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

[Vaalingrade]

Don't use it because it is vague, subjective and personal. Might as well demand you assign a poltical party to your character for all it actually describes and objectively means.

As for the false agenda gods thing, I've used it. In fact, in my campaign setting, the Big Bad of the planet took advantage of the gods going distant to play this two ways:

First is the Church of the Threefold Moon, his actual church that professes to be an organization based on Might Makes Right. The lay people think they're doing the right thing by promoting the strongest to lead in the Death World they live in, but the actual point is sowing conflict by pitting people against each other to prove themselves and condition them to accept more and more power from the Big bad until they become literal monsters in his service.

Second, he invented a member of the pantheon, masquerading as a god of Community when he's actually spreading xenophobic and isolationist views to again sew conflict (his deal is he can't bring his lost essence together with all this dirty 'life' on the planet, but he can't act to nuke it himself).

And then he's being subverted because the world runs on Pratchett's Narrative Causality and the belief the people have in both these fake gods has spawned actual Small Gods, both of whom are subverting his efforts but building groups dedicated to the strong uplifting the weak and actual communities rooted in inclusivity and togetherness.

 

[Flamestrike]

Im not understanding the religious distinction.

Why are people struggling to comprehend an evil cleric of a good church?

A LE inquisitor type of a Good religion etc?

 

[billd91]

What if the person believes in in some greater good for altruistic reasons, but thinks that achieving that good requires harming others? Whole eggs and omelettes or 'needs of the many outfighting the needs of the few' thing. Are they good or evil and how does labelling them either way helps us to understand them better?

It would, in that case, give an incomplete picture. The kind of person you're talking about is like the Operative in Serenity. He knows what he's doing is cruel and, from a personal moral perspective, wrong. But he's doing it for a higher ideal. That makes him evil, knowingly so, even if the ultimate goal is something higher.
Alignment is never a complete picture - never has been a complete picture any more than a set of rolled stats is a complete picture. But, if used well, it can help give you ideas where someone fits in the society around them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Theyre evil. Full stop.

So adventurers killing monsters (i.e. harming others) to stop said monsters rampaging countryside (protecting the countryside being the greater good) are evil?

 

[Flamestrike]

A culture could be very violent and "evil" - yet heroic and honorable (like the Spartans in 300).

Honourable but Evil is LE.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't know if this is addressed at all in the other thread, but what I wanted to ask is would the game be better if alignment wasn't present?

A few months ago I ran a game where the Dawnfather Church was usurped by members of the Strife Emperor Cult.
This had been ongoing for years and past unnoticed due to the influence of the gods was stymied by an event centuries past leaving them needing their followers worship more than its commonly known.

Anyway have you ever run games where the PCs eventually discover the various churches aren't exactly the alignment their god is supposed to be?

If this ever came up in your games how did you or your players react to such a reveal?

Prior to the game I mentioned above I was asked to convert a Ranger into a Cleric for a game, then had my dm mess up my character's back story when he couldn't recognise the potential of the game being run at a hamlet over a large city where heroes or mercenary troubleshooter's are more likely present.

Anyway I got a little into the character that I developed a faith for her, but I'm getting off topic how do you handle alignments in your game?

No. Most of use use alignment properly and without problem now that it has had all of its teeth removed. It's simply an aid to roleplay to use or not as you see fit. Removing it from the game would harm more than it helps.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. Alignment only adds problems and doesn't provide a single benefit. After over 40 years, I've yet to see anyone make a good argument for what the purpose of alignment is supposed to be.
Never use it in any of my campaigns. Sometimes players still write it on their character sheets, but I just ignore it, since it never comes up anyway.

This is an objectively false statement, as many people here have offered benefits that it gives them. To declare that it provides not a single benefit(and there are in fact multiple benefits) is flat out wrong.

 

[payn]

What if the person believes in in some greater good for altruistic reasons, but thinks that achieving that good requires harming others? Whole eggs and omelettes or 'needs of the many outfighting the needs of the few' thing. Are they good or evil and how does labelling them either way helps us to understand them better?


Whose tradition? What if they respect the traditions of their religion and think all other laws are wrong and need not to be obeyed? Also certainly one can easily be reckless and unpredictable and still have honour and respect traditions. Like think of Klingons, super honourable traditionalists, also unpredictable hotheads. Lawful or chaotic? And again, how does labelling them either way make understanding them easier, instead of just confusing and dumbing down things?

Thing about Klingons is they are just as variable as anyone else. To Worf, honor is honor and its achieved by following traditions and tenets. Many other Klingons see honor as more of a malleable concept shaped to the situation and decided by the victor. The Alignment system helps know which is which in shorthand.

 

[Flamestrike]

So adventurers killing monsters (i.e. harming others) to stop said monsters rampaging countryside (protecting the countryside being the greater good) are evil?

Killing in self defence or the defence of others is not evil, when no other option presents itself, the threat is imminent and the force used is proportionate.

This is why such killings are not sanctioned in any criminal code anywhere, ever, through time immemorial.

We don't call cops who are forced to shoot gangsters shooting at them (or others) evil. We do call cops who intentionally gun down unarmed criminals in their home who are posing noone any threat evil - and we imprison them for murder.

An adventurer that rides out to a living creatures home, where it presents no threat to anyone, and kills it for no other reason than existing, is evil.

 

[Maxperson]

I still find Alignment to be of use as shorthand for NPCs and monsters. That said, I don't use it as a straight jacket. A listed alignment of a creature in the MM is a starting point, speaking to a "typical" example of said creature. My campaign just culminated in the PCs fighting against a LE angel. I do like that 5e has greatly downplayed the inherency of alignments mechanically.

Yep. This is the way.