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

[Neonchameleon]

That's not a useful argument. Name a single element of this game which someone hasn't felt the need to houserule out because it didn't work for their game?

It's not that. It's "How big is the problem it causes and for how many?" as well as "what benefit does it provide?" that is important.

I can see an argument for alignment being made an optional part of the game. I cannot see an argument for not even including it as an option in the game because it messes with some people's games.

As long as "Optional part of the game" means that it doesn't get forced into the default mechanical rules.

Which, to be fair, it basically doesn't and hasn't since 4e; most of what's in 5e appears pretty reasonable. The 3.X and earlier situation "Sir. We think one of the Paladins may have fallen!" "Right. Line everyone up in the courtyard and we'll see who can no longer lay on hands." lead to an awful lot of problems and blocked a whole range of adventures. As did the Paladin's default ability to Detect Evil.

 

[Maxperson]

I do ignore alignment.

The problem that I see is that, each individual player or table may find alignment very useful, but it's so depending on that individual's or table's belief that it's very hard for it to be consistent across the board. Like, would a Lawful person respect a high-ranking individual who is incompetent? (Or who isn't evil, good, or neutral enough.) Wanting to remove that individual from power and put a better-suited person in their place is at least a bit chaotic, especially if there aren't any hard and fast laws for expelling someone from office. And a Chaotic person can have great respect for someone just because of their title and status, even if there's no actual power in that title. They just might decide that the highest-ranked member of the Pastry Chef Guild is more worthy of respect than the Queen, because the Master Pastry Chef is really, really good at their job and clearly earned that title through hard work, while the Queen just had to be born to the right family.

Consistency is no longer particularly relevant. If every player and the DM all have different ideas on alignment, it's not a big deal. There's no RAW that allow any sort of enforcement. So if a player view an act as lawful and the says neutral, it doesn't matter. If a DM tries to enforce anyway, that's a DM issue not an alignment issue.

 

[Oofta]

I wouldn't be able to speak for people in camp 1 - but camp 2 is "Alignment causes far greater problems than it provides benefits". This is not rebutted by saying that it works perfectly at some tables any more than than "nine out of ten of this line of cars don't explode in the first year" is an argument against a product recall.

I have yet to hear an explanation of how alignment causes far greater problems than it provides benefits that's not rooted in games and rules from versions long out of print.

In the current version? It's just a descriptive attribute.

 

[Maxperson]

The problem with threads like this is that the argument devolves into two main camps.

1. Without alignment, you can't tell the difference between good and evil.
2. Alignment doesn't work and has no place in the game.

The first has never been a main camp. That's a misinterpretation of the people in favor of alignment. Hell, in the last dozen or so alignment threads I've been a part of here, I can't remember anyone even making that argument, let alone enough to be a main camp.

I'm calling shenanigans on both arguments.

1. You can easily run a game without alignment. Lots of us do. It's not hard to tell who the antagonists are.

This is not really relevant. You can also cross the country without using an automobile, plane, train, etc. Most people choose not to walk, though. This is not about whether they CAN play without alignment. It's about them not wanting to play without it, because it's very useful to them.

For Dog's sake can't we just agree that alignment works for those who want to use it, and that it's not necessary for those of us who don't?

This is the argument that the vast majority of those in favor of alignment use. It's the rabid anti-alignment brigade, upset by the alignment mechanics of 20 years ago, that aren't able to let go of their hate long enough to consider that a lot of us truly don't have problems with alignment and make good use of it. They are the cause of the alignment arguments. The rest of us are like, "Hey, don't use it if you don't like it. The rest of us will use it and be happy with it."

 

[Maxperson]

I wouldn't be able to speak for people in camp 1 - but camp 2 is "Alignment causes far greater problems than it provides benefits". This is not rebutted by saying that it works perfectly at some tables any more than than "nine out of ten of this line of cars don't explode in the first year" is an argument against a product recall.

That's an argument for ending the game and never playing again. Every rule has people out there that find it to cause more problems than benefits and changes it. So I guess we should be recalling every rule in the books. Or else we can understand that this game is about flexibility and the ability to ignore or change rules that you dislike or find not useful. Feel free to ignore or change alignment, but don't try and take it away from the majority of us for whom it is useful.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not that. It's "How big is the problem it causes and for how many?" as well as "what benefit does it provide?" that is important.

It no longer has any teeth, so alignment causes no problems any longer. Some DMs may abuse their authority and force alignment on people or force their interpretation, but that's not a function of alignment. That's a bad DM being bad and could happen with virtually any rule in the game.

 

[Minigiant]

Devils are fallen celestials. Demons represent corruption. They're the closest thing classic D&D has to Great Old Ones. Yugoloths are creatures created to fill the alignment chart, but they work well as creatures representing loss and despair. No alignment necessary.

I think it's more devils represent corruption, demons are raw bestial emotionalism, and yugoloths is trivializing harm via payment.

Alignment works fine for beasts, vermin, elementals, outsiders and extraplanar beings.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have yet to hear an explanation of how alignment causes far greater problems than it provides benefits that's not rooted in games and rules from versions long out of print.

I have yet to hear an explanation of how it provides any significant benefits to classify all races by alignment. I am aware how it causes arguments and uneasy feelings.

In the current version? It's just a descriptive attribute.

Not quite "just a descriptive attribute" although it comes close.

 

[Oofta]

I have yet to hear an explanation of how it provides any significant benefits to classify all races by alignment. I am aware how it causes arguments and uneasy feelings.

Not quite "just a descriptive attribute" although it comes close.

You've had multiple people tell you how they find it useful. I have yet to hear what problems it causes.

As far as classifying races, it's a default just like any other descriptive text that they provide.

 

[Mistwell]

It's not that. It's "How big is the problem it causes and for how many?" as well as "what benefit does it provide?" that is important.

OK. So, show me the reasonably objective evidence that the number of people harmed by alignment existing as an option in the game is large, and that the benefit it contributes for those who like it is small?

Otherwise, this is just a "my preferences differ from you preferences and I know many people who support my position just as you know many people who support your position," type argument. Which is probably a discussion still worth having, but it won't likely change anything.

As long as "Optional part of the game" means that it doesn't get forced into the default mechanical rules.

Yes, at least that's what it means to me. It should be optional, like multiclassing and feats and non-core expansion books and sidebars and such.

Which, to be fair, it basically doesn't and hasn't since 4e; most of what's in 5e appears pretty reasonable.

I agree, it's pretty mild in 5e and seems to be a fairly decent compromise.