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

[Hexmage-EN]

Just took a look at what is stated for alignment in Pathfinder 2E:

Your character’s alignment is measured by two pairs of opposed values: the axis of good and evil and the axis of law and chaos. A character who isn’t committed strongly to either side is neutral on that axis. Keep in mind that alignment is a complicated subject, and even acts that might be considered good can be used for nefarious purposes, and vice versa. The GM is the arbiter of questions about how specific actions might affect your character’s alignment.

If you play a champion, your character’s alignment must be one allowed for their deity and cause, and if you play a cleric, your character’s alignment must be one allowed for their deity.

Alignment Damage

Weapons and effects keyed to a particular alignment can deal chaotic, evil, good, or lawful damage. These damage types apply only to creatures that have the opposing alignment trait. Chaotic damage harms only lawful creatures, evil damage harms only good creatures, good damage harms only evil creatures, and lawful damage harms only chaotic creatures.

AURA OF FAITH - CHAMPION FEAT 12
Prerequisites tenets of good
You radiate an aura of pure belief that imbues your attacks
and those of nearby allies with holy power. Your Strikes deal
an extra 1 good damage against evil creatures. Also, each
good-aligned ally within 15 feet gains this benefit on their first
Strike that hits an evil creature each round.

So yeah, Pathfinder 2E puts more mechanical emphasis on alignment than D&D 5E does. I also failed to find any sort of threads discussing alignment in the manner that it is being discussed in regards to D&D, though I did only perform a cursory search.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

The way alignment was removed from statblocks in Candlekeep was beyond clumsy. There was even unique characters (the Shou monks) who had their alignment listed in the descriptions above their statblocks yet removed from their statblocks. Why? My guess is it was a late editorial change, the removal from the statblocks, and done in a blanket way with little thought being put into beyond "this will be satisfy more people than it annoys, so go for it."

 

[Maxperson]

Chaotic evil can mean 'a person who posts bigoted stuff one Reddit and has disorganised sock-drawer' or it can mean 'an axe-murdering cannibal lunatic'. The two letters don't tell you which it is, or whether it is something else. If they want me to infer 'murderous lunatic' then I'd rather them just write that.

Again you show a profound lack of understanding. Don't assume that all of us fail to understand like this. A bigot with a disorganized sock drawer posting on reddit is not a indicator of CE.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I did find that Pathfinder 2E later introduced variant rules to substitute for alignment if one chooses:

The alignment system has a long history in roleplaying games, and it helps define several aspects of Pathfinder’s worlds and characters. Yet it doesn’t work well for all games or groups. The alignment system can trouble some players because it doesn’t simulate the nuance and complexity of real‑world moral issues, which are often not so easily categorized. What is considered “good” may be heavily influenced by societal norms or religious beliefs. It’s not hard to find two kind, generous people who hold starkly differing interpretations of what good is in specific situations. The variant alignment ideas below provide examples of other options and can serve as inspiration for your own games.

In this variant, some creatures exemplify the concepts of extreme good and evil by their very nature. Only fiends, celestials, and other residents of aligned Outer Sphere planes have an alignment.

The incremental alignment variant breaks each axis of alignment into seven steps that reflect how close a character is to shifting alignments.

Not using the alignment system simultaneously embraces complexity and variance in what is seen as moral behavior. For example, worshippers of a powerful sun god might feel that spreading their deity’s light is virtuous behavior. Some might go so far as to say this means they should conquer their neighbors in order to achieve this.

In this variant, every character, NPC, and monster selects one or more closely held beliefs, intentions, or loyalties.

In the end, though, both D&D and Pathfinder have cosmologies that use alignment as their entire foundation. Removing alignment entirely would require radically altering details about the planes and their inhabitants. That's why, if alignment has to be altered, I'd prefer the variant outlined by this variant from Pathfinder 2e:

In this variant, some creatures exemplify the concepts of extreme good and evil by their very nature. Only fiends, celestials, and other residents of aligned Outer Sphere planes have an alignment.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again you show a profound lack of understanding. Don't assume that all of us fail to understand like this. A bigot with a disorganized sock drawer posting on reddit is not a indicator of CE.

What are they then? You can be evil without murdering anyone, I'm sure most evil people in the real life manage to go their whole lives without murdering anyone. That you refuse to properly analyse the system is not me failing to understand.

 

[Oofta]

Or, without alignment, they could be used for either purpose depending on the needs of the adventure!

With alignment in the book, they still can because you are free to ignore or change the alignment based on the needs of the story.

In the meantime, if I want a creature that is normally evil to stand out if I don't have alignment I can't do that.

 

[Maxperson]

What are they then? You can be evil without murdering anyone, I'm sure most evil people in the real life manage to go their whole lives without murdering anyone. That you refuse to properly analyse the system is not me failing to understand.

So then you're deliberately coming up with examples you come up with way off?

 

[Mistwell]

Actually, the format 5E uses for monster entries originated midway through 4E with Monster Vault. The first two 4E Monster Manuals were extremely sparse on lore, and MM3 only added a bit more. However, Monster Vault course-corrected and established the new standard that has persisted into 5E of having three or so paragraphs with bolded headers summarizing key concepts about a monster.

Yes I recall that. I liked the Monster Vault, though in retrospect I have never used the chits that came with it. Obviously 5e was already being written when Monster Vault was published.

 

[Mistwell]

Another question that I would find interesting is “how would you change alignment while keeping it in some form?”

I would include alignment with descriptor tags. So for example: NE (Sneaky, Cowardly, Cruel). I'd also make them specifically optional for PCs and use them primarily for NPC/Monsters. I can even see using them just in adventures. So not "all" goblins are NE (Sneaky, Cowardly, Cruel) and the MM could list them with a wide range of alignments and tags, but this particular set of goblins in this encounter are NE (Sneaky, Cowardly, Cruel).

 

[Malmuria]

Not using the alignment system simultaneously embraces complexity and variance in what is seen as moral behavior. For example, worshippers of a powerful sun god might feel that spreading their deity’s light is virtuous behavior. Some might go so far as to say this means they should conquer their neighbors in order to achieve this.

In this variant, every character, NPC, and monster selects one or more closely held beliefs, intentions, or loyalties.

I like this actually, in the sense that it says to players, 'ok, you don't use this one part of the system. How does that change what your world might look like?'

In the end, though, both D&D and Pathfinder have cosmologies that use alignment as their entire foundation. Removing alignment entirely would require radically altering details about the planes and their inhabitants. That's why, if alignment has to be altered, I'd prefer the variant outlined by this variant from Pathfinder 2e:

I think the idea of belief become reality was interesting in planescape, but ultimately they were not able to realize what a game based on that premise would look like (and maybe dnd is the wrong system). Sigil's factions, as discussed, are incoherent (and oddly not strictly tied to the alignment system (nor really to religion/gods, which you think would be particularly important)). But a lot of the outer planes are similarly incoherent attempts to make an alignment into an (infinite) space. The entire greek pantheon is in arborea with the elves. Loki is in pandemonium for some reason. Why are the githzerai in limbo again? Wouldn't it make sense for the mindflayer god to be in the astral or far realm, or anywhere but a random cave in the outlands? Orcs are in a lawful evil plane? Like alignment in general, parts of the cosmology starts to break down when you think about it for more than a few seconds.