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

[Neonchameleon]

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?

That there are far far better ways you could use two words to be inspiring than just two single words from two lists of three. It's a puny tool that leads to poor characterisation and weak worldbuilding at best. And that's not when it's being actively bad.

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

You mean the minority that use it?

Would it help to move it to the bottom?

In the sense that pissing in the corner of an alley is better than pissing in the middle of the road, yes. I'd really rather you use the toilet.

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.

It has to be in the monster manual. And you don't have to "invent" alignment.

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.

I don't have to stop reading. It's just an annoyance that meaningfully makes things worse for myself and IME the majority of others.

It's not a dealbreaker - just something that makes things worse. It makes bad fluff and worse mechanics.

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

By having a list of alignments. So you can look it up. Indeed having lists of alignments make it easier for you to know which alignment each monster is.

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.

A majority of players, from memory up to and including E. Gary Gygax, the creator of the system find little enough benefit from alignment that they stopped using it.

Some people have no problem with alignment and kept using it - but I am trying to think of one single other tabletop RPG that's not an explicit retroclone that uses D&D style nine point alignment. This is because it's not actually useful and is mostly there thanks to historical accident.

An EXTREME minority of players find it actively beneficial and want it in statblocks. Right now the game is being designed round you and those in your tiny minority. The stat block should not be designed round you and your tiny minority.

You keep saying that as if repetition can somehow alter reality and make it true.

I believe this to be your entire MO on the subject of alignment.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Sure. The fluff did change a bit to make them more chaotic. That's not a fluff "problem," though. The bigger issue with orc fluff from 2e to 3e is that the 2e fluff was more CE than LE, which might explain the change.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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?

I've said what I want
1: Alignments for humanoids (used broadly) to go away.
2: Alignment kicked out of the default statblock.

I'd prefer
3: A more complex thing, especially for evil alignments. Evil (Wants to rule the world) is very different from Evil (Wants to watch the world burn) and that's slightly different from Neutral But Incompatible With Reality (Great Old One style). 4e admittedly made CE the latter and E the former.

 

[Maxperson]

That there are far far better ways you could use two words to be inspiring than just two single words from two lists of three. It's a puny tool that leads to poor characterisation and weak worldbuilding at best. And that's not when it's being actively bad.

In your personal and very, very biased opinion. It doesn't do any of that in my game.

You mean the minority that use it?

No. Next time you're at a convention, wander through all the D&D tables. You MIGHT find one that doesn't use it. Maybe. I have done that and never seen a table that doesn't use alignment. But you can sit there and try to reverse it on me like that(and fail) or say "Citation needed!" as if a study will be done, but if you do as I said, you'll see that you are in the minority.

In the sense that pissing in the corner of an alley is better than pissing in the middle of the road, yes. I'd really rather you use the toilet.

You make it really hard not to laugh at the things you say. Can you dial it back from a 10 to a 7 or so?

I don't have to stop reading. It's just an annoyance that meaningfully makes things worse for myself and IME the majority of others.

How? How are two very easily ignored words making it worse for yourself? Why are you so upset that I would be able to use those words at my table?

By having a list of alignments. So you can look it up. Indeed having lists of alignments make it easier for you to know which alignment each monster is.

So rather than you just easily ignore two words, you want me to have to leave back to a different section of the book to see what the suggested alignment for a bugbear is? Give me a break.

Some people have no problem with alignment and kept using it - but I am trying to think of one single other tabletop RPG that's not an explicit retroclone that uses D&D style nine point alignment. This is because it's not actually useful and is mostly there thanks to historical accident.

Or maybe it's because it's copyrighted and they'd sued if they did.

 

[Cadence]

I've said what I want
1: Alignments for humanoids (used broadly) to go away.

Do you mean for the race as a whole or as a descriptor for the individuals? If the former, I assume someone in this thread must have come out against it and I missed it?

2: Alignment kicked out of the default statblock.

Personally it annoys me a lot less than having a single type of default weapon.

I'd prefer
3: A more complex thing, especially for evil alignments. Evil (Wants to rule the world) is very different from Evil (Wants to watch the world burn) and that's slightly different from Neutral But Incompatible With Reality (Great Old One style). 4e admittedly made CE the latter and E the former.

Isn't take over LE and burn CE? So, if we came up with a more detailed set of 25 (say).descriptors to give more nuance but not require folks to memorize too many definitions or have to parse too many near synonyms?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No. Next time you're at a convention, wander through all the D&D tables. You MIGHT find one that doesn't use it. Maybe. I have done that and never seen a table that doesn't use alignment. But you can sit there and try to reverse it on me like that(and fail) or say "Citation needed!" as if a study will be done, but if you do as I said, you'll see that you are in the minority.

What you mean by 'use' though. I find that most common way of 'using' alignment is having a place for it in the character sheet as you just printed default character sheets, and then some players might scribble something on the line and then forget about it. So it might technically exist in the game, but it isn't actually actively used for anything.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Nice strawman there. Clearly the context was one of alignments (as is indeed this entire thread) - and one in which the specific rules change under discussion was the change of orcs from LE to CE.

You specifically quoted me in this post where I asked "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?"

The context was thus alignment and how even different editions can't keep it straight because it's a terrible guide. It wasn't something WotC were using to show "this is our edition" or a consequence. It was just a demonstration of how bad alignment is.

 

[Mistwell]

The core thing is alignment is a tool. But it is a basic tool that creates basic and weak story.

This looks like a "you're having badwrongfun" type argument.

Many people feel alignment helps them create complex and strong stories.
If you don't use the tool that way that's fine. But insulting other people's games as lesser because they get good use out of a tool you don't get good use out of seems extreme and insulting to your gamer peers.

Let people have their fun, the way they want to have their fun.

As long as it's an optional rule, let people use their options how they want.

 

[Maxperson]

What you mean by 'use' though. I find that most common way of 'using' alignment is having a place for it in the character sheet as you just printed default character sheets, and then some players might scribble something on the line and then forget about it. So it might technically exist in the game, but it isn't actually actively used for anything.

Go to the convention and ask them. You'll see.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Do you mean for the race as a whole or as a descriptor for the individuals? If the former, I assume someone in this thread must have come out against it and I missed it?

Considering that the main cited reason for having alignment is the easy and quick assessment of the enemy's nature, and a large section of potential enemies are humanoids, I would assume people who find alignment useful would oppose this.

Also removal of blanket alignment should apply to most intelligent biological creatures regardless of whether they're technically humanoid in D&D terms. Giants are just large people after all. And I don't really feel comfortable with classifying dragons into good and evil based on their skin colour either.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Possibly the rational was that they were changed to CE to explain why there are no great orc nations--as if it's impossible to have a large chaotic nation. (I saw a post somewhere that described the U.S. as having a Chaotic alignment: each individual state and sometimes county has their own laws, which may or may not be the same as another state or county's laws, the leaders are elected in popularity contests based on how charismatic they are, and there are lots of laws that are, deliberately or accidentally, slanted to benefit one group over another.)

 

[Umbran]

That there are far far better ways you could use two words to be inspiring than just two single words from two lists of three.

Mod Note:

"I think there are better things," is a good enough statement for yourself, but it is not sufficient support for how aggressive you are being here. If you cannot conscience people liking to use something you don't find valuable, you're not in a mindset for discussion.

The two of you just hammering away at each other is not constructive. Cool it, or it will be cooled for you.

 

[Maxperson]

Considering that the main cited reason for having alignment is the easy and quick assessment of the enemy's nature, and a large section of potential enemies are humanoids, I would assume people who find alignment useful would oppose this.

The main cited reason that I've seen here is for the DM to use for NPCs that he doesn't have time to detail out.

Also removal of blanket alignment should apply to most intelligent biological creatures regardless of whether they're technically humanoid in D&D terms. Giants are just large people after all. And I don't really feel comfortable with classifying dragons into good and evil based on their skin colour either.

Then don't use it. Remove it from your game. It takes all of a fraction of a second to do.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Do you mean for the race as a whole or as a descriptor for the individuals? If the former, I assume someone in this thread must have come out against it and I missed it?

I think Maxperson seems to be against it.

Personally it annoys me a lot less than having a single type of default weapon.

Again the 4e statblocks were vastly superior.

Isn't take over LE and burn CE?

Using 4e definitions, yes. Using nine point alignment I don't know.

The most lawful people are dead ones - after all they don't move around. It's not hard to imagine necromancers, Modrons, or the like who are both emphatically lawful and are trying to burn the world.

Likewise chaos. It's perfectly possible under nine point alignment to imagine people who believe that Might Makes Right and Darwin Should Decide who want to smash all structures and do what they want. But they want this because they believe they are the strongest and they will get to control when they are done.

So, if we came up with a more detailed set of 25 (say).descriptors to give more nuance but not require folks to memorize too many definitions or have to parse too many near synonyms?

Chunk it into three or four axes of about five things. For example

• In-group size (Myself, "My team, My Clan, My race, My country, the world)
• Outsiders should be (Killed, shown their place, ignored, welcomed)
• Code of Honour (Applies to everyone, don't be a sucker, only applies to team, Skin deep)

That tells me far more about the characters than nine point alignment

 

[hopeless]

Faerun I believe made an attempt to correct that at one point up near the Icewind Dales I believe.
Then of course Eberron.
I'm more curious about explaining their true history.
Tolkien, well the movie trilogy explained them as having been formerly elves tortured into their current state.
I'm more inclined to go with them being formerly human who descended into savagery and surviving the collapse of their civilisation and whatever catastrophe that brought them down has caused them to evolve into their current state with the other races having some link with each other.
Dragons being responsible for the Dragonborn and Kobolds.

However need I remind you that Genghis Khan came closest to conquering most of the planet?

Just because they're chaotic doesn't mean they can't form nations or empires, etc...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The main cited reason that I've seen here is for the DM to use for NPCs that he doesn't have time to detail out.

Which seems bizarre to me. Like if this is some named NPC then where did the statblock come from? If they're a part of the adventure then certainly the GM must have some idea of their place in it anyway, and must have a far better idea of their nature than the alignment could provide. And if it is just for the ease of running things straight from MM, then certainly having alignment removed from all humanoids would be kinda big deal as a large section of monsters are humanoids?

Then don't use it. Remove it from your game. It takes all of a fraction of a second to do.

Sure. I have removed it. I'd still would prefer WotC to get rid of this antiquated and offensive mechanic. It's not a big deal for me, as I don't put D&D on a pedestal and assume it to be perfect, but as it is overwhelmingly the most popular and influential RPG it would be preferable if it wouldn't contain such awful stuff.

 

[Faolyn]

One of the many good things Eberron did was treated the alignment system with all the respect it deserved by subverting it.

Of course, back in 3x, they use the "often" and "usually" and "always" tags for alignments, which I really wish they had kept for 5e. I think it's a lot easier for some people to subvert an alignment is if the rules outright state that it's not absolute. If you just have the alignment without some tag saying how common it is, then I think people treat each instance of a creature not sharing that alignment as some sort of Great and Notable Exception instead of, hey, here's a creature that's a bit different.

 

[Maxperson]

I think Maxperson seems to be against it.

What I would like to see is 3e's monster alignment system to be used. Orcs were not CE in 3e. They were OFTEN CE. That "often" meant something. It meant that 40-50% of orcs were of that alignment. That's it. Up to half of them. People want to portray 3e orcs as the entire race being CE, but those that do so are incorrect.

 

[Cadence]

I think Maxperson seems to be against it.

@Maxperson Where are you at on removing alignment just from the MM entries for humanoids (but not from them in individual encounters or individual NPCs)?

Chunk it into three or four axes of about five things. For example

• In-group size (Myself, "My team, My Clan, My race, My country, the world)
• Outsiders should be (Killed, shown their place, ignored, welcomed)
• Code of Honour (Applies to everyone, don't be a sucker, only applies to team, Skin deep)

That tells me far more about the characters than nine point alignment

You're supposed to save the good, but unfinished, ideas for the weeks I don't have a lot of other work I'm behind on!!!!

 

[Oofta]

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

I disliked 4Es alignment. Law vs chaos is different than good vs evil. Chaotic does not mean evil or destructive.

I thought it was a good move to split it up way back when. I still do.