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

[Vaalingrade]

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.

People have historically thought a lot of harmful or useless things provided benefits when they in fact did not.

See also medicinal carbonated beverages, revitalizing uranium or a drop of arsenic in a ten thousand gallon jug.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Considering that your own definition alignment instantly breaks apart at cursory examination of your own posts I feel rather confident about my assessment.

 

[Flamestrike]

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 dont see any reason why. Are Gods really that active?

He could be evil but he's still advancing the cause of the church.

 

[Flamestrike]

Considering that your own definition alignment instantly breaks apart at cursory examination of your own posts I feel rather confident about my assessment.

No, it doesn't.

Im CN. Do I now lack motivation and goals somehow?

 

[Dausuul]

[Harming others for greater good] is [unambigously evil]. And as a player at my table you'd be told that in no uncertain terms.

Killing in defense of other people is a perfect example of inflicting harm for the greater good. And you just said it was not evil.

 

[Oofta]

I think there are some good examples of how you can have ideals that you believe are good, but implement those ideals in ways that are best reflected by an evil alignment.

For example, we just watched Invincible on Netflix

Spoiler: Major spoiler alert

In the show Omni-Man, a superpowered alien from the planet Viltrumite comes across as a savior of mankind. In reality, he just wants to subjugate the planet because he believes Viltrumites are vastly superior in every way.

He wants to save humanity by conquering them and making them part of the Viltrumite Empire. To him using force and killing thousands is for the best because if they don't join the empire they'll be destroyed anyway.

It also shows that Omni-Man isn't one-dimensional, that people can be LE but still be complex.

P.S. I enjoyed the show, but it is quite graphic in it's depiction of violence and may not be suitable for everyone.

 

[Flamestrike]

Killing in defense of other people is a perfect example of inflicting harm for the greater good.

No it is not. Self defence is not a greater good.

 

[lingual]

Honourable but Evil is LE.

Would Robert Duvall from Godfather be LE? He pays off government bureaucrats and obviously breaks the law. It could be argued though that he is personally very disciplined and loyal to his organization and therefore "lawful". But he also cheats on his wife and breaks many public laws. I don't think it's that simple. I could get on board with LE being in his statblock though.

 

[Mirtek]

I dont see any reason why. Are Gods really that active?

Depends on the edition. Pre-4e they were. At least as a quick check whenever you requested to renew your granted powers. If they found you lacking at that point, no new spells for you

 

[Vaalingrade]

Unlike every other alignment thread, there's an actual worthwhile and engaging subject in the OP and we're all doing our level best to ignore it to talk about the opposite of that.