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

[FarBeyondC]

No, I already explained what I want. Several times, in fact. Descriptions of racial tendencies using primarily neutral terminology or outright showing how both the good and evil aspects of the tendency are expressed. For instance, how the monsters in the Level Up Monstrous Menagerie are being written, where alignment--on those rare occasions it is used, and then only with supernatural entities--is nothing more than a tag used for mechanical purposes (as in, spells or items that affect only Lawful creatures).

For instance, here is a bit from the most recent monster previewed, the yeti:

View attachment 144380
This is what I want. Yeti that, by RAW, can be gentle or cruel, dangerous or helpful, that can be pacified or even befriended with food or act as implacable enemies that attack for no obvious reason without me having to erase the entire description and reimagine their entire sociology like I have to do in base D&D. (Seriously. If I want 5e orcs to be neutral, I literally have to rewrite every single bit of text they have in the MM and in Volos. I'd have to rewrite about half their text if I wanted them to be Lawful or Neutral evil.)

Maybe you'll hate the yeti entry, or all the other entries listed in the thread I linked. I dunno. Maybe you'll like them. Give 'em a read and find out.

The only thing useful that entry on Yeti tells me is that no one actually has any definitive information on Yeti in whatever setting that text comes from.

 

[Lanefan]

Good undead go back to at least 2e. Not sure about 1e.

1e has at least one Good-by-RAW undead type but I forget what it is right now (maybe Coffer Corpse?). It's in one of FF or MMII.

I remember its main defense against attack being to teleport attackers away in some random direction.

 

[Malmuria]

No, I already explained what I want. Several times, in fact. Descriptions of racial tendencies using primarily neutral terminology or outright showing how both the good and evil aspects of the tendency are expressed. For instance, how the monsters in the Level Up Monstrous Menagerie are being written, where alignment--on those rare occasions it is used, and then only with supernatural entities--is nothing more than a tag used for mechanical purposes (as in, spells or items that affect only Lawful creatures).

For instance, here is a bit from the most recent monster previewed, the yeti:

View attachment 144380
This is what I want. Yeti that, by RAW, can be gentle or cruel, dangerous or helpful, that can be pacified or even befriended with food or act as implacable enemies that attack for no obvious reason without me having to erase the entire description and reimagine their entire sociology like I have to do in base D&D. (Seriously. If I want 5e orcs to be neutral, I literally have to rewrite every single bit of text they have in the MM and in Volos. I'd have to rewrite about half their text if I wanted them to be Lawful or Neutral evil.)

Maybe you'll hate the yeti entry, or all the other entries listed in the thread I linked. I dunno. Maybe you'll like them. Give 'em a read and find out.

I like those entries. The statblock is still too long for my tastes, but I like the "legends and lore," "signs," and "behavior" sections. I'd like if the monster entries in the original MM came with a little sidebar describing behavior and tactics in combat. Something like what you would put in your notes for the monster. This could include a few descriptor "tags," and 2-3 bullet points on whether they are typically cautious, aggressive, strategic, team-oriented and how likely they will be to run away or parlay or talk with the PCs.

 

[Lanefan]

In 38 years of playing D&D, I've been in about 10 heated discussions about alignment. 7-8 of them concerned paladins and evil acts, the remaining few dealt with forced alignment changes and the penalties that went along with it. I've been in zero that didn't concern mechanics in some way, and none where anyone was confused about what alignment meant.

I've been in way more than 10, sad to say. Some were mechanics-based as you say, but others were usually a few particular players trying to argue for definitions of alignments that suited their (and their PCs') purposes at the time.

I don't mind the mechanics-based ones so much. The twist-to-suit-my-needs arguments, though, I can well live without.

 

[Charlaquin]

The only thing useful that entry on Yeti tells me is that no one actually has any definitive information on Yeti in whatever setting that text comes from.

Which is fine by me, since it leaves room for DMs to decide what the definitive truth is in their own campaigns.

 

[Maxperson]

1e has at least one Good-by-RAW undead type but I forget what it is right now (maybe Coffer Corpse?). It's in one of FF or MMII.

I remember its main defense against attack being to teleport attackers away in some random direction.

That's the Crypt Thing and it's neutral.

 

[Lanefan]

Does that mean it? Lawful doesn't mean that one has to always keep their word or that they hate liars or rules-breakers. That's why devilish contracts are renowned for having loopholes, double-speak, and obsfucated phrasing. My own life experience with "LE" people (such as at my former workplace) suggests that they will do whatever the heck they want as long as it looks legitimate and can be justified to others, whereas "CE" people don't care about appearances.

Sounds like those at your ex-workplace were more NE than LE. Keeping one's word is a basic tenet of Lawfulness, and the reason those Devils put so many loopholes and out-clauses into those contracts is so they don't have to keep what looks like their word.

As with the "punishing infractions" from above, most of this works just as well for NE, CE, and LN beings. If our mage (who presumably is intelligent) here was one of those alignments, she's still going to value power, she's still going to take not of who outranks who, she's still going to have a getaway plan whether she's lawful or not.

"Plan" is a four-letter word to Chaotics. And rank and heirarchy are generally far more important to Lawfuls than Chaotics (or even Neutrals).

A low-Int chaotic or neutral evil creature might be more gung-ho, but once you get to above-average stats, nah.

Tactics and strategy mgiht go out the window with Chaotics, however, where they would not with Lawfuls.

The only real difference between alignments here is that after her sudden but inevitable betrayal, a LE person might view killing the party as a chore that needs doing and the CE person might have more fun with it. Maybe. And I still disagree that "lawful" means "honest," for reasons stated above.

In any case, you asked all of us how we'd run a mage if the only thing known was her name and that she was LE. I gave you one option (of many) as to how I'd run her, but had to stay vague due to there being no background or context to her arrival on the scene.

 

[Faolyn]

Creating an alignment SYSTEM takes more than 1 second.

You don't have to create an alignment system. You already have one that's been around since 1e. Just import it.

So, you never answered my questions:

Are there any orc nations in the Realms--not nations in which orcs are welcome but are not the dominant beings--that aren't CE?

And are you OK with the vast majority of orcs, drow, and other such creatures being good or neutral as long as the leadership is evil, in the same way you're insisting that most Zhentarim are good or neutral but their leaders are bad?

 

[Lanefan]

That's the Crypt Thing and it's neutral.

Sigh...now I'll have to go and look it up...

 

[BookTenTiger]

You don't have to create an alignment system. You already have one that's been around since 1e. Just import it.

So, you never answered my questions:

Are there any orc nations in the Realms--not nations in which orcs are welcome but are not the dominant beings--that aren't CE?

And are you OK with the vast majority of orcs, drow, and other such creatures being good or neutral as long as the leadership is evil, in the same way you're insisting that most Zhentarim are good or neutral but their leaders are bad?

Faolyn can we leave the orc discussion out of this thread? It's far afield from the original topic and seems like a retreat of arguments you've had with the same posters in the past.