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

[Vaalingrade]

How are people calling those weapons the default on my side?

Because they're defending the morningstar thing.

A discussion that honestly does not deserve this much talk. I'm not even bothered by the dumb weapon choice, just bemused.

 

[Maxperson]

Because they're defending the morningstar thing.

A discussion that honestly does not deserve this much talk. I'm not even bothered by the dumb weapon choice, just bemused.

I've skipped some posts, but most of the people I saw defending it were just saying that it's easy to use if the monster comes up unexpectedly and they didn't have time to make changes.

There can be more than two sides on an issue. If someone was claiming that morning stars are some sort of default that the entire race uses, I disagree with that and they are not on my side.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Okay. Fine. They're not on your side. Still not grounds to accuse them of not being able to read.

 

[Mistwell]

1) This is why I love 4e style stat blocks where the block is for a specific role and not a representative of the entire species.
2) Man, F that -2 Intelligence. I dislike racial stats in general, but literally making orcs less intelligent than other species is gross to me.

And to me, that's the books admitting that their 'defaults' are terrible.

They've worked so terrible it's the best selling edition of all time.

I liked 4e too. I really did. And people argue 4e was superior because it had better stat blocks and variations for each monster than 5e does. But objectively, 4e was not working for enough of the player base, relative to 5e, for whatever reason.

So sure, you are free to think they're terrible. But in the very least, acknowledge a fair number of other people like them how they are.

 

[ART!]

I cast my vote as "Yes".

For my characters, it's usually an afterthought. This might have been influenced by the fact that I've been making all my characters on D&D Beyond, and the place to designate alignment is in one of the last stages of that process there. So, I figure out what alignment makes sense based on everything else I've worked out for my character.

PC alignment doesn't come up much in our games now.

I find alignments very useful as a DM, for NPCs and monsters - it gives me a quick sense of the creatures broad approach to things.

 

[Mistwell]

The difference is the the monster's AC, HP, attacks, saves are all mechanical.

Now you're making the argument a shifting target. I was arguing the stats and text in the monster manual is simply a baseline to work from. If that is the case, it doesn't matter if it's a mechanical nor non-mechanical part of the stats and text. Either it is a baseline to work from, or it's fixed in stone. And if it's a baseline to work from, then the argument that alignment is fixed but the other elements are not, or that the other elements being movable somehow doesn't "matter" because it's mechanics, is nonsensical.

An Aboleth and a Kobold are both Lawful Evil, but you would never play those monsters in the same way (right??).

I certainly might play them the same way. Nothing stops me from making that choice right? I can choose for my setting to treat alignment as a strict form of behavior. Or I can choose to make it a very broad set of boundaries. Or I can choose to ignore it, or have it change. But it sets a baseline to work form. I know what to use in the moment if I don't have anything else specific in mind.

 

[Oofta]

The difference is the the monster's AC, HP, attacks, saves are all mechanical. If you abstract away from the lore of the monster (alignment included), changing the AC, attack bonus, damage, etc actually do make the monster more or less difficult in combat. On the other hand, a Balor, a Wraith, and a Hill Giant are all chaotic evil, but this neither changes the math of the encounter, nor does it, I would argue, give the DM a very helpful baseline for how to roleplay the creature, in or out of combat. An Aboleth and a Kobold are both Lawful Evil, but you would never play those monsters in the same way (right??).

For combat, 2d6 reaction tables and morale scores are, IMO, more useful tools. Beyond that, I think a system of 'tags' would be more helpful than alignment (aggressive, cowardly, diplomatic, cautious, etc).

So I can't have tags such as "lawful", "chaotic", "good" or "evil"? Things like "aggressive" don't really tell me anything, Superman can be aggressive, so can the Joker. Yet everyone knows that in most depictions Superman is LG and the Joker is CE.

Furthermore mothing about alignment is about changing the math. It has everything to do with how the monster behaves when hit with the unexpected. So yes, an Aboleth and Kobold probably have many different "tags" and goals. But if they honestly give their word they'll do their best to keep it, just beware the fine print. They may show generosity, even kindness in some cases but overall they don't care who they hurt, and may even go out of their way to cause pain and suffering. As long as certain rules are followed.

A lot of times alignment doesn't matter. It's particularly useful for me when the unexpected happens. The unexpected happens all the time in my games. It's one of the many things I take into consideration when running monsters and NPCs.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So I can't have tags such as "lawful", "chaotic", "good" or "evil"? Things like "aggressive" don't really tell me anything, Superman can be aggressive, so can the Joker. Yet everyone knows that in most depictions Superman is LG and the Joker is CE.

Those alignments might indeed relatively accurately describe those two characters because they're so extreme and not nuanced. It totally fails to capture any even a little bit more complicated personality. And Superman definitely has no 'aggressive' base nature.

Furthermore mothing about alignment is about changing the math. It has everything to do with how the monster behaves when hit with the unexpected. So yes, an Aboleth and Kobold probably have many different "tags" and goals. But if they honestly give their word they'll do their best to keep it, just beware the fine print. They may show generosity, even kindness in some cases but overall they don't care who they hurt, and may even go out of their way to cause pain and suffering. As long as certain rules are followed.

A lot of times alignment doesn't matter. It's particularly useful for me when the unexpected happens. The unexpected happens all the time in my games. It's one of the many things I take into consideration when running monsters and NPCs.

It's not, because it is mostly a Rorschach test nonsense that has about as much descriptive power than horoscope.

 

[Oofta]

Those alignments might indeed relatively accurately describe those two characters because they're so extreme and not nuanced. It totally fails to capture any even a little bit more complicated personality. And Superman definitely has no 'aggressive' base nature.


It's not, because it is mostly a Rorschach test nonsense that has about as much descriptive power than horoscope.

Right. A guy who's solution to most problems is to punch them really hard is not aggressive.

Any system is going to be open to interpretation unless you write paragraphs of text. If you have to read paragraphs of text, it's no longer a quick reference.

But it all goes back to the fact that just because you don't find it useful doesn't mean that the majority of people don't find it useful in at least some ways. Probably because most people don't look at it as a straightjacket or something that defines every aspect of a person's behavior.

 

[Malmuria]

Now you're making the argument a shifting target. I was arguing the stats and text in the monster manual is simply a baseline to work from. If that is the case, it doesn't matter if it's a mechanical nor non-mechanical part of the stats and text. Either it is a baseline to work from, or it's fixed in stone. And if it's a baseline to work from, then the argument that alignment is fixed but the other elements are not, or that the other elements being movable somehow doesn't "matter" because it's mechanics, is nonsensical.

What I mean is that there is a qualitative difference between what the kids call fluff and crunch in the monster stat block. Within the fiction, a group of 4 orcs might have leather armor, or they might all have full plate and a shield, and neither choice makes more sense than the other. But a difference in 3 or 4 in AC is very important for the math of the encounter. So, to the extent that the DM is relying on the math of the stat block (as a game element and not just part of the fiction) the difference between leather and plate is meaningful. The fiction of the encounter has an equal impact, but is more variable as it depends on the dm's ability and interest in roleplaying. For some people, alignment is helpful in that regard and that's fine.

Honest question in that regard: the npc stat blocks in the MM and Volo's have "any alignment" instead of a specific alignment (e.g. Priest, Veteran, etc). Is this a problem for you, that there's no baseline for these statblocks? How would people feel if in future supplements humanoid creatures also had "any alignment" in their stat block, while fiends and undead and so forth still had alignments. In this way, alignment would still be part of the metaphysics of the implied setting, but humanoid "monsters" would get to have the same range as the human-elf-dwarf-halfling npc humanoids.