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

[Mistwell]

Sure, it's not clear cut, though at the point the notion of killing babies is seriously entertained the line has been crossed a long time ago, regardless of where exactly it was (and I don't even like babies!) And also, yeah, I doubt our views differ much in practice. And removing the alignment from humanoids would definitely be a big step in the right direction; it would solve the most obvious issues that have unfortunate real world implications, and that's most important. I still think alignment is a terrible system on its own right and should go for that reason, but that's just about game design preferences, and ultimately not a big deal.

So would you be OK if all the humanoids had their alignment changed to "unaligned" but the non-humanoid monstrous beings like, say, a gibbering mouther still had their alignment listed? Not OK as in "I like this and will use it!" but OK as in "Well I still find alignment less than useful but at least it's an acceptable compromise?"

 

[Cadence]

When you go on vacation, each individual item in your wardrobe will individually fit in your suitcase. But, your entire wardrobe will not all fit at once. You must leave behind many items, each of which individually is small.

Feels like this is an argument for removing gnomes (which would leave plenty of space for...)

 

[Mistwell]

Feels like this is an argument for removing gnomes (which would leave plenty of space for...)

Monks take up an awful lot of space.

Not to mention, isn't a sorcerer really just a reflavored wizard with a couple of optional systems tacked on?

 

[Helldritch]

This thread is still going on...
For those who say that only alignments can be abused, I have seen ruthless killers in a lot of systems in which there are no alignments. So that line of thought is void as a defense as these potential abuses can be done with any systems.

Alignment is useless? Time and time again, it has been proven wrong. Alignment is as useful as you want it to be. It is a matter of choice. Nothing less, nothing more.

Alignments are not specific enough....
That is their purpose to be relatively vague. It allows for variations and variations are good for RP.

Alignments are problematic if all members of a race are evil. Well, the MM do specify that it need not be so in your game.

For every point against alignment there is a rebuttal, but for every point for alignments, we hear nothing or a rehearsal of previous points with a small change (when there are some...).

It all boils down to one thing. Alignments, like any other rule can be optional or changed at whims of a table. Why remove it? Because it is problematic for you? But there should be no problems because you are always free to ignore, but once removed, it is hard to go back. WotC is making a huge mistake in not giving alignments in the stat block of their newest and subsequent books. That is only my opinion. No one is obliged to share it, or to agree. But I know a lot of people that have already given alignments to the stat blocks in the VRGtR but already I have heard disagreements and some have asked what I had given them. My answer was that, as long as such and such is evil, the rest is personal preference. And even then....

See, already, with one book, I see arguments about stat block if such creature is lawful or chaotic evil... debates could rage on and on... Giving an alignment straight from the get go would have hurt no one as they have been in the game from the beginning.

The removal of alignment should have been reserved for an other edition with a poll from WotC. If the removal side wins, then so be it. Bit at least, the system would have kept its consistency.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So would you be OK if all the humanoids had their alignment changed to "unaligned" but the non-humanoid monstrous beings like, say, a gibbering mouther still had their alignment listed? Not OK as in "I like this and will use it!" but OK as in "Well I still find alignment less than useful but at least it's an acceptable compromise?"

Roughly yes. Though this probably should be extended to some technically-not-humanoid creatures such as giants etc. Things that are basically people. Alignment could still have some unfortunate implications, but I feel this would fix most of that.

 

[transmission89]

Roughly yes. Though this probably should be extended to some technically-not-humanoid creatures such as giants etc. Things that are basically people. Alignment could still have some unfortunate implications, but I feel this would fix most of that.

Oooff, there’s some unfortunate connotations in that and likely to stir a whole new line of debates of what is deserving of alignment or not…

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Feels like this is an argument for removing gnomes (which would leave plenty of space for...)

I'm in favour of combining gnomes and halflings. Also remove all subraces. The future direction seems to be to have more customisable lineages, so there's no need to waste space listing dozens of mildly differnt subtypes.

Not to mention, isn't a sorcerer really just a reflavored wizard with a couple of optional systems tacked on?

Yes, sorcerers should be removed. I already did that in my game. They really do not have enough mechanical or thematic uniqueness to warrant their inclusion, their stuff can be divided between warlocks and wizards.

 

[Helldritch]

If everything anyone ever might want to use in the game is presented, the game becomes intractable and moribund in its options. To be useful in a practical sense, a game must be edited. Choices must be made.

But if by removing one page and its two letters descriptor in the stat block you need to add hundreds of pages to explain the general behavior of each new foes you create in each books, you have removed hundred of pages of potential material that could have been useful and intriguing. Sometimes, less, is a whole lot less. Maybe not now, but in the future it will be.

 

[Umbran]

Sure but if a meaningfully large portion of the customer base likes and uses that game element, I hope you agree it should probably make the editing cut?

First off, "meaningfully large" is not well-defined.

Second, I suspect there's the implication that somehow, the self-selected people here arguing for its inclusion are supposed to be evidence that criteria is clearly met. Statistically speaking, that doesn't hold up. Sorry.

Third, I doubt most of you arguing for its inclusion actually need to reference the books to know the alignment of virtually anything, and would have no difficulty assigning alignments if you didn't know them. That suggest that the argument is less about you individuals having the game information you need, and more about perpetuating alignment systems so that future gamers will use them. There's already other systems that uphold that legacy, so D&D doesn't have to be the one to do it.

Fourth, I accept that people who create stuff get to create what they want. Sure, they should take the customer base into account, but they customer base is only one of many elements in making the choice.

 

[Maxperson]

When you go on vacation, each individual item in your wardrobe will individually fit in your suitcase. But, your entire wardrobe will not all fit at once. You must leave behind many items, each of which individually is small.

Yes, but my underwear(alignment), while I COULD go without it, gets packed for each and every vacation.