Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

[Naanomi]

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

Very few such effects, and most on monsters and places not PCs; but not none

The one I’ve actually used in game is my social Warlock using their Sprite pet to read people’s alignment to ‘get a feel’ for them before interacting directly

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...s-Mechanically

[GreyBlack]

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

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

Are we talking good or Good? Because cosmological Good is very different from personal goods.

[RedMage125]

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

The bolded section is not a problem with alignment and never has been. This is a problem with a player who wants an excuse to be a jerkbag.

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

See, that's funny, because I'm pro- alignment, and I often say that those two alignments are a lot more similar than people give them credit for. One cares more for what is right, the other for what is just (or fair, if your prefer). And this is speaking as a person who, if I were in a world with objective alignment forces, would probably be Lawful Neutral.

The one associated with your deity, or you could have a generalized afterlife for those who don't fit with one particular god/devil/demon by their actions. You know, like Eberron does.

But that's changing the cosmology. I believe his question was predicated on the assumption that one could just remove alignment without any other significant changes to the assumed setting (which includes the planes). Don't get me wrong, I love me some Eberron, but a lot of what made it so great was the things that were so different.

Divine servants gain favor by associating with their god's agenda & beliefs. A servant of Pelor isn't going to do the things that Torm wants, despite both being Lawful Good. Alignment is absolutely not enough (or needed, in fact) for those purposes?

Minor nitpick, Pelor is not Lawful, he is Neutral Good unless you are referring to the Burning Hate ;)

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

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

Likewise, a character with a multdimensional personality has one with alignment. Alignment does not, in any way, preclude multidimensional personality or nuance in morality and ethics of individuals. To claim otherwise is either an intentional Straw Man or a blatant lie.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1. The bolded section is not a problem with alignment and never has been. This is a problem with a player who wants an excuse to be a jerkbag.

2. But that's changing the cosmology. I believe his question was predicated on the assumption that one could just remove alignment without any other significant changes to the assumed setting (which includes the planes). Don't get me wrong, I love me some Eberron, but a lot of what made it so great was the things that were so different.

3. Minor nitpick, Pelor is not Lawful, he is Neutral Good unless you are referring to the Burning Hate ;)

1. Sure, but it also shows that alignment doesn't do what it was originally intended to do--solve interpersonal problems. So having it or not changes (to a first approximation) nothing.
2. Ok, then send all those not claimed by a god, demon, or devil to the death god's place. That's the role of those gods in mythology, so it's a minimal change.
3. Ok, then substitute for any other LG god. Or substitute Torm for any other NG god. The point remains--alignment isn't enough to know anything of substance about the character, at least not beyond the other role-play elements.

I use alignment for one purpose. As a short-hand note to myself about minor NPCs or very general trends. Whenever I flesh out the person more (because they're important), the alignment either changes or gets ignored.

[Witty Username]

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

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

this is why we have favorite Jersy colors, favorite players, favorite positions and favorite plays and a Hogwarts house.

[EggKookoo]

Are we talking good or Good? Because cosmological Good is very different from personal goods.

Whichever version is relevant to the discussion of alignment in D&D.

[GreyBlack]

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

Obviously a Cleric of Pelor wouldn't go to the same plane as that of Torm. Pelor isn't Lawful Good; he's Neutral Evil.

[GreyBlack]

Whichever version is relevant to the discussion of alignment in D&D.

Yeah... people are kinda talking past each other by equating the two. Something can be good for the character acting while not being Good, so by saying that a character will always try to do something good, that goes more into a Nietzschean philosophy where something is only good if the character wills it to be; it assumes a lack of universal Good and Evil, which definitively exist in basic D&D. Hence the need for clarification; is the character in your example using the Will to Power definition or the cosmological Good and Evil?

[Max_Killjoy]

Likewise, a character with a multdimensional personality has one with alignment. Alignment does not, in any way, preclude multidimensional personality or nuance in morality and ethics of individuals. To claim otherwise is either an intentional Straw Man or a blatant lie.

OK, but I don't recall claiming that alignment precludes a multidimensional personality. It's pretty much unrelated either way.

It certainly makes nuance in morality and ethics more difficult, given that it puts up a facade of simplified Black and White morality. (And pay no attention to the Blue and Monkey morality lurking behind that facade.)

Yeah... people are kinda talking past each other by equating the two. Something can be good for the character acting while not being Good, so by saying that a character will always try to do something good, that goes more into a Nietzschean philosophy where something is only good if the character wills it to be; it assumes a lack of universal Good and Evil, which definitively exist in basic D&D. Hence the need for clarification; is the character in your example using the Will to Power definition or the cosmological Good and Evil?

IMO, D&D Alignment as it stretches back across previous editions is simply a case of using the same word to mean two different and largely unrelated things. There's Good, the alignment and "cosmic force", and then there's good, the actual moral quality. But for Good (the former), you could just as easily slide in another word, such as Purple, or Monkey, or Dishwater, or Up, or Counterclockwise, or... Good may sometimes look like good, but eventually most characters who are trying to be good will run into situations where they have to choose between what's good and what's Good.

[Brookshw]

But that's changing the cosmology. I believe his question was predicated on the assumption that one could just remove alignment without any other significant changes to the assumed setting (which includes the planes). Don't get me wrong, I love me some Eberron, but a lot of what made it so great was the things that were so different.

That's okay. Changing the cosmology to accommodate an alignment-less game seems like a fine starting point.

The one associated with your deity, or you could have a generalized afterlife for those who don't fit with one particular god/devil/demon by their actions. You know, like Eberron does.

Why are dieties associated with a plane? Do they each have their own private plane? Are dieties grouped together somehow within a plane, and if so, how do we group them? What should we do with exemplar races? Do they keep their planes? Why? What should this new cosmology look like and how should creatures be allocated across it?

Divine servants gain favor by associating with their god's agenda & beliefs. A servant of Pelor isn't going to do the things that Torm wants, despite both being Lawful Good. Alignment is absolutely not enough (or needed, in fact) for those purposes?

I'm not sure why you suggest that two gods with overlapping dispositions wouldn't, at least at times, want the same thing. That aside, is there no code of conduct that would inform to a divine servant how to pursue the agenda's of particular gods? For example, Torm (depending on your edition) is a god of loyalty, justice, protection, righteous fury, etc. In an alignment-less system can a divine servant of Torm serve cruel and harsh masters faithfully, carry out draconic laws and viciously punish the breakers of those laws, and still be a follower of Torm? How do you think this type of thing should be handled in an alignment-less system?

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's okay. Changing the cosmology to accommodate an alignment-less game seems like a fine starting point.

1. Why are dieties associated with a plane? Do they each have their own private plane? Are dieties grouped together somehow within a plane, and if so, how do we group them? What should we do with exemplar races? Do they keep their planes? Why? What should this new cosmology look like and how should creatures be allocated across it?


2. I'm not sure why you suggest that two gods with overlapping dispositions wouldn't, at least at times, want the same thing. That aside, is there no code of conduct that would inform to a divine servant how to pursue the agenda's of particular gods? For example, Torm (depending on your edition) is a god of loyalty, justice, protection, righteous fury, etc. In an alignment-less system can a divine servant of Torm serve cruel and harsh masters faithfully, carry out draconic laws and viciously punish the breakers of those laws, and still be a follower of Torm? How do you think this type of thing should be handled in an alignment-less system?

1. Because they have homes somewhere? Sure, without alignment you don't need all those planes. In fact, most of them are basically redundant or could be sub-sections of other ones. They exist merely to check the alignment boxes--got to catch them all! Without alignment you can actually make something that makes intrinsic sense instead of being a ret-con into symmetry. Because the planes didn't start out being that way, they were forced into place to match the rigidity of alignment.

Personally, I collapsed all the outer planes (except the Abyss) into the Astral Plane, with each god having a region (varying by deity and their interests).

2. I don't say they never overlap, but if there aren't serious disagreements between all the gods, then why are there separate churches? And no, alignment doesn't help you with people who betray the tenets of the god. Gods don't need help with that--they can judge the heart directly instead of going through a very loose proxy (especially in 5e, where even a LG person can do occasional horrific acts). The code of conduct is "honestly do what you believe is in your god's interests." That's the whole point of clerics being guided by faith and revelation--their gods direct them much more personally than just "be good and obey the law".

[Kyutaru]

this is why we have favorite Jersy colors, favorite players, favorite positions and favorite plays and a Hogwarts house.

Yeah, an arbitrary team can serve deep roleplay meaning without being related to morality.

[Witty Username]

Yeah, an arbitrary team can serve deep roleplay meaning without being related to morality.

Not what I was getting at, but I'll take it.

[Naanomi]

IMO, D&D Alignment as it stretches back across previous editions is simply a case of using the same word to mean two different and largely unrelated things. There's Good, the alignment and "cosmic force", and then there's good, the actual moral quality. But for Good (the former), you could just as easily slide in another word, such as Purple, or Monkey, or Dishwater, or Up, or Counterclockwise, or... Good may sometimes look like good, but eventually most characters who are trying to be good will run into situations where they have to choose between what's good and what's Good.

It is one of the central concepts of The Great Wheel that Good (and Evil, and all the rest) is an objective force that really does represent good... it may be a bit of suspension of disbelief to get there for some, but it is a setting assumption

It is also an explicit setting assumption (at least in older editions) that what is Good doesn’t always mean what is right; and one shouldn’t conflate those two things

[Max_Killjoy]

It is one of the central concepts of The Great Wheel that Good (and Evil, and all the rest) is an objective force that really does represent good... it may be a bit of suspension of disbelief to get there for some, but it is a setting assumption

It is also an explicit setting assumption (at least in older editions) that what is Good doesn’t always mean what is right; and one shouldn’t conflate those two things

My disbelief doesn't suspend that far.

IMO, if what is Good is not what is right... then it is not good. It's just something else with a very similar name.

[Naanomi]

My disbelief doesn't suspend that far.

IMO, if what is Good is not what is right... then it is not good. It's just something else with a very similar name.

Good and Evil are not concepts that exactly map to Right and Wrong in most philosophies; grey morality where the two are incongruent is part of the value, not a flaw... it is why heroic heroes can oppose angels and neither may be fully in the ‘right’

Accepting that Good is really good (but not always right) isn’t (to me) any harder than accepting arbitrary names we give things has the Magic ability to effect their true essence; yet I’ve played games where Truenaming magic is key... and I have a hard time swallowing the concept that everything has an incorporeal and intelligent spirit attached to it and is it’s true essence in some animistic sense, but again that is a common concept in some gaming genres.

No one in real life is going to ever agree on any consensus of what ‘good’ really means; so if you want to explore the concept of objective morality (as the default DnD Cosmology does); we have to accept at least some disconnect from that. In fact, Planescape lore traditionally says that the inability of mortals (like us) to recognize Good = good objectively and completely is because of our inability to really understand and perceive Good, so we settle for lesser approximations

[Brookshw]

1. Because they have homes somewhere? Sure, without alignment you don't need all those planes. In fact, most of them are basically redundant or could be sub-sections of other ones. They exist merely to check the alignment boxes--got to catch them all! Without alignment you can actually make something that makes intrinsic sense instead of being a ret-con into symmetry. Because the planes didn't start out being that way, they were forced into place to match the rigidity of alignment.

I think you and I have a fundamental disagreement on what the planes are While, yes, each is shaded towards certain alignments, they also reflect certain ideological differences on what those alignments may be. Ysgard and the Beastlands are both both CG, but in practice each reflects entirely different aspects of that alignment. Same goes for Acheron and the Baator, both LE, but with distinct views on what that means and reflect different facets of it.

I'm not sure what you refer to when you say "ret-con into symmetry" if you wouldn't mind clarifying. As far as I recall, Gygax snagged a lot of real world mythology and sort of laid it out as he generally thought they related to one another,...with a few extras thrown in.

Personally, I collapsed all the outer planes (except the Abyss) into the Astral Plane, with each god having a region (varying by deity and their interests).

Do you do this for planar effects as well, or is any land outside of a god's realm generally the same? I.e., is there a draining lethargic Carceri section, an enthralling peaceful section for Elysium, etc?

2. I don't say they never overlap, but if there aren't serious disagreements between all the gods, then why are there separate churches? And no, alignment doesn't help you with people who betray the tenets of the god. Gods don't need help with that--they can judge the heart directly instead of going through a very loose proxy (especially in 5e, where even a LG person can do occasional horrific acts). The code of conduct is "honestly do what you believe is in your god's interests." That's the whole point of clerics being guided by faith and revelation--their gods direct them much more personally than just "be good and obey the law".

Because similar end goals don't necessary indicate similar methodologies, and because similar doesn't mean equivalent? Sounds like you're thinking gods are a lot more involved in a level 1 Cleric's life than I've generally seen in published materials or games, and I'm not sure it really helps understand how much divergence is allowed from a god's "ideal" path.

(agreed that there is at times a silly level of overlap, I suspect largely to accommodate originally distinct campaign settings or real world mythology).

[Tectorman]

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.

I don't buy the two statements I bolded. Like I said up-thread, picking "neutral good" means that you picked either "neutral good" or "what the book calls 'neutral good'" or "what you think the book means when it says 'neutral good'" or "what the DM means by 'neutral good'" or "what the DM thinks the book means by 'neutral good'" or "what you think the DM means by 'neutral good'" or "what you think the DM thinks the book means by 'neutral good'". You call it an objective and transparent mechanic that protects players from DM fiat, but it's only objective until a human gets involved. In your Age of Worms example, DM fiat still gets applied, anyway, just at the point of determining whether this or that alignment still applies, rather than whether certain characters are or aren't "allied with the Vaati".

In fact, I'd say that this very site has one of the few examples where alignment can be the objective and transparent mechanic you think it is. Namely, the Order of the Stick (the comic).

The guy playing Roy is completely on the same page as the guy playing V, and the guy playing Belkar, and the guy playing Durkon, as well as the DM playing all the NPCs. When Roy died and was judged on whether he still had a LG alignment, everyone at the table was in full agreement about what "LG" meant, when Roy deviated from it, by how much and how sporadically or regularly, whether any acts were so out of line as to warrant greater weight (for example, when Roy briefly left Elan and the others to their own devices with the bandits), and so on.

How? Because they're all the same guy, a single author. That's how you get no second-guessing and all the players free from the DM's whims.

[MeeposFire]

Get rid of it. I have been playing for decades now and the more I play the more I think the game would be be better served dumping it. I just find it unhelpful at best and a cause of arguments more often and the arguments go really dumb really fast. Alignment is one of those things that look easy to sue and should be easy to sue but so often becomes so much more difficult to deal with that I wish it was gone. I was so happy in 4e that people could just choose unaligned and when we all did the game was so much better for it.

Even the setting dressing I do nto want it. It is only important because the setting writers decided to try to make it important (such as having all of these planes to certain alignments) but even then think about how many planes get almost no time in the spotlight? Many planes are barely used and even as antagonists how many of the denizens of various planes never get used while Demons and Devils get used so often? I am just not a fan.

[Naanomi]

Even the setting dressing I do nto want it. It is only important because the setting writers decided to try to make it important (such as having all of these planes to certain alignments) but even then think about how many planes get almost no time in the spotlight? Many planes are barely used and even as antagonists how many of the denizens of various planes never get used while Demons and Devils get used so often? I am just not a fan.

I prefer settings with some places you are not supposed to go to... not every cave needs a treasure chest, not every princess needs rescuing, not every village needs to be in peril... and not every plane of existence needs to be set up just to have adventures in it. A setting feels more *real* to me if there is stuff going on in the background bigger than/not related to the PCs, a ‘world of adventure’ where every setting detail is cut because it wouldn’t make a good direct gaming experience seems too artificial for my liking (and, of course, it is also fine that such places get ‘less time in the spotlight’ because this is a game and so ‘gamey’ places should get more focus)

[Unoriginal]

Are we talking good or Good? Because cosmological Good is very different from personal goods.

No, it is not. There is no Good in 5e. Cosmological good is personal good.

Alignment does not, in any way, preclude multidimensional personality or nuance in morality and ethics of individuals. To claim otherwise is either an intentional Straw Man or a blatant lie.

Indeed.

[DanDare2050]

You could look back at OD&D. It did not have the good and evil axis, only law and chaos. It drew from the works of Michael Moorcock and represented sides in a great battle over the nature of the universe. In OD&D it became synonymous with peoples from civilised lands and the monsters "out there" in the primal territories. There were no "planes".

That history could inform th current discussion, in that alignments produced adversaries, and they still do. Evil things revel in wrecking stuff, and causing pain. Good PCs want to stamp that out, and neutrals on that axis tend to prefer being around good folks than evil ones but, well, sometimes something something something darkside. That is more like the original law/chaos divide. Now though law / chaos separates out trustworthiness and predictability. Kind of cool, and the 4 way alignment system allows some pretty bold brush strokes. After all D&D is very pulp fiction in its emphasis, rather than nuanced and gritty, although DMs can lever it to be otherwise if they want.

[Unoriginal]

There's Good, the alignment and "cosmic force", and then there's good, the actual moral quality. But for Good (the former), you could just as easily slide in another word, such as Purple, or Monkey, or Dishwater, or Up, or Counterclockwise, or... Good may sometimes look like good, but eventually most characters who are trying to be good will run into situations where they have to choose between what's good and what's Good.

No. This is not true, and it does not happen. Not in 5e, who made the deliberate effort of removing that kind of bs.


The good alignments are for people who typically do good. That's it.

An Angel is good the same way that a mortal is good. The Angel just benefits from a broader perspective on the question.


Yes, there are places in the planes that are physical, geographical expressions of good. But those places exist BECAUSE there are expressions of what is good in the Material Plane.

Alignments are not some kind of aggressive imperialists who stick a flag of ownership any time something is done.


And to pretend otherwise is not constructive to a good-faith argument.

You could look back at OD&D. It did not have the good and evil axis, only law and chaos. It drew from the works of Michael Moorcock and represented sides in a great battle over the nature of the universe. In OD&D it became synonymous with peoples from civilised lands and the monsters "out there" in the primal territories. There were no "planes".

That history could inform th current discussion, in that alignments produced adversaries, and they still do. Evil things revel in wrecking stuff, and causing pain. Good PCs want to stamp that out, and neutrals on that axis tend to prefer being around good folks than evil ones but, well, sometimes something something something darkside. That is more like the original law/chaos divide. Now though law / chaos separates out trustworthiness and predictability. Kind of cool, and the 4 way alignment system allows some pretty bold brush strokes. After all D&D is very pulp fiction in its emphasis, rather than nuanced and gritty, although DMs can lever it to be otherwise if they want.

Alignments don't remove nuances.

Yes, D&D is pulp. It doesn't mean that it can't have nuanced characters.

[Tanarii]

Alignments don't remove nuances.

Yes, D&D is pulp. It doesn't mean that it can't have nuanced characters.

They actively help create them, in used as defined in the 5e PHB, and in conjunction with the other personality traits.

[Kyutaru]

They actively help create them, in used as defined in the 5e PHB, and in conjunction with the other personality traits.

I almost feel like people need the validation of character traits in the book for them to real.

Player: My character is a halfling rogue who was injured as a youth and now fears spiders.
DM: No he doesn't because Arachnophobia isn't a listed Flaw on your character sheet!!!

[OldTrees1]

I almost feel like people need the validation of character traits in the book for them to real.

Player: My character is a halfling rogue who was injured as a youth and now fears spiders.
DM: No he doesn't because Arachnophobia isn't a listed Flaw on your character sheet!!!

Hehehe. I agree. So I scrap that section of the PHB/Character sheet. When I DM and when I help new players make characters, I actively delete the "Traits, Ideals, Bonds, & Flaws" section of the PHB / character sheet. Unguided new players come up with more interesting and nuanced characters than 5E's handholding mechanic.

However, for my campaigns, I usually still want the Players to form opinions about how their character interacts with morality. And I usually know how my characters interact with morality.

[Max_Killjoy]

No. This is not true, and it does not happen.

As long as you have Good as a "cosmic force", that conflict between Good and good has the potential to occur.

Alignments don't remove nuances.

They don't create them, either.

[Unoriginal]

As long as you have Good as a "cosmic force", that conflict between Good and good has the potential to occur.

There is no Good as a cosmic force in 5e. There is only good.

They don't create them, either.

It's not their job.

[Tanarii]

I almost feel like people need the validation of character traits in the book for them to real.

Player: My character is a halfling rogue who was injured as a youth and now fears spiders.
DM: No he doesn't because Arachnophobia isn't a listed Flaw on your character sheet!!!

Most people need them written down to remember them, often in a bullet point format. Along with notes reminding them of key in-game developmental events and interactions. Especially if they play multiple characters.

If you're playing one or two characters maybe not so much, if you've got a decent amount of RPG experience. Otoh if you go the complete opposite and you spent a month writing out a multipage backstory, and write them up as short stories, obviously you won't have any problems getting in character either.

As it is, my experience is most people just play themselves plus some hooks. 5-6 bullet points / hooks (4-5 personality + alignment) of where the character is different from is actually almost too much for the average player. Sometimes even if it's their only character.

[Max_Killjoy]

There is no Good as a cosmic force in 5e. There is only good.

It would appear that there is some argument to the contrary going on in this thread... and actually coming from those who like the idea of Alignment.

It's not their job.

Someone asserted it was -- and that's what those posts back and forth were about.