D&D General The Problem with Evil or what if we don't use alignments?

[Minigiant]

I don't see how it's possible to get around some of that. Look at the descriptive text for just about any evil monster ... unless you change all of that what difference does it make? I do agree that it should be reinforced that the entries (including alignment) are just a default.

When it comes to PCs I think TIBF can just as easily abused. The guy that blamed asinine behavior on alignment is just going to blame it on an ideal or flaw. That's a player issue, not a system issue.

It's a community issue not a player or system issue.
The problem with alignment really isn't monster monsters. It's humaniod monsters.

There's nothing wrong with always Lawful Stupid Paladins, CE orcs, and LE githzerai per se, as long as one recognizes that it is weak storytelling used for filling if the DM isn't going in depth in it.

However large swath of the community would object to being told that their settings have weakpoints. Especially if those parts are directly lifted from a MM. But weak lore is weak lore.

 

[Maxperson]

Indeed. Though constant misuse of a tool is the toolmaker's fault. Unfortunately TSR1 is gone and WOTC never corrected the instruction manual until recently.

Alignment isn't even remotely constantly misused. Even the people with the horror stories from 20+ years ago still didn't hit those stories constantly, or even commonly. And they are a minority of people.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Indeed. Though constant misuse of a tool is the toolmaker's fault. Unfortunately TSR1 is gone and WOTC never corrected the instruction manual until recently.

WotC corrected the instruction manual back in 2008. If you look at the 4e stat blocks monsters are not actually classified by alignment - and the alignments have been cut down to five making a clear separation between evil (want to control and hurt) and chaotic evil (want to watch the world burn).

Unfortunately the anti-4e whaaaargabl ensured that anything 4eish had to be disguised and obvious changes had to be destroyed even if 5e is closer to a rules lite version of 4e than it is to any other edition

 

[Minigiant]

Alignment isn't even remotely constantly misused. Even the people with the horror stories from 20+ years ago still didn't hit those stories constantly, or even commonly. And they are a minority of people.

It's not all about the horror stories. A CE group and LG group meeting in a dungeon, not being instantly hostile, and bartering with each other was a base rules outcome of the game.

Having an always or mostly Evil or Good humaniod race robs them of their humaniod mentality and that was a base rule of the game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's a community issue not a player or system issue.
The problem with alignment really isn't monster monsters. It's humaniod monsters.

There's nothing wrong with always Lawful Stupid Paladins, CE orcs, and LE githzerai per se, as long as one recognizes that it is weak storytelling used for filling if the DM isn't going in depth in it.

That depends what you mean by "always Lawful Stupid Paladins". If you mean that some Paladins are blockheads then I agree there's nothing wrong with that. If you mean "being Lawful Stupid is a necessary part of a paladin" then there are serious problems both in terms of alignment and the paladin class.

As for CE orcs, this is another confusing one. In the 2e Monstrous Manual they are LE, in 3.X they are CE. What changed? Did the orcs somehow undergo a revolution? Was there a resorting? Did the nature of alignment somehow change without this being drawn attention to? Or was it that alignment was such a bad description that one of the major NPC races was put in the wrong category and this was quietly corrected? None of these say good things about alignment.

However large swath of the community would object to being told that their settings have weakpoints. Especially if those parts are directly lifted from a MM. But weak lore is weak lore.

Oh, indeed.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not all about the horror stories. A CE group and LG group meeting in a dungeon, not being instantly hostile, and bartering with each other was a base rules outcome of the game.

There's nothing wrong with that, though. Unless they checked, they don't know each others alignments, and even CE isn't violent all the time or they'd never live to make it out of childhood.

Having an always or mostly Evil or Good humaniod race robs them of their humaniod mentality and that was a base rule of the game.

Only if you misuse alignment to be a straightjacket that you requires you to always behave in that manner.

 

[Maxperson]

As for CE orcs, this is another confusing one. In the 2e Monstrous Manual they are LE, in 3.X they are CE. What changed?

WotC entered the picture. Every edition makes changes. I mean, in 2e Fighters needed 2000 xp to hit 2nd level, Rogues(thieves) needed 1250 and Wizards needed 1500. In 3e all 3 needed only 1000. What changed? Answer nothing.

Each edition is self contained. Yes there are changes from edition to edition, but those changes retroactively alter campaigns which transition with them. In 3e orcs have always been CE. In 2e they have always been LE. There was no mass change of alignment when 3e came out.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Alignment isn't even remotely constantly misused. Even the people with the horror stories from 20+ years ago still didn't hit those stories constantly, or even commonly. And they are a minority of people.

If by this you mean "Alignment is mostly ignored and is a legacy thing that clutters up the books because of tradition" then I think we can agree. The best way to use alignment is not use alignment except in very rare cases.

 

[Maxperson]

If by this you mean "Alignment is mostly ignored and is a legacy thing that clutters up the books because of tradition" then I think we can agree.

Mostly ignored by a minority, sure. Thing is, a majority of us still use it and use it properly with no issues, because there are no mechanics associated with it any longer. It's not cluttering up the books. It's just a rule that takes a small amount of space that you can ignore.

Why do you want to take it away from those who have no problems with it? What did they ever do to you that you'd want to make the game worse for them?

The best way to use alignment is not use alignment except in very rare cases.

That's not for you to say as a general statement like that. You can only say that for yourself and those of you in the minority that don't want to use it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

WotC entered the picture. Every edition makes changes. I mean, in 2e Fighters needed 2000 xp to hit 2nd level, Rogues(thieves) needed 1250 and Wizards needed 1500. In 3e all 3 needed only 1000. What changed? Answer nothing.

Answer: The entire mechanical basis of the game. Do you really use a setting where XP and character levels are mechanically quantified within the setting?

Each edition is self contained. Yes there are changes from edition to edition, but those changes retroactively alter campaigns which transition with them. In 3e orcs have always been CE. In 2e they have always been LE. There was no mass change of alignment when 3e came out.

Each setting on the other hand continues (with the arguable exception of the 4e Realms). Are 3.X orcs meant to have the same description as 2e orcs? If so then why the change? If not then why the change?

 

[hopeless]

How about Eberron?
That's where I got my idea about Orcs in the setting.
Were they more Neutral there?

 

[Maxperson]

Each setting on the other hand continues (with the arguable exception of the 4e Realms). Are 3.X orcs meant to have the same description as 2e orcs? If so then why the change? If not then why the change?

Why the change is easy. 1) to justify a new edition. Few or no changes and people aren't going to invest money in the new books. 2) to differentiate WotC from TSR. They just bought the company and had to make themselves stand out as D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

How about Eberron?
That's where I got my idea about Orcs in the setting.
Were they more Neutral there?

Even in 3e Orcs were not always evil. In the Forgotten Realms there was at least one country where several thousand good and neutral orcs lived side by side with humans and held positions of power and authority in cities.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Mostly ignored by a minority, sure.

[Citation needed]

Thing is, a majority of us still use it and use it properly with no issues, because there are no mechanics associated with it any longer.

The largest problem is the fluff it produces. Saying "Because there are no mechanics associated" doesn't deal with the fundamental problem that calling entire races evil is both weak and toxic worldbuilding.

It's not cluttering up the books.

It's in every single statblock. That's clutter. Especially as statblocks are intended to be stripped down to the things you actually use where the rubber meets the road. Your "two words" issue is like saying "it's only a lump of grit" conveniently ignoring that that grit is in the engine rather than in on the road.

It's just a rule that takes a small amount of space that you can ignore.

When I look at the statblock for an orc it's put in pride of place as the fifth and sixth words. I read fast - and I shouldn't have to train myself to stop reading at word three or four. Which means this visual litter is taking pride of place.

Why do you want to take it away from those who have no problems with it? What did they ever do to you that you'd want to make the game worse for them?

I've said we can make it an optional rule. A rule that appears only within a single chapter that is basically a table would make it equivalent to feats.

For that matter treating it that way would do what you claim it does as a positive better - it would allow you to more easily find e.g. chaotic evil groups of monsters. So it would be actively better for your claimed use.

Having it where it is makes it worse for me. Why are you so keen on enforcing this "optional" rule in my statblocks. Why do you want to make my games and my enjoyment worse?

If it is in every statblock it is not an optional rule in the same sense as literally any other optional rule in the game - which is kept in its place so people who don't want it can ignore it.

That's not for you to say as a general statement like that. You can only say that for yourself and those of you in the minority that don't want to use it.

You mean those of you in a minority that want to use it?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Why the change is easy. 1) to justify a new edition. Few or no changes and people aren't going to invest money in the new books. 2) to differentiate WotC from TSR. They just bought the company and had to make themselves stand out as D&D.

Yes of course the new edition in which THAC0 was eliminated and Armour Class was reversed was justified by changing the alignment of orcs.

Riiiiight.

 

[Maxperson]

[Citation needed]

The largest problem is the fluff it produces. Saying "Because there are no mechanics associated" doesn't deal with the fundamental problem that calling entire races evil is both weak and toxic worldbuilding.

What's wrong with fluff produced by using CG as a guide to roleplaying my character? What's wrong with the fluff produced as the DM by using alignment as a starting point for how I run NPCs and monsters that aren't important enough to warrant detailed write-ups?

Asnwer: Nothing.

It's in every single statblock. That's clutter. Especially as statblocks are intended to be stripped down to the things you actually use where the rubber meets the road. Your "two words" issue is like saying "it's only a lump of grit" conveniently ignoring that that grit is in the engine rather than in on the road.

So what. Ignore the clutter and move on. It's not clutter for the majority of us that use it.

When I look at the statblock for an orc it's put in pride of place as the fifth and sixth words. I read fast - and I shouldn't have to train myself to stop reading at word three or four. Which means this visual litter is taking pride of place.

Would it help to move it to the bottom? I mean, you're reading waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much into it if you think that it's placement is some sort of location of pride, but whatever. since you're wrong about that, move it lower. You can be happy that it's shamed now, and we can still use it just the same as we always did.

I've said we can make it an optional rule. A rule that appears only within a single chapter that is basically a table would make it equivalent to feats.

It also has to be in the monster stat blocks so we can continue to use it for monsters without having to invent alignment for every monster we play with. In 30+ years of play with hundreds of players, not all of which liked alignment, not one of them was so upset by alignment that they had to stop reading when they got to it. Your personal issues with alignment are your own and have no business impacting the rest of us.

For that matter treating it that way would do what you claim it does as a positive better - it would allow you to more easily find e.g. chaotic evil groups of monsters. So it would be actively better for your claimed use.

How does one chapter in a book help me to know what alignment each monster is?

Having it where it is makes it worse for me. Why are you so keen on enforcing this "optional" rule in my statblocks. Why do you want to make my games and my enjoyment worse?

A minority of players have enough problems with alignment that they stopped using it. An EXTREME minority of you are so distraught by two words that you go to pieces and have to stop reading. You don't design a game around such an extreme minority of players.

If it is in every statblock it is not an optional rule in the same sense as literally any other optional rule in the game - which is kept in its place so people who don't want it can ignore it.

You keep saying that as if repetition can somehow alter reality and make it true. It won't ever be true. All it takes is. Orc - Alignment: Chaotic Evil(optional) and you are objectively wrong. Heck, you don't even need to do that. One sentence in the beginning of the MM stating that alignment is completely optional and you're wrong.

 

[Neonchameleon]

How about Eberron?
That's where I got my idea about Orcs in the setting.
Were they more Neutral there?

One of the many good things Eberron did was treated the alignment system with all the respect it deserved by subverting it. From memory the person most likely to restart the Last War is a good aligned Queen who believes in sharing the benefits and ruling justly - but that she's the person who deserves to rule and is therefore trying to do as much evil as anyone. Meanwhile the lawful evil vampire that faked his death and currently holds the throne by pretending to be his own grandson is currently in a subtle battle to disentangle the influence of the Blood of Vol from his country, meaning that despite being evil he's actually doing good.

There used to be a philosophical question "Is it possible for a good man to be a good king?" Eberron takes this complexity on head on whereas the orthodox D&D alignment system tries to paper over such complexities and nuances, making for poor worldbuilding and characterisation.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes of course the new edition in which THAC0 was eliminated and Armour Class was reversed was justified by changing the alignment of orcs.

Riiiiight.

Nice Strawman there. Clearly the context was in regards to rules changes. Alignment of orcs merely being one of them. And THAC0 wasn't removed. It was simply restated in a different way and made more appealing. The same math was present. Fighters got +1 to hit per level, just like with THAC0. The rest of the classes retained their THAC0 progressions, too.

 

[Cadence]

The largest problem is the fluff it produces. Saying "Because there are no mechanics associated" doesn't deal with the fundamental problem that calling entire races evil is both weak and toxic worldbuilding.

And it was pointed out that it looks like alignment for races of humanoids.might go away and the vast majority of posters are fine with that change, wasn't it?

You mean those of you in a minority that want to use it?

Someone somewhere responded to claims like that recently with some words of wisdom. What was it? Oh, here it is.

[Citation needed]

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Clearly the context was in regards to rules changes. Alignment of orcs merely being one of them.

But certainly if alignment means anything it must be a fluff change as well. Or if you can just change the alignment without changing the fluff, then that proves that alignment is meaningless and doesn't actually describe anything.