But once more putting alignment on a cross and saying that it's a major contributors in people's personal problem is probably a bit too strong a statement for me.
That's great, but it is not for other people. Recognize this.
I don't. Again, I expect some clear examples that alignment (and not the relationships with other, possibly just awkward and not even ill-intentioned) created a problem for someone.
You also keep mentioning Eberron like it's a beacon for the best alignment viewpoint
Not at all. What I said is that alignment is not a strong element of Eberron, in particular as there are no aligned planes. As we play it much more pulp noir than classical heroic fantasy, we play it without alignment and it's fine.
So for me, it's just an example showing that alignment really is optional and that I can enjoy games with or without it because it's a question of setting and ambiance, that's all.
: From Keith Bakers website on alignment in Eberron in 2018:
I'm cutting most of the rest because you should first get your facts straight. This is not from 2018, it from 6 years ago, and that part of the description talks about 3.5 (but of course you cut that off): " Detect evil exists. In 3.5, paladins can use it at will."
Eberron has alignment too, and its interpretation sucks.
Maybe to your perspective, but what sucks even more is using improper arguments and deliberately misleading quotes. It was never an option to really remove alignement in 3.5 (although M. Baker wanted to) because yes, in that edition, it's a concrete part of the ruleset.
Now, if you follow the part of the interview done in 2018, and on 5e, what does it say ?
Fifth Edition is closer to Eberron in a number of ways. The description of clerics places no concrete limit on alignment, and also calls out that clerics are rare and that most priests aren’t clerics — a radical idea when Eberron first presented it.
I like calling out that orcs are not human and have a different sort of mindset — having a nature driven to strong passions and emotions — but not one that is inherently driven to evil.
I just prefer that when you meet an orc in Eberron, you don’t know if she’s a cruel cultist of the Dragon Below or a noble Gatekeeper Druid.
Now, what do you think, once the facts are straight, hmmm ?
I'm not responding when the entire premise of your post is that I am intentionally misleading and trying to have a discussion in bad faith. I can't have a conversation in good faith. Viewpoints have been presented and have been ignored. This thread has lost its purpose.
And then, there are entire races and cultures on some of the domains that are under the sway of their Dark Lord. Again, how is that more acceptable that having the god that created a FANTASY race having a definitive sway over that race ?
It's not presented as an inherent property of what they are. It's not a problem having an evil orc. It's not even a problem of having an entire city of evil orcs (which is about as big as any Dark Lord's domain gets). It's problem when being evil is an innate property of orc-ness.
In any case, it's possible to use the alignment system without that, and it's possible to have troublesome portrayals of creatures without using alignment, so this is a bit of a side discussion except as it's been historically abused in D&D.
This exactly.... All the things you have stated are culture not racial. The problem in DnD that all orcs, regardless of their circumstances, are chaotic evil.
No, I'm sorry, you are the one accusing the alignment system to be the cause of horrible things.
No, I don't think I am, actually. More like I'm positing that the assigning of species wide alignments says something terrible, based on even your own assessment.
And while I agree that, in real life, this is totally abhorrent
My only qualification to that is that, if it is so abhorrent to talk about people in real life that way, it should warrant special attention when applied to people in fiction. It shouldn't be a default assumption that just smacks people in the face, there should be special warnings about the seriousness of the topic, like how they approach horror in Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft. Abhorrent topics (sexual assault, racism, torture) can have their place in gaming, but not without conscious effort to prevent traumatization of players and GMs.
Like I said, I think the alignment system overall is fine as long as it is relegated to guidelines, roleplay aids, and maybe to supernatural representations of conceptual forces rather than people. Definitely not as a hard coded mechanical rule.
Even if some of us might have some racists instincts, it does not mean that we cannot still be a much better person than this, and suppress these instincts.
Again, we're all brought up within racist societies. All of us, not just some. There isn't a society on Earth you can point to yet that doesn't suffer from racism. Also it's odd that you call them instincts? Because instincts are something that, even if suppressed, never really go away. Something that can and will pop up again no matter how much conditioning is done to counteract them. Are you sure that's the example you wanted to go with?
And, considering the above, I should therefore absolutely be allowed to enjoy my epic games
Sure? I never said anything to the contrary, I just said that we all have the responsibility to make ourselves aware of our own biases and always keep our minds open to the possibility of biases we might not even realize are biases. You'll agree and admit then, that we can't say that Tolkien was not racist because racism is built into our society?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!
As a great fan of Tolkien’s books, I think, while both his books and his letters point to him being not consciously racist (indeed I would say anti-racist), they’re also a product of their time, and as a result there are elements that are definitely problematic. I think Ophidimancer put it very well saying “we’re all racist” because of our society. It hurts me to see Tolkien’s name associated with racism, as he would probably be very sad and hurt by it. Equating him with racism is outright wrong.
But, and I think he would agree with me if he were still around today, there is a real need for open dialogue about the complicated, problematic elements in his books. He himself struggled with the morality and origins of Orcs, revised them many times, and never gave a definitive answer on them. And the most difficult conversations about LotR focus not around Orcs, but around other human races.
These conversations are all worth having, but most of us are casual Tolkien readers at best and anyway we’re not here to discuss LotR, so now is not the place and time. Besides, racism and Tolkien are both deep and important topics (the former more so than the latter). So I guess what I’m saying is let’s keep this thread at least vaguely on topic and bring it back to D&D alignment.
As for my two cents on that, I think alignment should get cut for humanoid races at least so DMs can run them how they want. Orcs can be Tolkienesque agents of evil, barbaric but ultimately neutral, or even regular members of society. I’m not saying we can’t have true evil Orcs, I’m just saying Orcs shouldn’t have to be evil in every world.
I think removing alignment from statblocks in general is a good step forward. However, I think it is okay to retain alignment for individual NPCs, since the stat block is not talking about a group of people, but rather a specific individual. It is a good way to quickly summarize an NPC. However, I also think alignment does not need to be assigned to every NPC either as a way to remind people that alignment is not something that has to be rigid.
I do not think the complete removal of alignment is necessary, but I think it should be treated like feats and other optional rules that the GM has to consciously add back into the game. Alignment right now is pretty minor and insignificant, but when it comes up, it is sudden and very forceful, like Robes of the Archmagi and Book of Vile Darkness/Exalted Deeds. I think those items would be better if the rules and references to alignment is separated and boxed out with suggestions on how alignment effects the item if alignment is present in the game.
Anything that’s meant to simplify the game, but creates this much debate instead, isn’t doing it’s job. That’s that.
Just my experience, but I've never really had alignment debates at the table. Not as DM, not as player. Bring up alignment on a discussion forum and people will discuss it like ornery Greek philosophers, but when it's used in the game it tends to work out well enough even if different players have different ideas about it.
I've only been playing D&D for just over 4.5 years, but I've had several alignment debates at the table. I've had my former DM tell me "you can't do that because of your alignment" and similar things (I was even once told "you can't think that because of your alignment"). Your table(s) obviously has had different experiences than mine, but I can attest to the fact that alignment debates can and do happen at the table, even in the middle of sessions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Anything that’s meant to simplify the game, but creates this much debate instead, isn’t doing it’s job. That’s that.
Just my experience, but I've never really had alignment debates at the table. Not as DM, not as player. Bring up alignment on a discussion forum and people will discuss it like ornery Greek philosophers, but when it's used in the game it tends to work out well enough even if different players have different ideas about it.
I've only been playing D&D for just over 4.5 years, but I've had several alignment debates at the table. I've had my former DM tell me "you can't do that because of your alignment" and similar things (I was even once told "you can't think that because of your alignment"). Your table(s) obviously has had different experiences than mine, but I can attest to the fact that alignment debates can and do happen at the table, even in the middle of sessions.
I certainly didn't expect my experiences would reflect everyone else's. No surprise that other tables have had issues with this. I kind of thought the first counterexample would have come from a different, earlier edition though.
Anything that’s meant to simplify the game, but creates this much debate instead, isn’t doing it’s job. That’s that.
Just my experience, but I've never really had alignment debates at the table. Not as DM, not as player. Bring up alignment on a discussion forum and people will discuss it like ornery Greek philosophers, but when it's used in the game it tends to work out well enough even if different players have different ideas about it.
I've only been playing D&D for just over 4.5 years, but I've had several alignment debates at the table. I've had my former DM tell me "you can't do that because of your alignment" and similar things (I was even once told "you can't think that because of your alignment"). Your table(s) obviously has had different experiences than mine, but I can attest to the fact that alignment debates can and do happen at the table, even in the middle of sessions.
I certainly didn't expect my experiences would reflect everyone else's. No surprise that other tables have had issues with this. I kind of thought the first counterexample would have come from a different, earlier edition though.
Okay. Both experiences are useful, though. There are situations where alignment isn't a problem/adds to the fun, which is great. Continue using it if that's true for your table. However, there are also situations where it has been detrimental to tables (like mine), so I should be free to play D&D without it intruding on my games.
I never asked for alignment to be removed from the stat blocks in 5e, but I'm happy that this change happened. I would have preferred for it to happen in 6e, but now is better than the unforeseeable future 6e, IMO. I do think that WotC should publish alignment in Planescape (if/when it ever is officially transported to 5e), and make it clear that it's an optional rule, just like the Custom Lineage from TCoE. Make it more clearly optional in the game, and make it clearer.
The fact that there are so many arguments over alignment proves to me that something about it makes it inherently a bad system for broad-strokes morality/goals. I far prefer the Bonds/Ideals/Flaws/Fears system that 5e has over Alignment, but I want both to be available to whomever wants to use them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The fact that there are so many arguments over alignment proves to me that something about it makes it inherently a bad system for broad-strokes morality/goals. I far prefer the Bonds/Ideals/Flaws/Fears system that 5e has over Alignment, but I want both to be available to whomever wants to use them.
So I'd have to give individual Bonds/Ideals/Flaws/Fears for each member of a 100 Hobgoblin war band? No way, that's dumb.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The fact that there are so many arguments over alignment proves to me that something about it makes it inherently a bad system for broad-strokes morality/goals. I far prefer the Bonds/Ideals/Flaws/Fears system that 5e has over Alignment, but I want both to be available to whomever wants to use them.
So I'd have to give individual Bonds/Ideals/Flaws/Fears for each member of a 100 Hobgoblin war band? No way, that's dumb.
That is dumb, because I never said that you had to do it for all 100 of them, as that's obviously impractical (you tried to do a reductio ad absurdum, but ended up with a mischaracterization). War Bands have leaders, so at least, I would do it for the main leader and maybe a couple lieutenants if I had enough time on my hands and wanted them to be important.
Also, I said that you can use alignment if you want. Just make it optional. I prefer more nuance, you prefer broad-strokes. That's perfectly fine as long as it's fun for you and your table.
The fact that there are so many arguments over alignment proves to me that something about it makes it inherently a bad system for broad-strokes morality/goals. I far prefer the Bonds/Ideals/Flaws/Fears system that 5e has over Alignment, but I want both to be available to whomever wants to use them.
So I'd have to give individual Bonds/Ideals/Flaws/Fears for each member of a 100 Hobgoblin war band? No way, that's dumb.
You're free to give them all the same bonds/ideals/flaws/fears. Or use some different description. In the end, for any NPC, the main things you need to know are:
What do they want? This includes both primary goals, and weaknesses that they can be tempted with. This is something you can offer when bargaining.
What are they willing to sacrifice to achieve their goals? This is something you can possible get out of bargaining.
What are they unwilling to sacrifice? This is something you can use as a threat.
You're free to give them all the same bonds/ideals/flaws/fears.
How does giving 100 hobgobbos the same bond, same ideal, same flaw, same fear, differ in any significant way from giving them all the same alignment? Wouldn't 100 guys with the same bonds/ideals/flaws/fears, act pretty much the same way as each other, just like 100 guys who are all Neutral Evil or Chaotic Good? And wouldn't you be mechanically doing the same exact thing, which is treating 100 guys as if they are all essentially the same, which is the whole objection to giving them a racial alignment in the first place?
I'm not arguing that using BIFF is better or worse than using Alignment, but then I see no problem with either using, or not using, alignment, depending on the table's preference. But if the whole argument against making every hobgobbo be "Neutral Evil" is that it is "stereotyping" them, how is giving them all the same exact bond, same flaw, same ideal, *not* stereotyping?
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.
You're free to give them all the same bonds/ideals/flaws/fears.
How does giving 100 hobgobbos the same bond, same ideal, same flaw, same fear, differ in any significant way from giving them all the same alignment? Wouldn't 100 guys with the same bonds/ideals/flaws/fears, act pretty much the same way as each other, just like 100 guys who are all Neutral Evil or Chaotic Good?
The difference is that listing bond/ideal/flaw/fear actually gives a decent idea of what they'd do. The issue alignment isn't having them all be the same alignment, the issue is that alignment is a poor guide to what they'll actually do.
You're free to give them all the same bonds/ideals/flaws/fears.
How does giving 100 hobgobbos the same bond, same ideal, same flaw, same fear, differ in any significant way from giving them all the same alignment? Wouldn't 100 guys with the same bonds/ideals/flaws/fears, act pretty much the same way as each other, just like 100 guys who are all Neutral Evil or Chaotic Good?
The difference is that listing bond/ideal/flaw/fear actually gives a decent idea of what they'd do. The issue alignment isn't having them all be the same alignment, the issue is that alignment is a poor guide to what they'll actually do.
Does it? That'd seem more incidental than anything else. How often will those be significant or relevant enough to inform their actions?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
How does giving 100 hobgobbos the same bond, same ideal, same flaw, same fear, differ in any significant way from giving them all the same alignment? Wouldn't 100 guys with the same bonds/ideals/flaws/fears, act pretty much the same way as each other, just like 100 guys who are all Neutral Evil or Chaotic Good?
The difference is that listing bond/ideal/flaw/fear actually gives a decent idea of what they'd do. The issue alignment isn't having them all be the same alignment, the issue is that alignment is a poor guide to what they'll actually do.
Exactly. Picking an evocative set (or even partial set) of trait/ideal/bond/flaw is way more descriptive and actionable than a traditional alignment.
That there are 100 of them in a war band just means they are likely just tokens on a map --- you're lucky to talk with even one of them, let alone more than one (where you'd notice they are all cookie-cutter duplicates). No system fixes that; that's just a peril of having lots of NPCs.
I've only been playing D&D for just over 4.5 years, but I've had several alignment debates at the table. I've had my former DM tell me "you can't do that because of your alignment" and similar things (I was even once told "you can't think that because of your alignment"). Your table(s) obviously has had different experiences than mine, but I can attest to the fact that alignment debates can and do happen at the table, even in the middle of sessions.
This right here is one of the potential cons of alignments I attested to back on page 1 of this thread: widespread misunderstanding of how they work. Alignments serve no purpose if they're used as a straitjacket for roleplay - their purpose is guiding roleplay. For the entirety of its existence, alignment's primary purpose in your example would be to help you decide what your character would do, and potentially, your DM might ask - never tell - if your choice was really what your character would do, if said DM thought you were maybe having trouble staying in-character and was trying to help, with your alignment as a guidepost. Your DM might also observe you for several sessions, then point out they feel your alignment should be something else and explain why, and you could then think about it and see if you agree.
As soon as your alignment impacts gameplay mechanically, like in your example, at least one person involved (which can be a person on the rules dev team, for sure) has badly misunderstood alignment.
Does it? That'd seem more incidental than anything else. How often will those be significant or relevant enough to inform their actions?
Depends how well written they are. Honestly, there's no strong reason to tie it to the bond/flaw/etc system, just a couple sentences of descriptive text is a lot more useful than an alignment and the trait system encourages having a couple sentences of descriptive text.
Does it? That'd seem more incidental than anything else. How often will those be significant or relevant enough to inform their actions?
Depends how well written they are. Honestly, there's no strong reason to tie it to the bond/flaw/etc system, just a couple sentences of descriptive text is a lot more useful than an alignment and the trait system encourages having a couple sentences of descriptive text.
Easier to use two words and know that they are puppy kickers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not responding when the entire premise of your post is that I am intentionally misleading and trying to have a discussion in bad faith. I can't have a conversation in good faith. Viewpoints have been presented and have been ignored. This thread has lost its purpose.
This exactly.... All the things you have stated are culture not racial. The problem in DnD that all orcs, regardless of their circumstances, are chaotic evil.
No, I don't think I am, actually. More like I'm positing that the assigning of species wide alignments says something terrible, based on even your own assessment.
My only qualification to that is that, if it is so abhorrent to talk about people in real life that way, it should warrant special attention when applied to people in fiction. It shouldn't be a default assumption that just smacks people in the face, there should be special warnings about the seriousness of the topic, like how they approach horror in Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft. Abhorrent topics (sexual assault, racism, torture) can have their place in gaming, but not without conscious effort to prevent traumatization of players and GMs.
Like I said, I think the alignment system overall is fine as long as it is relegated to guidelines, roleplay aids, and maybe to supernatural representations of conceptual forces rather than people. Definitely not as a hard coded mechanical rule.
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!
Again, we're all brought up within racist societies. All of us, not just some. There isn't a society on Earth you can point to yet that doesn't suffer from racism. Also it's odd that you call them instincts? Because instincts are something that, even if suppressed, never really go away. Something that can and will pop up again no matter how much conditioning is done to counteract them. Are you sure that's the example you wanted to go with?
Sure? I never said anything to the contrary, I just said that we all have the responsibility to make ourselves aware of our own biases and always keep our minds open to the possibility of biases we might not even realize are biases. You'll agree and admit then, that we can't say that Tolkien was not racist because racism is built into our society?
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!
As a great fan of Tolkien’s books, I think, while both his books and his letters point to him being not consciously racist (indeed I would say anti-racist), they’re also a product of their time, and as a result there are elements that are definitely problematic. I think Ophidimancer put it very well saying “we’re all racist” because of our society. It hurts me to see Tolkien’s name associated with racism, as he would probably be very sad and hurt by it. Equating him with racism is outright wrong.
But, and I think he would agree with me if he were still around today, there is a real need for open dialogue about the complicated, problematic elements in his books. He himself struggled with the morality and origins of Orcs, revised them many times, and never gave a definitive answer on them. And the most difficult conversations about LotR focus not around Orcs, but around other human races.
These conversations are all worth having, but most of us are casual Tolkien readers at best and anyway we’re not here to discuss LotR, so now is not the place and time. Besides, racism and Tolkien are both deep and important topics (the former more so than the latter). So I guess what I’m saying is let’s keep this thread at least vaguely on topic and bring it back to D&D alignment.
As for my two cents on that, I think alignment should get cut for humanoid races at least so DMs can run them how they want. Orcs can be Tolkienesque agents of evil, barbaric but ultimately neutral, or even regular members of society. I’m not saying we can’t have true evil Orcs, I’m just saying Orcs shouldn’t have to be evil in every world.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I think removing alignment from statblocks in general is a good step forward. However, I think it is okay to retain alignment for individual NPCs, since the stat block is not talking about a group of people, but rather a specific individual. It is a good way to quickly summarize an NPC. However, I also think alignment does not need to be assigned to every NPC either as a way to remind people that alignment is not something that has to be rigid.
I do not think the complete removal of alignment is necessary, but I think it should be treated like feats and other optional rules that the GM has to consciously add back into the game. Alignment right now is pretty minor and insignificant, but when it comes up, it is sudden and very forceful, like Robes of the Archmagi and Book of Vile Darkness/Exalted Deeds. I think those items would be better if the rules and references to alignment is separated and boxed out with suggestions on how alignment effects the item if alignment is present in the game.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I've only been playing D&D for just over 4.5 years, but I've had several alignment debates at the table. I've had my former DM tell me "you can't do that because of your alignment" and similar things (I was even once told "you can't think that because of your alignment"). Your table(s) obviously has had different experiences than mine, but I can attest to the fact that alignment debates can and do happen at the table, even in the middle of sessions.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I certainly didn't expect my experiences would reflect everyone else's. No surprise that other tables have had issues with this. I kind of thought the first counterexample would have come from a different, earlier edition though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Okay. Both experiences are useful, though. There are situations where alignment isn't a problem/adds to the fun, which is great. Continue using it if that's true for your table. However, there are also situations where it has been detrimental to tables (like mine), so I should be free to play D&D without it intruding on my games.
I never asked for alignment to be removed from the stat blocks in 5e, but I'm happy that this change happened. I would have preferred for it to happen in 6e, but now is better than the unforeseeable future 6e, IMO. I do think that WotC should publish alignment in Planescape (if/when it ever is officially transported to 5e), and make it clear that it's an optional rule, just like the Custom Lineage from TCoE. Make it more clearly optional in the game, and make it clearer.
The fact that there are so many arguments over alignment proves to me that something about it makes it inherently a bad system for broad-strokes morality/goals. I far prefer the Bonds/Ideals/Flaws/Fears system that 5e has over Alignment, but I want both to be available to whomever wants to use them.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
So I'd have to give individual Bonds/Ideals/Flaws/Fears for each member of a 100 Hobgoblin war band? No way, that's dumb.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
That is dumb, because I never said that you had to do it for all 100 of them, as that's obviously impractical (you tried to do a reductio ad absurdum, but ended up with a mischaracterization). War Bands have leaders, so at least, I would do it for the main leader and maybe a couple lieutenants if I had enough time on my hands and wanted them to be important.
Also, I said that you can use alignment if you want. Just make it optional. I prefer more nuance, you prefer broad-strokes. That's perfectly fine as long as it's fun for you and your table.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You're free to give them all the same bonds/ideals/flaws/fears. Or use some different description. In the end, for any NPC, the main things you need to know are:
How does giving 100 hobgobbos the same bond, same ideal, same flaw, same fear, differ in any significant way from giving them all the same alignment? Wouldn't 100 guys with the same bonds/ideals/flaws/fears, act pretty much the same way as each other, just like 100 guys who are all Neutral Evil or Chaotic Good? And wouldn't you be mechanically doing the same exact thing, which is treating 100 guys as if they are all essentially the same, which is the whole objection to giving them a racial alignment in the first place?
I'm not arguing that using BIFF is better or worse than using Alignment, but then I see no problem with either using, or not using, alignment, depending on the table's preference. But if the whole argument against making every hobgobbo be "Neutral Evil" is that it is "stereotyping" them, how is giving them all the same exact bond, same flaw, same ideal, *not* stereotyping?
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.
Please add the word "pro" or "con" before your arguments
The difference is that listing bond/ideal/flaw/fear actually gives a decent idea of what they'd do. The issue alignment isn't having them all be the same alignment, the issue is that alignment is a poor guide to what they'll actually do.
Does it? That'd seem more incidental than anything else. How often will those be significant or relevant enough to inform their actions?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Exactly. Picking an evocative set (or even partial set) of trait/ideal/bond/flaw is way more descriptive and actionable than a traditional alignment.
That there are 100 of them in a war band just means they are likely just tokens on a map --- you're lucky to talk with even one of them, let alone more than one (where you'd notice they are all cookie-cutter duplicates). No system fixes that; that's just a peril of having lots of NPCs.
This right here is one of the potential cons of alignments I attested to back on page 1 of this thread: widespread misunderstanding of how they work. Alignments serve no purpose if they're used as a straitjacket for roleplay - their purpose is guiding roleplay. For the entirety of its existence, alignment's primary purpose in your example would be to help you decide what your character would do, and potentially, your DM might ask - never tell - if your choice was really what your character would do, if said DM thought you were maybe having trouble staying in-character and was trying to help, with your alignment as a guidepost. Your DM might also observe you for several sessions, then point out they feel your alignment should be something else and explain why, and you could then think about it and see if you agree.
As soon as your alignment impacts gameplay mechanically, like in your example, at least one person involved (which can be a person on the rules dev team, for sure) has badly misunderstood alignment.
Depends how well written they are. Honestly, there's no strong reason to tie it to the bond/flaw/etc system, just a couple sentences of descriptive text is a lot more useful than an alignment and the trait system encourages having a couple sentences of descriptive text.
Easier to use two words and know that they are puppy kickers.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale