D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Oofta]

I hate rewarding this behavior, but I'm done.

The discussion is now officially frustrating enough that it's not worth continuing.

The rhetoric around alignment defense is just as bad as alignment itself.

Right. The "rhetoric" is people explaining how they use it and why, examples of how it affects creature's interactions with the world, what the limits are and examples. Throw in repeated statements that it's completely optional but gives insights that other attributes do not because it gives general descriptor of moral compass at a glance with minimal work.

All you stated was "I said it was bad, therefore it is". Assertion of your opinion with no explanation or justification is not a discussion.

 

[tetrasodium]

I mean it's mostly justifying being a serial killer, but yeah... 3e Paladin.

Spoiler: Tip #7

six too definitely

 

[PsyzhranV2]

You don't need to know about other games to discuss D&D, which is the game we are discussing here. I am well aware having had many other games explained in great detail over the years, how games without alignment work. Those games have no bearing on D&D, whether alignment should or should not exist in D&D, or whether there are lots of players and DMs who find alignment to be a useful tool.

Dismissing people because you assume that they have not played any other games outside of d20, is not only shortsighted, but reflects really poorly on you.

I disagree with this assertion with every fibre of my being.

D&D does not exist in a vacuum, isolated from the rest of the tabletop roleplay medium. It exists in relation to other tabletop games - usually by smothering the rest of them under the weight of its brand name, but that's neither here nor there. D&D is not so unreconciabilly different from every other tabletop game that it can't possibly be improved by taking inspiration from them.

Chasing some "platonic ideal of D&D" that must never be compromised as the primary goal of design will only lead to design regression. This already happened during the transition from 4e to 5e, with WotC being overeager to appeal to nostalgia over genuinely good systems design; and we are now seeing the consequences of some of their more idiosyncratic decisions. The game could be improved in many ways by observing the new developments in the field that have happened outside of the D&D sphere within the past six years, or even just by having a more cohesive design vision and objective than just "this feels like D&D, it's going in" without care for mechanical consequence.

 

[Oofta]

I disagree with this assertion with every fibre of my being.

D&D does not exist in a vacuum, isolated from the rest of the tabletop roleplay medium. It exists in relation to other tabletop games - usually by smothering the rest of them under the weight of its brand name, but that's neither here nor there. D&D is not so unreconciabilly different from every other tabletop game that it can't possibly be improved by taking inspiration from them.

Chasing some "platonic ideal of D&D" that must never be compromised as the primary goal of design will only lead to design regression. This already happened during the transition from 4e to 5e, with WotC being overeager to appeal to nostalgia over genuinely good systems design; and we are now seeing the consequences of some of their more idiosyncratic decisions. The game could be improved in many ways by observing the new developments in the field that have happened outside of the D&D sphere within the past six years, or even just by having a more cohesive design vision and objective than just "this feels like D&D, it's going in" without care for mechanical consequence.

There is little or no mechanical consequence to alignment in 5E so I'm not sure what you're saying.

As far as the rest, I have no idea what you're talking about. Is D&D Fate? No. So?

 

[Maxperson]

Right. The "rhetoric" is people explaining how they use it and why, examples of how it affects creature's interactions with the world, what the limits are and examples. Throw in repeated statements that it's completely optional but gives insights that other attributes do not because it gives general descriptor of moral compass at a glance with minimal work.

All you stated was "I said it was bad, therefore it is". Assertion of your opinion with no explanation or justification is not a discussion.

Right. So far all the rhetoric that I've seen has been on the other side. The hate is strong with some of them.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree with this assertion with every fibre of my being.

D&D does not exist in a vacuum, isolated from the rest of the tabletop roleplay medium. It exists in relation to other tabletop games - usually by smothering the rest of them under the weight of its brand name, but that's neither here nor there. D&D is not so unreconciabilly different from every other tabletop game that it can't possibly be improved by taking inspiration from them.

Chasing some "platonic ideal of D&D" that must never be compromised as the primary goal of design will only lead to design regression. This already happened during the transition from 4e to 5e, with WotC being overeager to appeal to nostalgia over genuinely good systems design; and we are now seeing the consequences of some of their more idiosyncratic decisions. The game could be improved in many ways by observing the new developments in the field that have happened outside of the D&D sphere within the past six years, or even just by having a more cohesive design vision and objective than just "this feels like D&D, it's going in" without care for mechanical consequence.

WotC went where the money was. You call it regression, we call it a fun game. What has progressed has been alignment. It has gone from a strong set of rules with mechanical penalties for PCs to...........................................nothing. Each alignment is basically one vague sentence with no mechanics outside of a few artifacts. It doesn't need to "progress" any further. You don't like it, don't use it.

 

[Imaro]

I use alignment in my D&D games as actual cosmological forces (i.e. Moorcockian alignment). A PC's alignment is the force they've consciously decided to align with and not necessarily a representation of their behavior or personality (thought you would think that if a character pledges themselves to the cosmological force of Lawful Good, they would act in accordance with its principles.). I like the idea of that choice of alignment having a language (in my campaign these were the tongues of creation), having mechanical effects (spells, magic items, etc.) and the potential for betrayal and subterfuge (voluntary or involuntary changing of alignment). While I don't necessarily use it 100% faithfully in it's current iteration, it's inclusion spurred me to modify it to my liking. I don't think alignment should be removed but I do think alternative uses and structures would be a great subject for WotC to tackle in a supplement (or revised core).

 

[Maxperson]

@Umbran said this in another thread, but I thought it fit very appropriately here as well.

Some people do shine when they are allowed to do whatever they darned well please. Others blossom within a framework.

Alignment is one of those frameworks.

 

[pemerton]

I just posted how ideals, bonds, flaws can take radically different flavor and implementation based on a person's moral compass.

The reason this makes no sense is because the whole point of a system like Ideals, Bonds and Flaws (or its many counterparts in other RPGs) is to reveal a character's moral compass. That may not be all it does, but is one of the things it does.

So if a character's Flaw is I speak to harshly to my friends we can see that that character believes that kindness is a virtue and that harsh language to one's friends is a failing.

Compare that to a character whose Flaw is I am too hesitant to drive my subordinates on in pursuit of our goals - from this, we learn what a ruthless bastard that character aspires to be!

 

[pemerton]

I don't even know the alignment of my player's PCs and don't care. If they have LE on their character sheet but never commit an evil act in my campaign I would question why they have the label but it wouldn't matter.

So what's alignment for, then? Why is it part of the PC build rules?