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

[Krachek]

The fact that this is even a statement on a forum devoted to fantasy gaming astounds me. This is definitely part of the chilling effects that I’ve alluded to earlier.

Nevertheless, I have no intention of provoking the mods and so will comply and keep it relevant to alignment.

Unlike other game mechanics, alignment can be more easily translate to the real life.
We don’t have harsh debate on the number of hit point we should give to a famous boxer, but we can speculate endlessly on the alignment of a famous character in a movie.

 

[Cadence]

Not real world obviously, but in terms of arguments at the gaming table, what about the whole "orc babies" situation? Will they grow up to be evil? But you can't kill babies, right? Let's stop playing dnd and chat about this for 30 min...

And I feel that this is an issue mostly created by the existence of an alignment. Like I doubt "is it OK to kill babies of a sapient species?" would elicit much debate without alignment tarring entire species as evil (either completely or strongly disposed towards it.)

So what would happen at your games (where the players' character sheets have nice descriptions of attitudes and nothing about objective good and evil) when the party realizes the group of humanoids they just killed to save themselves left a room full of children behind? An in depth investigation of whether the young ones can survive being left there without adults, and then possibly leaving the dungeon to find them foster families somewhere? Not my problem and walk on leaving them to certain death? Or do they exist in a world where humanoids don't have babies because worlds without alignment don't worry about social structure?

 

[Maxperson]

But then it can be challenges without being objectively wrong. Without an alignment it is just someone's opinion in the setting.

It was never objectively wrong.

 

[Cadence]

Unlike other game mechanics, alignment can be more easily translate to the real life.
We don’t have harsh debate on the number of hit point we should give to a famous boxer, but we can speculate endlessly on the alignment of a famous character in a movie.

There's another thread right now with a huge discussion on the damage caused by weapons... and it feels pretty endless.

 

[Maxperson]

This from the 2e MM.

"Alignment shows the general behavior of the average monster of that type. Exceptions, though uncommon, may be encountered."

The exceptions aren't even rare. Just uncommon, which fits with how monsters have been run since the game came out. Alignment is generally how the race acted, but exceptions existed all over the place. Even in monsters like Demons, which are about as stuck in an alignment as you get, exceptions existed in official products.

If someone is playing racial alignment as ALL of the race is objectively X alignment, then that's a problem they, not alignment, created.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

So what would happen at your games (where the players' character sheets have nice descriptions of attitudes and nothing about objective good and evil) when the party realizes the group of humanoids they just killed to save themselves left a room full of children behind? An in depth investigation of whether the young ones can survive being left there without adults, and then possibly leaving the dungeon to find them foster families somewhere? Not my problem and walk on leaving them to certain death? Or do they exist in a world where humanoids don't have babies because worlds without alignment don't worry about social structure?

The DM could just decide that any goblins or kobolds or whatever else the party fights are a war party from a larger group, with the main community (including the children) being in another location.

Alternatively, there could just not be any children there for whatever reason. It's a game, after all. If it harshes the buzz then just leave it out like pretty much all video games do.

EDIT: I'll say the only time babies came up in a D&D game I've ever played in was when playing the Sunless Citadel we convinced a white dragon wyrmling and its kobold followers to join us in fighting the goblins elsewhere in the dungeon. At one point we heard noise on the other side of a door, so we directed the wyrmling to bust down the door and unleash its cold breath on anyone inside...which was where a bunch of (now frozen) non-combatant goblins apparently were. Whoops.

I also had a player back in a 3.5 game continually pull out animals from a bag of tricks and throw them in a nearby acid pool until he got a weasel, like he wanted. Later he recalled he was playing a druid.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So what would happen at your games (where the players' character sheets have nice descriptions of attitudes and nothing about objective good and evil) when the party realizes the group of humanoids they just killed to save themselves left a room full of children behind? An in depth investigation of whether the young ones can survive being left there without adults, and then possibly leaving the dungeon to find them foster families somewhere? Not my problem and walk on leaving them to certain death? Or do they exist in a world where humanoids don't have babies because worlds without alignment don't worry about social structure?

Oh, at least I worry about social structures a lot. What would happen would depend on the characters. I doubt that 'let's kill them' would be an option seriously entertained though. And why is this a different question that what would happen to a human baby found in the camp of slain human bandits?

 

[Cadence]

The DM could just decide that any goblins or kobolds or whatever else the party fights are a war party from a larger group, with the main community (including the children) being in another location.

Alternatively, there could just not be any children there for whatever reason. It's a game, after all. If it harshes the buzz then just leave it out like pretty much all video games do.

There are a bunch in B2 right?

Presumably things that harsh the buzz don't show up a lot or the DM doesn't have a group very long. But I'm guessing a lot of DMs try to make things vaguely track what they perceive as reality. The argument seems to be that alignment does a bad job of dealing with objective good and evil and certain things don't come up with it gone. This is one of them. I'm just trying to figure out how those who say more verbose character descriptions sidestep this being a mine-field... do so without just sidestepping the situation ever coming up. If not having the humanoid children be there is the only way to avoid it, then that would seem to mean it was never alignment that was the problem, but the situation.

 

[Mistwell]

You don't need rules for that. Have a line for 'Personality & Ethics' and people can write what they want on it. The issue is trying to pretend that some sort of objective system could govern a thing that if subjective.

No, that makes me do more work that I am paying a designer to do for me. They can write alignment, or a substitute for it concerning personality, in the stat block and then I work from that. NOBODY is pretending in this thread that there is some sort of "objective system." In fact, now you're being a jerk since you and I have already in this thread directly discussed that topic and you already accepted you understood I and others were not saying "objective." That you'd bring it back up again as that blatant a strawman is a jerky thing to do. Knock it off. If you don't want to have a conversation that's fine but you don't get to switch people's arguments around to something you find more convenient like that.

If you make claim that seems to be logically incoherent and that is pointed out, you can explain how the logic of your system actually works. Alignment proponents can not do that beyond shouting 'it just works'.

We've tried, you reject it each time as not working FOR YOU, and so we go in circles. It's not that our system isn't logical, it's that you don't like it and so you just label it as "not logical" because you don't like it.

Accept it can work for others and not for you. We have to be able to get to the point where your personal desire for something isn't the overriding factor in whether it should be in the game overall. It's not the "Crimson Longinus Test" system. I am betting there are tons of stuff in the game that isn't your cup of tea, right? Should we excise all those things because you don't like them even if a meaningful number of other people do?

Yet a lot of people have spoken against it for decades and WotC seems to finally getting the message too as alignment has vanished from newer stat blocks.


On the first part of this post. Seriously, alignment is a bizarre thing that mostly exists only in D&D and derived games. Rest of the RPGs have done without it just fine for decades.

Something existing only in "D&D and derived games" is 80%+ of the entire marketplace. That should be a huge indicator. Again, not your cup of tea, that's fine. So don't use it. Or if it's mere existence in the game pains you, choose one of those other vast minority of games which is more to your liking. They appear to have been written with your preferences in mind, right?

 

[transmission89]

Oh, at least I worry about social structures a lot. What would happen would depend on the characters. I doubt that 'let's kill them' would be an option seriously entertained though. And why is this a different question that what would happen to a human baby found in the camp of slain human bandits?

Because they are human.