D&D General IMO, Alignment should be "Fill in the blank"

[Oofta]

I am with you about the individuals in an adventure. I was just curious.

And if you get a chance, try having your players use the ideals, bonds, etc. as a guide for every action they do. Seriously, try it out. The DM doesn't have to remember them. They are there for the players to help guide PC actions. If you are a player, try it, just for one session. You might be amazed at how versatile, yet powerful they can be.

I tried it with one character. Never deviated. It took me, as a roleplayer, in very different territory than where my impulses generally take me. It was very refreshing, quite fun, and a bit of a challenge at times. But definitely worth a try.

One of the reasons I put an alignment on my character sheet is that it's a reminder: I am not my PC. Same with TBIF.

 

[Malmuria]

I honestly think you may find as your player group ages, that alignment will be a pretty easy agreement. Now whether the halfling can lift the goliath over his head... that's another story.

I'm all grown up now, having got back into dnd a few years ago like a lot of people. My players are a mix of people who used to play dnd and new people, all late 30s-ish. It's interesting especially getting friends to play as new players, because there are a lot of things they find intrinsically weird and offputting (the idea of racial bonuses, for example). As players, we are much less likely to default to combat (even though we all enjoy the tactical aspects). I've had to sort of teach these dnd-isms, but along the way we really do reflect on whether it needs to be that way. Inherently-evil orcs would not fly at my table.

 

[Scott Christian]

One of the reasons I put an alignment on my character sheet is that it's a reminder: I am not my PC. Same with TBIF.

Amen to that. Far too often have I had a vision of a character, and then before you know it, I am playing them like I've played five other characters because my gut tells me to do it that way. That is one of the reasons it is great to DM. The interactions are brief enough, that you can almost always stay in character.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure how or when or why Alignment has become such a...nexus for disagreement or consternation for so many in the past few decades/iterations of the game.

It really isn't a complicated, nor a "worthless," thing. It is the ethics and morals of the character.

<snip>

If the issue is, "It's not fair that my cleric or paladin has to XYZ....," then, the solution there is....don't play a cleric or paladin.

On the second point: an alternative solution is that the player, rather than the GM, gets to decide what is required to adhere to the cleric or paladin's faith.

On the first point: nearly every real-world moral disagreement lives within the space that D&D defines as "good", and hence alignment is of no use for actually capturing any moral disagreement.

 

[d24454_modern]

There's been several recent threads about alignment. In my opinion, there shouldn't be any preset or predefined alignments. Instead, it should be a space where the player fills in the blank. As to what it is, alignment should be what it is that you are loyal to. It could be a person, an ideal, a philosophy, a religion, or whatnot. The point it, it's something that your character aligns to.

So, you have a Pixie. That pixie might be aligned to the Seelie Court, the Unseelie Court, a particular Fae Noble or Court, themselves, or maybe they're just aligned to playing mean pranks on big folk.

Maybe the party barbarian starts off play with an alignment to his people (The Skullsmash Tribe), but over time, it shifts to Self, and then to The Party. Maybe the party mage starts off with an alignment to the Wizard Academy he attended, but later turns toward an arcane brotherhood he joins.

There could potentially be multiple things a character could be aligned to: Country, King, Clan, Family, Religion, Party, etc.

The way I see it, this would potentially make alignment something useful, especially if you're trying to play in a setting with an actual medieval or renaissance feel to it.

But it’s always been “fill-in-the-blank”.

Alignment has always just been a description of how people act. Not their allegiances.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

But it’s always been “fill-in-the-blank”.

Alignment has always just been a description of how people act. Not their allegiances.

Perhaps a better wording would be:
"Alignment has always been a description of peoples actions. Not necessarily their allegiances".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[teitan]

You're essentially talking about the Ideals, Bonds and Flaws in the PHB. Alignment is one thing, representing a cosmic alignment with the planes, moreso than really a moral compass or personality. It's a guidelines but the Ideals, Bonds & Flaws is really the way to play the character with Alignment being less a straightjacket in 5e than previous editions where it was presented as that "personality" aspect after they moved away from the more cosmic/planar centric ideas of early D&D/AD&D derived from Moorcock. It's not even a really strong aspect of 5e.

 

[Li Shenron]

There's been several recent threads about alignment. In my opinion, there shouldn't be any preset or predefined alignments. Instead, it should be a space where the player fills in the blank. As to what it is, alignment should be what it is that you are loyal to. It could be a person, an ideal, a philosophy, a religion, or whatnot. The point it, it's something that your character aligns to

Congratulations, you've just discovered why alignment is called, well... ALIGNment

Back in the oldest editions, you could only choose on the Lawful/Chaotic and that had very much a vibe of "which side of the universe are you on".

The game grew up a bit wider than that and alignment became primarily a blanket description of a character ethics and morals, but the concept of being on a certain side (or three) is still very useful both to describe your PC and to actually serve as a role-playing tool.

Alignment can still be an ethical "tag", a faction, a country, a philosophy and more. But all these different ideas for alignment can also work together, and at the same time IMO none of these should be forced to a PC. I let my players fill alignment with what they want: one PC could be LG, another could be "white", another could be "Harmonium", another could be all three, and yet another could still leave it blank.

And also, I think alignment should always be more of an aid than a restriction. I am never going to tell a player "you wrote LG on your character sheet so I will not let you steal this weapon from the shop". What I would tell them, if they keep on shoplifting, is "are you sure you still want to have LG written on your character sheet "?

 

[Scribe]

And also, I think alignment should always be more of an aid than a restriction. I am never going to tell a player "you wrote LG on your character sheet so I will not let you steal this weapon from the shop". What I would tell them, if they keep on shoplifting, is "are you sure you still want to have LG written on your character sheet "?

Or even better, after the Nth time they perform an act that isnt LG, inform them that their alignment is shifted to Chaotic X instead.

 

[Maxperson]

Hiya!


Perhaps a better wording would be:
"Alignment has always been a description of peoples actions. Not necessarily their allegiances".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Even then it wasn't a straightjacket. PCs have always been capable of mostly falling within one box, while having behaviors outside of it.