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

[FrozenNorth]

For what will certainly not be the last time, alignment is a general default, that doesn't necessarily apply to every member of a group and can easily be changed by the DM. They say that right in the beginning of the MM. How is that not enough? I really don't get it.

So, it is simply adding another step in the process? You choose a creature, decide whether its alignment applies, then decide if you want to change it for some reason?

Let’s go back to the meazel example. The OP noted that their alignment was unnecessary: their write-up specifies that they are Hateful hermits and use Divide and Conquer tactics. @Maxperson responded that this did not tell you whether they were Evil or not (nor their Lawfulness).

But specifying their alignment just adds another step in the process. Does this meazel hold the default alignment? If not, what alignment is he? In either case, how does alignment manifest through the way he is described?

 

[Maxperson]

This is just incorrect. The people posting here have had bad experiences with alignment in 5e.

I find that terribly hard to believe. It's one sentence with no mechanical penalties. If a DM doesn't like how you play your CG, ignore him. He can't do anything about it without violating the social contract, making it a bad DM problem not an alignment problem.

Among other things, people don’t like it when a DM tells them that their alignment is not what they wrote on their character sheet. I have never seen a DM do that to a character’s BIPF.

So what if the DM says you aren't CG. You don't have to write anything else or play any differently. You're still CG on your sheet and for your character regardless of what he says.

 

[FrozenNorth]

They replaced THACO. They did not, and have not, replaced alignment. They just took it out.

They did replace alignment. BIPF are roleplaying aides serving the same role for PCs. Monster write-ups provide information about what monsters believe and how to run them.

 

[Maxperson]

So, it is simply adding another step in the process? You choose a creature, decide whether its alignment applies, then decide if you want to change it for some reason?

Let’s go back to the meazel example. The OP noted that their alignment was unnecessary: their write-up specifies that they are Hateful hermits and use Divide and Conquer tactics. @Maxperson responded that this did not tell you whether they were Evil or not (nor their Lawfulness).

But specifying their alignment just adds another step in the process. Does this meazel hold the default alignment? If not, what alignment is he? In either case, how does alignment manifest through the way he is described?

Not really. It's very rare for me to move a creature out of its alignment and I have other factors in the adventure that prompt me to ask that question. Absent those factors I don't bother. If I make that rare decision, THEN I have to do the work that you want me to do with each and every creature in the book if there is no alignment.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Just took a look at what is stated for alignment in Pathfinder 2E:




So yeah, Pathfinder 2E puts more mechanical emphasis on alignment than D&D 5E does. I also failed to find any sort of threads discussing alignment in the manner that it is being discussed in regards to D&D, though I did only perform a cursory search.

I think it will surprise no one that I don’t like alignment if PF2 either. I don’t care enough about the system to post about it though.

I wonder if there isn’t some self-sorting going on. Alignment is so baked into PF2 that I don’t think people who dislike alignment would be happy there.

PF2 doesn’t have a single paladin class: it has three classes with a different main mechanic depending on whether you are LG, NG or CG. If you are a LG cleric worshipping a LN deity, you main damage-dealing cantrip only affects CG, CN and CE creatures (so no devils).

I think that even some posters who like alignment in 5e would have problems with PF2’s implementation.

 

[Maxperson]

They replaced THACO. They did not, and have not, replaced alignment. They just took it out.

They really didn't replace THAC0. They just disguised it when they release 3e. A 3e fighter got +1 per level. At level 10 he needed a 10 to hit AC 20(0 in 2e). A 10th level fighter had a THAC0 of 10. So either you needed to roll a total of 10+10 to hit 20(AC 0 in 2e) in 3e or in 2e you needed to roll a total of 10 to hit 0. Same difference. Either way you needed to roll a total of 10. It was the same for the other classes. Their bonus progress had you doing the same math to hit 0(20).

 

[Micah Sweet]

They did replace alignment. BIPF are roleplaying aides serving the same role for PCs. Monster write-ups provide information about what monsters believe and how to run them.

A couple paragraphs in the MM are not a replacement for a two-word NPC behavior aid.

 

[Oofta]

So removing the different damage table for weapons when used against large foes was censorship then? Or removing any of the other myriad nonsensical rules that AD&D was cluttered with?

Seriously, sometimes rules and other content just gets removed because they function poorly, are needless clutter or do no longer with the mechanical or thematic vision the writers are going for. That's a normal part of game design.

When the majority of people still find it useful, yes I do have a problem with it. Seriously, it feels like a knee-jerk overreaction to remove alignment because people will still identify certain groups as evil, we just won't have a label provided.

 

[Helldritch]

I think it could be argued that ideal, bond and flaw are alignment's replacement as a roleplaying aid. Granted, the monsters don't have those, but if alignment is completely removed, they probably should (or something similar.)

Not even by a thousand miles of small print characters (and that means a lot of words). These are tools to help flesh out your RP. They are a companion to alignments, not a replacement. Two different alignments could and will have a different take on the same set of BITF making these unique.

I have players with the same alignment and BITF but different classes and both alignments and BITF plays differently in a unique and interesting way.

Those little two letters gives a small nudge in one direction, the TBIF just refine things a bit more. Alignmentless system have a lot of tables and what not to convey what is conveyed by two small letters and 4 character/background concept. I have welcomed the BITF with open arms and even praise as they complement so well the alignments. They do not replace the alignment system.

And as was so often said in previous posts, if you do not like a mono culture lineage, change it! It is written very clearly in the monster manual. It is even encouraged! It is far easier to remove something you do not like than it is to add back in something that you liked and was removed. The first one is done in a pinch the last one takes up a lot of work. Do not penalize thousands of table that like alignment because your table does not like it.

 

[Helldritch]

So removing the different damage table for weapons when used against large foes was censorship then? Or removing any of the other myriad nonsensical rules that AD&D was cluttered with?

Seriously, sometimes rules and other content just gets removed because they function poorly, are needless clutter or do no longer with the mechanical or thematic vision the writers are going for. That's a normal part of game design.

No, and it can not be compared.
There was a true concensus about the removal of weapon modifications to attack roll and damage vs giant type. It was a needless complication that was not part of the initial game and these were only slowing gameplay. No one I knew in any circles and conventions were really using these anyway. The same can't be said about alignments. They are used by a lot of tables and are still an easy way to RP mooch and mobs that are not important enough to warrant a full-fledged NPC/BBEG refinement.