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

[Mistwell]

A lot of people, myself and @Vaalingrade included, have had actively harmful experiences with alignment.

OK, so don't use it. There are subclasses in the game which some people also say harm their games...so they simply don't use them!

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?”.

Because it's simple to ignore a CG next to a monster's entry in an adventure, but it take a lot more effort to go through the adventure and put it back in if you want it! And that is the bulk of where I use alignment. Not for PCs, not even for monsters in the monster manual (though I do use it there sometimes as well) but for entries in a published adventure. PARTICULARLY for the random monsters in published adventures. You suffer no harm from sticking two characters in that stat block, but I have to work a lot harder to put it all back for my uses. Which is why it feels like a personal dig that you cannot handle two characters next to a stat block which you know so many of your peers get value out of even if you don't.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Because they are not, at heart, that for an encounter. And I find it fascinating you gave that response...when that is not what would go in an alignment or alignment-replacement entry for that monster.

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.

Again, that's not in fact what the text is saying concerning what they will do in an encounter. You just proved my point.

IF you read the text, which takes a lot more effort than a simple glance at the stat block (which is part of my point) you will see they are FRIENDLY and want to CHAT with the adventurers and EXCHANGE INFORMATION with them. They're not there for a fight. It's unlikely a fight will break out with most encounters.

An alignment entry would have clued in a DM who is quickly glancing at that entry (likely because they didn't expect their PCs to be in that area this session and didn't prepare for it and have a hazy memory of what this creature is about because they last read it weeks ago during initial prep) that the stat block isn't the most important part of most encounters. All it took was a "NG" next to where it says "Undead Dragon," like they would have last year, to alert that DM that they definitely need to pause a moment and re-read the text before proceeding with the encounter.

A replacement for an Alignment entry, like "Friendly/Chatty" would have also conveyed that information.

Including no alignment and no replacement for alignment leads to the least utility. All that stat block takes up huge space, while the work of those two characters is probably more than almost the entire stat block for most encounters with that creature in that adventure.

 

[Yaarel]

On the character sheet,

Remove alignment from the name, race, class, level, heading.

Add it to ideal, flaw, quirk, bond biography section.

This emphasizes alignment for those who like its narrative roleplay inspiration. And it deemphasizes alignment for those who object to its labeling.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't see how something specific that YOU PICK is more of a straightjacket than some nebulous buzz words that no one can even agree on what it means, which has a bigger DM component. See most alignment threads for examples of "when alignment goes wrong".

You don't see how something that is very specific is more of a straightjacket than something vague and open to interpretation?

There is no issue with "violating" BTIF's.

There's no issue with violating alignment, either.

 

[Maxperson]

A lot of people, myself and @Vaalingrade included, have had actively harmful experiences with alignment.

This is not a response to his question. He asked how since you can ignore it now, how does it harm you by its very existence? What happened to you in the past is not relevant to alignment in 5e which you can ignore very easily.

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.

Whether that happens or not still has no bearing on the current alignment system. How does its mere existence actively harm you when you can easily ignore it?

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?”.

So answer the question. How does its mere existence actively(read currently) harm you when you can easily ignore it? Past events don't actively harm you now.

 

[Maxperson]

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

In 5e, which is where most of this discussion is, even with a class named Paladin you still pick from a range of options.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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

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.

They way you describe alignments doesn't exactly give weight to the idea that they have no harm. "Binding consequences", "violation"... do you actually want a role playing tool or just a cudgel to browbeat your players when they don't do what you want?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

You don't see how something that is very specific is more of a straightjacket than something vague and open to interpretation?

I've never seen a 30 page argument over whether to strip a paladin because of their bonds, traits, etc. Or some heated arguments over whether a "braggadocious risk taker" is evil. Now whether good characters can use poison on the other hand... People don't like being judged in a game of make-believe violence, particularly when one party has more power than the other.

Straightjackets are there to prevent someone from doing something. Character notes you pick are a lot more free form, clear, and direct than the frequently more DM facing alignment.

 

[Malmuria]

No peoples are tarred anything in an imaginary game where no real world peoples are being mirrored. Here's the thing. It has been proven that things like violence in games don't make people more violent. Same with things like good and evil. In fact, good and evil are going to live on in D&D whether alignment is there or not.

But surely stories affect people, sometimes deeply? Watching a violent movie might not make people more violent (especially in a quantifiable way), but watching scenes of violence might make you want to stop watching that movie. You may even be ok with violence in some movies and deeply disturbed by it in others, and when you are disturbed, it might not even be that you don't want to watch those movies, but you need to be mentally prepared. The social aspect of TTRPGS exacerbates this dynamic, because the experience is a conversation, sometimes with people you don't know, and if the dm introduces an element they think is fine but you do not, it can be a very negative experience.

This sort of conversation is what is driving the increased emphasis on session 0's and safety tools, and the move away from alignment. Though I would agree that it does not start or end with alignment, and if getting rid of alignment is all they did in this regard that would be very superficial.

I don't think it's that much more work to add it back in, considering how much work dms do anyway (both before the game and/or on the spot) and how the fact of dnd's popularity means that no shortage of resources online (if they published a MM without alignment, it would probably take less than a week for someone to make a list of monsters by alignment and post it online somewhere).

But if it is more work, it is work that needs to be done, in the broader sense of thinking through the kinds of settings, characters, and scenes you want to create and how those might be received by the people you are playing with. Again, that conversation extends beyond alignment.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

This is not a response to his question. He asked how since you can ignore it now, how does it harm you by its very existence? What happened to you in the past is not relevant to alignment in 5e which you can ignore very easily.

Whether that happens or not still has no bearing on the current alignment system. How does its mere existence actively harm you when you can easily ignore it?

So answer the question. How does its mere existence actively(read currently) harm you when you can easily ignore it? Past events don't actively harm you now.

Can you name a feature that causes more arguments than alignment? I personally can't. If it's so useful, we should all be able to agree on what Batman's alignment is (it's CE by the way).

Low benefit, easily ignored/replaced with better options, and causes problems in the wrong hands... That's why people think it should be axed.