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

[Mistwell]

double

 

[Mistwell]

WotC seems to agree.

Same could be said of the Warlord class. Doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about the things we like and would like to see in the game.

Right now, I have seen zero satisfaction with removing alignment AND NOT REPLACING IT. I see a lot of advocacy for adding bonds, flaws, etc.. instead into the monster description. But...they didn't do that. I gave an example above from Candlekeep on how that leads to a less helpful stat block for a creature.

So sure, you want to remove it because you don't like it, that's fine, just replace it with something at least as helpful as alignment was. But simply removing it without replacing it makes it worse for a lot of people. They can do better, and people should feel comfortable talking about this issue without the mocking tone.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are hundreds of roleplaying games without alignment, and people seem able to come up with compelling characters to play in them. 5E already came up with a better replacement, if one was even needed, in Bonds, Traits, Ideals and Flaws.

Not talking about PCs. Many people (myself included) use alignment as a thumbnail guide to NPC behavior. A large percentage of those polled in this thread, for example.

 

[FrozenNorth]

You are aware a meaningful number of people find it useful. So if you simply find it "extraneous," having it removed from the game while knowing some others do find use from it does look like it's a personal dig on those who like it. Because you could just as easily ignore it like you always have, but it's much harder to add it back in to all the material, and it's taking up virtually zero room in the books.

A lot of people, myself and @Vaalingrade included, have had actively harmful experiences with alignment. Whenever we bring them up, we are subjected to special pleading: no, that doesn’t count, the DM was using alignment wrong; no, that doesn’t count, that was a player or DM being a jerk and those exist everywhere.

So, it is not a personal dig against you, and just as you are saying “why do you want to remove something that my group finds useful”, others are saying “why do you want to keep something that has actively hurt our games?”.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Right now, I have seen zero satisfaction with removing alignment AND NOT REPLACING IT. I see a lot of advocacy for adding bonds, flaws, etc.. instead into the monster description. But...they didn't do that. I gave an example above from Candlekeep on how that leads to a less helpful stat block for a creature.

I can’t imagine how it is possible for a DM to use Mizzium (sp?) in an encounter without being aware that they are an undead dragon bound to protect Candlekeep.

I mean, if you include them in an encounter, its because you know that they roam the undercroft of Candlekeep. That’s pretty much their whole deal.

 

[Oofta]

For the most part that is what I do. I don't think I've written down an alignment on my characters for several years now. However, I think it should be unsurprising that since I do find it mostly unnecessary personally that I might question if it needs to be included. Now, I also recognize that, at least according to this poll, that my opinion appears to be in the minority.

As for the space part, I don't just mean in the monster/npc statistics. I'm also including the explanation and descriptions in Player's Handbook. I'm not sure off the top of my head how much space that takes up in the PHB, I can't expect too much to be honest, but again, it's not surprising I might rather have something I personally would find useful using up the page count. Although if the majority of their consumers do find alignment useful and want it, WoTC should probably listen to them over me, from a business standpoint.

I do however, think that the end result does not end up the same. If my interpretation of an alignment is different than yours, and we are using alignment to determine a creature or character's actions, we could end up with different actions. So different end results.

The PHB is a few paragraphs on alignment. Less than 1% of the book.

As far as specifics of how DMs use alignment, most of the time I end up in the same ballpark as other DMs. If I had my wish, we'd go back to more of a 3.5 explanation with the in-game impact of 5E. That, and make it much clearer that for entries in the MM that it's just the default.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't see how something specific that YOU PICK is more of a straightjacket than some nebulous buzz words

Which, with any class not named Paladin, I also pick from a range of options.

There is no issue with "violating" BTIF's. You chose to go against a character aspect. That's either growth, compromise, something your character would have cognitive dissonance over, etc. People change over time in addition to just acting inconsistently, hypocritically, and/or irrationally. They are tendencies, nothing more.

If BITFs are nothing more than a player's ideas on what makes a character tick and have no binding consequence then - despite some arguments presented in this thread - they're in no way a replacement for alignment.

Put another way: if there's no penalties for violating BITFs then why bother making them anything more than a non-mandated suggestion? What's the point?

Me, I want these things to have mechanical heft in some way. Alignment does, even in 5e, provided one ports in some 1e-era spells and effects. If BITFs are to replace alignment then - somehow - there has to be some teeth to them and mechanical consequences for going atainst them.

 

[Yaarel]

Me, I want these things to have mechanical heft in some way. Alignment does, even in 5e, provided one ports in some 1e-era spells and effects. If BITFs are to replace alignment then - somehow - there has to be some teeth to them and mechanical consequences for going atainst them.

In 5e, alignment lacks mechanical effect.

The DM can choose to award Inspiration, if a player roleplays an alignment well. But that is probably too subjective to count as mechanics.

But alignment can have a dramatic narrative effect.

In my campaign, fame increases while leveling, so the number and likelihood that someone would recognize the character grows. Alignment has an increasingly significant impact on how people react to the character.

Likewise, switching alignments can affect how family, team, contacts, and acquaintances react.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

Yah, I'm not really a big fan of alignment having mechanical effects all too much, especially of the stick variety. If we gotta have alignment, I'm pretty happy with the 5e approach. If we must have mechanics tied to it, then I'd far prefer "carrots" for acting in the appropriate way compared to losing class abilities or some such.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

The PHB is a few paragraphs on alignment. Less than 1% of the book.

As far as specifics of how DMs use alignment, most of the time I end up in the same ballpark as other DMs. If I had my wish, we'd go back to more of a 3.5 explanation with the in-game impact of 5E. That, and make it much clearer that for entries in the MM that it's just the default.

I did say that I didn't expect it to be that much, to be fair.

3rd edition was my formative D&D experiences and I don't remember alignment being so much better there than anywhere else. It has been awhile since I've looked at any 3e/3.5 stuff, but I know for a fact that was the time period we got a CG Zeus in Deities and Demigods, which was one of the big strikes for me in why I came to find alignment was not useful for me.