately making the ultimate sacrifice for others. He was CE, but his restraint combined with his suicide for the sake of others left him in a much more positive light by the divines.

[MeeposFire]

I honestly would not mind if alignment was gone from the game. I would not miss it and I have not really used it for a long time.

[Beelzebubba]

Without dm interference, and some form of narrative punishment (i.e. being hunted by the law, etc.) there is no negative to hopping alignments for the lolz. In older editions, you could lose class abilities, could be detected as evil, smited for being evil, protected against, etc. Now... the only benefit, or negative of roleplaying a consistent character is up to DM discretion. Some say absolutely no chaotic evil, and will step in to stop your rp, others allow anything, and a good character might say... hmmm.... that "evil stuff" sounds fun, hey CE character, want to go burn a village to the ground?

Whatever, just my personal rant.

I dunno. Your take is accurate mechanically, I saw all of that too, and as a graying old fart who played AD&D from the very beginning, I'm glad it's gone.

Hopping alignment for the lolz is a problem with younger players who are just in that stage of development, really. I was that way, no amount of sense or mature discussion or rules stuff would have talked me out of it - I was in the 'social skills' phase equivalent to egging houses and setting things on fire. Those things being there didn't stop me.

What those things *enabled* though, is jerk DMs who were in that same phase of maturity absolutely treating players like garbage. Punishing them with the flimsiest of excuses, taking one player they don't like and picking at their actions constantly, and using monster after monster that had specific alignment-based attacks that didn't effect anyone else. That stuff was rampant in the under-18 crowd when I played.

I'm glad there are no more mechanics that allow DMs to arbitrarily punish players based on alignment, race (Racial Antipathy Table), gender (ability limits), etcetera. It won't stop them from being jerks, but it takes away their ability to say stuff like 'I'm just following the ruuuuuuuuules man' while they're doing it.

[Gastronomie]

If you don't like it, just don't use it.

I ignore a lot of the rulebook myself.

[Spore]

If you don't like it, just don't use it.

I ignore a lot of the rulebook myself.

The problem comes up when half of the group wants to use alignment and the other one doesn't. A 3.5 alignment discussion could screw up your entire build (for paladins or alignment requirements for prestige classes) as well as make you more vulnerable to attacks (spells like Blasphemy or Holy Word are not strong in a optimization sense but they can royally screw over unprepared good/evil characters).

In 5e nothing like that can happen (yet). Still the debate distracts from the game (imho) and doing stuff contrary to a character's belief is weird sometimes. "I have to stab you because you are good and that is what a CE guy would do." is nonsense. As a matter of fact the characters respect each other and/or are even related.

I made my Halfling Paladin's brother neutral evil (in Pathfinder) but I would've verbally assaulted my DM for trying to attack me openly with said NPC. As long as my Paladin is of use to his brother he wouldn't dare an open confrontation. And even after finishing business I don't think ANY character bare the bravest would risk their lives in a direct confrontation.

[Dr. Cliché]

it's a characters actions that determine their alignment and not the other way around.

I'd like to agree, but there are times when the game seems to contradict this.

e.g. If you embrace a werewolf or wererat curse, you become Chaotic Evil. Okay. So what does that mean, exactly? Either my alignment is supposed to dictate my actions (in which case I now have to go round murdering people for no other reason than 'because I'm evil'), or else alignment is supposed to be dictated by actions (in which case the change is completely meaningless because I can just ignore it entirely).

[Jacquerel]

I believe in that case it is meant to represent the idea that your behaviour should change if you embrace lycanthropy, and you should not continue to act in exactly the same manner. The curse has an effect on your behaviour.

[Dr. Cliché]

I believe in that case it is meant to represent the idea that your behaviour should change if you embrace lycanthropy, and you should not continue to act in exactly the same manner. The curse has an effect on your behaviour.

But that's the thing - your behaviour hasn't changed. The werewolf or wererat hasn't done anything yet.

So either alignment is dictating behaviour or else we now have a situation where a character's alignment is changing preemptively.

Imagine for a moment if this werewolf was struck down just after having embraced his curse. He would be considered chaotic evil on the basis that he might do something evil in the future.

[Willie the Duck]

Warning: this is more of a rant than anything though I encourage discussion of this topic both here and at your own tables.

For this reason, I think we should be more supportive to the OP. This is a rant and we all should be able to do that.

If the alignment system does not meet your desires, that's too bad. It's trivially easy to house-rule, but we'd all like to see our preferred system represented by the printed rules.


It has been brought to my attention, due to another thread regarding chaotic evil I posted that 5e has once again completely fumbled the alignment system.

This is where I break away however. They did not fumble it simply because it does not match your desires. They fumble it if it mechanically doesn't work, or how it works or is described does not match its purpose in the game. And the alignment system has nor real purpose anymore. Alignment is a holdover from Chainmail where it was a faction descriptor (not unlike being Tau or Eldar in Warhammer or Federation or Klingon in Starfleet Battles). It identified whether you were likely to join up with, or be on a team with, elves and dwarves vs. goblins and vampires. That's it. Everything else has been tacked-on justification from either the designers or the fans. Therefore it is very hard to fumble because there just isn't that much there there.


But then the DMG completely screwed over any chance of using any non 2 dimensional​ character by giving only one single line interpretation of each alignment. Now for goody goodies this is no problem because if you color outside the lines DMs usually don't care. However due to this strict and stupid move Evil characters, especially chaotic evil, are likely to never be able to get the chance to be played and developed to a point where they can prove themselves as something other than a cardboard cutout.

And I think that if your DM lets you color outside the lines for good characters, but not bad, that's a problem with your DM, not the (blessedly) short and vague alignment descriptions.

Mapping alignment to either fully developed three dimensional characters or to real world morality is at best a 'pick which of these 9 is the closest fit' proposition. Leaving it vague is, IMO, the best solution for everyone involved.

[Unoriginal]

I'd like to agree, but there are times when the game seems to contradict this.

e.g. If you embrace a werewolf or wererat curse, you become Chaotic Evil. Okay. So what does that mean, exactly? Either my alignment is supposed to dictate my actions (in which case I now have to go round murdering people for no other reason than 'because I'm evil'), or else alignment is supposed to be dictated by actions (in which case the change is completely meaningless because I can just ignore it entirely).



But that's the thing - your behaviour hasn't changed. The werewolf or wererat hasn't done anything yet.

So either alignment is dictating behaviour or else we now have a situation where a character's alignment is changing preemptively.

Imagine for a moment if this werewolf was struck down just after having embraced his curse. He would be considered chaotic evil on the basis that he might do something evil in the future.

It seems you haven't read the Were-beings entry very carefully.


Yes, the behavior has changed. A werewolf utterly and completely wants to kill makes other suffer, which translate into an evil alignment.

Behavior includes what you want and try to accomplish, regardless of your success in doing so. If Smith the hitman failed at killing someone's whole family to show a message because he got arrested before he could, it doesn't mean Smith is not evil, it just means that his evil act was prevented.

In the case of the werewolf, someone who embrace the curse *willingly* decide that from now on they will be ruthless and sadistic killer who will leave a bloody path behind them for as long as they live.

I repeat: embracing the curse means becoming such a being, on your own volition. You will be modified so that it becomes your raison d'être, and you are ok with that. Which is part of the behavior 5e characterize as of evil alignment.

It's like being told by a devil "do you want to become an insane murderer? I can turn you into one." and answering "hell yeah! Sign me in". It doesn't matter if you

Of course if you have tried to fight it off at first it means that you eventually accepted it and started surrendering to your sadistic and savage urges pleasurable, or that you are so tired of fighting that you go "damn everyone else, they can suffer in my stead, I don't want to stop myself anymore".


In any case, the shift in alignment describes how your mindset changed, and your actions will match your new mindset as soon as possible.


So, yes, the change in alignment describes the change in behavior. Getting killed before you get to express it externally doesn't change the fact that internally you were dead-set in doing those things and intensely desired to do so.

[Dr. Cliché]

It seems you haven't read the Were-beings entry very carefully.

It seems you've entirely missed my point.


Yes, the behavior has changed. A werewolf utterly and completely wants to kill makes other suffer, which translate into an evil alignment.

Based on what exactly?

- It's not based on the character's personality (if it was, the alignment change would come *after* he actually started committing the acts. What's more, you'd expect some other options for alignment - rather than immediately jumping to CE).

- It's also not based on anything to do with the animal you transform into (since neither rats nor wolves are evil aligned, and nor do either engage in wanton slaughter).

- It's not even based on being a were-beast because there's no consistency with alignments (weretigers make you neutral and werebears even make you good).

Literally the only thing it is based on is that you are now Chaotic Evil and are expected to act as such.


Behavior includes what you want and try to accomplish, regardless of your success in doing so.

That is literally the opposite of what behaviour is. Behaviour is action not intent.

What you're talking about is basically thoughtcrime.


If Smith the hitman failed at killing someone's whole family to show a message because he got arrested before he could, it doesn't mean Smith is not evil, it just means that his evil act was prevented.

That's a false equivalence. In your example, Smith was already trying to kill them. i.e. he had taken action with that intent.

A better comparison would be if Smith had just been asked to kill the family, but just as he decided to take the job he was hit by a bus and killed. He had taken no action whatsoever against the family.


it doesn't mean Smith is not evil, it just means that his evil act was prevented

The problem is, you are starting with the premise that Smith was already evil. That isn't the case.


In the case of the werewolf, someone who embrace the curse *willingly* decide that from now on they will be ruthless and sadistic killer who will leave a bloody path behind them for as long as they live.

I repeat: embracing the curse means becoming such a being, on your own volition. You will be modified so that it becomes your raison d'être, and you are ok with that. Which is part of the behavior 5e characterize as of evil alignment.

First of all, could you please cite that in the Lycanthropes entry.

Second of all why? Why does embracing that you're now a were-beast also translate into being a psychotic murderer? There is literally no logical chain of thought here. Why can someone not embrace the curse with a desire to use his powers for good? Even if they eventually lost the fight and became full-fledged killers, you would expect the shift to be a gradual one as they slowly lost control. Not just an instantaneous transition from 'good guy' to 'psychopathic murderer'.

Hell, even if they planned to use their curse for evil reasons, why is it that they can't even be neutral evil or lawful evil?

The shift you're talking about is just ludicrous. The *only* way it makes any kind of sense is if a person's alignment directly affects his or her personality.

Also, what exactly are you giving into when you choose to become a weretiger (which turns you neutral)? Are you choosing to embrace apathy and live a life of perpetual indifference?



Of course if you have tried to fight it off at first it means that you eventually accepted it and started surrendering to your sadistic and savage urges pleasurable, or that you are so tired of fighting that you go "damn everyone else, they can suffer in my stead, I don't want to stop myself anymore".

Except that, as above, that doesn't make sense. Because your alignment changes immediately.

If it was a gradual shift, with your alignment changing only when your behaviour changed sufficiently, I'd have far fewer complaints.


In any case, the shift in alignment describes how your mindset changed, and your actions will match your new mindset as soon as possible.

Or, more accurately, your alignment changes to Chaotic Evil and you are thus expected to play your character as the stereotype for that alignment.


So, yes, the change in alignment describes the change in behavior. Getting killed before you get to express it externally doesn't change the fact that internally you were dead-set in doing those things and intensely desired to do so.

That makes no sense.

You can't argue that alignment is based on behaviour and then start changing people's alignment based on thoughts that have yet to manifest into any actual action/behaviour on their part. It's a complete contradiction.

[Unoriginal]

- It's not based on the character's personality (if it was, the alignment change would come *after* he actually started committing the acts. What's more, you'd expect some other options for alignment - rather than immediately jumping to CE).

Yes, it is based on the personality. Your personality is replaced by the one the curse impose when you cannot control your inner beast, which in this case is CE, and if you agree to let the beast in control your personality shift to become similar to it.



- It's also not based on anything to do with the animal you transform into (since neither rats nor wolves are evil aligned, and nor do either engage in wanton slaughter).

The curse turns you into a monstrous, evil, animal-shaped being. They're basically all the worst stereotypical traits of the animals + added bloodlust and desire to harm.


[QUOTE=Dr. Cliché;22000747]
That is literally the opposite of what behaviour is. Behaviour is action not intent.

What you're talking about is basically thoughtcrime.

One, no, it is not thoughtcrime because thoughtcrime means you are punished for thinking something. The werewolf situation is about a being that will *do* those horrible things they desire to do, unless prevented by the circumstances. The curse is to have an evil, beast-like being in your body, and embrassing the curse means willingly trying to do what the urges tell you to.

Second, behavior includes the reasons why someone has the behavior in question. Otherwise killing someone by accident would be the same as killing someone willingly, and fighting to defend yourself would be the same than fighting because you hate someone for no reason.




That's a false equivalence. In your example, Smith was already trying to kill them. i.e. he had taken action with that intent.

A better comparison would be if Smith had just been asked to kill the family, but just as he decided to take the job he was hit by a bus and killed. He had taken no action whatsoever against the family.

Deciding to take the job demonstrate that he is evil. He doesn't get karma point because an accident prevented for going further than deciding "I'm going to kill this guy's family".

Same way that the guy who sign a pact with a devil where he gets what he wants in exchange of killing 10 innocent persons isn't less evil if he gets killed just after he put his name on the contract.


The problem is, you are starting with the premise that Smith was already evil. That isn't the case.

Fine. If you prefer, it's the story of Mr. Landers, your average high school teacher. One day, he find a cursed knife with a soul, who tell Landers to go kill all his students. Landers refuses, so the knife makes him have horrible nightmares for months and tries to fill Landers with hate and bloodlust to make him kill the kids. After a while, Landers decide to stop resisting and agrees to do what the knife want and stop resisting the knife's influence, because all those damn kids aren't worth fighting for them anymore than he already have, and he want peace. Landers, filled with the bloodlust the knife gives, then get out of his home to go to the high school, but is hit by a car and dies.





First of all, could you please cite that in the Lycanthropes entry.

Sure:



A lycanthrope can either resist its curse or embrace it. By resisting the curse, a lycanthrope retains its normal alignment and personality while in humanoid form. It lives its life as it always has, burying deep the bestial urges raging inside it. However, when the full moon rises, the curse becomes too strong to resist, transforming the individual into its beast form-or into a horrible hybrid form that combines animal and humanoid traits. When the moon wanes, the beast within can be controlled once again. Especially if the cursed creature is unaware of its condition, it might not remember the events of its transformation, though those memories often haunt a lycanthrope as bloody dreams. Some individuals see little point in fighting the curse and accept what they are. With time and experience, they learn to master their shapechanging ability and can assume beast form or hybrid form at will. Most lycanthropes that embrace their bestial natures succumb to bloodlust, becoming evil, opportunistic creatures that prey on the weak.


A werewolf is a savage predator



Second of all why? Why does embracing that you're now a were-beast also translate into being a psychotic murderer? There is literally no logical chain of thought here. Why can someone not embrace the curse with a desire to use his powers for good? Even if they eventually lost the fight and became full-fledged killers, you would expect the shift to be a gradual one as they slowly lost control. Not just an instantaneous transition from 'good guy' to 'psychopathic murderer'.

Hell, even if they planned to use their curse for evil reasons, why is it that they can't even be neutral evil or lawful evil?

It is a CURSE, not a boon. It's meant to turn you into a psychopathic killer. There is no "use it for good". A good guy can fight the curse and try to get it healed, or embrace it and have their personality turned into the one of a psychopathic killer.




The shift you're talking about is just ludicrous. The *only* way it makes any kind of sense is if a person's alignment directly affects his or her personality.

No, once again you think backward. The personality affect the alignment. Becoming a werewolve makes you become a sadistic killer, and so you turn evil.





Or, more accurately, your alignment changes to Chaotic Evil and you are thus expected to play your character as the stereotype for that alignment.

No, the character becomes as sadistic and savage, which is symbolized by the character's alignment changing to chaotic evil.

[Temperjoke]

*checks the calendar*

Oh, I guess it's about that time again.

[2D8HP]

Well back in the 1980's...(my traditional start to a post) I mostly lest "alignment" blank.


Now.... under "alignment" in pencil write "Neutral".

If your DM says that your PC is not behaving "Neutral" hand your DM your character sheet and a pencil with an erasure.

Then take back the sheet without bothering to look at what the "alignment" now is, and continue to play your character.


http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0202.gif


If you don't like it, just don't use it.

I ignore a lot of the rulebook myself.


Preach it!

[ZorroGames]

I might note Naez, having ranted, has left the theater.

Pot stirred, mission accomplished?

[MeeposFire]

Well back in the 1980's...(my traditional start to a post) I mostly lest "alignment" blank.


Now.... under "alignment" in pencil write "Neutral".

If your DM says that your PC is not behaving "Neutral" hand your DM your character sheet and a pencil with an erasure.

Then take back the sheet without bothering to look at what the "alignment" now is, and continue to play your character.


http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0202.gif




Preach it!

I think that is why they kept unlaligned from 4e in 5e so you can just disregard the whole darn thing.

[Rhaegar]

In previous editions it may have been that your alignment ruled your actions, and your alignment meant something. Now there is virtually nothing mechanicly where alignment has any meaning. In 5e it's more that your actions may more likely determine your alignment, if you even want to track it. In truth there is zero reason any more to track alignment. a DM not wanting a chaotic evil character in a party will often be more that a CE person will almost invariably cause trouble and betray a party, and more often than not takes away from the fun of everyone else in the party.

In regards to becoming a werewolf, there is no mechanical guidelines to having a player become and play as a werewolf. the racials of a werewolf are overpowered for a player character. From what I've read, most DMs have a character that fully turns werewolf, lose full control of their character and has to reroll. A DM that let a person play as a werewolf, could easily take control of the player occasionally while in were form, perhaps while under control of the full moon, and have them viciously attack the party, because a player under the were curse, simply does not have full control over their character.

The player may want to do good, but when they are fully taken over by the curse they are an evil creature, this is often where the DM will take control of the character, and do the evil actions. If the player fights for control, they may regain control for a time. But fully embracing the curse means you're not the same person any more, and it's time to give up your character.

[Millstone85]

I think that is why they kept unlaligned from 4e in 5e so you can just disregard the whole darn thing.Hardly. Being unaligned in 5e means being "incapable of making a moral or ethical choice", typically because you are just a regular beast. It is not something that is supposed to be found on a player-character sheet.

[Honest Tiefling]

The best thing 5E did with alignment was to almost completely ignore it.

I need to agree with this vehemently.


The problem comes up when half of the group wants to use alignment and the other one doesn't. A 3.5 alignment discussion could screw up your entire build (for paladins or alignment requirements for prestige classes) as well as make you more vulnerable to attacks (spells like Blasphemy or Holy Word are not strong in a optimization sense but they can royally screw over unprepared good/evil characters).

Or the awkward situation of a good aligned character using Dictum and forgetting that party members were in fact chaotic, or the issue of an evil party needing a neutral cleric or wizard to cast protection from evil so they can raid another evil god's temple and take all of their things. Alignment got weird.

[JackPhoenix]

Or the awkward situation of a good aligned character using Dictum and forgetting that party members were in fact chaotic, or the issue of an evil party needing a neutral cleric or wizard to cast protection from evil so they can raid another evil god's temple and take all of their things. Alignment got weird.

Wizards weren't limited in casting spells with opposite alignment descriptors, unlike clerics. However, casting Good spells was a minor good act, if an evil wizard kept spamming them without doing evil things in between, he could end up good eventually.

[Honest Tiefling]

Wizards weren't limited in casting spells with opposite alignment descriptors, unlike clerics. However, casting Good spells was a minor good act, if an evil wizard kept spamming them without doing evil things in between, he could end up good eventually.

Er, yes. I meant a wizard of any alignment, but that got weird because the wizard was the one protecting them from the enemy evil god, not the cleric. But if we take alignment as you say, this means that an evil wizard needs to perform additional evil to make up for the fact that they have cast a spell in order to accomplish evil.

[Spore]

, this means that an evil wizard needs to perform additional evil to make up for the fact that they have cast a spell in order to accomplish evil.

Ugh my head hurts from that sentence.

Honestly I'd decide that abusing good holy magicks for evil deeds is much more evil and would not count as a "good deed". Similarly a devil worshipping cleric killing demons wouldnt count as evil but one saving angels to combat demons would certainly slip into dark grey areas.

[Honest Tiefling]

Honestly I'd decide that abusing good holy magicks for evil deeds is much more evil and would not count as a "good deed". Similarly a devil worshipping cleric killing demons wouldnt count as evil but one saving angels to combat demons would certainly slip into dark grey areas.

I think Pazuzu, Graz'zt and Asmodeus would disagree with you there, since saving angels doesn't have to be a good act depending on your scheme. Through i think this is showing why the alignment system can get a little bonkers, especially since Pazuzu does have a habit of helping people! Free of charge! First time at least...

[DivisibleByZero]

I might note Naez, having ranted, has left the theater.

Pot stirred, mission accomplished?

Note the very first response in the thread.
Saw this one coming a mile away.

[Naez]

Many seem to be under the assumption that I push the use of the alignment system, forcing characters to conform to it. quite the opposite as posted in the original thread referencing a chaotic evil barbarian I was entering for a PbP. But the DMs of such things often REQUIRE you to put an alignment. I'd prefer to leave it blank myself.

My character in a more fleshed out sense is a man who resents authority, but is fully capable of working with those who view each other equals or friends (Chaotic) and is sadistic on the battlefield, preferring to maim enemies so he may torture them for information later, an act he takes much pleasure in (Evil). He is not "Chaotic Evil", as defined by the one liner. He is Chaotic and Evil.


I might note Naez, having ranted, has left the theater.

Pot stirred, mission accomplished?


Note the very first response in the thread.
Saw this one coming a mile away.

God forbid anyone be off this site for a day.

[ZorroGames]

Snip




God forbid anyone be off this site for a day.
😉🤔😁.

What could possibly be more important than a game forum?

🤣

I just thought it was interesting how - um, focused - the discussion was becoming and you were absent or at least not posting.

The pot stir comment was not meant as anything but a joke.

Actually, with my youngest graduating from community college (not bad for a kid who was never supposed to learn to speak or pass elementary school,) my granddaughter graduating from high school and starting college (enduring returning to god forsaken Leftafornia for a graduation surprise attendance,) and a wife 13 months from joining me in retirement I can understand being absent from a game forum for Real Life matters.

Alignment - what a concept.

[Chaosmancer]

I've said it a few times, but I really don't see the point in alignment. I find it serves no purpose.

The Lycanthropy discussion is interesting though. Looking at some more recent fantasy stories being told, werewolves are no longer the mindless killing machines of evil they used to be. There has been a shift, and most characters with lycanthropy while dangerous and occassionally losing control of their more primal instincts are more neutral, able to run the gamut between good and wicked.

It makes the game a bit strange to consider at times, when the stories about lycans are more about the struggle between man and beast than the pure horror monster of the wolfman of the past.

And then you have the neutral weretigers and good werebears... Both of whom are still predatory animals, so why do they not struggle the same way werewolves and wererats do? A werebear being good aligned means giving into the beast never results in human death, which makes no sense.

[Millstone85]

A werebear being good aligned means giving into the beast never results in human death, which makes no sense.The fluff of the werebear is relatively clear. The beast inside is still characterized by its "monstrous nature" and "violent impulses", leaving the human "fearing what might happen to innocent creatures" when it surfaces. Also, some werebears "are every bit as evil as other lycanthropes". It is just that there is apparently this long line of people who have learned how to master the curse and use its power for good, only passing it to those they believe can do as much. They are the most numerous werebears and the reason the stat block reads "neutral good".

Now, the rule saying that "if the character embraces the curse, his or her alignment becomes the one defined for the lycanthrope", that doesn't reflect the fluff of the werebear at all.

[RickAllison]

The fluff of the werebear is relatively clear. The beast inside is still characterized by its "monstrous nature" and "violent impulses", leaving the human "fearing what might happen to innocent creatures" when it surfaces. Also, some werebears "are every bit as evil as other lycanthropes". It is just that there is apparently this long line of people who have learned how to master the curse and use its power for good, only passing it to those they believe can do as much. They are the most numerous werebears and the reason the stat block reads "neutral good".

Now, the rule saying that "if the character embraces the curse, his or her alignment becomes the one defined for the lycanthrope", that doesn't reflect the fluff of the werebear at all.

I think it makes sense if the primal nature of the lycanthrope is not that of a wolf or bear, but that of a werewolf and werebear. Werebears are envoys of a powerful god/other entity who is a protector spirit. Weretigers are envoys of a curious and playful god who is more concerned with personal fulfillment than Good or Evil. And werewolves have a very primal, voracious spirit.

Werebears do have a vicious bent. They protect their communities, but just like bears are loners because they have offputting and vicious personalities. They are NG, but that doesn't mean they are friendly. They have the good of everyone in mind around them, but they might hulk out and throw you across the room for eating their raisins.

[BB944]

The group that I am setting up a campaign for, were setting up characters and concepts this last Saturday. This very topic came up and we had a long discussion about it.

The conclusion that we all settled on that made sense is that Alignment was not some road or path that you traveled but what felt most natural to you when you interacted.

So a Lawful Good Character can lie, steal or even commit murder but it would feel alien and unnatural like to a Construction work trying to take ballet lessons. He can, but most likely wont, and if he does he either will change his outlook on life to make this new thing he does/did work with it or stop it all together.

So we felt that a characters alignment was like a comfort zone of law, freedom, good will, and self preservation. I akin a Chaotic Evil person not to be Evil like a classic undead fiend, but rather a person that feels normal and comfortable with seeing weakness exploited and not trusting anyone unless they are afraid of you. Kinda of like a street thug, or actual pirate.

My two cents

[Beelzebubba]

The Lycanthropy discussion is interesting though. Looking at some more recent fantasy stories being told, werewolves are no longer the mindless killing machines of evil they used to be. There has been a shift, and most characters with lycanthropy while dangerous and occassionally losing control of their more primal instincts are more neutral, able to run the gamut between good and wicked.

They started using Lycanthropes as romantic protagonists so they had to be 'tortured bad boys' instead of completely animalistic or irredeemably evil.

'American Werewolf in London' vs. Twilight, anyone?

[Jacquerel]

Saying a construction worker wouldn't ever feel at home taking ballet lessons seems like an awfully "your sheet says you're lawful good so your character wouldn't do that" thing to say :P

[BB944]

Saying a construction worker wouldn't ever feel at home taking ballet lessons seems like an awfully "your sheet says you're lawful good so your character wouldn't do that" thing to say :P

Agreed, but the intention is to give a real world example of how your upbringing and outlook on life can drive choices.

As the DM to that Campaign, I would simply ask that characters be in 'character' I should never need to have to use their alignment as an enforcement tool. It should be a tool for helping the player play out their character.

I gave the my players the following real world example that actually happened.

I was in an accident with another car that looked both ways at a stop sign and then pulled right out in front of me (1 way stop, country road). I tried to avoid her, but i failed and hit her rear fender. No one was hurt, and when the Sheriff arrived to investigate the accident and take statements, he asked how fast I was going. With out even thinking I told him 'exactly' how fast i was going, which was 5 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. The other driver's insurance used this fact to declare that I was 25% at fault because, "if I was going the speed limit, I would have not arrived at the stop sign when I did" (true story btw)

Now ... this is a L/G situation. if a Player were playing me as a character in game. The whole party would be like "dude ... tell him you were going 55" but... since it felt more natural for me to tell the truth, when push came to shove and there was no time to think about it... I did.

Does that help with the Construction worker example?

[KorvinStarmast]

e.g. If you embrace a werewolf or wererat curse, you become Chaotic Evil. Okay. So what does that mean, exactly? Either my alignment is supposed to dictate my actions (in which case I now have to go round murdering people for no other reason than 'because I'm evil'), or else alignment is supposed to be dictated by actions (in which case the change is completely meaningless because I can just ignore it entirely). I think you are making the typical error in applying alignment. It's not an on/off switch.

Replace the word "dictates" with "informs" or the word "influences" and you'll get how you can make alignment work a lot better. Also, it's a matter of Trend.

One of the unfortunate things about some of the oldest bits of alignment as a game thing came with some absolute statements on "if you do this once you never get to be a Paladin again" that goes back to OD&D and AD&D 1e times.

What's interesting is that a lot of people overlooked that in AD&D Atonement for screwing up as a Paladin was introduced. It took a bit more work to apply, but it was there.

You can profess an alignment, but it's better to see how someone walks the walk. Anyone can talk the talk.

IMO, the best way to make alignment changes register on a player is like how our DM did a couple of years ago. Our CG/CN bard got a curse and an affliction, and we were looking for a greater restoration to get rid of a problem. We went to my deity's temple (I was a Tempest Cleric) that was run by a LG NPC cleric. He sent us all packing and gave me a small chewing out for bringing an evil character into the temple. We found another temple with a less G aligned high priest, and for a few GP more got the spell cast.

None of us were aware of the Bard's alignment change (he and the DM had been keeping track via email so the bard was at least aware of the shift based on the deals he was cutting with some hags) until that point.

Did it make that much difference to the group? No, but it helped us not be surprised when various people and monsters came gunning for him: our bard had attracted quite a bit of unwanted attention.

[Tanarii]

But then the DMG completely screwed over any chance of using any non 2 dimensional​ character by giving only one single line interpretation of each alignment. Now for goody goodies this is no problem because if you color outside the lines DMs usually don't care. However due to this strict and stupid move Evil characters, especially chaotic evil, are likely to never be able to get the chance to be played and developed to a point where they can prove themselves as something other than a cardboard cutout.
First of all, the single line Alignments are in the PHB, and in the Basic Rules p37 http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PlayerBasicRulesV03.pdf

But your first impression was correct, and your second one was wrong. The single sentence isn't an "interpretation of alignment". It is, as the PHB makes quite clear, a "brief summar[y] of the nine alignments describ[ing] the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment."

In other words, used in conjunction with (1 to 2) Personality Trait(s), Ideal, Bond and Flaw, it's one of 5-6 single sentence motivations that the player can use to get in-character for a more complex multi-facet person.

So yeah, they finally fixed Alignment. It no longer is a 'must behave X way', it's no longer determined by actions AT ALL, it just provides the player with a not constantly required, not perfect, typical overall behavior for them to consider as a single one of several pieces of personality data when making in-character decisions.

Also, unless the DM is restricting Alignment in his campaign, who cares what he thinks? And if he does, choose whichever of the other sentence descriptions you feel best fits in with the other 4-5 things you've chosen for your personality. Because he's very clearly trying to say 'characters that often act X way are not appropriate for this campaign'.

(If he tries to tell you X action is Evil, then he's got no idea how to run 5e Alignment. I have no idea how you can fix that problem.)

[Spore]

I think Pazuzu, Graz'zt and Asmodeus would disagree with you there, since saving angels doesn't have to be a good act depending on your scheme. Through i think this is showing why the alignment system can get a little bonkers, especially since Pazuzu does have a habit of helping people! Free of charge! First time at least...

I always thought Pazuzu was some sort of 3.5th wall joke about alignments anyway. You could "sell" a non-relevant game statistic to him for ultimate cosmic power. I mean that usually means also completely playing your character differently but still, it is ineffective if everything you do is dungeoncrawl which honestly 3.5 was made for.

That being said good and evil on a non-cosmic scale (i.e. in player characters) tends to become quite the hard thing to pinpoint down. If you wanted to gauge the typical adventurer party vs. a bunch of MM creatures, I would tend to give most players an instinctively evil alignment while most "monster races" like Goblins would be ranging from evil to neutralish.

Take an example of a party of NG Fighter, Cleric (of a neutral god for the sake of availability of spells), Wizard and Rogue. They are hired to exterminate a raiding band of Goblins. So their natural instinct is to genocide the whole damn tribe. They won't talk with (sub)humanoids. The goblins have killed and pillaged, maybe even cannibalized a few corpses. But the guards? The women and children? Are they still evil just because they survive on pillaged resources? Aren't the heroes more evil because they slaughter because of race and don't judge the actions?

I feel alignment is as simple as my DM put it: "Your alignment just determines your side on a cosmic scale. And it usually means you kill guys of the other team." So Law sorts out Chaos, Chaos dissolves Law. Good purges Evil, Evil murders Good. Neutral guys pick and choose their sides each combat (and that is why I like neutral alignments on my character that is more complex and has to serve me more than a few sessions).

[Jacquerel]

Does that help with the Construction worker example?

Not at all, I don't think doing construction work and tendency towards a hobby of performing ballet would necessarily be linked at all and your example does nothing to improve that.
But also I was mostly just poking fun that I don't think it was a very good example and the rest of your post adequately explained your reasoning (which I agree with) without it.
It's not actually an important point and I should have coloured it to make it obvious that I wasn't serious, sorry :P