| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1ExpendableAgentFeb 19, 2015 10:22:45 | There's was a thread recently that got derailed a bit by a dicussion about the concept of alignment, particularly in regards to Chaotic Neutral. I am starting a new campaign and the thread got me thinking how viable it would be to not have the players designate an alignment for their characters.
My group includes two veteran players and two rookies. My question is, how do you got about not having an alignment to follow? Additionally, has anyone had any success not having alignment in their game?
On one hand, it makes sense to not have an alignment. Good and Evil, and Chaotic and Lawful are contextual and a matter of perspective. One person's "evil" act may be another's "good". Or a Dragonborn character might diligently respect and follow the traditions of their clan to the letter, but pay no heed to the laws governing another kingdom. Does that make them lawful, neutral, or chaotic?
Also, no one thinks of themselves as "evil" do they? Even history's greatest villains probably thought they were good guys or at least felt what they were doing was for some sort of misguided greater good. I guess my point is alignment is an abstract concpet that is hard to apply to the real world, so why try to impose it on characters (PC or NPC)?
On the other hand I could see many players needing that moral compass. What better way to say your character likes to help people, but doesn't follow the rules than to write down Chaotic Good. Also, would the lack of a concrete alignment give players licence to do whatever they want (essentially being a Chaotic Neutral crazy)?
Anyway, as I wrote this I sort of realized it's probably just easier to stick with having alignments... |
| #2iserithFeb 19, 2015 10:34:34 | Since the mechanics of D&D 5e don't really interact with alignment (with some exceptions like detect evil and good or some class features), you can leave alignment off people's sheets and never notice it's gone.
Alignment is not a straitjacket that dictates how your character must act. It's just a reflection of what kinds of things your character has done. It tracks where you fall in the great battle between Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos which are objective forces in the D&D multiverse. If you want people to act as the alignments they have chosen, consider awarding Inspiration when they do. This way, they'll tend to be happy if their alignment changes to reflect how they act - they'll get more Inspiration that way. Do not use alignment change as a form of punishment.
When interpreting it, it's important to cleave to RAW as closely as possible to avoid arguments. Lawful good means this and neutral evil means that (see page 34, Basic Rules). It is not relative or subjective. It is objective in the D&D multiverse. |
| #3NoctaemFeb 19, 2015 10:35:41 | Not having alignment be a relevant part of the game is as simple as not having it be part of the game. It's not complicated at all. You just don't use alignment.
It might be easier for you to play alignment because you *need* "a moral compass" as you said (lol) to restrict and reign in your actions with your character. That's like someone saying they need laws to stop them from robbing a store. If the laws weren't there, they would rob it. That's more telling of the psychology of the person speaking than the laws or anything else within that context. So if you actually NEED alignment to stop you from robbing an NPC or going around killing them, you have much bigger problems than just alignment imo. |
| #4feartheminotaurFeb 19, 2015 11:10:38 | I always approach alignment as "I'm generally Lawful Good", not "I'm always Lawful Good". Lancelot was a LG Paladin, but...there was that whole adultery thing. Darth Vader was LE...but had a soft spot for his kids. Real people might attach a label to their general, or most commonly held, beliefs and actions, but few adhere to it as strict as is generally interpreted in DnD (pro-family politicians that are divorced; Occupy activists with million dollar trust funds...). People are just not as literal as the DnD alignment system presupposes.
I am doing a campaign for my son and some friends of his in the neighborhood. They aren't all my kids so I'm not going to offer any scenarios that question, or even consider, morality,; I've simply left alignment out of it. We've been playing for five or six months now and haven't had a single mechanical issue. |
| #5ClutchboneFeb 19, 2015 11:10:50 | Yeah, I never bother with alignment when playing my characters.
For instance my last PC had no problems at all with assassinations, executions, "enhanced interrogation techniques," but yet would go the extra mile to make sure that children were kept safe. Sure you could say he was "evil BUT had good tendencies", but why even bother? Just play the character.
Another character I played would never break a contract or a promise and hated those who did (Lawful, right?), but he didn't care a fig for the legal system, gov't, and thought hierarchical structures in general were stupid (oh, now we're Chaotic?).
Some people might like the sense of direction that the alignment system brings. Whatever, more power to them. Me, I like to let my either my id or super-ego run loose (in a safe, fantastical setting) and see where that leads. |
| #6NevvurFeb 19, 2015 11:41:06 |
|
| #7Devils-AdvocateFeb 19, 2015 11:43:58 | They're both valid options that say different things about the game universe. If you're playing in a setting with a nuanced perspective on morality, where good, evil, order, and chaos are a matter of perspective, you probably should not use the 9 alignment system. It's just to rigid to work within a morally relativistic setting. On the other hand, if you want to tell a mythical fantasy story of noble heroes chosen by the gods to defeat the forces of evil, alignment is a great tool for describing the interactions between those forces. What alignment does not do well is punish players for misbehavior. If you're only using alignment to keep players "in check", don't. Just talk to them, out of character, explain why their actions are problematic, and ask them to stop. If theu protest "I'm just doing what my character would do", point out that their character may be a defective adventurer, and they should consider making characters that would do the kinds of things the protagonists of what ever genre you are emulating would do. |
| #8AaronOfBarbariaFeb 19, 2015 12:03:56 | Throw alignment out - the worst thing that could happen is that you won't even notice its absence.
I've had experiences running the gamut over my years as a DM, and have noticed only one consistency: people can only misunderstand and misuse alignment when they have one written on their sheet.
Everything from "lawful stupid" to "...but I'm evil" on the bad behavior related to alignment spectrum is either avoided simply by not writing down an alignment, or changes from an argument in which one side is trying to convince the other that alignment is not so rigid as to mandate that exact behavior while the other side is saying that it is to something more akin to "You are being a jerk, stop being a jerk," on one side and "Oh, okay, sorry." on the other because there is no misunderstood text to cling to as evidence you aren't being a jerk.
Not that everyone using alignment is going to misunderstand or misuse it, because that isn't the case - I've used alignment successfully more often than not, so I know that it can be used just fine and not cause any problems. |
| #9sirkaikillah11Feb 19, 2015 12:57:25 | I do both in my campaign. I let players decide on an alignment or choose to be unalighned. Alignment in our campaign is maluable and easy to change. Players may choose an alignment for a pc, then through play the alignment changes. I'm also open to changing personality traits, bonds and flaws. through ones life these things change, so it should be natural for the lives of our fictional pcs. I have found that alighnment becomes a porblem if you use it as a way to restrict behavoir. For our group alignment is a suggetion, when in doubt at how a pc will react, see alignment. I like to award inspiration when players do something that higlihgts thier pc's alignment. So if you choose to be unaligned, there is one less thing im looking for to award inspiration. But there are many other things that can be done to earn inspiration. In our group of 9 only one person chose to be unalighned, which actually works well with his play style.
PS In real life Ive been in some dark places with some really bad people. In those circles thier are people who embrace evil and see themselves as evil. So Im one that doesn't believe all villians think they are doing good. There are real villians out there that know they are doing evil and embrace it. |
| #10Goon-for-HireFeb 19, 2015 13:12:33 |
|
| (Reply to #10)Nevvur |
|
| #12Beldak_SerpenthelmFeb 19, 2015 14:35:33 | I've heard of people choosing to use Class, Race, Level, Feat, Skill, and Alignment mechanics in a way that causes problems at the table. I've also seen people use choose to use those mechanics in a way that does not cause a problem.
GMs and players are the ones who decide how to apply mechanics, and as such "mechanical problems" are not normally the point. |
| #13Devils-AdvocateFeb 19, 2015 14:53:00 |
|
| #14NevvurFeb 19, 2015 15:31:53 | Correction, that image was the Color Pie developed by WotC for M:TG, not something inspired by M:TG and created by a third party. The link goes to an in depth description of the colors' meanings. The podcasters were just talking about how to use it for table top RPGs, so I don't think you'll find any mechanical write ups on it.
|
| #15Devils-AdvocateFeb 19, 2015 16:15:35 | I've always wanted to run a D&D game set in the Magic multiverse. If I ever do, I am definitely using colors in place of alignment. |
| #16BarkyFeb 19, 2015 16:56:13 | My game doesn't focus on alignment.
I have a great group of players, none of them want to meta-play, and none of them want to disrupt the game. I don't have any interest to do anything with alignment either, so I'm not enforcing any alignment rules.
It's great!
I'm really of the opinion that the personality systems (backgrounds, bonds, flaws, ideals) actually replaces alignment. Alignment feels like a totally pointless construct now. I'm convinced it's actually more disruptive than enhancing.
Side note: I actually think playing up alignments was actually a flaw in my prior attempts at DMing, which I blog about here: http://community.wizards.com/content/blog/4180736 |
| (Reply to #13)Goon-for-Hire |
|
| #18Greenstone.WalkerFeb 19, 2015 17:58:11 | I use alignment as a two-word phrase to describe the type of person a character has been in the past and the type of person the character aspires to be in the future.
Whether or not they actually achieve their aspiration is part of the story we are telling at the table.
I also use it as part of a character's reputation. |
| #19GwaithadorFeb 19, 2015 18:05:18 | Think of all the roleplaying games where alignment doesn't exist. Really, not a problem at all. Still, I've always found alignment part of D&D so I've never abandoned it, and genuinely enjoy it as an element of the game. I disagree, in the context of the typical D&D game world, that there's moral relativism as we'd understand it in our own reality. Good,Evil, Law and Chaos, have very real consequences in the D&D multiverse. There's really nothing "good" about Tharizdun or Orcus, and the things those who serve beings like that do, really are evil, it's not a matter of perspective. Evil in D&D isn't meant to be theoretical or relative; it's there, it's in your face (or worse, subtley working in the world).
I've heard a lot about the "Lawful Stupid" problem, but I haven't seen that as problem since I was 14 years old, and that was a long time ago. Alignment is a roleplaying tool, it's a good foundation for establishing a character's general outlook and ethic, but the characters are still playing human or human like beings, so, they're going to be imperfect. The problem I've encountered is DMs sen the bar extremely high for Lawful Good characters, especially Paladins but every other alignment is allowed deviations.
BTW, Goon-for-Hire, Great conversion for the Temple of Elemental Evil.
. |
| #20Goon-for-HireFeb 19, 2015 18:12:49 |
|
| #21IllithidbixFeb 19, 2015 18:50:45 | The worth and usefulness of Alignment is an extremely old debate that still provokes heated responses. In fact I put it down as the most controversial part of D&D. |
| #22TheNovaLordFeb 19, 2015 23:55:53 | Yeah, not needed. The background stuff sort of gives a moral compass so leave defined alignments to those interfering otherworlders and the unlife |
| #23grendel111111Feb 20, 2015 5:20:39 | For me the main use of alignment is a quick reference point for monsters and quick NPC's (One's that are likely to only appear in a surface level without much depth). I don't force players to choose alignments (but if it helps them then they can go for it). |
| #24Beldak_SerpenthelmFeb 20, 2015 6:41:13 |
|
| #25BRJNFeb 20, 2015 19:46:08 | There are some monsters whose Alignment is part of their essential nature (ex: demons). IIRC, they are all Outsiders.
PCs should be encouraged to play non-Evil characters, because so much Evil is also Selfish - and that behavior is anathema to a group-oriented game.
As noted above, 5e does not require Alignment for your characters to function; even Paladins can now be whatever alignment they want. My "warlord" Paladin of Civilization wanders between NG and LN. I can easily see a Paladin of the Sith (he fights chaos by imposing order under his own will).
|
| #26ZaxFahrenheit200Feb 23, 2015 12:53:51 | I feel like alignment is a lot more clearly defined in this edition. CN vs CE - to me the difference is, are you inclined to violence, or not? There's probably a bigger difference between CN and CG than CE (striving for freedom, liberation, etc.) I'm putting alignments back in my game for the first time in an entire edition. It may be mainly because my party is all newbies or kids, but who knows. I want to test it out. I think that creating your character's personality traits, flaws/ideals/bonds first, and then doing alignment is probably a better way of fleshing your character out than picking your alignment first. In the latter instance, you're inclined to choose/create rp fluff for your character based off alignment, but in the former instance, you let the alignment reflect the choices you made of more free will. One of my PCs is a barbarian who after some discussion, chose TN as his alignment...but just barely - his p. traits, bonds and ideals all lead him bit by bit to TN, but his flaw is heavily CN.
FWIW, I still treat the deities the way I used to treat alignment: left off the character sheet. I also paid no attention to the deities' alignments as much as I did their domains. Historically speaking, ordinary ancient Greeks might have given an offering to Poseidon if they were about to take a journey by ship, or Ares if they were about to head off to war. Had nothing to do with the way the god was perceived or the other stories surrounding it. That's the way I advise my PCs observe the gods too. Only exception made is for clerics and paladins, who HAVE to choose a god/dess.
In the end though, whatever works best for you as a DM is the way to handle it. |
| #27VahnyuFeb 25, 2015 4:07:51 |
|
| (Reply to #27)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #29VahnyuFeb 25, 2015 14:13:18 |
|
| #30AaronOfBarbariaFeb 25, 2015 15:33:07 | Vahnyu, you and I use the word "excuse" differently. |
| (Reply to #28)OoftaMeg |
|
| #32Mephi1234Feb 25, 2015 16:08:05 | I dont' care about alignment on my characters or my players' characters simpily because, in my experience, they never match up. And, by match up, I mean what the GM thinks alignment is versus what the player does.
Good, Law, Chaos, Evil are universal forces. So, until a player aligns with one of those forces, I assume true neutral. Once they do, then it swaps. Its a concious decision by following a certain god, joining a faction (ala Planescape), things like that. |
| #33PsikerlordFeb 26, 2015 1:25:14 | I use alignment for NPCs/monsters, and find it a useful tool in that regard.
I've actually forgotten about alignment for PCs. As other posters have suggested, backgrounds, bonds, traits etc are more important I think. Historically alignment was important to certain magic items and spells and so on, but not really anymore. I think you can just take it out no problems.
Caveat: I do include in my intro doc a "no evil PCs!" rule for character creation. As DM I get to play the evil guys! |
| #34ChrisTheSFeb 26, 2015 8:12:06 | If I were playing Planescape (which I may well be doing in the near future) I would use alignment, because the way the 2e setting book described it was the first (and only) time it ever made sense to me in actual game-affecting terms. Otherwise, I tend to replace 'alignment' with 'allegiance' (as seen in d20 Modern), which is a lot more versatile and more useful for dragging a wayward PC back to the straight-and-narrow (the paladin's innate sense of law and goodness can be flawed and open to interpretation, but the dictates of her order's grandmaster are a little more concrete). |
| #35Beldak_SerpenthelmFeb 26, 2015 8:23:36 | [quote]Caveat: I do include in my intro doc a "no evil PCs!" rule for character creation.[/quote] The kind of players who choose to use Evil characters in a way that disrupts the game are the kind of players who would also choose to use Good/Neutral characters in a way that disrupts the game. Do you have a rule against Good/Neutral characters? |
| #36Devils-AdvocateFeb 26, 2015 11:26:12 |
|
| (Reply to #35)OoftaMeg |
|
| (Reply to #36)OoftaMeg |
|
| (Reply to #38)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| (Reply to #39)OoftaMeg |
|
| #41Greenstone.WalkerFeb 26, 2015 15:51:44 | I feel that the difference between roll-playing and role-playing is the "playing a character" bit. Without the character, your PC is just a collection of skills, no different from a chess piece or a wargaming token.
So how do you know what the content of your PC's character is?
You say things like "Peregrine has a strict moral code. His word is his bond - he never breaks promises. He tries to be nice to people but he won't go out of his way to do so. If it comes down to a choice between breaking a promise and hurting someone, he's going to keep his promise, because he believes breaking a promise is the worst thing anyone can do".
Of you could just say "lawful neutral".
This illustrates what I use alignment for — it is a two word summary of the content of their character.
Like any two-word summary, there is a lot of variance. Two "lawful neutral" characters could be somewhat different in behaviour but both still called "lawful neutral".
Alignment It can also be used to indicate the character a PC aspires to have. "Peregrine aspires to be a lawful neutral person but often he backslides into lawful evil."
Can a person operate outside their normal character? Of course. All people sometimes act uncharacteristically. What is the consequence of this? Internal conflict (doubt, angst, suffering) and possibly external conflict ("Wulfram, you're not yourself recently, what's up?" ) — something that is a deep source of roleplaying.
If you don't use alignment then how would you know if your PC is acting uncharacteristically? How would the GM decide how NPCs react to the PCs behaviour if no-one has defined what the PC's past behaviour actually is? |
| #42cbwjmFeb 26, 2015 16:12:11 | I know the MtG colour wheel was mentioned early on in the thread but I do actually kind of like that as a way of describing your PCs alignment. Not necessarily the colours but the descriptors. Instead of saying Lawful Evil you can pick descriptors from the colour wheel as a means of describing your PCs general personality. |
| #43VahnyuFeb 26, 2015 16:52:55 |
|
| #44Beldak_SerpenthelmFeb 26, 2015 19:24:11 |
|