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

[Maxperson]

I would go even further. I get that people that have no use for alignment have alignment horror stories, but even people who seem to like alignment can’t seem to agree on how it applies. (The last thread had a big disagrement between proponents as to whether Original Trilogy Darth Vader was LE or CE).

This doesn't matter, though. With the teeth pulled out of alignment via the loss of alignment mechanics, it doesn't matter who agrees on what. If I have a CG Ranger and I'm playing what I feel CG is and the DM disagrees, he can pound sand. There's literally nothing he can do about it unless he changes the rules, which removes anything after that from being the fault of alignment and places the fault entirely on the DM's shoulders.

To me, it undercuts the argument that horror stories are the consequence of playing alignment wrong, when even those who play it “right” disagree.

The vast majority of disagreements from people on my side of things are cosmetic. They are small differentiations in interpretation of individual acts. Even major ones, though, aren't really relevant. As long as we're running alignments consistently and not using it as a straightjacket/beat stick, it's all good.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I would go even further. I get that people that have no use for alignment have alignment horror stories, but even people who seem to like alignment can’t seem to agree on how it applies. (The last thread had a big disagrement between proponents as to whether Original Trilogy Darth Vader was LE or CE).

To me, it undercuts the argument that horror stories are the consequence of playing alignment wrong, when even those who play it “right” disagree.

Until this last year when the defense transitioned to 'I don't want to read descriptions for monsters', the prime argument (which has been used repeatedly in this thread) has been 'there would be no problem if people used and viewed alignment my way even if that's not how it's presented in the book'.

Which, I suppose is fair - a highly subjective, vague rule works perfectly if everyone just locksteps with you and does what you tell them.

 

[Maxperson]

That "usually" is a step in the correct direction, but I still like having the implication of Evil tendency gone from the Drow.

That evil tendency is only because of Lolth and how she orders her priests who are in charge of society, to raise Drow. None if it is inherent evil, which is virtually all of the argument on the anti-alignment side. They shout about inherently evil races being bad, while ignoring that humanoids are not inherently evil.

I remember NE being discussed for Lolth and her Drow culture, but I dont remember anything official. Officially, Lolth is a "demon" and therefore must be CE whether she actually is or not. (It is one of the difficulties that I have with the Wheel generally.)

In an official 2e product there was a CG Demon. Demons are far less likely to stray out of CE, but it happens.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

I just find it interesting that people who dislike alignment come with specific examples of alignment horror stories, misinterpretations, etc., and the response is always a vague “yeah, well, that could hypothetically happen under TBIF” or “you know, that was a bad player/DM, not slignment’s fault”.

 

[Yaarel]

even people who seem to like alignment can’t seem to agree on how it applies. (The last thread had a big disagrement between proponents as to whether Original Trilogy Darth Vader was LE or CE).

To me, it undercuts the argument that horror stories are the consequence of playing alignment wrong, when even those who play it “right” disagree.

I like alignment, but I agree, its utility depends on clear and unambiguous definitions for each alignment.

For me
• Good (sharing)
• Evil (predation)
• Lawful (group)
• Chaotic (individual)
• Neutral (mix)

And Neutral means sometimes behaves one way and sometimes behaves the other way − a mix. It doesnt mean a behavior that is theoretically in between.

I find the above definitions to be clear and useful.

Nevertheless, each alignment can play out in different ways, so I still like a blurb to give an example of a behavior that exemplifies the alignment.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I like alignment, but I agree, its utility depends on clear and unambiguous definitions for each alignment.

For me
• Good (sharing)
• Evil (predation)
• Lawful (group)
• Chaotic (individual)
• Neutral (mix)

And Neutral means sometimes behaves one way and sometimes behaves the other way − a mix. It doesnt mean a behavior that is theoretically in between.

I find the above definitions to be clear and useful.

Nevertheless, each alignment can play out in different ways, so I still like a blurb to give an example of a behavior that exemplifies the alignment.

What does 'group' mean though? How large does this 'group' need to be? My family, my tribe, my nation, my species, everyone? If a group of people share everything within their tribe and care for each other, but do not readily share things with outsiders and sometimes even take things from the outsiders what does this make them?

 

[Cadence]

To me, it undercuts the argument that horror stories are the consequence of playing alignment wrong, when even those who play it “right” disagree.

I would argue in 5e the problem typically isn't with alignment being played wrong in interpreting it, it's (1) the players or DM wanting more details and repercussions than the rules care about and (2) that expecting it to classify things perfectly is bizarre as it is only 9 discrete classes for all of human behavior. Even something with more word choices but only allowing a few of them could easily be made to give many different interpretations.

I'm quite sure we can get threads holding forth on where the game rules don't give the level of insight people want about a lot of things (what are hit points, what is armor class, why do we use only some ability score skill combinations, why doesn't the book tell us the DC for everything a player might try...). It feels like having only six ability scores to summarize people has similar difficulties, but they annoy fewer people than alignment (why does my character need to also be agile when I just want them to have outstanding hand eye coordination, what is the difference between int and wisdom, why does the effect of str vary with size, etc...).

I'm also quite sure that for any character description you write out that is supposed to describe a person, that one can easily find situations the description wouldn't help the players decide or would leave them with a conundrum

 

[Maxperson]

I just find it interesting that people who dislike alignment come with specific examples of alignment horror stories, misinterpretations, etc., and the response is always a vague “yeah, well, that could hypothetically happen under TBIF” or “you know, that was a bad player/DM, not slignment’s fault”.

That's because the example is usually the DM being a bad DM. It's not our fault that the examples aren't usually alignment problems.

 

[Yaarel]

(The last thread had a big disagrement between proponents as to whether Original Trilogy Darth Vader was LE or CE).

I missed that debate but it is a good question.

On the one hand, the relationship of Darth Vader to his Sith mentor is Chaotic Evil.

On the other hand, the relationship of Darth Vader to the Empire is Lawful Evil.

I would probably say he is Neutral Evil.

 

[Yaarel]

What does 'group' mean though? How large does this 'group' need to be? My family, my tribe, my nation, my species, everyone? If a group of people share everything within their tribe and care for each other, but do not readily share things with outsiders and sometimes even take things from the outsiders what does this make them?

"Group" means the creature self-identifies with the group. There is a sense that if the group survives, the creature in some sense will also survive. Thus a Lawful Evil creature can self-sacrifice to ensure that the group survives.

A reallife example is racism is LE. A person self-identifies with the status of the group, but the group as a whole is predatory against other groups.

This is why the Drow seem Neutral Evil to me. They are absolutely group-oriented (L) − Lolth above all else. But they betray each other which is individualistic (C).