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

[Minigiant]

Yeah, but I'd argue that Orcus is the face of demonic evil in D&D.

I'd say Demogorgon. He's a big insane two headed monkey that litterally fights itself and no one out of tentacle reach listens to because he's chaotic.

Orcus is more active but he uses too many undead forces to really be the face of demons. Orcus is also less chaotic than Crazy Double Mandrill Demon.

 

[Oofta]

I think alignment is a more useful DM tool than PC tool. Maybe that's where the biggest divide is?

In some cases the alignment I put on my PC's sheet is helpful, it makes me think outside of my own natural inclinations. But it's just one part of the picture and not even usually the defining one.

 

[Faolyn]

Further down the forum page where he had that quote, didn't he also note that the NG and CG characters wouldn't do so?

If so, it kind of sounds like he thought "I was only following orders" was a legitimate excuse.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd say Demogorgon. He's a big insane two headed monkey that litterally fights itself and no one out of tentacle reach listens to because he's chaotic.

Orcus is more active but he uses too many undead forces to really be the face of demons. Orcus is also less chaotic than Crazy Double Mandrill Demon.

When I say the face of demons, I'm talking about the most well known to the players, not the most quintessential demonlike demon. Between the wand and all the fight Orcus adventures, I think he's #1. Demogorgon is probably number 2 there, even those he's more "demonlike." But then demons have infinite variation, so...

 

[Oofta]

He says a lot of what has been argued here in the thread on this site. I'm not sure about baby orcs specifically, but he says here that a paladin can forcibly convert a captured evil creature and then kill it before it can backslide, as an example of a LG act.

Then I would say it's a good thing that he's no longer the driving force behind D&D. He had some ideas that I disagree with.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Then I would say it's a good thing that he's no longer the driving force behind D&D. He had some ideas that I disagree with.

What Gygax described there was something actual medieval crusaders would absolutely do. I just would never describe such people as 'good.'

 

[Maxperson]

What Gygax described there was something actual medieval crusaders would absolutely do. I just would never describe such people as 'good.'

Yep. I agree. His alignment views seem to be his interpretation of medieval values, rather than his own. Still, I play the game by modern values and so has everyone I've ever played the game with, so I reject his alignment advice. At least the book didn't give that same advice, which allows modern interpretation to be RAW.

 

[Cadence]

If so, it kind of sounds like he thought "I was only following orders" was a legitimate excuse.

If one is in a lawful hierarchy, then following orders is somewhere between a thing and the thing, isn't it?

As I allude to later in that post, I think that some of the groups he would have like to label lawful good (maybe so that the analogs of some "points of light" in history didn't need to be labeled evil, or maybe they were antecedents of his own country or religion) had done thing like that.

 

[Oofta]

Yesterday, I purchased the Hell’s Rebels player guide for Pathfinder. It is a player guide for creating player characters for the Hell’s Rebels Adventure Path, which involves rebelling against the oppressive tyranny of the Chelish Empire. I have a lot of respect for Paizo staff and the idea for the AP is an excellent one, but the way the book treats alignment reinforces the stereotypes that in my opinion, make alignment more of a liabilty than a benefit as a rule. And these are professional writers, who clearly love tabletop games and the setting.

Now, Pathfinder is not 5e, but the interpretation of alignment in the book isn’t that different from the opinions I’ve seen in this thread and in similar threads.

For instance, it was suggested that playing a lawful character might be a challenge for the AP because the goal of the AP was rebelling against an evil tyranny of LE devil worshippers. As an example of the tyranny, the devils had outlawed many religions. Oddly, they did not outlaw the worship of Iomedae, Lawful Good goddess of valor, justice and honour. (Seems like the sort of goddess who who be opposed to devil-worshippers).

Overall, the effect is to reinforce a rather skewed cartoonish take of Good, Evil, Lawful and Chaotic.

Then that's an issue you should discuss with whoever wrote that. If you took out alignment would anything really change? Other than stating that some people that prefer peace and order may have a problem with some aspects?

I have no idea what they're thinking about the worship they still allow. However, tearing down existing institutions can sometimes lead to greater suffering than living under an evil regime if there is no transition plan. But this is just one example and not even a D&D module.

 

[Cadence]

Then that's an issue you should discuss with whoever wrote that. If you took out alignment would anything really change? Other than stating that some people that prefer peace and order may have a problem with some aspects?

I have no idea what they're thinking about the worship they still allow. However, tearing down existing institutions can sometimes lead to greater suffering than living under an evil regime if there is no transition plan. But this is just one example and not even a D&D module.

In the 1e to 3.5/PF set up of alignment, aren't LG and CE equally far from LE, with the CE more likely to cause unpredictable trouble?