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

[zarionofarabel]

Never missed alignment in any other fantasy RPG I've played...

 

[Maxperson]

But I want 1E, and 5E will NEVER be as good at being 1E as 1E is. Which makes me wonder - why do certain 5E proponents want to convince me that 5E is more like 1E than other editions have been, when I still play 1E?

They don't. They want to convince those who have left 1e for more modern RPGs, yet still like a lot of what 1e had to offer, that 5e is the best choice for that. You are not their target demographic.

 

[Helldritch]

Given enough time, TBIF will abused as much as alignments were if not more so. Alignments go along the TBIF very well and I believe that both hold each other in check.

So for those who say that only TBIF work for them, I say:" Go ahead. One day you will see, someone at your table will show you the weakness of only one system."

Some tried it in my area and quickly, they returned to the mixed system that 5ed offers. There are a lot of players which like to twist and play with the meaning of word to push these to the limits and to see if there are limits to what a table will accept. I have seen this a lot with alignmentless RPG and they can degenerate very fast. If you think D&D encourages murder hobos, wait for other systems like Vampire, Paranoia, Battletech RPG, Star Trek rpg (yes, I have seen murder hobos in that game too) and any other alignmentless rpg. After 37 years, there is one thing I can be sure. Anything can be twisted. Absolutely anything.

So yes, alignment are useful. TBIF are useful. It all depends on the table they are at.

 

[Nebulous]

I find it super useful for monsters at a glance. I do not like seeing new stat blocks with no alignment listed.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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 You choose an older version of D&D that is no longer current by two editions as your defense of alignment but arbitrarily dismiss even older versions because they came out last century (3e came out in 2000 which is the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.

The reason I think the distinction is relevant is because 5e alignment reads like a simplified bullet-point summary of 3e alignment. If one is thoroughly familiar with prior edition alignment it is clear that the 5e version is intentionally based on the 3e version. Otherwise I would agree with your criticism of my point. As it is, if one wants to better understand alignment in 5e, they should read the 3e presentation.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I adore alignment because it gets me wondering how creatures who share an alignment might form unlikely alliances when they otherwise wouldn't have any obvious links. For example, seeing that both devils and mind flayers are Lawful Evil inspired the idea that devils might at least temporarily align with mind flayers to get pesky Lawful do-Gooder organizations infiltrated and its members converted through ceremorphosis, as ceremorphosis destroys the victim's soul (or at least that's what it says in Baldur's Gate 3). Beyond this example, it also makes me wonder if there could be scenarios that would force angels, modrons, and devils to cooperate, or even modrons and myconids (I came up with an answer to this one just this morning that boils down to "myconids spread a network of mycelia through the Underdark that functions as a kind of Internet the modrons can use to monitor possible threats to planar stability within the Underdark via the realm of Mycelia in the plane of Mechanus").

If anything, I think alignment could be made a bit more granular. The 3E DMG described the various planes of the Great Wheel as not just Lawful Good or Neutral Evil, but picked out one axis of alignment as being strongly represented by the plane and the other as a more moderate influence. I think I recall seeing phrases like "Lawful Neutral, with Good tendencies", too.

I also once saw an alternative alignment chart (I know I've posted it here before, too) that focused on using descriptive titles for people who would typify a given alignment as well as border cases for people who might thread the line between, for example, Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral.

Finally, I'm a big fan of Michael Moorcock's work, where Law and Chaos in particular are important forces that respectively represent a restriction of possibility and abundance of possibilities. Extremes of either side are shown in one story, depicting a plane completely dominated by Law as a grey void and a plane of completely unrestricted Chaos being incomprehensible. Because of this, I primarily think of Law as being represented by a meticulously-tended bonsai tree, Chaos as an unruly tangle, and Neutrality as a balance between the extremes (with most Lawful and Chaotic beings themselves not being fully to either side of the spectrum).

In the end, while I don't think alignment should be a straitjacket for players, I do think it can serve as a source of inspiration for DMs. I'm honestly disappointed that the Elric of Melnibone tv show pitch apparently isn't going anywhere, as it could have brought Law and Chaos into the popular consciousness again.

 

[MGibster]

Never missed alignment in any other fantasy RPG I've played...

Me neither. But I kind of dug the idea of good, evil, chaos, and law and palpable forces in the universe as it was something that made D&D a bit unique. But over the years my players stopped caring all that much about alignment just as WotC stopped and I can't honestly say I miss it all that much.

What I did like about alignment was that it gave me a general idea of what a creature's disposition was. But you can do that just as well with other keywords.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Me neither. But I kind of dug the idea of good, evil, chaos, and law and palpable forces in the universe as it was something that made D&D a bit unique. But over the years my players stopped caring all that much about alignment just as WotC stopped and I can't honestly say I miss it all that much.

What I did like about alignment was that it gave me a general idea of what a creature's disposition was. But you can do that just as well with other keywords.

I found it useful back when Orcs were monsters, there for the slaughter as they were savage and brutal and unrepentant.

Now that Orcs are just humans in rubber masks, Alignment has no purpose.

I think it might come in handy as a touchstone for new players to help them embody their PC better. As you said though, you can easily do that with keyword touchstones.

 

[Yaarel]

If players want conscience-free murderable enemies ... theres always constructs.

(Heh, no offense to any Warforged present here.)

 

[Malmuria]

It has come to my attention that Naomi Osaka identifies as chaotic neutral in her twitter bio: https://twitter.com/naomiosaka?lang=en

And yet, tennis is such a lawful sport.