D&D General The Problem with Evil or what if we don't use alignments?

[Doug McCrae]

would the game be better if alignment wasn't present?

Gary Gygax thought so.

I don't use any alignments in my game campaigns nowadays because the concept caused so much misunderstanding and confusion

Source

 

[Flamestrike]

Gary Gygax thought so.


Source

Gygax also thought storming a creche and murdering Orc children by the score by bashing their brains in with a hammer was 'Lawful Good' because 'Nits make Lice'.

Not exactly the greatest moral arbiter.

 

[Professor Murder]

I still find Alignment to be of use as shorthand for NPCs and monsters. That said, I don't use it as a straight jacket. A listed alignment of a creature in the MM is a starting point, speaking to a "typical" example of said creature. My campaign just culminated in the PCs fighting against a LE angel. I do like that 5e has greatly downplayed the inherency of alignments mechanically. I could see alignment disappearing in future editions of the game however, replaced by the short sentences we use for Trait/Ideal/bond/flaw, as we got for the Darklords in the new Ravenloft book.

 

[Oofta]

Just because every member of an organization doesn't support the purported ideals of an organization, it does not follow that alignment is useless. That, and just because to individuals or groups share the same alignment it doesn't mean they'll always agree or get along.

I don't care what alignment my PCs are (I do ban evil acts, and yes, I get to decide what is evil) but it is useful for NPCs and monsters. For my own PCs, it's just one descriptor of many. Alignment isn't a straightjacket, it's just a general descriptor.

But seriously, do we need yet another alignment thread that will inevitably be shut down? I find alignment useful, others don't. Don't find it useful? Don't use it.

 

[Oofta]

I still find Alignment to be of use as shorthand for NPCs and monsters. That said, I don't use it as a straight jacket. A listed alignment of a creature in the MM is a starting point, speaking to a "typical" example of said creature. My campaign just culminated in the PCs fighting against a LE angel. I do like that 5e has greatly downplayed the inherency of alignments mechanically. I could see alignment disappearing in future editions of the game however, replaced by the short sentences we use for Trait/Ideal/bond/flaw, as we got for the Darklords in the new Ravenloft book.

While I find TBIF useful, I have yet to see a list that tells me the same things as alignment (I don't have the Ravenloft book). The combination is more useful than either alone for me. I think getting rid of alignment, especially for individuals, is a mistake.

 

[Steampunkette]

Yup. I use alignment in my games. It's a simple guideline that helps me.

I don't do a lot of campaigns focused on good versus evil or law versus chaos. Nor do I make it a big mechanical function. But I have used it with Mechanical Functions to mess with people.

Like a powerful sword that can only be wielded by the pure of heart... The party learned that only the NG member of the party could wield it because their heart was "Pure" even though other members of the party were LG, CG, and CN.

And then the BBEG wound up using it against the party... Because he was Pure of Heart. Purely -evil- of Heart. Could only be used by NG and NE characters without penalty. Because their hearts were "Pure". Unaffected by Law or Chaos.

It was a neat undermining of expectations.

 

[payn]

Pretty sure its evil to create alignment threads itself.

 

[Reynard]

Gygax also thought storming a creche and murdering Orc children by the score by bashing their brains in with a hammer was 'Lawful Good' because 'Nits make Lice'.

Not exactly the greatest moral arbiter.

This here is a perfect example of why Alignment is such a problem in D&D.

NOT killing the future raiders and murderers of good people simply because they are in their larval form would, by some, be considered an evil act itself. By showing mercy to creatures incapable of not being what they are, you are condemning some future innocent to their depredations -- all for a selfish, misguided reason on top of it. What is evil if not acting in a selfish way that causes harm to innocents?

Before anyone comes storming in with pitchforks and cries of "biological essentialism" I am not making any argument about whether it makes any sense or is okay to say "all orcs are inherently evil." But in the scenario where they are in fact inherently evil, it is not "good" to leave them to kill in the future. Moral absolutism is weird that way.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

What's the point of alignment?

Mechanically, (nearly) nothing. You're not gonna hit the enemy any harder.

But smart DMs figure out the alignment of their players to design good challenges. For example:

• Chaotic players will have a natural hatred for large institutions with rules and regulations
• Lawful players will have a natural hatred for whimsical decisions and NPCs that act on intuition

Likewise, you can tease your players into doing something against their natural alignment. For example:

• A lawful good character gets a choice to commit a crime for the benefit of a much greater good
• A lawful evil character gets the chance to save a kitten

Such things can be interesting from a roleplay and character development point of view.

I never ask for the alignment of my players... they don't need to put it on their character sheets. I'll instead observe and take notes. (Mu ha ha ha).

 

[billd91]

What's the point of alignment?

Mechanically, (nearly) nothing. You're not gonna hit the enemy any harder.

That depends on edition. In 5e, true, it doesn't help you hit the enemy any harder, but in 3e (and PF) it can have a real impact in combat scenes that's fun to work with. It can, however, have all sorts of influence in a campaign in a non-mechanical manner, even in 5e.

Ultimately, alignment is a tools to use (or misuse) like any other. I've made good use of it but it isn't necessary for me when playing D&D either.