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

[Oofta]

The main complaint is about the humanoid race.
They can create a section : humanoids society
Evil cult driven, with the Drow as sample.
Militaristic society, Hobgoblin as sample.
Pillager society, Orc as sample.
Each humanoid race in the MM can be presented as a Sample of polarized society. With a warning that you can use any race or create a new one for those sample.
That will give a sanitized MM.

Unless every monster just becomes a human with a different form, unless you get rid of a core concept of D&D having monsters that are monsters, I think there will always be issues. Without alignment people will point to the picture and the description and saying how dare you make a monster out of [insert group or ethnicity here].

Much like the "alignment horror stories" that are really about bad DMs and jerk players unless you get rid of monsters, removing alignment doesn't do anything other than take away a core representation of how the average monster of that type tends to interact with the world.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I especially like the nimble dodge around the 'the main complaint is about humanoids' there.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I still find it interesting that Pathfinder decided to replace the term races with ancestries in 2E and made adjustments to their fantasy cops adventure path last year but have yet to do anything about alignment like D&D has this year.

 

[billd91]

I'm guessing that none of the classes in the books match the inspiring characters perfectly. But trying to make an "Aragorn like character" from a Paladin seems bizarre if there's a ranger there. If nothing else, even if Aragorn is a Ranger with a splash of Paladin, the Dunedain feel a lot more like they'd have tracking than warhorses and holy swords and ability to divinely smite undead.

Did Aragorn turn them at Weathertop? Or was it Frodo's "O Elbereth Gilthoniel!" and the waving of torches that gave them no reason to stay after they had already left their mark on their target? Would any amount of training in any class have replaced his standing as the rightful king to do his deeds along the Paths of the Dead?

Aragorn definitely doesn’t turn the Ringwraiths at Weathertop. He professes to not know exactly why they withdrew. The link with him as a paladin is, as far as I can tell, just his high charisma and ”hands of a healer”. But there’s no real reason to attribute the latter to a mystical ability more than his fostering and training in the House of Elrond, Middle Earth’s preeminent healer.
He’s got a lot of birthright things going for him that would apply no matter what class was a best fit.

 

[Yaarel]

Granted, most D&D worlds are places of medieval fantasy where characters aren't going to be fighting for or against an oncoming industrial revolution, but it's easy to look at these real world disciplines and liken them to Law vs Chaos (it's also not that hard to compare poor people working in factories for the benefit of a CEO to serfs working the land of a fiefdom for a landed nobleman). However, the section I mentioned earlier about civilization itself being inherently wrong and the tribal hunter-gatherer lifestyle being superior in terms of the wellbeing of the people in it could certainly work for Chaotic characters, especially Barbarians, Druids, and Rangers likely to prefer being outside of the city. It's also easy to imagine that the devils of the Nine Hells, with their love of institutionalized evil, could infiltrate civilization and try to make misery just a normal part of life for the common person.

I tend to focus on the nomadic clan as Lawful in the sense of everything is about the group.

But, as members of the group being a given, there is high tolerance for eccentrics, nonconformity, and personal decisions, including things like choosing gender and so on. This kind of individualism correlates with Chaotic.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Explorer's Guide to Wildemount also did this weird thing where orcs are explicitly stated to not be more violent or chaotic, but that priests of Gruumsh lie and say they are. Meanwhile, goblinkind is explicitly supernaturally brainwashed from birth by the god Bane to fill their roles in his army, and that only magic can prevent this or free goblins from his influence (most prominently, the Luxon Beacons of the Kryn Dynasty block Bane's influence upon goblins within a large radius).

It's a bit strange that the setting says that Gruumsh has no actual influence over orcs, but that Bane can program goblins and hobgoblins and bugbears from birth. Personally, it makes me think of goblinkind as akin to the Gems from Steven Universe, where you have small grunts, larger commanders, and even larger brutes designed to fill their place in an oppressive empire ruled by a godlike being.

 

[Oofta]

I especially like the nimble dodge around the 'the main complaint is about humanoids' there.

What dodge? I don't see a reason why default alignment can only apply to certain forms. Humanoid just means 2 arms, 2 legs, a head and no innate supernatural abilities. I don't have a problem with default alignment for any monster, no matter what their shape or form or if they happen to have.

An individual is defined by their brain and intellect, not their form or what they look like.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I tend to focus on the nomadic clan as Lawful in the sense of everything is about the group.

But, as members of the group being a given, there is high tolerance for eccentrics, nonconformity, and personal decisions, including things like choosing gender and so on. This kind of individualism correlates with Chaotic.

The Jakandor "D&D Odyssey" mini setting, which focuses on opposing Chaotic and Lawful cultures, emphasizes that Law is essentially about authority. The Chaotic faction places a great emphasis on honor and a shared code of conduct, but they also believe that only civilizations composed of untrustworthy people need laws and higher authorities to enforce good conduct.

I personally find it simplest to describe Lawful as believing that authoritative bodies are necessary to keep most people in line and promote improvement towards a more ideal society, while Chaotic is against standardized authority imposing its will on others involuntarily.

 

[Yaarel]

The Jakandor "D&D Odyssey" mini setting, which focuses on opposing Chaotic and Lawful cultures, emphasizes that Law is essentially about authority. The Chaotic faction places a great emphasis on honor and a shared code of conduct, but they also believe that only civilizations composed of untrustworthy people need laws and higher authorities to enforce good conduct.

I personally find it simplest to describe Lawful as believing that authoritative bodies are necessary to keep most people in line and promote improvement towards a more ideal society, while Chaotic is against standardized authority imposing its will on others involuntarily.

Ah.

If "Law"=hierarchy, that is something quite different.

That really would be:
• egalitarianism versus hierarchy
• nomadic hunter-gatherer clan versus sedentary herder-gardener town
• family versus bureaucracy
• animism versus theism


And so on.

 

[Yaarel]

Ah.

If "Law"=hierarchy, that is something quite different.

That really would be:
• egalitarianism versus hierarchy
• nomadic hunter-gatherer clan versus sedentary herder-gardener town
• family versus bureaucracy
• animism versus theism


And so on.

@Hexmage-EN

If Law=hierarchy

It would mean there is no such thing as "Lolth". At least, she could not be Chaotic.