D&D 5E RIP alignment

[Oofta]

Wordy and bloated? Like, I gave examples that were less than 6 words.

Meanwhile alignment had to define two different kinds of "Neutral" as well as add in "Unaligned" over time. Like, they've been trying to fix it for years and at this point it's probably just better to recognize that it's not worth fixing.

To each their own. I didn't find your examples useful. If they work for you, great.

I like having 2 letters that give me a general guideline to the morals and outlook of any creature. It's a tool I find useful. Not much else I can say ... have a good one.

 

[darjr]

If you take out alignment then how do you have Evil High Priests or Evil Grand Viziers?

(Warning, that link is a TV Tropes link. Your productivity will suffer.)

I call shenanigans! How are we supposed to counter when we fall down the ..... oooohhhhhh TV Tropes!!!!! disappears for hours

 

[Helldritch]

I fail to see the positives in putting things in place to inspire "noobs" to skip reading the entire rules set and just skim the very top level of the game.

If you are a new player, you SHOULD be reading the entirety of the thing you're trying to run. You should actually LEARN THE GAME. And that means, yes... if you are going to use monsters from a specific product-- say a Monster Manual or a module-- you SHOULD read the entire descriptive text that describes them and wherein it SHOULD either give you several different mannerism and ways of behavior for the monster without any "standard" or "default" (if its in the MM) or it tell you specifically why THIS monster in THIS adventure is behaving in THIS way. Give it a reason for its behavior.

It's called specificity. Everything in the game that's based upon the roleplaying aspect of said thing should have SPECIFIC reasons why they are being portrayed in that way. There should never be any reason to shortchange a creature's personality or behavior, as their behavior is the whole reason for roleplaying those creatures in the first place.

Yes, you can absolutely have a clan of orcs that are evil in a product. But at the very least you should spend at least a half-dozen sentences describing WHAT they are doing and WHY they are behaving in that way-- WHY they are doing these things that would make the reader ascribe them the alignment as 'evil'. Because anything else is just poor writing. And while there certainly are folks here on the board that WANT that kind of writing wherein they as DMs don't ever have to put any thought into what they are doing and what's being run (I mean how many times have we seen people here just say they WANT meaningless cannon-fodder humanoids that can be killed indiscriminately for no other reason than "they're evil!?)...

...the game and the company need not in any way SUPPORT those kind of actions if they feel it is in any detrimental to how people might react to the game in the future.

What part of my post did you not understand? I said alignment is a tool. I never said that a noob would not need to read the text about the creature but that even without it, he could run the creature decently.

The alignment part will enable anyone to at least play a creature with a modicum of efficiency and believability. Nothing more. I was not telling you what a noob should do, but what he could.

 

[Helldritch]

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


Nah, classes do work. Though I'd thrown sorcerers, bards, barbarians, monks and warlock out.

All this to replace 2 letters... LE, LN, LG etc... over complicated. Two components for five words total. Way simpler than your system.

 

[Oofta]

I went back and tried to find some of the "better alternatives". Which, don't get me wrong if they're better for you, they are. I just don't see them being universally better in any way.



Examples

Medium humanoid. Loyal; violent.​

That could describe anyone from Captain America to Harley Quinn. For that matter it could define just about any PC that is loyal to a cause.​

Huge dragon. Greedy; opportunistic.​

Greed may not be great, but being opportunistic doesn't really tell me much. I mean, do they break all the rules to satisfy their greed or do they follow the rules to their advantage? Stockbroker or mugger? Are they going to willfully harm others to satisfy their greed?​

​

Large aberration. Cunning; apex predator.​

Describes all humans​

​

Large giant. Strong; dumb​

I get that from their ability scores. How do they interact with others? There are all sorts of trope here, everything from the slow but gentle giant to the bully who beats up everyone else and takes their lunch money.​

​

Descriptions of gnolls as "savage, bloodthirsty, strong blood ties"​

Sounds like an extremely racist description of just about every indigenous culture ever made by colonialists.​

The only other ones I could find were

• Gas station owner and placid keeper of secrets
• A good officer out of his depth
• Too big for his britches
• Local pothead and gas station attendant
• A Delta Green Veteran with a liquid crutch

None of those tells me much. Is the gas station owner likely to be a serial killer? Maybe the secrets are that he helps out at the local animal shelter. Who knows. They're oddly specific without telling me anything about their general moral compass.

What does "placid keeper of secrets" even mean? "Local pothead"? Okay, other than being a stoner, so what? Good officer out of his depth - once again a specific trait for a specific individual. It's fine for a lone individual, but how is he dealing with it? Why is he out of his depth? Feels constrained by the rules or works for Evil Nation (tm) and he's just not evil enough?

 

[teitan]

Er...at first glance that seems impossible. Please explain.

Alignment is a codification of morality. Even without alignment the descriptor of “evil” can be used to describe a demon, devil, or individual.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Orcs have never, ever been intrinsically evil. Not in any edition. There have always been exceptions to the "evil orc." Only DMs can make all orcs evil. And you are correct with the bolded portion. It's the lore that is the issue with orcs. Alignment is not a part of the lore.

Dude, even the recent one says that Orcs can only have a "limited sense of empathy and compassion" if taken out of their society. You try to separate alignment and lore, but they both support each other. When something is put out as "Chaotic Evil" and they basically say that it's never going to learn real feelings, that's kind of a hint

And if I use one in that manner as a player, there's a problem. If I use one for tricks in a circus or like Indiana Jones does, there is no problem. Humans have been really nasty for a really long time. If you look hard enough, just about everything negative has been perpetrated on some culture at some point. Are we supposed to eliminate everything negative from gaming just because it can be related to a real culture or group?

lmao

Indy is a good exception, but given how many animal cruelty suits have hit circuses, I'm not sure circuses are great examples. But this whole thing is arguing around the perceptions we've internalized around whips and their usage: whips are associated with slaver and slavedrivers. It's all over out pop culture. Is everyone who uses one painted with that brush? Probably not, but that doesn't take away the idea that a guy with a whip is generally not seen as a good guy.

All this to replace 2 letters... LE, LN, LG etc... over complicated. Two components for five words total. Way simpler than your system.

I mean, in recent years they've had to move away from the original meaning of stuff like Chaotic Neutral and had to clarify two new, separate ideas of "Neutral".

The only other ones I could find were

• Gas station owner and placid keeper of secrets
• A good officer out of his depth
• Too big for his britches
• Local pothead and gas station attendant
• A Delta Green Veteran with a liquid crutch

None of those tells me much. Is the gas station owner likely to be a serial killer? Maybe the secrets are that he helps out at the local animal shelter. Who knows. They're oddly specific without telling me anything about their general moral compass.

Oh my God, you're trying so hard and it's just adorable.

What does "placid keeper of secrets" even mean?

That he's laid back and holds incredible knowledge that others don't. It's immediately evocative of his personality and what he holds. None of that would have come across with "Lawful good".

"Local pothead"? Okay, other than being a stoner, so what?

I mean, that immediately evoked more than "Chaotic Neutral" on him. I can make a clear vision in his head of what he is behind the countertop, even if it is a stereotype. An alignment would tell me basically nothing.

Good officer out of his depth - once again a specific trait for a specific individual. It's fine for a lone individual, but how is he dealing with it? Why is he out of his depth? Feels constrained by the rules or works for Evil Nation (tm) and he's just not evil enough?

It's given you his personality and perhaps his outlook on superstitious stuff (given that Delta Green is a modern cosmic horror game), which gives you way more than if I had written "Lawful Neutral". All these questions you are asking wouldn't be answered by putting LN down because they'd have to be answered when they come up in the adventure. He's a sheriff who is dealing with a mysterious mauling when weird federal agents turn up: which gives better information to play him, LN or "A good officer out of his depth"? I think it's pretty clear it's the latter.

 

[CleverNickName]

Folks, it was dropped from monster stat blocks.

sheesh.

Meh, it won't be the first time I've written a house-rule to fix one of their mistakes.

 

[Oofta]

It's given you his personality and perhaps his outlook on superstitious stuff (given that Delta Green is a modern cosmic horror game), which gives you way more than if I had written "Lawful Neutral". All these questions you are asking wouldn't be answered by putting LN down because they'd have to be answered when they come up in the adventure. He's a sheriff who is dealing with a mysterious mauling when weird federal agents turn up: which gives better information to play him, LN or "A good officer out of his depth"? I think it's pretty clear it's the latter.

Why is he out of his depth? It's just a descriptor of an individual at a point in time and too specific; this is a description I'd write up for an individual for a specific scenario, nothing that would apply to that individual in different scenarios or at different points in their life. It can't be applied any broader than that one individual.

As to why? Well, that depends on the scenario doesn't it. My point is: it's useless outside of a specific niche, tells me nothing about their moral compass or how they're going to react.

If it works for you, fine. I think it's useless.

 

[Maxperson]

Dude, even the recent one says that Orcs can only have a "limited sense of empathy and compassion" if taken out of their society.

Dude, that's entirely lore. Like, entirely.

Indy is a good exception, but given how many animal cruelty suits have hit circuses, I'm not sure circuses are great examples.

Given how poorly killings, assaults, etc. are taken in society and how many related suits there are, all killing and attacks need to be removed from the game as well.

Or else you can just understand that the game isn't real life and the vast majority of things in the game that coincidentally match real life aren't a big deal.

whips are associated with slaver and slavedrivers.

It's not an "are." It's a "can be." Whips can be associated with slaves and slave drivers. They don't have to be.

Oh my God, you're trying so hard and it's just adorable.

Well aren't your condescension, arrogance and dismissiveness just cutesy wootsy.