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

[Crimson Longinus]

No, usually it will be buried in paragraphs of text that you have to read carefully and then hope you remember it all.

Quelle horreur!

Or ... I can use it and get the same info at a glance even if you would rather read paragraphs of text.

The issue is that that trying to summarise things that way erases insane amount of nuance and complexity, and I don't think that is a good thing. Perhaps that mafioso who runs a well-oiled criminal network is also an impulsive and quirky? The alignment utterly fails at describing any sort of nuanced character with contradicting traits.

 

[Oofta]

Quelle horreur!


The issue is that that trying to summarise things that way erases insane amount of nuance and complexity, and I don't think that is a good thing. Perhaps that mafioso who runs a well-oiled criminal network is also an impulsive and quirky? The alignment utterly fails at describing any sort of nuanced character with contradicting traits.

No, just no. It's one descriptor, not the be all end all. It's another aspect of personality, a morale compass.

But this is the same old same old. Don't like it, don't use it.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

So alignment overrides INT score rather badly, or 'C' alignment means 'likes to lose fights by fighting less effectively'? That's not the way I've ever used alignment, and I don't think having intelligent enemies refuse to use sensible tactics adds anything useful to the game.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

So alignment overrides INT score rather badly, or 'C' alignment means 'likes to lose fights by fighting less effectively'? That's not the way I've ever used alignment, and I don't think having intelligent enemies refuse to use sensible tactics adds anything useful to the game.

First, there are varying degrees of adherence to an alignment (which really should be represented mechanically in a way similar to Theros' Piety system, which can be hacked to represent a mechanical way of handling alignment rather easily).

Second, I'd say it depends on whether the characters are Chaotic Good, Chaotic Neutral, or Chaotic Evil. CG's would be better at handling this kind of organization for warfare, while in the case of demons the mariliths are expected to force lesser demons to fight according to a plan.

It's not like there aren't real world examples of intelligent people being sabotaged by their own rational or irrational self-interest to reject compromises that would ultimately benefit them if they'd only agree. The possibility of a threat to their autonomy is given more weight. A lower capability to defend themselves against more coordinated threats is one of the examples critics of anarchist philosophy use against it.

It doesn't mean necessarily that Chaotics are stupid; it's that they value their autonomy and agency more than they do survival in a less free state (better to die free than live a slave, or something like that).

 

[Faolyn]

In a game without alignments, what's the difference between a devil, a demon and a yugoloth?

Demons are the evil id, all about emotions and desires.

Yugoloths are the evil ego, coming up with logical justifications for their backstabbing and self-serving actions.

Devils are the evil superego, all about creating and exploiting others' rules.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Second, I'd say it depends on whether the characters are Chaotic Good, Chaotic Neutral, or Chaotic Evil. CG's would be better at handling this kind of organization for warfare, while in the case of demons the mariliths are expected to force lesser demons to fight according to a plan.

So being evil also means dumber and/or less competent at fighting, in addition to chaotic meaning acting dumber and less competent? This whole thing of 'the more chaotic and/or evil they are, the fewer tactics they use' doesn't appear to be supported by game text on alignments at all. I just don't see support for the idea that alignment means less competence the further enemies are from "LG" anywhere.

It's not like there aren't real world examples of intelligent people being sabotaged by their own self-interest to reject compromises that would ultimately benefit them if they'd only agree. The possibility of a threat to their autonomy is given more weight.

It's not like there aren't real world examples of small units in armies that qualify as 'Evil' and/or 'Chaotic' that manage to fight using competent tactics. Making enemies fight in a dumber fashion based on their alignment just doesn't make much sense.

 

[Hex08]

Without alignment my character won't know what monsters he can justify killing without consequence....


...kidding...kind of....

 

[Maxperson]

Britain in the 70s and 80s was a very cynical place. I do worry about British cynicism - without the hope that things can get better there is no incentive to fight.

Wasn't Brexit a fight to make things better?

 

[Faolyn]

No, usually it will be buried in paragraphs of text that you have to read carefully and then hope you remember it all.

Or ... I can use it and get the same info at a glance even if you would rather read paragraphs of text.

But what does that info at a glance actually mean? What does "lawful evil" really mean? There have been veritable essays on what each alignment actually means over the decades--which means that in order to understand an alignment, you have to carefully read through paragraphs of text and then hope you remember it all.

And then you have to hope that your definition matches up with another person's definition of the same alignment. As we saw with Gygax, he thought it was perfectly Lawful Good for a paladin to murder orc kids. Or take devils. It's often assumed that they make contracts, but those contracts are so filled with legalize, poorly-worded phrasing, misdirection, and loopholes that I wouldn't count them as lawful evil. To paraphrase the deva from OOTS, using chaotic means to achieve lawful goals seems pretty neutral to me.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Wasn't Brexit a fight to make things better?

If it was, it definitely didn't work!