D&D 5E RIP alignment

[DEFCON 1]

It's not any more of a "fix" than making feats optional. It's simply a difference for those people who don't like alignment, whatever their reason. Alignment isn't racist or broken. If you have the opinion, whatever your reason, that it should not be used, then making it optional at the beginning of the book fixes that. Wanting to ruin it for everyone else is selfish.

Nope, I agree... alignment in of itself for every individual is not racist or broken. However, alignment as a default condition for every member of a race can potentially be seen as racist.

As I've said... I have no problem whatsoever of putting in the flavor text the whens and whys some monsters could do evil things. And I have no problem with said flavor text making it explicit that certain types of activities are listed as 'evil'. But I personally don't see the need to circumvent that flavor text by putting 'evil' in the statblock, thereby implying that every monster of that name is 'evil'. It's a shorthand that doesn't need to be there... because those that already have made the determination of what alignment that monster is doesn't need to be reminded of it... and those that don't know are better off reading the flavor text to get some ideas of why they might be, but also why they might not be.

 

[Lanefan]

The thing is, well designed system is focused. Even better, lazer-focused. Every rule, every word, every setting detail revolves around one, well-defined goal. Everything that doesn't work for that goal should be thrown out, swiftly and ruthlessly.

Say, Blades in the Dark revolves around criminals and their struggles. Monsterhearts revolves around coming to terms with one's nature.

Thus condemning those games to never rise above niche status, no matter ow good or bad their design might be.

I'd much rather have one system that can do everything well enough rather than 100 systems that can each do one thing perfectly, for two reasons: one, I then only have to buy one system; and two, I then only have to learn one system.

 

[Oofta]

Thus condemning those games to never rise above niche status, no matter ow good or bad their design might be.

I'd much rather have one system that can do everything well enough rather than 100 systems that can each do one thing perfectly, for two reasons: one, I then only have to buy one system; and two, I then only have to learn one system.

It also makes the assumption that one style of game development is also inherently superior.

For many people a Porsche 911 is inherently superior to other vehicles, but it's kind of pointless if you need a kids-and-groceries hauler. A laser focused game could be good or bad but it's not what I want for an RPG because I want to tell my own story, not someone else's story.

 

[Rabulias]

Thing is, you can have cosmologically interesting who impact the world and cosmos without needing to lean heavily on alignment for their stories. The Dawn War gods in 4e, for example, did have alignment but it was somewhat tangential to their wider struggle against the Primordials. Lawful Good gods were allied with Chaotic Evil gods against the Primordials and in the interest of fighting for their divine domains in the Astral Sea.

Alignment doesn't make the gods interesting: their stories in the fiction do.

I think that piece of the fiction is a little more compelling because of alignment. It emphasizes how much of a threat the Primordials were if the Lawful Good gods and the Chaotic Evil gods could set aside their vast differences in the Dawn War.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Thus condemning those games to never rise above niche status, no matter ow good or bad their design might be.

I'd much rather have one system that can do everything well enough rather than 100 systems that can each do one thing perfectly, for two reasons: one, I then only have to buy one system; and two, I then only have to learn one system.

I agree with this, I know that the current movement in RPG design spaces is toward ultra specific RPG experiences, and they can be fun, but they often seem to disregard that the experiences they seek to emulate are made up of many things.

For instance, I love Masks: A New Generation, its a game that does this laser focus thing on teenage superheroes and their feelings and personal growth, I admire it mechanically and enjoy it when I play it. But man, it really neglects that sometimes superhero fights are about tactics and power level and bringing down big foes together. There's some effort put into that with the team mechanic, but it suffers from not having a little more combat support. Its still a great game (and trust me, the big games sometimes neglect important stuff too, looking at you exploration in 5e) but something like Pathfinder 2e works better for its coverage of all the different facets of fantasy adventuring.

 

[Aldarc]

I think that piece of the fiction is a little more compelling because of alignment. It emphasizes how much of a threat the Primordials were if the Lawful Good gods and the Chaotic Evil gods could set aside their vast differences in the Dawn War.

I don’t think that alignment makes it more or less compelling as a story.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Dragonlance is also worse without alignment, so much of its themes are wrapped up in the balance of good and evil.

 

[MGibster]

Thus condemning those games to never rise above niche status, no matter ow good or bad their design might be.

I often hear people speak of the entirety of the RPG "industry" as if it's a niche. Even the most popular game is niche.

I'd much rather have one system that can do everything well enough rather than 100 systems that can each do one thing perfectly, for two reasons: one, I then only have to buy one system; and two, I then only have to learn one system.

I have yet to see one system that can do everything well. GURPS comes pretty close, but I don't think it's all that great for high level super hero action.

It also makes the assumption that one style of game development is also inherently superior.

It doesn't. If someone designs a game to emulate a particular genre or even a singular work of fiction it isn't a commentary that it's superior to all other games. While I would certainly argue that Pendragon is better at emulating certain Arthurian legends than Savage Worlds, I wouldn't argue that one approach to gaming was superior to the other. As with many things in life, there are advantages and disadvantages to both design directions. I can't readily adapt Pendragon to a lot of other campaigns (not without some legwork on my part) whereas I can use Savage Worlds for a wide variety of games.

 

[Justice and Rule]

It's not any more of a "fix" than making feats optional. It's simply a difference for those people who don't like alignment, whatever their reason. Alignment isn't racist or broken. If you have the opinion, whatever your reason, that it should not be used, then making it optional at the beginning of the book fixes that. Wanting to ruin it for everyone else is selfish.

It's not that it's a racist tool, but rather such an imprecise one that, when used, can work into racist tropes. Like, there's a difference between something being racist and something that is neutral on its face but ends up enabling racist tropes. Furthermore, it's not even a good tool given that there are so many arguments as to what each alignment means that it hurts more than it helps.

Your analogy would only work if I said removing alignment was like making vanilla ice cream illegal. Obviously I can house rule anything I want.

I mean, no, my analogy works because we're being handed something we don't want and when we want to just stop getting it, people keep saying "Well, you don't have to hang on to it!" It's like junk mail: sure, I can throw it away, but I'd prefer not to get it anymore in the first place. If you want it, then give your address to DMG Enterprises and I'm sure they can hook you up.

I just think getting rid of alignment as a tool is throwing out a useful tool because some people don't understand how it's meant to be used as explicitly spelled out in the books.

But it's not even a good tool anymore. Alignment is not a clarifier, it's a confounder, where people can have distinctly different ideas as to what each alignment means, and thus makes it so no one is on the same page.

Take what @loverdrive did: those ideas are not only more characterful, but much clearer and more specific that it's easier to understand what the NPC actually stands for. But put in "Lawful Neutral" and there are like a half dozen different interpretations. Chaotic Neutral? That can vary from "I don't like rules" to "I'm literally insane", depending on the edition. For new players, they are going to come in with their own ideas, while older players bring in baggage from different editions that might have varying or completely different interpretations of certain alignments.

Let me give an example: You have a sheriff, and they are termed "Lawful Evil". Now does that mean they are greedy? That they abuse the letter of the law too much? Or are they personally cruel in upholding the law? There's a bunch of ways to interpret because "Lawful" and "Evil": for example, would he be up for a bribe? I've seen plenty of people that argue they should, despite the fact that bribes don't really jive with the "lawful" part.

Now if you say "Always harsh in the law, except when a bribe is in hand", that character's specific brand of evil makes sense: they are cruel with the law, but they are open to bribes. Similarly you could go with "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Criminal", you get a slightly different interpretation, as well as "A coward who hides behind their office and authority". These could all fall under "Lawful Evil", but are much clearer when you rely on actual descriptive language instead of trying to fit it into one of 9 boxes (I suppose technically 11, but whatever).

 

[Lanefan]

I rather think it’s removing a barrier to entry. These days, no one is coming into D&D without pre-existing notions of what the various fantastical creatures it features are like. There is a strong cultural zeitgeist around the concepts of orcs, goblins, and other such creatures.

Yeah; that they're generally nasty and to be avoided if-when possible.

I mean, the Harry Potter world does a fine take on Goblins but were I running a HP game I'd never allow one as a PC.

And that's the core of the problem, starting with 3e and carrying on since: the idiocy of allowing monsters* as PCs being baked into the core rules, and the inevitable later fallout when those monsters aren't monsters any more.

* - yes, Drow, Tieflings and Dragonborn are monsters in my view; never mind Orcs, Goblins, etc.

When a new player who has been exposed to all sorts of fantasy media with all manner of different takes on orcs, most of them pretty nuanced, comes in to D&D and reads that orcs are inherently evil, that clashes with their expectation. Some new players will accept this different take, and take the time to read about them and form an understanding of what orcs look like in this setting, but others will be put off by the regressive, reductive take, and will either have to do a lot of extra work to change it to their liking, or pass on the game. In a game that’s at least nominally supposed to be flexible and allow for a wide variety of different settings.

That's fair. Then again, any new player is going to have to accept whatever houserules the DM has surrounding this sort of thing anyway.

It's new DMs for whom this all makes a difference.