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

[Cadence]

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?

Is the debate between these characters more or less fraught because there is no alignment? Is the character who would have written E down on their sheet before and has now just described it instead more going to save them? Is the character whose back story is their family was killed by members of that species not going to think about it? Is the party going to abandon it's quest to thwart the evil wizard to bring the baby to safety? Can it do things in that case of one it can't do with a dozen of them? What happens when they desperately need to make a hide check and one of the dozen doesn't stop crying <insert trauma from a M*A*S*H episode>? How does having the alignment written down or not written down on the character sheet change this situation?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because they are human.

And?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Let's do a test!

I have a monster in my setting called the Hundmithanden. To draw a mental picture, think black poodle or other water dog standing 5'8'' and wearing a shabby assortment of clothes and sporting an unsetting pair of human-like hands.

My setting is good, so it doesn't have alignment, but if it did, by my understanding of how it works, they would be CE.

What is their society, behavior and environment based on this total lack of reading the description. According to alignment proponents, this is all they need to run these guys, so let's hear it!

 

[Mistwell]

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...

That certainly comes up. By design. That's the dilemma the DM is posing to the players as an encounter challenge. The chat should be in-character, and not about real world politics. Our party has found satisfactory solutions to that dilemma that were good-enough for our group and we found it fun and interesting. Are orcs "inherently evil" in that campaign setting as dictated by a deity and connection to that deity which can only be overridden by powerful magic, or are the evil because they were raised that way and if raised in a different culture they'd be a different alignment? The setting will guide the party to a potential solution of either finding a way to break the divine connection binding the kids (a quest which could end 15 levels later with the party trying to slay Gruumsh and sever the orcish divine link to evil for all time) or finding a home in a different culture to care for them (a different quest which could result in a country-wide peace treaty and the party slaying a Demon Prince who has been manipulating the orcs for generations).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Is the debate between these characters more or less fraught because there is no alignment? Is the character who would have written E down on their sheet before and has now just described it instead more going to save them? Is the character whose back story is their family was killed by members of that species not going to think about it? Is the party going to abandon it's quest to thwart the evil wizard to bring the baby to safety? Can it do things in that case of one it can't do with a dozen of them? What happens when they desperately need to make a hide check and one of the dozen doesn't stop crying <insert trauma from a M*A*S*H episode>? How does having the alignment written down or not written down on the character sheet change this situation?

Getting the orc children to safety seems like a good adventure hook and a character who has orc-based trauma having to deal with the realisation that they had just killed the parents of these orc children just like the orcs killed the character's parents seems like rather awesome RP moment. And sure, in theory there could exist characters that would just killed the children, but that would require that we have specifically agreed to play some sort of horrifying baby-murder-level messed-up campaign.

But what the absence of alignment does is removes the inane essentialising debate about evil.

 

[Cadence]

Let's do a test!

I have a monster in my setting called the Hundmithanden. To draw a mental picture, think black poodle or other water dog standing 5'8'' and wearing a shabby assortment of clothes and sporting an unsetting pair of human-like hands.

My setting is good, so it doesn't have alignment, but if it did, by my understanding of how it works, they would be CE.

What is their society, behavior and environment based on this total lack of reading the description. According to alignment proponents, this is all they need to run these guys, so let's hear it!

I don't remember people saying it's all they would need to run it.

I remember several people saying if they were looking for a bad-guy that being able to see the CE in the text box would be a clue about whether they need to read the text box.

Will your text box, once I read it, cover every possible situation that may arise in play about it? Most possible situations?

 

[Maxperson]

Because they are human.

That really hasn't ever been true, though.

In 1e Gygax drilled over and over again that the rules were guidelines to be changed by the DM at will, making no rule objective unless the DM decided it was so. Babies weren't inherently evil unless the DM decided to make it that way.

In 2e alignments had uncommon(not even rare) exceptions, making monster babies not inherently evil.

In 3e humanoids of all types were usually or often X alignment, which meant that it was very common for them to be of other alignments and their babies, like humans, weren't inherently anything.

In 5e alignment says this, "A monster's alignment provides a clue to its disposition and how it behaves in a roleplaying or combat situation." and "The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster' s alignment to suit the needs of your campaign." So alignment provides a clue, not something super concrete and DMs are free to depart from it, making monster babies not inherently evil.

Again, the issues that @Crimson Longinus keeps bringing up are not alignment issues. They are issues created by the players or DMs who aren't playing alignment as written, making it a people problem.

 

[Cadence]

But what the absence of alignment does is removes the inane essentialising debate about evil.

Haven't those debates actually occurred in history in cases where one group committed genocide or lesser oppressions against others? Does that mean the real world has alignments? Or just that some people in the real world think they do? Do you ban your players from thinking there is absolute good and evil? If not, and two players disagree, do they debate it until the DM tells them to knock it off?

 

[Cadence]

That really hasn't ever been true, though.

In 1e Gygax drilled over and over again that the rules were guidelines to be changed by the DM at will, making no rule objective unless the DM decided it was so. Babies weren't inherently evil unless the DM decided to make it that way.

Again, the issues that @Crimson Longinus keeps bringing up are not alignment issues. They are issues created by the players or DMs who aren't playing alignment as written, making it a people problem.

If you ran B2 with Moldvay B/X by RAW wouldn't the babies be innately evil?

As an aside, Gygax's personal take on the Paladin (which I disagree with, and I guess as of when it was written was just opinion of someone no longer writing the rules) doesn't help here.

 

[Maxperson]

Getting the orc children to safety seems like a good adventure hook and a character who has orc-based trauma having to deal with the realisation that they had just killed the parents of these orc children just like the orcs killed the character's parents seems like rather awesome RP moment. And sure, in theory there could exist characters that would just killed the children, but that would require that we have specifically agreed to play some sort of horrifying baby-murder-level messed-up campaign.

But what the absence of alignment does is removes the inane essentialising debate about evil.

I've seen that happen, but rarely. The dilemma, though, I've seen a lot. I've seen groups after killing the attacking adult orcs find babies and almost without exception the conversation goes along these lines. "We have X counting on us, so we don't have time to take them to town. If we leave them here alone they'll die. We can't just kill them. What do we do?"

I've seen groups justify leaving them alone. "These couldn't have been all of the adults. Some must be out doing stuff. Let's leave the kids and let those adults deal with it when they get back."

I've seen groups not justify it, "It sucks, but I'm not going to cut their throats and we can't take them with us. We didn't make the adult orcs attack us, so this isn't our problem."

I've seen this from morally questionable groups AND from highly moral groups, "It would be worse for them to starve to death. Let's just end it quick."

And more. How they roleplay it out is part of what makes the game great.