D&D (2024) One D&d and alignment: new approach

[Oofta]

I suppose it’s a matter of degrees, Rape just isn’t in my games so that’s out. Though when it comes to murder and killing I don’t think an evil character has to do it daily. For me it’s a matter of killing being in the tool box as an option and not a last resort. Doing it for the greater good like the only kills bad dudes assassin archetype is iconic and a type that plays well with others. YMMV

But I wouldn't consider killing a bad dude evil in and of itself. Not good, perhaps, but not evil.

Trap the guy in a building along with a few dozen innocent people that just happen to be there and burn the building to the ground? Make no attempt to limit collateral damage?That's where you start crossing the line.

But running around killing bad dudes and taking their stuff is just called "Tuesday" in most D&D games.

 

[Mephista]

Alignment was basically enshrined as a sacred cow when D&D Next was still being playtested.

It's never going away. Maybe rendered completely meaningless, but ways going to be a line for it on the sheet.

I mean , hells, I accidentally started an alignment argument once by jokingly calling myself Lawful Chaotic. A complete nothing. And people still argued. I feel like people just want to fight over it.

 

[payn]

But I wouldn't consider killing a bad dude evil in and of itself. Not good, perhaps, but not evil.

Trap the guy in a building along with a few dozen innocent people that just happen to be there and burn the building to the ground? Make no attempt to limit collateral damage?That's where you start crossing the line.

But running around killing bad dudes and taking their stuff is just called "Tuesday" in most D&D games.

For me, if the first, not the last option of dealing with a person is killing them, that’s evil. I don’t make a big deal of it, it’s just how it is.

 

[Clint_L]

I think there's more than enough things to debate, discuss, or argue about with OneD&D based on what we know or actually have some evidence to speculate based upon. We really have no evidence of what new plans, if any, they have for alignment for OneD&D.

Now if anyone has noticed a new alignment trend in other recently released 5e materials that might merit a discussion as to the future of it. But debating based on a completely unsourced rumor seems unusually silly, even for an alignment thread.

Actually, we do have a lot of evidence. Folks from Wizards of the Coast have for some time stated that the old system of attaching alignment to entire race or type of creature makes them uncomfortable, and in the latest sourcebook, Monsters of the Multiverse, most creatures now have the adverb "typically" attached before alignment (i.e. "typically Lawful Neutral"). The only exceptions seem to be for named individuals, such as Moloch.

So it's not a trend, it's official. RAW, alignment is now mostly just a suggestion.

 

[Andvari]

The 5E Monster Manual already states the alignment listed by a monster is just the default, and that the DM can change it.

3rd edition monsters had qualifiers "Often" (40-50% of the population has the listed alignment), "Usually" (more than 50% of the population has the listed alignment) and "Always" (exceptions are unique or 1 in a million) in front of their listed alignment. For example, ghouls are listed as "Always Chaotic Evil" and drow as "Usually Neutral Evil."

 

[Clint_L]

I guess the big question is: why not just get rid of alignment? I don't use it, at all, and it makes zero difference in how the game plays except that you have to tweak the wording on a few spells and items. I think it just remains as a legacy feature that some of us old grognards are attached to. It's like the appendix of D&D - we've inherited it, it no longer serves a meaningful purpose, but removing it is a bit of a hassle so why bother unless it gets infected.

 

[MarkB]

Well, if nothing else, this thread is a good illustration of why alignment is controversial. People seldom agree about exactly what is or isn't good or evil, lawful or chaotic, and when that affects how they view their own or each others' characters, trouble tends to ensue.

 

[Lanefan]

But I wouldn't consider killing a bad dude evil in and of itself. Not good, perhaps, but not evil.

Trap the guy in a building along with a few dozen innocent people that just happen to be there and burn the building to the ground? Make no attempt to limit collateral damage?That's where you start crossing the line.

Sooooo...the character in my game who fireballed a crowded village pub because the publican threw out some other party members "we don't serve their kind here" - evil, you say?

 

[Oofta]

Sooooo...the character in my game who fireballed a crowded village pub because the publican threw out some other party members "we don't serve their kind here" - evil, you say?

Maybe. On the other hand if everyone in the pub were listening to smooth jazz I might give it a pass. Sometimes there's a fine line between evil and public service.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I think part of what makes identifying ‘evil’ characters hard nowadays is the casual and normalised way players reach for violence and/or crime as the solution for so many of their problems(not that everyone does but it’s pretty much considered the norm to, although this is partly because the combat mechanics are such a focus in the rules), petty thief tried to pinch your wallet? Chase them down and kill em in the streets, A tribe of savage wood elves have been attacking the villagers? Just go in there and wipe em out real quick, Need a rare component from an exotic creature? Why find one to buy when you can just go hunt the beast down yourselves for it or steal it from someone who already has one.

Adventures already have such an entrenched mindset of me and mine come first and violence is the first solution even when being benevolent that for someone to actually be considered Evil to the rest of them they need to be pulling world conquering schemes or summoning demons or torturing puppies for kicks.

They could have just turned the thief over to the guards
They could have helped fortify the village and shore up their defensive walls
They could have traveled to the merchant city and dealt in bargaining and trade

But violence is easier.

Edit: i was listening to a podcast a little while back and the party needed dragonbone, their options were to:
1) steal from a city who worshiped bahamut main temple’s centrepiece dragonbone shrine that blessed the land with bounty
2) raid a settlement of morally dubious giants who collected dragonbone
3) venture into some harsh wasteland where an untouched dragon skeleton was
The speed at which stealing from the temple was considered and taken as the most viable option was incredible and the only reason they didn’t is because they discovered the NPC who suggested the idea and wanted their help had actually opposed their ruler for position of the crown and revealing them also meant revealing the plot to steal the shrine’s bones rendering that option unviable.