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

[Maxperson]

I don't expect D&D characters to be moral paragons. It is fine for the world to be brutal, for characters to be somewhat grey. Hell, I don't even necessarily mind characters who have some rather terrible qualities, especially if it is agreed upon beforehand. But what I don't want is to have terrible characters to do things that closely reflect real life racist atrocities, the player thinking that their character is actually good and justified and the rules backing them up. And this is not some imaginary connection I am making; Gygax's views have been alluded to, he literally said that it was lawful good to kill 'monster' (to not mention the species that shalt not be named) non-combatants, women and children, and quoted a person who committed real life atrocities against Native Americans in his explanation.

So pretty much anything bad you can think of has been done by one group to another and to individuals. You literally cannot do anything "terrible" and have it not reflect some racist atrocity somewhere.

As long as the player(s) aren't doing something to deliberately mirror a real life atrocity(ie saying something like, this monster race is like real life race X and so I'm going to...") then I'm okay with it. It's a fantasy game with fantasy races and bad things happen. I'm not going to go out of my way to create associations with real life that aren't there. If they are there, though, like the Vistani/Romani connection, then I'm against it and it should be changed/removed. Real racism has no place in my game, at my table, or in my house. Nowhere, really, but I can control those locations.

 

[Umbran]

Further, given as D&D is intentionally going for the "big tent" approach it only makes sense that - while some things will be presented on an opt-out basis and some on an opt-in basis - they should and will all be presented so as to allow the greatest amount of potential flexibility in what the game can do.

If everything anyone ever might want to use in the game is presented, the game becomes intractable and moribund in its options. To be useful in a practical sense, a game must be edited. Choices must be made.

 

[Cadence]

I don't expect D&D characters to be moral paragons. It is fine for the world to be brutal, for characters to be somewhat grey. Hell, I don't even necessarily mind characters who have some rather terrible qualities, especially if it is agreed upon beforehand. But what I don't want is to have terrible characters to do things that closely reflect real life racist atrocities,

Feels like a lot of this comes down to where the line is drawn about what counts as an atrocity vs. what is just brutal or a shade of grey. Feels hard to get into that without getting into things that were in the news a lot this past year and a road best not gone down. I'm guessing our views on it aren't that different if we sat down to discuss them over a beer (or whatnot). I'm also guessing that discussion won't fair well in text with the mod rules here.

I'm not sure having the two characters on the character sheet for PC, NPC, or particular monster changes any of it. And I'm for removing them from the humanoid (or similar) species listing in the monster books.

 

[Maxperson]

If everything anyone ever might want to use in the game is presented, the game becomes intractable and moribund in its options. To be useful in a practical sense, a game must be edited. Choices must be made.

Yes, but alignment has been proven to be includable in the game without creating that situation. The game has become neither intractable or moribund due to alignment being included. The vast majority of issues with alignment were mechanical in nature and are now gone, and the remaining few are almost universally created by player/DM misunderstandings, rather than the rule itself.

 

[Umbran]

...he literally said that it was lawful good to kill 'monster' (to not mention the species that shalt not be named) non-combatants, women and children, and quoted a person who committed real life atrocities against Native Americans in his explanation.

So pretty much anything bad you can think of has been done by one group to another and to individuals. You literally cannot do anything "terrible" and have it not reflect some racist atrocity somewhere.

Mod Note:
Folks,

I want everyone to consider carefully where this discussion is likely to go. I do not expect it to go anywhere constructive. I see several signs that at this point, the sides are dug in, and positions will not substantially change at this point.

"I can't let the other side win," is not a tenable position to take in a discussion of how to pretend to be elves. Ask yourself if, in your next post, you are actually adding anything new. Also ask if you are actually going to consider what others are saying.

If the answer to either of these is "no", then it is time to walk away from the conversation.

 

[transmission89]

So pretty much anything bad you can think of has been done by one group to another and to individuals. You literally cannot do anything "terrible" and have it not reflect some racist atrocity somewhere.

As long as the player(s) aren't doing something to deliberately mirror a real life atrocity(ie saying something like, this monster race is like real life race X and so I'm going to...") then I'm okay with it. It's a fantasy game with fantasy races and bad things happen. I'm not going to go out of my way to create associations with real life that aren't there. If they are there, though, like the Vistani/Romani connection, then I'm against it and it should be changed/removed. Real racism has no place in my game, at my table, or in my house. Nowhere, really, but I can control those locations.

Yup, and that infamous quote can trace its origins back to the brutal campaigns against the Irish during Cromwell’s regime (possibly further but that’s the earliest recorded version I can find).

At no point is anyone advocating that it’s ok to replicate these hideous moments of human barbarity and cruelty to one another, using anything as a stand in.

The word monsters was in quotes. That’s the problem if this is the brutalistic setting that wants to be evoked.

If one wishes to humanise the monsters, that creates the moral discomfort one is feeling. If that is a route one wishes to take with their game, that’s the assumption that needs to be challenged.

Were xenomorphs real, I’d have no problem in describing them as evil, nor in joining Ripley in toasting the eggs, the queen, and the cute wittle chestbursters. These things ain’t ants.

Were I wanting to create a helpful, almost humanesque goblin society, certainly, that would have implications on my description of their good or evilness, and thus dictate what actions fall within a Paladin’s view.

Of course, as always, what you do at your table is your business, and I shan’t moralise or compel you to play my way

EDIT: Apologies to mod, missed note when typing this. Will be happy to delete at Mod request.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Feels like a lot of this comes down to where the line is drawn about what counts as an atrocity vs. what is just brutal or a shade of grey. Feels hard to get into that without getting into things that were in the news a lot this past year and a road best not gone down. I'm guessing our views on it aren't that different if we sat down to discuss them over a beer (or whatnot). I'm also guessing that discussion won't fair well in text with the mod rules here.

I'm not sure having the two characters on the character sheet for PC, NPC, or particular monster changes any of it. And I'm for removing them from the humanoid (or similar) species listing in the monster books.

Sure, it's not clear cut, though at the point the notion of killing babies is seriously entertained the line has been crossed a long time ago, regardless of where exactly it was (and I don't even like babies!) And also, yeah, I doubt our views differ much in practice. And removing the alignment from humanoids would definitely be a big step in the right direction; it would solve the most obvious issues that have unfortunate real world implications, and that's most important. I still think alignment is a terrible system on its own right and should go for that reason, but that's just about game design preferences, and ultimately not a big deal.

 

[Mistwell]

If everything anyone ever might want to use in the game is presented, the game becomes intractable and moribund in its options. To be useful in a practical sense, a game must be edited. Choices must be made.

Sure but if a meaningfully large portion of the customer base likes and uses that game element, I hope you agree it should probably make the editing cut?

 

[Malmuria]

The vocal minority is as it always is...............loud. The vast majority of people who are happy with something don't go out of their way to say so. It's human nature to speak up to complain far more often than to compliment. It's a serious mistake to assume that people who complain loudly and SEEM to be in the majority, really are.

Hmm see from my perspective, wotc decided to not add alignment to stat blocks in candlekeep, float racial ability scores in tasha's, and include one (1) sidebar in ravenloft suggesting people be mindful of stereotypes, and we see a very vocal reaction from some of the fanbase. Some people going so far to claim that wotc no longer wants them as fans (i.e. customers), which seems crazy to me.

The fact is, when corporations have these discussions, it is for the sake of their brand, and for wotc as a gaming company, one part of the game--morality as hard-coded fate or even tendency--is no longer on brand.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, but alignment has been proven to be includable in the game without creating that situation.

When you go on vacation, each individual item in your wardrobe will individually fit in your suitcase. But, your entire wardrobe will not all fit at once. You must leave behind many items, each of which individually is small.