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

[Cadence]

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.

That's a fine answer. I'm just trying to point out the that the ideas of "having a few a sentences in the description" or "allow a few more choices in the spot where alignment used to be" also don't seem to meaningfully say how the creature will react. If the answer is there are no short cuts and everyone should have to read the full monster description and think about it before putting them in an encounter, then so be it. I'll just hope the artwork is evocative because that will become a much bigger part of my initial screening procedure.

Are the other RPGs relevant to D&D? Are all of the other RPGs extant right now as popular as D&D? (I keep hearing the need to have polls done earlier in the thread, apparently popularity might mean something.) ;-)

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I didn't go for any option, because I was talking from the position of DM, not a player. And yes, usually monsters are bad, because game. Not always, but usually, and that includes orcs.

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

Orcs aren't all evil in my game and never have been. Stop assuming things, such as "alignments are bad." If you don't like them, don't use them, but they are not bad in my game. Nor are they bad in tens of thousands(probably much more) of other games in which alignment just isn't a problem at all.

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

I didn't say it was better. I just said that it happens and that nobody captures orcs, because they are orcs.

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

I don't have to. The burden of proof(and there isn't any) is on you for making the claim. When you provide what you think is proof of "laziness," I will then refute it. Until then, lazy isn't happening.

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?

I didn't say that. I said more orcs were bad than other alignments in encounters. It's a game designed around killing bad guys and monsters to get levels, so the majority of encounters are going to be with bad guys. That's just how it goes.

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.

Perhaps that's because I agreed with him on his other points there, just like I posted in my response to him.

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.

Nice Strawman. I didn't say anything about non-evil beings and how I would run them if they became hostile.

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.

So first, I said I've seen people kill orcs for being orcs, not that it happens a lot in my games. Second, nobody said anything about capturing and interrogating someone because you don't like their answer or they yelled at you. I can't even fathom where you got that from.

Please start responding to what I am saying, and not what you are imagining that I might mean.

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.

Okay. I gave two possible CE responses, not all possible CE responses.

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

No. That's just your misinterpretation of it, as evidenced by the Strawmen I keep encountering from you.

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

See above.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Okay, and statements like that are why I think you don't understand alignment.

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?

I've already answered what it adds. Several times. You don't want to accept it. Fine. Ignore alignment in the stat blocks. It's existence there harms no one as it's pure fluff that you can easily ignore.

 

[Maxperson]

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

You don't get to tell me what I should or should not make up for my game. If you want to do that extra work for your game, ignore alignment and do so. The existence of alignment has no effect on you if you ignore it.

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.

This is D&D, not those other games. An Appeal to Popularity isn't the best way to make your argument.

 

[Oofta]

...
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.

Yes but if you look at the number of people playing TTRPGs, most people are playing a game with alignment because most people are playing D&D.

That, and most of the contenders have a relatively narrow focus. You don't need alignment in Call of Cthulhu, you know it's the investigators vs eldritch horrors and so on. Other games have predefined factions that D&D does not have outside of specific settings.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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’m like you. I have “random” encounters, by which I mean that I’ve statted up 4 or 5 encounters that are thematically and environmentally appropriate, but that aren’t guaranteed to occur.

 

[Faolyn]

Are the other RPGs relevant to D&D? Are all of the other RPGs extant right now as popular as D&D? (I keep hearing the need to have polls done earlier in the thread, apparently popularity might mean something.) ;-)

That, and most of the contenders have a relatively narrow focus. You don't need alignment in Call of Cthulhu, you know it's the investigators vs eldritch horrors and so on. Other games have predefined factions that D&D does not have outside of specific settings.

It doesn't really matter whether they're popular or not. Most of them still manage to not have alignments and their GMs deal with it just fine. And many D&D DMs also play or run in other systems and deal with it just fine.

There are tons of games that still manage to be fantasy-oriented or that can be played in a fantasy way. Numenera is basically fantasy that's as broad as D&D, and the system itself can be used in D&D-style fantasy (they've even produced supplements for it). It has motivations, but no alignment. GURPS, Fate, and other generic systems can be played in D&D-style fantasy--GURPS has its whole Dungeon Fantasy line--and they don't have alignment.

 

[Oofta]

It doesn't really matter whether they're popular or not. Most of them still manage to not have alignments and their GMs deal with it just fine. And many D&D DMs also play or run in other systems and deal with it just fine.

There are tons of games that still manage to be fantasy-oriented or that can be played in a fantasy way. Numenera is basically fantasy that's as broad as D&D, and the system itself can be used in D&D-style fantasy (they've even produced supplements for it). It has motivations, but no alignment. GURPS, Fate, and other generic systems can be played in D&D-style fantasy--GURPS has its whole Dungeon Fantasy line--and they don't have alignment.

Hmm ... something, something, if everyone else jumps off a cliff would you jump as well?

Can we start listing everything that D&D has that other games don't so we can eliminate them as well? I mean, if commonality amongst games is the criteria we should be able to really winnow down the system!

This is getting old. Don't like alignment, ignore it. Get rid of it and we'll still have descriptions of evil monsters as being evil monsters and nothing changes. Alignment is useful to a lot of people and I have yet to see this other "infinitely better" system explained. Round and round it goes.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Or WotC recognized that alignment doesn’t really have a place in the game any more, and that especially with respect to humanoid creatures, it causes more trouble than its worth.

I do note that the more recent books, playing down alignment, have also played up PBIF.

 

[Faolyn]

You don't get to tell me what I should or should not make up for my game. If you want to do that extra work for your game, ignore alignment and do so. The existence of alignment has no effect on you if you ignore it.

So what you're saying is, you are capable of making up anything but not motivation, unless there's an alignment attached.

This is D&D, not those other games. An Appeal to Popularity isn't the best way to make your argument.

So please go tell that to Cadence and Oofta, who have said "Are the other RPGs relevant to D&D? Are all of the other RPGs extant right now as popular as D&D?" and "Yes but if you look at the number of people playing TTRPGs, most people are playing a game with alignment because most people are playing D&D."

Go on. Tell them that.

Also, saying that something I did is a fallacy--which it wasn't, because I wasn't saying that more people play in games that have no alignment, just that most games don't have alignments--doesn't mean that the claim is wrong.

I didn't go for any option, because I was talking from the position of DM, not a player. And yes, usually monsters are bad, because game. Not always, but usually, and that includes orcs.

So from your position as a DM, the orc hunters were monsters, not people/NPCs.

I didn't say it was better. I just said that it happens and that nobody captures orcs, because they are orcs.

But people kill orcs because they're orcs.

I don't have to. The burden of proof(and there isn't any) is on you for making the claim. When you provide what you think is proof of "laziness," I will then refute it. Until then, lazy isn't happening.

Please stop claiming fallacies until you learn what they actually do.

I have shown you the laziness, when it means that you are (a) treating all or most people of a specific race as having the same alignment, because the book says so, and (b) treating all people of a specific alignment as acting the same, which you did when you said what a chaotic evil creature would do when captured.

I didn't say that. I said more orcs were bad than other alignments in encounters. It's a game designed around killing bad guys and monsters to get levels, so the majority of encounters are going to be with bad guys. That's just how it goes.

You said "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."

So you clearly said "some orcs are good, some orcs are bad, but more bad than other races." If that's not what you meant, then you need to write more clearly.

(This is also a good argument for getting rid of killing-based XP gain, but that's for another thread.)

Perhaps that's because I agreed with him on his other points there, just like I posted in my response to him.

You certainly didn't say you agreed with them. Your quote that I posted was the entirety of your response to them about it.

Nice Strawman. I didn't say anything about non-evil beings and how I would run them if they became hostile.

And who said that the orcs you encountered in my hypothetical example were evil?

Answer: you did. When you assumed the orcs were evil.

So first, I said I've seen people kill orcs for being orcs, not that it happens a lot in my games.

And do you think that it's a good thing

Second, nobody said anything about capturing and interrogating someone because you don't like their answer or they yelled at you. I can't even fathom where you got that from.

You wrote: "Maybe he gives that answer and the PCs don't accept it and continue interrogation."

This, for a hypothetical orc that was out hunting game animals and got mad when you ruined the hunt.

Okay. I gave two possible CE responses, not all possible CE responses.

So which response do you pick?

And since there are multiple possible responses from which to pick, how is having Chaotic Evil in their stats better than having a sentence-long description that flat-out explains what they are like?

No. That's just your misinterpretation of it, as evidenced by the Strawmen I keep encountering from you.

Again, stop using the names of fallacies unless you're actually going to use them correctly.

You know what? Never mind. Umbran has already redtexted some people for being toxic, so I'm not going to continue in this thread.