D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Krachek]

Alignment got 1 page in the phb.
Background got a dozen, and they keep adding new ones. they also add some background hints into new classes and subclasses.
alignment will remain a sacred cow and venerated in a pretty green yard.
but character definition will use more and more background like tools and they will continue to improve them.

 

[Oofta]

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."


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.

I do think it would change things. For the worse. It takes away a useful tool and on of the foundational aspects of the game even if it is now (rightly so) a simple descriptor. D&D is based on easy to grasp, simple concepts.

As far as run humans as good or evil ... what's stopping you? The books specifically state that alignment is optional, the entry in the MM is just a default value.

As far as alternatives, I've explained the issues I have with the alternatives that have been presented. Yet again, this is "I don't like it, I can't really explain why I can't just ignore other than I think it's bad and I have no concrete alternative" argument.

 

[Helldritch]

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.

CR is one thing. Alignment is an other. And fluff is its own thing too.
I don't know how you build your adventures and campaign. But I know that for me, if I want consistency, I will use the standard alignments for my creatures save for very specific individuals (if any). So yes sometimes, alignments might play a big role on the believability of allied races/organisation's. Yes I could change the default alignment, but then I would need to add an other layer of explanation as to why normally non aligned races/organisation's are working together. And here, alignment is not necessarily a hinderance, in fact, it makes it easier for me to spot possible inconsistencies.

With no alignments, again, I would need to ponder upon the written fluff and muse over it. I see alignment as an early warning system that will warn me that if I mix such and such monster type, I will need to put extra work to make things believable.

And fluff is important too.
Example:" I would not put Mindflayers as allies of Duergar, they are mortal enemies even if they share alignment. But I would not put Duergars with Drows either as they do not share alignment. If by some twist of fate I absolutely want to put them together, I know that I will need to knit a tighter back story to make things fit nicely.

Without alignment, it could be easy to put things together with a just because I feel like it. But what happens when a player knows more about the fluff than you and you blunder with an implausible alliance? You get a no way from that player and you might find yourself forced to explain your self afterward and look pretty much stupid for not seeing that. I saw this happen a few times in Role Master, War Hammer and also in Star Wars d6. So yes alignment can be a useful tool in building more believable adventures.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Great example! Except for one critical thing.

You aren't advocating for 100% of all monsters to have rolled stats, unless DMs want to not use it. But you are advocating for 100% of all monsters to have alignment, unless DMs want to not use it.

That's the problem here, isn't it?

Would you have an issue if every monster stat block had, in parentheses, a set of dice to roll, just like they do with damage?

 

[Aldarc]

I do think it would change things. For the worse. It takes away a useful tool and on of the foundational aspects of the game even if it is now (rightly so) a simple descriptor. D&D is based on easy to grasp, simple concepts.

IMHO, D&D becomes far easier to grasp conceptually without the added framework of alignment.

As far as alternatives, I've explained the issues I have with the alternatives that have been presented. Yet again, this is "I don't like it, I can't really explain why I can't just ignore other than I think it's bad and I have no concrete alternative" argument.

Your continued mischaracterizations are disingenuous, and you know it. Concrete alternatives have been repeatedly proposed and you have rejected anything that wasn’t simply the status quo. I don’t see why you would need for your argument to lie on peddling blatant falsehoods and fictions about people who disagree with you on alignment.

 

[Chaosmancer]

See @Flamestrike upthread: if a player character is evil rather than good then various magical effects (eg the Talismans of Pure Good/Ultimate Evil) behave differently. And the question of a PC's alignment (as determined by their conduct) seems to me to be a matter of adjudication by the GM.

I don't understand. I'm telling you my objection to it. How am I stopping you from using it if you want to? I don't get your framing of this at all!

It is honestly one of their more common defenses, because it is hard to defend against without sounding like a terrible person.

After all, if it isn't that we don't understand alignment. And it isn't that we aren't using it properly, then it must be that we simply want to rip it away from those who do like it. After all, why are advocating for change when the status quo is fine (ie exactly what they want, because it is their position to keep).

 

[Oofta]

IMHO, D&D becomes far easier to grasp conceptually without the added framework of alignment.


Your continued mischaracterizations are disingenuous, and you know it. Concrete alternatives have been repeatedly proposed and you have rejected anything that wasn’t simply the status quo. I don’t see why you would need for your argument to lie on peddling blatant falsehoods and fictions about people who disagree with you on alignment.

Alignment is easy to ignore if it confuses you. I've introduced plenty of people to the game, they have never been confused by it, if you use it as described in 5E.

What concrete alternatives have been presented? Like ideals? Things like "do no harm to innocents" which could mean Superman, Batman, The Punisher, a gangster with a soft spot for kids? The ideal that doesn't give you any clue outside of that one specific tiny slice of behavior? Or just "do no harm" which is just plain unworkable unless there are caveats and further details?

If I've missed something, explain it. Tell me specifically what is wrong with alignment other than that you knew a guy who had a paladin in AD&D that did bad things. Explain why the DM didn't just make a ruling that what the paladin was doing was evil and whether or not it was acceptable behavior. Explain how getting rid of alignment will remove all bad behavior. Explain real concrete alternatives.

Until then your just talking with no real alternative.

 

[Aldarc]

Alignment is easy to ignore if it confuses you. I've introduced plenty of people to the game, they have never been confused by it, if you use it as described in 5E.

Recognizing that the game is simpler and easier to grasp without alignment doesn’t mean that I find it confusing. That’s your “logic” wildly leaping again.

What concrete alternatives have been presented? Like ideals? Things like "do no harm to innocents" which could mean Superman, Batman, The Punisher, a gangster with a soft spot for kids? The ideal that doesn't give you any clue outside of that one specific tiny slice of behavior? Or just "do no harm" which is just plain unworkable unless there are caveats and further details?

If I've missed something, explain it. Tell me specifically what is wrong with alignment other than that you knew a guy who had a paladin in AD&D that did bad things. Explain why the DM didn't just make a ruling that what the paladin was doing was evil and whether or not it was acceptable behavior. Explain how getting rid of alignment will remove all bad behavior. Explain real concrete alternatives.

Until then your just talking with no real alternative.

Ideals are concrete alternatives regardless of how you feel about them. Keywords (e.g., Dungeon World) are a concrete alternative regardless of how you feel about them. Motive (e.g., Cypher System) is a concrete example regardless of how you feel about them. I seem to recall that other alternatives have been proposed.

I would appreciate it if you would stop straw-manning your opponents, Oofta. It’s hella rude how your are repeatedly doing it to others and me.

 

[Maxperson]

Alignment is easy to ignore if it confuses you. I've introduced plenty of people to the game, they have never been confused by it, if you use it as described in 5E.

What concrete alternatives have been presented? Like ideals? Things like "do no harm to innocents" which could mean Superman, Batman, The Punisher, a gangster with a soft spot for kids? The ideal that doesn't give you any clue outside of that one specific tiny slice of behavior? Or just "do no harm" which is just plain unworkable unless there are caveats and further details?

If I've missed something, explain it. Tell me specifically what is wrong with alignment other than that you knew a guy who had a paladin in AD&D that did bad things. Explain why the DM didn't just make a ruling that what the paladin was doing was evil and whether or not it was acceptable behavior. Explain how getting rid of alignment will remove all bad behavior. Explain real concrete alternatives.

Until then your just talking with no real alternative.

"Do no harm." can't have any caveats. The "no" is absolute. You can do NO harm. That makes it unworkable for a PC, regardless of alignment.

 

[Chaosmancer]

One issue that you are not taking into account is what the enculturation of alignment in the game does for players and GMs. It creates and establishes play expectations as a meta-awareness of the foes: e.g., "Oh. It's a Green Dragon, so it's LE, which means..." or "It's an orc, so it's CE, which means..." So it's not necessarily as easy as "ignoring" alignment that's in the game, as it also involves unlearning and disassociating alignment from various monsters and ancestries. It's easier to do this when alignment is not there for people to make shorthand stereotypes about them.

^THIS

This is the bigger issue in a lot of ways. Not only do I have to ignore it (which I can only do when I'm the DM) but we also need to fight against it. We need to unteach the people who were taught it. It is very difficult to unlearn something