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

[JEB]

Interesting to compare this poll to the other two I ran here:

What makes D&D feel like D&D? had 60 folks (45.5%) voting that alignment was part of D&D's feel.
What elements does D&D need to keep? had 45 folks (34.6%) voting that alignment was an element D&D should keep in future editions.

I suppose it's possible that it's just very different folks voting. Or that folks can see alignment as useful but still find it not part of the feel, or don't care about keeping it.

But I can't help but wonder if views on alignment have shifted a bit in the span of time between Candlekeep Mysteries (where alignment was removed from monster statblocks) and Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft (where alignment was just plain removed)...

 

[Malmuria]

It is being consistently discussed as if this is factual, of course it needs removal, of course these things are bad/ useful, why would you not want to remove these? As if the case has already been open and shut and evidence laid bare. It’s interesting to me that the language used is usually always about someone else, never usually from the individual, “it might harm some people…some people may experience…not me, of course, I’m just thinking of others” (or referring to “some people“in the second person as you) . This here is the Helen Lovejoying of the debate “won’t somebody think of the children!”

Thanks for this response. I actually think in practice we agree in a lot of areas. I will say that I started playing in the early 90s with basic dnd and then 2e, so hopefully I have some knowledge of the hobby (though I never played 4e). Incidentally, I am a person of color and that guides my mindfulness on issues of race and colonialism in the game, but I didn't want to articulate my argument/position on that ground alone. I'm also a teacher, and while I hopefully avoid hang wringing over my students, I do get to see how young people are approaching the game, and am naturally sympathetic to their concerns.

As such, it is incumbent upon you, as an adult individual, to be responsible for yourself. As with anything in life. Indeed, we all have different thresholds for things. I’m particularly squeamish when it comes to depictions of “realistic“ violence. Stylised (for example Kill Bill) I’m totally fine with and can even find it funny if used as a juxtaposition (x force’s hilarious mishaps in deadpool 2). But I can’t even watch an episode of casualty on the BBC without being grossed out, let alone watch a Saw movie. So, I won’t buy a ticket to see a new saw movie.

As a dm, I want to run a game for which my friends want to buy a ticket. If not for their sake, at least because I'm not playing in a game if I don't have players! So I'm looking at a game product and asking 'does this help me sell tickets,' figuratively speaking. For my players, a simple system is better than a crunchy one (part of why I'm moving away from 5e). My players also find some of the default assumptions of the game's implied setting to be problematic. It's not a deal breaker, but that's at least in part because we talk about these things openly and figure out together what kind of game we want to play.

We don’t shut it down, nor demand that it be shut down for others. There are other people in there (the social experience) and it is disrespectful to all of them.

I was once watching a movie with a friend at home (I think it was drugstore cowboy). There was a scene of someone shooting up, so a needle going into an arm. My friend said, 'I'll be right back,' and 5 seconds later I heard a thud sound, and found that she had passed out, and later learned that she just can't deal with needles. I was enjoying the movie myself, but I paused it to help her. I watched the rest of it later. She didn't demand that I pause it for her sake (she was unconscious), but friends help each other out in these kind of situations.

Study after study has shown that confronting and discussing, role playing etc your fears, issues and hang ups in a safe environment, like, I don’t know, a table top role playing game, build our resilience, enable us to engage with it in a meaningful way. Conversely, avoidance, making it a big deal, slamming down a card when it is hinted at, makes our fear and issue bigger, worse. X cards violate the top two principles established above. If you have the issue. Step back from the table for a minute. Catch your breath. You are in control of your experience, it you should have no expectation of control of others.

ttrpgs can be fantastic and therapeutic, that's why we're all here. They will not be reliably therapeutic though, unless you are playing with psychologists who have some training. This is why there are also plenty of "rpg horror stories." And more so than horror stories, there are lots of people that just kind of bounce off the game because of a bad experience. They are not trying to control anyone else, but they just decide it's not for them. I'm not necessarily a fan of the whole Matt Colville phenomenon, but I think this video he made about this is very helpful in this regard. If you are going to have a book called the "dungeon master's guide," and insist that this book is part of the "core," and therefore must be purchased, the least you can offer customers is some useful advice and tools that they can use to help mitigate some of these potential problems. That being said, I would agree that safety tools can give a false sense of security.

Specifically regarding alignment, I’ve seen mention of “well I’ve played many RPGs that don’t have it, so there’s no need for it”. I’m puzzled as to why so many people hover so close to the answer yet seem to miss it. There is no need. It is there because it’s D&D. Play those other RPGs. They are there waiting for you. Or if you prefer D&D but don’t want alignment, take it out. I’ve already explained in a prior lengthy post as to why it’s in D&D. There are somethings that are (or at least should be) intrinsic to a D&D experience (of course, given multiple editions, that will vary on a person by person basis). It is not a generic fantasy RPG toolkit no matter how much people try to twist it as such. D&D is great for playing D&D.

Totally agree. In an ideal world dnd wouldn't take up so much of the market share and have so much of the cultural attention. I think people should make the game their own and/or play other games. That being said, a corporation like wotc is going to survey the landscape the respond accordingly, and the trend has been away from alignment for a while.

So again, live and let live. Do what works for your table, don’t dictate what happens at others.

I agree, but figuring out what works for your table is often taken as a self-evident process. I think one thing a game (any game) can do is provide tools and advice for how to figure out what is going to work and what is not going to work at your table beyond just trial and error which might produce a negative experience for someone

 

[transmission89]

Thanks for this response. I actually think in practice we agree in a lot of areas. I will say that I started playing in the early 90s with basic dnd and then 2e, so hopefully I have some knowledge of the hobby (though I never played 4e). Incidentally, I am a person of color and that guides my mindfulness on issues of race and colonialism in the game, but I didn't want to articulate my argument/position on that ground alone. I'm also a teacher, and while I hopefully avoid hang wringing over my students, I do get to see how young people are approaching the game, and am naturally sympathetic to their concerns.


As a dm, I want to run a game for which my friends want to buy a ticket. If not for their sake, at least because I'm not playing in a game if I don't have players! So I'm looking at a game product and asking 'does this help me sell tickets,' figuratively speaking. For my players, a simple system is better than a crunchy one (part of why I'm moving away from 5e). My players also find some of the default assumptions of the game's implied setting to be problematic. It's not a deal breaker, but that's at least in part because we talk about these things openly and figure out together what kind of game we want to play.


I was once watching a movie with a friend at home (I think it was drugstore cowboy). There was a scene of someone shooting up, so a needle going into an arm. My friend said, 'I'll be right back,' and 5 seconds later I heard a thud sound, and found that she had passed out, and later learned that she just can't deal with needles. I was enjoying the movie myself, but I paused it to help her. I watched the rest of it later. She didn't demand that I pause it for her sake (she was unconscious), but friends help each other out in these kind of situations.



ttrpgs can be fantastic and therapeutic, that's why we're all here. They will not be reliably therapeutic though, unless you are playing with psychologists who have some training. This is why there are also plenty of "rpg horror stories." And more so than horror stories, there are lots of people that just kind of bounce off the game because of a bad experience. They are not trying to control anyone else, but they just decide it's not for them. I'm not necessarily a fan of the whole Matt Colville phenomenon, but I think this video he made about this is very helpful in this regard. If you are going to have a book called the "dungeon master's guide," and insist that this book is part of the "core," and therefore must be purchased, the least you can offer customers is some useful advice and tools that they can use to help mitigate some of these potential problems. That being said, I would agree that safety tools can give a false sense of security.


Totally agree. In an ideal world dnd wouldn't take up so much of the market share and have so much of the cultural attention. I think people should make the game their own and/or play other games. That being said, a corporation like wotc is going to survey the landscape the respond accordingly, and the trend has been away from alignment for a while.



I agree, but figuring out what works for your table is often taken as a self-evident process. I think one thing a game (any game) can do is provide tools and advice for how to figure out what is going to work and what is not going to work at your table beyond just trial and error which might produce a negative experience for someone

Likewise, I enjoyed reading this counter response. I too am a teacher and play D&D with my after school group. Whilst I’m not a person of colour (though descended from gypsy from my grandfather before the Nevi Welsh Romanii were forcibly put in council house and part of a minority group being LGBT and god knows, had my fair share of mental health issues) and thus can never truly understand your position, I do want to make it clear that I am an ally And sympathetic to many of the causes of real world movements.

This is not to patronise you (and I apologise if it has come off that way, not my intention) nor to stake a claim to being a white saviour or any of that bull that no doubt, to be honest, many people of colour are probably sick of. This is just to make clear my position as too many are framing this debate in a binary context. Either you support these changes to the game or you are an alt right racist. I do not support the changes and I reject the alt right screeching that, as is they are want to do, hijack and delegitimise points. I’ll never use nor agree with such terms as “woke” etc.

For me (and this is a discussion point, not an argument or a rejection of how you might feel on the subject matter), I think one, through any post modern, feminist or racial lens can look at past elements, deconstruct and see what they want to when it comes to issues of race, feminism, inclusion and colonialism.

To me, these ignore (or are selective in view points) of much of the context around the pieces that inform the game and the game itself. Seeking to draw these parallels with real world issues is a disservice to the many (global) cultures in which this folk lore and myth originated and to some extent delegitimise push for real world change in the eyes of those that need it (“look, these fools cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality“) Or disempower those who are campaigning for change with patronising statements, “they need it for their protection”.

The whole situation is very heated at the moment and so I think there should be a pause on a call for change until both sides have had a chance to reflect and we cease to use vocabulary that assumes a position is inherently right as it is self evident from a self created circular logic. This includes the mention of tools (though I agree it shouldn’t be taken as self evident, but it is currently being presented as a form of one true wayism). That can only lead down a dark path.

My two pence for what it’s worth.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

In addition, that type of goal was tried with 4e: stripping out a lot of fluff and focusing on mechanics to support everyone's particular type of setting and campaign. For whatever reason 4e was not as successful as they wanted it to be, while 5e with tons of fluff is far more successful.

Actually, the format 5E uses for monster entries originated midway through 4E with Monster Vault. The first two 4E Monster Manuals were extremely sparse on lore, and MM3 only added a bit more. However, Monster Vault course-corrected and established the new standard that has persisted into 5E of having three or so paragraphs with bolded headers summarizing key concepts about a monster.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I wish that Netflix Elric of Melnibone tv series idea that was being talked about for a bit in 2019 hadn't been dropped. Beyond just wanting to see an adaptation I think it would have better introduced the concepts of Law and Chaos to the newer crowd getting into D&D (plus shown them where the Hexblade Warlock came from).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

They could be some form of neutral. Hateful can be an attitude and nothing more. I've known some hateful people, but they don't go around killing people or eating them. Hateful and mean doesn't translate directly into evil. However, if I know that the race is evil, hateful and likes to divide and conquer, that helps me determine how hateful and to what lengths they'd be willing to go.

Chaotic evil can mean 'a person who posts bigoted stuff on Reddit and has disorganised sock-drawer' or it can mean 'an axe-murdering cannibal lunatic'. The two letters don't tell you which it is, or whether it is something else. If they want me to infer 'murderous lunatic' then I'd rather them just write that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Interesting to compare this poll to the other two I ran here:

What makes D&D feel like D&D? had 60 folks (45.5%) voting that alignment was part of D&D's feel.
What elements does D&D need to keep? had 45 folks (34.6%) voting that alignment was an element D&D should keep in future editions.

I suppose it's possible that it's just very different folks voting. Or that folks can see alignment as useful but still find it not part of the feel, or don't care about keeping it.

But I can't help but wonder if views on alignment have shifted a bit in the span of time between Candlekeep Mysteries (where alignment was removed from monster statblocks) and Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft (where alignment was just plain removed)...

It's because your polls are impartially worded. This poll doesn't ask whether people need or want the alignment to be in the game, it asks whether they have any use at all for it, however insignificant. People might use it for something as it happens to be in the game, whilst simultaneously feeling that they really don't need or want it; they've just not bothered to houserule it out.

 

[Aldarc]

It's because your polls are impartially worded. This poll doesn't ask whether people need or want the alignment to be in the game, it asks whether they have any use at all for it, however insignificant. People might use it for something as it happens to be in the game, whilst simultaneously feeling that they really don't need or want it; they've just not bothered to houserule it out.

Another question that I would find interesting is “how would you change alignment while keeping it in some form?”

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I'll admit that beyond planar exemplars of the alignments (like devils, which I adore because their lore is basically taking "making a deal with a devil" extremely literally and extrapolating an entire Infernal bureaucracy out of it) alignment doesn't tell you much about many creatures. It's mostly for flavor, gives you an idea what kinds of creatures would work together or oppose one another, and lets you know what Outer Plane a creature would go to when they die.

I do really wonder how WotC would attempt to make Planescape function at all without alignment, which pretty much forms the foundation for the entire setting. A Planescape without alignment would look radically different.

EDIT: I'm also suddenly curious if Paizo and Pathfinder fans are having similar discussions about alignment.

 

[Cadence]

Another question that I would find interesting is “how would you change alignment while keeping it in some form?”

This poll starts to get at it... For folks that want a change from 5e, it looks like going more like 1e-3e is popular, while adding more detail or substantially changing a previous one aren't chosen much, even when allowed two choices in the poll (among the small group that replied).

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

Trying to get some more insight in to what people think about alignment, building on Mistwell's poll at D&D 5E - Do you find alignment useful in any way? Reading that thread made me change my gut reaction -- thanks to everyone who commented over there!

www.enworld.org