D&D 5E RIP alignment

[Maxperson]

The alignment part totally plays a part in that.

No it doesn't. I can play CE humanoid as a savage or I can play it as refined. Alignment played no part in what people were complaining made orcs racist.

No, and I can't stress this enough: a tool is not inherently racist, but it can totally take on racist meaning. Like a whip is a rather longstanding symbol of slavery, and it is typically used by villains because of that.

No. It's typically used by sadistic villains to cause pain. Racism has nothing to do with it. You're seeing lots of racism where it doesn't exist.

 

[Oofta]

I know I've had long discussion with what different alignments might mean with different people. I have people ranging from teens to the 70s at my tables, and it definitely influences how people look at things. I remember someone describing a society, mentioning had slaves. A younger kid responded "Oh, so they're evil" and one of the older guys was like "Well, not necessarily..."

Like, that you don't have these problems at your table doesn't really tell me these problems don't exist.

I never said people had 100% perfect agreement. If there was ever an issue it was up to the DM to explain how they viewed it for their game. But close enough for it to be useful? Absolutely.

 

[Hatmatter]

But the thing is that "alignment" is simply a stand in for ethical values that would be easily explained by a few sentences rather than trying to hammer it into a two-axis system. The Great Wheel can exist without alignment because they can be explained through ethics and philosophy fairly easily.

I agree concerning the cosmology. Like I was saying earlier. I like the game so I like its features. That would probably be the beginning and the end for me.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Fine dude. "I find that people saying it can sometimes maybe be used by racists to fuel racist tropes, is a weak argument for removal."

I'm not interested in the debate. Its simply one more thing being axed for dubious results.

I mean, the reasons for axing it are way clearer than the reasons for keeping it. It's not a good shorthand, and other than just nostalgia I'm not sure what else there is other than contrarianism.

No it didn't. I can play CE humanoid as a savage or I can play it as refined. Alignment played no part in what people were complaining made orcs racist.

But it does, because you create an intrinsic morality system and Orcs are now intrinsically evil right in their lore. Those things play into each other.

No. It's typically used by sadistic villains to cause pain. Racism has nothing to do with it. You're seeing lots of racism where it doesn't exist.

lmao

Dude, whips have a longstanding association with slavery. This is just a fact, and if you can't get that, I don't know what to tell you. That's just reality. And while slavery doesn't always have racial connotations, in the Western Hemisphere it typically does.

Like, any weapon can cause pain. Whips are shorthand for villainous because they are generally thought of as things slavedrivers used. Again, there's a reason we talk about people "Cracking the whip" and not "Baring the blade" or something like that.

I never said people had 100% perfect agreement. If there was ever an issue it was up to the DM to explain how they viewed it for their game. But close enough for it to be useful? Absolutely.

But that doesn't mean that something better couldn't replace it. Like, again, this isn't an argument when people are talking about little blurbs about how people act. Those are more descriptive and would be much more useful because of the large areas those different alignments are meant to cover.

I agree concerning the cosmology. Like I was saying earlier. I like the game so I like its features. That would probably be the beginning and the end for me.

Hey, fair enough. At least you're being honest with yourself about it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yes, I know that the alignment derived from Moorcock, a well as Poul Anderson and some others, but it was also used by Gygax as moral and ethical descriptors as well as a framework for a cosmology.

No, but that's what I'm saying: Gygax's alignment wasn't a framework for cosmology. Zeb Cook wrote Planescape, which codified the cosmology. Gygax was still using alignment to represent factions. There were literal alignment languages.

The tradition we're so concerned about losing isn't even that actual original tradition.

I wonder if back then people were declaring alignment was dead because of the new dumb thing 2e was doing with it?

 

[Oofta]

But that doesn't mean that something better couldn't replace it. Like, again, this isn't an argument when people are talking about little blurbs about how people act. Those are more descriptive and would be much more useful because of the large areas those different alignments are meant to cover.

The examples of "better" that I've seen were just wordy, bloated and often just as bad if not worse.

 

[Justice and Rule]

The examples of "better" that I've seen were just wordy, bloated and often just as bad if not worse.

Wordy and bloated? Like, I gave examples that were less than 6 words.

Meanwhile alignment had to define two different kinds of "Neutral" as well as add in "Unaligned" over time. Like, they've been trying to fix it for years and at this point it's probably just better to recognize that it's not worth fixing.

 

[Hatmatter]

No, but that's what I'm saying: Gygax's alignment wasn't a framework for cosmology. Zeb Cook wrote Planescape, which codified the cosmology. Gygax was still using alignment to represent factions. There were literal alignment languages.

The tradition we're so concerned about losing isn't even that actual original tradition.

I wonder if back then people were declaring alignment was dead because of the new dumb thing 2e was doing with it?

In both the 1978 PHB and the 1979 DMG, Gygax closely adhered the Outer Planes to alignments. Given that it was years before Grubb's Manual of the Planes came out, the impression with which I was left was that alignments were intrinsic to the cosmology. Deities & Demigods reinforced this as well as the demons and devils in the Monster Manual.

 

[Maxperson]

But it does, because you create an intrinsic morality system and Orcs are now intrinsically evil right in their lore.

Orcs have never, ever been intrinsically evil. Not in any edition. There have always been exceptions to the "evil orc." Only DMs can make all orcs evil. And you are correct with the bolded portion. It's the lore that is the issue with orcs. Alignment is not a part of the lore.

Dude, whips have a longstanding association with slavery. This is just a fact, and if you can't get that, I don't know what to tell you. That's just reality. And while slavery doesn't always have racial connotations, in the Western Hemisphere it typically does

And if I use one in that manner as a player, there's a problem. If I use one for tricks in a circus or like Indiana Jones does, there is no problem. Humans have been really nasty for a really long time. If you look hard enough, just about everything negative has been perpetrated on some culture at some point. Are we supposed to eliminate everything negative from gaming just because it can be related to a real culture or group?

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

If you take out alignment then how do you have Evil High Priests or Evil Grand Viziers?

(Warning, that link is a TV Tropes link. Your productivity will suffer.)