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

[Faolyn]

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.

All right, fine. Sorry.

 

[Maxperson]

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

And for the new players who don't have anything prior? And it's not just a simple import. You want me to through and figure out the alignments for hundreds of creatures. That would take hours and I have the experience. You can ignore alignment in 0 seconds.

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?

I assume so in Eberron. And despite your protestations, it counts.

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?

I really don't care if the majority are good in your game.

And it's still a False Equivalence to try and equate default orcs and drow with default Zhentil Keep. The lore is very different. Zhentil Keep is a city with common folk just trying to get through life, mostly left alone by the leadership. Orcs and drow have their own lore.

 

[Lanefan]

As for there being any Good-aligned undead in RAW 1e, it seems I have to retract my earlier statement; as on a look through the three monster books it seems there aren't any.

There's several Neutral ones that are more powerful than the basic skeleton-zombie stuff, but no Good ones of any kind.

 

[Maxperson]

As for there being any Good-aligned undead in RAW 1e, it seems I have to retract my earlier statement; as on a look through the three monster books it seems there aren't any.

There's several Neutral ones that are more powerful than the basic skeleton-zombie stuff, but no Good ones of any kind.

I wasn't sure when Baelnorns appeared.

 

[Mort]

So yanking this back to the OP (I think).

My general preference is for an objective alignment in the background. That in no way prevents players from acting how they want, BUT it also let's me keep track on a separate way, in case it ever becomes relevant. Now, this is with the full recognition that "objective" is, of course, subjective to me (as DM) but as long as I'm consistent and make sure players understand (and perhaps even influence) my perspective - for me, that works.

I'm leery of the concept of subjective alignment in the game - it comes too close to cultural relativism, with alignment constantly shifting based on perspective. I don't like that in most games - I prefer things more cut and dried - mostly.

Though, I do think exploring the concept of intersubjective alignment would be quite useful and interesting. Intersubjectivety is conscious minds sharing a concept together and thereby giving it a form of reality. For ex. borders exist solely because enough people believe that's where they are. In the same way - what's good is defined by what people believe good is and the reality of it gets stronger the more people share the same definition (get enough beings to believe a certain something is good and it can effectively supplant even an objective reality of it's good or not). - Of course, that's more a campaign concept than a game mechanic (so sorry if it's tangential).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And that context makes the LE part unnecessary.

No, it doesn’t. I derived the behavior of the NPC from her alignment. The fact that there are also other factors doesn’t erase that fact.

Does that mean it?

Yes.

Wow, that’s a whole lot of stuff that I guarantee not everyone is going to agree is true of lawful evil characters. Again, ask any 10 people what lawful evil means and you’ll get 12 different answers.

Irrelevant. I’m the one running the scenario. D&D isn't meant to produce homogenous gameplay experiences.

I know what LE means, and so does Max, and so does Oofta. Whether we agree doesn’t matter on any level, ever. Even if we played together, what the alignment of an NPC means is 100%, unambiguously, always, without exception, up to the DM. Even at my table, where we reject the “god dm” concept.

I don’t want alignment to be a straight jacket. I don’t want alignment to be a thing. But if it’s going to be a thing, it should at least justify itself by ever mattering.

So either get rid of it, or go back to mechanically enforced alignment!?

No. You can hate it all day, that doesn’t mean it can’t exist between those extremes.

 

[Maxperson]

Even at my table, where we reject the “god dm” concept.

I don't believe in you, either!!

 

[Oofta]

No, it doesn’t. I derived the behavior of the NPC from her alignment. The fact that there are also other factors doesn’t erase that fact.

Yes.

Irrelevant. I’m the one running the scenario. D&D isn't meant to produce homogenous gameplay experiences.

I know what LE means, and so does Max, and so does Oofta. Whether we agree doesn’t matter on any level, ever. Even if we played together, what the alignment of an NPC means is 100%, unambiguously, always, without exception, up to the DM. Even at my table, where we reject the “god dm” concept.

So either get rid of it, or go back to mechanically enforced alignment!?

No. You can hate it all day, that doesn’t mean it can’t exist between those extremes.

Same old argument, repeated over and over. Alignment in 5E is only as useful as people make it. If the person running the character is reasonably clear, consistent, and in the same general ballpark on what it means it works just fine.

I never know the alignment of my player's PCs. They don't know the alignments of my NPCs or monsters. But when I chose to use alignment, it gives me a handy shortcut to general outlook.

It's also unrelated to the OP's theme, which I disagree with. I think the game is better off with a general theme of good vs evil or, in MCEU terms, heroes vs villains. Even better, that's just a general suggestion that can be tossed out the window if you want.

It's a game. Simplified concepts help sell the game and for a lot of people that's all we want most of the time. To roll the dice and be heroes for a bit without having to suffer from PTSD because too many times in the real world there is no right answer.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The best part of all these threads is how the goalposts get shifted and arguments twisted until they're contorted back to the point where the same core dogma can then be applied to cut off all discussion.

This thread was about whether or not the reductionist motivation of 'evil' is necessary to the game's theme and function and it's spine has been crushed into a double helix until people can shout it down with 'well alignment is useful to me - don't badwrongfun me, bro', which is a complete non-sequitor to the actual thread.

Every thread.

 

[BookTenTiger]

The best part of all these threads is how the goalposts get shifted and arguments twisted until they're contorted back to the point where the same core dogma can then be applied to cut off all discussion.

This thread was about whether or not the reductionist motivation of 'evil' is necessary to the game's theme and function and it's spine has been crushed into a double helix until people can shout it down with 'well alignment is useful to me - don't badwrongfun me, bro', which is a complete non-sequitor to the actual thread.

Every thread.

Yeah, it's frustrating when I see the same posters bringing the same tangents into different threads, triggering responses from the same posters who drag things into the same arguments which lead to threads being locked.

It's okay to not respond, even when you disagree with someone!

The part of this thread I enjoyed the most was challenges and additions that helped me refine my own ideas. I created this thread as a response to things I've read in other threads, but without a completely realized idea. Reading other people's perspectives can be very rewarding, both when they agree or disagree!

Personally, I still don't see a need for objective Evil in D&D. I recognize that many posters like objective evil. And yet I still think it's something of a straightjacket.

I wonder if part of my issue is that the PHB and Monster Manual are written as if they are setting agnostic, and yet certain monsters are labeled as Evil when that would be totally dependent on a setting!

If I were publishing D&D, I'd have a default setting, but I'd include sidebars about the roles certain monsters and factions play, and how those roles can and should be adapted to each person's own game.

Something else that struck me in this thread is the idea of what is evil being decided by the DM. For some reason that never came up for me before! I think I set what is evil to each community in the game, but I let the players (and their characters) decide what they think is evil.