D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Maxperson]

I'm fine with that. DIY never hurt anyone. If you think in terms of alignment already and it's that useful for a tool for you, then how is it as much of a slog to add it back in as you claim?

It's completely unnecessary, though. You can just ignore alignment with no effort. It's seems really petty to want to force hours of work on a bunch of people for what amounts to nothing. 5e isn't 1e-3e. Alignment is just a tool to aid RP now.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it's pretty telling that it's always the older players who complain about the "Unthinkable horror that is alignment, which has to immediately be removed or the world will end in a ball of flaming poo!" I have yet to see anyone who started with 5e come complain about alignment ruining the game. Funny that. It's almost as if alignment doesn't work in the old way any longer.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, but it's high time to put such childish things away.

But I like playing D&D. You put it away. I'm going to continue to play.

 

[Helldritch]

Sorry, but it's high time to put such childish things away.

Do not confuse the word toy for something meaningless. Here in this context the word toy can be used as tool. Stop demeaning yourself by acting as if you did not understood. I know you did. The expression is perfectly valid and does not even have to mean toy and you know that.

 

[Oofta]

So clearly alignment doesn't add anything. So why bother with it at all then? How is it an added tool if the grue are always eating when there is no light. What does adding alignment affect how you run it apart from the abject horror of reading the monster entry?


Which again doesn't require alignment.


There will also be strawmen like this too, but working to remove them from discussion when we can should still be our goal.

I've never said alignment doesn't add anything, stop twisting what I say. It's a useful tool for me and for every DM I've ever had in my decades of playing. You are explicitly told that alignment is just a default, but that default is still useful to those of us that don't want to study every monster in the book to determine their moral compass and motivation.

For a lot of people (myself included) D&D is about simple escapism; good vs evil. Take away alignment and you take away one of the basic foundations of D&D. I really don't see how saying that D&D is a game that largely revolves around combat and conflict is a "strawman" of any sort. We aren't playing "hug your kitten", we're playing D&D where the majority of the rules revolve around how to kill your enemy.

My games have quite a bit more depth than simple dungeon crawls (which is not to say dungeon crawls are bad if it's what you enjoy) but it's still the heroes vs monsters even if some of the worst monsters are human. You don't change anything by getting rid of alignment, you just remove a useful categorization that you can ignore if you don't like it.

 

[Aldarc]

Do not confuse the word toy for something meaningless. Here in this context the word toy can be used as tool. Stop demeaning yourself by acting as if you did not understood. I know you did. The expression is perfectly valid and does not even have to mean toy and you know that.

Demeaning myself? I don't know demeaning of the word.

I've never said alignment doesn't add anything, stop twisting what I say. It's a useful tool for me and for every DM I've ever had in my decades of playing. You are explicitly told that alignment is just a default, but that default is still useful to those of us that don't want to study every monster in the book to determine their moral compass and motivation.

To be clear, I'm not saying that you did say that. But I don't really get the impression from what you wrote that alignment would add much, because you basically just said what amounts to "grue are gonna grue."

For a lot of people (myself included) D&D is about simple escapism; good vs evil. Take away alignment and you take away one of the basic foundations of D&D.

This is a leap of logic that argues that taking away alignment somehow takes out morality or explorations of good vs. evil in the game, which hasn't been neither substantiated by you nor argued by your opponents, has it? No. It hasn't. Alignment is not present in the One Ring, but it's no less about Good vs. Evil, if not more so, than D&D. It's an utterly absurd argument.

I really don't see how saying that D&D is a game that largely revolves around combat and conflict is a "strawman" of any sort. We aren't playing "hug your kitten", we're playing D&D where the majority of the rules revolve around how to kill your enemy.

Because NO ONE is arguing in favor of removing alignment to getting rid of "bad guys." NO ONE is advocating for playing "hug your kitten." That is what makes it a strawman argument, Oofta. It's tilting lances at a non-argument made of straw.

My games have quite a bit more depth than simple dungeon crawls (which is not to say dungeon crawls are bad if it's what you enjoy) but it's still the heroes vs monsters even if some of the worst monsters are human. You don't change anything by getting rid of alignment, you just remove a useful categorization that you can ignore if you don't like i.

I'm not doubting the depth of your games or trying to destroy a game about heroes vs monsters. I'm doubting the utility and necessity of alignment for you to achieve that depth in your games.

 

[Oofta]

Demeaning myself? I don't know demeaning of the word.


To be clear, I'm not saying that you did say that. But I don't really get the impression from what you wrote that alignment would add much, because you basically just said what amounts to "grue are gonna grue."


This is a leap of logic that argues that taking away alignment somehow takes out morality or explorations of good vs. evil in the game, which hasn't been neither substantiated by you nor argued by your opponents, has it? No. It hasn't. Alignment is not present in the One Ring, but it's no less about Good vs. Evil, if not more so, than D&D. It's an utterly absurd argument.


Because NO ONE is arguing in favor of removing alignment to getting rid of "bad guys." NO ONE is advocating for playing "hug your kitten." That is what makes it a strawman argument, Oofta. It's tilting lances at a non-argument made of straw.


I'm not doubting the depth of your games or trying to destroy a game about heroes vs monsters. I'm doubting the utility and necessity of alignment for you to achieve that depth in your games.

Then it's stretching things to think that taking away alignment will change anything at all. If you still have evil monsters in your campaign, why do you care that we also have a bit of additional info on how the view the world from the perspective of law vs chaos? If you have monsters that default to evil, how do you label them?

Don't like alignment, don't use it. If we just replace it with a different or wordier set of labels nothing has really changed.

 

[Aldarc]

Then it's stretching things to think that taking away alignment will change anything at all. If you still have evil monsters in your campaign, why do you care that we also have a bit of additional info on how the view the world from the perspective of law vs chaos? If you have monsters that default to evil, how do you label them?

Again, I think you are making a few too many logical leaps by jumping to that conclusion from what I said, and it still fundamentally argues "If you don't like something, don't rock the boat by arguing to change it." I do think that taking away alignment will change things, and you clearly think so as well or otherwise you and others would not be arguing as fiercely as you are to keep it. That suggests to me that something would change if alignment was removed from the game or replaced with something else.

I may want to run humans who could be good or evil, but I don't necessarily want humans to get "Lawful Evil" in their monster entry even if I read their histories of wars of conquest and systemic oppression in the Monster Manual. Having evil monsters doesn't mean that I want them to be evil to necessarily an inherent part of their character, or at least not most creatures detailed. I have said before that I don't mind Alignment per se, but, rather, I dislike Alignment as D&D's own form of pseudo-psychological MBTI and Astrology. Again, in sum, I want Alignment in D&D to "crap or get off the pot."

Don't like alignment, don't use it. If we just replace it with a different or wordier set of labels nothing has really changed.

I'm not convinced that nothing would change. I, for one, would be in favor of a pragmatic set of labels for creatures and NPCs that establishes more about their use rather than their moral compass, and I do earnestly believe that you can tell that a difference exists between those two things.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I've seen people abuse backgrounds and justify being an ass because of flaws.

Backgrounds themselves have been in the game since 2e, so people trying to use backgrounds to get something for free is a separate issue than PIBF and alignment.

But let’s consider flaws. Among all players of 5e, is it possible that some players have attempted to abuse flaws? Sure. Do people seem to have the recurring problems with PIBF that they have with alignment? Judging from the number of threads concerning problems people have with alignment, the answer is no.

But let’s dig a little deeper. Why might PIBF be causing less issues than alignment?

• One explanation might be older players importing rules or impressions from older systems into 5e. Fair enough. 5e has been around for 6 years and this is still causing problems, so it is reasonable to ask if alignment hasn’t outlived its usefulness and been replaced by the more useful tool of PIBF.
• One explanation may be that as @pemerton suggested, the greater specificity of PIBF allows GM to spot potential problems earlier. A character who puts CN on their character sheet may simply be a jaded rebel or a lolrandommurderhobo, and a character who puts LG may be a knight in shining armor or someone who will attack a party member if they catch them stealing.
• One explanation may be that the carrot works better than the stick. Generally, PIBF serves as a way to get inspiration if you play them well. Alignment tends to come up more if the DM thinks you are playing it wrong rather than if you are playing it well.

I’m sure other posters may have their own theories for why after 6 years, players seem to be having much fewer problems with PIBF than alignment.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Nope you get it all wrong. I want to use a LE monster? Easy, use the filter LE and you get a bunch of them in a click. It is then a simple matter of choosing the appropriate monster for the environment/goal you want to achieve. Then you read the fluff to be sure your choice is valid. That was not hard to understand. I know I saw that as soon as I read it. And it is not the first time this is brought up. And everyone people go and say Oofta is too lazy to read. No, he will read the fluff of the relevant monsters he chose. He will not be forced to read the whole MM for what two letters can give him.

Also, with no LE filter; You have to literally read every single monsters you are not familliar with which will lead you to use more or less, the same monsters again and again... And yes I have seen that problem in many alignmentless games. Those two little letters are more helpful than you think.

The part I don’t understand is why you would want to use a LE monster specifically. As a DM, a monster’s alignment simply isn’t a consideration for why I would want to place them in a scene.

If I’m populating an adventure, most important thing is CR of the monster. Then often the environment of the monster. Then, monster type. Potentially, monster size.

But, everyone here, including you and @Oofta, agree that the DM can change the alignment of any monster. So what difference does it make if the party runs into a group of hobgoblins, or a group of orcs that just happen to be more disciplined and regimented than average?

If you don’t know the fluff of mindflayers, than it really doesn’t matter if you stick one in as the priest of a cult of Demogorgon.