D&D 5E RIP alignment

[Maxperson]

But it still explicitly states that orcs are evil. And born that way. Any orc who goes against its nature will fight against their very nature for their entire life. That’s your basic racist argument in a nutshell. “They can’t help it. They’re just born evil. There might be a few good ones. But they’re just fighting against who they’re born to be.”

Alignment can die in a fire. When broadly applied to entire races it’s explicitly racist. And when those fantasy races are coded with real-world racist tropes...yeah, alignment can die in a fire.

You're conflating orc nature with alignment when those are two different things.

 

[turnip_farmer]

Do people really have such terrible difficulty running creatures and monsters in all the other non-D&D games that don't use alignment? How do y'all normally manage when alignment isn't part of a creature's description in these other games?

I'm finding myself a bit baffled how other people design their monsters or NPCs, to be honest. When you're putting something in your game, the concept predates the stat block. Does anyone really say 'okay, the stuff's been stolen by goblins. Let me go and look at the Monster Manual to find out what goblins are like'?

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Do all fighters have to wear armor? Surely there can be exceptions? If so, why keep armor?

Exceptions don't change the general rule. That's why they are exceptions.

 

[fnordland]

Culture is a significant factor in history, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

D&D has deities who significantly impact the world. That was expressed through alignment. Collective, caring & sharing or Individualistic, Zero Sum greed. Getting rid of Alignment is an extraordinary wrench from D&D's past. It needs to be approached carefully, just dropping it will cause an enduring problem.

I do not want to drop Alignment, I think it is part of the game's history and can be narratively interesting.

I recognise that for players who do not have an interest in deities and their impact it is not important.

 

[Imaculata]

Do all fighters have to wear armor? Surely there can be exceptions? If so, why keep armor?

Exceptions don't change the general rule. That's why they are exceptions.

Fighters don't have to wear armor at all. No class does. So your example doesn't really work.

The thing is, older edition Monster Manuals state that orcs and drow are evil by nature. The armor rules don't say everyone, or anyone, must wear it.

But we like telling stories where Drow and/or Orcs aren't evil. We even like having them as player characters. So racial alignments simply don't work anymore with those new perspectives on the game. And this raises the question why we still need alignments. Is it just because D&D has always had alignments, that we don't want to change it?

 

[Mind of tempest]

question if we are going to have good or evil what do they mean or at least what you guys think they mean?

 

[Maxperson]

Fighters don't have to wear armor at all. No class does. So your example doesn't really work.

The thing is, the Monster Manual entities state that orcs and drow are evil by nature. The armor rules don't say everyone, or anyone, must wear it.

And no race has to be any particular alignment and never has. So the arguments are the same. Hell, even in the 2e official Planescape stuff, there was a CG or LG Demon(Tanar'ri). Alignment has never been absolute for creatures. Large Luigi the N Beholder in the Spelljammer stuff. Drizzt the CG Drow. And so on.

But we like telling stories where Drow and/or Orcs aren't evil. We even like having them as player characters. So racial alignments simply don't work anymore with those new perspectives on the game. And this raises the question why we still need alignments. Is it just because D&D has always had alignments, that we don't want to change it?

So tell those stories. You've always been able to in D&D. Alignment is just the default and the default with alignment has always been mutable.

 

[Imaculata]

question if we are going to have good or evil what do they mean or at least what you guys think they mean?

I think that depends on the sort of stories you want to build. I don't write my characters with their alignment in mind. I write them with their personality, role within the story and goals in mind.

So very few of my villains are completely black hat evil. They are usually some variation of grey. Same for the 'good guys'.

So tell those stories. You've always been able to in D&D. Alignment is just the default and the default with alignment has always been mutable.

But should it be the default? If it is becoming more and more arbitrary, will anyone really miss it when it's gone?

 

[Blue]

Bets fan guess for next generation of D&D is 2024 at the 50th Anniversary. So it would be in early stages about now regardless. That they have some foundational changes to races and further removed alignment (it had zero mechanical support in 5e outside "pick one" - no spells or features referenced it) will likely be included.

 

[SkidAce]

Maybe there shouldn't be a default. Maybe it's better for us as both players and creators that we have to choose to think about it, at least once, before creating our own default.

Not going to argue the main point of this thread, its my table's business.

However, like the quote above, I do feel anything that steers D&D back towards the "toolbox" mode (choose species, choose foes, create world, etc) might be a good thing.