D&D 5E RIP alignment

Status
Not open for further replies.

Remathilis

Legend
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?
No. Because evil creatures are still allowed to be evil. The orcs of The One Ring are still evil. The Daleks in Adventures in Space and Time are still evil. The Empire/First Order in Edge of the Empire are still evil. D&D orcs and drow can't be allowed to be evil anymore.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
Write a couple of one-word descriptors and now you don't even need to explain what Chaotic and Lawful means.
Medium humanoid. Loyal; violent.
Huge dragon. Greedy; opportunistic.
Large aberration. Cunning; apex predator.
Large giant. Strong; dumb
Whoa whoa, are you saying all giants ae dumb? :p

(I'm kidding, I got your point)
 

Mind of tempest

(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
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'.
can you give me examples as I am not the best at that sort of thing?
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
A sacred cow desperately, begging in need of the captured bolt pistol finally goes to its ignoble end.

Or not.

I'm not going to celebrate just yet because I doubt the dumb idea will be completely expunged. It's still going to be a 'descriptor' in which several of the different options aren't even actually mutually exclusive, assumed to be necessary for every character instead of letting you opt out with Unaligned. Planescape is still going to be poking its ass into every setting as the inexplicably default cosmology.

Don't worry guys, people like me will still be suffering under alignment's yoke even if it is retiring from its job of shackling sapient beings to stereotypes (an excusing itself by saying you can change it -- like literally everything in the game; which means nothing).
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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".
I don’t think anyone aims to eliminate the concept from the underpinnings of the great wheel cosmology, so that doesn’t strike me as an issue.
 

Oofta

Legend
Alighnments don't tell squat either. Lawful Neutral? Judge Dredd or Mike Ehrmantraut? Chaotic Good? Batman or Dirty Harry (though I'd argue he isn't good like at all, but anyway)? Lawful Evil? Anton Chigurh or Dick Chaney?

Even on the easiest axis on the grid, Law-Chaos is vague at best. What is Law (baby don't hurt me)? What kind of law does a Lawful character cherish? Lawful may be a by-the-book cop and it may be a mafioso who honors omertha.
Then, what is Chaos? What kind of law does a Chaotic character resent?

And what is Good and what is Evil? Philosophers have broken countless spears about this question since the dawn of time and none managed to get a workable answer.


Alignment chart could work in a game about an ancient order with strict dogma that wages war against evil daemons. Support Dogma? Lawful. Are willing to bend it? Neutral. Oppose it, as it's too rigid? Chaotic. Working against daemons? Good. Don't care? Neutral. Serving daemons? Evil.

As it is, alignment system in 3.5e or 5e needs so much clarifications to actually work that alignment doesn't add anything to a description anyway.

Alignment doesn't give you details, it's not meant to. But I find it odd that people who don't like find it so offensive that 2 characters must be abolished in all instances. It's like saying "I don't see the point of vanilla ice cream so stores should stop selling it."

But alignment discussions never go much of anywhere. My take on alignment is fairly straightforward.

By and large I don't I don't enforce alignment other my no evil PC policy. Alignment is just one more descriptor amongst many that help define a character.

Where I use it is in determining how NPCs and monsters respond, how they see the world. One theory in psychology is that people view the world through schemas, basically predefined templates for how we view the world. You can read about it here. What Role Do Schemas Play in the Learning Process? It even extends to color, apparently if you don't have the word for the color blue you don't distinguish between it and green. There's Evidence Humans Didn't Actually See Blue Until Modern Times

Two people can look at exactly the same situation and form vastly different opinions on what is going on. One person may see a beggar on the street and have empathy for someone down on their luck while another may see someone who is lazy or unwilling to work. Yet another person would see someone that could be abducted and killed and no one would notice.

As another example, a chaotic person may look at how a kingdom is being ruled and see a tyranny where title, not worth determines a person's value. Another may look at the same kingdom and see an organized structure that works for the people by giving them a sense of tradition and a proper place.

There's a lot of leeway in this concept, they are just general guidelines. There may often be conflict - a Chaotic Good character may not like the tight control a king has over his kingdom, but may realize that the option is worse. A Lawful Evil person may work to throw a kingdom into chaos so that in the long term a new regime may rise from the ashes.

In addition, people aren't always 100% consistent. Personal experience may soften the heart of a chaotic evil serial killer for very specific individuals. A lawful good paladin may have a blind spot and not realize the harm they are doing to innocents.

Lawful: views the world as a clockwork mechanism. Everything works according to a grand plan, even if we don't understand that plan. When things are in proper order, the whole system works smoothly. If a title is honorable, the person holding the title should be given the respect the title deserves. In some situations they may decide the person is unworthy of the title.

Chaotic: there is no grand plan. The only organization is that which makes sense for the people involved. If the old order needs to be replaced so that people can be free to pursue their own goals, so be it. Perceived organization comes out of individuals choosing to cooperate for themselves or their community. Individuals should be judged by their worth or power, not by title or station.

Good: this is complex, but essentially it comes down to empathy (the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes), and not wanting to harm others. This doesn't mean you don't fight or kill, but that you will fight and kill because you need to protect others. You may do things for your own personal gain as long as you are not harming innocents.

Evil: in general evil people view others as objects with no inherent value. They may love someone, but in many cases love them as a possession, something they own. If the object of their affection doesn't reciprocate they may not care. They may kill or cause pain in others simply because they enjoy it. Your personal gain is all that matters, other people's goals do not unless they hold power over you or you can use their goals to manipulate them.

In any case I think it's as good a descriptor and general tool as any in D&D. 🤷‍♂️
 



Aldarc

Legend
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.
Thing is, you can have cosmologically interesting who impact the world and cosmos without needing to lean heavily on alignment for their stories. The Dawn War gods in 4e, for example, did have alignment but it was somewhat tangential to their wider struggle against the Primordials. Lawful Good gods were allied with Chaotic Evil gods against the Primordials and in the interest of fighting for their divine domains in the Astral Sea.

Alignment doesn't make the gods interesting: their stories in the fiction do.

No. Because evil creatures are still allowed to be evil. The orcs of The One Ring are still evil. The Daleks in Adventures in Space and Time are still evil. The Empire/First Order in Edge of the Empire are still evil. D&D orcs and drow can't be allowed to be evil anymore.
I have a hard time pinning down your position in this thread, because one minute you seem to be advocating for no alignment and playable orcs and then next bemoaning the lack of evil orcs and drow in D&D.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top