D&D General The Problem with Evil or what if we don't use alignments?

[Cadence]

Perhaps. But probably still in the fluff section. Actually what I feel the stat block should have, is just some brief summary of the combat tactics of the creature (4e had roles, like that but perhaps a bit longer) that helps the GM to properly use the creature in combat ('Ranged skirmisher,' "melee bruiser' etc.) Because that's what you mostly use the stats for. For out of-combat stuff you need to read the fluff section and/or come up with your own fluff. There really is no shortcut for that and I think it is a bad idea to pretend that there could be.

Certainly was picturing it in the fluff section of the page.

I guess that's how I feel about random tables for things like PCs TBIF's for character creation where I want them to put a lot more thought in. For helping differentiate a group of mooks that would last a scene it didn't feel as bad.

 

[Cadence]

Fear of loud voices has gotten corporation after corporation to cave in. I've seen it over and over in the last 10 years. They fear the loss of revenue. Sometimes those voices are right, but sometimes they are just loud. Alignment just isn't the issue that it was even 13 years ago. And the racial issues are overwhelmingly more about the lore, than alignnment.

It feels like watching some of the folks with say at WotC, that they were leaning that way anyway in this case based on personal preference...

 

[Thunder Brother]

Most DMs just use alignment for most of it.

Running an encounter based primarily on a creature's alignment, if that is the implication here, sounds incredibly monotonous.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Fear of loud voices has gotten corporation after corporation to cave in. I've seen it over and over in the last 10 years. They fear the loss of revenue. Sometimes those voices are right, but sometimes they are just loud. Alignment just isn't the issue that it was even 13 years ago. And the racial issues are overwhelmingly more about the lore, than alignnment.

So when the mechanic is in the game it is there because it works and most people like it, but when it is removed, it is due capitulating to a loud minority...

 

[hopeless]

In answer to the question the one thing I figured out whilst running and playing 5e is that when I can I don't use the stated alignment for any creature I use from the Monster Manual.

In my first game as DM i fell foul of were rats, in retrospect I should have lowered their immunity to resistance but back then I wasn't as familiar with the rules as I wish I had been.

When I played in a game the DM eventually set us up against a group of Orcs led by a war chief that under normal circumstances should have been a total party kill after one PC under the control of the DM critically failed a spell attack (twice) and downed my cleric (after missing the other gnome wizard on the first occasion).

That's 4 x3rd level characters versus I recall 3 Orcs and an Orc War Chief that I tried to command into fleeing sadly he passed the will save.

I didn't check any stats until after the session and that was after learning the two wizards and swashbuckler managed to win the fight, I never did find out how but given the DM well let's leave that train of thought there.

Anyway I designed my own npcs and villains being careful to scale according to what I needed.

I'm far from getting to the level of experience as a dm that I wish I was, but I try.

In answer to the above I made the Orcs Lawful Evil since that to me that makes them a viable force of mercenaries rather than a horde of Chaotic Evil lunatics.

My impression is partly responsible for posting this thread to discuss the alignment issue and I tend to agree to ignore it when it doesn't suit the story.

Do you?

 

[Maxperson]

There really is no shortcut for that and I think it is a bad idea to pretend that there could be.

You're objectively wrong on this, though. There is a shortcut. It's called alignment. And it's not a pretense that it works out great for a whole lot of us. Your personal opinion can't alter that.

 

[Maxperson]

It feels like watching some of the folks with say at WotC, that they were leaning that way anyway in this case based on personal preference...

They aren't going to come out and say, "Yeah, we caved in to loud voices." They are going to put a spin on it to make it their idea.

 

[Maxperson]

Running an encounter based primarily on a creature's alignment, if that is the implication here, sounds incredibly monotonous.

Sure, if you don't know how alignment is used. I can imagine that it would sound monotonous to you. In practice, for those who know how to use alignment, it's anything but monotonous. Alignment =/= always act the same way.

 

[Cadence]

They aren't going to come out and say, "Yeah, we caved in to loud voices." They are going to put a spin on it to make it their idea.

It feels like some of them were ahead of the curve, but I wasn't following closely enough to be sure.

 

[Maxperson]

So when the mechanic is in the game it is there because it works and most people like it, but when it is removed, it is due capitulating to a loud minority...

There is no alignment mechanic in the game(other than 2-3 magic items). Alignment is purely fluff to aid in roleplay.