# One D&d and alignment: new approach



## aia_2 (Aug 31, 2022)

I read some time ago a post (likely not here, but honestly i do not remember where it was!) where it was explained that with one d&d the alignment will be replaced by a new feature with a completely different mechanics (devotion iirc).

Is this the end of one of the most underrated and unusued features in D&D? 

Don't you think that alignment has never been fully deployed in the game for its potential? ...and now it appears that the got rid of... It is like having a Ferrari and use that car to go to buy milk and newspapers only (and then get back to home). After long time you use a Ferrari in this way you find it useless and you sell it...


----------



## Mecheon (Aug 31, 2022)

aia_2 said:


> Is this the end of one of the most underrated and unusued features in D&D?



I really don't want to start an alignment fight immediately, but, this is not how I'd describe alignment at all.

In my experience, from my NWN PW background, its always been somewhere between "DM decides they don't like how you've been RPing and screws your character over if you're one of the Required Alignment Classes" to "Player becomes obnoxious and uses their alignment as an excuse for being obnoxious"


----------



## Horwath (Aug 31, 2022)

on my last two characters I didn't even write down alignment.

it's that useful in our games.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Aug 31, 2022)

aia_2 said:


> I read some time ago a post (likely not here, but honestly i do not remember where it was!) where it was explained that with one d&d the alignment will be replaced by a new feature with a completely different mechanics (devotion iirc).
> 
> Is this the end of one of the most underrated and unusued features in D&D?
> 
> Don't you think that alignment has never been fully deployed in the game for its potential? ...and now it appears that the got rid of... It is like having a Ferrari and use that car to go to buy milk and newspapers only (and then get back to home). After long time you use a Ferrari in this way you find it useless and you sell it...



Alignment is still used, it's not going away.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 31, 2022)

aia_2 said:


> I read some time ago a post (likely not here, but honestly i do not remember where it was!) where it was explained that with one d&d the alignment will be replaced by a new feature with a completely different mechanics (devotion iirc).



Whoever wrote that post was either confused or lying. The playtest packet is freely available and not very long at all, I recommend reading its contents yourself if you want to discuss them. You’ll find that they contain nothing at all about alignment. Devotion is a completely different mechanic that appears in (alongside alignment) in the 5e book _Mythic Odyssey of Theros_.


----------



## Branduil (Aug 31, 2022)

I am not a fan of alignment. IME there have been three primary uses of alignment in games:

1) Paladins using their canon-justified position as exemplar of "good" to commit war crimes
2) "Chaotic Neutral" characters who act in random, unbelievable, and violent ways, causing great damage to the party and the world
3) Players justifying war crimes against "always evil" races

I don't think it has historically been good for the game and it often enables toxic behavior from both players and DMs. Something like "devotion" could be good, really anything that is more about examining the motivations and needs of characters rather than "you got the good/evil/chaos/law juice in your veins" would be preferable.


----------



## Langy (Aug 31, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Whoever wrote that post was either confused or lying. The playtest packet is freely available and not very long at all, I recommend reading its contents yourself if you want to discuss them. You’ll find that they contain nothing at all about alignment. Devotion is a completely different mechanic that appears in a couple of 5e books (alongside alignment).




The playtest packet isn't the entire playtest. It's only the first part, the "races" with a few bits here and there to clarify rules that the race changes touch upon; future weeks will have more/different things for people to playtest.

Personally I hope they remove the standard 'alignment' system and replace it with something more complex (or just get rid of it entirely).


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 31, 2022)

Langy said:


> The playtest packet isn't the entire playtest. It's only the first part, the "races" with a few bits here and there to clarify rules that the race changes touch upon; future weeks will have more/different things for people to playtest.



Yes, but since those weeks are in the future, we here in the present don’t know what the contents of those packets are. So again, whoever “explained” that 1D&D is replacing Alignment with Devotion must either be confused or lying.


Langy said:


> Personally I hope they remove the standard 'alignment' system and replace it with something more complex (or just get rid of it entirely).



I don’t disagree, but I don’t think it’ll happen.


----------



## Langy (Aug 31, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Yes, but since those weeks are in the future, we here in the present don’t know what the contents of those packets are. So again, whoever ”explained” that 1D&D is replacing Alignment with Devotion must either be confused or lying.
> 
> I don’t disagree, but I don’t think it’ll happen.




It was a rumor they've heard, not something they are claiming is in the current playtest. Doesn't mean it's accurate, of course.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 31, 2022)

Langy said:


> It was a rumor they've heard, not something they are claiming is in the current playtest. Doesn't mean it's accurate, of course.



Right, it’s inaccurate. Because we have one packet so far, and it doesn’t contain anything about alignment. The rumor is misinformation, rooted either in misunderstanding or deception.


----------



## delericho (Aug 31, 2022)

I would be very surprised to see them get rid of alignment. IMO, they should.


----------



## Baumi (Aug 31, 2022)

I do think there will be still alignment, but I bet that it will have even less impact thant it has with 5E (if that is even possible). But I am curious how they will handle it with monsters, where they made already changes especially with humanoids.

There are actually a few things missing from the first playtest. There are no personalities/flaws/.. from the backgrounds and no trinkets. Which might be just becaus it is only a playtest, but the Characters of the new Starter Set don't have those either.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Aug 31, 2022)

I think there's more than enough things to debate, discuss, or argue about with OneD&D based on what we know or actually have some evidence to speculate based upon. We really have no evidence of what new plans, if any, they have for alignment for OneD&D.

Now if anyone has noticed a new alignment trend in other recently released 5e materials that might merit a discussion as to the future of it. But debating based on a completely unsourced rumor seems unusually silly, even for an alignment thread.


----------



## Azzy (Aug 31, 2022)

aia_2 said:


> I read some time ago a post (likely not here, but honestly i do not remember where it was!) where it was explained that with one d&d the alignment will be replaced by a new feature with a completely different mechanics (devotion iirc).



Sounds like something someone made up. There is no evidence for it.


----------



## aco175 (Aug 31, 2022)

aia_2 said:


> Don't you think that alignment has never been fully deployed in the game for its potential? ...and now it appears that the got rid of... It is like having a Ferrari and use that car to go to buy milk and newspapers only (and then get back to home). After long time you use a Ferrari in this way you find it useless and you sell it...



Some might think it is like having a Ferrari but only get invited to go on hunting trips to the woods, so it becomes impractical.  But, others might be able to use it so I feel something should be kept.


----------



## payn (Aug 31, 2022)

I really enjoyed the mechanical heft of alignment in 3E/PF1, but I think it was poorly applied in materials and folks never saw its good potential. Instead they only saw its GM beatstick side, which to be fair, was ripe for abuse and fun killing. So damaging was it, that I dont think we will ever see alignment back in the game again. Though, it is a legacy item and will likely always just eat a page in the rulebook.


----------



## delericho (Aug 31, 2022)

What I would like them to do is to essentially drop it down to the same status as Bonds, Ideals, Flaws, and Traits. That is, give players a box in which they can define a bunch of role-playing 'stuff' about their character (that may or may not actually mean anything).

One of the fun things about that is that, rather than just writing the standard two words and leave it at that, players can define what the stated alignment means _to that individual character_ - which could bear no relationship at all to what those words actually mean.

Of course, one of the small problems with that is that the BIFTs appear to be going with the revision...


----------



## payn (Aug 31, 2022)

delericho said:


> Of course, one of the small problems with that is that the BIFTs appear to be going with the revision...



BIFTs was so poorly thought out and implemented. I mean, its essentially a different paragraph, with 4 not necessarily related items, for each character that folks are supposed to some how remember. Alignment at least had definitions and a general application which allowed for a myriad of personalities and character types. BIFTs, when folks bothered to use it, just reduced characters to sit com class levels of caricaturization. A revision is the least of its needs.


----------



## delericho (Aug 31, 2022)

payn said:


> BIFTs was so poorly thought out and implemented. I mean, its essentially a different paragraph, with 4 not necessarily related items, for each character that folks are supposed to some how remember.



After our first campaign (in which we never once remembered Inspiration), we dropped any mechanical impact of BIFTs. They became an entirely opt-in item for the players to use, or not, if it helped them remember their character. It was somewhat useful in that regard.

(They were actually a bit more useful still on those occasions when I gave out pregen characters, for whatever reason. Even then the players could use them or ignore them, but they at least gave a starting point.)


----------



## payn (Aug 31, 2022)

delericho said:


> (They were actually a bit more useful still on those occasions when I gave out pregen characters, for whatever reason. Even then the players could use them or ignore them, but they at least gave a starting point.)



I can see that. Folks tend to look for aids in one shots, board games, whatever pre-gens they have. They dont seem to mind playing a prescribed role if its for a limited time. Can be a fun exercise in getting out of your comfort zone or working on general role play skills.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 31, 2022)

payn said:


> BIFTs was so poorly thought out and implemented. I mean, its essentially a different paragraph, with 4 not necessarily related items, for each character that folks are supposed to some how remember. Alignment at least had definitions and a general application which allowed for a myriad of personalities and character types. BIFTs, when folks bothered to use it, just reduced characters to sit com class levels of caricaturization. A revision is the least of its needs.



I do think a few words (no more than a sentence) each would have been better. Also I think it should be up to the players to decide when they have acted in accordance with a trait rather than the DM.


----------



## payn (Aug 31, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I do think a few words (no more than a sentence) each would have been better. Also I think it should be up to the players to decide when they have acted in accordance with a trait rather than the DM.



I would rather actual mechanics be tied to this. You can activate them with inspiration points. For example, being charismatic and getting advantage in a social situation, or being highly perceptive and getting advantage to search for traps and hidden stuff during exploration. Whatever they can do to put mechanics on tangible game items and away from actual general role playing. I'd prefer that to be unsullied by rules if possible.


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit (Aug 31, 2022)

It will be interesting to see any changes they come up with. For me, one of the core things that make D&D D&D is the possibility for philosophical concepts such as evil taking anthropomorphic shape in the physical world, for example as a demon. Hopefully they keep that, even if they change alignment as such.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 31, 2022)

I think 4e's approach was my favorite. The vast majority of creatures were "unaligned", meaning that you just did your own thing, and alignment was not a major aspect of your character.

Then you had characters that were actually aligned, which represented a major part of your character, and had some mechanical impacts.

I feel like 5e basically adopted this, just not obviously. Alignments exist but they have very little mention both for flavor or mechanics. So its there for people to use, but it doesn't have any strong integration in the system.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 31, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> I think 4e's approach was my favorite. The vast majority of creatures were "unaligned", meaning that you just did your own thing, and alignment was not a major aspect of your character.
> 
> Then you had characters that were actually aligned, which represented a major part of your character, and had some mechanical impacts.
> 
> I feel like 5e basically adopted this, just not obviously. Alignments exist but they have very little mention both for flavor or mechanics. So its there for people to use, but it doesn't have any strong integration in the system.



Seems like the opposite: from most people have no alignment but for those that do have one it really matters, to everyone has an alignment but it basically never matters.


----------



## Composer99 (Aug 31, 2022)

Alignment likely still has a role to play (har!) in D&D, since both the Ardlings and Tieflings refer to Outer Planes of particular alignments.

To what extent it will be even akin to alignment's vestigial status in 2014 5e remains to be seen.

*Edit to add:* At any rate, barring any changes in forthcoming playtest documents, the fact of this reference means that any suggestion that One D&D will do away with alignment is false as of this writing.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 31, 2022)

payn said:


> I would rather actual mechanics be tied to this. You can activate them with inspiration points.



Except that means you have to keep inspiration, a purely meta-mechanic that IMO has no place in D&D.


----------



## payn (Aug 31, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Except that means you have to keep inspiration, a purely meta-mechanic that IMO has no place in D&D.



Not a surprise based on your playstyle, but the _times-are-a-changin_.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Aug 31, 2022)

I'm fine with alignment vanishing for players and 'normal' creatures.

I'd like it to stay for the outer planes and their denizens though. It's such a huge part of DnD worldbuilding.


----------



## Marandahir (Aug 31, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Seems like the opposite: from most people have no alignment but for those that do have one it really matters, to everyone has an alignment but it basically never matters.



Those seems like two sides of the same coin to me.

When it matters, It really matters. I think it’ll matter a lot next year with Planescape. Meanwhile, I’m here off in Wildspace avoiding killer clowns and buying junk from not-quite-so-LE Illithids…


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 31, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> Those seems like two sides of the same coin to me.
> 
> When it matters, It really matters.



Does it, though?


Marandahir said:


> I think it’ll matter a lot next year with Planescape. Meanwhile, I’m here off in Wildspace avoiding killer clowns and buying junk from not-quite-so-LE Illithids…



I doubt it will matter much, if at all. I mean, certainly it will get talked about a lot, but in terms of what alignment a given creature is having any sort of mechanical impact? I expect it will be minimal.


----------



## Marandahir (Aug 31, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Does it, though?
> 
> I doubt it will matter much, if at all. I mean, certainly it will get talked about a lot, but in terms of what alignment a given creature is having any sort of mechanical impact? I expect it will be minimal.



Oh, for sure. But did it matter that way in 4e either? I don’t think it did. Just narratively.


----------



## Tonguez (Aug 31, 2022)

Alignment is an overrated and misusued feature of DnD that needs to go
if someone really wants their character to be devoted to good or chaos. Or neutrality then fine, list it as an ideal, but beyond that meh


----------



## Oofta (Aug 31, 2022)

Alignment hasn't been a straightjacket for a while now, I don't expect it to change.  They'll jchange monster alignments to have qualifiers like "typically" or "frequently" because it wasn't clear before that alignments were just the default.  For PCs it will remain one of many descriptors that are only as important as the players decide.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 31, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Whoever wrote that post was either confused or lying. The playtest packet is freely available and not very long at all, I recommend reading its contents yourself if you want to discuss them. You’ll find that they contain nothing at all about alignment.



They don't contain anything about _character_ alignment. They do mention alignment as a planar concept. The entry for Ardlings specifies them as having ancestors from either the Chaotic Good, Lawful Good or Neutral Good planes.

So, alignment for PCs may or may not be a thing. But alignment as an in-game concept definitely is.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Sep 1, 2022)

payn said:


> BIFTs was so poorly thought out and implemented. I mean, its essentially a different paragraph, with 4 not necessarily related items, for each character that folks are supposed to some how remember. Alignment at least had definitions and a general application which allowed for a myriad of personalities and character types. BIFTs, when folks bothered to use it, just reduced characters to sit com class levels of caricaturization. A revision is the least of its needs.



I've used them in all of my campaigns, and they've always been useful. They're mainly just to give you an idea of who your character is when you're making them, not the be-all and end-all of who your character is (and will be) for the entire campaign. And it's way better characterization than picking D&D's version of Zodiac signs that are entirely subjective and practically useless for meaningfully characterizing a PC or NPC.


----------



## payn (Sep 1, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I've used them in all of my campaigns, and they've always been useful. They're mainly just to give you an idea of who your character is when you're making them, not the be-all and end-all of who your character is (and will be) for the entire campaign. And it's way better characterization than picking D&D's version of Zodiac signs that are entirely subjective and practically useless for meaningfully characterizing a PC or NPC.



So, ironic.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Sep 1, 2022)

payn said:


> So, ironic.



Care to elaborate?


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 1, 2022)

Horwath said:


> on my last two characters I didn't even write down alignment.
> 
> it's that useful in our games.



I never bother writing it down either. For the games I've run, it's come up once and that was only because I was running an old game which had something trigger depending on alignment. Otherwise, I never really worry about it.


----------



## edosan (Sep 1, 2022)

Alignment is such an iconic D&D thing that they’ll never get rid of it. It would be like they changed the six ability scores or something. They‘re just not going to do something that out of the box. 

That said, I’d be overjoyed if they did. If they’d toss it out in favor of something really useful for role playing - something better thought out than BIFTs - I‘d see that as a good step.


----------



## d24454_modern (Sep 1, 2022)

Branduil said:


> I am not a fan of alignment. IME there have been three primary uses of alignment in games:
> 
> 1) Paladins using their canon-justified position as exemplar of "good" to commit war crimes
> 2) "Chaotic Neutral" characters who act in random, unbelievable, and violent ways, causing great damage to the party and the world
> ...



That excuse always sounds backwards to me since there’s no reason why the player wouldn’t act the same way even without the alignment system.


----------



## Baumi (Sep 1, 2022)

edosan said:


> Alignment is such an iconic D&D thing that they’ll never get rid of it. It would be like they changed the six ability scores or something. They‘re just not going to do something that out of the box.



I'm not sure if it is so iconic, after all there were quite a few iterations of it, without a big backlash. OD&D had only the Law-Chaos Axis, then later came the 9 Alignments that were heavily used by spells and Class features, then there was the 4E Version where most were unalligned and in 5E they went back to the classic 9 but without mechanical weight.

Also there were some bad blood about some humanoids who where marked as evil (like Orcs and Drow). Because of that, they changed some books, lore and the alignment of monsters. So I think that WOTC would love to get rid of such a controversal feature.

As a GM I don't even ask the players about their alignment and I am sure most haven't even even filled it out. I cannot remember that Beyond even asks for that. 

But all that said, I actually like alignment for Monsters/NPCs where it tells me a lot about it with a single glance.


----------



## Amrûnril (Sep 1, 2022)

Ultimately, I don't think it actually matters much whether the books mention alignment.  At this point, it's an idea that's out in the world and that exists more or less orthogonally to the mechanical rules of D&D. Players and worldbuilders who find it helpful as description or inspiration will use it that way without being prompted, while those who don't find it helpful are free to ignore it either way.


----------



## RuinousPowers (Sep 1, 2022)

d24454_modern said:


> That excuse always sounds backwards to me since there’s no reason why the player wouldn’t act the same way even without the alignment system.



Well, the LG paladin (according to Gygax) HAD to commit "war crimes" or he would lose his paladinhood for performing a NG act, until he atoned.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 1, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> Well, the LG paladin (according to Gygax) HAD to commit "war crimes" or he would lose his paladinhood for performing a NG act, until he atoned.




Remember that Gygax took the Elric style grimdark Order-vs.-Chaos alignment system and tried to expand it into a dual-axis system. But the single-axis origins of the system remained influential: LG was far more defined by "Law" than by "Good." There's a reason that 1977 Basic and 2008 4e had 5 alignments, and B/X, BECMI, RC, and Classic had 3 alignments, again. In the early days, the idea that LE or CG could exist was really difficult to comprehend. 4e tried to return to this idea of a line, where LG is the most lawfully and most goody of good, while CE and NG were really just the same thing (less beholden to the rules but otherwise good), LE is really just the same thing as NE (evil but not destructively so), and CE is the most destructively evil of all.

Gygax associated Order and Good with each other, even after he acknowledged that CG and LE could potentially exist. So if the Laws exist, and the Laws say Orcs must be destroyed, it must be good to destroy Orcs, right? That's the sort of extremism that happens when you go down that rabbit hole of putting Law above Goodness. But the original Paladin was definitely LAWFUL good, not lawful GOOD. Good was always in service to law, and being lawful and not good was okay, but being good and not lawful was blasphemous. 

Thank HEIRONEOUS that's no longer the case, and alignment is not a straight jacket. We can tell stories of Daredevil-ike Paladins that skirt the line of their faith and wrestle with whether their acts are truly good, whether they go far enough, or whether they've gone a step too far. 

Honestly, in my mind, if you want to play a Paladin with atonement rules and internal struggles of what to do when, take a watch of Marvel's Daredevil show (previously on Netflix, now on D+). Given that Matt Murdock is a LAWYER by day and a non-killing-but-quite-violent vigilante by night (not to mention one with Blind Fighting, because Justice is Blind), who goes to church to confess his sins to his priest because he struggles with whether he's doing the right thing or not by beating up criminals and taking the law into his own hands - I'd say he's the perfect example of a LG Paladin.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 1, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> Well, the LG paladin (according to Gygax) HAD to commit "war crimes" or he would lose his paladinhood for performing a NG act, until he atoned.



Gygax had some strange ideas.  Decades ago.  The game has changed a lot since he had much influence on it.


----------



## RuinousPowers (Sep 1, 2022)

Oofta said:


> Gygax had some strange ideas.  Decades ago.  The game has changed a lot since he had much influence on it.



Which just proves how alignment can be interpreted differently in every edition of the game, making it an exceedingly poor descriptor.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 1, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> Which just proves how alignment can be interpreted differently in every edition of the game, making it an exceedingly poor descriptor.



Or ... like many aspects of the game it evolved far beyond what Gygax envisioned. 

We owe a debt to Gygax for helping to get  D&D off the ground. But from the very start, multiple people (i.e. Arneson in the early days) took the ball he started rolling and ran with it.  He planted the seed but it stopped being his game long ago. 

You don't like it? Don't use it. I still find it useful for monsters and NPCs that I don't want to waste time on fleshing out in detail. It can also give me a starting point,  one of many tools at my disposal.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 1, 2022)

Oofta said:


> Or ... like many aspects of the game it evolved far beyond what Gygax envisioned.
> 
> We owe a debt to Gygax for helping to get  D&D off the ground. But from the very start, multiple people (i.e. Arneson in the early days) took the ball he started rolling and ran with it.  He planted the seed but it stopped being his game long ago.
> 
> You don't like it? Don't use it. I still find it useful for monsters and NPCs that I don't want to waste time on fleshing out in detail. It can also give me a starting point,  one of many tools at my disposal.



This. I don't usually like alignment as written because I want to avoid straightjacketing character's motivations. But it's a useful broad, fuzzy category to start grouping factions and threats and the internal ethical struggles that characters like Clerics, Paladins, and Monks might face.


----------



## RuinousPowers (Sep 1, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> This. I don't usually like alignment as written because I want to avoid straightjacketing character's motivations. But it's a useful broad, fuzzy category to start grouping factions and threats and the internal ethical struggles that characters like Clerics, Paladins, and Monks might face.



I would rather flesh out the religions or orders the characters belong to, rather than just paint everything with a generic brush. And if you do too, then why do you need the generic brush?


----------



## d24454_modern (Sep 1, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> This. I don't usually like alignment as written because I want to avoid straightjacketing character's motivations. But it's a useful broad, fuzzy category to start grouping factions and threats and the internal ethical struggles that characters like Clerics, Paladins, and Monks might face.



Alignment is always descriptive anyways. It shouldn’t be a destiny.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 1, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> I would rather flesh out the religions or orders the characters belong to, rather than just paint everything with a generic brush. And if you do too, then why do you need the generic brush?



If I only expect an NPC to exist for 5 minutes or less, I want to put in minimal effort. I have a generic brush because sometimes they need to act in a way I hadn't anticipated. 

As the intro to the MM says "A monster’s alignment provides a clue to its disposition and how it behaves in a roleplaying or combat situation."  It's a decent starting point a lot of the time and frequently one of the main factors. 

Alignment doesn't dictate behavior, but it can tell you how someone approaches the world.


----------



## RuinousPowers (Sep 1, 2022)

Oofta said:


> If I only expect an NPC to exist for 5 minutes or less, I want to put in minimal effort. I have a generic brush because sometimes they need to act in a way I hadn't anticipated.
> 
> As the intro to the MM says "A monster’s alignment provides a clue to its disposition and how it behaves in a roleplaying or combat situation."  It's a decent starting point a lot of the time and frequently one of the main factors.
> 
> Alignment doesn't dictate behavior, but it can tell you how someone approaches the world.



But, using the term "bartender" would also give a clue to the NPC's disposition and how it would behave in a roleplaying or combat situation. No need to determine how he views Cosmic Order of Everything.


----------



## payn (Sep 1, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> But, using the term "bartender" would also give a clue to the NPC's disposition and how it would behave in a roleplaying or combat situation. No need to determine how he views Cosmic Order of Everything.



It's not just a view on cosmic order, its their view on society and the methods they are likely to employ.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 1, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> But, using the term "bartender" would also give a clue to the NPC's disposition and how it would behave in a roleplaying or combat situation. No need to determine how he views Cosmic Order of Everything.




Being a bartender only tells me occupation.  It tells me nothing about how they'll react or view certain activities. Is he likely to be upset about the string of murders in town? Does it matter who was murdered or do they only care if it affects them? Do they think vigilantes should get involved or is it a matter for the law?

Two letters give me a starting point. If they don't for you don't use it.


----------



## the Jester (Sep 1, 2022)

aia_2 said:


> I read some time ago a post (likely not here, but honestly i do not remember where it was!) where it was explained that with one d&d the alignment will be replaced by a new feature with a completely different mechanics (devotion iirc).



Unless it came straight from the designers, don't believe it. This sounds like nonsense to me.


----------



## RuinousPowers (Sep 1, 2022)

Oofta said:


> Being a bartender only tells me occupation.  It tells me nothing about how they'll react or view certain activities. Is he likely to be upset about the string of murders in town? Does it matter who was murdered or do they only care if it affects them? Do they think vigilantes should get involved or is it a matter for the law?
> 
> Two letters give me a starting point. If they don't for you don't use it.



What's the difference between how a NG and CG character views a string of murders based solely on alignment?


----------



## Oofta (Sep 1, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> What's the difference between how a NG and CG character views a string of murders based solely on alignment?



NG sees the value in order and law, even when they're more than willing to ignore it at times. CG may follow the rules unless they can get away with skirting them.  Both will likely feel empathy if the victims are innocent. 

A LE person may wonder if the killings were sanctioned or if they were under their protection of the protection of their group,  otherwise they don't care.  A CE may be curious, wonder if it's one of theirs or simply shrug because suit happens, as long as it doesn't happen to them.

Whether another DM would have them respond exactly the same isn't particularly relevant.  It's my tool and definition that matters if I'm the one running the PC.  Even then, I've always been in the same general ballpark as other DMs.


----------



## RuinousPowers (Sep 1, 2022)

payn said:


> It's not just a view on cosmic order, its their view on society and the methods they are likely to employ.



It's a "5 minute scene" character.


Oofta said:


> NG sees the value in order and law, even when they're more than willing to ignore it at times. CG may follow the rules unless they can get away with skirting them.  Both will likely feel empathy if the victims are innocent.
> 
> A LE person may wonder if the killings were sanctioned or if they were under their protection of the protection of their group,  otherwise they don't care.  A CE may be curious, wonder if it's one of theirs or simply shrug because suit happens, as long as it doesn't happen to them.
> 
> Whether another DM would have them respond exactly the same isn't particularly relevant.  It's my tool and definition that matters if I'm the one running the PC.  Even then, I've always been in the same general ballpark as other DMs.



You added a lot of alignment definitions that had zero bearing on the question, and on the part that did answer- they were the same. In fact, I bet at least 2/3 of the alignments would all "feel empathy for the victims", so alignment choice didn't actually mean much when it came to using it to determine how they felt about the murders. So, why was it important to include it for this "5 minute NPC"?

I still don't see it having any use, but obviously YMMV.


----------



## payn (Sep 1, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> It's a "5 minute scene" character.



I've seen folks argue that writing BIFTs for 5 min scene characters is better.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 1, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> I would rather flesh out the religions or orders the characters belong to, rather than just paint everything with a generic brush. And if you do too, then why do you need the generic brush?



Because oftentimes that generic brush takes a whole lot less time and effort to use, when I just need something fast.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 1, 2022)

payn said:


> I've seen folks argue that writing BIFTs for 5 min scene characters is better.



When it takes longer than 5 minutes to come up with the BIFTs (which it would for me, probably every time) for a character who's not even going to be in play for 5 minutes, I'm quickly going to stop bothering doing so.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 1, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> What's the difference between how a NG and CG character views a string of murders based solely on alignment?



Might not be a difference in this particular scenario. That's fine. 

Though personally, I ascribe a bit more to the LG-G-U-E-CE system from 4e (sometimes I like to throw in LN vs CN alongside Unaligned, since it seemed like some Unaligned were clearly more just LN or CN but didn't have a proper choice to fill there). I recognise that the hair-splitting for CG vs NG or LE vs NE is important to some players!

It's a semi-sacred cow that has changed from edition to edition. It's also deeply tied to the Manual of the Planes and to Planescape as a Setting. As long as Planescape is happening, 9-alignment (or 10 alignment, if you throw in the Unaligned Beasts from 2014 MM) remains as a baseline assumption. 

Please feel free to ignore it entirely if it's not important to you. Some of us carry the burden of guilt and purpose akin to a Paladin in real life and want to explore that at the table when we play a Paladin, rather than just ascribe it specifically to our religious institution's tenants.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 1, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> It's a "5 minute scene" character.
> 
> You added a lot of alignment definitions that had zero bearing on the question, and on the part that did answer- they were the same. In fact, I bet at least 2/3 of the alignments would all "feel empathy for the victims", so alignment choice didn't actually mean much when it came to using it to determine how they felt about the murders. So, why was it important to include it for this "5 minute NPC"?
> 
> I still don't see it having any use, but obviously YMMV.



So ... my response is bad because I added additional viewpoints for LE an CE? But then you bring up what I can only assume what the neutral alignments might think?

Seems to me that you're only fishing for gotchas.

I find alignments useful but it affects perspective and motivation. They don't dictate specific behavior.   

If you don't understand or don't want to accept how that could be useful I can't help.   So don't use alignments but leave them for people who do find them useful.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 1, 2022)

Oofta said:


> So ... my response is bad because I added additional viewpoints for LE an CE? But then you bring up what I can only assume what the neutral alignments might think?
> 
> Seems to me that you're only fishing for gotchas.
> 
> ...



I think they meant, they asked you what would distinguish the response of a NG barkeep from a CG barkeep, and you responded by giving them the responses of a LE and a CG barkeep instead. 

Their question was a bit of a straw argument since this might be a case where the NG and the CG barkeep agree on all the material bits, they may be taking umbrage to not giving them an answer to the question they specifically asked…


----------



## Oofta (Sep 1, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> When it takes longer than 5 minutes to come up with the BIFTs (which it would for me, probably every time) for a character who's not even going to be in play for 5 minutes, I'm quickly going to stop bothering doing so.



I don't find BIFTs all that useful. How does "I don't like to bathe" or "I owe a debt I can't repay" going to give me any clue on their moral compass?  Most of the time there's going to be little or no connection. 

Some of them are okay, and the  no bathing thing might be useful fluff, but I basically have to come up with a life history and then sort through dozens of entries or make my own to get something that will fit. 

All for Joe the bartender and occasional informant. 

So then I'd probably group some  BIFTS together,  give them an abbreviations and use those to give me a general idea.  Probably come up with a handy 2 letter abbreviation.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 1, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> I think they meant, they asked you what would distinguish the response of a NG barkeep from a CG barkeep, and you responded by giving them the responses of a LE and a CG barkeep instead.
> 
> Their question was a bit of a straw argument since this might be a case where the NG and the CG barkeep agree on all the material bits, they may be taking umbrage to not giving them an answer to the question they specifically asked…



I gave them views of 4 alignments. Apologies if it wasn't clear.  Not really sure what the question was.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 1, 2022)

Oofta said:


> I don't find BIFTs all that useful. How does "I don't like to bathe" or "I owe a debt I can't repay" going to give me any clue on their moral compass?  Most of the time there's going to be little or no connection.
> 
> Some of them are okay, and the  no bathing thing might be useful fluff, but I basically have to come up with a life history and then sort through dozens of entries or make my own to get something that will fit.
> 
> ...



For me the bigger issue is that I've rarely any way of knowing ahead of time which NPC(s) out of the thousands in a given city will be the ones the PCs interact with at any length.  The innkeep at a high-class place, for example, is likely going to be a different personality etc. from the innkeep at a dive saloon; and my PCs are equally likely to go to either one...or both or even several - splitting up their lodgings while in town wouldn't be anything new.

And so, this means it's inevitable that at some point(s) I'll need to come up with something fast.  Alignment is but one of several broad-brush tools that help with this.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 1, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> For me the bigger issue is that I've rarely any way of knowing ahead of time which NPC(s) out of the thousands in a given city will be the ones the PCs interact with at any length.  The innkeep at a high-class place, for example, is likely going to be a different personality etc. from the innkeep at a dive saloon; and my PCs are equally likely to go to either one...or both or even several - splitting up their lodgings while in town wouldn't be anything new.
> 
> And so, this means it's inevitable that at some point(s) I'll need to come up with something fast.  Alignment is but one of several broad-brush tools that help with this.



For me it can be helpful even with more in depth NPCs.  For my own characters I sometimes write down alignment,  sometimes I don't. After I've played them for a few hours or sessions, they have a personality and I pretty much ignore all the descriptors I had because I have a feel for the  character. 

But NPCs? I'll have dozens and alignment can give me a quick reminder of how they're likely to react.


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 1, 2022)

I think D&D needs to try other alignments.

Hero vs Villain
Loyal vs Disloyal vs Usurper
Face vs Heel


----------



## d24454_modern (Sep 1, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> I think D&D needs to try other alignments.
> 
> Hero vs Villain
> Loyal vs Disloyal vs Usurper
> Face vs Heel



What does this solve?


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 1, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> I think D&D needs to try other alignments.
> 
> Hero vs Villain
> Loyal vs Disloyal vs Usurper
> Face vs Heel





			
				d24454_modern said:
			
		

> What does this solve?



The main difference  is that it puts any sense of good-evil-etc. "alignment" squarely in the eye of the beholder.  What @Minigiant gives here are descriptors, and one's own in-fiction viewpoint would tell one whether these descriptors generally represent good or evil or whatever.  For example, a rebel might think the Usurper faction are the good guys while a Loyalist would likely see them as the evil enemy.

What it doesn't allow for (and IMO in so doing dispenses with the best part of the alignment system) is the concept of good evil etc. being universal standards, thus allowing spells and items and so on to use and-or trigger off of their presence or absence.  I love alignment-based items and spells!


----------



## Oofta (Sep 1, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> I think D&D needs to try other alignments.
> 
> Hero vs Villain
> Loyal vs Disloyal vs Usurper
> Face vs Heel



What does it mean to be a villain? How do you differ between the motivation and morality of The Kingpin vs The Joker? Face vs heel is just another term for good guy vs bad which doesn't tell us anything.


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 2, 2022)

Hero is what I ask my players to make, I typically tell them not to create an evil character because you are all heroes, so I guess that might be the extent of my use of alignment, no evil. In general, I ask that my players are heroes who work together, what exact alignment they are isn't that big a deal, just so long as they're the "Good Guys".


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 2, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> Hero is what I ask my players to make, I typically tell them not to create an evil character because you are all heroes, so I guess that might be the extent of my use of alignment, no evil. In general, I ask that my players are heroes who work together, what exact alignment they are isn't that big a deal, just so long as they're the "Good Guys".



What happens when the good guys become the very villains they swore to destroy?

I.e., what happens when the Paladin starts committing war crimes For Great Justice? There's only so many times someone could set you up the bomb.


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 2, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> What happens when the good guys become the very villains they swore to destroy?
> 
> I.e., what happens when the Paladin starts committing war crimes For Great Justice? There's only so many times someone could set you up the bomb.



Luckily, that's not the sort of thing that really happens in my games. My players and I are fairly laid back and I think that's reflected in the games I run and the characters that are played in those games. There's no running around murdering innocents, just stopping the bad guy and their minions.


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 2, 2022)

d24454_modern said:


> What does this solve?






Oofta said:


> What does it mean to be a villain? How do you differ between the motivation and morality of The Kingpin vs The Joker? Face vs heel is just another term for good guy vs bad which doesn't tell us anything.




They have different and clearer motivations.

For example, Loyalty is just Loyalty. In one world, it could be loyalty to one's guild or government. The Disloyal would sell secrets and harm the group for their benefit. Whereas the Usurpers would be out to destroy and replace it. In an Olympic them world,Loyalistswould be loyal to the status quo with Zeus as head. Disloyalists would be pro-Hades or pro-Posiedon, the other kings. Whereas the Usurpers are worshiping Chronos or plotting with Ares to be the next son to take out their father.

Face and Heel are also a different from Good and Evil. Faces do what the "Audience" cheers for whereas Heel do what they boos. Now who is te Audience? Society? The People? Or are both sourced by the Gods as they made the rules? Eddie Guerrero was sometimes a Babyface who lied cheated and stole. Because the Audience cheered him, he was allowed to cheat.


----------



## Warpiglet-7 (Sep 2, 2022)

payn said:


> I would rather actual mechanics be tied to this. You can activate them with inspiration points. For example, being charismatic and getting advantage in a social situation, or being highly perceptive and getting advantage to search for traps and hidden stuff during exploration. Whatever they can do to put mechanics on tangible game items and away from actual general role playing. I'd prefer that to be unsullied by rules if possible.



They characterize humans as highly driven achievers.

Call it force of will or destiny of mankind or whatever and have it do “stuff”


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 2, 2022)

I don’t think alignment is any sort of inherent character straight-jacket, just that it has baggage from previous generations where it was misused as such both by GM’s, PC’s and on entire species, i think it is a fundamentally useful concept when used correctly for both quickhand character reference and an interesting factor tied to the outer planes and the denizens thereof.

One of the main problems alignment has had IMO is personal interpretations, the irl people who conflict over what is good or chaotic or neutral bringing their own personal interpretations rather than remembering these are in-universe tangible forces which have established definitions there, people try to make things relative with ‘well my character was raised in an evil community so their definition of good actually validates backstabbing and deception’ and things just head south from there.

Also i think it’s entirely possible to have evil characters in a group without problems, just that the players who want to screw over their group used it as an easy excuse for their own problematic actions.


----------



## RuinousPowers (Sep 2, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> Also i think it’s entirely possible to have evil characters in a group without problems, just that the players who want to screw over their group used it as an easy excuse for their own problematic actions.



I disagree with this. I think a lot of unpleasant characters get labeled Evil when they should be Neutral. I often see characters described as "they're evil, but they only hurt people that deserve it", which is not a definition for evil that I would use. To me, evil explicitly does evil acts to the innocent and the helpless- the undeserving.  I probably have fewer evil characters in my world than most, because they are explicitly Evil- they go out of their way to perform evil acts, and because I have a larger view of Neutral than most. Conan was a pirate who attacked merchant vessels, but he wouldn't be evil in my setting, as he doesn't meet the criteria.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 2, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> I disagree with this. I think a lot of unpleasant characters get labeled Evil when they should be Neutral. I often see characters described as "they're evil, but they only hurt people that deserve it", which is not a definition for evil that I would use. To me, evil explicitly does evil acts to the innocent and the helpless- the undeserving.  I probably have fewer evil characters in my world than most, because they are explicitly Evil- they go out of their way to perform evil acts, and because I have a larger view of Neutral than most. Conan was a pirate who attacked merchant vessels, but he wouldn't be evil in my setting, as he doesn't meet the criteria.



I think you misinterpreted my point, you seem to be saying there ‘well alot of evil characters should actually be considered neutral’ but I’m saying ‘evil pc characters are often banned wholesale from games because of the problems caused by evil aligned characters, but it is actually the players of those  evil characters responsible for their behavior and who can play problematic characters of any alignment rather than the evil alignment itself’

Evil to me is more about valuing yourself and what you care about (which can include the party) above anyone or anything else, not specifically committing atrocities or stabbing random NPCs for funzies.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 2, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> I don’t think alignment is any sort of inherent character straight-jacket, just that it has baggage from previous generations where it was misused as such both by GM’s, PC’s and on entire species, i think it is a fundamentally useful concept when used correctly for both quickhand character reference and an interesting factor tied to the outer planes and the denizens thereof.
> 
> One of the main problems alignment has had IMO is personal interpretations, the irl people who conflict over what is good or chaotic or neutral bringing their own personal interpretations rather than remembering these are in-universe tangible forces which have established definitions there, people try to make things relative with ‘well my character was raised in an evil community so their definition of good actually validates backstabbing and deception’ and things just head south from there.
> 
> Also i think it’s entirely possible to have evil characters in a group without problems, just that the players who want to screw over their group used it as an easy excuse for their own problematic actions.



All I can say is that when players actually played evil, it was not something I want to do as a social activity. Struggle with your dark side? Done evil in the past? You're likely neutral.

But truly evil? Nope. Been there,  Done that,  don't want the crappy t-shirt.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 2, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> But, using the term "bartender" would also give a clue to the NPC's disposition and how it would behave in a roleplaying or combat situation. No need to determine how he views Cosmic Order of Everything.



Being a bartender tells me they’re a bartender, what alignment tells us is if they’re the sort of bartender who’ll start shortchanging me after i get tipsy, or who’ll gamble my night’s tab on if i can beat em in a game of cards or who waters down the beer and overcharges for a pint.

Alignment tells me that when my character approaches the bar absolutely plastered if they’ll say ‘head home son, you’re drunk’ or ‘as long as you’re paying for em I don’t care how many you drink’ or just gives me a free one because inside they grinning and they know I’ll have the mother of all hangovers tomorrow morning


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 2, 2022)

Oofta said:


> All I can say is that when players actually played evil, it was not something I want to do as a social activity. Struggle with your dark side? Done evil in the past? You're likely neutral.
> 
> But truly evil? Nope. Been there,  Done that,  don't want the crappy t-shirt.



There seems to me to be a fairly large middle ground of ‘moderate, but tolerably evil’ that you seem to be skimming over there between ‘goth edgy backstory’ and ‘compete psychopath monster’


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 2, 2022)

I don't understand why Alignment is such a divisive element of the game.  It's one of the easiest elements in the whole Player's Handbook to add/change/ignore as needed.  Maybe they should just move it to the DMG as an "optional rule," right next to Firearms, Spell Points, and hopefully Psionics...I think that would be the least-controversial way to handle it.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 2, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I don't understand why Alignment is such a divisive element of the game.  It's one of the easiest elements in the whole Player's Handbook to add/change/ignore as needed.  Maybe they should just move it to the DMG as an "optional rule," right next to Firearms, Spell Points, and hopefully Psionics...I think that would be the least-controversial way to handle it.



Unfortunately, hiding it in the DMG means a lot of players aren’t familiar with a core assumption in the game (that cosmic entities and planes exist in the multiverse that represent the 9 alignments and stages in-between). The Planar Orrey and four setting pantheons are in the PHB appendices for a reason: Clerics and Warlocks at the very least have the Outer Planes and their inhabitant Powers baked into their class flavour. Remove alignment from PHB and you don’t have an easy way of saying “these are the hero gods and these are the villain gods; please don’t worship the villains at my table unless we set the ground rules for that first.” Without the planes and alignment, Warlock conflicts with their patrons become a quite a bit more complicated if you can’t say Fiends and GOOs are almost always evil or at least inscrutable, and Archfey are mercurous at best. 

And Paladins especially deal with inner conflict alignment as part of their core class story. Monks, Clerics, Druids, and Tieflings sometime, too. 

Plus, Tieflings and Ardlings build alignment and outer planes into their lineage origins!


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 2, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> Unfortunately, hiding it in the DMG means a lot of players aren’t familiar with a core assumption in the game (that cosmic entities and planes exist in the multiverse that represent the 9 alignments and stages in-between).



You're not wrong.  But if there is a such thing as a compromise between "leave Alignment in the Player's Handbook" and "remove Alignment from the game entirely," the Optional Rules section of the Dungeon Master's Guide is probably what it looks like.

If alignment is going to be as important in your campaign as you describe, it should be in the DM's wheelhouse to customize and explain to the players anyway...trying to force a single core assumption for Alignment and apply it to all campaigns and game tables would be an exercise in futility.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 2, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I don't understand why Alignment is such a divisive element of the game.  It's one of the easiest elements in the whole Player's Handbook to add/change/ignore as needed.  Maybe they should just move it to the DMG as an "optional rule," right next to Firearms, Spell Points, and hopefully Psionics...I think that would be the least-controversial way to handle it.



I think because, and I don’t know if there’s a better way for me to phrase this but, there might be a fair few players around with ‘trauma’ (or traumatised from alignment horror stories) from it’s misuse and exploitation in previous editions, Either as a weapon between GMs and players trying to find ‘creative’ ways to outwit the other, bad implementations from misinterpretations of how to use it or merely as the touchpaper for heated philosophical conflicts

The idea that alignment might be included at all threatens to them that all that negative baggage will be brought along with it


----------



## Oofta (Sep 3, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> There seems to me to be a fairly large middle ground of ‘moderate, but tolerably evil’ that you seem to be skimming over there between ‘goth edgy backstory’ and ‘compete psychopath monster’



Edgy backstory isn't evil in an of itself is my point. 

But it's just a preference.  I don't find antihero fiction enjoyable, whether it's a book, tv or any other entertainment.  I'm quite up front about it when inviting people to my games so it's never been an issue.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Sep 3, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> Unfortunately, hiding it in the DMG means a lot of players aren’t familiar with a core assumption in the game (that cosmic entities and planes exist in the multiverse that represent the 9 alignments and stages in-between).



I don't see that as a bad thing.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 3, 2022)

Oofta said:


> Edgy backstory isn't evil in an of itself is my point.
> 
> But it's just a preference.  I don't find antihero fiction enjoyable, whether it's a book, tv or any other entertainment.  I'm quite up front about it when inviting people to my games so it's never been an issue.



So what you were saying wasn’t that ‘evil PC characters aren’t actually a viable thing’ but ‘I personally don’t want evil PC characters in my games’ right?

Which kind of feels like you missed the point of that part of my original post but whatever


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Sep 3, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> I think you misinterpreted my point, you seem to be saying there ‘well alot of evil characters should actually be considered neutral’ but I’m saying ‘evil pc characters are often banned wholesale from games because of the problems caused by evil aligned characters, but it is actually the players of those  evil characters responsible for their behavior and who can play problematic characters of any alignment rather than the evil alignment itself’
> 
> Evil to me is more about valuing yourself and what you care about (which can include the party) above anyone or anything else, not specifically committing atrocities or stabbing random NPCs for funzies.



Yeah I've noticed that lots of people confuse 'evil' and 'chaotic stupid'.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 3, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Yeah I've noticed that lots of people confuse 'evil' and 'chaotic stupid'.



True, although chaotic stupid is it’s own problem that isn’t exclusive to evil characters, the biggest quote-unquote ‘problem’ with evil characters is ‘arbitrary evil’ where the players will take any opportunity to take an evil action even if it doesn’t benefit or even actively hinders them or their group because ‘it is the evil thing to do, and so I must do it’ although the two phenomena are fairly similar,

Similarly the tendency for evil players to go to unnecessary extremes in their evil.

Edit: problems arise when people treat the definition of evil as cruel rather than selfish/self-centred


----------



## Oofta (Sep 3, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> So what you were saying wasn’t that ‘evil PC characters aren’t actually a viable thing’ but ‘I personally don’t want evil PC characters in my games’ right?
> 
> Which kind of feels like you missed the point of that part of my original post but whatever



Running an evil character does not have to be about screwing over fellow party members to be objectionable to me.  It doesn't have to be doing evil things just to be evil. 

It's the guy who casually rapes. That describes how they murder someone after getting information from them so they wouldn't talk, going into gross details. It's casually killing innocents because it was more convenient. Going step by step how they torture someone to get them to talk.

You don't have to play a crazed sociopathic serial killer who strikes out randomly to be objectionable to me. You just have to play someone evil that repeatedly does evil things. 

I want to play, and run games for, heroes not thugs.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 3, 2022)

Oofta said:


> Running an evil character does not have to be about screwing over fellow party members to be objectionable to me.  It doesn't have to be doing evil things just to be evil.
> 
> It's the guy who casually rapes. That describes how they murder someone after getting information from them so they wouldn't talk, going into gross details. It's casually killing innocents because it was more convenient. Going step by step how they torture someone to get them to talk.
> 
> ...



And I’m saying that you don’t have to be doing those things, rape, murder and torture, to be an Evil alignment character, _they are not necessary_, you can play an evil character who is a perfectly amiable person but is not a _good moral person_, you can have your Loki’s and Rocket Raccoon’s, Zapp Brannigan’s and Bender’s, Snape’s and Harley Quinn’s and all the other evil characters who are not pillars of moral integrity but who are also not complete degenerates.

Edit: if your player is going to play an awful person they don’t need to be of picked the evil alignment to do that, _it’s not the alignment itself that’s the problem._


----------



## Andvari (Sep 3, 2022)

As a GM, I find alignment useful for determining, at a glance, how to run short term monsters and NPC.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 3, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> And I’m saying that you don’t have to be doing those things, rape, murder and torture, to be an evil character, _they are not necessary_, you can play an evil character who is a perfectly amiable person but is not a _good person_, you can have your Loki’s and Rocket Raccoon’s, Zapp Brannigan’s and Bender’s, Snape’s and Harley Quinn’s and all the other evil characters who are not pillars of moral integrity but who are also not complete degenerates.



If you play a character that never actually does anything evil, are they actually evil?  I can't speak to every character,  but Rocket is neutral, as is Loki in the MCU when he's not under the influence of the mind stone and killing everyone in sight.

If you never murder, rape or torture why is the  character evil? Being selfish and self centered doesn't make you evil by itself. It's what you're willing to do (or not do) that matters.


----------



## payn (Sep 3, 2022)

Oofta said:


> If you play a character that never actually does anything evil, are they actually evil?  I can't speak to every character,  but Rocket is neutral, as is Loki in the MCU when he's not under the influence of the mind stone and killing everyone in sight.
> 
> If you never murder, rape or torture why is the  character evil? Being selfish and self centered doesn't make you evil by itself. It's what you're willing to do (or not do) that matters.



I suppose it’s a matter of degrees, Rape just isn’t in my games so that’s out. Though when it comes to murder and killing I don’t think an evil character has to do it daily. For me it’s a matter of killing being in the tool box as an option and not a last resort. Doing it for the greater good like the only kills bad dudes assassin archetype is iconic and a type that plays well with others. YMMV


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 3, 2022)

Oofta said:


> If you play a character that never actually does anything evil, are they actually evil?  I can't speak to every character,  but Rocket is neutral, as is Loki in the MCU when he's not under the influence of the mind stone and killing everyone in sight.
> 
> If you never murder, rape or torture why is the  character evil? Being selfish and self centered doesn't make you evil by itself. It's what you're willing to do (or not do) that matters.



So your view is anything less than the complete absence of morality is just neutral, there are no ‘moderate evils’

Edit: Rocket was sociopathic and loki was only ever in it for himself, just because there were worse people on the other side it doesn’t make them good people


----------



## Oofta (Sep 3, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> So your view is anything less than the complete absence of morality is just neutral, there are no ‘moderate evils’
> 
> Edit: Rocket was sociopathic and loki was only ever in it for himself, just because there were worse people on the other side it doesn’t make them good people



Rocket had a lot of fun blowing things up, but he wasn't running around killing just for fun or stealing from people that were starving. Enjoying your job doesn't make you evil. 

Loki stopped the whole murderous mayhem when he was no longer being controlled. He even risked himself for the sake of others. Pretending to be Odin wasn't a good thing, but he wasn't really causing harm either. 

So I'm not sure why you think they would qualify as evil.  On the other hand I don't care what alignment my player's characters have written down for alignment,  I'll just let them know if they're crossing the line into P becoming NPC territory by committing evil actions. 

TLDR: not being good does not make you evil.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 3, 2022)

payn said:


> I suppose it’s a matter of degrees, Rape just isn’t in my games so that’s out. Though when it comes to murder and killing I don’t think an evil character has to do it daily. For me it’s a matter of killing being in the tool box as an option and not a last resort. Doing it for the greater good like the only kills bad dudes assassin archetype is iconic and a type that plays well with others. YMMV



But I wouldn't consider killing a bad dude evil in and of itself. Not good, perhaps, but not evil.

Trap the guy in a building along with a few dozen innocent people that just happen to be there and burn the building to the ground?  Make no attempt to limit collateral damage?That's where you start crossing the line. 

But running around killing bad dudes and taking their stuff is just called "Tuesday" in most D&D games.


----------



## Mephista (Sep 3, 2022)

Alignment was basically enshrined as a sacred cow when D&D Next was still being playtested. 

It's never going away. Maybe rendered completely meaningless, but ways going to be a line for it on the sheet. 

I mean , hells, I accidentally started an alignment argument once by jokingly calling myself Lawful Chaotic. A complete nothing. And people still argued. I feel like people just want to fight over it.


----------



## payn (Sep 3, 2022)

Oofta said:


> But I wouldn't consider killing a bad dude evil in and of itself. Not good, perhaps, but not evil.
> 
> Trap the guy in a building along with a few dozen innocent people that just happen to be there and burn the building to the ground?  Make no attempt to limit collateral damage?That's where you start crossing the line.
> 
> But running around killing bad dudes and taking their stuff is just called "Tuesday" in most D&D games.



For me, if the first, not the last option of dealing with a person is killing them, that’s evil. I don’t make a big deal of it, it’s just  how it is.


----------



## Clint_L (Sep 3, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> I think there's more than enough things to debate, discuss, or argue about with OneD&D based on what we know or actually have some evidence to speculate based upon. We really have no evidence of what new plans, if any, they have for alignment for OneD&D.
> 
> Now if anyone has noticed a new alignment trend in other recently released 5e materials that might merit a discussion as to the future of it. But debating based on a completely unsourced rumor seems unusually silly, even for an alignment thread.



Actually, we do have a lot of evidence. Folks from Wizards of the Coast have for some time stated that the old system of attaching alignment to entire race or type of creature makes them uncomfortable, and in the latest sourcebook, Monsters of the Multiverse, most creatures now have the adverb "typically" attached before alignment (i.e. "typically Lawful Neutral"). The only exceptions seem to be for named individuals, such as Moloch. 

So it's not a trend, it's official. RAW, alignment is now mostly just a suggestion.


----------



## Andvari (Sep 3, 2022)

The 5E Monster Manual already states the alignment listed by a monster is just the default, and that the DM can change it.

3rd edition monsters had qualifiers "Often" (40-50% of the population has the listed alignment), "Usually" (more than 50% of the population has the listed alignment) and "Always" (exceptions are unique or 1 in a million) in front of their listed alignment. For example, ghouls are listed as "Always Chaotic Evil" and drow as "Usually Neutral Evil."


----------



## Clint_L (Sep 3, 2022)

I guess the big question is: why not just get rid of alignment? I don't use it, at all, and it makes zero difference in how the game plays except that you have to tweak the wording on a few spells and items. I think it just remains as a legacy feature that some of us old grognards are attached to. It's like the appendix of D&D - we've inherited it, it no longer serves a meaningful purpose, but removing it is a bit of a hassle so why bother unless it gets infected.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 3, 2022)

Well, if nothing else, this thread is a good illustration of why alignment is controversial. People seldom agree about exactly what is or isn't good or evil, lawful or chaotic, and when that affects how they view their own or each others' characters, trouble tends to ensue.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 3, 2022)

Oofta said:


> But I wouldn't consider killing a bad dude evil in and of itself. Not good, perhaps, but not evil.
> 
> Trap the guy in a building along with a few dozen innocent people that just happen to be there and burn the building to the ground?  Make no attempt to limit collateral damage?That's where you start crossing the line.



Sooooo...the character in my game who fireballed a crowded village pub because the publican threw out some other party members "we don't serve their kind here" - evil, you say?


----------



## Oofta (Sep 3, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Sooooo...the character in my game who fireballed a crowded village pub because the publican threw out some other party members "we don't serve their kind here" - evil, you say?



Maybe. On the other hand if everyone in the pub were listening to smooth jazz I might give it a pass.  Sometimes there's a fine line between evil and public service.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 4, 2022)

I think part of what makes identifying ‘evil’ characters hard nowadays is the casual and normalised way players reach for violence and/or crime as the solution for so many of their problems(not that everyone does but it’s pretty much considered the norm to, although this is partly because the combat mechanics are such a focus in the rules), petty thief tried to pinch your wallet? Chase them down and kill em in the streets, A tribe of savage wood elves have been attacking the villagers? Just go in there and wipe em out real quick, Need a rare component from an exotic creature? Why find one to buy when you can just go hunt the beast down yourselves for it or steal it from someone who already has one.

Adventures already have such an entrenched mindset of _me and mine come first_ and _violence is the first solution_ even when being benevolent that for someone to actually be considered Evil to the rest of them they need to be pulling world conquering schemes or summoning demons or torturing puppies for kicks.

They could have just turned the thief over to the guards
They could have helped fortify the village and shore up their defensive walls
They could have traveled to the merchant city and dealt in bargaining and trade

But violence is easier.

Edit: i was listening to a podcast a little while back and the party needed dragonbone, their options were to:
1) steal from a city who worshiped bahamut main temple’s centrepiece dragonbone shrine that blessed the land with bounty
2) raid a settlement of morally dubious giants who collected dragonbone
3) venture into some harsh wasteland where an untouched dragon skeleton was
The speed at which _stealing from the temple_ was considered and taken as the most viable option was incredible and the only reason they didn’t is because they discovered the NPC who suggested the idea and wanted their help had actually opposed their ruler for position of the crown and revealing them also meant revealing the plot to steal the shrine’s bones rendering that option unviable.


----------



## Gorck (Sep 4, 2022)

Oofta said:


> All I can say is that when players actually played evil, it was not something I want to do as a social activity. Struggle with your dark side? Done evil in the past? You're likely neutral.
> 
> But truly evil? Nope. Been there,  Done that,  don't want the crappy t-shirt.



I forget where exactly on the interwebs I read it, but somebody was dissecting the concept of alignment.  He said that, while Law vs. Chaos was alright, a better term would be Dogmatic vs. Pragmatic.  But he then went on to say that Good vs. Evil was horrible, and that better terms would be Selfless vs. Selfish.  That would alleviate the issue of the "party member that might kill the rest of the party overnight while on watch."


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 4, 2022)

If I could sum up the core trait or value of each of the four alignment axis’ in one word id give them:
Good: benevolent
Evil: self-centred Edit: self-interested
Lawful: regulation
Chaotic: liberation
Of course, i think that those words don’t do true justice to the nuance of each of the alignments but i think that’d be true of any attempt to reduce them to one word.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 4, 2022)

Gorck said:


> I forget where exactly on the interwebs I read it, but somebody was dissecting the concept of alignment.  He said that, while Law vs. Chaos was alright, a better term would be Dogmatic vs. Pragmatic.  But he then went on to say that Good vs. Evil was horrible, and that better terms would be Selfless vs. Selfish.  That would alleviate the issue of the "party member that might kill the rest of the party overnight while on watch."



From a philosophical point of view that may make sense, although I'm not sure I agree. 

D&D morality is oversimplified like everything else in the game.  It's good enough for it's purpose. 

I'm not interested in an advanced philosophy course or even _The Good Place.  _There's a place for that, but I'm okay with simple descriptors that we have general agreement on at the table.


----------



## Clint_L (Sep 4, 2022)

My problem with the D&D alignment system is that I teach creative writing, and it is so alien to think of characterization or even morality as being anything like alignment. I can't imagine that any writing teacher ever would ask students to think of a character in terms of their alignment. It's not just that D&D alignments are simplified, it's that they bear no relation to how individuals actually are, and so create a really odd story dynamic.

You could just as well choose nine different fruits and ask each player to define their character in terms of one of those fruits. Actually, now I think about it, that seems more fun and interesting than D&D alignments. I could get better stories from the fruit option.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 4, 2022)

Mephista said:


> Alignment was basically enshrined as a sacred cow when D&D Next was still being playtested.
> 
> It's never going away. Maybe rendered completely meaningless, but ways going to be a line for it on the sheet.
> 
> I mean , hells, I accidentally started an alignment argument once by jokingly calling myself Lawful Chaotic. A complete nothing. And people still argued. I feel like people just want to fight over it.



I always like to say that Batman is Chaotic Lawful.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 5, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> If I could sum up the core trait or value of each of the four alignment axis’ in one word id give them:
> Good: benevolent
> Evil: self-centred Edit: self-interested
> Lawful: regulation
> ...



Self-Interested is not evil. It's healthy.

Self-centered, to the point of putting your interests at odds with the basic innate rights of others, that's evil. But even self-centered could just be neutral or unaligned - and also an sparking snuffpit.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 5, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> Self-Interested is not evil. It's healthy.
> 
> Self-centered, to the point of putting your interests at odds with the basic innate rights of others, that's evil. But even self-centered could just be neutral or unaligned - and also an sparking snuffpit.



Okay maybe self centred is the better of the two to describe Evil, but it’s still not great and i even made that point in my other post that only trying to use a single word to describe an entire alignment yields subpar results,

Also it’s about degrees, you say that ‘a little’ self centredness is neutral but do it justice and apply the same to the others, only ‘a little’ benevolence doesn’t make you Good, ‘a little’ support of regulation or liberation doesn’t make you Lawful or Chaotic, But when it’s a core piece in that person’s personality/values i think it’s a good enough descriptor

Self-centred, self-interested, selfish, unempathetic, all of them are fine to describe Evil but at the same time they all lack that certain something.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 5, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> Okay maybe self centred is the better of the two to describe Evil, but it’s still not great and i even made that point in my other post that only trying to use a single word to describe an entire alignment yields subpar results,
> 
> Also it’s about degrees, you say that ‘a little’ self centredness is neutral but do it justice and apply the same to the others, only ‘a little’ benevolence doesn’t make you Good, ‘a little’ support of regulation or liberation doesn’t make you Lawful or Chaotic, But when it’s a core piece in that person’s personality/values i think it’s a good enough descriptor
> 
> Self-centred, self-interested, selfish, unempathetic, all of them are fine to describe Evil but at the same time they all lack that certain something.



Some degree of self-interest is fairly standard for most people. The evil part is not having any consideration of others to go along with it. 

I'm not sure there's a simple term for that - Inconsiderate seems insufficient, but Sociopathic seems too absolute.


----------



## payn (Sep 5, 2022)

Sorry I lost track of the discussion; why are we trying to one word describe the alignments which are one word description themselves?


----------



## Gorck (Sep 5, 2022)

payn said:


> Sorry I lost track of the discussion; why are we trying to one word describe the alignments which are one word description themselves?



I suppose because, for PC's sake, there's only really 6 alignments to play.  It's difficult to truly play an "evil" character in a party (the black cowboy hat is a dead give away).  Whereas, in my example of Selfless vs. Selfish, it would be perfectly fine to play a Selfish character and not be someone who might "kill the whole party in their sleep while on watch."  Raistlin in Dragonlance is a good example of a character that would be considered "selfish," yet not completely "evil."

But, of course, Selfish and Selfless both begin with "S" so it would be hard to reduce them to convenient 2 letter acronyms.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 5, 2022)

payn said:


> Sorry I lost track of the discussion; why are we trying to one word describe the alignments which are one word description themselves?



Mostly because the official alignment monikers are actually a bit vague and highly open to interpretation, whereas what i was trying to identify was the actual core conceptual trait of each alignment.

And as Gorck identifies above, ‘evil’ as a character descriptor is highly suspect to demonisation and is more often than not banned at tables as a result without considerations in a way selfish or self-centred is not.


----------



## payn (Sep 5, 2022)

Gorck said:


> I suppose because, for PC's sake, there's only really 6 alignments to play.  It's difficult to truly play an "evil" character in a party (the black cowboy hat is a dead give away).  Whereas, in my example of Selfless vs. Selfish, it would be perfectly fine to play a Selfish character and not be someone who might "kill the whole party in their sleep while on watch."  Raistlin in Dragonlance is a good example of a character that would be considered "selfish," yet not completely "evil."
> 
> But, of course, Selfish and Selfless both begin with "S" so it would be hard to reduce them to convenient 2 letter acronyms.





CreamCloud0 said:


> Mostly because the official alignment monikers are actually a bit vague and highly open to interpretation, whereas what i was trying to identify was the actual core conceptual trait of each alignment.
> 
> And as Gorck identifies above, ‘evil’ is highly suspect to demonisation and is more often than not banned at tables as a result without considerations




Gotcha, I always thought it strange how folks view good and evil in the game. I mean, many many characters I have seen marked down as good don't really do anything particularly good. Good meaning helping people, respecting life, being willing to put their life on the line for others. While evil on the other hand, is expected to steal candy from every baby and kick every puppy or turn in their evil card immediately. 

I think the black hat cowboy is pretty easy actually. It's the assassin who has a code to only kill bad guys.  I consider them evil because their problem solving skill set doesn't just include murder, but starts with it. As long as the other PCs are generally good people, they have nothing to fear from the assassin. Then, you get those tasty moral discussions between characters like the when Daredevil meets the Punisher. This dynamic is difficult in a group that is perhaps pulled in different directions. You need a certain amount of selflessness to be willing to go both ways at different times to satisfy each character arc. If you are too selfish, you are better off with characters that are in alignment with each other so the groups goals and procedures never conflict.

Perhaps, the selfish/selfless moniker is better applied to the actual player than their character?


----------



## Mephista (Sep 5, 2022)

I've come to feel that there should be only 5 PC alignments. CN has yet to prove itself PC friendly to me. Even the CN plane is filled with the antagonistic Salad compared to, say, indifferent modruns.

And I've also come to feel that LN is played as Lawful Evil-lite, the PC friendly version of evil.


----------



## Andvari (Sep 5, 2022)

Mephista said:


> And I've also come to feel that LN is played as Lawful Evil-lite, the PC friendly version of evil.



AKA Raistlin mode.


----------



## Clint_L (Sep 5, 2022)

I know that alignment is a legacy item that will probably always be in the game. But as someone who has not used it in decades, I can vouch that it has no meaningful impact on the game. It could vanish from the rulebooks tonight and most folks wouldn't even know it was gone. So it's one of those things that I can't get too excited about debating. Every tabletop will define its own moral universe, and that's how it should be.


----------



## Mecheon (Sep 5, 2022)

Mephista said:


> CN has yet to prove itself PC friendly to me.



Its technically workable but tricky. Its pretty much the closest to really get to the selfish loner who's just here because they want to do stuff and get paid

last time I played a CN character, a sorceress back in 3E, they were annoyed with having to go on a mission at night and cast Light on their famillier. Completely forgetting they were travelling with a Drow and blinding the poor elf they were with for a few moments, before giving a half-hearted "Sorry, but, I literately cannot see"


----------



## Illithidbix (Sep 6, 2022)

I've spent the last twenty odd years being militantly anti-alignment but I've mellowed and am now somewhat less evangelical about the position. Probably in part because 4E and 5E massively cut down the mechanical implications of Alignment which made it easier to run games without a very weird and specific cosmology baked into it.

Back in 2015 I did a compilation of all the mechanical effects in the 3 core rulebooks and posted it here.
Aside from a few scant mentions in spells and monster powers most of them turn up in the DMG in the descriptions of the Outer Planes (understandable) or in the Magic Item sections, mostly around artefacts and intelligent items.

Personally I quite liked Personality, Bond, Ideal and Flaw as a set of training wheels for new players to think about what their character cares about, but would be interested to know if new players actually did find them useful.

*How do I think Alignment will appear in One D&D? - In short I don't think it'll be much of a new approach.*
Based on:
1) 1D&D seems intent to be reasonably restrained with changes.
2) The 9 Alignment is a core part of the identity of D&D* and has entered pop culture parlance. Even if the role, rules and definition of the Alignments have changed substantially over the five decades.
3) Alignment hasn't been mentioned much in supplements unless they involve the Outer Planes.  They're still in monster & NPC stat blocks but it seems more and more common to see "any alignment" listed as there is some effort to move away from biological essentialism.
4) From what I've seen the DMG is going to receive the most changes out of the core 3 books as Crawford et al are the least satisfied with it. I don't have a single source to quote for this however.

I am pretty sure the nine alignments will be kept but will have an even more diminished roll. Maybe some of the few spells, monster abilities and magic items get rewritten to entirely erase mechanical effects.

Alignment (or PBIF for that matter) hasn't been mentioned in the single PDF we've got. But this isn't exactly surprising since there isn't anything really to playtest.
_
(*Well more AD&D, as Looking at PDFs of older editions of Basic I didn't realise that Moldvay 1981, Metzer 1983 and Rules Cyclopedia 1991 all kept the original 1974 "Law vs Neutrality vs Chaos" and that Holmes 1977 appeared to have 5 alignments LG, CG, N, LE, CE but not NG, LG, CG, NE. Likewise I always thought that 4E's Lawful Good, Good, Neutral, Evil, Chaotic Evil worked well.)_

*What would I like to see Alignment will appear in One D&D?*
Whilst I would have said "Gut it out of the system like a fish"..
... My ideal approach would to essentially be an optional rule and have Alignment in the PHB solely at the end in the Appendix alongside the Great Wheel's planes of existence.
Then have a similar entry in the DMG which includes discussion and optional rules of how to make Alignment more relevant in games but perhaps alongside other optional morality systems such as Honour and Corruption (probably a better name than Sanity).


----------



## aia_2 (Sep 6, 2022)

Mephista said:


> I've come to feel that there should be only 5 PC alignments. CN has yet to prove itself PC friendly to me. Even the CN plane is filled with the antagonistic Salad compared to, say, indifferent modruns.
> 
> And I've also come to feel that LN is played as Lawful Evil-lite, the PC friendly version of evil.




This is where i ended as well: in the game i am writing there are 4 alignments and they are not defined as a single concept, they are areas where a character can move from an extreme position (like the utmost-evil) to mild ones up to the opposite (like the light-evil mentioned above)... This reflects one concept: a character is a "marked" creature who can act very differently according to the circumstance but will not go far from his intimate nature... More details will follow...


----------



## aia_2 (Sep 6, 2022)

Illithidbix said:


> I've spent the last twenty odd years being militantly anti-alignment but I've mellowed and am now somewhat less evangelical about the position. Probably in part because 4E and 5E massively cut down the mechanical implications of Alignment which made it easier to run games without a very weird and specific cosmology baked into it.
> 
> Back in 2015 I did a compilation of all the mechanical effects in the 3 core rulebooks and posted it here.
> Aside from a few scant mentions in spells and monster powers most of them turn up in the DMG in the descriptions of the Outer Planes (understandable) or in the Magic Item sections, mostly around artefacts and intelligent items.
> ...




This is what is also present in all the previous editions... It has not changed over time. And this is what i have always found a leak in D&D... And this is notwithstanding the illuminated concept Gygax had since the very beginning (there is an article in the Strategic Review which show how outstanding was the way he thought about alignments!).

IMHO alignment is both a very powerful feature to leverage on fun and playability and a very cardinal concept on which game mechanics should be based.


----------

