D&D 5E Do you find alignment useful in any way?

[BookTenTiger]

I have seen new players at my table rely a lot more on their Background / Ideal / Bond / Flaw for character motivation and traits than their alignment.

As a DM, I would much prefer a codified set of Motivations or Behaviors for monsters than alignment. If a Bandit had the traits Greedy, Cowardly, that tells me a lot more at a glance than Neutral Evil. Especially if the Monster Manual or DMG then provided some guidance on how enemies with those traits acted. Something like "A Greedy enemy will first target characters with expensive items, attempting to knock them out and steal their weapons or rings. A Cowardly enemy will often attempt to flee once it has lost half its hit points."

 

[Maxperson]

I have seen new players at my table rely a lot more on their Background / Ideal / Bond / Flaw for character motivation and traits than their alignment.

That's because in 5e alignment is literally 1 sentence. Had they given 3e quality alignment write-ups and divorced alignment from mechanics the way that they did, you'd see more people using it as it was intended to be, a roleplaying aid and not a straightjacket.

 

[Hex08]

For anyone, grognard or new blood, whose understanding of alignment doesn't include thorough familiarity with how it was presented in 3e, I refer you here: 3.5e Alignment. Since the original 5e version presentation is closer to that than to any other version, you will better understand that presentation by referring to 3e rather than older versions which haven't been official since last century.

And here is where you lost me, too bad because your argument was good until this point. You choose an older version of D&D that is no longer current by two editions as your defense of alignment but arbitrarily dismiss even older versions because they came out last century (3e came out in 2000 which is the last year of the prior century and 3.5 only 3 years later). If we are talking the version of alignment in 5e here then prior editions are all irrelevant, unless we are trying to get a historical view, at which point all versions are relevant since they all lead to the current iteration.

 

[BookTenTiger]

That's because in 5e alignment is literally 1 sentence. Had they given 3e quality alignment write-ups and divorced alignment from mechanics the way that they did, you'd see more people using it as it was intended to be, a roleplaying aid and not a straightjacket.

I disagree with this. What I see from new players is they say, "Well, my character can't stand tyrants, so they..." or "My character was raised in a religious order, so they..." while looking at their Background, Bond, Ideal, and Flaw.

Back in 3rd Edition, I remember new players using their Alignment in a similar way. "I'm Lawful Good, so I..." Or "I'm chaotic neutral, so I..."

From my own experiences, newer players in my games use Background, Bond, Ideal, and Flaw in the same way they used to use Alignment, only it gives a much more flexibility and depth.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree with this. What I see from new players is they say, "Well, my character can't stand tyrants, so they..." or "My character was raised in a religious order, so they..." while looking at their Background, Bond, Ideal, and Flaw.

Yes. I know and I see that as well. What I'm saying is that if 5e alignment actually gave more to go on, people would use it. Offering up a single sentence for alignment is more of a slap in the face than actual inclusion. It doesn't really help that much. I find alignment useful as a DM ONLY because I know from prior editions what it really means. If I were a new DM and had to go off of one freaking sentence, I'd be lost.

Back in 3rd Edition, I remember new players using their Alignment in a similar way. "I'm Lawful Good, so I..." Or "I'm chaotic neutral, so I..."

Right. It was useful in that edition. The problem was that it was also a hammer, because it interacted with mechanics that were often negative. 5e doesn't really have that issue. Aside from a few magic items and artifacts, nothing really keys off of alignment except for roleplay.

I think that if they had included more to alignment, you'd see players saying things like, "Well, my character can't stand tyrants and he's lawful evil. Being raised in a religious order of holy assassins, I'm going to hire one to take down this mayor who is ruling with fear and and iron fist." Or something like that. You'd see alignment tossed into the mix as an aid.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Yes. I know and I see that as well. What I'm saying is that if 5e alignment actually gave more to go on, people would use it. Offering up a single sentence for alignment is more of a slap in the face than actual inclusion. It doesn't really help that much. I find alignment useful as a DM ONLY because I know from prior editions what it really means. If I were a new DM and had to go off of one freaking sentence, I'd be lost.

Right. It was useful in that edition. The problem was that it was also a hammer, because it interacted with mechanics that were often negative. 5e doesn't really have that issue. Aside from a few magic items and artifacts, nothing really keys off of alignment except for roleplay.

I think that if they had included more to alignment, you'd see players saying things like, "Well, my character can't stand tyrants and he's lawful evil. Being raised in a religious order of holy assassins, I'm going to hire one to take down this mayor who is ruling with fear and and iron fist." Or something like that. You'd see alignment tossed into the mix as an aid.

I see how you find alignment useful, but to me it subtracts from a character instead of adding to it. A character with a Background, Bond, Ideal, and Flaw can act both good or evil, lawfully, or chaotically while being true to their traits.

To me, characters in 5e are much better without alignment than with them.

I've been running a game for nearly a year now, and I'll be honest I can't name the alignments of the characters without looking at their sheets. But I do know their backgrounds and motivations, and I can very easily create adventures that ignite their curiosities and interests because of their Backgrounds, Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws.

 

[Maxperson]

I see how you find alignment useful, but to me it subtracts from a character instead of adding to it. A character with a Background, Bond, Ideal, and Flaw can act both good or evil, lawfully, or chaotically while being true to their traits.

If the player has created a coherent personality for his PC, it will consist of more than just Background, 1 Bond, 1 Ideal and 1 Flaw. That personality will guide how the former are used, much like alignment does. If people are just all over the map with their ideals, bonds and flaws, then that's not really much different than picking CN so that you can do whatever you want.

To me, characters in 5e are much better without alignment than with them.

I've been running a game for nearly a year now, and I'll be honest I can't name the alignments of the characters without looking at their sheets. But I do know their backgrounds and motivations, and I can very easily create adventures that ignite their curiosities and interests because of their Backgrounds, Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws.

I can't name the ones in games that I run, either, but then I haven't really cared since 3e and then only for purposes of mechanical interactions. I prefer my players to develop personalities, but if they want to use alignment they are welcome to do so. On the DM side of things, I just don't care what alignment they've written down. The world is going to react to their actions, not what their alignment says.

 

[imagineGod]

Well, look on the bright side... if they remove alignment you'll get to join the hundreds of thousands of other players who have been kicked to the curb over the last 40+ years when their favorite rules got removed from the game. You can join the Vancian Casting devotees, the Non-Weapon Proficiency boosters, the three Three Saving Throws disciples, and the Power Source enthusiasts... all of whom howl into the night sky that D&D doesn't love them anymore.

The beautiful thing about new teenage generations is that they rebel against the status quo. I can hardly wait to see the post-Alpha Generations laugh and reject the progress recently made for a less violent and less Gothic D&D and bring in news rules that encourage that Skyrim edgelord slaughterfest, and other new rules thwarting all the Millennial playstyles, that will make all these old Millennials cringe and howl at the clouds that their hard won safe D&D is being used for bad-wrong-fun by the next generation. That will be a sight!

We saw that happen when WoTC tried to make 4th Edition resemble an MMORPG like Warcraft. Next you know 7th edition could more like Fortnite just questing and senseless action and memes.

I keep hear some older DMs lament that younger kids come to their table seeking easy combat with no consequences.

 

[Oofta]

I have seen new players at my table rely a lot more on their Background / Ideal / Bond / Flaw for character motivation and traits than their alignment.

As a DM, I would much prefer a codified set of Motivations or Behaviors for monsters than alignment. If a Bandit had the traits Greedy, Cowardly, that tells me a lot more at a glance than Neutral Evil. Especially if the Monster Manual or DMG then provided some guidance on how enemies with those traits acted. Something like "A Greedy enemy will first target characters with expensive items, attempting to knock them out and steal their weapons or rings. A Cowardly enemy will often attempt to flee once it has lost half its hit points."

But greedy and cowardly doesn't tell me about how they will go about achieving goals. A good person can be greedy, they'll just try to not hurt anyone else. They may have a blind spot and not be charitable, but that just means they aren't saintly. A neutral person might steal from someone that can afford it but try to avoid hurting anyone. An evil person doesn't care who gets hurt as long as they achieve their goals.

A lawful person will be more likely the system or fine print to get what they want. A chaotic person is more likely to bend the rules, lie or cheat.

But that still begs the question. Why can't we have both? I may know that a car is a Ford Mustang but I also want to know what color it is, what trim level, does it have an automatic or manual transmission. IMHO more information is better. I pretty much ignore TBIF and alignment for my players, I don't think TBIF tells me enough to know a monster's moral compass.

 

[BookTenTiger]

But greedy and cowardly doesn't tell me about how they will go about achieving goals. A good person can be greedy, they'll just try to not hurt anyone else. They may have a blind spot and not be charitable, but that just means they aren't saintly. A neutral person might steal from someone that can afford it but try to avoid hurting anyone. An evil person doesn't care who gets hurt as long as they achieve their goals.

A lawful person will be more likely the system or fine print to get what they want. A chaotic person is more likely to bend the rules, lie or cheat.

But that still begs the question. Why can't we have both? I may know that a car is a Ford Mustang but I also want to know what color it is, what trim level, does it have an automatic or manual transmission. IMHO more information is better. I pretty much ignore TBIF and alignment for my players, I don't think TBIF tells me enough to know a monster's moral compass.

Either I miscommunicated or you didn't read the second part of my post.

In my perfect D&D, codified terms like Greedy, Cowardly, Bloodthirsty, Clever, etc would be aligned with behaviors described for DMs who want help running enemies. To me, seeing that a Warlord is Vain and Merciless is much more useful than seeing they are Lawful Evil. Especially if there was then a paragraph saying that Vain enemies may be susceptible to characters using Charisma to compliment them, and that a Merciless enemy will attack characters who are unconscious at 0 HP.

Furthermore, I just find Alignment reductive! In my own experience, when players use their Alignments as motivation instead of their Background, Bond, Ideal, and Flaw, or other truths built up about their characters, it leads to more friction or restraints than nuance.