Quote from: mcbobbo;761584Google thinks its a 4e thing and there seems to be some controversy around it.  Can someone brief me on the new alignment design from 4e?  Do we know how much of it carried into 5e?

I first noticed "unaligned" today on the Ocre Jelly teaser page for the Starter Set.  That used to mean 'N', but maybe it's CN now?

It feels weird to be surprised by D&D...

Its like, Chaotic Neutral Lite.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;761669Hmm.

I hate D&D alignment with the fury of a thousand suns, but I think I could tolerate this presentation of them.

I liked and adopted to other settings the original DragonLance hardbacks shifting Alignment system where the character started out as whatever alignment the PC wanted or class required. But thereafter your characters actions could and often did slide you this way and that.

That sort of dynamic alignment is more realistic. People, even in real life can display a general outlook and over time that may shift, sometimes dramatically.

Quote from: Endless Flight;761791I have a hard time believing a person could be classified as truly neutral, unless they were in a casket.

There is alot of definitions of neutral.

Some seem to read it as:
An excuse to be Chaotic Chaotic in the name of Balance: But without the moral repercussions. They might help an old lady across the street. Then club her to death. They might burn down an orphanage to balance out saving the whales... etc ad chaotium.
Or
Passive Observer: Kinda just... there... watching... you...
Or
Reacting according to the situation: If someone is mean you fight them, if someone is nice you help them. Alot of Amish people I knew had that sort of vibe.

Quote from: Omega;761936I liked and adopted to other settings the original DragonLance hardbacks shifting Alignment system where the character started out as whatever alignment the PC wanted or class required. But thereafter your characters actions could and often did slide you this way and that.

That sort of dynamic alignment is more realistic. People, even in real life can display a general outlook and over time that may shift, sometimes dramatically.

If you're going to have an alignment system, don't half-ass it with a two-axis system that winds up encouraging people to say, "Hey, that guy has an 'e' in his alignment? Sounds like he needs a killin'." Or leads GMs to just dick over players because they think your PC is evil and force that alignment change on you without any real evidence that you've actually done anything "evil," and now all his NPCs treat you like shit as though your alignment is stamped on your forehead (I am still a bit bitter about that)

I have found that using the "color pie" from M:tG as a starting point for an alignment system works out pretty well. You can get a much more subjective moral framework out of it, which makes significantly more sense to me.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;761938If you're going to have an alignment system, don't half-ass it with a two-axis system that winds up encouraging people to say, "Hey, that guy has an 'e' in his alignment? Sounds like he needs a killin'." Or leads GMs to just dick over players because they think your PC is evil and force that alignment change on you without any real evidence that you've actually done anything "evil," and now all his NPCs treat you like shit as though your alignment is stamped on your forehead (I am still a bit bitter about that)

I have found that using the "color pie" from M:tG as a starting point for an alignment system works out pretty well. You can get a much more subjective moral framework out of it, which makes significantly more sense to me.

It was a sliding scale with neutral in the middle with Evil at one end and Good at the other I believe.

I generally do not enforce alignment unless someone is playing a paladin or such. Nut I note down the initial choice and then keep loos track of which way the character is sliding if they did something notable.

Quote from: Omega;761939It was a sliding scale with neutral in the middle with Evil at one end and Good at the other I believe.

Yeah, I know the thing you're talking about. Don't think I've used it, though; only played in a homebrew setting in 1e and 2e. Sorry for kind of going on a tangent, there; D&D alignment just pisses me off that much.

QuoteI generally do not enforce alignment unless someone is playing a paladin or such. Nut I note down the initial choice and then keep loos track of which way the character is sliding if they did something notable.

I was playing a dwarf fighter/rogue, who started N, got changed to LE (I was aiming for LN, since I wanted to go dwarven defender). Apparently the fact that I was using the fact that I was the only non-good member of the party to "argue" with other players about why we were doing good things - as a way to help them illustrate their alignments/personalities/etc - meant that my PC was evil, I guess.

I have observed that the majority of players ignore their alignment and play something close to Neutral Evil. While rationalizing it to be their stated alignment.

Quote from: Bill;761970I have observed that the majority of players ignore their alignment and play something close to Neutral Evil. While rationalizing it to be their stated alignment.

I have observed that, too, as fitting the alignment to the situation. Neutral Evil is always the easiest course to take. Seeing that behaviour in players, to me, was always just a sign that they didn't know how to roleplay a character.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: Bill;761970I have observed that the majority of players ignore their alignment and play something close to Neutral Evil. While rationalizing it to be their stated alignment.

Not always but mostly.

The funny thing is they don't actually play NE very well because when you do play NE properly and you slit the wizard's throat while he is asleep so you can take that wand he picked up and sell it in town everyone gets all upset

I used to have long in character discourses on topics that were very close to alignment and have never really seen an issue with it.
When we as a bunch of thieves found a set of old cellars we decided to set up a thieves' guild and I argued long and hard that there was no need for us to bother with a long list of rules, we were all friends and trusted one another and we knew that we would pull together to help each other out if needs be, we could trust everyone to share whatever gold they found without bothering to keep a ledger and we didn't need to have ranks like guild master or whatever because we could always work things out for the greater good just by talking things over.
Later on one of the other thieves pushed me off a roof....

Just to cherry pick a few points:

Bad DMs are bad DMs, with or without alignment.  Table conflict might be more frequent around something as fuzzy as the motivation behind behavior, but it doesn't HAVE to result in antisocial antics.  People choose to do that for non-game reasons,  like being a dick in the first place.

Traveller could be improved by an alignment system.  Doesn't seem like rocket science.  Does it HAVE to have one?  Of course not.  But it would add depth,  so could be a benefit.

I reassert that when something as wide as 'anything you want to put' is too restrictive to put on a sheet, you're not arguing against alignment any more.  You're arguing against being held to your own decisions.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761989Bad DMs are bad DMs, with or without alignment.

Bad roleplayers are bad roleplayers, with our without writing "neutral good" on their character sheet. If someone can't roleplay a character without alignment, alignment isn't changing that.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;761991Bad roleplayers are bad roleplayers, with our without writing "neutral good" on their character sheet. If someone can't roleplay a character without alignment, alignment isn't changing that.

Advising against a player writing information about their character on their sheet is like advising a DM against taking notes.

If the character has its own personality there can be no harm in recording it.

Edit - actually I want to bump that analogy up a bit.  Not putting behavior on the sheet is like a DM developing monster stats on the fly.

If alignment being subject to the GM's judgment (as per everything about any setting) sets you off, lord help you if you play In Nomine. When we can have angels burning bibles and stealing, and demons giving away sex and candy for a song, you'd all be at a loss to know which way is up. Pro tip: ask the GM, it's their setting.

Palladiums games had one of the better alignment systems. More realistic in a sense.

I am surprised WOTC didnt go back to the Law/Neutral/Chaos setup.

Quote from: Omega;762020Palladiums games had one of the better alignment systems. More realistic in a sense.

I am surprised WOTC didnt go back to the Law/Neutral/Chaos setup.

I like how Paladium had 'Selfish' instead of 'Evil'

Unless my memory is bad. Been many years since I played paladium.