Personally in this thread not one person has given a game or rules reason to not use alignments other than 'I don't like them. They are to restraining. I don't want to be forced to do something.'
My reason was that it's poorly explained, which is not helped by the community, and thus it presents a barrier to entry and should go away. Fairly sure that's a bit more than just, "I don't like it."
To be frank, you're the only one who has discussed that aspect. Everyone else has basically said "I don't like it, so I don't use it, therefore it shouldn't be there".
True, but logically it disproves that "not one person" has given any other argument. Because here I am, one person who has given a different argument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Personally in this thread not one person has given a game or rules reason to not use alignments other than 'I don't like them. They are to restraining. I don't want to be forced to do something.'
My reason was that it's poorly explained, which is not helped by the community, and thus it presents a barrier to entry and should go away. Fairly sure that's a bit more than just, "I don't like it."
To be frank, you're the only one who has discussed that aspect. Everyone else has basically said "I don't like it, so I don't use it, therefore it shouldn't be there".
I feel I've been pretty clear that I think it hampers roleplaying and characterization. But hey, "I don't like it" can suffice I suppose.
As far as "game or rules reason" goes, no-one in this thread has presented a reason for alignment, that doesn't rely on much older editions of the game and much older interpretations of the idea. ;)
Personally in this thread not one person has given a game or rules reason to not use alignments other than 'I don't like them. They are to restraining. I don't want to be forced to do something.'
My reason was that it's poorly explained, which is not helped by the community, and thus it presents a barrier to entry and should go away. Fairly sure that's a bit more than just, "I don't like it."
To be frank, you're the only one who has discussed that aspect. Everyone else has basically said "I don't like it, so I don't use it, therefore it shouldn't be there".
I feel I've been pretty clear that I think it hampers roleplaying and characterization. But hey, "I don't like it" can suffice I suppose.
As far as "game or rules reason" goes, no-one in this thread has presented a reason for alignment, that doesn't rely on much older editions of the game and much older interpretations of the idea. ;)
Really? Is saying that alignment can be used along with other factors to help determine character behavior based off previous editions interpretation of alignment? I wouldn't know, since I haven't played any of them.
“Hungry” is a temporary physical feeling, not a description of morality based on a long-term trend of actions.
There are a fair number of monsters that are pretty much roving eating machines, such as a purple worm.
Which is why they’re Unaligned.
Which is more informative: calling a creature Unaligned, or calling a creature Hungry?
Unaligned. That tells me it is neither Good, Evil or Neutral, nor Chaotic, Lawful or Neutral. Hungry just tells me what it is right now until it gets a snickers. Unaligned tells me what it does when it’s hungry and why it does other things as well. Besides, as the DM I determine whether or not it’s hungry, and when.
Also, just to add on to what you said, you can do a description and say that the monster is hungry in addition to listing their alignment as well.
Personally in this thread not one person has given a game or rules reason to not use alignments other than 'I don't like them. They are to restraining. I don't want to be forced to do something.'
My reason was that it's poorly explained, which is not helped by the community, and thus it presents a barrier to entry and should go away. Fairly sure that's a bit more than just, "I don't like it."
To be frank, you're the only one who has discussed that aspect. Everyone else has basically said "I don't like it, so I don't use it, therefore it shouldn't be there".
I feel I've been pretty clear that I think it hampers roleplaying and characterization. But hey, "I don't like it" can suffice I suppose.
As far as "game or rules reason" goes, no-one in this thread has presented a reason for alignment, that doesn't rely on much older editions of the game and much older interpretations of the idea. ;)
Well no reason you agree with or would change your mind.
Do you at least agree it should be left in the game for others if they want it?
Do you at least agree it should be left in the game for others if they want it?
Depends what 'left in the game' means. If people want to give their PCs and NPCs alignment that's no skin off my nose, but I don't want it taking up space in creature or npc writeups.
As far as "game or rules reason" goes, no-one in this thread has presented a reason for alignment, that doesn't rely on much older editions of the game and much older interpretations of the idea. ;)
Really? Is saying that alignment can be used along with other factors to help determine character behavior based off previous editions interpretation of alignment? I wouldn't know, since I haven't played any of them.
(Understand, I was being snarky and sarcastic, thus the winky face, in response to the "no one is presenting a good reason" stuff, which is an obvious trolling attempt.)
Speaking for myself only, I don't think it can be used along other factors. It does only harm, no good. Because the terms "good," "evil," "lawful," and "chaotic" are too ill-defined and too broad to add anything other than confusion and argument.
My point about older editions is that they (or at least some of them) provided a strict, functional definition to the terms, in that they relate to how you align to certain cosmic concepts. While I think that's bad worldbuilding (again, my opinion only), credit where credit is due, at least it provided a workable game-like framework. So, in that context, I guess alignment could be useful. But without that context, to me, it is negatively useful.
Do you at least agree it should be left in the game for others if they want it?
I do not care what others use in their games, nor do I have any say in the matter.
Were I giving advice to WotC (as if!), I would say the game would be improved by removing the last vestiges of alignment. <lebowski>Well, that's just, like, my opinion.</lebowski>
I would note that, as an in-setting concept, I have no problem with people talking about 'good' and 'evil', or even 'law' and 'chaos', but I would expect in-setting disagreement about what those terms mean or how to classify creatures.
To be fair, it's a bit misleading to say: "Speaking for myself only, I don't think it can be used along other factors. It does only harm, no good. Because the terms "good," "evil," "lawful," and "chaotic" are too ill-defined and too broad to add anything other than confusion and argument."
If "good" is too broad a term to be effective, then it probably shouldn't be used in 2nd sentence (It does only harm, no good.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
Just musing philosophically here... is the pushback on the alignment system at it's core simlly a rejection of the negative that "evil" defines? I don't believe I've seen anyone bemoaning "good." What I generally see is: "it's not right to paint an entire race as evil." I don't think I've ever seen the same thing said of good-aligned creatures (celestials).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
To be fair, it's a bit misleading to say: "Speaking for myself only, I don't think it can be used along other factors. It does only harm, no good. Because the terms "good," "evil," "lawful," and "chaotic" are too ill-defined and too broad to add anything other than confusion and argument."
If "good" is too broad a term to be effective, then it probably shouldn't be used in 2nd sentence (It does only harm, no good.)
Nah. Don't try that.
For the sake of defining character behavior, "good" is ill-defined in 5th edition. It's trying to define moral behavior in an absolute/objective sense, which can't work without a consistent frame of reference, which the game does not have.
This is going to sound flippant, but I do mean it as a serious question--for all those folks saying that alignment causes more problems than it helps due to some players treating it as an absolute and not understanding that the rules themselves say alignment is supposed to beflexible....
Have you tried just... not playing with bad players? It honestly seems like all of the anti-alignment posts that are not "it is not helpful to me, so it must not be helpful to anyone, and I will double down on that even when plenty of other players point out that it is useful to them or their groups" is an argument of "I anecdotally think it causes more problems than it helps because it causes problems in my group."
Honestly, for those making that second argument, the problem is not the alignment system--the problem is your other players. And I am willing to bet that those players would be terrible to play with even without the alignment system--they likely are either asses who like causing trouble or too emotionally stunted to build a complex character anyway. The three people I have ever played with for with this worldview (two of whom were married and were a perfect for one another in their aggressive ignorance about anything outside their insular view of the world) were also a disaster in other aspects of the game--replete with Main Character Syndrome, trying to force their homerules on others, trying to trick the DM into applying rules in different manners so the interpretation always benefited them, etc. The alignment system could be removed from the game completely and they would just find some other way to try and make D&D less fun for anyone other than themselves.
We kicked them out of the group and replaced them with people who were actually fun. And, lo and behold, the issues with alignment disappeared.
To paraphrase Tasha, it's amazing how many "I am a bad player and want to force my being a bad player on everyone else in the group" problems can be solved with Cloudkill.
Just musing philosophically here... is the pushback on the alignment system at it's core simlly a rejection of the negative that "evil" defines? I don't believe I've seen anyone bemoaning "good." What I generally see is: "it's not right to paint an entire race as evil." I don't think I've ever seen the same thing said of good-aligned creatures (celestials).
I generally classify celestials as "associated with gods" or "associated with particular gods", which may or may not indicate good depending on which god it is. Having them always be good I find a bit limiting.
To be fair, it's a bit misleading to say: "Speaking for myself only, I don't think it can be used along other factors. It does only harm, no good. Because the terms "good," "evil," "lawful," and "chaotic" are too ill-defined and too broad to add anything other than confusion and argument."
If "good" is too broad a term to be effective, then it probably shouldn't be used in 2nd sentence (It does only harm, no good.)
Nah. Don't try that.
For the sake of defining character behavior, "good" is ill-defined in 5th edition. It's trying to define moral behavior in an absolute/objective sense, which can't work without a consistent frame of reference, which the game does not have.
I disagree. If "good" can defined as "to be desired or approved of" then that can and should be applied across all it's uses. This definition can be applied to moral character as well as to how it impacts people or systems. If it's ambiguous in one sense, then it's ambiguous in all senses. Words matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
I disagree. If "good" can defined as "to be desired or approved of" then that can and should be applied across all it's uses. This definition can be applied to moral character as well as to how it impacts people or systems. If it's ambiguous in one sense, then it's ambiguous in all senses. Words matter.
You are wildly missing my point. What's "good" for one character may be "bad" or "evil" or just "nothing" for another character. Who chooses? The player? The DM? The character's god(s)? To work, it needs a guidepost, or a frame of reference.
From my perspective, alignment is "bad." From yours, perhaps, it is "good." Which of us is right? Which of us determines which label goes on Alignment-Personified's character sheet?
Well no reason you agree with or would change your mind.
Do you at least agree it should be left in the game for others if they want it?
No. And I've explained why, in this thread and in many others.
Alignment retained in the game and shoved into every stat block contributes to the idea that every last single creature of any given kind/nature/people/species are completely identical. It encourages monocultures and dismissal of anything that doesn't align with its stated Kin's alignment. And no, no matter how much people protest otherwise, no matter how often people say "that's just somebody using it wrong!", it doesn't matter. If hundreds of thousands of people use it the "wrong" way, if it's used the "wrong" way so often that proponents of the tool have to constantly explain the "right" way, if the "wrong" way to use the tool is the intuitive first thing everybody thinks to do with it? Then it's not the fault of users - it's the fault of a badly designed tool. Caerwyn spoke to the dangers of what he called "Racial" alignment a few pages back, and even as a supporter of retaining alignment he called Racial Alignment out as a bad toxic idea whose time has more than expired.
Anything in the game that states "all [X] are always [Y]" is wrong. That's not a message people want anymore. if you want to keep using alignment, if you want to keep perpetuating the idea that every single person has a specific, fixed, always-there moral-absolutist code they will not and cannot break? You do you. But I do not want it in my books anymore if I can help it, and I will support products that dispense with it more than I will support products that don't.
Just musing philosophically here... is the pushback on the alignment system at it's core simlly a rejection of the negative that "evil" defines? I don't believe I've seen anyone bemoaning "good." What I generally see is: "it's not right to paint an entire race as evil." I don't think I've ever seen the same thing said of good-aligned creatures (celestials).
I generally classify celestials as "associated with gods" or "associated with particular gods", which may or may not indicate good depending on which god it is. Having them always be good I find a bit limiting.
So, devils and demons are celestials?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
True, but logically it disproves that "not one person" has given any other argument. Because here I am, one person who has given a different argument.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I feel I've been pretty clear that I think it hampers roleplaying and characterization. But hey, "I don't like it" can suffice I suppose.
As far as "game or rules reason" goes, no-one in this thread has presented a reason for alignment, that doesn't rely on much older editions of the game and much older interpretations of the idea. ;)
Really? Is saying that alignment can be used along with other factors to help determine character behavior based off previous editions interpretation of alignment? I wouldn't know, since I haven't played any of them.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Also, just to add on to what you said, you can do a description and say that the monster is hungry in addition to listing their alignment as well.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Well no reason you agree with or would change your mind.
Do you at least agree it should be left in the game for others if they want it?
Depends what 'left in the game' means. If people want to give their PCs and NPCs alignment that's no skin off my nose, but I don't want it taking up space in creature or npc writeups.
(Understand, I was being snarky and sarcastic, thus the winky face, in response to the "no one is presenting a good reason" stuff, which is an obvious trolling attempt.)
Speaking for myself only, I don't think it can be used along other factors. It does only harm, no good. Because the terms "good," "evil," "lawful," and "chaotic" are too ill-defined and too broad to add anything other than confusion and argument.
My point about older editions is that they (or at least some of them) provided a strict, functional definition to the terms, in that they relate to how you align to certain cosmic concepts. While I think that's bad worldbuilding (again, my opinion only), credit where credit is due, at least it provided a workable game-like framework. So, in that context, I guess alignment could be useful. But without that context, to me, it is negatively useful.
I do not care what others use in their games, nor do I have any say in the matter.
Were I giving advice to WotC (as if!), I would say the game would be improved by removing the last vestiges of alignment. <lebowski>Well, that's just, like, my opinion.</lebowski>
I would note that, as an in-setting concept, I have no problem with people talking about 'good' and 'evil', or even 'law' and 'chaos', but I would expect in-setting disagreement about what those terms mean or how to classify creatures.
To be fair, it's a bit misleading to say: "Speaking for myself only, I don't think it can be used along other factors. It does only harm, no good. Because the terms "good," "evil," "lawful," and "chaotic" are too ill-defined and too broad to add anything other than confusion and argument."
If "good" is too broad a term to be effective, then it probably shouldn't be used in 2nd sentence (It does only harm, no good.)
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
Just musing philosophically here... is the pushback on the alignment system at it's core simlly a rejection of the negative that "evil" defines? I don't believe I've seen anyone bemoaning "good." What I generally see is: "it's not right to paint an entire race as evil." I don't think I've ever seen the same thing said of good-aligned creatures (celestials).
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
Nah. Don't try that.
For the sake of defining character behavior, "good" is ill-defined in 5th edition. It's trying to define moral behavior in an absolute/objective sense, which can't work without a consistent frame of reference, which the game does not have.
This is going to sound flippant, but I do mean it as a serious question--for all those folks saying that alignment causes more problems than it helps due to some players treating it as an absolute and not understanding that the rules themselves say alignment is supposed to be flexible....
Have you tried just... not playing with bad players? It honestly seems like all of the anti-alignment posts that are not "it is not helpful to me, so it must not be helpful to anyone, and I will double down on that even when plenty of other players point out that it is useful to them or their groups" is an argument of "I anecdotally think it causes more problems than it helps because it causes problems in my group."
Honestly, for those making that second argument, the problem is not the alignment system--the problem is your other players. And I am willing to bet that those players would be terrible to play with even without the alignment system--they likely are either asses who like causing trouble or too emotionally stunted to build a complex character anyway. The three people I have ever played with for with this worldview (two of whom were married and were a perfect for one another in their aggressive ignorance about anything outside their insular view of the world) were also a disaster in other aspects of the game--replete with Main Character Syndrome, trying to force their homerules on others, trying to trick the DM into applying rules in different manners so the interpretation always benefited them, etc. The alignment system could be removed from the game completely and they would just find some other way to try and make D&D less fun for anyone other than themselves.
We kicked them out of the group and replaced them with people who were actually fun. And, lo and behold, the issues with alignment disappeared.
To paraphrase Tasha, it's amazing how many "I am a bad player and want to force my being a bad player on everyone else in the group" problems can be solved with Cloudkill.
I generally classify celestials as "associated with gods" or "associated with particular gods", which may or may not indicate good depending on which god it is. Having them always be good I find a bit limiting.
I disagree. If "good" can defined as "to be desired or approved of" then that can and should be applied across all it's uses. This definition can be applied to moral character as well as to how it impacts people or systems. If it's ambiguous in one sense, then it's ambiguous in all senses. Words matter.
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
You are wildly missing my point. What's "good" for one character may be "bad" or "evil" or just "nothing" for another character. Who chooses? The player? The DM? The character's god(s)? To work, it needs a guidepost, or a frame of reference.
From my perspective, alignment is "bad." From yours, perhaps, it is "good." Which of us is right? Which of us determines which label goes on Alignment-Personified's character sheet?
No. And I've explained why, in this thread and in many others.
Alignment retained in the game and shoved into every stat block contributes to the idea that every last single creature of any given kind/nature/people/species are completely identical. It encourages monocultures and dismissal of anything that doesn't align with its stated Kin's alignment. And no, no matter how much people protest otherwise, no matter how often people say "that's just somebody using it wrong!", it doesn't matter. If hundreds of thousands of people use it the "wrong" way, if it's used the "wrong" way so often that proponents of the tool have to constantly explain the "right" way, if the "wrong" way to use the tool is the intuitive first thing everybody thinks to do with it? Then it's not the fault of users - it's the fault of a badly designed tool. Caerwyn spoke to the dangers of what he called "Racial" alignment a few pages back, and even as a supporter of retaining alignment he called Racial Alignment out as a bad toxic idea whose time has more than expired.
Anything in the game that states "all [X] are always [Y]" is wrong. That's not a message people want anymore. if you want to keep using alignment, if you want to keep perpetuating the idea that every single person has a specific, fixed, always-there moral-absolutist code they will not and cannot break? You do you. But I do not want it in my books anymore if I can help it, and I will support products that dispense with it more than I will support products that don't.
Please do not contact or message me.
And here I thought racial alignment had already been dropped. Years ago.
So, devils and demons are celestials?
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
So, devils and demons are celestials?
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."