D&D 5E RIP alignment

Helldritch · Mar 8, 2021

Umbran said:
You really think that such arguments are a peculiarity of EN World? That's your implication? Dude, arguments about alignment go back to frelling usenet.

I have said, several times over, that it may work well for you, and that's fine.

So, I have been arguing it probably ought to go simply on the basis that it doesn't seem to work reliably. Now, I admit that you, as an individual, probably don't care if some other player has issues. They are, quite simply, not your problem.

To reuse my own analogy, yeah, if a Ford Pinto owned by someone you don't know, a thousand miles away, blows up, that's not really material to you, sure. I grant that.

But, folks presenting a game to the mass market really should consider the failures, as well as the successes. In a discussion about looking at what the game going forward should look like, the behavior of your personal entourage is... not really informative.

In a thread that's had a bunch of discussion revealing that the definition of "Good" is not universal.. that assertion maybe doesn't have the power you want.

You may not know how to use a specific tool, that is ok. But do not blame the tool for your failure. Alignment as a tool works for a majority of people. At least on D&D. Does it work for everyone? Of course not. We would not have such threads if that was the case.

Those against alignment are vocal but I still have to see a really good argument against it. That some systems do not have alignment work is not a good indicator either as systems are independent of each other. What works in one might not work in an other.

The beauty of the alignment tool is that it is almost too simple. This is both its strength and it weakness. It is so simple that it can be easily abused and misinterpreted. Lawful is a pretty simple word, but in the context of our game it can mean a lot of things to different persons who will put a different emphasis on one meaning or the other depending on their personal experiences.

Some will view alignments as absolute (which I am not, at least not all the time) and others as the guidelines it is supposed to be. In point of view, only outsiders should have an absolute view on alignments. But for some reasons, I have seen some DM impose an absolute view of alignment on mortals. Which should not be.

Take Dereck Crownguard from Dragonlance. He is not such a likable fellow and is on Sturm's back like it is not possible. Yet, that knight is a Lawful Good knight of the Rose and it shows in his achievements. Yet, he disagree with Sturm (also LG) at every occasions. This is a perfect example that alignment is not a monolithic thing that is always the same thing from one character to the other. Alignment is there to give a basic idea, at a simple glance, of how to play a character.

With that in mind, if you use alignment as the guide line it should be, it is clear that two LG or two CE characters or NPCs will never be entirely the same. Exceptions and variations will be necessary and expected. But for two words, I can, as a DM, play a monster's (or NPC) expected behavior at a simple glance. That is a huge advantage for the alignment system. I do not need to flip through the pages of the MM for the fluff text, I only need those two words and the stat block of the creature.

Where alignment fails is in the hand of an absolutist view of DM that will impose it on the characters of his players. Just think about the lawful Stupid paladins of 1ed. They were so powerful that some DM were putting the paladin in extreme moral dilemna in which the paladin was always forced take stupid decisions because of his alignment. That was not how the paladin was supposed to be played. And yet...

So yep, alignment is a good tool when used as it should be. A simple basic guideline. Nothing more, nothing less.

QuentinGeorge · Mar 8, 2021

Charlaquin said:
Maybe you never asked for it, but there are absolutely people who did. If you want the [your favorite setting] exactly the way it appeared in [your favorite edition], good news. It exists. For folks who want a different take on the concepts those settings explored, there are the new re-imagined takes.

Aldarc · Mar 8, 2021

Flamestrike said:
That's because a few people conflate 'lawful' with 'following laws', chaotic with 'breaking laws' and 'good' as 'only murders people of evil alignment'.

That is not what those alignments are.

...

It's really not hard to understand, but then you have pimply faced nerds trying to argue that genocide is 'lawful good' or the Punisher is 'Neutral' (despite him being about as extreme a personality as one can get).

Aldarc said:
But then it becomes the predictably circular matter of Person A dismissing Person B as not understanding alignment as well as Person A does.

Thank you, @Flamestrike, for unintentionally supporting my point about assigning alignment to fictional characters is such a silly enterprise.

Rabulias said:
So alignment does not detract from the story for you. Removing alignment could make it less compelling for others. Why not leave it in?

For non-divine story reasons that have already been explained ad nauseum in this thread.

Charlaquin · Mar 8, 2021

QuentinGeorge said:

I don’t know what you’re trying to express here, but I get the impression it has something to do with “4e Forgotten Realms Bad.” This may surprise you to learn, but I found 4e’s take on Forgotten Realms far more interesting than previous versions. Not that that’s a very high bar, FR is boring as hell.

Urriak Uruk · Mar 8, 2021

Flamestrike said:
In what way?

That alignment tells me that Kobolds are generally ordered, and value structure and discipline, but also cruel, and not above harming others (murder, torture, slavery) to get ahead.

If it was CE (like Orcs), they would instead be unpredictable and impulsive and also cruel and not above harming others (murder, torture, slavery) to get ahead.

No, and the MM is clear on this. It just means that Kobold society tends towards LE. They can be any alignment they choose to be.

Same as Drow who tend to be CE. That's because most Drow societies are ones that encourage betrayal, dominance and backstabbing, individual power, torture, slavery and murder.

That doesnt stop an individual Drow from being LG, or even from stopping Drow societies that are LG to form.

So to reiterate my overall point (as you did take out individual lines out of context), how is it that kobolds, orcs and drow are all categorized as "Oh, most of these folk are all like this," when no such alignment categories exist for humans... look at the descriptions from the Player's Handbook.

Dwarf: Most dwarfs are lawful, believing firmly in the benefits of a well-ordered society. They tend toward good as well, with a strong sense of fair play and a belief that everyone deserves to share in the benefits of a just order.

Elf: Elves love freedom, variety, and self-expression, so they lean strongly toward the gentler aspects of chaos. They value and protect others' freedom as well as their own, and they are more often good than not. The drow are an exception; their exile into the Underdark has made them vicious and dangerous. Drow are more often evil than not.

Halfling: Most halflings are lawful good. As a rule, they are good-hearted and kind, hate to see others in pain, and have no tolerance for oppression. They are also very orderly and traditional, leaning heavily on the support of their community and the comfort of their old ways.

Human: Humans tend toward no particular alignment. The best and the worst are found among them.

Dragonborn: Dragonborn tend to extremes, making a conscious choice for one side or the other in the cosmic war between good and evil (represented by Bahamut and Tiamat, respectively). Most dragonborn are good, but those who side with Tiamat can be terrible villains.

Gnome: Gnomes are most often good. Those who tend toward law are sages, engineers, researchers, scholars, investigators, or inventors. Those who tend toward chaos are minstrels, tricksters, wanderers, or fanciful jewelers. Gnomes are good-hearted, and even the tricksters among them are more playful than vicious.

Half-elf: Half-elves share the chaotic bent of their elven heritage. They value both personal freedom and creative expression, demonstrating neither love of leaders nor desire for followers. They chafe at rules, resent others’ demands, and sometimes prove unreliable, or at least unpredictable.

Half-orc: Half-orcs inherit a tendency toward chaos from their orc parents and are not strongly inclined toward good. Half-orcs raised among orcs and willing to live out their lives among them are usually evil.

Tiefling: Tieflings might not have an innate tendency toward evil, but many of them end up there. Evil or not, an independent nature inclines many tieflings toward a chaotic alignment.

And I'll be frank, a lot of these descriptions are just dumb. Half-orcs for example "inherit a tendency toward chaos from their orcish parent and are not strongly inclined toward good." Wtf? So being Chaotic Evil is now genetic, I get the urge to kill and plunder from my parents? This is beyond ridiculous, even if we ignore the obvious racial connotations (which we shouldn't).

Removing racial alignments is the right thing to do, especially considering that even 5E clearly makes the mistake of assigning alignments to different races based solely on "Well, they've always been this way!"

FreeTheSlaves · Mar 8, 2021

vincegetorix said:
I get what you are saying, but what if you played the exact same scenario, but with another fantasy, non-d&d system, say Fantasy AGE or whatever? These shorthands dont exist. Would you really have taken that much more time to resolve the situation? Enough that it would prove a problem and halt the game?

I wouldn't know, I don't play those other games. What shorthands do they have for me to build npc motivations?

For example, the veteran I decided was NE, a mercenary for hire, with average Int but plenty of HPs suggesting a knack for survival. So, I decided his loyalty threshold was low enough that he made himself useful to the PCs by offering enemy dispositions and even pragmatic advice. He didn't complain much about being stripped of his magic items because he didn't want to bug the people his life depended on, even commented that it was 'fair enough' to show no dangerous desire for revenge. He suggested the LE acolyte be killed, stating he's dangerously evil, but to cover his failure with cult employers.

If I didn't use 'NE', I would have been looking for other information that said:

knows he's not smart enough for deception, so plays it straight
doesn't question his employers motives and unconcerned for other's misfortune
trustworthy enough to be employed by evil organization
not prepared to die for another's cause, but does put in a good effort
willing to change sides if bridges are burnt

NE by itself wasn't enough, but these two guide points joined with the NPC's average Int & Wis, plus good HP, were enough to roleplay him memorably enough that the paladin PC wants to recruit him. Oh dearie me...

Maxperson · Mar 8, 2021

Urriak Uruk said:
So to reiterate my overall point (as you did take out individual lines out of context), how is it that kobolds, orcs and drow are all categorized as "Oh, most of these folk are all like this," when no such alignment categories exist for humans... look at the descriptions from the Player's Handbook.

Dwarf: Most dwarfs are lawful, believing firmly in the benefits of a well-ordered society. They tend toward good as well, with a strong sense of fair play and a belief that everyone deserves to share in the benefits of a just order.

Elf: Elves love freedom, variety, and self-expression, so they lean strongly toward the gentler aspects of chaos. They value and protect others' freedom as well as their own, and they are more often good than not. The drow are an exception; their exile into the Underdark has made them vicious and dangerous. Drow are more often evil than not.

Halfling: Most halflings are lawful good. As a rule, they are good-hearted and kind, hate to see others in pain, and have no tolerance for oppression. They are also very orderly and traditional, leaning heavily on the support of their community and the comfort of their old ways.

Human: Humans tend toward no particular alignment. The best and the worst are found among them.

Dragonborn: Dragonborn tend to extremes, making a conscious choice for one side or the other in the cosmic war between good and evil (represented by Bahamut and Tiamat, respectively). Most dragonborn are good, but those who side with Tiamat can be terrible villains.

Gnome: Gnomes are most often good. Those who tend toward law are sages, engineers, researchers, scholars, investigators, or inventors. Those who tend toward chaos are minstrels, tricksters, wanderers, or fanciful jewelers. Gnomes are good-hearted, and even the tricksters among them are more playful than vicious.

Half-elf: Half-elves share the chaotic bent of their elven heritage. They value both personal freedom and creative expression, demonstrating neither love of leaders nor desire for followers. They chafe at rules, resent others’ demands, and sometimes prove unreliable, or at least unpredictable.

Half-orc: Half-orcs inherit a tendency toward chaos from their orc parents and are not strongly inclined toward good. Half-orcs raised among orcs and willing to live out their lives among them are usually evil.

Tiefling: Tieflings might not have an innate tendency toward evil, but many of them end up there. Evil or not, an independent nature inclines many tieflings toward a chaotic alignment.

Humans have always been the jack of all trades race. Probably, because we and they are human and we know humans vary significantly. Alien races, though, those have different thought processes than humans would and might all be predisposed towards(but from RAW there not required to be) certain alignments.

Note how with all the races it uses language like "tends" and "most" and "lean strongly towards." That's intentionally non-absolute language, so that you as the DM and the players can make any race up there any alignment.

Urriak Uruk said:
And I'll be frank, a lot of these descriptions are just dumb. Half-orcs for example "inherit a tendency toward chaos from their orcish parent and are not strongly inclined toward good." Wtf? So being Chaotic Evil is now genetic, I get the urge to kill and plunder from my parents?

Um, no. If CE was genetic, you wouldn't be getting tendencies towards chaos, and "not inclined towards good" does not equate to evil.

Urriak Uruk said:
This is beyond ridiculous, even if we ignore the obvious racial connotations (which we shouldn't).

It appears that they agree that your Strawman of their text is ridiculous as well, since well, they didn't say what you are saying that they said.

Urriak Uruk said:
Removing racial alignments is the right thing to do, especially considering that even 5E clearly makes the mistake of assigning alignments to different races based solely on "Well, they've always been this way!"

Then take them out of your game. There is no objective right or wrong here with regard to racial alignments. There are only opinions and you have yours, but you have no right to impose or even want to impose yours upon me.

Aldarc · Mar 8, 2021

EzekielRaiden said:
Are you really sure the vocal minority is the side that opposes alignment? Because I'm pretty sure that's SIGNIFICANTLY in debate....at the very very least.

Regardless of whether it is only a "vocal minority" who wants to throw alignment out, people in favor of tossing it seem to be working at WotC in the D&D department as designers and writers.

teitan said:
A prominent rule of D&D is rule 0, it's the DM's game and he/she/they can change things how they desire.

Another prominent rule of D&D is Rule WotC: They can change the RAW game however they want.

QuentinGeorge said:
I guarantee if you polled every D&D player world-wide that question "Is Alignment racist?" the answer would be "No, are you crazy? Leave me alone."

Would this happen to be the same poll where 10 out of 10 White People said they couldn't possibly be racist or have white privilege?

Flamestrike · Mar 8, 2021

Urriak Uruk said:
So to reiterate my overall point (as you did take out individual lines out of context), how is it that kobolds, orcs and drow are all categorized as "Oh, most of these folk are all like this," when no such alignment categories exist for humans... look at the descriptions from the Player's Handbook.

Dwarf: Most dwarfs are lawful, believing firmly in the benefits of a well-ordered society. They tend toward good as well, with a strong sense of fair play and a belief that everyone deserves to share in the benefits of a just order.

Elf: Elves love freedom, variety, and self-expression, so they lean strongly toward the gentler aspects of chaos. They value and protect others' freedom as well as their own, and they are more often good than not. The drow are an exception; their exile into the Underdark has made them vicious and dangerous. Drow are more often evil than not.

Halfling: Most halflings are lawful good. As a rule, they are good-hearted and kind, hate to see others in pain, and have no tolerance for oppression. They are also very orderly and traditional, leaning heavily on the support of their community and the comfort of their old ways.

Human: Humans tend toward no particular alignment. The best and the worst are found among them.

Dragonborn: Dragonborn tend to extremes, making a conscious choice for one side or the other in the cosmic war between good and evil (represented by Bahamut and Tiamat, respectively). Most dragonborn are good, but those who side with Tiamat can be terrible villains.

Gnome: Gnomes are most often good. Those who tend toward law are sages, engineers, researchers, scholars, investigators, or inventors. Those who tend toward chaos are minstrels, tricksters, wanderers, or fanciful jewelers. Gnomes are good-hearted, and even the tricksters among them are more playful than vicious.

Half-elf: Half-elves share the chaotic bent of their elven heritage. They value both personal freedom and creative expression, demonstrating neither love of leaders nor desire for followers. They chafe at rules, resent others’ demands, and sometimes prove unreliable, or at least unpredictable.

Half-orc: Half-orcs inherit a tendency toward chaos from their orc parents and are not strongly inclined toward good. Half-orcs raised among orcs and willing to live out their lives among them are usually evil.

Tiefling: Tieflings might not have an innate tendency toward evil, but many of them end up there. Evil or not, an independent nature inclines many tieflings toward a chaotic alignment.

And I'll be frank, a lot of these descriptions are just dumb. Half-orcs for example "inherit a tendency toward chaos from their orcish parent and are not strongly inclined toward good." Wtf? So being Chaotic Evil is now genetic, I get the urge to kill and plunder from my parents? This is beyond ridiculous, even if we ignore the obvious racial connotations (which we shouldn't).

Removing racial alignments is the right thing to do, especially considering that even 5E clearly makes the mistake of assigning alignments to different races based solely on "Well, they've always been this way!"

Re Orcs, the tendency is towards violence. They have short tempers and their fight or flight reaction is always 'fight'.

The assumption was that Humans are more varied in social structures (which is a unique trait of Humans), whereas other Species tend to favor particular social structures and hold shared values.

Flamestrike · Mar 8, 2021

Aldarc said:
Thank you, @Flamestrike, for unintentionally supporting my point about assigning alignment to fictional characters is such a silly enterprise.

It's not a silly enterprise simply due to the fact some silly people try and do it and fail.

I mean I've seen pimply faced nerds try and assign an alignment of Chaotic Good to the Punisher (Chaotic because he 'breaks laws' and Good because 'he's only trying to help society with his murders').

Thats not how we define either Chaotic or Good.

Good people refrain from killing unless as a last resort, and in self defence or the defence of others. They are altruistic, kind and merciful.

Frank Castle is NOT that.

Evil people have no problems with killing and harming others, using violence and harm to get what they want. They view mercy, compassion and kindness as a weakness, and avoid engaging in them.

Frank Castle IS that.

Ditto Law/ Chaos. Frank Castle is firmly (zealously) committed to an ordered and lawful society, by violently ridding it of 'criminals and scumbags' and making people so scared of him that crime stops. He is disciplined, ordered, meticulous and has a (twisted) sense of honor.

He is Lawful, even though he breaks societies laws, because 'breaking laws' is not what makes one lawful or not.

He is NOT spontaneous, reckless, impulsive, or unpredictable (Chaos). He is the exact opposite of that.

Its not hard to understand, but people are gonna screw it up anyway.