My house rule is using aligment and allegiance(family, brotherhood, clan, fatherland, tribe, race, religion..), because groups to survive together need a common allegiance to cooperate against a common menace.
And magic and other powers with aligment key can hurt enemies with same aligment but different allegiance. I also allow characters with opposite allegiance-aligment, for example an "evil" zealot who fights for the supreme goodhood, or a "caothic" sherrif who breaks the rules to defend the law. Then neutrality doesn't help to suffer a lower level of damage by those spells.
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.
Well, they're all fairly sneaky; I could see running a green hag and a succubus somewhat similarly. However, a Frost Giant is also NE.
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?
Then your not Following the alignment system. that's like asking, "well what if I want my goblins to be like in WOW" then make them like in WOW. The Alignment is a tool use it or not. This still doesn't make and argument to get rid of 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"
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.
the alignment system is not intended to be the end all be all. else there would be no reason for the lore and the paragraphs for getting to know the monsters better, like I mentioned before I question the writers understanding of the system them selves, in how they classify some monsters. as well in how they explain it. it take allot of inference but vague.....I don't believe any the example I gave were vague. it doesn't give all the details...but its not meant to or have to that what the long hand is for
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?
Then your not Following the alignment system. that's like asking, "well what if I want my goblins to be like in WOW" then make them like in WOW. The Alignment is a tool use it or not. This still doesn't make and argument to get rid of it.
I have no intention of using the alignment system, and think the version of it you are describing would be a waste of space and effort.
Also, for the record, the version you are describing is not included in 5e in any way that I can find; it seems to be a relic of older (pre-3e? at least pre-4e) versions.
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.
I already answered this in the first paragraph of my last response
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"
Alignment is NOT informative, as many creatures of the same alignment act so differently from each other. It is about as relevant as the Faerun lore below the statblock of many monsters when you are playing in an Eberron or any other setting. No two person's view alignment is the same, and your interpretation of alignment is no more correct than anyone else's and will lead to arguments whether you want to or not.
No one is asking for alignment to be completely removed. I want it to stay irrelevant and neglected on the sidelines like how it is now, not being important in 5e outside a few magic items. I personally do not want it in the statblock at all and would rather have it moved to below the statblock where all the other cluttered lore is, but it will still be there for people who want it. When I am running a monster, I do not care about a monster not needing food, water, air, or sleep, and that information should be moved out the statblock to below it, like how some new monsters are written. While not needing air is useful to know once in a blue moon during underwater combat, alignment on the other hand is just a complete waste of statblock space. I do not give a crap about what an NPC's typical alignment is when I can just assign a personality that is appropriate at the moment if it ever gets brought up.
Gluten less cookies taste fine to me. I like vegan meats, and depending on what brand you get and how you cook it, it tastes even better than real meat. I prefer whole milk, but I do not mind drinking watered down 2% milk or plant based milk either. I will play D&D even if it does not have alignment, spell slots, and classes. Not every aspect of a product or brand is central to its identity depending on who you ask. I find alignments to be minefield of arguements and spell slots a confusing mess; I hate classes too, but I am a GM 99.99% of the time, so I have complete freedom in designing my NPCs however I want.
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.
the alignment system is not intended to be the end all be all. else there would be no reason for the lore and the paragraphs for getting to know the monsters better, like I mentioned before I question the writers understanding of the system them selves, in how they classify some monsters. as well in how they explain it. it take allot of inference but vague.....I don't believe any the example I gave were vague. it doesn't give all the details...but its not meant to or have to that what the long hand is for
I know alignment isn't the be all end all, but for me those two words just convey too little to be useful or interesting. It's far too general. If I'm looking for a creature to use I can't just stop at 'neutral evil' and have any sort of grasp on what it's like, and once I do delve into the rest of the information, the 'neutral evil' is useless information because I have more fleshed out info on what they are and how they behave. It'd only really be useful if I just wanted to grab say, 'anything that's evil' and slap it in without taking the time to read the rest, or if searching a database based on alignment.
Anytime someone tries to convince me that Alignment is actually a good thing and super, super useful and amazing . . . their arguments always do the exact opposite. Or at least they convince me that 5e has fixed this whole system by moving away from alignment and giving an objectively better morality system in the "Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws" system.
No one can agree what any of the different alignments mean. Not even the designers of the games. Not even the different editions of the games. Go compare the definition of Lawful Good in the 5th Edition PHB to whatever definitions of Lawful Good were in previous editions. I can guarantee they are not the same.
That's my main problem with Alignment. No one can agree what it even means, much less how you should use it. Is it descriptive or prescriptive? It depends on the creature, where it's prescriptive for most Outsiders (Demons, Devils, Modrons), but descriptive for Humanoids and Angels for some reason. A lot of DMs say stuff like "you can't do that because of your alignment" while others just shift someone's alignment when they do something that doesn't fit with their listed alignment.
What does "law" and "chaos" even mean? Because I'm 90% certain that "law" doesn't literally mean "you always follow the law to the exact letter" and "chaos" doesn't mean "you always do whatever you feel like regardless of the law", but a ton of DMs and players run it that way. What does "good" mean? Does it mean that you're pacifist and always try to help others even when that is the objectively wrong option, or does it mean that you're willing to do what you think is right even when it inconveniences you. Does "evil" mean that you are a narcissist that only takes any risks when it would benefit themselves, or does it just mean that they are more selfish than the average idiot?
Sure, it could be that some tables just run "law" and "chaos" and "good" and "evil" incorrectly . . . or it could just be that trying to simplify the extremely complex topic of morality into justtwo different axis with 9 different possible options is a stupid idea and causes more problems at the majority of tables than it fixes at others.
5e's Personality Traits section is just objectively better at representing morality, because it explains what type of actions a character takes and why, not just a 2 word vague description that no one can agree on the definitions of.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
1.) The axis aren't mortal constructions but more a framework of cosmic forces (it's why we have aligned planes, which actually does work or at least makes for some fun gaming). So law and chaos is not talking about tax returns and libertarians which is how lawful/chaos usually breaks down in forum discussions. It's more Integrity v Entropy. Are these cosmic moral elements essential to D&D. In terms of player character performance? Maybe not, but a lot of the higher level conflicts in the game? The alignment axis are in the DNA and I don't think you're going to see that "Ordning" (being silly) going away.
2.) A lot of human behavior is often mapped by intelligent people on one axis, thinking of political science in particular. I think the error in a lot of interpretations of the alignment axis comes from folks thinking each access only has three points and your alignment identification places you in one of nine fixed positions ruling you. And if you see the alignment chart more as a series of spectrums, it's actually not a bad tool to charat a character's arcs, especially in a game that treats the four end points as elemental factors to the world.
Sure alignment was sometimes held as a prison of "thou shalts" and many D&D players finding themselves in a world where divine beings are more expressly literalized may have defaulted on alignment interpretations like they were handed down on stone tablets. But I think 5e does the best job of the editions in offering alignment as something that can be _played with_ in a game.
I think that the alignment system is more or less useless for players... especially with the Traits, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws system, which does a much better job of helping to figure out personality for a PC. It can be helpful if you want it to be, but it's something you have to work for to get it to work the way you want it to.
However, for a DM who has to manage dozens of characters, having a quick two-word description for minor characters or creatures the party encounters is helpful. We might all have different ideas of what, exactly, "Chaotic Neutral" is, but if you're playing an Adventure and you've got a creature that pops up and its stat block says Chaotic Neutral, it at least informs you somewhat about how to play them... at least enough to decide how it might act in combat. It's definitely not the best way to handle more complex characters who the party might interact with on a regular basis and will have more of a backstory and motivation than just "Lawful Good Town Guard", but as a quick reference to inform minor decisions it's useful.
That said... you could probably also replace it with one-word descriptors like, "Mean", "Cowardly", "Generous", etc. and still get a fairly compelling interaction, but I think that it's still a potentially valuable tool in the right hands.
In my opinion, alignment has one specific use only, and that is Planescape and the 16+1 outer planes. Each of these planes is the embodiment of a concept and its immortal denizens are more or less bound by their nature to these concepts. Mortals are not subjected to this rigid structure and thus, alignment is more or less not applicable.
In my opinion, alignment has one specific use only, and that is Planescape and the 16+1 outer planes. Each of these planes is the embodiment of a concept and its immortal denizens are more or less bound by their nature to these concepts. Mortals are not subjected to this rigid structure and thus, alignment is more or less not applicable.
But that is only my little preference.
Having actually read the descriptions of the outer planes, they hardly embody concepts, and its sometimes hard to even figure out why they are where they are.
In my opinion, alignment has one specific use only, and that is Planescape and the 16+1 outer planes. Each of these planes is the embodiment of a concept and its immortal denizens are more or less bound by their nature to these concepts. Mortals are not subjected to this rigid structure and thus, alignment is more or less not applicable.
But that is only my little preference.
Having actually read the descriptions of the outer planes, they hardly embody concepts, and its sometimes hard to even figure out why they are where they are.
I mainly use the AD&D Planescape Campaign setting. The discriptions there are much more detailed and focused on these alignments. In 5e this was somehow watered down...
That said... you could probably also replace it with one-word descriptors like, "Mean", "Cowardly", "Generous", etc. and still get a fairly compelling interaction, but I think that it's still a potentially valuable tool in the right hands.
Palladium did pretty much that with it's Fantasy D&D knock off and I think most of its' RPG titles including Robotech and maybe through Rifts. Good I think you're choice was between Principled and Scrupulous. Evil you had Aberrent and Diabolical I think, and I'm sure there were other alignments I'm just not remembering them.
I still think alignment has been such an instrument in all iterations of D&D's cosmology, and consequently the game's bestiary (though I'm a fan of removing the "essential" alignments in the instances they have done so), that I don't really see it going anywhere any more than I do it's class system being replaced by skill and power trees or measurements getting replaced by range zones, or hit points being dumped for a wound level system or any of the other neat things existing elsewhere in TTRPG. Maybe it will ultimately go away, but I'd be curious what befalls the game's cosmological order in that case.
I'm not at all surprised to learn that another system used one-word descriptors like that as their version of alignment.
I do think that Legacy plays a big part in Alignment remaining in D&D and I feel like it's something that won't go away in future editions, even if it is severely downplayed going forward. But Alignment, as sloppy and open to interpretation as it is, remains something iconic to the series and has spread outside of that as well. You can still occasionally see alignment charts for characters, concepts, or even ice cream flavors. It's one of those things where, when you think of D&D, you think of alignments... even if your thought is, "wow, the alignment chart sucks".
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.
as for succubi, the Neutral evil label has come from the producers not being able to decide if they are are a demon or a devil. so they slapped Neutral on them to designate them as neither which just help to clarify anything doesn't. that is just another example of where the authors broke the system which is not a fault of the system. the green hag again another miss label which just create confusion, "Though the original source of this hate was a matter of rumors, perhaps some racial spite or long-forgotten grudge, the ultimate target was clear. In short, green hags ultimately desired the downfall of society," they are Chaotic Evil.
to the comment that you were replying to, there is a difference between chaotic good and Neutral good. chaotic has no use for the law and will often do things in opposition of the law, they do not like rules or restrictions they would prefer the wilds, they do not like civilization and find it stuffy as well as limiting. they are good which does have meaning in an objective sense. they work or do things for the benefit of others or the greater good. Batman would be a great example, Robin hood another good one both actively work against society to serve the greater good. they are criminals in their own right. they break laws and often are working against the "law" but do so to bring those who are evil to justice to help end the suffering of the innocent. they are likely to do something just because you told them not to even if it will land them in jail don't care because the Law is stupid. if a troll is Ransacking a village they will probably risk their life to save other steeling a merchants wagon to use as an improvised weapon they will set it on fire not caring for the consequence, better them broke and alive than rich and dead. they will give the guard the bird the whole time they are doing it.
Neutral good they are not actively working against society, they are not trying to break down social norms. they just don't care, if they don't have too. they will work inside them or out generally its which is most covenant at the time...it not a concern. being good they want what best for them, and their family so will work within the code, or law if it will benefit themselves our those they care about. they are not out to hurt anyone and will generally do things to help others if the mood strikes, if it will benefit them even if its to just make them feel good about themselves, generally as long as its not to far out of their way to do it. this is generally your average person they will speed, they will take free stuff just because its free, they are not going to have an issue robbing a grave for a magical item...."they weren't using it" if they find money they are not likely to return it, finder keepers....but if someone confronts them they will hand it over, especially if that person looks in need of it. they may keep there word they may not, though they will lean towards it. they say they will meet you some place at a specific time then they might show up. if they think it will upset you if they don't show then they are more likely to be there. they may pay you back the money they owe you. they are not likely to go to far out there way but if they can give some spare change to a beggar than they might if they do not need it. if a troll is ransacking a village they are not generally going to risk there life to save anyone, at the same time they aren't going to purposely try and get anyone else killed either and if they do will feel guilty about it.
Chaotic Good doesn't mean you don't care about planning or consequences and Neutral Good doesn't mean "good, but not as good as the other guy." This kind of stuff really gets into why it's fine to just drop alignment except when it comes to the Outer Planes.
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.
as for succubi, the Neutral evil label has come from the producers not being able to decide if they are are a demon or a devil. so they slapped Neutral on them to designate them as neither which just help to clarify anything doesn't. that is just another example of where the authors broke the system which is not a fault of the system.
"Even the authors can't actually apply the system consistently" is absolutely a fault of the system.
…I find it uncomfortable to "enforce" alignment. It's just weird to say "your character wouldn't do that since he/she is lawful good." Actions, and their motives, need to be part of the players' agency. Consequences are how anyone learns to "make nice" ... if you're a murder hobo, no one cares what your alignment is. They just want you to stop being a murder hobo.
I think you have that the wrong way around. Alignment comes from actions, not the other way around. If a character is continually acting in a certain way, say neutral evil, but the player has "lawful good" written on their character sheet, then the character is in fact neutral evil. It's one of the very few things I feel as a GM that I'm allowed to make changes to a character sheet.
They are boxes, true, in that we are putting the whole spectrum of behaviour into one of nine boxes, but they are still useful. Remember that all models are wrong; what's important is whether they are useful.
As a GM, I want some sort of alignment in books. If I have a monster in a book and it says "alignment: LE" then that gives me an idea of how to play that monster. If I just have stats and no alignment then I have to make it up on the fly. Is this monster selfish, generous, conniving, social, individualistic, tradition-bound, etc?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My house rule is using aligment and allegiance(family, brotherhood, clan, fatherland, tribe, race, religion..), because groups to survive together need a common allegiance to cooperate against a common menace.
And magic and other powers with aligment key can hurt enemies with same aligment but different allegiance. I also allow characters with opposite allegiance-aligment, for example an "evil" zealot who fights for the supreme goodhood, or a "caothic" sherrif who breaks the rules to defend the law. Then neutrality doesn't help to suffer a lower level of damage by those spells.
Well, they're all fairly sneaky; I could see running a green hag and a succubus somewhat similarly. However, a Frost Giant is also NE.
Then your not Following the alignment system. that's like asking, "well what if I want my goblins to be like in WOW" then make them like in WOW. The Alignment is a tool use it or not. This still doesn't make and argument to get rid of it.
the alignment system is not intended to be the end all be all. else there would be no reason for the lore and the paragraphs for getting to know the monsters better, like I mentioned before I question the writers understanding of the system them selves, in how they classify some monsters. as well in how they explain it. it take allot of inference but vague.....I don't believe any the example I gave were vague. it doesn't give all the details...but its not meant to or have to that what the long hand is for
I have no intention of using the alignment system, and think the version of it you are describing would be a waste of space and effort.
Also, for the record, the version you are describing is not included in 5e in any way that I can find; it seems to be a relic of older (pre-3e? at least pre-4e) versions.
I already answered this in the first paragraph of my last response
Alignment is NOT informative, as many creatures of the same alignment act so differently from each other. It is about as relevant as the Faerun lore below the statblock of many monsters when you are playing in an Eberron or any other setting. No two person's view alignment is the same, and your interpretation of alignment is no more correct than anyone else's and will lead to arguments whether you want to or not.
No one is asking for alignment to be completely removed. I want it to stay irrelevant and neglected on the sidelines like how it is now, not being important in 5e outside a few magic items. I personally do not want it in the statblock at all and would rather have it moved to below the statblock where all the other cluttered lore is, but it will still be there for people who want it. When I am running a monster, I do not care about a monster not needing food, water, air, or sleep, and that information should be moved out the statblock to below it, like how some new monsters are written. While not needing air is useful to know once in a blue moon during underwater combat, alignment on the other hand is just a complete waste of statblock space. I do not give a crap about what an NPC's typical alignment is when I can just assign a personality that is appropriate at the moment if it ever gets brought up.
Gluten less cookies taste fine to me. I like vegan meats, and depending on what brand you get and how you cook it, it tastes even better than real meat. I prefer whole milk, but I do not mind drinking watered down 2% milk or plant based milk either. I will play D&D even if it does not have alignment, spell slots, and classes. Not every aspect of a product or brand is central to its identity depending on who you ask. I find alignments to be minefield of arguements and spell slots a confusing mess; I hate classes too, but I am a GM 99.99% of the time, so I have complete freedom in designing my NPCs however I want.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I know alignment isn't the be all end all, but for me those two words just convey too little to be useful or interesting. It's far too general. If I'm looking for a creature to use I can't just stop at 'neutral evil' and have any sort of grasp on what it's like, and once I do delve into the rest of the information, the 'neutral evil' is useless information because I have more fleshed out info on what they are and how they behave. It'd only really be useful if I just wanted to grab say, 'anything that's evil' and slap it in without taking the time to read the rest, or if searching a database based on alignment.
Anytime someone tries to convince me that Alignment is actually a good thing and super, super useful and amazing . . . their arguments always do the exact opposite. Or at least they convince me that 5e has fixed this whole system by moving away from alignment and giving an objectively better morality system in the "Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws" system.
No one can agree what any of the different alignments mean. Not even the designers of the games. Not even the different editions of the games. Go compare the definition of Lawful Good in the 5th Edition PHB to whatever definitions of Lawful Good were in previous editions. I can guarantee they are not the same.
That's my main problem with Alignment. No one can agree what it even means, much less how you should use it. Is it descriptive or prescriptive? It depends on the creature, where it's prescriptive for most Outsiders (Demons, Devils, Modrons), but descriptive for Humanoids and Angels for some reason. A lot of DMs say stuff like "you can't do that because of your alignment" while others just shift someone's alignment when they do something that doesn't fit with their listed alignment.
What does "law" and "chaos" even mean? Because I'm 90% certain that "law" doesn't literally mean "you always follow the law to the exact letter" and "chaos" doesn't mean "you always do whatever you feel like regardless of the law", but a ton of DMs and players run it that way. What does "good" mean? Does it mean that you're pacifist and always try to help others even when that is the objectively wrong option, or does it mean that you're willing to do what you think is right even when it inconveniences you. Does "evil" mean that you are a narcissist that only takes any risks when it would benefit themselves, or does it just mean that they are more selfish than the average idiot?
Sure, it could be that some tables just run "law" and "chaos" and "good" and "evil" incorrectly . . . or it could just be that trying to simplify the extremely complex topic of morality into just two different axis with 9 different possible options is a stupid idea and causes more problems at the majority of tables than it fixes at others.
5e's Personality Traits section is just objectively better at representing morality, because it explains what type of actions a character takes and why, not just a 2 word vague description that no one can agree on the definitions of.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
While I think third isn't wrong. Two things:
1.) The axis aren't mortal constructions but more a framework of cosmic forces (it's why we have aligned planes, which actually does work or at least makes for some fun gaming). So law and chaos is not talking about tax returns and libertarians which is how lawful/chaos usually breaks down in forum discussions. It's more Integrity v Entropy. Are these cosmic moral elements essential to D&D. In terms of player character performance? Maybe not, but a lot of the higher level conflicts in the game? The alignment axis are in the DNA and I don't think you're going to see that "Ordning" (being silly) going away.
2.) A lot of human behavior is often mapped by intelligent people on one axis, thinking of political science in particular. I think the error in a lot of interpretations of the alignment axis comes from folks thinking each access only has three points and your alignment identification places you in one of nine fixed positions ruling you. And if you see the alignment chart more as a series of spectrums, it's actually not a bad tool to charat a character's arcs, especially in a game that treats the four end points as elemental factors to the world.
Sure alignment was sometimes held as a prison of "thou shalts" and many D&D players finding themselves in a world where divine beings are more expressly literalized may have defaulted on alignment interpretations like they were handed down on stone tablets. But I think 5e does the best job of the editions in offering alignment as something that can be _played with_ in a game.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think that the alignment system is more or less useless for players... especially with the Traits, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws system, which does a much better job of helping to figure out personality for a PC. It can be helpful if you want it to be, but it's something you have to work for to get it to work the way you want it to.
However, for a DM who has to manage dozens of characters, having a quick two-word description for minor characters or creatures the party encounters is helpful. We might all have different ideas of what, exactly, "Chaotic Neutral" is, but if you're playing an Adventure and you've got a creature that pops up and its stat block says Chaotic Neutral, it at least informs you somewhat about how to play them... at least enough to decide how it might act in combat. It's definitely not the best way to handle more complex characters who the party might interact with on a regular basis and will have more of a backstory and motivation than just "Lawful Good Town Guard", but as a quick reference to inform minor decisions it's useful.
That said... you could probably also replace it with one-word descriptors like, "Mean", "Cowardly", "Generous", etc. and still get a fairly compelling interaction, but I think that it's still a potentially valuable tool in the right hands.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
In my opinion, alignment has one specific use only, and that is Planescape and the 16+1 outer planes. Each of these planes is the embodiment of a concept and its immortal denizens are more or less bound by their nature to these concepts. Mortals are not subjected to this rigid structure and thus, alignment is more or less not applicable.
But that is only my little preference.
Having actually read the descriptions of the outer planes, they hardly embody concepts, and its sometimes hard to even figure out why they are where they are.
I mainly use the AD&D Planescape Campaign setting. The discriptions there are much more detailed and focused on these alignments. In 5e this was somehow watered down...
Palladium did pretty much that with it's Fantasy D&D knock off and I think most of its' RPG titles including Robotech and maybe through Rifts. Good I think you're choice was between Principled and Scrupulous. Evil you had Aberrent and Diabolical I think, and I'm sure there were other alignments I'm just not remembering them.
I still think alignment has been such an instrument in all iterations of D&D's cosmology, and consequently the game's bestiary (though I'm a fan of removing the "essential" alignments in the instances they have done so), that I don't really see it going anywhere any more than I do it's class system being replaced by skill and power trees or measurements getting replaced by range zones, or hit points being dumped for a wound level system or any of the other neat things existing elsewhere in TTRPG. Maybe it will ultimately go away, but I'd be curious what befalls the game's cosmological order in that case.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm not at all surprised to learn that another system used one-word descriptors like that as their version of alignment.
I do think that Legacy plays a big part in Alignment remaining in D&D and I feel like it's something that won't go away in future editions, even if it is severely downplayed going forward. But Alignment, as sloppy and open to interpretation as it is, remains something iconic to the series and has spread outside of that as well. You can still occasionally see alignment charts for characters, concepts, or even ice cream flavors. It's one of those things where, when you think of D&D, you think of alignments... even if your thought is, "wow, the alignment chart sucks".
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
as for succubi, the Neutral evil label has come from the producers not being able to decide if they are are a demon or a devil. so they slapped Neutral on them to designate them as neither which just help to clarify anything doesn't. that is just another example of where the authors broke the system which is not a fault of the system. the green hag again another miss label which just create confusion, "Though the original source of this hate was a matter of rumors, perhaps some racial spite or long-forgotten grudge, the ultimate target was clear. In short, green hags ultimately desired the downfall of society," they are Chaotic Evil.
to the comment that you were replying to, there is a difference between chaotic good and Neutral good. chaotic has no use for the law and will often do things in opposition of the law, they do not like rules or restrictions they would prefer the wilds, they do not like civilization and find it stuffy as well as limiting. they are good which does have meaning in an objective sense. they work or do things for the benefit of others or the greater good. Batman would be a great example, Robin hood another good one both actively work against society to serve the greater good. they are criminals in their own right. they break laws and often are working against the "law" but do so to bring those who are evil to justice to help end the suffering of the innocent. they are likely to do something just because you told them not to even if it will land them in jail don't care because the Law is stupid. if a troll is Ransacking a village they will probably risk their life to save other steeling a merchants wagon to use as an improvised weapon they will set it on fire not caring for the consequence, better them broke and alive than rich and dead. they will give the guard the bird the whole time they are doing it.
Neutral good they are not actively working against society, they are not trying to break down social norms. they just don't care, if they don't have too. they will work inside them or out generally its which is most covenant at the time...it not a concern. being good they want what best for them, and their family so will work within the code, or law if it will benefit themselves our those they care about. they are not out to hurt anyone and will generally do things to help others if the mood strikes, if it will benefit them even if its to just make them feel good about themselves, generally as long as its not to far out of their way to do it. this is generally your average person they will speed, they will take free stuff just because its free, they are not going to have an issue robbing a grave for a magical item...."they weren't using it" if they find money they are not likely to return it, finder keepers....but if someone confronts them they will hand it over, especially if that person looks in need of it. they may keep there word they may not, though they will lean towards it. they say they will meet you some place at a specific time then they might show up. if they think it will upset you if they don't show then they are more likely to be there. they may pay you back the money they owe you. they are not likely to go to far out there way but if they can give some spare change to a beggar than they might if they do not need it. if a troll is ransacking a village they are not generally going to risk there life to save anyone, at the same time they aren't going to purposely try and get anyone else killed either and if they do will feel guilty about it.
Chaotic Good doesn't mean you don't care about planning or consequences and Neutral Good doesn't mean "good, but not as good as the other guy." This kind of stuff really gets into why it's fine to just drop alignment except when it comes to the Outer Planes.
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.
"Even the authors can't actually apply the system consistently" is absolutely a fault of the system.
I think you have that the wrong way around. Alignment comes from actions, not the other way around. If a character is continually acting in a certain way, say neutral evil, but the player has "lawful good" written on their character sheet, then the character is in fact neutral evil. It's one of the very few things I feel as a GM that I'm allowed to make changes to a character sheet.
They are boxes, true, in that we are putting the whole spectrum of behaviour into one of nine boxes, but they are still useful. Remember that all models are wrong; what's important is whether they are useful.
As a GM, I want some sort of alignment in books. If I have a monster in a book and it says "alignment: LE" then that gives me an idea of how to play that monster. If I just have stats and no alignment then I have to make it up on the fly. Is this monster selfish, generous, conniving, social, individualistic, tradition-bound, etc?