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

[Maxperson]

How? Why cant you just decide their personality? I simply don't get this, the GM needs to improvise all sort of stuff all the time. How do you manage to improvise the décor, the staff and the clientele for a tavern the players randomly choose to enter without the tavern having an alignment?

Why go through that much work for a nobody orc? I'd rather have a default to go to and use my creativity on other things. I already improvise a lot. I don't need to add more to my plate when it's completely unnecessary to do so.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why go through that much work for a nobody orc? I'd rather have a default to go to and use my creativity on other things. I already improvise a lot. I don't need to add more to my plate when it's completely unnecessary to do so.

It's not a lot of work, it takes like couple of seconds! "This orc is the leader, they're a cold-blooded cruel sociopath," "This orc acts tough, but it's mostly bravado. They're afraid of their leader," "This orc is old and honourable warrior. They've seen a lot of combat and are not afraid to die. They think the leader orc is a jerk though." There. Three personalities for captured orcs, writing that took far longer than thinking it.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not a lot of work, it takes like couple of seconds! "This orc is the leader, they're a cold-blooded cruel sociopath," "This orc acts tough, but it's mostly bravado. They're afraid of their leader," "This orc is old and honourable warrior. They've seen a lot of combat and are not afraid to die. They think the leader orc is a jerk though." There. Three personalities for captured orcs, writing that took far longer than thinking it.

I tend to put more into my NPCs than a little blurb like that. Those are great helpers, but alignment allows me to instantly know much more about the orc, mindflayer, demon or whatever than just the blurb alone.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I tend to put more into my NPCs than a little blurb like that. Those are great helpers, but alignment allows me to instantly know much more about the orc, mindflayer, demon or whatever than just the blurb alone.

How? People keep saying that yet they cannot describe it. If you have three captured orcs all with their default alignment of chaotic evil how could you possibly have more information?

 

[Mistwell]

I will do that as soon as you show me the meaningful number of people helped by having alignment as a system in the game. Please. Show me those surveys you have. Or is this simply you wanting to put conditions on other people that you can not fulfil yourself.

Naw that's not how advocacy for an affirmative change operates. It's a branded element of the game. Memes online routinely compare alignments as a recognizable existing part of the system even for people who do not play the game. Objectively this version of the game is doing spectacularly well, and objectively WOTC has said in statements to shareholders, covered under FTC truth laws, that the game is doing better than it's ever done in the history of their tracking of such records.

To advocate for a meaningful change from that system you have to show there is a problem with it. I don't have to show it's working fine as it is - because the default is it's working fine as it is. If you cannot demonstrate a meaningful problem, then you don't get to change a big branded portion of the game for the sake of change.

That's the challenge in front of you, if you're going to state it as if it's more than just one person's preferences.

If a system does not actively help then it is harmful - it takes up space and time.

So. I've shown it to be morally toxic

You have not. You have not demonstrated any harm to a meaningful number of people at all. You've stated your preferences, and then set forth a hypothetical that you think it could be bad under a certain set of possible scenarios. That's not "showing it to be morally toxic" any more than person of a particular religion claiming their belief system is the correct one and if the game assumes a different belief system then it is "toxic". Claiming something is "toxic" requires proof stronger than your preferences and suspicions.

, and, that it is trivial to produce a better system for what its few defenders claim it does well.

What are your game design credits that you can speak to the triviality of creating a new system which apparently you have not even created in your own game and tested out?

Or is this simply that you have neither a logical or moral argument so you've decided that all you can possibly do is try to put the entire burden of proof on the opposition because you have nothing else to offer?

Now you're getting personal and nasty. That's uncalled for. Please knock it off. If you have an issue with my argument, respond to it. If you have an issue with ME and my "moral" and "logical" persona, then take it up with the mods. But knock it off here.

Pots and kettles spring to mind here. I've given moral arguments. I've given better systems that do what the people who like alignment claim it does - so if that's what's wanted then why not replace alignment with a better system.

Again pots and kettles. You have no meaningful evidence. Yet you are dismissive and claiming you represent some larger group of opinions.

I don't need evidence that the exiting system works. It does, by default, work. It's a top selling game, it's a branded element of the game, and to change that game you have to prove there is a real problem. You have to show it's harming people to adequately to advocate for an affirmative change. So show it. Anything less is just you trying to enforce your personal choices on others where the others appear just fine with the existing successful system.

 

[Maxperson]

How? People keep saying that yet they cannot describe it. If you have three captured orcs all with their default alignment of chaotic evil how could you possibly have more information?

I've described it in detail at least a dozen times, if not more in this thread alone.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't need evidence that the exiting system works. It does, by default, work. It's a top selling game, it's a branded element of the game, and to change that game you have to prove there is a real problem. You have to show it's harming people to adequately to advocate for an affirmative change. So show it. Anything less is just you trying to enforce your personal choices on others where the others appear just fine with the existing successful system.

So why you think WotC has stopped putting alignment in their newer creature profiles then?

 

[Cadence]

Actually, a question for all of the people in this thread: do you use random encounters?

I ask because I sort of don't. I generally only do planned encounters, where I've already given it some thought as to what the creatures involved are like and what they want. And my lists of random encounters aren't "2d6 orcs", it's "5 orcs who are out hunting wildlife for food and will grow hostile if the PCs do anything that scares the game away or tries to interfere with their hunt."

I'll roll to see if there is an encounter, but don't know if I've ever used an actual table to see what showed up (at least not since the mid-80s). The process for determining what shows up might be awfully split second in my head and not much better than random. For a game without a lot of prep time I'll often quickly skip through the book to look for things to populate the pre-planned encounters with.

This isn't a knock on people who use random encounters: due to my ADHD, I really benefit having these things planned out, even if they don't actually get used (because I can always use them later) (also, I often forget to roll for random encounters). But I am curious because, in reading the responses of people who find alignment useful, how much of it is because they're more about improv-ing what the PCs see. This came to me when @Cadence said (re: elusive pranksters) "Do the pranksters do non harmful pranks or harmful ones?" because to me, that's something that I would have already figured out before I put the pranksters in the game.

So it's entirely possible that one of the disconnects here is due to random vs. planned encounters.

I was just pointing out that "elusive pranksters" didn't seem like it said enough. Does "non-magically stealthy and circumspect jokesters who might steal someone but not intentionally cause injury" give enough particulars?

 

[Hexmage-EN]

So why you think WotC has stopped putting alignment in their newer creature profiles then?

Probably as a reactionary measure after some higher profile critics made a big deal about orcs in particular (to be clear, I'm fine with orcs turning from a primarily adversarial kind of being to being treated more like a PHB race). It remains to be seen if this will be a permanent change or not.

The recent content also hasn't really needed to deal with alignment much, but if Descent into Avernus had been published with alignment excised that would have been more of a problem. Plus ditching alignment would pretty much be the death knell for any potential Planescape revival.

 

[Faolyn]

It tells me which box they mostly play in. From that I can pick actions which reflect that box. I might pick someone who honors the letter and spirit of the agreement, but only enters into agreements that enrich him, even if others are exploited or hurt by those agreements. I might pick to roleplay the person as someone who enters into agreements, but looks for loopholes to exploit to his benefit and the detriment of others. It doesn't matter which way I choose to do it. The two letters or two words give me the framework within to begin operating and if I want to, expand upon.

I do the latter. Now, if they kill the orcs in the fight, I don't need any more than that, but hostile is not enough to tell me what happens if the PCs decide to capture and interrogate one. Alignment helps me roleplay the unexpected social interaction.

See, to me, these two statements illustrate the main problem with alignment and are contradictory.

First, why would PCs decide to kill or capture and interrogate some hunters? There are in-game reasons, yes: perhaps the hunters wear the livery of the king and the PCs are trying to get info on the king, whom they know or believe to be the bad guy. But--and this is, I feel, more likely--they could be capturing the hunters because they're orcs. And everyone knows orcs are evil, because every MM has said so. If I had written "elf hunters" or "human hunters" instead of orcs, would you have written this reply to me? Somehow I don't think your first thought upon seeing a group human hunters would be to kill them or capture or interrogate them.

And this is the major danger of having alignment: it encourages lazy gameplay. There's no thought involved in either planning the encounter or playing in it, because you can just throw orcs at the PCs--even orcs doing incredibly mundane tasks like game hunting--and the first thoughts are to interrogate and/or kill them. Not negotiate with, not help out, not trade with, not follow and see if they're up to no good, not avoid. Just violence.

But as to the contradictory statements...

Imagine the PCs capture and interrogate the orc for legitimate, non-evil-listing reasons. You have the description "becomes hostile if the PCs scare away prey." So if the PCs capture the orcs and say "why did you attack us?" You have your answer right there: "You stupid humans with your clanking metal armor came into our woods and scared the deer away! Now what am I supposed to feed my kids?" The orcs aren't going to become hostile if the PCs don't interfere with them. And you--who presumably improv lots of different actions for your games--can decide what happens if the PCs choose to help the hunters instead.

But if you have the description "chaotic evil" then what's your answer? "You stupid humans came here and I'm evil so I attacked"? Or "Expletive deleted you, you stupid humans!"? Seriously. People keep saying that having the alignment helps guide them, but when I ask them how, they don't answer.

But here's why it's contradictory: before, you write "It tells me which box they mostly play in. From that I can pick actions which reflect that box." But what I wrote also gives you a box--and it's a much bigger box. Why is it easier for you to pick actions out of a box marked "chaotic evil" than it is to pick actions out of a box marked "game hunters who will become hostile if their hunt is interfered with"?