Vaalingrade
Legend
Where that comes into play is that many of the arguments around this are from DMs that I feel overstepped their bounds as a DM
Huh.my "no evil PCs" rule would exist in any game I ran whether or not we have alignment.
Where that comes into play is that many of the arguments around this are from DMs that I feel overstepped their bounds as a DM
Huh.my "no evil PCs" rule would exist in any game I ran whether or not we have alignment.
Of course, actions in the game will have consequences, including on the character stats. But does it say anywhere that the player is not allowed to do what he wants ? So no, it's not prescriptive, it's just a record. After that, all the advice in that section is to remind people that you are indeed roleplaying a character who, unless completely insane, does not vary his behaviour one day to the next, and in particular does not change on a player's whim because he suddenly wants to be able to wield the new intelligent magic sword that the party has found...![]()
I assume you have restrictions on what type of game you run. Some bounds. If you don't I wouldn't want to play in your game.Huh.
A poster brought up an experience playing 3 in a thread tagged general (and not tagged 5e or old) and said it was 3 and was emphatically told they had the 3/3.5 rules wrong. I was just addressing that.
3.5 says it's fine and expected that players will deviate some from the claimed alignment, but if they do so regularly the DM should change their alignment. By 3.5 RAW, you explicitly can't play someone fairly consistently as a different alignment than what is written on the sheet without the DM stepping in.
That’s exactly my point. If the behaviors described are something the majority of people would consider evil, then giving it an evil alignment isn’t actually doing anything. It’s telling people something they already know.But at a certain point you're going to describe behaviors that most people do consider evil. No description is ever going to be entirely objective, all descriptions that indicate meaningful things about behavior are going to be subjective. Is causing pain and suffering in others rewarding for you?
For the vast, vast majority of people that play D&D it would be considered evil.
I’m not suggesting making it a philosophy course or chastising anyone for using simplifications. I’m questioning the utility of having alignment when the monster description tells you its behavior. If the description makes it obvious to most people that the monster is chaotic and evil, the alignment is redundant. If the description doesn’t make it obvious to most people, perhaps it shouldn’t be chaotic evil.D&D is not an advanced philosophy course for people to plumb the depths of what morality means, it's a game. One that uses oversimplification and glosses over details constantly. As always if you don't like alignment ignore it.
I feel like this has been established way before this thread.If you don't I wouldn't want to play in your game.
In 3.5 it does let the DM say they can't consistently behave in some ways if they want to still be a Bard or Barbarian or Cleric or Monk or Paladin though, right?But that is not the same as telling a player how their PC should behave.
That might be a useful way to use such categories, but D&D doesn’t really take advantage of it. Monsters aren’t organized by alignment, they’re organized alphabetically, and sometimes by type. I also think creature type would be much more useful for this purpose than alignment would.Ease of sorting?
Why do book stores try to break fiction books into mystery, sci-fi, fantasy, romance, young adult when folks could just use the back cover blurb? Especially when many books cross over?
The online sellers on the other hand can use multiple tags. With more things being online now in games, fan we got to, say, 20 or 30 descriptors and give each creature up to a half dozen? If we did, would one describing how likely they were to keep their word or one about how likely they would be to offer legitimate hospitality be useful? (Rereading Cugel's story, and that might be the most important information one can get in some cases.)
Again. General. Thread.Yeah, I was just commenting on @Vaalingrade using that example in the first place. It doesn't really have anything to do with the current version of the game.
This thread has a ton of DMs in it saying they're specifically using it as a stick to enforce behavior. 'No Evil', 'preventing murder hobos', 'making them reflect on their actions'.But that is not the same as telling a player how their PC should behave.
That’s exactly my point. If the behaviors described are something the majority of people would consider evil, then giving it an evil alignment isn’t actually doing anything. It’s telling people something they already know.
I’m not suggesting making it a philosophy course or chastising anyone for using simplifications. I’m questioning the utility of having alignment when the monster description tells you its behavior. If the description makes it obvious to most people that the monster is chaotic and evil, the alignment is redundant. If the description doesn’t make it obvious to most people, perhaps it shouldn’t be chaotic evil.
Again. General. Thread.
This thread has a ton of DMs in it saying they're specifically using it as a stick to enforce behavior. 'No Evil', 'preventing murder hobos', 'making them reflect on their actions'.
Yeah, this is definitely a question for people who disagree with me. For me, I don’t seem any value in creating a set of normative rules that would allow us to sort these different creatures into moral categories like good, evil, neutral, or n/a. At least, not for the purpose of a roleplaying game. Philosophically it’s an interesting question and there’s value in trying to answer it, but as people often tell me in these discussions, D&D isn’t a philosophy course. Making intuitive judgments based on how the creature actually behaves seems perfectly sufficient for gaming purposes, since the game rules don’t care which moral category a creature falls into anyway.The following goes a completely different way than I thought it would, and I think turns out to mostly be a question for those disagreeing with @Charlaquin .
1-Hyenas, Lions, and Dingos eat babies.
2-The things from Aliens and Zombies eat babies.
3-Some goblins eat them
4-Some cultists of demon Lords eat them.
5-Some humans probably raise them or kidnap them to sell to others who will eat them.
Is the first group classically animal or neutral and not evil? Should the second be different from the first in alignment? Is group five worse than group four worse than three? Does it matter if things kill for fun and not sustenance? What if they're like cats or dolphins or chimpanzees doing the killing for "fun"?
How does classifying motivation vs. classifying actions fit in?
I feel like this has been established way before this thread.
I've found myself quickly flipping through the DMG pages looking for creature type sometimes, and alignment others. The various search engines for PF were particularly nice for skipping the physical flipping part.That might be a useful way to use such categories, but D&D doesn’t really take advantage of it. Monsters aren’t organized by alignment, they’re organized alphabetically, and sometimes by type. I also think creature type would be much more useful for this purpose than alignment would.
Right, so again, I see why someone might prefer a simple shorthand like alignment instead of a description of the creature’s behavior. What I don’t understand is why someone who feels that way would want the description. Seems to defeat the purpose of having the shorthand if you’re going to read the descriptions anyway.Alignment is a shorthand so I don't have to read two paragraphs of fluff to understand basic motivation and moral compass. I have yet to see anything as simple that will tell me so much. If it doesn't work for you ignore it and read the text; but most of the time it won't tell me how they view the world in the same way alignment does.
I'm pondering an additional category to avoid the philosophical debate:Yeah, this is definitely a question for people who disagree with me. For me, I don’t seem any value in creating a set of normative rules that would allow us to sort these different creatures into moral categories like good, evil, neutral, or n/a. At least, not for the purpose of a roleplaying game. Philosophically it’s an interesting question and there’s value in trying to answer it, but as people often tell me in these discussions, D&D isn’t a philosophy course. Making intuitive judgments based on how the creature actually behaves seems perfectly sufficient for gaming purposes, since the game rules don’t care which moral category a creature falls into anyway.
If you have holy and/or good weaponry it does something. Good and evil forces (law & Chaos too) arming themselves for epic fights is iconic to the genre.That’s exactly my point. If the behaviors described are something the majority of people would consider evil, then giving it an evil alignment isn’t actually doing anything. It’s telling people something they already know.
I'd rather the descriptions be specific and unique than having to include generic descriptions in every single submission. YMMV.I’m not suggesting making it a philosophy course or chastising anyone for using simplifications. I’m questioning the utility of having alignment when the monster description tells you its behavior. If the description makes it obvious to most people that the monster is chaotic and evil, the alignment is redundant. If the description doesn’t make it obvious to most people, perhaps it shouldn’t be chaotic evil.
As somebody who loves alignment, I also loathe folks who use it as a stick to keep people in lanes.Yeah. If I had a player for whom the only thing keeping them from playing like a jerk was Alignment, I just wouldn't play with them. I wouldn't sit there going "Uh-uh-uh! You're Neutral Good!" every time they did something appalling.
Sure, if there are game rules that care what alignment a creature is, that completely changes the conversation. Now the label has utility, because it affects the game in tangible ways. This is not the case in D&D 5e though.If you have holy and/or good weaponry it does something. Good and evil forces (law & Chaos too) arming themselves for epic fights is iconic to the genre.
I would too. Alignment is the generic description in every single submission that I would rather not have, in favor of specific, unique descriptions.I'd rather the descriptions be specific and unique than having to include generic descriptions in every single submission. YMMV.
As a group, we don't need to say 'no evil'. We have the 'Don't Be Fuzzy' agreement, named after a dude who NEVER played a character that would work with the party, be it it a 3e Paladin, a cloistered wizard who just never left for the adventure, or a bounty hunter actively hunting another PC.Yeah. If I had a player for whom the only thing keeping them from playing like a jerk was Alignment, I just wouldn't play with them. I wouldn't sit there going "Uh-uh-uh! You're Neutral Good!" every time they did something appalling.