D&D General Why do people like Alignment?

[payn]

Come now! It’s a generalization!

(And does not apply to all online posters, I assure you)

This is EN World, we dont do figurative.

 

[GobHag]

Alignment's a great tool, the lore around it in D&D (such as the Upper and Lower Planes) is incredible, and it's useful for both DMs and players.

Removing it from D&D would be a massive mistake.

You don't need alignment to have Planes where the concept of abusive and controlling hierarchy is how the reality is built to justify the existence of LE(or vice versa). Pathfinder removed alignment and replaced it with semi-factional cosmic 'Good vs Evil' and it didn't remove every version of their Upper/Lower Plane into just two either.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah, I think the problem just comes down to the fact that the game rarely shows you the upsides of alignment, only the reverse. And even things that could be upsides, might not be.

For example, in a dungeon, you come across an intelligent magical sword. Great! But...nobody is compatible with it's alignment. If anyone had been, maybe that could have been a cool moment, but alas, it was not to be.

Beyond the Crystal Cave has one of these scenarios- you come across a jewel-encrusted sword stuck into a tree. This lures the players into an encounter so they can try to claim it. And if they do? Oh well, it's a Neutral Evil +1 sword! Doh! (And BtCC is really not the adventure you want to bring evil characters on, lol...)

Or again, getting zapped by a 3.5 unholy blight because you dared write "NG" on your character sheet (or worse, taking a negative level by picking up a sword of the wrong alignment!).

Now of course, you can have positive moments with alignment, but these always seemed way less common. It didn't help that AD&D had multiple ways your alignment could be changed on a dime (cursed helmets, the Balance card, Acererak's portal in the Chapel of Evil, Gary's Tricks and Traps in the DMG, Lycanthropy, and so on), all the while with this resulting in the loss of powers for certain classes.

Which reminds me of an interesting debate I had with my DM about a forced alignment change on my Cleric wearing a Phylactery of Faithfulness, lol, a magic item that's sole function is to warn you that your actions are putting your alignment at risk!

 

[Eric V]

Forgive me if this has already been addressed.

How many people, specifically as players, like the old-school alignment system?

(Just checking to see if the player role vs DM role makes a difference here).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Maybe it's not the same kind of thing as is being discussed, but I feel it's at least adjacent.

I am very much of the same opinion.

Too often, as a DM, I can get too caught up in not wanting to let players get away with murder, lol, because letting them be creative has come back to bite me in the rump many a time. But letting players be creative is the reason we're playing a TTRPG and not a video game! It's like the classic scenario of the DM who wails that his players only ever use things on their character sheet "why don't they try swinging on chandeliers?", they'll cry.

And then the first time a player tries to do something innovative, the DM is like "Ok, if you make your attack roll with disadvantage, and make a DC 15 Acrobatics check, you can Dash as a bonus action using the chandelier, but after the attack, you'll provoke an opportunity attack". Then wonders why the player says "uh, you know what, I think I'll just throw a dagger this turn and move as close as I can".

This, so so so so so much this.

It breaks my heart to see so many players trained to never ever do anything creative, because they had a previous GM (or, usually, several previous GMs) teach them that creativity is pointless, tedious, or (worst of all) actually harmful. It happens far, far too often.

And then those GMs have the gall to blame it on rules.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Forgive me if this has already been addressed.

How many people, specifically as players, like the old-school alignment system?

(Just checking to see if the player role vs DM role makes a difference here).

How old-school are we talking?

I personally prefer taking the ten alignments (nine grid + Unaligned) and giving them a completely different mechanic to express through. I strongly dislike many of the ways alignment was implemented in past editions, especially 3rd edition, but I understand why some folks like it and wish it weren't almost totally irrelevant.

I find that alignment as it was presented often led to far more problems than benefits. That doesn't mean there's no good in it, but it does mean we have to ask what is worth keeping vs not, and whether it is worth the effort to extract it.

 

[AlViking]

Forgive me if this has already been addressed.

How many people, specifically as players, like the old-school alignment system?

(Just checking to see if the player role vs DM role makes a difference here).

I prefer the way alignment is handled now - it's a general guideline to use or not use as the player sees fit.

 

[Eric V]

I am very much of the same opinion.


This, so so so so so much this.

It breaks my heart to see so many players trained to never ever do anything creative, because they had a previous GM (or, usually, several previous GMs) teach them that creativity is pointless, tedious, or (worst of all) actually harmful. It happens far, far too often.

And then those GMs have the gall to blame it on rules.

I feel like a lot of this has to do with the populace being...not great...with on-the-fly math. It doesn't even require bad faith.

Instinctively, it feels like such a maneuver (the chandelier thing) should draw some kind of penalty, right? So then a penalty is assigned...and because we're not great at the math, it's too severe. So adjudicating on the fly, which many DMs say they need to do to not be constrained by the rules, often results in players not trying creative stuff, since the penalty to success is too steep.

It's why a game like PF2e, where many such maneuvers are encoded in the game, can satisfy that itch. Even if the maneuver one wants to try isn't exactly replicated, there's similar examples so that one can adjudicate appropriately.

 

[Eric V]

How old-school are we talking?

I personally prefer taking the ten alignments (nine grid + Unaligned) and giving them a completely different mechanic to express through. I strongly dislike many of the ways alignment was implemented in past editions, especially 3rd edition, but I understand why some folks like it and wish it weren't almost totally irrelevant.

I find that alignment as it was presented often led to far more problems than benefits. That doesn't mean there's no good in it, but it does mean we have to ask what is worth keeping vs not, and whether it is worth the effort to extract it.

Yeah, I should have been more clear; I meant 1e-3e.

 

[Maxperson]

A DM is essential. But so are players. I have a lot of free time and would love to DM more, but like just happened Wednesday, a player whose house we game at wasn't feeling well, so there was no game.

While I have admitted that I've never particularly liked the idea of ceding authority to a player, making concessions to keep the players happy (thus allowing me to have a game, as opposed to sitting at home making forum posts, among other distractions) is paramount. It's true, the DM does the most work to make a game work, but players are necessary to make a game happen in the first place. I've seen DM's lose sight of that, and the consequences.

Everyone is a player in the game in the end. That one player has different responsibilities doesn't change this (I believe someone upthread brought up the Banker in Monopoly as an example. The guy who runs the monsters in Descent would be another one). A lot of virtual ink has been spilled pointing out that the DM has to have fun in the game just as much as the players, but one player's fun should not come at the expense of others.

Matt Colville had a video once about a moment that broke his heart as a DM, when something one player did caused another player to comment something to the effect of: "I didn't know D&D was a game where one player's fun could prevent another's". In the moment, I can lose sight of that, but once I realize it, I make amends.

A few examples-

I had a player be affected by a strange magical creature that polymorphed their hands into crab claws. The player's character was a Changeling, so they asked if they could use their powers to turn their claws into hands. Initially, I said no, but between sessions I realized that, because of the way the game was progressing, their Changeling abilities hadn't been very useful. So I relented by next session.

Last week, I found myself running a Pathfinder 1e game. While I enjoy Pathfinder 1e as a player, I'm definitely burned out at GMing the game. But making the players learn a new system (be it 5e, ToV, or Draw Steel) felt like it would be a hindrance to everyone having fun, so I chose a system everyone knew.

I had told the players that I was aiming for a more casual (even a bit silly) game, and asked them to make...less than optimized characters. They got into a fight with zombies and were struggling with their DR, and it was looking like they might TPK and the players were getting somewhat fatalistic. After a quick bio break, I came back to the table and announced that I was going to just ignore the DR for the rest of the fight, which allowed them to win, and everyone seemed happier as a result. I know a lot of DM's who would be horrified at the thought of giving players a break, lol, but I just didn't see how it would serve anyone for things to go on as they did- and after all, if their characters were unoptimized and thus lacked slashing weapons, that was kind of on me, wasn't it?

Another thing that happened was that the group's Arcanist kept knocking enemies prone with their Magic Missile (thanks to the Toppling Missile Feat). They told the party's Ninja that they could get their Sneak Attack against prone targets.

That's wrong and I was about to say so, but then it occurred to me that it wasn't a big deal. There were going to be lots of times that she'd be denied Sneak Attack in the future, and why not let the party synergize together? So I kept my mouth shut.

Maybe it's not the same kind of thing as is being discussed, but I feel it's at least adjacent. Too often, as a DM, I can get too caught up in not wanting to let players get away with murder, lol, because letting them be creative has come back to bite me in the rump many a time. But letting players be creative is the reason we're playing a TTRPG and not a video game! It's like the classic scenario of the DM who wails that his players only ever use things on their character sheet "why don't they try swinging on chandeliers?", they'll cry.

And then the first time a player tries to do something innovative, the DM is like "Ok, if you make your attack roll with disadvantage, and make a DC 15 Acrobatics check, you can Dash as a bonus action using the chandelier, but after the attack, you'll provoke an opportunity attack". Then wonders why the player says "uh, you know what, I think I'll just throw a dagger this turn and move as close as I can".

Just kidding. I'd have done almost the same in those situations.

With the changeling situation, that would both be cool and be at a minimum possible. So I'd either have allowed it to work, or create a rule where changelings can roll vs. some DC to overcome.

With the second example, if the DM makes a mistake or creates a situation where a TPK can happen, it's on the DM to fix the situation he caused. I completely agree with your take there, though I might have done it in a different way. No idea since I wasn't there.

The third situation, though, I absolutely would have handled differently. I would not have kept silent about the sneak attack against prone targets. If I were going to allow it, I'd correct the players on the rule, but then say that it makes sense to me for it to work on prone targets, so from now on it does. That way the players aren't ever going to be in a situation where 12 games later they realize they made a mistake and feel like either they need to continue to put one past me, or feel like they've been doing something wrong and come forward with their "mistake." That's not a ding against you, but simply saying how and why I would do it.