Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

[2D8HP]

At that point, IMO, there's no need for Alignment, because you have a fully-formed consideration of morality and ethics.

To me, Alignment seems like either nothing more than Purple Team vs Orange Team, a way to put jerseys on the characters so that the PCs know who it's OK to hit with things and take stuff from, or an outright grotesque caricature of "morality".




IMO, and frankly, the whole thing is because of D&D's "gamist" core. It's an objective-sounding, no-interpretation, no-argument rule that can be planned around and gamed for advantage. Sword gets the "chaotic" tag, any character with the "lawful" tag that tries to wield it gets popped. No debate with the DM about "conflicting goals" or "Am I really opposed to the sword's ideals?"

"Alignment" lets some players pretend that morality and ethics can be reduced to a set of mechanical tags, and also appeals to the Hollywood-esque "goodguys" and "badguys" quasimorality that some people like.

Yes, exactly!

And it used to be explicit, the predecessor of D&D, Chainmail had it as:

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

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

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


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

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

'twas sides in a wargame.


Incidentally, in OD&D


Orcs could be aligned with Neutrality as well as Chaos, and Elves, Dwarves/Gnomes could also be aligned with Neutrality as well as Law, and Men may be aligned with any.

The 1976 article that added the "good and evil axis" made clear in this graph:

that creatures don't just exist on one of nine points of ethics/morality, there's a range:

Also in the article Gygax stated:

"Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity....

....Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things."

So DM's decided on PC's alignments based on those characters actions, as a whole.

Whatever a player puts on their PC's character record sheet as that PC's "Alignment" is only a note to themselves indicating how they plan that PC to act, but any Alignment game effects are and always were for the DM to decide based on the PC's actions, the only times that I imagine that it would be worthwhile for a DM to bother to see what a player has written down on their character record sheet as that PC's Alignment is very early in a campaign before that PC has performed enough actions to judge (and I've personally never seen any early sessions where Alignment has come up), or in edge cases (i.e. which PC should wield a particular magic item such as a Holy Avenger sword), where the DM isn't sure and decides to go by a players nominal intent,

In the low level games I prefer it's pretty seldom that a PC's Alignment comes up at all.

[EggKookoo]

IMO, and frankly, the whole thing is because of D&D's "gamist" core. It's an objective-sounding, no-interpretation, no-argument rule that can be planned around and gamed for advantage. Sword gets the "chaotic" tag, any character with the "lawful" tag that tries to wield it gets popped. No debate with the DM about "conflicting goals" or "Am I really opposed to the sword's ideals?"

"Alignment" lets some players pretend that morality and ethics can be reduced to a set of mechanical tags, and also appeals to the Hollywood-esque "goodguys" and "badguys" quasimorality that some people like.

This could be mitigated if we were encouraged to think of "neutral" as some flavor of "undecided" or "not consistent," which is how I like to interpret it outside of Druid-like balance ideals. If a PC is explicitly lawful good, it means the player will try to make the PC act lawful good even when it might make more sense or be more convenient to behave differently. A PC that is neutral may well be lawful good most of the time just because it makes sense to do so, but isn't locked to it.

Rorschach (from Watchmen) is lawful neutral*. He sticks to the rules (his own moral code, anyway) and will do so regardless of circumstances. Nite Owl is neutral but generally behaves in a lawful or good way because, in the moment, it makes sense for him to do so. If you looked at Nite Owl's behavior over time, you might be tempted to label him as something like lawful good, but he's not lawful the same way Rorschach is.

For the record, I have no problem with alignment, although I find the use of terms like "good" and "evil" to be too subjective. I wish they worked out more concrete terms. But that's easily managed at the table after some discussion.

* I realize both Rorschach and Nite Owl operate outside the law, which might seem contradictory with me calling them lawful. I just mean they both have a set of behavioral parameters they don't like to cross. Rorschach actually will not cross his under pretty much any circumstances, which is why it makes sense to actually call him lawful. Nite Owl is reluctant to cross his, which in general are looser than Rorschach's anyway, but he's more willing to rationalize doing so.

[Tanarii]

Team PC vs Team Monster is one thing that makes Alignment a useful tool. Depends on how complex you want your campaign to be.

A single sentence typical, but neither required nor consistent, behavior motivation loosely based on moral and ethical outlook is what makes Alignment an incredibly useful tool. Provided it's used in conjunction with a few other categories of motivations.

Players in general suck at playing a character that is not themselves. And those with RPG "experience" are often among the worst. Not helped by really bad memes (viral ideas) out in the roleplaying game community about roleplaying being something different, something special, on a pedestal. Not helped by ideas spewed out by role-playing elitists, ranters like the designers involved in Palladium, the Forge, Amber Diceless RPG, and Burning Wheel. Teaching players to focus on making decisions in the fantasy environment, but occasionally with reference to some explicitly stated motivations on where their character differs from themselves, works wonders.

[RedMage125]

At that point, IMO, there's no need for Alignment, because you have a fully-formed consideration of morality and ethics.

To me, Alignment seems like either nothing more than Purple Team vs Orange Team, a way to put jerseys on the characters so that the PCs know who it's OK to hit with things and take stuff from, or an outright grotesque caricature of "morality".

I disagree. Alignment is not supposed to be an absolute barometer of action or affiliation. In fact, while using alignment and its mechanics, it can make for very entertaining stories to have Evil characters that share the PC's goals, and a Good NPC who opposes them.

IMO, and frankly, the whole thing is because of D&D's "gamist" core. It's an objective-sounding, no-interpretation, no-argument rule that can be planned around and gamed for advantage. Sword gets the "chaotic" tag, any character with the "lawful" tag that tries to wield it gets popped. No debate with the DM about "conflicting goals" or "Am I really opposed to the sword's ideals?"

See, now I view that as a GOOD thing. Concrete mechanics that can be objectively quantified, IMHO, protect players from fickle DM fiat.

If the character is Lawful, and you have mechanics that say that Lawful characters get popped, there is no debate. The mechanics were established, and the lines of distinction are transparent to players.

Take Age Of Worms, which had been mentioned before as relating to the lore of the Law/Chaos conflict. There's a point where the players enter the tomb of one of the Vaati. As very Lawful beings who opposed the forces of Chaos, the tomb is liberally spread with traps that only affect chaotic individuals (the 3.5 spell Dictum was on several traps). When I ran it, the party cleric was Lawful Good, and remained completely unaffected by them.

By DM fiat, using some metric of "allied with the goals of the Vaati", no one in the party would have been affected, and the dungeon would have been boring indeed.

"Alignment" lets some players pretend that morality and ethics can be reduced to a set of mechanical tags, and also appeals to the Hollywood-esque "goodguys" and "badguys" quasimorality that some people like.

Not everyone who likes or uses alignment is a simpleton. Nuance and subtlety in morality and ethics are still possible, but having objective Good/Evil/Law/Chaos as dispassionate cosmic forces who are not swayed by excuses or post-hoc justification can also make for great stories in fantasy.

[Yora]

The main reason alignment is bad and should be gone is that nobody can ever agree what it is, what it means, and what it is for.

Maybe any of these many wildly different interpretations could serve a function, but until someone somehow manages to convince a majority of D&D players of one way it remains a burden rather than being a benefit.

[Constructman]

The main reason alignment is bad and should be gone is that nobody can ever agree what it is, what it means, and what it is for.

Maybe any of these many wildly different interpretations could serve a function, but until someone somehow manages to convince a majority of D&D players of one way it remains a burden rather than being a benefit.

Is ignoring everybody else in the thread and yelling at clouds fun for you?

[RedMage125]

The main reason alignment is bad and should be gone is that nobody can ever agree what it is, what it means, and what it is for.

Maybe any of these many wildly different interpretations could serve a function, but until someone somehow manages to convince a majority of D&D players of one way it remains a burden rather than being a benefit.

"Alignment is bad" is an opinion, not a fact. And you'd be hard pressed to prove that "a majority of players" have any kind of problem with it.

And there's not really any "wildly different interpretations " of what alignment is. Most of the pro-alignment people agree. Some focus more on how it affects the Great Wheel Cosmology, doesn't mean they have different interpretations. If you've been reading the thread, you'll see that many people agree what it is, what it means, and what it is for. The disagreement usually stems from people who do not think such things are valuable.

Which is also an opinion.

[EggKookoo]

Bob: I will do the good thing. When faced with an obstacle, I would rather fail at overcoming it than to overcome it using non-good methods.
Jim: I will do the good thing. However, if faced with an obstacle that can only be overcome with non-good methods, I will do so, even if reluctantly.

From a D&D alignment perspective, is Bob good? Is Jim good? Is Jim neutral (on the good/evil axis)?

[Hail Tempus]

Bob: I will do the good thing. When faced with an obstacle, I would rather fail at overcoming it than to overcome it using non-good methods.
Jim: I will do the good thing. However, if faced with an obstacle that can only be overcome with non-good methods, I will do so, even if reluctantly.

From a D&D alignment perspective, is Bob good? Is Jim good? Is Jim neutral (on the good/evil axis)?

I think both of these characters fall somewhere on the good spectrum. They're both trying to do good things, but one of them is willing to do non-good (but not evil) things to achieve that.

Bob might be Lawful Good. I can see Jim falling under Neutral Good or Chaotic Good.

[Beleriphon]

Bob: I will do the good thing. When faced with an obstacle, I would rather fail at overcoming it than to overcome it using non-good methods.
Jim: I will do the good thing. However, if faced with an obstacle that can only be overcome with non-good methods, I will do so, even if reluctantly.

From a D&D alignment perspective, is Bob good? Is Jim good? Is Jim neutral (on the good/evil axis)?

Jim is probably neutral. He's willing to veer off his moral compass a bit to get things done, but over all he wont. Remember a single act, doesn't make a character good or evil, or lawful or chaotic. It is behavior over time taken in aggregate that makes a character fall into one of the categories.

[Naanomi]

Jim is probably neutral. He's willing to veer off his moral compass a bit to get things done, but over all he wont. Remember a single act, doesn't make a character good or evil, or lawful or chaotic. It is behavior over time taken in aggregate that makes a character fall into one of the categories.

Which makes me think it depends somewhat on their life experiences... in a happy place where good behavior is rewarded, both could be Good... but placed in a hard place where evil is the norm (Darksun?) would see one still good and drive the other into neutrality (at least)

[Morty]

I disagree. Alignment is not supposed to be an absolute barometer of action or affiliation. In fact, while using alignment and its mechanics, it can make for very entertaining stories to have Evil characters that share the PC's goals, and a Good NPC who opposes them.

So what is it actually good for? If it can't definitely state someone's allegiance or moral standing, why do we even need it? It feels like every argument in defence of alignment advocates for watering it down until it doesn't mean much.

See, now I view that as a GOOD thing. Concrete mechanics that can be objectively quantified, IMHO, protect players from fickle DM fiat.

If the character is Lawful, and you have mechanics that say that Lawful characters get popped, there is no debate. The mechanics were established, and the lines of distinction are transparent to players.

Take Age Of Worms, which had been mentioned before as relating to the lore of the Law/Chaos conflict. There's a point where the players enter the tomb of one of the Vaati. As very Lawful beings who opposed the forces of Chaos, the tomb is liberally spread with traps that only affect chaotic individuals (the 3.5 spell Dictum was on several traps). When I ran it, the party cleric was Lawful Good, and remained completely unaffected by them.

By DM fiat, using some metric of "allied with the goals of the Vaati", no one in the party would have been affected, and the dungeon would have been boring indeed.

The only reason those effects exist to begin with is the alignment system, so this argument is a little circular. Not to mention it's either random or invites metagaming. If the players don't know what they're getting into, the traps will affect them or not based on a completely unrelated decision they'd made about their character's alignment. If they do, the system can be gamed by deliberately avoiding making chaotic characters.

[RedMage125]

Bob: I will do the good thing. When faced with an obstacle, I would rather fail at overcoming it than to overcome it using non-good methods.
Jim: I will do the good thing. However, if faced with an obstacle that can only be overcome with non-good methods, I will do so, even if reluctantly.

From a D&D alignment perspective, is Bob good? Is Jim good? Is Jim neutral (on the good/evil axis)?

I think both of these characters fall somewhere on the good spectrum. They're both trying to do good things, but one of them is willing to do non-good (but not evil) things to achieve that.

Bob might be Lawful Good. I can see Jim falling under Neutral Good or Chaotic Good.

We don't really have all the information, though. As opposed to just "Lawful Good", Bob sounds like a pre-4e Paladin. That was the standards that Paladins had to adhere to. Just being Lawful Good isn't enough to mandate that kind of inflexibility towards means. Take a look at Roy from Order of the Stick. He occasionally uses non-Lawful Good means to achieve his Good goals.

What the "non-good means" being referenced is also important. Hail Tempus specifies "non good (but also non evil)", and that's a huge distinction. Acts that are neither morally Good nor morally Evil, by definition, have no moral weight. They may be Lawful or Chaotic, but even pre-4e Paladins did not "fall from grace" by committing a Chaotic act, nor a Neutral one. And it takes more than one act to change one's alignment. Someone who will commit acts that are non-good but also non-evil for the sake of doing Good is almost certainly Good. OTOH, someone who is willing to regularly use Evil means to achieve Good ends is likely Neutral on that axis (I will admit, however, that this stance is heavily influenced by past editions, the 3.5e DMG, page 134, states that "Indecisiveness Indicates Neutrality"). But even that isn't an absolute. Such a character would be least likely to be Lawful Good, as they don't seem to be holding to a specific code of Good, but are rather more flexible in how they do Good.

Point is (and this is why a lot of "what alignment is this character?" examples are bunk) is that we do not have enough information about Bob or Jim to prescribe an alignment for either of them. If it is safe to assume that these statements are accurate summations of their entire outlook, beliefs, and actions, it would be fair to call them both some kind of Good, by 5e standards.

[OldTrees1]

Bob: I will do the good thing. When faced with an obstacle, I would rather fail at overcoming it than to overcome it using non-good methods.
Jim: I will do the good thing. However, if faced with an obstacle that can only be overcome with non-good methods, I will do so, even if reluctantly.

From a D&D alignment perspective, is Bob good? Is Jim good? Is Jim neutral (on the good/evil axis)?

Depends on which Philosopher you ask about our world. In the case of a particular Campaign it is wise to ask the DM because they made the Campaign's world.

From my own studies in this field I have seen more, but not all, Philosophers agree with Bob than agree with Jim. Additionally most Philosophers would consider both Bob and Jim to be moral, albeit imperfect in their practice.

In my campaign worlds I would judge both Bob and Jim to be Good but I would see Bob as being closer to moral perfection than Jim is. However through the course of a campaign I could see how often Bob avoids moral obligations due to a perceived by fictitious evil and how immoral Jim stoops in their pursuit of right action.

PS: IRL I often find myself debating whether I should act in a manner where I would always be Bob, or act in a manner where I would sometimes be Jim. Is it more important to do moral acts or to avoid immoral acts? So this is in no way a concluded question.

[Man_Over_Game]

After reading some of the responses, it'd probably could be summarized to:

• No, a TTRPG doesn't need an alignment system, unless alignment has mechanical value.
• Yes, DnD needs alignment, if only because DnD would become generic without it.

As a result, 5e's alignment system feels really generic and tacked on, because you HAVE to have it, and yet it isn't there for any reason any other TTRPG should have it.

Kinda like why we say "Bless You". It doesn't matter if it doesn't matter. You still do it, because it's wrong to do otherwise. We've gotten to the point where Alignment really doesn't matter, and yet, doing anything else would face a lot of backlash for being too different (See: 4th Edition DnD).

This is Traditionalism hard at work, folks.

[EggKookoo]

Jim is probably neutral. He's willing to veer off his moral compass a bit to get things done, but over all he wont. Remember a single act, doesn't make a character good or evil, or lawful or chaotic. It is behavior over time taken in aggregate that makes a character fall into one of the categories.

Right. I intended those behavior descriptions to imply their general or aggregate behavior. Almost all the time, Jim will do the good thing if available, but will do the non-good thing if necessary. Almost all the time, Bob will not do the non-good thing even if it means failure. Each of these guys probably deviate from this on occasion (Jim sticks to his "good" guns once in a while even if it means failure, and very rarely Bob can rationalize doing the non-good thing to succeed).

[RedMage125]

So what is it actually good for? If it can't definitely state someone's allegiance or moral standing, why do we even need it? It feels like every argument in defence of alignment advocates for watering it down until it doesn't mean much.

I feel like this has been answered multiple times in the thread. But I'll repeat it...again.

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

Even the second part of my statement that you quoted and responded to, you will note that I am of the belief that objective quanifiable mechanics protect players against fickle DM fiat. It's been said several times throughout the thread.

And I'm not realy in favor of "watering it down", but I also don't mind that the mechanics are less impactful than what 3.5e gave us. It allows people who don't like alignment to drop it with very little work. As opposed to 3.5e, which required extracting alignment mechanics' tentacles from numerous spell and ability mechanics.

The only reason those effects exist to begin with is the alignment system, so this argument is a little circular. Not to mention it's either random or invites metagaming. If the players don't know what they're getting into, the traps will affect them or not based on a completely unrelated decision they'd made about their character's alignment. If they do, the system can be gamed by deliberately avoiding making chaotic characters.

Have you been reading none of the thread so far? Like, literally none of it? Because the nature of alignment as it relates to Planar Cosmology has been a huge point, and even the mention of the Law vs Chaos war in D&D history (across multiple editions).
It absolutely is not circular, because it shows the connection between mortal alignment and those cosmic forces. The Vaati were completely opposed to the forces of Chaos, and thus the traps in their tombs were designed to dissuade creatures of Chaos. That's not circular is consistency and coherence. Having alignment mechanics that are concrete and objective just gives mechanical voice to that, in a manner not subject to DM fiat. Characters of Lawful alignment are individuals whose ideals, beliefs, and values are in line with the Vaati's values.
And by the time the players get to that tomb, they absolutely DO know what they're getting into, because they've already once raided the tomb of one of the Vaati's vassals (first module of the adventure path), and the portal to this tomb was closed off previously. They've done research on the Vaati (also caled the Wind Dukes, btw). One of their NPC allies was extremely interested in getting the portal working, and they followed him in once he did after he never came back to town. You're making assumptions based off of your own bias and choosing to try and frame this in the worst possible way. They've been thoroughly briefed on how the Wind Dukes were champions of Law, and so none of it was a surprise.
And as far as "gaming the system"...
...
...yes, if you let players read the adventure modules in advance they are going to be able to make characters optimal for bypassing certain challenges. This is an indictment of alignment mechanics how, exactly?

[Beleriphon]

I think game alignment are useful tools. As expressed earlier up threat nearly all games have them. In Mass Effect you're either a Renegade or a Paragon. There are a few Renegade options aren't outright jerk moves, and a few Paragon options that make Sheppard a bit of a douche. Its still an alignment system, and it has a purpose and place in the game to track what kind of character you want Sheppard to be, and that can affect the game. Hell, if affects Mass Effect 3 depending on what choose to do.

Star Wars has the Dark Side and the Light Side. Fallout 2 tracks your alignment overall, as well as how different settlements, and factions view your character. For example the character can be the devil incarnate in some towns, but new Messiah in others. And overall the game could consider the character kind of neutral in the grand scheme.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think game alignment are useful tools. As expressed earlier up threat nearly all games have them. In Mass Effect you're either a Renegade or a Paragon. There are a few Renegade options aren't outright jerk moves, and a few Paragon options that make Sheppard a bit of a douche. Its still an alignment system, and it has a purpose and place in the game to track what kind of character you want Sheppard to be, and that can affect the game. Hell, if affects Mass Effect 3 depending on what choose to do.

Star Wars has the Dark Side and the Light Side. Fallout 2 tracks your alignment overall, as well as how different settlements, and factions view your character. For example the character can be the devil incarnate in some towns, but new Messiah in others. And overall the game could consider the character kind of neutral in the grand scheme.

But those are used so that a preprogrammed system can determine the most personable outcome for you. DnD doesn't really do that. It's never done the whole "alignment change" thing very well in any edition, and any result is going to be perfectly crafted by your DM's opinion of YOU, not your Alignment.

Beyond the first session, I sincerely doubt most DMs really pay that much attention to alignment. I certainly don't.

[Beleriphon]

But those are used so that a preprogrammed system can determine the most personable outcome for you. DnD doesn't really do that. It's never done the whole "alignment change" thing very well in any edition, and any result is going to be perfectly crafted by your DM's opinion of YOU, not your Alignment.

Beyond the first session, I sincerely doubt most DMs really pay that much attention to alignment. I certainly don't.

Sure, but that's something hat should be generally tracked. I mean a character that has Lawful Good as alignment and then the player decides to attack every random NPC, probably not actually a LG character. I'd go with jerkface-asshat personally, but chaotic evil seems more appropriate.

To a degree alignment isn't directly relevant in many instances, but it can be a helpful tool to set expectations. As with much of the game, it only does as much as you care to do with it.

[Man_Over_Game]

Sure, but that's something hat should be generally tracked. I mean a character that has Lawful Good as alignment and then the player decides to attack every random NPC, probably not actually a LG character. I'd go with jerkface-asshat personally, but chaotic evil seems more appropriate.

To a degree alignment isn't directly relevant in many instances, but it can be a helpful tool to set expectations. As with much of the game, it only does as much as you care to do with it.

Does the DM really need to track your alignment? The game doesn't care. There are almost no mechanical changes based off of alignment. If you were to add some, you'd just be making stuff up.

Similarly, if I made scaling changes to your Monk powers based off of how often you use weapons, I'd be making that up.

But you're not using 5e or DnD to create those changes. You're using a DnD-created gauge, but the implementation is not part of the system. You're adding things that's a different game than DnD. Still DnD as a whole, but that's despite what you added to it, not because of it.

Put another way, if Alignment was an optional rule, and people omitted it by default, what would change?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Put another way, if Alignment was an optional rule, and people omitted it by default, what would change?

To a first approximation, nothing. The underlying structure of the cosmology isn't that important for many adventures, most enemies have valid reasons to be enemies beyond their alignment label, and people will still play the way they want. The most common effect of a DM banning evil aligned PCs is that people who were going to do that play "chaotic neutral" PCs with no change in behavior beyond a flimsy facade.

And the mechanical effects only come up if the DM forces them. They're either magic items (legendary or artifact, in fact) or one NPC race. And pixies' heart sense is trivial to change to ignore alignment and just read intentions directly.

[Tanarii]

So what is it actually good for? If it can't definitely state someone's allegiance or moral standing, why do we even need it? It feels like every argument in defence of alignment advocates for watering it down until it doesn't mean much.

This is back to front. Making it definitive makes it useless. That's why it was often a problem in previous editions. Now that it's been made flexible, it's actually useful.

[Man_Over_Game]

This is back to front. Making it definitive makes it useless. That's why it was often a problem in previous editions. Now that it's been made flexible, it's actually useful.

I mean, I'd still say it's definitive. You can't be some fluid form bouncing between Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good. Otherwise, there's not really any reason to define what you are.

5e doesn't have any use for those definitions, so it's still useless, in just a different way.

What 5e doesn't do is make the alignment restrictive. You can be a Paladin regardless of alignment. It was a good change, but then it begs the question: What DOES alignment do now?

Or are things like Oaths, Patrons and Deities the new alignments? Because I could definitely support that. "I'm not Lawful Good. I'm a Cleric of Pelor, and I just simply do what's worthy of my Lord's grace".

Make alignments build-specific. That way, between your Race, your Class, your Subclass, and your Background, your personality is basically already fairly well defined, as both a estimation tool (He's a Devotion Paladin, of course he's a good guy!") and as a restrictive one ("You were raised a merchant; you probably wouldn't know barbarian hunting techniques").

[Tanarii]

I mean the behavior is typical, not constant. That allows it to interface with other personality traits that might take precedence, not be an always on one dimensional character.

I mean that the typical behaviors are somewhat broad, and written in a way to be a guideline. For pretty much the same reason.

Instead of a straight jacket, alignments, in combination with personality traits, are inspiration.

[Man_Over_Game]

I mean the behavior is typical, not constant. That allows it to interface with other personality traits that might take precedence, not be an always on one dimensional character.

I mean that the typical behaviors are somewhat broad, and written in a way to be a guideline. For pretty much the same reason.

Instead of a straight jacket, alignments, in combination with personality traits, are inspiration.

But that could also be summarized as "things are easier now that alignment doesn't matter".

In which case, "alignment doesn't matter".

[Brookshw]

Put another way, if Alignment was an optional rule, and people omitted it by default, what would change?

Okay, let's run with that for a moment. What plane would you go to when you die without some kind of alignment system? How would you deal with divine servants (clerics etc)?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Okay, let's run with that for a moment. What plane would you go to when you die without some kind of alignment system? How would you deal with divine servants (clerics etc)?

The one associated with your deity, or you could have a generalized afterlife for those who don't fit with one particular god/devil/demon by their actions. You know, like Eberron does. Divine servants gain favor by associating with their god's agenda & beliefs. A servant of Pelor isn't going to do the things that Torm wants, despite both being Lawful Good. Alignment is absolutely not enough (or needed, in fact) for those purposes?

[Tanarii]

But that could also be summarized as "things are easier now that alignment doesn't matter".

The blinders are strong with this one.

It helps create a multidimensional character personality. If that doesn't matter to you, more power to you.

[Max_Killjoy]

It helps create a multidimensional character personality.

One of nine largely arbitrary team jersey colors doesn't really do much to create a "multidimensional personality".

A character with a multidimensional personality has one without an alignment. A character without a multidimensional personality doesn't get meaningfully closer to one with an alignment.