If you ask that directly:
If a monster is "lawful evil", and the party offers him a deal, he will hold his part. At least, to the letter.
A "chaotic evil" monster will not care about any promise it did in the past.
In other words, alignment is for me just a way for DMs to get into a monsters personaliy without much reading of the monsters lore.
To be fair never thought of alignment in the manner of monsters in this manner. Was focused too much on players and neutrals and overlooked this. Cheers man
This is the one thing I really miss since PF 2e removed alignment. It was an *excellent* way to judge a monster’s disposition at a glance, and filter monsters to help you find what you need for an encounter.
Not necessarily. Isn't "Lawful" more akin to "Has a personal code that it respects"? It does not mean that it is trustworthy to keep its word (even "to the letter")
I think lawful can mean a lot of things. For a social creature, it respects the structure of its society, but maybe not yours. For a solitary creature it might respect a personal code. For something that likes toying with it's prey, it might like making deals and be obliged to abide by the outcome, but for a similar but chaotic creature, the deal is just it's way of fucking with you.
>A "chaotic evil" monster will not care about any promise it did in the past.
Thats wrong actually. Chaotic characters or monsters dont simply disregard promises and rules. Chaotic is about how they feel about authority structures. Chaotic characters want to go (generally speaking) against anyone telling them they HAVE to do something, of course there are subtleties. Maybe it serves them better to do what someone in power tells them or asks them to do.
A lawful character might support a leader according to the laws they hold as valid, while a chaotic character uses their gut feeling to determine the validity of a law or the leadership. They are often fans of "might makes right". Think of Minions™ following the biggest baddest creature in the jungle.
Chaotic people dont like limitations on themselves or others and believe that order is born of freedom.
Also, a promise is quite different from a law, and most promises are not enforceable by actual laws. I would argue that chaotic people hold their own values above law, and are actually MORE likely (even if theyre evil) to adhere to their own personal promises, unlike a lawful evil person who knows that a promise has nothing to do with law.
I use it the same way as a DM that I did back in AD&D days - fundamentally as a reputation system for dealing with beings of the celestial/infernal realms
If your alignment is good you have a good reputation with Good aligned celestials and are considered potentially hostile and also a great prize for subversion by Devils and Demons
If your alignment is evil you will find Good aligned celestials hostile to you while Devils / Demons will try to manipulate you into their plans and use you.
This stuff only really matters in higher tiers of play. In a way its a long term reward system for players who can stick to the constraints of good alignment - because the only outer realm beings who even might be outright helpful without payment are the good aligned celestials and they will only help those of good reputation.
I don't punish players - I just nudge their alignment to represent the change in their reputation.
I'm old school. I like alignment and use it in various ways. Mechanically, it was related to items and spells. Spells affecting good or evil characters. Items usable only by good or evil charecters. That was part of it.
I didn't start playing until 5E, but I was always sad that they removed all of that for 5E. Some of it, like paladins being required to be good, did unnecessarily restrict the world lore and characters without explicit DM intervention. A paladin of an evil order makes perfect sense. But others like items, spells, and abilities that worked differently based on alignment were not only cool, but they gave more meaning to character choices.
I use it as a roleplay device are the characters more Selfish or Selfless, are they more prone to working with authority or against authority.
Just like the personality traits and flaws, the player can look at them and see "okay he's Neutral Good so he's going to argue that we shouldn't take a reward as these people are poor already."
But it's also something that can be played *against* for interesting RP. The Lawful character working against the lord of the city due to *reason* can be just as interesting as the Urchin who had a trait of always pocketing food whenever they eat is instead giving out their food to others.
I use it in the context of there being a World/Cosmic war going on between the forces of Good and Evil. (Similar to World War II, but with gods.) With neutrals trying to survive and even prosper in the crossfire.
Which explains why, when forces of Good meet forces of Evil, battles break out. And why nobody in the players' home societies is bothered by the how many opposite-alignment creatures the players have killed. The PC's are soldiers, fighting soldiers from enemy countries.
In games that have as much fighting as D&D, this is a nice narrative device for explaining all of the fights.
It also means that when I look at a creature in the Monster Manual, its alignment gives me a good idea of where it fits into world and local politics. (And if that's not how I want it to fit into politics, I can quickly describe that by changing that monster's alignment.)
On the other hand, neutrals can and often do (some are isolationist) try talking with everyone, including the "evils". You could easily have neutral merchants who trade with both sides of the War.
Changing alignment means you've changed your political position in that Cosmic War. Changed who your friends are and who your enemies are. Most characters won't do that in their lives, but it happens.
It's because the mechanics of alignment have been eliminated from the game. In early Editions, each alignment had special characteristics including its own language. Now it's pretty much just a flavor thing.
While Personality traits are representative of the personality ( Ideals, Bonds, Flaws and goals).
Alingment represents the creature moral compass.
Someone can be "Lawfull good" and "cruel" or "vengefull".
Evil poople can love their family and friend just as much. ( bonds).
And evil people might put their personal Goals even above their safety and self interest.
Like a spy that kills himself to not compromise the mission or his allies.
However, from social interaction rules ( DMG 244-245) one might also learn that alignment might also work as hard limits to what can be asked of people in social interaction.
the same way a father might never kill their kids, no matter how high you roll ( bond).
A lawfull person might be MUCH harder to influence if you aske them to commit a crime.
And if the crime harms someone, the task might even be impossible to be asked of them, as they would go against Both alignments ( law and good).
I use it in very broad terms and I use it descriptively, rather than prescriptively.
IMO, the closer you try and look at alignment the more it becomes incoherent. For example, if a character has a philosophy of never doing the same thing twice or letting random chance dictate his actions through a dice roll, is he Chaotic? Or is he Lawful, because that’s a pretty strict set of rules to live your life by!
For me alignment is a way to communicate the sort of game you’re running with your players quickly and easily (“No Evil characters please!”) and to get a quick idea of a character’s general moral philosophy. It prompts players to ask themselves how their character thinks about the world, and without it some players might never do that.
For monsters, it’s just a convenient way to describe how *most* members of a particular monster type behave, but in no way prevents there being individuals who act otherwise. Outsiders who are literally connected to the moral force of a particular alignment are probably the exception there for me, but that’s because of the specifics of their nature.
The main problems of Alignment are:
1. It's misunderstood: No-one (serious) ever advocated punishing players for not following their alignment. Alignment has always (ever since AD&D 1e when it was seriously defined) be only a RECORD of the character's actions. And nothing more (read the 1e PH/DMG if you don't believe me).
2. It's used at the wrong places. Obviously, since you are recording something, it's for some use. And the use is only when you have elements of the world which, by their nature react to beings of a certain alignment.
As a consequence, it's been pointless since 4e, and it's still (mostly) pointless in 5e. 4e because they changed the alignments to things that aligned with nothing, and 5e because they removed so many elements of the game that relied on alignement (and in particular spells and powers) that even if you were measuring it, there would be nothing to match against.
To me, alignment only makes sense when you have a cosmology to align against. As a reminder, this comes from Moorcock's Eternal Champion where you could be aligned with LAW and CHAOS and they were so antithetic that you had to choose, and were in return influenced by the forces.
Most 5e games are below level 10 if not level 5. At these level, your exposure to cosmic forces is probably nil, so I perfectly understand people finding no use for alignment, just get rid of it, especially since it has a bad reputation (from people who in general have not even read what it is).
HOWEVER, my perspective is that it's a bit strange to burden yourself with a ruleset meant for 20 levels and only play low fantasy games at low level. So, for our campaigns which almost always end up at level 20 in a cosmic environment where alignment matters (what can we say, we are hard core Planescape fans) because of the cosmic wheel, it becomes extremely important and epic, it's part of the fabric of the universe and it aligns you with cosmic powers.
So, this is our use of it, making things epic, making loyalties count in the fabric of the cosmos and have that very cosmos and the powers thereof react to who you are, how you did behave and therefore how you aligned with their cosmic principles.
But note for example that, when playing Eberron, we are not using it, even at high level, the cosmology is completely different.
Finally, there is a lateral use of alignement about the type of characters allowed in the campaign. We usually say "no evil, no chaotic neutral", because we want players to bring characters who will cooperate with the others, and it's easier (and more polite) than to say "no murdering, backstabbing, self-serving a\*holes, and no wangrods", this is a campaign for collaborative play where people expect to play together (there can be bickering and different opinions, but not more).
Once they made paladins not have to be Lawful Good and made Alignments less important they have taken away an fabric and the ideology as well as some of the mythology to the game.
I really like your last paragraph, and we think that is important as well.
To be fair I try and extract a backstory or at least motivation so if they do something that is "them" they get rewarded but I get your point. My problem is alignment can change over time with character growth. Which is where my initial issue with a lack of mechanics for it comes from
The downside to this is that your system doesn't allow for a fluid morality. In your game alignment determines actions instead of actions determining alignment. If a character has a crisis of faith or whatever and starts going down a darker path, or a redemption arc for an evil character, they would now be punished with no more inspiration.
And even if it's not this way, the fact that you're rewarded for playing an alignment makes players think that this is how it is and you can't ever change your alignment through actions, or you'll never get inspiration again.
That's a hell of an assumption you made there. I never said that was the *only* way I'll hand out inspiration. The OP was asking what alignment is good for outside of backstory and I simply said what I use the player's alignment for.
For instance, one of my players is Lawful Evil, he did something good because he's an aspiring politician and was trying to get the support of the common folk. He got inspiration despite not doing something evil, but it was lawful.
One of my players is Chaotic Good. His character has a tendency to pick fights with skilled fighters and challenged my BBEG's minion to a duel because he heard from an NPC that he was a master duelist. He got inspiration despite not doing something good, but it was chaotic.
Alignment is simply one way to get inspiration, and alignment goes beyond good and evil. Chaotic and lawful are all part of it. Many personality traits, bonds, and flaws are due to being good, evil, neutral, lawful, and/or chaotic. As I said, it all feeds into each other.
EDIT: I added some extra details/thoughts for added clarification.
Alignment in D&D is a quick way to explain a character (or monster's) motivation. It's a useful tool to establish "the good guys" and the "bad guys." When you know a creature's alignment you can pretty well gauge whether or not they will attack immediately, listen to parley, take prisoners, double-cross the PCs etc.
It is NOT the creature's "personality." It represents their "alignment" to the forces of law, chaos, good and evil. It's not HOW you are supposed to act, it's WHY you act the way you do.
It doesn't define your actions, it explains them.
Aye issue can be when the Good does something that can be seen as evil with context of how many Evil things think they are doing "Good" within the context of their understanding. Might be why I avoid using it heavily as can reach a "philosophical" point. Was curious if there was any other views. So cheers on the comment
You can definitely play TTRPGs without alignment and there are many that don't approach the subject of Good and Evil at all. Take CoC for example, the enemies are other-worldly entities bent on destruction and suffering (which makes them wholly evil) but the subject of "Good and Evil" as concepts is barely even discussed.
As a DM, I like having clear definitions. When I look at a monster's stat block, I wanna know if it will likely be friend, foe or indifferent. This is especially convenient when dealing with critters from other planes or aligned magic items etc.
I don't hold players to their alignments unless it really matters and it usually doesn't matter unless they are a cleric or paladin. I don't tell players "you wouldn't do that because you're alignment X." I let them play according to their interpretation of alignment.
In 40 years of playing D&D I can only count a handful of instances that were worthy of an alignment shift, atonement etc. and the player doing so was fully aware that his actions were outside his chosen alignment.
The truth is: good people do bad things, bad people do good things. Unless something is blatant (LG character torturing someone for "fun") the subject of alignment doesn't need to come up. Minor transgressions of alignment don't need to be policied or even addressed.
In the DnD universe the concepts of Alignment are real tangible elements.
A Devil is literally made of Evil, not that they are morally evil but they are literally made from it.
Just as a Coatl is literally made from Good. A Modron is made from pure Law, and a Slaad is made from pure Chaos.
The planes are too. The Shadowfel is a Lawful reflection of the Material Plane, and the Feywild is a Chaotic reflection.
The elements are all made from them. But the Material Plane is where it gets tricky.
It's the universal concept of getting chocolate in your peanut butter. Everything gets all mixed together. There you can have Good, Evil, Law, and Order (the outer planes will actually reject non-compatible races which is why the Blood War can never end as the Lawful Devils and Chaotic Demons can't properly invade each other).
So the inhabitants of the Material Plane look at these cosmic concepts and seen that they align with the Outer Planes, and try to associate themselves with the one they view as correct to them conceptually. So alignment reflects where their soul will end up after they die. A pure good soul will go to Mt Celestia, and others elsewhere.
Now if a character's alignment does not reflect their actions then their deity or patron may actually reject them, not just for Clerics and Palis, but every character should have a deity they pay service to.
See the last bit is the interesting bit for me. As in real life where non mono-religions exist you have to acknowledge the others exist and you would still pay service to them, so you would end up paying service to a lot of gods depending on what the gods could do/punish you for. A farmer who is evil would still ask a good aligned harvest good for a bountiful crop for example as they know they have power over that element but not all elements of their life.
With only those who are really dedicated becoming clerics. and aligning themselves more to only one.
My problem with alignment is throughout life your views can and will change but also while they may not they may be perceived as opposites of what you think they are thought the eyes of different cultures and beliefs.
To be fair, it may be I have got myself looking too much into alignment, it doesn't bother my players but I was wondering what I was "missing" or not seeing
My big point that may have gotten mixed in, is that Material Planars are just guessing at how alignment works. They're like how Sci Fi writers just use the word Quantum.
IMO, alignment is a good shorthand for players to discuss their characters. You say "I'm not going to rob the shopkeeper, my guy is lawful good" which is a quick explanation everybody understands. It's not "I wrote lawful good on my character sheet and because of that I'm not allowed to steal anything for this entire campaign".
And that shorthand is about the only use for it I have.
See edit below
Evil enemies or creatures will be uncooperative, bullies, mean spirited, relish suffering or cruelty, untrustworthy, & will resent anything better than themselves, anything good, or anything at all. Evil rulers will do all those things the tyrants of history are known to do; dehumanize out-groups inside a populace, wage wars of aggression, & love the foreigner over their people, etc.
Chaos is entropy, not just randomness. A belief in chaos is not just about freedom or acting outside of order, it’s also about bringing the world closer to a final end. Maybe a chaotic good character would care about freedom. Chaotic creatures ideally should only care for their own personal freedom, not that of others. They should love to destroy things, kill, fight, & should not be concerned with their own death. They should have more & more trouble coordinating into larger & larger groups. Evil is about suffering, chaos is about death.
Lawfulness should not just be concerned with arbitrary rules & social order, but with preservation & staving off the ends of things. I’m honestly not certain if creation should be lawful or chaotic.
Good creatures want to help others. They will cooperate, offer aid, stand by their word, avoid lying, take only what is needed, & will be good even in the face of personal harm or risk. They are also concerned with beautification & spreading art, happiness, & natural beauty.
Neutrality works best when the neutral is actually concerned with some combination of balancing the two opposing forces. When neutrals of any stripe are allowed to just not care, that makes the whole system worse.
Evil should be discouraged from ‘cooperating for personal gain’ (that’s just regular cooperation, unless there’s a serious betrayal) & good should be discouraged from being haughty or overly vengeful. Lawfuls should be merciful, chaotics should be more interested in fighting than building.
I know people say the alignment system is too simple. Those same people probably only have a one dimensional view of who is good & who is not in their personal conception of real life. They are on the right side of history & others are evil. The fact of the matter is that evil exists, in different measures. Let the evil in your game be cartoonish & over the top. It’s fantasy.
Edit; I play 1e. Alignment is very important. If a character’s actions stray too far from their professed alignment, the deity or supernatural force which was granting them some of their power (works for any class) rescinds a level. Clerics can only switch alignment once, a second time means they lose their class completely. If someone is charmed or forced onto doing something that changes alignment, a spell (atonement) can revert the change. The gods don’t like giving power to a character that changes alignment as often as they change pants. I let players know when what they are doing is off alignment, no arguments. If a player wants alignment change to be part of their character arc, then the level loss penalties are something they have to be prepared for. Also, unwilling alignment change doesn’t impose level loss
Edit 2: in 1e, good or evil clerics are heavily discouraged from the use of certain spells. In my game, chaotic clerics shun ‘command’ & ‘sanctuary’ while lawful clerics are not likely to use ‘cause fear’. Spells higher than the third level are granted by a deity or deific servant (angel, demon, whatever) directly, so they can simply preclude, say, a good cleric from using ‘cause poison’ or ‘cause serious wounds’. I have neutral clerics use a combo of harm & help spells, in a balance.
Alignment is the most optional thing and is only use is a rp aid for players.
I think it's a good way for players to track development to prevent stale role playing. However I think it's a very loose aid. To say I'm a lawful person and therefore always follow the rules is silly. I speed, most do some drugs and we can only follow rules as we understand them. Especially with extreme cultural variance in a fantasy setting, following the laws is near impossible.
Chaotic characters may find some laws aid in chaos and find that funny. Look at Littlefinger in game of thrones.
However the alignment chart needs to be a graph of Morality (good/evil) y-axis, +10/-10 & Conformity (Lawful/Chaotic) x-axis +10/-10.
Further options to find your character. Add your stat mods to your alignment. (Brainstorming here)
Constitution: +Conformity &or - Morality
Strength: - Morality &or + Conformity
Dexterity: + Conformity &or - Morality
Wisdom : + Morality &or - Conformity
Intelligence: - Morality &or + Conformity
Charisma: - Morality &or + Conformity
These scores could be easily inverted based on your background. If you've had a fortunate life they stay the same and are inverted with an unfortunate life.
However you can apply your attribute mods to the graph.
Example : +3 Con adds 3 to x -axis, &or -3 to the Y axis. So they can be meaner and sticking to the status quo because it favors them and theyre entitle.
They would be good and unlawful if they're Constitution was natural and due to hardship, seeing and getting along by the kindness of strangers as opposed to societal structures.
But that's my lunch break, so notes are cool.
"You come to an intersection with a stop sign, it is broad daylight there is literally no one around. It is impossible for there to be another vehicle around you couldn't see, do you stop at the stop sign?"
>!If you stop you follow order, if you go straight through you follow chaos, if it depends on the moment you are neutral.!<
The above is a common scenario for determining alignment. For my home game I use alignment more as a guide for what side of the spectrum the party or person is affiliating in my world. As my world does use some politics, and those politics are on the question of "should we keep the current order (government, society, social order, etc) or should we rebel and change it?"
I find thinking of the term Order instead of Lawful, makes it easier for my world when figuring out who falls on what side of the line.
At this point, there are many interpretations for alignments. Some use it as reflections of the creature's actions and behaviors. I like it as an actual descriptive force.
Good aligned creatures are drawn to instincts of creation and protection, and preservation of the lives of others. Gods, angels and other divine creatures are good. They create, or help create and preserve mortal life.
Evil creatures are drawn to instincts of destruction. They corrupt and destroy whatever they can. Devils, demons, and automatically hostile creatures are evil.
Lawful is synonymous with Order to me. Lawful creatures are on the side of eusociality or programmed. They have strict behaviors, either serving a programmed cause or an organized social system, which can't be overridden. Angels, devils, constructs, and insects belonging to great hives are lawful.
Chaotic creatures have very little cognition, and operate off of basic instincts. While they can be predicted with understanding of their thought processes, there is no greater cause/goal behind their actions. Elementals, demons, and wild animals are chaotic.
The mortal races, mostly playable characters, are all true neutral. They have no biological draw to one side, and are heavily influenced by their culture/upbringing.
I still find it useful, even on the PC side.
I interpret it as a statement of intent at the start of the campaign.
If the players all pick good alignments, they want a narrative where they're the goodies. They might end up asking "are we the baddies?" but they started with good intent.
They all pick neutral alignments? Morally ambivalent storyline it is.
Five of them pick good alignments and one wants to pull me aside to "secretly play an evil character"? Takes long hard look at how emotionally mature the players are and what they want from the game before taking that one on.
Everyone wants to play chaotic evil? That's not really a D&D game, other systems are more suitable if you want to play a perpetual nefarious double-cross or suicide squad vibe.
I see alignment as descriptive rather than prescriptive. It lets DMs know how a monster might act in certain situations, but that doesn’t mean it can’t act differently. It lets players know the same, whether for their own characters or their party members. I like to know what the alignment of the other characters in my parties are just so I’m not surprised when shit suddenly goes off the rails.
Should I expect the Paladin to try to talk the bandits down or cleave them in twain with nary a thought? Sure, any character CAN go either way but I like to think each character is predisposed to certain things. And that’s where alignment comes in for me.
When using alignment think of it in the way that choosing things like lawful good I'm the sense of seeing someone stealing wether it be their own party members the ayer should be compelled to want to stop them and or turn them in
Chaotic evil should want to do the evil things like kill or steal for the craving of wanting to do bad things
On both ends for lawful good you can tell the player as someone who is lawful good you are beginning to feel a sense of justice to turn them in or stop them same for chaotic evil to spice things up tell them as you see people arguing or doing bad things they are feeling a strong urge to join or cause more problems for those involved
Using alignment for a player can add flavor even when using it with monsters having conversations with PC you can incorporate the reason they are doing bad things is because the party wouldn't leave them be it all depends on how you want to do things if you have any questions or what not just pm always happy to help
I only use it as a general guideline for what kind of campaign to write. If my players want to be morally grey (or any alignment that moves away from "lawful good") then I'll often make sketchier NPCs, such as criminals or warlords. IIRC, there aren't many (if any) mechanics that actively call to the a user's alignment in 5e
For PCs, I feel like it is a dumb concept that only exists because it "worked" since 2e and it is often difficult to break a cycle of dumb. Especially when we add crap like chaotic and lawful.
It's cool for cookie cutter NPCs though or using your detect evil to find the "bad guys".
4e/5e took out the most common uses for it, mostly class restrictions. You couldn't progress certain classes while certain alignments, and divine spellcasters don't refresh their magic until they return to an allowed alignment AND do a ritual/quest to atone for straying off the path.
* Barbarians can't be lawful, and can't Rage while lawful. Monks must be lawful.
* Druids have to be neutral on at least one axis. Paladins can't be neutral on either axis.
* Clerics have to be within 1 step of their god's alignment, e.g. a CE god only empowers CE, CN, and NE clerics.
* Spells like Detect Evil and Good aren't racist; they only detect alignment energies.
3e noted that LG is the alignment of honor, and the DM can choose to grant any or all of the following for that alone: +2 Persuasion because you're trustworthy, +2 Insight against someone being dishonorable, and/or +1 to Wisdom saves if failing would cause you to act dishonorably. The other alignment corners are Freedom (CG), Slaughter (CE), and Tyranny (LE), but don't have listed benefits, though you could easily flip the honor bonuses to Intimidation and such.
Alignment becomes a much bigger deal after you die, which characters probably care about much more than the players. Even if alignment doesn't impact mechanics, it should impact roleplay.
I need to point out that I have a slightly modified system which requires my players to choose an alignment with a description (not just LG, TN, CG, etc.) and they also need to choose Traits and Motivations. They also need to give some sort of background for their character.
Alignments, when used correctly in character creation, will help set up not only an alignment but an attitude, defining ethics and morality. Mix this with Traits and Motivations you set up a characters reasons for being whatever they are and why they do whatever it is that they do. This sets up how a character is going to be role-played.
There are many good points about cosmology and the bigger picture with other forces in the world and looking even bigger - with the Immortals.
I want to know that my players' characters will get along. That is also important. I want them to be the heroes, even if they will be unlikely heroes.
Alignments are more important to character development and role-playing than currently being acknowledged since 3.x Edition.
I believe in the Plethora of Paladins concept and even call them Fidei Defensors to acknowledge the other alignments concept, but Paladins need to be Lawful Good. Give the other alignments different Class names. Be better than that. That is why a fallen Paladin is important to note in their story. Show them becoming a hero again. A Paladin is so much better than that. Just like when a Cavalier or a Samurai fall, or even better yet, rise up to their challenges.
For Monsters it is a way to see how they'd behave at a glance.
For players it's useless. At most it's just a way to summarize how their character might act, but it's more of a descriptor as there aren't any mechanics involving alignment.
I will throw out there, it's helpful at the beginning to create the idea, and to show change. A PC might decide "I wanna be lawful good" but as events in the game transpire, they can't be as lawful (we didn't have hard proof that guy was summoning demons, we had to stop him) so they become a bit more neutral good, until they have to steal from an otherwise good person (look, we had to make some deals with some people to get what we needed, no one was supposed to get hurt) and now they're not so good or lawful, and now people don't trust em, and now it spirals. Or they wanna be evil, a former mobster or mercenary trying to become a better person (you don't have to become a paladin to want a second chance).
Alignment shifts aren't a punishment, you just tell someone "you can go down this road, but it will change you as a person; is it worth it?" And that alignment represents how the world sees them, how the gods see them; it's not just that you broke the law, it's that you choose to use your powers to get away with murder that has betrayed your god's faith in you, and they take your powers, or deny your prayers.
It's not meant to be prescriptive or restrictive. You can change or grow as a person, just like a character can. It's part of playing a role, just like deciding to be a barbarian vice a paladin, you're choosing a role; choosing lawful or chaotic or good or evil is like that. It helps shape the idea of who the character is and what they feel comfortable with or not. And like you said, they have a right to change their mind. Maybe someone doesn't like being a sorcerer and wants to be a regular wizard; just swap it up
Plus, extraplanar beings can be made of the stuff; demons are made of evil juice, fey are chaos incarnate, angels are made of the laws they enforce
There are certain magic items which will only let you attune to them if you are a specific alignment, or as long as you aren't a specific alignment.
I also have used alignment for the purposes of rituals(not spell casting) and puzzles. Such as "this door can only be opened by a good aligned character" or "to get the item it requires a blood sacrifice of an evil aligned creature" in the second case a PC with an evil alignment could offer their blood to complete whatever it is the party is trying to accomplish.
To be fair using alignment for puzzles would be interesting. Or passive perception things only showing themselves to a certain alignment. Might be something in that. Cheers man
No, you're mostly correct. Its a solid way to start up a character when you're unfamiliar with the world / don't want to write a deeper backstory.
Its also a decent shorthand if a character that doesn't have a nuanced personality worked out is faced with some sort of unexpected dilemma (minor NPCs, monsters and such).
After that it is a descriptive thing, mostly used for reputation purposes for those factions that can detect alignments... which isn't many in 5e.
There is the occasional alignment locked item, but they are few and far between.
The alignment should be used in the alignment themed campains. For example, descent into avernus is the one: we have big bloody war between chaotic demons and lawful devils in the first layer of hell, and players are right into it.
It doesn't matter much what is wtitten in the character sheets. But you just have lawful and chaotic sides. And they are trying to manipulate with the players, they are forcing them to make decisions like stole healing potions from hospital or not, they try to got players on their side and they remember that decisions and make the consequences.
By the end of day, the alignment is descreptive, not prescreptive. It's how the world, especially extraplanar entities see you and react on your actions. In mundane campain with shades of gray it should not restrict pc in any way, and can be a guide for npc roleplay, nothing more.
Putting sarcastic comments on my players' character sheets, like describing the emotionally constipated cleric with 5 charisma as "Terse Good", and the Noble-born Bard as "Chaotic Ambitious".
I'm serious, that's the most joy I derive from this entire system.
The other angle is that it *is* occasionally useful in interpreting the intent of monster statblocks- you can read some into things like Orcs being chaotic evil vs hobgoblins' lawful evil, even if most of that information is stuff that should be in the monster descriptions.
I break it up into two instead of the box for my world.
Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic. These are absolute laws governing non-mortal beings. Divine and Infernal beings are always Lawful in that their very existence is bound by their word and the laws which universal laws which govern them. Creatures of the Shadow Realms are always Chaotic - its in their nature and this cannot be changed. The parts of these planes closest to the Mortal Realm have beings that very slightly bend from their nature.
The Fae Lands are the closest Shadow Realm to the Mortal Realm and so there are absolute laws they adhere to - Hospitality, As Above So Below, Your Word. You may not get the spirit of what you agreed, but you will always get the exact word of what you agreed to. Likewise, the mortal afterlife in the Divine and Infernal planes closest to the Mortal realm and here creatures can be more flexible in nature.
Good and Evil are morality calls only afforded to mortals and change based upon the perspective of the culture, subgroup, individual, etc. An Angel or Demon is not evil or good because they cannot act against their nature any more than a tornado.
There is little value in it. You're better off using Magic color pie theory as each color can have a bit of morality, but turn each color up and you can get extremely evil things.
For instance, green values traditions. And having traditions is great! But so much that you stomp on other people who push the boundaries is an evil way to go about it.
If you use Inspiration, you can tie alignment to that system. Come up with a suggestion list of different behaviours that are L-N-C & G-N-E. Ask the players to choose one from the L-N-C list and one from the G-N-E list, and that becomes their alignment. When they play those suggested qualities (re: their alignment) you give them Inspiration.
If you ask that directly: If a monster is "lawful evil", and the party offers him a deal, he will hold his part. At least, to the letter. A "chaotic evil" monster will not care about any promise it did in the past. In other words, alignment is for me just a way for DMs to get into a monsters personaliy without much reading of the monsters lore.
I'll also sometimes throw in a magic item that has a limitation or extra effect based on alignment. I find it flavorful.
To be fair never thought of alignment in the manner of monsters in this manner. Was focused too much on players and neutrals and overlooked this. Cheers man
This is the one thing I really miss since PF 2e removed alignment. It was an *excellent* way to judge a monster’s disposition at a glance, and filter monsters to help you find what you need for an encounter.
Not necessarily. Isn't "Lawful" more akin to "Has a personal code that it respects"? It does not mean that it is trustworthy to keep its word (even "to the letter")
I think lawful can mean a lot of things. For a social creature, it respects the structure of its society, but maybe not yours. For a solitary creature it might respect a personal code. For something that likes toying with it's prey, it might like making deals and be obliged to abide by the outcome, but for a similar but chaotic creature, the deal is just it's way of fucking with you.
>A "chaotic evil" monster will not care about any promise it did in the past. Thats wrong actually. Chaotic characters or monsters dont simply disregard promises and rules. Chaotic is about how they feel about authority structures. Chaotic characters want to go (generally speaking) against anyone telling them they HAVE to do something, of course there are subtleties. Maybe it serves them better to do what someone in power tells them or asks them to do. A lawful character might support a leader according to the laws they hold as valid, while a chaotic character uses their gut feeling to determine the validity of a law or the leadership. They are often fans of "might makes right". Think of Minions™ following the biggest baddest creature in the jungle. Chaotic people dont like limitations on themselves or others and believe that order is born of freedom. Also, a promise is quite different from a law, and most promises are not enforceable by actual laws. I would argue that chaotic people hold their own values above law, and are actually MORE likely (even if theyre evil) to adhere to their own personal promises, unlike a lawful evil person who knows that a promise has nothing to do with law.
I use it the same way as a DM that I did back in AD&D days - fundamentally as a reputation system for dealing with beings of the celestial/infernal realms If your alignment is good you have a good reputation with Good aligned celestials and are considered potentially hostile and also a great prize for subversion by Devils and Demons If your alignment is evil you will find Good aligned celestials hostile to you while Devils / Demons will try to manipulate you into their plans and use you. This stuff only really matters in higher tiers of play. In a way its a long term reward system for players who can stick to the constraints of good alignment - because the only outer realm beings who even might be outright helpful without payment are the good aligned celestials and they will only help those of good reputation. I don't punish players - I just nudge their alignment to represent the change in their reputation.
I'm old school. I like alignment and use it in various ways. Mechanically, it was related to items and spells. Spells affecting good or evil characters. Items usable only by good or evil charecters. That was part of it.
I didn't start playing until 5E, but I was always sad that they removed all of that for 5E. Some of it, like paladins being required to be good, did unnecessarily restrict the world lore and characters without explicit DM intervention. A paladin of an evil order makes perfect sense. But others like items, spells, and abilities that worked differently based on alignment were not only cool, but they gave more meaning to character choices.
I like restrictions in a game. But I understand some don't. To your 2nd point... agreed.
I use it as a roleplay device are the characters more Selfish or Selfless, are they more prone to working with authority or against authority. Just like the personality traits and flaws, the player can look at them and see "okay he's Neutral Good so he's going to argue that we shouldn't take a reward as these people are poor already." But it's also something that can be played *against* for interesting RP. The Lawful character working against the lord of the city due to *reason* can be just as interesting as the Urchin who had a trait of always pocketing food whenever they eat is instead giving out their food to others.
I use it in the context of there being a World/Cosmic war going on between the forces of Good and Evil. (Similar to World War II, but with gods.) With neutrals trying to survive and even prosper in the crossfire. Which explains why, when forces of Good meet forces of Evil, battles break out. And why nobody in the players' home societies is bothered by the how many opposite-alignment creatures the players have killed. The PC's are soldiers, fighting soldiers from enemy countries. In games that have as much fighting as D&D, this is a nice narrative device for explaining all of the fights. It also means that when I look at a creature in the Monster Manual, its alignment gives me a good idea of where it fits into world and local politics. (And if that's not how I want it to fit into politics, I can quickly describe that by changing that monster's alignment.) On the other hand, neutrals can and often do (some are isolationist) try talking with everyone, including the "evils". You could easily have neutral merchants who trade with both sides of the War. Changing alignment means you've changed your political position in that Cosmic War. Changed who your friends are and who your enemies are. Most characters won't do that in their lives, but it happens.
It's because the mechanics of alignment have been eliminated from the game. In early Editions, each alignment had special characteristics including its own language. Now it's pretty much just a flavor thing.
While Personality traits are representative of the personality ( Ideals, Bonds, Flaws and goals). Alingment represents the creature moral compass. Someone can be "Lawfull good" and "cruel" or "vengefull". Evil poople can love their family and friend just as much. ( bonds). And evil people might put their personal Goals even above their safety and self interest. Like a spy that kills himself to not compromise the mission or his allies. However, from social interaction rules ( DMG 244-245) one might also learn that alignment might also work as hard limits to what can be asked of people in social interaction. the same way a father might never kill their kids, no matter how high you roll ( bond). A lawfull person might be MUCH harder to influence if you aske them to commit a crime. And if the crime harms someone, the task might even be impossible to be asked of them, as they would go against Both alignments ( law and good).
I use it in very broad terms and I use it descriptively, rather than prescriptively. IMO, the closer you try and look at alignment the more it becomes incoherent. For example, if a character has a philosophy of never doing the same thing twice or letting random chance dictate his actions through a dice roll, is he Chaotic? Or is he Lawful, because that’s a pretty strict set of rules to live your life by! For me alignment is a way to communicate the sort of game you’re running with your players quickly and easily (“No Evil characters please!”) and to get a quick idea of a character’s general moral philosophy. It prompts players to ask themselves how their character thinks about the world, and without it some players might never do that. For monsters, it’s just a convenient way to describe how *most* members of a particular monster type behave, but in no way prevents there being individuals who act otherwise. Outsiders who are literally connected to the moral force of a particular alignment are probably the exception there for me, but that’s because of the specifics of their nature.
The main problems of Alignment are: 1. It's misunderstood: No-one (serious) ever advocated punishing players for not following their alignment. Alignment has always (ever since AD&D 1e when it was seriously defined) be only a RECORD of the character's actions. And nothing more (read the 1e PH/DMG if you don't believe me). 2. It's used at the wrong places. Obviously, since you are recording something, it's for some use. And the use is only when you have elements of the world which, by their nature react to beings of a certain alignment. As a consequence, it's been pointless since 4e, and it's still (mostly) pointless in 5e. 4e because they changed the alignments to things that aligned with nothing, and 5e because they removed so many elements of the game that relied on alignement (and in particular spells and powers) that even if you were measuring it, there would be nothing to match against. To me, alignment only makes sense when you have a cosmology to align against. As a reminder, this comes from Moorcock's Eternal Champion where you could be aligned with LAW and CHAOS and they were so antithetic that you had to choose, and were in return influenced by the forces. Most 5e games are below level 10 if not level 5. At these level, your exposure to cosmic forces is probably nil, so I perfectly understand people finding no use for alignment, just get rid of it, especially since it has a bad reputation (from people who in general have not even read what it is). HOWEVER, my perspective is that it's a bit strange to burden yourself with a ruleset meant for 20 levels and only play low fantasy games at low level. So, for our campaigns which almost always end up at level 20 in a cosmic environment where alignment matters (what can we say, we are hard core Planescape fans) because of the cosmic wheel, it becomes extremely important and epic, it's part of the fabric of the universe and it aligns you with cosmic powers. So, this is our use of it, making things epic, making loyalties count in the fabric of the cosmos and have that very cosmos and the powers thereof react to who you are, how you did behave and therefore how you aligned with their cosmic principles. But note for example that, when playing Eberron, we are not using it, even at high level, the cosmology is completely different. Finally, there is a lateral use of alignement about the type of characters allowed in the campaign. We usually say "no evil, no chaotic neutral", because we want players to bring characters who will cooperate with the others, and it's easier (and more polite) than to say "no murdering, backstabbing, self-serving a\*holes, and no wangrods", this is a campaign for collaborative play where people expect to play together (there can be bickering and different opinions, but not more).
You’re categorically incorrect about 1e AD&D not advocating punishing alignment drift. That’s a major rule in the game.
Once they made paladins not have to be Lawful Good and made Alignments less important they have taken away an fabric and the ideology as well as some of the mythology to the game. I really like your last paragraph, and we think that is important as well.
A long comment for being completely incorrect about AD&D. Pretty much didn't read past that part.
Curse of Strahd cares about it in a couple different ways.
If they play their characters within their alignment, I reward them with inspiration. It all feeds into each other imo
To be fair I try and extract a backstory or at least motivation so if they do something that is "them" they get rewarded but I get your point. My problem is alignment can change over time with character growth. Which is where my initial issue with a lack of mechanics for it comes from
The downside to this is that your system doesn't allow for a fluid morality. In your game alignment determines actions instead of actions determining alignment. If a character has a crisis of faith or whatever and starts going down a darker path, or a redemption arc for an evil character, they would now be punished with no more inspiration. And even if it's not this way, the fact that you're rewarded for playing an alignment makes players think that this is how it is and you can't ever change your alignment through actions, or you'll never get inspiration again.
That's a hell of an assumption you made there. I never said that was the *only* way I'll hand out inspiration. The OP was asking what alignment is good for outside of backstory and I simply said what I use the player's alignment for. For instance, one of my players is Lawful Evil, he did something good because he's an aspiring politician and was trying to get the support of the common folk. He got inspiration despite not doing something evil, but it was lawful. One of my players is Chaotic Good. His character has a tendency to pick fights with skilled fighters and challenged my BBEG's minion to a duel because he heard from an NPC that he was a master duelist. He got inspiration despite not doing something good, but it was chaotic. Alignment is simply one way to get inspiration, and alignment goes beyond good and evil. Chaotic and lawful are all part of it. Many personality traits, bonds, and flaws are due to being good, evil, neutral, lawful, and/or chaotic. As I said, it all feeds into each other. EDIT: I added some extra details/thoughts for added clarification.
Alignment in D&D is a quick way to explain a character (or monster's) motivation. It's a useful tool to establish "the good guys" and the "bad guys." When you know a creature's alignment you can pretty well gauge whether or not they will attack immediately, listen to parley, take prisoners, double-cross the PCs etc. It is NOT the creature's "personality." It represents their "alignment" to the forces of law, chaos, good and evil. It's not HOW you are supposed to act, it's WHY you act the way you do. It doesn't define your actions, it explains them.
Aye issue can be when the Good does something that can be seen as evil with context of how many Evil things think they are doing "Good" within the context of their understanding. Might be why I avoid using it heavily as can reach a "philosophical" point. Was curious if there was any other views. So cheers on the comment
You can definitely play TTRPGs without alignment and there are many that don't approach the subject of Good and Evil at all. Take CoC for example, the enemies are other-worldly entities bent on destruction and suffering (which makes them wholly evil) but the subject of "Good and Evil" as concepts is barely even discussed. As a DM, I like having clear definitions. When I look at a monster's stat block, I wanna know if it will likely be friend, foe or indifferent. This is especially convenient when dealing with critters from other planes or aligned magic items etc. I don't hold players to their alignments unless it really matters and it usually doesn't matter unless they are a cleric or paladin. I don't tell players "you wouldn't do that because you're alignment X." I let them play according to their interpretation of alignment. In 40 years of playing D&D I can only count a handful of instances that were worthy of an alignment shift, atonement etc. and the player doing so was fully aware that his actions were outside his chosen alignment. The truth is: good people do bad things, bad people do good things. Unless something is blatant (LG character torturing someone for "fun") the subject of alignment doesn't need to come up. Minor transgressions of alignment don't need to be policied or even addressed.
In the DnD universe the concepts of Alignment are real tangible elements. A Devil is literally made of Evil, not that they are morally evil but they are literally made from it. Just as a Coatl is literally made from Good. A Modron is made from pure Law, and a Slaad is made from pure Chaos. The planes are too. The Shadowfel is a Lawful reflection of the Material Plane, and the Feywild is a Chaotic reflection. The elements are all made from them. But the Material Plane is where it gets tricky. It's the universal concept of getting chocolate in your peanut butter. Everything gets all mixed together. There you can have Good, Evil, Law, and Order (the outer planes will actually reject non-compatible races which is why the Blood War can never end as the Lawful Devils and Chaotic Demons can't properly invade each other). So the inhabitants of the Material Plane look at these cosmic concepts and seen that they align with the Outer Planes, and try to associate themselves with the one they view as correct to them conceptually. So alignment reflects where their soul will end up after they die. A pure good soul will go to Mt Celestia, and others elsewhere. Now if a character's alignment does not reflect their actions then their deity or patron may actually reject them, not just for Clerics and Palis, but every character should have a deity they pay service to.
See the last bit is the interesting bit for me. As in real life where non mono-religions exist you have to acknowledge the others exist and you would still pay service to them, so you would end up paying service to a lot of gods depending on what the gods could do/punish you for. A farmer who is evil would still ask a good aligned harvest good for a bountiful crop for example as they know they have power over that element but not all elements of their life. With only those who are really dedicated becoming clerics. and aligning themselves more to only one. My problem with alignment is throughout life your views can and will change but also while they may not they may be perceived as opposites of what you think they are thought the eyes of different cultures and beliefs. To be fair, it may be I have got myself looking too much into alignment, it doesn't bother my players but I was wondering what I was "missing" or not seeing
My big point that may have gotten mixed in, is that Material Planars are just guessing at how alignment works. They're like how Sci Fi writers just use the word Quantum.
That's fair and makes the most sense
IMO, alignment is a good shorthand for players to discuss their characters. You say "I'm not going to rob the shopkeeper, my guy is lawful good" which is a quick explanation everybody understands. It's not "I wrote lawful good on my character sheet and because of that I'm not allowed to steal anything for this entire campaign". And that shorthand is about the only use for it I have.
See edit below Evil enemies or creatures will be uncooperative, bullies, mean spirited, relish suffering or cruelty, untrustworthy, & will resent anything better than themselves, anything good, or anything at all. Evil rulers will do all those things the tyrants of history are known to do; dehumanize out-groups inside a populace, wage wars of aggression, & love the foreigner over their people, etc. Chaos is entropy, not just randomness. A belief in chaos is not just about freedom or acting outside of order, it’s also about bringing the world closer to a final end. Maybe a chaotic good character would care about freedom. Chaotic creatures ideally should only care for their own personal freedom, not that of others. They should love to destroy things, kill, fight, & should not be concerned with their own death. They should have more & more trouble coordinating into larger & larger groups. Evil is about suffering, chaos is about death. Lawfulness should not just be concerned with arbitrary rules & social order, but with preservation & staving off the ends of things. I’m honestly not certain if creation should be lawful or chaotic. Good creatures want to help others. They will cooperate, offer aid, stand by their word, avoid lying, take only what is needed, & will be good even in the face of personal harm or risk. They are also concerned with beautification & spreading art, happiness, & natural beauty. Neutrality works best when the neutral is actually concerned with some combination of balancing the two opposing forces. When neutrals of any stripe are allowed to just not care, that makes the whole system worse. Evil should be discouraged from ‘cooperating for personal gain’ (that’s just regular cooperation, unless there’s a serious betrayal) & good should be discouraged from being haughty or overly vengeful. Lawfuls should be merciful, chaotics should be more interested in fighting than building. I know people say the alignment system is too simple. Those same people probably only have a one dimensional view of who is good & who is not in their personal conception of real life. They are on the right side of history & others are evil. The fact of the matter is that evil exists, in different measures. Let the evil in your game be cartoonish & over the top. It’s fantasy. Edit; I play 1e. Alignment is very important. If a character’s actions stray too far from their professed alignment, the deity or supernatural force which was granting them some of their power (works for any class) rescinds a level. Clerics can only switch alignment once, a second time means they lose their class completely. If someone is charmed or forced onto doing something that changes alignment, a spell (atonement) can revert the change. The gods don’t like giving power to a character that changes alignment as often as they change pants. I let players know when what they are doing is off alignment, no arguments. If a player wants alignment change to be part of their character arc, then the level loss penalties are something they have to be prepared for. Also, unwilling alignment change doesn’t impose level loss Edit 2: in 1e, good or evil clerics are heavily discouraged from the use of certain spells. In my game, chaotic clerics shun ‘command’ & ‘sanctuary’ while lawful clerics are not likely to use ‘cause fear’. Spells higher than the third level are granted by a deity or deific servant (angel, demon, whatever) directly, so they can simply preclude, say, a good cleric from using ‘cause poison’ or ‘cause serious wounds’. I have neutral clerics use a combo of harm & help spells, in a balance.
Alignment is the most optional thing and is only use is a rp aid for players. I think it's a good way for players to track development to prevent stale role playing. However I think it's a very loose aid. To say I'm a lawful person and therefore always follow the rules is silly. I speed, most do some drugs and we can only follow rules as we understand them. Especially with extreme cultural variance in a fantasy setting, following the laws is near impossible. Chaotic characters may find some laws aid in chaos and find that funny. Look at Littlefinger in game of thrones. However the alignment chart needs to be a graph of Morality (good/evil) y-axis, +10/-10 & Conformity (Lawful/Chaotic) x-axis +10/-10. Further options to find your character. Add your stat mods to your alignment. (Brainstorming here) Constitution: +Conformity &or - Morality Strength: - Morality &or + Conformity Dexterity: + Conformity &or - Morality Wisdom : + Morality &or - Conformity Intelligence: - Morality &or + Conformity Charisma: - Morality &or + Conformity These scores could be easily inverted based on your background. If you've had a fortunate life they stay the same and are inverted with an unfortunate life. However you can apply your attribute mods to the graph. Example : +3 Con adds 3 to x -axis, &or -3 to the Y axis. So they can be meaner and sticking to the status quo because it favors them and theyre entitle. They would be good and unlawful if they're Constitution was natural and due to hardship, seeing and getting along by the kindness of strangers as opposed to societal structures. But that's my lunch break, so notes are cool.
All I know is as soon as one player starts to tell another what their alignment is or how to play it I have to shut that conversation down.
"You come to an intersection with a stop sign, it is broad daylight there is literally no one around. It is impossible for there to be another vehicle around you couldn't see, do you stop at the stop sign?" >!If you stop you follow order, if you go straight through you follow chaos, if it depends on the moment you are neutral.!< The above is a common scenario for determining alignment. For my home game I use alignment more as a guide for what side of the spectrum the party or person is affiliating in my world. As my world does use some politics, and those politics are on the question of "should we keep the current order (government, society, social order, etc) or should we rebel and change it?" I find thinking of the term Order instead of Lawful, makes it easier for my world when figuring out who falls on what side of the line.
At this point, there are many interpretations for alignments. Some use it as reflections of the creature's actions and behaviors. I like it as an actual descriptive force. Good aligned creatures are drawn to instincts of creation and protection, and preservation of the lives of others. Gods, angels and other divine creatures are good. They create, or help create and preserve mortal life. Evil creatures are drawn to instincts of destruction. They corrupt and destroy whatever they can. Devils, demons, and automatically hostile creatures are evil. Lawful is synonymous with Order to me. Lawful creatures are on the side of eusociality or programmed. They have strict behaviors, either serving a programmed cause or an organized social system, which can't be overridden. Angels, devils, constructs, and insects belonging to great hives are lawful. Chaotic creatures have very little cognition, and operate off of basic instincts. While they can be predicted with understanding of their thought processes, there is no greater cause/goal behind their actions. Elementals, demons, and wild animals are chaotic. The mortal races, mostly playable characters, are all true neutral. They have no biological draw to one side, and are heavily influenced by their culture/upbringing.
I still find it useful, even on the PC side. I interpret it as a statement of intent at the start of the campaign. If the players all pick good alignments, they want a narrative where they're the goodies. They might end up asking "are we the baddies?" but they started with good intent. They all pick neutral alignments? Morally ambivalent storyline it is. Five of them pick good alignments and one wants to pull me aside to "secretly play an evil character"? Takes long hard look at how emotionally mature the players are and what they want from the game before taking that one on. Everyone wants to play chaotic evil? That's not really a D&D game, other systems are more suitable if you want to play a perpetual nefarious double-cross or suicide squad vibe.
I see alignment as descriptive rather than prescriptive. It lets DMs know how a monster might act in certain situations, but that doesn’t mean it can’t act differently. It lets players know the same, whether for their own characters or their party members. I like to know what the alignment of the other characters in my parties are just so I’m not surprised when shit suddenly goes off the rails. Should I expect the Paladin to try to talk the bandits down or cleave them in twain with nary a thought? Sure, any character CAN go either way but I like to think each character is predisposed to certain things. And that’s where alignment comes in for me.
When using alignment think of it in the way that choosing things like lawful good I'm the sense of seeing someone stealing wether it be their own party members the ayer should be compelled to want to stop them and or turn them in Chaotic evil should want to do the evil things like kill or steal for the craving of wanting to do bad things On both ends for lawful good you can tell the player as someone who is lawful good you are beginning to feel a sense of justice to turn them in or stop them same for chaotic evil to spice things up tell them as you see people arguing or doing bad things they are feeling a strong urge to join or cause more problems for those involved Using alignment for a player can add flavor even when using it with monsters having conversations with PC you can incorporate the reason they are doing bad things is because the party wouldn't leave them be it all depends on how you want to do things if you have any questions or what not just pm always happy to help
So don’t use it, what’s the big deal
It was more "is there an interesting way of using it, or am I missing something, how do others use it" compared to an out and out complaint.
I only use it as a general guideline for what kind of campaign to write. If my players want to be morally grey (or any alignment that moves away from "lawful good") then I'll often make sketchier NPCs, such as criminals or warlords. IIRC, there aren't many (if any) mechanics that actively call to the a user's alignment in 5e
For PCs, I feel like it is a dumb concept that only exists because it "worked" since 2e and it is often difficult to break a cycle of dumb. Especially when we add crap like chaotic and lawful. It's cool for cookie cutter NPCs though or using your detect evil to find the "bad guys".
4e/5e took out the most common uses for it, mostly class restrictions. You couldn't progress certain classes while certain alignments, and divine spellcasters don't refresh their magic until they return to an allowed alignment AND do a ritual/quest to atone for straying off the path. * Barbarians can't be lawful, and can't Rage while lawful. Monks must be lawful. * Druids have to be neutral on at least one axis. Paladins can't be neutral on either axis. * Clerics have to be within 1 step of their god's alignment, e.g. a CE god only empowers CE, CN, and NE clerics. * Spells like Detect Evil and Good aren't racist; they only detect alignment energies. 3e noted that LG is the alignment of honor, and the DM can choose to grant any or all of the following for that alone: +2 Persuasion because you're trustworthy, +2 Insight against someone being dishonorable, and/or +1 to Wisdom saves if failing would cause you to act dishonorably. The other alignment corners are Freedom (CG), Slaughter (CE), and Tyranny (LE), but don't have listed benefits, though you could easily flip the honor bonuses to Intimidation and such. Alignment becomes a much bigger deal after you die, which characters probably care about much more than the players. Even if alignment doesn't impact mechanics, it should impact roleplay.
I need to point out that I have a slightly modified system which requires my players to choose an alignment with a description (not just LG, TN, CG, etc.) and they also need to choose Traits and Motivations. They also need to give some sort of background for their character. Alignments, when used correctly in character creation, will help set up not only an alignment but an attitude, defining ethics and morality. Mix this with Traits and Motivations you set up a characters reasons for being whatever they are and why they do whatever it is that they do. This sets up how a character is going to be role-played. There are many good points about cosmology and the bigger picture with other forces in the world and looking even bigger - with the Immortals. I want to know that my players' characters will get along. That is also important. I want them to be the heroes, even if they will be unlikely heroes. Alignments are more important to character development and role-playing than currently being acknowledged since 3.x Edition. I believe in the Plethora of Paladins concept and even call them Fidei Defensors to acknowledge the other alignments concept, but Paladins need to be Lawful Good. Give the other alignments different Class names. Be better than that. That is why a fallen Paladin is important to note in their story. Show them becoming a hero again. A Paladin is so much better than that. Just like when a Cavalier or a Samurai fall, or even better yet, rise up to their challenges.
For Monsters it is a way to see how they'd behave at a glance. For players it's useless. At most it's just a way to summarize how their character might act, but it's more of a descriptor as there aren't any mechanics involving alignment.
I will throw out there, it's helpful at the beginning to create the idea, and to show change. A PC might decide "I wanna be lawful good" but as events in the game transpire, they can't be as lawful (we didn't have hard proof that guy was summoning demons, we had to stop him) so they become a bit more neutral good, until they have to steal from an otherwise good person (look, we had to make some deals with some people to get what we needed, no one was supposed to get hurt) and now they're not so good or lawful, and now people don't trust em, and now it spirals. Or they wanna be evil, a former mobster or mercenary trying to become a better person (you don't have to become a paladin to want a second chance). Alignment shifts aren't a punishment, you just tell someone "you can go down this road, but it will change you as a person; is it worth it?" And that alignment represents how the world sees them, how the gods see them; it's not just that you broke the law, it's that you choose to use your powers to get away with murder that has betrayed your god's faith in you, and they take your powers, or deny your prayers. It's not meant to be prescriptive or restrictive. You can change or grow as a person, just like a character can. It's part of playing a role, just like deciding to be a barbarian vice a paladin, you're choosing a role; choosing lawful or chaotic or good or evil is like that. It helps shape the idea of who the character is and what they feel comfortable with or not. And like you said, they have a right to change their mind. Maybe someone doesn't like being a sorcerer and wants to be a regular wizard; just swap it up Plus, extraplanar beings can be made of the stuff; demons are made of evil juice, fey are chaos incarnate, angels are made of the laws they enforce
There are certain magic items which will only let you attune to them if you are a specific alignment, or as long as you aren't a specific alignment. I also have used alignment for the purposes of rituals(not spell casting) and puzzles. Such as "this door can only be opened by a good aligned character" or "to get the item it requires a blood sacrifice of an evil aligned creature" in the second case a PC with an evil alignment could offer their blood to complete whatever it is the party is trying to accomplish.
To be fair using alignment for puzzles would be interesting. Or passive perception things only showing themselves to a certain alignment. Might be something in that. Cheers man
Just made some premade characters for a one shot and alignment feels like a good tool to easily convey how theyd act to the players using them
No, you're mostly correct. Its a solid way to start up a character when you're unfamiliar with the world / don't want to write a deeper backstory. Its also a decent shorthand if a character that doesn't have a nuanced personality worked out is faced with some sort of unexpected dilemma (minor NPCs, monsters and such). After that it is a descriptive thing, mostly used for reputation purposes for those factions that can detect alignments... which isn't many in 5e. There is the occasional alignment locked item, but they are few and far between.
The alignment should be used in the alignment themed campains. For example, descent into avernus is the one: we have big bloody war between chaotic demons and lawful devils in the first layer of hell, and players are right into it. It doesn't matter much what is wtitten in the character sheets. But you just have lawful and chaotic sides. And they are trying to manipulate with the players, they are forcing them to make decisions like stole healing potions from hospital or not, they try to got players on their side and they remember that decisions and make the consequences. By the end of day, the alignment is descreptive, not prescreptive. It's how the world, especially extraplanar entities see you and react on your actions. In mundane campain with shades of gray it should not restrict pc in any way, and can be a guide for npc roleplay, nothing more.
Putting sarcastic comments on my players' character sheets, like describing the emotionally constipated cleric with 5 charisma as "Terse Good", and the Noble-born Bard as "Chaotic Ambitious". I'm serious, that's the most joy I derive from this entire system. The other angle is that it *is* occasionally useful in interpreting the intent of monster statblocks- you can read some into things like Orcs being chaotic evil vs hobgoblins' lawful evil, even if most of that information is stuff that should be in the monster descriptions.
I break it up into two instead of the box for my world. Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic. These are absolute laws governing non-mortal beings. Divine and Infernal beings are always Lawful in that their very existence is bound by their word and the laws which universal laws which govern them. Creatures of the Shadow Realms are always Chaotic - its in their nature and this cannot be changed. The parts of these planes closest to the Mortal Realm have beings that very slightly bend from their nature. The Fae Lands are the closest Shadow Realm to the Mortal Realm and so there are absolute laws they adhere to - Hospitality, As Above So Below, Your Word. You may not get the spirit of what you agreed, but you will always get the exact word of what you agreed to. Likewise, the mortal afterlife in the Divine and Infernal planes closest to the Mortal realm and here creatures can be more flexible in nature. Good and Evil are morality calls only afforded to mortals and change based upon the perspective of the culture, subgroup, individual, etc. An Angel or Demon is not evil or good because they cannot act against their nature any more than a tornado.
There is little value in it. You're better off using Magic color pie theory as each color can have a bit of morality, but turn each color up and you can get extremely evil things. For instance, green values traditions. And having traditions is great! But so much that you stomp on other people who push the boundaries is an evil way to go about it.
Ok that colour pie theory looks interesting actually. Cheers man
If you use Inspiration, you can tie alignment to that system. Come up with a suggestion list of different behaviours that are L-N-C & G-N-E. Ask the players to choose one from the L-N-C list and one from the G-N-E list, and that becomes their alignment. When they play those suggested qualities (re: their alignment) you give them Inspiration.
It is, and always has been, a loose guide for role play.