D&D 5E What do you think should be done with alignment?

[Oofta]

No such nuance allowed with alignment.

Alignment is not meant to tell the whole story, it's a very general guideline in 5E. If you need nuance you need a couple of paragraphs of text and it probably needs to specific to the campaign world and current conditions. I don't need that most of the time.

 

[Faolyn]

Here's a question: what degree of cultural description is acceptable? You may not have alignment per say, but the description next to the statblock usually does a pretty good job of letting you know what the alignment would be (see Relentless Killer, et al). Since one of the concerns regarding alignment is that it pigeonholes behavior (despite the MM intro being very clear that it doesn't), wouldn't you need to change the monster descriptions as well? If so, what do you write? Just physical description, since everything else is up to the individual campaign? Since any race can be anything, how would you describe a gnoll, or a halfling, or a goblin?

While we don't have any other fully sentient people to compare ourselves to (that we know of...), we can point to animals and realize that they have intrinsic behaviors. Some of these behaviors have even been bred into them, in the case of domestic animals: look at the listed temperaments of different breeds of dogs and cats.

Now, for an intelligent fantasy species, like an orc or an elf, you can use similar types of temperaments as a biological basis--as long as you remember that temperament isn't the same as behavior. You can say that orcs are prone to aggression, or are hot-tempered, or are highly emotional. This means you can have an orc who is a violent, sadistic raider or merciless bandit... or who is a prized athlete, or is the leader of a rebellion, is a societal activist, or an artist who is famed for being able to make deeply emotional works.

So for each species you have, you can give them that sort of temperament. And that's how you make each one different.

 

[Scribe]

I would put it back into the mechanics of the game. If people dont like it, its easier to remove things, than add them.

Same as Lineage based ASI.

I would not remove things, that do not need to be removed.

 

[imagineGod]

I just scored a book for 5e inspired by the sons of the legendary Gary Gygax, that is Ernest and Luke "The Lost City of Gaxmoor".
Pretty neat old school that even though I was not even born when Gary Gygax created the world's most popular role playing game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would put it back into the mechanics of the game. If people dont like it, its easier to remove things, than add them.

Hell no! Getting rid of alignment in 3e was such a pain as it was linked to so many mechanics.

 

[Micah Sweet]

While we don't have any other fully sentient people to compare ourselves to (that we know of...), we can point to animals and realize that they have intrinsic behaviors. Some of these behaviors have even been bred into them, in the case of domestic animals: look at the listed temperaments of different breeds of dogs and cats.

Now, for an intelligent fantasy species, like an orc or an elf, you can use similar types of temperaments as a biological basis--as long as you remember that temperament isn't the same as behavior. You can say that orcs are prone to aggression, or are hot-tempered, or are highly emotional. This means you can have an orc who is a violent, sadistic raider or merciless bandit... or who is a prized athlete, or is the leader of a rebellion, is a societal activist, or an artist who is famed for being able to make deeply emotional works.

So for each species you have, you can give them that sort of temperament. And that's how you make each one different.

Can you say those things? Every one of the traits you listed has been used as a pejorative to describe a group. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would not appreciate being referred to as prone to aggression, hot-tempered, or highly emotional, especially as a group.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Your example really shows my frustration with how 5e implemented Backgrounds. There's a lot of potential there but the traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws that are actually described in the PHB are really bad. Take your example, I would say neither the Ideal or the Bond are really, well an ideal or bond. In my opinion, a more codified system, comparable to attributes and skills, would be more interesting. It's why I wish DnD had something akin to Pendragon's passions and traits system.

Except nothing about 5e Backgrounds are prescribed. Players actually have great latitude in developing a Background in 5e. The T/I/B/F in the sample Backgrounds in the PHB are "Suggested Characteristics". Players can make up their own T/I/B/F, if they like. They are also welcome to customize a background or create their own (working with the DM of course). Hope that relieves some of that frustration!

 

[Scribe]

Hell no! Getting rid of alignment in 3e was such a pain as it was linked to so many mechanics.

Dont worry, I'm aware I wont be getting what I want out of any new revision or edition. You are safe.

 

[Greg K]

It's kind of odd that we have spells with labels that include "good and evil" when they don't really have anything to do with alignment.

But I guess "[detect/dispel/protection from] aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead" is a bit of a mouthful.

Personally, I think there should be individual detect, dispel, protection from spell for each type

 

[Oofta]

Can you say those things? Every one of the traits you listed has been used as a pejorative to describe a group. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would not appreciate being referred to as prone to aggression, hot-tempered, or highly emotional, especially as a group.

Which is the problem I see with making groups, for lack of a better term, basically human with rubber masks and attitudes. The more alien they are, the more they are absolutely definitely clearly not human the better IMHO. Even in humans, there's evidence that brain structure has significant impact on morality [1], I don't have a problem with different species not sharing our concept of "good".

I still want monsters in my game, I think the game needs them. But monsters should be just that, monsters. But this is getting into areas that get threads shut down so that's all I have to say about this specific topic.