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

[Maxperson]

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.

WotC is delusional if they "realized" that. At best a person can realize that it does nothing for them those like them(a minority). It's an absolute fact that it does do something good for people, since people in this thread have said that it does.

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

This is a Strawman argument. Nobody has claimed that it is the be-all end-all.

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".

And this is absolutely false. Any alignment arguments occur not only in a vast minority of instances of its use, but not one of them are a purpose of alignment.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

Alignment as social contract during Session Zero − absolutely appropriate.

For an Evil campaign − every player would need to opt in for something like that.

 

[Mecheon]

WotC is delusional if they "realized" that. At best a person can realize that it does nothing for them those like them(a minority). It's an absolute fact that it does do something good for people, since people in this thread have said that it does.

And an absolute fact it also causes problems and breaks groups apart. Gotta consider both sides on this and, unfortunately, I don't see alignment as that important it out-weighs the multiple times groups have been ruined by someone's ham-fisted approach to it

And this is absolutely false. Any alignment arguments occur not only in a vast minority of instances of its use, but not one of them are a purpose of alignment.

Are we sure on that 'minority' thing?

A quick Google of it (because Reddit's search function is still not great) gives us at least 7,000 seperate posts in r/rpghorrostories of alignment-related tales, give or take reposts. Now, while there is no specific area group breakups are posted in, that at least gives us a bit of a ballpark figure this is a re-occurring thing and regular enough its common for it to have that many seperate posts in the last 4 years.

If alignment shouldn't be causing these issues, then it is clearly failing at its job of a rule and needs to either be revised or removed. No one wept when 3E grapple rules got scrapped in everything that came after it

 

[Maxperson]

And an absolute fact it also causes problems and breaks groups apart. Gotta consider both sides on this and, unfortunately, I don't see alignment as that important it out-weighs the multiple times groups have been ruined by someone's ham-fisted approach to it

Sure. It breaks a very few groups apart when used improperly. I can agree with that. Improper use has no relevance, though.

Are we sure on that 'minority' thing?

100% sure. Yep.

A quick Google of it (because Reddit's search function is still not great) gives us at least 7,000 seperate posts in r/rpghorrostories of alignment-related tales, give or take reposts. Now, while there is no specific area group breakups are posted in, that at least gives us a bit of a ballpark figure this is a re-occurring thing and regular enough its common for it to have that many seperate posts in the last 4 years.

I quick search of human nature shows that vocal minorities scream loud and clear, while the happy masses don't peep up really. Your Google search is meaningless other than 7000 is a very, very, VERY low number for a Google search.

 

[Mecheon]

I quick search of human nature shows that vocal minorities scream loud and clear, while the happy masses don't peep up really. Your Google search is meaningless other than 7000 is a very, very, VERY low number for a Google search.

Its a constrained Google search. Without the constraint of it being specific to individual posts or specifically rpghorrorstories, I get over 13,900,000 results but no confirmation any of them is relevant. Basically, consider it like a forum. 7,000ish individual topics on alignment being the cause of groups breaking apart isn't what I'd call small. Remember, that's only the ones posting in there, and not the people who aren't posting at all.

Its regular enough its clear alignment has these issues. Is alignment worth 7,000 games of D&D being broken up over? I argue no, it does not bring enough benefit to the game for the harm it causes when used poorly, and it being used poorly is incredibly, incredibly common

 

[Maxperson]

Its a constrained Google search. Without the constraint of it being specific to individual posts or specifically rpghorrorstories, I get over 13,900,000 results but no confirmation any of them is relevant. Basically, consider it like a forum. 7,000ish individual topics on alignment being the cause of groups breaking apart isn't what I'd call small. Remember, that's only the ones posting in there, and not the people who aren't posting at all.

Its regular enough its clear alignment has these issues. Is alignment worth 7,000 games of D&D being broken up over? I argue no, it does not bring enough benefit to the game for the harm it causes when used poorly, and it being used poorly is incredibly, incredibly common

I'll wager more than 10x that number break up over DMs who are just plain bad, and those are rare. 7000 given 40 years of D&D is a pittance, and how much do you want to bet that 90%+ were from 3e or before, when alignment actually had mechanical teeth?

 

[Mecheon]

I'll wager more than 10x that number break up over DMs who are just plain bad, and those are rare. 7000 given 40 years of D&D is a pittance, and how much do you want to bet that 90%+ were from 3e or before, when alignment actually had mechanical teeth?

Dunno! Ol' rpghorrorstories has only existed for 4 years, so we don't know how far stuff goes and if they're recent stuff or later stuff.

I'd argue this many things being tied to a single rule isn't the best look though

 

[Maxperson]

Dunno! Ol' rpghorrorstories has only existed for 4 years, so we don't know how far stuff goes and if they're recent stuff or later stuff.

I'd argue this many things being tied to a single rule isn't the best look though

Then hit points also need to go I guess. Those have caused at least as much angst. Orrrrrrrr, you just don't play with alignment and then the "problem" goes away. Leave us alone and don't try to destroy the game for us.

 

[pemerton]

There has always been traditionalists and progressives within the game (I use these terms without their political meanings, im referring to ideas about the game as it stood, stand and should be). This has been constantly shown and reflected since the game‘s inception and can be seen in old dragon magazine forum debates, the move to 3e and beyond, the birth of the OSR movement. It’s all been on that quest for the perfect game for you and your table. You can quite happily switch between these two groups as a gamer depending on what particular aspect or mechanic of the game you are discussing.

But just a section of the traditionalist camp has been co opted by strong reactionary, borderline to actual alt- right groups, so too has a section of the progressive side been co opted within this moral panic.

It’s the statements being made that certain aspects are harmful to others (focusing here on alignment) with very little evidence to support that I take umbrage with.

I hope you're not surprised that I don't accept you characterisation of views about FRPGing and fantasy tropes that you disagree with as "moral panic". And as far as I can tell, people are saying that they thing alignment is bad for their games, as a special case as being unhelpful for the game. This is not a view about "harm to others" except in the view that people get "harmed" (you word) by playing games that aren't as good as they might be.

I also wonder who you think is doing the co-opting?

I am not framing anyone who just wants a change or disagrees with my view on the game as comparable to BADD. I’ll repeat, because apparently this keeps getting lost. I AM NOT SAYING THAT.

But I’ll also not pretend that there is not a chilling, stifling atmosphere at the moment within the industry around both of these extreme ends. I will happily call out actual racist bull, and hate speech whenever I see it, just as I will around misinformed views providing fuel to knee jerk reactions to avoiding imagined offence.

I hope you're not surprised that I don't accept that I'm misinformed, about D&D or fantasy tropes or "the literature" from which D&D draws its inspirations.

And I wonder what you think is being chilled? I mean, I'm not interested in "chilling" the use of alignment. I just think it's not very helpful, basically for the reasons posted in this thread most recently by @Mecheon.

You’re still not understanding what the point was if you’re talking about what the stories contained and such. I’ve repeated, reframed and italicised and now bored of repeating it. I’m not going to debate you on this point any more.

There are two arguments I see being made by those who find alignment unuseful:

1) There are alleged connotations and parallels being drawn to real world groups when we define a race as evil.
2) it makes boring story telling.

Both of these I refute.

1) D&D as was, was a game based on fantasy tropes, drawing from the rich veins of mythology, legend and fantasy fiction inspired by these tropes. The audience understood this. Gods in the game were real, they had a presence and impact. Races (used in the original sense of the word as a synonym for species) created by the gods. Good, evil, law, chaos were objective, tangible meta physical aspects that affected the world. It was part of the world of shared imagination, asking us to believe in dragons, magic and an identifiable good evil. Some items could only be used by evil people of great power, others only of the truest heart.

Creatures could be born into evil, designed as such by the gods. Yes they had intelligence, they were self aware, but they had not the will nor inclination to change (at least without great difficulty). It was a humano centric game and vision. Only the human race, upstart, young could break these bonds, their diversity their strength. The other creatures, not humans in funny ears or green skin suits, but beings of a wholly alien mindset. There were no parallels being drawn to real life groups and the negative language used to describe them applies to all of us. The orcs are savage, barbaric, bestial, rapacious because they are the worst of us. Drawn from myth and allegory, they are the monsters we become in war, our base crueller instincts. Informed by Judeo-Christian influences on understandings of good and evil, they are evil. Born into this sin, manifestations of the chaos wilder lands and borderlands against “civilised” society.

Now certainly, there is an argument to be made for moral relativism. Yet consider the male lion. On taking over a new pride, he will kill the young of the previous male. There is no good or evil ascribed to this, it just is. Give that lion intelligence and self awareness, viewed through the prism of human experience and understanding, I think many would throw aside relativistic values and describe that as evil.

<snip>

2) It makes boring story telling? Does it though? Let’s unpack that. Some of the most enduring myths (informed by the different cultures’ religions and understanding of what was good and evil) and modern fantasy are good and evil.

<snip:>

Without alignment, you are free to make your morally grey world, and explore orc cultures though! Great, this was original and daring in the nineties and early 2000’s as media explored this concept as a counter cultural deconstruction of the traditional evil orc. Hell, this is what made Eberron special, it was a deconstruction of all those D&D tropes. The problem is, if default D&D is Eberron, what is special about it any more? Generally cool Orcs have become the cultural norm, expectation and trope now. You are doing nothing daring and new with that. Surely it would be more subversive to go back to the creatures of evil now would it not?

Yes a morally grey world can be interesting, complex and mixed with great ideas. It does not make it a superior form of story telling. It does not make a classic good vs evil tale boring, it’s certainly a less sophisticated method of story telling, but one that has resonated with humanity for millennia.

<snip>

Those that have called for their removal recently, using either points 1 or 2 have shown a startling lack of respect to the game, their fellow players and ignorance of the wider mythology, literature and cultural history that has informed this game.

I'm not ignorant of the mythology, literature and cultural history that has informed D&D and FRPGing more generally.

But - re your (1) - if you think that the tropes used by JRRT to depict Orcs, which D&D has inherited in various fashions and permutations, are not connected to and derived from particular human peoples and cultures then it is you who are ignorant. I mean, I was able to work this out just by reading his stories; having it confirmed by others providing quotes from his letters and papers made the interpretive work required even less.

More generally, if you think there is no connection between human history and cultures and the civilisation vs wildness trope that one finds recurring in D&D and related fantasy fiction, that is a fact about you but certain not a fact about the absence of such connections!

And re your (2) - as I've already posted, alignment as it occurs in D&D does not in general either emulate that history, nor tend to produce stories that emulate it. I've already given some examples: here's another. Redemption is a theme of tremendous importance in both LotR and Star Wars. In the latter, Vader achieves it. In LotR, Denethor and Saruman both fail in this respect - but that failure was not foreordained. Theoden, Galadriel and Boromir, all in different fashions, gain it.

The only published D&D scenario I'm aware of that takes redemption as a theme is the 4e Dungeon adventure Heathen. And alignment plays no role in that scenario, beyond reminding us via a tag in the stat block that the baddies are baddies. (A tag "baddy" would do just as well.)

And straddling both your (1) and (2) - the idea that you need an alignment mechanic of the D&D sort in order to avoid "moral relativism" or a "morally grey world" is absurd. There is nothing relativistic about the morality of LotR. But an alignment system not only isn't necessary to support that sort of fantasy, but actively hinders it eg by inhibiting the possibility of redemption, by removing the need for fallible human judgement (consider Gandalf's discussion with Frodo of the morality of killing Gollum), by generally shutting down the whole orientation of human sympathy that permeates JRRT's work.

 

[pemerton]

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).

<snip>

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.

On the approach described here, it obviously remains open to the players, in playing their PCs, to disagree with the NPCs who are adversely judging them. And while the GM has authority over what the NPCs' opinions are, there is nothing to suggest that the GM has authority over whether the NPCs are correct.

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.

On the approach described in these posts, on the other hand, the GM gets to decide not just what NPCs think about a PC's behaviour but whether or not that PC's behaviour is, in fact, good or evil.

If a group wants to give a GM that sort of authority, I guess that's there prerogative. I agree with @Mecheon, @FrozenNorth and I think some other posters also that to build an expectation of that sort of authority into the game is not helpful. For obvious reasons - given the reality of diverse views among FRPGers about what counts as good and evil, particularly if the fiction of the game takes on any significant degree of nuance, it's a recipe for needless conflict.