D&D 5E RIP alignment

[Lanefan]

I’m sure some people missed gender-based ability modifiers when they disappeared. Others missed race-based level restrictions when they disappeared. Others missed race-based class restrictions when they disappeared. Others still will miss alignment. The game keeps evolving. It will never stop. If it stops evolving, it will die.

Interesting to note that every one of those things you mention is/was in some way a rules-based restriction. What restrictions have been put in to replace them?

And I do miss race-based class restrictions - or would if I ever got rid of them.

 

[Flamestrike]

It’s a distinction that doesn’t make a difference.

If you're inherently evil, you dont get a choice.

If it's a tendency, you do get a choice. Hard as it may be, you get one.

 

[Lanefan]

If a character is obviously evil, what exactly is lost by not putting the word evil in their stat block?

Er...what's lost is the "evil" descriptor.

Why not let the character’s behavior speak for itself?

Because without the descriptors - including the simple word "evil" - for the DM to go by, how is the character expected to behave; and how is the module writer supposed to get these expectations across to the DM?

 

[Imaculata]

I'm not as attached to the alignment system as others seem to be. Apart from the problematic racial alignments, I think alignment kind of restricts how we tell stories. Are all Undead and Mindflayers evil? Surely there can be exceptions? If so, then why keep alignment?

 

[Lanefan]

It's not racist to say 'Grizzly bears are stronger than Humans' nor would it be racist to say 'Orcs are stronger than humans'.

Thank you! I was hoping someone would point this out.

It's just as much not-racist to say Orcs (and Grizzlies, for all that) are less intelligent than Humans.

In the game, we're not distinguishing between different groups of Humans with species-based modifiers, we're distinguishing between Humans (all of 'em!) and completely different creatures entirely.

Same goes for alignment. We don't (usually) apply general alignment descriptors to recognizable real-world-variant Human cultures, but we can and do apply them to creatures who are not Human, and to their cultures. And note I say general descriptors; there can always be exceptions but it's useful to have a general tendency noted, particularly if it's a creature you're seeing in a MM for the first time and have otherwise never heard of

 

[Flamestrike]

Er...what's lost is the "evil" descriptor.

Because without the descriptors - including the simple word "evil" - for the DM to go by, how is the character expected to behave; and how is the module writer supposed to get these expectations across to the DM?

Take your example from PCs. It can be easy to spot the difference.

Evil PCs kill, torture, slaughter infants, murder, steal, engage in genocide, burn down taverns and so forth, while refraining from mercy, compassion, kindness or altruism.

Good PCs do exactly the same stuff, but only after arguing with the DM for 10 minutes about their justification.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The question should be "where a character's soul should go to when she dies, to the celestial or infernal planes? And the blood war between demons and devils?

And lots of divine spells with key aligment.

 

[Imaculata]

In the game, we're not distinguishing between different groups of Humans with species-based modifiers, we're distinguishing between Humans (all of 'em!) and completely different creatures entirely.

Same goes for alignment. We don't (usually) apply general alignment descriptors to recognizable real-world-variant Human cultures, but we can and do apply them to creatures who are not Human, and to their cultures. And note I say general descriptors; there can always be exceptions but it's useful to have a general tendency noted, particularly if it's a creature you're seeing in a MM for the first time and have otherwise never heard of

People often forget that D&D borrows from classic fantasy clichés and throws them all together in a blender.

There are the good guys, and the bad guys. Some monster types are the bad guys by default. Orcs are evil. So are undead and mindflayers. They are things for the players to kill, without having deep meaningful discussions about morality.

Of course, in todays world it is understandable that talking about 'a race' of evil humanoids doesn't sound okay. It is a bit of problematic language in modern culture. Things used to be so simple in D&D; kill the evil monsters. But ideas have changed, and how we talk about racial identity has changed.

Is alignment all that important to D&D? I don't think it ever has been. DM's have always introduced monsters in their campaigns that deviate from their default alignment.

 

[Flamestrike]

There are the good guys, and the bad guys. Some monster types are the bad guys by default. Orcs are evil. So are undead and mindflayers. They are things for the players to kill, without having deep meaningful discussions about morality.

No, killing things for no other reason than they belong to a culture that is warlike and violent or enslaves people, is evil. PCs who engage in such practices are evil.

Killing an Orc should be (and always has been) no different to killing a Halfling. You only resort to force and violence if the creature threatens harm to you or others, and there is no other way to stop them.

With Orcs, this is usually a given (they see you, they try and kill you).

But I reject the fact that Orcs are targets simply because they're Orcs.

 

[JEB]

Does it, though? The philosophical dispositions of the outer planes are pretty well-described, with or without a two-word shorthand. We know how demons behave in contrast to devils, in contrast to daemons, etc. Is the alignment label truly necessary for that cosmic system to function and make sense? I don’t think it is, personally.

Well, they're well-described now, because we've had the nine-alignment system for over 40 years. If we'd never had that system we wouldn't have the Great Wheel, nor likely a number of iconic planar creatures in the game (devils as distinct from and opposed to demons; yugoloths; modrons; eladrin).

While we can certainly continue the Great Wheel cosmology without explicitly defined alignment, I don't think you'll ever be able to completely eliminate the concept from the underpinnings. You need some version of law vs. chaos to distinguish Hell from the Abyss, for example, even if you don't use the terms "lawful evil" and "chaotic evil".