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

[Shadowedeyes]

I have to wonder if alignment's popularity is because it has been a part of D&D since the beginning. And by that I'm not actually referring to nostalgia. What I mean is that, individual groups have basically come to an consensus about what it means. Which makes it useful for that group, certainly. However, it means that it's not necessarily useful as a shorthand when say discussing it on the internet or if a new player joins the group that has differing opinions on it. Hence why even among posters who have said they find alignment useful, sometimes their personal descriptions on an alignment are different than others who agree with them on the usefulness of alignment.

Which is kinda where my opinion on the whole thing is at. Is it worth spending page space on alignment when the interpretations between people on the subject tend to vary? The poll does seem to indicate that more people do see a value in it, at least among the posters of this board, but I still, something to think about I guess.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I still think the biggest issue is, they removed alignment, which while not without its flaws is a useful guidepost to a fair number of people, and replaced it with...nothing. The fact that they don't appear to have a better idea on deck leads me to think that this is a business and political decision, not a creative one. I can understand those reasons, but I'll never respect them.

There are hundreds of roleplaying games without alignment, and people seem able to come up with compelling characters to play in them. 5E already came up with a better replacement, if one was even needed, in Bonds, Traits, Ideals and Flaws.

 

[Oofta]

I have to wonder if alignment's popularity is because it has been a part of D&D since the beginning. And by that I'm not actually referring to nostalgia. What I mean is that, individual groups have basically come to an consensus about what it means. Which makes it useful for that group, certainly. However, it means that it's not necessarily useful as a shorthand when say discussing it on the internet or if a new player joins the group that has differing opinions on it. Hence why even among posters who have said they find alignment useful, sometimes their personal descriptions on an alignment are different than others who agree with them on the usefulness of alignment.

Which is kinda where my opinion on the whole thing is at. Is it worth spending page space on alignment when the interpretations between people on the subject tend to vary? The poll does seem to indicate that more people do see a value in it, at least among the posters of this board, but I still, something to think about I guess.

I've played (and continue to play) with multiple groups of all ages. We've found it useful. As a DM and player it's one additional (and sometimes important) aspect of personality and how someone think. As far as space ... seriously? It's two characters, probably takes up less than 0.01% of the printed material.

Who cares if people interpret it slightly differently if the end result is effectively the same? Why does it matter if alignment has more concrete implementation carried over from previous editions for specific campaign world settings?

If you don't like alignment, ignore it.

 

[Aldarc]

If you don't like alignment, ignore it.

WotC seems to agree.

 

[Lanefan]

There are hundreds of roleplaying games without alignment, and people seem able to come up with compelling characters to play in them. 5E already came up with a better replacement, if one was even needed, in Bonds, Traits, Ideals and Flaws.

I disagree that BTIF is better, from the player perspective, in that having to play to a declared BTIF set is far far more of a straitjacket than having to play to a stated alignment.

Bonds, Traits, Ideals and Flaws are very specific; and often don't leave much room to move within them. Alignment is fairly general, thus I-as-player have way more room to decide how I want to manifest this alignment.

For example, which is more restrictive when it comes to instructing me how to play my character:

Alignment: LG

or

Bond: I am sworn to my temple and to Halcyon, its leader; I am also secretly in love with [the Fighter PC].
Trait: will always donate excess wealth to good causes outside the party rather than save it or use it to help other party members
Ideal: that the unwashed masses will see the light if I can just show them the way by the example of how I live my life
Flaw: see Ideal

Yes BTIF gives me lots of detail, but then I'm stuck with it*; while alignment gives me flexibility to change how I portray that alignment over time. In the above, for example, it's an outright violation of my BTIF if the party talks me into putting my excess wealth toward something the other PCs are doing for the greater good e.g. building a party stronghold; while it's not a violation of my LG alignment to do so.

* - IMO BTIF, like alignment, should be very difficult to change once set; otherwise what's the point of them?

 

[Yaarel]

I disagree that BTIF is better, from the player perspective, in that having to play to a declared BTIF set is far far more of a straitjacket than having to play to a stated alignment.

Bonds, Traits, Ideals and Flaws are very specific; and often don't leave much room to move within them. Alignment is fairly general, thus I-as-player have way more room to decide how I want to manifest this alignment.

At least in our games, the blanks for Ideal, Flaw, Bond, get filled whenever the player is inspired to do so.

For example. A player can have a clear idea of what they want the Ideal of a character to be at level 1, but not have a sense of who or what the bonds are, until level 6.

The Ideal and Flaw is always descriptive, never prescriptive. If the character concept evolves, the player can easily rewrite the Ideal/Flaw for a more current feel of the character concept.

 

[Aldarc]

@Lanefan, because BTIFs can’t change over time too?

 

[Shadowedeyes]

I've played (and continue to play) with multiple groups of all ages. We've found it useful. As a DM and player it's one additional (and sometimes important) aspect of personality and how someone think. As far as space ... seriously? It's two characters, probably takes up less than 0.01% of the printed material.

Who cares if people interpret it slightly differently if the end result is effectively the same? Why does it matter if alignment has more concrete implementation carried over from previous editions for specific campaign world settings?

If you don't like alignment, ignore it.

For the most part that is what I do. I don't think I've written down an alignment on my characters for several years now. However, I think it should be unsurprising that since I do find it mostly unnecessary personally that I might question if it needs to be included. Now, I also recognize that, at least according to this poll, that my opinion appears to be in the minority.

As for the space part, I don't just mean in the monster/npc statistics. I'm also including the explanation and descriptions in Player's Handbook. I'm not sure off the top of my head how much space that takes up in the PHB, I can't expect too much to be honest, but again, it's not surprising I might rather have something I personally would find useful using up the page count. Although if the majority of their consumers do find alignment useful and want it, WoTC should probably listen to them over me, from a business standpoint.

I do however, think that the end result does not end up the same. If my interpretation of an alignment is different than yours, and we are using alignment to determine a creature or character's actions, we could end up with different actions. So different end results.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I disagree that BTIF is better, from the player perspective, in that having to play to a declared BTIF set is far far more of a straitjacket than having to play to a stated alignment.

Bonds, Traits, Ideals and Flaws are very specific; and often don't leave much room to move within them. Alignment is fairly general, thus I-as-player have way more room to decide how I want to manifest this alignment.

For example, which is more restrictive when it comes to instructing me how to play my character:

Alignment: LG

or

Bond: I am sworn to my temple and to Halcyon, its leader; I am also secretly in love with [the Fighter PC].
Trait: will always donate excess wealth to good causes outside the party rather than save it or use it to help other party members
Ideal: that the unwashed masses will see the light if I can just show them the way by the example of how I live my life
Flaw: see Ideal

Yes BTIF gives me lots of detail, but then I'm stuck with it*; while alignment gives me flexibility to change how I portray that alignment over time. In the above, for example, it's an outright violation of my BTIF if the party talks me into putting my excess wealth toward something the other PCs are doing for the greater good e.g. building a party stronghold; while it's not a violation of my LG alignment to do so.

* - IMO BTIF, like alignment, should be very difficult to change once set; otherwise what's the point of them?

I don't see how something specific that YOU PICK is more of a straightjacket than some nebulous buzz words that no one can even agree on what it means, which has a bigger DM component. See most alignment threads for examples of "when alignment goes wrong".

There is no issue with "violating" BTIF's. You chose to go against a character aspect. That's either growth, compromise, something your character would have cognitive dissonance over, etc. People change over time in addition to just acting inconsistently, hypocritically, and/or irrationally. They are tendencies, nothing more. People aren't Modrons, other than I guess Modrons...

 

[Mistwell]

I really hate this obnoxious line of argument that removing alignment is a personal attack against its fans rather than a desire to remove an element we view as extraneous at best and actively harmful at worst.

It's like smokers acting like smoking bans are attacks on them rather than a public health issue.

You are aware a meaningful number of people find it useful. So if you simply find it "extraneous," having it removed from the game while knowing some others do find use from it does look like it's a personal dig on those who like it. Because you could just as easily ignore it like you always have, but it's much harder to add it back in to all the material, and it's taking up virtually zero room in the books.

So the only thing left is it's mere existence is "actively harmful" to your game. And I have asked before, and will ask again...how? How does its existence harm your game, if you can simply ignore it? We're not talking about a situation like smoking. Our like of alignment isn't getting in your body and causing you physical harm. You really can ignore it unlike smoke in your face.