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

[Umbran]

I don't know if this is addressed at all in the other thread, but what I wanted to ask is would the game be better if alignment wasn't present?

Well, it is largely gone from 5e as it is...

 

[Oofta]

Well, it is largely gone from 5e as it is...

Which, for me, is the best use. A general descriptor with little or no mechanical impact but that can be useful for broad ideas on how someone is going to approach the world and implement those traits and bonds.

 

[Mannahnin]

I enjoy using it as a descriptive (not proscriptive) tool for shorthand of part of a character's personality, and a general roleplaying guideline.

I've also enjoyed it used as a keyword for what side a character stands on in the great cosmic metaphysical conflict, and having that sometimes have a mechanical consequence. For example, in Graphite Prime's excellent module Praise the Fallen, there are a couple of effects which treat Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic characters differently. Even though I ran that in 5E, it was fun thinking about how this supernatural effect reacted differently to the different characters.

That being said, I have also enjoyed games which don't feature it. Or like my current 5 Torches Deep game, where characters have no alignment; the closest thing is that some monsters or magical effects are supernaturally Evil.

 

[Dausuul]

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

If you observe that a player hates NPCs who act on intuition, you don't need the label "lawful" to make use of that observation.

If you observe that a player behaves in some other way that you deem "lawful," and assume that the player in question must also hate NPCs who act on intuition, you are setting yourself up for failure when it turns out that isn't the case.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If your character is Good they are (broadly speaking) altruistic, kind, merciful and self sacrificing and avoid harming others. If they're Evil, they're prepared to step over and harm others to accomplish their own ends (whatever ends that may be).

What if the person believes in in some greater good for altruistic reasons, but thinks that achieving that good requires harming others? Whole eggs and omelettes or 'needs of the many outfighting the needs of the few' thing. Are they good or evil and how does labelling them either way helps us to understand them better?

If they're Lawful they follow a code of honor, and respect family and tradition. If they're Chaotic they're independent, free spirited, reckless and unpredictable.

Whose tradition? What if they respect the traditions of their religion and think all other laws are wrong and need not to be obeyed? Also certainly one can easily be reckless and unpredictable and still have honour and respect traditions. Like think of Klingons, super honourable traditionalists, also unpredictable hotheads. Lawful or chaotic? And again, how does labelling them either way make understanding them easier, instead of just confusing and dumbing down things?

 

[Aging Bard]

I like alignments and have always used them. I even like alignment languages, which make even more sense to a modern mind (they're moral meme-speak, basically). I like campaigns with religions and religious conflict (and covert religions--great idea!).

And I totally understand why alignments are problematic and being de-emphasized today.

 

[Oofta]

What if the person believes in in some greater good for altruistic reasons, but thinks that achieving that good requires harming others? Whole eggs and omelettes or 'needs of the many outfighting the needs of the few' thing. Are they good or evil and how does labelling them either way helps us to understand them better?

I would represent that as someone with an ideal of "greater good" with an evil (or perhaps neutral) alignment.

If my ideal is just greater good with no alignment I have no idea how they're going to attempt to achieve their ideal without other knowledge or making assumptions.

 

[Voadam]

I generally either go with 1) play your character how you want, alignment descriptions are broad and vague enough to accomodate most situations, or 2) house rule alignments to be Cosmic supernatural forces so mortals are unaligned unless specifically tied to a supernatural cosmic force (like clerics and paladins) which are separate from morality and such ([GOOD] being more like holy/ritual purity than moral goodness).

I find the latter view allows things like plots where a LG church can house corrupt individual priests or overzealous inquisitions without the problems of their supernatural power being cut off and the error of their ways being manifest immediately, or requiring things like them being secretly powered by fiends.

 

[Flamestrike]

What if the person believes in in some greater good for altruistic reasons, but thinks that achieving that good requires harming others?

Theyre evil. Full stop.

 

[lingual]

I find it useful for the religious type of characters. It's definitely not a one size fits all type of thing. They could replace it with something else but it is useful to save space. With hundreds of monsters, npcs, etc. - a detailed description of culture and ethos for everyone would be too much. A culture could be very violent and "evil" - yet heroic and honorable (like the Spartans in 300). Personally, I find it more interesting when "evil" monsters are more complex and not one-dimensional. Two "lawful good" paladins of opposing kingdoms could be mortal enemies, etc. Being "evil" does not mean you are a serial killer who can just wantonly and justly be slain on sight. Tony Montana or Michael Corleone were definitely evil and probably chaotic yet they were protaganists and likeable.