D&D General Rethinking alignment yet again

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Dealing with out of game problems using in-game mechanics isn't how you handle bad player behavior.
Hey! Something I agree with you on. Alignment has multiple uses, solving player behavior issues isn't one of them. Nor is it the cause of player DM behavior problems, which are at the root of virtually every alignment problem I've ever seen mentioned. You don't solve those issues by removing alignment(solving via removing an in-game mechanic), either.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Just because YOU don't need alignment or find it useful, doesn't mean that a whole lot of other people don't. If you don't find it useful, don't use it. Nobody is forcing you.

As a player I write down the letters that are the closest approximation to the personality that I've come up with for my character and then completely forget about alignment and just roleplay my PC the way I envisioned him. The only reason I do that is because it's a place on the sheet and I don't like to see it empty, not because I use alignment.

As a DM I find alignment invaluable. I have neither the time nor inclination to come up with a complex personality for every NPC and monster the PCs are going to meet, so alignment is what I use to build generic NPC/monster RP off of. I only build a personality for important NPCs and monsters.
I know that no one is forcing me, and I've never proposed that someone else be prevented from using it, so please stop with the strawman arguments. I've only stated I don't find it useful, and I don't see why other people find it useful.

Once again, alignment isn't about personality, so you are fine just using creatures with no personality, just a belief in order (which could involve organizations, or not; personal codes, or not) and a stance on morality which may permit genocide, or not; slavery, or not) as your guideline on how to roleplay. So, in your case alignment is shorthand for personality even though as we see by the description of CE monster actions in the MM, it doesn't actually say anything.

I'm glad you find it useful. But as someone who started with Runequest, I don't get it.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I know that no one is forcing me, and I've never proposed that someone else be prevented from using it, so please stop with the strawman arguments. I've only stated I don't find it useful, and I don't see why other people find it useful.
Um, can you please pull a quote by me in that post where I suggested you've proposed that? I don't see it and that's probably because it's not there.
Once again, alignment isn't about personality, so you are fine just using creatures with no personality, just a belief in order (which could involve organizations, or not; personal codes, or not) and a stance on morality which may permit genocide, or not; slavery, or not) as your guideline on how to roleplay. So, in your case alignment is shorthand for personality even though as we see by the description of CE monster actions in the MM, it doesn't actually say anything.
Alignment is absolutely about personality. Your morals are a part of your personality. It's all linked. And yes it absolutely does say something about CE monster actions. Are you seriously looking for it to be repeated in the action itself? Why would they put CE into the monster action when they've already put it in the alignment section of the creature?
I'm glad you find it useful. But as someone who started with Runequest, I don't get it.
A lot of people don't get it. A lot of people do. That's one the great things about alignment. Those that do, can use it and those that don't can decide to ignore it.
 

Um, can you please pull a quote by me in that post where I suggested you've proposed that? I don't see it and that's probably because it's not there.

Alignment is absolutely about personality. Your morals are a part of your personality. It's all linked. And yes it absolutely does say something about CE monster actions. Are you seriously looking for it to be repeated in the action itself? Why would they put CE into the monster action when they've already put it in the alignment section of the creature?

A lot of people don't get it. A lot of people do. That's one the great things about alignment. Those that do, can use it and those that don't can decide to ignore it.
Your insistence that "some people find alignment useful and if you don't like it than you can just not use it" implies that I am somehow trying to limit it for everyone else, but am free to do what I want at my table. As if I needed your permission.
 

Oofta

Legend
Your insistence that "some people find alignment useful and if you don't like it than you can just not use it" implies that I am somehow trying to limit it for everyone else, but am free to do what I want at my table. As if I needed your permission.
There are people who have stated that alignment should be removed from the game. You may not be one of them, but if you don't care for it why post to the thread? It's not like you're suggesting alternatives (or if so, I missed it). If you don't find alignment useful, that's fine. But by saying it's pointless the implication is still there, that you want to get rid of it.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Your insistence that "some people find alignment useful and if you don't like it than you can just not use it" implies that I am somehow trying to limit it for everyone else, but am free to do what I want at my table. As if I needed your permission.
words1.jpg


No. It does not imply that at all. It implies exactly what it says and nothing more.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
There are people who have stated that alignment should be removed from the game. You may not be one of them, but if you don't care for it why post to the thread? It's not like you're suggesting alternatives (or if so, I missed it). If you don't find alignment useful, that's fine. But by saying it's pointless the implication is still there, that you want to get rid of it.
I think you can disagree with something and argue against it without wanting it gone from the game. Back when warlords were a thing I stated my dislike for them, but I didn't want to see them go away and I still want to see one added to 5e for those who enjoy playing them.
 

I think you can disagree with something and argue against it without wanting it gone from the game. Back when warlords were a thing I stated my dislike for them, but I didn't want to see them go away and I still want to see one added to 5e for those who enjoy playing them.
And this is often the problem. One does not like something so it should be removed for everyone, including those that like it and find it useful.

Why people do not simply just remove what they do not like from their game and leave the rest at peace. And yet, I can plead guilty of that too. TCoE is a great example... but it did remove stuff that I liked to replace it with... well, ancestry and floating ASI... But at least the book is optional. Which means that I can take whatever I believe is good and leave the rest. (for me this means about ten pages from the whole book will be used. And most of them only in parts. Well, to each his own I guess.
 

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
And this is often the problem. One does not like something so it should be removed for everyone, including those that like it and find it useful.

Why people do not simply just remove what they do not like from their game and leave the rest at peace. And yet, I can plead guilty of that too. TCoE is a great example... but it did remove stuff that I liked to replace it with... well, ancestry and floating ASI... But at least the book is optional. Which means that I can take whatever I believe is good and leave the rest. (for me this means about ten pages from the whole book will be used. And most of them only in parts. Well, to each his own I guess.
I think it’s probably something along the train of logic of ‘if it’s in the books then it’s official, if it’s official then people are going to want to use it, if people want to use it then I’m either going to have to play in their game with it or will be asked to use it by them’
Or simply put: ‘it exists, and therefore the chance also exists I might be made to play with it’ and some people would rather that chance not exist at all.
 

Oofta

Legend
I think it’s probably something along the train of logic of ‘if it’s in the books then it’s official, if it’s official then people are going to want to use it, if people want to use it then I’m either going to have to play in their game with it or will be asked to use it by them’
Or simply put: ‘it exists, and therefore the chance also exists I might be made to play with it’ and some people would rather that chance not exist at all.
But how often does it actually affect the game? If I put CG on my character sheet, that's kind of the end of it as far as the game is concerned, outside of maybe 1 or 2 spells that will likely never be encountered.

I have TIBF on most of my PCs, but after character creation and a game session or so, I'll probably forget what I put.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top