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

[Maxperson]

It feels like some of them were ahead of the curve, but I wasn't following closely enough to be sure.

None of that was mentioned prior to the loud voices, though.

 

[Thunder Brother]

Sure, if you don't know how alignment is used. I can imagine that it would sound monotonous to you. In practice, for those who know how to use alignment, it's anything but monotonous. Alignment =/= always act the same way.

Yes, I am just a big dummy, thank you.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, I am just a big dummy, thank you.

I'm not saying you're stupid at all. I'm saying that alignment isn't monotonous if used correctly. I'm pretty darned smart, but there are tools in this world(many of them) that I just don't know how to use.

 

[Minigiant]

Sure, if you don't know how alignment is used. I can imagine that it would sound monotonous to you. In practice, for those who know how to use alignment, it's anything but monotonous. Alignment =/= always act the same way.

The problem is that a huge noticeable percentage of DMs, players, and writers did use alignment monotonously and restrictively.

That's why there is backlash against alignment.

And until fans who use alignment correctly acknowledge its missed by others and promote corrective language by WOTC or teach themselves, it will keep being used incorrectly and eventually be removed from the game.

The "it's not my problem. I know what I'm doing. Sucks for everyone else" mentality frequently seen in the D&D community will get sacred cows slaughtered at the Altar of Undereducated Fans. Especially since 5e flooded the game with new fans.

 

[Thunder Brother]

I'm not saying you're stupid at all. I'm saying that alignment isn't monotonous if used correctly. I'm pretty darned smart, but there are tools in this world(many of them) that I just don't know how to use.

See that's my problem with this whole argument surrounding alignment. You and other posters are essentially treating it as some mystery that the rest of us simply aren't enlightened to, while to me it's all smoke and mirrors.

For example, I look through a list of Chaotic Evil monsters on DnDBeyond, and I get demons, orcs, lamias, undead, dragons, and a bunch of other monsters. Alignment, by itself, tells me very little about these monsters and what makes them tick besides "very aggressive and dangerous". And that's so very little to work with. But you know what tells me a whole lot more about these monsters? Almost anything else on their stat block or description.

Because an orc and a lamia are both CE, and if I run them based on only their alignment they will play basically the same. But they shouldn't, because there are all these other hooks and prompts to work off of that are simply more revealing. So alignment, by itself adds little to running a monster (or NPC), especially if you're comparing two distinct monsters within the same alignment.

But if alignment works for you, cool, keep on keeping on. Just don't act as if the rest of us simply don't get it.

 

[Maxperson]

See that's my problem with this whole argument surrounding alignment. You and other posters are essentially treating it as some mystery that the rest of us simply aren't enlightened to, while to me it's all smoke and mirrors.

For example, I look through a list of Chaotic Evil monsters on DnDBeyond, and I get demons, orcs, lamias, undead, dragons, and a bunch of other monsters. Alignment, by itself, tells me very little about these monsters and what makes them tick besides "very aggressive and dangerous". And that's so very little to work with. But you know what tells me a whole lot more about these monsters? Almost anything else on their stat blocks or description.

Because an orc and a lamia are both CE, and if I run them based on only their alignment they will play basically the same. But they shouldn't, because there all these other hooks and prompts to work off of that are simply more revealing. So alignment, by itself adds little to running a monster (or NPC), especially if you're comparing two distinct monsters within the same alignment.

But if alignment works for you, cool, keep on keeping on. Just don't act as if the rest of us simply don't get it.

That's why alignment, as I've been saying for this entire thread, is just a tool that provides you a base from which to move on from if you want to. For some monsters and/or encounters, alignment will be enough. For others it won't, but will still provide you with aid in playing the monster. Details + alignment are greater than either alignment or details alone.

 

[Faolyn]

There's nothing at all contradictory about those two statements. At all. In fact, they are complimentary with each other.

They were nothing but contradictions.

There are literally thousands of reasons. The hunters might be close to a human town and they might want to know where the hunters are from. They may want to know how many other hunters and warriors are in the area, because they have to travel through and want to be prepared. Or... Or... I mean, the sky is the limit with why they might do it.

But again, you went for the violent option rather than just asking them. Asking them, in and of itself, going to scare game away. It's possible to have a perfectly civil conversation with orc hunters--but you seem to think it's not. Because orcs are evil.

And that's why alignments are bad. Why are orcs evil in your setting? Because, that's why.

What I've never seen, is capturing orcs because they are orcs. I've seen plenty of kill the orcs because they are orcs, but never a capture. I mean, what's the point?

Because killing someone because of their race is sooo much better.

It's not a danger. It's not even a worry. I've never seen it and I've played in a myriad of groups from RP heavy to power gamer to a mix, to sand box, to railroad. And really, you need to stop calling how we use alignment "lazy." It's quite frankly insulting and unnecessary.

You haven't shown that it's not lazy. So far, everything you've said in this post has involved following basic stereotypes.

As for helping, following, etc., that really depends on how orcs are run in the game. Are they generally a great enemy of all, or are they just another race with good and bad, if a more bad than other races.

And again you're proving my point about the problem with alignments. Why would you assume that orcs have to be "more bad" than other races?

When @Galandris pointed out that elves had tried to commit genocide on the quaggoths, your response wasn't "well, I guess the alignments were wrong and those elves were actually pretty evil." You didn't say "I guess elves are "more bad" than other races." Instead, your response was, quote "Nothing says that they had to go deep into the underdark. It's just as plausible that they simply feared the elves would follow them down into the dark and so they went deep just to be sure." Or as I read it, you're blaming the quaggoths for overreacting to them being nearly genocided--because elves are listed as being Good, so it doesn't matter that they tried to kill off an entire species just to get their land.

Okay. But only screaming in anger and being hostile is just a one dimensional cartoon character, and I don't run those. Maybe he gives that answer and the PCs don't accept it and continue interrogation. Maybe they include threats. Maybe they promise freedom. Maybe a hundred other things. I need to know FAR more than just "hostile if interrupted" in order to play the orc and alignment is an invaluable tool for that.

How? Do you assume that an evil being would automatically attack upon becoming hostile and a nonevil being wouldn't? That itself is one-dimensional and cartoonish, and still lazy because there's a world of options that any creature within a particular alignment would do. A good being might attack, because these interlopers are proving a danger for the survival of their people. An evil being might not attack, because they have better things to do.

Earlier, you were saying that alignments were objective. Evil is evil. I'd say it's objectively evil to capture and interrogate someone just because you don't like their answer, especially if they are under no obligation to answer you. Or to kill someone because of their race, or because they yelled at you because you spoiled their hunt and because of that, possibly made their family go hungry. Just like it's objectively evil to try to murder an entire race for their land.

Nope. It helps me know how he might react to various things. If threatened, he's likely to cow to the much stronger force that has him captured. With CE might makes right. The weak bend to the strong. If they offer freedom, he might take the now weak in his eyes PCs(who lets an enemy go!?) up on their offer, then get a few dozen buddies and hunt the group down to make the PCs his captives and show THEM how a captor acts. Alignment tells me a lot.

There's nothing about chaotic evil that means "might makes right" is the only interpretation. Most of the descriptions of CE I read have that as one possible way it might be expressed, and it certainly doesn't explain what a captured CE creature might do or how it might response to interrogation. A CE person might run away and attack later. They might be basically like chihuahuas and attack even if the odds appear to be overwhelmingly against them. They might refuse to answer someone who interrogates them, no matter what those people do them, because it doesn't believe them when they say they'll let them go if they answer the questions, so why not keep quiet. They might actually respect people who keep their word, even if they themselves rarely do. They might not attack at all because they don't feel like it. They might never give up any information because they have feel protective of their friends and family, even if they would gladly watch the rest of the world burn. They may get revenge on the PCs by spreading lies about them, or by sneaking into their camp at night and peeing on their rations, or by taking out their anger on someone else entirely. They might be perfectly charming and friendly and the PCs may never, ever know that they were CE, unless they follow them home to discover that the individual is, e.g., abusing their family members.

So far, all your alignment as told me is that alignment is cartoonishly one-dimensional.

Your box is useless for what I needed above. It's also far smaller than alignment ever could be.

And your box hasn't provided anything but blatant stereotypes.

 

[Thunder Brother]

That's why alignment, as I've been saying for this entire thread, is just a tool that provides you a base from which to move on from if you want to. For some monsters and/or encounters, alignment will be enough. For others it won't, but will still provide you with aid in playing the monster. Details + alignment are greater than either alignment or details alone.

Again, if it works for you, good. But to me it's like saying you can really only understand Harry Potter's character if you start with knowing that he's a Leo; it's a vague (or meaningless) detail that's easily overridden by anything of even slightly more substance.

What does it really add? Would removing the "neutral evil" from a goblin stat block lead to utter confusion for some DMs? Would they be lost on how to run one without this baseline knowledge?

 

[Cadence]

For example, I look through a list of Chaotic Evil monsters on DnDBeyond, and I get demons, orcs, lamias, undead, dragons, and a bunch of other monsters. Alignment, by itself, tells me very little about these monsters and what makes them tick besides "very aggressive and dangerous". And that's so very little to work with. But you know what tells me a whole lot more about the monster? Almost anything else on its stat block or its description.

When scrolling through quickly trying to find a species that would work well with other evil things, it feels like it helps narrow things down enough that it's easier to start focusing more on the more detailed description though to see what I want to pick out to use in an encounter. I've used that a lot to help narrow things down as I flip through the monster book in my latest game.


And so, looking at alignment first doesn't lead you to this problem...

Because an orc and a lamia are both CE, and if I run them based on only their alignment they will play basically the same. But they shouldn't, because there all these other hooks and prompts to work off of that are simply more revealing. So alignment, by itself adds little to running a monster (or NPC), especially if you're comparing two distinct monsters within the same alignment.

... because it was only a quick first step and once I've narrowed in I read the descriptions of the finalists, pick one, and then decide how to use it.

I view it kind of like if they added another line under the creature name, type, and alignment that was common location. (Did 2e have Climate/Terrain as a high up line?). Knowing something is usually in the mountains doesn't tell me how it fights or acts, but if I'm looking for the kind of dragon that's usually in the mountains it would help me narrow it down. Just like alignment helps me narrow down all of the dragons to fewer ones if I'm looking for something to team up with the villains or have a better chance of being an ally. (Given a choice, between alignment and environment, I think I'd rather have environment, but it feels like both doesn't take up that much space).

 

[Faolyn]

In a version where not all of the race have the same alignment, or in a version where they're objectively evil and a source of badness in the world as surely as if they were rabid dogs?

In a setting-neutral version, which would hopefully be the first.

How hostile? What game (deer or halflings)? What will they do later if we stealthily follow them? Are they helpful if we ask for directions or if we can help? Will they be more helpful if we use something to help them catch what they're hunting? You had 12 words and it only deals with this one encounter and then not very well

If you can make up everything else for a game, you should be able to make up the answer to all of these questions.

Especially considering that the vast majority of RPGs don't include alignment at all and if you were playing one of those, you'd have to make their motivations up anyway.