D&D General Inherently Evil?

[Oofta]

My main problem is, the serious issues people have had with using alignment demonstrate it really hasn't been that stable.

That seems like quite the circular argument you have there. People like me complain that it's bad so therefore it's bad. I'd say it's an appeal to the masses fallacy, but I don't think the masses agree.

Some people see it as a tool. Some people see it as merely labels, like team jerseys. Some people see it as a straitjacket, or at least behave like they do. Some see it as a wibbly-wobbly, aligny-wimey ball of stuff. Some think it's more than mere cosmic labels, but still purely descriptive, a matter of collective actions. Some think it's literal essences physically present within things, places, people.

And the problem is? Every single one of these positions can find a point in a book for at least one edition of D&D that supports their stance. Even the things that get explicitly rejected (like straitjacket stuff) are easily read into actual book text. (The BoVD and BoED are particular stinkers in this regard.)

All this is part of why I have the cosmology I have for my game. If there are going to be pure evil or pure good beings, by God I'm going to explain why they're still capable of making choices, but reliably won't make the kind of choices that would take them away from evil. In so doing, I further try to avoid Unfortunate Implications; some such implications are probably unavoidable in the grand scheme, but I can do my best. That way I can have my cake and eat it too; I can have a world where choices matter, where the soul is free, and yet also one where there are some beings that have chosen evil so hard, there's no way back for them, unless they truly cease to be the kind of being they currently are.

A lot of D&D is implemented differently at different tables. I don't see that as an issue and I don't think removing alignment would solve anything. We'd just find something else. But you also seem to primarily be complaining about versions of the game that were last current decades ago. I guess I don't really see the point of calling out BoVD, it was published nearly 20 years ago and was never a core book.

I agree that the implementation specifics of alignment have changed and for the most part for the better. I've pretty much always used it like 5E explicitly states now - just a general guideline, one aspect of many that can be used for role playing. We can't change the past and some DMs are always going to emphasize some aspect of the game that some players do not like. I don't see why people care about the current version.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That seems like quite the circular argument you have there. People like me complain that it's bad so therefore it's bad. I'd say it's an appeal to the masses fallacy, but I don't think the masses agree.

...how is it circular? Circularity would be presuming alignment is busted, and thus concluding that alignment is busted. I'm not doing that. I'm saying that we can, purely through looking at the fact that frequently, over essentially the entire period of D&D's existence, people have not only disagreed about what alignment is for, but genuinely believed diametrically opposite things about alignment, and believed that the text supported their position and not anyone else's.

That's not saying "it's true because people believe it's true." It's saying, "Because of the sustained, dramatic disagreements, some of which actually bled into the way alignment itself is described by the text, it doesn't actually look like alignment has been that consistent in usage, and thus in conception." That's literally just observing the way people really have used the system, and the way people really have discussed it.

A lot of D&D is implemented differently at different tables. I don't see that as an issue and I don't think removing alignment would solve anything.

That's not what I'm saying though. I'm not saying "oh, some people use it for different purposes." I'm saying different people use it in diametrically contradictory ways, and will evangelize for their way over all others, complete with actual text citations on both sides.

We'd just find something else. But you also seem to primarily be complaining about versions of the game that were last current decades ago. I guess I don't really see the point of calling out BoVD, it was published nearly 20 years ago and was never a core book.

So...when you said "I think the core concept of alignment has been pretty stable throughout the history of D&D since the 70s," were you not intending me to consider how alignment has been used over the course of that 50 year span? It's a bit weird that you're allowed to make a claim that spans across that time, but when I actually bring up problems across that span of time, I'm only allowed to discuss things that are recent. My whole point was that your claim--about the 50-year lifespan of D&D and the alleged consistency and stability of "the core concept of alignment"--doesn't hold water. If we restrict things to only the last two editions, sure, it gets better, but given how BITTERLY people complained about 4e's methods (even the addition of Unaligned, despite it being very useful), I don't even know if it's been actually all that consistent across just 4e vs 5e!

I agree that the implementation specifics of alignment have changed and for the most part for the better.

Okay...but...doesn't that imply a (positive) lack of consistency...? If things change, they're not the same.

 

[Lyxen]

I think you are thinking of 3e. In the 5e Monster Manual both devils and kobolds are just listed as lawful evil.

Yes, it's one of these little regressions from 3e which I don't really understand, especially since 5e uses natural language, they would not even had to explain the use of "often", "usually" and "always" in the alignments in the MM. It would have cost almost nothing and it would have prevented so many discussions by making it obvious that alignment of species is very often not mandatory.

And more recently in my 5e Van Richten's I don't see alignment listed in the monster entries.

I think it was again WotC testing the waters. In Fizban, they have thankfully reverted to the 3e format which is so far the best one, with for example Animated Breath being "Typically Neutral Evil", the aspect of Bahamut being (understandably) just "Lawful Good", etc.

Which is for me worth saluting.

 

[Nefermandias]

Honestly, we only keep debating this over and over because people insist on drawing a clear line between biology and culture when in reality, things are not that clear cut.

At the end of the day, for your D&D game it doesn't really matter if your evil humanoids plunder and rape because they were bred by a dark lord to have incredible high levels of testosterone or because they follow a genocidal one eyed god or even simply because violence is their cultural norm. All of these approaches have cons and pros and people are bound to be upset anyway. People love to be upset.

 

[Lyxen]

Honestly, we only keep debating this over and over because people insist on drawing a clear line between biology and culture when in reality, things are not that clear cut.

At the end of the day, for your D&D game it doesn't really matter if your evil humanoids plunder and rape because they were bred by a dark lord to have incredible high levels of testosterone or because they follow a genocidal one eyed god or even simply because violence is their cultural norm. All of these approaches have cons and pros and people are bound to be upset anyway. People love to be upset.

And, if I may add, especially over the internet, I think that the reality is that the 1% debating this have little impact on so much of the games actually being played out there in the proper spirit of friendship and understanding.

 

[Oofta]

...how is it circular? Circularity would be presuming alignment is busted, and thus concluding that alignment is busted. I'm not doing that. I'm saying that we can, purely through looking at the fact that frequently, over essentially the entire period of D&D's existence, people have not only disagreed about what alignment is for, but genuinely believed diametrically opposite things about alignment, and believed that the text supported their position and not anyone else's.

That's not saying "it's true because people believe it's true." It's saying, "Because of the sustained, dramatic disagreements, some of which actually bled into the way alignment itself is described by the text, it doesn't actually look like alignment has been that consistent in usage, and thus in conception." That's literally just observing the way people really have used the system, and the way people really have discussed it.


That's not what I'm saying though. I'm not saying "oh, some people use it for different purposes." I'm saying different people use it in diametrically contradictory ways, and will evangelize for their way over all others, complete with actual text citations on both sides.


So...when you said "I think the core concept of alignment has been pretty stable throughout the history of D&D since the 70s," were you not intending me to consider how alignment has been used over the course of that 50 year span? It's a bit weird that you're allowed to make a claim that spans across that time, but when I actually bring up problems across that span of time, I'm only allowed to discuss things that are recent. My whole point was that your claim--about the 50-year lifespan of D&D and the alleged consistency and stability of "the core concept of alignment"--doesn't hold water. If we restrict things to only the last two editions, sure, it gets better, but given how BITTERLY people complained about 4e's methods (even the addition of Unaligned, despite it being very useful), I don't even know if it's been actually all that consistent across just 4e vs 5e!


Okay...but...doesn't that imply a (positive) lack of consistency...? If things change, they're not the same.

Pretty much every aspect of D&D is considered "controversial" by someone. Classes? Bunk. AC? Terrible. HP? Worst idea ever. Ability scores? Totally ridiculous.

The core concept of alignment hasn't changed much since the 70s. A general descriptor of moral compass and guideline, an indicator of how an NPC or monster thinks. The implementation of how some of the books expect you to use it? Yeah, that's changed a bit, just like just about everything else.

That's all. Have a good one, I'm not going to bother getting into yet another "you're wrong, no you are" especially when you don't even address what I really said.

 

[Vaalingrade]

People love to be upset.

Or people have reasons to be upset that you don't like because it would require examining something you do like.

 

[jayoungr]

...how is it circular? Circularity would be presuming alignment is busted, and thus concluding that alignment is busted.

Rather than circular reasoning, it's my old friend affirming the consequent again.

There are multiple possible explanations for why people might complain about alignment.

One of those possible reasons would be "because alignment is busted." (Other possibilities include, but are not limited to, "because some people don't really understand it," "because complaining about alignment is fashionable," and "because different people like different things.")

You are asserting that "because alignment is busted" is the one and only reason why people complain without doing anything to rule out the other possible reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but it does mean that you haven't put in the work to demonstrate that your reason and no other is the correct one. Therefore, you're unlikely to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

I wish affirming the consequent had a snappy name like the Texas Sharpshooter or No True Scotsman. People might notice it more often in that case.

 

[Oofta]

Or people have reasons to be upset that you don't like because it would require examining something you do like.

Or people insist that something that they can ignore must be removed because they personally don't like it (and can't justify it much more than "I don't like it") while others find it useful on a regular basis.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Or people insist that something that they can ignore must be removed because they personally don't like it (and can't justify it much more than "I don't like it") while others find it useful on a regular basis.

There are literally hundreds of pages of discussion on the issues people have with alignment and the best you can come up with is they 'can't justify it more than 'I don't like it'.

This isn't even relevant to what Nefermandias said, just randomly injecting the same lame catchphrase into someone else's argument.