If you need your alignment in order to figure out what your character would do in a given situation, surely you have bigger problems.
It's nice that you have never encountered a situation in which a player is trying to "feel out" how to play a character organically from session 1, but in many cases players do this, and alignment can certainly help them decide when they are not 'sure yet' what a character would do. It can be a helpful RP aid to ask yourself, "Hm, what would a Lawful Evil character *do* in this situation?" This is similar to the Psychological Limitation Disadvantage in Champions. The character has 20 points of "Always tells the truth." This Psych. Lim. helps guide how you RP the character in situations in which you, the player, might recognize that it would be more expedient to tell a "little white lie."
Maybe some people are super-amazing RPers who don't need any guidance to help them RP a character who is very different from themselves, but not everyone is like this, and many players find having "guideposts" helpful. If they didn't, there wouldn't be sections in the PHB for each race on describing how they generally act. These, too, are RPing aids. Would it make sense to argue that "if you need the section on how to play a Dwarf to figure out what a dwarf would do in a given situation..." you have "bigger problems?" Again, lots of people find such guidance helpful. Just because you and the people you play with don't find alignment helpful in deciding how to RP a character, doesn't mean that people who do find it helpful "have problems."
Pros: It's a fantastic system for high fantasy heroic play, with cosmic conflicts between good and evil or between law and chaos. It is also the basic support of the standard D&D cosmic wheel cosmology, and therefore of Planescape, which is not only the greatest D&D setting ever, but also works extremely well in parallel with most other settings.
Cons: Lots of people misunderstand it, some of them absolutely on purpose, so it gets lots of flak for totally unjustified reasons if you actually read about.
Ah the ol' "Really puff up the Pros and when I list a Con its not really a Con " approach.
It definitely has CONs and if you ignore them or downplay others problems with them it does not really contribute to a productive discussion on them.
Cons for me are that everyone has a different idea of what "Chaotic Good" or "Lawful Evil" looks like....its subjective and makes it hard. Everyone has a different concept of what these things mean and ultimately its non-productive. Some might see a "Lawful Neutral" as actually "Lawful Evil" because allowing evil things to happen can be thought of as evil etc etc...
Morality does not fit into neat buckets for most people so having a system that encourages you to do just that is not everyones idea of a good time. That is completely fine too and you can always add strict alignments to a game if you want.
Having them removed by default and just describing the generalized nature of creatures seems good enough to me as their actions maybe viewed as Good/Evil based on perspective.
Pros: if you are using a setting with planes it makes sense for classification purposes of the planes and can work for more Heroic Fantasy as mentioned if Good/Bad is very well defined and identified.
if you're playing very-old-school, tropey, classic fantasy, it maps well to the common expectations, and provides a quick-and-dirty way to define characters.
if you're dealing with children (etc.) who are used to viewing narratives as "good vs evil," adding "law vs chaos" and making it a 2-dimensional problem can be a very good excercise in learning about more complex viewpoints. It makes it easier to distinguish between, say, King Arthur (lawful good) and Robin Hood (chaotic good), etc.
The 3x3 grid has that personality-test appeal to people who like to put things in categories.
Cons:
Given the existence of far-more-detailed systems like 5e's traits/ideals/bonds/flaws, or the countless other similar systems that other RPGs use, alignment is basically a speed bump. It's more of a hinderance than a help, because it's so reductive.
When it does show up in mechanics, or get used by a table to restrict what kinds of characters they can play, it reduces the game to a lowest-common-denominator situation that can be out of place with nuanced roleplaying.
With the best match of traditional high fantasy, it's still reductive, and pigeon-holes whole "races" and cultures.
With most other genres, when applied to races/cultures/ethnicities/species, it's essentialist and kinda racist. This is part and parcel of old-school D&D's core ideas, which come from classic fantasy ideas, which are unfortunately based on eurocentric imperialist concepts that are all about pigeon-holing whole nations --- alignment is just where those ideas are worn most on the sleeve.
If followed too rigidly, players can feel pigeonholed in their character's behaviors
It's mostly vestigial in gameplay, except in a few glaring areas
Just to discuss further, how do you consider this a con ? I would actually argue that it was too intertwined with the game system before, in particular in terms of spells (and as you point out, it's really vestigial now, and these vestiges are really easy to remove, mostly a few creatures' powers), which made it harder to disentangle for games in which the DM did not want it... 5e made the call of making it really, really an option, does that enhance or diminish the con for you ?
I consider it a con because the game leaves certain aspects of gameplay wedded to the alignment system (cosmology, certain magic item/creature mechanics), but give very little information to the DM/players on how to understand the nuances of the alignment system, leading to groups either 1) rigidly conforming to the most prototypical behaviors of their alignment, or 2) eschewing it entirely, with most groups doing the latter.
Because it is vestigial, it feels like wasted potential.
Easy at-a-glance indications of how you can expect a character or creature to behave, allowing the DM to better plan or portray an event
allows magical items or effects which change depending on the alignment of the target
Good roleplay cues, to help players who care about their alignment to keep themselves where they want to be
easily changed to reflect a characters actions - anyone can burn down an orphanage, but can't expect to stay "Good" afterwards. A law abiding citizen, whisked into the world of crime and having to keep committing it to escape, goes from Lawful to Neutral or even Chaotic.
Con's:
Almost always misinterpreted as the cause and not the effect. People always go down the "you can't do that, you're good" route instead of "If you do that, you're not good any more!". If a player wants to open an orphanage and save all the poor children from freezing, without any evil plots, they shouldn't be told they can't "Because they're chaotic neutral". Player actions define alignment; NPC alignment defines actions.
Almost always misinterpreted as being absolutely binary and extreme, IE If you're not a saint or a mass-murderer, then you're neutral. "Good" doesn't mean "The Most Good", and Evil doesn't mean "The Most Evil". Someone who helps save someone, but didn't want to and are only doing it because their friends are doing it, and would happily throw the person off the cliff if it wouldn't make their friends angry, is evil. But they still saved the person. They most certainly aren't neutral.
"Chaotic" is almost always misinterpreted as meaning "Random". "I will try to steal the guards helmet because I'm chaotic lol", or some such. Chaotic can mean a few things, chief among which is that you don't care for the laws of the land. That doesn't stop you from knowing the consequences of them - the only reason you know not to steal the guards helmet is because he will arrest you for doing it. You just don't see or care for the reasons - the consequences are still able to drive you.
"Lawful" is almost always misinterpreted as meaning "Will not break the law". It actually means "Has a set of rules to abide by". Nothing says this is the laws of the people, it could be the laws of a god that once their blade is drawn it must be blooded, or that one stands by their comrades no matter what, or that only the strong survive, and anyone sinking should be cut loose lest they drag you down with them. A Lawful Evil character follows their own code of conduct, but if that involves daily sacrifices to the gods, that won't sit well with the town guards.
Almost always misinterpreted to be fixed. Why would you think that? Even the best people have thought "What if I just slap them? right now?". Giving into that impulse would snap you from Lawful to Chaotic.
In short - all the Con's are down to people misunderstanding the system and thinking things like that it drives a PC's actions, rather than being driven by a PC's actions, and that it can't change.
If you need your alignment in order to figure out what your character would do in a given situation, surely you have bigger problems.
It's nice that you have never encountered a situation in which a player is trying to "feel out" how to play a character organically from session 1, but in many cases players do this, and alignment can certainly help them decide when they are not 'sure yet' what a character would do.
I can understand that. However, having a rough idea of the character's personality is more likely to be helpful, IMHO.
I will admit that I misspoke. There is nothing wrong with using the alignment system as a crutch until you flesh out your character fully. There isn't really anything wrong with ignoring everything else and just portraying your character as an alignment and nothing else, if that's what you enjoy doing. However, I feel it is much more productive to spell out a few personality traits that describe your character's moral viewpoint than to say "I'm NG". The former takes a bit of thought but gives a much more personal guide to behaviour. The latter takes very little thought or imagination and gives, at best, a very generic, stereotyped guide to behaviour (and at worst, none at all, because it's difficult to get a consistent view on what each alignment means).
Pros: It's a fantastic system for high fantasy heroic play, with cosmic conflicts between good and evil or between law and chaos. It is also the basic support of the standard D&D cosmic wheel cosmology, and therefore of Planescape, which is not only the greatest D&D setting ever, but also works extremely well in parallel with most other settings.
Cons: Lots of people misunderstand it, some of them absolutely on purpose, so it gets lots of flak for totally unjustified reasons if you actually read about.
Ah the ol' "Really puff up the Pros and when I list a Con its not really a Con " approach.
Oh, sure, because the OP did even try to find any Pros... :p
It definitely has CONs and if you ignore them or downplay others problems with them it does not really contribute to a productive discussion on them.
And, once more, the fact is proven by your post that the "cons" that you think are part of the alignment are just things which are not and never were in the rules. It has never been "strict", it has never mandated character play, as for having different ideas well, this is exactly why they are wide in their definitions. And exactly why 5e causes so many problems for people who absolutely want to play with strict definitions, whether it's in terms of actual rules or in terms of general hints about roleplaying.
You can't have it both ways, complaining at the same time that it is a straightjacket and too fuzzy at the same time.
Cons for me are that everyone has a different idea of what "Chaotic Good" or "Lawful Evil" looks like....its subjective and makes it hard. Everyone has a different concept of what these things mean and ultimately its non-productive. Some might see a "Lawful Neutral" as actually "Lawful Evil" because allowing evil things to happen can be thought of as evil etc etc...
Simply read the actual sections on alignment instead of propagating rumours. Actually, this is exactly what my second point was about.
Morality does not fit into neat buckets for most people so having a system that encourages you to do just that is not everyones idea of a good time. That is completely fine too and you can always add strict alignments to a game if you want.
And once again, strawmanning will not get you anywhere.
Having them removed by default and just describing the generalized nature of creatures seems good enough to me as their actions maybe viewed as Good/Evil based on perspective.
Oh, sure, remove the "chaotic evil" from the orc description, it will certainly remove this from the description:
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces," very flattering I'm sure...
"They gather in tribes that satisfy their bloodlust by slaying any humanoids that stand against them"
"They set the remains of villages and camps ablaze, then retreat whence they came, their bloodlust satisfied."
Intelligence: 7
And I'm skipping the section about procreation...
See the hypocrisy there, I hope ? How removing the alignment really redeems the race ? Sheesh...
Pros: if you are using a setting with planes it makes sense for classification purposes of the planes and can work for more Heroic Fantasy as mentioned if Good/Bad is very well defined and identified.
Just a point, Eberron has planes but very little on alignment, it's not really about planes, it's actually about aligned planes which of course go with alignment, not with planes.
Obviously they are working on modifying the Orc/Drow racial descriptions to move forward with less problematic interpretations of the race. Its funny you talk about the issues with the way the race is represented as unapologetically evil but do not see thats exactly why they are removing alignment...as a first step towards adjusting these races to catch up with the times.
Oh boy, an alignment thread that is pretending to be a polite and constructive debate but is actually a battle ground to insult or belittle those who use or don’t use it because......
“if you don’t like the system then you are using it wrong and aren’t playing D&D right while also never agreeing on what each section of the alignment wheel even means because morality is subjective and the definitions have changes over the different editions”
or
“if you do use the alignment system you are a bad, uncreative, lazy, other negative adjectives here D&D player/DM and I’m going to vaguely but not really vaguely insult and mock you for it even though I’m proving by being a close minded jerk that you can be a bad player without it”?
Color me surprised!
Im sorry if that comes off as very salty but.....use the alignment system or don’t. But don’t be a jerk just because you opinion is different. I just hate how these sorts of threads turn into subtle and not so subtle ways to insult others for playing differently. If that’s not your intention I apologize, but for some who have already posted it sort of reads like it.
People who do not use the alignment system are not playing D&D wrong. There are many ways to play this game and many people color their worlds with various philosophical views that color the deities and mortal races in their worlds.
People who do use the alignment system are not suddenly uncreative or lazy players/DMs just because you do not like this system. Do you need to use the system? No. However, many do use it in broad and interesting ways to world build and deal with various moral dilemmas in their campaigns.
For me? I use the basic concept of alignment and expand upon it. It’s a fun thought experiment to think of how various different actions and the motivations behind them can be viewed differently on the alignment wheel depending on who is doing the action, who the action is being done to, and who else is witnessing said action as a third party. It’s something that I can use to help flesh out my world.
However, I’m also glad it’s optional and not hard coded into the game because it actually gives me more freedom to play around with the system and make it fit my view of it and how I as a DM use it. And honestly, if alignment was removed entirely....it wouldn’t stop those that enjoy using it as a world building or character creation tool from using it. Homebrew does exist after all.
No Pros and Cons? Well.....it doesn’t read to me that people actually care about that. So sorry for not posting any.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
I feel it is much more productive to spell out a few personality traits that describe your character's moral viewpoint than to say "I'm NG".
You said the thousand-dollar phrase though -- "I feel it is..." You feel it is more productive to do something other than use alignment to describe a moral viewpoint. Just because you feel that way, doesn't mean everyone else has to.
I find it odd that in these threads I argue on the side of the more old-school or classical interpretation of these things such as alignment, racial stat bonuses, and so on. I'm sure most people reading my comments think I am some old curmudgeon (true) who wants everything to always be done the way Gygax wrote it down in 1974. But the reality is that I've played tons of other RPGs over the years that do not use alignment at all, and my personal favorite, Champions, never did. I have no problem not having alignment at all in that game. And consequently, I certainly don't think one has to have alignment in an RPG, nor even that one has to have it in D&D.
However, there's nothing inherently wrong with the alignment system as it was interpreted originally, and it can serve as a useful play-aid to people who are not all that familiar with RPing, especially with RPing characters not entirely (or maybe not at all) like themselves. It's also super-useful for DMs who do not have time to make up a bunch of personality traits for every single freaking orc in the game, and may find it much easier to just play the lot of them as "chaotic evil." And no, not because they are some sort of a "closet racist," but because they have 1,000 other things to do as a DM, and making up individual personalities for every single orc is not a constructive use of their time, when the orcs are just there to be "stormtroopers" to be taken down in battle so that the party can move onto the next step in the adventure.
Like anything else in any RPG system, Alignment is a tool in the toolbox. You don't have to use it to have a good game. But sometimes it's helpful, and there is nothing wrong with using that tool. Especially not just because someone on the internet "feels" it would be better not to use this too, but to use other tools instead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Thanks for the answer, but I'm still lost abut which direction you would like to go. Is the con that it is vestigial, and not complete ? Or is it something else ? And when you mean "potential", is it potential for more alignement in the system , or for removing it completely ?
As for me, honestly the vestiges are very limited and although it might have been made better by completing the cut, it is already optional enough that it should not be a problem for all parties (which is why I'm a bit surprised to see views which are so strong on that thread for something that is practically an option in all but name, not to mention the return of the cancel culture in some posts).
I think the point is that, while there are mechanics in the game which utilise it, the fact that it is optional and often unused until something comes up which needs it causes problems.
If you have not been using alignments in your game, and you end up with a magic item which say it only works for those with a certain alignment, or which has different effects based on alignment, it suddenly becomes non-optional. These include 7 core items (that I have seen) from the DMG which appear on the random magic item tables, so could well appear without the DM planning ahead for them.
If it was a core rule, everyone would know their alignment and, when it came up, everyone would be ready. If they completely removed its use from the core rules, that would be fine too. But with the vestigial implementation there are going to be times when a situation crops up where the characters need to know their alignment but don't (or the DM needs to come up with an on-the-spot workaround). This is definitely a Con.
Having them removed by default and just describing the generalized nature of creatures seems good enough to me as their actions maybe viewed as Good/Evil based on perspective.
Oh, sure, remove the "chaotic evil" from the orc description, it will certainly remove this from the description:
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces," very flattering I'm sure...
"They gather in tribes that satisfy their bloodlust by slaying any humanoids that stand against them"
"They set the remains of villages and camps ablaze, then retreat whence they came, their bloodlust satisfied."
Intelligence: 7
And I'm skipping the section about procreation...
See the hypocrisy there, I hope ? How removing the alignment really redeems the race ? Sheesh...
All those orc descriptors are pretty bad, and arguably racist (or speciesist, whatever). But using the alignment system to declare all orcs as evil? That's a big step. That says "if you're a good character, you can fight and kill orcs without your alignment flipping." Fighting evil is something good does, so good characters are supposed to fight orcs. It's basically encoding genocidal propaganda into the very fabric of the world. It's messed up.
From a gamist perspective, sure, it's nice to have a group of faceless antagonists you can exercise all that gameplay on without in-character remorse. But the moment you treat it as a serious question of morality, in-character, it gets more complicated. Alignment can help reinforce the view of D&D as a board game, even if it's reductive while doing so, but that has narrative consequences.
I do agree that having alignment restrictions on magic items is problematic for those who do not use it, and alternative formulations should have been provided for those items, that restrict them in other ways. Not sure *how* to restrict them exactly, but they should have thought of something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Pro - As a system, it's simple. Which means as a tool for building characters it's easy to use and accessible for people who don't want to have to psychologize their characters too much, whether they are Player or Non-Player.
Con - As a system, it's simple. Which means as a model for portraying the psychology of characters it's limited and flawed, and for those who would rather have a genuine understanding of the psychology of their characters than just painting them with broad strokes the alignment chart seems stifling.
As a whole I think Alignment is fine as long as it's understood for what it is, which is an over simplified and broad strokes chart of morality and ethics. I think the change of having Detect Evil and Good detect the alignment of sapient Prime Material people to just having it detect the presence of extra planar entities aligned with specific planes was a good thing. Characters who are portrayed as people, rather than supernatural representatives of conceptual forces, should not be portrayed as anything less than fully autonomous and free willed. I think the new trend of declining to give alignment tags to creature stat blocks is similarly good. I think that magical items that depended on the alignment of the user was a misstep and yes, leads to the idea that alignment is something that can be empirically tested for, which is silly and damaging.
Having them removed by default and just describing the generalized nature of creatures seems good enough to me as their actions maybe viewed as Good/Evil based on perspective.
Oh, sure, remove the "chaotic evil" from the orc description, it will certainly remove this from the description:
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces," very flattering I'm sure...
"They gather in tribes that satisfy their bloodlust by slaying any humanoids that stand against them"
"They set the remains of villages and camps ablaze, then retreat whence they came, their bloodlust satisfied."
Intelligence: 7
And I'm skipping the section about procreation...
See the hypocrisy there, I hope ? How removing the alignment really redeems the race ? Sheesh...
All those orc descriptors are pretty bad, and arguably racist (or speciesist, whatever). But using the alignment system to declare all orcs as evil? That's a big step. That says "if you're a good character, you can fight and kill orcs without your alignment flipping." Fighting evil is something good does, so good characters are supposed to fight orcs. It's basically encoding genocidal propaganda into the very fabric of the world. It's messed up.
From a gamist perspective, sure, it's nice to have a group of faceless antagonists you can exercise all that gameplay on without in-character remorse. But the moment you treat it as a serious question of morality, in-character, it gets more complicated. Alignment can help reinforce the view of D&D as a board game, even if it's reductive while doing so, but that has narrative consequences.
Are we really back here?
Orcs don't exist in real life. to quote every disclaimer in the world, "Any resemblance to any persons, alive or dead, is purely coincidental".
It is impossible to create a violent race that embraces war and not education without then also saying that they are a violent race that embraces war and not education.
With the way that orcs have been written into DnD, they are aligned correctly. A race of savage pillagers who's pastimes include burning, murdering, stealing, looting and killing is only going to be Chaotic Evil.
For the "Good Guys kill Bad guys" argument - the world (imaginary or otherwise) isn't black & white.
I imagine that they will be re-writing Orcs into the world differently, probably having "Savage Orcs" as the current depiction of wild tribes who kill anyone (chaotic and evil, isn't it?) and also having civilized Orcs who have a more neutral standpoint.
As for what matters here - alignment - the description of Orcs matches Chaotic Evil. If they were described as quiet, bookish sorts who lived in their libraries and seldom ventured out into the world except to distribute home-baked cookies, they would A: no longer be Chaotic Evil, and B: No longer fill the gap of a brutal savage race of murderers, and a new race would need to be introduced to fill that gap for people who want savages in the wilds of their lands.
I feel it is much more productive to spell out a few personality traits that describe your character's moral viewpoint than to say "I'm NG".
You said the thousand-dollar phrase though -- "I feel it is..." You feel it is more productive to do something other than use alignment to describe a moral viewpoint. Just because you feel that way, doesn't mean everyone else has to.
And as I said outside the selective quote you chose, this is all my opinion and there is nothing wrong with using alignment that way (or, indeed, any way) if you wish.
I have made no effort to hide the fact that I strongly dislike the alignment system. I find it lazy and boring. I also feel that, while those who use it are certainly not all prejudiced or bigoted, it's use does encourage behaviours and thought patterns (whether in game or out) which have been at the core of discrimination for centuries (especially when used with an absolute Planescape or fixed/nearly-fixed racial alignments). I, personally, avoid games where it would be a major part, and I don't use it in my own games. But, while I have a strong opinion on it, I do recognise that it is my opinion. I will not try to force others to follow it, and I try not call them wrong for using alignments (when I slip up and do so, it is accidentally and born of frustration).
So, yes, I said "the thousand-dollar phrase". I said it consciously and fully acknowledging that these are my opinions.
Having them removed by default and just describing the generalized nature of creatures seems good enough to me as their actions maybe viewed as Good/Evil based on perspective.
Oh, sure, remove the "chaotic evil" from the orc description, it will certainly remove this from the description:
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces," very flattering I'm sure...
"They gather in tribes that satisfy their bloodlust by slaying any humanoids that stand against them"
"They set the remains of villages and camps ablaze, then retreat whence they came, their bloodlust satisfied."
Intelligence: 7
And I'm skipping the section about procreation...
See the hypocrisy there, I hope ? How removing the alignment really redeems the race ? Sheesh...
All those orc descriptors are pretty bad, and arguably racist (or speciesist, whatever). But using the alignment system to declare all orcs as evil? That's a big step. That says "if you're a good character, you can fight and kill orcs without your alignment flipping." Fighting evil is something good does, so good characters are supposed to fight orcs. It's basically encoding genocidal propaganda into the very fabric of the world. It's messed up.
From a gamist perspective, sure, it's nice to have a group of faceless antagonists you can exercise all that gameplay on without in-character remorse. But the moment you treat it as a serious question of morality, in-character, it gets more complicated. Alignment can help reinforce the view of D&D as a board game, even if it's reductive while doing so, but that has narrative consequences.
Are we really back here?
Orcs don't exist in real life. to quote every disclaimer in the world, "Any resemblance to any persons, alive or dead, is purely coincidental".
It is impossible to create a violent race that embraces war and not education without then also saying that they are a violent race that embraces war and not education.
With the way that orcs have been written into DnD, they are aligned correctly. A race of savage pillagers who's pastimes include burning, murdering, stealing, looting and killing is only going to be Chaotic Evil.
For the "Good Guys kill Bad guys" argument - the world (imaginary or otherwise) isn't black & white.
I imagine that they will be re-writing Orcs into the world differently, probably having "Savage Orcs" as the current depiction of wild tribes who kill anyone (chaotic and evil, isn't it?) and also having civilized Orcs who have a more neutral standpoint.
As for what matters here - alignment - the description of Orcs matches Chaotic Evil. If they were described as quiet, bookish sorts who lived in their libraries and seldom ventured out into the world except to distribute home-baked cookies, they would A: no longer be Chaotic Evil, and B: No longer fill the gap of a brutal savage race of murderers, and a new race would need to be introduced to fill that gap for people who want savages in the wilds of their lands.
The point is that, while "savage" and "brutal" have their own issues as descriptions of an entire race, they do not necessarily denote evil. This is where the absolutist morality which the alignment system encourages falls down. A savage and brutal society may be attempting, for the good of the whole world, to eliminate the weak and thereby leave everyone stronger. They could be acting in what they believe to be the good of society, following the rules of their society. Hence, the savage and brutal character is actually, from their own perspective, lawful good.
My concerns are about people misinterpreting it to justify their hatred, and about people once more using at as reason to justify whatever crusade they are currently engaged on without even having the honesty to recognise that if they were actually intending to correct the evils of the world (reference intended), they would do so through something else than alignment in a fantasy roleplaying game (and actually not all fantasy games, just D&D because it's the most visible, which in itself says a lot about these crusades)...
How do you know that people are not doing anything else to "correct the evils of the world"?
Also, this is a red herring. Just because there are "bigger problems" doesn't mean that this one should be ignored. Just because there are murderers out in the world doesn't mean that you should be ignored when your wallet is stolen. Just because there are children starving in Africa doesn't mean you should ignore your children when they tell you they are hungry. Just because there are inefficient industrial processes pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere doesn't mean we shouldn't switch to low energy bulbs at home to reduce our consumption.
Yes, there are big issues in the world, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to solve the small ones, too. Especially when you have no control over the bigger issues, but may be able to have an effect on the smaller ones.
And still, it's an extremely strong trope of the genre, that you find in most if not all of the book/movies of the genre. D&D only allows you to simulate this. There is a precise term for someone who says that it does not detracts from his fun when watching the genre and enjoying it immensely and at the same time points the fingers at other people for just using a simulation of it...
The only way out of it is to do this in a mature way, dealing at the rightly different levels between real world problems and what is just a fantasy game using fantasy tropes, not forcefully mixing the two and accusing only alignment of all evils on this earth (statistically, fi you look at the charts, it's only 33.3333% anyway :p ).
There is a pretty big difference between passively watching or reading a story with negative, damaging tropes and actively taking part in it.
When reading LotR, we know that it was written in another age, where the tropes and issues involved were not seen as a problem. We can enjoy it with historical context, and brush past things which irritate.
I love reading David Eddings, for instance, but he makes very strong racial traits a core part of his stories. I find this irritating, although I brush past it as I have have no control over it.
In D&D, however, I am taking an active part in the story. If I am forced, by way of core concepts in the setting, to accept unacceptable concepts as being "the truth", that's a whole step beyond reading them. It is validating them and actively supporting them.
My concerns are about people misinterpreting it to justify their hatred, and about people once more using at as reason to justify whatever crusade they are currently engaged on without even having the honesty to recognise that if they were actually intending to correct the evils of the world (reference intended), they would do so through something else than alignment in a fantasy roleplaying game (and actually not all fantasy games, just D&D because it's the most visible, which in itself says a lot about these crusades)...
How do you know that people are not doing anything else to "correct the evils of the world"?
In particular because there is a tolerance (or even an enjoyment) for other medias depicting exactly the same thing, whereas, of course, D&D (but mind you, just D&D because it's slightly visible, but not PF2e because much fewer people play that game, although alignment is much stronger there). Before sweeping other people's doors, make sure that you have minded your own first.
Yes, there are big issues in the world, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to solve the small ones, too. Especially when you have no control over the bigger issues, but may be able to have an effect on the smaller ones.
My issue is about the selectivity of the small ones, assuming that it's even a real problem, because even that is strongly debatable, and of course the fact that this is done through a large strawman of the game feature considered.
So small steps in the right direction can't be done ever? All or nothing approach just can't happen in a property this large and I think them addressing in small ways over time is preferable to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's nice that you have never encountered a situation in which a player is trying to "feel out" how to play a character organically from session 1, but in many cases players do this, and alignment can certainly help them decide when they are not 'sure yet' what a character would do. It can be a helpful RP aid to ask yourself, "Hm, what would a Lawful Evil character *do* in this situation?" This is similar to the Psychological Limitation Disadvantage in Champions. The character has 20 points of "Always tells the truth." This Psych. Lim. helps guide how you RP the character in situations in which you, the player, might recognize that it would be more expedient to tell a "little white lie."
Maybe some people are super-amazing RPers who don't need any guidance to help them RP a character who is very different from themselves, but not everyone is like this, and many players find having "guideposts" helpful. If they didn't, there wouldn't be sections in the PHB for each race on describing how they generally act. These, too, are RPing aids. Would it make sense to argue that "if you need the section on how to play a Dwarf to figure out what a dwarf would do in a given situation..." you have "bigger problems?" Again, lots of people find such guidance helpful. Just because you and the people you play with don't find alignment helpful in deciding how to RP a character, doesn't mean that people who do find it helpful "have problems."
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Ah the ol' "Really puff up the Pros and when I list a Con its not really a Con " approach.
It definitely has CONs and if you ignore them or downplay others problems with them it does not really contribute to a productive discussion on them.
Cons for me are that everyone has a different idea of what "Chaotic Good" or "Lawful Evil" looks like....its subjective and makes it hard. Everyone has a different concept of what these things mean and ultimately its non-productive. Some might see a "Lawful Neutral" as actually "Lawful Evil" because allowing evil things to happen can be thought of as evil etc etc...
Morality does not fit into neat buckets for most people so having a system that encourages you to do just that is not everyones idea of a good time. That is completely fine too and you can always add strict alignments to a game if you want.
Having them removed by default and just describing the generalized nature of creatures seems good enough to me as their actions maybe viewed as Good/Evil based on perspective.
Pros: if you are using a setting with planes it makes sense for classification purposes of the planes and can work for more Heroic Fantasy as mentioned if Good/Bad is very well defined and identified.
Pros:
Cons:
I consider it a con because the game leaves certain aspects of gameplay wedded to the alignment system (cosmology, certain magic item/creature mechanics), but give very little information to the DM/players on how to understand the nuances of the alignment system, leading to groups either 1) rigidly conforming to the most prototypical behaviors of their alignment, or 2) eschewing it entirely, with most groups doing the latter.
Because it is vestigial, it feels like wasted potential.
Pro's:
Con's:
In short - all the Con's are down to people misunderstanding the system and thinking things like that it drives a PC's actions, rather than being driven by a PC's actions, and that it can't change.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I can understand that. However, having a rough idea of the character's personality is more likely to be helpful, IMHO.
I will admit that I misspoke. There is nothing wrong with using the alignment system as a crutch until you flesh out your character fully. There isn't really anything wrong with ignoring everything else and just portraying your character as an alignment and nothing else, if that's what you enjoy doing. However, I feel it is much more productive to spell out a few personality traits that describe your character's moral viewpoint than to say "I'm NG". The former takes a bit of thought but gives a much more personal guide to behaviour. The latter takes very little thought or imagination and gives, at best, a very generic, stereotyped guide to behaviour (and at worst, none at all, because it's difficult to get a consistent view on what each alignment means).
Note: This is all just my opinion.
Obviously they are working on modifying the Orc/Drow racial descriptions to move forward with less problematic interpretations of the race. Its funny you talk about the issues with the way the race is represented as unapologetically evil but do not see thats exactly why they are removing alignment...as a first step towards adjusting these races to catch up with the times.
Oh boy, an alignment thread that is pretending to be a polite and constructive debate but is actually a battle ground to insult or belittle those who use or don’t use it because......
“if you don’t like the system then you are using it wrong and aren’t playing D&D right while also never agreeing on what each section of the alignment wheel even means because morality is subjective and the definitions have changes over the different editions”
or
“if you do use the alignment system you are a bad, uncreative, lazy, other negative adjectives here D&D player/DM and I’m going to vaguely but not really vaguely insult and mock you for it even though I’m proving by being a close minded jerk that you can be a bad player without it”?
Color me surprised!
Im sorry if that comes off as very salty but.....use the alignment system or don’t. But don’t be a jerk just because you opinion is different. I just hate how these sorts of threads turn into subtle and not so subtle ways to insult others for playing differently. If that’s not your intention I apologize, but for some who have already posted it sort of reads like it.
People who do not use the alignment system are not playing D&D wrong. There are many ways to play this game and many people color their worlds with various philosophical views that color the deities and mortal races in their worlds.
People who do use the alignment system are not suddenly uncreative or lazy players/DMs just because you do not like this system. Do you need to use the system? No. However, many do use it in broad and interesting ways to world build and deal with various moral dilemmas in their campaigns.
For me? I use the basic concept of alignment and expand upon it. It’s a fun thought experiment to think of how various different actions and the motivations behind them can be viewed differently on the alignment wheel depending on who is doing the action, who the action is being done to, and who else is witnessing said action as a third party. It’s something that I can use to help flesh out my world.
However, I’m also glad it’s optional and not hard coded into the game because it actually gives me more freedom to play around with the system and make it fit my view of it and how I as a DM use it. And honestly, if alignment was removed entirely....it wouldn’t stop those that enjoy using it as a world building or character creation tool from using it. Homebrew does exist after all.
No Pros and Cons? Well.....it doesn’t read to me that people actually care about that. So sorry for not posting any.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
You said the thousand-dollar phrase though -- "I feel it is..." You feel it is more productive to do something other than use alignment to describe a moral viewpoint. Just because you feel that way, doesn't mean everyone else has to.
I find it odd that in these threads I argue on the side of the more old-school or classical interpretation of these things such as alignment, racial stat bonuses, and so on. I'm sure most people reading my comments think I am some old curmudgeon (true) who wants everything to always be done the way Gygax wrote it down in 1974. But the reality is that I've played tons of other RPGs over the years that do not use alignment at all, and my personal favorite, Champions, never did. I have no problem not having alignment at all in that game. And consequently, I certainly don't think one has to have alignment in an RPG, nor even that one has to have it in D&D.
However, there's nothing inherently wrong with the alignment system as it was interpreted originally, and it can serve as a useful play-aid to people who are not all that familiar with RPing, especially with RPing characters not entirely (or maybe not at all) like themselves. It's also super-useful for DMs who do not have time to make up a bunch of personality traits for every single freaking orc in the game, and may find it much easier to just play the lot of them as "chaotic evil." And no, not because they are some sort of a "closet racist," but because they have 1,000 other things to do as a DM, and making up individual personalities for every single orc is not a constructive use of their time, when the orcs are just there to be "stormtroopers" to be taken down in battle so that the party can move onto the next step in the adventure.
Like anything else in any RPG system, Alignment is a tool in the toolbox. You don't have to use it to have a good game. But sometimes it's helpful, and there is nothing wrong with using that tool. Especially not just because someone on the internet "feels" it would be better not to use this too, but to use other tools instead.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think the point is that, while there are mechanics in the game which utilise it, the fact that it is optional and often unused until something comes up which needs it causes problems.
If you have not been using alignments in your game, and you end up with a magic item which say it only works for those with a certain alignment, or which has different effects based on alignment, it suddenly becomes non-optional. These include 7 core items (that I have seen) from the DMG which appear on the random magic item tables, so could well appear without the DM planning ahead for them.
If it was a core rule, everyone would know their alignment and, when it came up, everyone would be ready. If they completely removed its use from the core rules, that would be fine too. But with the vestigial implementation there are going to be times when a situation crops up where the characters need to know their alignment but don't (or the DM needs to come up with an on-the-spot workaround). This is definitely a Con.
All those orc descriptors are pretty bad, and arguably racist (or speciesist, whatever). But using the alignment system to declare all orcs as evil? That's a big step. That says "if you're a good character, you can fight and kill orcs without your alignment flipping." Fighting evil is something good does, so good characters are supposed to fight orcs. It's basically encoding genocidal propaganda into the very fabric of the world. It's messed up.
From a gamist perspective, sure, it's nice to have a group of faceless antagonists you can exercise all that gameplay on without in-character remorse. But the moment you treat it as a serious question of morality, in-character, it gets more complicated. Alignment can help reinforce the view of D&D as a board game, even if it's reductive while doing so, but that has narrative consequences.
I do agree that having alignment restrictions on magic items is problematic for those who do not use it, and alternative formulations should have been provided for those items, that restrict them in other ways. Not sure *how* to restrict them exactly, but they should have thought of something.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Pro - As a system, it's simple. Which means as a tool for building characters it's easy to use and accessible for people who don't want to have to psychologize their characters too much, whether they are Player or Non-Player.
Con - As a system, it's simple. Which means as a model for portraying the psychology of characters it's limited and flawed, and for those who would rather have a genuine understanding of the psychology of their characters than just painting them with broad strokes the alignment chart seems stifling.
As a whole I think Alignment is fine as long as it's understood for what it is, which is an over simplified and broad strokes chart of morality and ethics. I think the change of having Detect Evil and Good detect the alignment of sapient Prime Material people to just having it detect the presence of extra planar entities aligned with specific planes was a good thing. Characters who are portrayed as people, rather than supernatural representatives of conceptual forces, should not be portrayed as anything less than fully autonomous and free willed. I think the new trend of declining to give alignment tags to creature stat blocks is similarly good. I think that magical items that depended on the alignment of the user was a misstep and yes, leads to the idea that alignment is something that can be empirically tested for, which is silly and damaging.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Are we really back here?
Orcs don't exist in real life. to quote every disclaimer in the world, "Any resemblance to any persons, alive or dead, is purely coincidental".
It is impossible to create a violent race that embraces war and not education without then also saying that they are a violent race that embraces war and not education.
With the way that orcs have been written into DnD, they are aligned correctly. A race of savage pillagers who's pastimes include burning, murdering, stealing, looting and killing is only going to be Chaotic Evil.
For the "Good Guys kill Bad guys" argument - the world (imaginary or otherwise) isn't black & white.
I imagine that they will be re-writing Orcs into the world differently, probably having "Savage Orcs" as the current depiction of wild tribes who kill anyone (chaotic and evil, isn't it?) and also having civilized Orcs who have a more neutral standpoint.
As for what matters here - alignment - the description of Orcs matches Chaotic Evil. If they were described as quiet, bookish sorts who lived in their libraries and seldom ventured out into the world except to distribute home-baked cookies, they would A: no longer be Chaotic Evil, and B: No longer fill the gap of a brutal savage race of murderers, and a new race would need to be introduced to fill that gap for people who want savages in the wilds of their lands.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
And as I said outside the selective quote you chose, this is all my opinion and there is nothing wrong with using alignment that way (or, indeed, any way) if you wish.
I have made no effort to hide the fact that I strongly dislike the alignment system. I find it lazy and boring. I also feel that, while those who use it are certainly not all prejudiced or bigoted, it's use does encourage behaviours and thought patterns (whether in game or out) which have been at the core of discrimination for centuries (especially when used with an absolute Planescape or fixed/nearly-fixed racial alignments). I, personally, avoid games where it would be a major part, and I don't use it in my own games. But, while I have a strong opinion on it, I do recognise that it is my opinion. I will not try to force others to follow it, and I try not call them wrong for using alignments (when I slip up and do so, it is accidentally and born of frustration).
So, yes, I said "the thousand-dollar phrase". I said it consciously and fully acknowledging that these are my opinions.
The point is that, while "savage" and "brutal" have their own issues as descriptions of an entire race, they do not necessarily denote evil. This is where the absolutist morality which the alignment system encourages falls down. A savage and brutal society may be attempting, for the good of the whole world, to eliminate the weak and thereby leave everyone stronger. They could be acting in what they believe to be the good of society, following the rules of their society. Hence, the savage and brutal character is actually, from their own perspective, lawful good.
No hatred here as I just ignore it anyway and always have...Its hard to hate something you do not think about.
How do you know that people are not doing anything else to "correct the evils of the world"?
Also, this is a red herring. Just because there are "bigger problems" doesn't mean that this one should be ignored. Just because there are murderers out in the world doesn't mean that you should be ignored when your wallet is stolen. Just because there are children starving in Africa doesn't mean you should ignore your children when they tell you they are hungry. Just because there are inefficient industrial processes pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere doesn't mean we shouldn't switch to low energy bulbs at home to reduce our consumption.
Yes, there are big issues in the world, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to solve the small ones, too. Especially when you have no control over the bigger issues, but may be able to have an effect on the smaller ones.
There is a pretty big difference between passively watching or reading a story with negative, damaging tropes and actively taking part in it.
When reading LotR, we know that it was written in another age, where the tropes and issues involved were not seen as a problem. We can enjoy it with historical context, and brush past things which irritate.
I love reading David Eddings, for instance, but he makes very strong racial traits a core part of his stories. I find this irritating, although I brush past it as I have have no control over it.
In D&D, however, I am taking an active part in the story. If I am forced, by way of core concepts in the setting, to accept unacceptable concepts as being "the truth", that's a whole step beyond reading them. It is validating them and actively supporting them.
So small steps in the right direction can't be done ever? All or nothing approach just can't happen in a property this large and I think them addressing in small ways over time is preferable to me.