why was the alignment system left out?

[Grink "V.F" da Boy]

part of the roleplaying aspect in d&d is playing your character the way you want and they will usually fall under some alignment, youve got the lawful good (inflexible idiots that mostly play stupid good), chaotic good (for your batman vigilantes), neutral good (reasonable people), chaotic neutral (most people pick this, the fencesitter alignment), lawful evil (the thinking man's evil alignment), neutral evil (the opportunists), and last but not least chaotic evil (the murderhobo's choice for people who would behead a commoner for being slighted and then raze their village to the ground in retribution)

i think it would also have been useful for party members so you can get a feel of what theyre about at a glance

[solaris32]

I always found the alignment system restrictive.

[Pyro]

you can roleplay an alignment if you want, but its a very black and white way of viewing the world

[Snake_In_The_Eye]

Alignment in 5e doesn't have much meaning, your roleplay defines your alignment.

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

Because Larian hates roleplaying. That was already the case with DoS2 which removes the alignment/reputation system that was there since Divine Divinity.

[Mijj]

If you don't understand what the alignments of each characters you are playing with, it probably means two things:
- YOU don't understand the system well
- The system is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and it's not because someone is Chaotic Evil that they cannot like "sweet" things

Whichever the reason is, I much prefer the current system of approvals that is defined for each characters, which means they all have their own personnality tied to their character not tied to a general system

[Shyba]

because the only companions who'd even have "evil" in their alignment would be Minthara (LAwful "evil" whos' about as Evil as BG1/2 Viconia i.e. not very) and Lae'zel (LAwful "evil" Who's not evil at ALL she's just a naive grump) and MAYBE Astarion (Neutral "evil" simply because he's a vampire who's more fitting for a chaotic neutral unless he goes Ascension) so now you see Lae'zel as "lawful Evil" because of her pre-existing beliefs so you throw her aside.. and don't learn she's as about as evil as a cranky old man telling kids to get off his lawn. OR Astarion who's just a poor abused puppy who's finally got freedom for the first time in 2 centuries and 100% regrets all the ♥♥♥♥ he was forced to do when he actually comes to face it.

this game doesn't "do" evil in the right sense of the word.. it does Chaotic evil. and "various types of good" Neutral gets one major decision (not getting involved with the grove/goblins) after which it's HERO TIME or PSYCHO TIME for the rest of the game.

[Grink "V.F" da Boy]

Originally posted by Jean-Maurice Nya:

Because Larian hates roleplaying. That was already the case with DoS2 which removes the alignment/reputation system that was there since Divine Divinity.

i guess so given how they removed those cleric dieties

[Hobocop]

1. It's a poor fit within the context of a cRPG because a preprogrammed computer cannot discern intent.

2. Because WotC said please don't.

And honestly, that's for the better in a video game because it leads to incredibly stiff and inorganic interactions with companions if you can just read their two-word morality 'description' instead of having to actually talk to them to learn what they're about.

Plus, with alignment being on the mechanical backburner in 5e, I don't see what purpose including it would serve.

[Doomvora]

You could just roleplay the alignment yourself though?

Why does it require a system to dictate your alignment when you can just choose to play that way?

[Razorblade]

Because most people use Alignments wrong. They're descriptive, not proscriptive. However, if you give people good boy or bad boy points when they do something, they'll mostly likely feel railroaded into your definition of morality.

If you want a player to roleplay, telling them the "correct" option for their character is the absolute worst thing you can do. Imagine if you were playing tabletop and your DM went "I'm downgrading you to True Neutral because you didn't murder that dude."

Just look at all of the "Why did my Paladin Oath break when I killed this random evil guy?" to see how railroady the devs governing your morality can be.

Alignment isn't even important in 5E; it's there to help you decide your Bonds, Flaws, and Ideals. If you're thinking about your Alignment before those, you're missing the entire point of the system.

[Quillithe]

Originally posted by Grink "V.F" da Boy:

i think it would also have been useful for party members so you can get a feel of what theyre about at a glance

This is a good reason why not to do it. You shouldn't know this upon meeting people anyway

[ShadowDark3]

What does having an alignment system actually do other than give you one extra option at character creation? The only thing I can think of is determine your choice of deity you follow for a few classes. I'm glad it has been phased out, personally.

[sick duck]

It is a dumb system, and it causes too many disagreements. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of having character traits on the character sheet, but they should have obvious meanings. My character traits include stuff like Monk, and Balduran, and these are good tags because they are a clear referecne to my characters history. Lawful good means... what? Laws are decided by societies, and the way people interact with the law usually has a big part in if society says the person is good. So a lawful Balduran monk is lawful while they are in Baldurs Gate, but what if they travel to another continent, are they still lawful? What if that other continent has no formalized set of laws but the laws of nature and the whole continent is in chaos? The alignment system is bad and I use it for toilet paper.

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

sick duck, if they're lawful they respect laws of all lands. Being lawful in D&D means that you respect any authority. The alignment system is well described, but people hate reading, they prefer to listen passively to voices because they're lazy.

[I'm A Distraction!]

Originally posted by Shyba:

because the only companions who'd even have "evil" in their alignment would be Minthara (LAwful "evil" whos' about as Evil as BG1/2 Viconia i.e. not very) and Lae'zel (LAwful "evil" Who's not evil at ALL she's just a naive grump) and MAYBE Astarion (Neutral "evil" simply because he's a vampire who's more fitting for a chaotic neutral unless he goes Ascension) so now you see Lae'zel as "lawful Evil" because of her pre-existing beliefs so you throw her aside.. and don't learn she's as about as evil as a cranky old man telling kids to get off his lawn. OR Astarion who's just a poor abused puppy who's finally got freedom for the first time in 2 centuries and 100% regrets all the ♥♥♥♥ he was forced to do when he actually comes to face it.

this game doesn't "do" evil in the right sense of the word.. it does Chaotic evil. and "various types of good" Neutral gets one major decision (not getting involved with the grove/goblins) after which it's HERO TIME or PSYCHO TIME for the rest of the game.

Astarion is definitely on the evil spectrum, probably chaotic evil. He seems to drift towards neutral with some guidance. He starts off self serving who'll happily murder someone he thinks is a danger to him, and shows no qualms about wanting to drain people dry (even lying about the fact that the only reason he's not fed from people so far is because he was never allowed to). His impulse is always to acquire more power and control for himself, too, and is always sour whenever you won't let him or try to talk him away from that path.

The fact that an evil character can change their ways doesn't negate the fact that, at the start of their journey, he's a self serving evil ♥♥♥♥ who justifies his actions by claiming 'he deserves it after all the shift he's dealt with'.