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.
Considering that the entire Blood War is an ideological conflict over alignment… isn’t it kind of a plot point for the whole cosmology…? Just sayin,’ at the bear minimum the L—C aspect of alignment is still valuable in D&D. And it was originally the only alignment tracked in D&D. (Good & Evil were considered too subjective to quantify and wholly unnecessary to document until AD&D.) The conflict between Law and Chaos, order and disorder, absolutes and anarchy is still relevant in D&D. The whole G/E thing… like the man said: “Good? Bad? I’m the one with the gun.” But the struggle between Law and Chaos is the difference between towns & roads and ruins & wilderness.
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
That’s not even remotely true. Thirty years before you were even born alignment in D&D was as simple as L or C. There was no debate because everyone understands that. That’s why I still say that the L—C aspect of alignment is still relevant. (Alignment didn’t get mucked up until way after that’s)
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
That’s not even remotely true. Thirty years before you were even born alignment in D&D was as simple as L or C. There was no debate because everyone understands that. That’s why I still say that the L—C aspect of alignment is still relevant. (Alignment didn’t get mucked up until way after that’s)
Sorry. I should have clarified that by "Alignment", I meant the standard 3 x 3 Alignment grid of Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic vs Good, Neutral, and Evil. That's what alignment is to me, as someone that has only played 5e, so I kind of defined Alignment by that in my post (and assumed others would understand that, too).
So, a more correct version would be "As long as the 9 Alignments have been around people have been debating what specific alignments mean, etc".
That’s not even remotely true. Thirty years before you were even born alignment in D&D was as simple as L or C.
The two-axis alignment system dates back to 1977; the only editions of the game that didn't use it were Original (1974), the 1981 version of Basic, and 4e (which used its own special hybrid), so it's being disingenuous to claim "not remotely true". You can say "Not 100% true", but it's mostly true.
That’s not even remotely true. Thirty years before you were even born alignment in D&D was as simple as L or C.
The two-axis alignment system dates back to 1977; the only editions of the game that didn't use it were Original (1974), the 1981 version of Basic, and 4e (which used its own special hybrid), so it's being disingenuous to claim "not remotely true". You can say "Not 100% true", but it's mostly true.
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?"
Well thanks for at least being civil and willing to see both sides. I definitely see what you're saying. I think WotC just tends to be a little bit out there on trying to "solve" these problems. But I appreciate what you said and definitely consider it
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.
Considering that the entire Blood War is an ideological conflict over alignment… isn’t it kind of a plot point for the whole cosmology…? Just sayin,’ at the bear minimum the L—C aspect of alignment is still valuable in D&D. And it was originally the only alignment tracked in D&D. (Good & Evil were considered too subjective to quantify and wholly unnecessary to document until AD&D.) The conflict between Law and Chaos, order and disorder, absolutes and anarchy is still relevant in D&D. The whole G/E thing… like the man said: “Good? Bad? I’m the one with the gun.” But the struggle between Law and Chaos is the difference between towns & roads and ruins & wilderness.
This has been the point, more or less that I've been trying to make about devils and demons
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.
Considering that the entire Blood War is an ideological conflict over alignment… isn’t it kind of a plot point for the whole cosmology…? Just sayin,’ at the bear minimum the L—C aspect of alignment is still valuable in D&D. And it was originally the only alignment tracked in D&D. (Good & Evil were considered too subjective to quantify and wholly unnecessary to document until AD&D.) The conflict between Law and Chaos, order and disorder, absolutes and anarchy is still relevant in D&D. The whole G/E thing… like the man said: “Good? Bad? I’m the one with the gun.” But the struggle between Law and Chaos is the difference between towns & roads and ruins & wilderness.
Hard disagree here, Sposta.
Yes, the Blood War got its origin from a Cosmology that was designed from taking every Alignment and making a Plane of Existence for it (and then, for some inexplicable reason, making a Plane of Existence for every half-point between every alignment and then never actually doing the work to justify having those Planes of Existence). Yes, its primary conflict is Law versus Chaos, and the Law vs Chaos Axis is a part of alignment (and is also the progenitor of the current alignment system).
However, the Blood War can exist without alignment. Law vs. Chaos is a story that can exist without the 3 x 3 Alignment Grid that has been in D&D for so many editions now. It existed in Michal Moorcock's books, and his stories didn't have the Good vs Evil axis added onto it. You could very easily have a world where the forces of law and the forces of chaos march against each other (you could even have the war be primarily made up of evil creatures) without having the Alignment grid.
The Blood War is great and all, I just don't see its existence as a reason to keep around alignment. The fact that the Alignment system is what created the Blood War doesn't mean that Alignment is good for the game, just that it did have some good contributions to the game, and furthermore, the Blood War doesn't need Alignment to exist anymore. The "Evil forces of Law clashing against Evil forces of Chaos" story is no longer dependent on having the Alignment system.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Even before becoming introduced to these arguments, I still though that orcs, goblins, drow and so on were too humanlike to really see as true monsters. Functionally they don’t behave much differently from humans in similar roles, which made them kind of dull for me. This was a bit of a frustration in my early forays into TTRPGs, because a lot of games seemed to insist that anything inhuman or otherworldly were automatically superior opponents. 5e was some fresh air on this end, there are plenty of embodiments of evil, angry plants, and faerie a-holes that can be used right from level one.
I’m not really qualified to say if orcs or how they’re implemented are racist. Many cultures have tales of evil entities, no matter what continent those cultures are from; but as I said earlier orcs are very humanlike, so it’s easier to make connections to statements used to denigrate human populations. When in doubt, talk about it with your group.
And I will disagree heavily with the undercurrent that humanlike/personal opponents are superior to unhumanlike/impersonal ones. I can give you examples of why if you want, but I have something from my own life. I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, my worst enemy is a glitch in my own brain’s programming. At it’s worse, the OCD can sometimes feel like a living being that makes plans and acts with intent, but that’s not actually the case.
As for alignments themselves, I was largely satisfied when class restricted alignment was phased out. Beyond that I’m less sure. Maybe there are better means, but alignment is D&D’s version of a “non-rational” aspect of life, the things beyond utilitarian concerns. If you want to have a more existential feeling to you campaign by all means don’t use alignment.l; but remember that existentialism isn’t the be all end all of worldviews.
List me as another fan of the Blood War, and one who didn’t expect to like it as much as I did. I’d probably need more space to fully explain why, so I’ll give the short version: the Blood War exists so the heroes can prove it unnecessary.
I don't mind if alignment is or isn't phased out entirely, but do approve of its diminished role in 5E compared to what I hear of past editions. It can be a useful shorthand but I find it too simplistic and lacking in nuance to be of much use in and of itself, compared to what a brief description of a creature's typical behaviors can bring out. It can be a decent descriptive shorthand (if you can get everyone to even agree on what specific alignments really mean) but it falls short when trying to define a person, a creature, a race etc.
You could still have creatures or even socities with different values without the 3 by 3 grid. You could still have devils and demons fighting eachother without it. You can still have scheming goblins and marauding orcs and righteous paladins without it.
For goblins for example: 'neutral evil' tells me next to nothing. Okay they're bad a I guess.
'Goblins are small, black-hearted, selfish humanoids that lair in caves, abandoned mines, despoiled dungeons, and other dismal settings. Individually weak, goblins gather in large — sometimes overwhelming — numbers. They crave power and regularly abuse whatever authority they obtain.'
This in just a few sentences conveys more interesting and useful information, without having to delve into paragraphs of text. Knowing that they're 'neutral evil' for me just isn't useful, doesn't add anything to inform how these creatures generally act other than vaguely being 'evil.'
A succubus for example is also neutral evil. With very different goals and behaviors.
This is why I generally find alignment unhelpful. It doesn't convey enough information to be meaningful IMO. It doesn't 'hurt' anything to have those two words (or one for unaligned) on a stat block but for me at least...it may a well not be there. It doesn't clarify anything, it doesn't give useful information about how the creature acts or what it wants.
And that's ultimately why I don't mind seeing alignment go. I just don't see the 3 by 3 grid as useful for anything but the most bare bones of short hand. It's too vague to really give an idea
I don't mind if alignment is or isn't phased out entirely, but do approve of its diminished role in 5E compared to what I hear of past editions. It can be a useful shorthand but I find it too simplistic and lacking in nuance to be of much use in and of itself, compared to what a brief description of a creature's typical behaviors can bring out. It can be a decent descriptive shorthand (if you can get everyone to even agree on what specific alignments really mean) but it falls short when trying to define a person, a creature, a race etc.
You could still have creatures or even socities with different values without the 3 by 3 grid. You could still have devils and demons fighting eachother without it. You can still have scheming goblins and marauding orcs and righteous paladins without it.
For goblins for example: 'neutral evil' tells me next to nothing. Okay they're bad a I guess.
'Goblins are small, black-hearted, selfish humanoids that lair in caves, abandoned mines, despoiled dungeons, and other dismal settings. Individually weak, goblins gather in large — sometimes overwhelming — numbers. They crave power and regularly abuse whatever authority they obtain.'
This in just a few sentences conveys more interesting and useful information, without having to delve into paragraphs of text. Knowing that they're 'neutral evil' for me just isn't useful, doesn't add anything to inform how these creatures generally act other than vaguely being 'evil.'
A succubus for example is also neutral evil. With very different goals and behaviors.
This is why I generally find alignment unhelpful. It doesn't convey enough information to be meaningful IMO. It doesn't 'hurt' anything to have those two words (or one for unaligned) on a stat block but for me at least...it may a well not be there. It doesn't clarify anything, it doesn't give useful information about how the creature acts or what it wants.
And that's ultimately why I don't mind seeing alignment go. I just don't see the 3 by 3 grid as useful for anything but the most bare bones of short hand. It's too vague to really give an idea
This is a pretty good summation of how I feel about alignment. Neutral Evil doesn't tell me much considering that the behaviors and motivations of creatures with the same alignment vary so wildly that the two words aren't even close to telling me what I would need to know as a DM. As a player it is even more useless to know what the alignment is listed in the monsters manual since that may or may not be true in the world we are playing in. It is better to let the creatures actions (and/or lore provided by the DM) guide the characters (and players) rather some poorly defined alignment.
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.
Considering that the entire Blood War is an ideological conflict over alignment… isn’t it kind of a plot point for the whole cosmology…? Just sayin,’ at the bear minimum the L—C aspect of alignment is still valuable in D&D. And it was originally the only alignment tracked in D&D. (Good & Evil were considered too subjective to quantify and wholly unnecessary to document until AD&D.) The conflict between Law and Chaos, order and disorder, absolutes and anarchy is still relevant in D&D. The whole G/E thing… like the man said: “Good? Bad? I’m the one with the gun.” But the struggle between Law and Chaos is the difference between towns & roads and ruins & wilderness.
Hard disagree here, Sposta.
Yes, the Blood War got its origin from a Cosmology that was designed from taking every Alignment and making a Plane of Existence for it (and then, for some inexplicable reason, making a Plane of Existence for every half-point between every alignment and then never actually doing the work to justify having those Planes of Existence). Yes, its primary conflict is Law versus Chaos, and the Law vs Chaos Axis is a part of alignment (and is also the progenitor of the current alignment system).
However, the Blood War can exist without alignment. Law vs. Chaos is a story that can exist without the 3 x 3 Alignment Grid that has been in D&D for so many editions now. It existed in Michal Moorcock's books, and his stories didn't have the Good vs Evil axis added onto it. You could very easily have a world where the forces of law and the forces of chaos march against each other (you could even have the war be primarily made up of evil creatures) without having the Alignment grid.
The Blood War is great and all, I just don't see its existence as a reason to keep around alignment. The fact that the Alignment system is what created the Blood War doesn't mean that Alignment is good for the game, just that it did have some good contributions to the game, and furthermore, the Blood War doesn't need Alignment to exist anymore. The "Evil forces of Law clashing against Evil forces of Chaos" story is no longer dependent on having the Alignment system.
Again, I never said 3×3, did I? I just said L—C, or I suppose L-N-C. I don’t need the G—E any more than OD&D did.
people that say the 3x3 alignment doesn't do what it intended....just don't use it. thats it. if you don't use something of course it wont work. does alignment get buried they way stat blocks are laid out....yes. does alignment not get the love it deserves to make it work....also yes.
wow really...even Devils and Fiends can be Good Aligned? this makes no sense.
Your table, your rules. My table, my rules. You do not have to like it, but some people like the flexability a lack of alignment provides to tell more interesting stories and explore real world topics like politics and religion.
Some people like simpler stories and exterminate rapey goblins.
Some people like to experience a catharsis about real life and exterminate rapey priests, execute the vain gods they worship, and annihilate religious institutions that oppress and violate the common folk.
wow really...even Devils and Fiends can be Good Aligned? this makes no sense.
Well, if Fallen Angels exist (like Zariel), why can't Risen Fiends? (In fact, in Descent into Avernus, there's a Chaotic Good Bearded Devil that has brain damage, and likes to carry around abyssal chickens as pets.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
wow really...even Devils and Fiends can be Good Aligned? this makes no sense.
Crowley in Good Omens ended up that way. Drizzt, from a classically "evil" race, was chaotic good. Redemption stories are a common & regularly enjoyed trope, especially in fantasy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Considering that the entire Blood War is an ideological conflict over alignment… isn’t it kind of a plot point for the whole cosmology…? Just sayin,’ at the bear minimum the L—C aspect of alignment is still valuable in D&D. And it was originally the only alignment tracked in D&D. (Good & Evil were considered too subjective to quantify and wholly unnecessary to document until AD&D.) The conflict between Law and Chaos, order and disorder, absolutes and anarchy is still relevant in D&D. The whole G/E thing… like the man said: “Good? Bad? I’m the one with the gun.” But the struggle between Law and Chaos is the difference between towns & roads and ruins & wilderness.
That’s not even remotely true. Thirty years before you were even born alignment in D&D was as simple as L or C. There was no debate because everyone understands that. That’s why I still say that the L—C aspect of alignment is still relevant. (Alignment didn’t get mucked up until way after that’s)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sorry. I should have clarified that by "Alignment", I meant the standard 3 x 3 Alignment grid of Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic vs Good, Neutral, and Evil. That's what alignment is to me, as someone that has only played 5e, so I kind of defined Alignment by that in my post (and assumed others would understand that, too).
So, a more correct version would be "As long as the 9 Alignments have been around people have been debating what specific alignments mean, etc".
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The two-axis alignment system dates back to 1977; the only editions of the game that didn't use it were Original (1974), the 1981 version of Basic, and 4e (which used its own special hybrid), so it's being disingenuous to claim "not remotely true". You can say "Not 100% true", but it's mostly true.
Alright, fair ‘nuff.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well thanks for at least being civil and willing to see both sides. I definitely see what you're saying. I think WotC just tends to be a little bit out there on trying to "solve" these problems. But I appreciate what you said and definitely consider it
Updog
This has been the point, more or less that I've been trying to make about devils and demons
Updog
Hard disagree here, Sposta.
Yes, the Blood War got its origin from a Cosmology that was designed from taking every Alignment and making a Plane of Existence for it (and then, for some inexplicable reason, making a Plane of Existence for every half-point between every alignment and then never actually doing the work to justify having those Planes of Existence). Yes, its primary conflict is Law versus Chaos, and the Law vs Chaos Axis is a part of alignment (and is also the progenitor of the current alignment system).
However, the Blood War can exist without alignment. Law vs. Chaos is a story that can exist without the 3 x 3 Alignment Grid that has been in D&D for so many editions now. It existed in Michal Moorcock's books, and his stories didn't have the Good vs Evil axis added onto it. You could very easily have a world where the forces of law and the forces of chaos march against each other (you could even have the war be primarily made up of evil creatures) without having the Alignment grid.
The Blood War is great and all, I just don't see its existence as a reason to keep around alignment. The fact that the Alignment system is what created the Blood War doesn't mean that Alignment is good for the game, just that it did have some good contributions to the game, and furthermore, the Blood War doesn't need Alignment to exist anymore. The "Evil forces of Law clashing against Evil forces of Chaos" story is no longer dependent on having the Alignment system.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Well this has a lot to respond to:
Even before becoming introduced to these arguments, I still though that orcs, goblins, drow and so on were too humanlike to really see as true monsters. Functionally they don’t behave much differently from humans in similar roles, which made them kind of dull for me. This was a bit of a frustration in my early forays into TTRPGs, because a lot of games seemed to insist that anything inhuman or otherworldly were automatically superior opponents. 5e was some fresh air on this end, there are plenty of embodiments of evil, angry plants, and faerie a-holes that can be used right from level one.
I’m not really qualified to say if orcs or how they’re implemented are racist. Many cultures have tales of evil entities, no matter what continent those cultures are from; but as I said earlier orcs are very humanlike, so it’s easier to make connections to statements used to denigrate human populations. When in doubt, talk about it with your group.
And I will disagree heavily with the undercurrent that humanlike/personal opponents are superior to unhumanlike/impersonal ones. I can give you examples of why if you want, but I have something from my own life. I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, my worst enemy is a glitch in my own brain’s programming. At it’s worse, the OCD can sometimes feel like a living being that makes plans and acts with intent, but that’s not actually the case.
As for alignments themselves, I was largely satisfied when class restricted alignment was phased out. Beyond that I’m less sure. Maybe there are better means, but alignment is D&D’s version of a “non-rational” aspect of life, the things beyond utilitarian concerns. If you want to have a more existential feeling to you campaign by all means don’t use alignment.l; but remember that existentialism isn’t the be all end all of worldviews.
List me as another fan of the Blood War, and one who didn’t expect to like it as much as I did. I’d probably need more space to fully explain why, so I’ll give the short version: the Blood War exists so the heroes can prove it unnecessary.
I have spoken my piece.
I don't mind if alignment is or isn't phased out entirely, but do approve of its diminished role in 5E compared to what I hear of past editions. It can be a useful shorthand but I find it too simplistic and lacking in nuance to be of much use in and of itself, compared to what a brief description of a creature's typical behaviors can bring out. It can be a decent descriptive shorthand (if you can get everyone to even agree on what specific alignments really mean) but it falls short when trying to define a person, a creature, a race etc.
You could still have creatures or even socities with different values without the 3 by 3 grid. You could still have devils and demons fighting eachother without it. You can still have scheming goblins and marauding orcs and righteous paladins without it.
For goblins for example: 'neutral evil' tells me next to nothing. Okay they're bad a I guess.
'Goblins are small, black-hearted, selfish humanoids that lair in caves, abandoned mines, despoiled dungeons, and other dismal settings. Individually weak, goblins gather in large — sometimes overwhelming — numbers. They crave power and regularly abuse whatever authority they obtain.'
This in just a few sentences conveys more interesting and useful information, without having to delve into paragraphs of text. Knowing that they're 'neutral evil' for me just isn't useful, doesn't add anything to inform how these creatures generally act other than vaguely being 'evil.'
A succubus for example is also neutral evil. With very different goals and behaviors.
This is why I generally find alignment unhelpful. It doesn't convey enough information to be meaningful IMO. It doesn't 'hurt' anything to have those two words (or one for unaligned) on a stat block but for me at least...it may a well not be there. It doesn't clarify anything, it doesn't give useful information about how the creature acts or what it wants.
And that's ultimately why I don't mind seeing alignment go. I just don't see the 3 by 3 grid as useful for anything but the most bare bones of short hand. It's too vague to really give an idea
This is a pretty good summation of how I feel about alignment. Neutral Evil doesn't tell me much considering that the behaviors and motivations of creatures with the same alignment vary so wildly that the two words aren't even close to telling me what I would need to know as a DM. As a player it is even more useless to know what the alignment is listed in the monsters manual since that may or may not be true in the world we are playing in. It is better to let the creatures actions (and/or lore provided by the DM) guide the characters (and players) rather some poorly defined alignment.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Again, I never said 3×3, did I? I just said L—C, or I suppose L-N-C. I don’t need the G—E any more than OD&D did.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
wow really...even Devils and Fiends can be Good Aligned? this makes no sense.
people that say the 3x3 alignment doesn't do what it intended....just don't use it. thats it. if you don't use something of course it wont work. does alignment get buried they way stat blocks are laid out....yes. does alignment not get the love it deserves to make it work....also yes.
Your table, your rules. My table, my rules. You do not have to like it, but some people like the flexability a lack of alignment provides to tell more interesting stories and explore real world topics like politics and religion.
Some people like simpler stories and exterminate rapey goblins.
Some people like to experience a catharsis about real life and exterminate rapey priests, execute the vain gods they worship, and annihilate religious institutions that oppress and violate the common folk.
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 >
Well, if Fallen Angels exist (like Zariel), why can't Risen Fiends? (In fact, in Descent into Avernus, there's a Chaotic Good Bearded Devil that has brain damage, and likes to carry around abyssal chickens as pets.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Crowley in Good Omens ended up that way. Drizzt, from a classically "evil" race, was chaotic good. Redemption stories are a common & regularly enjoyed trope, especially in fantasy.