Getting Rid of Alignment? | 5e Dungeons and Dragons | Web DM
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 чер 2024
- As WotC makes small changes and errata to alignment in 5th edition, it's back in the limelight. So So you wanna move away from alignment. How do you do it? Jim tells you how he uses it, what parts he ditched years ago, and updates us on what he thinks since our last alignment video. What do you think?
Get Ptolus by Monte Cook Games: www.montecookgames.com/store/...
See our first alignment video here: • Alignment: Lawful Good...
GET MORE WEB DM! / webdm We've got a bonus podcast that you can get every single week where we go into way more topics! Over 200 episodes available now. Plus ad-free show audio, and discord and live hangouts for select tiers!
For longer form Web DM, check out out podcast, Web DM Talks, available on all podcast apps! linktr.ee/webdm
Want our book? The Weird Wastelands Pre-Order Store is now Open! weird-wastelands.backerkit.co... Backer surveys out now!
#dnd #dungeonsanddragons #ttrpg
Facebook - bit.ly/2oGKLOg
Twitter - / webdmshow
Instagram - web_dm
Written & Hosted by Jim Davis
Produced and Directed by Emma Lambert
Edited by Brandon Fraley
Web DM was created by Travis Boles, Jonathan Pruitt, and Jim Davis
Music by John Branch -branchoutguitar.com
Web DM Theme by Kyle Newmaster - kylenewmaster.com - Ігри
Thanks for watching! Get Ptolus by Monte Cook Games: www.montecookgames.com/store/product/ptolus-monte-cooks-city-by-the-spire/
See our first alignment video here: ua-cam.com/video/uJuqNnuEsWU/v-deo.html
GET MORE WEB DM! www.patreon.com/webdm
This has to be one of the *very few* changes to DnD I actually *agree* with, considering that there's a mythological *basis* for it as well as a real world one; the Abrahamic religions for instance, believe demons, even *Satan* , to be fallen *angels* , which tells us that even though they *tend* towards good, angels *do* in fact have free will and aren't *inherently* good. And in Norse mythology, while some of the Jotnar *are* in fact enemies of the gods, *other* Jotnar are known to *help* them, and even to *hook up* and have *children* with them; even *Thor* , the god who's famous for *slaying* Jotnar, hooked up with a Jotun woman named Jàrnsaxa, who bore him his son Magni. Some Jotnar were even *welcomed* into Àsgardr and became honorary Æsir, like Loki and Skadi. Considering that the Norse creation story makes it clear that the gods are *descended* from the Jotnar, that's not really a surprise. *One* Norse story even tells of a Jotun *hero* named Starkadd. I think that makes it perfectly clear that the Jotnar *too* , have free will and aren't *inherently* evil, which only makes it *infuriating* that most supposed Norse mythology media portrays them as *exactly that* .
That's one of the things I like about 2e Pathfinder; one of its variant rules is simply "no alignment". I actually started working on a TTRPG recently because of Paizo's starting to go woke with the unexplained *removal* of the source of *conflict* that is slavery from 2e Pathfinder, and while certain creatures or people will be described as by and large *acting* in ways that're good or evil/lawful or chaotic, they won't *inherently* be of *any* alignment because alignment won't even *exist* in it.
I like using the Magic the Gathering color pie instead of D&D alignments. It maps surprisingly well to the great wheel and Planescape. It doesn't use words that invoke religious dogma or trigger fights over moral relativism vs moral absolutism. I already use it to replace Ranger's favored enemy and hunters mark.
Best of all no gaming group has ever gotten into a friendship shattering fight over the philosophical differences between being a red black blue aligned denizen of the shard of Grixis and being a red black blue aligned member of the Brazen Coalition.
I've been playing since 1982. I view alignment differently than most. To me, it creates an orb on the alignment graph. For example:
A chaotic neutral character is only chaotic neutral to people that character has no strong feelings about. To someone they like, they will usually act more like chaotic good, and even as far as neutral good if it is someone they love (like keeping promises/schedules,etc). With someone that character dislikes, they will act more chaotic evil, and even neutral evil if they truly hate the person. It gives each alignment a more realistic range of behaviors and allows for conceptual free will.
As much as I miss Pruitt, Jim has been killing it with these solo show!
I haven't checked in with the channel in a little while, where did he go?
@@TheMayorofSpace You can check the transition video from a couple of months back but basically, he was just burnt out and decided to step away from the videos.
Remember when Web DM told us to go read old Pulp fantasy? Well it helps. Just read Three Hearts and Three Lions for the first time and man does alignment make more sense. The same book that gave use regenerating trolls also gave us a world we’re the forces of Chaos and Law were at war. And the characters ask things like, “Do you serve Law?”
I love alignment
The Cosmic struggle and an explanation of the mysterious behaviors of magical creatures
There is definitely some cool stuff there in terms of lore and magic!
yeah same i like to implement alot of Planescape in my dnd campaigns. alignment is importent there
I'd be fine if they removed alignment from player-facing parts of the game, and kept it more behind the scenes, like you say. I definitely don't want to see it go entirely, though.
I think the best compromise is to make alignment a matter of describing how factions interact. Most factions of humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings generally find common interest and would ally if pressed. Most of those same factions would call orcs, drow, and goblins evil, and that would be represented to the players by the alignment chart.
Basically, call it a "relative" alignment chart. You could make different alignment charts for each DnD faction based on their perceptions, but to say the alignment chart is transcendent of the fictional setting itself is silly.
@@monsieurdorgat6864 I don't think that's worth the work. With factions, it's fine to just define their principles and their relationships to any other applicable factions.
@@ogrejehosephatt37 I mean, that's what the alignment chart already is, though. You don't actually have to make alignment charts for each faction, just understand that the one you have is a very generalized one from the perspective of most player race factions.
The point is that, in order to functionally remove it from that player-facing side, you'll need to either remove it entirely or consider it as relative as opposed to transcendent.
@@monsieurdorgat6864 When I say remove it from the player facing side, I mean, you don't fill it out on your character sheet. There are times players can theoretically see the effect of it, like when they die and which plane their soul goes to, but player alignment is something the DM tracks.
@@ogrejehosephatt37 I guess you'd treat it like their "karma", basically? Isn't that the same thing as the normal, but the players just have to ask a cleric or something what their "karma" is?
After all, why track it if it won't affect the game? You still run into the issue of the "morality that transcends the setting" being the DM's morality (be that reasonable or not).
I always ran Alignment as a fluid item that I tracked separately as a DM. Regardless of what players initially choose, their alignment will shift based on their actions while playing.
same!
See, I actually don't like that. I used to think that was good, but now I realize my mistake. A character's alignment is a facet of their personality that should be 100% under their own control. The DM changing your character's alignment would be like the DM telling you that your character now hates elves or something. Given that there's almost zero mechanical effects of alignment, the only likely effect of telling a player that their character is now a different alignment is to piss them off and start an argument.
If you talk to the player and suggest a story arc where their alignment changes, and they're into it, then sure. But don't just keep your book of grudges and one day drop a bomb on a player. That's not being a good DM.
@@NateFinch It's not a matter of grudge, it's a matter of consequence. If you're a Cleric of some Lawful Neutral God of Justice, and you start to do things like, murder groups of goblins for simply being nearby, or because their leader had a shiny magic torque, then you'd hardly qualify as an arbiter of Justice would you.
And the alignment shift is still completely under their control. They control it through their actions. If they're Chaotic Good, then their actions need to reflect that. Doing what is right, even if it means dealing with the devil or letting a lesser evil go.
Meanwhile, if they start demanding more money for jobs and / or tasks, they will begin to slide toward Mercenary Neutrality rather than Good.
@@NateFinch if the DM doesn't modify how NPCs and in game organizations react based on player actions, it's a bad dm. When they talk about separately tracking alignment, they're talking about treating the player as they role play, not as they filled out a sheet before the game started. They may have a lawful good backstory, but it's obviously not what determines their actual alignment throughout campaigns. If they slaughter NPCs over minor grievances, they're not good and they're not lawful.
@Dusty Lee Sledge lol that isn’t how people play dnd, if they want to murderhobo as a lg paladin they can gtfo. I’m not gonna make rules to accommodate idiots
I've heard about these alignment arguments happening but I have never encountered them. Which I can only assume is because I only ever playing D&D with friends in my immediate circles, because I have certainly encountered morality arguments around the Humanity system at World of Darkness larps before. Get a group of folk together who do not share a common perspective on a topic and there are going to be debates, arguments, disagreements.
That said... I think the fault does sometimes land on the DM. The 1st Edition DMG does explain that a DM should hammer out and explain the various alignments when they are worldbuilding, so that the players are all on the same page: Law and Chaos do not have to mean the same thing between different campaign worlds, neither do Good and Evil, but the DM needs to be able to explain how they work in their world and the players need to be willing to buy in to that explanation. Likewise, the writers over at WotC should maybe give it more ink than they have done in the past: each edition of the game has seen less and less word count committed to explaining the alignment system despite its thematic importance remaining pretty much unchanged.
People do not understand the system because the system has put less and less effort into explaining it with each new edition (and each new generation of players).
Personally, I love the alignment system in Dungeons & Dragons. It is a credible mechanic for developing characters and a great shorthand for communicating expectations between the players and the DM with regard to their characters. Cosmic alignment is a great tool for embedding cosmic conflicts into a world.
But as a marginalized person, out as queer back in 1994 and transitioning back in 2003, the argument that alignment somehow echoes systems of oppression is... I can see where it comes from but (1) it feels like part of the emergence of respectability politics in gaming because it attributes greater weight than the topic is due and (2) it misses the point: tables can and should be defining these terms for their games.
Work it out and have fun.
The evil aligned races were based on real life marginalized groups and their eradication were encouraged/supported based on immutable characteristics. The easiest example are orcs being based on black ppl and are inherently unkempt violent savages.
The changes weren't just about alignment, but they're often shorthanded to alignment.
You are fortunate for not coming across them. Dig into the comments section of a DnD lore UA-cam video and you'll find them.
As Jim put it here, a LOT of people used alignment proscriptively as a means to justify sketchy behavior. I've had to argue with people about how "X is evil" doesn't mean that infanticide or genocide is ever good. Call it neutral, at best - but damn.
@@monsieurdorgat6864 it would have to be neutral as evil is objective in D&D lore. Like, genociding zombies in the system is objectively good.
I know I'm being one of those people, but the thought exercise was fun!
@@anthonynorman7545 It's sort of sad because you're right, but to some degree a fantasy world is a great place for philosophical discussion.
So, moving with the fact that humans differ way more within a race than between races, and that there aren't racial differences in important physical characteristics - what if, in this fantasy world, there was a humanoid species that was genuinely less mentally capable than most other humanoids?
People will justify horrific industrialized slaughter practices on animals because they're dumb, but we wouldn't (in this age) do that to mentally disabled humans! Perhaps Orcs live savage, nomadic lifestyles because they would never succeed at the game of civilization. They're not evil - they're just not so stupid as to think that they wouldn't be enslaved directly or indirectly via peaceful relations with the "civilized" peoples.
It's interesting discussions like that you miss out on when you make alignment proscriptive instead of relative and descriptive.
@@monsieurdorgat6864 I'm vegetarian working towards veganism because you're correct in regards to our treatment of animals and intellectually disabled humans.
All of my favorite depictions of orcs and goblins have a similar approach. The races a generally evil because they're more inclined towards "violence" than "peace." It also doesn't help that people don't know the difference between chaotic and evil.
Something I don't often see in these discussions of alignment is the existential sense on the individual identity level. That is, there's a consequence for breaking alignment over and beyond the consequences due to the action itself.
If a CE person murders a shopkeep in an otherwise lawful and good community, they'll wake up the next day with a bounty on their head. If a LG person does the same then not only will they have a similar bounty, but they'll have had a restless sleep filled with nightmares, they'll have crushing shame and doubt, and the gods themselves might even point the finger. Similarly, if the CE donates some excess coin to the local orphanage they'll be troubled in mind and heart.
D&D can be played without that existential alignment identity of course. Most games quite possibly do, given the cosmological implications of alignment have been so watered down over the editions.
With those examples though, would a character who murders a shopkeep truly be LG? Would a character who donates their coin to an orphanage be CE? There's always exceptions or circumstances that may change those answers, but in a world where your alignment can literally determine where you can end up in the afterlife, would the universe ultimately care about how you felt about your actions? You can say you're LG until the cows come home, but if you aren't acting that way you aren't LG.
@@oneeye589 Having a particular alignment is the culmination of all previous behaviour, and in no way restricts future behaviour. A Good person that knowingly commits evil will likely have their alignment drift to match. The examples provided work from the assumption that they are the stated alignments but then acted contrary for some reason. Alignment is not the only driver of behaviour, after all. The LG person could well have a Flaw of letting anger get the better of them, and fell to temptation.
Your eventual alignment would conventionally determine where you end up going. It's your eventual alignment that drives that, not how you felt about it. Whether you have any mental anguish as you change though, and if that has any mechanical effect in the game (e.g. losing a level of XP if alignment fully changed) ... that's the consequence of _changing_ alignment (as distinct from having a _changed_ alignment, if you follow).
@@EricScheid Exactly my point. It's not the alignment that caused the existential and emotional problems, it's the actions. My character can be a LE character by action since I started playing them, but still have the emotional burden of doing things that a LE would generally do.
@@oneeye589 More precisely, my point is that it is the actions-contrary-to-alignment that causes distress.
People have a relatively biased notion of what "fee will" is. It doesn't mean you get to be whoever or whatever you want. Any individual is still guided, if not outright controlled, by the socio-cultural control systems that are in place around them. In D&D, that includes different sentient races who have their own socio-cultural idiosyncrasies. On top of that, in many cases, you have the influence of Evil Gods imprinting their values on those fantasy cultures. You can't have a character break from that imprinted "mold" if you begin to dissolve the baseline characteristics of what it means to be an member of that society.
The stricter that societies rules & codes of conduct are, the less likely it will be for any individual to exhibit the traits that would allow them to realize anything is wrong, much less react to it. To remove the inherent evil of the Drow, for example, is to downplay the struggle & redemption of Drizzt. He might as well of taken a train out of Los Angeles. It also weakens the narrative of Lloth as an evil controlling goddess, and the generational conditioning she has levied against her people. Same of the Orcs & Gruumsh.
A player character can be who they want; nine times out of ten, if they're playing a monstrous race they have a different god (and a different alignment) that that of the people they grew up with. That's what set them on the path to adventuring to begin with. Without that Being vs Culture struggle, a monstrous race is just a human reskin.
Amen! Nailed it man! I hate how the reskinning movement is destroying decades of lore! The lore adds so much to the story and the table!
It needs to be said as well that while freewill doesn't *really* exist (your actions are either wholly undetermined and thus random, or are determined and thus not free), in D&D which is a realm of magic and contradictions, it basically means your character is capable of changing their nature and acting independently.
That is why a PC of a humanoid race is especially untied to their alignment. Your PC isn't a robot. If you want to play a monsterous race from a setting, in a setting, where they were created evil and without freewill, it's a great opportunity to talk to your DM about *how* your PC is different and *why* they are, and integrate that PC into the narrative just like you would any other.
@@AnaseSkyrider Yes, absolutely. It's an opportunity to explore Pathos; to add depth not just to the character, but to the overall narrative as well.
I love your candor and honesty. Listening to Uncle Jim’s thoughts on TTRPGs is awesome.
I got into a few exchanges about this and the point I made was "Human societies across the various worlds can vary wildly in their outlooks and no one bats an eye (the Zhentarim and rulers of Zhentil Keep come to mind), but have an Orc clan that isn't a marauding pack of raiders and lives in harmony with their surroundings and everyone loses their minds." If human society isn't a monolith in D&D then none of the sentient species would be. That doesn't take away societal pressures, including outside influences, but it brings it more into how someone was brought up, as opposed to predetermined tendencies.
Yea except Orcs were created by Grummish, a very evil god; hence
They can't canonize a viewpoint in their games because every table is different. Instead of saying "All peoples can be all things" they could have said nothing at all. Because if at someone's table they choose to have all Orcs irredeemably evil....nothing bad happens. They don't go to jail or have WoTC knocking on their door.
They're losing their minds because you're pointing out why there's no reason to have different races in a fantasy setting in the first place. If anyone can be anything then everyone ends up being just a variety of a funny looking human in practice, because there's no functional difference between a dwarf and a grumpy human, an elf and an aloof human, or an orc an a violent human except the distribution of their stat bonuses and whether they have darkvision or not.
Except literally not true.
Not only were there orc subraces (speaking FR due to 5es default setting) that werent 99.99% chaotic evil, but they were quite popular exactly because of the clash. Hell one main Imaskar adventure lines in 3.5 had a optional side quest noting for orc players to delve into how they feel about the revelation that the group not being evil was very likely due to being mind raped by a goddess into repressing the urge to ravage, rape and repress. Actually 2 goddesses did that (one with mind rape, other with flower-drug-power), but thats beside the point.
I have three big gripes with alignment.
1. When players use alignment as a substitute for their character's personality. "I free the hungry bears in the town plaza because I'm chaotic neutral" doesn't really say something about your character's personality, "I free the hungry bears because I can't stand to see a living creature in a cage, but I'm a bit short-sighted and doesn't realize it can hurt the people in the town" does.
2. It's so subjective! In our campaign we have a ranger with the folk hero background who is adventuring to protect his home village from the threats surrounding it. Some of these threats are humanoid, and the ranger is very suspicious around monstrous humanoids. So is he lawful good since he's trying to protect his people and civilization, or lawful neutral since he's a jerk toward monstrous humanoids? Neutral good? Or chaotic neutral, since he once derailed a diplomatic encounter between orcs and humans? Could he even be considered evil, since he couldn't look past his own preconceived notions about orcs, and destroyed the chance of peace between two peoples?
These are complex questions, and you could argue that the character's alignment could be anything between lawful good to chaotic neutral, so the alignment loses its meaning.
3. Saying that an entire race of humanoids are evil feels... bad.
I’m not crazy about locking PCs (and *most* NPCs) into their alignment for many of the same reasons mentioned. What I do like, however, is assigning a faction or organization an alignment. There will be outliers in it, but it describes their general role in and view of the world around them. City guard? Lawful neutral. Some will be evil, some will be good, but none of them will be chaotic, if only because they wouldn’t be allowed in. I like alignment as a guide rather than railroad tracks
Best way to do things. I like to tell my players that alignment is a relative and descriptive term - that good and evil is defined through the perceptions of the typical player races.
But why your player's race might find something else evil is a complex thing, and the people you might call evil would have good reason not to think of themselves as evil. Alignment for me defines how factions interact, but isn't a wholistic gauge for their actions or motivations.
I'm willing to put in the work to get as far away from "I am Evil McEvil man who serves the evil god with evil deeds for the cause of evil because I like all things evil!"
That is an incredibly reductive way of looking at alignment.
@@kdolo1887 reductive in what sense? You gonna come in here and literally define morality for the human race? You gonna do what humans haven't successfully done in the entirety of human history, right here in this comment's section?
I like to use Magic's The Gatherings Color Wheel for Alignment. It's simple because its 5 (6 if you include colorless) colors that define you character, but complex because you can combine those 5 colors in 31 different combinations. Each color has a set values attributed to them, none of which are "good" or "evil". They just are.
“You don’t need anyone to tell you what to do with the rules of D&D” - that my friends is an impactful statement from a very thoughtful hobbyist. Take heed.
Alignment is only as important as your setting makes it. I use alignment as the essential factions that drive conflict, but focus on the Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic axis. All magic falls into one of those 3 alignments. Items frequently are aligned having been created to support one faction in the struggle for dominance. My interest in running the game is about alignment. Without it, I might as well play RuneQuest, Pendragon, Cthulhu or Traveller. Those games are not about alignment, but have their own factions and source of conflict. Conflict makes the game interesting and factions drive conflict. Run the game you want to run. I prefer to run D&D using my version of alignment and I don't mind discussing and explaining what constitutes Law, Neutrality and Chaos with players so we are all on the same page.
agreed. its part of d&d's identity as a game and id rather not throw it away and all the interesting aspects it brings with it, otherwise id just play a different game
I personally don't want to get rid of alignment. Tt's such a feature of the system that helps define it from others, is a traditional conversation point, and allows players and DM's a shorthand for characterization. If a player does something and as a result their DM or they indicate a change in alignment, this represents something significant for the character beyond xp and loot.
I think that "Personality Traits", "Flaws" and "Bonds" are all better things for DM's to do things to than alignment. They're more specific, easier to RP, and don't come with all the extra baggage of every person's individual interpretation of "good/evil/law/chaos".
@@monsieurdorgat6864 agreed. In the real world, I can’t reconcile “good” and “killing”-it might sometimes be necessary, but it’s the very definition of a necessary evil in those situations. So I have trouble even in a fantasy world with the idea that the PCs can spend their lives slaughtering sentient beings and are uncritically labeled as “Good”, even to the point of being recognized as such by the supernatural forces that rule the universe.
@@natbarmore There is a different kind of narrative to explore there that could be interesting that deals with old ideas like Predestination, but that's not how it's written, in large part because it would be depressing AF for most people.
It's just jarring to hear people try to reconcile old puritan ideas of morality with modern ones. It doesn't work.
There are some groups that like the the alignment system and there are some groups that ignore it entirely.
I don’t see a problem with either of these senarios - let groups play the way the want to play. But, when the WoTC removes the alignment system from digitally purchased books (post purchase), they are forcing one of these groups to play a certain way, or seek out the secondhand market for the physical books that still contain alignment.
I think it’s reasonable for groups that use alignment to feel ripped off.
They're really not forcing you to do anything. You can choose between using old books and keep with your personal favorite interpretation, or you can be loyal to the new books.
You're conflating loyalty to the books with loyalty to a specific interpretation of alignment, and you seem very confused when now being loyal to the newest book would mean changing your ideas about alignment.
@@monsieurdorgat6864 No. I'm saying that players who have ONLY purchased the books digitally, and who prefer the alignment system, no longer have a choice but to purchase the content again as a physical copy in the secondhand market. Why should such players be forced to pay for the same content twice?
@@Michael_1138 So you preferred the way the book used to be, and can't remember how you very passionately preferred it to be?
Because if you were fine with the changes, or just remembered what you preferred, you wouldn't need to buy a secondhand copy.
You still seem so very confused lol
@@monsieurdorgat6864 With respect, you're the one that's confused. I haven't told you what I prefer about alignment; you're projecting or inferring and you’re doing it poorly. Second,, the Monster Manual is 350 pages. Each monster in it has had their alignment removed. Do you REALLY expect someone memorize the alignment of the 100s of monsters available in D&D? This is not to mention all of the monsters introduced by Volo’s and Mordenkainen’s.
I’m beginning to think you’re only here to pick a fight, and frankly, I’m disinterested. You can have the last word.
@@Michael_1138 I like how the artwork has improved over the years, but I still prefer the monster manual lay in AD&D then what came afterwards. Another problem I had with 3rdE, there was a contest for artwork for 3rdE monster manual and amaze I had some of my pictures put into the book and a few Dragon magazines. The issue was, I did my artwork in the style of woodcut block prints along the lines of their current MM. Other than my basic outline they changed everything, good news I got a year free subscription of Dragon and Dungeon magazines .. but .. I still felt cheated cause my art was alter. So I have issue with both TSR and WotC, ...
I like alignment as a tool to help guide character creation and role-playing. It can help people from playing the same personality in every game.
Sad thing I found over the years in rpg, sooner or late players start playing their real personalities and they show what real d1cks they can be.
Some other people in some prolong games where they are meant to role play lawful evil or neutral evil PCs partaking in the soul stone trade and Blood War. Go around befriending devils and night hags and helping them out cause it is just the right thing to do, and not currying favors.
Thanks for the video - a very interesting perspective.
Makes me want to run a D&D game where the alignment system breaks down in-game i.e. something changes at a cosmological level and the poor PCs (and everyone else) find themselves having to deal with the consequences as all the "detect alignment" powers suddenly return glitchy static, contacted souls start complaining that they're clearly in the wrong afterlife, celestials figure out that there's no consequence if they start sinning and saintly paragons emerge from the ranks of the fiends...
Want a fun idea for that?
Why do gods hoard positive energy to themselves and their lackeys, while any starting wizard or warlock gets handed negative energy like it's candy? Does Mystra's Weave structure magic, or limit the infinite possibilities of Chaos to the sole control of the primal gods? Didn't the "good" gods sign the Pact Primeval, willingly condemning mortals for all time to fight in the Blood War? They're not so stupid as to be tricked by a lowly angel, right? Sounds more like they *assigned* Asmodeus to enslave half their enemies.
Ok, I love this idea. Mind if I steal it?
Ps: I have had this same sort of idea before. Basically in my worlds "good" and "evil" are only ever defined by fallible in world entities. For example there was one campaign that wrote "on the alignment of species" (basically the monster manual without specific stats). He is the one who defined that chromatic dragons are bad and metallic dragons (his offspring) are good.
Similarly, the disks (pseudo gods) in ciscove aren't even really their own entities although they are slowly developing their own will based on their followers. Originally they were only placed there as anchors to contain that kraken.
@@solsystem1342 Steal away! As always, the idea is the easy part :)
I do like the alignment system, I remember a game not too long ago, Neutral Good Redemption Paladin killed a guy who took a hostage and was trying to barter his way to freedom.
Which staggered us, we all knew his class and alignment, when people finally asked him about it later on he in character gave the best performance I've seen in a long time.
"I've done time in a prison cell, Mark. My commander will tell you, I wasn't always a man of faith, I did some pretty terrible things with my life before I had a chance to fix them.
I spent years, trying to make right what I had made wrong. Some people were willing to accept it, and some weren't, and I don't begrudge them, these are people I hurt, they have every right.
I'm not telling you guys this for some sort of sympathy, I want you all to know that I intimately understand what it takes for a person to change, it takes being at your lowest, hitting rock bottom.
Karstin (bandit leader) hit rock bottom, his best guys were down or dead, and in that moment all he could think about doing was finding a way to avoid paying for his mistakes.
He wasn't interested in making anything right, or fixing anything he just wanted a way out, so I gave him a way out.
Redemption is my sacred mission but I don't make that decision, if someone doesn't seek redemption then they won't find it, as angry as that makes me sometimes that is my oath.
I'll tell you what I'm not mad about, that sunset, because every time I see a sunset like that I'll remember today, when we got 17 men, women and children back to their families.
The day when we helped 17 people, it wasn't easy, it wasn't fun, some of us nearly died a few times, but it was a decent thing to do, and I have all of you to thank for that, cheers to being decent."
because you memorized a multiparagraph speech a player gave 1 time? seems like bull
@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305 could have been a PBP game so they just copied it directly with minor tweaks. Could also have been transcribed shortly after it was fresh.
Simple solution: in place of Alignment, write your character's Allegiance. Maybe it is to themselves, or to their country, or to a high ideal, or a deity, etc. You can keep the alignment of various planar creatures - the alignment of a god or one of their servants is that god's domain, etc. This also helps bring up the "What kind of game will this be?" conversation during character creation. Another solution I've used is to redefine the alignment axes based on the main themes of a given setting, but that takes more work.
In some Planescape book it was phrased somewhat like this:
good = altruism to the point where it harms one self
evil = egoism to the point where it harms others
lawful = adhearing to a system
chaotic = rejecting systems
In reality I often observe people living (mostly) by at least one of these (sure, sometimes exibiting behaviour exeptional to it (again: mostly)).
I also have the impression that some people don't understand alignement. It seams to me, that the Idea "I choose an alignment and that than straps my character down" exists.
But it's the other way around, you choose an personality for your character and that then IS an alignment, if you like it or not.
Many species are good/evil because they where magicaly created by a god that is that alignement or where later magicaly altered, so I see inherant alignment absolutly plausible.
These are genuine questions btw I'm just curious just incase the tone doesn't come across in my writing.
What does it mean for an entire race of people to be good? Do they ever commit crimes? What about the needy? What if they are raised in a different society? Are they innately good and if so what is required to break that inherent good and make them do something evil?
I find it much more interesting if I say something like "This ancient gold dragon says that all chromatic dragons are evil" or "Dawn (kinda a god/realm of light in my setting) says demons and Vesper (sort of a fire realm) are chaotic and evil.
Although I do deploy 'objective evil' to some degree like the BBEG of my last campain (Grace) was using her children as army of psychics (since she was an elf) to try and take over the city, she made her money off the backs of miners and weavers of adamantine (which is a bit like asbestos in health concerns), and she risked unleashing the kraken (most powerful god etc, etc) in order to gain power.
Whatever floats your goat though. This is just my style.
@@solsystem1342 I feel like for races to have alignments the alignment tag needs more descriptors. IIRC, 3.5e went some of the way with "usually/always" - ie: Ogres are usually CE while Demons are always CE, but I feel like there needs to be more adjustable sliders there as it were. Something like "Typically/Usually/Always" and "Mildly/Moderately/Strongly" for each aspect of the alignment (though figuring out how to make this fit in a stat block would take some effort). The "Always" and "Strongly" categories would be reserved for individuals, specific roles and planar creatures. Maybe also throw in a "biological/divine/societal" aspect as well (an Illithid is biologically evil, their reproductive cycle require eating the brain of sentient creatures, an Illithid raised by good humans will almost certainly still be evil; Orcs are divinely evil, they were made to smash because their creator god was angry, an Orc raised by good humans will typically be good; Drow are societally evil, they live in a strict caste-based, slave-taking, female supremacist, theocracy, a Drow raised by good humans will almost certainly be good).
For some examples, I'd go with:
- Demons - Chaotic (Always Strongly) Evil (Always Strongly)
- Drow - Chaotic (Typically Mildly) Evil (Usually Moderately)
- Drow Priestess - Chaotic (Always Moderately) Evil (Always Strongly) - you can't get to this point in Drow society without being CE so it feels reasonable to have the "Always" tag here
- Gold Dragon - Lawful (Usually Moderately) Good (Usually Mildly) - most of their good comes from opposing evil but their unrelatable dragon-morality can lead them to dismissing 'lesser creatures' or becoming tyrants, hence the "Mild" good alignment.
There is some arbitrariness and 'word of god' when it comes to alignment, but when the gods are provably extant and imperfect I think that's fine. If you have issues with some things being considered good or evil then there are gods you can theoretically take this up with.
I think Pathfinder 1e handles some of this really well:
The Qlippoth (pre-demon Abyss dwellers) argue that they're the true Chaotic and the alignment wheel is shifted because the Lawful gods declared themselves Good thus declaring that pure Chaos was actually Evil. You can sort of see their argument - Devils would represent pure evil because pure evil requires control over others; Demons would still be chaotic evil because they were the product of the (current) neutral evil outsiders; the current chaotic outsiders would be CG because the creativity they represent is innately good and the current bunch of lawful outsiders are actually LE because their ideal universe would eliminate free will.
There's also a lot of disagreement between gods. The main neutral good deity (she got there by stabbing a big bug, her power is unquestionable but morally she might be unfit for the job) is pretty indifferent to slavery and a lot of other good (and particularly chaotic good) deities take major issues with this. One of the chaotic good elven gods doesn't give a toss about non-elves.
Then there's the Outer Gods who fit all over the place on the alignment wheel but the nature of their conflict(?) with the primary true neutral god indicates that there's a whole other axis to alignment that most of the universe doesn't comprehend.
It's clear that alignment isn't quite the solved science it claims to be.
I agree with you, people have a problem roleplaying not understanding they are not the character and certain races will have a pre-disposition to a alignment because that was how they were created. They also are not humans and have their own values and morals. People seem to want to treat non humans as humans.
@@aurtosebaelheim5942 ok, that makes sense it just frustrates me when people attach a culture (like the drow society) to a race and go "see they're all evil" and it's just like that's not how people work. Anyways yea, thanks for explaining I think I get it now.
Again, we get into the question of What is a Man?/Can you ever step into the same river twice?
I think that the alignment system, rather than being a descriptor of someone's current or inherent tie to these ideas and therefore WILDLY in flux with some people, it's better used as a scale of accumulated Ideology Points that snags you an afterlife or ability to hold a magic sword, or magic powers.
But that is, again, a cosmic scale question for players who will rarely if ever be able to answer it in a way that is mechanically or narratively satisfying.
It can be used, I have used it before and I will again, but not in every game and not without continually doing work to deconstruct the christian and colonial 'morality' I was raised in, to make sure I make cool stories about orcs and not racist french propaganda posters with elf ears scribbled on.
I always used alignment as guidelines for the typical societies I would find for certain races. Dwarves are very orderly, very focused on creation, metallurgy, mining, and smithing. Their society resembles that of a Lawful one.
This is not an end all be all perspective, as this gives other players I have played with and DMed for a baseline for their character.
Of course, races are not locked to an alignment, but I can definitely attribute alignments to their society as a whole, and be happy.
WOTC needs to be careful with all the editing and changing they are doing. I am worried about how far this will go, and I think that it is a given that people will play the game how they want, with their own flavours.
I completely agree with your point regarding alignment as an overarching guideline to societies, with possible exceptions. I am disappointed with what WOTC have announced regarding alignment and also am concerned about the future direction of D&D.
Why do all dwarves have the same society though? It doesn't make any sense imo.
@@solsystem1342 "I always used alignment as guidelines for the typical societies I would find for certain races." Typical, not always or all.
@@siege1289 why do races have a typical society then?
@@siege1289 also, why do races have their own society? If dnd worlds are ancient surely all types of peoples would have spread out everywhere.
It really depends on where you draw the line between people and monsters. Jim seems to indicate that there are clearly good and evil creatures (dragons, fiends) but that you can't be sure when you look at another person, which could be any "humanoid". I don't agree with that, elves aren't in the same league as gnolls when it comes to how strong their default alignment is. I consider a fair amount of humanoids evil and removing the alignment on them isn't going to change my mind.
then why are you whinging on about it?
@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305 lol some people just like to read their own posts
The issue for me is that you could do this already so why put it in an errata? Just like you said they're creating a new "default" But they're giving no reason for it. They could have made an awesome campaign book explaining the change. They could have waited to put it in the new 5.5 version. They also didn't explicitly say alignment doesn't exist. Then downplayed another piece of material they have in Volo's guide.
Like it or not wizards of the Coast is trying to create a very specific setting/brand. We saw it with their dragon origins of creation. So they are consciously reshaping the history and lore and default setting of dungeons & dragons.
I have quite a few issues with the errata.
One is the doubling down on the dumb idea that every single game is meant to exist in some infinite multiverse that may or may not be traversable; every setting, every campaign, every one-shot. Thus, they had to make *another* revision to the lore of the drow and downgrade Lolth from "the originator and corruptor of the Drow in the FR" to "a cult leader" that somehow relates entirely unrelated drow from across this multiverse? It's a confusing clusterfuck and makes what little I knew about Lolth and the drow even more banal.
The Volo's changes were also completely unnecessary. Adding a stipulation that this is a book of Volo's opinions in a FR setting that you should use as inspiration and then removing the inspirational opinions is a chess move I'm not even sure has an integer-number of dimensions.
I don't buy the excuse that players and DMs felt too uncomfortable homebrewing as a reason to remove lore info, either. If players would have read the fucking PHB, it tells you unambiguously that your PC has freewill and doesn't need to follow the alignments of their race (which are explained as an average). The book tells you it's a useful tool for considering why your PC might be different, AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. EDIT: And if virtually every chapter of the PHB and DMG giving you variant rules, optional rules, and reminders to "homebrew and rule things at your table :)" somehow still fucking aren't enough, I don't know what to tell you.
I can somewhat understand making the core rules more setting-neutral, but adding retcons and removing useful information just because it's exclusive to the forgotten realms is the stupidest fucking way to do that. I don't want 5e/5.5e/6e to continue the horror stories I heard of 3.5 introducing something new with next to no info just to be able to twist people's arms for more money on more supplements.
^Except they're already doing that. The Owlin race is so devoid of lore info, reading it basically boils down to "It looks like an owlman. Figure it out." Like, motherfucker, the last thing I want to know as someone learning to DM is that an unnecessary amount of extra work is being put on me to create YOUR lore FOR YOU.
I mean, I already have issues with reading thanks to good ol' ADHD so I'd probably end up not wanting to read massive lore dumps anyway, but if I *weren't* massively incompetent, it'd be a massive insult.
@@AnaseSkyrider two things: defaults rule the world, and stuffing the core, nominally-setting-neutral, books full of Forgotten Realms-specific stuff is not a value-neutral choice.
Yeah, you’d think that people would understand that you can change anything if you want to, but no matter how many times you tell them, the vast majority of people will just go with the defaults unless they are /really/ negative for them /and/ they’re easy to change. That applies as much to RPGs as to everything else. If the default is not to enroll in a retirement savings plan, around 20% of people will enroll; if the default is to enroll everyone, around 95% will enroll, meaning that 5% weren’t enrolling because they didn’t want to, and 75% weren’t enrolled only because they never bothered to change the default. And that’s when the only effort required is literally to check a box while completing new-hire paperwork. Now think about the effort required to, say, strip out all the rules that touch on alignment if it’s the standard built into the game.
As for Forgotten Realms content: imagine that the rules instead baked in a whole bunch of Dark Sun or Iron Kingdoms lore that, sure, you could just ignore or change, but it was still there in a lot of the default options? Because while FR might be a selling point for you, it’s not for everyone. There’s very little that they can put on the cover of an official D&D book that’ll drive me away faster than “Forgotten Realms”, and if I discover a lot of the content of a book is specific to the Realms, that is gonna make me think hard about buying it, because I’m going to have to figure out whether it’s still useful to me without having to a do a bunch of work (at which point, maybe just doing it myself from scratch is easier?), or is the content /too/ tied to assumptions about the setting that don’t fit how I want to play D&D?
so what if they are? whats your actual problem?
I use alignment for monsters and NPC's in my game, as it is a very useful DM-shorthand for how I should play them. My players can change their alignment every second for all I care, because it'll literally only matter if they die and I want to figure out what afterlife they emerge in.
I've gotta say, I've been watching Web DM for years -- this is easily my favorite video y'all have ever put out. I've never been a fan of alignment, for mostly the reasons you mentioned. I appreciate the angle you came at this. So often I see people arguing "canonical" reasons why alignment is a good thing, and so often ignoring the out of game detriment it brings.
Those last 10 minutes were wonderful and beautiful.
Love this take
Awesome discussion as always, been on a bit of a DnD vacation but ready to step back into dming again and this video perfectly encapsulates my feeling on the nuanced topic of alignment, keep up the good work folks! 👍
Beautiful stuff. Love your view of the cosmology.
This is a great topic that I could listen to Jim talk about forever. ❤
The most troubling thing to me about all this is WotC changing digital books you've already bought and the older version is gone. Paying full price for something, owning it and then it just changes one day and can never be recovered is the lamest of the lame.
Unless you're happy with the changes, in which case paying full price for something that then gets updated for everyone else later but not for you because you bought the physical book is the lame thing.
Either way, it's a trade-off
@@VinStJohn you should have the option to see revisions
Wotc doesnt sell digital book. you are probably talking about company paying a licences and implementing the change. it up to dnd beyond propriety of fandom to offer versionning for the material they rent. same for roll20, fantasy ground etc
@@yangg2343 Correct, they don't sell the digital books, but they do control the licensing agreements that the digital content providers must adhere to. Its not as if WotC is powerless to stop them from making removals if they realized "hey, customers might be upset with us removing content they already paid for. DnDBeyond, hold off on implementing the removals until you have a versioning system or some other way to let people access the removed sections".
Of course we don't know the details of those agreements but there's likely some sort of provision for updating the content to match changes WotC makes. The fact WotC went forward with the changes and had the digital content providers make the change without any public mention of versioning suggests WotC either doesn't want previous versions to be available, or they don't care about making those previous versions available. Likely the latter.
And sure, its not like they strictly speaking have to. The fact the books can change is part and parcel with "buying" content digitally (although it does bring up the question of customer rights with respect to licensed digital content). But if they did it would have been some goodwill towards their customers. And the fact they didn't suggests they might do other such sweeping removals in the future, which will now factor into the decision for customers to buy content digitally in the future.
Yarr harr fiddle dee dee is the best option there. The real bitch move was when WOTC even removed the 1st and 2nd errata articles that stated it are optional/changes that arent just RAI explanations officially dont need to be applied to any table (even AL).
I've always run what is more akin to a "reputation" system in my worlds.
You either have a good reputation or a bad one, and depending on which groups hold you in what regard, that kind of sets up different hooks for the character in the story.
When it comes to what different gods might think of you. God's in my worlds are simultaneously much more powerful and much less impactful than the average DnD official lore adventure.
My gods are more like primary motivating forces, metaphors, and conduit archetypes.
Their power is absolute and uncorruptible because it is in some sense whatever it needs to be to make that aspect of conscious creatures function.
My true gods are unattainable and unchanging (usually).
As for alignment and magic items, I don't tend to bother. I don't find gatekeeping with some weird subjective score to be that important. God's don't make magic items, magical people and magical creatures do.
I've had sentient items before, and they will either work with or against a character based on what the character shows them in real time, not some hidden score.
I actually do the opposite for gods, because ideas and logic are infinitely flexible and corruptible. Gods of ideas are really just powerful individuals who champion specific causes, but certainly don't define them - and they have all the flaws that people do, just upgraded to deific power. This is nice, because they don't have to be narratively omniscient or consistent, and they're easier to include.
So alignment for me is a descriptive "side" to a larger conflict. Humans, elves, dwarves, and gnomes typically ally with similar interests, and thus in their own minds define anything opposed to their interests as evil - including gods. Peoples will worship gods that actively work and assist their interests, giving them both power.
Fantastic video, this is one of the most interesting questions in DnD.
these videos are the highlight of my week
I. Think your speech at the end was spot on! I'd like the video twice if I could
This is the best take I’ve heard on the matter. Great video
This is a great discussion. Has a great perspective, is calmly presented, and has a view of nuance.
This got unexpectedly deep and I'm not complaining.
I like alignment to be there as a guideline for players. I never have expected them to act on it, but it is a very useful tool that can help with the roleplay. Like that paladin or priest who is loyal to their faith. I personally love it when they factor it in. However If that paladin or priest strays to far from their "faith" there could be some interesting roleplay elements heading their way. Going against the church is never a good thing historically. But yeah, beyond that, alignment is never really used on my end. Some of my players have made some interesting decisions because of it when they really try to stick to it. Good times. I dont think it needs to be removed, just used as an option if one wants to use it. It can be a powerful part of the game, if that is the type of game your group likes to play. I personally have never had a player been upset about their choice of alignment, or any frowns about it. I would hate to see it removed. I think that there are just as many who like to use it from a roleplay standpoint then there are who dont.
I agree completely with the statement that if you want your character to be good, or bad, then you have to choose that type of action. That's true for a majority of what the character is gonna be. I stopped writing descriptions of character sheets, waiting until the 5th session or later to see where the character landed.
In my games Alignment is not a RP tool, but a punishment and reward system for the afterlife. everyone starts out neutral in session 0 changes are made based on their background story's and I made changes to their alignments based on the players actions as the campaign advances. *"IF"* we get to the levels needed for visiting the outer plains I like to have cameos from characters from previous campaigns and even the current ones if one of the players lost a character during the campaign.
I disagree co soder a viking god. They belive that if yiu can take something it rightfully belongs to you. Are they evil? Should those who follow them end up on the lower planes?
@@DaDunge It depends on what they did while taking the item in question. did they kill one guy, or did they kill the whole village. was it just worth gold, or did the object have emotional value to its original owner. I assign "Tics" to a home brew alignment chart that only I see. when a number of ticks go over the line, the alignment changes. And I determine the amount of ticks the action gets by the severity of the action and its effect on the campaign world. I DO NOT tell the players of this change of alignment, they have to find out themselves over the course of the campaign. things like the detect good/evil spell might cause someone who was a murder hobo most of the campaign or a classic paladin do gooder to light up with the spell, maby the players find a magic item and discover that they cant attune to it for some reason. that kind of thing. HOWEVER upon their characters Death, I do describe to them the fate of that characters soul. nothing funner then describing how the Murder hobo's soul, who killed countless innocent NPC's just to take their gold, gets compressed with other similarly evil peoples souls and minted into a new Soul coin that the Devils of the 9 hells use for money.
Standing ovation. Well said sir.
As a Planescape fan who is very attached to the Great Wheel cosmology, I don't want alignment to be fully discarded. It can probably be reasonably played down for aspects of the game that don't directly tie into the Outer Planes and their native denizens (i.e. outsiders), though.
Yes! A Planescape enjoyer in the wilds! High five!
@@Paul-tl4cn We DO exist! *High fives back*
Honestly, you can map 95% of the great wheel and Planescape to the Magic the Gathering color pie and it works just as well or better than the D&D alignment system. The Dice Try channel has a really good video on adapting the color pie to replace alignment.
@@CitanulsPumpkin All fine and good if you have an interest in the MtG mana color system. Unfortunately, I do not.
@@CitanulsPumpkin why tf would anyone ever want to do that lmfao
Not sure if this was your objective, Jim, but you gave me the idea of running a campaign where all characters start post-mortal life. They've just showed up at the gates to enter one of the outer planes and are given tasks. Seems like it could be some fun RP moments at least for a handful of sessions.
That would be fun! We've done some post-life campaigns
Cosmology demand using the alignment system. Subsequently, the species created by gods like Lolth or Grumsh also depend on it because these gods control the cultures of their creations. If a player want to play a Drow or Orc without an evil alignment, it is on the player to come up with a good reason. “I was raised by halflings”, “I resent my culture because it oppressed me”, “I used to believe my peoples ways until I met a very important person” etc.
Next there are character classes like paladins, clerics, warlocks and the divine sorcerer that need the alignment system to incentivise, and flavour the characters. The good man who traded his soul for his wife’s salvation. The paladin seeking redemption. The sorcerer fighting against the evil god whose blood granted him arcane power. In each case, the alignment system can be a barometer for how close or far the character is from a moral goal.
My players love using strict Alignment as it is something new when experienced. As a DM of over 30 years and various versions. My Players some of whom came from 5th into OSRIC and yes we also play 5th. They were surprised when taught and not used as hard leverage but used they found it enriching.
I wish (since I run it this way, and I can't possibly be wrong), alignment was less "morally proscriptive" and was closer to the cosmic allegiance as it was originally presented which draws heavily from Moorcock's Eternal Champion series.
I've found that when you remove the moral aspect of it (Good vs Evil), it's easier for PCs to ally/peacefully interact with creatures of opposing alignment. They might have a different world-view but they aren't born with original sin.
Love it!
Jim Davis is a really cool guy.
I've been playing Planescape: Torment and always you start as Neutral and your alignment can shift based on your actions and choices. My 'Nameless One' recently became Neutral Good.
All hail the algorithm! Another great video.
I looked at alignment and just did not enjoy it in 5e. So I looked at some other systems and found a few that I liked. Not good or evil, but more descriptive tools. I snagged the ideas of virtues from scion and the alignments from Zweihander, and kitbashed them into a neat system my players like that also covers my inspiration system.
I cant agree... alignment is an amazing mechanic and nearly as important as the 6 stats... if you know how to use it properly, it's much more than an RP guideline, especially for clerics and warlocks, many backgrounds, etc.
Jim is doing great! But there's still a huge Pruitt shaped hole in my heart😢😢😢
I like the thought of alignment affecting magic and items does a spell morph or change based on the users motivation history and desires or an item that can only be used by a being whose soul mirrors the items intent, or changes the users intent and desires to suit the item
Definitely the best post-Pruitt video so far. Great job, folks!
As a DM that has run the game since 2e, I use alignment in my campaigns. It isn't really efficacious to argue whether whether or not they were justified in getting rid of it, they just did and it is gone, but what I can tell you is how I use it in our campaigns.
- Alignment forms the bases of the soul trade economy, many times we have gone to Hell or the Abyss to retrieve a soul, the way that each character dealt with alignment and which religion they followed narrowed that search greatly. By having a diversity of alignment, it has meant that we have experience more variations in where a PCs soul went after they died
- A lot of the prestige classes they cut from earlier additions, I like to give access to those as additional perks to my characters, many of the clerical subclasses and classes from earlier additions had spell trees and other abilities that were alignment based. For example, we are running Ravenloft sandbox right now and I have a Lawful Good and a Lawful Evil PCs who joined the Church of Ezra and became Anchorites, while the general benefits of becoming believers of Ezra are the same, the differences in what their Shields of Ezra do are based on their alignment.
- I use alignment to set the stage for how many of my NPCs behave. Yes there are exceptions, but I see alignment as a way of managing expectations. The rules of D&D are really in place for managing expectations. My players know the rules, and they know what to expect, are there deviations, of course, are there exceptions, of course, but they have a general idea of the mechanics and interactions. Knowing a general alignment tree for most MOBS sets the expectations for how players go into and deal with interactions. Walking into a goblin cave, the players are on guard, when they attack the first goblin in the dark because he has a cupcake in his hand, they are going to have questions. Yes, all goblins aren't inherently evil, its a lot of culture, but if for every interaction, they are having to evaluate the individual monster on the merits of their ethics, then the game is going to slow down. A lot of my players just want to run into that cave and kill goblins. Kill them all and let Gruumsh sort them out, kinda mentality..
I got rid of alignment for my game and given that i play a variation of a variation of 3.5 (pathfinder) i had to go and remove the alignment spells as well. But yeah like you i really find that its an interesting tool for roleplaying to NOT have it written on a character sheet. My players in one group are very much aligned with "civilisation" rather than the "wilds" they constantly ask "are we the baddies?" and i like that they are "trying to be good" rather than assuming they are. Thank you for making this video
Since the 70's people knew that alignements were just an imperfect tool but the discutions it generates among us 14 years old at the time was awesome. We were talking about philosophy without knowing it.
I am tired about people telling me what to think instead of giving me problematic or toxic things to think about.
It was a great mechanic tool in 1e, it's to bad it's been post modernized as an RP flavor and nothing else...
Regarding 23:00 and the objectivity of morality, I like to counter-argument that by saying it is actually extremely _subjective_ morality, just that it's the gods' subjectivity and they are petty enforcers of it since, well, following those rules is how they get to keep existing and keeping their power. And I think that opens a lot of doors for "player expression" since that enforced morality can be, and regularly is, wrong and flawed, and straining against unjust laws is kind of the "food" that makes Unaligned, Lawful and Chaotic matter. The consequences are in abstract and in the afterlife, but you still get to materially affect the reality.
These rambles are always such a treat. Happy New Year!!!
Happy new year!
When the hell did Jim get to profound like god damn I'm crying rn
I’m against removing alignment. Maybe simplify it. Make it Primarily a planar function. pertaining to planar servants who have a place in the the eternal wars outside the prime material. Maybe if you want an aligned spell, the character needs to sell out or ‘align’ with the power that provides it. My 2c and how I run it.
Actually as an addendum, only I as the DM actually need to know their alignment. It really only pertains to plot hooks.
It suddenly strikes me a good explanation and stance might be "Alignments are for beings that do not have souls, and therefore lack freewill." That places the soul in the cosmology, creates a space for intelligent beings without free will but who act (like a lot of high level planar beings/undead/fae/all those things to use as villains,) and lets you draw the line where you want for what is and is not in your setting proscribed in it's behaviour by the alignment concept.
I have played for 40 years and outside a few spells, Paladin was really the only place alignment ever really entered into our games.
Great video. I haven't given the topic as much thought but I have come to the same conclusion. I find it is important for players to play with a consistent morality. I've seen too many Lawful Good characters kill some peasants and try and justify their actions.
I just tell people to write something specific on their character sheet in the alignment field that they genuinely feel "aligned" with, either an ideology or hyperspecific order within a greater organization or a broader faction or even something like "Lone Wolf Who Thinks He Doesn't Need Anyone But Unknown To Him Needs Companionship and Friendship" or some other psychological/emotional/intellectual/etc description that's highly personal (doesn't need to be that long lmao just it's a common trope that eschews faction and belonging but explains a place in a party of PCs).
Just replacing alignment with something a) more personal and b) more integrated into the setting and/or the party relationships is probably the single best use of that field on the character sheet.
Hey guys! Long time no comment! You're absolutely killin it Jim, I love the vibe and tone you've been rolling with!
Any chance you guys will be at Adepticon this year? Not sure if it's your thing, would be awesome to see some of the gang there!
No plans for any cons at this time!
I've not cared for alignment me mechanically for a long time except for very specialized campaigns. But as baseline of how certain people act, behave and are perceived by their surroundings it's still a very useful tool and it should not be removed as such.
I liked WEst End games Star Wars approach. I think they said they expected that there may be some complex characters but overall the characters were supposed to be heroes so they didn't feel a need for allignment.
I support using alignment but see it more as a way to gauge the PC's current view-point and can change over time with their actions. I never support the mind-set of some players who will call someone out on their actions and say they would never do that because of their alignment. When I play as a PC, I use alignment to gauge how I would approach a problem and how my character would act. If you take it seriously, it can be an excellent guide for role-playing. Great view on objective morality btw, I agree with you.
I think you're mostly describing the way I already run my games. I haven't cut alignment out, but it never really comes up unless a spell mentions it. The players can basically interpret it however they want, and I don't make a big deal of it as a DM.
There are two ways to run alignment.
1. Make it clear in session zero/one that the alignment choice made MUST be adhered to, and all roleplay freedom is exercised within the constraints of your alignment choice. This ensures that players are playing their characters, and not themselves.
2. Alignment is solely used as a reputation system, and is tracked by you the DM, and not by the players whatsoever. NPCs must also utilize this alignment system, and react to PCs based on how they act, as the players' alignment shifts throughout the campaign.
My current campaign is using the latter, but I'd love to do the former in my next campaign. Other than those two options, the only other option (that is viable) is throwing alignment out the window entirely. Any other option is a poor option in practice.
Two things, when they do the next major revision of DND I would like to see more of a separation between the core rules and the different settings. IMO alignment should be a setting specific rule not a general D&D rule.
Secondly I think that the alignment system would be a lot more useful if it were less abstract. Let's say your campaign is literally about a fight between the gods of chaos and the gods of order, your character will have a position, they might be a follower of either set of gods. They might try and placate both as to not have trouble. They might also think that the gods are full of it. You now have options that are much more interesting and easier to understand. You can do this with any conflict that is established as backstory to the campaign. Along side some questions about what is important to the character.
This is good, for example Eberron has barely any ties to alignment whatsoever yet I can't see myself running a Planescape without alignment due to how the outer planes are cemented with alignment.
You guys are the GOAT
I as a GM do not use the alignment system but if my players wana use for describing the char or help them think in the chars shoes etc I am all for it
I changed alignment in a few of my games taking portions from wizards other property Magic the gathering. they have an alignment system based on colors. Certain colors do certain things. It's not uncommon for the colors to mix and match, and do things they aren't supposed to do. It's not any better but if you play magic then you could get a feel of your characters better.
one topic I seldom see covered is the *Extreme* of allignments.
My character is a nice guy, he obeys traffic laws and he calls his mother once a week.
He is Lawful/Good
And Paladins make him sick. ( Yeah...we get it. We're just not good enough.) And because he lives in the world, he tolerates his Chaotic/Good freind who has no concept of keeping appointments and he puts up with his Lawful/Neutral boss at the company he works at which is Neutral/Evil. At least until he can find something better.
One of the things my DM did was actually just factually separate the races into categories in his setting. Hobgoblins, Orcs, Kobolds, Goblins, Bugbears, Lizardfolk, and a bunch of other monstrous races just aren't player options because in the world he's running they're demi-humanoids. They're incomplete humanoids that are less than the other races and their tendencies towards chaos and evil are a result of them not being real sentient creatures. There's still plenty of nuance between many of the races, plenty of areas for questions that aren't easy. However I have found a lot of value in having races of semi-intelligent humanoid enemies that are basically okay to have as kill on sight. Another facet of it is just that the DM and a lot of the players just got tired of having D&D parties where the majority of the characters are strange outcast races when the setting itself is usually human centrist. He actually just buffed variant human so that more people would play humans, though he does work with people that really do want to play a specific race because they think it's cool or they want a unique experience.
These might sound like bad decisions, or maybe controversial ones, but I actually really appreciate them as a player at his table. The way he's just been upfront and decisive about these things has established and communicated a firm tone that maintains a consistent and shared experience between all the players. Expectations were set, most of the party are humans, and the one elf is actually exotic because of it. One of the things I really appreciate as well is that when we visit nobles or go to a tavern or whatever we don't have to explain why we have a bunch of monstrous whacky outcasts crashing a place and looking just super like they don't belong. It's nice being able to enter a city and actually be trusted. Plus I do personally enjoy an "us vs them" mentality with fantasy worlds. Goblins, Elves, Orcs, Giants, and other races represent the "natural" and "old" world before humanity took hold. We're generally the invaders and they're the creatures reacting to the invasion. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "I don't care you're not human and I'd rather make sure my race prospers."
I know it says the background music is by John Branch, but what's the particular song? It was super relaxing.
With all of the talk about good faith vs bad faith arguments it's important for everyone to remember that Wizards is doing this out of bad faith. You honestly think they care about the moral implications of this, that, and the other? They care about money and how people perceive them. Objective morality in a fantasy setting makes complete sense when you factor in creatures born from magic or dark gods. The parallels between them and humans is absurd because humans are a separate race you can play- consisting of all of the real world races. The alignment for creatures gave new DMs a baseline to work from, it gave the world interesting lore, and it made characters of these races who broke out of their race's alignment special. If not all Drow are evil, who gives a fuck about Drizzt anymore?
For reasons I've never been able to understand, many people seem to treat alignment as proscriptive rather than descriptive. You wouldn't stop describing things using colour because 'red' was too broad a definition, or because some things change colour, or because lots of apples are red but some apples are green.
Putting it back into like a ribbon thing is fine with me... but I like keeping it as a little minor thing, a fun relic of the past versions of the game. As long as it's just a minor thing, I'm fine with it.
I’ve always look at alignment for planar beings being prescriptive and for those on the material it’s is descriptive
I like the way Brennan Mulligan does alignment, where it is perceived differently based on a character's culture and beliefs. Warrior tribes perceive bravery as virtuous, and cowardice as evil, etc.
Spoiler for Descent into Avernus:
For me, the Sword of Zariel in Descent is a great exemple of cosmic alignement and how it is something beyond the mortals and the material plane. If the sword lets a PC attunes to it, they become a true Loyal Good character and it messes them up, even if in order to attune to it, you must already be ''the embodiement of bravery and heroism''. Being linked to such a potent item of the outerplanes forces new character traits and flaws on your character, most likely more extreme (and less nuanced) version of their prievious beliefs.
When thinking about Law and Chaos, and their separation from Good and Evil, I was really influenced by what felt like a throwaway line from your Warhammer Fantasy video. Basically, the forces of Chaos are just representations of extremes of human behavior and at a base level are necessary and inherent to humanity.
Alignment is still a very useful tool for guiding the DM with regards to NPC behavior, so I won't be getting rid of it anytime soon. However, given how frequently players are precluded from selecting evil and/or chaotic alignments for their characters, it's fair to ask what purpose it really servers for player characters and if it wouldn't be better off just to ignore it entirely on their part.
I've always hated alignment. It gets in the way of roleplay and limits game mechanics
I always saw alignment as something that can be changed over time. Like a evil character can become good giving the right motivation. A lawful character can become chaotic giving particular situations. This is all in the individual side of things.
I liked the World of Darkness Virtues and Vices mechanics, or the lightside/darkside of star wars games.
I always ignore alignment completely at my table. I just don't see the point. Clerics & Paladins can have a deity that generally describes how they act, but its more of a vibe than "you must act this way".
PS: What happened to Pruitt?
Read Michael Moorecock. He's literally where the idea of law and chaos in speculative fiction came from. In fact, he's where most modern speculative fiction comes from. Go read Elric
Praise be the algorithm gods! Got my brain ticking as always. I spent a lot of time crafting my own setting, mythology, ancestries, deities and after-life distinct from vanilla D&D and it's implied setting; and alignment was one of the first things I got rid of.
I find it to be reductive, and - as you said - a magnet for player-player / player-DM arguments.
That said, this was a helpful frame-work for how to approach the matter when it's my turn as a player.
Just wondering, was there something different about the audio in this video? Had a strange balance between ears when listening via headphones...
D&D changed from a game of survival to a role playing game. Changed from villages in isolation fighting the darkness to multicultural cities with basics of life under control as the default. The need for alignment has faded into the background as these defaults changed. I agree that alignment isnt really needed in the modern version of the game. Im not a fan of the default D&D world but I do like bits that the game brings to RPG table. I prefer Dungeon Crawl Classics or Castles and Crusades :) Our tables may look different but I still enjoyed the talk and gaming is gaming :)
I like alignment in video games, especially when it can shift depending on your choices.
I think it's interesting that other planes are hard coded as certain alignments, because magic and gods are involved and they're like... that leaning made manifest.
Attaching it to races, groups, or players always just seemed limiting to me.
Someone's patron deity kinda always gave me more of an idea of where they would lean, on what their decisions *likely* would be, better than a hard alignment stamp on their sheet.
I have argued for years that Alignment is simply a metric for succinctly describing a sentient creature's belief system. Those beliefs inform their choices, perceptions and actions.
Without Alignment, you still need some way to articulate a creature's worldview, moral code (or lack thereof) and attitude towards abstract ethical concepts such as freedom, mercy, justice, etc.
IME, the advocates for its removal invariably end up spilling a ton of ink in stat blocks or character writeups to accomplish basically the same goal as simply writing 'Neutral Good'. If you want/need additional clarification or nuance to expand on that two-word summation, a few descriptive terms are something you'd have to do anyways.
The argument about inherently evil races is also similarly misplaced, IMO. Any intelligent species by definition has a culture, and alignment is supremely useful at describing culture in very broad terms. Any intelligent creature can typify that culture or represent an outlier with just a few lines of text - which, again, you're gonna need anyways without an Alignment system!
I always used alignment as a reminder, and never a hard rule. The alignment being more derived from the characters morals and actions more than the character actions deriving from the alignment. I think d&d ( as far as forgotten realms) operates heavily in good and evil with certain truths. Gods/goddesses can intervene and tip the alignment scales of a person or creature. I want to see the setting promoted, and part of that is using means such as tendencies and alignment to establish a baseline.