D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Maxperson]

So, I turn your argument around, and suddenly it is a red herring with no evidence?

You didn't turn my argument around. It's true that none or virtually no new players are complaining in alignment threads. I'm posting a fact. You're posting something you pulled out of your bunghole.

 

[Aldarc]

Then explain how ideals would work for monsters. Ideals are very specific, not broad descriptors like alignment.

What would the generic ideal be for a green dragon vs a red dragon? What would it tell us about how they would react to scenarios not specific to the ideal?

My own preference, as I have said before, would focus on use and motive rather than moral framework

Let’s see here. A possible ideal for a Green Dragon? What would help me run them is not knowing they are LE but what they value or approaches they take. So just brainstorming here but I would tentatively consider “Ideal: Information is a powerful weapon against the weak.” or “Ideal: Treacherous is how foolish victims describe the truly cunning.”

If this was framed in terms of Motive, I might go win something like “To gain accumulate power through information, manipulation and trickery.”

I believe that @Manbearcat presented examples of monster entries in Dungeon World. Would have a problem running those monsters without alignment? Have you seen a monster write-up in the Cypher System?

P.S. you really should look up the definition of straw man.

I have explained to you how you have straw-manned me and others before in ways that illustrate how it qualifies as a straw man. Not once have been able to offer an actual rebuttal other than through more logical fallacies.

 

[pemerton]

It is way easier to remove something that is there that you don't want to use. Than to add something that is missing and that you want to use.

Here is a résumé of the situation.
Alignment in the game.
Me: No trouble using it.
Amount of work: none
You: God I hate that system. Let's put that junk on ignore mode.
Amount of work: none
Alignment out of the game.
You: Yes! Finally!. Thank God 6th edition.
Amount of work: none
Me: I want alignments in the game.
Amount of work: Must go over the 6ed MM all over and compare each monster and make annotations to each monster. Then, as new monsters are added to the game, I must read carefully each of them to pick what I would feel would be the "right" generic alignment. Then a new player enter the game and I need to explain all over again my stance. Even to other people just watching our Friday night D&D I will need to explain. Instead of a:" I decided to ignore a rule." I will have to explain every single decisions I ever made and even future ones will be debatable. Did I based my self on the 1ed MMs or later editions? And the next DM that decided to do the same thing as I? Did he based himself on an other edition?

So because you do not like something, you would impose on me (and other DMs) hours and hours of work, pondering and double and tripple checking where the only effort from your part, if alignments were kept would just be to put them on ignore? It is far easier to ignore something that is there than it is to redo from scratch something that has been removed.

You do not like alignment? Fine. Ignore them. Your table, your rule. But do not impose your choice on me. I considered alignment an essential part of what is D&D. It may not be as perfect as it could be for some, but for me, it works exactly as I want it to be. I do not impose a ton of work on you. Why would you impose that on me and others?

I don't understand any of this, especially the bolded bit.

I am not the publisher of D&D. I am not writing to WotC urging them to publish or not publish something. I am saying why I think alignment is, on the whole, an unhappy feature of D&D. I think I've given pretty full explanations.

Also, as far as alignment is concerned this claim - it is way easier to remove something that is there that you don't want to use. Than to add something that is missing and that you want to use - is obviously false! It's trivial to add alignment descriptions to a FRPG that doesn't include alignment by default. And doubly trivial in the case of D&D, if you already have works from editions that have alignment included.

A lot of work. Imagine for a moment that a new monster manual is out. No alignments. 350 new monsters. This means that I will have to read each and every single descriptions a bunch of times, compare them to each others and make decisions. That is a lot of work and I read fast, very fast. Give them alignments and all your side has to do is ignore the alignment part and your done. No work whatsoever.

In essence, you are forcing us to do a game's designer job while keeping things as they are does not give you any workload at all.

This is bizarre! If alignment is as useful and straightforward as you claim, then why is this causing hours and hours of work? When you use a monster, you decide what you want its disposition to be and add an appropriate alignment description! I could do this as a teenage GM inventing new monsters for my D&D game.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Thank you for your explanation. This is helpful to me to understand how you see things, because I see things very differently. I offer my perspective below, not to criticize your way of doing things, but to provide insight as to why your approach seems so strange to me.

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.

From my perspective, since monsters aren’t aligned in the first place, I don’t have to worry about this. For instance, maybe the orcs are the faceless mooks of some sort of dark lord (totally original concept, @copyright FrozenNorth).

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.

Why would what the player thinks he knows influence anything in the campaign? If it hasn’t been established that mind flayers enslaved derro and that is why free derro loathe mindflayers, then it isn’t true. Maybe derro were enslaved by aboleths instead?

To me, it looks like alignment is causing you a problem that you are using alignment to fix. Why wouldn’t two types of enemies work together? Well, they have different alignments. The solution is to use two types of enemies that have the same alignment.
But if the enemies don’t have alignment in the first place, this isn’t a problem.

 

[pemerton]

explain how ideals would work for monsters

A dragon might have an ideal No one may touch my hoard! Or I will devastate the countryside.

An imp might have an ideal I will harvest souls for my dark masters, so they might promote me within their ranks.

Etc. These would establish imperatives for the creature which can then guide the referee in making action declarations for it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Okay what about the next Red Dragon and the one after that? If we're treating them like PCs, they all get different traits, ideals, bonds and flaws.

If we're only going to include one line like that, then your examples are far more limiting than alignment and would result even more in cartoonish carbon copy dragons.

Isn’t this a feature, not a bug? Dragons are important enough adversaries that as a DM, you should give each of them (at least) a one-line description as @Chaosmancer did.

I’m sorry, I just don’t buy your “coming up with motivations is HARD, why can’t I just say they are LE and call it a day?”

 

[Oofta]

Looking over the descriptions, I'd say something like:

Green: "I show my power by corrupting and twisting others into serving my schemes"

Red: "I show my power by ruling over lesser beings as a godly Tyrant."

That took me... 30 seconds? I won't say it is perfect, but it gives a good accounting of the major difference in their approach

So all green dragons have schemes? What are the goals of the schemes? Make a better society? Sow chaos? Build a structured society that supports the dragons further goals?

The red dragon is a tyrant. How does he rule? By establishing a hierarchy of underlings with established titles? Through bullying and intimidation? Do his underlings have to show obedience to the people higher up the hierarchy, or are does the dragon encourage survival of the fittest pitting individuals against each other for their amusement?

Not that bad as far as ideals go, but they only tell my one small aspect.

A dragon might have an ideal No one may touch my hoard! Or I will devastate the countryside.

An imp might have an ideal I will harvest souls for my dark masters, so they might promote me within their ranks.

Etc. These would establish imperatives for the creature which can then guide the referee in making action declarations for it.

Okay, so no one can touch their hoard. They're possessive. Doesn't really tell me much about how they go about doing that, what they will do if someone does touch their hoard. Have the perpetrators thrown in jail? Eat them? Force them into a contract of service to pay for their sins? What if their hoard is safely tucked away and unthreatened. A group of people come along and ask for aid? How are they likely to react?

Devastate the countryside? What if you have a legion of faithful followers? What do you eat if the countryside is devastated? What's the reasoning behind it?

For the imp, if they aren't harvesting souls (or if there is no option to do so) what are they doing? When harvesting souls do they use trickery or a contract with fine print? How do they interact with other imps or those more powerful than they are?

 

[Oofta]

Isn’t this a feature, not a bug? Dragons are important enough adversaries that as a DM, you should give each of them (at least) a one-line description as @Chaosmancer did.

I’m sorry, I just don’t buy your “coming up with motivations is HARD, why can’t I just say they are LE and call it a day?”

They have paragraphs of fluff text. Nobody is saying we should get rid of that.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Mod Note:
Dude. You maybe need to dial it back a bit.

"I don't accept your concrete examples, because I feel they are flawed" does not allow you to claim they gave no concrete examples, especially when they feel your option is flawed. Two flaws don't make you right, so to speak.

And, by the way, an emoji doesn't mean you didn't say it. Watch your language.

 

[Maxperson]

Isn’t this a feature, not a bug? Dragons are important enough adversaries that as a DM, you should give each of them (at least) a one-line description as @Chaosmancer did.

I’m sorry, I just don’t buy your “coming up with motivations is HARD, why can’t I just say they are LE and call it a day?”

One line is one line is one line. That's all alignment is these days. One line. It's just a roleplaying aid and nothing more.