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

[Minigiant]

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

Using alignment heavily for humanoids without high skill in writing creates weak results if you deeply get into the world's lore within play. Many don't like to hear that their alignment heavy worlds are derivative or nonsensical. However that what it often is. Few have the ability to use alignment heavily and entwine it into story well. Especially since it works best in high and mythic fantasy and of the alignment heavy DM prefer grittier or darker worlds.

Law-Chaos Good-Evil alignment is a shortcut. Shortcuts are often not the best method as that why the shortcut isn't the main method.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You don't need alignment to call an entire race evil OR to describe them in very racist and evil ways. Alignment isn't the culprit.

You don't need alignment. Alignment just encourages it. And has as far as I can tell precisely zero positive effects at this level.

I don't see a problem with that. Two letters shouldn't cause you any angst if you aren't using it.

Two words. So if I were to add M----r F----r to every post of mine that would have precisely no impact on how you read the post?

And there's absolutely nothing inherently morally toxic with alignment. Not one shred.

When you start using it to describe races of sentient beings with free will then yes there is.

It's a tool like a screwdriver. If you individually choose to impale someone in the eye with a screwdriver(alignment), then it's you who are morally toxic, not the tool.

Nope. It's a tool like warfarin. It can be useful but when you start applying it to everyone and everything you've got problems.

Edit: And we're saying to make it optional. Not do away with it. Who cares if the current system is optional or not. It's future books we are discussing.

And I am saying what would be required to make it optional rather than even as intrusive as it is now.

 

[Faolyn]

No. I remember that. That wasn't an argument that you can't tell good from evil. That was an argument that many traits can be both good. neutral or evil, so traits alone are not always enough. I don't agree that a revenge-obsessed and hateful can be lawful good, but it doesn't have to be evil, either.

Going by the other stuff that individual wrote? Yes, they very much were saying that without alignment written out, they could just interpret anything any way they want, because everything is "now subjective."

Also, removing the alignment from the stat blocks, leaves monsters like the Relentless Killer (Page 242) without guidance on its moral outlook The text just says Relentless killers are hateful, revenge obsessed creatures.

Yet, by skipping alignment in the stat block, nothing to say if the above are lawfully good actions. Basically, 5e since Tasha's encourages all rules to be read subjectively.

The good news is that no more rules lawyers arguments. Everything is subjective now, and even that Relentless Killer could basically be a lawful good paladin in training, if your table so chooses.

Maybe they were being facetious, but it really seems that they relied on alignment to determine a creature's moral outlook.

 

[Faolyn]

And yet it makes the drow and orc issues much much worse. And how do you make calling entire races evil not racist?

And for that matter, calling an entire race good causes up the exact same problem.

 

[Maxperson]

You don't need alignment. Alignment just encourages it. And has as far as I can tell precisely zero positive effects at this level.

You don't need alignment to be gone and it does not encourage it. We've provided positive effects in this thread and others. If you can't tell what those were, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Two words. So if I were to add M----r F----r to every post of mine that would have precisely no impact on how you read the post?

None at all. Words don't hurt me, especially ones that I can ignore, which are all of them. And I can say that as a member of a minority who has encountered plenty of real racist words in his lifetime.

When you start using it to describe races of sentient beings with free will then yes there is.

Alignment doesn't cause or encourage that. That's quite simply not an alignment issue.

Nope. It's a tool like warfarin. It can be useful but when you start applying it to everyone and everything you've got problems.

And that's an objectively false statement. I've not had a single issue with alignment since the early days of 3e and it has been present in my game the entire time. The correct way to state that is, "when you start misapplying it to everyone and everything, you've got problems."

And I am saying what would be required to make it optional rather than even as intrusive as it is now.

No. You're saying your preference in how they could make it optional. Your personal preference is not "required" in order to make it optional. It's simply one way among several.

 

[Maxperson]

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

If you're relying on it to create any story you're using it wrong. It's simply an aid with roleplaying if you want to use it. The story comes from the players and DM.

Using alignment heavily for humanoids without high skill in writing creates weak results if you deeply get into the world's lore within play. Many don't like to hear that their alignment heavy worlds are derivative or nonsensical. However that what it often is. Few have the ability to use alignment heavily and entwine it into story well. Especially since it works best in high and mythic fantasy and of the alignment heavy DM prefer grittier or darker worlds.

I don't see how you can use it heavily at all anymore. It's one vague sentence that's attached to two letters. These days it's simply a light tool to aid roleplay.

 

[Maxperson]

Going by the other stuff that individual wrote? Yes, they very much were saying that without alignment written out, they could just interpret anything any way they want, because everything is "now subjective."

Also, removing the alignment from the stat blocks, leaves monsters like the Relentless Killer (Page 242) without guidance on its moral outlook The text just says Relentless killers are hateful, revenge obsessed creatures.

Yet, by skipping alignment in the stat block, nothing to say if the above are lawfully good actions. Basically, 5e since Tasha's encourages all rules to be read subjectively.

The good news is that no more rules lawyers arguments. Everything is subjective now, and even that Relentless Killer could basically be a lawful good paladin in training, if your table so chooses.

Maybe they were being facetious, but it really seems that they relied on alignment to determine a creature's moral outlook.

Needless to say, I don't agree with a lot of that. A relentless, revenge obsessed hateful killer is not going to be good. It might not be evil, but it's not going to be good, either. The descriptors give guidance, but leave open multiple ways(alignments) to play the monster/NPC.

If the job of the book is to let the DM know what the default way to play a creature is, there should be both alignment AND descriptive traits. The two together gives a much clearer picture of how to play the creature, while still allowing people who want to ignore alignment to ignore it and just use the traits. With only a very few exceptions, it's win-win. And you don't design a game around the very few rare exceptions who are going to be emotionally hurt by a few letters that really haven't meant anything in more than a decade.

 

[Minigiant]

If you're relying on it to create any story you're using it wrong. It's simply an aid with roleplaying if you want to use it. The story comes from the players and DM.

I don't see how you can use it heavily at all anymore. It's one vague sentence that's attached to two letters. These days it's simply a light tool to aid roleplay.

That's the problem. Some use it as a major story tool, purposefully or accidentally, without the skill to do so.

 

[JEB]

A relentless, revenge obsessed hateful killer is not going to be good. It might not be evil, but it's not going to be good, either. The descriptors give guidance, but leave open multiple ways(alignments) to play the monster/NPC.

Funny enough, the revenant is another creature that can be described as a relentless, revenge-obsessed hateful killer. And it's neutral in alignment. I don't know what side of the alignment argument that supports, but I thought it was interesting.

(Rather than removing alignment, now I kind of want to see some monsters listed with guidance for multiple possible alignments, or at least good-evil-neutral suggestions. That would make monsters that really are innately mono-alignment, like devils, stand out all the more. Seems clear after Candlekeep and Ravenloft that alignment is out altogether, though.)

 

[Maxperson]

That's the problem. Some use it as a major story tool, purposefully or accidentally, without the skill to do so.

Misuse of a tool is not the tool's fault.