D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Oofta]

Irony!

Three days. English 101.

So you don't have anything to actually discuss concerning the topic?

 

[Oofta]

So you wrote down two letters and then did nothing else with alignment the whole rest of the game forever and ever? OK...

That seems more like an attempt to be clever through deliberate obtuseness than anything else. Which, y'know, I don't mind cleverness. But it's always hard to get that across online sometimes.

I find alignment useful. Most people I've gamed with in real life either find it useful or don't care and ignore it. It's been decades since I've gamed with anyone that tried to use alignment as an excuse to do anything stupid.

Yet we get posters like you who naughty word on it because decades back it was sometimes interpreted by some people as more than just a general descriptor while not offering a better alternative. Is it discussed? Sure. Just like pretty much every other aspect of D&D.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Usually people advocate for adding what they like to the game, not taking toys away from others. One is fine and the other.............petty.

People always advocate for taking things they believe are a detriment to the game out of the game. Gender-based ability score penalties, racial ability score penalties, sexist portrayals, “always Evil” humanoid races, insensitive portrayals of certain ethnicities, THACO, alignment damage, individual spells that are broken... etc.

Look, I get it that you like alignment and that you want to keep it in. But what does it say about you that you are unable to put yourselves into the shoes of the posters who think the game would be better without alignment without concluding “well, they only want to take something away from the rest of us because they are petty”?

 

[Oofta]

People always advocate for taking things they believe are a detriment to the game out of the game. Gender-based ability score penalties, racial ability score penalties, sexist portrayals, “always Evil” humanoid races, insensitive portrayals of certain ethnicities, THACO, alignment damage, individual spells that are broken... etc.

Look, I get it that you like alignment and that you want to keep it in. But what does it say about you that you are unable to put yourselves into the shoes of the posters who think the game would be better without alignment without concluding “well, they only want to take something away from the rest of us because they are petty”?

So justify how it would make the game better.

 

[Desdichado]

I find alignment useful. Most people I've gamed with in real life either find it useful or don't care and ignore it. It's been decades since I've gamed with anyone that tried to use alignment as an excuse to do anything stupid.

Yet we get posters like you who naughty word on it because decades back it was sometimes interpreted by some people as more than just a general descriptor while not offering a better alternative. Is it discussed? Sure. Just like pretty much every other aspect of D&D.

That is factually wrong on many levels. It wasn't "some people" that interpreted alignment as more than just a general descriptor. It was various versions of the game itself. I did offer a better alternative: get rid of alignment. And it has nothing to do with what happened decades back. This is a 50 page argument that started a couple of days ago and is as rancorous as the edition wars ever were. Alignment discussions ALWAYS go that way. It's almost impossible to have a good discussion about alignment.

At some point, we need to let go of whatever delusions we're holding on to about the cause of that and conclude that alignment itself is the problem.

 

[Oofta]

That is factually wrong on many levels. It wasn't "some people" that interpreted alignment as more than just a general descriptor. It was various versions of the game itself. I did offer a better alternative: get rid of alignment. And it has nothing to do with what happened decades back. This is a 50 page argument that started a couple of days ago and is as rancorous as the edition wars ever were. Alignment discussions ALWAYS go that way. It's almost impossible to have a good discussion about alignment.

At some point, we need to let go of whatever delusions we're holding on to about the cause of that and conclude that alignment itself is the problem.

I take alignment for what it is in the current edition, a general descriptor or moral compass. I don't care how editions that are no longer in print dealt with it.

Getting rid of something isn't a better alternative, it's your alternative that you have yet to justify. Appeal to popularity does not make it true. [edit: probably better described as circular reasoning combined with strawman, but still fallacies.]

What specific issues does alignment cause in the current edition?

 

[Vaalingrade]

So you don't have anything to actually discuss concerning the topic?

There's no point. Most of the people arguing aren't arguing in good faith, just to wear down the opposition to declare victory. Why bother reiterating points made on other threads when the response is just going to be performative outrage about 'taking away' things and selective anecdotal evidence?

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, you're absolutely right. Nobody has EVER complained about bloat of low utility complexity being a problem in any D&D version of D&D-like game before. Especially for atavistic rules that have minimal—if ANY—impact to the game, by your own description.

Wow. Fallacy much? I didn't claim that nobody has ever been petty and wanted things removed from people who used them. Nor did I say it was minimal if any impact. Lots of people use alignment. Loads of them. And I explicitly said it has lots of impact for some.

 

[Desdichado]

Wow. Fallacy much? I didn't claim that nobody has ever been petty and wanted things removed from people who used them. Nor did I say it was minimal if any impact. Lots of people use alignment. Loads of them. And I explicitly said it has lots of impact for some.

Don't be obtuse (or dishonest. Not sure which, and not interested either.) I'm responding specifically to your false claim that people usually advocate to add, not take away, from the game.

 

[Maxperson]

That's actually one of the major reasons that I advocate for the abolition of alignment. It's my long, sad experience that it is almost impossible to have a non-contentious discussion about alignment. The concept itself is so obviously flawed that there is no widespread agreement about it within the player base. It is the source of all kinds of confusion and frustration, much more to the degree to which it provides any benefit. Alignment is, and honestly probably always was, a net drain on the system overall.

But, you know, 90% of the contention is initiated by the side that wants it gone. LOL People don't like having things that they like and use taken from them by people who falsely claim that alignment is this horrid, horrid thing that will eat your children and grandparents if you look away from it for even one second.