D&D 5E RIP alignment

[Oofta]

There are tools that accomplish the same goal with zero downsides of alignment chart.

Gnolls: medium humanoids, savage, bloodthirsty, strong blood ties works better in literally any scenario than Gnolls: medium humanoids, Chaotic Evil. Why use an inferior tool, if there's a superior one?

Your "superior tool" doesn't solve the basic issue that some people have with all creatures being painted with the same broad brush. You also just used more words to describe something that can be encapsulated in 2 letters.

You just used the same words "bloodthirsty savages" that were used to describe all those durn injuns from the old cowboy movies my dad used to watch. I don't see that as an improvement.

 

[Oofta]

While it’s obfuscated by the hyperbole, I do think there’s an underlying truth that @Remathilis is alluding to. There has been a gradual shift in the focus of most D&D campaigns. While epic battles still happen and roleplaying romance and sex is pretty niche, there has been a gradual shift in focus away from killing monsters and taking their stuff towards narratives that spotlight the characters’ internal lives.

Maybe? But D&D is a big tent. I don't think we need to remove a simple descriptor that has little or no mechanical impact to maintain that tent.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

A lawful guy lives by a code and generally respects discipline, family, honour and tradition.

Examples include Frank Castle, Superman, Eddard Stark, Mando, Stan Smith, Lucius Vorenus, Sturm and Steel Brightblade, Mike Ermantrout, Judge Dredd.

A chaotic guy rejects those things and is impulsive, reckless and unpredictable.

Examples include Rick Sanchez, Anakin Skywalker, Jack Sparrow, Deadpool, Roger the Alien, Titus Pullo, Bronn of the Blackwater.

A good guy rejects violence unless in self defence or the defence of others and avoids harming others. They're altruistic, merciful, kind and self sacrificing.

Examples include Superman, Iron Man, Anakin Skywalker (pre fall), Eddard Stark, Caramon Majere, Vision, Captain America, Jon Snow.

An evil person is prepared to harm others for their own ends, or actively embraces harming others for the same, or simply lacks empathy for the pain and suffering they cause.

Examples include Darth Vader, Frank Castle, Titus Pullo, Rick Sanchez, Raistlin Majere (black robes), Roose Bolton, Tony Soprano, Dexter, Mike Ermantrout (by Breaking Bad).

Its really not hard to figure out.

 

[Vaalingrade]

An evil person is prepared to harm others for their own ends, or actively embraces harming others for the same, or simply lacks empathy for the pain and suffering they cause.

Examples include Darth Vader, Frank Castle, Titus Pullo, Rick Sanchez, Raistlin Majere (black robes), Roose Bolton, Tony Soprano, Dexter, Mike Ermantrout (by Breaking Bad).

Its really not hard to figure out.

Regardless of anything else in the thread, thank you for recognizing The Punisher as the serial killer he is.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

In my last session, the party took 4 prisoners: a N kobold, NE veteran, LE acolyte, & LE teenage cultist.

From this shorthand I figured out that the kobold latched onto the kindest PC fighter, the veteran sold out the acolyte, the acolyte died praising Tiamat, and the teen cultist could have be de-brain washed - if he hadn't died under the wheels of the run away wagon.

A few sessions earlier a new player left early and his then player-less PC was asked to help save a drowning hero. I didn't know what he'd do, then player's mum said he was LN. Bingo, he obeyed orders like a reliable lad.

I want to be able to improv fast, and move the pace. Removing alignment is not helpful to me.

I get what you are saying, but what if you played the exact same scenario, but with another fantasy, non-d&d system, say Fantasy AGE or whatever? These shorthands dont exist. Would you really have taken that much more time to resolve the situation? Enough that it would prove a problem and halt the game?

 

[Aldarc]

My opinion is that the paradigm of D&D has rapidly changed since it's renewed popularity in the age of streaming. The new generation of players are bringing in a radically different style of play, and the changes are inevitable. The game is less epic battle of the forces of good and evil, more about bards making sexy time with their drow waifus. And me screaming into the void isn't going to stop it. So if the game is going to change, let it. Let the flood wash away the old and usher in the new. I just don't have to like everything that's changing.

Thank you for clarifying your position. I don't necessarily agree with what you are screaming into the void, but clarifying your position does help me sympathize with it better.

 

[Umbran]

Fixed that for you.

Mod Note:
While this is an oft-used rhetorical advice, the presumption generally leaves it ineffective. Please try to avoid it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well, this thread exploded overnight. At least we can all agree it's been predictable. Sure seems like a lot of arguments for keeping it like it's been recently boil down to:

"You can always change it or ignore it at your table if you don't like all orcs to be default evil."
"And you can do the exact same thing too if you insist on wanting to keep all orcs evil."
"What? Not ME silly. I meant everyone else can change it. I want the rules to reflect MY preference only."

 

[loverdrive]

Examples include Frank Castle, Superman, Eddard Stark, Mando, Stan Smith, Lucius Vorenus, Sturm and Steel Brightblade, Mike Ermantrout, Judge Dredd.

And these guys wouldn't see eye to eye on pretty much everything. Also, without already knowing who the hell those guys are, knowing that they are Lawful wouldn't tell me anything significant.

Your "superior tool" doesn't solve the basic issue that some people have with all creatures being painted with the same broad brush. You also just used more words to describe something that can be encapsulated in 2 letters.

Don't give a naughty word about that issue, honestly. Also, nobody gives a naughty word about gnolls anyway.

Also, yeah, these descriptors can be encapsulated into CE, but at cost of all the important details. Yeah, they kill people for funzies and aren't particularly well-organized, but how are they different from Ettins?

That works worse than alignment. CE tells me much more. And alignment is vague around the edges so that I can input a lot of things of my own. You'd night a good size paragraph at the very least to reach what alignment tells me about a creature, let alone exceed it.

Ok, so what does it tell you? And which of these things are important to the gnolls specifically?

Maybe? But D&D is a big tent. I don't think we need to remove a simple descriptor that has little or no mechanical impact to maintain that tent.

The issue is, it's too damn big of a tent that needs to be shrinked.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, this thread exploded overnight. At least we can all agree it's been predictable. Sure seems like a lot of arguments for keeping it like it's been recently boil down to:

"You can always change it or ignore it at your table if you don't like all orcs to be default evil."
"And you can do the exact same thing too if you insist on wanting to keep all orcs evil."
"What? Not ME silly. I meant everyone else can change it. I want the rules to reflect MY preference only."

Sure, but all things being equal on both sides, removal is the worse option. Better to leave something in place than take it away from people if both sides have the same ability to change things.