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

[Malmuria]

As a general rule, people aren't going to be affected that way. If someone is individually traumatized by alignment, elves or dragons, that's the table's responsibility to change.

I get that elves and dragons are very silly conceptually. But (to take an extreme example), if those elves are involved in a scene of sexual assault and torture, some people are not going to be ok with that. Also they don't have to be "traumatized." Maybe they just find it icky or uninteresting, and now you've lost a new player. Lots of people I introduced to dnd were into the freeform roleplaying aspect, but very not into the default assumption of combat or violence. They weren't traumatized per se, they were just didn't like it (and being the market leader, dnd was their entry point, so they would never move on to other games).

In terms of the tables responsibility, wotc is very late to the party in providing tools and reconsidering certain elements of the game (like alignment). Personally, I'm skeptical of how genuine they are and if they have the right writers and creators to successfully pull off these changes. From my point of view, wotc, especially in 5e, is too nostalgic and too committed to keeping classic dnd elements.

 

[Maxperson]

I get that elves and dragons are very silly conceptually. But (to take an extreme example), if those elves are involved in a scene of sexual assault and torture, some people are not going to be ok with that. Also they don't have to be "traumatized." Maybe they just find it icky or uninteresting, and now you've lost a new player. Lots of people I introduced to dnd were into the freeform roleplaying aspect, but very not into the default assumption of combat or violence. They weren't traumatized per se, they were just didn't like it (and being the market leader, dnd was their entry point, so they would never move on to other games).

Sure. And you can as a group ignore elves, sexual assault(not that I'm saying the game should add that in) and alignment. The game doesn't have to do it for you.

In terms of the tables responsibility, wotc is very late to the party in providing tools and reconsidering certain elements of the game (like alignment). Personally, I'm skeptical of how genuine they are and if they have the right writers and creators to successfully pull off these changes. From my point of view, wotc, especially in 5e, is too nostalgic and too committed to keeping classic dnd elements.

They've already gutted it, and I don't mean mechanically. One sentence for each alignment is pretty pathetic.

 

[Malmuria]

Sure. And you can as a group ignore elves, sexual assault(not that I'm saying the game should add that in) and alignment. The game doesn't have to do it for you.

My point is: yes the game and the stories it generates are imagined, fictional, and in certain ways far removed from our non-fantastical mundane reality. But, like all stories, they can also be deeply affecting and engaging to real, living people in all sorts of ways, sometimes accidentally. I don't think it's a problem if wotc designers take that into account when considering their products, and getting rid of intrinsic good and evil is one way they are trying to do that. If anything this is very belated and not taken far enough.

And yes, in game terms, they need to produce an alternative tool for dms to use (keyword motivation descriptions, etc). But here it can follow/copy any number of other games, including a ton of dnd-inspired OSR games that replace alignment with other and better tools

 

[Yaarel]

My point is: yes the game and the stories it generates are imagined, fictional, and in certain ways far removed from our non-fantastical mundane reality. But, like all stories, they can also be deeply affecting and engaging to real, living people in all sorts of ways, sometimes accidentally. I don't think it's a problem if wotc designers take that into account when considering their products, and getting rid of intrinsic good and evil is one way they are trying to do that. If anything this is very belated and not taken far enough.

And yes, in game terms, they need to produce an alternative tool for dms to use (keyword motivation descriptions, etc). But here it can follow/copy any number of other games, including a ton of dnd-inspired OSR games that replace alignment with other and better tools

Can you give an example of "keyword motivation descriptions" that you yourself would find useful and comprehensive?

 

[Maxperson]

My point is: yes the game and the stories it generates are imagined, fictional, and in certain ways far removed from our non-fantastical mundane reality. But, like all stories, they can also be deeply affecting and engaging to real, living people in all sorts of ways, sometimes accidentally. I don't think it's a problem if wotc designers take that into account when considering their products, and getting rid of intrinsic good and evil is one way they are trying to do that. If anything this is very belated and not taken far enough.

I agree, and keeping out things like sexual assault makes perfect sense. Alignment, though? I don't believe there are anywhere near enough people who have been so traumatized by alignment that the mere inclusion of it will be harmful. Many more people will be inconvenienced and upset by the removal than those exceptionally few individuals, and their games can simply remove it themselves.

And yes, in game terms, they need to produce an alternative tool for dms to use (keyword motivation descriptions, etc). But here it can follow/copy any number of other games, including a ton of dnd-inspired OSR games that replace alignment with other and better tools

It already exists in the bonds, flaws, etc. I would not be opposed to them expanding it, though.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Can you give an example of "keyword motivation descriptions" that you yourself would find useful and comprehensive?

Here's an example from my own campaign...

I'd created some Random Encounter tables, focusing mostly on Terrain Type and Challenge Rating. During one session, I rolled up a few Meazels. I thought to myself, "What the heck is a Meazel?"

On Dndbeyond, I saw that Meazels are medium humanoid (meazel), neutral evil. That honestly doesn't tell me much! It tells me they're evil, but how do neutral evil creatures act in a combat? What should the characters see or experience?

I scroll down to the description, and I see this:

Hateful Hermit. Meazels are all that remain of people who fled into the Shadowfell to escape their mortal existence. There the darkness transformed them, and their bitterness made them twisted and cruel. Now, they loiter near Shadowfell crossings to waylay travelers who venture too close to their lairs.

Divide and Conquer. The stain of darkness responsible for the existence of meazels imparts to them magical powers that allow them to move through shadows with ease. Merely stepping into one pool of darkness allows a meazel to move to another one. They use this talent to ambush creatures, snatching them around the throat with their strangling cords and then stepping away. Meazels also use this ability to ferry their victims to isolated spots and then leave the hapless souls to the designs of whatever horrors lurk there.

That bold text is exactly what I want, and it tells me so much more than neutral evil. So I really wish WotC would put it at the top of the monster stat block!

Here's what I would love to see:

Meazel
Medium humanoid (meazel)
Hateful hermits who divide and conquer.

When I see that, I know that the characters are going to see some hate-filled humanoid creatures who live way out far from anyone else, and who will divide and then probably focus on a single character to fight.

 

[Malmuria]

Can you give an example of "keyword motivation descriptions" that you yourself would find useful and comprehensive?

Great question.

1. In one of these threads someone mentioned Dungeon World, which has keywords, instincts, and some tactics. For example (randomly)

Gargoyle Horde, Stealthy, Hoarder
Instinct: To guard
• Attack with the element of surprise • Take to the air • Blend into stonework

Bakunawa Solitary, Large, Intelligent, Messy, Forceful
Special Qualities: Amphibious
Instinct: To devour
• Lure prey with lies and illusions • Lash out at light • Devour

2. Maze Rats has great, compact tables for monsters and npcs
Rolling now, I got
A terrestrial creature, that is a centipede that has talons, is many-headed, and is exploding (as a monster ability). Its tactic is to mock, its personality is hateful, and its weakness is moonlight

3. OSE modules have L-N-C alignment, but also short info about monster personality and reactions to the pcs. For example (from The Hole in the Oak),

The Shadow Gardener
Humanoid form (wavering). Tends the plants (sustained in semi-life by them).
▶ Reaction: Hates warm-blooded creatures and will try to kill any who enter.

Heretic Gnomes
Short demihumans (3' tall). Long noses and beards (braided). Earthy flesh and rooty hair (straggly). Pointy red felt hats (keep items beneath).
▶ Reaction: The gnomes may be friendly to PCs but will try to capture them and sacri- fice them to their evil tree stump god (Area 60).
▶ Leaders: A gnome called Grimm is the leader, along with his wife Gribbl, the priestess of the stump. (See Area 58 for the leaders’ stats.)


This in part about making stat blocks and creatures/npcs more usable at the table. I can see how alignment does some of that work, but honestly the osr is just so far ahead of 5e in this respect

 

[Maxperson]

Here's what I would love to see:

Meazel
Medium humanoid (meazel)
Hateful hermits who divide and conquer.

When I see that, I know that the characters are going to see some hate-filled humanoid creatures who live way out far from anyone else, and who will divide and then probably focus on a single character to fight.

None of that tells me that they are evil, though. It's helpful in playing them for sure, but I'd rather see that and a Neutral Evil under it to help me with running it. I'm all for the inclusion of new tools to help, but I don't want older useful tools to go away.

 

[BookTenTiger]

None of that tells me that they are evil, though. It's helpful in playing them for sure, but I'd rather see that and a Neutral Evil under it to help me with running it. I'm all for the inclusion of new tools to help, but I don't want older useful tools to go away.

How far is "Hateful hermits who divide and conquer" from evil? What other alignment would they be, if alignments still existed???

"Evil" just doesn't tell me anything. I just need to know that the Meazels will be in opposition to the characters in my campaign, and "evil" doesn't tell me that. "Hateful hermits" tells me how they can be in opposition to the characters. "Divide and conquer" tells me what they will do in reaction to the characters.

 

[Maxperson]

How far is "Hateful hermits who divide and conquer" from evil? What other alignment would they be, if alignments still existed???

"Evil" just doesn't tell me anything. I just need to know that the Meazels will be in opposition to the characters in my campaign, and "evil" doesn't tell me that. "Hateful hermits" tells me how they can be in opposition to the characters. "Divide and conquer" tells me what they will do in reaction to the characters.

They could be some form of neutral. Hateful can be an attitude and nothing more. I've known some hateful people, but they don't go around killing people or eating them. Hateful and mean doesn't translate directly into evil. However, if I know that the race is evil, hateful and likes to divide and conquer, that helps me determine how hateful and to what lengths they'd be willing to go.