subtooty, about D&D alignments
I see alignment as a holdover of wargaming. My evil army can include gnolls, kobolds *and* neutal human mercenaries. Your good army can have elves, kirin and other neutral mercs. Put ‘em on the table and start rolling dice.
But on the personal scale of RPGs it falls apart. The idea that you can scythe through entire groups of EVIL groups and remain GOOD is ethically repellent to me, and really makes the game hugely about combat.
subtooty, about D&D alignments
The way I want to do it; alignment exists and nearly everyone’s neutral. Dwarves, gnolls, humans, etc are all basically okay people until they get pissed off, want something, or are culturally blind.
Evil and good are reserved for demons, unicorns, rakshasas, stuff so completely unworldly they don’t work by normal standards, and a few outliers like paladins or necromancers who choose to be really unusual (and their rewards and penalties are player or DM widgets).
subtooty, about D&D alignments
Like if it were my game I’d want three alignment related splat books; a forces of evil thing which would be largely intended for DMs, a much smaller good book which would be vaguely a player resource, and the biggest would be a general all purpose adventurer book (vaguely like Xanathar’s Guide or all the awesome 3e class splat books).
subtooty, about D&D alignments
@Leucrotta Spouse has been running a 5th Edition game set in Ravnika, the M:tG city-plane, and instead of alignments we use color affinities--which don't have "good" or "evil" connotations, but reflect a character's beliefs and personality. it gives a very interesting spin on the concept of "alignments," and lets the GM play with some fun different mechanics!
subtooty, about D&D alignments
@green @Leucrotta Oh wow, that's pretty sweet. :D
