D&D 5E RIP alignment

[Charlaquin]

So does this mean Planescape is dead?

I can’t imagine why it would.

 

[cmad1977]

Maybe, but it’s also, as people in this thread have said, part of D&D’s identity. It would take very little effort to dedicate a page of the 6e PHB and an inch of space on the character sheet to let people who want to have an alignment to describe their character with do so, while not having default alignments on any PC races, NPCs, or monsters (which is the thing people don’t like about it).

RE: D&Ds identity.
I’m pretty sure alignment is really far down the list of things that make up the identity of D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, there is one good reason. When folks are upset at the idea of inborn alignment, removing alignment from everyone is a pretty strong statement that inborn alignment is gone. Though as noted, I think there were less absolutist ways of addressing that problem...

It's a good idea to make changes. I don't agree that it's a good idea to remove it.

 

[JEB]

Maybe, but it’s also, as people in this thread have said, part of D&D’s identity. It would take very little effort to dedicate a page of the 6e PHB and an inch of space on the character sheet to let people who want to have an alignment to describe their character with do so, while not having default alignments on any PC races, NPCs, or monsters (which is the thing people don’t like about it).

Sure, it's possible. Though I'm not clear how, if it's problematic for even a unique NPC like Shemshime there to have an alignment, how it's not also problematic for a PC to have an alignment. And I can see that being a question Wizards would rather just avoid. This is why I think we're more likely to see alignment in 6E as an optional rule, tucked in the back of the DMG, rather than something front-and-center.

I suppose a lot might depend on how well the 5E fanbase responds to the disappearance of alignment.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think alignment has value, for reasons mentioned about a quick identifier for general behavior/beliefs. But I think a basic good, neutral, evil descriptor is plenty good for that, and nine values isn’t needed. I also don’t mind it dropped from mundane intelligent humanoids as any sort of default. Let the GM decide those based on table preference. Only monsters, undead, and fiends should have default alignments IMO

 

[Charlaquin]

RE: D&Ds identity.
I’m pretty sure alignment is really far down the list of things that make up the identity of D&D.

I don’t disagree, but tell that to these folks and everyone who liked their posts.

For me, dropping alignment would be a mistake. It’s always been something that helped distinguish D&D from a great many FRPGs that followed it.

if we get rid of alignment, classes and several other traditions, my concern is that it won’t “feel like” D&D to some. And it may not be a big deal if they are solely focused on younger players.

Without alignments, D&D loses a bit of its identity.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure, it's possible. Though I'm not clear how, if it's problematic for even a unique NPC like Shemshime there to have an alignment,

I mean, I don’t think it is, but it makes sense that WotC would want to err on the side of caution.

how it's not also problematic for a PC to have an alignment.

Because the player made the choice to do so.

And I can see that being a question Wizards would rather just avoid. This is why I think we're more likely to see alignment in 6E as an optional rule, tucked in the back of the DMG, rather than something front-and-center.

I suppose a lot might depend on how well the 5E fanbase responds to the disappearance of alignment.

Maybe. WotC is going to have to decide whether it’s better to avoid upsetting people who might find alignment problematic or to avoid upsetting people who see it as a defining part of the game’s identity. Seems to me like the safest compromise would be to include alignment only as an optional descriptive trait you can choose to use for your own character if you want to, and otherwise ignore it. That way they can technically still say it exists in the game for folks who want it, without it being forced on those who don’t.

 

[JEB]

I think alignment has value, for reasons mentioned about a quick identifier for general behavior/beliefs. But I think a basic good, neutral, evil descriptor is plenty good for that, and nine values isn’t needed.

"Lawful evil" or "neutral evil" or "chaotic evil" are way, way more useful as quick descriptors for personalities than just "evil". 4E's attempt to simplify alignment ran into that issue, there was no longer any quick way to indicate "lawful but not good" or "chaotic but not evil". (4E's tendency to provide little to no personality or behavior for many monsters, outside of combat tactics, compounded that issue. Though at least they got better later.)

That said, I fully expect that a D&D without alignment in statblocks will lead many DMs to default to such simplistic portrayals, because it's easier. Bad guys will be generically bad, good guys generically good. This may even be the case if Wizards makes sure to give every monster/NPC a writeup packed with personality, because not every DM will memorize that... but they could always glance at the alignment in the statblock and go with "this bad guy is also lawful".

 

[Marc Radle]

I absolutely do NOT like this. Alignment is part of D&D, and more to the point, an important part.
The removal of it from stat blocks is a bad, reactionary move in my opinion, and if this is truly the way WotC is moving, it’s going to be pretty disappointing

 

[JEB]

I mean, I don’t think it is, but it makes sense that WotC would want to err on the side of caution.

Indeed. And I expect Wizards to continue erring on the side of caution. Unless, of course, there's pushback the other way.

Maybe. WotC is going to have to decide whether it’s better to avoid upsetting people who might find alignment problematic or to avoid upsetting people who see it as a defining part of the game’s identity. Seems to me like the safest compromise would be to include alignment only as an optional descriptive trait you can choose to use for your own character if you want to, and otherwise ignore it. That way they can technically still say it exists in the game for folks who want it, without it being forced on those who don’t.

I suspect that's a compromise that wouldn't satisfy either party, to be honest. But to be fair, that's how compromises often work...