D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Oofta]

@Oofta, @Helldritch

My objection to alignment isn't "problem players". My objection to alignment, as a system, is that (i) it is not a useful framework for meaningful moral categorisation and yet (ii) when it is in use there is one participant in the game - the GM - who is obliged to use the framework to morally categorise the actions the other participants declare for their PCs. Which is pointless at best and anti-social at worst.

Alignment has some other functions in particular contexts: it can serve as a limited utility descriptor for NPCs and creatures, in a 4-colour sort of way. (This is a big chunk of how I see it working in 4e.)

It can relate characters to cosmological conflicts which are themselves of a fairly 4-colour nature. (Again, see 4e and also perhaps pre-AD&D and B/X.)

So because it doesn't work for you it shouldn't be part of the game? Do y'all even think about how self centered that sounds?

Nobody, I repeat nobody is obligated to use anything. In 5E it's just a general guide to a moral compass and basically optional. It hasn't been anything more than that for a while.

 

[Maxperson]

What people? Is there any basis whatsoever for this claim?

He's talking about the problem player that uses alignment to do bad things. That type of player will just use the new system to cause trouble. Of course, those kinds of players are as rare as DMs who abuse alignment, so they aren't really worth considering. Neither group should be used as a reason to get rid of alignment.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Who's advocating for 100% of all monsters to have alignment? I think the new lineages make sense without alignment make sense for example.

...you are. You are among those who said that if they stop printing monsters with alignment labels, that would be horrible. I can go dig up the quotes if you really need me to. But you really did say, in this thread and the previous ("RIP alignment"), that monsters printed without alignment would be a terrible awful thing.

Literally all I'm advocating for is that. Not printing monsters with alignment anymore. I don't care if specific settings still use it (just as I don't care if specific settings say that certain kinds of classes do or don't exist, e.g. Dark Sun and the Divine power source). I don't care if specific tables still elect to use it. I don't even care if it's still explicitly laid out in an "optional rules" section in the DMG and/or PHB. Presumably the DMG part would cover deities, outsiders, and various creature groups, organizations, and--if necessary--cultures, while the PHB would present alignment as an optional system for adding specificity to one's character. All that is totally fine, and works perfectly well for an opt-in system provided by the rules but not required by it.

You have repeatedly argued to me that it is necessary for alignment to remain an inherent default. That means all creatures must either be classified under it, or explicitly opted out of it (e.g. "Unaligned").

Is it really so hard to ignore two letters out of the several hundred words we have in just statistics of the creature before we get into the fluff text?

Since I apparently haven't communicated this with all the other stuff, let me do so in the most succinct and direct manner possible:

YES.

As demonstrated by actual player behavior, actual DM behavior, continuing discussion on AND off forums, actual play experience from myself and numerous people whose judgment I trust, and repeated muddling and confusion from the writers themselves, yes. It really is that hard. I don't know why. It shouldn't be. It should be trivially easy. But it isn't. I've tried to give you demonstrations of and hypothesized justifications for this inherently unreasonable thing. None of them have stuck, and at this point, I feel I've done my due diligence.

 

[pemerton]

This hasn't been true since 3e, though. I'm not obliged to use alignment about anything the players declare for their PCs, because alignment isn't used like that anymore.

See @Flamestrike upthread: if a player character is evil rather than good then various magical effects (eg the Talismans of Pure Good/Ultimate Evil) behave differently. And the question of a PC's alignment (as determined by their conduct) seems to me to be a matter of adjudication by the GM.

So because it doesn't work for you it shouldn't be part of the game? Do y'all even think about how self centered that sounds?

Nobody, I repeat nobody is obligated to use anything. In 5E it's just a general guide to a moral compass and basically optional. It hasn't been anything more than that for a while.

I don't understand. I'm telling you my objection to it. How am I stopping you from using it if you want to? I don't get your framing of this at all!

 

[Aldarc]

What people? Is there any basis whatsoever for this claim?

The PHB came out in 2014. It’s been 6 and a half years. Like I said, I haven’t seen a single thread on ENWorld about people having problems with PIBFs.

By way of contrast, 4e lasted from 2007 to 2013. Lots of complaints about a lot of different aspects of 4e.

But who knows? Maybe there will be a flood of threads in 2021 of people having issues with PIBF.

There have been threads having issues with it, though not in the manner that's pertinent to the topic: it invariably involves the disconnect between PIBFs and earning/spending mechanical Inspiration rather than problems with PIBFs as character traits.

 

[pemerton]

There have been threads having issues with it, though not in the manner that's pertinent to the topic: it invariably involves the disconnect between PIBFs and earning/spending mechanical Inspiration rather than problems with PIBFs as character traits.

To me, that suggests a weakness in trying to integrate those PC build elements into predominantly GM-driven play.

In Burning Wheel there is no connection between Beliefs and other PC elements that earn artha and the spending of it. But because of the whole set-up of the game, there is basically no action which is not oriented towards or framed having regard to those build elements.

 

[Helldritch]

See @Flamestrike
I don't understand. I'm telling you my objection to it. How am I stopping you from using it if you want to? I don't get your framing of this at all!

It is way easier to remove something that is there that you don't want to use. Than to add something that is missing and that you want to use.

Here is a résumé of the situation.
Alignment in the game.
Me: No trouble using it.
Amount of work: none
You: God I hate that system. Let's put that junk on ignore mode.
Amount of work: none
Alignment out of the game.
You: Yes! Finally!. Thank God 6th edition.
Amount of work: none
Me: I want alignments in the game.
Amount of work: Must go over the 6ed MM all over and compare each monster and make annotations to each monster. Then, as new monsters are added to the game, I must read carefully each of them to pick what I would feel would be the "right" generic alignment. Then a new player enter the game and I need to explain all over again my stance. Even to other people just watching our Friday night D&D I will need to explain. Instead of a:" I decided to ignore a rule." I will have to explain every single decisions I ever made and even future ones will be debatable. Did I based my self on the 1ed MMs or later editions? And the next DM that decided to do the same thing as I? Did he based himself on an other edition?

So because you do not like something, you would impose on me (and other DMs) hours and hours of work, pondering and double and tripple checking where the only effort from your part, if alignments were kept would just be to put them on ignore? It is far easier to ignore something that is there than it is to redo from scratch something that has been removed.

You do not like alignment? Fine. Ignore them. Your table, your rule. But do not impose your choice on me. I considered alignment an essential part of what is D&D. It may not be as perfect as it could be for some, but for me, it works exactly as I want it to be. I do not impose a ton of work on you. Why would you impose that on me and others?

 

[Aldarc]

It is way easier to remove something that is there that you don't want to use. Than to add something that is missing and that you want to use.

That's essentially the bottom-line why WotC likely decided that it's easier to just remove alignment from monster entries.

So because you do not like something, you would impose on me (and other DMs) hours and hours of work, pondering and double and tripple checking where the only effort from your part, if alignments were kept would just be to put them on ignore? It is far easier to ignore something that is there than it is to redo from scratch something that has been removed.

I'm fine with that. DIY never hurt anyone. If you think in terms of alignment already and it's that useful for a tool for you, then how is it as much of a slog to add it back in as you claim?

 

[Helldritch]

That's essentially the bottom-line why WotC likely decided that it's easier to just remove alignment from monster entries.


I'm fine with that. DIY never hurt anyone. If you think in terms of alignment already and it's that useful for a tool for you, then how is it as much of a slog to add it back in as you claim?

A lot of work. Imagine for a moment that a new monster manual is out. No alignments. 350 new monsters. This means that I will have to read each and every single descriptions a bunch of times, compare them to each others and make decisions. That is a lot of work and I read fast, very fast. Give them alignments and all your side has to do is ignore the alignment part and your done. No work whatsoever.

In essence, you are forcing us to do a game's designer job while keeping things as they are does not give you any workload at all.

And I would lose a fine working tool just so that you get your way.

 

[Aldarc]

A lot of work. Imagine for a moment that a new monster manual is out. No alignments. 350 new monsters. This means that I will have to read each and every single descriptions a bunch of times, compare them to each others and make decisions.

This must be how horrific it must have felt for all those people who were forced to put Comeliness or sex-based stat adjustments back in their games.

That is a lot of work and I read fast, very fast. Give them alignments and all your side has to do is ignore the alignment part and your done. No work whatsoever.

In essence, you are forcing us to do a game's designer job while keeping things as they are does not give you any workload at all.

And I would lose a fine working tool just so that you get your way.

One issue that you are not taking into account is what the enculturation of alignment in the game does for players and GMs. It creates and establishes play expectations as a meta-awareness of the foes: e.g., "Oh. It's a Green Dragon, so it's LE, which means..." or "It's an orc, so it's CE, which means..." So it's not necessarily as easy as "ignoring" alignment that's in the game, as it also involves unlearning and disassociating alignment from various monsters and ancestries. It's easier to do this when alignment is not there for people to make shorthand stereotypes about them.