D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Maxperson]

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.

I do it all the time and see lots of people here do the same. Very few actually want things removed, and it's usually petty people trying to take alignment away.

 

[Desdichado]

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?

Goalposts = moved. My point about alignment being needlessly contentious and divisive = proved.

No thanks. Like Vaalingrade said, this isn't a good faith discussion, and there's no point in continuing to have it. But again; that's what ALWAYS happens with alignment discussions. Alignment is a pox on the game.

 

[Maxperson]

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”?

Just as an aside, but THAC0 didn't actually leave the game until 4e. It was present in 3e, just packaged differently and people ate it up. AC 20 was the equivalent to AC 0, and the bonuses to hit for the various classes mirrored the THAC0 advances. They basically just made low into high and people were like, "THAC0 is gone! Praise be! For some reason we can't see that they just reversed it and it's still really there."

 

[Oofta]

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?

So you don't have anything to contribute, you just posted to thread crap?

 

[Oofta]

Goalposts = moved. My point about alignment being needlessly contentious and divisive = proved.

No thanks. Like Vaalingrade said, this isn't a good faith discussion, and there's no point in continuing to have it. But again; that's what ALWAYS happens with alignment discussions. Alignment is a pox on the game.

So because you argue by stating that something is crap without any justification means you proved something? What exactly? Circular logic? Trolling works?

Want to discuss flaws and alternatives? Go ahead. Want to "prove" something by making up a controversy and then pointing to the controversy you caused as "proof" of anything? Good grief.

 

[Desdichado]

So because you argue by stating that something is crap without any justification means you proved something? What exactly? Circular logic? Trolling works?

Want to discuss flaws and alternatives? Go ahead. Want to "prove" something by making up a controversy and then pointing to the controversy you caused as "proof" of anything? Good grief.

If that makes you feel better, sure. You can go with that.

 

[Oofta]

If that makes you feel better, sure. You can go with that.

If you ever actually want to discuss the topic instead of stating "it's bad because I say so" let me know.

 

[Desdichado]

If you ever actually want to discuss the topic instead of stating "it's bad because I say so" let me know.

Don't be disingenious. I jumped in with discussion on the topic. You responded with bad faith disqualifiers by pretending that my position was insulting, or because it didn't satisfy your qualifications to get rid of alignment, it therefore couldn't be considered satisfactory to any discussion on getting rid of alignment. Or that "it's bad because I say so" isn't just psychological projection of the "it's good because I say so" attitude that you've taken.

I don't normally like to respond to the pathetic beta responses who declare victory through nothing more than fiat, ignoring what's actually in the thread of a discussion, but c'mon. This was pretty blatant.

 

[Maxperson]

Don't be disingenious. I jumped in with discussion on the topic. You responded with bad faith disqualifiers by pretending that my position was insulting, or because it didn't satisfy your qualifications to get rid of alignment, it therefore couldn't be considered satisfactory to any discussion on getting rid of alignment. Or that "it's bad because I say so" isn't just psychological projection of the "it's good because I say so" attitude that you've taken.

I don't normally like to respond to the pathetic beta responses who declare victory through nothing more than fiat, ignoring what's actually in the thread of a discussion, but c'mon. This was pretty blatant.

Look into a mirror, because your posts are as well.

 

[Oofta]

Don't be disingenious. I jumped in with discussion on the topic. You responded with bad faith disqualifiers by pretending that my position was insulting, or because it didn't satisfy your qualifications to get rid of alignment, it therefore couldn't be considered satisfactory to any discussion on getting rid of alignment. Or that "it's bad because I say so" isn't just psychological projection of the "it's good because I say so" attitude that you've taken.

I don't normally like to respond to the pathetic beta responses who declare victory through nothing more than fiat, ignoring what's actually in the thread of a discussion, but c'mon. This was pretty blatant.

I didn't bother replying to that post, because I thought @Maxperson did a decent job. Since then? Did you actually try to defend your position or just go into "neener-neener" mode.

Anyway here's my response

Ah, alignment. One of my favorite dead horses. I keep my position archived for handy reference whenever the topic comes up.

So you lead is "I personally don't like alignment".

• Alignment actually detracts from my gaming experience.

Opinion, no justification.

• Alignment has been kicking around for ...what, forty five years now? What exactly it means is still the subject of intense debate among D&D players. Nobody has ever managed to clarify how it is meant to be used, and interpretations of it are problematic.

Same with AC, HP, Vancian casting and several aspects of the game. Doesn't mean anything

• In many, many years of hanging out in RPG related forums, I've noticed that there is almost always an alignment related thread on the first page of any forum. It's a constant source if strife; or at least disagreement. The attempts to assign alignment to fictional characters is another great example of how it is too shallow and too restrictive to actually accurately exemplify any kind of rational person's philosophy, even given the relatively shallow expectations placed on D&D characters.

Same as above. Create smoke and then say "where there's smoke there must be fire!"

Alignment is just one piece of the picture that's most useful with other details.

• Alignment as a predictive model, or roleplaying guide for characters, is too shallow and superficial to be very helpful. For the most part, falling back on alignment descriptions as a guide to roleplaying is a step backwards in roleplaying from the assumptions of even the most novice of roleplayers.

So? That's like saying "having a strength score is meaningless because it's useless on it's own". I mean, I disagree that it's useless in the first place. From the PHB: "[alignment] broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes" and the MM " alignment provides a clue to its disposition and how it behaves in a roleplaying or combat situation. "

It's enough to help determine some aspects of a creature, it's not meant to be all-inclusive.

• Alignment seems to most frequently be used as a preemptive bludgeon to control or constrain bad player behavior, or at least to punish it. It could be useful for gamers who's groups include disagreeable player behavior, but for groups composed entirely of reasonable people, it's at best superfluous, and at worst, a potential source of conflict of interpretations. The constant referral to LG characters and paladins in particular who run around slitting people's throats, killing orc babies, or torturing prisoners in game leads me to believe that either players are picking the alignment without buying into the archetype, which is problematic, or are simply incapable of behaving appropriately with their characters. These kinds of things don't happen in my games (or at least, if they do, the players don't try to pretend that their characters are good.)

I've never once seen alignment used to control player behavior*.

I've (almost) never seen this and I've played with hundreds of people over the years. I agree that some people will use alignment as a fig leaf, without alignment they'll just use something else. You're blaming alignment for characterizations and play that you find disagreeable when alignment has nothing to do with it.

• For people with this problem, my first response would be seek out better players, but my second response is that yeah, I can see how alignment would be useful to you. But surely you can see how it is an active detriment to gamers who don't need to police bad player behavior?

I don't need alignment to police bad behavior and never have*.

• Other than in truncated form in the Elric books and a handful of Poul Anderson ones, alignment is not something that really features in any of the fantasy fiction source material that makes up the foundation on which D&D is based. It's a very specific and unique artifact to D&D itself.

Same could be said of HP, AC, class levels, etc. So?

• Alignment isn't really a major issue for most characters even so; where it really becomes problematic is with the paladin class (and to a somewhat lesser extent, the cleric class.) Most alignment issues can be avoided if those classes are avoided.

The one time I had an issue with alignment was way, way back in 2E when they described CN as basically insane. I've never had an issue with paladins or clerics that was caused by alignment.

Again, if people are going to play naughty words, they'll play naughty words.,

• The reason that it is so problematic with the paladin class in particular is that it gives a great deal of power over character resources and character decisions into the hands of the GM. For the most part, this is not desirable, and in fact, the implicit social contract between gamers is that this is the GM meddling ham-fistedly into player sovereign territory. Or, at least it would be with any other class or situation in which character behavior is constrained by the GM's interpretation of the rules.

Not for a long time and not in 5E. I don't care about versions of the game that have been out of print for decades.

• Sure, there are differences of opinion on where the line between player sovereign territory and GM sovereign territory actually lie. If it were not so, there wouldn't be any such thing as debate over sandbox style play, for instance.

Not sure what this has to do with alignment. I will say that I don't allow evil PCs in my game and, for example, I consider torture evil. If the DM doesn't have final say on rulings, I'm not the DM for you; I also accept that DM has final say when I'm not DM.

• Now, you may be doing something entirely different with alignment. If that works for you: great! I'm talking about a pattern that I've observed over many, many gamers over many, many years. I make no claim to the universality of this pattern. Neither do a handful of anecdotal exceptions prove sufficient to convince me to change my mind that this pattern of alignment usage and misusage isn't rampant amongst D&D players, however.

I'm not sure what you're doing with alignment other than using 20th century definitions. Maybe.

• I've looked at various alternatives to alignment. 4e's reduction of alignment to fewer alignments—as well as the assignment of most individuals in any given setting as completely unaligned, is probably the best compromise. It gives something to people who want (or need) alignment, but also removes it as a factor for those who don't really care for it, while still retaining a nod to the classic expression of alignment. In other words, it keeps a fairly traditional D&D alignment for those who want it, while removing it as a factor that is significant for those who don't. I'm also somewhat in favor of a system more like d20 Modern's allegiances as a substitute for alignment.

I personally disagree, I don't see law vs chaos as having anything to do with good vs evil. As the OP states, they're different things.

Allegiances don't work unless whatever you have allegiance to has a moral foundation at which point you might as well abbreviate as alignment.

• That said; I'd still prefer no alternative to alignment at all. I think that the entire concept was initially meant to be no more than "team jersey" for the overtly wargaming slant of the earliest version of the game. As the game evolved into a roleplaying game "for real" the continued use of alignment, and the attempts to shoe-horn it into a roleplaying milieu were flawed from the get-go, and the whole concept should have been done away with sometime in the late 70s. The fact that they managed to survive past the Holmes edition of BD&D (which was really meant to be nothing so much as a reorganization and representation of OD&D anyway) is somewhat surprising.

Okay, you have a preference. Good news is that with a very few minor exceptions you can ignore it in 5E.

• If you disagree with me on the use of alignment, neither you nor I are bad people with wrong-headed thinking that needs to be excoriated. Rational people can disagree over things, and the discussion of such is at the heart of any interesting conversation.

First thing you've said that I agree with.

• If, on the other hand, you feel the need to constantly drive home the error of my ways, I can see why alignment appeals to you. You should also see quite clearly why I will never game with you, you control freak.

And ... you end where you started.

I find alignment useful sometimes. On the other hand I have no clue what alignment my player's PC's alignment are and don't really care. I do find it useful for how my PC or monsters view the world along with whatever other description or fluff text is available.

So, as I said before, it all boils down to "I don't like it so it should be removed" with no real alternative, replacement or justification outside of appeal to popularity and various other fallacies. If it was universally reviled, there would be no controversy. As it is, alignment is just a useful descriptor for those that want it that can be ignored by those that do not.

*I do have a "no evil" policy, but I use it in the generic sense that has nothing to do with D&D alignments.