D&D General D&D doesn't need Evil

[Aldarc]

It's a game. Selling more copies of the game is good for the hobby. You don't need to use all aspects of the game if you don't want to.

Did you know that the version of D&D where alignment is the least relevant it has ever been has been in its tradition is also the most successful version of D&D to date?

Maybe the secret sauce would taste better to a wider audience without some of the ingredients?

 

[Charlaquin]

Did you know that the version of D&D where alignment is the least relevant it has ever been has been in its tradition is also the most successful version of D&D to date?

Maybe the secret sauce would taste better to a wider audience without some of the ingredients?

To be fair, I think alignment was less relevant in 4e.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the issue is not so much with alignment but rather with the presentation of certain races and evil, and the two definitely go hand-in-hand.

As for alignment itself, I don't find it problematic at all, but I think it can be argued that it frames moral issues in a rough and undeservedly simplistic light.

The alignment problem being argued in the orc threads is that all of them are evil. That wasn't the case in 3e. You could have entire countries of LG orcs by RAW. It's a simple fix.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, and alignment could likewise be replaced with another form of “shorthand”.

It could, but there's little reason to do so. The problematic aspects of alignment have been removed from the game for years.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but good and evil don’t need to be enshrined in the rules for people who want that to have it.

It doesn't NEED to be removed, either. Nor should it be. Ignore it if you don't NEED it for your game.

 

[Maxperson]

You play with different people than I do.

Apparently the hundreds I've played with over the decades have all been different from the ones you've played with as well.

 

[Charlaquin]

It doesn't NEED to be removed, either. Nor should it be.

Of course it doesn’t need to be removed, but I do think the game would be better for its removal.

Ignore it if you don't NEED it for your game.

Oh, I do.

 

[Charlaquin]

Apparently the hundreds I've played with over the decades have all been different from the ones you've played with as well.

Yes. Probably because the ones I play with haven’t been playing for decades (well, most of them haven’t, anyway). It’s mostly the new crowd who take issue with alignment. Unsurprisingly.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course it doesn’t need to be removed, but I do think the game would be better for its removal.

Then take it out of your game. Don't try to take it away from the great many that use it with no issues. The vast majority of players who use it, use as it is meant to be used. As an RP tool and not some sort of straight jacket.

Oh, I do.

Excellent. I ignore it player side and only really use it for monsters and NPCs. I've been doing that since 3e and it has worked great.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. Probably because the ones I play with haven’t been playing for decades (well, most of them haven’t, anyway). It’s mostly the new crowd who take issue with alignment. Unsurprisingly.

Really? What is there to possibly take issue with? A new player isn't going to have the baggage from prior editions and 5e only has one vague sentence for alignment.