Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Kennethray Oct 13, 2014 8:41:49	So I have had a couple of issues with alignments in past games and had wanted to get away from using them. With the new background, traits and flaws of 5E I think it is time for me to live my dream. No longer shall I hear a PC say, my/your charc would not do that cause he is LG/CE/N or whatnot.  Time to play the game and let my PCs do what their charc would do. Spells like detect good/evil work on creature types instead of their listed alignment. No restrictions like having to be LG to be a palladin.  This seems like the perfect time to get rid of the dreaded alignment. Of course there will still be loss of powers if you stray into evil acts, and some items will not work for the PCs if they are required to be evil and play good, or the reverse. And if a PC is wondering what their charc would do, they can just look at their background, traits and flaws.  I just want to make sure im not over looking something? Is there anything in 5E the requires alignments?   Thanks for any help.   K-Ray
#2 Plaguescarred1 Oct 13, 2014 9:04:53	Kennethray wrote:
#3 Ansbach Oct 13, 2014 8:50:17	We stopped using alignments years ago and most RPGs don't use them anyway.  I have not seen anything in 5E that would make this difficult.
#4 iserith Oct 13, 2014 9:50:37	If you're going to use alignment, use it as a way for players to establish traits and reward them when they play to it in a way that doesn't disrupt game play. If the LG paladin's player did "the right thing as expected by society" (see page 34 of the Basic Rules for alignment descriptions) in a scene in a way that made the game more enjoyable, award the player with Inspiration. If the CN barbarian "follows their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else" in a way that was fun and helped create a memorable story, throw some Inspiration their way.   Otherwise, it has little impact on game play mechanically and could be ignored.
#5 menakles Oct 13, 2014 10:06:10	Ansbach wrote:
#6 Timborama Oct 13, 2014 10:23:32	Alignment in 5th has even less mechanical usage than it did in 4E.   It's (basically) just fluff and an extention of background. Even in 3.x I really liked alignment as an RP concept, but found it silly for mechanical purposes (Bards can ONLY be chaotic? Lame!). So Alignment has never really bothered me, if only for the fact PCs have never tried to abuse any system mechanic that revolved around it.   But yes, as I mentioned, there are very VERY few things that are specifically designed around alignment from a numbers standpoint. It mostly is just there as decoration (much like an ideal, flaw, or bond).
#7 Asperdn Oct 13, 2014 10:38:35	I think that alignment is an excellent tool for new inexperienced players it gives them a general benchmark for behavior. It is also critical for judging religious characters with vows role play or raw to be sure they are for filling their oaths. Short answer is for most players it can be ignored but for some players it’s a useful tool
#8 abs1nth Oct 13, 2014 12:08:49	Alignment really feels like a legacy feature, kept just for the players that like it but not really supported or necessary for the game. Personality traits and background seem like 5e's ways of handling RP. Alignment feels to me like this extraneous thing that's stacked on top of that. This became especially apparent when you see how little explanation and space is given to it in the PHB (p. 122).
(Reply to #8) Timborama	abs1nth wrote:
#10 Huntsman57 Oct 14, 2014 11:21:50	Alignments are good excuses for bad roleplaying.
#11 vanquish3000 Oct 14, 2014 13:41:13	I do not give my NPCs backgrounds, traits and flaws; so I use Alignment to pick a DC for CHA rolls when players ask them for help, information, etc. Also, to help new players make a hard character decision; I have a What Would Alignment Do (WWAD) system. If the player is Lawful Good, I would say what would Batman do? Here is my list of personalities that I match with the Alignments. Most of my players know who these people are. There are some DMs that are hard on paladins and clerics that break Alignment.   Lawful Good - Batman Neutral Good - Spider-Man Chaotic Good - Robin Hood Lawful Neutral - James Bond Neutral - Han Solo Chaotic Neutral - Captain Jack Sparrow Lawful Evil - Magneto Neutral Evil - Mystique Chaotic Evil – Riddick
#12 Beldak_Serpenthelm Oct 14, 2014 14:57:59	Huntsman57 wrote:
(Reply to #11) Kavrek	vanquish3000 wrote:
#14 Nevvur Oct 14, 2014 18:04:57	Funnily, the spells Detect and Protection from Evil/Good refer only to creature types, not alignments. A good indication of how 5e treats the mechanics of the alignment trait, though the spell names were probably used more for their legacies than their actual functions.
#15 Theros Oct 15, 2014 6:16:10	abs1nth wrote:
(Reply to #15) Timborama	Theros wrote:
#17 Mechatarrasque Oct 15, 2014 7:41:12	For all the alleged (and greatly exaggerated) confusion about alignment, I doubt that a single person wandering the forums who didn't know what the title meant.  The nine-picture alignment chart is a marketing thing now--non-role playing people identify it with D&D and fantasy roleplaying, and since the only way to grow roleplaying is to convince non-roleplayers to become roleplayers and that means having things that they expect to be here actually be here (like dice and LOTR races).  I think WotC did the right thing divorcing alignment from mechanics (at least until a 5e version of Planescape comes out), but anyone who thinks that 6e or even 12e will be alignment-free is fooling themselves.
#18 OoftaMeg Oct 15, 2014 7:47:46	I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I like alignment, and how they implemented it in 5.  Unlike 3.5 that got carried away with it and 4 that kind of f'ed up the concept, they seem to have struck the right balance.  Don't like it?  Ignore it, it doesn't have any real game impact anyway.   I like alignment because it gives me one more broad brush quick description of how someone is going to view the world.  It's been a long time since Psych 101, but one concept I do remember is that everyone views the world through a certain perspective.  The world we perceive is shaped by our preconceptions of how the world works.  So the way a LG creature is going to perceive the exact same event as a CE creature is going to be completely different.   Don't get me wrong, alignment alone does not normally dictate behavior, and is frequently only a starting point for me to get a handle on motivation but it is one of many tools I use.   A LE NPC may break an oath because he doesn't consider an oath with infidels to be binding while a CE NPC may keep an oath because of a personal code of honor that she doesn't impose on anyone else.  But generally speaking?  The LE NPC is more likely to keep their word while the CE NPC will shrug and say "I lied".     It may be less nuanced and a bit cartoonish but for the most part I feel like it leads to better story telling.
#19 Kennethray Oct 15, 2014 10:30:55	I do plan on keeping with alignment for my NPC's whom I dont have backgrounds, traits, flaws for all. I understand them and even like it as a quick, what would this NPC do type of thing. What I dislike is the several arguments between players about what a charc would or would not do based off of the alignments. I want to keep the feel for the game world i build some what stable, so I was just asking if there was anything that might throw off me getting rid of PC alignment. Do I understand each point of view. My main goal is to get some of my layzer players to flesh out the charcs more and stop using alignment as a cruch or a basies of an argument.   K-Ray
#20 Timborama Oct 15, 2014 12:08:54	If you take away the alignment of a player who is a bad (or annoying) Roleplayer, he's still gonna be a bad/annoying Roleplayer. Just without an alignment on his sheet.   PCs will still try to steal from the party, kill NPCs secretly, charge head-first into a dragon's lair, lie needlessly, stuff like that. You can take the Chaotic Stupid and Lawful Stupid away from the Character Sheet, but you can't take the Chaotic/Lawful Stupid away from the Player...   If their only argument is alingment, sure, that's annoying. Take that away, they still come back to the old saying we all LOVE to hear: "It's what my CHARACTER would do!"   Now, what this may potentially do is to stop others (or the DM) from telling someone ELSE how to play their character based on alignment. Which is fair, because that other person isn't playing that character!   My suggestion, maybe try to get people to focus on background more. Though flaws, bonds, and ideals offer plenty of "hurr durr Imma be a derp!" scenarios with their blurbs, maybe you'll have better luck with this, since it introduces a different element from alignment, since they've beaten that horse to death already?