I see what you mean, addition by subtraction, but what I'm saying is that it helps DM's and players to have a general idea of what the monster is like, without having to read a mile of subtext. It's a fast, easy, and efficient way, or suggestion, to determine how these things interact with the world. Especially with monstrosities or beasts, where unaligned suggests it behaves like an animal, but evil might suggest an influence by dark powers over its mind, or an evil creator. Alignment removal makes sense with some things, (such as races, or intelligent creatures, where you're more likely to have diversity in thought and reasoning), but makes less sense when you're talking about creatures where alignment helps, like demons or devils, and argument i mentioned in a previous post. So yes, it is more restrictive if it's removing something that helps
EDIT: sorry, was trying to quote Pantagruel666's post here
I see what you mean, addition by subtraction, but what I'm saying is that it helps DM's and players to have a general idea of what the monster is like, without having to read a mile of subtext. It's a fast, easy, and efficient way, or suggestion, to determine how these things interact with the world. Especially with monstrosities or beasts, where unaligned suggests it behaves like an animal, but evil might suggest an influence by dark powers over its mind, or an evil creator. Alignment removal makes sense with some things, (such as races, or intelligent creatures, where you're more likely to have diversity in thought and reasoning), but makes less sense when you're talking about creatures where alignment helps, like demons or devils, and argument i mentioned in a previous post. So yes, it is more restrictive if it's removing something that helps
EDIT: sorry, was trying to quote Pantagruel666's post here
I see what you mean, addition by subtraction, but what I'm saying is that it helps DM's and players to have a general idea of what the monster is like, without having to read a mile of subtext. It's a fast, easy, and efficient way, or suggestion, to determine how these things interact with the world. Especially with monstrosities or beasts, where unaligned suggests it behaves like an animal, but evil might suggest an influence by dark powers over its mind, or an evil creator. Alignment removal makes sense with some things, (such as races, or intelligent creatures, where you're more likely to have diversity in thought and reasoning), but makes less sense when you're talking about creatures where alignment helps, like demons or devils, and argument i mentioned in a previous post. So yes, it is more restrictive if it's removing something that helps
EDIT: sorry, was trying to quote Pantagruel666's post here
Honestly if you want your players to understand how goblinoids are in your setting you either explain via some exposition or by their actions.
And yeah I think its fair to have things like Devils have set alignment as they are plane beings that all hail from the land of Lawful Evil or Die. I think as a player I would rather know if something is Chaotic, Neutral, or Lawful than Good, Bad, Neutral.....I think that gives me a much more insightful look into their mentality.
I see what you mean, addition by subtraction, but what I'm saying is that it helps DM's and players to have a general idea of what the monster is like, without having to read a mile of subtext.
I wouldn't call it subtext. Let's look at the description of a Ghoul.
Ghouls roam the night in packs, driven by an insatiable hunger for humanoid flesh.
Devourers of Flesh. Like maggots or carrion beetles, ghouls thrive in places rank with decay and death. A ghoul haunts a place where it can gorge on dead flesh and decomposing organs. When it can’t feed on the dead, it pursues living creatures and attempts to make corpses of them. Though they gain no nourishment from the corpses they devour, ghouls are driven by an unending hunger that compels them to consume. A ghoul’s undead flesh never rots, and this monster can persist in a crypt or tomb for untold ages without feeding.
Do you really gain anything from being told that it's chaotic evil?
I see what you mean, addition by subtraction, but what I'm saying is that it helps DM's and players to have a general idea of what the monster is like, without having to read a mile of subtext.
I wouldn't call it subtext. Let's look at the description of a Ghoul.
Ghouls roam the night in packs, driven by an insatiable hunger for humanoid flesh.
Devourers of Flesh. Like maggots or carrion beetles, ghouls thrive in places rank with decay and death. A ghoul haunts a place where it can gorge on dead flesh and decomposing organs. When it can’t feed on the dead, it pursues living creatures and attempts to make corpses of them. Though they gain no nourishment from the corpses they devour, ghouls are driven by an unending hunger that compels them to consume. A ghoul’s undead flesh never rots, and this monster can persist in a crypt or tomb for untold ages without feeding.
Do you really gain anything from being told that it's chaotic evil?
I see what you mean, addition by subtraction, but what I'm saying is that it helps DM's and players to have a general idea of what the monster is like, without having to read a mile of subtext. It's a fast, easy, and efficient way, or suggestion, to determine how these things interact with the world. Especially with monstrosities or beasts, where unaligned suggests it behaves like an animal, but evil might suggest an influence by dark powers over its mind, or an evil creator. Alignment removal makes sense with some things, (such as races, or intelligent creatures, where you're more likely to have diversity in thought and reasoning), but makes less sense when you're talking about creatures where alignment helps, like demons or devils, and argument i mentioned in a previous post. So yes, it is more restrictive if it's removing something that helps
EDIT: sorry, was trying to quote Pantagruel666's post here
I see what you mean, addition by subtraction, but what I'm saying is that it helps DM's and players to have a general idea of what the monster is like, without having to read a mile of subtext. It's a fast, easy, and efficient way, or suggestion, to determine how these things interact with the world. Especially with monstrosities or beasts, where unaligned suggests it behaves like an animal, but evil might suggest an influence by dark powers over its mind, or an evil creator. Alignment removal makes sense with some things, (such as races, or intelligent creatures, where you're more likely to have diversity in thought and reasoning), but makes less sense when you're talking about creatures where alignment helps, like demons or devils, and argument i mentioned in a previous post. So yes, it is more restrictive if it's removing something that helps
EDIT: sorry, was trying to quote Pantagruel666's post here
Honestly if you want your players to understand how goblinoids are in your setting you either explain via some exposition or by their actions.
And yeah I think its fair to have things like Devils have set alignment as they are plane beings that all hail from the land of Lawful Evil or Die. I think as a player I would rather know if something is Chaotic, Neutral, or Lawful than Good, Bad, Neutral.....I think that gives me a much more insightful look into their mentality.
"Alignment: Chaotic of any alignment"
Pantagruel:
I don't really think the ghoul or something like it needs the alignment. The creature is well known enough in pop culture and it is undead, and has low intelligence, so all that combined with it's relatively straightforward goals (that of eating flesh) suggests it is chaotic, and most definitely evil. However, take a devil, demon, or organization, such as the Inquisitors in VRGtR, those need more clarification. I can see how ghouls are easy to run regardless of alignment, but it is a helpful tool in regards to other creatures, like dragons, demons, devils, and humanoids
I guess this is part of their move to try not to "offend anyone", but let's be real here, if you don't like alignments, you don't have to use em. But could you leave them in there for the people who do? I feel like taking them out could potentially cause a problem, but leaving them in really wouldn't.
Leaving alignments in stat blocks perpetuates stereotypes and that causes more problems than taking them out, and in my opinion, leaving alignments in also stymies creativity. I am fine with leaving alignments in stat blocks for specific individual NPCs, but I think it should be removed for generic stat blocks like goblins, drow, dragons, etc. so new GMs and players can feel more free to apply what ever alignment they want.
Alignment in stat blocks are as problematic as paladin oaths, and paladin oaths are already causing issues where some GMs are so inflexible and narrowminded that they insist players play paladins a specific way, basically taking roleplay out of the player's hands and leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouths.
also, I'm seeing a lot of responses as this whole thing being part of WotC process to remove "racist tropes" from DnD. Get real. I don't think anyone sees alignment as racist, and if they do, that's awfully close minded. The way I see it, DnD is left up to the creativity and decisions of the DM who does the worldbuilding. I don't think alignment's are absolutes, or even that they are basic or boring.
I do not think you get to decide what is close minded and what is not if you are not the one constantly being looked down upon and treated with disrespect.
Alignments are not absolutes and they should not be treated that way, but there are enough people who play it that way that could spoil it for new comers.
I see what you mean, addition by subtraction, but what I'm saying is that it helps DM's and players to have a general idea of what the monster is like, without having to read a mile of subtext. It's a fast, easy, and efficient way, or suggestion, to determine how these things interact with the world. Especially with monstrosities or beasts, where unaligned suggests it behaves like an animal, but evil might suggest an influence by dark powers over its mind, or an evil creator. Alignment removal makes sense with some things, (such as races, or intelligent creatures, where you're more likely to have diversity in thought and reasoning), but makes less sense when you're talking about creatures where alignment helps, like demons or devils, and argument i mentioned in a previous post. So yes, it is more restrictive if it's removing something that helps
Even for demons and devils, that is dependent on GM and setting as well. I do not run my demons and devils as all evil; in fact, the patron of my adventuring party is an entrepreneurial succubus who leans more towards good if anything.
I do not think GMs and players need to be told how to run demons and devils. If they want to run it as evil beings who enslave mortal souls, be my guest. However, I do not want that to be the default assumption, and it would be a disservice to new GMs and players by constantly having every little thing railroading towards a narrow view of fantasy. Leaving the alignment open to interpretation can spark more interesting ideas like heaven is actually a place of damnation, where its beauty is maintained by a constant supply of mortal souls acting as fertalizers, and the gods are actually evil with very good PR skills.
For demons and devils etc, you can describe their behavior in more detial and nuance, same with the ghouls, than can be summed up with two words on a limiting 3 by 3 grid.
You could look at devils and see 'oh they're lawful evil.'
Or delve into the different types, how their socitieis function, how they operate and why, what their goals and methods are etc. There's a lot there that goes far beyond 'lawful evil' even discounting people handling them different in their own settings, because the descriptions are written for their default setting. If you remove all setting specific info for fear of limiting peoples imagination in their own settings you end up just not providing much info at all.
I don't really think the ghoul or something like it needs the alignment. The creature is well known enough in pop culture and it is undead, and has low intelligence, so all that combined with it's relatively straightforward goals (that of eating flesh) suggests it is chaotic, and most definitely evil. However, take a devil, demon, or organization, such as the Inquisitors in VRGtR, those need more clarification.
You need to know what the creature is likely to do. A two-character alignment does not significantly assist with that objective.
I guess this is part of their move to try not to "offend anyone", but let's be real here, if you don't like alignments, you don't have to use em. But could you leave them in there for the people who do? I feel like taking them out could potentially cause a problem, but leaving them in really wouldn't.
Leaving alignments in stat blocks perpetuates stereotypes and that causes more problems than taking them out, and in my opinion, leaving alignments in also stymies creativity. I am fine with leaving alignments in stat blocks for specific individual NPCs, but I think it should be removed for generic stat blocks like goblins, drow, dragons, etc. so new GMs and players can feel more free to apply what ever alignment they want.
Alignment in stat blocks are as problematic as paladin oaths, and paladin oaths are already causing issues where some GMs are so inflexible and narrowminded that they insist players play paladins a specific way, basically taking roleplay out of the player's hands and leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouths.
I basically agree with this. I do think the biggest concern with my way of thinking is new players. It can be hard to adjust to a system where everything is laid out in black and white. But I could also see the opposite happening, where new players are confused by the lack of alignment in creatures. I agree though that it is fun to do what you want with goblins, drow and dragons. I even think the lore of them being evil makes good ones in a campaign more exciting, but that's just me. Whatever your DM does and whatever helps you have fun is good!
I see what you mean, addition by subtraction, but what I'm saying is that it helps DM's and players to have a general idea of what the monster is like, without having to read a mile of subtext. It's a fast, easy, and efficient way, or suggestion, to determine how these things interact with the world. Especially with monstrosities or beasts, where unaligned suggests it behaves like an animal, but evil might suggest an influence by dark powers over its mind, or an evil creator. Alignment removal makes sense with some things, (such as races, or intelligent creatures, where you're more likely to have diversity in thought and reasoning), but makes less sense when you're talking about creatures where alignment helps, like demons or devils, and argument i mentioned in a previous post. So yes, it is more restrictive if it's removing something that helps
Even for demons and devils, that is dependent on GM and setting as well. I do not run my demons and devils as all evil; in fact, the patron of my adventuring party is an entrepreneurial succubus who leans more towards good if anything.
I do not think GMs and players need to be told how to run demons and devils. If they want to run it as evil beings who enslave mortal souls, be my guest. However, I do not want that to be the default assumption, and it would be a disservice to new GMs and players by constantly having every little thing railroading towards a narrow view of fantasy. Leaving the alignment open to interpretation can spark more interesting ideas like heaven is actually a place of damnation, where its beauty is maintained by a constant supply of mortal souls acting as fertalizers, and the gods are actually evil with very good PR skills.
I actually agree here. My problem not with how people run demons and devils. I don't care. It's the fact that the distinguishing factor between the two is their alignment, which in turn distinguishes how they are played. Ever heard of the blood war?
EDIT: that being said, the idea of dark angels and shifty but helpful devils is really cool. Good for dark fantasy
also, I'm seeing a lot of responses as this whole thing being part of WotC process to remove "racist tropes" from DnD. Get real. I don't think anyone sees alignment as racist, and if they do, that's awfully close minded. The way I see it, DnD is left up to the creativity and decisions of the DM who does the worldbuilding. I don't think alignment's are absolutes, or even that they are basic or boring.
I do not think you get to decide what is close minded and what is not if you are not the one constantly being looked down upon and treated with disrespect.
Alignments are not absolutes and they should not be treated that way, but there are enough people who play it that way that could spoil it for new comers.
How does a mechanical feature in a game make you feel looked down on? no one is oppressing you. It's a game mechanic
How does a mechanical feature in a game make you feel looked down on? no one is oppressing you. It's a game mechanic
Alignments are not mechanical features. They're descriptive text with essentially no mechanical effect (a few magic items feature alignment tests, which it would probably be useful to fix).
How does a mechanical feature in a game make you feel looked down on? no one is oppressing you. It's a game mechanic
Alignments are not mechanical features. They're descriptive text with essentially no mechanical effect (a few magic items feature alignment tests, which it would probably be useful to fix).
Also some monster statblock stuff (rakshasas have something I think) but again could be changed.
Alignment used to be a mechanical effect. Now detect evil and good works by creature type instead of actual alignment so alignment is basically irrelevant anymore. (I still generally use the OG L—C axis because it is at least somewhat useful.)
Yes, you used to have Protection from Evil and Good and Detect Evil and Good and Know Alignment (and conversely, Undetectable Alignment) and Divine Word that all keyed off of alignment, but at this point dropping it from monster stat blocks is just eliminating the last vestiges of something that mostly already didn't exist.
alignment is easy, and fast, and while is is not set in stone, it is still useful and used by many players. keeping alignment in doesn't make it harder to play the game. If you say it does, you would be talking about a very small minority of new players who would have started in the last several months. DnD's popularity has been rising steadily for years now, so there are many current players who still use it. Removing Alignment from the game, could make it more difficult for DM's
There aren't really any consequences if you keep alignment in the game. Some are arguing that promotes tropes and stereotypes, but saying evil is evil is not a stereotype. Plus, alignment is a broad category. There are nine different sections to choose from, each of which are broad on their own and definitely cover their bases. We shouldn't assume that because it says LE by a dragon that all dragons are like that. It means that they tend towards that alignment. If you don't like alignment, screw it. Do whatever you want with your campaign. That's all part of the fun. But leaving it in is easier and more fun for still a large group of DnD's player base. Main point is I'd rather the decisions be left up to the players than WotC.
But I guess at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. WotC will do whatever makes them more money. They are a company after all
How does a mechanical feature in a game make you feel looked down on? no one is oppressing you. It's a game mechanic
Alignments are not mechanical features. They're descriptive text with essentially no mechanical effect (a few magic items feature alignment tests, which it would probably be useful to fix).
That being said it still doesn't answer the question of how "descriptive text" is opressing or hurting anyone. Feel free to change it. If it's there, no big deal, the game is yours to screw with.
also, I'm seeing a lot of responses as this whole thing being part of WotC process to remove "racist tropes" from DnD. Get real. I don't think anyone sees alignment as racist, and if they do, that's awfully close minded. The way I see it, DnD is left up to the creativity and decisions of the DM who does the worldbuilding. I don't think alignment's are absolutes, or even that they are basic or boring.
I do not think you get to decide what is close minded and what is not if you are not the one constantly being looked down upon and treated with disrespect.
Alignments are not absolutes and they should not be treated that way, but there are enough people who play it that way that could spoil it for new comers.
How does a mechanical feature in a game make you feel looked down on? no one is oppressing you. It's a game mechanic
Having society looking down on you based on your skin color, sex, dress, culture, speech pattern, job, nationality, etc. and then seeing the same thing in games, media, and other hobbies is going to piss you off or at least turn you away.
The language used to describe orcs in the books is exactly the same kind of language used to describe blacks by far right racists and terrorists, and the most Wizards has done so far is to just remove the Intelligence penalty. The Vistani in Curse of Strahd were an insulting, unflattering parody of the real life Roma, but at least Wizards errata'd the book and removed the most egregious stereotypes.
Removing alignment from generic stat blocks is just a tiny step in the right direction.
That being said it still doesn't answer the question of how "descriptive text" is opressing or hurting anyone. Feel free to change it. If it's there, no big deal, the game is yours to screw with.
You're asking the wrong question.
The question isn't "How is this part of D&D [Alignment] oppressing/hurting anyone?", it's "How is this part of D&D good for the game?"
And the answer to that is, it really isn't.
Now, I'm not saying that the idea of a moral code/personality system in D&D is an awful, horrible, detrimental idea. I do believe that a relatively simple, guideline "descriptive text" system for personality/morality is/can be a fairly useful part of the game, especially for new DMs and DMs that don't want to put a lot of thought into enemies/a villain that they put in the game, and just want to have villains to someone for the PCs to fight. However, Alignment isn't the way to do this, and it never has been.
For as long as Alignment has been around there have been debates about what specific alignments mean (Chaotic Neutral, for example), what the difference between two different alignments mean, and how it should be a part of the game (like how in previous editions it used to have mechanical impacts to your characters. In 5e, there's basically nothing in mechanics related to alignment outside of a few magic items and optional planar travel rules). In 5e, it was there to appease older fans who were turned off by 4e and how much it departed from traditional D&D (both mechanically and thematically), but it was always vestigial. For the most part, it was just a two-word (or sometimes two-letter), rudimentary description of how certain characters and monsters act in the assumed general D&D setting (the Forgotten Realms). But even then, it was said to have exceptions, allowed for DMs to change it on whatever creatures they wanted, and was more or less just there, serving no purpose other than appeasing older fans. As a newer player, I know that I was originally boggled by the simplicity and hands-off approach of morality in D&D 5e, and kind of ignored it for how my PCs and monsters would act in my games. I always thought "If the designers of the game are going to bother to have a Morality system in the game, shouldn't it at least be useful and less open for interpretation than alignment?"
And, that's kind of how 5e approached things from the get-go. Alignment was there, but it wasn't necessary, didn't determine most monster behaviors/mindsets, and was usurped by a far more in-depth and comprehensive set of personality traits that were originally just applied to PCs, but grew to also include important NPCs (in certain adventure paths, like Waterdeep: Dragon Heist) and monsters (like Beholders, Mind Flayers, and Goblinoids in Volo's Guide to Monsters).
5e has always had 2 systems that doubled as Morality/Personality "rules", the Personality Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws system from Backgrounds and the bare-bones 5e version of Alignment (which didn't really do anything, and barely had any description of it in the game).
Fizban's Treasury of Dragons is going to continue this, by giving recommended alignments for certain types of dragons, but also have tables and more in-depth Personality Traits for dragons in it. And, IMO, that's a really good thing. If I were to rewrite the Monster Manual today, I would give example Personality Traits, Flaws, Ideals, Bonds, and Quirks for all sentient monsters (going by groupings, as to avoid doing 12+ different recommendations/tables for the many different Demons/Devils/etc). And this is because Personality Traits, Flaws, Bonds, Ideals, and Quirks are all things that everyone can understand and aren't as contentious as Alignment. They're descriptive, in-depth, and can actually help DMs and Players roleplay characters based off of what the personality trait says, not based off of a two-word description of whether or not they're "good/evil" or "lawful/chaotic".
It's a better system than alignment, plain and simple. That's largely why Monster Alignments are being abandoned in 5e from here-on-out, because there's a better way to do things. You don't need a listed alignment for a Relentless Killer when its flavor text (and name) describe them to be fiendish, supernatural serial killers. What more would you need beyond that? What more could "Neutral Evil" or "Chaotic Evil" add to that description that was lacking beforehand (besides a modicum of redundant tradition)? WotC has learned to abandon the unnecessary, convoluted, Sacred-Cow system from previous editions that didn't contribute anything to the game besides the Great Wheel of Redundant Planes of Existence and debates as to whether or not the Chaotic Neutral Rogue is actually Chaotic Evil.
Make sense? It's not about "how is this hurting people?" it's "how is the helping anyone, and how can we do better?"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
debates as to whether or not the Chaotic Neutral Rogue is actually Chaotic Evil.
When I see players pick CN, what they mean is "I want to be free to do whatever I please and justify it by claiming to be playing my alignment". Which almost always winds up being chaotic evil because the kind of player who finds that appealing in the first place is also prone to "anything that gets in my way should die".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I see what you mean, addition by subtraction, but what I'm saying is that it helps DM's and players to have a general idea of what the monster is like, without having to read a mile of subtext. It's a fast, easy, and efficient way, or suggestion, to determine how these things interact with the world. Especially with monstrosities or beasts, where unaligned suggests it behaves like an animal, but evil might suggest an influence by dark powers over its mind, or an evil creator. Alignment removal makes sense with some things, (such as races, or intelligent creatures, where you're more likely to have diversity in thought and reasoning), but makes less sense when you're talking about creatures where alignment helps, like demons or devils, and argument i mentioned in a previous post. So yes, it is more restrictive if it's removing something that helps
EDIT: sorry, was trying to quote Pantagruel666's post here
Updog
Honestly if you want your players to understand how goblinoids are in your setting you either explain via some exposition or by their actions.
And yeah I think its fair to have things like Devils have set alignment as they are plane beings that all hail from the land of Lawful Evil or Die. I think as a player I would rather know if something is Chaotic, Neutral, or Lawful than Good, Bad, Neutral.....I think that gives me a much more insightful look into their mentality.
"Alignment: Chaotic of any alignment"
I wouldn't call it subtext. Let's look at the description of a Ghoul.
Do you really gain anything from being told that it's chaotic evil?
Pantagruel:
I don't really think the ghoul or something like it needs the alignment. The creature is well known enough in pop culture and it is undead, and has low intelligence, so all that combined with it's relatively straightforward goals (that of eating flesh) suggests it is chaotic, and most definitely evil. However, take a devil, demon, or organization, such as the Inquisitors in VRGtR, those need more clarification. I can see how ghouls are easy to run regardless of alignment, but it is a helpful tool in regards to other creatures, like dragons, demons, devils, and humanoids
Updog
Leaving alignments in stat blocks perpetuates stereotypes and that causes more problems than taking them out, and in my opinion, leaving alignments in also stymies creativity. I am fine with leaving alignments in stat blocks for specific individual NPCs, but I think it should be removed for generic stat blocks like goblins, drow, dragons, etc. so new GMs and players can feel more free to apply what ever alignment they want.
Alignment in stat blocks are as problematic as paladin oaths, and paladin oaths are already causing issues where some GMs are so inflexible and narrowminded that they insist players play paladins a specific way, basically taking roleplay out of the player's hands and leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouths.
I do not think you get to decide what is close minded and what is not if you are not the one constantly being looked down upon and treated with disrespect.
Alignments are not absolutes and they should not be treated that way, but there are enough people who play it that way that could spoil it for new comers.
Even for demons and devils, that is dependent on GM and setting as well. I do not run my demons and devils as all evil; in fact, the patron of my adventuring party is an entrepreneurial succubus who leans more towards good if anything.
I do not think GMs and players need to be told how to run demons and devils. If they want to run it as evil beings who enslave mortal souls, be my guest. However, I do not want that to be the default assumption, and it would be a disservice to new GMs and players by constantly having every little thing railroading towards a narrow view of fantasy. Leaving the alignment open to interpretation can spark more interesting ideas like heaven is actually a place of damnation, where its beauty is maintained by a constant supply of mortal souls acting as fertalizers, and the gods are actually evil with very good PR skills.
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 >
For demons and devils etc, you can describe their behavior in more detial and nuance, same with the ghouls, than can be summed up with two words on a limiting 3 by 3 grid.
You could look at devils and see 'oh they're lawful evil.'
Or delve into the different types, how their socitieis function, how they operate and why, what their goals and methods are etc. There's a lot there that goes far beyond 'lawful evil' even discounting people handling them different in their own settings, because the descriptions are written for their default setting. If you remove all setting specific info for fear of limiting peoples imagination in their own settings you end up just not providing much info at all.
You need to know what the creature is likely to do. A two-character alignment does not significantly assist with that objective.
I basically agree with this. I do think the biggest concern with my way of thinking is new players. It can be hard to adjust to a system where everything is laid out in black and white. But I could also see the opposite happening, where new players are confused by the lack of alignment in creatures. I agree though that it is fun to do what you want with goblins, drow and dragons. I even think the lore of them being evil makes good ones in a campaign more exciting, but that's just me. Whatever your DM does and whatever helps you have fun is good!
I actually agree here. My problem not with how people run demons and devils. I don't care. It's the fact that the distinguishing factor between the two is their alignment, which in turn distinguishes how they are played. Ever heard of the blood war?
EDIT: that being said, the idea of dark angels and shifty but helpful devils is really cool. Good for dark fantasy
Updog
New players have no idea that alignment might be present and won't notice its absence. It's the old players who notice.
Those would be some super green players to have no clue what alignments are. I've only been hardcore playing DnD for 2 years and I notice it.
Updog
How does a mechanical feature in a game make you feel looked down on? no one is oppressing you. It's a game mechanic
Updog
Alignments are not mechanical features. They're descriptive text with essentially no mechanical effect (a few magic items feature alignment tests, which it would probably be useful to fix).
Also some monster statblock stuff (rakshasas have something I think) but again could be changed.
Alignment used to be a mechanical effect. Now detect evil and good works by creature type instead of actual alignment so alignment is basically irrelevant anymore. (I still generally use the OG L—C axis because it is at least somewhat useful.)
Edit: Broken Tooltip.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes, you used to have Protection from Evil and Good and Detect Evil and Good and Know Alignment (and conversely, Undetectable Alignment) and Divine Word that all keyed off of alignment, but at this point dropping it from monster stat blocks is just eliminating the last vestiges of something that mostly already didn't exist.
Here's how I see it:
alignment is easy, and fast, and while is is not set in stone, it is still useful and used by many players. keeping alignment in doesn't make it harder to play the game. If you say it does, you would be talking about a very small minority of new players who would have started in the last several months. DnD's popularity has been rising steadily for years now, so there are many current players who still use it. Removing Alignment from the game, could make it more difficult for DM's
There aren't really any consequences if you keep alignment in the game. Some are arguing that promotes tropes and stereotypes, but saying evil is evil is not a stereotype. Plus, alignment is a broad category. There are nine different sections to choose from, each of which are broad on their own and definitely cover their bases. We shouldn't assume that because it says LE by a dragon that all dragons are like that. It means that they tend towards that alignment. If you don't like alignment, screw it. Do whatever you want with your campaign. That's all part of the fun. But leaving it in is easier and more fun for still a large group of DnD's player base. Main point is I'd rather the decisions be left up to the players than WotC.
But I guess at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. WotC will do whatever makes them more money. They are a company after all
Updog
That being said it still doesn't answer the question of how "descriptive text" is opressing or hurting anyone. Feel free to change it. If it's there, no big deal, the game is yours to screw with.
Updog
Having society looking down on you based on your skin color, sex, dress, culture, speech pattern, job, nationality, etc. and then seeing the same thing in games, media, and other hobbies is going to piss you off or at least turn you away.
The language used to describe orcs in the books is exactly the same kind of language used to describe blacks by far right racists and terrorists, and the most Wizards has done so far is to just remove the Intelligence penalty. The Vistani in Curse of Strahd were an insulting, unflattering parody of the real life Roma, but at least Wizards errata'd the book and removed the most egregious stereotypes.
Removing alignment from generic stat blocks is just a tiny step in the right direction.
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 >
You're asking the wrong question.
The question isn't "How is this part of D&D [Alignment] oppressing/hurting anyone?", it's "How is this part of D&D good for the game?"
And the answer to that is, it really isn't.
Now, I'm not saying that the idea of a moral code/personality system in D&D is an awful, horrible, detrimental idea. I do believe that a relatively simple, guideline "descriptive text" system for personality/morality is/can be a fairly useful part of the game, especially for new DMs and DMs that don't want to put a lot of thought into enemies/a villain that they put in the game, and just want to have villains to someone for the PCs to fight. However, Alignment isn't the way to do this, and it never has been.
For as long as Alignment has been around there have been debates about what specific alignments mean (Chaotic Neutral, for example), what the difference between two different alignments mean, and how it should be a part of the game (like how in previous editions it used to have mechanical impacts to your characters. In 5e, there's basically nothing in mechanics related to alignment outside of a few magic items and optional planar travel rules). In 5e, it was there to appease older fans who were turned off by 4e and how much it departed from traditional D&D (both mechanically and thematically), but it was always vestigial. For the most part, it was just a two-word (or sometimes two-letter), rudimentary description of how certain characters and monsters act in the assumed general D&D setting (the Forgotten Realms). But even then, it was said to have exceptions, allowed for DMs to change it on whatever creatures they wanted, and was more or less just there, serving no purpose other than appeasing older fans. As a newer player, I know that I was originally boggled by the simplicity and hands-off approach of morality in D&D 5e, and kind of ignored it for how my PCs and monsters would act in my games. I always thought "If the designers of the game are going to bother to have a Morality system in the game, shouldn't it at least be useful and less open for interpretation than alignment?"
And, that's kind of how 5e approached things from the get-go. Alignment was there, but it wasn't necessary, didn't determine most monster behaviors/mindsets, and was usurped by a far more in-depth and comprehensive set of personality traits that were originally just applied to PCs, but grew to also include important NPCs (in certain adventure paths, like Waterdeep: Dragon Heist) and monsters (like Beholders, Mind Flayers, and Goblinoids in Volo's Guide to Monsters).
5e has always had 2 systems that doubled as Morality/Personality "rules", the Personality Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws system from Backgrounds and the bare-bones 5e version of Alignment (which didn't really do anything, and barely had any description of it in the game).
Fizban's Treasury of Dragons is going to continue this, by giving recommended alignments for certain types of dragons, but also have tables and more in-depth Personality Traits for dragons in it. And, IMO, that's a really good thing. If I were to rewrite the Monster Manual today, I would give example Personality Traits, Flaws, Ideals, Bonds, and Quirks for all sentient monsters (going by groupings, as to avoid doing 12+ different recommendations/tables for the many different Demons/Devils/etc). And this is because Personality Traits, Flaws, Bonds, Ideals, and Quirks are all things that everyone can understand and aren't as contentious as Alignment. They're descriptive, in-depth, and can actually help DMs and Players roleplay characters based off of what the personality trait says, not based off of a two-word description of whether or not they're "good/evil" or "lawful/chaotic".
It's a better system than alignment, plain and simple. That's largely why Monster Alignments are being abandoned in 5e from here-on-out, because there's a better way to do things. You don't need a listed alignment for a Relentless Killer when its flavor text (and name) describe them to be fiendish, supernatural serial killers. What more would you need beyond that? What more could "Neutral Evil" or "Chaotic Evil" add to that description that was lacking beforehand (besides a modicum of redundant tradition)? WotC has learned to abandon the unnecessary, convoluted, Sacred-Cow system from previous editions that didn't contribute anything to the game besides the Great Wheel of Redundant Planes of Existence and debates as to whether or not the Chaotic Neutral Rogue is actually Chaotic Evil.
Make sense? It's not about "how is this hurting people?" it's "how is the helping anyone, and how can we do better?"
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
When I see players pick CN, what they mean is "I want to be free to do whatever I please and justify it by claiming to be playing my alignment". Which almost always winds up being chaotic evil because the kind of player who finds that appealing in the first place is also prone to "anything that gets in my way should die".