D&D General Inherently Evil?

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, you really need three vague sentences that aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Voadam]

5e alignment is much different and is effectively useless if you don't know the prior systems. One vague sentence is not enough to give new players much roleplaying help.

I think it is fine for new players.

Decide if your character is a good guy, a bad guy, or somewhere in between (Good/Evil axis) is pretty straight forward and useful.

Here are some ideas about law and chaos you can take as roleplaying hooks (Law/Chaos axis). While there are lots of contradictory and some incoherent ideas here you can take any of them and make them your own.

As a DM you can take these ideas as hooks or considerations for roleplaying monsters. Devils are generally bad guys. Different interpretations of Law means different DMs will take LE devils in different directions, but if you individually have an idea of law you like then it is a useful hook for you even if others would do it differently.

 

[Voadam]

A devil who is not consistently lawful evil is simply not a devil. A god of good which is not actually doing good is simply not the god of good, just as a god of farming who spends his time fighting is probably not a god of farming either.

A god of farming who spends his time fighting is probably called Mars.

Lots of mythological gods and heroes and monsters and such are not unidimensional.

In 3e I went the other way on devils and demons and such. Even if their individual alignment switched to good they were still composed of the cosmic force EVIL and retained the subtype [EVIL] and so detected as evil and were affected by supernatural effects as if they were evil. Such morally good fiends would also detect as good, but always as EVIL unless something else pushed them out of their Devil/[EVIL] classification.

I gave them inherent elemental alignment aspects and also free will.

I found having a divide between morality and supernatural subtype alignment a conceptual framework that made alignment fun for me.

 

[Vaalingrade]

In 3e I went the other way on devils and demons and such. Even if their individual alignment switched to good they were still composed of the cosmic force EVIL and retained the subtype [EVIL] and so detected as evil and were affected by supernatural effects as if they were evil. Such morally good fiends would also detect as good, but always as EVIL unless something else pushed them out of their Devil/[EVIL] classification.

This was the actual rule in 3e IIRC. I'm pretty sure there was a book with an example of a devil becoming CG and being a CG Outsider with the Law and Evil subtypes.

Because like spells, creatures had tags that had nothing to actually do with a creature's alignment, but people still insisted that casting Deathwatch was an Evil act.

 

[Oofta]

... people still insisted that casting Deathwatch was an Evil act.

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.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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".

Houseruling is different from fundamentally misunderstanding what tags do.

 

[Oofta]

Houseruling is different from fundamentally misunderstanding what tags do.

Then I'm not following, or your experience once again doesn't track with mine. If someone decides that for their game necromancy spells are evil it's a house rule/ruling. I fully understand that according to the books animate dead is not considered evil, I've decided that it's evil when I run a home game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Then I'm not following, or your experience once again doesn't track with mine. If someone decides that for their game necromancy spells are evil it's a house rule/ruling. I fully understand that according to the books animate dead is not considered evil, I've decided that it's evil when I run a home game.

People were arguing that it was an official rule that casting a [Tag] spell was a Tag act, not recognizing the actual rule then houseruling otherwise.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it is fine for new players.

Decide if your character is a good guy, a bad guy, or somewhere in between (Good/Evil axis) is pretty straight forward and useful.

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."

 

[Lyxen]

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."

For me, the alignments haven't changed, but they tried so hard to reduce the description in 5e that it is almost useless in at least a number of cases.