D&D General Do you use Alignment in your D&D games?

[Burnside]

Again. General. Thread.

This thread has a ton of DMs in it saying they're specifically using it as a stick to enforce behavior. 'No Evil', 'preventing murder hobos', 'making them reflect on their actions'.

Yeah. If I had a player for whom the only thing keeping them from playing like a jerk was Alignment, I just wouldn't play with them. I wouldn't sit there going "Uh-uh-uh! You're Neutral Good!" every time they did something appalling.

 

[Charlaquin]

The following goes a completely different way than I thought it would, and I think turns out to mostly be a question for those disagreeing with @Charlaquin .

1-Hyenas, Lions, and Dingos eat babies.

2-The things from Aliens and Zombies eat babies.

3-Some goblins eat them

4-Some cultists of demon Lords eat them.

5-Some humans probably raise them or kidnap them to sell to others who will eat them.

Is the first group classically animal or neutral and not evil? Should the second be different from the first in alignment? Is group five worse than group four worse than three? Does it matter if things kill for fun and not sustenance? What if they're like cats or dolphins or chimpanzees doing the killing for "fun"?

How does classifying motivation vs. classifying actions fit in?

Yeah, this is definitely a question for people who disagree with me. For me, I don’t seem any value in creating a set of normative rules that would allow us to sort these different creatures into moral categories like good, evil, neutral, or n/a. At least, not for the purpose of a roleplaying game. Philosophically it’s an interesting question and there’s value in trying to answer it, but as people often tell me in these discussions, D&D isn’t a philosophy course. Making intuitive judgments based on how the creature actually behaves seems perfectly sufficient for gaming purposes, since the game rules don’t care which moral category a creature falls into anyway.

 

[Oofta]

I feel like this has been established way before this thread.

So you're saying you have no restrictions? I don't want to play games with people that run evil PCs that act out on their evil nature. At your table if a player had their PC constantly spewing racist, misogynistic or bigotry that was obviously making other people uncomfortable at your table that it would be perfectly okay?

 

[Cadence]

That might be a useful way to use such categories, but D&D doesn’t really take advantage of it. Monsters aren’t organized by alignment, they’re organized alphabetically, and sometimes by type. I also think creature type would be much more useful for this purpose than alignment would.

I've found myself quickly flipping through the DMG pages looking for creature type sometimes, and alignment others. The various search engines for PF were particularly nice for skipping the physical flipping part.

But if we're not flipping anymore, then having 20 or 30 common tags would work too. (And so now I want to see what would end up in that kind of list).

 

[Charlaquin]

Alignment is a shorthand so I don't have to read two paragraphs of fluff to understand basic motivation and moral compass. I have yet to see anything as simple that will tell me so much. If it doesn't work for you ignore it and read the text; but most of the time it won't tell me how they view the world in the same way alignment does.

Right, so again, I see why someone might prefer a simple shorthand like alignment instead of a description of the creature’s behavior. What I don’t understand is why someone who feels that way would want the description. Seems to defeat the purpose of having the shorthand if you’re going to read the descriptions anyway.

 

[Cadence]

Yeah, this is definitely a question for people who disagree with me. For me, I don’t seem any value in creating a set of normative rules that would allow us to sort these different creatures into moral categories like good, evil, neutral, or n/a. At least, not for the purpose of a roleplaying game. Philosophically it’s an interesting question and there’s value in trying to answer it, but as people often tell me in these discussions, D&D isn’t a philosophy course. Making intuitive judgments based on how the creature actually behaves seems perfectly sufficient for gaming purposes, since the game rules don’t care which moral category a creature falls into anyway.

I'm pondering an additional category to avoid the philosophical debate:
"It's complicated". (Chaotic complicated, Complicated evil, etc.. ;-). ).

 

[payn]

That’s exactly my point. If the behaviors described are something the majority of people would consider evil, then giving it an evil alignment isn’t actually doing anything. It’s telling people something they already know.

If you have holy and/or good weaponry it does something. Good and evil forces (law & Chaos too) arming themselves for epic fights is iconic to the genre.

I’m not suggesting making it a philosophy course or chastising anyone for using simplifications. I’m questioning the utility of having alignment when the monster description tells you its behavior. If the description makes it obvious to most people that the monster is chaotic and evil, the alignment is redundant. If the description doesn’t make it obvious to most people, perhaps it shouldn’t be chaotic evil.

I'd rather the descriptions be specific and unique than having to include generic descriptions in every single submission. YMMV.

 

[payn]

Yeah. If I had a player for whom the only thing keeping them from playing like a jerk was Alignment, I just wouldn't play with them. I wouldn't sit there going "Uh-uh-uh! You're Neutral Good!" every time they did something appalling.

As somebody who loves alignment, I also loathe folks who use it as a stick to keep people in lanes.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you have holy and/or good weaponry it does something. Good and evil forces (law & Chaos too) arming themselves for epic fights is iconic to the genre.

Sure, if there are game rules that care what alignment a creature is, that completely changes the conversation. Now the label has utility, because it affects the game in tangible ways. This is not the case in D&D 5e though.

I'd rather the descriptions be specific and unique than having to include generic descriptions in every single submission. YMMV.

I would too. Alignment is the generic description in every single submission that I would rather not have, in favor of specific, unique descriptions.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah. If I had a player for whom the only thing keeping them from playing like a jerk was Alignment, I just wouldn't play with them. I wouldn't sit there going "Uh-uh-uh! You're Neutral Good!" every time they did something appalling.

As a group, we don't need to say 'no evil'. We have the 'Don't Be Fuzzy' agreement, named after a dude who NEVER played a character that would work with the party, be it it a 3e Paladin, a cloistered wizard who just never left for the adventure, or a bounty hunter actively hunting another PC.

That last one was the source of the rule. Basically one player was playing as falsely accused of murdering their military superior, on the run and undercover in the party. Fuzzy heard this and decided they were going to be one of the bounty-hunters after him. So began a five session debacle where thanks to use being good at covering our tracks and moving efferently, we never met the guy.

That is until we stopped at a village fete. Our fugitive went out for a walk and I, halfling sorcerer and friend to all party members followed him to have a chat. That's when it happened: I see someone following my friend. I spot the flash of a dagger. It... see Fuzzy texting out DM and her face going sour.

I don't make the connection. Scorching Ray. Two crits.

We never found out in character who that guy was, but we all agreed to make characters that were actually were part of the party.