D&D 5E RIP alignment

[Scribe]

That's not a loss, though. You said we'd lose something, but this suggests that the only thing you lose is maybe a minute of time when you have to come up with a motivation for a creature's actions instead of relying on "welp, it's evil."

Nah, but just like the UA/Tasha's thread, this wont go anywhere.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Now I'm imagining the designers at WotC giving the Apocalypse speech.

"No more negative ability modifiers. No more fixed ASIs. No more alignments! NO MORE SYSTEMS! NO MORE!"

And yet, you'll still play 5E because you'll realize that you're already probably houseruling all manner of other stuff into the game to make it your own, so houseruling in a few negative ability mods, some fixed ASIs, and having to remember the alignments of the same monsters that you've been playing with with past few decades isn't really all that much of a hassle.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I like alignment a lot. What I don't like is inherent alignment along racial/species lines (except for fiends and undead) and as far as I am concerned that is all that needs to be fixed.

I said it earlier, but I'd rather get rid of all intelligent (non-extraplaner or undead) evil creatures than get rid of alignment. To me, alignment is more vital to the essence of D&D than orcs or goblins are. I'd rather D&D have humans be the only playable species and remove all others than get rid of alignment.

 

[Alzrius]

And yet, you'll still play 5E because you'll realize that you're already probably houseruling all manner of other stuff into the game to make it your own, so houseruling in a few negative ability mods, some fixed ASIs, and having to remember the alignments of the same monsters that you've been playing with with past few decades isn't really all that much of a hassle.

I see what you did there.

But hey, if you want to use this as your GOTCHA! to ignore everything else I said and thus just keep living your life as you have been thinking everything is fine... more power to ya! Hope it works out!

But it does mean there's still a chance you're gonna possibly get cancelled at some point with that attitude. Even for something you don't think you did wrong. Better enjoy yourself while you can!

 

[Vaalingrade]

You know, if alignment was treated as a setting specific element for the Planescape book and kept its taint out of the core game, that would be fine. Separate aligned morality from actual, keep it as the core conflict and reason that EVERYONE in the Great wheel is a git regardless of what side they're on and it could actually be something interesting. But only for Planescape. Keep it away from core and the 'default'.

Keep the Great Wheel to Planescape too please.

 

[Faolyn]

Nah, but just like the UA/Tasha's thread, this wont go anywhere.

So you're saying that we in fact don't lose anything by removing alignment. OK. Good to know you agree.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This? Thats fundamentally flawed thinking, because alignment is not racist.

Does it matter if you think alignment is or isn't racist? You're already playing the game. WotC's concerned about the Gen Zers who aren't playing the game and whether they potentially would think default evil alignments for certain races are racist. Because they'd like them to start trying the game out as well.

YOU know you can remember that in your world gnolls are irredeemably evil. The people not yet playing don't yet know the gnolls don't have to be.

 

[Charlaquin]

When I started playing and running D&D, I didn't know or understand the difference between demons and devils or why they were at odds.

Now that I do, I find them, the Blood War, and everything surrounding it much more interesting and feel it gives me a lot to work with as a DM.

Right, but you don’t really need the words “lawful evil” and “chaotic evil” to form that understanding. Black vs. black morality is a common trope these days, and most people don’t have a terribly difficult time understanding that villains motivated by a desire for control and villains motivated by a desire for destruction are at odds with one another. “Devils want to rule the world, demons want to watch it burn” works just as well as “Devils are lawful evil, demons are chaotic evil.”

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While these statements are unrelated, I think they both relate to the stylistic shift that @Remathilis described.

Namely, that the same camp that is interested in exploring personal struggles and internal relationships also largely don't care about verisimilitude, instead going for Rule of Cool/Drama/Funny. Sometimes in a mythic style, other times whimsical or farcical instead.

Or more pointedly, "verisimilitude is for dorks" - Nick Butler, creator of Tidebreaker.

Ask them (me) why a kobold can lift as much and hit as hard as a minotaur, and the answer will be "because it makes a good story" or "because it's hilarious". The narrativist shift in the newest generation of D&D play culture (no doubt perpetuated by the boom in streamed APs) means that a lot of players are apathetic (or even hostile) to the old school "realism" that some people in this thread have argued for, even before the discussion gets entangled in the metatextual analysis that drags D&D into the discourse of antiracism and postcolonialism.

I will say that there are plenty of excellent alignment-free systems out there that can do this.

To illustrate: My favorite system is HERO*, as alignment-free as they come. I have actually run faux-D&D campaigns in Fantasy HERO that emulate a great many of the mechanics in the source material, even across various editions simultaneously...except alignment. Using “Package Deals”, I can mimic races, classes, templates, feats- really, most of the game using HERO, but alignment can’t easily modeled by it. So certain things get left out, like “Protection from Law” and so forth. And I see that as a negative.

So for me, there’s no real need to strip D&D of a mechanic that helps it stand out.

“Devils want to rule the world, demons want to watch it burn” works just as well as “Devils are lawful evil, demons are chaotic evil.”

Except that your formulation uses more ink & space (which as a practical matter costs $$$), and it isn’t actually true for all permutations of “lawful evil” or “chaotic evil”, just for Devils and Demons. The merchant who uses legal loopholes to line his pockets may also be lawful evil, but without any drive to actually rule anyone beyond his servants & lackeys. Ditto the old woman in the parable of the onion.

Banal, yes, but still LE.




* D&D, 3.5Ed in particular, is my #2

 

[Scribe]

So you're saying that we in fact don't lose anything by removing alignment. OK. Good to know you agree.

No, but just like the UA/Tasha thread, we could dance around this for a month, but i'm not interested in that.