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

[Cadence]

I can't think of any groups I have such obvious disagreements with over words like "Xenophobic".

I wonder if that is only because it isn't one of the words suggested as a possible descriptor in D&D? So I ask again, if a player says their character is xenophobic (a claimed to be useful descriptor) does that mean they are against those from other villages, in other regions, other religions, other ethnicities, other skin tones, other countries, non-humans, non-demi-humans, or non-humanoid? How many of those wouldn't it be reasonable as a one word descriptor for?

 

[AnotherGuy]

And if we're going with two words then there are plenty of sets of two words that would do much better than "Chaotic Neutral" - "Hostile Territorial", "Agressive Slavers", "Elusive Pranksters", "Xenophobic Traders", "Hungry carnivores" all tell me a lot more in two words.

D&D via Small World

 

[Oofta]

The most successful edition of the most successful TTRPG in history is the most successful in part because it winnowed through things people had a problem with. Including flushing alignment out of the core rules. Even Paladins aren't very alignment restricted these days. It just didn't quite finish the job because it kept legacy elements that were iconic to D&D. And when it comes to making memes 9 point alignment is pretty good.

Indeed. It's one of the remaining relics kept in there not because it's useful or makes for a better game but because it was there in the early editions when D&D had a huge first mover advantage.

If you want to play an all encompassing alignment system in your game then keep that in your game. It just doesn't belong in the default rules and races shouldn't be categorised by alignment.

I agree that minimizing the impact of alignment was a good move. It's not all encompassing. It does not and is not meant to be. It doesn't have a huge impact on the mechanics of the game so you can largely ignore it.

It is still useful to a lot of people and easily ignored for those who it is not. It's pointless to keep dragging issues from past editions or opinions of dead people into the arguments for getting rid of it. Heaven forbid some people find it useful and play a game you don't personally approve of.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It feels like the famous cases in the real world holy books or myths I know of are where the powers stop working when they break too far away (or they are threatened with them not working or they are said they get to do them because of their exemplary faith or perfection).

Counterexample: The Roman Catholic Church. Priests can be defrocked - but the sacraments are permanent. They just can't officiate on behalf of the church. Not losing clerical sacramental abilities at least until they are formally stripped is of course necessary in real world situations for any large church; if a heretic couldn't offer sacraments then there would be huge questions over whether people were married or (even more importantly) whether people had been baptized. The RCC is far from the only example - just I believe the biggest religious grouping on the planet.

A big thing here is that clerical magic in D&D isn't from exemplary faith or perfection. The class is cleric, not saint and perfection has never been required.

Do corrupt order stories work because no one in the hierarchy was doing obvious miracles on a daily basis?

No - but they would be prevented if there was such an obvious litmus test.

I'm fine with cosmologies where miracle workers keep doing them even when lacking faith or going against the desires of their deity... but those aren't the only stories out there.

I'm fine with such cosmologies too - but not as the default. If you want to say that the deities of the Forgotten Realms are (a) unusually meddlesome and (b) petty enough to support the Wall of the Faithless then that's a specific setting conceit.

 

[Minigiant]

Again, no one is saying alignment is all encompassing. But even if it is for some groups, why do you care? How is it a problem?

I think the problem is well...

poor use of the tool was being taught as the default and bad way to many incoming D&D fans.

It's fine when poor tool use is isolated.

It's a problem is when poor use or bad ideas spread out of groups they work for and are promoted as gospel.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I wonder if that is only because it isn't one of the words suggested as a possible descriptor in D&D?

Having been in the real world told I'm going to hell and that I'm going to be tortured because God is good, no this isn't about the D&D term. This is about the core word.

I've never argued in the real world about the meaning of xenophobic. I've argued about the nature of goodness frequently and whether e.g. God is good. Or whether conversion therapy is good.

When D&D chose "good" and "evil" they chose intensely political real world terms.

So I ask again, if a player says their character is xenophobic (a claimed to be useful descriptor) does that mean they are against those from other villages, in other regions, other religions, other ethnicities, other skin tones, other countries, non-humans, non-demi-humans, or non-humanoid? How many of those wouldn't it be reasonable as a one word descriptor for?

Most of them would be reasonable. They are all pointing in the same direction.

 

[FrozenNorth]

By some, sure. By others, no. We handle it just fine.

In virtually every horror story involving alignment I’ve read or experienced, the principal people involved were sure that they were handling alignment fine, and that everyone else was wrong.

 

[AnotherGuy]

When D&D chose "good" and "evil" they chose intensely political real world terms.

Life was simpler. Orcs and Fiends were evil that were there to be smited. And that is how it is still for many tables.
The last thing on Gygax's mind was conversion therapy.

EDIT: There are so many quick-fix ideas within D&D. Alignment is one such, the D&D Economy is another and Magic and its effects on World-Building is a third and there are so many more.

 

[Oofta]

On the OP's question of religions and alignment ...

In the region of my campaign setting takes place, religions are loosely based on Norse mythology. At one time Loki was welcome among the Asgardians, a trickster god who occasionally did some questionable things, but not a truly bad guy. However, he became jealous of the god of poetry Balder. Short version: Loki eventually caused the death of Balder and was imprisoned and suffers eternal torment. Someday he is destined to escape, free Fenris the wolf and with the Jotun (giants) destroy the current world order.

In my campaign setting, alignment is just one descriptor of the gods and their portfolio. Since Loki is a trickster god bent on escaping prison and wiping out all of the other gods while causing untold death and destruction to Midgard, it is highly unlikely anyone with a good alignment will follow them. But some CN ones? Sure. They value freedom from the current set of gods.

Odin was at one time probably more of a loving LG type god, but after the death of Balder he changed. He's now obsessed with building an army of fallen soldiers to fight at his side. He stirs up conflict just to get more soldiers that fall in battle, he is both praised and cursed. He is still the god of magic, knowledge and wisdom though in addition to being a god of war.

So people of all alignments can see reasons to follow Odin and there are different sects and splinter groups. Some that are primarily LG follow him because of the aspects he once held and they hope he will hold again. Some follow him because they want strength in battle or conquest.

The reasons people follow specific gods is varied and while people are likely to share the same or similar alignment they don't always. People, and gods, are more than just their alignment even if alignment is one piece of the picture.

 

[Oofta]

What "two letters"? If we're going by the 5e Monster Manual it's two words.

And if we're going with two words then there are plenty of sets of two words that would do much better than "Chaotic Neutral" - "Hostile Territorial", "Agressive Slavers", "Elusive Pranksters", "Xenophobic Traders", "Hungry carnivores" all tell me a lot more in two words.

So if the purpose of alignment is to give a two letter summary it doesn't do that. If it's to give a two word summary it's very bad at that.

Which is why alignment is only one part of the description that as a standalone descriptor doesn't tell you everything. But then again neither does "hungry carnivores". Do those hungry carnivores hunt animals? People? Do they like to torture their prey? How does that give us any clue as to the structure of their society or how they interact when they're not eating or hunting? Fluff text can fill in some of that but so can alignment.