D&D 5E What do you think should be done with alignment?

[Micah Sweet]

Absolutely. Since I assumed the poll was asking about what the future of alignment should be... the removal of a hard alignment in a monster statblock or race description would go hand-in-hand with a re-write of the descriptions as well... giving several different standards identities. Thus making clear that for instance for both drow and orcs that it is just the "weird" ones of the race that become "good" (while the standard rest of the default race is evil)... but rather that different groups of orcs might be good or evil depending on the gods they follow or what their intentions/desires are.

If we want to suggest that extra-planar creatures lean towards law/chaos/good/evil (or some combination) because of the planes they are found... that'll probably be fine. But any creature native to the prime plane that has intelligence and consciousness can go in any particular moral direction and the descriptions of said creatures should make that plain.

Yes, but what would these descriptions be, beside the physical? What can we say about any race that doesn't code them one way or another? And if the descriptions are the same other than appearance, how are they not "humans in rubber masks", as some have said? In avoiding offense, can we go too far and lose the value of having different races at all?

This is beyond the scope of the alignment discussion, but it all links together.

 

[Thunder Brother]

Much like bonds, flaws, etc. It all up for interpretation. Things don't need mechanics to back them up to have value. Most settings don't have any mechanics to back them up. In the case of alignment, it has value to a lot of people. Probably more than find no value in it. That alone is enough to keep it as the default, but without mechanical teeth.

I would disagree that bonds and flaws are as up for interpretation as alignment. Traits such as bonds generally deal with things immediately relevant to a PC (bonds to a mentor, a city, a kingdom). These are things that can be tested, that provide interesting story hooks for a DM to work with. Alignment is too general. Outside of planar entities (do I need to be told that demons are evil?), the argument over alignment gets blurry, and in my opinion doesn't add much too play.

What exactly is lawful? Lawful to an organization? a kingdom? a personal creed? What does it mean to be "lawful" in a society not your own? Is one person's Lawful Good simply another's Chaotic Good? You can ask the same question for each axis. A system meant to sort entities into a cosmological scheme doesn't work at the ground level, in my opinion.

Then you get into the whole meta aspect of it. Is a PC aware of their alignment? Are they aware of a monster's? Is it okay to mercilessly kill a civilized creature that's considered evil within this cosmic schema, such as a goblin or orc? If a PC does something that changes their alignment, does it really matter? Should they act on this change, or is it simply meta knowledge that their not supposed to interact with?

It's cool if it works for other people and other tables, but at the end of the day I just find it to a be lamer version of Myers-Briggs. I'm glad that 5e has no mechanics tied to it, as it allows me to ignore it when I run a campaign.

 

[Yaarel]

I would disagree that bonds and flaws are as up for interpretation as alignment. Traits such as bonds generally deal with things immediately relevance to a PC (bonds to a mentor, a city, a kingdom). These are things that can be tested, that provide interesting story hooks for a DM to work with. Alignment is too general. Outside of planar entities (do I need to be told that demons are evil?), the argument over alignment gets blurry, and in my opinion doesn't add much too play.

What exactly is lawful? Lawful to an organization? a kingdom? a personal creed? What does it mean to be "lawful" in a society not your own? Is one person's Lawful Good simply another's Chaotic Good? You can ask the same question for each axis. A system meant to sort entities into a cosmological scheme doesn't work at the ground level, in my opinion.

Then you get into the whole meta aspect of it. Is a PC aware of their alignment? Are they aware of a monster's? Is it okay to mercilessly kill a civilized creature that's considered evil within this cosmic schema, such as a goblin or orc? If a PC does something that changes their alignment, does it really matter? Should they act on this change, or is it simply meta knowledge that their not supposed to interact with?

It's cool if it works for other people and other tables, but at the end of the day I just find it to a be lamer version of Myers-Briggs. I'm glad that 5e has no mechanics tied to it, as it allows me to ignore it when I run a campaign.

I feel Myers-Briggs is a less helpful analogy because the point of Myers-Briggs is that each location is equally valuable.

By contrast, the alignment system is inherently hierarchical and literally judgmental, saying Good is good and Evil is bad.

The alignment system is more like political quadrants: Good (freedom), Evil (tyranny), Lawful (collectivism), Chaotic (individualism).

 

[Oofta]

I would disagree that bonds and flaws are as up for interpretation as alignment. Traits such as bonds generally deal with things immediately relevance to a PC (bonds to a mentor, a city, a kingdom). These are things that can be tested, that provide interesting story hooks for a DM to work with. Alignment is too general. Outside of planar entities (do I need to be told that demons are evil?), the argument over alignment gets blurry, and in my opinion doesn't add much too play.

What exactly is lawful? Lawful to an organization? a kingdom? a personal creed? What does it mean to be "lawful" in a society not your own? Is one person's Lawful Good simply another's Chaotic Good? You can ask the same question for each axis. A system meant to sort entities into a cosmological scheme doesn't work at the ground level, in my opinion.

Then you get into the whole meta aspect of it. Is a PC aware of their alignment? Are they aware of a monster's? Is it okay to mercilessly kill a civilized creature that's considered evil within this cosmic schema, such as a goblin or orc? If a PC does something that changes their alignment, does it really matter? Should they act on this change, or is it simply meta knowledge that their not supposed to interact with?

It's cool if it works for other people and other tables, but at the end of the day I just find it to a be lamer version of Myers-Briggs. I'm glad that 5e has no mechanics tied to it, as it allows me to ignore it when I run a campaign.

I simply disagree that TIBF really tells you that much about a PC. I wrote up an NPC with an entertainer background and randomly generated some stuff (I don't usually do this, I was running low on inspiration).

What I ended up with

Traits​

I know a story relevant to almost every situation.​

I love a good insult, even one directed at me.​

​

Ideals​

People. I like seeing the smiles on people’s faces when I perform. That’s all that matters.​

​

Bonds​

I will do anything to prove myself superior to my hated rival.​

​

Flaws​

I have trouble keeping my true feelings hidden. My sharp tongue lands me in trouble.​

That tells me some about what they do but not much on why. Also that bond is problematic. What's the line? Will they murder someone in cold blood to prove themselves? Sabotage them? Or do they operate by a strict code of honor meaning they will play by the rules?

It's all very specific to entertaining. Gives me some ideas and hooks for RP but doesn't tell me much of anything about who they are, other than that they tend to be a bit of an attention seeker that doesn't know when to be quiet.

Outside of the particular scenarios I have no idea what their moral compass is or how they're likely to make decisions.

EDIT: for complex PCs and NPCs I don't always bother with alignment or TIBF. I have a backstory and notes on what their motivations are. I'm more likely to have alignment though, just because it seems to come out of the person's story and perspective on the world.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yes, but what would these descriptions be, beside the physical? What can we say about any race that doesn't code them one way or another? And if the descriptions are the same other than appearance, how are they not "humans in rubber masks", as some have said? In avoiding offense, can we go too far and lose the value of having different races at all?

This is beyond the scope of the alignment discussion, but it all links together.

They are nothing more than humans in rubber masks. Because the people who are playing these races are humans. We have different races for us to fantasize what they could be like, but no matter how we play them... they will be just a variant of our humanity.

So it behooves us to not treat any of the intelligent races in the game as innately anything, because since we are humans playing them... we thus get it into our heads that other humans are innately something too. Which is exactly what we are trying to avoid.

 

[Thunder Brother]

I simply disagree that TIBF really tells you that much about a PC. I wrote up an NPC with an entertainer background and randomly generated some stuff (I don't usually do this, I was running low on inspiration).

What I ended up with

Traits​

I know a story relevant to almost every situation.​

I love a good insult, even one directed at me.​

​

Ideals​

People. I like seeing the smiles on people’s faces when I perform. That’s all that matters.​

​

Bonds​

I will do anything to prove myself superior to my hated rival.​

​

Flaws​

I have trouble keeping my true feelings hidden. My sharp tongue lands me in trouble.​

That tells me some about what they do but not much on why. Also that bond is problematic. What's the line? Will they murder someone in cold blood to prove themselves? Sabotage them? Or do they operate by a strict code of honor meaning they will play by the rules?

It's all very specific to entertaining. Gives me some ideas and hooks for RP but doesn't tell me much of anything about who they are, other than that they tend to be a bit of an attention seeker that doesn't know when to be quiet.

Outside of the particular scenarios I have no idea what their moral compass is or how they're likely to make decisions.

EDIT: for complex PCs and NPCs I don't always bother with alignment or TIBF. I have a backstory and notes on what their motivations are. I'm more likely to have alignment though, just because it seems to come out of the person's story and perspective on the world.

And the question of why is answered by an alignment? I do X because I'm Lawful Good? That's not very compelling. I would say the moral compass of character is something that should be revealed in play and not be pre-supposed within a cosmic scheme. A PC shouldn't know what the line is until it's staring them in the face. The conflict should arise from the circumstances, not from an alignment.

As currently implemented, a character's TBIF says as much about them as the player is willing to put thought into creating their character.

Your example really shows my frustration with how 5e implemented Backgrounds. There's a lot of potential there but the traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws that are actually described in the PHB are really bad. Take your example, I would say neither the Ideal or the Bond are really, well an ideal or bond. In my opinion, a more codified system, comparable to attributes and skills, would be more interesting. It's why I wish DnD had something akin to Pendragon's passions and traits system.

 

[Weiley31]

I was always for and still am for the 1E/2E/3E Nine Alignments.

 

[Weiley31]

Are elementals and fey even good or evil?

Elementals can be either if they really care at times.

Fey though......the question you have to ask yourself, on that one, is such a question/thing directed at the Fey from their perspective or everyone else's perspective on them? Because I'm sure the Fey's point of view of it would be different from how non-fey view it.

Maleficent could truly not see herself as evil. She's just mad she wasn't invited to the party/christening and decided to remind people about having proper etiquette/manners in a way that only a Fey would do it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Elementals can be either if they really care at times.

Fey though......the question you have to ask yourself, on that one, is such a question/thing directed at the Fey from their perspective or everyone else's perspective on them? Because I'm sure the Fey's point of view of it would be different from how non-fey view it.

Maleficent could truly not see herself as evil. She's just mad she wasn't invited to the party and decided to remind people about having proper etiquette/manners in a way that only a Fey would do it.

No such nuance allowed with alignment.

 

[Oofta]

And the question of why is answered by an alignment? I do X because I'm Lawful Good? That's not very compelling. I would say the moral compass of character is something that should be revealed in play and not be pre-supposed within a cosmic scheme. A PC shouldn't know what the line is until it's staring them in the face. The conflict should arise from the circumstances, not from an alignment.

As currently implemented, a character's TBIF says as much about them as the player is willing to put thought into creating their character.

Your example really shows my frustration with how 5e implemented Backgrounds. There's a lot of potential there but the traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws that are actually described in the PHB are really bad. Take your example, I would say neither the Ideal or the Bond are really, well an ideal or bond. In my opinion, a more codified system, comparable to attributes and skills, would be more interesting. It's why I wish DnD had something akin to Pendragon's passions and traits system.

With alignment you do X because alignment defines the schema you use to interpret the world around you*. The world works like a clockwork mechanism and following a set of laws and structure leads to the best outcome. You also strive to be considerate and kind, especially for those that cannot protect themselves.

Everyone sees the world through specific templates and structures. A beggar on the street? LG wants to help, but may believe giving to the local temple to help beggars is the best option. The CE guy sees an easy mark, maybe someone they could have fun watching them suffer. The LE gal sees them as disposable but perhaps useful.

All based on alignment and how that person sees the world.

I personally prefer the 3E alignment description, you can see it here. You say TBIF is better, but that the examples we have are bad ... but that just tells me that the system only works as well as the author and if the PHB gets it wrong so will most people.

That, and because I DM a lot I use alignment to help me sort and filter monsters for planning at least one scenario for the majority of my games. I can't imagine what could be as simple and easy to get a general grasp of the role a monster plays that would work as well.

If there's another 2 letter abbreviation that would be as useful as alignment, I'm all ears. Until then, I hope they keep it.

*I'm not talking just D&D, it's a theory in the real world you can read about here.