I think you're reading of my post is very narrow and neither very nuanced nor generous either. It confuses pedantry for valid criticism. I'm aware that not all evil in Middle Earth originates with Sauron, but in the One Ring, you are primarily dealing with the legacy of Sauron. In Blades in the Dark, you are a gang of criminals trying to expand your gang's turf and crime operations. I don't mind evil characters there, but that's what the game's about. Not good people doing not good things in a crucible-like city that is slowly coming to a boil as a result of their activities. And in regards to Blue Rose, it's romantic fantasy. The characters are presumed to be noble, not in class, but, rather, in their general moral character. Would you like some additional opportunities to put your ignorance of these games on grand display for the rest of the thread?Those are very narrow groupings, and not very nuanced. Not all evil in middle earth originated with Sauron. There’s a big difference between a crook with a twisted sense of honour, and a crook who sets anyone he dislikes on fire. Nobility is not a guarantee of goodness.
Not quite. If I go to a restaurant, and I see that hamburger is on the menu, I think we would both understand that this means that it's a perfectly valid meal that I could order and consume at the restaurant. If I want a hamburger, but it's not on the restaurant menu, I could still want to eat a hamburger and enjoy that sort of meal, but it's not likely something that I could order there. In the absence of a "no evil" GM rule, the presence of evil alignments does validate the option of playing an evil character in D&D. The rulebooks and settings often set the implicit expectations of play through its tone, genre, and setting.You think the reason players want to do evil things is because alignment exists? I think they do evil things because it’s convenient and some people enjoy playing that character. Plus the fact that D&D doesn’t tell you what to be as a ruleset.
I've never had to make a "no evil" rule in alignment-less games. I have never, for example, had anyone express a desire to play an evil character in Blue Rose, because the game's tone, genre, and setting is romantic fantasy where the PCs are presumed to be good, inclusive, and progressive, and the kingdom of Aldea is one that they want to protect because it too is likewise good, inclusive, and progressive. Likewise, I've never had players who wanted to play evil characters in Numenera, though it lacks an alignment system. It's never come up in Fate. It's never come up in FAGE. Or 7th Sea. Or Index Card RPG.
So how do they work in these games that I'm talking about and how do they compare with how you are describing your adjudication of character alignment in D&D?The corruption systems in most games I’ve seen absolutely do require some adjudication. Unless they are tied to specific actions which again is limiting.
Yes, but this is the point of the whole "no evil" rule. Why is this common rule even necessary in the first place? Because the game says that "evil" is a possible alignment for characters, which frequently results in GMs stipulating "no evil" for PCs. Though in the absence of alignment, I would likely not frame this as "no evil," but, rather, more positively as "pro-heroic" and set up the play expectations more explicitly and concretely with players, which is again one of the many problems in this game that could be easily solved by communicating with each other like grown-ups.Evil may be a possible choice in your games, in mine it is not.
Evil still exists for NPCs and monsters as well as other people's games. Some people enjoy games with evil PCs, I don't