D&D 5E RIP alignment

[Flamestrike]

In the real world? Yes.

In a fictional world? No.

No I totally reject that.

Like on every level.

 

[jgsugden]

Alignment is not necessary. I didn't use it between ~ 1985 and 2005. New player groups requested we have it as it was what they were used to having, so I put it back in - but do not use it, generally.

Given how it was used in 5E, it is much ado about nothing at this point. It really had no impact on 5E.

 

[loverdrive]

Those don't tell me squat. Loyal and violent? Okay. Captain America or Harley Quinn? No clue. Greedy, opportunistic? Okay, stock market guy who nonetheless is a good guy or someone who is going to mug me in a dark alley because they can get away with it?

Alighnments don't tell squat either. Lawful Neutral? Judge Dredd or Mike Ehrmantraut? Chaotic Good? Batman or Dirty Harry (though I'd argue he isn't good like at all, but anyway)? Lawful Evil? Anton Chigurh or Dick Chaney?

Even on the easiest axis on the grid, Law-Chaos is vague at best. What is Law (baby don't hurt me)? What kind of law does a Lawful character cherish? Lawful may be a by-the-book cop and it may be a mafioso who honors omertha.
Then, what is Chaos? What kind of law does a Chaotic character resent?

And what is Good and what is Evil? Philosophers have broken countless spears about this question since the dawn of time and none managed to get a workable answer.


Alignment chart could work in a game about an ancient order with strict dogma that wages war against evil daemons. Support Dogma? Lawful. Are willing to bend it? Neutral. Oppose it, as it's too rigid? Chaotic. Working against daemons? Good. Don't care? Neutral. Serving daemons? Evil.

As it is, alignment system in 3.5e or 5e needs so much clarifications to actually work that alignment doesn't add anything to a description anyway.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I'd prefer they kept the alignment thing, even if I prefer the 4e version myself. Anyway.

But, here's a thing I dont understand:
Why do I need a 2-word descriptor of a character's personality in a stat block when there's at least 2-3 paragraph describing said creature next to the stat block in the books?

I mean, the adventure books do not just throw a random stat block in an encounter description, they refer to the statblock in the MM (or the back of the book), hence, to the full description of the creature.

But what if you are making your own adventure or encounters? Well you are the one who decided to put creature X in that encounter, I sure hope you took a second to think as to why it is there and what's their motivation for that specific encounter.

Same for those who like to start their argument with ''I've played since X'' to point that alignments-as-presented never were a problem for them and were always useful, so they should keep' em. If you have been playing the game for 90 years, I guess you should have a small idea by now how to roleplay your generic red dragons or that-special-named-one-from-your-90-years-old-setting?

As for the newcomers? Well, they read the MM and then decide if the generic description is ok with them or they want to change them for their own setting.

In short, I'm okay with alignments, but I dont understant the argument that their are super useful and sometime the only tools to know how to roleplay a creature.

 

[Aldarc]

Do people really have such terrible difficulty running creatures and monsters in all the other non-D&D games that don't use alignment? How do y'all normally manage when alignment isn't part of a creature's description in these other games?

 

[Maxperson]

I’m sure some people missed gender-based ability modifiers when they disappeared. Others missed race-based level restrictions when they disappeared. Others missed race-based class restrictions when they disappeared. Others still will miss alignment. The game keeps evolving. It will never stop. If it stops evolving, it will die.

False Equivalences are false. First, I've never met anyone who did miss those things, but I've met lots who like alignment a lot. Second, those things were never, EVER, sacred cows that were a core part of the game like alignment is.

 

[Maxperson]

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who fully understand that listed alignments are meant to be most common and still don’t like it. Let me decide what is or isn’t common in my own worlds, thanks.

You already could. From the 5e DMG, "In creating your campaign world, it helps to start with the core assumptions and consider how your setting might change them."

 

[Maxperson]

arguments about removing them from stat blocks ring like many other arguments

Except that in my experience, what he said is not accurate. The arguments are the same, because they involve removal of stat modifiers. However, I don't personally know if anyone who kept or wanted to keep the penalties for gender in place, yet I do know I lot who want to keep racial modifiers in place.

 

[Retreater]

If they removed a class or subclass that I never used and you did, how would you react to my saying great I never used it anyway?

In fact, I've seen YOU respond to people that don't want some additional rules that they simply don't have to use those rules but other people want them so why not be supportive of what others might use even if you don't. Why suddenly are you changing your principals on this topic?

I guess my response more accurately should've been "doesn't affect me because I don't use it anyway."
Then again, I don't use it because I already know from years of experience how alignment works. Especially for newer players, I think it can be a helpful guide.

 

[Maxperson]

But do you understand the broader point he’s making that the arguments for and against racial stat mods are practically identical to the arguments for and against gender-based stat mods?

Sure, just like the arguments for and against gambling on Cock fighting and Dog fighting will be very similar to those for and against gambling on Hold Em and 7 Card Stud. It's not the arguments that make it right or wrong.