D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Maxperson]

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.

How does, "NG folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs." Overcomplicate things and make the game harder to grasp?

Having 4 versions of that from the trait system is 4x more complicated and 4x harder than alignment to grasp.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I think it is pretty telling that is is always the older players who defend alignment and say that the game would be unworkable and they would have to do oh so much work to put it back in if it was removed.

After all, there are three major alignment defenders here, You, Oofta and Helldritch. And none of you started with 5e.

It is almost as if new players are ignoring the system.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I missed this the first time around. You do know that alignment has never been absolute for creatures, right? Exceptions exist. Lots of DMs change alignments of creatures, which makes having assumptions and expectations like that a really stupid thing to do.

 

[Oofta]

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.


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.

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?

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

 

[Maxperson]

I think it is pretty telling that is is always the older players who defend alignment and say that the game would be unworkable and they would have to do oh so much work to put it back in if it was removed.

After all, there are three major alignment defenders here, You, Oofta and Helldritch. And none of you started with 5e.

It is almost as if new players are ignoring the system.

Nice Red Herring there. It still doesn't face the fact that the newer players aren't having your issues, because 5e isn't YOUR version alignment. I'm ignoring your baseless claim that they are ignoring alignment, because you have given zero evidence of it. While I have the fact that none or near none have complained about the "horrors" of alignment.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I am still unmoved by the "I would have to work to make my world more believable" part of this argument. If removing alignment forces people to think more deeply about their game worlds, that can lead to better and more interesting gameworlds. If it forces people to read the lore, then you may see the lore actually utilized and you will see less of things like Duergar/Mindflayer alliances.

The only downside is "I don't want to put in that work, because I am busy" and I sympathize with that, I really do.... but it doesn't move me. As a DM, I accept part of my responsibility in doing more work to make the game better. If you don't have the time for that, I'm sorry. But, I also know @Oofta has been running the same campaign world for decades, and I'm fairly certain the same thing is true for you Helldritch.

So... if your world didn't change much at all between 3.5, 4th and 5th.... then why would alignment being removed late in 5th or even in the possible 6th cause you undue hardship? If massive rule shifts didn't do it, why would this minor blip do anything?

 

[Maxperson]

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?

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

Red Dragon

Trait: I like to eat knights.
Ideal: Pyromania. Burning things with fire is good. Fire! Fire!
Bond: One day I will have revenge on the knight who killed grandmama and took her captured princess away.
Flaw: Sometimes I forget to peel knights before I eat them. It's really hard on the teeth.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?

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

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

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nice Red Herring there. It still doesn't face the fact that the newer players aren't having your issues, because 5e isn't YOUR version alignment. I'm ignoring your baseless claim that they are ignoring alignment, because you have given zero evidence of it. While I have the fact that none or near none have complained about the "horrors" of alignment.

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

The lack of complaints MUST show that they have no issues with it, and in fact CANNOT show that they are simply ignoring the system entirely? Because I provided no evidence besides... your evidence. Which is that they aren't talking about alignment.

So, your own evidence isn't good enough for a neutral point of ignoring the system, but it is good enough to prove that they have no issues with alignment?

The sheer volume of confirmation bias here is staggering.

 

[Maxperson]

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

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.