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

[Faolyn]

The first has never been a main camp. That's a misinterpretation of the people in favor of alignment. Hell, in the last dozen or so alignment threads I've been a part of here, I can't remember anyone even making that argument, let alone enough to be a main camp.

I have. In one of the Guide to Ravenloft threads, one person (whom I eventually blocked for unrelated reasons) talked about the Relentless Killer monster, literally quoted this part of its info block: "Relentless killers are hateful, revenge-obsessed creatures" and said that because the monster didn't have an alignment, that wasn't enough information to know if the creature was good or evil or what its motivations are, and that being hateful and revenge-obsessed could be read as lawful good. (I can link you the actual post, if you like.)

I have also seen people that have said that things like mind flayers might as well be treated as good and you can't kill them, if there's no alignment listed. Because a creature that parasitizes your body like a psychic super-intelligent cordyceps in order to reproduce, performs horrific experiments on sentient beings for alien reasons, and who eats the brains of intelligent beings, clearly must be good, if there's no words in its statblock that say otherwise.

This might not be a common argument--I hope not because ye gads--but it's an argument that some people do in fact use.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You've had multiple people tell you how they find it useful. I have yet to hear what problems it causes.

First it's a terrible descriptor. "Evil" covers a huge range of things and we have arguments in this very thread about what it means. "Sadistic" and "cruel" are clearer.

Second it's a terrible descriptor, simply declaring certain races to be evil and therefore worthy of killing.

Let me be clear. I have no problem with writing "evil" in the description or even statblock of individual monsters like Strahd, or of supernatural entities like demons or even legendary magics like the Book of Vile Darkness. But it shouldn't be in the actual statblocks of intelligent free-willed races like orcs or even gnolls. The statblocks are a place for mechanics rather than vague descriptors.

As far as classifying races, it's a default just like any other descriptive text that they provide.

Of course it's a "default" to declare that members of certain races are evil and therefore genociding them is a good action.

 

[Faolyn]

You've had multiple people tell you how they find it useful. I have yet to hear what problems it causes.

As far as classifying races, it's a default just like any other descriptive text that they provide.

Well, beyond literally decades of arguments about what alignment is, and people who still insist that certain creatures (such as orcs) must be of a particular alignment with only very rare exceptions... alignments don't so much cause problems as they don't really actually do anything useful. I mean, if you come across a person who is Lawful Good, all you know is that they probably aren't going to steal from you or murder you. Saying a creature is a particular alignment doesn't really tell you what it's going to do. A chaotic evil person isn't necessarily going try to murder you unless they have a good reason to... but the same can be said about a lawful good person. It's just that what counts as a good reason is going to differ quite a bit between the two.

What D&D really needs is to replace it with a motivation or small table of motivations (like in the Cypher System) for each creature.

 

[Neonchameleon]

OK. So, show me the reasonably objective evidence that the number of people harmed by alignment existing as an option in the game is large, and that the benefit it contributes for those who like it is small?

I'm at this point going to suggest that categorising entire races as evil based, like drow, in significant part based on the colour of their skin, is outright toxic.

It doesn't help much that 5e's Monster Manual says "any alignment", creating a conceptual difference between the chosen PC races and the NPC races.

Yes, at least that's what it means to me. It should be optional, like multiclassing and feats and non-core expansion books and sidebars and such.

It would be optional like feats if it wasn't listed in every single statblock of the MM. Not a self-contained chapter that you can ignore - but something every single NPC has very visibly and is considered important enough and central enough to be worth putting front and center (or at least in the upper left hand corner).

I agree, it's pretty mild in 5e and seems to be a fairly decent compromise.

It needs to go one step further and stop the damn things being splashed across every single statblock so even if you don't use it you can't get away from it.

 

[Minigiant]

You've had multiple people tell you how they find it useful. I have yet to hear what problems it causes.

As far as classifying races, it's a default just like any other descriptive text that they provide.

The problem is humaniods.
Alignment works for elementals, outsiders, beasts, and plants. They have weird minds, run on base or programmed instincts, and might not even have free will.

But for free willed, thinking, humaniods, having full races being all or even mostly one alignment make little sense unless the DM is a skilled worldbuilder.

And most DMs are not skilled worldbuilders.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm at this point going to suggest that categorising entire races as evil based, like drow, in significant part based on the colour of their skin, is outright toxic.

I understand your opinion. But that is 1) not an indictment of all uses of alignment (you can solve that issue by removing alignment from one entry, or all humanoid entries, or even all monster books and just have them in adventures etc.), and 2) an opinion and not objective evidence of a quantity of people harmed or a low number of people who find benefit from it.

It would be optional like feats if it wasn't listed in every single statblock of the MM.

Yes. I agree. We're discussing making it optional, rather than the way it's presented right now.

Not a self-contained chapter that you can ignore - but something every single NPC has very visibly and is considered important enough and central enough to be worth putting front and center (or at least in the upper left hand corner).

It needs to go one step further and stop the damn things being splashed across every single statblock so even if you don't use it you can't get away from it.

Does it? I am not sure. How far we go to change the format to make it optional will really depend on how many people are harmed by it and how many people gain utility from it and how intrusive a particular format might be for those who are harmed by it and how helpful a format will likely be for those who find utility from it and other factors.

But, "some people don't like X" is not, in itself, enough of an argument for anything. Like all changes to the game, it should involve surveying the customer base and finding out how people use alignment, what utility they gain from it, and what problems they have with it, over a broad and representative number of people. And then addressing issues raised with alignment in the least intrusive manner possible which still adequately addresses most of the issues raised to the satisfaction of most people who have an issue with it.

 

[Cadence]

Theyre evil. Full stop.

Feels like walking away from Omelas is a step almost no one really takes (and even after they walk away the one in the basement is still there).

 

[Maxperson]

I have. In one of the Guide to Ravenloft threads, one person (whom I eventually blocked for unrelated reasons) talked about the Relentless Killer monster, literally quoted this part of its info block: "Relentless killers are hateful, revenge-obsessed creatures" and said that because the monster didn't have an alignment, that wasn't enough information to know if the creature was good or evil or what its motivations are, and that being hateful and revenge-obsessed could be read as lawful good. (I can link you the actual post, if you like.)

No. I remember that. That wasn't an argument that you can't tell good from evil. That was an argument that many traits can be both good. neutral or evil, so traits alone are not always enough. I don't agree that a revenge-obsessed and hateful can be lawful good, but it doesn't have to be evil, either.

I have also seen people that have said that things like mind flayers might as well be treated as good and you can't kill them, if there's no alignment listed. Because a creature that parasitizes your body like a psychic super-intelligent cordyceps in order to reproduce, performs horrific experiments on sentient beings for alien reasons, and who eats the brains of intelligent beings, clearly must be good, if there's no words in its statblock that say otherwise.

This might not be a common argument--I hope not because ye gads--but it's an argument that some people do in fact use.

It's definitely not a common position and certainly not the main camp on the alignment side of things.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm at this point going to suggest that categorising entire races as evil based, like drow, in significant part based on the colour of their skin, is outright toxic.

That isn't an alignment issue and would remain even if alignment wasn't in the game.

It would be optional like feats if it wasn't listed in every single statblock of the MM. Not a self-contained chapter that you can ignore - but something every single NPC has very visibly and is considered important enough and central enough to be worth putting front and center (or at least in the upper left hand corner).

That's not true. So long as their is a disclaimer at the beginning of the book that alignment is optional and included in the stat blocks for those who want to use them, they're just as optional as feats or any other optional rule.

It needs to go one step further and stop the damn things being splashed across every single statblock so even if you don't use it you can't get away from it.

No it doesn't. People aren't so stupid that they can't or won't ignore something that they don't like just because it's in every stat block as an option.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I understand your opinion. But that is 1) not an indictment of all uses of alignment (you can solve that issue by removing alignment from one entry, or all humanoid entries, or even all monster books and just have them in adventures etc.), and 2) an opinion and not objective evidence of a quantity of people harmed or a low number of people who find benefit from it.

1: I've said and will repeat that if you want to say for example that Strahd is evil then I have no objection, and don't think that I've seen anyone do. Certain people (using the term people broadly to include e.g. deities as well as humanoids) are evil. Some organisations are as well.

2: Who is actually benefiting from declaring dark elves or orcs to be evil as a race?

Yes. I agree. We're discussing making it optional, rather than the way it's presented right now.

There are people saying it's optional now. And it's like feats. I'm saying it isn't - in part because it's on every stat block.

Does it? I am not sure. How far we go to change the format to make it optional will really depend on how many people are harmed by it and how many people gain utility from it and how intrusive a particular format might be for those who are harmed by it and other factors.

It's removing two words. It doesn't change the format much.