Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112
Results 331 to 357 of 357
  1. - Top - End - #331
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    OK.

    Still not really anything there which would demonstrate any need for Alignment.

    If we can call a particular character or action "evil" without Alignment, why do we need Alignment?
    You cannot call a particular D&D character evil without alignment because evil is (part of) the alignment.

    You're basically saying "why do we need the word 'fish' to describe a shark?"

  2. - Top - End - #332
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    You cannot call a particular D&D character evil without alignment because evil is (part of) the alignment.
    Wait, what? That's... that's not how words work.

    E: At least now we've hit the core of why you keep asserting that removing Alignment from D&D = removing all concepts of good and evil from all characters and actions.
    Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2019-05-29 at 04:00 PM.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  3. - Top - End - #333
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    You're basically saying "why do we need the word 'fish' to describe a shark?"
    And that makes a lot of sense with a rigid structure...but that's not the case even in the animal kingdom. There are some creatures (like the platypus) that breaks the norms of what classification of creature we'd call it. We basically had to create a new classification of "weird stuff" just to make it fit. In fact, that's how a lot of the different classifications are broken down.

    And alignment - with the fact that it changes, it's unknown, it's got a lot more complications - wasn't really a good system in the first place. We had it, and we've had the same arguments for many years now, because the cosmology of the universe depended on it working. But that last part's not true anymore.
    Last edited by Man_Over_Game; 2019-05-29 at 03:51 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post

    5th Edition Homebrewery

    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes while maintaining balance with default options.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  4. - Top - End - #334
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    And that makes a lot of sense with a rigid structure...but that's not the case even in the animal kingdom. There are some creatures (like the platypus) that breaks the norms of what classification of creature we'd call it. We basically had to create a new classification of "weird stuff" just to make it fit. In fact, that's how a lot of the different classifications are broken down.

    And alignment - with the fact that it changes, it's unknown, it's got a lot more complications - wasn't really a good system in the first place. We had it, and we've had the same arguments for many years now, because the cosmology of the universe depended on it working.

    But...it doesn't have to be like that any longer.
    Plus, we can talk about good and evil in real life without Alignment.

    We can talk about good and evil in other systems and settings and campaigns without Alignment.

    The idea that removing Alignment from D&D would force us to stop talking about good and evil in D&D, or making it impossible somehow...
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  5. - Top - End - #335
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    But...it doesn't have to be like that any longer.
    Nothing has to be like it is any longer. But it generally stays at it is unless something is a sufficient prompt to change it.


    Personally, I am done, though. I'm going to make one last post for the guide I'm working on, then I'll leave this forum and stop being a bother.

  6. - Top - End - #336
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    Nothing has to be like it is any longer. But it generally stays at it is unless something is a sufficient prompt to change it.

    Personally, I am done, though. I'm going to make one last post for the guide I'm working on, then I'll leave this forum and stop being a bother.

    We disagree vigorously, that does not make you a bother.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  7. - Top - End - #337
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    Personally, I am done, though. I'm going to make one last post for the guide I'm working on, then I'll leave this forum and stop being a bother.
    Personally, I hope you're not.

    I know that we've butted head a few times, but there's been twice as many times where I've read over some of your work and your experience on mechanics and encounter structure that really impressed me. I know that the 5e community is probably a lot more radical than prior editions, but your insight keeps us keeps us grounded. Having opposition means there's compromise. It keeps the 5e from changing DnD into something that's not.

    And maybe all DnD is is just a weird magic system with spell slots and 3x3 alignment grids. Or maybe it's just a weird combination of dwarves and elves and crap. But it'd be a lot less without people like you, fighting to immortalize it.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post

    5th Edition Homebrewery

    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes while maintaining balance with default options.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  8. - Top - End - #338
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Dec 2018

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    A big part of it.



    The alignments ARE those words.

    You call a spade a spade because it is a spade. You call a fictional chaotic evil individual chaotic evil because they are chaotic evil, in the fiction.

    That's it.

    There is no trick, no twist, no enlightened-third-realm-of-consciousness point of view, and NOTHING justifying 11 pages of **** on the topic.
    Unless in your copy of the PHB, there are only two alignments, “evil” and “not evil”, this is a bit of rhetorical slight of hand.

  9. - Top - End - #339
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    You cannot call a particular D&D character evil without alignment because evil is (part of) the alignment.
    Alignment is an intentionally simple version of labeling social and moral attitude, and associating a typical behavior with it. It'd certainly be possible to design a more complicated version. Or one could also design a simpler one. For example only a good/evil descriptor, and no associated behavior explanation.

    First you'd probably want to figure out the purpose of a more complicated or less complicated system. And ultimately I think that's really the point of those questioning the current version of alignment. What's the purpose to using a two-word descriptor of social and moral attitude, with an associated overall behavior for each? It's a valid question. With many options for its use, as it stands, provided in this thread. And many previous ones.

  10. - Top - End - #340
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by jdolch View Post
    I would say the answer is "No", but the word "still" implies that it ever needed Alignment ...
    Dave Arneson created it, you didn't.
    His name's on the game, yours isn't.
    A Judge made a significant ruling in that regard when Dave and Gary ended up in court, something about the essential spark without which Gary (who did a lot of the heavy lifting in getting stuff published) had nothing to publish.

    He, Dave Arneson, created (dreamed up?) alignment in his Blackmoor game before D&D was ever published. (Law/Chaos)

    It's in the game's DNA. Need doesn't enter into it.

    Sorry, you are simply wrong. I hope you will take this chance to educate yourself.

    The other issue is in the nature of the game itself. It isn't a video game, but is and has always intended to be customizable from table to table. How much of the alignment piece you and your group apply at your table is like how much salza or pepper or gravy you put on your food: a matter of taste.

    The kind of absolutist attitude that the OP is advocating for is antithetical to the game itself.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2019-05-29 at 09:50 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    (paraphrased) Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by greenstone View Post
    Player agency doesn't mean they get to roll for everything. Agency means that they control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also quite handsome) or so I am told ... by 2D8HP

  11. - Top - End - #341
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MonkGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    NW USA
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    And let’s not pretend that DnD is the only game system with an alignment system... nor that it is the worst out there (Palladium is the worst I’ve dealt with); or the most awkwardly integrated (Some WoD humanity systems are just painful to navigate no matter how much I enjoy the setting)

  12. - Top - End - #342
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    Dave Arneson created it, you didn't.
    His name's on the game, yours isn't.
    A Judge made a significant ruling in that regard when Dave and Gary ended up in court, something about the essential spark without which Gary (who did a lot of the heavy lifting in getting stuff published) had nothing to publish.

    He, Dave Arneson, created (dreamed up?) alignment in his Blackmoor game before D&D was ever published. (Law/Chaos)

    It's in the game's DNA. Need doesn't enter into it.

    Sorry, you are simply wrong. I hope you will take this chance to educate yourself.

    The other issue is in the nature of the game itself. It isn't a video game, but is and has always intended to be customizable from table to table. How much of the alignment piece you and your group apply at your table is like how much salza or pepper or gravy you put on your food: a matter of taste.

    The kind of absolutist attitude that the OP is advocating for is antithetical to the game itself.
    Interesting that you accuse others of having an absolutist attitude when your argument boils down to demanding that others stop questioning alignment because someone thought it was a good idea more than 40 years ago.

    Many things that were in the game then have been discarded or changed. Others haven't been but should be. Alignment isn't different from any of them. If you think it should stay, argue based on its merits, not its sanctity by virtue of being old.
    Last edited by Morty; 2019-05-30 at 04:00 AM.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  13. - Top - End - #343
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Honestly, for all its vagaries and subjectivity, I like the concept of alignment. It's neat to be able to give a quick summary of your character in a few words ("I'm a Lawful Neutral Noble Rogue" feels more descriptive with the alignment added). The wide, often inconsistent, range that each alignment can cover is rather annoying though, allowing for both an honorable, but malicious, demon with a strict code of ethics to sit in the same space as a former paragon who will now stop at nothing to achieve peace, slaughtering entire villages in the name of security. People dislike it for a lot of valid reasons, and I'd hardly say that DnD really needs it anymore. But again, I really like the idea, so maybe it just needs to evolve some.

    Seems to me like most characters' intentions should be able to be summed up in three aspects:
    The Ends, Means, and Motivator
    Means:How does the character intend to achieve their goal, and how far will they go? For most adventurers the actual actions probably be some mixture of murder, theft, and/or getting better at murder and theft but it could just about anything, like acquiring an army, or making a magic item, or getting really rich. The "How"
    Ends:What's the desired end-goal for this character's actions? Do they intend to kill a king, found a nation, get really rich? "What" do they want?
    Motivator: Who is the character doing this all for, if anyone? Themselves, a god, family, their master, some ingrained sense of justice, or higher moral calling? Or maybe just for fun? The final "Why"

    Note: these aspects could easily change over time, just like alignment. After all, once your character has achieved their goal (if they ever do), they might still be alive afterwards, so many will probably find something else to do. Maybe their machinations will become grander in scope, or maybe they'll be satisfied and retire to their castle made of dragon skulls.

    You might be able to summarize all that in one sentence. Preliminarily, maybe something like:
    "I must______,in order to______, for the sake of______"

    "I must slay the dragon, in order to free my kingdom from its blight, for the sake of my fair lady Gathandrew"

    Now unfortunately, this might sometimes result in something that's an "End" for one character being a "Means" for another, but that's kinda true in real life. Some people consider becoming the most powerful being in the universe the whole point, while others will want it to do something with that power other than just exert it.

    I think it's decent as a first pass, but what do you all think? Is it enough, too much, just awful? Does it solve any major issues you have with alignment, and does it create new ones? Should this be in it's own thread? I'd be glad to hear.
    The stars are calling, but let's come up with a good opening line before we answer

    And here's a rat for the road ~(,,_`;;'>

  14. - Top - End - #344
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Maplewood, MO
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Not the first time this discussion has existed since “Alignment” shifted back and forth from three to (briefly) five to the current nine. Long before AD&D/1st edition.

    Alignment is a tool, use it if it works. And that is where I will leave it n this discussion.
    I play AL games only nowdays.

    Preferences: Role play over optimization; Dwarf over Gnome over Variant Human; War games over FRPG; Zorro over Batman over everyone else.

    The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and fighting by fools.

    Charles George Gordon
    1833-1885

  15. - Top - End - #345
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    Sorry, you are simply wrong. I hope you will take this chance to educate yourself.
    ...
    The kind of absolutist attitude that the OP is advocating for is antithetical to the game itself.
    I know it was unintentional, but this is something of a piece of found art. I am truly moved.

  16. - Top - End - #346
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RedMage125's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    I'm on a boat!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Interesting that you accuse others of having an absolutist attitude when your argument boils down to demanding that others stop questioning alignment because someone thought it was a good idea more than 40 years ago.

    Many things that were in the game then have been discarded or changed. Others haven't been but should be. Alignment isn't different from any of them. If you think it should stay, argue based on its merits, not its sanctity by virtue of being old.
    He isn't telling people that they "have to" use it, though. He's entirely rejecting the OP's premise of whether or not inclusion of alignment is a matter of "Need".

    You don't like it, don't use it, but don't pretend your opinion is so vital and universal that it equates to objective fact, and insist that alignment "be removed" from the game.

    It's a part of the game, and always has been. Just like Classes, Hit Points, Armor Class, and any number of other factors. Plenty of people have argued for its merits, but some of the alignment detractors like to ignore that, because they are dismissive of those opinions, but think that theirs are the most important.

    Bottom line, use it or don't. But claiming there's a "need to remove it" is trying to force your personal preference onto others, many of whom have no issues with, or even genuinely like alignment.
    Red Mage avatar by Aedilred.

    Where do you fit in? (link fixed)

    RedMage Prestige Class!

    Best advice I've ever heard one DM give another:
    "Remember that it is both a game and a story. If the two conflict, err on the side of cool, your players will thank you for it."

    Second Eternal Foe of the Draconic Lord, battling him across the multiverse in whatever shapes and forms he may take.

  17. - Top - End - #347
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Interesting that you accuse others of having an absolutist attitude when your argument boils down to demanding that others stop questioning alignment because someone thought it was a good idea more than 40 years ago.
    He didn't do any such thing. You may want to read it again.

    What KorvinStarmast did was two things:
    - point out that claims that Alignment wasn't an inherent part of the D&D system, put there by one of the designers for a reason they deemed to be sufficient need, from the very beginning, are false.
    - point out that customizing the game to make it work for your table is inherently part of the D&D system, from the beginning.

  18. - Top - End - #348
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post
    He isn't telling people that they "have to" use it, though. He's entirely rejecting the OP's premise of whether or not inclusion of alignment is a matter of "Need".

    You don't like it, don't use it, but don't pretend your opinion is so vital and universal that it equates to objective fact, and insist that alignment "be removed" from the game.
    Please point out where anyone pretended that their opinion was objective fact. Morty did not in those two lines there. If you read the original post, you'll see that the OP explicitly did not as well. In fact, they asked a very constrained question, "I'm asking whether alignment still serves a purpose in D&D." They even made a caveat to the specific point of people wanting alignment because it was included in the Arneson/Gygax era ("Let's get the obvious out of the way: D&D needs alignment because D&D needs alignment. The alignment system is one of those classic points of D&D design that people think of as being central to its identity, like Vancian magic or a 1-20 level system. Changing alignment would be perceived as changing the identity of D&D, much like a change to magical resources or the level cap. This thread isn't about that, so I'd like if we didn't get caught up in it."). Mind you, I come to a different conclusion -- alignment does serve a purpose (a relatively constrained one, but a valuable one), but I am impressed at the level of maturity in the initial setup of a simple position and arguing a reasoned (and readily disagreed with) argument for said position (and avoiding pretending one's opinion as objective fact).


    It's a part of the game, and always has been. Just like Classes, Hit Points, Armor Class, and any number of other factors. Plenty of people have argued for its merits, but some of the alignment detractors like to ignore that, because they are dismissive of those opinions, but think that theirs are the most important.

    Bottom line, use it or don't. But claiming there's a "need to remove it" is trying to force your personal preference onto others, many of whom have no issues with, or even genuinely like alignment.
    I really do not get where you or KorvinStarmast get the idea that others (who have been one team 'alignment-nay') have been ignoring the arguments for its' merits, been dismissive of opinions, think the at their opinions are more important, or forcing their personal preferences on anyone. Two sides have been arguing sides (positions. opinions.), and for the most part it has been remarkably civil (for alignment threads, perhaps staggeringly so) up until this point. No one has been declaring their opposition basement dwelling genocide-supporters. No one has been throwing around ten-dollar Latin phrases (particularly in the middle of natural language sentences) and name-dropping logical fallacy accusations. No one making appeals to unproven real-world expertise. No one has been suggesting that others' positions on a game morality framework reflected anything about their real world decency as a human being. This has been, overall, online nerds doing civil argumentation right. I am genuinely perplexed at this sudden depiction of this conversation as somehow 1) toxic, or 2) one-sided. I do not see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    He didn't do any such thing. You may want to read it again.

    What KorvinStarmast did was two things:
    - point out that claims that Alignment wasn't an inherent part of the D&D system, put there by one of the designers for a reason they deemed to be sufficient need, from the very beginning, are false.
    - point out that customizing the game to make it work for your table is inherently part of the D&D system, from the beginning.
    I think that's a lot to accuse jdolch of having intended to be suggesting, all from "I would say the answer is "No", but the word "still" implies that it ever needed Alignment …" All I got out of that was that jdolch didn't think that alignment was genuinely vital to D&D, and anything else we can impute from that statement is speculative.

  19. - Top - End - #349
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RedMage125's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    I'm on a boat!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post
    Please point out where anyone pretended that their opinion was objective fact. Morty did not in those two lines there. If you read the original post, you'll see that the OP explicitly did not as well. In fact, they asked a very constrained question, "I'm asking whether alignment still serves a purpose in D&D." They even made a caveat to the specific point of people wanting alignment because it was included in the Arneson/Gygax era ("Let's get the obvious out of the way: D&D needs alignment because D&D needs alignment. The alignment system is one of those classic points of D&D design that people think of as being central to its identity, like Vancian magic or a 1-20 level system. Changing alignment would be perceived as changing the identity of D&D, much like a change to magical resources or the level cap. This thread isn't about that, so I'd like if we didn't get caught up in it."). Mind you, I come to a different conclusion -- alignment does serve a purpose (a relatively constrained one, but a valuable one), but I am impressed at the level of maturity in the initial setup of a simple position and arguing a reasoned (and readily disagreed with) argument for said position (and avoiding pretending one's opinion as objective fact).

    I really do not get where you or KorvinStarmast get the idea that others (who have been one team 'alignment-nay') have been ignoring the arguments for its' merits, been dismissive of opinions, think the at their opinions are more important, or forcing their personal preferences on anyone. Two sides have been arguing sides (positions. opinions.), and for the most part it has been remarkably civil (for alignment threads, perhaps staggeringly so) up until this point. No one has been declaring their opposition basement dwelling genocide-supporters. No one has been throwing around ten-dollar Latin phrases (particularly in the middle of natural language sentences) and name-dropping logical fallacy accusations. No one making appeals to unproven real-world expertise. No one has been suggesting that others' positions on a game morality framework reflected anything about their real world decency as a human being. This has been, overall, online nerds doing civil argumentation right. I am genuinely perplexed at this sudden depiction of this conversation as somehow 1) toxic, or 2) one-sided. I do not see it.
    No one's been dismissive of the pro-alignment stances, huh? Or couched their own opinions as facts? Here's a couple examples from just the first 5 pages of this thread, I scanned for any examples of this, and by what-is-probably-not-coincidence, they are ALL from the poster I was responding to.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Essentially, yes. Alignment is, at best, useless. At worst, it's harmful. 4E and 5E alike do a good job by divorcing it from mechanics, but they don't follow up by removing it altogether.

    The two axes of alignment are each problematic in their own way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    I honestly can't think of many things more dull and uninspiring than cosmic forces of good and evil playing some kind of long inter-planar game of chess and telling people what to do. I'd much rather see people grapple with what's good, evil right and wrong on their own.

    ...or just forget it and go kill some unambiguous bad guys, but we don't need alignment for that either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    That's kind of the clincher. There's one thing alignment is useful for and it's not even good at it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    But that's actually moot, because alignment is nowhere near as important as you try to claim.
    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Eliminating the alignment system doesn't eliminate those opportunities. All it does is eliminate a poor tool that's designed to deal with them.


    You are correct that this discussion has been a lot more civil than a lot of other alignment discussions (and I participate in a lot of them). But there has, in fact, been some posters who have stated things like "your point about how alignment is useful to you is moot because I can do the same thing without alignment". Which is dismissive. Some pro-alignment people have stated reasons why they like alignment, and have given statements for why they feel it should not be removed from the game. I know that I, myself, have expressed that IMO, alignment mechanics are a Good ThingTM, because it is my opinion that clearly defined mechanics protect players from fickle DM fiat. Which, of course, assumes a DM who does not just fiat everything anyway, because nothing in the RAW can really stop that.

    And whether you like to recognize it or not, a call to completely remove alignment from the core RAW of future editions is, in fact, attempting to force the preference of alignment detractors onto others, because then the game would not have rules for it at all. I have no objection to compromise. I think what 5e did by toning down a lot of the omnipresent alignment mechanics of 3.5e was a God Thing[supTM[/sup]. I get that some people have a bad taste in their mouth from past experiences of alignment, or prefer games without objective forces of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. I sympathize that for them to remove alignment entirely from an edition like 3.5e was a monumental undertaking, as alignment mechanics' tentacles were buried deep. The very existence, however, of pro-alignment people is a sign that the problems that detractors have with it are not universal. And yet some few think that they are. Statements are made, such as "alignment is problematic", "alignment is only useful for one thing, and it's bad at that", or "alignment just isn't important, despite what you claim" all carry the subtext that the person stating them knows better than the "alignment-yay" person who said something positive about it.

    I've been reading the entire thread from the beginning, and I'm not taking Morty's or anyone else's statements out of context or in a vacuum. So when a poster who has been couching their opinion as fact, or been dismissive of others' opinions as "wrong" tries to misrepresent what another poster (KevinStormast, in this case) is saying as "demanding that others stop questioning alignment", I felt it was appropriate to point out that such was not what was being said, and highlight that said poster should recognize that their own opinions are just that...opinions.

    One would be hard-pressed to prove that problems with alignment or its mechanics are as widespread as some like to think.
    Red Mage avatar by Aedilred.

    Where do you fit in? (link fixed)

    RedMage Prestige Class!

    Best advice I've ever heard one DM give another:
    "Remember that it is both a game and a story. If the two conflict, err on the side of cool, your players will thank you for it."

    Second Eternal Foe of the Draconic Lord, battling him across the multiverse in whatever shapes and forms he may take.

  20. - Top - End - #350
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post
    tries to misrepresent what another poster (KevinStormast, in this case) is saying as "demanding that others stop questioning alignment", I felt it was appropriate to point out that such was not what was being said,
    To be fair, I read KevinStarmast's post as "Dave Arneson created D&D, not you, and he included Alignment in the game, so you don't have any standing to even question its inclusion in the game."

    "Dave Arneson created it, you didn't.
    His name's on the game, yours isn't.

    ...

    He, Dave Arneson, created (dreamed up?) alignment in his Blackmoor game before D&D was ever published. (Law/Chaos)

    It's in the game's DNA. Need doesn't enter into it.

    Sorry, you are simply wrong. I hope you will take this chance to educate yourself."
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  21. - Top - End - #351
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Dec 2018

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    IMHO, the 5e personality traits does what alignment is supposed to do, does it better, and has fewer negative effects.

    Personality traits allow new players to get a handle of how their character may differ from them, provides the DM with a couple of adventuring hooks, and since each trait is personal to the character, it tends to avoid both the alignment disputes and (worse in my opinion) players feeling like they have to act a certain way because of their alignment.

  22. - Top - End - #352
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RedMage125's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    I'm on a boat!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    To be fair, I read KevinStarmast's post as "Dave Arneson created D&D, not you, and he included Alignment in the game, so you don't have any standing to even question its inclusion in the game."

    "Dave Arneson created it, you didn't.
    His name's on the game, yours isn't.

    ...

    He, Dave Arneson, created (dreamed up?) alignment in his Blackmoor game before D&D was ever published. (Law/Chaos)

    It's in the game's DNA. Need doesn't enter into it.

    Sorry, you are simply wrong. I hope you will take this chance to educate yourself."
    And yet you just cut off the most relevant piece of his post which was:

    "The other issue is in the nature of the game itself. It isn't a video game, but is and has always intended to be customizable from table to table. How much of the alignment piece you and your group apply at your table is like how much salza or pepper or gravy you put on your food: a matter of taste."

    The part you quoted was discussing how whether or not D&D "needs" alignment is even a valid question, by pointing out that it is a part of D&D since the very beginning, in some form or another, as much as any other component. What people choose to use is up to them. But at no point is it accurate to say "it never needed it", which is what he was responding to. Because "need" was never why it was included. It is simply a part of it, from the foundation.
    Red Mage avatar by Aedilred.

    Where do you fit in? (link fixed)

    RedMage Prestige Class!

    Best advice I've ever heard one DM give another:
    "Remember that it is both a game and a story. If the two conflict, err on the side of cool, your players will thank you for it."

    Second Eternal Foe of the Draconic Lord, battling him across the multiverse in whatever shapes and forms he may take.

  23. - Top - End - #353
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by AdAstra View Post
    I think it's decent as a first pass, but what do you all think? Is it enough, too much, just awful? Does it solve any major issues you have with alignment, and does it create new ones? Should this be in it's own thread? I'd be glad to hear.
    First, thinking about final and intermediate goals / values does help understand your character.

    Second, personally the "Motivator" part seems redundant or obsolete with the "Ends" part. If you are slaying a dragon for the sake of your fair lady, then your end goal is about your fair lady. No mention of the kingdom needed. Or your end is saving the kingdom from its blight and thus it is for the sake of the kingdom.

    Third, sometimes you only have 1 final goal and only 1 intermediate goal. However characters, like people, can get more complex quite quickly. Sometimes they will have multiple of those in the same statement. I seek to do X, for the sake of Y and because it causes Z, which fulfills A. But other times they are separate statements, possibly even describing interests that compete for the character's attention & resources.

    In the end, although these statements are very useful, a page of statements is not very useful as a short descriptive label. Perhaps both? Both is good.

  24. - Top - End - #354
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post
    He isn't telling people that they "have to" use it, though. He's entirely rejecting the OP's premise of whether or not inclusion of alignment is a matter of "Need".

    You don't like it, don't use it, but don't pretend your opinion is so vital and universal that it equates to objective fact, and insist that alignment "be removed" from the game.

    It's a part of the game, and always has been. Just like Classes, Hit Points, Armor Class, and any number of other factors. Plenty of people have argued for its merits, but some of the alignment detractors like to ignore that, because they are dismissive of those opinions, but think that theirs are the most important.

    Bottom line, use it or don't. But claiming there's a "need to remove it" is trying to force your personal preference onto others, many of whom have no issues with, or even genuinely like alignment.
    Yes, everything in this thread are opinions. That's self-evident. Nothing I say can affect anyone's game in any way unless I somehow get a job at WotC, start working on 6E (assuming there is one) and remove alignment form the game (probably having to fight every other designer tooth and nail). Otherwise, I just state my strongly-worded opinion and give my reasoning. I saw KorvinStarmast's post as an attempt to dismiss someone's point by appealing to authority. That's about it.
    Last edited by Morty; 2019-05-30 at 01:12 PM.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  25. - Top - End - #355
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post
    And yet you just cut off the most relevant piece of his post which was:

    "The other issue is in the nature of the game itself. It isn't a video game, but is and has always intended to be customizable from table to table. How much of the alignment piece you and your group apply at your table is like how much salza or pepper or gravy you put on your food: a matter of taste."

    The part you quoted was discussing how whether or not D&D "needs" alignment is even a valid question, by pointing out that it is a part of D&D since the very beginning, in some form or another, as much as any other component. What people choose to use is up to them. But at no point is it accurate to say "it never needed it", which is what he was responding to. Because "need" was never why it was included. It is simply a part of it, from the foundation.
    As you say, the part I quoted was about whether the question is even valid... but I wouldn't call it "discussing", I'd call it a outright attempt to quash the question and all the resultant discussion. The part I cut off was pretty much irrelevant to that apparent attempt to quash the question.


    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Yes, everything in this thread are opinions. That's self-evident. Nothing I say can affect anyone's game in any way unless I somehow get a job at WotC, start working on 6E (assuming there is one) and remove alignment form the game (probably having to fight every other designer tooth and nail). Otherwise, I just state my strongly-worded opinion and give my reasoning. I saw KorvinStarmast's post as an attempt to dismiss someone's point by appealing to authority. That's about it.
    For what it's worth, that's how it read to me as well.
    Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2019-05-30 at 01:31 PM.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  26. - Top - End - #356
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RedMage125's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    I'm on a boat!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    As you say, the part I quoted was about whether the question is even valid... but I wouldn't call it "discussing", I'd call it a outright attempt to quash the question and all the resultant discussion. The part I cut off was pretty much irrelevant to that apparent attempt to quash the question.
    One might as well ask "Does D&D even need Armor Class anymore?". Or Classes. Or Drow. Or Beholders. Or any other element of the game that was never predicated on a "need" to begin with, but just is, and has been since inception.

    Whether or not anyone chooses to customize their own game based on their preferences is entirely subjective. But to posit that "it is no longer needed in the game itself" or "it never was" is inherently an illegitimate premise. Alignment wasn't in the game because it was "needed" in the first place. It's just a part of it.

    Call it "an attempt to quash the discussion" if you want. IMO, that's a little like playing the victim, tho. Because he didn't actually say that no one should discuss how much they like or use alignment (or not). Just that even parsing such a discussion as being pertinent to a "need" is bunk.
    Last edited by RedMage125; 2019-05-31 at 04:54 PM.
    Red Mage avatar by Aedilred.

    Where do you fit in? (link fixed)

    RedMage Prestige Class!

    Best advice I've ever heard one DM give another:
    "Remember that it is both a game and a story. If the two conflict, err on the side of cool, your players will thank you for it."

    Second Eternal Foe of the Draconic Lord, battling him across the multiverse in whatever shapes and forms he may take.

  27. - Top - End - #357
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Does D&D Still Need Alignment?

    Quote Originally Posted by patchyman View Post
    IMHO, the 5e personality traits does what alignment is supposed to do, does it better, and has fewer negative effects.

    Personality traits allow new players to get a handle of how their character may differ from them, provides the DM with a couple of adventuring hooks, and since each trait is personal to the character, it tends to avoid both the alignment disputes and (worse in my opinion) players feeling like they have to act a certain way because of their alignment.
    Eh, a motivation for general moral and social attitudes is a personality trait, and it's one uniquely suited to typical D&D games. Many RPGs.

    But yes, instead of Alignment, the personality trait category "Ideal" already does a lot of that heavy lifting. Possibly better, because alignment has baggage.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •