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

[Neonchameleon]

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

Alignment just hard-codes it into the game and makes it far worse

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.

Nope. If you aren't using feats you simply say that and don't touch the odd chapter here and there. And other than that you never have to think about them.

If not using alignment it is still right there in every single statblock you look at, right at the top.

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.

And they can agree not to use profanity even if there are swear words in every single paragraph. That doesn't mean that the presence of those swear words doesn't make the paragraph actively worse for people reading out loud who don't want to use profanity.

 

[Cadence]

Alignment just hard-codes it into the game and makes it far worse

Is there much hard coded in in 5e?

Nope. If you aren't using feats you simply say that and don't touch the odd chapter here and there. And other than that you never have to think about them.

If not using alignment it is still right there in every single statblock you look at, right at the top.

Does the 5e MM have something about it only being typical of the species?

 

[Faolyn]

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?

Because for 3e, and I think 2e as well, you had to be within one step of your god's alignment in order to be a cleric. So that strongly bends people towards thinking that there shouldn't be evil people working directly for a good religion (and vice versa).

 

[Maxperson]

Alignment just hard-codes it into the game and makes it far worse

No it doesn't. Alignment is a vague tool and nothing more. You can make something very racist without alignment or not racist in the least with alignment. It has nothing to do with the drow issue.

Nope. If you aren't using feats you simply say that and don't touch the odd chapter here and there. And other than that you never have to think about them.

Yep. If you aren't using alignment you simply say that and don't use it. It's appearance in the stat block has absolutely no ability to force you to use it.

If not using alignment it is still right there in every single statblock you look at, right at the top.

And? So what. You ignore it and play the monster however you please.

And they can agree not to use profanity even if there are swear words in every single paragraph. That doesn't mean that the presence of those swear words doesn't make the paragraph actively worse for people reading out loud who don't want to use profanity.

So again, this is just an argument to remove every rule in the game. Every rule has people who don't like it and for whom the presence would make it worse(I guess). Alignment is not special in this way.

 

[Maxperson]

Because for 3e, and I think 2e as well, you had to be within one step of your god's alignment in order to be a cleric. So that strongly bends people towards thinking that there shouldn't be evil people working directly for a good religion (and vice versa).

2e had worshipper alignments listed for the gods. And yes, there were gods with both good and evil worshippers. Just as an example, Ometeotl's priesthood could be any alignment. Quetzalcoatl's priesthood had to be any good.

 

[Mistwell]

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?

I don't know. I have no ego about this. My view of it might not be shared by a lot of people. Your view of it might not be shared by a lot of people. We should survey customers and actually find out, rather than assuming our views are representative.

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.

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

Would there be an index in the back for the optional alignments of the entries, on a page or two?

 

[Neonchameleon]

No it doesn't. Alignment is a vague tool and nothing more. You can make something very racist without alignment or not racist in the least with alignment. It has nothing to do with the drow issue.

And yet it makes the drow and orc issues much much worse. And how do you make calling entire races evil not racist?

Yep. If you aren't using alignment you simply say that and don't use it. It's appearance in the stat block has absolutely no ability to force you to use it..

It has an ability to force me to read it if I want to use that monster. I can't just skip it the way I can a chapter.

So again, this is just an argument to remove every rule in the game. Every rule has people who don't like it and for whom the presence would make it worse(Iyv guess). Alignment is not special in this way.

Nope. It's an argument that the current situation is not an optional one. And alignment is especially morally toxic.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Would there be an index in the back for the optional alignments of the entries, on a page or two?

An index in the back would at least put alignment onto the same level of optional as feats. And would be enough for me.

 

[Maxperson]

And yet it makes the drow and orc issues much much worse. And how do you make calling entire races evil not racist?

You don't need alignment to call an entire race evil OR to describe them in very racist and evil ways. Alignment isn't the culprit.

It has an ability to force me to read it if I want to use that monster. I can't just skip it the way I can a chapter.

I don't see a problem with that. Two letters shouldn't cause you any angst if you aren't using it.

Nope. It's an argument that the current situation is not an optional one. And alignment is especially morally toxic.

It fails at that and instead makes the argument that all rules should be done away with. Why should I have to read the horrid hit point, armor class, healing, resting or <insert problem rule here>?

And there's absolutely nothing inherently morally toxic with alignment. Not one shred. It's a tool like a screwdriver. If you individually choose to impale someone in the eye with a screwdriver(alignment), then it's you who are morally toxic, not the tool.

Edit: And we're saying to make it optional. Not do away with it. Who cares if the current system is optional or not. It's future books we are discussing.

 

[Yaarel]

Sometimes players still write it on their character sheets, but I just ignore it, since it never comes up anyway.

Well, this is where alignment belongs, in the section that describes the personality of the player character. Alignment relates to ideal and flaw. When the players feel inspiration to do so, I prefer they write a sentence or two describing what actions the characters tend to do that correlates with their alignments.