D&D General Inherently Evil?

[Voadam]

In my experience it is the classes with alignment restrictions (mostly older edition paladins and clerics) where there is significant DM variance on overseeing whether players are playing their characters "right" and imposing mechanical penalties for doing it "wrong."

It was a big discouragement for me personally to play those kinds of classes unless I was specifically sure the DM would be comfortable with how I planned to play my characters. I had little interest in working to roleplay out someone else's views of the specific correct way to be lawful good or a divinely powered character. Particularly when there were similar options like just being a LG aasimar fighter for the hero end or a wizard for the magic end without the close DM oversight that often got applied to a paladin or cleric. I had zero interest in roleplaying out atonement for not playing to match someone else's idea of the right way to do things.

 

[Argyle King]

Regarding the cannibalism convo:

A while back, I played a character who came from an "ancestor worship" culture.

More specifically, the culture was (semi-jokingly) based around alcohol. I took the idea of communion wine to an extreme and mixed it with the drunken master trope.

The culture was based around the idea that the greatest honor would be achieving such great deeds in life that others would drink something fermented from your body, remember you, and hope to channel the spirit of your deeds into them.

While the core idea started as a little bit of a joke (the character's name was Jaeger, son of Pabst,) further thought made me realize that the idea is not too many steps from common real-world religious concepts.

The Eucharist involves metaphorical cannibalism.

There are religions/beliefs in which you can gain power by eating certain body parts of a great animal (or person).

Would the culture of the character I created be "evil" because it involved drinking 'spirits' made from your ancestors?

Plenty of spiritual ideas involve the concept of somehow absorbing or channeling the energy, spirit, or Chi (or whatever words you'd like to use) from some other being.

 

[Voadam]

Basic and then BECMI has always had Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic, actually.

Yes, Those would be the three points of the alignment system I was referring to. I am not sure what different three points you thought I was referring to here.

I don't think I've ever seen that in play, actually.

Experiences vary.

I hit a 1e Ranger with the page 25 DMG level loss rule and the 1e PHB page 24 turning into a fighter rule when he consciously went over to the dark side in a big way and we agreed he went from CG to CN. I felt I was applying RAW from the books then as did my players.

Alignment languages are a weird supernatural cosmic forces thing that was dropped in later editions but an interesting manifestation of alignment in the world as more than just a classification of morality. I thought it was neat that 1e high level intelligent assassins had a unique power to learn other alignment languages so as to infiltrate specific targets like NG churches.

If you never actually see the mechanical 1e alignment rules in play then alignment looks a lot like it is in 5e.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think the core concept of alignment has been pretty stable throughout the history of D&D since the 70s. The implementation of how it affects spells and specific classes has been greatly reduced for 5E. How DMs use it has always varied from table to table.

It's a tool. A quick shorthand for defining [edit] moral compass alignment [/edit] and motivation that works reasonably well for a lot of people. I think alignment is worthwhile. If you don't, ignore it. But it's about as core to the identity of D&D as HP and AC. I have yet to see anything that could easily replace it.

It also doesn't really have anything to do with the thread topic. People have been talking in terms of good and evil for millennia and will likely continue to do so.

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

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.

 

[Lyxen]

Yes, Those would be the three points of the alignment system I was referring to. I am not sure what different three points you thought I was referring to here.

My comment was only that you made it seem like it came in later, but it actually predates AD&D, it was just an earlier branch.

Experiences vary.

I hit a 1e Ranger with the page 25 DMG level loss rule and the 1e PHB page 24 turning into a fighter rule when he consciously went over to the dark side in a big way and we agreed he went from CG to CN. I felt I was applying RAW from the books then as did my players.

Alignment languages are a weird supernatural cosmic forces thing that was dropped in later editions but an interesting manifestation of alignment in the world as more than just a classification of morality. I thought it was neat that 1e high level intelligent assassins had a unique power to learn other alignment languages so as to infiltrate specific targets like NG churches.

If you never actually see the mechanical 1e alignment rules in play then alignment looks a lot like it is in 5e.

Let's say that when someone was close to doing something that would have endangered his class, people around the table would remind him of the consequences, which avoided using the coercitive aspects. I think I've had a paladin being punished once and requiring an atonement, but the player was totally OK with that, actually he was the one who suggested it.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

Deleted since it was an off topic response.

 

[Bohandas]

Going back to he central gist of this thread, I feel the need to point out that most mortal creatures are listed as merely "often" or "usually" their standard alignment. "Always" an alignment is generally reserved for Outsiders and other supernatural beings (edit: and in the case of many outsiders it's not a case of either biological or cultural imperative, but because they are transformed beings and people like that are what becomes that kind of outsider. They're not chaotic evil because they're a demon, thay're a demon because they're chaotic evil (with the exception of obryiths and spontaneously generated demons))

 

[Voadam]

However the core of the alignment matrix and what it means has stood almost unchanged since the AD&D PH. Deny that.

My comment was only that you made it seem like it came in later, but it actually predates AD&D, it was just an earlier branch.

So the timeline went 0D&D 3 point, Holmes basic 5 point, 1e AD&D 9 point, B/X Basic 3 point, BECMI Basic 3 point, RC Basic 3 point., 4e 9 point

In my post I was only listing the D&D non-9 point alignment matrix post the 1e AD&D PH, but you are correct there was different alignment matrices in D&D both post and pre 1e AD&D PH.

Let's say that when someone was close to doing something that would have endangered his class, people around the table would remind him of the consequences, which avoided using the coercitive aspects. I think I've had a paladin being punished once and requiring an atonement, but the player was totally OK with that, actually he was the one who suggested it.

So you did see it in play, as a mechanical threat to incentivize against certain player behavior in people playing specific classes.

The threat of mechanical consequences and oversight connected to alignments is different in older editions of D&D than in newer ones.

The older one impacts how players play their characters and which classes they choose to play.

 

[Faolyn]

I have -always- found Dragonscale Armor kinda disturbing in settings where Dragons are intelligent, and prefer settings with dragon-armor where dragons are basically just animals.

'Cause that's a -person- you're wearing as a skinsuit, Buffalo Bill...

Some of the books suggest that dragons shed their scales, like lizards (the dragonshield kobold mentions that they make a shield out of a "cast-off" dragon's scale), which makes it more palatable.

I like to imagine that some dragons are making a mint selling their dandruff.

 

[Voadam]

Going back to he central gist of this thread, I feel the need to point out that most mortal creatures are listed as merely "often" or "usually" their standard alignment. "Always" an alignment is generally reserved for Outsiders and other supernatural beings (edit: and in the case of many outsiders it's not a case of either biological or cultural imperative, but because they are transformed beings and people like that are what becomes that kind of outsider. They're not chaotic evil because they're a demon, thay're a demon because they're chaotic evil (with the exception of obryiths and spontaneously generated demons))

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.