D&D General Inherently Evil?

[jayoungr]

That's...not what I'm saying. I'm not arguing it's busted at all.

Okay, but my point still stands. There are multiple reasons why people might have issues with alignment. You're saying that you know THE reason why people complain about it, and you're ignoring the others. If I summarized your reason incorrectly, I apologize, but that doesn't mean that you have in fact accurately identified the correct single reason out of many possible ones.

Your latest post does a much better job of making the case that alignment is inconsistent than simply saying "It's obviously inconsistent because people have serious issues with it."

 

[nevin]

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

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

Lawful evil is the big exception for evil races. The strong rule the weak submit but order must maintained. With the right ruler a guest might not even realize they are evil.

 

[Voadam]

Isn't that going to vary from campaign to campaign, DM to DM? I decided long ago that necromancy is evil in my campaign because it can anchor the soul to a body; it's an act of desecration. Of course that's just my version there's nothing in the books that state it, it's just something that made sense to me. Which obviously is just another way of my saying "it's evil because I made it evil".

DMs have always modified and tweaked the rule here and there in most home games I've been a part of. On the other hand I've never heard of anyone saying Deathwatch was evil just because it had the necromantic tag (although I admit I had to look it up). Seems like kind of an odd ruling whereas what I'm talking about is specifically spells like animate dead.

In 3e it was the evil descriptor, not the fact that it was necromancy that was relevant RAW.

RAW Deathwatch had the [Evil] descriptor.

In 3e RAW descriptors govern how a spell interacts with alignment.

"Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on."

Saying that descriptor alignment spells interacted with your alignment seemed RAW, how it does so seems left ambiguous.

Saying casting an [Evil] descriptor spell counts as an evil action seems consistent with RAW separate from any moral consideration of the action. So multiclassed paladins in 3e should be cognizant of that before casting [Evil] descriptor spells such as Protection from Good.

Other necromancy spells do not have the [evil] descriptor, Inflict Light Wounds for example from the cleric list or Finger of Death from Wizard and Druid lists.

In 3e generally spells that create undead, spells that specifically interacted with good or evil alignment, and a few select others have the [Evil] descriptor.

 

[Vaalingrade]

In 3e generally spells that create undead, spells that specifically interacted with good or evil alignment, and a few select others have the [Evil] descriptor.

Should be noted that in 3e, Animate dead created Skeletons and Zombies which were Neutral in the MM because anything Mindless is neutral per the 3e MM.

That is until some goober (yo.) roasted someone who turned out to be a designer for arguing that animating dead should be an evil act because it created evil creatures because it actually didn't create evil creatures. So 3.5 magically had skels and zombs be Always Evil despite not removing their mindlessness or the Mindless = Neutral rule in the MM.

So I naturally roasted the same guy for breaking the rules to win an internet argument. They also said ALL undead were evil, so I changed my avatar to the Ghost for month.

 

[Maxperson]

Should be noted that in 3e, Animate dead created Skeletons and Zombies which were Neutral in the MM because anything Mindless is neutral per the 3e MM.

That is until some goober (yo.) roasted someone who turned out to be a designer for arguing that animating dead should be an evil act because it created evil creatures because it actually didn't create evil creatures. So 3.5 magically had skels and zombs be Always Evil despite not removing their mindlessness or the Mindless = Neutral rule in the MM.

Or else it's just evil to desecrate the dead and raise someone's loved ones to walk around killing people.

 

[Voadam]

I don't think so. I arbitrarily selected neutral good and then went to get it.

"NG folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs."

What does that even mean? Taken literally if a group really needs to wipe out an innocent town...

In my opinion, 3e gave the best accounting of what the alignments mean. I'll pull out NG again.

"A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates
but does not feel beholden to them. Jozan, a cleric who helps others according to their needs, is neutral good.

Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order."

Eh, I think that is just quibbling about specific descriptions.

I can't think of a reasonable interpretation of need in that kind of context that includes a need to wipe out an innocent town.

The 3e definition could be interpreted the same way if you want, the NG is devoted to helping out the group that really needs to wipe out an innocent village.

In any case I don't think it is the specific 9 points that are key but the two axes. So from the 5e PH page 122 "Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral)" seem enough to tell a new player good guys, bad guys, people in between. Straightforward and useful concepts for D&D.

And then the other part "and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral)." Think about your attitude towards society and order. Which is not particularly clear, or in my opinion particularly useful, but could be a roleplaying hook.

 

[Voadam]

Or else it's just evil to desecrate the dead and raise someone's loved ones to walk around killing people.

Clerical animate object spell can be used to take someone's loved ones remains and animate them to walk around killing people. The spell and body do not register as supernatural evil.

 

[Maxperson]

I can't think of a reasonable interpretation of need in that kind of context that includes a need to wipe out an innocent town.

If its continued existence will cause the deaths of more. There are stories that involve innocent people being the catalyst for great evil.

The 3e definition could be interpreted the same way if you want, the NG is devoted to helping out the group that really needs to wipe out an innocent village.

Not really. It specifically calls out being good two times, and gives some guidance on how NG does its good. 5e is nearly worthless for that.

In any case I don't think it is the specific 9 points that are key but the two axes. So from the 5e PH page 122 "Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral)" seem enough to tell a new player good guys, bad guys, people in between. Straightforward and useful concepts for D&D.

And then the other part "and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral)." Think about your attitude towards society and order. Which is not particularly clear, or in my opinion particularly useful, but could be a roleplaying hook.

The 9 points are THE alignments. They should actually help people who pick them roleplay them. They don't do that in 5e.

 

[nevin]

In 3e it was the evil descriptor, not the fact that it was necromancy that was relevant RAW.

RAW Deathwatch had the [Evil] descriptor.

In 3e RAW descriptors govern how a spell interacts with alignment.

"Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on."

Saying that descriptor alignment spells interacted with your alignment seemed RAW, how it does so seems left ambiguous.

Saying casting an [Evil] descriptor spell counts as an evil action seems consistent with RAW separate from any moral consideration of the action. So multiclassed paladins in 3e should be cognizant of that before casting [Evil] descriptor spells such as Protection from Good.

Other necromancy spells do not have the [evil] descriptor, Inflict Light Wounds for example from the cleric list or Finger of Death from Wizard and Druid lists.

In 3e generally spells that create undead, spells that specifically interacted with good or evil alignment, and a few select others have the [Evil] descriptor.

My biggest problem with this is that there are far more useful "evil" spells and "evil" creatures. If you were to make a book of evil spells and powere with a list of evil monsters, and an opposing good one youd be hard pressed to use that to explain why evil isnt running the universe. Because the game is combat oriented and most good creatures suck at combat. Most evil spells have horrible effects and most good spells are useful but pale in comparison if you have to fight evil.

 

[Lyxen]

Should be noted that in 3e, Animate dead created Skeletons and Zombies which were Neutral in the MM because anything Mindless is neutral per the 3e MM.

That is until some goober (yo.) roasted someone who turned out to be a designer for arguing that animating dead should be an evil act because it created evil creatures because it actually didn't create evil creatures. So 3.5 magically had skels and zombs be Always Evil despite not removing their mindlessness or the Mindless = Neutral rule in the MM.

So I naturally roasted the same guy for breaking the rules to win an internet argument. They also said ALL undead were evil, so I changed my avatar to the Ghost for month.

Well, 5e is a simpler game after all, and in terms of lore and logic, the argument can go both ways, evil or not evil for mindless undeads, depending on whether you consider the mindlessness or using negative energy, the spirit, the soul or both, etc.