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

[Minigiant]

I don't see how it's possible to get around some of that. Look at the descriptive text for just about any evil monster ... unless you change all of that what difference does it make? I do agree that it should be reinforced that the entries (including alignment) are just a default.

When it comes to PCs I think TIBF can just as easily abused. The guy that blamed asinine behavior on alignment is just going to blame it on an ideal or flaw. That's a player issue, not a system issue.

It's a community issue not a player or system issue.
The problem with alignment really isn't monster monsters. It's humaniod monsters.

There's nothing wrong with always Lawful Stupid Paladins, CE orcs, and LE githzerai per se, as long as one recognizes that it is weak storytelling used for filling if the DM isn't going in depth in it.

However large swath of the community would object to being told that their settings have weakpoints. Especially if those parts are directly lifted from a MM. But weak lore is weak lore.

 

[Maxperson]

Indeed. Though constant misuse of a tool is the toolmaker's fault. Unfortunately TSR1 is gone and WOTC never corrected the instruction manual until recently.

Alignment isn't even remotely constantly misused. Even the people with the horror stories from 20+ years ago still didn't hit those stories constantly, or even commonly. And they are a minority of people.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Indeed. Though constant misuse of a tool is the toolmaker's fault. Unfortunately TSR1 is gone and WOTC never corrected the instruction manual until recently.

WotC corrected the instruction manual back in 2008. If you look at the 4e stat blocks monsters are not actually classified by alignment - and the alignments have been cut down to five making a clear separation between evil (want to control and hurt) and chaotic evil (want to watch the world burn).

Unfortunately the anti-4e whaaaargabl ensured that anything 4eish had to be disguised and obvious changes had to be destroyed even if 5e is closer to a rules lite version of 4e than it is to any other edition

 

[Minigiant]

Alignment isn't even remotely constantly misused. Even the people with the horror stories from 20+ years ago still didn't hit those stories constantly, or even commonly. And they are a minority of people.

It's not all about the horror stories. A CE group and LG group meeting in a dungeon, not being instantly hostile, and bartering with each other was a base rules outcome of the game.

Having an always or mostly Evil or Good humaniod race robs them of their humaniod mentality and that was a base rule of the game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's a community issue not a player or system issue.
The problem with alignment really isn't monster monsters. It's humaniod monsters.

There's nothing wrong with always Lawful Stupid Paladins, CE orcs, and LE githzerai per se, as long as one recognizes that it is weak storytelling used for filling if the DM isn't going in depth in it.

That depends what you mean by "always Lawful Stupid Paladins". If you mean that some Paladins are blockheads then I agree there's nothing wrong with that. If you mean "being Lawful Stupid is a necessary part of a paladin" then there are serious problems both in terms of alignment and the paladin class.

As for CE orcs, this is another confusing one. In the 2e Monstrous Manual they are LE, in 3.X they are CE. What changed? Did the orcs somehow undergo a revolution? Was there a resorting? Did the nature of alignment somehow change without this being drawn attention to? Or was it that alignment was such a bad description that one of the major NPC races was put in the wrong category and this was quietly corrected? None of these say good things about alignment.

However large swath of the community would object to being told that their settings have weakpoints. Especially if those parts are directly lifted from a MM. But weak lore is weak lore.

Oh, indeed.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not all about the horror stories. A CE group and LG group meeting in a dungeon, not being instantly hostile, and bartering with each other was a base rules outcome of the game.

There's nothing wrong with that, though. Unless they checked, they don't know each others alignments, and even CE isn't violent all the time or they'd never live to make it out of childhood.

Having an always or mostly Evil or Good humaniod race robs them of their humaniod mentality and that was a base rule of the game.

Only if you misuse alignment to be a straightjacket that you requires you to always behave in that manner.

 

[Maxperson]

As for CE orcs, this is another confusing one. In the 2e Monstrous Manual they are LE, in 3.X they are CE. What changed?

WotC entered the picture. Every edition makes changes. I mean, in 2e Fighters needed 2000 xp to hit 2nd level, Rogues(thieves) needed 1250 and Wizards needed 1500. In 3e all 3 needed only 1000. What changed? Answer nothing.

Each edition is self contained. Yes there are changes from edition to edition, but those changes retroactively alter campaigns which transition with them. In 3e orcs have always been CE. In 2e they have always been LE. There was no mass change of alignment when 3e came out.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Alignment isn't even remotely constantly misused. Even the people with the horror stories from 20+ years ago still didn't hit those stories constantly, or even commonly. And they are a minority of people.

If by this you mean "Alignment is mostly ignored and is a legacy thing that clutters up the books because of tradition" then I think we can agree. The best way to use alignment is not use alignment except in very rare cases.

 

[Maxperson]

If by this you mean "Alignment is mostly ignored and is a legacy thing that clutters up the books because of tradition" then I think we can agree.

Mostly ignored by a minority, sure. Thing is, a majority of us still use it and use it properly with no issues, because there are no mechanics associated with it any longer. It's not cluttering up the books. It's just a rule that takes a small amount of space that you can ignore.

Why do you want to take it away from those who have no problems with it? What did they ever do to you that you'd want to make the game worse for them?

The best way to use alignment is not use alignment except in very rare cases.

That's not for you to say as a general statement like that. You can only say that for yourself and those of you in the minority that don't want to use it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

WotC entered the picture. Every edition makes changes. I mean, in 2e Fighters needed 2000 xp to hit 2nd level, Rogues(thieves) needed 1250 and Wizards needed 1500. In 3e all 3 needed only 1000. What changed? Answer nothing.

Answer: The entire mechanical basis of the game. Do you really use a setting where XP and character levels are mechanically quantified within the setting?

Each edition is self contained. Yes there are changes from edition to edition, but those changes retroactively alter campaigns which transition with them. In 3e orcs have always been CE. In 2e they have always been LE. There was no mass change of alignment when 3e came out.

Each setting on the other hand continues (with the arguable exception of the 4e Realms). Are 3.X orcs meant to have the same description as 2e orcs? If so then why the change? If not then why the change?