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

[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.