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.