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

[Maxperson]

Wow. The guy can't take a joke I guess. Oh, well.

 

[Helldritch]

From this I can either conclude that you are ignorant of 20th Century European history or are trolling me.

Either way I see no point in continuing this. Goodbye

I do not think so. Which Storm Troopers were you referring to Those? Those of the Emperor? Or those prior to order 67? Because those prior order 67 are shining examples of knights in white armor sacrificing themselves for the greater good and the innocent. It is only when Palpatine gave the order that the chip in their brain was activated and made them what they are now. Finn had his chip and conditioning failed and became the white knight that ST were supposed to be. With the two letters LG or LE we would immediately know which ST you were referring.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I do not think so. Which Storm Troopers were you referring to Those?

The ones in 1977 when they were first introduced without needing a whole lot of lore behind them. Y'know. The ones that were working the way you think that things should be possible. And that demonstrates that they are.

Those of the Emperor? Or those prior to order 67? Because those prior order 67 are shining examples of knights in white armor sacrificing themselves for the greater good and the innocent. It is only when Palpatine gave the order that the chip in their brain was activated and made them what they are now. Finn had his chip and conditioning failed and became the white knight that ST were supposed to be. With the two letters LG or LE we would immediately know which ST you were referring.

And this is possible with masses of lore. But all that lore wasn't actually needed in 1977 - or even 1983.

I will accept that when you have a dozen different types of stormtroopers you might be able to point out that one type is CE and most are LE. But that's all you're really getting from alignment and you need to reference multiple films and spinoffs worth of lore to indicate that.

 

[Helldritch]

1) All I can see is that you're pretending that acronyms are confusing when you don't have familiarity - which is why the 5e statblocks in the Monster Manual use the alignment written out in words. So do the 3.5, 3.0, 2e, and 1e.

2) So you are trying to set rules for alignment that no edition of D&D has ever followed. This is pure special pleading.

3) I don't know. What happens if you make a mistake and declare all orcs to be Lawful Evil when they are in fact Chaotic Evil. The way 2e did. You're not proposing anything that makes this worse than 9 point alignment

4) But alignments aren't given two letters in any of the main monster manuals. They are given two words - which eliminates all the referring back and forth.

5) Your entire issue here is that "If you do something with this system that has not been done in any central monster manual it makes it harder to learn". Which is why D&D does not do things the way you are proposing in any central monster manual when using nine point alignment.

1) I never claimed that is was so in the MM. It is something people do to resume an alignment when building their notes. We make acronyms. My Empire of the Sun troopers are usually LN-G. That gives all the info I know about the Empire.

2) I claimed nothing, what are you referring to exactly? That the alignment system never existed? I truly do not know what you are talking about here. Enlighten me please.

3) That was an edition change to reflect their new adventure path and to justify how the orcs were acting in their new adventures. A change of edition often bring such changes.

4) See number one above. Two words or two letters who really cares? I have 5 words to learn and memorize or explain that are easy concepts. Compared to all of yours, it is quite easier than your system and quite good for the basic nameless enemies.

5) No. My point is the more complex the system, the more you need to make references and the more tedious it becomes. It is why alignmentless systems have relatively fewer monsters than a co.parable book in D&D. All this flavor text takes up space that could be used for more monsters. But because there are no alignments, you need to make a lot more than basic fluff to make sure that the monsters are understood and played as intended.

 

[Cadence]

. This is the current state - and it already in four words tells me about a thousand times more than "Chaotic Good" does.

• Who do you count as insiders? (Self, Team, Family, Clan, Country)
• How do you treat insiders? (Loyalty, Dominate, Trust, Backstab)
• How do you want to treat outsiders? (Welcome, Convert, Ignore, Distrust, Use, Dominate, Eliminate)
• What is best in life? (Power, Wealth, Comfort, Glory, Sex, Art, Excellence, Knowledge, Order)

What else goes on the last one - Charity, Destruction, Chaos, Terrorizing, Breeding, Penitence, Sparkly Caves?

 

[Helldritch]

The ones in 1977 when they were first introduced without needing a whole lot of lore behind them. Y'know. The ones that were working the way you think that things should be possible. And that demonstrates that they are.

And this is possible with masses of lore. But all that lore wasn't actually needed in 1977 - or even 1983.

I will accept that when you have a dozen different types of stormtroopers you might be able to point out that one type is CE and most are LE. But that's all you're really getting from alignment and you need to reference multiple films and spinoffs worth of lore to indicate that.

And guess what? They were short cut bad guys. Yep, in D&D therm, Lucas put LE in front of them.

Again, with additional lore, you need a quick reference to know how to play the opponents. LE orcs? Fine. LG orcs? Fine too, probably Eberron or some other setting than mine.

No, I do not need multiple films and spinoff to know which troopers you are referring to with alignment. LG or LE is quite sufficient.
LG = pre order 67
LE = post order 67.
See how easy it is? Otherwise you will have to tell me that the ST you are referring working with Anakin was in the Clone War and not in A New Hope. A lot more words for a reference as lore as evolved. The see parallels van be made with D&D. Over the years, many campaign settings were added. Halflings are generally LG but in Dark Sun, they are sadistic cannibals! Certainly not the cute little halflings we used to see the PHB.

And with lore added, you need quick tools to know how to play fast. Some who does not know Dark Sun, will not have to read whole pages of lore to understand that the halflings coming from a strange world through a portal are evil to the core when he sees LE on their stat block. Here Lawful Evil is reduced to two letters for convenience. ...

 

[Neonchameleon]

1) I never claimed that is was so in the MM. It is something people do to resume an alignment when building their notes. We make acronyms. My Empire of the Sun troopers are usually LN-G. That gives all the info I know about the Empire.

That's because (1) it's come from your mind and you're communicating with yourself and (2) you have decades of familiarity with alignment.

And I don't believe that that's all you know. What equipment do the empire of the sun troopers carry?

2) I claimed nothing, what are you referring to exactly? That the alignment system never existed? I truly do not know what you are talking about here. Enlighten me please.

I'm saying that by demanding instant familiarity with acronyms you are doing something D&D has never done with alignment.

4) See number one above. Two words or two letters who really cares? I have 5 words to learn and memorize or explain that are easy concepts. Compared to all of yours, it is quite easier than your system and quite good for the basic nameless enemies.

On the contrary. In my system I have no words to use that I'm aware of because I'm using words in common English use.

You had to learn words for your system because we do not normally refer to people as chaotic or lawful - and what good or evil means in D&D is frequently very different from real world examples.

5) No. My point is the more complex the system, the more you need to make references and the more tedious it becomes. It is why alignmentless systems have relatively fewer monsters than a co.parable book in D&D.

This is the literal opposite of my experience.

Every mainline edition of D&D has had an entire book that they have exported the monsters to. The 2e and 5e monstrous manuals (the two I have to hand) use about a page each per monster. This is an excessive and lavish amount compared to e.g. Savage Worlds Deluxe Edition which gets six monsters on the page. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 1e (again the only edition I have to hand) also puts the monsters into the core book rather than requiring an entire separate book for them - and gets three of them onto a page much of the time.

All this flavor text takes up space that could be used for more monsters. But because there are no alignments, you need to make a lot more than basic fluff to make sure that the monsters are understood and played as intended.

Just as you need to for monsters with alignment because alignment isn't tactics or motivation. It's an almost meaningless descriptor that just clogs things up.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And guess what? They were short cut bad guys. Yep, in D&D therm, Lucas put LE in front of them.

But he didn't need to put LE in front of them. He instead gave them a uniform and the Empire a motivation and a discussion that ensured that actually saying LE would have been redundant.

Without the work he put in LE wouldn't have said much. With the work he put in LE was utterly pointless and didn't need saying.

And pre-Order 66 the idea that the Stormtroopers, literal child soldiers being lead by people with no military experience, were LG is dubious. You can claim they were LG, but this is something that many people will disagree with.

 

[Helldritch]

But he didn't need to put LE in front of them. He instead gave them a uniform and the Empire a motivation and a discussion that ensured that actually saying LE would have been redundant.

Without the work he put in LE wouldn't have said much. With the work he put in LE was utterly pointless and didn't need saying.

And pre-Order 66 the idea that the Stormtroopers, literal child soldiers being lead by people with no military experience, were LG is dubious. You can claim they were LG, but this is something that many people will disagree with.

He literally put bad guys. No lore, no nothing. Again, in D&D language LE. That you agree or not changes nothing. They are generic bad guys. No deep motivations or sentiments were put into their creation. Nothing compared to Darth Vader.

Did you watch the Clone Wars? They are anything but children.

What we have here is nothing new under the sun. You refute my argument because. Whatever I will bring to show you that alignment works fine for me and hundreds of others will do nothing to take you to accept that my view point is a valid one. I have the same books as you have ( in their 1ed) and comparatively, the amount of monsters in them is lower per page count than what D&D offers. It was often a critic back in the 80s and as I have not bought recent editions, they might have changed the format and might rely on past lore or the familiarity of their audience to fill in the gaps. I fully admit my ignorance on the more recent editions of some of the most popular alignmentless systems out there.

WoD was one of.the most popular and yet, assumed a lot foe wise. Much was in the hands of the story tellers and much was hidden in the lore you had to read. And generic bad guys were just that, generic bad guys. At least, D&D and it's two words (letters when you reduce it further for notations) gives us a basic hint how such and such generic bad guys will act depending on those two little words/letters.

Edit:" Clarifications needed because auto corrector"...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

He literally put bad guys. No lore, no nothing. Again, in D&D language LE. That you agree or not changes nothing. They are generic bad guys. No deep motivations or sentiments were put into their creation. Nothing compared to Darth Vader.

And everyone got that just fine without an alignment tag!

 

[Neonchameleon]

He literally put bad guys. No lore, no nothing.

Yes, of course. He literally put "bad guys". He didn't call them Stormtroopers. He didn't give them face concealing helmets. He didn't have any lore on the Empire and what it wanted and what they were fighting in service of (the Conference Room scene being one of the best infodumps in cinematic history). He didn't have them do things like burning Luke's farmhouse to the ground and leaving the charred skeletons of his adopted parents. None of that showed that the Stormtroopers were bad guys. None of that could in any way be considered lore. None of it did a single thing to show that the Stormtroopers were the bad guys.

There is a rule of thumb in storytelling "Show, don't tell". Statements like "Lawful Evil" are the literal opposite of that. If you have actual bad guys then their alignment is redundant. If you don't have actual bad guys then saying "Lawful Evil" won't show how they are evil.

Again, in D&D language LE. That you agree or not changes nothing. They are generic bad guys. No deep motivations or sentiments were put into their creation. Nothing compared to Darth Vader.

Darth Vader gets surprisingly little in the first movie. They don't need deep motivations - they are the footsoldiers, on the other hand, of a complex organisation which is shown to have multiple factions but a common overriding ideology.

Did you watch the Clone Wars? They are anything but children.

Did you watch Attack of the Clones? They were force grown and thrown into combat when they were a decade old.

Child slave soldiers. "Lawful good".

WoD was one of.the most popular and yet, assumed a lot foe wise. Much was in the hands of the story tellers and much was hidden in the lore you had to read. And generic bad guys were just that, generic bad guys. At least, D&D and it's two words (letters when you reduce it further for notations) gives us a basic hint how such and such generic bad guys will act depending on those two little words/letters.

WoD was best used for reading on the throne. And I can't off the top of my head think of any generic bad guys with such content-free motivation as "Lawful Neutral" in the whole of the World of Darkness except possibly the Black Spiral Dancers.

The long and the short of things is that if you've done enough worldbuilding then you don't need nine point alignment and if you haven't then it won't substitute for having an actual motivation.

 

[Helldritch]

And everyone got that just fine without an alignment tag!

You hardly need alignment when you have only one setting. When you have litterally an unlimited amount of settings, you need a common identifier. And alignment fits that bill. It saves a lot of ink and work when you do not need deep motivations.

Yes, of course. He literally put "bad guys". He didn't call them Stormtroopers. He didn't give them face concealing helmets. He didn't have any lore on the Empire and what it wanted and what they were fighting in service of (the Conference Room scene being one of the best infodumps in cinematic history). He didn't have them do things like burning Luke's farmhouse to the ground and leaving the charred skeletons of his adopted parents. None of that showed that the Stormtroopers were bad guys. None of that could in any way be considered lore. None of it did a single thing to show that the Stormtroopers were the bad guys.

You must be joking. I hope you are. Or you did not see the same movie as I.

There is a rule of thumb in storytelling "Show, don't tell". Statements like "Lawful Evil" are the literal opposite of that. If you have actual bad guys then their alignment is redundant. If you don't have actual bad guys then saying "Lawful Evil" won't show how they are evil.

Yes, to your audience. But to your self? Do you think that when my players meet orcs I say:" You see LE orcs. What do you do?"
The notes on alignments are for the DM's eyes only. Not for the players/audience.

Darth Vader gets surprisingly little in the first movie. They don't need deep motivations - they are the footsoldiers, on the other hand, of a complex organisation which is shown to have multiple factions but a common overriding ideology.

In the movie, you are right. In the notes Lucas had, quite a lot.

Did you watch Attack of the Clones? They were force grown and thrown into combat when they were a decade old.

Child slave soldiers. "Lawful good".

A clone is not a child. It is a clone. It is given a personality and it is grown as fast as needed. Do not mix things with bad assumptions.

WoD was best used for reading on the throne. And I can't off the top of my head think of any generic bad guys with such content-free motivation as "Lawful Neutral" in the whole of the World of Darkness except possibly the Black Spiral Dancers.

The long and the short of things is that if you've done enough worldbuilding then you don't need nine point alignment and if you haven't then it won't substitute for having an actual motivation.

For main character/protagonist, you are right. Alignment falls a bit short. On the generic bad guys? It does wonders! But you don't want to see that the tool that the alignment represent for me and many other is quite good. Your loss, not mine.

Also, WoD was great to play, not only for reading on the throne. To show contempt as you do for that game shows a lot... One of the best alignmentless game and yet, you spit on it. It shows the strength of your arguments...

 

[Neonchameleon]

You hardly need alignment when you have only one setting. When you have litterally an unlimited amount of settings, you need a common identifier. And alignment fits that bill. It saves a lot of ink and work when you do not need deep motivations.#

Good job none of us has "litterally an unlimited amount of settings" then.

You must be joking. I hope you are. Or you did not see the same movie as I.

Then I'm not sure what you saw

Yes, to your audience. But to your self? Do you think that when my players meet orcs I say:" You see LE orcs. What do you do?"
The notes on alignments are for the DM's eyes only. Not for the players/audience.


In the movie, you are right. In the notes Lucas had, quite a lot.

So now you accept that Lucas had quite a lot of notes - meaning he didn't need the "LE" notation.

A clone is not a child. It is a clone. It is given a personality and it is grown as fast as needed. Do not mix things with bad assumptions.

This is a strawman.

A clone is not a child. A clone is a clone and a clone of a human is a human. A young clone is a child, an old clone is an adult.

A ten year old human is a child. The clones were, according to the lore, ten years old.

What we have here is a huge disagreement in morality. According to the text the clones were ten year olds created and made to fight. According to you this makes them LG.

According to me they were ten year olds, still children but with their childhood stolen from them.

For main character/protagonist, you are right. Alignment falls a bit short. On the generic bad guys? It does wonders!

You yourself have accepted that it was neither necessary nor sufficient for stormtroopers.

Hell, it's not enough for Power Rangers villains.

Also, WoD was great to play, not only for reading on the throne. To show contempt as you do for that game shows a lot... One of the best alignmentless game and yet, you spit on it. It shows the strength of your arguments...

Game design has come on a lot since the 90s. White Wolf promised a lot - but there's a reason it utterly crashed in popularity as soon as the nWoD started despite the fact the nWoD had better rules. It wasn't the rules that made WoD games good. And it wasn't all those fixed metaplots.

It was the depth of the world, that the whole thing was shades of grey, and that they didn't use nonsense like "Chaotic Evil" except for very very rare groups such as the Nephandi. Instead everyone had an actual motivation and there was decent storytelling and worldbuilding in those books - plus a very LGBT friendly and for the 90s progressive atmosphere.

 

[Cadence]

What we have here is a huge disagreement in morality. According to the text the clones were ten year olds created and made to fight. According to you this makes them LG.

According to me they were ten year olds, still children but with their childhood stolen from them.

Are you arguing the clones weren't LG or that the folks who forced grew them weren't LG? It feels like those are different questions?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Are you arguing the clones weren't LG or that the folks who forced grew them weren't LG? It feels like those are different questions?

I'm arguing that the clones were people and you can't say that they were as a group LG.

Also that the cause they were fighting for was definitely not good or it wouldn't have resolved to use indoctrinated child soldiers.

And then we reach one of the many issues with alignment. What about the well intentioned idealist working for a terrible cause?

 

[Cadence]

I'm arguing that the clones were people and you can't say that they were as a group LG.

That makes sense, thanks!

Also that the cause they were fighting for was definitely not good or it wouldn't have resolved to use indoctrinated child soldiers.

Yes. But for sci-fi in general, how old do force aged clones with artificial memories count as? It feels bad in a lot of cases, but what is the status of the X-Men who are brought back to life in the current run? How old is someone who is reincarnated?

And then we reach one of the many issues with alignment. What about the well intentioned idealist working for a terrible cause?

Is that the same as a LG paladin who was lied to by someone who fed them information and sent them off on a quest where they were unwittingly helping evil? If alignment measures motivation, how would that make them evil?

 

[Bagpuss]

Gygax also thought storming a creche and murdering Orc children by the score by bashing their brains in with a hammer was 'Lawful Good' because 'Nits make Lice'.

Not exactly the greatest moral arbiter.

Although I think that shows how broad you can be with the alignment system. Alignments aren't some straight jacket, that forces a particular action in particular circumstances.

If a LG Paladin can justify murdering orc children as it serves the long term both law and good, then fair enough. Another character that is also LG, might believe every life is precious and shouldn't be taken at all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Although I think that shows how broad you can be with the alignment system. Alignments aren't some straight jacket, that forces a particular action in particular circumstances.

If a LG Paladin can justify murdering orc children as it serves the long term both law and good, then fair enough. Another character that is also LG, might believe every life is precious and shouldn't be taken at all.

And if a child murderer can be lawful good, then the system is obviously utterly useless for describing morality!

 

[jasper]

Alignment should be fifth or less on what should be important to your PC. It is a quick, dirty, cartoony, and thumbnail size sketch of morals, good/evil, and ethics. It is great tool for monsters, so CE monsters the PCs start out not trusting the friendly pie vendor.
As to followers not matching the Gawd's Alignment. So what? Back in 1E I allowed Cleric's to be near their gawd's alignment. Ex LG gawd. Cleric CG or NG.

 

[Bagpuss]

Theyre evil. Full stop.

So in the trolley problem some that changes the points to run down one person, rather than four is evil?

That's one interpretation to take.