Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Let's get the obvious out of the way: D&D needs alignment because D&D needs alignment. The alignment system is one of those classic points of D&D design that people think of as being central to its identity, like Vancian magic or a 1-20 level system. Changing alignment would be perceived as changing the identity of D&D, much like a change to magical resources or the level cap. This thread isn't about that, so I'd like if we didn't get caught up in it.
I'm asking whether alignment still serves a purpose in D&D. But to explain why I'm asking that, I need to explain what purposes I think alignment served and what replaced them.

First, alignment is an easy "This is an acceptable target" marker. I don't think there should be such markers, but they can help some styles of game. Except that there's no shortage of stereotypically-evil behaviors you can give a creature (eating people, pillaging caravans, etc) which accomplish the same result while giving each monster flavor. The major evil races have always had at least a paragraph or two of flavor-text describing their version of evil, and most evil creatures at least had a sentence on their crimes. However, the 5e monster manual comes with detailed flavor text as a standard option for basically all creatures. Almost every "usually evil" monster comes with a detailed explanation of what stereotypically evil acts they engage in, often with an explanation of what drives them. I think it's fair to say that this purpose, aside from being stupid, is obsolete.

Second, alignment has traditionally been tied to various mechanics, from Smite Evil to clerical alignment restrictions. But all (or nearly all) direct mechanical references to alignment have been removed. Paladins and clerics are no longer restricted by alignment, but by codes specified in the class description (the paladin's oath and the cleric's "do what your god says"), and abilities which once targeted alignments now target fiends/celestials—separate creature types which replaced alignment subtypes. As far as I know, no important mechanics reference alignment. (Maybe the helm of opposite alignment or some obscure spells, but nothing that can't be rewritten or removed. And if I'm wrong, feel free to bring up examples if you don't mind me disputing them on that "can't be rewritten or removed" part.)

Finally and most importantly, alignment is a roleplaying aid. New roleplayers may have difficulty (or just not bother) thinking about their character's personality, particularly as it is distinct from their own. Choosing an alignment forces players to ask at least one question about who their characters are which is (mostly) unrelated to how they play mechanically. Picking an alignment calls to mind character archetypes which fit many famous fictional characters; perhaps someone playing a LG cleric will decide to play her like Superman, Eddard Stark, Asami Sato, or even maybe Light Yagami. One person that probably won't come to mind is themself, and if they do, they probably won't when they try the barbarian class. (If they do, no space on the character sheet is going to encourage them to roleplay.)
I have two counterpoints to this. The smaller point is that most people playing D&D probably have at least a little experience separating a character they play from themselves, since most people who want to try a TRPG have probably played a VRPG before. The more important one is basically the entire Backgrounds section. Obviously, considering a character's background calls to mind some character archetypes as well, but that's not the important part. The important part is the list of Traits, Bonds, and Flaws (and the existence of those blanks). Just seeing them as you try to decide what background to choose can potentially inspire a personality, and you literally can't fill a character sheet without writing something about their personality. 5e still can't force players to follow (or remember) their trait/bond/flaw, but those blanks do as good a job of getting players to consider who their characters are as alignment does—and might encourage them to be more original.


I might as well make an argument for why anyone should care. Doubtless anyone who's spent much time on this forum has seen at least one alignment thread, or at least a post from the Giant mentioning why he hates it, which means a lot of you probably all know some weaknesses with alignment. I'm still going to repeat some.
One with Rich feels particularly strong about is that it encourages a black-and-white perspective on in-game morality, particularly with his particular beef being the implications this has for antagonistic races. (Which is something 5e made worse by removing the "often/usually/always" from statblocks.) It's debatable how much of this comes from the alignment system, but you'd be hard-pressed to say that a system of morality as fundamental to reality as attribute scores doesn't at least contribute. There are still plenty of people who won't think (and/or care) about whether the NPCs they kill deserve to die, whether because they're goblins or because they're NPCs, but reducing support for that attitude can't be a bad thing.
A problem I feel is more important is how alignment can act like a personality straightjacket, particularly with new roleplayers. To quote TV Tropes:

If you have a difficulty deciding which alignment a character belongs to, remember that the vast majority of characters do not have one clear, constant alignment. Do not attempt to shoehorn characters into an alignment (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SquarePegRoundTrope) if you can't figure one out for them; if you have any doubts, they probably simply lack a clearly-defined alignment.
Sure, you can define the alignment of a character with a bit of Chaotic Good and a bit of Lawful Neutral, or one which falls on the border between Lawful and Neutral Good, but that doesn't mean the system encourages that. If alignment is a significant part of what you consider when writing your character's personality, then you're not likely to write a character who doesn't fit comfortably in one box or another. That's not even considering DMs who restrict or discourage behavior by alignment, which shouldn't exist but do and so need to be considered.
Finally, the alignment system can have a negative impact on post-character-creation gameplay. The second half of Rich Burlew's article about tough decisions is (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html), at least in part, about this tendency. There's more to pointless intraparty conflict or plot hook apathy than alignment, but it's certainly a factor. "Why would my Chaotic Neutral barbarian want to help a nobleman? He hates order!" "Why would my Lawful Good wizard want to raid this tomb? Isn't that disrespectful to the dead?" That kind of thing.

It's easy to argue (and probably true) that none of this is how alignment is intended to work, especially in the editions written after the authors saw how it was being played. But the way I see it, intent doesn't matter. If the alignment system causes problems, then it needs to be treated as a problem (or at least problematic), even if the problems it causes are 100% Cobra Effect.
But just because something is flawed doesn't mean it can't be good overall. (Look at the Order of the Stick—the characters, I mean, though I admit the comic isn't perfect.) I'm not just posting this thread to gripe about alignment like a reverse grumpy-old-man, or even to point out something I like about 5e. I also want to know if there's something I'm missing about alignment. Have I overlooked something? Is there some point to alignment that isn't obsolete by now? Does D&D still need alignment?

[GreyBlack]

All good points, to which I will say that, despite all of that, yes. D&D still needs alignment. I argue that because D&D is the setting in which you play as much as it is the mechanics in which you play.

D&D has a certain amount of implied worldbuilding written into the core of the game. Elves are generally X, dwarves are generally Y, orcs are generally Z. There is deviation based on characters and such, but generally speaking, this is how things work in this setting. This is where the alignment argument comes in. Because of the implicit worldbuilding of D&D, alignment is one of those core assumptions of the setting in which we're playing. There is an assumption of a cosmic Good, a cosmic Law, etc. While one might homebrew to change those base assumptions, those are not the canonical, default positions of the setting.

[JackPhoenix]

There's a bunch of mechanical effects (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/8eva7s/collaborative_list_of_every_mechanical_effect_of/) tied to alignment.

[Kyutaru]

Alignment is needed (and I emphasize the need) merely because of D&D's planar cosmology and deities. They represent different ideologies that together make up the various personality types common to reality. When you can't spend 300 hours talking to and studying a person to know them innately because time passes in the roll of the dice or the whim of the DM, you need a way to describe the general disposition of these beings, persons, and environments. They follow mechanical rules that affect party members of opposing alignments and beliefs.

Is it needed? I mean, how much are Heaven and Hell needed in a good-evil dichotomy? I'd say they're pretty essential to the concept. I'm not a huge fan of Disney heroes, more so their deeds, but the VILLAINS are absolutely FANTASTIC and really set the mood for the story. Without great evil there can't be a heroic moment to shine. You end up with every story being Frozen and the heroes are fighting themselves.

You can do away with alignment and keep the dichotomy as basic settings like Final Fantasy games do. But you're probably going to need to eliminate the entire cosmology because you'll find much of it redundant.

[Mordaedil]

The way I see it, alignment doesn't need to be part of your home game, but I don't think alignments should be dropped in future editions of D&D. They are the easiest rules to opt out.

[Unoriginal]

People gives too much importance to alignments. Probably because of the pop culture perception of the the 3.X version.

Aside from a few mechanical effects, your alignment is now just a shorthand descriptor of what the character's typical behavior is. It is useful for RP purpose (ex: if a monster is neutral good, a DM will probably know to not portray them as an extremely-rules-following sadist), but there really shouldn't be more importance given to it than your Bond or your Flaw.

That doesn't mean D&D doesn't need alignment, though. It can safely be removed, sure, but it's part of the default D&D lore and assumptions, just as much as "Wizards learn spells from books", "Barbarians can Rage", or "Devils and Demons are separate beings".

In other words: nothing wrong with not having alignments, but it's part of the default D&D identity, which is important to keep as a default.

Also, 5e does not need often/usually/always indicators for alignment, and that does not "make it worse": 5e alignment is ALWAYS an "usually X", on an individual level.

[Serafina]

There's a bunch of mechanical effects (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/8eva7s/collaborative_list_of_every_mechanical_effect_of/) tied to alignment.Those could all be pretty easily be pretty easily replaced.
Vulnerability to weapons wielded by a good creature could just be vulnerability to blessed weapons, and the same could go for other similar effects such as whether undead are affeted by certain things.
Whether a Unicorns healing magic is maximized for you or not, or certain other "how are you affiliated relative to the monster" effects, could just be replaced with whether the monster likes you or not.
And for items that can only be attuned by a good or evil creature, you can just specify that alignment breaks when certain prohibited actions are taken - say, killing a helpless/surrendered creature, or letting someone get away with insulting you, or whatever, be creative.
Those are just examples, have a comprehensive list where I go through all the parts where alignment currently matters and change them without too much effort, and in most cases even without too much impact:
- a Demilichs Lair just deals damage to everyone who isn't undead, or allied with the Lich
- a Lemure doesn't return to life when sprinkled with holy water, or killed by a creature affectd by Bless
- a Night Hag can trap souls of those who have willingly made a deal with a Night Hag, or other Fiends
- Lycantrophes just behave differently
- Rakshasas are vulnerable to blessed piercing weapons, or piercing weapons wielded by blessed creatures
- anyone can become a Shadow unless they are Blessed or are wearing a holy symbol
- Sprites can detect if a creature is friendly, neutral or hostile towards them
- regional healing effects around a Unicorns lair are maximized against creatures the Unicorn considers friendly
- Vampires behave differently
- Gold Dragons creature mist-shapes to warn away creatures they consider hostile

- Candles of Invocation work for worshippers of the same deity
- Book of Vile Darkness: changes behavior
- Book of Exalted Deeds: attunement breaks if certain actions are taken, or have been taken within the last week, and damage is then taken
- Blackrazor: attunement breaks if certain actions are taken, or have been taken within the last week
- Deck of Many Things: can curse you to behave differently
- Talismans of Pure Good/Evil: attunement breaks if certain actions are taken, or have been taken within the last week, and damage is then taken
- Robe of the Archmage: just no longer alignment-restricted, simply takes the color fitting your character
- Moonblade: attunement breaks if certain actions are taken, or have been taken within the last week

- Classes: no alignment restriction since it no longer exists

- Planar Travel: this is world-building stuff, in a world without alignment such effects might well not exist. If you want them to, it'll just change your behavior in certain ways (make you a pacifist, more altruistic, more selfish, more insistent on making everything a contract, etc.)

- Spirit Guardians: just pick a damage type
- Glyph of Warding: that trigger doesn't work anymore, alas
- Nystuls Magical Aura: nothing to mask here
- Ceremony: maybe substitute for curse-breaking for the aforementioned forced behavior changes, if they're there
This stuff isn't too prevalent, and alltogether not too hard to handle. In some cases, it'll definetly be different without alignment - more broad or narrow, less or more powerful - but since we're basically dealing with monsters or magic items controlled by the GM here, this is hardly abusable by the players.

[GreyBlack]

Those could all be pretty easily be pretty easily replaced.
Vulnerability to weapons wielded by a good creature could just be vulnerability to blessed weapons, and the same could go for other similar effects such as whether undead are affeted by certain things.
Whether a Unicorns healing magic is maximized for you or not, or certain other "how are you affiliated relative to the monster" effects, could just be replaced with whether the monster likes you or not.
And for items that can only be attuned by a good or evil creature, you can just specify that alignment breaks when certain prohibited actions are taken - say, killing a helpless/surrendered creature, or letting someone get away with insulting you, or whatever, be creative.
Those are just examples, have a comprehensive list where I go through all the parts where alignment currently matters and change them without too much effort, and in most cases even without too much impact:
- a Demilichs Lair just deals damage to everyone who isn't undead, or allied with the Lich
- a Lemure doesn't return to life when sprinkled with holy water, or killed by a creature affectd by Bless
- a Night Hag can trap souls of those who have willingly made a deal with a Night Hag, or other Fiends
- Lycantrophes just behave differently
- Rakshasas are vulnerable to blessed piercing weapons, or piercing weapons wielded by blessed creatures
- anyone can become a Shadow unless they are Blessed or are wearing a holy symbol
- Sprites can detect if a creature is friendly, neutral or hostile towards them
- regional healing effects around a Unicorns lair are maximized against creatures the Unicorn considers friendly
- Vampires behave differently
- Gold Dragons creature mist-shapes to warn away creatures they consider hostile

- Candles of Invocation work for worshippers of the same deity
- Book of Vile Darkness: changes behavior
- Book of Exalted Deeds: attunement breaks if certain actions are taken, or have been taken within the last week, and damage is then taken
- Blackrazor: attunement breaks if certain actions are taken, or have been taken within the last week
- Deck of Many Things: can curse you to behave differently
- Talismans of Pure Good/Evil: attunement breaks if certain actions are taken, or have been taken within the last week, and damage is then taken
- Robe of the Archmage: just no longer alignment-restricted, simply takes the color fitting your character
- Moonblade: attunement breaks if certain actions are taken, or have been taken within the last week

- Classes: no alignment restriction since it no longer exists

- Planar Travel: this is world-building stuff, in a world without alignment such effects might well not exist. If you want them to, it'll just change your behavior in certain ways (make you a pacifist, more altruistic, more selfish, more insistent on making everything a contract, etc.)

- Spirit Guardians: just pick a damage type
- Glyph of Warding: that trigger doesn't work anymore, alas
- Nystuls Magical Aura: nothing to mask here
- Ceremony: maybe substitute for curse-breaking for the aforementioned forced behavior changes, if they're there
This stuff isn't too prevalent, and alltogether not too hard to handle. In some cases, it'll definetly be different without alignment - more broad or narrow, less or more powerful - but since we're basically dealing with monsters or magic items controlled by the GM here, this is hardly abusable by the players.

It's still a refutation of the point that "no important mechanics are tied to alignment." They are. Sure, it's less integral than it previously was, but the important mechanics are there. Here, you're kinda using either a "No true Scotsman" or a "Moving the goalposts" argument. Just because it _can_ be replaced doesn't mean it was.

[rmnimoc]

This comes up pretty in literally every edition I've ever played, though I'm happy to say you're touching on some points that don't come up often. Regardless of those, though, alignment is still needed.

To really explain why we need this, we first need to define what good, evil, law, and chaos are in D&D. "Good" is anything that Archons, Eladrin, and Guardinals all agree on. "Evil" is what that Demons, Devils, and Yugoloth agree on. "Law" is what that Devils, Archons, and Modrons share and "Chaos" is the same for Demons, Eladrin, and Slaadi.

Right, so now that that's done we can get to why we need it. The first reason we need it is that, so long as we remember what those words mean in D&D, we have a helpful shorthand to quickly identify ideological conflicts. For example, if a conflict breaks out between a lawful good person and a chaotic good person it will probably come from a conflict in their opinions regarding freedom and uniformity, whereas a conflict between a lawful evil and lawful good person will probably spring up as a result of differences in opinion regarding self and others. These shorthands make it really easy to gain a quick understanding of an individual's general beliefs. If I'm looking for a good race to pit my lawful good party against, it's a whole lot easier and faster to sort them by alignment and then read about the ones that fit what I'm looking for than it is to read a paragraph or two about every monster in all the manuals. If I'm looking for a dark mirror to a lawful good society, I can grab any lawful evil society and it's a pretty safe bet it'll do the job. If I want to pit that same society against a foe they are opposed to on almost every level, I can grab just about any chaotic evil society.

In short, reason number one is that it's a convenient shorthand that can tell a DM quite a short time with a fair degree of accuracy.

Reason number two that we need alignment is that it's a lynchpin of the afterlife in non-forgotten realms campaigns. Where do you go when you die? Well, you go to your god, but what if you didn't worship a specific God well enough? Your soul goes to one of the nine planes (technically 16 but no one remembers the planes between the major ones on alignment) depending on your alignment. If your character stands as LN, he'll fit in best on the plane of Mechanus. If she's Chaotic Good, she'll likely fit in best in Arborea. If he's Lawful Evil the Devils of Baator will host (and roast) his soul (Literally the only reason that place exists is to convince people to maybe stop being evil. Sadly the Devils are evil and decided they'd rather just have more bodies to throw at their war with the demons, so...). Anyway, that can get to be pretty important whenever your campaigns get high enough level to do some planar travel, unless you're in Faerun and then whoever you want to talk to is probably part of a massive screaming wall because their god didn't like them enough.

In short reason number two is that alignments are part of the cosmology and it kind of all falls apart without it.

Reason number three is that no one has come up with a satisfactory fix for reasons one and two, because any change almost always needlessly complicates things for no reason. Most either say remove it entirely, which runs into issues with reason one, two, and four, or replace it with something so absurdly excessive that people have to remind the person making the suggestion that D&D isn't a real life sim and we don't have 5,000,000 alignments for the same reason D&D doesn't make you model the effect spells have on the global climate, most people don't care anywhere near enough to go through all that work and it doesn't really benefit the game in any way.

There's not really a TLDR on that one, it's the way it is because no one has a way everyone agrees is better.

Reason four is inertia, it'll stay the same until some outside force puts it in a position it has to change. Despite the frequent arguments from people who either don't understand how alignment works or just want to argue because clearly d&d is wrong and not them and the occasional complaint from people with legitimate issues with the system, the current alignment system by and large does its job and does it fine and isn't worth the inevitable issues whatever replaces it would have. It's better to stay the course that takes a bit longer to get where you're headed than change direction, ignore the map, and potentially fly off a cliff.

Reason four, if it's only kind of broke don't fix it.

TLDR: There are a lot of varied and complex reasons we still use and need alignment. It's a quick shorthand, the cosmology is built around it, no one has any better ideas, and while it's a bit broken, it's far from bad enough yet that it needs to be fixed

[Maan]

It's "needed" simply because the classical D&D settings are worlds heavily built around alignments. And D&D ruleset still does integrate many setting assumptions, pretty much like with Vancian magic.

That said, I think this edition is the one that waters down alignments the most. I won't be surprised if in the next edition they go a step further and make alignments totally optional, reworking those few game mechanics that still need them.

[Chronos]

In fact, I think that 5e went too far in divorcing mechanics from alignment. In a world where Heaven and Hell, angels, demons, and devils, literally exist, and can be interacted with directly, there should be magic that can detect someone's alignment, or affect people of different alignments differently.

The catch is just that too many people misunderstand alignment. When you create a character, alignment isn't a straightjacket on your personality: You should pick your personality first (which can be as simple or complicated as you choose to make it), and then decide what alignment best fits it (which may well sometimes be somewhat ambiguous). And detecting alignment shouldn't be regarded as an "OK to kill" label: The innkeeper who deliberately gets patrons drunk so they won't notice him swindling them might well be evil, but he probably doesn't deserve to die for it.

[Sigreid]

Eh, when I DM I dont even ask what alignment the characters are. That said, my players enjoy assigning their character an alignment and playing to it. I suppose it does help with alignment oriented magics but if no one made their own designation I would just make a judgement call based on how they had been playing as to the effect.

Its main value to me is as a pretty decent short hand for general world view and behavior for non-player entities.

[Unoriginal]

If he's Lawful Evil the Devils of Baator will host (and roast) his soul (Literally the only reason that place exists is to convince people to maybe stop being evil. Sadly the Devils are evil and decided they'd rather just have more bodies to throw at their war with the demons, so...).


Thankfully, this is not 5e lore.

The Nine Hells don't exist to convince anyone, they exist because it's the planar manifestation of lawful evil. And the good gods are specifically described as too benevolent to use that kind of coercition.

[GreatWyrmGold]

There's a bunch of mechanical effects (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/8eva7s/collaborative_list_of_every_mechanical_effect_of/) tied to alignment.
Wow, I didn't expect to be hit by all of those at once. So here goes:

Alignment-changing effects could be handled by either describing their new personality, a la monster flavor-text, or by an alteration of bonds, traits, and flaws.

I don't see why demiliches shouldn't damage evil creatures they don't like, so that could be changed to "non-friendly creatures" or somesuch.
Similarly, I don't see any problem with letting anyone permanently kill a lemure if blessed; in fact, I think it's kinda odd that their overlords don't have any way to permanently kill a lemure who has failed them for the last time without ordering some holy water from their neighbors upstairs.
Ditto with the Night Hag's ability. I'd argue they're more threatening if anyone can be taken, and they don't seem to fit well in a "punisher of the guilty" role.
The rakshasha's vulnerability is another weird permutation on fitting an old legend into D&D mechanics. I feel that "A piercing weapon wielded by a cleric" would fit about as badly.
Why can't shadows create spawn from douchebags? Seems like they'd have more shade to draw out.
The sprite's alignment-detection ability is random, I'm fine with cutting it.
The unicorn's ability could be rewritten as "creatures it finds worthy," which lets it include what would formerly be True Neutral druids while excluding LG industrialists.
The gold dragon's ability could be rewritten like the paladin's divine sense; it warns most creature types of the presence of fiends/undead.

The Candle of Invocation could be changed to "creatures which support/follow the god's dogma". More complicated, but also more precise (and fits better with the less alignment-based clerical restrictions).
Blackrazor not working with anyone lawful, ever but being willing to work with anyone else that keeps it fed seems...out-of-character, if such a thing can be said of a one-dimensional villain who happens to be a sword. Similarly, it seems weird that Moonblade would serve a CN elven anarchist but not an LG half-elven paladin. Tying intelligent items to alignment cheapens them, in my opinion. To me, it makes more sense that they'd have rules or guidelines on who can work with them. Blackrazor works for anyone who keeps it fed and entertained, while Moonblade only works with those actively promoting the well-being of elvenkind.

I don't see why Spirit Guardians needs a restriction on who can deal Radiant/Necrotic damage. It arguably makes sense for each church (or each cleric) to have Spirit Guardians only deal one of those types, but it arguably makes even more sense to just make it Radiant damage for everyone. (Doesn't Sacred Flame already let those creepy Always Chaotic Evil death-priests use radiant damage?)
There wouldn't be an easy way to give "Glyph of Warding" a trigger/don't-trigger condition as broad as alignment if that system didn't exist,
Nystul's Magic Aura obviously wouldn't need to mask one's alignment from detection if there weren't any effects that detected it. (And there aren't very many left, so that's an almost vestigial feature at this point.)

I don't see why the Oathbreaker paladin or the Death Cleric must be evil. A paladin who sought dark power for what he believes are good ends could easily be at least Lawful Neutral (not to mention that the paladin oaths aren't all LG in this edition), and there's no shortage of Neutral or even Good death gods even in D&D.

The Book of Exalted Deeds, Talismen of Ultimate Whatever, Robes of the Archmagi, and of course the planes are problems, which tie into Kyutaru's point.




It's still a refutation of the point that "no important mechanics are tied to alignment." They are. Sure, it's less integral than it previously was, but the important mechanics are there. Here, you're kinda using either a "No true Scotsman" or a "Moving the goalposts" argument. Just because it _can_ be replaced doesn't mean it was.
The problem with this is that "important" is an incredibly subjective term. I don't consider details on a dozen monsters, activation conditions for a dozen magic items, a handful of spell effects, or two subclasses to be particularly important, but you might.



Alignment is needed (and I emphasize the need) merely because of D&D's planar cosmology and deities.
See, this is the sort of thing I was looking for. It's a point I hadn't considered. Sure, you could keep the cosmology and remove its mechanical basis, but that would be kinda dumb. There would be all sorts of bits of lore and setting quirks that don't quite fit together anymore, and it wouldn't be connected to the mechanics the way they are now.
The "deities" side of the argument is weaker, though.



To really explain why we need this, we first need to define what good, evil, law, and chaos are in D&D. "Good" is anything that Archons, Eladrin, and Guardinals all agree on. "Evil" is what that Demons, Devils, and Yugoloth agree on. "Law" is what that Devils, Archons, and Modrons share and "Chaos" is the same for Demons, Eladrin, and Slaadi.
I like this idea, but considering that the outsiders are currently defined by their alignments, it's pretty friggin' circular. (Also, there's not a lot that all Lawful, Chaotic, or Evil outsiders agree on.)


Reason number two that we need alignment is that it's a lynchpin of the afterlife in non-forgotten realms campaigns. Where do you go when you die? Well, you go to your god, but what if you didn't worship a specific God well enough? Your soul goes to one of the nine planes (technically 16 but no one remembers the planes between the major ones on alignment) depending on your alignment.
Did they get rid of that wall where (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Wall_of_the_Faithless) all souls not dedicated to any god either dissolve into nothing or get stolen by demons (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Faithless), which is incidentally one of the biggest reasons possible for saying the gods don't deserve your worship? About friggin' time.


Reason number three is that no one has come up with a satisfactory fix for reasons one and two, because any change almost always needlessly complicates things for no reason.
I'd argue that you could simplify things while removing alignment, and keeping bits of the cosmology intact. You have a few general philosophies that the gods either accept, reject, or are neutral to. (Or just don't make any wars in heaven important to your story and focus on small stuff, like the world being engulfed in a war between kingdoms or a mad lich who wants to destroy it all.) Mortals follow these gods, the divine philosophies, or nothing in particular. This solves issue 1 and invalidates issue 2.

I guess you can say that having an extra layer between "core philosophy" and "character beliefs" is complicating things, but I'd argue that the way a character interprets their alignment is a pre-existing wall that overshadows that wall—and, incidentally, makes it difficult to justify alignment as the basis for ideology. You say a conflict between a Lawful Good character and a Chaotic Good character probably comes from their views on order and freedom, but that's bull-honkey. If two characters exist outside their alignment, they can come into conflict on things unrelated to their alignment. For instance, the Lawful Good character might want the group to protect a small village instead of a large town (despite this not being particularly Lawful or Good) because it's his childhood home and he couldn't stand it being destroyed, and the Chaotic Good character might object for reasons that are neither chaotic nor good (such as "It's in the middle of a plain, there's no way we can stop an army from destroying it, but we might be able to do something here").
Or heck, maybe the town is the CG character's hometown, which brings me to another point. Two characters can be driven into conflict by identical motives. Just as two characters might be driven into conflict by the same sense of hometown loyalty, just from different towns, they might be driven into conflict by the same sense of do-goodness, just from different perspectives of what's "good" (or at least which evil is lesser). And it's even easier to think of ways that two people following some form of Law, Chaos, or Evil would come into conflict.
In short, if you don't use the strictest, most straightjacketey, and most boring form of alignment, it is essentially useless as a marker for ideological conflict.


Reason four is inertia, it'll stay the same until some outside force puts it in a position it has to change.
I specifically asked people not to bring this up, because it's obvious and not interesting to discuss. Why did you ignore that? Did you read anything past the title?



People gives too much importance to alignments. Probably because of the pop culture perception of the the 3.X version.
What's even the point of pre-empting obvious counterpoints if people still make them?
It doesn't matter if problems come from people doing alignment "wrong". If there's no way to make them do it "right," it's still a problem.


Also, 5e does not need often/usually/always indicators for alignment, and that does not "make it worse": 5e alignment is ALWAYS an "usually X", on an individual level.
I only noticed the lack of a designator when one entry (cloud giant, I think?) specified that 50% of them are Neutral Good and 50% are Neutral Evil. That kind of specificity (as opposed to something like "Neutral Good or Neutral Evil") makes the rest of alignment entries seem a lot stricter...as does implying that there are about as many good goblins as good demons.
And to reiterate, intent does not matter if it is not properly conveyed. When you read the 3.5 orc statblock, you read that orcs are "Usually Chaotic Evil". When you read the 5e orc statblock, you read that orcs are "Chaotic Evil". Whatever the design intent, the two designations leave immensely different impressions on the reader...especially if they didn't think to read the bit in the introduction where minor flavor-ey details were explained and defined.

[Lunali]

Alignment is useful for DMs to figure out behavior of NPCs. Alignment of PCs should be decided by the DM (possibly after discussion with the players) if it ever becomes relevant and ignored otherwise.

[Kyutaru]

I only noticed the lack of a designator when one entry (cloud giant, I think?) specified that 50% of them are Neutral Good and 50% are Neutral Evil. That kind of specificity (as opposed to something like "Neutral Good or Neutral Evil") makes the rest of alignment entries seem a lot stricter...as does implying that there are about as many good goblins as good demons.
And to reiterate, intent does not matter if it is not properly conveyed. When you read the 3.5 orc statblock, you read that orcs are "Usually Chaotic Evil". When you read the 5e orc statblock, you read that orcs are "Chaotic Evil". Whatever the design intent, the two designations leave immensely different impressions on the reader...especially if they didn't think to read the bit in the introduction where minor flavor-ey details were explained and defined.

This is true that it leaves different impressions on the read. I would have preferred them to say "Always Chaotic Evil" where applicable. Like in Warhammer 40k, Tyranids are always hungry aliens that destroy all life in existence to consume and breed and expand. There are no Chaotic Good Tyranids. There is only the swarm and it's singular in purpose. Devils are never nice, they are ALWAYS Lawful Evil. Something like an Orc can go six ways from Sunday.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm going to split my answer.

D&D the system can do perfectly fine without alignment. As evidenced by the fact that I've completely removed it from my games other than as a non-binding shorthand descriptor in my notes on certain NPCs. All mechanical effects no longer interact with it (and are handled otherwise). Every individual (including gods, angels, devils, and demons) is perfectly free to make their own choices. Those labels (angel, devil, demon) describe their role in the cosmic order, not their nature and inclinations.

D&D the metaverse does need alignment, because it's rather baked into and central to the cosmology. It answers (badly, IMO, but that's personal taste) a lot of the central questions about the universe and why certain groups do certain things. I ended up making sweeping changes to basically all the cosmological and racial lore as part of my setting. Mainly because I wanted to, but in part because I was freed from alignment as a cosmic force.

[GlenSmash!]

Whatever it was in the past in 5e Alignment is there as a way for a player to gain inspiration just like personality traits, bonds, ideals, and flaws.

[JackPhoenix]

Reason number two that we need alignment is that it's a lynchpin of the afterlife in non-forgotten realms campaigns. Where do you go when you die?

Everyone goes to fade away in Dolurrh, regardless of alignment. It's not a reward, it's not a punishment, it just *is*.

[Yora]

It never needed alignment. It has always been better when you dropped alignment.

It could perhaps have served a function, if it had ever been properly defined and given a stated purpose.

[Unoriginal]

There is no objective, inherent-to-the-concept-of-alignment problem with alignment as it is in 5e.

The rest is just tastes, and one should always make their RPG taste the way they like it.

I personally see no problem with a MM statblock having a shorthand descriptor of the typical orc mook as chaotic evil, when the MM, Volo's, PHB and all the adventure modules explain why the typical orc's behavior in the default setting fits the shorthand, while also making clear and explicit how individuals can have a different behavior (necessitating a different descriptor) and how different settings can have a different default.

If there was the descriptor without explanation, or if the explanation was illogical, counterfactual or badly done (hello Tome of Exalted Deeds) I would be among the first to lambast it.

[GreyBlack]

There is no objective, inherent-to-the-concept-of-alignment problem with alignment as it is in 5e.

The rest is just tastes, and one should always make their RPG taste the way they like it.

I personally see no problem with a MM statblock having a shorthand descriptor of the typical orc mook as chaotic evil, when the MM, Volo's, PHB and all the adventure modules explain why the typical orc's behavior in the default setting fits the shorthand, while also making clear and explicit how individuals can have a different behavior (necessitating a different descriptor) and how different settings can have a different default.

If there was the descriptor without explanation, or if the explanation was illogical, counterfactual or badly done (hello Tome of Exalted Deeds) I would be among the first to lambast it.

I mean, again, this all goes back to the fact that D&D the game (as opposed to the 5e system, see also 3.x D&D vs d20 systems as a whole) can't be disentangled from its setting, doesn't it? I think everyone in this thread will agree that not all RPG's need an alignment system and most are actively made worse for including them. But that's because they're not D&D, with all the setting baggage that implies.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean, again, this all goes back to the fact that D&D the game (as opposed to the 5e system, see also 3.x D&D vs d20 systems as a whole) can't be disentangled from its setting, doesn't it? I think everyone in this thread will agree that not all RPG's need an alignment system and most are actively made worse for including them. But that's because they're not D&D, with all the setting baggage that implies.

D&D can be disentangled from its setting, and is often better off for doing so. There's a lot of legacy cruft that's only there because of inertia and "who moved my cheese"-itis. You can even do so and remain recognizable as D&D.

[Willie the Duck]

Plenty of good points all around, but I will touch on two --


The smaller point is that most people playing D&D probably have at least a little experience separating a character they play from themselves, since most people who want to try a TRPG have probably played a VRPG before.

Hard no. Assuming people here on forums like this are the norm of the gaming public is a non-starter. Particularly if we are talking about 5e, which went significantly out of it's way to be a plausible entry point into the hobby. Just this weekend my local paper had an article about how D&D is having a resurgence, particularly with new players. The game is meant to be playable to someone without outside context. There are small-print/indy RPGs which have an intro section which says something along the lines of "we'd include a chapter on 'what is an RPG?' and a tutorial on how the different dice work and how to read '3d6+8' and other such terms, but we're pretty sure if you're even considering this game you have twelve or more games on your shelf which have already done so." D&D will never get to be that game. It is the industry leader and as such has to be noobie-friendly.


First, alignment is an easy "This is an acceptable target" marker. I don't think there should be such markers, but they can help some styles of game. Except that there's no shortage of stereotypically-evil behaviors you can give a creature (eating people, pillaging caravans, etc) which accomplish the same result while giving each monster flavor. The major evil races have always had at least a paragraph or two of flavor-text describing their version of evil, and most evil creatures at least had a sentence on their crimes. However, the 5e monster manual comes with detailed flavor text as a standard option for basically all creatures. Almost every "usually evil" monster comes with a detailed explanation of what stereotypically evil acts they engage in, often with an explanation of what drives them. I think it's fair to say that this purpose, aside from being stupid, is obsolete.

So alignment is obsolete because monster descriptions also explain that the creatures listed as evil are evil? I mean, it's a salient point, but how is that different than arguing that having 'humanoid' listed in the statblock of elves and kobolds and such are obsolete because the monster description undoubtedly will make that clear as well? Shorthands exist to be quickly and readily noted at first glance. I think there are real questions about whether a game like D&D needs to have inherent 'bad guys' in the first place*, but I don't think that exchanging the 'bad guys' designator right up there at the top of the monster statblock for an wordier description down below with the same net result changes the effective dynamic all that much. I agree that alignment was more of a needed shorthand when page count requirements meant that each monster needed to take 48 lines of text at most, but I don't see the elimination of the shorthand itself specifically to be all that meaningful.
*Although thank you for noting that 'This is an acceptable target' has a functional purpose for the game.

Overall, though, I do think that alignment has caused at least as much trouble as it has added benefit to the game. It certainly worked best in the early game, when it was mostly a 'team good-guys'/'team bad-guys'/'neutral' distinction. When oD&D branched from Chainmail, switching it from Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic 'alignment' to 'potential adversary'/neutral/'potential ally' 'presumed game role' demarcation probably would have been better (and adding a good-evil axis to law-chaos certainly opened a can of worms).

[Naanomi]

You can easily pull Alignment off the character sheet with little problem; and the game is still a great and playable game; but at some point you pull enough DnD out of the game and I’m forced to wonder why you even call it Dungeons and Dragons anymore besides marketing?

[Tanarii]

Nope.

But I find 5e's take on it exceptionally useful tool. (1) as a roleplaying aid for players, and (2) as a DM tool in delineating unacceptable overall behaviors at the outset of character creation

1) A strong moral & ethical single sentence motivation is a very useful roleplaying aid for both new, and even more importantly experienced*, players. It sucks if it's the only one of course, but when it's one of 5 such motivational sentences. But 5-6 clearly stated one (or at most 2) sentence motivations across a broad spectrum of categories is one of the best RPG tools I've seen to date. There's a reason a bunch of narrative heavy developers have used in in their (often otherwise surprisingly mechanics oriented) RPGs. Luke Crane, Heinsoo, the AW devs, Free League, etc.

2) The DM can easily say "see this behavior right here *points* no characters that typically / generally act like that."

The teams aspect is a useful tertiary benefit in many campaigns, and in that case benefit (2) is even stronger.

*experienced players often have developed terrible ideas about what constitutes good characterization and/or roleplaying.

[Yora]

You can easily pull Alignment off the character sheet with little problem; and the game is still a great and playable game; but at some point you pull enough DnD out of the game and I’m forced to wonder why you even call it Dungeons and Dragons anymore besides marketing?

So what? I want my game to be good. Not to be "true D&D".

[Unoriginal]

So what? I want my game to be good. Not to be "true D&D".

"Good" in this context is subjective.

Do you care at all if you're playing D&D or a different system for your setting?

[MoiMagnus]

For me alignment still have 2 roles:
1) It communicates to your DM what behavior they should expect from your character. It allows your DM to efficiently prepare (don't need to think about how strong are the guard if you know the PCs will cooperate, ...).
2) It is practical for world building. The difference between devils and demons is central in D&D, and that's just a difference in alignment. D&D pantheons are build around the alignment system, having a balance of good and evil, and law and chaos. While there is no necessities for alignment to be part of the universe, if you want a D&D-like universe, you need to use alignments to guide your design.

[PhoenixPhyre]

2) It is practical for world building. The difference between devils and demons is central in D&D, and that's just a difference in alignment. D&D pantheons are build around the alignment system, having a balance of good and evil, and law and chaos. While there is no necessities for alignment to be part of the universe, if you want a D&D-like universe, you need to use alignments to guide your design.

This is the part I strongly dislike about alignment (from a philosophical point of view). My setting started as a 4e setting (which then got cataclysm'd in preparation for a switch to 5e), so demons and devils are not about alignment, but about goals. And when I decided to throw out fixed alignments entirely, I found that a better distinction (for me) was in the role/power source of those creatures.

Demons are anybody who feeds on souls, on the actual full being. So being involved in blood magic or any of the myriad of similar soul-manipulation arts draws one closer to demonhood and to the abyss.

Devils are of the same stock as angels, but don't have the direct tap into the flow of divine power. They're contract workers for divinity (or for anyone who will hire/make contracts them) and are organized more mafia-style.

I strongly (at a basic level) hate the idea that anyone is denied agency/freedom of choice. I hate the "designated punching bag" status. Same goes for dragons. We fig leaf that they really do have choice, but then deny it in actual play. I strongly prefer people to all be people, and people can fall, people can be redeemed. Having the "I have to be evil because I'm made of evil" trope cheapens things (for me). I prefer people to be evil because they act and desire evil.

But my world is still recognizably "D&D". In fact, I personally think it's closer to "real" 5e D&D than those which are built on legacy cruft that no longer really applies. yes, I'm aware that I'm very biased in this matter and so should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Doesn't change the fact that I'm right. :smalltongue:

[Naanomi]

So what? I want my game to be good. Not to be "true D&D".
There are plenty of good systems out there to choose from; and you’d think it wouldn’t matter much what they are called but one of the big 4e challenges was that it didn’t ‘feel like DnD’ regardless of the merits of it as a game system

[KorvinStarmast]

Does D&D Still Need Alignment? Yes, in that it's a tool that can enriched the play experiencein - in the right hands. We've all seen how the gotcha literalist approach to the game goes in the other direction.

FWIW, while your meditation is interesting, I find that overthinking gets in the way of fun sometimes.

[Constructman]

Alignment is hard baked into the "standard setting", the 17 Outer Planes of the Great Wheel and the worlds in the Material Plane contained therein. As long as D&Ds flagship srttings is one of these worlds (as it is with the 5e Forgotten Realms right now), alignment isn't really going away. There are other signs of how intertwined alignment is into the setting but less so the system, but the default planar cosmology is the big one.

[Tanarii]

I strongly prefer people to all be people, and people can fall, people can be redeemed.One of these things is not like the other two. :smalltongue:

[Unoriginal]

This is the part I strongly dislike about alignment (from a philosophical point of view). My setting started as a 4e setting (which then got cataclysm'd in preparation for a switch to 5e), so demons and devils are not about alignment, but about goals.

What about 4e resulted in that change? 4e's devils and demons are still separated by alignments as much as in any other editions. They just moved things around so that all the scheme-happy, subbtle manipulators were devils (of the evil alignment) while demons were mostly reduced to solely the brutish engines of destruction (of the chaotic evil alignment).




I strongly (at a basic level) hate the idea that anyone is denied agency/freedom of choice. I hate the "designated punching bag" status. Same goes for dragons. We fig leaf that they really do have choice, but then deny it in actual play. I strongly prefer people to all be people, and people can fall, people can be redeemed. Having the "I have to be evil because I'm made of evil" trope cheapens things (for me). I prefer people to be evil because they act and desire evil.

As has been said multiple times whenever this topic shows up, Fiends DO have the choice, and they are evil because the DO act and desire evil.

The fact that a demon is born from arbitrary violence spurned by greed, hatred or bloodlust does not change the fact that they do act to enact said arbitrary violence. A demon could stop, start behaving differently, and then transmute into a different kind of being. Most don't because they *want* and *enjoy* being terrible people while being as fiercely individualistic as they can get away with.

In the tale of the frog and the scorpion, if the scorpion was a demon it wouldn't reply "it's in my nature" after the betrayal-murder-suicide, it would reply "because I wanted to".

Being unable to choose would make them Unaligned.

If you don't want alignments, it's more than fine. Get ride of them if you prefer it that way, the game is made for that. But please don't try to blame the lore for something that it is not doing.



But my world is still recognizably "D&D". In fact, I personally think it's closer to "real" 5e D&D than those which are built on legacy cruft that no longer really applies. yes, I'm aware that I'm very biased in this matter and so should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Doesn't change the fact that I'm right. :smalltongue:

What makes it recognizable as D&D, according to you?

And how is it supposedly closer to the "real" 5e D&D than the actual 5e D&D?

[Sigreid]

I dont really see alignment as good or bad. I dont really need it and pay little to no attention to it. That said, it can be a handy tool for some to aid with roll play decisions. In the end, it's fine if it stays in the books to be used by those who find it helpful.

The only time it really becomes a problem is with a DM that is too rigid about it and uses it as a gotcha to abuse or try to control the PCs.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What about 4e resulted in that change? 4e's devils and demons are still separated by alignments as much as in any other editions. They just moved things around so that all the scheme-happy, subbtle manipulators were devils (of the evil alignment) while demons were mostly reduced to solely the brutish engines of destruction (of the chaotic evil alignment).


Theoretically, that's true. In practice, the distinction got lost. And I disliked 4e's alignment as well.




As has been said multiple times whenever this topic shows up, Fiends DO have the choice, and they are evil because the DO act and desire evil.

The fact that a demon is born from arbitrary violence spurned by greed, hatred or bloodlust does not change the fact that they do act to enact said arbitrary violence. A demon could stop, start behaving differently, and then transmute into a different kind of being. Most don't because they *want* and *enjoy* being terrible people while being as fiercely individualistic as they can get away with.

In the tale of the frog and the scorpion, if the scorpion was a demon it wouldn't reply "it's in my nature" after the betrayal-murder-suicide, it would reply "because I wanted to".

Being unable to choose would make them Unaligned.

If you don't want alignments, it's more than fine. Get ride of them if you prefer it that way, the game is made for that. But please don't try to blame the lore for something that it is not doing.


The distinction between theory and practice is that there is a difference in theory. Sure, they have that choice in theory, but in practice it's a non-choice. You can't make a choice to be non-evil and still be a devil. You must entirely change. In practice, it doesn't happen unless forced to happen--it's an exceptional case. And when it does happen, it's almost always downward. Angels fall, devils are redeemed much less frequently. And devils start as evil--being good is against their essential nature. That rubs me the wrong way.

Same problem, to a lesser degree, happens with dragons or other beasts. Sure, there's throwaway lines about how chromatic dragons are mostly socialized that way, but it never actually comes up in the settings. It's dicta, nothing more.



What makes it recognizable as D&D, according to you?

And how is it supposedly closer to the "real" 5e D&D than the actual 5e D&D?

All the core tropes and adventures are present, and the setting is strongly aligned with what I see as the most important parts (both mechanical and not). Other, pre-existing settings have lots of NPCs, situations, etc. that were constructed based on now-changed concepts and details that have strongly changed.

Edit: additionally, the planar structure (and thus alignment) cannot be critical to "being D&D", because the DMG has lots of text about how to change it, including such radical ones as the One Plane cosmology.

[RedMage125]

Wow, I didn't expect to be hit by all of those at once. So here goes:

Alignment-changing effects could be handled by either describing their new personality, a la monster flavor-text, or by an alteration of bonds, traits, and flaws.

I don't see why demiliches shouldn't damage evil creatures they don't like, so that could be changed to "non-friendly creatures" or somesuch.
Similarly, I don't see any problem with letting anyone permanently kill a lemure if blessed; in fact, I think it's kinda odd that their overlords don't have any way to permanently kill a lemure who has failed them for the last time without ordering some holy water from their neighbors upstairs.
Ditto with the Night Hag's ability. I'd argue they're more threatening if anyone can be taken, and they don't seem to fit well in a "punisher of the guilty" role.
The rakshasha's vulnerability is another weird permutation on fitting an old legend into D&D mechanics. I feel that "A piercing weapon wielded by a cleric" would fit about as badly.
Why can't shadows create spawn from douchebags? Seems like they'd have more shade to draw out.
The sprite's alignment-detection ability is random, I'm fine with cutting it.
The unicorn's ability could be rewritten as "creatures it finds worthy," which lets it include what would formerly be True Neutral druids while excluding LG industrialists.
The gold dragon's ability could be rewritten like the paladin's divine sense; it warns most creature types of the presence of fiends/undead.

The Candle of Invocation could be changed to "creatures which support/follow the god's dogma". More complicated, but also more precise (and fits better with the less alignment-based clerical restrictions).
Blackrazor not working with anyone lawful, ever but being willing to work with anyone else that keeps it fed seems...out-of-character, if such a thing can be said of a one-dimensional villain who happens to be a sword. Similarly, it seems weird that Moonblade would serve a CN elven anarchist but not an LG half-elven paladin. Tying intelligent items to alignment cheapens them, in my opinion. To me, it makes more sense that they'd have rules or guidelines on who can work with them. Blackrazor works for anyone who keeps it fed and entertained, while Moonblade only works with those actively promoting the well-being of elvenkind.

I don't see why Spirit Guardians needs a restriction on who can deal Radiant/Necrotic damage. It arguably makes sense for each church (or each cleric) to have Spirit Guardians only deal one of those types, but it arguably makes even more sense to just make it Radiant damage for everyone. (Doesn't Sacred Flame already let those creepy Always Chaotic Evil death-priests use radiant damage?)
There wouldn't be an easy way to give "Glyph of Warding" a trigger/don't-trigger condition as broad as alignment if that system didn't exist,
Nystul's Magic Aura obviously wouldn't need to mask one's alignment from detection if there weren't any effects that detected it. (And there aren't very many left, so that's an almost vestigial feature at this point.)

I don't see why the Oathbreaker paladin or the Death Cleric must be evil. A paladin who sought dark power for what he believes are good ends could easily be at least Lawful Neutral (not to mention that the paladin oaths aren't all LG in this edition), and there's no shortage of Neutral or even Good death gods even in D&D.

The Book of Exalted Deeds, Talismen of Ultimate Whatever, Robes of the Archmagi, and of course the planes are problems, which tie into Kyutaru's point.


While you are quite correct that one can remove alignment-tied mechanics, you have quite thorooughly illustrated how there's actually quite a bit of work involved. It comes down to a matter pf preference, really, but I'd like to point something out, something I think still makes alignment worthwhile.

In D&D (and this includes 5e), alignment gives mechanical voice to classic tropes of fantasy in an objective manner that can be fairly quantified.

Allow me to explain. Things like a lingering taint of "evil" in a place where a demon cult formerly held rituals, or where a powerful archfiend stepped into the Material Plane. This is a classic trope of fantasy. And a lot of your "suggested removals" turn things that were previously objective standards into "whatever the DM decides at the time". The unicorn's ability is a great example of this. I am personally of the opinion that hard-coded mechanics with clearly defined parameters protect players against the fickle nature of DM fiat. Your preferences may vary, but for those of us who want a concrete mechanic for things like the unicorn's ability or the rakshasa's vulerability, alignment mechanics are a boon.

But on your last few "fixes"...Oathbreaker paladins have mechanics that specifically bolster fiends and undead in their presence. Not really an ability that resonates with "using dark power for good ends". And Non-evil deities of death and their clerics are represented by the Grave Domain, not the Death Domain. Grave domain is about the protection of the invioability of the cycle of life-death-rebirth, putting wandering spirits to rest, and easing the suffering of the dying. The Death domain is about bringing death prematurely and unnaturally. Gods that grant the Death domain, according to the DMG, embody murder, pain, disease, or poison.



The problem with this is that "important" is an incredibly subjective term. I don't consider details on a dozen monsters, activation conditions for a dozen magic items, a handful of spell effects, or two subclasses to be particularly important, but you might.
As long as you recognize that "not particularly important" is equally subjective, then we can agree.



See, this is the sort of thing I was looking for. It's a point I hadn't considered. Sure, you could keep the cosmology and remove its mechanical basis, but that would be kinda dumb. There would be all sorts of bits of lore and setting quirks that don't quite fit together anymore, and it wouldn't be connected to the mechanics the way they are now.
The "deities" side of the argument is weaker, though.
This ties back into fair and objective measures of classic tropes of fantasy. It was a hard mechanic in 3.5e, and an optional rule in 5e (under Psychic Dissonance, DMG page 59), but the level in which a plane might be, by the very nature of the energies it is permeated with, hostile to certain creatures who spend too much time on the plane. A noble paladin questing through Baator, for example. The very environment itself is a hostile force to him, but the assassin he is pursuing though the planes suffers no such effect. But that assassin would find the omnipresent Good in Celestia equally oppressive, while the paladin might find it soothing.

Again, IMHO it's about being able to fairly and evenly say "this is going to affect you in this way" without resorting to DM fiat (which some players may feel they are being picked on, or the DM is playing favorites).


I like this idea, but considering that the outsiders are currently defined by their alignments, it's pretty friggin' circular. (Also, there's not a lot that all Lawful, Chaotic, or Evil outsiders agree on.)
The idea that fiends are literally made of evil is one that I actually like. It also explains why when a demon is killed, a new demon forms in the Abyss. Those energies that are given physical form to make up their bodies are a part of the plane from which they originate.



Did they get rid of that wall where (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Wall_of_the_Faithless) all souls not dedicated to any god either dissolve into nothing or get stolen by demons (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Faithless), which is incidentally one of the biggest reasons possible for saying the gods don't deserve your worship? About friggin' time.
No, the Wall of the Faithless is still there (SCAG, page 20). But I kind of feel that this is a tangent from the quote that you responded to, as he explicitly said "non-forgotten realms" campaigns. In those, alignment of a mortal corresponds to which Outer Plane's enerhgies his soul will align with (see what I did there? :smallwink:), in the event that he does not have a patron deity to claim his soul.

In FR, everyone has some patron deity, because FR is basically the "everyone is the pawn of some god or another, even the guy making barrels in town" setting.



I'd argue that you could simplify things while removing alignment, and keeping bits of the cosmology intact. You have a few general philosophies that the gods either accept, reject, or are neutral to. (Or just don't make any wars in heaven important to your story and focus on small stuff, like the world being engulfed in a war between kingdoms or a mad lich who wants to destroy it all.) Mortals follow these gods, the divine philosophies, or nothing in particular. This solves issue 1 and invalidates issue 2.

I guess you can say that having an extra layer between "core philosophy" and "character beliefs" is complicating things, but I'd argue that the way a character interprets their alignment is a pre-existing wall that overshadows that wall—and, incidentally, makes it difficult to justify alignment as the basis for ideology. You say a conflict between a Lawful Good character and a Chaotic Good character probably comes from their views on order and freedom, but that's bull-honkey. If two characters exist outside their alignment, they can come into conflict on things unrelated to their alignment. For instance, the Lawful Good character might want the group to protect a small village instead of a large town (despite this not being particularly Lawful or Good) because it's his childhood home and he couldn't stand it being destroyed, and the Chaotic Good character might object for reasons that are neither chaotic nor good (such as "It's in the middle of a plain, there's no way we can stop an army from destroying it, but we might be able to do something here").
Or heck, maybe the town is the CG character's hometown, which brings me to another point. Two characters can be driven into conflict by identical motives. Just as two characters might be driven into conflict by the same sense of hometown loyalty, just from different towns, they might be driven into conflict by the same sense of do-goodness, just from different perspectives of what's "good" (or at least which evil is lesser). And it's even easier to think of ways that two people following some form of Law, Chaos, or Evil would come into conflict.
In short, if you don't use the strictest, most straightjacketey, and most boring form of alignment, it is essentially useless as a marker for ideological conflict.
But this goes back to understanding alignment properly. One specific phrase I like o bring up in a lignemnt threads is this: Alignment is NOT an absolute baromete of action or affiliation.

Characters with different alignments don't necessarily have to disagree, and if they do, the disagreement isn't somehow "forced" to be due to their alignment differences. Take Miko Miyazaki in OotS. Her and Roy are both Lawful Good, and they do not get along at all. At no point does either of them cease to be LG*, but at no point are they in concordance with one another.

A Lawful Evil Cardinal of a powerful Lawful Good Church may be a selfish, egotistical jerk who, deep in his grubby little soul, only cares for his own power. But he's going to be a good patron to groups of non-evil heroes. He wants to see the supernatural evil in the world stamped out. It's part of the dogma of the organization that he serves. He may not personally care about the well being of others out of any sense of selflessness, but visibly championing heroes who do save others is great for his image, increases his popularity, and cements his authority. There is no reason for him to ever come into conflict (especially not combat) with Good-aligned heroes, even if he is of Evil alignment himself. This is a canon example, btw, from Eberron, Cardinal Krozen of the Church of the Silver Flame.

*On Miko Some people argue this, but they're provably wrong. Miko "intentionally committed an evil act" when she killed Shojo, even if she mistakenly thought it was a Good act at the time. Her values and ideals never shifted or waivered, and she cnotinued to pray to her gods for guidance of how to vanquish evil. 3.5e mechanic specified that one act does not change alignment, it must be gradual. And lest we forget, when Miko died, Soon Kim told her that she would get to see Windstriker again, confirming her soul's destination to a LG afterlife.


I specifically asked people not to bring this up, because it's obvious and not interesting to discuss. Why did you ignore that? Did you read anything past the title?

What's even the point of pre-empting obvious counterpoints if people still make them?
It doesn't matter if problems come from people doing alignment "wrong". If there's no way to make them do it "right," it's still a problem.
I think a lot got lost in what you cut out of rmnimoc's post. It wasn't just about "people using alignment wrong", but also about people who have legitimate complaints about the system.

I'm very pro-alignment and alignment mechanics, even in 3.5e. And (anecdoatal, I know) 100% of stories I have heard from people about "why alignment is terrible" stem from someone not using it according to the RAW.

Now, pursuant to that (and to what you said about "making them do it right"), there IS no "wrong" way to play D&D unless the people at your table are not having fun. Even strictly RAW is not some kind of "more correct" way to play. But RAW alignment mechanics were designed to be fairly used with RAW definitions of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. For myself, personally, I can set aside what I think those things mean in the real world, and I use RAW definitions of them when I DM. Not because my way is "more right" (although it is more right, subjectively, for me), but because it's fair. My players can consult the same RAW text that I use to make alignment adjudications, and have a good idea of what my ruling on a matter is going to be. Any house rules that I do use (none of which relate to alignment mechanics) are spelled out for all my players before the game starts. When DMs do things like make alignment prescriptive ("your alignment is X, you can't do Y"), or auto-shift a PC one or more steps in alignment due to one action, the player's fun may be impacted negatively. To my values, that is a Bad ThingTM. But that's an issue with the people playing D&D, not with the mechanics they are using.

To wit (regarding "if there's no way to make them do it right, then it's a problem"): If a mechanic is ONLY problematic when it's used wrong, is the "problem" a fair indictment of the mechanic itself? If I beat someone to death with a tire iron, are tire irons problematic?



I only noticed the lack of a designator when one entry (cloud giant, I think?) specified that 50% of them are Neutral Good and 50% are Neutral Evil. That kind of specificity (as opposed to something like "Neutral Good or Neutral Evil") makes the rest of alignment entries seem a lot stricter...as does implying that there are about as many good goblins as good demons.
And to reiterate, intent does not matter if it is not properly conveyed. When you read the 3.5 orc statblock, you read that orcs are "Usually Chaotic Evil". When you read the 5e orc statblock, you read that orcs are "Chaotic Evil". Whatever the design intent, the two designations leave immensely different impressions on the reader...especially if they didn't think to read the bit in the introduction where minor flavor-ey details were explained and defined.
I suppose you'd have to look into other areas of the core books and how the rules play off each other. In the PHB (page 122), the RAW specify that certain races do not have the same level of free will that most PC races do. Orcs are specifically mentioned. An orc raised from birth by humans still feels the will of Gruumsh. Even half-orcs feel it, but their diluted orc blood make it easier for them to resist than full orcs. Celestials and fiends are likewise different. Fiends do not choose to be evil, they are evil in essence. Evil is what makes them what they are.


Everyone goes to fade away in Dolurrh, regardless of alignment. It's not a reward, it's not a punishment, it just *is*.
I think since that guys specified non-forgotten realms campaigns, he meant "deafult D&D settings that don't have explicitly different afterlife mechanics". Dolurrh is Eberron's specific afterlife.

Don't get me wrong, I love Eberron, but I don't think one distinct non-FR setting having a completely different specific afterlife destination either confirms nor refutes the point he was making.

Having the "I have to be evil because I'm made of evil" trope cheapens things (for me). I prefer people to be evil because they act and desire evil.


Once again, I love that you are always careful to qualify things like "for me". It's something that makes debating and discussing with you a lot more pleasant than people who think their opinions are objective fact (I don't mean anyone in this thread, but it's been a recent bugbear for me).

Like I mentioned to the OP before, I actually enjoy that particular trope. One reason being that it can be fun to occasionally break said trope. The oft-vaunted 3.5e LG succubus paladin comes to mind. What makes her compelling, to me, is that she's tragic. She remains an outsider with the Chaotic and Evil subtypes. She would register on all 4 "Detect [alignment]" spells, suffer from Holy Smite, Unholy Blight, Chaos Hammer and Order's Wrath, and face the knowledge that if she ever falls in combat and dies, her energies will return to the Abyss and make a new succubus (who will likely be Chaotic Evil). I know that's a 3.5e example, and we're primarily discussing 5e, but 5e adds an interesting new line about how those outsiders which cease to match their alignment, are altered in their physical natures. Graz'zt became a demon. Zariel became a devil. That succubus would become an angel of some kind. 5e ties their natures to their alignments, but not in a concrete way like 3.5e did. Rather, their natures are so clocely tied with their alignment, that is will change with it. Which is very compelling. To me, at least.

[Unoriginal]

They modified the Wall of the Faithless, though. Now people who don't have faith mostly ends up as psychopomps, with only those who way worse than that ending up as a brick in the wall.

[Kyutaru]

They modified the Wall of the Faithless, though. Now people who don't have faith mostly ends up as psychopomps, with only those who way worse than that ending up as a brick in the wall.

Never liked that Wall. Rather thought wandering the Outlands for all of eternity to be a more fitting end. Surrounded by other faithless souls that may not even like you, never at peace, never at rest.

This is what you get for staying neutral. Should have picked a god.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I also never liked the Wall, but more and more I'm coming to like it as a part of the setting. It's a good stick in the stick-and-carrot of faith.

[Unoriginal]

I never liked the Wall, but at least the 5e version is both something which existence the gods don't have control (as in, removing it would result in wide-scale catastrophe for everyone) over and doesn't punish innocents for no reason other than lack of faith.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Hard no. Assuming people here on forums like this are the norm of the gaming public is a non-starter. Particularly if we are talking about 5e, which went significantly out of it's way to be a plausible entry point into the hobby. Just this weekend my local paper had an article about how D&D is having a resurgence, particularly with new players...It is the industry leader and as such has to be noobie-friendly.
D&D will be most people's first tabletop RPG. It was mine, it was probably the first tabletop RPG most people around here played. Key word, tabletop. When you mention the term "RPG" to someone, there's a decent chance they'll think of Diablo, Fallout, or even World of Warcraft before D&D. I played a few VRPGs (video roleplaying games) before my dad introduced me to D&D, and several non-VRPGs which nevertheless had RPG elements (both in the sense of XP and in the sense of character decisions). That is what I'm talking about.
D&D is the industry leader in tabletop RPGs. It is not the industry leader in RPGs, period, because some of the genres it inspired have grown to eclipse it.


So alignment is obsolete because monster descriptions also explain that the creatures listed as evil are evil? I mean, it's a salient point, but how is that different than arguing that having 'humanoid' listed in the statblock of elves and kobolds and such are obsolete because the monster description undoubtedly will make that clear as well?
Creature type isn't primarily a description of appearance. It's a mechanical term for designating what effects affect a given creature. You can't affect a pseudodragon or sphinx with calm animals because they aren't of the animal type, for instance. A night hag is humanoid in shape, but it isn't humanoid type, so charm person doesn't affect it.
Alignment used to serve a similar purpose, but now many of the abilities which one relied on it (including the most iconic ones) either dropped targeting restrictions or target based on another factor (such as creature type).



1) It communicates to your DM what behavior they should expect from your character. It allows your DM to efficiently prepare (don't need to think about how strong are the guard if you know the PCs will cooperate, ...).
I'd argue that Traits, Bonds, and Flaws do the same job more effectively, because they are more specific. There are dozens of iconic archetypes per alignment and hundreds of deviations from each which stay within the alignment more than they fit in any other, and the alignment alone won't tell the DM which you're using.



This is the part I strongly dislike about alignment (from a philosophical point of view). My setting started as a 4e setting (which then got cataclysm'd in preparation for a switch to 5e), so demons and devils are not about alignment, but about goals. And when I decided to throw out fixed alignments entirely, I found that a better distinction (for me) was in the role/power source of those creatures.
-snip-
I strongly (at a basic level) hate the idea that anyone is denied agency/freedom of choice. I hate the "designated punching bag" status. Same goes for dragons. We fig leaf that they really do have choice, but then deny it in actual play. I strongly prefer people to all be people, and people can fall, people can be redeemed. Having the "I have to be evil because I'm made of evil" trope cheapens things (for me). I prefer people to be evil because they act and desire evil.
I like this setting idea.



Yes, in that it's a tool that can enriched the play experiencein - in the right hands. We've all seen how the gotcha literalist approach to the game goes in the other direction.

FWIW, while your meditation is interesting, I find that overthinking gets in the way of fun sometimes.
Not nearly as much as underthinking, and neither is nearly as bad as denying problems. "The gotcha literalist approach" is wrong, but it needs to be addressed somehow, because it is a problem that exists.


And boy is this glass house comfortable!


While you are quite correct that one can remove alignment-tied mechanics, you have quite thorooughly illustrated how there's actually quite a bit of work involved.
No argument. Alignment is buried deep in D&D, and amputating it would take a bit of effort. But I'd argue that, cosmology aside, none of that effort would involve changing anything fundamental to D&D.
If I had to put the question in actionable terms, I'd say something like "Is it worth the effort to fix the problems inherent in alignment for this and every future edition of D&D, to make sure it isn't interpreted in a way that ruins play experience for new players, or would it be better to just remove the system entirely?"


In D&D (and this includes 5e), alignment gives mechanical voice to classic tropes of fantasy in an objective manner that can be fairly quantified.
Allow me to explain.
Nah, I get what you're getting at. The foundational work of modern fantasy is, at heart, an epic about the very nature of good and evil. Nearly all fantasy since has either followed in its footsteps with battles between Good and Evil, or has defined itself by explicitly not doing so.
The problem isn't that alignment can't do this, or that alignment shouldn't do this. The problem is that alignment needs more power, more integration with the core mechanics, than it has ever had in D&D to realize its potential as a storytelling mechanism. If you're telling a Tolkienesque story about good and evil, alignment (especially as it exists in 5e) is barely a starting point.


The idea that fiends are literally made of evil is one that I actually like. It also explains why when a demon is killed, a new demon forms in the Abyss. Those energies that are given physical form to make up their bodies are a part of the plane from which they originate.


No, the Wall of the Faithless is still there (SCAG, page 20). But I kind of feel that this is a tangent from the quote that you responded to..
Yeah, I do that. Especially when a discussion gets tangential to something I feel strongly about, like the Wall of the Faithless.

If everyone in the Forgotten Realms had a patron deity because the gods actually did stuff in their lives to make everyone want to have a patron deity, great. If almost everyone in the Forgotten Realms had a patron deity because their parents raised them to worship such-and-such and most people never cared enough to stop, cool. But if nearly everyone in the Realms has a patron deity because they'll be punished eternally if they don't pay homage to a specific god...well, that makes them feel less like (variably) benevolent guardians of the mortal realm and more like a cosmic protection racket crossed with the worst aspects of American two-party politics.
Maybe this just feels personal to me. I'm an atheist, so I'm somewhat familiar with being told I'll suffer eternally after death for not following a god. I probably can't be objective in this. Maybe people with a different viewpoint find the Wall of the Faithless perfectly natural, for some reason I can't discuss on this forum, and I'm just being a special snowflake or some social-injustice-warrior term of insult. But I don't think that renders my analysis moot.

...Sorry, that went a bit deeper than I expected.


But this goes back to understanding alignment properly. One specific phrase I like o bring up in a lignemnt threads is this: Alignment is NOT an absolute baromete of action or affiliation.
I understand, but I'm not discussing alignment as it should be, but as it is. And often, alignment is treated as an absolute barometer of action/affiliation.


Characters with different alignments don't necessarily have to disagree, and if they do, the disagreement isn't somehow "forced" to be due to their alignment differences. Take Miko Miyazaki in OotS. Her and Roy are both Lawful Good, and they do not get along at all. At no point does either of them cease to be LG*, but at no point are they in concordance with one another.
Hence the paragraphs I typed about characters who get into conflicts for reasons entirely unrelated to alignment.


I think a lot got lost in what you cut out of rmnimoc's post. It wasn't just about "people using alignment wrong", but also about people who have legitimate complaints about the system.
Eh...he briefly mentioned people with legitimate complaints, in a way which made it clear he thought the overwhelming majority of complaints were ridiculous or born out of bad faith and/or "using alignment wrong." He was basically saying "I haven't had any problems with it, so it's working fine, so don't mess with it".
It's a very...lazy-conservatism attitude, one that happens to be a pet peeve of mine. If you don't want to change things because the current thing works well and does good stuff, say that and tell people about the good stuff it does. If you think there are problems with a proposed fix, describe those. If you just belittle the people who criticize the current system and say "It works okay, don't do anything," that's when I have a problem.


I'm very pro-alignment and alignment mechanics, even in 3.5e. And (anecdoatal, I know) 100% of stories I have heard from people about "why alignment is terrible" stem from someone not using it according to the RAW.
-snip-
To wit (regarding "if there's no way to make them do it right, then it's a problem"): If a mechanic is ONLY problematic when it's used wrong, is the "problem" a fair indictment of the mechanic itself? If I beat someone to death with a tire iron, are tire irons problematic?
That's a terrible analogy. If misuse of alignment was an anomaly, something only done by capricious DMs out to get their players, that would be one thing. But it isn't. Alignment misuse comes from people trying to use alignment correctly, trying to "play their characters," and it still happens. Moreover, it's the same kinds of "mistakes" that crop up over and over, to the point that they become even more recognizable tropes than characters made by "playing alignment right".
A better analogy is "If people trying to change tires frequently beat someone to death with their tire iron by accident, are tire irons problematic?" In that case, yes. Maybe the core functionality of the tire iron is fine for changing tires, but if the same problems keep cropping up among people just trying to change tires, there's something wrong that needs to be fixed.


I suppose you'd have to look into other areas of the core books and how the rules play off each other. In the PHB (page 122), the RAW specify that certain races do not have the same level of free will that most PC races do. Orcs are specifically mentioned. An orc raised from birth by humans still feels the will of Gruumsh. Even half-orcs feel it, but their diluted orc blood make it easier for them to resist than full orcs. Celestials and fiends are likewise different. Fiends do not choose to be evil, they are evil in essence. Evil is what makes them what they are.
...I'm pretty sure that makes it worse, not better.


Like I mentioned to the OP before, I actually enjoy that particular trope. One reason being that it can be fun to occasionally break said trope. The oft-vaunted 3.5e LG succubus paladin comes to mind. What makes her compelling, to me, is that she's tragic. She remains an outsider with the Chaotic and Evil subtypes. She would register on all 4 "Detect [alignment]" spells, suffer from Holy Smite, Unholy Blight, Chaos Hammer and Order's Wrath, and face the knowledge that if she ever falls in combat and dies, her energies will return to the Abyss and make a new succubus (who will likely be Chaotic Evil). I know that's a 3.5e example, and we're primarily discussing 5e, but 5e adds an interesting new line about how those outsiders which cease to match their alignment, are altered in their physical natures. Graz'zt became a demon. Zariel became a devil. That succubus would become an angel of some kind. 5e ties their natures to their alignments, but not in a concrete way like 3.5e did. Rather, their natures are so clocely tied with their alignment, that is will change with it. Which is very compelling. To me, at least.
I feel like that's less a variation of the "made of alignment" trope and more a "outer essence reflects inner alignment" trope.

[KorvinStarmast]

Never liked that Wall.

I also never liked the Wall,

I never liked the Wall,
Something there is that doesn't love a wall, (https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44266/mending-wall)

Not nearly as much as underthinking, and neither is nearly as bad as denying problems. "The gotcha literalist approach" is wrong, but it needs to be addressed somehow, because it is a problem that exists. Your assertion of a universal problem is unsupported. We don't have that problem at the tables where I play. There is no denial going on. There may be, however, a lack of wit, or technique, on the part of {some players and DM's} in applying alignment in D&D 5e - which is what this sub forum is about.

If you want to talk about all editions, the general RPG forum is over there. ------------->

If people import previous edition assumptions into 5e, that's their mistake.

[Cynthaer]

I'm not terribly swayed by the cosmology argument, because you could keep those arrangements without explicitly mapping them onto the personalities of everyday randos here on the material plane.

In fact, "good" and "evil" in a character's alignment already doesn't really mean the same thing as "good" and "evil" in the sense of Elysium vs Hades. You could easily swap "Good" with "Celestial" and "Evil" with "Fiendish" without changing anything at all about the cosmology.

In the end, I think that the classic D&D alignment structure is not currently useful for defining player characters, and is only slightly useful for describing mundane foes. It doesn't really map to any real-life philosophy of people generally, and more importantly, it doesn't map well to modern fantasy storytelling and characterization.

For a different example, consider Magic: the Gathering's color pie. This approach also doesn't really map to any real-life philosophy of people, but it's excellent at dividing the world into narratively compelling philosophies. It's very customized to its purpose as part of a trading card game, though—it's interesting to describe the colors of fictional characters, but it's clumsy when you try to use it for PCs. You'll notice that even the Planeshift materials that bring M:tG content into D&D largely drop the concept of color.

So what is useful for PC characterization? I agree with GreatWyrmGold here: It's things like Personality, Traits, Bonds, and Flaws. These are the things that make my characters very different from each other, regardless of their alignments or their "color".

Bringing these explicitly into character creation is one of the best moves 5e made, IMO.

(So my final answer to the OP's question is: D&D does not need alignment for PCs or most enemies. It still has a place in the cosmology, and for creatures associated with the Outer Planes in some way.)

[Luccan]

I've never been a fan of the "unfortunate implications" argument against alignment. Orcs aren't real and their evil nature is only problematic if you take them to be representative of a real-world people. Which is pretty clearly not the intention. And if you use D&D as an excuse to treat people different from yourself poorly IRL, it's still a you problem. The game didn't teach you that.

[RedMage125]

And boy is this glass house comfortable!
I really don't know what you mean by that. I explicitly do not advocate for a "right" or "wrong" way to play D&D, as long as people are having fun, and I believe I qualified any opinion or experience based statements as such.



No argument. Alignment is buried deep in D&D, and amputating it would take a bit of effort. But I'd argue that, cosmology aside, none of that effort would involve changing anything fundamental to D&D.
If I had to put the question in actionable terms, I'd say something like "Is it worth the effort to fix the problems inherent in alignment for this and every future edition of D&D, to make sure it isn't interpreted in a way that ruins play experience for new players, or would it be better to just remove the system entirely?"
I think in order to answer that, we'd have to have some kind of quantifiable, objective source data that indicates that it is "ruining play experience" for a significant majority of players. Which we do not have.


Nah, I get what you're getting at. The foundational work of modern fantasy is, at heart, an epic about the very nature of good and evil. Nearly all fantasy since has either followed in its footsteps with battles between Good and Evil, or has defined itself by explicitly not doing so.
The problem isn't that alignment can't do this, or that alignment shouldn't do this. The problem is that alignment needs more power, more integration with the core mechanics, than it has ever had in D&D to realize its potential as a storytelling mechanism. If you're telling a Tolkienesque story about good and evil, alignment (especially as it exists in 5e) is barely a starting point.
I was also speaking of alignment mechanics in general, even across editions. Example from 3.5e, Holy weapons that are effective against ANY creature of evil alignment (could be flavored as "impure heart"). Without alignment being something clearly defined for a given creature, it would be entirely DM fiat as to whether or not it worked on a given creature.

That's not to say that alignment mechanics didn't have ACTUAL flaws. The Detect Evil spell, in past editions, could occasionally be used to undercut or undermine "mystery" type situations and adventures, unless the DM was passing out specific magic items that nullify that, or giving class levels/spells that did so. And resorting to the same tricks to negate that tactic becomes trite and overused after awhile. I'm actually a huge fan of the idea that only supernatural evil can be detected now. No using a spell to determine that the Duke's Weapons Master (who seems jolly and cordial) is actually Evil, while his Court Wizard, who seems sneaky, greasy, and unpleasant, is actually completely of Good or Neutral alignment (he's just not a personable fellow). That's kind of a personal example for me, as it's one I used in an adventure a long ways back.

Good Lord, I just realized that was 16 years ago. Man, I feel old.

Back on topic: I think that alignment mechanics serve adequately for those DMs who do choose to make their stories about epic conflicts between Good and Evil. I don't favor complete abrogation of alignment entirely, because without objective alignment standards, fiends are just extraplanar races with a different point of view and set of values.

But 5e's dialling alignment mechanics back and reducing their power and integration with core mechanics was meant driven by feedback from the community. I don't think that an actual majority of D&D players hate alignment, but a significant minority do, and what 5e did was reduce the impact so that those people who hate alignment can remove it easier. All that work you highlighted for changing 5e was even MORE work in 3.5e, for example (alignment's tenctacles were thoroughly entrenched there). For my own viewpoint, I think this was a good move, even though I like aqlignment and mechanics thereof. I'm the kind of person that values fairness and equality (if not equitability). Then again, if I lived in a world with D&D style objective Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, I'd probably get pegged as Lawful Neutral. If all the people working for me are equally happy ot equally unhappy, I'm doing a good job. i think, from a design perspective, that it was a good compromise to keep alignment mechanics, but make them not as pervasive as previous editions.



Yeah, I do that. Especially when a discussion gets tangential to something I feel strongly about, like the Wall of the Faithless.

If everyone in the Forgotten Realms had a patron deity because the gods actually did stuff in their lives to make everyone want to have a patron deity, great. If almost everyone in the Forgotten Realms had a patron deity because their parents raised them to worship such-and-such and most people never cared enough to stop, cool. But if nearly everyone in the Realms has a patron deity because they'll be punished eternally if they don't pay homage to a specific god...well, that makes them feel less like (variably) benevolent guardians of the mortal realm and more like a cosmic protection racket crossed with the worst aspects of American two-party politics.
I suppose the "protection racket" is a fair perception of that. At least until you dive deeper into the lore (like in some of the books), and you see that it's not something the gods really have a say over. it's somehow intrinsically tied with the nature of reality there.

After the Time of Troubles, Cyric initially had the protfolios of Bane, Bhaal, and Myrkul. He searched for the soul of the mortal Kelemvor, who, when mortal, was the lover of Midnight, the woman who ascended to become the new Mystra. Kelemvor's soul was being hidden by Mask (in his avatar as Cyric's sword), until Cyric read his own book (an artifact designed to alter the reader's mind and make them belief Cyric is supreme to all other beings). This made him go mad, he shattered the sword, which released Kelemvor's soul. Unfortunately, by this point, Cyric had amde himself so intolerable in the Realm of the Dead, that all the souls rose up against him, and unanimously elected Kelemvor to be their new god. In life, Kelemvor greatly wished to be a heroic figure, but was forced to be more mercenary by a family curse. So, as a god, he greatly favored those who were noble and good. His lover, Mystra, also favored those who were good. Good wizards found that their spells were more powerful. Unsurprisingly (as it it's Forgotten Realms), everyone on the mortal plane found out. And a lot of people just stopped worshipping (or at least, being particularly devout to) their patron gods, because if they were noble and just, Kelemvor would reward them in the next life. But evil or cowardly people who were not deemed Faithful still got the punishment of being bricked into the Wall.
Bottom line, Kelemvor was not doing his job. He was allowing his personal preferences to override the duties of his office.
Cyric, meanwhile, was insane, and the other gods accused him of failing in his duties (he was still the god of strife and murder). He was put on trial, the charge was Innocence, by reason of insanity. During this time, he managed to, through plots and schemes, make Kelemvor realize that he was unfairly setting a standard that Good people could basically ignore the gods (which is antithetical to his duties as a member of the pantheon), while Evil people got punished. He made Mystra realize she was not being a fair and unbiased steward of magic. Throughout his insanity, he managed to completely destroy the love between those 2 gods. His insanity got cured by a different artifact, used by his Seraph of Lies, but he managed all that before he even got cured, and thus the charges were dropped. During this whole story, there was a warrior who paid some homage to Torm, god of duty and bravery, but near the end of his life, he fled from a powerful foe to save his own skin. Cyric then decieved him into thinking Torm still favored him, and he charged the enemy with a rusty sword and died. As a soul, he tried to be worthy of Torm's realm, Kelemvor even invited Torm to see him personally. But because he was False, he could not pass the test (seeing the runes on Torm's gauntlets) for Torm to take him. They sent his soul back to protect the woman guarding Cyric's book, and in the end, he died again trying to save her. having died brvaely in performance of his duties, he was able to see the runes, and was accepted as Torm's.
The outcome, for Kelemvor, was that he stopped playing favorites to heroic types. He became completely neutral and dispassionate, adhering only to the strict guidelines of his office. Which includes bricking the Faithless into the Wall, no matter what kind of person they were. He even went back and re-judged all the souls he had judged since he became a god, to fix his mistake.
So it seems that the Wall of the Faithless, and bricking souls into it, is a mandate of the office of the god of the dead, something even they cannot stop from doing completely. it is important to note, however, that when souls are waiting in line to be judged on the Fugue Plane, the gods send messengers and chariots through the plane, and any soul who is genuinely faithful to that patron will get automatically picked up and welcomed into that deity's realm. The reason that's important is that it makes what the other gods do less of a "protection racket" and more "they try and save the souls of the people that they can save, but there are specific criteria outside the gods' control as to whether or not a soul meets those standards". And if those standards are not met, the gods cannot help them.



I understand, but I'm not discussing alignment as it should be, but as it is. And often, alignment is treated as an absolute barometer of action/affiliation.
And cars are sometimes treated as murder weapons. Are cars "weapons", objectively?



Eh...he briefly mentioned people with legitimate complaints, in a way which made it clear he thought the overwhelming majority of complaints were ridiculous or born out of bad faith and/or "using alignment wrong." He was basically saying "I haven't had any problems with it, so it's working fine, so don't mess with it".
It's a very...lazy-conservatism attitude, one that happens to be a pet peeve of mine. If you don't want to change things because the current thing works well and does good stuff, say that and tell people about the good stuff it does. If you think there are problems with a proposed fix, describe those. If you just belittle the people who criticize the current system and say "It works okay, don't do anything," that's when I have a problem.
That only goes to show that the "problems" are, themselves, subjective. What you call "lazy-conservatism", is also Practical Utilitarianism. "If it's no broke, don't fix it" is a common maxim among those who are the ones actually charged with fixing things. I maintain Naval Aircraft for a living, this is absolutely a measure of not risking making something worse by "trying to fix it", more than "laziness".

And one of my pet-peeves, likewise, is when people conflate "this is true for me, based on my preferences and experiences" with "this is objective truth". If you're willing to acknowledge that these "flaws" are opinions and not facts, bully. We can have a wonderful discussion, and I can contribute meaningfully by offering suggestions that might aid in your proposed "fixes". if you insist that these "problems" are somehow "universal fact", I will dig in my trenches and debate so hotly.



That's a terrible analogy. If misuse of alignment was an anomaly, something only done by capricious DMs out to get their players, that would be one thing. But it isn't. Alignment misuse comes from people trying to use alignment correctly, trying to "play their characters," and it still happens. Moreover, it's the same kinds of "mistakes" that crop up over and over, to the point that they become even more recognizable tropes than characters made by "playing alignment right".
A better analogy is "If people trying to change tires frequently beat someone to death with their tire iron by accident, are tire irons problematic?" In that case, yes. Maybe the core functionality of the tire iron is fine for changing tires, but if the same problems keep cropping up among people just trying to change tires, there's something wrong that needs to be fixed.
And this is something I've been leading to in this response, but in order for this to be accurate, you would need to prove that the frequency of these problems (be they with alignment or tire irons) is significant to the proportion of people using them.

To wit, I do not think that the forums here (or the old WotC ones) represent an accurate cross-section of D&D players. I have been playing D&D since 2e was still around. I joined the WotC forums back in 2002 or so, these ones in 2008. And I have played 2e, 3.0e, 3.5e, 4e, PF, and 5e in 7 states, at multiple conventions, and on 3 different Navy Aircraft Carriers. And I've never once even met one person who frequented D&D forums of any kind. I don't think forum-goers represent the majority. Even this forum, many people only come to if they've been exposed to Order of the Stick. Furthermore, on forums of any kind, most people only come if they've got problems or issues they want help with. And on forums, most people who don't have issues with alignment, don't participate in forum discussions about it, because they don't feel that they have anything to add. So even IF a majority of the people on the forums have issues with alignment (which I also doubt), it's not necessarily a majority (or even a significant minority) of people who play D&D that have that problem.

You'd need some pretty concrete data to support the idea that the problem is more widespread. And while I'm willing to entertain the idea that you might have some, until you produce it, I remain skeptical that it's a problem that a majority of D&D players face.


...I'm pretty sure that makes it worse, not better.
Depends on what you wanted or expected from it, I suppose.

But I'm also not really interested in defending the perceptions of the RAW against people who "didn't think to read the bit...where details were explained and defined" (as you mentioned in your post I responded to).



I feel like that's less a variation of the "made of alignment" trope and more a "outer essence reflects inner alignment" trope.
[/spoiler]
But it's more than that, because "alignment and outer essence reflect the inner essence of which they are physically comprised".


I'm not terribly swayed by the cosmology argument, because you could keep those arrangements without explicitly mapping them onto the personalities of everyday randos here on the material plane.

In fact, "good" and "evil" in a character's alignment already doesn't really mean the same thing as "good" and "evil" in the sense of Elysium vs Hades. You could easily swap "Good" with "Celestial" and "Evil" with "Fiendish" without changing anything at all about the cosmology.
Well, in the lore and mechanics of previous editions, you would be explicitly wrong. In 5e, you're only wrong if certain optional rules are in play.

See, in previous editions, "Good/Evil/Law/Chaos" are not just points of view, but objective forces which shape the cosmos, to which even gods are beholden. The "Evil" in a fiend actually is the same "Evil" in a human assassin. Mortals just had less concentrated amounts of said energy, unless they had connection to divine forces (i.e. the results of a cleric's aura). That's why the "Detect Evil" spell detected both of them the same way. An 8-HD assassin had a Faint Evil Aura, but an 8-HD demon had a Powerful one. but it was the same energy.

In 5e, there's the optional rule about Psychic Dissonance on the planes (DMG, page 59). It states that if you use this rule, then planes with Good and Evil alignment traits are hostile to characters with the opposite alignment traits. So much that they have to make a save or gain a level of exhaustion. So the Good or Evil of a PC's alignment really is the same kind of force that exists in their respecive planes, that is opposed and oppressed by the natures of planes with opposing alignment traits.

But that is an optional rule, so...take that as you will.



In the end, I think that the classic D&D alignment structure is not currently useful for defining player characters, and is only slightly useful for describing mundane foes. It doesn't really map to any real-life philosophy of people generally, and more importantly, it doesn't map well to modern fantasy storytelling and characterization.


I disagree that it "doesn't map to any real-world ideals generally". I think it absolutely does. In fact, it ONLY does so "generally". A lot of the specifics are where examination falls apart. But most of what is considered "good" or "evil" in D&D resonates to those of us with Western Societal Values.

[Unoriginal]

In fact, "good" and "evil" in a character's alignment already doesn't really mean the same thing as "good" and "evil" in the sense of Elysium vs Hades.

Actually, it does.

Never understood why some people say that.



In the end, I think that the classic D&D alignment structure is not currently useful for defining player characters, and is only slightly useful for describing mundane foes. It doesn't really map to any real-life philosophy of people generally, and more importantly, it doesn't map well to modern fantasy storytelling and characterization.

It exactly describes the typical behavior it's supposed to describe.

You can't blame a fork for being a bad kettle

[Kyutaru]

See, in previous editions, "Good/Evil/Law/Chaos" are not just points of view, but objective forces which shape the cosmos, to which even gods are beholden. The "Evil" in a fiend actually is the same "Evil" in a human assassin. Mortals just had less concentrated amounts of said energy, unless they had connection to divine forces (i.e. the results of a cleric's aura). That's why the "Detect Evil" spell detected both of them the same way. An 8-HD assassin had a Faint Evil Aura, but an 8-HD demon had a Powerful one. but it was the same energy.

There's a way around that and funnily enough it's the Order of the Stick that supplied it.

The universe is not built up of alignment forces but colors (for lack of a better word to the mortal mind). So instead of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos you have Red/Blue/Yellow/Purple essence. The forces of creation are pure in color while everything else is a mixture of these. Planes formed where different essences touch and gave birth to the deities that reside within them, who in turn formed the material plane together and all its inhabitants. So while Skeletons may be fueled by raw Purple essence your local villain is 4% Red, 13% Blue, 37% Yellow, and 46% Purple.

The entire cosmology remains as it is. You just detect essences now and a person's personality may be influenced by their essence or not. Entirely up to you. Heck, you could even make life equal parts of all the essences and alignment truly doesn't matter anymore.

[whiplashomega]

My personal thoughts:

Alignment is nice to have from the DMs perspective, as it helps you get an idea of the general cultural aspects of the very very many societies and creatures you have at your disposal. BUT:

I am firmly of the belief that alignment is fluid, and relative to perspective. I haven't required my PCs to include an alignment on their characters in 5e, ever. I make it clear in character creation that alignment is not mechanically important and the only reason to include it on your character sheet is if it helps you roleplay.

D&D is a game built on tropes as shortcuts. The red dragon being chaotic evil is that way because it tells the DM how that red dragon is going to act in general in 2 words rather than a page of text. If you've got the time to give a particular creature more complicated motivations, do so, and then you can happily ignore the 'alignment' as listed on the monster block.

[Unoriginal]

There's a way around that and funnily enough it's the Order of the Stick that supplied it.

The universe is not built up of alignment forces but colors (for lack of a better word to the mortal mind). So instead of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos you have Red/Blue/Yellow/Purple essence. The forces of creation are pure in color while everything else is a mixture of these. Planes formed where different essences touch and gave birth to the deities that reside within them, who in turn formed the material plane together and all its inhabitants. So while Skeletons may be fueled by raw Purple essence your local villain is 4% Red, 13% Blue, 37% Yellow, and 46% Purple.

The entire cosmology remains as it is. You just detect essences now and a person's personality may be influenced by their essence or not. Entirely up to you. Heck, you could even make life equal parts of all the essences and alignment truly doesn't matter anymore.

1) you're describing Magic: the Gathering.

2) the point of alignment isn't being some kind of "essence" used to justify the origin of X creature, the point is that the moral inclinations of people have an actual physical effect on the universe.

The neutral evil of a dragonborn who cruelly exploits war refugees for profit is the same neutral evil than in Gehenna or in Yugoloth. Why? Because the neutral evil of Gehenna comes from the dragonborn and every single other individual like them in the universe.

If mortals weren't capable of being malevolent while following a code of conduct, the Nine Hells wouldn't exist. It's the behavior of mortals that shapes the Outer Planes and the creatures native from it.


What makes Fiends interesting isn't that they're evil, or that they're a designed-to-be-attacked Other. It's that they're Us.

Maybe the worst parts of us, but Us still.

[RedMage125]

What makes Fiends interesting isn't that they're evil, or that they're a designed-to-be-attacked Other. It's that they're Us.

Maybe the worst parts of us, but Us still.

I don't know that this is explicitly in the RAW, but it's an interesting philosophical point, nonetheless.

I like it.

[Witty Username]

Never liked that Wall. Rather thought wandering the Outlands for all of eternity to be a more fitting end. Surrounded by other faithless souls that may not even like you, never at peace, never at rest.

This is what you get for staying neutral. Should have picked a god.
If I remember right the wall was Myrkul's idea, which made much more sense cause he's a jerk. The only reason the wall is still around is Kelemvor nearly broke the setting trying to get rid of it.
please correct me if I am wrong.
Edit:I guess I should add **** to the words I need to avoid.

I like Alignment as cosmic forces still and d&d has done that well enough, (4e bugs me hard for taking out most of the Law and Chaos axis). I also like the framework existing much in the same way that we have bonds, ideals, and flaws. Guides help sometimes when writers block hits.

[Constructman]

Well, Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus was just announced, and the cover is Zariel about to shank some poor bloke off camera...

[Naanomi]

In FR lore... the original God of death, Jergal, was immensely powerful and didn’t need the Wall. When he stepped down, his replacement Myrkul, created the Wall to maintain the fear of death his predecessor commanded. Cyric then kept it around because he is a jerk.

When Kelemvor ascended, he tried to take down the wall and institute what he saw as a more fair afterlife; but it didn’t work... people had gotten used to the system (and Ao sort of encouraged the tight worshiper/God relationship it fostered anyways post time-of-troubles) and with it gone people started killing themselves for the ‘greater good’ and the like... ultimately Kelemvor reinstated it (with some oversight that was lacking before), which was his big turning point moment from Good to Neutral

Of course, all of it only matters in the domains of the Faerun pantheon; the presence of the Wall doesn’t even seem to affect the other pantheons on Aber-Toril, let alone any other crystal spheres... and at least according to older Planescape lore even then it didn’t always apply (racial pantheons can claim false or faithless souls; the souls of children still migrate to Lunia

[OldTrees1]

D&D will always have the words necessary to talk about pursuing ideals. Those words include both success words and failure words. Some ideals will be opposed and thus the success words for one might be functionally equivalent to a failure word for the opposite ideal despite the different connotation.

Or to put it less abstractly. There will be character that care about morality. Some of those characters will disagree about a tangential ideal. Some inhuman beings (outsiders for example) will care about that tangential ideal with as much conviction as the character cares about morality.

In this manner D&D will always have alignment. Although not every D&D campaign will have alignment.

[Morty]

It never needed alignment. It has always been better when you dropped alignment.

It could perhaps have served a function, if it had ever been properly defined and given a stated purpose.

Essentially, yes. Alignment is, at best, useless. At worst, it's harmful. 4E and 5E alike do a good job by divorcing it from mechanics, but they don't follow up by removing it altogether.

The two axes of alignment are each problematic in their own way. The good/evil axis is self-defeating in that if someone is sufficiently noble or wicked to get more than two people to agree on labelling them as good or evil... well, we don't really need the label anymore because it's self-evident. If we have a story in which a band of noble heroes oppose Xyrax the Despoiler who leads a horde of demons to destroy and enslave, it's as clear-cut as it gets. If, however, we try to run something with a notable degree of moral ambiguity, alignment doesn't do anything but get in the way. Is this scheming politician who assassinates political rivals to avert a war evil or neutral? Well, honestly, who cares? What I find actually interesting is what the PCs think about it and, more importantly, plan to do about it.

The law/chaos axis is sort of its opposite in that no one seems to agree what it actually means. Obedience to rules? Organization versus improvisation? Predictably versus spontaneity? A lot of words have been spent trying to determine it. What I'm not sure about is what exactly we gain once we've managed to reach some kind of brief consensus on the matter. We get to apply a label to someone. Or we could spare ourselves all this trouble by just expending two or three more words and describing their philosophy in some detail. Which we'll have to do anyway, because "lawful", "neutral" or "chaotic" don't tell us much.

The one thing alignment is good for is a roleplaying aid. It's good for new players to be able to describe their characters' values or goals succinctly. And such things can drive role-playing for more experienced players as well. But there are far better ways to go about it. Aspirations, virtues and vices, intimacies... there's many other ways to describe a character's values and morality without bringing objective judgements or some mushy mess of an order/chaos dichotomy into it.

[D+1]

THE GAME doesn't need alignment. People play without it and the game doesn't break.
Some people like me still find alignment useful. I know its purpose for actually being present in my game. I know what I use it for as both DM and as a player myself. I know what I expect players in my games to use it for. I'll continue to use it for D&D forever. I don't care if it DOES get removed from future rules. I'll just put it back in.

Question is really: Should alignment be removed just because not everybody likes it, understands it, or finds it of any use? Should future players be DENIED having alignment in the game because some people don't want OTHERS to like it, understand it, or find it useful in any way? How many people have to not like it, understand it, or use it in order to justify its complete removal? Is that decision going to just be left to majority popular opinion, or just left as the decision of the next person in charge of the next version of D&D?

[Lunali]

That's not to say that alignment mechanics didn't have ACTUAL flaws. The Detect Evil spell, in past editions, could occasionally be used to undercut or undermine "mystery" type situations and adventures, unless the DM was passing out specific magic items that nullify that, or giving class levels/spells that did so. And resorting to the same tricks to negate that tactic becomes trite and overused after awhile. I'm actually a huge fan of the idea that only supernatural evil can be detected now. No using a spell to determine that the Duke's Weapons Master (who seems jolly and cordial) is actually Evil, while his Court Wizard, who seems sneaky, greasy, and unpleasant, is actually completely of Good or Neutral alignment (he's just not a personable fellow). That's kind of a personal example for me, as it's one I used in an adventure a long ways back.

Just because the weapon master is evil and the court wizard is good doesn't mean you've found the answer to the mystery. The evil weapons master could be completely loyal, sure he enjoys killing people, but he restrains himself to only doing it in service of the duke. The court wizard on the other hand blames the duke for some past event and so is spying on him for his rivals.

[Roxxy]

Honestly, I feel like Lawful Good is the only useful or relevant alignment to me, and even then, only because of Paladins. Paladins not needing to be Lawful Good is the first thing I chucked from 5E. I could never see myself allowing a Paladin to not be Lawful Good, because Laladins are about the difficulty of working within that code, and the struggles of handling shades of grey within the Lawful Good context. Outside of that though, alignment just isn't useful to me, and there's a lot of characters and organizations I don't want to apply alignments to because of the IRL implications. I'd rather ditch it and introduce a mandatory Paladin code that mimics Lawful Good tenants.

[Tanarii]

I'd rather ditch it and introduce a mandatory Paladin code that mimics Lawful Good tenants.
You could have done that easily by one of:
- restrict all Paladins to the Oath of Devotion.
- replace all Oath Tenets with the Devotion Tenets
- play in Forgotten Realms with SCAG Paladin Tenets

A lot of people don't realize all FR Paladins have a dozen new Tenets per SCAG, all of which are very difficult for non-LG Paladins to adhere too.

(As far as I know they're not AL mandatory, despite it nominally being set in FR.)

[Witty Username]

I am not sold on the downsides of the alignment system. Even if you do not have "Evil" written on the character sheet you will still have players that trying to kill every npc, steal from the party, or side with the intended villains and call it role-playing. If you have that player that wants to be Evil but the DM Banned it, so they pick Chaotic Neutral and say "I am murdering everyone I meet because its random." Having the alignment system doesn't create these problems, players not understanding nuance creates these problems.

I kind of agree with the paladin Lawful Good thing, ish. However, I always liked the concept of blackguards and having one class for the knight embodiment of an ideal feels like the right direction for book keeping. I wish their was a little more guidance for DMs for how to handle a paladin breaking their oaths.

[Tanarii]

If you have that player that wants to be Evil but the DM Banned it, so they pick Chaotic Neutral and say "I am murdering everyone I meet because its random."And if a player says that, the DM can point them to the Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil alignment behavior descriptions. That's pretty clearly arbritray violence, not just following your whims.

By which I mean, I agree with:

Having the alignment system doesn't create these problems, players not understanding nuance creates these problems.At least, in so far as 5e alignment goes.

[crayzz]

The framing of the question is off, imo. Framing things as whether or not alignment is "needed" has one clear, obvious answer: no, it doesn't. You can always cobble together replacements, rewrites, rule changes, etc to fill any gaps left by it's absence.

More importantly: is it valuable, and is the game better for having it? I think the answer is yes, and this thread is a good demonstration of that. Because at every turn, people who don't like the alignment system (which, fair enough, that's a reasonable opinion) have suggested replacements, rewrites, rule changes, etc to cover over the absence of the alignment system; any one of those changes is small, but taken all together the system begins to feel less cohesive. The alignment system is woven so tightly into the game that removing it elegantly almost requires writing a different game. The best you can really do is politely pretend the alignment system isn't there, at which point getting rid of it does us no good: we'd might as well leave it in.

[Hail Tempus]

Alignment is just one aspect of a character, but it’s still a useful one. Picking an alignment makes a player give some thought to how his character will interact with people outside of the party. Together with ideals, bonds etc., it helps the player create a more well-rounded character.

For example, in a situation where the party takes some bandits prisoner, your alignment is a helpful role-playing aid to figure out the range of options available to your character, from setting them free to slitting their throats.

[Morty]

The framing of the question is off, imo. Framing things as whether or not alignment is "needed" has one clear, obvious answer: no, it doesn't. You can always cobble together replacements, rewrites, rule changes, etc to fill any gaps left by it's absence.

More importantly: is it valuable, and is the game better for having it? I think the answer is yes, and this thread is a good demonstration of that. Because at every turn, people who don't like the alignment system (which, fair enough, that's a reasonable opinion) have suggested replacements, rewrites, rule changes, etc to cover over the absence of the alignment system; any one of those changes is small, but taken all together the system begins to feel less cohesive. The alignment system is woven so tightly into the game that removing it elegantly almost requires writing a different game. The best you can really do is politely pretend the alignment system isn't there, at which point getting rid of it does us no good: we'd might as well leave it in.

I played in a reasonably long 5E campaign and alignment didn't come up even once, even though we had a paladin in our party. I wrote "neutral" on my character sheet and didn't think about it again. It might be useful to replace alignment with something else to help people roleplay, but you can also just ignore it entirely without losing anything.

[Naanomi]

I played in a reasonably long 5E campaign and alignment didn't come up even once, even though we had a paladin in our party. I wrote "neutral" on my character sheet and didn't think about it again. It might be useful to replace alignment with something else to help people roleplay, but you can also just ignore it entirely without losing anything.
It is one of those things you ignore until suddenly it matters mechanically and you scramble to figure out your ‘real alignment’ for the effect

[Beleriphon]

Alignment is just one aspect of a character, but it’s still a useful one. Picking an alignment makes a player give some thought to how his character will interact with people outside of the party. Together with ideals, bonds etc., it helps the player create a more well-rounded character.

For example, in a situation where the party takes some bandits prisoner, your alignment is a helpful role-playing aid to figure out the range of options available to your character, from setting them free to slitting their throats.

That's doing it backwards. Alignment should be defined by how the character would treat the bandits or other prisoners, along with other regular behaviour.

So, does your character kill them out of hand as a "too many mouths" situation, maybe they kill everybody they don't like, maybe they think everybody deserves a second chance and takes them back to legitimate authorities. Whatever the behavior is should define the alignment.

[Tanarii]

I played in a reasonably long 5E campaign and alignment didn't come up even once, even though we had a paladin in our party. I wrote "neutral" on my character sheet and didn't think about it again. It might be useful to replace alignment with something else to help people roleplay, but you can also just ignore it entirely without losing anything.
If your character steered clear from moral questions, you chose the right alignment.

If they really didn't steer clear of moral questions, and more typically behaved in a different manner closer to one of the other alignment descriptions, then you had really chosen an alignment anyway, you just didn't label it.

Really it's very easy to play a game in which the alignment doesn't matter, you just steer clear of moral questions, and all the characters are technically neutral.

Edit: plus you don't interact with any of the relatively limited mechanical rules that reference alignment, of course.

----------


That's doing it backwards. Alignment should be defined by how the character would treat the bandits or other prisoners, along with other regular behaviour.Nah. That makes Alignment mostly meaningless IMO, apart from very few mechanical effects. What makes it useful is the other way around as described: The alignment behavior is one motivation along with personality, ideal, bond and flaw. And the player uses those together to make decisions, aka Roleplaying.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Your assertion of a universal problem is unsupported. We don't have that problem at the tables where I play. There is no denial going on. There may be, however, a lack of wit, or technique, on the part of {some players and DM's} in applying alignment in D&D 5e - which is what this sub forum is about.

If you want to talk about all editions, the general RPG forum is over there. ------------->

If people import previous edition assumptions into 5e, that's their mistake.
Good for you. And you know, I haven't personally had problems with alignment either. If only there was some way for people these days to find out what others' experiences were like... (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=alignment+problems+5e+D%26D)
And as I keep struggling to find new ways to say, just because individual players/DMs are at fault doesn't mean the game isn't also at fault. If the same types of problems exist in many individual games, either there's some big conspiracy or coincidence going on or there's some flaw in the game causing these problems. This flaw should be treated as a flaw, because it's causing problems.
If people are playing alignment wrong, the game should explain more clearly what the right way is. If people are importing outdated assumptions about alignment from older editions, the game should work harder to differentiate the new alignment from the old. In short, if so many people don't understand the "right" way to play alignment, the game should work harder to make sure they do.
I've explained this more times than I want to count, even in the first godsdang post in the thread. If people have a problem with the core logic, please, elaborate on them! Don't just keep repeating the same mantra of "It's the players' fault" that I've responded to so many times.



In fact, "good" and "evil" in a character's alignment already doesn't really mean the same thing as "good" and "evil" in the sense of Elysium vs Hades.
That's a criticism of D&D's alignment system (or of its cosmology) that I hadn't considered, but it's quite apt.



More importantly: is it valuable, and is the game better for having it? I think the answer is yes, and this thread is a good demonstration of that. Because at every turn, people who don't like the alignment system (which, fair enough, that's a reasonable opinion) have suggested replacements, rewrites, rule changes, etc to cover over the absence of the alignment system; any one of those changes is small, but taken all together the system begins to feel less cohesive. The alignment system is woven so tightly into the game that removing it elegantly almost requires writing a different game.
That game is called "Fifth Edition D&D," which has already done more to remove alignment from the system than most of the fixes here proposed would do.



It is one of those things you ignore until suddenly it matters mechanically and you scramble to figure out your ‘real alignment’ for the effect
Except that basically all effects referencing alignment have already been rewritten, and it would be simple (if not effortless) to use the same principles to rewrite the rest.
There's a reason I put this thread specifically in the 5e subforum. Removing alignment from other editions would be the horrible mess crayzz described if WotC hadn't done all the heavy lifting.




I've never been a fan of the "unfortunate implications" argument against alignment. Orcs aren't real and their evil nature is only problematic if you take them to be representative of a real-world people. Which is pretty clearly not the intention. And if you use D&D as an excuse to treat people different from yourself poorly IRL, it's still a you problem. The game didn't teach you that.
The response to this is quite outside the scope of this thread...but luckily, there are plenty of essays (video and otherwise) about orcs in other settings that answer that particular issue. Take Lindsay Ellis's video about Bright (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLOxQxMnEz8) or this analysis of Tolkien's use of race (https://www.thefandomentals.com/tolkien-race-original-sins/) as examples, since they're the first two I thought of Googling. Oh, and it might not hurt to learn a bit about cultivation theory (https://youtu.be/AqxEFNFOVTw?t=2m11s). If you don't accept the conclusions such essays come to, then just say so and I'll leave it at that; I'm not getting into that kind of argument on top of the rest of this thread.

If you do accept those conclusions, though, the rest falls into place. Speculative fiction has such a long history of using races as a stand-in for, well, race, and even works which don't explicitly treat it as such still use same symbols and images of those who do as well as dynamics, terminology, framing, etc inspired by both allegorical fantasy races and real-world races (most obviously the term "race"). Because of this, audiences naturally slot fantasy races into the same general category as real-world races, just for a fictional setting (because that's how human minds work), unless the author takes active action to distance the fantasy races from real-world races. An author who doesn't account for that is as incompetent as one who expects people to automatically empathize with a tentacle monster just because other characters say it's intelligent.
From this framework, it should be clear why portraying fantasy races as inherently wicked is problematic, especially given the number of people who have similar beliefs about other real-world races.



I really don't know what you mean by that. I explicitly do not advocate for a "right" or "wrong" way to play D&D, as long as people are having fun, and I believe I qualified any opinion or experience based statements as such.
The "glass house" joke was a reference to the spoiler title, where I called you wordy. But I'm wordy, too, hence the glass house joke.


I think in order to answer that, we'd have to have some kind of quantifiable, objective source data that indicates that it is "ruining play experience" for a significant majority of players. Which we do not have.
1. So problems only experienced by a minority of players aren't worth fixing?
2. How can you have a "quantifiable, objective" measurement of if a play experience has been ruined, let alone of what caused it? That demand basically asks that no problems ever get fixed.


I was also speaking of alignment mechanics in general, even across editions. Example from 3.5e, Holy weapons that are effective against ANY creature of evil alignment (could be flavored as "impure heart"). Without alignment being something clearly defined for a given creature, it would be entirely DM fiat as to whether or not it worked on a given creature.
I was speaking of 5e in specific, because it's the edition that this question can actually be asked of. Other editions throw around alignment mechanics like shuriken, but 5e has a wealth of examples of mechanics which fulfill the same thematic function without needing explicit alignment mechanics.


Back on topic: I think that alignment mechanics serve adequately for those DMs who do choose to make their stories about epic conflicts between Good and Evil. I don't favor complete abrogation of alignment entirely, because without objective alignment standards, fiends are just extraplanar races with a different point of view and set of values.
1. Of course alignment mechanics help DMs who use alignment-based storylines; the question is, are they a big enough help to people wanting to tell Good-versus-Evil story to justify the hindrance they can be to others? I don't think so, not without other benefits attached (like the cosmology angle).
2. If I must accept that fiendish values dictate that they torture mortals and eat souls, they must accept that my values dictate that mine dictate that I oppose such creatures. Less-snarkily, the absence of objective morality doesn't imply the absence of morality, and I thought you were smart enough that I wouldn't have to explain that.


And cars are sometimes treated as murder weapons. Are cars "weapons", objectively?
"Weapon" isn't the important word. Knives are weapons, but that doesn't mean...I'm actually not sure what your point was. That if cars are weapons, they should be...banned?
The real


That only goes to show that the "problems" are, themselves, subjective. What you call "lazy-conservatism", is also Practical Utilitarianism. "If it's no broke, don't fix it" is a common maxim among those who are the ones actually charged with fixing things. I maintain Naval Aircraft for a living, this is absolutely a measure of not risking making something worse by "trying to fix it", more than "laziness".
There's a difference between "Don't fix something because it's working" and "Don't fix something because it can't be made to work better" (or "because trying to fix it would make things worse in the interim to a degree which isn't compensated for by improved performance in the future"). The latter is practical utilitarianism, the former is how you get the mess that is the modern social/economic/political quagmire. I call it "lazy conservatism" not because I'm trying to equate it to Republicans or whatever, but because it's an attitude which opposes change (conservative) for no reason aside from the effort required to implement a better system (lazy).
The analogy you provide is...imperfect. I assume you shouldn't fly an airplane while repairing it, which means that any gains (or avoided costs) from repairing a system need to be weighed against not just the cost of the repair and side effects on other systems, but also the costs of having an airplane out of action for that long. That's the rough equivalent of tinkering with an alignment system in the middle of a session.
What I'd suggest (if I hadn't accepted at the start of this thread that none of this would ever happen) is not that, but instead changing the game for the next version, which is more akin to suggesting an upgrade to be added to the next version of an airplane. At that point, the only costs involved (beyond any side effects of the upgrade) would be enough testing to make sure the upgrade worked and didn't cause any unexpected issues. My argument is that, as of 5e, alignment is so inconsequential to the game that removing it would have negligible side effects on the rest of the game and little testing required to make sure it still worked.


And one of my pet-peeves, likewise, is when people conflate "this is true for me, based on my preferences and experiences" with "this is objective truth". If you're willing to acknowledge that these "flaws" are opinions and not facts, bully. We can have a wonderful discussion, and I can contribute meaningfully by offering suggestions that might aid in your proposed "fixes". if you insist that these "problems" are somehow "universal fact", I will dig in my trenches and debate so hotly.
Universal fact, no. Problems, yes. And problems require a reason not to fix them. To me, "This is how it has always been" is not a good enough reason to leave any problem alone, even if it only affected one person in a million.
Again, a problem doesn't need to affect a majority of people to be worth caring about. If only 40% of the world went without food, would world hunger not be a problem worth worrying about?


But I'm also not really interested in defending the perceptions of the RAW against people who "didn't think to read the bit...where details were explained and defined" (as you mentioned in your post I responded to).
I'm not interested in defending them, either. But I don't think they bear exclusive blame for the issues, either, not when the issues are so often so similar to each other.


But it's more than that, because "alignment and outer essence reflect the inner essence of which they are physically comprised".
The "physically comprised" part is made basically irrelevant if what you're physically comprised of can change as easily as people change their worldviews. Which, you know, isn't easy, but it's easier to change someone's mind than it is to change their brain. Saying that Ash is made of evil doesn't matter if they can be made of good after a character arc or two.


Or, "GWG watches with horror as a tangent he created turns into a mass of people not understanding why he's so disturbed by everyone in Faerun being okay with godless souls being tortured for eternity just because they thought the gods were pricks"


I suppose the "protection racket" is a fair perception of that. At least until you dive deeper into the lore (like in some of the books), and you see that it's not something the gods really have a say over. it's somehow intrinsically tied with the nature of reality there.
-snip-
That argument fell apart when I saw how much of it was based on the presupposition that not worshiping the gods is a bad thing, that letting some people ignore the gods is somehow a moral issue rather than just working against the interests of the gods, and that torturing all people who don't worship gods (even the innocent) is somehow better than torturing fewer people.
I accused the gods of setting up a protection racket, but the true blame obviously lies on the authors for not adequately exploring the unconscious assumptions.



In FR lore... the original God of death, Jergal, was immensely powerful and didn’t need the Wall. When he stepped down, his replacement Myrkul, created the Wall to maintain the fear of death his predecessor commanded. Cyric then kept it around because he is a jerk.

When Kelemvor ascended, he tried to take down the wall and institute what he saw as a more fair afterlife; but it didn’t work... people had gotten used to the system (and Ao sort of encouraged the tight worshiper/God relationship it fostered anyways post time-of-troubles) and with it gone people started killing themselves for the ‘greater good’ and the like... ultimately Kelemvor reinstated it (with some oversight that was lacking before), which was his big turning point moment from Good to Neutral
I appreciate that keeping the Wall around was treated as an un-Good act, but my basic research on this topic revealed a game where destroying the Wall was treated as a greatly Evil act, so it's clearly not a point that all authors agree on. Also, that game and Jergal's reign make it pretty clear that the gods (let alone the world in general) don't actually need the Wall, and make it clearly just a tool used by the gods to make mortals do what they want (fear death and worship them).


...the souls of children still migrate to Lunia
Does anyone else see "Kids' souls go somewhere else" as being a red flag for a grossly unfair system that was hastily patched to remove some of the most obvious problems?

[Benny89]

I don't care about them anymore.

That is because most players don't even act like their alignment, or know how to act according to their alignment.

For example I never ever met anyone who would for every possible situation/decision/emotional state explain the difference between Neutral, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral etc. Sure there are some "clear" examples, but how do you think those players will act when it comes to most everyday things? Same pretty much, or even opposite sometimes to their alignment.

Also when it comes to roleplaying, players usually roleplay more their character, not their alignment.

Can't Lawful charcter be Chaotic sometimes? Sure he can, that is living beings nature. Can Chaotic character sometimes be Lawful? Sure, why not? People don't have some magical barriers that prevent them from acting differently as it's not natural, both in "real life" and roleplaying.

I tend to treat PCs as: Good, Evil and Neutral. That is for the sake of spells/deities/artifacts etc.

Also I have rule that PCs should not choose their alignment at character creation. Usually after few session and some roleplaying we can see how his character is acting and to what alignment he has closer.

I think DnD would be fine with finally dropping alignments. You don't need alignment to tell if someone acts evil (killed innocent) or neutral (let those innocent be killed as it had nothing to do with his duties as forest guardian). It's just roleplaying.

[EggKookoo]

It is one of those things you ignore until suddenly it matters mechanically and you scramble to figure out your ‘real alignment’ for the effect

I encourage all my players to make their PCs neutral unless they have an overwhelming reason to give them something else. That's their "real alignment" for any mechanical effects.

A divine caster might have a non-neutral alignment, which represents them trying to behave in accordance with their deity's morality. Or they might have a roleplaying concept in mind, like playing someone like Rorschach -- who is most likely lawful neutral and is treated as a little odd by his (neutral) peers because of it. A character (and a PC in particular) that insists on being a set alignment almost certainly comes across as some kind of ideologue to those around them.

Older characters also tend to settle into a set morality. A lawful good 20 year old is a naive idealist who probably annoys the party with their "do good" nature, and possibly has to force themself to behave that way. A lawful good 70 year old has just seen too much to be easily swayed from true north.

[Morty]

If your character steered clear from moral questions, you chose the right alignment.

If they really didn't steer clear of moral questions, and more typically behaved in a different manner closer to one of the other alignment descriptions, then you had really chosen an alignment anyway, you just didn't label it.

Really it's very easy to play a game in which the alignment doesn't matter, you just steer clear of moral questions, and all the characters are technically neutral.

Edit: plus you don't interact with any of the relatively limited mechanical rules that reference alignment, of course.


:smallconfused: No, I did nothing of the sort. I just said that we ignored alignment, why are you claiming we didn't? I simply approached any moral and ethical questions as I believed my character would.

[Tanarii]

If people are playing alignment wrong, the game should explain more clearly what the right way is. If people are importing outdated assumptions about alignment from older editions, the game should work harder to differentiate the new alignment from the old. In short, if so many people don't understand the "right" way to play alignment, the game should work harder to make sure they do.The 5e game does that. It tells you that alignment is about typical, but not always, overall behavior. It tells you a one sentence broad description of behavior for each of the nine alignments.

And yet people insist on trying to do things like define Law vs Chaos or Good vs Evil separate from those broad descriptions. They persist in thinking individual actions hold alignment weight. They persist in "fall from Grace" thinking, that a single Evil action damns you to be Evil. They persist in thinking of Alignment as the defining personality trait, that it makes you a one dimensional character. They persist in thinking that DMs should judge alignment, and tell players when they've changed alignment.

And they persist in quoting 3e or older alignment text to back those things up.

These are all things that are DM and Player faults.

-------


:smallconfused: No, I did nothing of the sort. I just said that we ignored alignment, why are you claiming we didn't? I simply approached any moral and ethical questions as I believed my character would.*shrug*
Alignment just makes "how I typically approach moral and ethical questions" an explicit and predefined motivation, and it's often a useful tool to have it spelled out in advance.

Otoh, yeah, if you know your character motivations well defined in advance, and they cover a variety of moral and ethical situations, or you're good at winging those motivations, you don't *need* that.

[GreyBlack]

I'm not terribly swayed by the cosmology argument, because you could keep those arrangements without explicitly mapping them onto the personalities of everyday randos here on the material plane.

In fact, "good" and "evil" in a character's alignment already doesn't really mean the same thing as "good" and "evil" in the sense of Elysium vs Hades. You could easily swap "Good" with "Celestial" and "Evil" with "Fiendish" without changing anything at all about the cosmology.

In the end, I think that the classic D&D alignment structure is not currently useful for defining player characters, and is only slightly useful for describing mundane foes. It doesn't really map to any real-life philosophy of people generally, and more importantly, it doesn't map well to modern fantasy storytelling and characterization.

For a different example, consider Magic: the Gathering's color pie. This approach also doesn't really map to any real-life philosophy of people, but it's excellent at dividing the world into narratively compelling philosophies. It's very customized to its purpose as part of a trading card game, though—it's interesting to describe the colors of fictional characters, but it's clumsy when you try to use it for PCs. You'll notice that even the Planeshift materials that bring M:tG content into D&D largely drop the concept of color.

So what is useful for PC characterization? I agree with GreatWyrmGold here: It's things like Personality, Traits, Bonds, and Flaws. These are the things that make my characters very different from each other, regardless of their alignments or their "color".

Bringing these explicitly into character creation is one of the best moves 5e made, IMO.

(So my final answer to the OP's question is: D&D does not need alignment for PCs or most enemies. It still has a place in the cosmology, and for creatures associated with the Outer Planes in some way.)

Just a question: Isn't this just replacing alignment with a different style of alignment?

We'll take the MTG color wheel for a moment. If you're tapping into that style of game, your alignment is with a certain color and/or color combination. If you stray too far into a given segment of the color wheel, you gain that color. Ajani during the Shards of Alara block went from being the standard White aligned planeswalker to a Red/White aligned just by tapping into his fury. Isn't that a change in alignment?

[Unoriginal]

Good for you. And you know, I haven't personally had problems with alignment either. If only there was some way for people these days to find out what others' experiences were like... (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=alignment+problems+5e+D%26D)

If you search for problems, you will find problems.


Googling "problem with Ducktales (2017)" is not going to give you a fair overview of what the 2017 version of Ducktales is, nor should one conclude that it should be canceled because some people have problems with it or find problems within it.



Can't Lawful charcter be Chaotic sometimes? Sure he can, that is living beings nature. Can Chaotic character sometimes be Lawful? Sure, why not? People don't have some magical barriers that prevent them from acting differently as it's not natural, both in "real life" and roleplaying.

Yes, that's why the alignment section has this written in it:


Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.

[Benny89]

If you search for problems, you will find problems.


Googling "problem with Ducktales (2017)" is not going to give you a fair overview of what the 2017 version of Ducktales is, nor should one conclude that it should be canceled because some people have problems with it or find problems within it.



Yes, that's why the alignment section has this written in it:

And that is why they are not needed. They are already fluid so why even try to stick to them? No living being has fixed alignment. We might be "most of X, less of Y" but there are no universal boxes to shove people in and call it alignment.

Besides, try to run games without them. You won't feel a difference at all.

[Constructman]

I can already hear the Devils and the Rakshasas laughing from here.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I can already hear the Devils and the Rakshasas laughing from here.

Alignment doesn't matter until you pop back up as a dretch and go directly to Blood War do not pass Go do not collect $200.

[Witty Username]

And that is why they are not needed. They are already fluid so why even try to stick to them? No living being has fixed alignment. We might be "most of X, less of Y" but there are no universal boxes to shove people in and call it alignment.

Besides, try to run games without them. You won't feel a difference at all.
That is true of almost anything in the background section of the book except for the two extra skills.

[Tanarii]

And that is why they are not needed. They are already fluid so why even try to stick to them? No living being has fixed alignment. We might be "most of X, less of Y" but there are no universal boxes to shove people in and call it alignment.

Besides, try to run games without them. You won't feel a difference at all.


That is true of almost anything in the background section of the book except for the two extra skills.
I certainly notice the difference in games where 5e character motivations (including alignment behavior) are explicitly listed and those where they are not. They're not required, but they definitely change the way players play characters.

[Yora]

The effect that I observed with players orienting their play to alignment is that they play their characters more cliched and one-dimensional.

It's an effect, but one I see nothing good in.

[Unoriginal]

And that is why they are not needed. They are already fluid so why even try to stick to them? No living being has fixed alignment. We might be "most of X, less of Y" but there are no universal boxes to shove people in and call it alignment.

Alignments are quite literally supposed to be your typical behavior, not your 100% all the time can't deviate behavior. Saying something like "there are no universal boxes" or "no living being has a fixed alignment" is missing the point of what alignment are.

Its purpose is only to describe in a shortened manner how a character acts and reacts on an every day basis. No more no less.



Besides, try to run games without them. You won't feel a difference at all.

If there is no difference felt if they are here or not, why not keep them?

[Yora]

Did any D&D book ever explain what purpose alignment is meant to serve? I think that's the really important question.

The interpretation that "5th edition alignment exist independent of alignment in other editions" is certainly an interesting one.

[Unoriginal]

Did any D&D book ever explain what purpose alignment is meant to serve? I think that's the really important question.

Yes, the PHB does.


A typical creature in the worlds of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes.





The interpretation that "5th edition alignment exist independent of alignment in other editions" is certainly an interesting one.

Editions aren't beholden to past editions. 4e's alignment is different and separate from 3.X's and 5e's, and 3.X's is different and separate from 5e's and AD&D's.

It used to be that only literally insane people could be chaotic neutral, but 3.X changed that. Was it an "interesting" interpretation of the previous edition? No, they just changed what alignments were. As does every edition.

[Yora]

A typical creature in the worlds of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes.

That describes what it does. But what is it for?

[Unoriginal]

That describes what it does. But what is it for?

To broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes.

That's it.

There is a reason why the whole 5e alignment section takes only one page, with 1/3 of it being filled with the Dwarven Alphabets and 1/6 of it being filled with a "character detail" example.

[EggKookoo]

That describes what it does. But what is it for?

I would say it's almost entirely a roleplaying guide. There may be some minor mechanical effects that key off it, but mostly it's a hint for how to run your character. It's also a guide for the DM to run NPC, or at least provide a description for any prejudices or biases the PCs might have toward the NPC.

My problem with it (aside from subjective terminology like "good" and "evil") is that it attempts to ascribe something that should be emergent. It's often unnecessary. If my PC is chaotic, he isn't so because he has "chaotic" written on his sheet. It's because that's how I've been playing him. At best, alignment is just telling you something you already know.

In 5e, any benefit of alignment has largely been overshadowed by the background system.

[Unoriginal]

I would say it's almost entirely a roleplaying guide. There may be some minor mechanical effects that key off it, but mostly it's a hint for how to run your character. It's also a guide for the DM to run NPC, or at least provide a description for any prejudices or biases the PCs might have toward the NPC.

My problem with it (aside from subjective terminology like "good" and "evil") is that it attempts to ascribe something that should be emergent. It's often unnecessary. If my PC is chaotic, he isn't so because he has "chaotic" written on his sheet. It's because that's how I've been playing him. At best, alignment is just telling you something you already know.

In 5e, any benefit of alignment has largely been overshadowed by the background system.

It does not *ascribe* it *describes*. And your character (most likely) existed in the world before you started playing them, so it helps set up how they're like before the in-game actions.

And yes, it tells you what you already know. It's just a shorthand, same reason why you can write that your character's eyes are blue on your sheet even after making a detailed description of them.

[EggKookoo]

It does not *ascribe* it *describes*. And your character (most likely) existed in the world before you started playing them, so it helps set up how they're like before the in-game actions.

This is why I brought up backgrounds. Alignment works great if you think of it as your PC's history, rather than their current moral attitude. If you have a history of being lawful good, it provides great roleplaying hints, even if you don't actually play as lawful good now. Just like if I have the "I’m too greedy for my own good. I can’t resist taking a risk if there’s money involved" flaw, it doesn't mean I must always take all risks all the time, but it does provide guidance if I (as the player) am unsure about what my PC would do in a given situation.

They should have rolled alignment into the background system more.


And yes, it tells you what you already know. It's just a shorthand, same reason why you can write that your character's eyes are blue on your sheet even after making a detailed description of them.

If I write down that my PC's eyes are blue, they're blue. I can't "play him with brown eyes" today. His eyes are blue all the time, not blueish most of the time but change based on circumstances or whatever other incidental things that might make you drift off the alignment you write down. It's not really the same thing.

[Millstone85]

It tells you a one sentence broad description of behavior for each of the nine alignments.

And yet people insist on trying to do things like define Law vs Chaos or Good vs Evil separate from those broad descriptions.Guilty.

I don't think the intent was for 5e alignments to be read as their nine own separate bubbles.

To make that clearer, I would collapse the PHB descriptions as follows.

Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral):

Good folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.
Evil is the alignment of those who behave without compassion or qualms.
Lawful individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.
Chaotic creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.
Neutral people steer clear of moral and/or social questions and don't take sides.

[GreyBlack]

Did any D&D book ever explain what purpose alignment is meant to serve? I think that's the really important question.

The interpretation that "5th edition alignment exist independent of alignment in other editions" is certainly an interesting one.

Originally, your alignment was thought to be your religion, complete with a language in which your religion conducted official business. It's kind of like how the Christian churches spoke Latin during mass; that's how Gygax put it. So it's not that you worshipped a god (unless you were a cleric), but you worshipped the Gods of Law or the Gods of Chaos. It's not that you couldn't act outside of your religious beliefs so much as it was a declaration of what your religious system was. This has since changed to be more indicative of your character's general morality as the D&D omniverse developed; you are aligned to a given side in a cosmic conflict.

Since 4e, however, alignment has been seen as more vestigial, and the grand cosmic conflict has been looked down on so hard by the general D&D public that they first thought to water it down to a linear axis from LG to CE, but then the 9 Alignment system was brought back in 5e without significant mechanical effect on the players, but some effect on their gear and the monsters they fight. It's an outgrowth of the 4e concept and belief among a certain subset of players that alignment is not a central theme to the base D&D game, which it was since its inception.

[EggKookoo]

It's not that you couldn't act outside of your religious beliefs so much as it was a declaration of what your religious system was.

Which bumped into the inevitable issue of "what if I don't have a religious system?" Again, which is why I encourage my players to go with neutral unless they have a specific reason to pick something else. Most people oscillate around a morality of "whatever's convenient for me and I can convince myself is some flavor of vague 'good-ish.'" Very few people -- among those the more actively religious or ideologist -- pick a morality and strive to uphold it.

I now encourage players to think of the good/evil spectrum in the context of pain.

Good seeks to reduce the overall amount of pain in the world, under the belief that pain is an obstacle that prevents people from achieving their full potential. Pain is a curse or disease that should be eradicated. Although it's also about overall trends. It's still "good" to defeat a bandit gang, even violently, to stop them from preying on innocent villagers. The good creature would try to inflict as little pain as possible to do that. Subdue rather than kill, if possible. But in the end, if the overall amount of pain is reduced, well done.

Evil is basically the opposite. Evil values pain, and believes that nothing of value comes without it. All growth and knowledge requires pain. Something gained without pain is a farce, a scam, or at the very least its value is an illusion. Pain moves life forward. All things of true value come from people overcoming or surviving pain. No pain, no gain, and that which does not kill you makes you stronger, etc. Rather than save a village from that gang of bandits, the "evil" creature would want to see the villagers fight off the gang, and take the pain onto themselves (in the form of injuries or even some death).

When I define the spectrum this way, my players immediately understand how to position their PCs' alignments, or at least what it means to be neutral in respect to that spectrum. It also makes (formerly) "evil" alignments less about being simply villainous.

[GreyBlack]

Which bumped into the inevitable issue of "what if I don't have a religious system?"

Then your character would be Neutral to the conflict, such as the Druids.

But I do notice how you immediately jump into your own homebrewed assumptions about the gaming system and implications. I have argued (and continue to argue) that D&D is the setting of the game, and any modification to that setting results in homebrew. The question is whether D&D needs alignment and, in the base lore, it does. Given how the base lore assumptions in the PHB work, yes. D&D still needs it because it's integral to the setting.

If you want to change that for your homebrew, that's fine, but it's still homebrew. Your homebrew setting might not need alignment, but the base setting does.

EDIT: I misread your statement and thought you were talking about new definitions/reasons why to get rid of alignment. I retract my statement as being directed towards you but will maintain my opinion here should someone choose to respond.

[Naanomi]

I wouldn’t say that not using Alignments doesn’t mean you are not in the DnD setting... the setting is robust, with lots of diversity. Athas basically has one alignment effect that only matters at epic play; no Outer Planes contact, actively avoids magic items and effects that reference alignment... and is yet still DnD and still in the same Cosmology

[GreyBlack]

I wouldn’t say that not using Alignments doesn’t mean you are not in the DnD setting... the setting is robust, with lots of diversity. Athas basically has one alignment effect that only matters at epic play; no Outer Planes contact, actively avoids magic items and effects that reference alignment... and is yet still DnD and still in the same Cosmology

I'd argue it's less "D&D" the setting and more an optional rule set for D&D: The System. But this also gets into the argument of what constitutes D&D which is an entirely different argument.

I guess my grander point is that as long as it's integral to the base D&D setting, it's important to D&D the system.

[Unoriginal]

I wouldn’t say that not using Alignments doesn’t mean you are not in the DnD setting... the setting is robust, with lots of diversity. Athas basically has one alignment effect that only matters at epic play; no Outer Planes contact, actively avoids magic items and effects that reference alignment... and is yet still DnD and still in the same Cosmology

It's not like alignments only mater for magical effects or the planes.


Also, as you said, it's still the same cosmology. It's literally a world in the Material Plane, cut off from the gods and planes, and its premise is kinda "what happens when a D&D world break down?". People there know that there used to be gods and devils around , and now they have to live without that, in the dusty ruins of a mad, mad world.


I don't know that this is explicitly in the RAW, but it's an interesting philosophical point, nonetheless.

Well, it's pretty explicit, but how literal it is depends of which afterlife.

In the Nine Hells, for example, each devil is quite literally made out of one mortal soul, with said soul's worst part influencing the result.

[Morty]

I honestly can't think of many things more dull and uninspiring than cosmic forces of good and evil playing some kind of long inter-planar game of chess and telling people what to do. I'd much rather see people grapple with what's good, evil right and wrong on their own.

...or just forget it and go kill some unambiguous bad guys, but we don't need alignment for that either.

[Constructman]

I wouldn’t say that not using Alignments doesn’t mean you are not in the DnD setting... the setting is robust, with lots of diversity. Athas basically has one alignment effect that only matters at epic play; no Outer Planes contact, actively avoids magic items and effects that reference alignment... and is yet still DnD and still in the same Cosmology


I'd argue it's less "D&D" the setting and more an optional rule set for D&D: The System. But this also gets into the argument of what constitutes D&D which is an entirely different argument.

I guess my grander point is that as long as it's integral to the base D&D setting, it's important to D&D the system.


It's not like alignments only mater for magical effects or the planes.


Also, as you said, it's still the same cosmology. It's literally a world in the Material Plane, cut off from the gods and planes, and its premise is kinda "what happens when a D&D world break down?". People there know that there used to be gods and devils around , and now they have to live without that, in the dusty ruins of a mad, mad world.

Eberron might be a better example, as all signs point towards it not being connected to the Great Wheel, but it is left intentionally ambiguous, with ways to connect it to the greater D&D multiverse should a DM choose so.

From what I've seen, D&D the game system can have all the hard mechanical effects of alignment rempved or altered and not break. But D&D the setting -- and I'm taking that to mean all of the campaign settings that can be easily accessed by going through Sigil or by commandeering a Spelljammer -- have alignment as part of its mythos, the same way Greek Mythology, Egyptian Mythology, Norse Mythology, Hinduisim, Shinto, and other mythologies/religions all of their own cosmologies and stories that may not make sense from an outsider's perspective the same way D&D's 9-point alignment might not make sense from our real-world perspective.

[Unoriginal]

I'd much rather see people grapple with what's good, evil right and wrong on their own.

Then you must like 5e alignment, since it's what happens.



I honestly can't think of many things more dull and uninspiring than cosmic forces of good and evil playing some kind of long inter-planar game of chess and telling people what to do.

And this doesn't. The closest thing to it that happens is that planar entities would like to see more mortals bat for their personal favored team, but planar entities are just as much people as the mortals.


Eberron might be a better example, as all signs point towards it not being connected to the Great Wheel, but it is left intentionally ambiguous, with ways to connect it to the greater D&D multiverse should a DM choose so.

Pretty sure that the author wrote in the 5e supplement that Eberron is another world in the Material Plane, just deliberately kept away from the others and in a special Crystal Sphere that cuts off most planar interferences. Or at least I saw him say that in a video.

The divine and planar influence is different on Eberron, too, but an important thing to remember is that they're different on each world.

In any case it's been made pretty clear Eberron is part of the Material Plane. Mordenkainen visited it.

[EggKookoo]

EDIT: I misread your statement and thought you were talking about new definitions/reasons why to get rid of alignment. I retract my statement as being directed towards you but will maintain my opinion here should someone choose to respond.

My "pain" definition certainly borders on homebrew, no denying. Although really it's just a definition of actions and values of what makes "good" good and "evil" evil. It's mainly to objectify those terms.

I don't have a problem with alignment as a system. I just think it's a clunky fit for PCs. Either it's a straightjacket -- which isn't how the current edition presents it even if past ones have -- or it's a kind of roleplaying note for the player -- which is okay if that's useful for you, but again I think it should have been more tightly wrapped into the Background system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The Great Wheel cosmology (which is the only one of the major ones that strongly depends on alignment) cannot be considered "core" to D&D. For many reasons, starting with the fact that the DMG specifically disclaims that. Heck, the PHB gives a bunch of options there.

People get too hung up on the cosmology. Outside us nerds on forums, the details of the cosmology just don't matter to the vast majority of games. The designers have given explicit permission to modify it to suit yourself. This isn't even homebrew, really. The "default" is merely a worked example of what you can do. It has no particular force or special claim to authority.

And nothing about mechanical alignment matters. You can have grand battles between good and evil without them being cosmological forces. You can have strongly ordered societies and individuals and strongly freedom-loving societies and individuals. What you can't have is arguments about exact definitions at which effects trigger (and thus people getting pissed because the DM says they're really evil or whatever and so losing class features a la 3e). That's a feature in my book

Alignment is useful as a shorthand descriptor of general tendencies, a fall-back when nothing else in the personality applies. But it's the most general statement, and so gets automatically overriden by anything else.

Personally, I find the Great Wheel to be the absolute worst cosmology I've seen. It's uninspired, not helpful for actual adventuring, more interested in filling pigeonholes than creating coherent settings, and generally doesn't do much. But that's entirely my opinion. I'd just rather not have people tell me that my, very different, cosmology (which obeys all the guidelines in the DMG) somehow "isn't D&D" or is "just homebrew" with a sneering tone as if that's somehow dirty. That's a badwrongfun attitude in my book. "Homebrew" is the core of D&D, and always has been. Each table making it their own rather than playing by someone else's idea of what's "right" or "proper." That's how Gygax started, and that's the magic of the genre. As long as you respect the underlying archetypes, the universe is yours to create.

[Morty]

Then you must like 5e alignment, since it's what happens.


I am aware. I was responding to GreyBlack. Probably should have quoted him.

[Naanomi]

Pretty sure that the author wrote in the 5e supplement that Eberron is another world in the Material Plane, just deliberately kept away from the others and in a special Crystal Sphere that cuts off most planar interferences. Or at least I saw him say that in a video.

The divine and planar influence is different on Eberron, too, but an important thing to remember is that they're different on each world.

In any case it's been made pretty clear Eberron is part of the Material Plane. Mordenkainen visited it.
I think the current ‘official line’ is that all DnD settings (including Eberron) are contained in the Great Wheel Cosmology; the idea of alternate cosmologies and the like seems to be left behind in 2e/3e. When created, Eberron was supposed to be probably separate... but so were Athas and Mystara, and both have been thoroughly integrated now. Except for the Far Realm (in most ways), I think the default is everything is in the same Great Wheel Cosmology now

[Constructman]

Pretty sure that the author wrote in the 5e supplement that Eberron is another world in the Material Plane, just deliberately kept away from the others and in a special Crystal Sphere that cuts off most planar interferences. Or at least I saw him say that in a video.

The divine and planar influence is different on Eberron, too, but an important thing to remember is that they're different on each world.

In any case it's been made pretty clear Eberron is part of the Material Plane. Mordenkainen visited it.
Oh right, Mordenkainen's aside on the Orcs of Eberron. But I question his judgment; most of the Orcs of Khorvaire are tied up in the Shadow Marches and the Demon Wastes holding back the Daelkyr and the Fiends of Khyber, and the ones who aren't are playing the same game of thrones as the Humans of Khorvaire are in the wake of the Last War.

Re: the video, I think it was Crawford who said that, not Baker. Baker in the WGtE mentions it as a possibility of going too far into the Deep Ethereal, but doesn't explicitly confirm it, instead offering several possibilities and options for DMs. But I guess that's confirmation enough.


I think the current ‘official line’ is that all DnD settings (including Eberron) are contained in the Great Wheel Cosmology; the idea of alternate cosmologies and the like seems to be left behind in 2e/3e. When created, Eberron was supposed to be probably separate... but so were Athas and Mystara, and both have been thoroughly integrated now. Except for the Far Realm (in most ways), I think the default is everything is in the same Great Wheel Cosmology now
Somewhere on Innistrad (or wherever the hell he is now) Nope, he's back on Ravnica, Jace Beleren is sweating bullets.

(Also, Niv-Mizzet is the Living Guildpact now? I don't see that going wrong, not at all. Things will be totally fine.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think the current ‘official line’ is that all DnD settings (including Eberron) are contained in the Great Wheel Cosmology; the idea of alternate cosmologies and the like seems to be left behind in 2e/3e. When created, Eberron was supposed to be probably separate... but so were Athas and Mystara, and both have been thoroughly integrated now. Except for the Far Realm (in most ways), I think the default is everything is in the same Great Wheel Cosmology now

No. The DMG and PHB are very clear about that. They present multiple other cosmologies and give instructions on how to create your own cosmology for a D&D setting.

At most you can say that all first party published D&D settings are in the Great Wheel. But that's a very different, very much more restrictive statement. And that only applies to the official versions (for novels, video games, etc), as home games are explicitly in shadow copies/alternate worlds which can be anything the DM desires.

The default is nothing more than a worked example the developers happen to like. And they've said as much, in so many words.

[Unoriginal]

Oh right, Mordenkainen's aside on the Orcs of Eberron. But I question his judgment]

That's the smart thing to do. The Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes make a good job of showing Mordenkainen is not a sound judge on many, many subjects.

[GreyBlack]

The Great Wheel cosmology (which is the only one of the major ones that strongly depends on alignment) cannot be considered "core" to D&D. For many reasons, starting with the fact that the DMG specifically disclaims that. Heck, the PHB gives a bunch of options there.

People get too hung up on the cosmology. Outside us nerds on forums, the details of the cosmology just don't matter to the vast majority of games. The designers have given explicit permission to modify it to suit yourself. This isn't even homebrew, really. The "default" is merely a worked example of what you can do. It has no particular force or special claim to authority.

And nothing about mechanical alignment matters. You can have grand battles between good and evil without them being cosmological forces. You can have strongly ordered societies and individuals and strongly freedom-loving societies and individuals. What you can't have is arguments about exact definitions at which effects trigger (and thus people getting pissed because the DM says they're really evil or whatever and so losing class features a la 3e). That's a feature in my book

Alignment is useful as a shorthand descriptor of general tendencies, a fall-back when nothing else in the personality applies. But it's the most general statement, and so gets automatically overriden by anything else.

Personally, I find the Great Wheel to be the absolute worst cosmology I've seen. It's uninspired, not helpful for actual adventuring, more interested in filling pigeonholes than creating coherent settings, and generally doesn't do much. But that's entirely my opinion. I'd just rather not have people tell me that my, very different, cosmology (which obeys all the guidelines in the DMG) somehow "isn't D&D" or is "just homebrew" with a sneering tone as if that's somehow dirty. That's a badwrongfun attitude in my book. "Homebrew" is the core of D&D, and always has been. Each table making it their own rather than playing by someone else's idea of what's "right" or "proper." That's how Gygax started, and that's the magic of the genre. As long as you respect the underlying archetypes, the universe is yours to create.

Depends on where you start looking. Characters like Mordekainen and Bigby existing in all D&D settings which implies that, if all settings exist then the Great Wheel is the base assumption. You're free to change it but it also changes the setting.

Which, again, is fine. It's just a different setting.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Depends on where you start looking. Characters like Mordekainen and Bigby existing in all D&D settings which implies that, if all settings exist then the Great Wheel is the base assumption. You're free to change it but it also changes the setting.

Which, again, is fine. It's just a different setting.

Mordenkainen and Bigby don't exist (and haven't existed) in my setting, so the claim is false.

That argument requires taking the PHB name of the spells as being the common in-setting name. Which is absolutely not guaranteed. Nor is it a stock assumption. Personally, I don't consider any of the spell names as being in-universe, no more than I consider the race, culture, weapon, or any other names as being encoded in the setting. That's all translation convention (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TranslationConvention). Officially,

All official versions of the 1st party published settings are in the Great Wheel. Fine. But those are only a tiny tiny fraction of the games and that has no priviliged place, nor should "deviations" even be considered as such.

Really, if they intended for everyone to use the Great Wheel exclusively, then they wouldn't have included all that text about alternate cosmologies or considerations for making your own. They'd have just said "here's the cosmology". Would have been way less confusing and would have allowed them to be much more specific. Combine that with the whole "these are our myths, but that's not saying they're true in your setting--do it as you wish" introduction to MToF, it's clear that they do not intend for everything to be part of the Great Wheel. The Great Wheel is basically MM's pet setting, that he uses as a worked example of how to build a setting. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. There are no credible claims that it extends any further, and many claims that it doesn't.

[Constructman]

The Great Wheel cosmology (which is the only one of the major ones that strongly depends on alignment) cannot be considered "core" to D&D. For many reasons, starting with the fact that the DMG specifically disclaims that. Heck, the PHB gives a bunch of options there.

People get too hung up on the cosmology. Outside us nerds on forums, the details of the cosmology just don't matter to the vast majority of games. The designers have given explicit permission to modify it to suit yourself. This isn't even homebrew, really. The "default" is merely a worked example of what you can do. It has no particular force or special claim to authority.

And nothing about mechanical alignment matters. You can have grand battles between good and evil without them being cosmological forces. You can have strongly ordered societies and individuals and strongly freedom-loving societies and individuals. What you can't have is arguments about exact definitions at which effects trigger (and thus people getting pissed because the DM says they're really evil or whatever and so losing class features a la 3e). That's a feature in my book

Alignment is useful as a shorthand descriptor of general tendencies, a fall-back when nothing else in the personality applies. But it's the most general statement, and so gets automatically overriden by anything else.

Personally, I find the Great Wheel to be the absolute worst cosmology I've seen. It's uninspired, not helpful for actual adventuring, more interested in filling pigeonholes than creating coherent settings, and generally doesn't do much. But that's entirely my opinion. I'd just rather not have people tell me that my, very different, cosmology (which obeys all the guidelines in the DMG) somehow "isn't D&D" or is "just homebrew" with a sneering tone as if that's somehow dirty. That's a badwrongfun attitude in my book. "Homebrew" is the core of D&D, and always has been. Each table making it their own rather than playing by someone else's idea of what's "right" or "proper." That's how Gygax started, and that's the magic of the genre. As long as you respect the underlying archetypes, the universe is yours to create.

Since D&D has given up pretending to be a universal simulator, it has to have maintain some semblance of brand identity, a default set of assumptions to fall back on. D&D the system can still be used to create wildly divergent worlds, but that doesn't negate the existence of D&D the default setting, even if that setting only exists for the purposes of IP protection.

For better or for worse, WotC has chosen (the laziest possible implementation of) the shared metasetting of Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, and Planescape as this default; the former as will be seen in the upcoming Ghost of Saltmarsh, the latter as seen in every other AP except 2 that have been released for 5e (at least let us visit eastern Faerun, or Zakhara, or Kara-Tur, please!), and the last both as will be partially presented in the upcoming Descent into Avernus and as the glue that binds it all together.

The PHB presents the Great Wheel as the first cosmology seen by players. The DMG expanda on it, giving a brief description of each one. The books give DMs the tools to create their own worlds, but they also present a series of default assumptions and a default world as a baseline as the "brand" of D&D. Planar cosmology is a part of this brand, a "D&Dism" in its own right, in the same way that brain-eating Mind Flayers are.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Since D&D has given up pretending to be a universal simulator, it has to have maintain some semblance of brand identity, a default set of assumptions to fall back on. D&D the system can still be used to create wildly divergent worlds, but that doesn't negate the existence of D&D the default setting, even if that setting only exists for the purposes of IP protection.

For better or for worse, WotC has chosen (the laziest possible implementation of) the shared metasetting of Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, and Planescape as this default; the former as will be seen in the upcoming Ghost of Saltmarsh, the latter as seen in every other AP except 2 that have been released for 5e (at least let us visit eastern Faerun, or Zakhara, or Kara-Tur, please!), and the last both as will be partially presented in the upcoming Descent into Avernus and as the glue that binds it all together.

The PHB presents the Great Wheel as the first cosmology seen by players. The DMG expanda on it, giving a brief description of each one. The books give DMs the tools to create their own worlds, but they also present a series of default assumptions and a default world as a baseline as the "brand" of D&D. Planar cosmology is a part of this brand, a "D&Dism" in its own right, in the same way that brain-eating Mind Flayers are.

Sure, their first party publications are all set in a single setting. That's totally fine. That does not make any other setting "not D&D". Nor do the books claim that.

First party publications are not the whole, or even the core of D&D. They're merely one small part. Basically the developers' pet setting, the place they like to (and have legal authority to) build on. That's it. They're not "more D&D" than anything else. They're just an example. And the developers have said exactly that.

[GreyBlack]

Since D&D has given up pretending to be a universal simulator, it has to have maintain some semblance of brand identity, a default set of assumptions to fall back on. D&D the system can still be used to create wildly divergent worlds, but that doesn't negate the existence of D&D the default setting, even if that setting only exists for the purposes of IP protection.

For better or for worse, WotC has chosen (the laziest possible implementation of) the shared metasetting of Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, and Planescape as this default; the former as will be seen in the upcoming Ghost of Saltmarsh, the latter as seen in every other AP except 2 that have been released for 5e (at least let us visit eastern Faerun, or Zakhara, or Kara-Tur, please!), and the last both as will be partially presented in the upcoming Descent into Avernus and as the glue that binds it all together.

The PHB presents the Great Wheel as the first cosmology seen by players. The DMG expanda on it, giving a brief description of each one. The books give DMs the tools to create their own worlds, but they also present a series of default assumptions and a default world as a baseline as the "brand" of D&D. Planar cosmology is a part of this brand, a "D&Dism" in its own right, in the same way that brain-eating Mind Flayers are.

This.

Think of it this way: In WOW, you are given the option to play as Horde or Alliance. This is your Alignment. Are there private servers that remove the Horde/Alliance division? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that, in the official, baseline game that there isn't a Horde and Alliance alignment.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This.

Think of it this way: In WOW, you are given the option to play as Horde or Alliance. This is your Alignment. Are there private servers that remove the Horde/Alliance division? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that, in the official, baseline game that there isn't a Horde and Alliance alignment.

Huge difference there. WOW talks about a specific setting. It's basically one giant, ongoing game. D&D is very different, and has been from its beginning. The idea that there's only one valid way to play, or that doing otherwise is somehow "wrong" or "unofficial" is belied by the explicit support for such in the PHB and DMG. Until you can explain that away, saying that the planar cosmology is a necessary part of D&D is just straight up wrong.

For me personally, the idea of having to play exclusively in the Great Wheel is repugnant enough that I would rather find a new system. I strongly dislike running games in that cosmology for many reasons. The freedom to create my own setting with my own cosmological rules and have it be just as valid as any other setting is one of the key parts I enjoy of D&D. And I'm not the only one. Of the dozens of people I've trained, almost none have decided to play in the "official" settings. This kind of setting snobbery, the One True Way-ism, is just as bad for the game as RAW snobbery, and just as wrong. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, not You Must Play Our Way.

[GreyBlack]

Huge difference there. WOW talks about a specific setting. It's basically one giant game. D&D is very different, and is from its beginning. The idea that there's only one valid way to play, or that doing otherwise is somehow "wrong" or "unofficial" is belied by the explicit support for such in the PHB and DMG. Until you can explain that away, saying that the planar cosmology is a necessary part of D&D is just straight up wrong.

Just like D&D, baseline, bog standard D&D talks about a specific setting.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Just like D&D, baseline, bog standard D&D talks about a specific setting.

No. It specifically says that there are many settings, each of which is equally valid. The PHB is littered with references to that, and the DMG spends about 1/3 of its space talking about building your own. The DM is specifically called "Master of the World" for a reason.

[GreyBlack]

No. It specifically says that there are many settings, each of which is equally valid. The PHB is littered with references to that, and the DMG spends about 1/3 of its space talking about building your own. The DM is specifically called "Master of the World" for a reason.



Elves are a magical people of otherworldly grace, living in the world but not entirely part of it. They live in places of ethereal beauty, in the midst of ancient forests or in silvery spires glittering with faerie light, where soft music drifts through the air and gentle fragrances waft on the breeze. Elves love nature and magic, art and artistry, music and poetry, and the good things of the world.

Is that describing a setting? That's rules and a description in the PHB.

Just because you're given a level editor doesn't mean the base game doesn't exist.

[Tanarii]

I don't think the intent was for 5e alignments to be read as their nine own separate bubbles.Be that as it may, it's certainly what they actually did, at least for character motivation purposes.
(I'm not getting into the cosmological stuff personally.)


This is why I brought up backgrounds. Alignment works great if you think of it as your PC's history, rather than their current moral attitude. If you have a history of being lawful good, it provides great roleplaying hints, even if you don't actually play as lawful good now. Just like if I have the "I’m too greedy for my own good. I can’t resist taking a risk if there’s money involved" flaw, it doesn't mean I must always take all risks all the time, but it does provide guidance if I (as the player) am unsure about what my PC would do in a given situation.

They should have rolled alignment into the background system more.It is in the personality & background section. :smallconfused: Quite literally says so in the chapter name.

And character history vs current attitude is a moot point for everything in the personality and background system. They're a combination of both. What matters is the player considering them as a (potential) motivation when making decisions for their character in the fantasy environment, aka roleplaying.

This is true whether your (potential) character motivations are explicit one sentence summaries across multiple categories like 5e and multiple other RPGs have, buried in a backstory, kept in the players head & winged, or they are just playing an avatar of themselves and don't need to consider them because their motivations are their own. They're all variants of the same thing*. The 5e personality system is just a way to draw attention to it by (in effect) bullet pointing them and making them explicit and direct.

*although obviously the avatar one is an extreme variant, where character personality = my personality.

[Naanomi]

Just because the Great Wheel is the default setting doesn’t imply it is the only or the mandatory setting... but it is still the default

[beargryllz]

I just leave it blank on my character sheet or write "N" for neutral and let my DM interpret that however they wish

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not sure I want to hear people talk about default settings and brand images when the developers are putting out official Stranger Things starter sets and Rick and Morty-branded setting material and adventures. Neither of those are really Great Wheel compatible, after all. Nor are they really D&D core branding.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I'm not sure I want to hear people talk about default settings and brand images when the developers are putting out official Stranger Things starter sets and Rick and Morty-branded setting material and adventures. Neither of those are really Great Wheel compatible, after all. Nor are they really D&D core branding.

I'm not sure Stranger Things or Rick and Morty* has anything to say about the Great Wheel. Both seem fairly compatible with Spelljammer, which slides pretty easily into Planescape, if that's a route we're interested in going. I'm not sure why novelty tie-ins have anything to do with default settings assumptions. It's not like there's a list of children's names from the 1980s in the Players Handbook.


*I have never watched either of these things, and am not interested in arguing whether they are or are not compatible with the Great Wheel.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not sure Stranger Things or Rick and Morty* has anything to say about the Great Wheel. Both seem fairly compatible with Spelljammer, which slides pretty easily into Planescape, if that's a route we're interested in going. I'm not sure why novelty tie-ins have anything to do with default settings assumptions. It's not like there's a list of children's names from the 1980s in the Players Handbook.


*I have never watched either of these things, and am not interested in arguing whether they are or are not compatible with the Great Wheel.

The stranger things one is specifically set in the show's version of the setting (ie the one the kids play in) and features the Demogorgon...which is very very very very very very (etc) different than the one from the Great Wheel. So it's explicitly not a planescape/spelljammer adventure. But it's branded as WotC official, 1st party setting and adventure material.

The Rick and Morty one is an Isekai (sort of) treatment, where the game rules are literally the rules of the universe and the title characters get pulled into the game universe. So no, not compatible with the default setting at all (as evidenced by the huge amounts of 4th wall breaking, intentional metagaming, rules abuse, etc). But it's got the official WotC D&D logo on it, and there's a starter set/adventure path coming out set in that universe.

So the argument that the Great Wheel is some kind of conscious branding choice that everything must fit into is just plain wrong. The Great Wheel is where the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk are set. If they can shoehorn something else in, they might. But it's not more than a reference design (https://hddmag.com/non-reference-versus-reference-video-card/), but the real OEMs are the DMs who build their own. The game does not depend on those planar details. They're entirely replaceable without changing the core tropes, archetypes, and rules that make up the game. They're one design choice among many equivalent design choices.

[Mitsu]

In my opinion Alignment, just like slot system is an archaic mechanic that simply does not work anymore nowadays in new setting. Nowadays new RPG systems (not mainstream ones like DnD) always try to push more roleplaying side over mechanics. DnD still sticks and tries to shove everything into some sort of mechanical box- like Alignments.

We have totally dropped Alignments. They are not needed. Players simply roleplay their character, make decisions etc. Sometimes they behave lawuful, sometimes chaotic, sometimes they prefer to stay neutral, sometimes they might be considered evil by other NPCs, who are more on good side. But it made PCs more real, more fleshed out. There is no more question of "how would my Alignment react to that?" but "How would my character react to this situation".

Same is with spell slots. We moved to Spell Points and no regrets. Finally system feels more free and less "limited" and mechanical.

Imo PCs actions speak about their moralit code, not some abstract term like " Alignment".

[2D8HP]

...And they persist in quoting 3e or older alignment text to back those things up.

These are all things that are DM and Player faults....


Well I'll cop to that, but mostly just 0e and 1e as the other previous editions didn't leave as much of an imprint on my mind.

If anyone's interested my D&D Alignment, a history (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?559645-D-amp-D-Alignment-a-history&p=23097071) thread was a lot of work for me and I'm proud of it.


A typical creature in the worlds of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes.


That describes what it does. But what is it for?


For me the Law vs. Chaos axis is for the sides of a conflict like in Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, or Michael Moorcock's Stormbringer, and the Good vs. Evil axis is for the sides of a conflict like in Lewis' The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, or Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, and as far as I can tell the newfangeled "five points" and "nine points" Alignment systems of D&D exist so that Elves may be both on the side of Chaos (as in Anderson), and Good (as in Tolkien), and that the Mindflayers can be described as aligned with both Law and Evil, but in going over the new Ghosts of Saltmarsh module, besides the listed "Ideals", "Bonds", et cetera, seeing the listed Alignments of the NPC's is helpful shorthand in my knowing how to portray them.


I just leave it blank on my character sheet or write "N" for neutral and let my DM interpret that however they wish


Likewise, as a player I'm annoyed by many DM's annoying questions, what part of "guy with a bow and sword like Conan, Sinbad, Robin Hood, Fafhrd, or the Grey Mouser" do they not understand?

For their "Crafting of adventures?"

Spare me.

Do the plot of The Seven Samurai, or have a setting with a tavern, bandit filled woods, and ruins with monsters and treasure dagnabbit!

If you need a "bigger canvas' use notFrance; notIceland, notIndia, notPersia, and notSpain!

If DM's would just read more Howard, watch more Kurosawa, and pay less attention to Avengers: Age of what's-it and Tolkien all would be good times, sunshine, rainbows, and puppies.

Let players play both "heroes" and "murderous hobos" at the same time dagnabbit!

Read The Tower of the Elephant.

Read it again.

The comic book version if you have to.

Do it like that!

Don't ever ask for a back-story or an Alignment of a PC, instead tell what is and isn't acceptable, and ask yourself where are the tavern, bandits, monsters, and treasure?

Save the "world building" for blogs and novels, play Dungeons & Dragons instead!

A village, some bandits, some monsters, and some treasure, that's all you need.

If you're really hurting for ideas use In Search of the The Unknown, Keep on the Borderlands, and/or The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh modules.

"Alignment" is for NPC's, and if the players don't know how to act out their roles, why are they at your table?

[Angelalex242]

In general, people slap 'good' on their alignments when their gut instinct is to 'save the day.'
People slap neutral on their alignments when all they really want is loot.
You slap evil on your alignment when you want to embrace your inner sociopath.

[Morty]

Likewise, as a player I'm annoyed by many DM's annoying questions, what part of "guy with a bow and sword like Conan, Sinbad, Robin Hood, Fafhrd, or the Grey Mouser" do they not understand?

For their "Crafting of adventures?"

Spare me.

Do the plot of The Seven Samurai, or have a setting with a tavern, bandit filled woods, and ruins with monsters and treasure dagnabbit!

If you need a "bigger canvas' use notFrance; notIceland, notIndia, notPersia, and notSpain!

If DM's would just read more Howard, watch more Kurosawa, and pay less attention to Avengers: Age of what's-it and Tolkien all would be good times, sunshine, rainbows, and puppies.

Let players play both "heroes" and "murderous hobos" at the same time dagnabbit!

Read The Tower of the Elephant.

Read it again.

The comic book version if you have to.

Do it like that!

Don't ever ask for a back-story or an Alignment of a PC, instead tell what is and isn't acceptable, and ask yourself where are the tavern, bandits, monsters, and treasure?

Save the "world building" for blogs and novels, play Dungeons & Dragons instead!

A village, some bandits, some monsters, and some treasure, that's all you need.

If you're really hurting for ideas use In Search of the The Unknown, Keep on the Borderlands, and/or The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh modules.

"Alignment" is for NPC's, and if the players don't know how to act out their roles, why are they at your table?

I never thought I'd see an argument that would make me think sympathetically about alignment, of all things, and yet here we are. Between this and alignment, I'd grudgingly take alignment.

[GreyBlack]

I never thought I'd see an argument that would make me think sympathetically about alignment, of all things, and yet here we are. Between this and alignment, I'd grudgingly take alignment.

When one anti alignment person convinces another anti alignment person that alignment isn't a bad thing, you know we've entered the Upside Down. 🤣

[PhoenixPhyre]

When one anti alignment person convinces another anti alignment person that alignment isn't a bad thing, you know we've entered the Upside Down. 🤣

Heh. Very good.

[Tectorman]

I just leave it blank on my character sheet or write "N" for neutral and let my DM interpret that however they wish

Ditto.

I've found that if I play a character as what I would interpret as "Good" (whether my view of "good", or the book's view of "good", or the DM's view of "good", or the DM's interpretation of what he thinks the book means by "good", or my guesswork at what I think the DM thinks of when he tries to interpret what the book means by "good"), and if I also label that character as "Good" (say, Neutral Good, just for the sake of argument), then what follows is the DM and other players glossing over when the character behaves in a "Good" manner (for whatever meaning for "Good" we're talking about), and only paying attention when the character steps outside of that behavioral or motivational set, however occasional that may be. I.e., the NG character behaving NG gets no credit whatsoever, and any deviation in that (despite the game telling you that you can do this) is only ever the nail sticking out.

However, if I have a character that I play as "Good" (again, whosever's interpretation of whichever definition) but that I label as "Unaligned" or "True Neutral" (or just leaving the entry blank), then nothing gets any unwarranted scrutiny. Any "good" behavior, regardless of what definition anyone is using, is chalked up as "an acceptable deviation on TN/Unaligned", and summarily not harped upon (no matter how often it may occur). Any behavior in contradiction to that, in like fashion, is glossed over, too. No unwarranted scrutiny, and everyone can get on with actually playing the game.

TLDR: Alignment is only ever an impediment, provides no benefit, and it's absence does nothing but help.

[Spriteless]

I like that a lawful good and chaotic good character can disagree, and still both be good. Munchkins' first introduction to intra-party conflict and roleplay.

It's mostly used badly, though. Often by people who should know better. If you're good enough that you don't need it as a crutch, then I say go for it! But if your DM ain't, throw 'em a bone.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Is anyone going to complain if I just start ignoring any posts that just repeat points I've responded to half a dozen times? Especially if they're from people who I've already responded to?


I like that a lawful good and chaotic good character can disagree, and still both be good. Munchkins' first introduction to intra-party conflict and roleplay.

It's mostly used badly, though. Often by people who should know better. If you're good enough that you don't need it as a crutch, then I say go for it! But if your DM ain't, throw 'em a bone.
I don't think I've pointed out how flaws/bonds/etc can fuel munchkin's first roleplay or serve as DM crutches too many times, so I'll do so now.



I think the current ‘official line’ is that all DnD settings (including Eberron) are contained in the Great Wheel Cosmology; the idea of alternate cosmologies and the like seems to be left behind in 2e/3e. When created, Eberron was supposed to be probably separate... but so were Athas and Mystara, and both have been thoroughly integrated now. Except for the Far Realm (in most ways), I think the default is everything is in the same Great Wheel Cosmology now
And the Far Realm is defined by not being part of the Great Wheel. (Kind of like how interstellar space is defined by not being part of a solar system.)



That argument requires taking the PHB name of the spells as being the common in-setting name. Which is absolutely not guaranteed. Nor is it a stock assumption.
And it also requires assuming that the "Bigby" in "Bigby's Hand" is a reference to the Greyhawk wizard Bigby and not a reference to an unrelated Bigby, or even just a reference to the fact that the hand is friggin' big.



Think of it this way: In WOW, you are given the option to play as Horde or Alliance. This is your Alignment. Are there private servers that remove the Horde/Alliance division? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that, in the official, baseline game that there isn't a Horde and Alliance alignment.
In many ways, D&D is less like a game and more like a game engine. It's not as close to a game engine as, say, GURPS, but it's still built with the intent for DMs to use whatever features they like, ignore features they don't, and add anything new they want. In fact, it's built to require DM input in several places (including non-obvious ones).



I'm not sure I want to hear people talk about default settings and brand images when the developers are putting out official Stranger Things starter sets and Rick and Morty-branded setting material and adventures. Neither of those are really Great Wheel compatible, after all. Nor are they really D&D core branding.
Because humans tend towards essentialism. Those aren't "essentially" D&D, but the Great Wheel and associated products are. And given how the human mind handles categories by default, anything which is not essentially D&D is not treated as true D&D.
In other words, the No True Scotsman fallacy is built right into our psyche. (Most fallacies are.)





If anyone's interested my D&D Alignment, a history (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?559645-D-amp-D-Alignment-a-history&p=23097071) thread was a lot of work for me and I'm proud of it.
Oh, definitely! Thanks for the link.


If DM's would just read more Howard, watch more Kurosawa, and pay less attention to Avengers: Age of what's-it and Tolkien all would be good times, sunshine, rainbows, and puppies.
I have a sudden urge to write a MCU-inspired adventure path just to spite you.


Let players play both "heroes" and "murderous hobos" at the same time dagnabbit!
Don't conflate "hero" with "protagonist" or even "guy who fights evil". It worked in ancient Greece, not so much in modern parlance.



I never thought I'd see an argument that would make me think sympathetically about alignment, of all things, and yet here we are. Between this and alignment, I'd grudgingly take alignment.
You don't have to choose between those, thank the gods. You can choose to ditch alignment and focus on character, without being a complete a-hole about it.
2D8's tone made me want to argue with him even though I agreed with his fundamental points. Bad arguments do that. Thankfully, I limited myself to just complaining about complaining about popular stuff and criticizing his misuse of "hero".

[Tanarii]

I don't think I've pointed out how flaws/bonds/etc can fuel munchkin's first roleplay or serve as DM crutches too many times, so I'll do so now.Thing is, experienced roleplayers often really benefit from them. Because they can have problems knowing how to clearly state their character motivations. Instead, they can get wrapped up in complex character descriptions that are a mix of motivations, history, storytelling, and details. Boiling the key motivations out of that into simple bullet points helps focus it when it comes time to make related in-character decisions.

Milking it for Inspiration, or whatever the mechanical benefits are in other systems that use similar systems, is a different matter.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Thing is, experienced roleplayers often really benefit from them. Because they can have problems knowing how to clearly state their character motivations. Instead, they can get wrapped up in complex character descriptions that are a mix of motivations, history, storytelling, and details. Boiling the key motivations out of that into simple bullet points helps focus it when it comes time to make related in-character decisions.
I've never once tried to figure out what my character would do and thought "Oh, Kazune is Lawful Good, so he'd do this." "Lawful Good" is just too broad of a description to help with any decision more complicated than you'd find in cheap Mass Effect knockoffs.
But my characters' personality traits are generally much more helpful at that sort of thing. "Kazune is nonconfrontational; he'd probably let this slide as long as it's not hurting anyone" or "Kazune is trying to hold this ragtag bunch of excuses for heroes together, he's going to step in". It probably helps that your character's motivations, history, storytelling, and details are boiled down to simple and specific bullet points that get put on your character sheet.

[Morty]

I've never once tried to figure out what my character would do and thought "Oh, Kazune is Lawful Good, so he'd do this." "Lawful Good" is just too broad of a description to help with any decision more complicated than you'd find in cheap Mass Effect knockoffs.
But my characters' personality traits are generally much more helpful at that sort of thing. "Kazune is nonconfrontational; he'd probably let this slide as long as it's not hurting anyone" or "Kazune is trying to hold this ragtag bunch of excuses for heroes together, he's going to step in". It probably helps that your character's motivations, history, storytelling, and details are boiled down to simple and specific bullet points that get put on your character sheet.

That's kind of the clincher. There's one thing alignment is useful for and it's not even good at it.

[GreyBlack]

So from what I'm seeing, the two sides of this argument come down, broadly speaking, to:

Alignment is useless because we can just use the traits system.

And

Alignment is useful because it is a worldbuilding tool that can help enhance the storytelling of the game.

I won't say both are wrong, especially given how many other RPG'S are on the market without an alignment system. You absolutely don't _need_ an alignment system in order to roleplay. However, I argue that doing so misses out on the greater noodly weirdness that is the setting of D&D.

Allow me for a moment to take my favorite RPG system, "Battletech: A Time of War." For those not in the know, Battletech is a game all about giant stompy robots blowing each other up in feudal space, sometimes fighting space mongols by way of the Nazi party. It's awesome and I love it, and I have run games with people that didn't involve any of the giant stompy robot stuff at all.

But... just because you can run the giant stompy robot game without giant stompy robots, you miss out on some of the weirdness and the flavor that is the giant stompy robots. It's what makes the game unique in a way that most other games aren't.

What does this have to do with alignment? Well.... I argue that alignment is D&D's giant stompy robots. It's that weirdness and flavor that makes the game worth playing over another game system, like Adventures in Middle Earth. Both run the same system (the 5e game system), but each has its own weirdness and nuance that is missing if you don't run the full system. Can you remove parts of it? Sure, but then the question immediately becomes why you're not running a different system that's closer to what you're looking for?

[Unoriginal]

A more pertinent question would be: why try to demonstrate alignments to be objectively in need of removal from D&D when you can just say " I don't like the alignment system, so I removed it from my setting/campaign"?

Being unneeded is not a reason for removal. No one gets their appendix removed just because it's there. Removing something needs to either an objective problem or augment your subjective enjoyment. So, any argument that posits "alignments are useless, and so should be removed from the game" is non-functioning.


I've not seen one objective reason to remove alignment. "I don't like it" is not a dirty phrase, you should play games you like. But that doesn't mean D&D should conform to it in its books, and there is no need to have and nothing gained in having forum threads debating its removal's neccessity.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've explained this That doesn't make you right. (To use an overworked example, Eichman explained that he was just following orders. So?)
As noted a few posts back, the framing of the question is off.
The degree to which moral questions are of interest in play varies from group to group. Some tables like to explore that more than others.
This isn't a video game. There isn't an absolute answer based on written code.
Alignment fits the game well enough, even with the relaxed guidelines that 5e offers. If used by people who don't forget that they are not playing a video game, it works fine.

Also: 5e tried to unify what the devs thought was the good points from all previous editions. HP, the d20, alignment, and spell slots were all in previous editions and made the cut.

Beyond that: what Unoriginal said (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23921167&postcount=136)covers much of the rest of what had crossed my mind.

[Naanomi]

That's kind of the clincher. There's one thing alignment is useful for and it's not even good at it.
I’ll agree that (unless my alignment has been magically altered) it hasn’t guided my roleplay decisions as a player much over the years... but it does help as a DM for NPCs. Often NPCs are not particularly fleshed out, especially monsters...

For example; Orcs and Hobgoblins are both medium aggressive semi-primitive humanoids... that one is Chaotic and the other Lawful is pretty good shorthand for the differences in feeling between the two. Now, I know the background of those two races well enough not or need that... but a new monster without a lot of info? Alignment helps with that

[Morty]

So from what I'm seeing, the two sides of this argument come down, broadly speaking, to:

Alignment is useless because we can just use the traits system.

And

Alignment is useful because it is a worldbuilding tool that can help enhance the storytelling of the game.

I won't say both are wrong, especially given how many other RPG'S are on the market without an alignment system. You absolutely don't _need_ an alignment system in order to roleplay. However, I argue that doing so misses out on the greater noodly weirdness that is the setting of D&D.

Allow me for a moment to take my favorite RPG system, "Battletech: A Time of War." For those not in the know, Battletech is a game all about giant stompy robots blowing each other up in feudal space, sometimes fighting space mongols by way of the Nazi party. It's awesome and I love it, and I have run games with people that didn't involve any of the giant stompy robot stuff at all.

But... just because you can run the giant stompy robot game without giant stompy robots, you miss out on some of the weirdness and the flavor that is the giant stompy robots. It's what makes the game unique in a way that most other games aren't.

What does this have to do with alignment? Well.... I argue that alignment is D&D's giant stompy robots. It's that weirdness and flavor that makes the game worth playing over another game system, like Adventures in Middle Earth. Both run the same system (the 5e game system), but each has its own weirdness and nuance that is missing if you don't run the full system. Can you remove parts of it? Sure, but then the question immediately becomes why you're not running a different system that's closer to what you're looking for?

Well, there's two layers to this question. First, there's the fact that people often play D&D because it's the single biggest role-playing game on the market and the first one people are likely to hear about. They play it because it's what other people play.

But that's actually moot, because alignment is nowhere near as important as you try to claim. You try to compare it to giant mecha in Battletech, which is completely mismatched, because Battletech is a game about giant mecha and D&D isn't a game about alignment. It's a game about having adventures, fighting monsters and finding loot in a magical world. Actual, literal dungeons and dragons aren't strictly necessary but likely to happen (depending on how we define "dungeon"). They're certainly more central to the game than alignment. You could make a "why are you even playing this game" if you removed magic, monsters, classes or levels. Alignment? People who weren't familiar with the game beforehand probably wouldn't even notice.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I've never once tried to figure out what my character would do and thought "Oh, Kazune is Lawful Good, so he'd do this." "Lawful Good" is just too broad of a description to help with any decision more complicated than you'd find in cheap Mass Effect knockoffs.
But my characters' personality traits are generally much more helpful at that sort of thing. "Kazune is nonconfrontational; he'd probably let this slide as long as it's not hurting anyone" or "Kazune is trying to hold this ragtag bunch of excuses for heroes together, he's going to step in". It probably helps that your character's motivations, history, storytelling, and details are boiled down to simple and specific bullet points that get put on your character sheet.

So take that basic principle - Lawful Good - as it pertains to your character and translate it into a few specific, simple bullet points. There's an extra step to take that requires you to think a little more deeply about the morality of the character.

[OldTrees1]

When I play a character, I will know if I consider them to be generally immoral, morally supererogatory, or neither. Sometimes that knowledge takes a bit of reflection & thought but that judgement of the character will be intrinsic to my playing of that character. Likewise that character will interact with choices that have a moral element to them. I can make judgements on what options are immoral, morally supererogatory, morally obligatory, or none of the above. My character can also make such judgements.

Alignment as descriptive, rather than prescriptive/ascriptive is as simple as the campaign also making such judgements about characters and options. As long as your campaign considers some things as moral (morally obligatory or morally supererogatory) and some things as immoral, then you are using alignment as descriptive. It is possible to run a campaign without doing this, but many campaigns will. If murdering puppies is deemed immoral by your campaign, then you are using alignment.

Does this require any mechanics? No. Alignment never required mechanics. Allegiance systems might require mechanics but descriptive alignment does not.

[GreyBlack]

Well, there's two layers to this question. First, there's the fact that people often play D&D because it's the single biggest role-playing game on the market and the first one people are likely to hear about. They play it because it's what other people play.

But that's actually moot, because alignment is nowhere near as important as you try to claim. You try to compare it to giant mecha in Battletech, which is completely mismatched, because Battletech is a game about giant mecha and D&D isn't a game about alignment. It's a game about having adventures, fighting monsters and finding loot in a magical world. Actual, literal dungeons and dragons aren't strictly necessary but likely to happen (depending on how we define "dungeon"). They're certainly more central to the game than alignment. You could make a "why are you even playing this game" if you removed magic, monsters, classes or levels. Alignment? People who weren't familiar with the game beforehand probably wouldn't even notice.

Hypothetical question.

You have two Sage Wizards. Both are astronomers, both have the trait "use polysyllabic words that convey the impression of great erudition", both have "The path to power and self-improvement is through knowledge" ideal, both have the same flaw, both have the same bond. However, one character sheet has "Chaotic Good" written on their character sheet, while one has "Lawful Good" written on it.

Does this affect how you play the character? Do you change how you play it? Does it change how you interact with people? Does it change your character's moral code?

And that's the crux of it; alignment is a roleplaying tool from which your traits, bonds, ideals, and flaws can be expressed. In this edition especially (and really not in any edition, as alignment was always supposed to be descriptive rather than prescriptive), alignment is a roleplaying tool, which is as useful or as useless as you wish to make it. By eliminating it, however, you can eliminate some really interesting stories that can be told, such as what the nature of "good" or "evil" even are. Hell, one campaign I ran pit the good aligned PC's against a good aligned government for... reasons.

Alignment, when used well, is a storytelling element that can have significant power by which you can explore various themes. What is the nature of good? What is the nature of evil? In a world where these things are objective truths (i.e. there is objective Good and objective Evil exemplified by the Angels and the Demons and Devils), is it even a good thing to try and live up to those issues?

Too often, however, I think the problem is people look at the converse. They don't look at that element, that your character is choosing to align themselves to a specific morality (i.e. "I choose to be Neutral Good") and instead it is looked at as a straight jacket. Which... even in text, it's not. You can play a Lawful Good character with the ideal of "Knowledge is the path to power and domination." Your personal morality might be one that says, "I think that society is the best way to organize people, and that people should not be viewed as means, but as ends," but then also having that ideal that using that knowledge to dominate people would set up some really interesting roleplaying opportunities.

Soooooo.... the question I pose to you is: Is it worth it to eliminate those storytelling opportunities by eliminating the alignment system? My answer is an emphatic no, and my homebrew setting is based on an exploration of the alignment system throughout every edition of D&D, but I can respect that your answer might be different.

[GreyBlack]

I've never once tried to figure out what my character would do and thought "Oh, Kazune is Lawful Good, so he'd do this." "Lawful Good" is just too broad of a description to help with any decision more complicated than you'd find in cheap Mass Effect knockoffs.
But my characters' personality traits are generally much more helpful at that sort of thing. "Kazune is nonconfrontational; he'd probably let this slide as long as it's not hurting anyone" or "Kazune is trying to hold this ragtag bunch of excuses for heroes together, he's going to step in". It probably helps that your character's motivations, history, storytelling, and details are boiled down to simple and specific bullet points that get put on your character sheet.

With regards to Mass Effect... that's because with the exception of Finn from Adventure Time, no character in the history of fiction outside of D&D has an alignment. Again, that ties back into the fact that alignment as a mechanic pertains only to D&D. And that, again, ties back into the fact that Law, Good, Chaos, and Evil are (again, from a base D&D perspective in the base game and the base lore provided in the PHB, without any modifications or homebrew interpretations) are objective forces in the world. In real life and in most other media, the forces of Law, Good, Chaos, and Evil are not objective forces, or at least are not in the same way that they are in D&D. Robin Hood was not Chaotic Good, Darth Vader was not Lawful Evil, Superman is not Lawful Good. We can read those alignments on to those characters, but they lack a D&D character sheet, thereby precluding them from having alignments. Same with Commander Shepherd. He does not have a D&D character sheet, and therefore we do not assign him an alignment. This is wholly a D&D problem, and nothing else.

[EggKookoo]

A more pertinent question would be: why try to demonstrate alignments to be objectively in need of removal from D&D when you can just say " I don't like the alignment system, so I removed it from my setting/campaign"?

Discussions like these revolve around basic principles. Of course, quite literally everyone who would remove alignment (in this thread, I mean) is saying they'd remove from their campaign, not that they have the power to somehow remove it from the actual rules. But if I think it's an obsolete or clunky rule, I think that for what I hope are sensible reasons. If so, then those sensible reasons should apply universally. This may or may not be the case for alignment, but I mean that's just the logic of it all.

Imagine D&D had an attribute for handedness. Left or right. Yet no other mechanic relied on it. Maybe in past editions there were such mechanics, but they've slowly been replaced by other things, and the core handedness attribute remained out of tradition. Calls to eliminate the handedness attribute, or at least make it an optional rule or somehow refactor it so that it regains relevancy, are not really outrageous. There is only so much cognitive burden one can bear, and the trimming away of less-useful mechanics helps one focus on the more useful ones, or possibly even makes room for new mechanics that might improve the game down the line.

I would much rather see alignment made relevant again than to get rid of it, but that might be a hard sell to today's players (myself included, honestly).

[2D8HP]

... that's because with the exception of Finn from Adventure Time, no character in the history of fiction outside of D&D has an alignment. ...


Sure they did, it was specific works of fiction thst Alignment came from.

For the Dungeons & Dragons game, Arneson and Gygax got Law vs. Chaos from stories by Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock.

Poul Anderson invented Law vs. Chaos in '53 for Three Hearts and Three Lions (which had a Dwarf on the side of Law, and Elves on the side of Chaos, Anderson's Elves were not Tolkien's Elves, though they drew from the same well. The "Ranger" is from Tolkien, the "Paladin" is from Anderson).

Anderson had Law on the side of most of humanity, and "the hosts of Faerie" on the side of Chaos. When Chaos was ascendant latent Lycanthrope became expressed for example.

Michael Moorcock adopted Law vs. Chaos for his Elric stories, and it was his works that were far more known by those of us who played D&D in the 1970's and '80's.

While Moorcock's 1965 novel Stormbringer had the triumph of Chaos being humanity's doom, by '75 he was clear that humanity would suffer under extreme Law as well, and "The Balance" was to be sought.

Okay, in the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions) by Poul Anderson,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg/220px-ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg
which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict in the Elric and Corum novels, and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

Now in the 1961 novel (based on a '53 short story) Three Hearts and Three Lions (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/12/pulp-fantasy-gallery-three-hearts-and.html), we have this:

"....Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them were almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants--an actual creation of Chaos. Wars among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and extend their own shadowy dominion....."



..which suggests that Law vs. Chaos is about "teams" in a cosmic struggle rather than personal ethics/morality, which is how the terms are used in the old Stormbringer RPG, and would be my usual preference.

Before D&D, Gygax & Perren had Law vs. Chaos in the Fantasy appendix to the Chainmail wargame:I suppose it waa inevitably when Greyhawk added Paladins that were "continual seeking for good" but I think that adding "Good" and "Evil" to "Alignment" was a mistake, and it was better the way the predecessor of D&D, Chainmail had it as:

"GENERAL LINE-UP:
It is impossible to draw a distanct line between "good" and "evil" fantastic
figures. Three categories are listed below as a general guide for the wargamer
designing orders of battle involving fantastic creatures:

LAW
Hobbits
Dwarves
Gnomes
Heroes
Super Heroes
Wizards*
Ents
Magic Weapons

NEUTRAL
Sprites
Pixies
Elves
Fairies
Lycanthropes *
Giants*
Rocs
(Elementals)
Chimerea


CHAOS
Goblins
Kobolds
Orcs
Anti-heroes
Wizards *
Wraiths
Wights
Lycanthropes*
Ogres
True Trolls
Balrogs
Giants *
Dragons
Basilisks

* Indicates the figure appears in two lists.
Underlined Neutral figures have a slight pre-disposition for LAW. Neutral
figures can be diced for to determine on which side they will fight, with ties
meaning they remain neutral."


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wb-QFUiuEqk/T_x0sXHILMI/AAAAAAAAFME/rEhioR7Tw3I/s280/ch☆nmailalign.jpg

So it was clear that it's sides in a wargame, not an ethics debate.

The problem with "Good" and "Evil" is that people have strong opinions about what those mean and often regard their PC's as extensions of themselves and take umbrage at writing down "Evil" on their character record sheet even and especially when that PC's behavior matches the description of what is "Evil" in the PHB (yeah right, "Chaotic Neutral", pull the other one why don't you!).

I like seeing what NPC's Alignments are; it's a useful shorthand to me, but for PC's?

Players won't act per the Alignments written down on their character record sheets anyway so why bother?

As for "cosmic forces in conflict" the original Law vs Chaos worked without the emotional baggage that Good vs. Evil has.

Now if you get four to seven people around s table who all agree on what "good" and "evil" mean great! no problem then, but I want to play D&D Now! not wait for some rare confluence of minds.

[Naanomi]

As much as I like the Great Wheel; I would be satisfied if the mechanical effects of alignment faded even more than they are now. In fact, I’d only leave them in three places I think:

~alignment change forced by magic; although hard to adjudicate, nothing really captures ‘being a vampire makes you evil’ or ‘this mirror makes an opposite twin’ quite the way a simple alignment swap does
~magic items keying off of alignment in a broad sense, particularly ‘classic’ items like the Books of * Deeds or Robe of the * Archmagi, would be challenging to rework and maintain the classic feel without alignment
~I like the Outer Planes (and denizens thereof) able to detect and interact (strengthen or weaken) compatible Alignments; if not used anywhere else it helps create an Outer Planes identity and reinforce the ‘alienness’ of manifest morality

[GreyBlack]

Sure they did, it was specific works of fiction thst Alignment came from.

For the Dungeons & Dragons game, Arneson and Gygax got Law vs. Chaos from stories by Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock.

Poul Anderson invented Law vs. Chaos in '53 for Three Hearts and Three Lions (which had a Dwarf on the side of Law, and Elves on the side of Chaos, Anderson's Elves were not Tolkien's Elves, though they drew from the same well. The "Ranger" is from Tolkien, the "Paladin" is from Anderson).

Anderson had Law on the side of most of humanity, and "the hosts of Faerie" on the side of Chaos. When Chaos was ascendant latent Lycanthrope became expressed for example.

Michael Moorcock adopted Law vs. Chaos for his Elric stories, and it was his works that were far more known by those of us who played D&D in the 1970's and '80's.

While Moorcock's 1965 novel Stormbringer had the triumph of Chaos being humanity's doom, by '75 he was clear that humanity would suffer under extreme Law as well, and "The Balance" was to be sought.

Okay, in the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions) by Poul Anderson,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg/220px-ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg
which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict in the Elric and Corum novels, and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

Now in the 1961 novel (based on a '53 short story) Three Hearts and Three Lions (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/12/pulp-fantasy-gallery-three-hearts-and.html), we have this:

"....Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them were almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants--an actual creation of Chaos. Wars among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and extend their own shadowy dominion....."



..which suggests that Law vs. Chaos is about "teams" in a cosmic struggle rather than personal ethics/morality, which is how the terms are used in the old Stormbringer RPG, and would be my usual preference.

Before D&D, Gygax & Perren had Law vs. Chaos in the Fantasy appendix to the Chainmail wargame:I suppose it waa inevitably when Greyhawk added Paladins that were "continual seeking for good" but I think that adding "Good" and "Evil" to "Alignment" was a mistake, and it was better the way the predecessor of D&D, Chainmail had it as:

"GENERAL LINE-UP:
It is impossible to draw a distanct line between "good" and "evil" fantastic
figures. Three categories are listed below as a general guide for the wargamer
designing orders of battle involving fantastic creatures:

LAW
Hobbits
Dwarves
Gnomes
Heroes
Super Heroes
Wizards*
Ents
Magic Weapons

NEUTRAL
Sprites
Pixies
Elves
Fairies
Lycanthropes *
Giants*
Rocs
(Elementals)
Chimerea


CHAOS
Goblins
Kobolds
Orcs
Anti-heroes
Wizards *
Wraiths
Wights
Lycanthropes*
Ogres
True Trolls
Balrogs
Giants *
Dragons
Basilisks

* Indicates the figure appears in two lists.
Underlined Neutral figures have a slight pre-disposition for LAW. Neutral
figures can be diced for to determine on which side they will fight, with ties
meaning they remain neutral."


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wb-QFUiuEqk/T_x0sXHILMI/AAAAAAAAFME/rEhioR7Tw3I/s280/ch☆nmailalign.jpg

So it was clear that it's sides in a wargame, not an ethics debate.

The problem with "Good" and "Evil" is that people have strong opinions about what those mean and often regard their PC's as extensions of themselves and take umbrage at writing down "Evil" on their character record sheet even and especially when that PC's behavior matches the description of what is "Evil" in the PHB (yeah right, "Chaotic Neutral", pull the other one why don't you!).

I like seeing what NPC's Alignments are; it's a useful shorthand to me, but for PC's?

Players won't act per the Alignments written down on their character record sheets anyway so why bother?

As for "cosmic forces in conflict" the original Law vs Chaos worked without the emotional baggage that Good vs. Evil has.

Now if you get four to seven people around s table who all agree on what "good" and "evil" mean great! no problem then, but I want to play D&D Now! not wait for some rare confluence of minds.

..... I think you cut my quote a bit early. It's not that it didn't exist as much as it doesn't exist in the same capacity. In the past, I've even gone as far as to say that the Alliance vs Horde in WOW was an alignment system. However....



[...] with the exception of Finn from Adventure Time, no character in the history of fiction outside of D&D has an alignment. Again, that ties back into the fact that alignment as a mechanic pertains only to D&D. And that, again, ties back into the fact that Law, Good, Chaos, and Evil are (again, from a base D&D perspective in the base game and the base lore provided in the PHB, without any modifications or homebrew interpretations) are objective forces in the world. In real life and in most other media, the forces of Law, Good, Chaos, and Evil are not objective forces, or at least are not in the same way that they are in D&D.

It's less that it didn't exist in other stories; it's that it's a very different case outside D&D. The Law/Chaos axis has existed in the past; as has the Good/Evil. What D&D made central as of First Edition AD&D (as opposed to OD&D, Greyhawk, etc.) was the two axis system which was integral to the creation of the lore of D&D which, since the beginning, has created a world.

TL;DR: I'm well aware of where the system comes from and I could be a little clearer in my presentation.

[Morty]

Hypothetical question.

You have two Sage Wizards. Both are astronomers, both have the trait "use polysyllabic words that convey the impression of great erudition", both have "The path to power and self-improvement is through knowledge" ideal, both have the same flaw, both have the same bond. However, one character sheet has "Chaotic Good" written on their character sheet, while one has "Lawful Good" written on it.

Does this affect how you play the character? Do you change how you play it? Does it change how you interact with people? Does it change your character's moral code?

Not really? The Law/Chaos axis is so murky and undefined that neither of those labels tell me anything. Presumably, they do have some traits that led someone to give them those labels; I'd rather just focus on those and maybe turn them into some useful descriptors, like describing the Lawful Good wizard as "righteous but inflexible" and the Chaotic Good one as "altruistic but hot-headed".


Soooooo.... the question I pose to you is: Is it worth it to eliminate those storytelling opportunities by eliminating the alignment system? My answer is an emphatic no, and my homebrew setting is based on an exploration of the alignment system throughout every edition of D&D, but I can respect that your answer might be different.

You've avoided my counter-point about alignment not being central to the game and responded with a false dichotomy. Eliminating the alignment system doesn't eliminate those opportunities. All it does is eliminate a poor tool that's designed to deal with them.

[Tectorman]

Not really? The Law/Chaos axis is so murky and undefined that neither of those labels tell me anything. Presumably, they do have some traits that led someone to give them those labels; I'd rather just focus on those and maybe turn them into some useful descriptors, like describing the Lawful Good wizard as "righteous but inflexible" and the Chaotic Good one as "altruistic but hot-headed.

Of importance here is how "inflexible" appears to be the trait that seems like it's what's leading to the "lawful" tag and "hot-headed" to the "chaotic" tag, and yet, those aren't in opposition to each other (or are we saying a person cannot be both inflexible and hot-headed?).

[KorvinStarmast]

Honestly, I feel that the Law/Neutral/Chaos without going further was far easier to work with - it was far easier to run as a DM than the grid.

Empire of the Petal Throne had setting specific gods, ten originally, that gave a setting specific (and setting rational) framework for the alignment in that game that the original D&D game didn't originally have. (Being generic, D&D IMO needed to be less tightly bound ... ). It was a lot of fun to DM that, since Barker's ideas on deities were informed by his studies in language and culture all over the world. (My players tended to be drawn toward Sarku and Vimhula).

It is my opinion that Gygax's gamist streak, and the kicking around of ideas in the Lake Geneva group that led to the two axis grid, added as much problem as it added a tool.

[Morty]

Of importance here is how "inflexible" appears to be the trait that seems like it's what's leading to the "lawful" tag and "hot-headed" to the "chaotic" tag, and yet, those aren't in opposition to each other (or are we saying a person cannot be both inflexible and hot-headed?).

I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

[GreatWyrmGold]

So take that basic principle - Lawful Good - as it pertains to your character and translate it into a few specific, simple bullet points. There's an extra step to take that requires you to think a little more deeply about the morality of the character.
Alignment seems kind of redundant at that point. Why tie my bullet points to one of nine archetype sets?



Hypothetical question.

You have two Sage Wizards. Both are astronomers, both have the trait "use polysyllabic words that convey the impression of great erudition", both have "The path to power and self-improvement is through knowledge" ideal, both have the same flaw, both have the same bond. However, one character sheet has "Chaotic Good" written on their character sheet, while one has "Lawful Good" written on it.

Does this affect how you play the character? Do you change how you play it? Does it change how you interact with people? Does it change your character's moral code?
Is there any line on your character sheet you can change without changing how you play it? (Is there still a space for eye color?)
Barring even more extreme alignment shifts (LG/CN, for instance), I think that any one of the trait/ideal/flaw/bond spaces would have a larger impact on how I play my character.



I'm not entirely sure what your point is.
That the same behavior can be considered Lawful or Chaotic with only minor adjustments. I think he was agreeing with you?



With regards to Mass Effect... that's because with the exception of Finn from Adventure Time, no character in the history of fiction outside of D&D has an alignment. -snip-
Putting aside the fact that this is irrelevant, you're wrong. No non-D&D character has a D&D alignment, but tons of other games and even non-game media have alignment of some kind. The most famous is/are, of course, the Dark and Light Sides of the Force.
Commander Shepard (and his knockoffs) do have an alignment system. It's not the same as D&D's, but it exists. So do the civilizations in Galactic Civilizations, which is distinct from either Mass Effect or D&D's alignment, and Spore and Civilization: Beyond Earth have even more alignment systems. (There are non-sci-fi examples, too, I just kept thinking of space opera examples.)
"Alignment" is not a term coined by Gary Gygax to describe his specific nine-pointed alignment system; in fact, it hasn't even always applied to that system in the context of D&D.


It's less that it didn't exist in other stories; it's that it's a very different case outside D&D. The Law/Chaos axis has existed in the past; as has the Good/Evil. What D&D made central as of First Edition AD&D (as opposed to OD&D, Greyhawk, etc.) was the two axis system which was integral to the creation of the lore of D&D which, since the beginning, has created a world.

TL;DR: I'm well aware of where the system comes from and I could be a little clearer in my presentation.
Beat me to it.
Anyways, I'd like to challenge the notion that multi-axis alignment systems are D&D exclusive. C:BE has what amounts to a simple three-axis alignment system, with three ideologies that a given civilization can choose to focus on or ignore. Spore's is a bit different (https://spore.fandom.com/wiki/Philosophy); from one perspective, it's basically the same axis 1-4 times, measuring different aspects of a species's background and treating "neutral" as a distinct option.
And as to what those axes practically represent, D&D is obviously unoriginal. Good/Evil and Order/Chaos are both derived from conflicts which form the basis of most real-world mythologies, with Order/Chaos being more common in creation myths and Good/Evil cropping up more often in later stories. D&D's only arguably original addition is having characters take a stand on both conflicts simultaneously...while also downplaying the "active stance" element.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Alignment seems kind of redundant at that point. Why tie my bullet points to one of nine archetype sets?

Is there any line on your character sheet you can change without changing how you play it? (Is there still a space for eye color?)
Barring even more extreme alignment shifts (LG/CN, for instance), I think that any one of the trait/ideal/flaw/bond spaces would have a larger impact on how I play my character.

'Alignment', such as it is, is externally-facing; personality is internal. In part, alignment exists to answer two questions: "is this character too much of a **** to be in a party" and "is this character banned in AL".

Part of what we have here is a difference in character-building philosophy. I don't think the creation of bullets is valuable in itself, but thinking deeply about your character's approach to morality is. For some people, creating their character's personality comes before choosing an alignment; for others, it comes afterwards. So whether it's informing your behavior or reporting on it is a bit nebulous.

There is still a space for eye color! And hair color, at least on the sheet I use.

[RedMage125]

Stuff




The "glass house" joke was a reference to the spoiler title, where I called you wordy. But I'm wordy, too, hence the glass house joke.
Copy.
Now that I get what you mean, it is quite humorous.

I am wordy, and I cop to it, always.



1. So problems only experienced by a minority of players aren't worth fixing?
2. How can you have a "quantifiable, objective" measurement of if a play experience has been ruined, let alone of what caused it? That demand basically asks that no problems ever get fixed.
1.You'll note that I frequently used the term "significant minority". I think if 25% or more people have problems with something, then it's worth looking into some kind of solution. Which is why I approve of what 5e did. It left mechanics in, but made them much less intrusive, and easier to ignore, while not just full-on chucking them out, which would probably make a larger number of people unhappy.
2. I'm sorry, I was unclear. The data could be objective and quantifiable. As in: the way the data is gathered (number of people, regions they come from, how long they've been playing, etc). Obviously, what you're collecting is, by it's nature subjective, but you're polling opinions. One can always poll opinions in an objective manner.


I was speaking of 5e in specific, because it's the edition that this question can actually be asked of. Other editions throw around alignment mechanics like shuriken, but 5e has a wealth of examples of mechanics which fulfill the same thematic function without needing explicit alignment mechanics.
I don't want to get too lost in nested quote hell, but remember, this point was in regard to my statement that alignment mechanics give voice to classic tropes of fantasy (that aren't always about the overall plot or tone of the campaign) in a manner that is concrete, objective, and measured, with no input from capricious DM fiat. I understand your stance, but a great deal of your "fixes" puts those same tropes back firmly in the hands of "whatever the DM decides at any given moment". Again, IMHO, concrete mechanics protect players.



1. Of course alignment mechanics help DMs who use alignment-based storylines; the question is, are they a big enough help to people wanting to tell Good-versus-Evil story to justify the hindrance they can be to others? I don't think so, not without other benefits attached (like the cosmology angle).
2. If I must accept that fiendish values dictate that they torture mortals and eat souls, they must accept that my values dictate that mine dictate that I oppose such creatures. Less-snarkily, the absence of objective morality doesn't imply the absence of morality, and I thought you were smart enough that I wouldn't have to explain that.
Contrariwise, the presence of objective alignment forces of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos does not preclude individual morality that is more complex, skewed, misled, or otherwise nuanced.

It's perfectly fine for a character to believe that what he's doing is "good" when he slaughters orphans, trying to prevent a prophecy about an orphan ushering Demogorgon into the world. He may believ he's saving the world. But the repeated, consistent, and above-all unrepentant butchering of innocent children means his actual alignment would be Evil.



"Weapon" isn't the important word. Knives are weapons, but that doesn't mean...I'm actually not sure what your point was. That if cars are weapons, they should be...banned?

My point was in what you said that I was responding to. You said "alignment is treated as an absolute barometer of action or affiliation". To which I responded, "cars are sometimes treated as murder weapons. Are cars 'weapons', objectively?"



There's a difference between "Don't fix something because it's working" and "Don't fix something because it can't be made to work better" (or "because trying to fix it would make things worse in the interim to a degree which isn't compensated for by improved performance in the future"). The latter is practical utilitarianism, the former is how you get the mess that is the modern social/economic/political quagmire. I call it "lazy conservatism" not because I'm trying to equate it to Republicans or whatever, but because it's an attitude which opposes change (conservative) for no reason aside from the effort required to implement a better system (lazy).
Don't worry, I didn't mistake you meaning "conservatism" as having anything to do with politics. Although, if you wanted to avoid that in the future, you could use "conservationism", which is what you're talking about, and it's what I figured you meant anyway.
On topic, the poster who said that didn't say "it can't be made to work better". He was basically saying "it works fine for me, so if it's not broke, don't fix it". So it is Practical Utilitarianism, even if it is subjective (but then, so are your "problems" you cite).


The analogy you provide is...imperfect. I assume you shouldn't fly an airplane while repairing it, which means that any gains (or avoided costs) from repairing a system need to be weighed against not just the cost of the repair and side effects on other systems, but also the costs of having an airplane out of action for that long. That's the rough equivalent of tinkering with an alignment system in the middle of a session.
What I'd suggest (if I hadn't accepted at the start of this thread that none of this would ever happen) is not that, but instead changing the game for the next version, which is more akin to suggesting an upgrade to be added to the next version of an airplane. At that point, the only costs involved (beyond any side effects of the upgrade) would be enough testing to make sure the upgrade worked and didn't cause any unexpected issues. My argument is that, as of 5e, alignment is so inconsequential to the game that removing it would have negligible side effects on the rest of the game and little testing required to make sure it still worked.

The analogy also goes into it with the understanding that some gripes are"downers" (aircraft cannot fly until it is fixed), and some are not. If there's a minor discrepancy that does not impact mission, and only occurs every 5th or 6th flight, we generally don't deal with it until the jet goes down for regular scheduled maintainance.
And yet, 5e was built and designed almost entirely from player feedback, and alignment is still in the game. Does that not tell you anything? Does it speak to you, on any level, about exactly how "widespread" these "problems" of your are? Why remove it from the next edition if it is useful (including mechanics)?


Universal fact, no. Problems, yes. And problems require a reason not to fix them. To me, "This is how it has always been" is not a good enough reason to leave any problem alone, even if it only affected one person in a million.
Again, a problem doesn't need to affect a majority of people to be worth caring about. If only 40% of the world went without food, would world hunger not be a problem worth worrying about?
If it only affected literally one person in a million, then no, it doesn't bear fixing to me. That is literally called an outlier in any mathematical statistical format. You don't radically alter a system that works fine for 999,999 people, and not for 1.
And I think your second example is a bit Reducto Ad Absurdum in comparison, as well as potentiqally conflating the scope of the problem. Not only is this not nearly on the scale of life-necessity, but I also am not nearly convinved that 40% of gamers have problems with alignment. I don't even think 40% of forum goers have problems with alignment. This is where I would need some kind of concrete data (as well as cited sources for how this data was collected) to be swayed.



I'm not interested in defending them, either. But I don't think they bear exclusive blame for the issues, either, not when the issues are so often so similar to each other.

Ok, we're getting into nested quote hell again, but it was YOU who discussed an issue with alignment as presented in 5e, using the example of orcs. You said that the distinction between 3.5e's "Usually Chaotic Evil" and 5e's "Chaotic Evil" leave an "immensely different impression on the reader...especially if they didn't read the introduction where things were defined and explained". That was your example.

I have no desire to defend such people, nor do I have any interest in catering to them. To be clear, I am explicitly against catering to someone's issues that stem from them not reading the rules.


The "physically comprised" part is made basically irrelevant if what you're physically comprised of can change as easily as people change their worldviews. Which, you know, isn't easy, but it's easier to change someone's mind than it is to change their brain. Saying that Ash is made of evil doesn't matter if they can be made of good after a character arc or two.
Changing an Outsider's alignment is not even on the same scale as "changing someone's mind". I know you acknowledge that it "isn't easy", but you're talking about trying to alter something literaly built into the fiber of their beings.





Or, "GWG watches with horror as a tangent he created turns into a mass of people not understanding why he's so disturbed by everyone in Faerun being okay with godless souls being tortured for eternity just because they thought the gods were pricks"

That argument fell apart when I saw how much of it was based on the presupposition that not worshiping the gods is a bad thing, that letting some people ignore the gods is somehow a moral issue rather than just working against the interests of the gods, and that torturing all people who don't worship gods (even the innocent) is somehow better than torturing fewer people.
I accused the gods of setting up a protection racket, but the true blame obviously lies on the authors for not adequately exploring the unconscious assumptions.

I appreciate that keeping the Wall around was treated as an un-Good act, but my basic research on this topic revealed a game where destroying the Wall was treated as a greatly Evil act, so it's clearly not a point that all authors agree on. Also, that game and Jergal's reign make it pretty clear that the gods (let alone the world in general) don't actually need the Wall, and make it clearly just a tool used by the gods to make mortals do what they want (fear death and worship them).

Does anyone else see "Kids' souls go somewhere else" as being a red flag for a grossly unfair system that was hastily patched to remove some of the most obvious problems?


I can't verify Naanomi's claim about Jergal not putting it up. In his heyday, Jergal was quite an evil deity. A god of Strife, Death (murder), and the Dead. He just got bored and passed his mantle to 3 obviously evil mortals. He stayed on as an administrator and became the Lawful Neutral he is now over centuries of acting as little more than seneschal and scribe.

I actually agree about the disparity between authors and how it's handled, however.

I mostly only bring up the Wall to point out that while you can divorce FR from alignment, you can't divorce it from the gods without changing it to the point of no longer feeling like FR. It's seriously the "cosmic chess match between gods" setting.


If you search for problems, you will find problems.
Quite agree, and it's why I don't think even a poll of forum-users would reflect an accurate accounting of how many people have issues with alignment in D&D. Not only do a great majority of D&D players never bother with forums, but those that do usually do when they have some form of problem, question, or issue. So forum-users actually are MORE likely to be part of a population with issues with the rules in some way, shape or form.


Googling "problem with Ducktales (2017)" is not going to give you a fair overview of what the 2017 version of Ducktales is, nor should one conclude that it should be canceled because some people have problems with it or find problems within it.

Have you watched it, though? It's so good. More distinction in personality between Huey, Dewey, and Louie; develops answers to what happened to the boys' mother (be prepared for the duck-feels); has TONS of references to the old show without feeling like a new coat of paint slapped on (including a Darkwing Duck reference); and continuous storyling between episodes. It's just amazing. My wife and I don't even have kids and we watch it.

Sorry...but it's quite good.


The Great Wheel cosmology (which is the only one of the major ones that strongly depends on alignment) cannot be considered "core" to D&D. For many reasons, starting with the fact that the DMG specifically disclaims that. Heck, the PHB gives a bunch of options there.

People get too hung up on the cosmology. Outside us nerds on forums, the details of the cosmology just don't matter to the vast majority of games. The designers have given explicit permission to modify it to suit yourself. This isn't even homebrew, really. The "default" is merely a worked example of what you can do. It has no particular force or special claim to authority.

I disagree.

The D&D RAW are a game, and more importantly a construct of fantasy. The devs actually do have the force of authority to say "this is true in D&D". And yes, while the DMG presents many optinons for DMs to make their home campaign world their own, one planar cosmology is the "default true" for D&D. That's in the RAW. When discussing the rules of D&D, only things that can be verified in print are actually true. This because any and all house rules permutations are impossible to account for.

Just because there's a toolbox to modify or rebuild entirely the planar cosmology, doesn't mean they didn't give us one to say "the default is true".


I think the current ‘official line’ is that all DnD settings (including Eberron) are contained in the Great Wheel Cosmology; the idea of alternate cosmologies and the like seems to be left behind in 2e/3e. When created, Eberron was supposed to be probably separate... but so were Athas and Mystara, and both have been thoroughly integrated now. Except for the Far Realm (in most ways), I think the default is everything is in the same Great Wheel Cosmology now

5e DMG page 44 explicitly states that Eberron uses "The Orrery" cosmological model, which is an alternate to the Great Wheel.

And much less official, but I believe the last time Eberron and Athas were brought up in context og Spelljammer, it was said that both crystal spheres are extremely remote and nigh-unreachable. But I seem to remember Mystara being on the map.

[Tetrasodium]

This comes up pretty in literally every edition I've ever played, though I'm happy to say you're touching on some points that don't come up often. Regardless of those, though, alignment is still needed.

To really explain why we need this, we first need to define what good, evil, law, and chaos are in D&D. "Good" is anything that Archons, Eladrin, and Guardinals all agree on. "Evil" is what that Demons, Devils, and Yugoloth agree on. "Law" is what that Devils, Archons, and Modrons share and "Chaos" is the same for Demons, Eladrin, and Slaadi.

Right, so now that that's done we can get to why we need it. The first reason we need it is that, so long as we remember what those words mean in D&D, we have a helpful shorthand to quickly identify ideological conflicts. For example, if a conflict breaks out between a lawful good person and a chaotic good person it will probably come from a conflict in their opinions regarding freedom and uniformity, whereas a conflict between a lawful evil and lawful good person will probably spring up as a result of differences in opinion regarding self and others. These shorthands make it really easy to gain a quick understanding of an individual's general beliefs. If I'm looking for a good race to pit my lawful good party against, it's a whole lot easier and faster to sort them by alignment and then read about the ones that fit what I'm looking for than it is to read a paragraph or two about every monster in all the manuals. If I'm looking for a dark mirror to a lawful good society, I can grab any lawful evil society and it's a pretty safe bet it'll do the job. If I want to pit that same society against a foe they are opposed to on almost every level, I can grab just about any chaotic evil society.

In short, reason number one is that it's a convenient shorthand that can tell a DM quite a short time with a fair degree of accuracy.

Reason number two that we need alignment is that it's a lynchpin of the afterlife in non-forgotten realms campaigns. Where do you go when you die? Well, you go to your god, but what if you didn't worship a specific God well enough? Your soul goes to one of the nine planes (technically 16 but no one remembers the planes between the major ones on alignment) depending on your alignment. If your character stands as LN, he'll fit in best on the plane of Mechanus. If she's Chaotic Good, she'll likely fit in best in Arborea. If he's Lawful Evil the Devils of Baator will host (and roast) his soul (Literally the only reason that place exists is to convince people to maybe stop being evil. Sadly the Devils are evil and decided they'd rather just have more bodies to throw at their war with the demons, so...). Anyway, that can get to be pretty important whenever your campaigns get high enough level to do some planar travel, unless you're in Faerun and then whoever you want to talk to is probably part of a massive screaming wall because their god didn't like them enough.

In short reason number two is that alignments are part of the cosmology and it kind of all falls apart without it.

Reason number three is that no one has come up with a satisfactory fix for reasons one and two, because any change almost always needlessly complicates things for no reason. Most either say remove it entirely, which runs into issues with reason one, two, and four, or replace it with something so absurdly excessive that people have to remind the person making the suggestion that D&D isn't a real life sim and we don't have 5,000,000 alignments for the same reason D&D doesn't make you model the effect spells have on the global climate, most people don't care anywhere near enough to go through all that work and it doesn't really benefit the game in any way.

There's not really a TLDR on that one, it's the way it is because no one has a way everyone agrees is better.

Reason four is inertia, it'll stay the same until some outside force puts it in a position it has to change. Despite the frequent arguments from people who either don't understand how alignment works or just want to argue because clearly d&d is wrong and not them and the occasional complaint from people with legitimate issues with the system, the current alignment system by and large does its job and does it fine and isn't worth the inevitable issues whatever replaces it would have. It's better to stay the course that takes a bit longer to get where you're headed than change direction, ignore the map, and potentially fly off a cliff.

Reason four, if it's only kind of broke don't fix it.

TLDR: There are a lot of varied and complex reasons we still use and need alignment. It's a quick shorthand, the cosmology is built around it, no one has any better ideas, and while it's a bit broken, it's far from bad enough yet that it needs to be fixed

your soul goes to dolurrh (https://eberron.fandom.com/wiki/Dolurrh) where it fades away & forgets its former instance as it fades away. Period.... In addion, the thirteenplanes of eberron (https://eberron.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Planes_of_Eberron) are not tied to alignment in any significant way as you note.. They just are.

In Darksun/Athas, I'm not sure where souls go after death... but given it's wildly different planar cosmology (and relative lack of), it is unlikely any of what you wrote applies much. I believe people are considered generally evil by defaulkt & more concerned with just surviving than anything else.

In ravenloft, souls of the dead (if they had a soul while living) may be trapped or worse. People born there don't generally have a soul. It too I believe is a bit different with regards to alignment, but you might not know that based on CoS alone

displayed, alignment is needed as presented for Forgotten Realms & settings that operate in the same way. Since greyhawk is basically forgotten realms before FR filed the serial numbers off greyhawk... It can be said that Most of the other settings take a different approach to alignment & that those settings would be improved if WotC quit acting like only the FR way for X is valid & always is.

[Witty Username]

:smallconfused: No, I did nothing of the sort. I just said that we ignored alignment, why are you claiming we didn't? I simply approached any moral and ethical questions as I believed my character would.


I never thought I'd see an argument that would make me think sympathetically about alignment, of all things, and yet here we are. Between this and alignment, I'd grudgingly take alignment.

So, I take it that, since you are opposed to the alignment system but are against the 2d8's freeform approach(I think that is what it is anyway, what with the "I act how I act" attitude), you use some kind of system to figure out what your characters personality is.

Out of curiosity, what is that system? do you use something like the bonds, ideals, and flaws as suggested in the PHB? Do you use something else entirely? Am I off completely off base? I am asking because it sounds useful, and I may swipe pieces of it.

[Unoriginal]

Have you watched it, though? It's so good. More distinction in personality between Huey, Dewey, and Louie; develops answers to what happened to the boys' mother (be prepared for the duck-feels); has TONS of references to the old show without feeling like a new coat of paint slapped on (including a Darkwing Duck reference); and continuous storyling between episodes. It's just amazing. My wife and I don't even have kids and we watch it.

It's indeed amazing.

[RedMage125]

It's indeed amazing.

My wife actually cried last episode. The Duck-Feels!
When Della returns and her boys see her for the first time.

Ok, enough de-railing the thread. I would be happy to discuss Ducktales in PM tho.

[Naanomi]

In Darksun/Athas, I'm not sure where souls go after death... but given it's wildly different planar cosmology (and relative lack of), it is unlikely any of what you wrote applies much. I believe people are considered generally evil by defaulkt & more concerned with just surviving than anything else
Souls of the dead on Athas have one of four fates...
~Most get drawn into the Grey, where they lose all sense of being and memory and fairly quickly get shredded up into soul junk
~Some get tied to the black, usually being incorporeal undead because of it. Much less likely than being shredded in the grey, but more likely than becoming undead naturally in other settings
~A very small number of high level clerics get to the Elemental plane and become elementals in their afterlife
~Similarly, but even more rarely, Druids sometimes exist as ‘spirits’ tied to specific locations as an afterlife

[Tectorman]

I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

I was agreeing with you.

GreyBlack was (I believe) making the point that two characters with the same traits, flaws, bonds, class levels, and so on, but different alignments (in this case, LG vs CG). And because of those different alignments, there must be some kind of a difference in those two characters.

You were (I believe) making the point that two otherwise identical characters differing only with regards to where they are on the Law-Chaos axis wouldn't necessarily show much of a difference due to how poorly-defined the Law-Chaos axis is. And I was agreeing with that, on the basis that the L-C axis is a mish-mash of dichotomies that individually hold up but not collectively.

"Individualism opposes collectivism" holds up.

"Individualism equals chaotic. Undisciplined equals chaotic. Collectivism equals lawful. Disciplined equals lawful. Lawful opposes chaos. Therefore, disciplined opposes individualism." does not hold up.

[GreyBlack]

I was agreeing with you.

GreyBlack was (I believe) making the point that two characters with the same traits, flaws, bonds, class levels, and so on, but different alignments (in this case, LG vs CG). And because of those different alignments, there must be some kind of a difference in those two characters.

You were (I believe) making the point that two otherwise identical characters differing only with regards to where they are on the Law-Chaos axis wouldn't necessarily show much of a difference due to how poorly-defined the Law-Chaos axis is. And I was agreeing with that, on the basis that the L-C axis is a mish-mash of dichotomies that individually hold up but not collectively.

"Individualism opposes collectivism" holds up.

"Individualism equals chaotic. Undisciplined equals chaotic. Collectivism equals lawful. Disciplined equals lawful. Lawful opposes chaos. Therefore, disciplined opposes individualism." does not hold up.

What if I said that's okay, that it's not a clear delineation?

Let's be clear, morality is messy, and even the most clear moral systems require interpretation based on your own personal experience.

Let's look at the famous sandal scene from Monty Python's "Life of Brian." Sure, all of the followers of Brian agree on some basic points, namely that he is the Messiah, but disagree on the finer points (i.e. what they're supposed to do with the sandal that came off his foot).

So... how does that apply? In this example, the character's alignment would be Brian. So. How do the characters in this party interpret the will of Brian? Are they supposed to cast off their sandal? Is it just a symbol? Dunno. Same with alignment: is the character's alignment Chaotic Good because they honestly believe that society and laws are bad, and that they should be destroyed for the collective good of the people? Or is it because they just personally want to be free of the mores of society so they can do whatever they think is good?

[Tectorman]

What if I said that's okay, that it's not a clear delineation?

Let's be clear, morality is messy, and even the most clear moral systems require interpretation based on your own personal experience.

Let's look at the famous sandal scene from Monty Python's "Life of Brian." Sure, all of the followers of Brian agree on some basic points, namely that he is the Messiah, but disagree on the finer points (i.e. what they're supposed to do with the sandal that came off his foot).

So... how does that apply? In this example, the character's alignment would be Brian. So. How do the characters in this party interpret the will of Brian? Are they supposed to cast off their sandal? Is it just a symbol? Dunno. Same with alignment: is the character's alignment Chaotic Good because they honestly believe that society and laws are bad, and that they should be destroyed for the collective good of the people? Or is it because they just personally want to be free of the mores of society so they can do whatever they think is good?

Then I would disagree. If we're talking about anything with a game mechanical effect, then it needs to be a clear and non-overlapping distinction. I don't get to have a variable number of current hit points, such that I exist in a non-collapsed super-position of states, both conscious and making death saving throws; I have to have a clearly defined current amount of health.

In like fashion, if I'm supposed to be lawful for one specific reason, then I have to toe that line in all cases, even the ones that have nothing to do with the aforementioned specific reason.

For example, previous edition Monks had to be lawful because they had to be disciplined. The Monk didn't care in any direction about individualism/collectivism or rigidity/flexibility, but since those other dichotomies all got thrown into the same law-chaos blender, you have to unthematically care about what you do in those cases, too.

Thankfully, 5E doesn't have that problem. When I play a Monk character, I may get asked what alignment the character is (I say "true neutral" even if I don't think that's the case, and the conversation blessedly moves on), but I'm never asked if I'm really playing a Monk.

Which just goes back to my first post in this thread, about how alignment is little more than a metaphorical "kick me" sign taped to your back. All it invites is a whole bunch of stress and unwarranted scrutiny that, personally, is not what I spend money on gas for and not what I'd like to associate with D&D.

[OldTrees1]

Then I would disagree. If we're talking about anything with a game mechanical effect, then it needs to be a clear and non-overlapping distinction. I don't get to have a variable number of current hit points, such that I exist in a non-collapsed super-position of states, both conscious and making death saving throws; I have to have a clearly defined current amount of health.

In like fashion, if I'm supposed to be lawful for one specific reason, then I have to toe that line in all cases, even the ones that have nothing to do with the aforementioned specific reason.

For example, previous edition Monks had to be lawful because they had to be disciplined. The Monk didn't care in any direction about individualism/collectivism or rigidity/flexibility, but since those other dichotomies all got thrown into the same law-chaos blender, you have to unthematically care about what you do in those cases, too.

Thankfully, 5E doesn't have that problem. When I play a Monk character, I may get asked what alignment the character is (I say "true neutral" even if I don't think that's the case, and the conversation blessedly moves on), but I'm never asked if I'm really playing a Monk.

Which just goes back to my first post in this thread, about how alignment is little more than a metaphorical "kick me" sign taped to your back. All it invites is a whole bunch of stress and unwarranted scrutiny that, personally, is not what I spend money on gas for and not what I'd like to associate with D&D.

Example game mechanic: A unique holy sword that only grants its full might to moral characters.

1) You might note that this is "alignment as descriptive" rather than "alignment as prescriptive".
2) It can be further noted that two moral characters might differ on how moral they are with respect to different topics despite both being described as, on the whole, moral characters. Jane might be a paragon of generosity but have a bit of a weakness for lying. John might be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to save others, but be more stingy when it comes to lesser sacrifices. Now you may ask "How do I know Jane and John are moral?" and that is up to the campaign world/reality and thus up to the DM to adjudicate.

Since Jane and John are both moral, this unique holy sword would grant its full might to either that wielded it.

I will note this differs from your Monk example a bit. If Monks need to be disciplined for some reason, then they do not necessarily need to be Lawful despite the characteristic of being disciplined being evidence supporting a more lawful personality in the absence of all the other relevant characteristics.

[Yora]

Alignment seems like a solution, 42 years in search of a problem.

[Kyutaru]

Example game mechanic: A unique holy sword that only grants its full might to moral characters.

1) You might note that this is "alignment as descriptive" rather than "alignment as prescriptive".
2) It can be further noted that two moral characters might differ on how moral they are with respect to different topics despite both being described as, on the whole, moral characters. Jane might be a paragon of generosity but have a bit of a weakness for lying. John might be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to save others, but be more stingy when it comes to lesser sacrifices. Now you may ask "How do I know Jane and John are moral?" and that is up to the campaign world/reality and thus up to the DM to adjudicate.

Since Jane and John are both moral, this unique holy sword would grant its full might to either that wielded it.

I will note this differs from your Monk example a bit. If Monks need to be disciplined for some reason, then they do not necessarily need to be Lawful despite the characteristic of being disciplined being evidence supporting a more lawful personality in the absence of all the other relevant characteristics.

Could also just be a snobbish, stuck-up sword. Mjolnir wouldn't even let people pick it up unless it thought you were worthy in its eyes.

[KorvinStarmast]

Alignment seems like a solution, 42 years in search of a problem. Not really. Dave Arneson added in alignment during the early Blackmoor days, pre D&D being published, due to how his players played. It was initially an adaptation to deal with how the role playing was going on. As time went on and the rules publishing mechanic of getting the rules out and to more and more players, the "rules make the game" mind set that Arneson had broken from slowlly but surely returned. Mechanizing morality? Not one of the greatest things D&D ever did, though it has born fruit in a variety of geek jokes that riff off of alignment as a trope.

While I covered more in this post (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/110123/22566), the germ of the idea for alignment as a character's feature came from play at the table.

One of the facets about the Braunstein games that informed the original structure by which a DM rules on things that come up in play (these game were similar to some RL war games run by the Army I got involved in a quarter of a century later that when Arneson first got shown that form by Dave Wesley; what Wesley had been exposed to in the Army had, let's say, legs) was that there was a lot of improv in those encounters that required a judge/referee(DM's ancestor) to make a call. Things like morality and alignment weren't a rule, there were a part of the underlying conditions of play.

A Quarter Century of Role Playing? (http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/Archive_OLD/rpg2.html)


'You can't stab me in the back. We're on the same side!"
Early Blackmoor game Introduction of the Chaotic thief. (Character Class/Alignment). {snip} In a related musing ...
We now had alignment. Spells to detect alignment, and rules forbidding actions not allowed by ones alignment. Actually not as much fun as not knowing. Chuck and John had a great time being the 'official' evil players. They would draw up adventures to trap the others (under my supervision) and otherwise make trouble.
Arneson's various musings that people have captured often refer to his little black notebook: his campaign, his games, were constantly evolving as things came up during play and he made adaptations.


Quite the opposite of the RAW obsession we see since the computer age descended upon us.

[OldTrees1]

Could also just be a snobbish, stuck-up sword. Mjolnir wouldn't even let people pick it up unless it thought you were worthy in its eyes.

It could also be a 3 eyed duck. What is your point, because you clearly missed mine and I am clearly missing yours?

In this case it is a holy sword that only grants its full power to moral characters. That is the setting of the example and the actual point was how Jane and John are both moral and are not identical. Alignment as descriptive leads to more than just 9 carbon copy characters. There was also a side point in there about how the descriptive alignment was an emergent property of the characters in a world (assuming the world is not a moral relativism or moral error theory world) rather than requiring a holy sword to exist.

Any comments on those points?
1) Two characters being moral does not make them identical or even in agreement on all topics about morality.
2) Having morality in your campaign (excluding moral relativism or moral error theory) means you are using alignment.


Alignment seems like a solution, 42 years in search of a problem.

I can see why you think that. However:
I see it as Alignment is one person's attempt to establish and communicate a language of terms that might be easier for players to work with than the technical terms found in Philosophy texts. "Good, Neutral, Evil" rather than "Moral, Morally Obligatory, Morally Supererogatory, Amoral, Immoral, etc".

Now, was that a problem? Is the term Morally Supererogatory a bit difficult for some players to understand?
Then, is D&D's alignment a solution? Is the term Good a solution to that difficulty?
I don't know on either account. But that is the most charitable attempt I can make.

[jjordan]

I'm probably re-iterating information already provided but here you go.

D&D doesn't need alignment. It's an artifact of some of the early concepts found in Tolkien (some races are inherently inferior/evil) and other works (practically all of the writings of the Middle Ages).

Alignment can be a useful tool in D&D for storytelling (it pretty much defines the cosmology of the game) and for rapidly summarizing the apparent character of any intelligent creature in the game. As a tool it can be used well or poorly. It doesn't need to be used at all and if it used it need not be apparent to the players.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm probably re-iterating information already provided but here you go.

D&D doesn't need alignment. It's an artifact of some of the early concepts found in Tolkien (some races are inherently inferior/evil) and other works (practically all of the writings of the Middle Ages).

Alignment can be a useful tool in D&D for storytelling (it pretty much defines the cosmology of the game) and for rapidly summarizing the apparent character of any intelligent creature in the game. As a tool it can be used well or poorly. It doesn't need to be used at all and if it used it need not be apparent to the players. I suggest that you go up a few posts and read my post. Alignment was woven into the game from the proto D&D before the game ever got published in 1974. It is as much a part of the game as the three (or four) archetypical classes: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, (Thief).

But it has changed over time, as has the audience of players the game is played by.

Out of curiosity: how much Diplomacy have you played?

As I've mentioned before, I preferred the Lawful/Neutral/Chaos baseline form the original issue. It leaves everyone more room to work and isn't as constraining.

And as another previous answer of mine, and a few others note, alignment isn't an on/off switch for playing the game.

You choose to what degree and depth the amount of alignment that fits into your campaign's play.

It isn't a computer game.
One of its features is that it is customizable.

[Morty]

I was agreeing with you.

GreyBlack was (I believe) making the point that two characters with the same traits, flaws, bonds, class levels, and so on, but different alignments (in this case, LG vs CG). And because of those different alignments, there must be some kind of a difference in those two characters.

You were (I believe) making the point that two otherwise identical characters differing only with regards to where they are on the Law-Chaos axis wouldn't necessarily show much of a difference due to how poorly-defined the Law-Chaos axis is. And I was agreeing with that, on the basis that the L-C axis is a mish-mash of dichotomies that individually hold up but not collectively.

"Individualism opposes collectivism" holds up.

"Individualism equals chaotic. Undisciplined equals chaotic. Collectivism equals lawful. Disciplined equals lawful. Lawful opposes chaos. Therefore, disciplined opposes individualism." does not hold up.

Ah, I see. In this case, yes, I agree with what you've said as well.


What if I said that's okay, that it's not a clear delineation?

Let's be clear, morality is messy, and even the most clear moral systems require interpretation based on your own personal experience.

Let's look at the famous sandal scene from Monty Python's "Life of Brian." Sure, all of the followers of Brian agree on some basic points, namely that he is the Messiah, but disagree on the finer points (i.e. what they're supposed to do with the sandal that came off his foot).

So... how does that apply? In this example, the character's alignment would be Brian. So. How do the characters in this party interpret the will of Brian? Are they supposed to cast off their sandal? Is it just a symbol? Dunno. Same with alignment: is the character's alignment Chaotic Good because they honestly believe that society and laws are bad, and that they should be destroyed for the collective good of the people? Or is it because they just personally want to be free of the mores of society so they can do whatever they think is good?

First of all, Law/Chaos doesn't govern morality. Good/Evil does, and comes with its own problems, whereas Law/Chaos... well, it doesn't really govern anything in particular, which is the whole problem. Second of all, if it's so unclear, what's it even doing in the rules? If saying that someone is Lawful Good can mean different things, it's not a useful descriptor. Because either way, I'll need to examine this person's beliefs to find out what they are. And they're lumped in with some other people who happen to share some, but not all, of those beliefs.

If, instead, we have someone whose principle is "I will not let an injustice stand if I can prevent it" (like an Intimacy in Exalted or a principle in a more narrative game, such as Dungeon World), it tells us something real about how such a person will act, without associating it with some other traits that people apply the "lawful" or "good" labels to.

[HouseRules]

Good Evil Axis: Moral
Law Chaos Axis: Ethics

State governs: Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Evil.
Church governs: Neutral Good, True Neutral, and Neutral Evil.
Church may touch topics but cannot govern: Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, and Chaotic Evil.

[Cynthaer]

Well, in the lore and mechanics of previous editions, you would be explicitly wrong. In 5e, you're only wrong if certain optional rules are in play.

See, in previous editions, "Good/Evil/Law/Chaos" are not just points of view, but objective forces which shape the cosmos, to which even gods are beholden. The "Evil" in a fiend actually is the same "Evil" in a human assassin. [...]

In 5e, there's the optional rule about Psychic Dissonance on the planes (DMG, page 59). [...]

Actually, it does.

Never understood why some people say that.
I should be clearer. My view is this:

The question of whether good/evil/law/chaos as a mortal personality trait is tied to the cosmic forces of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos is basically a setting question. Historically, D&D says "yes" by default at the system level and in all(?) official setting material.

In 5e, the answer at the system level is "not necessarily". You can see it in the "____ Evil and Good" spells, which ignore alignment and instead affect non-mortals and outsiders. The "____ Law" and "____ Chaos" spells are gone entirely. Effects like Psychic Dissonance are relegated to optional rules, in case it applies in whatever world your campaign is in.

So when I say that character alignment "already" doesn't really mean the same thing as Elysium/Hades, I'm talking more about how the average modern player interacts with it, and how the base 5e mechanics no longer treat them the same—I don't mean that it's not a part of, say, the official Forgotten Realms setting.


I disagree that it "doesn't map to any real-world ideals generally". I think it absolutely does. In fact, it ONLY does so "generally". A lot of the specifics are where examination falls apart. But most of what is considered "good" or "evil" in D&D resonates to those of us with Western Societal Values.
Not to nitpick, but I said it doesn't "map to any real-life philosophy of people generally". That is, it doesn't inherit from any coherent branch of moral philosophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics).

And really, it doesn't need to. Like I said, the bigger issue for me is that I don't think it maps well to how people do fantasy storytelling and characterization in 2019. (IMO, it worked better in 1980. Genres shift.)


It exactly describes the typical behavior it's supposed to describe.

You can't blame a fork for being a bad kettle
Sure. My view is closer to "fork use is declining as more people are using chopsticks instead".


Just a question: Isn't this just replacing alignment with a different style of alignment?
Sure. I have no general opposition to the concept of alignments.

I just think D&D's specific Good/Evil/Law/Chaos alignment grid is largely vestigial for player characters in most campaigns and settings, and 5e was right to deemphasize it.

(I also think it unintentionally encourages questions like "how would a Lawful Good character respond to a Chaotic Neutral character", which is not a useful way to approach characterization.)

[EggKookoo]

Maybe a better question than whether or not D&D needs alignment is: Does anyone actually use it at the table for PCs these day? I have trouble visualizing a good use for it that doesn't feel heavy handed.

[Unoriginal]

Mjolnir wouldn't even let people pick it up unless it thought you were worthy in its eyes.

Only in Marvel.

[GreyBlack]

Could also just be a snobbish, stuck-up sword. Mjolnir wouldn't even let people pick it up unless it thought you were worthy in its eyes.

In past editions of D&D, these only reason that Thor was the only person who could wield Mjolnir was because of how high Thor's strength was; IIRC, in 3.x, it was something like a 52, and then he has a belt that doubled his strength, so an effective 104 strength score. Even in Norse lore, Mjolnir was only wielded by Thor because he was the strongest of the gods.

I assume that weapon would carry over here? It was statted out previously, and it had nothing to do with worthiness.

[Kyutaru]

It could also be a 3 eyed duck. What is your point, because you clearly missed mine and I am clearly missing yours?
That in a thread about whether D&D still needs alignment your theoretical sword doesn't necessarily need to behave according to one. We can separate alignment from it and have it choose the wielder by its own subjective wants. Calm down and don't tell me what I'm seeing or not seeing. I'm merely saying there are alternative ways to handle the weapon and you're viewing it rather black and white.


I assume that weapon would carry over here? It was statted out previously, and it had nothing to do with worthiness.
Similarly, this provides another means by which a weapon need not bear the cross of alignment in the D&D setting. Whether it's the weapon's viewpoints or its sheer weight, alignment is not needed.

[GreyBlack]

That in a thread about whether D&D still needs alignment your theoretical sword doesn't necessarily need to behave according to one. We can separate alignment from it and have it choose the wielder by its own subjective wants. Calm down and don't tell me what I'm seeing or not seeing. I'm merely saying there are alternative ways to handle the weapon and you're viewing it rather black and white.


Similarly, this provides another means by which a weapon need not bear the cross of alignment in the D&D setting. Whether it's the weapon's viewpoints or its sheer weight, alignment is not needed.

Agreed. Just pointing out that this is a bad example. A better example of such a weapon might be something like the Blackrazor who deals damage to Lawful characters who wield it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Agreed. Just pointing out that this is a bad example. A better example of such a weapon might be something like the Blackrazor who deals damage to Lawful characters who wield it.

Why couldn't he deal damage to creatures that oppose his goals? That's the sticking point for me. If you have an intelligent creature and you know their goals and preferences, you can just use those. If you don't, then it must not be an important creature or you should figure those out. So encoding alignment into the mechanics and cosmology (as opposed to just a helpful shorthand for DMs or players to communicate very broad baselines) seems like it's putting the cart before the horse. It seems to me to be in a strange neverland--

* too vague to give meaningful guidance about the likely actions undertaken beyond the very most broad (see all the arguments about what it means)
* too constricting to be just a description--if it's the binding force behind the entire cosmology and the root cause of things like the Blood War, it has to have force.

[Tanarii]

I was agreeing with you.

GreyBlack was (I believe) making the point that two characters with the same traits, flaws, bonds, class levels, and so on, but different alignments (in this case, LG vs CG). And because of those different alignments, there must be some kind of a difference in those two characters.

You were (I believe) making the point that two otherwise identical characters differing only with regards to where they are on the Law-Chaos axis wouldn't necessarily show much of a difference due to how poorly-defined the Law-Chaos axis is. And I was agreeing with that, on the basis that the L-C axis is a mish-mash of dichotomies that individually hold up but not collectively.

"Individualism opposes collectivism" holds up.

"Individualism equals chaotic. Undisciplined equals chaotic. Collectivism equals lawful. Disciplined equals lawful. Lawful opposes chaos. Therefore, disciplined opposes individualism." does not hold up.
Law vs Chaos isn't a 5e thing.

Otoh Lawful good vs Chaotic good is.

And two characters with identical Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw, but one that includes in their personality the motivation of "can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society" and the other "act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect" will be rather different characters at times.

[Naanomi]

Law vs Chaos isn't a 5e thing.
Although the War of Law and Chaos still appears to be part of the 5e setting backstory

[Kyutaru]

Although the War of Law and Chaos still appears to be part of the 5e setting backstory

It is?? No one told me about a Mechancus vs Limbo war. Best I know is we have the Devils and Demons fighting each other and that's more because they both get confused for the other.

[GreyBlack]

Why couldn't he deal damage to creatures that oppose his goals? That's the sticking point for me. If you have an intelligent creature and you know their goals and preferences, you can just use those. If you don't, then it must not be an important creature or you should figure those out. So encoding alignment into the mechanics and cosmology (as opposed to just a helpful shorthand for DMs or players to communicate very broad baselines) seems like it's putting the cart before the horse. It seems to me to be in a strange neverland--

* too vague to give meaningful guidance about the likely actions undertaken beyond the very most broad (see all the arguments about what it means)
* too constricting to be just a description--if it's the binding force behind the entire cosmology and the root cause of things like the Blood War, it has to have force.

To be honest? I'd argue that vagueness is supposed simply mirror the alienness of the concept of Cosmic alignment.

Best example I have is asking what the biggest number you can picture is. I'd wager it's in the 100's. No, I don't mean the biggest number you can conceptualize, the biggest number of distinct, physical objects. It's just a limitation of the human mind. However, in physics, we frequently deal with numbers in the millions and billions; it's not that the numbers don't exist, just that it's a number beyond our ability to imagine.

I mean, that's how I interpret it and have used it that way in the past; again my homebrew campaign is explicitly about exploring how weird alignment is/can be, so for the most part, I'm past some of the hang ups others have about the system and have kinda embraced it. My players seem to enjoy it.

[OldTrees1]

That in a thread about whether D&D still needs alignment your theoretical sword doesn't necessarily need to behave according to one. We can separate alignment from it and have it choose the wielder by its own subjective wants. Calm down and don't tell me what I'm seeing or not seeing. I'm merely saying there are alternative ways to handle the weapon and you're viewing it rather black and white.

While your statement (you can change the sword to use a different metric and thus not be related to alignment) is self evident, it is unrelated to the point of my post. Hence my confusion at the mismatch between your tangential reply with the contrarian tone you used in that reply. Hence the calm statement of confusion (3 eyed duck) and the analysis that we both missed each others points. Thank you for clarifying your point as the self evident tangent.

I presume you did not wish to comment on either of the points of the post. That does not indicate agreement / disagreement. Merely that neither of those points compelled you to comment upon them. A normal possible outcome so I will not repeat those points again here.


It is?? No one told me about a Mechancus vs Limbo war. Best I know is we have the Devils and Demons fighting each other and that's more because they both get confused for the other.

D&D historic Law vs Chaos war was the side of Law vs the Demons. A disagreement on the side of Law split this into the Blood War (Devils vs Demons) and other less famous conflicts.

[Naanomi]

It is?? No one told me about a Mechancus vs Limbo war. Best I know is we have the Devils and Demons fighting each other and that's more because they both get confused for the other.
Aarakocra MM entry, Rod of Seven Parts, amongst other name-drops here and there... and it was more like ‘very Lawful Giants/elementals from the plane of Air try to force Law onto Everything; an alliance of Chaotic things led by demons reacts; cosmic consequences ensue’

[Constructman]

Although the War of Law and Chaos still appears to be part of the 5e setting backstory

Can somebody explain this? I can't find any detailed info on the War of Law and Chaos anywhere. I got the impression that it's the creation story of Planescape, and the reason why the Great Wheel is a wheel, but I could be completely wrong.

[Naanomi]

Can somebody explain this? I can't find any detailed info on the War of Law and Chaos anywhere. I got the impression that it's the creation story of Planescape, and the reason why the Great Wheel is a wheel, but I could be completely wrong.
5e just hints at it, without much concrete detail... but if I’m allowed to dip into older edition lore...

Back in the very early days of the Great Wheel; before the Prime was inhabited by much besides maybe Aboleth and their creations; and when the Outer Planes were not yet fully explored... a group of beings living in the Elemental Plane of Air (called the Vaati (giants or maybe genie-like elementals of some kind who themselves were very Lawful) began a war of conquest over the Inner Planes that eventually spread to all the corners of creation. They recruited a coalition of Lawful Outer-Planes beings to their side; including both Good and Evil beings... but a loose coalition of Chaotic Powers (Demons and outsider-Eladrin mostly) rose to oppose them. The Vaati held the advantage most of the War, but the Demons eventually learned how to create soldiers from human souls... and then took the War to the young Prime. Still, the Vaati and allies managed to win a very Pyrrhic victory against the leaders of the forces of Chaos; and being Chaotic they fell into disarray. The War ended with Law winning cosmologically (which is why there is still a set structure to the cosmos) but so decimated that they couldn’t win the war materially. The Blood War between Tanar’ri and Baatezu is an echo/continuation of that cosmologically defining battle

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

5e just hints at it, without much concrete detail... but if I’m allowed to dip into older edition lore...

Back in the very early days of the Great Wheel; before the Prime was inhabited by much besides maybe Aboleth and their creations; and when the Outer Planes were not yet fully explored... a group of beings living in the Elemental Plane of Air (called the Vaati (giants or maybe genie-like elementals of some kind who themselves were very Lawful) began a war of conquest over the Inner Planes that eventually spread to all the corners of creation. They recruited a coalition of Lawful Outer-Planes beings to their side; including both Good and Evil beings... but a loose coalition of Chaotic Powers (Demons and outsider-Eladrin mostly) rose to oppose them. The Vaati held the advantage most of the War, but the Demons eventually learned how to create soldiers from human souls... and then took the War to the young Prime. Still, the Vaati and allies managed to win a very Pyrrhic victory against the leaders of the forces of Chaos; and being Chaotic they fell into disarray. The War ended with Law winning cosmologically (which is why there is still a set structure to the cosmos) but so decimated that they couldn’t win the war materially. The Blood War between Tanar’ri and Baatezu is an echo/continuation of that cosmologically defining battle

Basically all of the information on the War of Law and Chaos is in Eldritch Wizardry, from TSR, and the Rod of Seven Parts adventure. Chaos gets the upper hand when the Queen of Chaos experiments with the creation of new, powerful demons; her first attempt, Demogorgon, is rejected as being unfit. Her second, Mishka the Wolf-Spider, leads the armies of Chaos and achieves several victories. Eventually he's sealed away using the Rod of Law, which shatters.

I strongly recommend reading through the old Afroakuma Planar Questions threads if you're interested in this sort of stuff. Todd Stewart has posted in some of them as well. On other boards you can find stuff by ripvanwormer, who is a noted Planescape guru who has, I believe, written on that setting for Dragon and Dungeon.

[Naanomi]

We also got some info about it in Age of Worms, Oriental Adventures, the Inner Planes Book, 3.5s Fiendish Codexes, and a bit in Planes of Law, Hellbound: the Blood War, and On Hallowed Ground

I think it also gets a reference in Great Modron March, Tales from the Infinite Staircase, and Dead Gods... but I haven’t read the modules in forever so I could be mistaken

I think... Spelljammer and/or the last Mystara products had a big planar timeline that established when it took place (long after the Dreaden were functionally gone, but starting before any of the known spelljamming empires were established)

[Constructman]

5e just hints at it, without much concrete detail... but if I’m allowed to dip into older edition lore...

Back in the very early days of the Great Wheel; before the Prime was inhabited by much besides maybe Aboleth and their creations; and when the Outer Planes were not yet fully explored... a group of beings living in the Elemental Plane of Air (called the Vaati (giants or maybe genie-like elementals of some kind who themselves were very Lawful) began a war of conquest over the Inner Planes that eventually spread to all the corners of creation. They recruited a coalition of Lawful Outer-Planes beings to their side; including both Good and Evil beings... but a loose coalition of Chaotic Powers (Demons and outsider-Eladrin mostly) rose to oppose them. The Vaati held the advantage most of the War, but the Demons eventually learned how to create soldiers from human souls... and then took the War to the young Prime. Still, the Vaati and allies managed to win a very Pyrrhic victory against the leaders of the forces of Chaos; and being Chaotic they fell into disarray. The War ended with Law winning cosmologically (which is why there is still a set structure to the cosmos) but so decimated that they couldn’t win the war materially. The Blood War between Tanar’ri and Baatezu is an echo/continuation of that cosmologically defining battle

Huh, that seems like a big deal.

Like, a really, really big deal.

Wonder why it isn't referenced more.


Basically all of the information on the War of Law and Chaos is in Eldritch Wizardry, from TSR, and the Rod of Seven Parts adventure. Chaos gets the upper hand when the Queen of Chaos experiments with the creation of new, powerful demons; her first attempt, Demogorgon, is rejected as being unfit. Her second, Mishka the Wolf-Spider, leads the armies of Chaos and achieves several victories. Eventually he's sealed away using the Rod of Law, which shatters.

I strongly recommend reading through the old Afroakuma Planar Questions threads if you're interested in this sort of stuff. Todd Stewart has posted in some of them as well. On other boards you can find stuff by ripvanwormer, who is a noted Planescape guru who has, I believe, written on that setting for Dragon and Dungeon.

I'll check those out, thanks.

[Naanomi]

Huh, that seems like a big deal.

Like, a really, really big deal.

Wonder why it isn't referenced more.
The War of Law and Chaos is ancient beyond ancient history, faded past even legend for mortal races... heck virtually all of the common mortal races didn’t even exist until the later part of the conflict. Much of it took place on the Inner and Outer Planes, not the Prime (probably none of the known Prime worlds in campaign settings existed for most of it; though the final battle was on Oerth). Only a few artifacts from that time still exist... though a few big planar entities and Gods got their ‘start’ in that conflict.

It is like why we don’t talk about conflict between archaebacteria colonies when talking about the history of civilization; even though the results of those conflicts were astoundingly important in the larger sense.

Also, for what it is worth, the War of Law and Chaos was preceded by an even grander and longer conflict between the forces of Existence and Non-Existence (represented by the Elder Powers predating Gods and Primordial Dragons against Draeden)

[Willie the Duck]

Huh, that seems like a big deal.
Like, a really, really big deal.
Wonder why it isn't referenced more.
When it was written, grand sweeping metaplots and setting history were a big deal in the gaming community. Since then people have gotten a little burned out on the idea. Or at least that's my take.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Huh, that seems like a big deal.

Like, a really, really big deal.

Wonder why it isn't referenced more.

Because it's not really that interesting. It is, if you're interested in planar history, but it's not at all relevant to the day-to-day unless you're running a campaign focused on, like, adventurers as planar agents working to stave off (or bring about) massive, sweeping planar conflagrations. If that's the kind of game you're in, then the draeden in the Abyss, the fate of the ancient baatorians, the seal at the bottom of the Ghoresh Chasm, the three towers of the yugoloths, the nature of the 7th layer of Mount Celestia - that stuff might be relevant. Otherwise, it's just background to the setting. The War of Law and Chaos is over, except for the Blood War, and really no one wants to bring it back outside a few holdouts like the Queen of Chaos.

[Naanomi]

Because it's not really that interesting.
Well... I’d argue it is *very* interesting, just not particularly useful for most games. It may inspire some ideas; but for the most part the setting details are ‘consumed’ independent of actually playing the game. I love it all, but the average user could take or leave it without noticing

[Hail Tempus]

Maybe a better question than whether or not D&D needs alignment is: Does anyone actually use it at the table for PCs these day? I have trouble visualizing a good use for it that doesn't feel heavy handed. Every game I've played in 5e has included alignment as one of the things you pick at character creation. Players tend to have an idea of what their character is like as a person, and choosing an alignment is one of the things that helps them flesh out their character's personality. Combined with bonds, ideals etc., alignment can create some interesting character personalities.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Well... I’d argue it is *very* interesting, just not particularly useful for most games. It may inspire some ideas; but for the most part the setting details are ‘consumed’ independent of actually playing the game. I love it all, but the average user could take or leave it without noticing

Yeah, that's what I mean. It's a background feature, and while it may be a thing that players and characters want to learn more about, it is not necessarily meant to be anything beyond window dressing. And if players are interested in learning more, it's on the DM to create it, because there really isn't much more without creating fanon, not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Kyutaru]

Yeah, that's what I mean. It's a background feature, and while it may be a thing that players and characters want to learn more about, it is not necessarily meant to be anything beyond window dressing. And if players are interested in learning more, it's on the DM to create it, because there really isn't much more without creating fanon, not that there's anything wrong with that.

It's also a reminder to everyone that there's always something stronger and scarier than you are. Even the gods themselves pale compared to a Draeden. PCs can get as strong as they want and they still have something that outclasses them.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

It's also a reminder to everyone that there's always something stronger and scarier than you are. Even the gods themselves pale compared to a Draeden. PCs can get as strong as they want and they still have something that outclasses them.

True, though there are no shortage of those in most Planescape games, where becoming an epic PC means you've just graduated to "mostly insignificant" from "completely insignificant".

[Naanomi]

It's also a reminder to everyone that there's always something stronger and scarier than you are. Even the gods themselves pale compared to a Draeden. PCs can get as strong as they want and they still have something that outclasses them.
And Draeden wouldn’t likely fare well trying to be belligerent in Sigil in front of the Lady of Pain; and even she probably shouldn’t tangle with the ‘oh we made the Great Wheel just because’ Eldest Ones; and where the biggest potential hitters in the Far Realm stand next to any of those is unknown

[Kyutaru]

And Draeden wouldn’t likely fare well trying to be belligerent in Sigil in front of the Lady of Pain; and even she probably shouldn’t tangle with the ‘oh we made the Great Wheel just because’ Eldest Ones; and where the biggest potential hitters in the Far Realm stand next to any of those is unknown

Then there's Ao, who the cleric in my epic campaign wanted to fight desperately. Where even does he stand in this cosmological government of bigger fish?

[Naanomi]

Then there's Ao, who the cleric in my epic campaign wanted to fight desperately. Where even does he stand in this cosmological government of bigger fish?
Overpowers are between Gods and Elder Powers (maybe with one Luminous Being intermediary, though that may have been an Elder Power itself); though they only have power on matters related to their own Crystal Spheres they ‘administrate’... and that power isn’t absolute, apparently Ao is unable to shut down Far Realm influence on Toril for example; and the Lady of Pain cannot be stopped at making portals to wherever she wants

[Kyutaru]

Overpowers are between Gods and Elder Powers (maybe with one Luminous Being intermediary, though that may have been an Elder Power itself); though they only have power on matters related to their own Crystal Spheres they ‘administrate’... and that power isn’t absolute, apparently Ao is unable to shut down Far Realm influence on Toril for example; and the Lady of Fate cannot be stopped at making portals to wherever she wants
I feel like their next book needs to be "Planes & Powers" and explain every major figure that exists and their hierarchy in the cosmos along with all these background wars and how the multiverse began.

[Naanomi]

I feel like their next book needs to be "Planes & Powers" and explain every major figure that exists and their hierarchy in the cosmos along with all these background wars and how the multiverse began.
Eh, I wouldn’t mind more of this sort of thing; but I don’t know it needs a whole book. Some sort of ‘manual of the planes’ that has a history section but focuses more on locations and monsters wouldn’t be bad

[Unoriginal]

I feel like their next book needs to be "Planes & Powers" and explain every major figure that exists and their hierarchy in the cosmos along with all these background wars and how the multiverse began.

5e's lore is much more "myths and legends" than "absolute truths".

It's a good thing, too, IMO. The blank spaces in the map are just as important as the marked locations, to use a metaphor.

That being said, I hope they flesh out the Upper Planes some more. Maybe after the Descent to Avernus?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

5e's lore is much more "myths and legends" than "absolute truths".

It's a good thing, too, IMO. The blank spaces in the map are just as important as the marked locations, to use a metaphor.

That being said, I hope they flesh out the Upper Planes some more. Maybe after the Descent to Avernus?

It would be nice, but unlikely based on precedent. The Upper Planes have traditionally gotten even less attention than the Inner Planes. Even the 2E book specifically dedicated to celestials was mostly about the ways archons, eladrin and guardinals were really just like mortals and how you should play one, and less about how they were different and interesting. The old Planescape assumptions are mostly out the window though since they've reshuffled the exemplars.

[Naanomi]

It would be nice, but unlikely based on precedent. The Upper Planes have traditionally gotten even less attention than the Inner Planes. Even the 2E book specifically dedicated to celestials was mostly about the ways archons, eladrin and guardinals were really just like mortals and how you should play one, and less about how they were different and interesting. The old Planescape assumptions are mostly out the window though since they've reshuffled the exemplars.
Maybe a redux of ‘the Great Modron March’ adventure could tour the outer planes for us?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Maybe a redux of ‘the Great Modron March’ adventure could tour the outer planes for us?

There are those modrons in Out of the Abyss, and I think it says they started on their march 289 years ago...

[deljzc]

The alignment system's main use is as a bridge to the Polytheism and Deity system.

You can play D&D without any of the religion in the books. You could eliminate all of the non-material world. You could make it a monotheism system or having something very similar to real world religions (primarily monotheism/prophet oriented or mysticism beliefs). You can certainly dial up a way clerics and paladins are granted spells and perform miracles.

Once you eliminate all the non-material world things (and say make it a very realistic based adventure with limited spells), then alignment probably becomes obsolete. At that point you're really just talking morality and how it manifests itself in your character and his location.

Of course to do that you take away a lot of the upper level adventuring hooks, take away a lot of monsters, take away some spells and its not cannon from the vision Gygax had.

I just don't really think you can keep all the other-wordly planar stuff and lose alignment. They are too tied together (for many reasons).

[Willie the Duck]

Of course to do that you take away a lot of the upper level adventuring hooks, take away a lot of monsters, take away some spells and its not cannon from the vision Gygax had.

Wait, you think that E. Gary 'no one's made it to 12th level yet'/'this guy worships, uhhhh… Church of Crom, Scientist'/'by name level people will want to switch over to running kingdoms'/'Gods, Demigods and Heroes was not meant as a monster manual' Gygax's primary vision was about upper level adventuring hooks and the Polytheism and Deity system?

[Max_Killjoy]

When I play a character, I will know if I consider them to be generally immoral, morally supererogatory, or neither. Sometimes that knowledge takes a bit of reflection & thought but that judgement of the character will be intrinsic to my playing of that character. Likewise that character will interact with choices that have a moral element to them. I can make judgements on what options are immoral, morally supererogatory, morally obligatory, or none of the above. My character can also make such judgements.

Alignment as descriptive, rather than prescriptive/ascriptive is as simple as the campaign also making such judgements about characters and options. As long as your campaign considers some things as moral (morally obligatory or morally supererogatory) and some things as immoral, then you are using alignment as descriptive. It is possible to run a campaign without doing this, but many campaigns will. If murdering puppies is deemed immoral by your campaign, then you are using alignment.

Does this require any mechanics? No. Alignment never required mechanics. Allegiance systems might require mechanics but descriptive alignment does not.

At that point, IMO, there's no need for Alignment, because you have a fully-formed consideration of morality and ethics.

To me, Alignment seems like either nothing more than Purple Team vs Orange Team, a way to put jerseys on the characters so that the PCs know who it's OK to hit with things and take stuff from, or an outright grotesque caricature of "morality".



Why couldn't he deal damage to creatures that oppose his goals? That's the sticking point for me. If you have an intelligent creature and you know their goals and preferences, you can just use those. If you don't, then it must not be an important creature or you should figure those out. So encoding alignment into the mechanics and cosmology (as opposed to just a helpful shorthand for DMs or players to communicate very broad baselines) seems like it's putting the cart before the horse. It seems to me to be in a strange neverland--

* too vague to give meaningful guidance about the likely actions undertaken beyond the very most broad (see all the arguments about what it means)
* too constricting to be just a description--if it's the binding force behind the entire cosmology and the root cause of things like the Blood War, it has to have force.

IMO, and frankly, the whole thing is because of D&D's "gamist" core. It's an objective-sounding, no-interpretation, no-argument rule that can be planned around and gamed for advantage. Sword gets the "chaotic" tag, any character with the "lawful" tag that tries to wield it gets popped. No debate with the DM about "conflicting goals" or "Am I really opposed to the sword's ideals?"

"Alignment" lets some players pretend that morality and ethics can be reduced to a set of mechanical tags, and also appeals to the Hollywood-esque "goodguys" and "badguys" quasimorality that some people like.

[OldTrees1]

At that point, IMO, there's no need for Alignment, because you have a fully-formed consideration of morality and ethics.

To me, Alignment seems like either nothing more than Purple Team vs Orange Team, a way to put jerseys on the characters so that the PCs know who it's OK to hit with things and take stuff from, or an outright grotesque caricature of "morality".

Thank you. I too agree there is no need for alignment, however I would still classify what I use (that fully formed consideration of morality and ethics) as alignment. Therefore, while I think WotC can stop making grotesque caricatures of "morality" via its alignment RAW, I do see morality as a topic DMs might want to be prepared for. WotC therefore might want to give some advice to those DMs.

[2D8HP]

At that point, IMO, there's no need for Alignment, because you have a fully-formed consideration of morality and ethics.

To me, Alignment seems like either nothing more than Purple Team vs Orange Team, a way to put jerseys on the characters so that the PCs know who it's OK to hit with things and take stuff from, or an outright grotesque caricature of "morality".




IMO, and frankly, the whole thing is because of D&D's "gamist" core. It's an objective-sounding, no-interpretation, no-argument rule that can be planned around and gamed for advantage. Sword gets the "chaotic" tag, any character with the "lawful" tag that tries to wield it gets popped. No debate with the DM about "conflicting goals" or "Am I really opposed to the sword's ideals?"

"Alignment" lets some players pretend that morality and ethics can be reduced to a set of mechanical tags, and also appeals to the Hollywood-esque "goodguys" and "badguys" quasimorality that some people like.


Yes, exactly!

And it used to be explicit, the predecessor of D&D, Chainmail had it as:

"GENERAL LINE-UP:
It is impossible to draw a distanct line between "good" and "evil" fantastic figures. Three categories are listed below as a general guide for the wargamer designing orders of battle involving fantastic creatures:

LAW
Hobbits
Dwarves
Gnomes
Heroes
Super Heroes
Wizards*
Ents
Magic Weapons

NEUTRAL
Sprites
Pixies
Elves
Fairies
Lycanthropes *
Giants*
Rocs
(Elementals)
Chimerea


CHAOS
Goblins
Kobolds
Orcs
Anti-heroes
Wizards *
Wraiths
Wights
Lycanthropes*
Ogres
True Trolls
Balrogs
Giants *
Dragons
Basilisks

* Indicates the figure appears in two lists.
Underlined Neutral figures have a slight pre-disposition for LAW. Neutral
figures can be diced for to determine on which side they will fight, with ties
meaning they remain neutral."


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wb-QFUiuEqk/T_x0sXHILMI/AAAAAAAAFME/rEhioR7Tw3I/s280/ch☆nmailalign.jpg

'twas sides in a wargame.


Incidentally, in OD&D
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MlEVGRiLVK0/T_xGEnCu73I/AAAAAAAAFL4/jalyY-BOFgM/s280/oddalign.jpg

Orcs could be aligned with Neutrality as well as Chaos, and Elves, Dwarves/Gnomes could also be aligned with Neutrality as well as Law, and Men may be aligned with any.

The 1976 article that added the "good and evil axis" made clear in this graph:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg
that creatures don't just exist on one of nine points of ethics/morality, there's a range:

Also in the article (http://themagictreerpg.blogspot.com/2008/09/history-of-alignment-in-d-part-i.html?m=1) Gygax stated:

"Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity....

....Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things."



So DM's decided on PC's alignments based on those characters actions, as a whole.

Whatever a player puts on their PC's character record sheet as that PC's "Alignment" is only a note to themselves indicating how they plan that PC to act, but any Alignment game effects are and always were for the DM to decide based on the PC's actions, the only times that I imagine that it would be worthwhile for a DM to bother to see what a player has written down on their character record sheet as that PC's Alignment is very early in a campaign before that PC has performed enough actions to judge (and I've personally never seen any early sessions where Alignment has come up), or in edge cases (i.e. which PC should wield a particular magic item such as a Holy Avenger sword), where the DM isn't sure and decides to go by a players nominal intent,

In the low level games I prefer it's pretty seldom that a PC's Alignment comes up at all.

[EggKookoo]

IMO, and frankly, the whole thing is because of D&D's "gamist" core. It's an objective-sounding, no-interpretation, no-argument rule that can be planned around and gamed for advantage. Sword gets the "chaotic" tag, any character with the "lawful" tag that tries to wield it gets popped. No debate with the DM about "conflicting goals" or "Am I really opposed to the sword's ideals?"

"Alignment" lets some players pretend that morality and ethics can be reduced to a set of mechanical tags, and also appeals to the Hollywood-esque "goodguys" and "badguys" quasimorality that some people like.

This could be mitigated if we were encouraged to think of "neutral" as some flavor of "undecided" or "not consistent," which is how I like to interpret it outside of Druid-like balance ideals. If a PC is explicitly lawful good, it means the player will try to make the PC act lawful good even when it might make more sense or be more convenient to behave differently. A PC that is neutral may well be lawful good most of the time just because it makes sense to do so, but isn't locked to it.

Rorschach (from Watchmen) is lawful neutral*. He sticks to the rules (his own moral code, anyway) and will do so regardless of circumstances. Nite Owl is neutral but generally behaves in a lawful or good way because, in the moment, it makes sense for him to do so. If you looked at Nite Owl's behavior over time, you might be tempted to label him as something like lawful good, but he's not lawful the same way Rorschach is.

For the record, I have no problem with alignment, although I find the use of terms like "good" and "evil" to be too subjective. I wish they worked out more concrete terms. But that's easily managed at the table after some discussion.

* I realize both Rorschach and Nite Owl operate outside the law, which might seem contradictory with me calling them lawful. I just mean they both have a set of behavioral parameters they don't like to cross. Rorschach actually will not cross his under pretty much any circumstances, which is why it makes sense to actually call him lawful. Nite Owl is reluctant to cross his, which in general are looser than Rorschach's anyway, but he's more willing to rationalize doing so.

[Tanarii]

Team PC vs Team Monster is one thing that makes Alignment a useful tool. Depends on how complex you want your campaign to be.

A single sentence typical, but neither required nor consistent, behavior motivation loosely based on moral and ethical outlook is what makes Alignment an incredibly useful tool. Provided it's used in conjunction with a few other categories of motivations.

Players in general suck at playing a character that is not themselves. And those with RPG "experience" are often among the worst. Not helped by really bad memes (viral ideas) out in the roleplaying game community about roleplaying being something different, something special, on a pedestal. Not helped by ideas spewed out by role-playing elitists, ranters like the designers involved in Palladium, the Forge, Amber Diceless RPG, and Burning Wheel. Teaching players to focus on making decisions in the fantasy environment, but occasionally with reference to some explicitly stated motivations on where their character differs from themselves, works wonders.

[RedMage125]

At that point, IMO, there's no need for Alignment, because you have a fully-formed consideration of morality and ethics.

To me, Alignment seems like either nothing more than Purple Team vs Orange Team, a way to put jerseys on the characters so that the PCs know who it's OK to hit with things and take stuff from, or an outright grotesque caricature of "morality".

I disagree. Alignment is not supposed to be an absolute barometer of action or affiliation. In fact, while using alignment and its mechanics, it can make for very entertaining stories to have Evil characters that share the PC's goals, and a Good NPC who opposes them.



IMO, and frankly, the whole thing is because of D&D's "gamist" core. It's an objective-sounding, no-interpretation, no-argument rule that can be planned around and gamed for advantage. Sword gets the "chaotic" tag, any character with the "lawful" tag that tries to wield it gets popped. No debate with the DM about "conflicting goals" or "Am I really opposed to the sword's ideals?"
See, now I view that as a GOOD thing. Concrete mechanics that can be objectively quantified, IMHO, protect players from fickle DM fiat.

If the character is Lawful, and you have mechanics that say that Lawful characters get popped, there is no debate. The mechanics were established, and the lines of distinction are transparent to players.

Take Age Of Worms, which had been mentioned before as relating to the lore of the Law/Chaos conflict. There's a point where the players enter the tomb of one of the Vaati. As very Lawful beings who opposed the forces of Chaos, the tomb is liberally spread with traps that only affect chaotic individuals (the 3.5 spell Dictum was on several traps). When I ran it, the party cleric was Lawful Good, and remained completely unaffected by them.

By DM fiat, using some metric of "allied with the goals of the Vaati", no one in the party would have been affected, and the dungeon would have been boring indeed.


"Alignment" lets some players pretend that morality and ethics can be reduced to a set of mechanical tags, and also appeals to the Hollywood-esque "goodguys" and "badguys" quasimorality that some people like.

Not everyone who likes or uses alignment is a simpleton. Nuance and subtlety in morality and ethics are still possible, but having objective Good/Evil/Law/Chaos as dispassionate cosmic forces who are not swayed by excuses or post-hoc justification can also make for great stories in fantasy.

[Yora]

The main reason alignment is bad and should be gone is that nobody can ever agree what it is, what it means, and what it is for.

Maybe any of these many wildly different interpretations could serve a function, but until someone somehow manages to convince a majority of D&D players of one way it remains a burden rather than being a benefit.

[Constructman]

The main reason alignment is bad and should be gone is that nobody can ever agree what it is, what it means, and what it is for.

Maybe any of these many wildly different interpretations could serve a function, but until someone somehow manages to convince a majority of D&D players of one way it remains a burden rather than being a benefit.

Is ignoring everybody else in the thread and yelling at clouds fun for you?

[RedMage125]

The main reason alignment is bad and should be gone is that nobody can ever agree what it is, what it means, and what it is for.

Maybe any of these many wildly different interpretations could serve a function, but until someone somehow manages to convince a majority of D&D players of one way it remains a burden rather than being a benefit.

"Alignment is bad" is an opinion, not a fact. And you'd be hard pressed to prove that "a majority of players" have any kind of problem with it.

And there's not really any "wildly different interpretations " of what alignment is. Most of the pro-alignment people agree. Some focus more on how it affects the Great Wheel Cosmology, doesn't mean they have different interpretations. If you've been reading the thread, you'll see that many people agree what it is, what it means, and what it is for. The disagreement usually stems from people who do not think such things are valuable.

Which is also an opinion.

[EggKookoo]

Bob: I will do the good thing. When faced with an obstacle, I would rather fail at overcoming it than to overcome it using non-good methods.
Jim: I will do the good thing. However, if faced with an obstacle that can only be overcome with non-good methods, I will do so, even if reluctantly.

From a D&D alignment perspective, is Bob good? Is Jim good? Is Jim neutral (on the good/evil axis)?

[Hail Tempus]

Bob: I will do the good thing. When faced with an obstacle, I would rather fail at overcoming it than to overcome it using non-good methods.
Jim: I will do the good thing. However, if faced with an obstacle that can only be overcome with non-good methods, I will do so, even if reluctantly.

From a D&D alignment perspective, is Bob good? Is Jim good? Is Jim neutral (on the good/evil axis)? I think both of these characters fall somewhere on the good spectrum. They're both trying to do good things, but one of them is willing to do non-good (but not evil) things to achieve that.

Bob might be Lawful Good. I can see Jim falling under Neutral Good or Chaotic Good.

[Beleriphon]

Bob: I will do the good thing. When faced with an obstacle, I would rather fail at overcoming it than to overcome it using non-good methods.
Jim: I will do the good thing. However, if faced with an obstacle that can only be overcome with non-good methods, I will do so, even if reluctantly.

From a D&D alignment perspective, is Bob good? Is Jim good? Is Jim neutral (on the good/evil axis)?

Jim is probably neutral. He's willing to veer off his moral compass a bit to get things done, but over all he wont. Remember a single act, doesn't make a character good or evil, or lawful or chaotic. It is behavior over time taken in aggregate that makes a character fall into one of the categories.

[Naanomi]

Jim is probably neutral. He's willing to veer off his moral compass a bit to get things done, but over all he wont. Remember a single act, doesn't make a character good or evil, or lawful or chaotic. It is behavior over time taken in aggregate that makes a character fall into one of the categories.
Which makes me think it depends somewhat on their life experiences... in a happy place where good behavior is rewarded, both could be Good... but placed in a hard place where evil is the norm (Darksun?) would see one still good and drive the other into neutrality (at least)

[Morty]

I disagree. Alignment is not supposed to be an absolute barometer of action or affiliation. In fact, while using alignment and its mechanics, it can make for very entertaining stories to have Evil characters that share the PC's goals, and a Good NPC who opposes them.

So what is it actually good for? If it can't definitely state someone's allegiance or moral standing, why do we even need it? It feels like every argument in defence of alignment advocates for watering it down until it doesn't mean much.


See, now I view that as a GOOD thing. Concrete mechanics that can be objectively quantified, IMHO, protect players from fickle DM fiat.

If the character is Lawful, and you have mechanics that say that Lawful characters get popped, there is no debate. The mechanics were established, and the lines of distinction are transparent to players.

Take Age Of Worms, which had been mentioned before as relating to the lore of the Law/Chaos conflict. There's a point where the players enter the tomb of one of the Vaati. As very Lawful beings who opposed the forces of Chaos, the tomb is liberally spread with traps that only affect chaotic individuals (the 3.5 spell Dictum was on several traps). When I ran it, the party cleric was Lawful Good, and remained completely unaffected by them.

By DM fiat, using some metric of "allied with the goals of the Vaati", no one in the party would have been affected, and the dungeon would have been boring indeed.


The only reason those effects exist to begin with is the alignment system, so this argument is a little circular. Not to mention it's either random or invites metagaming. If the players don't know what they're getting into, the traps will affect them or not based on a completely unrelated decision they'd made about their character's alignment. If they do, the system can be gamed by deliberately avoiding making chaotic characters.

[RedMage125]

Bob: I will do the good thing. When faced with an obstacle, I would rather fail at overcoming it than to overcome it using non-good methods.
Jim: I will do the good thing. However, if faced with an obstacle that can only be overcome with non-good methods, I will do so, even if reluctantly.

From a D&D alignment perspective, is Bob good? Is Jim good? Is Jim neutral (on the good/evil axis)?


I think both of these characters fall somewhere on the good spectrum. They're both trying to do good things, but one of them is willing to do non-good (but not evil) things to achieve that.

Bob might be Lawful Good. I can see Jim falling under Neutral Good or Chaotic Good.

We don't really have all the information, though. As opposed to just "Lawful Good", Bob sounds like a pre-4e Paladin. That was the standards that Paladins had to adhere to. Just being Lawful Good isn't enough to mandate that kind of inflexibility towards means. Take a look at Roy from Order of the Stick. He occasionally uses non-Lawful Good means to achieve his Good goals.

What the "non-good means" being referenced is also important. Hail Tempus specifies "non good (but also non evil)", and that's a huge distinction. Acts that are neither morally Good nor morally Evil, by definition, have no moral weight. They may be Lawful or Chaotic, but even pre-4e Paladins did not "fall from grace" by committing a Chaotic act, nor a Neutral one. And it takes more than one act to change one's alignment. Someone who will commit acts that are non-good but also non-evil for the sake of doing Good is almost certainly Good. OTOH, someone who is willing to regularly use Evil means to achieve Good ends is likely Neutral on that axis (I will admit, however, that this stance is heavily influenced by past editions, the 3.5e DMG, page 134, states that "Indecisiveness Indicates Neutrality"). But even that isn't an absolute. Such a character would be least likely to be Lawful Good, as they don't seem to be holding to a specific code of Good, but are rather more flexible in how they do Good.

Point is (and this is why a lot of "what alignment is this character?" examples are bunk) is that we do not have enough information about Bob or Jim to prescribe an alignment for either of them. If it is safe to assume that these statements are accurate summations of their entire outlook, beliefs, and actions, it would be fair to call them both some kind of Good, by 5e standards.

[OldTrees1]

Bob: I will do the good thing. When faced with an obstacle, I would rather fail at overcoming it than to overcome it using non-good methods.
Jim: I will do the good thing. However, if faced with an obstacle that can only be overcome with non-good methods, I will do so, even if reluctantly.

From a D&D alignment perspective, is Bob good? Is Jim good? Is Jim neutral (on the good/evil axis)?

Depends on which Philosopher you ask about our world. In the case of a particular Campaign it is wise to ask the DM because they made the Campaign's world.

From my own studies in this field I have seen more, but not all, Philosophers agree with Bob than agree with Jim. Additionally most Philosophers would consider both Bob and Jim to be moral, albeit imperfect in their practice.

In my campaign worlds I would judge both Bob and Jim to be Good but I would see Bob as being closer to moral perfection than Jim is. However through the course of a campaign I could see how often Bob avoids moral obligations due to a perceived by fictitious evil and how immoral Jim stoops in their pursuit of right action.

PS: IRL I often find myself debating whether I should act in a manner where I would always be Bob, or act in a manner where I would sometimes be Jim. Is it more important to do moral acts or to avoid immoral acts? So this is in no way a concluded question.

[Man_Over_Game]

After reading some of the responses, it'd probably could be summarized to:


No, a TTRPG doesn't need an alignment system, unless alignment has mechanical value.
Yes, DnD needs alignment, if only because DnD would become generic without it.


As a result, 5e's alignment system feels really generic and tacked on, because you HAVE to have it, and yet it isn't there for any reason any other TTRPG should have it.

Kinda like why we say "Bless You". It doesn't matter if it doesn't matter. You still do it, because it's wrong to do otherwise. We've gotten to the point where Alignment really doesn't matter, and yet, doing anything else would face a lot of backlash for being too different (See: 4th Edition DnD).

This is Traditionalism hard at work, folks.

[EggKookoo]

Jim is probably neutral. He's willing to veer off his moral compass a bit to get things done, but over all he wont. Remember a single act, doesn't make a character good or evil, or lawful or chaotic. It is behavior over time taken in aggregate that makes a character fall into one of the categories.

Right. I intended those behavior descriptions to imply their general or aggregate behavior. Almost all the time, Jim will do the good thing if available, but will do the non-good thing if necessary. Almost all the time, Bob will not do the non-good thing even if it means failure. Each of these guys probably deviate from this on occasion (Jim sticks to his "good" guns once in a while even if it means failure, and very rarely Bob can rationalize doing the non-good thing to succeed).

[RedMage125]

So what is it actually good for? If it can't definitely state someone's allegiance or moral standing, why do we even need it? It feels like every argument in defence of alignment advocates for watering it down until it doesn't mean much.
I feel like this has been answered multiple times in the thread. But I'll repeat it...again.

In D&D (and this includes 5e), alignment gives mechanical voice to classic tropes of fantasy in an objective manner that can be fairly quantified.

Even the second part of my statement that you quoted and responded to, you will note that I am of the belief that objective quanifiable mechanics protect players against fickle DM fiat. It's been said several times throughout the thread.

And I'm not realy in favor of "watering it down", but I also don't mind that the mechanics are less impactful than what 3.5e gave us. It allows people who don't like alignment to drop it with very little work. As opposed to 3.5e, which required extracting alignment mechanics' tentacles from numerous spell and ability mechanics.



The only reason those effects exist to begin with is the alignment system, so this argument is a little circular. Not to mention it's either random or invites metagaming. If the players don't know what they're getting into, the traps will affect them or not based on a completely unrelated decision they'd made about their character's alignment. If they do, the system can be gamed by deliberately avoiding making chaotic characters.

Have you been reading none of the thread so far? Like, literally none of it? Because the nature of alignment as it relates to Planar Cosmology has been a huge point, and even the mention of the Law vs Chaos war in D&D history (across multiple editions).
It absolutely is not circular, because it shows the connection between mortal alignment and those cosmic forces. The Vaati were completely opposed to the forces of Chaos, and thus the traps in their tombs were designed to dissuade creatures of Chaos. That's not circular is consistency and coherence. Having alignment mechanics that are concrete and objective just gives mechanical voice to that, in a manner not subject to DM fiat. Characters of Lawful alignment are individuals whose ideals, beliefs, and values are in line with the Vaati's values.
And by the time the players get to that tomb, they absolutely DO know what they're getting into, because they've already once raided the tomb of one of the Vaati's vassals (first module of the adventure path), and the portal to this tomb was closed off previously. They've done research on the Vaati (also caled the Wind Dukes, btw). One of their NPC allies was extremely interested in getting the portal working, and they followed him in once he did after he never came back to town. You're making assumptions based off of your own bias and choosing to try and frame this in the worst possible way. They've been thoroughly briefed on how the Wind Dukes were champions of Law, and so none of it was a surprise.
And as far as "gaming the system"...
...
...yes, if you let players read the adventure modules in advance they are going to be able to make characters optimal for bypassing certain challenges. This is an indictment of alignment mechanics how, exactly?

[Beleriphon]

I think game alignment are useful tools. As expressed earlier up threat nearly all games have them. In Mass Effect you're either a Renegade or a Paragon. There are a few Renegade options aren't outright jerk moves, and a few Paragon options that make Sheppard a bit of a douche. Its still an alignment system, and it has a purpose and place in the game to track what kind of character you want Sheppard to be, and that can affect the game. Hell, if affects Mass Effect 3 depending on what choose to do.

Star Wars has the Dark Side and the Light Side. Fallout 2 tracks your alignment overall, as well as how different settlements, and factions view your character. For example the character can be the devil incarnate in some towns, but new Messiah in others. And overall the game could consider the character kind of neutral in the grand scheme.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think game alignment are useful tools. As expressed earlier up threat nearly all games have them. In Mass Effect you're either a Renegade or a Paragon. There are a few Renegade options aren't outright jerk moves, and a few Paragon options that make Sheppard a bit of a douche. Its still an alignment system, and it has a purpose and place in the game to track what kind of character you want Sheppard to be, and that can affect the game. Hell, if affects Mass Effect 3 depending on what choose to do.

Star Wars has the Dark Side and the Light Side. Fallout 2 tracks your alignment overall, as well as how different settlements, and factions view your character. For example the character can be the devil incarnate in some towns, but new Messiah in others. And overall the game could consider the character kind of neutral in the grand scheme.

But those are used so that a preprogrammed system can determine the most personable outcome for you. DnD doesn't really do that. It's never done the whole "alignment change" thing very well in any edition, and any result is going to be perfectly crafted by your DM's opinion of YOU, not your Alignment.

Beyond the first session, I sincerely doubt most DMs really pay that much attention to alignment. I certainly don't.

[Beleriphon]

But those are used so that a preprogrammed system can determine the most personable outcome for you. DnD doesn't really do that. It's never done the whole "alignment change" thing very well in any edition, and any result is going to be perfectly crafted by your DM's opinion of YOU, not your Alignment.

Beyond the first session, I sincerely doubt most DMs really pay that much attention to alignment. I certainly don't.

Sure, but that's something hat should be generally tracked. I mean a character that has Lawful Good as alignment and then the player decides to attack every random NPC, probably not actually a LG character. I'd go with jerkface-asshat personally, but chaotic evil seems more appropriate.

To a degree alignment isn't directly relevant in many instances, but it can be a helpful tool to set expectations. As with much of the game, it only does as much as you care to do with it.

[Man_Over_Game]

Sure, but that's something hat should be generally tracked. I mean a character that has Lawful Good as alignment and then the player decides to attack every random NPC, probably not actually a LG character. I'd go with jerkface-asshat personally, but chaotic evil seems more appropriate.

To a degree alignment isn't directly relevant in many instances, but it can be a helpful tool to set expectations. As with much of the game, it only does as much as you care to do with it.

Does the DM really need to track your alignment? The game doesn't care. There are almost no mechanical changes based off of alignment. If you were to add some, you'd just be making stuff up.

Similarly, if I made scaling changes to your Monk powers based off of how often you use weapons, I'd be making that up.

But you're not using 5e or DnD to create those changes. You're using a DnD-created gauge, but the implementation is not part of the system. You're adding things that's a different game than DnD. Still DnD as a whole, but that's despite what you added to it, not because of it.

Put another way, if Alignment was an optional rule, and people omitted it by default, what would change?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Put another way, if Alignment was an optional rule, and people omitted it by default, what would change?

To a first approximation, nothing. The underlying structure of the cosmology isn't that important for many adventures, most enemies have valid reasons to be enemies beyond their alignment label, and people will still play the way they want. The most common effect of a DM banning evil aligned PCs is that people who were going to do that play "chaotic neutral" PCs with no change in behavior beyond a flimsy facade.

And the mechanical effects only come up if the DM forces them. They're either magic items (legendary or artifact, in fact) or one NPC race. And pixies' heart sense is trivial to change to ignore alignment and just read intentions directly.

[Tanarii]

So what is it actually good for? If it can't definitely state someone's allegiance or moral standing, why do we even need it? It feels like every argument in defence of alignment advocates for watering it down until it doesn't mean much.This is back to front. Making it definitive makes it useless. That's why it was often a problem in previous editions. Now that it's been made flexible, it's actually useful.

[Man_Over_Game]

This is back to front. Making it definitive makes it useless. That's why it was often a problem in previous editions. Now that it's been made flexible, it's actually useful.

I mean, I'd still say it's definitive. You can't be some fluid form bouncing between Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good. Otherwise, there's not really any reason to define what you are.

5e doesn't have any use for those definitions, so it's still useless, in just a different way.

What 5e doesn't do is make the alignment restrictive. You can be a Paladin regardless of alignment. It was a good change, but then it begs the question: What DOES alignment do now?

Or are things like Oaths, Patrons and Deities the new alignments? Because I could definitely support that. "I'm not Lawful Good. I'm a Cleric of Pelor, and I just simply do what's worthy of my Lord's grace".

Make alignments build-specific. That way, between your Race, your Class, your Subclass, and your Background, your personality is basically already fairly well defined, as both a estimation tool (He's a Devotion Paladin, of course he's a good guy!") and as a restrictive one ("You were raised a merchant; you probably wouldn't know barbarian hunting techniques").

[Tanarii]

I mean the behavior is typical, not constant. That allows it to interface with other personality traits that might take precedence, not be an always on one dimensional character.

I mean that the typical behaviors are somewhat broad, and written in a way to be a guideline. For pretty much the same reason.

Instead of a straight jacket, alignments, in combination with personality traits, are inspiration.

[Man_Over_Game]

I mean the behavior is typical, not constant. That allows it to interface with other personality traits that might take precedence, not be an always on one dimensional character.

I mean that the typical behaviors are somewhat broad, and written in a way to be a guideline. For pretty much the same reason.

Instead of a straight jacket, alignments, in combination with personality traits, are inspiration.

But that could also be summarized as "things are easier now that alignment doesn't matter".

In which case, "alignment doesn't matter".

[Brookshw]

Put another way, if Alignment was an optional rule, and people omitted it by default, what would change?

Okay, let's run with that for a moment. What plane would you go to when you die without some kind of alignment system? How would you deal with divine servants (clerics etc)?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Okay, let's run with that for a moment. What plane would you go to when you die without some kind of alignment system? How would you deal with divine servants (clerics etc)?

The one associated with your deity, or you could have a generalized afterlife for those who don't fit with one particular god/devil/demon by their actions. You know, like Eberron does. Divine servants gain favor by associating with their god's agenda & beliefs. A servant of Pelor isn't going to do the things that Torm wants, despite both being Lawful Good. Alignment is absolutely not enough (or needed, in fact) for those purposes?

[Tanarii]

But that could also be summarized as "things are easier now that alignment doesn't matter".
The blinders are strong with this one.

It helps create a multidimensional character personality. If that doesn't matter to you, more power to you.

[Max_Killjoy]

It helps create a multidimensional character personality.


One of nine largely arbitrary team jersey colors doesn't really do much to create a "multidimensional personality".

A character with a multidimensional personality has one without an alignment. A character without a multidimensional personality doesn't get meaningfully closer to one with an alignment.

[Naanomi]

Does the DM really need to track your alignment? The game doesn't care. There are almost no mechanical changes based off of alignment. If you were to add some, you'd just be making stuff up.
Very few such effects, and most on monsters and places not PCs; but not none

The one I’ve actually used in game is my social Warlock using their Sprite pet to read people’s alignment to ‘get a feel’ for them before interacting directly

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516989-When-Alignment-Matters-Mechanically

[GreyBlack]

Bob: I will do the good thing. When faced with an obstacle, I would rather fail at overcoming it than to overcome it using non-good methods.
Jim: I will do the good thing. However, if faced with an obstacle that can only be overcome with non-good methods, I will do so, even if reluctantly.

From a D&D alignment perspective, is Bob good? Is Jim good? Is Jim neutral (on the good/evil axis)?

Are we talking good or Good? Because cosmological Good is very different from personal goods.

[RedMage125]

To a first approximation, nothing. The underlying structure of the cosmology isn't that important for many adventures, most enemies have valid reasons to be enemies beyond their alignment label, and people will still play the way they want. The most common effect of a DM banning evil aligned PCs is that people who were going to do that play "chaotic neutral" PCs with no change in behavior beyond a flimsy facade.

The bolded section is not a problem with alignment and never has been. This is a problem with a player who wants an excuse to be a jerkbag.


I mean, I'd still say it's definitive. You can't be some fluid form bouncing between Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good. Otherwise, there's not really any reason to define what you are.
See, that's funny, because I'm pro- alignment, and I often say that those two alignments are a lot more similar than people give them credit for. One cares more for what is right, the other for what is just (or fair, if your prefer). And this is speaking as a person who, if I were in a world with objective alignment forces, would probably be Lawful Neutral.


The one associated with your deity, or you could have a generalized afterlife for those who don't fit with one particular god/devil/demon by their actions. You know, like Eberron does.
But that's changing the cosmology. I believe his question was predicated on the assumption that one could just remove alignment without any other significant changes to the assumed setting (which includes the planes). Don't get me wrong, I love me some Eberron, but a lot of what made it so great was the things that were so different.


Divine servants gain favor by associating with their god's agenda & beliefs. A servant of Pelor isn't going to do the things that Torm wants, despite both being Lawful Good. Alignment is absolutely not enough (or needed, in fact) for those purposes?
Minor nitpick, Pelor is not Lawful, he is Neutral Good unless you are referring to the Burning Hate ;)

One of nine largely arbitrary team jersey colors doesn't really do much to create a "multidimensional personality".

A character with a multidimensional personality has one without an alignment. A character without a multidimensional personality doesn't get meaningfully closer to one with an alignment.

Likewise, a character with a multdimensional personality has one with alignment. Alignment does not, in any way, preclude multidimensional personality or nuance in morality and ethics of individuals. To claim otherwise is either an intentional Straw Man or a blatant lie.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1. The bolded section is not a problem with alignment and never has been. This is a problem with a player who wants an excuse to be a jerkbag.

2. But that's changing the cosmology. I believe his question was predicated on the assumption that one could just remove alignment without any other significant changes to the assumed setting (which includes the planes). Don't get me wrong, I love me some Eberron, but a lot of what made it so great was the things that were so different.

3. Minor nitpick, Pelor is not Lawful, he is Neutral Good unless you are referring to the Burning Hate ;)


1. Sure, but it also shows that alignment doesn't do what it was originally intended to do--solve interpersonal problems. So having it or not changes (to a first approximation) nothing.
2. Ok, then send all those not claimed by a god, demon, or devil to the death god's place. That's the role of those gods in mythology, so it's a minimal change.
3. Ok, then substitute for any other LG god. Or substitute Torm for any other NG god. The point remains--alignment isn't enough to know anything of substance about the character, at least not beyond the other role-play elements.

I use alignment for one purpose. As a short-hand note to myself about minor NPCs or very general trends. Whenever I flesh out the person more (because they're important), the alignment either changes or gets ignored.

[Witty Username]

One of nine largely arbitrary team jersey colors doesn't really do much to create a "multidimensional personality".

A character with a multidimensional personality has one without an alignment. A character without a multidimensional personality doesn't get meaningfully closer to one with an alignment.

this is why we have favorite Jersy colors, favorite players, favorite positions and favorite plays and a Hogwarts house.:smallcool:

[EggKookoo]

Are we talking good or Good? Because cosmological Good is very different from personal goods.

Whichever version is relevant to the discussion of alignment in D&D.

[GreyBlack]

The one associated with your deity, or you could have a generalized afterlife for those who don't fit with one particular god/devil/demon by their actions. You know, like Eberron does. Divine servants gain favor by associating with their god's agenda & beliefs. A servant of Pelor isn't going to do the things that Torm wants, despite both being Lawful Good. Alignment is absolutely not enough (or needed, in fact) for those purposes?

Obviously a Cleric of Pelor wouldn't go to the same plane as that of Torm. Pelor isn't Lawful Good; he's Neutral Evil.

[GreyBlack]

Whichever version is relevant to the discussion of alignment in D&D.

Yeah... people are kinda talking past each other by equating the two. Something can be good for the character acting while not being Good, so by saying that a character will always try to do something good, that goes more into a Nietzschean philosophy where something is only good if the character wills it to be; it assumes a lack of universal Good and Evil, which definitively exist in basic D&D. Hence the need for clarification; is the character in your example using the Will to Power definition or the cosmological Good and Evil?

[Max_Killjoy]

Likewise, a character with a multdimensional personality has one with alignment. Alignment does not, in any way, preclude multidimensional personality or nuance in morality and ethics of individuals. To claim otherwise is either an intentional Straw Man or a blatant lie.


OK, but I don't recall claiming that alignment precludes a multidimensional personality. It's pretty much unrelated either way.

It certainly makes nuance in morality and ethics more difficult, given that it puts up a facade of simplified Black and White morality. (And pay no attention to the Blue and Monkey morality lurking behind that facade.)



Yeah... people are kinda talking past each other by equating the two. Something can be good for the character acting while not being Good, so by saying that a character will always try to do something good, that goes more into a Nietzschean philosophy where something is only good if the character wills it to be; it assumes a lack of universal Good and Evil, which definitively exist in basic D&D. Hence the need for clarification; is the character in your example using the Will to Power definition or the cosmological Good and Evil?

IMO, D&D Alignment as it stretches back across previous editions is simply a case of using the same word to mean two different and largely unrelated things. There's Good, the alignment and "cosmic force", and then there's good, the actual moral quality. But for Good (the former), you could just as easily slide in another word, such as Purple, or Monkey, or Dishwater, or Up, or Counterclockwise, or... Good may sometimes look like good, but eventually most characters who are trying to be good will run into situations where they have to choose between what's good and what's Good.

[Brookshw]

But that's changing the cosmology. I believe his question was predicated on the assumption that one could just remove alignment without any other significant changes to the assumed setting (which includes the planes). Don't get me wrong, I love me some Eberron, but a lot of what made it so great was the things that were so different.
That's okay. Changing the cosmology to accommodate an alignment-less game seems like a fine starting point.



The one associated with your deity, or you could have a generalized afterlife for those who don't fit with one particular god/devil/demon by their actions. You know, like Eberron does.
Why are dieties associated with a plane? Do they each have their own private plane? Are dieties grouped together somehow within a plane, and if so, how do we group them? What should we do with exemplar races? Do they keep their planes? Why? What should this new cosmology look like and how should creatures be allocated across it?


Divine servants gain favor by associating with their god's agenda & beliefs. A servant of Pelor isn't going to do the things that Torm wants, despite both being Lawful Good. Alignment is absolutely not enough (or needed, in fact) for those purposes?
I'm not sure why you suggest that two gods with overlapping dispositions wouldn't, at least at times, want the same thing. That aside, is there no code of conduct that would inform to a divine servant how to pursue the agenda's of particular gods? For example, Torm (depending on your edition) is a god of loyalty, justice, protection, righteous fury, etc. In an alignment-less system can a divine servant of Torm serve cruel and harsh masters faithfully, carry out draconic laws and viciously punish the breakers of those laws, and still be a follower of Torm? How do you think this type of thing should be handled in an alignment-less system?