D&D 5E RIP alignment

[Aldarc]

I wouldn't know, I don't play those other games. What shorthands do they have for me to build npc motivations?

In the Cypher System, creatures are given a short Motive:

• Demon: hungers for others' pain and fear
• Dragon: self-aggrandizement, hungers for flesh, treasure collection
• Ghost: unpredictable (but often seeking to complete unfinished business)
• Ogre: hungers for flesh, sadistic

It's not a silly enterprise simply due to the fact some silly people try and do it and fail.

Its not hard to understand, but people are gonna screw it up anyway.

This is again just the circular dismissive argument that "of course people get it wrong, but that's because people don't understand alignment as well as I do." The fact that you think everyone else is wrong about alignment does nothing to disprove that, but, instead, you have now TWICE inadvertently reaffirmed something that I have noted is problematic about how people, including yourself, discuss alignment.

 

[loverdrive]

Are you going to do that with AC, and hit points, and ability scores, and attacks, and damage, and all the other average factors of monsters? These are ALL just short hand averages for simplicity sake. Why would alignment be singled out for this special treatment where you shouldn't have a shorthand average listed for those who want it?

These are all tools that can work, or can detract from the game, depending on the design goals. HP, for example, is a good tool to prolong combat without introducing death spiral. If your goal is to have messy, "one slip and you're dead" experience, then HP is unnecessary, doesn't add anything to the game and should be thrown out.

Alignment, right now, is a tool that doesn't add anything. It's like the difference between Slashing, Bludgeoning and Piercing -- nonexistent, and just as with SBP, there are only two ways to fix it -- either make it matter, or throw it the hell out.

 

[Flamestrike]

This is again just the circular dismissive argument that "of course people get it wrong, but that's because people don't understand alignment as well as I do." The fact that you think everyone else is wrong about alignment does nothing to disprove that, but, instead, you have now TWICE inadvertently reaffirmed something that I have noted is problematic about how people, including yourself, discuss alignment.

No, I'm just stating the obvious. Some people have weird moral codes where they justify genocide or murder as a moral Good, or think the ends justifies the means.

Theyre in the minority but they exist.

That being the case were going to have idiots trying to distort the alignment system by applying their own intrrpetarons of 'Good' on the system.

Theyre wrong (having regards to the alignment descriptions from 3E onwards) but hey.

 

[teitan]

Would this happen to be the same poll where 10 out of 10 White People said they couldn't possibly be racist or have white privilege?

This is... probably the dumbest, most reductionist and ignorant take on the idea ever. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it racist and reducin it to "white people" is an reductio ab adsurdam. There is nothing racist in the alignment system, that's plain and simple. The system is not designed to oppress and suppress a minority. That’s a real world concern. Not a fantasy one.

 

[Helldritch]

This is... probably the dumbest, most reductionist and ignorant take on the idea ever. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it racist and reducin it to "white people" is an reductio ab adsurdam. There is nothing racist in the alignment system, that's plain and simple. The system is not designed to oppress and suppress a minority. That’s a real world concern. Not a fantasy one.

From what I can see, the alignment system is guilty of racism by association with racial bias in the MM... There is a lot of confusion between alignment and society.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Would this happen to be the same poll where 10 out of 10 White People said they couldn't possibly be racist or have white privilege?

Nice non-sequitur. Very cool.

 

[clearstream]

I've valued alignment over the years for providing a shorthand for creature motivations. The personality traits in backgrounds have been too wordy, while at the same time being too specific, to serve the same purpose for me. Genetic alignment seems problematic. Cultural alignment? I'm really not sure: to my observation most people think of their own culture as mostly good. I'm also concerned about the good/evil dichotomy: to my observation creatures aren't just flatly evil or flatly good, and to tell ourselves stories based on that can lead into problematic habits of thinking.

I'd like to see a thoughtful take on motivations using keywords, and possibly cultural values likewise. Something like that. Not personality traits - I find them largely useless.

 

[Imaculata]

I've never had any problems with the alignment system. There is some language in regards to the alignment of certain races that hasn't stood the test of time well. But to claim that the alignment system itself is inherently racist is absurd, and shows a misunderstanding of the game and its alignment system.

D&D was not designed to be an ethical debate. It started off as a simple game of good versus evil. The alignment system was designed to easily put various creatures into simple boxes. Much like a computer game, the players are the heroes, and they slay the bad guys, and collect the treasure. As the hobby grew, the dungeon crawls of old transformed into more meaningful stories. Nowadays we tend to think a bit more about morality and our stories become better and slightly more realistic. But it is perfectly fine to still run your D&D as a straight forward kick-in-the-door dungeon crawl, with simple bad guys. There is nothing wrong with that.

I've run adventures in which the players fought drow who were all pure evil. We didn't stop to have long debates about ethics. They were the baddies, and in D&D you kill the baddies. It's a game, none of it is real, so who cares? There is nothing inherently racist about running your game this way. Drow can still all be evil, if you want them to be. But obviously we think a little bit deeper about these sorts of things now, and the language about racial alignment needs to change.

I think though that not much would change about the game if we removed the alignment system completely. And I know some people have mentioned Planescape and Dragonlance. I'm not knowledgeable about any of these settings, but surely even settings that have traditionally involved alignment heavily, can rely on something else, without large changes to the setting and stories? Alignment is after all but a definition of good and evil, and not a game mechanic (anymore)?

 

[Flamestrike]

From what I can see, the alignment system is guilty of racism by association with racial bias in the MM... There is a lot of confusion between alignment and society.

Interesting coming from the guy who runs a game where Orcs are inherently and unredeemable evil, and its OK for LG PCs to engage in actual genocide against them occasionally, and to routinely butcher women, children and non combatant Orcs who have surrendered.

We even hashed out a scenario where my LG Paladin was stripped of his Paladin status by a King because he refused to engage in genocide against Orcs, instead seeking to resolve the conflict peacefully if possible.

 

[Helldritch]

Interesting coming from the guy who runs a game where Orcs are inherently and unredeemable evil, and its OK for LG PCs to engage in actual genocide against them occasionally, and to routinely butcher women, children and non combatant Orcs who have surrendered.

We even hashed out a scenario where my LG Paladin was stripped of his Paladin status by a King because he refused to engage in genocide against Orcs, instead seeking to resolve the conflict peacefully if possible.

And my orcs are not humanoid either. They are more related to the Warhammer40k type. But it was lost on you as you read what you wanted to read. There are different kinds of orcs. Some are people others are not. It all depends on the campaign setting.

Consider them like the bugs in starship troopers. Or even demonic being but you insist on applying your orcs to my campaign.

In my Ebberon campaign I have orc Paladins of the Silverflame that are quite honorables and righteous. You decided to ignore the context of the campaign.

You juge me on wrong assumptions by your wrong standards but that is ok. I am old enough to take it and not caring about it. Maybe we should have a private chat so that you'll stop bringing the subject on the table and move on forward.