D&D (2024) Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral touched species.

[payn]

This is why I feel like D&D's good and evil are based on the age old misunderstanding of 'protagonist and antagonist' with 'hero and villain'.

This has always confused me as I have never seen it that way myself.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This has always confused me as I have never seen it that way myself.

The whole 'pay evil unto evil' deal.

 

[payn]

The whole 'pay evil unto evil' deal.

I do think a certain right/right, right/wrong, wrong/wrong was originally baked into D&D infancy. Though, I think it grew into a more philosophical 101 kind of element that I greatly enjoy. It all went wrong really with the Paladin.

 

[Hriston]

This is probably why there aren't.

The representative creatures of Law and Chaos aren't things people relate to and want to play. Sure a lot of people have a fondness for Creepier Thomas The Tank Engine, and... accept the existence of disappointingly non-battletoads frog guys who even the lore says aren't supposed to be there, but how many want to play a dude flavored like them?

Fey would be a decent Chaos replacement if their actual alignment wasn't 'Fey' instead of the chaotic the stat block says, and there's.... really nothing interesting or compelling about Law. By necessity. The second you get a personality, the whole plane shifts.

I agree, the outsiders inhabiting Nirvana and Pandemonium should be designed better.

 

[Gorck]

This is why I feel like D&D's good and evil are based on the age old misunderstanding of 'protagonist and antagonist' with 'hero and villain'.

I've seen a suggestion by rpgbot.com that, rather than using good & evil, more accurate terminology would be selfless & selfish.

 

[payn]

I've seen a suggestion by rpgbot.com that, rather than using good & evil, more accurate terminology would be selfless & selfish.

Kinda, yeah. I always seen good as folks who care for others and will not put them in harms way to achieve their goals. Killing is a last resort for a good person for example. Evil leans into an ends justify the means philosophy. Murder, for example, is a perfectly fine conflict resolution for an evil person. I say murder as in it can be self defense or premeditative.

I think the hullabaloo folks run into is feeling the need to lean into hero vs villain tropes. They see good = hero and evil = villain. If you are evil you must kick every puppy and steal every candy from babies. This sort of caricature play leads to eventual problems, which lead to commonly held "no evil PC" GMs and tables. So now folks are trying to explain why their assassin character is actually "good" because they only kill "evil" guys.

My point of view is that an assassin is evil because murder is their conflict resolution choice. Its not just on the list, its the top of the list. If they choose to only off evil guys in the name of good; Ok. I think there is room for nuance of evil guys that are not bad guys. Also, good guys can be a bunch of dinks. YMMV.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I've seen a suggestion by rpgbot.com that, rather than using good & evil, more accurate terminology would be selfless & selfish.

i feel like structure/regulation and liberty might be a viable substitute for law and chaos.

 

[Scribe]

I've seen a suggestion by rpgbot.com that, rather than using good & evil, more accurate terminology would be selfless & selfish.

i feel like structure/regulation and liberty might be a viable substitute for law and chaos.

This is essentially what I have defined Good/Evil/Law/Chaos as for myself. People need to keep in mind that these are abstract concepts that need some level of definition.

Otherwise, Sl'ip Gutz, the Good Rogue can make as much an argument as being 'good' as the selfless cleric working to assist the poor, and that makes just zero sense to me.

 

[Scott Christian]

I've seen a suggestion by rpgbot.com that, rather than using good & evil, more accurate terminology would be selfless & selfish.

It all becomes too debatable, and context/scenario driven. The person that steals the starving people's food to save their children is being selfish. So someone says they're selfish, but... only in times they need to be, or only when their family and friends are on the line. Everyone has a moral compass. Deciding whether your character chooses to do an evil act or good act is pretty straightforward.

 

[payn]

i feel like structure/regulation and liberty might be a viable substitute for law and chaos.

I always find these attempts to redefine the terms to be missing the point. Folks are viewing from a lens of specificity instead of generality. The definition isnt the breakdown. YMMV.