I didn't mean to imply the mechanic is gone... just that there does seem to be a trend toward, at the very least, ignoring it.
I think this is a very reactionary (and thus these days very common) take on what they're doing. What I see is that WotC doesn't want to dictate alignment to us. They are not ignoring it, they're taking it out of the shiny "official rules" box and putting it in our hands.
Giving us control of something is not ignoring it or removing it from the game. It's just allowing for more flexible play. As I've said repeatedly to the D&D doomsayers about various modern changes, none of them prevent you from playing the game you want to play. What rather seems to be the problem is that people are upset that others can play differently. It's like a lot of social issues where people seem extremely concerned about what other people should be allowed to do in their own homes, and just like those issues, this is something that eventually they're going to have to learn to live with.
The ability to magically detect alignment has always been a problem for all but the simplest of dungeon crawls, because if you're doing something like a murder investigation, the first thing you'd obviously do is do an alignment check and then assume that the killer is probably one of the evil people, and really, there isn't particular reason the guard shouldn't just walk down the street arresting every evil person they come across.
5e mostly did away with that, but that has its own problem: once you get rid of supernatural interactions, what's left isn't particularly useful -- it can be used as a shorthand description for how a monster behaves, but if you have a paragraph describing how the monster behaves, you don't really need a shorthand, and the alignment without the paragraph is usually inadequate by itself (do an aboleth, efreeti, and vampire really behave the same?)
Alignment has been central to Dungeons and Dragons forever...its fantasy the fairy tail story tropes are central to Fantasy. in the past systems entire spells dependent on alignment. its a short hand to your characters and monsters personality. Its central to some the character classes a Paladin and mage has to be lawful they have to stick to a stitch code of conduct, or study regiment or else loose their abilities. a Paladin can be evil a cleric can serve an evil god these have always been apart of added rules an features of the game and character creation. I never understood how it was hard to understand. an assassin that will not kill woman or children under any circumstance follows a code of conduct and so is lawful....being lawful doesn't mean fallowing the "law". if you have a character that general cares about peoples well being and doesn't want to hurt the innocent but will do what ever feel like doing at the time is chaotic good. a person that would kill a tax collector because they are "evil" at heart is Neutral.....the Lawful good character would never condone Murder in any circumstance....even if they were evil.....this whole alignment debate comes from the lack of understanding of what the alignments represent. They confusion and the lack of its use come from the game creatures method of explanation or maybe just the lack of ability to explain it, maybe just a lack of understanding them selves. This to me just seems to be a push for moral relativism. it needs to be brought back as a build option and let those who wish to ignore it, ignore it. while we are at it lets just remove holy effects and just throw out demons, devils, and angles. beings good and evil no longer have any meaning. its just core to those races.
I think D&D has some of the better alignment systems among RPGs in general. It takes in account both moral and legal issues, it is descriptive system as opposed to prescriptive system, so it doesn't limit roleplay by letting players role on humanity or any virtues. So I think, if you like alignment systems, you really can't complain about the 5e system. It has also improved by not making any natural creature "alway [insert alignment here]".
The question of course is, do you need an alignment system at all. If good and evil and law and chaos are meant to have any influence on the supernatural, you need an alignment system. If you don't want morality to be absolute - that is, that the universe (aka the DM) makes moral judgement, you will likely not want an alignment system at all.
Personally I could think of limiting alignment to the outer planes even further, i.e. creatures from the material planes do not have supernaturally relevant alignments at all, while creatures from the outer planes, being manifestations of these alignments still have alignments.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
+ Instaboot to murderhobos + I don't watch Critical Role, and no, I really shouldn't either +
Pantagruel666 in your second paragraph, you ask do you need the alignment if you have a paragraph on how the monster behaves. the answer is no, but then you have to read a paragraph on the monsters behavior every time you want to roleplay it. the alignment is a short hand. it doesn't fully flesh out the monster is it just a quick reference for expediency. so that the prep process can be sped up you can say chaotic, well now you know these monsters do not tend to keep their word. so any deals they make in order to save their lives with the adventures they are not likely to keep. without having to search and read through a paragraph breaking the emersion. or the monster may be lawful so you know that they will hold to the deal they make. for example making a deal with a devil or demon with have greatly different outcome a demon is chaotic they will back stab you or try and kill you party the first chance they have in which they have the advantage. a devil will not they are evil and will twist the meaning of the "deal" to satisfy their own twisted enjoyment but they will up hold their end which matters in a party that might have a warlock in it. Orcs for instance have always been chaotic evil, which tells you that they are very unlikely to deal for there life and generally just wants to see the world burn which doesn't really fit there lore but what ever. a goblin is chaotic so they are just trying to save their own skin and if able will abuse the party as soon as he can regroup with other goblins, which will probably be before they can even leave then den they just cleared out. it only takes a second to glance at an alignment and much easier to remember than a couple paragraphs of lore on ever monster. this is what I do not understand as 5e claims that it wants to simplify the system, well alignment is a simplification. relying on paragraphs of background and personality descriptions is not, it complicates it. as the personality descriptions add nuance to the base alignment. Lawful doesn't mean to fallow the "law" it mean to fallow a code of conduct to uphold to ones word. for in depth role play you have to know what the code is. chaotic has to be informed on what the monsters general motivations are. you know they are going to be self serving but what are they generally after?
on the first paragraph....that's just a lack of creativity on you DM's part. a "good" "neutral", Chaotic or or evil character can kill someone it just depends the circumstances. as characters your alignment can change. The lore is full of Paladins that have lost the "lawful" alignment and lost their powers. or paladins that have turned evil. it easily could have been a good character under the control of a spell caster or some other monster with mind control powers. could have been a good character trying to save someone else or lots of other people for the terrorization of the victim and they are absolutely wrecked with the guilt. far as the alignment check that mechanic is buggy as it should really only apply to specific creature types. that would be considered magical or supernatural, that really can not change alignment. like a celestial for example or a vampire. undead, magical creatures and creatures with other worldly origins.
Pantagruel666 in your second paragraph, you ask do you need the alignment if you have a paragraph on how the monster behaves. the answer is no, but then you have to read a paragraph on the monsters behavior every time you want to roleplay it.
You need to read a paragraph every time you roleplay it whether or not alignment is listed, because alignment is totally inadequate to roleplay anything.
on the first paragraph....that's just a lack of creativity on you DM's part. a "good" "neutral", Chaotic or or evil character can kill someone it just depends the circumstances.
I said murder, not kill. Murder is specifically unjustified killing.
You need to read a paragraph every time you roleplay it whether or not alignment is listed, because alignment is totally inadequate to roleplay anything.
that depend on how in depth the roleplaying is going to be, we can argue our prep techniques all day long but I don't think its necessary to stop in the middle of section to read a couple of paragraphs out of the monster manual to role play two or three line on a quick random encounter. run your game how you want.
I said murder, not kill. Murder is specifically unjustified killing.
ok and what looked like murder on the first impression could have easily been a case of self defense, or maybe the victim was working for a dark necromancer that was having them poison the local water supply so that the necromancer could turn the town into undead minions. a good character of lower statues knowing the guards wouldn't be on their side ran. sounds like a why more interesting story to me that the players shouldn't see coming but again you run it how you want to its your table.
You need to read a paragraph every time you roleplay it whether or not alignment is listed, because alignment is totally inadequate to roleplay anything.
that depend on how in depth the roleplaying is going to be, we can argue our prep techniques all day long but I don't think its necessary to stop in the middle of section to read a couple of paragraphs out of the monster manual to role play two or three line on a quick random encounter. run your game how you want.
If we are only going to use an NPC for a few lines and then never see them again or just to kill them off, then it is not worth thinking about alignment at all. Alignment may be a shorthand for roleplaying, but why bother with the shorthand at all if you do not even need it?
I am glad we agree people should definitely play the game how they want to play, however, alignment does not deserve any additional attention or emphasis in 5e. It causes way too many problems than it is worth, and it should stay optional and irrelevant like it is now. Just like alternative rest options, GMs who want them can use them, but it should not be a core part of 5e thrust upon every table.
You need to read a paragraph every time you roleplay it whether or not alignment is listed, because alignment is totally inadequate to roleplay anything.
that depend on how in depth the roleplaying is going to be, we can argue our prep techniques all day long but I don't think its necessary to stop in the middle of section to read a couple of paragraphs out of the monster manual to role play two or three line on a quick random encounter. run your game how you want.
The information you typically need about a wandering monster is "what does it want" and "what sort of tactics does it use to get what it wants". Alignment does not answer either question well, which means you're forced to read the paragraph whether or not there's alignment on the sheet.
You need to read a paragraph every time you roleplay it whether or not alignment is listed, because alignment is totally inadequate to roleplay anything.
that depend on how in depth the roleplaying is going to be, we can argue our prep techniques all day long but I don't think its necessary to stop in the middle of section to read a couple of paragraphs out of the monster manual to role play two or three line on a quick random encounter. run your game how you want.
The information you typically need about a wandering monster is "what does it want" and "what sort of tactics does it use to get what it wants". Alignment does not answer either question well, which means you're forced to read the paragraph whether or not there's alignment on the sheet.
I thought I already covered this, lets say for example I want to use a some monsters for a random encounter, say I roll up a quick goblin ambush. the players fell a couple of the goblins quickly so the goblins loose there nerve and decide to run. the party corners one. what is he going to do well with a quick note I know that goblins are generally Neutral evil. so they have no qualms about killing the part at any given chance, the neutral tells me that the other goblins are pretty much every man for them selves so they are not going to try and save the goblins skin. the captured goblin has absolutely no code of ethics so he will say anything including selling out his own to save his skin. two words tell me all that. I don't need to read a paragraph. Oh being neutral the goblin is only there to get him some money or food, so he is likely to leave the party be if they release him......now say its a couple of Gnolls well they are chaotic evil, which changes every thing, the Gnoll is there to kill the party so less likely to run, if they do it just to regroup and attack when the odds are more in their favor and if captured and released he will stalk them tell he and his comrades can kill them in their sleep if given the chance. the gnoll is going to lead the party into a trap if interrogated. he is likely to burn the forest to kill the party or lead them into a trap...again I can tell all that off of two words on a card or in a name plate......because it tells you what they want.
I thought I already covered this, lets say for example I want to use a some monsters for a random encounter, say I roll up a kick goblin ambush. the players fell a couple of the goblins quickly so the goblins loose there nerve and decide to run. the party corners one. what is he going to do well with a quick note I know that goblins are generally Neutral evil. so they have no qualms about killing the part at any given chance, the neutral tells me that the other goblins are pretty much every man for them selves so they are not going to try and save the goblins skin. the captured goblin has absolutely no code of ethics so he will say anything including selling out his own to save his skin. two words tell me all that. I don't need to read a paragraph. Oh being neutral the goblin is only there to get him some money or food, so he is likely to leave the party be if they release him......now say its a couple of Gnolls well they are chaotic evil, which changes every thing, the Gnoll is there to kill the party so less likely to run, if they do it just to regroup and attack when the odds are more in their favor and if captured and released he will stalk them tell he and his comrades can kill them in their sleep if given the chance. the gnoll is going to lead the party into a trap if interrogated. he is likely to burn the forest to kill the party or lead them into a trap...again I can tell all that off of two words on a card or in a name plate......because it tells you what they want.
The words 'Neutral Evil' didn't tell you any of that. Your history with D&D, years of absorbing the material, running and playing games? That's what you're describing when you talk about knowing how to run classic goblins. "Neutral Evil" means almost nothing, and it certainly doesn't mean any of the mentioned traits. Those are simply traits long associated with classic Baby's First Baddie goblins that everyone expects from the critters. The only thing a 'Neutral Evil' tag does is broadly indicate that the goblins in question conform to those old tropes, and frankly even that is only if the DM wants to.
'Neutral Evil' could just as easily be a tightly organized and coordinated criminal network, with each member contributing because the network enriches them all more than they can enrich themselves alone even as each member constantly looks for ways to cut their way higher in the organization and seize more power and money. "Neutral Evil" could describe a highly disciplined, focused assassin who doesn't give a rat about the morality of their contracts, only that they get paid well for work well done. "Neutral Evil" only really means 'Self-centered to the exclusion of all else', and has no bearing whatsoever on how an individual goblin deals with being captured by a drastically superior force.
To know that? You have to know the critter. Which can be done via running games of D&D for a long time and absorbing the basics of a lot of different critters, or it can be done more quickly by reading a few paragraphs about the critter in question.
I thought I already covered this, lets say for example I want to use a some monsters for a random encounter, say I roll up a kick goblin ambush. the players fell a couple of the goblins quickly so the goblins loose there nerve and decide to run. the party corners one. what is he going to do well with a quick note I know that goblins are generally Neutral evil. so they have no qualms about killing the part at any given chance, the neutral tells me that the other goblins are pretty much every man for them selves so they are not going to try and save the goblins skin. the captured goblin has absolutely no code of ethics so he will say anything including selling out his own to save his skin. two words tell me all that. I don't need to read a paragraph. Oh being neutral the goblin is only there to get him some money or food, so he is likely to leave the party be if they release him......now say its a couple of Gnolls well they are chaotic evil, which changes every thing, the Gnoll is there to kill the party so less likely to run, if they do it just to regroup and attack when the odds are more in their favor and if captured and released he will stalk them tell he and his comrades can kill them in their sleep if given the chance. the gnoll is going to lead the party into a trap if interrogated. he is likely to burn the forest to kill the party or lead them into a trap...again I can tell all that off of two words on a card or in a name plate......because it tells you what they want.
The words 'Neutral Evil' didn't tell you any of that. Your history with D&D, years of absorbing the material, running and playing games? That's what you're describing when you talk about knowing how to run classic goblins. "Neutral Evil" means almost nothing, and it certainly doesn't mean any of the mentioned traits. Those are simply traits long associated with classic Baby's First Baddie goblins that everyone expects from the critters. The only thing a 'Neutral Evil' tag does is broadly indicate that the goblins in question conform to those old tropes, and frankly even that is only if the DM wants to.
'Neutral Evil' could just as easily be a tightly organized and coordinated criminal network, with each member contributing because the network enriches them all more than they can enrich themselves alone even as each member constantly looks for ways to cut their way higher in the organization and seize more power and money. "Neutral Evil" could describe a highly disciplined, focused assassin who doesn't give a rat about the morality of their contracts, only that they get paid well for work well done. "Neutral Evil" only really means 'Self-centered to the exclusion of all else', and has no bearing whatsoever on how an individual goblin deals with being captured by a drastically superior force.
To know that? You have to know the critter. Which can be done via running games of D&D for a long time and absorbing the basics of a lot of different critters, or it can be done more quickly by reading a few paragraphs about the critter in question.
"Neutral evil" could also describe a eldritch being of such evil and corruption that its mere presence causes plants to whither and small animals to spontaneously die. A being of pure evil, unconcerned about the petty ideals of "law" or "chaos."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I thought I already covered this, lets say for example I want to use a some monsters for a random encounter, say I roll up a kick goblin ambush. the players fell a couple of the goblins quickly so the goblins loose there nerve and decide to run. the party corners one. what is he going to do well with a quick note I know that goblins are generally Neutral evil. so they have no qualms about killing the part at any given chance, the neutral tells me that the other goblins are pretty much every man for them selves so they are not going to try and save the goblins skin. the captured goblin has absolutely no code of ethics so he will say anything including selling out his own to save his skin. two words tell me all that. I don't need to read a paragraph. Oh being neutral the goblin is only there to get him some money or food, so he is likely to leave the party be if they release him......now say its a couple of Gnolls well they are chaotic evil, which changes every thing, the Gnoll is there to kill the party so less likely to run, if they do it just to regroup and attack when the odds are more in their favor and if captured and released he will stalk them tell he and his comrades can kill them in their sleep if given the chance. the gnoll is going to lead the party into a trap if interrogated. he is likely to burn the forest to kill the party or lead them into a trap...again I can tell all that off of two words on a card or in a name plate......because it tells you what they want.
The words 'Neutral Evil' didn't tell you any of that. Your history with D&D, years of absorbing the material, running and playing games? That's what you're describing when you talk about knowing how to run classic goblins. "Neutral Evil" means almost nothing, and it certainly doesn't mean any of the mentioned traits. Those are simply traits long associated with classic Baby's First Baddie goblins that everyone expects from the critters. The only thing a 'Neutral Evil' tag does is broadly indicate that the goblins in question conform to those old tropes, and frankly even that is only if the DM wants to.
'Neutral Evil' could just as easily be a tightly organized and coordinated criminal network, with each member contributing because the network enriches them all more than they can enrich themselves alone even as each member constantly looks for ways to cut their way higher in the organization and seize more power and money. "Neutral Evil" could describe a highly disciplined, focused assassin who doesn't give a rat about the morality of their contracts, only that they get paid well for work well done. "Neutral Evil" only really means 'Self-centered to the exclusion of all else', and has no bearing whatsoever on how an individual goblin deals with being captured by a drastically superior force.
To know that? You have to know the critter. Which can be done via running games of D&D for a long time and absorbing the basics of a lot of different critters, or it can be done more quickly by reading a few paragraphs about the critter in question.
"Neutral evil" could also describe a eldritch being of such evil and corruption that its mere presence causes plants to whither and small animals to spontaneously die. A being of pure evil, unconcerned about the petty ideals of "law" or "chaos."
here is where the confusion comes from, its the developers and writers fault in being inconsistent. because the alignment does inform me of all of that, as its a short hand and has meaning. the eldritch isn't neutral, pure evil would be chaotic Evil. The eldritch that destroys things by its mere presence is chaos. Law is order a set of rules Neutral is either or completely self serving. which way they lean is informed by good or evil. the system isn't perfect and doesn't cover everything but it wasn't supposed to, its short hand.
the only way the Eldritch would be neutral is if it were content to hide away in a far of empty expanse of space all by its lonesome never wanting to interact with anything. there are different Eldritch but generally they want to consume or destroy the world....which makes them chaotic
I thought I already covered this, lets say for example I want to use a some monsters for a random encounter, say I roll up a kick goblin ambush. the players fell a couple of the goblins quickly so the goblins loose there nerve and decide to run. the party corners one. what is he going to do well with a quick note I know that goblins are generally Neutral evil. so they have no qualms about killing the part at any given chance, the neutral tells me that the other goblins are pretty much every man for them selves so they are not going to try and save the goblins skin. the captured goblin has absolutely no code of ethics so he will say anything including selling out his own to save his skin. two words tell me all that. I don't need to read a paragraph. Oh being neutral the goblin is only there to get him some money or food, so he is likely to leave the party be if they release him......now say its a couple of Gnolls well they are chaotic evil, which changes every thing, the Gnoll is there to kill the party so less likely to run, if they do it just to regroup and attack when the odds are more in their favor and if captured and released he will stalk them tell he and his comrades can kill them in their sleep if given the chance. the gnoll is going to lead the party into a trap if interrogated. he is likely to burn the forest to kill the party or lead them into a trap...again I can tell all that off of two words on a card or in a name plate......because it tells you what they want.
The words 'Neutral Evil' didn't tell you any of that. Your history with D&D, years of absorbing the material, running and playing games? That's what you're describing when you talk about knowing how to run classic goblins. "Neutral Evil" means almost nothing, and it certainly doesn't mean any of the mentioned traits. Those are simply traits long associated with classic Baby's First Baddie goblins that everyone expects from the critters. The only thing a 'Neutral Evil' tag does is broadly indicate that the goblins in question conform to those old tropes, and frankly even that is only if the DM wants to.
'Neutral Evil' could just as easily be a tightly organized and coordinated criminal network, with each member contributing because the network enriches them all more than they can enrich themselves alone even as each member constantly looks for ways to cut their way higher in the organization and seize more power and money. "Neutral Evil" could describe a highly disciplined, focused assassin who doesn't give a rat about the morality of their contracts, only that they get paid well for work well done. "Neutral Evil" only really means 'Self-centered to the exclusion of all else', and has no bearing whatsoever on how an individual goblin deals with being captured by a drastically superior force.
To know that? You have to know the critter. Which can be done via running games of D&D for a long time and absorbing the basics of a lot of different critters, or it can be done more quickly by reading a few paragraphs about the critter in question.
on the second paragraph the criminal organization to be tightly organized and coordinated would require "rules" codes that they follow the Italian Mob would be a great example discipline mean, order....order means lawful. so that would make it Lawful Evil....again yes I know all that from two words. I do know years of lore I have been playing since 2nd edition which might be why I understand the alignment system like I do, I can pick up any creature as long as the alignment has been labeled correctly I can tell you exactly how they are going to react with minimal information. in My example of the Gnoll, I have no way to know if the Gnoll's will lead the party into a pit trap or an ambush by the Alignment. that will require some reading but the rest is all alignment. no you do not need to know the critter though it helps.
neutral evil is for themselves, no honor among thieves. they are evil so they will rob, steel, and murder to get what they want. generally beings they are out for number one they are going to be cowardly by nature and are only going to act, commit evil when there is no consequence or at least there is no perceived consequence. they are evil so more than likely any information they give will be a lie, but you can get the truth out of them if they lie will put themselves at risk. this changes for a creature that does not perceive you as threat because that puts them in the upper hand. they are evil, they will rob, murder, or kill you, even torture you for their own amusement. they only behave themselves because they have too....
lawful evil they have some sort of rules they fallow, a code of conduct, a hierarchy, some kind of command structure or maybe its just long lasting traditions. they generally live life with a purpose and their actions usually have purpose. they don't have too but they live life with structure so it normally does. that's what lawful means it order, code of conduct, rules.....it doesn't mean they follow "the law" just that they follow a law. evil means they will murder, steel, rob, torture, etc. to achieve there goals. a hired kill that will not kill kids, they murder for money. they wont hesitate to kill anyone who gets in the way but generally speaking they are not crawling around a back ally just looking to torture anyone who happens to venture into the wrong place. now that's to say they are going to leave witnesses. they generally will give truthful information, if they give it. when they give their word they will do what they say they will....now they are evil. think a deal with the devil, as devils are Lawful Evil. you will get what ever it is you sold your soul for but its going to come at a price and might not be what you bargained for. Darth Vader is another great example of this, he likes structure he just wants to be at the top of it. Lawful evil are tyrant kings. warlords. etc.
Chaotic evil, they want the world to burn. they are the type that just does evil for evils sake. they enjoy robbing, steeling, murder, and torture, and will just for the pleasure of it. they hate or are disgusted by everything. generally sick and twisted, nihilistic. they do not respect hierarchy, they will always lie, they want to bring down the system regardless of the death toll. Joker, is great example. vengeful, petty....might equals right. if you can't stop me from taking it than its rightfully mine attitude. they are just as likely to destroy it just so you can't have it.
not sure how that doesn't inform on the monsters our characters? do I need to list the good and true neutral side of things? the chaotic Evil can have some more detail added to it....
You need to read a paragraph every time you roleplay it whether or not alignment is listed, because alignment is totally inadequate to roleplay anything.
that depend on how in depth the roleplaying is going to be, we can argue our prep techniques all day long but I don't think its necessary to stop in the middle of section to read a couple of paragraphs out of the monster manual to role play two or three line on a quick random encounter. run your game how you want.
If we are only going to use an NPC for a few lines and then never see them again or just to kill them off, then it is not worth thinking about alignment at all. Alignment may be a shorthand for roleplaying, but why bother with the shorthand at all if you do not even need it?
I am glad we agree people should definitely play the game how they want to play, however, alignment does not deserve any additional attention or emphasis in 5e. It causes way too many problems than it is worth, and it should stay optional and irrelevant like it is now. Just like alternative rest options, GMs who want them can use them, but it should not be a core part of 5e thrust upon every table.
the short hand is extremely informative and makes for simple stream lined method for on the fly prep. again I thought that was the goal of 5e is to make things simple....im not sure how much more simple you can get than Two words under a monster name plate. the problem is that they are removing it, so instead of just letting people ignore it like they have and those of us who can understand it have to add it back in. they are removing something is iconic to the system that is distinctively recognizable to the degree its a meme. generally speaking gluten is not very understood its pretty much just ignored and looked over....but take it away. suddenly a cookie just isn't a cookie. it looks like a cookie has all the similar ingredients as a cookie, but no one wants a gluten free cookie unless they have no other choice.....they start taking things away, that are core to the game. that are iconic....you don't have dungeons and dragons anymore.... you have "Tunnels and Trolls"
These comments sure do make alignment sound prescriptive, not descriptive.
What do you do when someone's personality doesn't fit with your 9 specific paragraphs? Fudge it? Just call them neutral/neutral? At what point does memorizing those 9 types not mean anything anymore?
Also, what if you don't want your monsters to be repetitive tropes from a reductive children's morality tale?
You need to read a paragraph every time you roleplay it whether or not alignment is listed, because alignment is totally inadequate to roleplay anything.
that depend on how in depth the roleplaying is going to be, we can argue our prep techniques all day long but I don't think its necessary to stop in the middle of section to read a couple of paragraphs out of the monster manual to role play two or three line on a quick random encounter. run your game how you want.
If we are only going to use an NPC for a few lines and then never see them again or just to kill them off, then it is not worth thinking about alignment at all. Alignment may be a shorthand for roleplaying, but why bother with the shorthand at all if you do not even need it?
I am glad we agree people should definitely play the game how they want to play, however, alignment does not deserve any additional attention or emphasis in 5e. It causes way too many problems than it is worth, and it should stay optional and irrelevant like it is now. Just like alternative rest options, GMs who want them can use them, but it should not be a core part of 5e thrust upon every table.
the short hand is extremely informative and makes for simple stream lined method for on the fly prep. again I thought that was the goal of 5e is to make things simple....im not sure how much more simple you can get than Two words under a monster name plate. the problem is that they are removing it, so instead of just letting people ignore it like they have and those of us who can understand it have to add it back in. they are removing something is iconic to the system that is distinctively recognizable to the degree its a meme. generally speaking gluten is not very understood its pretty much just ignored and looked over....but take it away. suddenly a cookie just isn't a cookie. it looks like a cookie has all the similar ingredients as a cookie, but no one wants a gluten free cookie unless they have no other choice.....they start taking things away, that are core to the game. that are iconic....you don't have dungeons and dragons anymore.... you have "Tunnels and Trolls"
I can see it having uses sure, but disagree about it being 'extremely informative.' Creatures with vastly different motivations and methods/natures can have the same alignment. Like goblins and succubi. Or unaligned beasts defined by their natural behaviors rather than moral alignment.
Without any other context to go with it those two words really don't give you 'that' much to work with. It conveys information, but very broad and general information that doesn't really delve into the specifics of how the creatures act.
While I'm all for removing alignment from player races, I think they could have taken another approach for monsters perhaps. Maybe instead of 'goblin' for example call it 'goblin raider' and put something like 'alignment: Varies, but often neutral evil' or something, to make it clear this is describing this 'type' of goblin enemy and not goblins as a whole. Or Orc etc. In generally just being more specific with monster stat blocks based on sentient races.
I find alignment system too vague to be of that much use for msyelf, but I don't think entirely retiring it is necessary.
I thought I already covered this, lets say for example I want to use a some monsters for a random encounter, say I roll up a kick goblin ambush. the players fell a couple of the goblins quickly so the goblins loose there nerve and decide to run. the party corners one. what is he going to do well with a quick note I know that goblins are generally Neutral evil. so they have no qualms about killing the part at any given chance, the neutral tells me that the other goblins are pretty much every man for them selves so they are not going to try and save the goblins skin. the captured goblin has absolutely no code of ethics so he will say anything including selling out his own to save his skin. two words tell me all that. I don't need to read a paragraph. Oh being neutral the goblin is only there to get him some money or food, so he is likely to leave the party be if they release him......now say its a couple of Gnolls well they are chaotic evil, which changes every thing, the Gnoll is there to kill the party so less likely to run, if they do it just to regroup and attack when the odds are more in their favor and if captured and released he will stalk them tell he and his comrades can kill them in their sleep if given the chance. the gnoll is going to lead the party into a trap if interrogated. he is likely to burn the forest to kill the party or lead them into a trap...again I can tell all that off of two words on a card or in a name plate......because it tells you what they want.
The words 'Neutral Evil' didn't tell you any of that. Your history with D&D, years of absorbing the material, running and playing games? That's what you're describing when you talk about knowing how to run classic goblins. "Neutral Evil" means almost nothing, and it certainly doesn't mean any of the mentioned traits. Those are simply traits long associated with classic Baby's First Baddie goblins that everyone expects from the critters. The only thing a 'Neutral Evil' tag does is broadly indicate that the goblins in question conform to those old tropes, and frankly even that is only if the DM wants to.
'Neutral Evil' could just as easily be a tightly organized and coordinated criminal network, with each member contributing because the network enriches them all more than they can enrich themselves alone even as each member constantly looks for ways to cut their way higher in the organization and seize more power and money. "Neutral Evil" could describe a highly disciplined, focused assassin who doesn't give a rat about the morality of their contracts, only that they get paid well for work well done. "Neutral Evil" only really means 'Self-centered to the exclusion of all else', and has no bearing whatsoever on how an individual goblin deals with being captured by a drastically superior force.
To know that? You have to know the critter. Which can be done via running games of D&D for a long time and absorbing the basics of a lot of different critters, or it can be done more quickly by reading a few paragraphs about the critter in question.
"Neutral evil" could also describe a eldritch being of such evil and corruption that its mere presence causes plants to whither and small animals to spontaneously die. A being of pure evil, unconcerned about the petty ideals of "law" or "chaos."
here is where the confusion comes from, its the developers and writers fault in being inconsistent. because the alignment does inform me of all of that, as its a short hand and has meaning. the eldritch isn't neutral, pure evil would be chaotic Evil. The eldritch that destroys things by its mere presence is chaos. Law is order a set of rules Neutral is either or completely self serving. which way they lean is informed by good or evil. the system isn't perfect and doesn't cover everything but it wasn't supposed to, its short hand.
the only way the Eldritch would be neutral is if it were content to hide away in a far of empty expanse of space all by its lonesome never wanting to interact with anything. there are different Eldritch but generally they want to consume or destroy the world....which makes them chaotic
What I wrote perfectly describes the Atropal and the Demilich, both of which are neutral evil. Alignment isn't about your actions so much as your motivation for your actions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I’m with the anti-alignment people. It’s practically just a Rorschach test: it doesn’t mean anything objectively, it gets meaning from what each person imposed upon those phrases. And no two people can agree exactly on that meaning. And its too vague to be useful. In practical terms, if you have an NPC stat block that says NG and another that says CG, how do they behave differently? Both are concerned with doing what’s “good” which is a loaded, subjective term all by itself. Neither is too worried about the law. How do they behave any differently, based on that piece of information?
I’m with the anti-alignment people. It’s practically just a Rorschach test: it doesn’t mean anything objectively, it gets meaning from what each person imposed upon those phrases. And no two people can agree exactly on that meaning. And its too vague to be useful. In practical terms, if you have an NPC stat block that says NG and another that says CG, how do they behave differently? Both are concerned with doing what’s “good” which is a loaded, subjective term all by itself. Neither is too worried about the law. How do they behave any differently, based on that piece of information?
Yeah. And for neutral evil, green hags, succubi and goblins are all neutral evil. In terms of filling in monsters for the party to fight, I would run encounters based on these three very differently despite them sharing an alignment.
Having the neutral evil label there doesn't hurt anything, but for me it doesn't exactly help either when it comes to running the monsters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think this is a very reactionary (and thus these days very common) take on what they're doing. What I see is that WotC doesn't want to dictate alignment to us. They are not ignoring it, they're taking it out of the shiny "official rules" box and putting it in our hands.
Giving us control of something is not ignoring it or removing it from the game. It's just allowing for more flexible play. As I've said repeatedly to the D&D doomsayers about various modern changes, none of them prevent you from playing the game you want to play. What rather seems to be the problem is that people are upset that others can play differently. It's like a lot of social issues where people seem extremely concerned about what other people should be allowed to do in their own homes, and just like those issues, this is something that eventually they're going to have to learn to live with.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The ability to magically detect alignment has always been a problem for all but the simplest of dungeon crawls, because if you're doing something like a murder investigation, the first thing you'd obviously do is do an alignment check and then assume that the killer is probably one of the evil people, and really, there isn't particular reason the guard shouldn't just walk down the street arresting every evil person they come across.
5e mostly did away with that, but that has its own problem: once you get rid of supernatural interactions, what's left isn't particularly useful -- it can be used as a shorthand description for how a monster behaves, but if you have a paragraph describing how the monster behaves, you don't really need a shorthand, and the alignment without the paragraph is usually inadequate by itself (do an aboleth, efreeti, and vampire really behave the same?)
Alignment has been central to Dungeons and Dragons forever...its fantasy the fairy tail story tropes are central to Fantasy. in the past systems entire spells dependent on alignment. its a short hand to your characters and monsters personality. Its central to some the character classes a Paladin and mage has to be lawful they have to stick to a stitch code of conduct, or study regiment or else loose their abilities. a Paladin can be evil a cleric can serve an evil god these have always been apart of added rules an features of the game and character creation. I never understood how it was hard to understand. an assassin that will not kill woman or children under any circumstance follows a code of conduct and so is lawful....being lawful doesn't mean fallowing the "law". if you have a character that general cares about peoples well being and doesn't want to hurt the innocent but will do what ever feel like doing at the time is chaotic good. a person that would kill a tax collector because they are "evil" at heart is Neutral.....the Lawful good character would never condone Murder in any circumstance....even if they were evil.....this whole alignment debate comes from the lack of understanding of what the alignments represent. They confusion and the lack of its use come from the game creatures method of explanation or maybe just the lack of ability to explain it, maybe just a lack of understanding them selves. This to me just seems to be a push for moral relativism. it needs to be brought back as a build option and let those who wish to ignore it, ignore it. while we are at it lets just remove holy effects and just throw out demons, devils, and angles. beings good and evil no longer have any meaning. its just core to those races.
I think D&D has some of the better alignment systems among RPGs in general. It takes in account both moral and legal issues, it is descriptive system as opposed to prescriptive system, so it doesn't limit roleplay by letting players role on humanity or any virtues. So I think, if you like alignment systems, you really can't complain about the 5e system. It has also improved by not making any natural creature "alway [insert alignment here]".
The question of course is, do you need an alignment system at all. If good and evil and law and chaos are meant to have any influence on the supernatural, you need an alignment system. If you don't want morality to be absolute - that is, that the universe (aka the DM) makes moral judgement, you will likely not want an alignment system at all.
Personally I could think of limiting alignment to the outer planes even further, i.e. creatures from the material planes do not have supernaturally relevant alignments at all, while creatures from the outer planes, being manifestations of these alignments still have alignments.
+ Instaboot to murderhobos + I don't watch Critical Role, and no, I really shouldn't either +
Pantagruel666 in your second paragraph, you ask do you need the alignment if you have a paragraph on how the monster behaves. the answer is no, but then you have to read a paragraph on the monsters behavior every time you want to roleplay it. the alignment is a short hand. it doesn't fully flesh out the monster is it just a quick reference for expediency. so that the prep process can be sped up you can say chaotic, well now you know these monsters do not tend to keep their word. so any deals they make in order to save their lives with the adventures they are not likely to keep. without having to search and read through a paragraph breaking the emersion. or the monster may be lawful so you know that they will hold to the deal they make. for example making a deal with a devil or demon with have greatly different outcome a demon is chaotic they will back stab you or try and kill you party the first chance they have in which they have the advantage. a devil will not they are evil and will twist the meaning of the "deal" to satisfy their own twisted enjoyment but they will up hold their end which matters in a party that might have a warlock in it. Orcs for instance have always been chaotic evil, which tells you that they are very unlikely to deal for there life and generally just wants to see the world burn which doesn't really fit there lore but what ever. a goblin is chaotic so they are just trying to save their own skin and if able will abuse the party as soon as he can regroup with other goblins, which will probably be before they can even leave then den they just cleared out. it only takes a second to glance at an alignment and much easier to remember than a couple paragraphs of lore on ever monster. this is what I do not understand as 5e claims that it wants to simplify the system, well alignment is a simplification. relying on paragraphs of background and personality descriptions is not, it complicates it. as the personality descriptions add nuance to the base alignment. Lawful doesn't mean to fallow the "law" it mean to fallow a code of conduct to uphold to ones word. for in depth role play you have to know what the code is. chaotic has to be informed on what the monsters general motivations are. you know they are going to be self serving but what are they generally after?
on the first paragraph....that's just a lack of creativity on you DM's part. a "good" "neutral", Chaotic or or evil character can kill someone it just depends the circumstances. as characters your alignment can change. The lore is full of Paladins that have lost the "lawful" alignment and lost their powers. or paladins that have turned evil. it easily could have been a good character under the control of a spell caster or some other monster with mind control powers. could have been a good character trying to save someone else or lots of other people for the terrorization of the victim and they are absolutely wrecked with the guilt. far as the alignment check that mechanic is buggy as it should really only apply to specific creature types. that would be considered magical or supernatural, that really can not change alignment. like a celestial for example or a vampire. undead, magical creatures and creatures with other worldly origins.
You need to read a paragraph every time you roleplay it whether or not alignment is listed, because alignment is totally inadequate to roleplay anything.
I said murder, not kill. Murder is specifically unjustified killing.
that depend on how in depth the roleplaying is going to be, we can argue our prep techniques all day long but I don't think its necessary to stop in the middle of section to read a couple of paragraphs out of the monster manual to role play two or three line on a quick random encounter. run your game how you want.
ok and what looked like murder on the first impression could have easily been a case of self defense, or maybe the victim was working for a dark necromancer that was having them poison the local water supply so that the necromancer could turn the town into undead minions. a good character of lower statues knowing the guards wouldn't be on their side ran. sounds like a why more interesting story to me that the players shouldn't see coming but again you run it how you want to its your table.
If we are only going to use an NPC for a few lines and then never see them again or just to kill them off, then it is not worth thinking about alignment at all. Alignment may be a shorthand for roleplaying, but why bother with the shorthand at all if you do not even need it?
I am glad we agree people should definitely play the game how they want to play, however, alignment does not deserve any additional attention or emphasis in 5e. It causes way too many problems than it is worth, and it should stay optional and irrelevant like it is now. Just like alternative rest options, GMs who want them can use them, but it should not be a core part of 5e thrust upon every table.
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 >
The information you typically need about a wandering monster is "what does it want" and "what sort of tactics does it use to get what it wants". Alignment does not answer either question well, which means you're forced to read the paragraph whether or not there's alignment on the sheet.
I thought I already covered this, lets say for example I want to use a some monsters for a random encounter, say I roll up a quick goblin ambush. the players fell a couple of the goblins quickly so the goblins loose there nerve and decide to run. the party corners one. what is he going to do well with a quick note I know that goblins are generally Neutral evil. so they have no qualms about killing the part at any given chance, the neutral tells me that the other goblins are pretty much every man for them selves so they are not going to try and save the goblins skin. the captured goblin has absolutely no code of ethics so he will say anything including selling out his own to save his skin. two words tell me all that. I don't need to read a paragraph. Oh being neutral the goblin is only there to get him some money or food, so he is likely to leave the party be if they release him......now say its a couple of Gnolls well they are chaotic evil, which changes every thing, the Gnoll is there to kill the party so less likely to run, if they do it just to regroup and attack when the odds are more in their favor and if captured and released he will stalk them tell he and his comrades can kill them in their sleep if given the chance. the gnoll is going to lead the party into a trap if interrogated. he is likely to burn the forest to kill the party or lead them into a trap...again I can tell all that off of two words on a card or in a name plate......because it tells you what they want.
The words 'Neutral Evil' didn't tell you any of that. Your history with D&D, years of absorbing the material, running and playing games? That's what you're describing when you talk about knowing how to run classic goblins. "Neutral Evil" means almost nothing, and it certainly doesn't mean any of the mentioned traits. Those are simply traits long associated with classic Baby's First Baddie goblins that everyone expects from the critters. The only thing a 'Neutral Evil' tag does is broadly indicate that the goblins in question conform to those old tropes, and frankly even that is only if the DM wants to.
'Neutral Evil' could just as easily be a tightly organized and coordinated criminal network, with each member contributing because the network enriches them all more than they can enrich themselves alone even as each member constantly looks for ways to cut their way higher in the organization and seize more power and money. "Neutral Evil" could describe a highly disciplined, focused assassin who doesn't give a rat about the morality of their contracts, only that they get paid well for work well done. "Neutral Evil" only really means 'Self-centered to the exclusion of all else', and has no bearing whatsoever on how an individual goblin deals with being captured by a drastically superior force.
To know that? You have to know the critter. Which can be done via running games of D&D for a long time and absorbing the basics of a lot of different critters, or it can be done more quickly by reading a few paragraphs about the critter in question.
Please do not contact or message me.
"Neutral evil" could also describe a eldritch being of such evil and corruption that its mere presence causes plants to whither and small animals to spontaneously die. A being of pure evil, unconcerned about the petty ideals of "law" or "chaos."
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
here is where the confusion comes from, its the developers and writers fault in being inconsistent. because the alignment does inform me of all of that, as its a short hand and has meaning. the eldritch isn't neutral, pure evil would be chaotic Evil. The eldritch that destroys things by its mere presence is chaos. Law is order a set of rules Neutral is either or completely self serving. which way they lean is informed by good or evil. the system isn't perfect and doesn't cover everything but it wasn't supposed to, its short hand.
the only way the Eldritch would be neutral is if it were content to hide away in a far of empty expanse of space all by its lonesome never wanting to interact with anything. there are different Eldritch but generally they want to consume or destroy the world....which makes them chaotic
on the second paragraph the criminal organization to be tightly organized and coordinated would require "rules" codes that they follow the Italian Mob would be a great example discipline mean, order....order means lawful. so that would make it Lawful Evil....again yes I know all that from two words. I do know years of lore I have been playing since 2nd edition which might be why I understand the alignment system like I do, I can pick up any creature as long as the alignment has been labeled correctly I can tell you exactly how they are going to react with minimal information. in My example of the Gnoll, I have no way to know if the Gnoll's will lead the party into a pit trap or an ambush by the Alignment. that will require some reading but the rest is all alignment. no you do not need to know the critter though it helps.
neutral evil is for themselves, no honor among thieves. they are evil so they will rob, steel, and murder to get what they want. generally beings they are out for number one they are going to be cowardly by nature and are only going to act, commit evil when there is no consequence or at least there is no perceived consequence. they are evil so more than likely any information they give will be a lie, but you can get the truth out of them if they lie will put themselves at risk. this changes for a creature that does not perceive you as threat because that puts them in the upper hand. they are evil, they will rob, murder, or kill you, even torture you for their own amusement. they only behave themselves because they have too....
lawful evil they have some sort of rules they fallow, a code of conduct, a hierarchy, some kind of command structure or maybe its just long lasting traditions. they generally live life with a purpose and their actions usually have purpose. they don't have too but they live life with structure so it normally does. that's what lawful means it order, code of conduct, rules.....it doesn't mean they follow "the law" just that they follow a law. evil means they will murder, steel, rob, torture, etc. to achieve there goals. a hired kill that will not kill kids, they murder for money. they wont hesitate to kill anyone who gets in the way but generally speaking they are not crawling around a back ally just looking to torture anyone who happens to venture into the wrong place. now that's to say they are going to leave witnesses. they generally will give truthful information, if they give it. when they give their word they will do what they say they will....now they are evil. think a deal with the devil, as devils are Lawful Evil. you will get what ever it is you sold your soul for but its going to come at a price and might not be what you bargained for. Darth Vader is another great example of this, he likes structure he just wants to be at the top of it. Lawful evil are tyrant kings. warlords. etc.
Chaotic evil, they want the world to burn. they are the type that just does evil for evils sake. they enjoy robbing, steeling, murder, and torture, and will just for the pleasure of it. they hate or are disgusted by everything. generally sick and twisted, nihilistic. they do not respect hierarchy, they will always lie, they want to bring down the system regardless of the death toll. Joker, is great example. vengeful, petty....might equals right. if you can't stop me from taking it than its rightfully mine attitude. they are just as likely to destroy it just so you can't have it.
not sure how that doesn't inform on the monsters our characters? do I need to list the good and true neutral side of things? the chaotic Evil can have some more detail added to it....
the short hand is extremely informative and makes for simple stream lined method for on the fly prep. again I thought that was the goal of 5e is to make things simple....im not sure how much more simple you can get than Two words under a monster name plate. the problem is that they are removing it, so instead of just letting people ignore it like they have and those of us who can understand it have to add it back in. they are removing something is iconic to the system that is distinctively recognizable to the degree its a meme. generally speaking gluten is not very understood its pretty much just ignored and looked over....but take it away. suddenly a cookie just isn't a cookie. it looks like a cookie has all the similar ingredients as a cookie, but no one wants a gluten free cookie unless they have no other choice.....they start taking things away, that are core to the game. that are iconic....you don't have dungeons and dragons anymore.... you have "Tunnels and Trolls"
These comments sure do make alignment sound prescriptive, not descriptive.
What do you do when someone's personality doesn't fit with your 9 specific paragraphs? Fudge it? Just call them neutral/neutral? At what point does memorizing those 9 types not mean anything anymore?
Also, what if you don't want your monsters to be repetitive tropes from a reductive children's morality tale?
I can see it having uses sure, but disagree about it being 'extremely informative.' Creatures with vastly different motivations and methods/natures can have the same alignment. Like goblins and succubi. Or unaligned beasts defined by their natural behaviors rather than moral alignment.
Without any other context to go with it those two words really don't give you 'that' much to work with. It conveys information, but very broad and general information that doesn't really delve into the specifics of how the creatures act.
While I'm all for removing alignment from player races, I think they could have taken another approach for monsters perhaps. Maybe instead of 'goblin' for example call it 'goblin raider' and put something like 'alignment: Varies, but often neutral evil' or something, to make it clear this is describing this 'type' of goblin enemy and not goblins as a whole. Or Orc etc. In generally just being more specific with monster stat blocks based on sentient races.
I find alignment system too vague to be of that much use for msyelf, but I don't think entirely retiring it is necessary.
What I wrote perfectly describes the Atropal and the Demilich, both of which are neutral evil. Alignment isn't about your actions so much as your motivation for your actions.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I’m with the anti-alignment people. It’s practically just a Rorschach test: it doesn’t mean anything objectively, it gets meaning from what each person imposed upon those phrases. And no two people can agree exactly on that meaning.
And its too vague to be useful. In practical terms, if you have an NPC stat block that says NG and another that says CG, how do they behave differently? Both are concerned with doing what’s “good” which is a loaded, subjective term all by itself. Neither is too worried about the law. How do they behave any differently, based on that piece of information?
Yeah. And for neutral evil, green hags, succubi and goblins are all neutral evil. In terms of filling in monsters for the party to fight, I would run encounters based on these three very differently despite them sharing an alignment.
Having the neutral evil label there doesn't hurt anything, but for me it doesn't exactly help either when it comes to running the monsters.