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

[transmission89]

I'm puzzled as to whether I missed something in the conversation, because I'm not entirely sure why you are directing this part at me.

It was in reference to your post #521. I didn’t know if that was directly how you were feeling, or if it was because of something that I stated. I was just trying to make clear that I’m not labelling all “non alignment Likers” in the same group or as having the same reason for not liking alignment if you get me?

 

[Malmuria]

Which is why removing alignment was, IMO, clearly a business and political decision, and what's more, made at the last minute prior to going to press

Jeremy Crawford has been talking about this since at least last june. That's not an endorsement of the candlekeep book because I don't have it

This tells me it was a reaction to critics (the people WotC care about most),

I think, as you say above, it was a business decision, or, in other words, a reaction to critics who are their customers. I would find it hard to believe that a corporation and market leader simply decides to "not care" about their paying customers. Their business calculation revolves around alienating as few customers as possible (both with what they change and what they don't change), so that as many people as possible keep buying their products.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Never mind that THAC0 was itself somewhat of a player-side replacement for the DM's combat matrix...

 

[Lanefan]

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.

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.

Here I disagree. If your sheet says CG but if in the eyes of the DM your character's actions in play have been generally CE then CE you are, end of story; and some effect that triggers on sensing an Evil presence is gonna get you every time.

This only becomes a Bad DM problem if the DM hasn't previously informed the player(s) that alignments are based on the sum of in-play actions rather than what's written on the character sheet.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I've kept the small/large damage split, if for no other reason than it allows space for more mechanical variability between weapons without having to go to a full weapons-vs-armour-type paradigm.

 

[Maxperson]

Here I disagree. If your sheet says CG but if in the eyes of the DM your character's actions in play have been generally CE then CE you are, end of story; and some effect that triggers on sensing an Evil presence is gonna get you every time.

This only becomes a Bad DM problem if the DM hasn't previously informed the player(s) that alignments are based on the sum of in-play actions rather than what's written on the character sheet.

You play a different edition, though. In 5e you can't detect evil or good.

 

[Yaarel]

Probably the best way to handle changing alignments is narratively.

The DM can have NPCs talking about the change of behaviors (as puppets of the DM to voice any concerns that the DM has).

Also, it is probably wrong to think of a creature as being Good or Evil. Rather, it is the actions that are Good actions or Evil actions.

NPCs can see and react to actions. These responses are part of a good story.

Indeed, alignment mechanics interfere with and even prevent an interesting unfolding ethical story.

 

[Helldritch]

I've kept the small/large damage split, if for no other reason than it allows space for more mechanical variability between weapons without having to go to a full weapons-vs-armour-type paradigm.

I did that for a long time but in the end, it only enforced certain weapon choices as optimal. Even in the current iteration of the game some weapons are clearly better than others. I see no reason to complicate matters and choices even more than they are. In BECMI only mastery changes your weapon damage and I always felt that it should have been the way for 1ed and onward. But it was not to be...

 

[Mecheon]

The removal was a panic decision to cater to a certain crowd. WotC has a history of overreaction and throwing the baby out with the bath water. They didn't need to completely remove alignment when including it as a clearly optional rule would have been more than sufficient.

Or its the realisation the rule hasn't been doing anything and, given how stripped back it was earlier, wasn't too hard to take away the last few vestages of it.

If alignment was the be-all end-all they wouldn't have stripped it as far back as they did with no effect.

I will not accept the reason for removal to be “we fear it may be harmful for others” and will treat that particular reason with the absolute contempt it deserves.

Its a clunky hot mess of a rule who's only purpose in the game is to cause rule arguments, screw various class combos over, provide a consistent source of r/rpghorrorstories tales, and make me really angry at Dragonlance. Its a rule that causes a worse game whenever it raises its head because it only ever pops up in the situations of "I arbiterily think you're not roleplaying the way I think you should be" or "My character does something to affect the party and ruin the game because their alignment declares they must".

Alignment is not a good rule at its core. Its benefits to the game are narratively and, even then, limited as "This guy is a bit of a jerk" does the same thing with less moral quandries. It does not enrich the game by its presence, as the cases where it appears have tended to be directly countering someone doing something. Its an old, messy thing from its wargaming roots, but with most of its modern use being a bludgeon to punish players with. The cases it pops up cause so much strife and drama we've been meming about it for absolute decades. Heck, you can find old alignment posting back in Dragon of all places. Sometimes you just have to look at a rule, go 'this causes more problems than its solves', and finally excise the mess.

oh and while it is valid that labelling entire races with the brush isn't a good look at any time, if I'm going to stab into any of that then I'm going to stab into Dragonlance having the audacity to call any of its elf races as 'good' in any way, shape or form but, Mecheon hates Dragonlance is a longrunning thing

 

[Oofta]

Here I disagree. If your sheet says CG but if in the eyes of the DM your character's actions in play have been generally CE then CE you are, end of story; and some effect that triggers on sensing an Evil presence is gonna get you every time.

This only becomes a Bad DM problem if the DM hasn't previously informed the player(s) that alignments are based on the sum of in-play actions rather than what's written on the character sheet.

One of my few restrictions on what PCs do is that I don't want evil PCs. So, yes, I will tell a PC if I think they're crossing the line and I guess I am "telling the player what their alignment is".

This has everything to do with the social agreement of the group, something they knowingly signed up for so no, I don't feel bad about it. It also doesn't really have anything to do with alignment.