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

[Malmuria]

1) D&D as was, was a game based on fantasy tropes, drawing from the rich veins of mythology, legend and fantasy fiction inspired by these tropes. The audience understood this. Gods in the game were real, they had a presence and impact. Races (used in the original sense of the word as a synonym for species) created by the gods. Good, evil, law, chaos were objective, tangible meta physical aspects that affected the world.

Creatures could be born into evil, designed as such by the gods.

Informed by Judeo-Christian influences on understandings of good and evil, they are evil. Born into this sin, manifestations of the chaos wilder lands and borderlands against “civilised” society.

Some of the most enduring myths (informed by the different cultures’ religions and understanding of what was good and evil) and modern fantasy are good and evil. Lord of the rings for example.

Metaphysical alignment is useful for particular kinds of world building and story telling, namely this kind of Christian-ish LOTR heroic fantasy. And, if alignment is built in to the structure and implied setting of the game, it is conducive to producing these kinds of worlds and stories and not others.

Those that have called for their removal recently, using either points 1 or 2 have shown a startling lack of respect to the game, their fellow players and ignorance of the wider mythology, literature and cultural history that has informed this game.

First of all, this is incredibly condescending. Perhaps you have the opinion that there are transcendent monomyths to all human cultures. But if you have the view that there are not are also knowledgable of and interested in the incredible diversity in "mythology, literature, and cultural history," that produces different kinds of tropes, stories, and worlds. That latter group might also be sensitive to the "cultural history" and context of fantasy writers and creators in the 19th and 20 centuries and how that might have affected their understanding of Civilization/Savageness, and the Borderlands.

The irony is that the mechanics of 5e are actually good for heroic fantasy given the power level, whereas early dnd and osr games are more suited to ditching the good vs evil stuff and making the game about getting rich or die trying. As far as "lack of respect," for me the most central ethos of dnd is to have a lack of respect of the game, inclusive of both rules and lore. Make it your own!

If you don’t like something, don’t demand it’s removal from the book because it doesn’t fit your viewpoint (something which breaks the live and let live approach as it dictates what is acceptable or not to the wider community and stifles creativity). That’s not cool.

Conversely, why can't alignment be an optional rule in the dmg? Why can't the game shift from alignment to some other way of describing motivation (bonds, flaws, etc) that might include notions of evil and good but in a slightly more expanded and nuanced way?

Personally, I'm in favor of keeping alignment around in some form, just because I like the memes.

 

[Maxperson]

So basically almost anything.

So basically, no. I didn't say anything close to meaning almost anything.

That's the issue with these things, they're so vague that they really don't tell you anything.

Except not. If you can't see what they tell you, that's fine. Don't use alignment. Don't try and tell me that I can't see the use, though, because I can and it's pretty easy to see from where I sit.

 

[Mistwell]

Conversely, why can't alignment be an optional rule in the dmg? Why can't the game shift from alignment to some other way of describing motivation (bonds, flaws, etc) that might include notions of evil and good but in a slightly more expanded and nuanced way?

Personally, I'm in favor of keeping alignment around in some form, just because I like the memes.

That could work, but WOTC also didn't choose to do that. For example in Candlekeep instead of including alignment at the top (which cost no extra space, as that space is now simply empty space) they include nothing more. There are no bonds, flaws, etc.. There is no morality or motivation or disposition summary of any kind in the stat block now. So even if you found alignment not particularly helpful, at least it was SOMETHING to go off of. Now there is literally nothing summarized about those aspects of encounters. You have to pour through often dense text to find anything out about those things.

I'll provide an example. Here is a creature named Miirym from Candlekeep Mysteries. Can you tell from this statblock anything about this creatures attitude, motivations, morality, connections, approach, disposition, etc..? I can't. And from reading the actual description, I think the stat block in no way even vaguely hints at the description. If it had said "NG" where it says "Large Undead" like it would have in prior publications (which is roughly where I think it's alignment might be, though it could certainly be argued), that would at least hint that the stat block doesn't represent those other things at all.

 

[transmission89]

First of all, this is incredibly condescending. Perhaps you have the opinion that there are transcendent monomyths to all human cultures. But if you have the view that there are not are also knowledgable of and interested in the incredible diversity in "mythology, literature, and cultural history," that produces different kinds of tropes, stories, and worlds. That latter group might also be sensitive to the "cultural history" and context of fantasy writers and creators in the 19th and 20 centuries and how that might have affected their understanding of Civilization/Savageness, and the Borderlands.

The irony is that the mechanics of 5e are actually good for heroic fantasy given the power level, whereas early dnd and osr games are more suited to ditching the good vs evil stuff and making the game about getting rich or die trying. As far as "lack of respect," for me the most central ethos of dnd is to have a lack of respect of the game, inclusive of both rules and lore. Make it your own!



Conversely, why can't alignment be an optional rule in the dmg? Why can't the game shift from alignment to some other way of describing motivation (bonds, flaws, etc) that might include notions of evil and good but in a slightly more expanded and nuanced way?

Personally, I'm in favor of keeping alignment around in some form, just because I like the memes.

I think you are misunderstanding my intent here, if I was not clear, I apologise. I am in full agreement with almost everything you say here. I agree with you in the need and want for in diversity of shared stories. My condemnation was for the critiques that actually shut this down with a limited modern world view point that draws allegories, and of course theirs can be the only valid interpretation.

Indeed make it your own. That's the whole live and let live philosophy I was talking about in the post. This is to be encouraged and applauded. We are in agreement!

Why can it not be optional, etc? Because, (and I appreciate elements of D&D have changed from my taste) some things are just D&D. It is its own game, not a generic fantasy toolkit however much people would want. But I would apply the ship of Theseus analogy. At what point is it the same game (obviously, YMMV on what is right for you).

 

[Malmuria]

I'll provide an example. Here is a creature named Miirym from Candlekeep Mysteries. Can you tell from this statblock anything about this creatures attitude, motivations, morality, connections, approach, disposition, etc..? I can't. And from reading the actual description, I think the stat block in no way even vaguely hints at the description. If it had said "NG" where it says "Large Undead" like it would have in prior publications (which is roughly where I think it's alignment might be, though it could certainly be argued), that would at least hint that the stat block doesn't represent those other things at all.

Given how verbose this statblock is, I agree they could put something, alignment or otherwise, to briefly summarize this whole creature's deal. I will not defend 5e on usability grounds!

Curious though, if you were running a published adventure, wouldn't you read it through anyway? Again, I agree that 5e adventures are not very usable at the table, but you have to go into them knowing that. Even if you were running just a pure combat encounter with this creature, look at that stat block! I would assume DMs would want to read it through and figure out some tactics and so forth. For me, alignment would be the least of my concerns in running this creature.

 

[Maxperson]

Given how verbose this statblock is, I agree they could put something, alignment or otherwise, to briefly summarize this whole creature's deal. I will not defend 5e on usability grounds!

Curious though, if you were running a published adventure, wouldn't you read it through anyway? Again, I agree that 5e adventures are not very usable at the table, but you have to go into them knowing that. Even if you were running just a pure combat encounter with this creature, look at that stat block! I would assume DMs would want to read it through and figure out some tactics and so forth. For me, alignment would be the least of my concerns in running this creature.

Yes, I would read through the adventure first. That doesn't mean I'm going to remember every detail about what it says regard creature personality and traits. Alignment helps there, because even if I don't remember the details, I can still make determinations with alignment in mind as a guide. Alignment influences tactics. A highly chaotic individual is unlikely to have much in the way of a tactical plan, moving based on what the creature thinks might be best at the time and perhaps reacting more foolishly than someone who has a very structured plan and sticks to it(lawful). The plan of an evil creature will be more prone to include some vile or underhanded tactics, where a good creature is going to avoid those sorts of tactics.

 

[Mistwell]

Given how verbose this statblock is, I agree they could put something, alignment or otherwise, to briefly summarize this whole creature's deal. I will not defend 5e on usability grounds!

Curious though, if you were running a published adventure, wouldn't you read it through anyway? Again, I agree that 5e adventures are not very usable at the table, but you have to go into them knowing that. Even if you were running just a pure combat encounter with this creature, look at that stat block! I would assume DMs would want to read it through and figure out some tactics and so forth. For me, alignment would be the least of my concerns in running this creature.

Yes for that creature I surely would have read it.

However for the wandering monsters I often will not have read it, or won't remember it. And most WOTC adventures have wandering monsters, and I also use them in adventures I create.

Players also sometimes go to areas during a session I really didn't expect them to go to, and I might not have refreshed my memory on the things there recent enough. I could pause the game, but a short hand to jog my memory in the stat block is sometimes all I need to remember what they're about rapidly.

For example If I didn't remember Miirym at the moment because I didn't expect the players to even be there this session but I had read about her a while ago when I first reviewed the adventure, a NG next to the top line might have jogged my memory about her deal.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, I would read through the adventure first. That doesn't mean I'm going to remember every detail about what it says regard creature personality and traits. Alignment helps there, because even if I don't remember the details, I can still make determinations with alignment in mind as a guide. Alignment influences tactics. A highly chaotic individual is unlikely to have much in the way of a tactical plan, moving based on what the creature thinks might be best at the time and perhaps reacting more foolishly than someone who has a very structured plan and sticks to it(lawful). The plan of an evil creature will be more prone to include some vile or underhanded tactics, where a good creature is going to avoid those sorts of tactics.

Why would the respect of the law have anything to do with thinking tactically? Also if the creature is already fighting, why would 'goodness' prevent them from using underhanded tactics? Presumably they were already prepared to kill, so kicking someone in the nuts or throwing sand at their eyes is small beans. If anything that sort of thing would depend on having some sort of honour code for 'fighting fairly' which sounds more like 'lawful' rather than 'good' thing to me.

 

[loverdrive]

As they are in 5E, no. Alignment description specifically in 5E is so vague I can fit pretty much any character into any cell in the matrix with next to zero mental gymnastics.

Other than 5E, I think Dungeon World found the best way ever to handle alignments. Each class has a list of available alignments, each with a clear call to action. So, Fighter has:

• Good: Defend those weaker than you.
• Neutral: Defeat a worthy opponent.
• Evil: Kill a defenseless or surrendered enemy.

For monsters, Instinct, Moves and Tags do pretty much the same thing as alignment does, but with more clarity.

Barbed Devil's instinct: To rend flesh and spill blood and move Kill indiscriminately or Vampire's Instinct: To manipulate and moves Charm someone, Feed on their blood and Retreat to plan again give me much more than any alignment ever could.

 

[Maxperson]

Why would the respect of the law have anything to do with thinking tactically? Also if the creature is already fighting, why would 'goodness' prevent them from using underhanded tactics? Presumably they were already prepared to kill, so kicking someone in the nuts or throwing sand at their eyes is small beans. If anything that sort of thing would depend on having some sort of honour code for 'fighting fairly' which sounds more like 'lawful' rather than 'good' thing to me.

These questions might be why you have trouble seeing the use in alignment.