D&D 5E Do you find alignment useful in any way?

[Vaalingrade]

Seriously? You've never just opened the Monster Manual up and used the state block you found as is? It'd be awfully inconvenient if the Monster Manual didn't tell me what weapons orcs or drow typically used and included those in the stat block.

Some of those are WEIRD.

Like goblins, using morningstars of all things. Given their proscribed tech level, they might as well have gattling lasers.

 

[MGibster]

Some of those are WEIRD.

We're talking about a game that's including such creatures as the flail nail, flumphs, beholders, and umber hulks. Goblins using morning stars seem rather mundane in comparison.

 

[Malmuria]

If Orcs can use a longbow, why bother listing them with a javelin? If Orcs can wear plate armor, why bother listing them as wearing hide armor? If orcs can be good at the Arcana skill why bother listing them as a -2 intelligence and no proficiency in arcana?

It's all just a baseline to work from. The listing is just a generic typical orc, but you've always been free to adjust it to fit your campaign. It always said that right in the Monster Manual. The published adventures often did that as well.

The difference is the the monster's AC, HP, attacks, saves are all mechanical. If you abstract away from the lore of the monster (alignment included), changing the AC, attack bonus, damage, etc actually do make the monster more or less difficult in combat. On the other hand, a Balor, a Wraith, and a Hill Giant are all chaotic evil, but this neither changes the math of the encounter, nor does it, I would argue, give the DM a very helpful baseline for how to roleplay the creature, in or out of combat. An Aboleth and a Kobold are both Lawful Evil, but you would never play those monsters in the same way (right??).

For combat, 2d6 reaction tables and morale scores are, IMO, more useful tools. Beyond that, I think a system of 'tags' would be more helpful than alignment (aggressive, cowardly, diplomatic, cautious, etc).

 

[Vaalingrade]

We're talking about a game that's including such creatures as the flail nail, flumphs, beholders, and umber hulks. Goblins using morning stars seem rather mundane in comparison.

I also feel it's weird that umber hulks got on that list.

 

[Lanefan]

It's interesting going back over the books for another thread, that in 1e alignment is one of the few things a player had control over about their player's background by RAW. Even age was rolled by the DM and secondary skill (if used) was picked or rolled by the DM.

We still roll for these sort of things - age, height*, weight*, secondary skills/past professions, etc. - but it's the player who does the rolling.

* - if you want to try for something extreme you have to roll; if you're willing to be fairly ordinary there's a narrow range within which you can choose.

 

[Lanefan]

1) This is why I love 4e style stat blocks where the block is for a specific role and not a representative of the entire species.

Which means you'll end up having to stat out each individual; fine for thems as wants to do it but not so fine if you've got other things to do and-or are just looking for a generic baseline representation of the species (which 98% of the time is all I want and-or need).

2) Man, F that -2 Intelligence. I dislike racial stats in general, but literally making orcs less intelligent than other species is gross to me.

Yet would it be as gross if some other species - say, Elves - got a +2 bonus to its intelligence?

 

[Maxperson]

Some of those are WEIRD.

Like goblins, using morningstars of all things. Given their proscribed tech level, they might as well have gattling lasers.

Why wouldn't a race that scavenges off of other races like humans, dwarves and elves have morning stars?

 

[Maxperson]

We're talking about a game that's including such creatures as the flail nail

And the legendary rusty flail nail.

 

[Ogre Mage]

I don't miss alignment in other games because I don't expect them to be there. I liked alignment in D&D because I found the idea of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil being forces that shape the planes to be fun and interesting. I didn't care if alignment wasn't particularly realistic because it worked for the kinds of stories I want to tell in D&D which is just a simple Good versus Evil narrative. But over the years I've come to the realization that most of my players don't have that same interest. And that's totally cool. You're right, alignment is something of an anachronism in 5th edition just barely hanging on out of sheer momentum. WotC might as well rip the scab off quickly and just relegate alignment to the optional rules in the DMG at this point. I do miss alignment but I can still have fun without it. I'm always going to miss the LG paladin though.

I could see that happening in 6E, whenever it arrives. Of course, it will be controversial. I expect heated debate and 20 page threads on EN World if that occurs. Some D&D veterans will be unhappy. But I suspect the 5E D&D designers have noticed the same things from the player base that you have.

 

[pemerton]

I also feel it's weird that umber hulks got on that list.

Also the flail nail - a relative of the mace hammer?