D&D 5E Yes to factionalism. No to racism.

[Bolares]

The more I read this more I hate alignment

 

[Scribe]

The more I read this more I hate alignment

Truly I will never understand why.

It's a perfectly workable system, assuming you actually define the cosmic forces of Law/Chaos/Good/Evil.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The more I read this more I hate alignment

I was already maxxed out. I'd like them to just end this nightmare once and for all.

Only you have the power, WotC. Free us.

 

[Bolares]

Truly I will never understand why.

It's a perfectly workable system, assuming you actually define the cosmic forces of Law/Chaos/Good/Evil.

I know it has uses, I just find it so reductive and prone to misunderstandings... I've seen some terrible stuff being justified by alignment, and a lot of table fights because of it. I don't use it at all for almost a decade now, and I really don't miss it.

 

[Yaarel]

I know it has uses, I just find it so reductive and prone to misunderstandings... I've seen some terrible stuff being justified by alignment, and a lot of table fights because of it. I don't use it at all for almost a decade now, and I really don't miss it.

I like alignment as a character roleplay aid, exactly like Ideal and Flaw.

I dislike the alignment Wheel planes, and consider them part of the problem with alignment.

I think it is ok to describe a faction whose ideology is evil, with regard to promoting and rewarding specific behaviors, such as predation.

 

[Scribe]

I know it has uses, I just find it so reductive and prone to misunderstandings... I've seen some terrible stuff being justified by alignment, and a lot of table fights because of it. I don't use it at all for almost a decade now, and I really don't miss it.

Fair enough, it's probably not an issue for me because of how I define these things and use them.

It's like Religion. People are of X faith, but do they adhere 100% to its teachings 100% of the time?

Absolutely not. People still have choice, and 1, even multiple, bad choice, does not redefine a person.

 

[Bolares]

it's probably not an issue for me because of how I define these things and use them.

that's the main issue for me though. If you ask 100 people what aligment means, you will get 101 answers.

I'm perfectly fine playing in a game with someone that uses it, or if a player wants to fill that part of their sheet, that's fine for me. I just don't bother.

 

[Bolares]

I like alignment as a character roleplay aid, exactly like Ideal and Flaw.

I dislike the alignment Wheel planes, and consider them part of the problem with alignment.

I think it is ok to describe a faction whose ideology is evil, with regard to promoting and rewarding specific behaviors, such as predation.

For my characters I think traits, ideal, bond and flaw do a better job of what I've used alignment before.

When I DM, I can still use the word evil, or chaotic to describe an organization or such, I just don't use it as a system. I don't really need a 9 point axis for those descriptions...

 

[Oofta]

Truly I will never understand why.

It's a perfectly workable system, assuming you actually define the cosmic forces of Law/Chaos/Good/Evil.

I don't think you even need a cosmic force that as long as the group you're playing with has definitions that are reasonably close. Which has been the case for me ever since we switched from only having law and chaos to the current paradigm. It's a general descriptor and role play aid not something that defines every possible thought and action.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Absolutely not. People still have choice, and 1, even multiple, bad choice, does not redefine a person.

So, how many priests must you murder or witches burn at the stake before you are considered Evil? What does this say about Regill and Daeron, who are Evil and part of your party?