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

[Flamestrike]

@Crimson Longinus seems to want to assign an alignment of 'Good' to a psychotic murderous hitman or a genocidal monster who does the despicable things he does 'for the greater good.'

Thats a position I thoroughly refute.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

This is not in accordance how you defined 'evil' earlier. You said that harming others for greater good is unambiguously evil. Also, what is harm, who is innocent and what is proportionate? Is it evil to restrict civil liberties of 'innocent' people (i.e. causing them harm) in order to protect the health of others? According to your earlier definition this would be evil. Also who decided these things? what if I disagree with the GM what is evil or chaotic and what is not? And how is this mess in any way useful instead of just being pointless and confusing?

 

[Flamestrike]

This is not in accordance how you defined 'evil' earlier. You said that harming others for greater good is unambiguously evil.

It is. And as a player at my table you'd be told that in no uncertain terms.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Crimson Longinus seems to want to assign an alignment of 'Good' to a psychotic murderous hitman or a genocidal monster who does the despicable things he does 'for the greater good.'

Thats a position I thoroughly refute.

No, I don't want to assign them any alignment. I want to understand their beliefs and motivations and assigning alignment is counterproductive for that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It is. And as a player at my table you'd be told that in no uncertain terms.

Then why did you contradict yourself?

 

[jgsugden]

What if the person believes in in some greater good for altruistic reasons, but thinks that achieving that good requires harming others?...

Theyre evil. Full stop.

Absolutes rarely capture the complexities of the real world, of different belief systems etc...

In 1983 I abandoned alignment as written, and replaced it with a relative system. Whenever alignment had a rule impact, I asked why. Usually, it was because a divine effect. In those instances, I asked whether the divine being that granted the power would consider something to be good or evil. Two clerics casting detect evil in the same situation might get different results. It worked really well.

As the editions lessened the impact of alignment, I dropped it entirely. When I told players I didn't use it, it almost always created concern, discussion and some degree of consternation. If I just didn't reference it, there was really no notice of it not being used.

When 5E came out, I started to have people state an alignment for their PCs again. However, it is just one of a score of things I ask them about. Flaws, traits, bonds, ideals, (back) stories, family, friends, goals, fears, etc... It is there to help them build their PCs and create a concept. It is just a starting point, but if a player said , "Chaotic Good" and then started to play "Neutral Evil" (IMHO), I would not bring it up, bat an eye, or care.

With these approaches, otuside of theoretical arguments, alignment has not been a problem for me in a looooooooooooooooooooooooooonh time.

 

[Flamestrike]

No, I don't want to assign them any alignment. I want to understand their beliefs and motivations and assigning alignment is counterproductive for that.

No it is not counter productive.

I can assign an alignment to myself IRL (I'm chaotic neutral for what it's worth) but that doesn't mean I don't have beliefs and motivations as well.

Your position is a fallacy.

 

[lingual]

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?

A LE inquisitor of a good church could very well exist. It could be argued that person would not be granted clerical powers like spell casting. I would maintain that a Good cleric PC of a Good deity would have to basically adhere to being "good" - and not a jerk.

 

[Flamestrike]

Then why did you contradict yourself?

I didn't.

Killing a person in self defence as a last resort in a proportionate manner is not the same thing as killing someone for the 'greater good.

If you don't believe me try running a 'yes i did it but it was for the greater good defence in a murder trial and see how far it gets you.

 

[Mirtek]

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

To stop as in "they're currently rampaging or in the process of getting ready to rampage"? That's at least neutral if not good.

To stop as in "they are not currently rampaging and don't seem to prepare for it anytime soon, but let's be safe"? That's most likely evil, maybe neutral (depending on past behaviour of the monsters)