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

[FrozenNorth]

Will the PHB or DMG give a few sentences defining each of these? Or will we trust the readers to go with the natural English meaning of the word? (How does that trusting work with lawful, good, etc...)

Does Xenophobic mean against those from other villages? cultures? species? non-demihumans? non-humanoid? Do the pranksters do non harmful pranks or harmful ones? Are the slavers doing press gangs or chattel slavery, and are the kidnapping themselves or purchasing? What do the traders trade? Hobbit level hungry or non-stop eating hungry?

I can’t imagine anyone in real life having this problem. You don’t seem to have a problem with “Lawful”, “Chaotic” or “Evil” being super vague and open to interpretation (despite the PHB devoting a single line to each), but describing a fey creature as “mischievous pranksters” causes you to throw up your hands in confusion?

 

[Oofta]

I think the problem is well...

poor use of the tool was being taught as the default and bad way to many incoming D&D fans.

It's fine when poor tool use is isolated.

It's a problem is when poor use or bad ideas spread out of groups they work for and are promoted as gospel.

It's not being pushed by WOTC or any official publication. I'm not going to tell people that the way they play the game is bad-wrong-fun. If people choose to play the way someone else did, it's because they enjoyed it. It's also not going to change by just removing the label, some people will still run orcs based on LOTR movies.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Which is why alignment is only one part of the description that as a standalone descriptor doesn't tell you everything. But then again neither does "hungry carnivores".

No one said it did. The bar isn't set by perfection. It's set by being better than alignment.

Hungry Carnivores doesn't tell me everything. It just tells me far far more than "unaligned" (which is what the current 5e bear and tiger both say). It's an actual useful starting point.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I wonder if that is only because it isn't one of the words suggested as a possible descriptor in D&D? So I ask again, if a player says their character is xenophobic (a claimed to be useful descriptor) does that mean they are against those from other villages, in other regions, other religions, other ethnicities, other skin tones, other countries, non-humans, non-demi-humans, or non-humanoid? How many of those wouldn't it be reasonable as a one word descriptor for?

If a player decides that Xenophobic is a good one-word description of the character, I don’t see how that involves anyone else. It’s like PIBF. I’ve never experienced nor read about there being an issue with a player-chosen Personality, Bond, Ideal or Flaw, because a player has agency over their character. Also, a player saying their character is, say, a “Xenophobic Cuddlebug” is a description not an objective fact of the setting (unlike alignment, ehich is an objective fact of the setting).

 

[Oofta]

No one said it did. The bar isn't set by perfection. It's set by being better than alignment.

Hungry Carnivores doesn't tell me everything. It just tells me far far more than "unaligned" (which is what the current 5e bear and tiger both say). It's an actual useful starting point.

I think the combination tells me more than either individually. As always, if alignment doesn't help you, ignore it.

 

[Oofta]

If a player decides that Xenophobic is a good one-word description of the character, I don’t see how that involves anyone else. It’s like PIBF. I’ve never experienced nor read about there being an issue with a player-chosen Personslity, Bond, Ideal or Flaw, because a player has agency over their character. Also, a player saying their character is, say, a “Xenophobic Cuddlebug” is a description not an objective fact of the setting (unlike alignment, ehich is an objective fact of the setting).

I would agree. I also think the same thing about alignment. It's just a role playing aid, nothing more.

 

[FrozenNorth]

It is still useful to a lot of people and easily ignored for those who it is not. It's pointless to keep dragging issues from past editions or opinions of dead people into the arguments for getting rid of it. Heaven forbid some people find it useful and play a game you don't personally approve of.

Very many issues involving alignment concern people playing 5e. Claiming that it is all stuff from previous editions is dismissive.

 

[Minigiant]

It's not being pushed by WOTC or any official publication. I'm not going to tell people that the way they play the game is bad-wrong-fun. If people choose to play the way someone else did, it's because they enjoyed it. It's also not going to change by just removing the label, some people will still run orcs based on LOTR movies.

It was pushed by WOTC (and TSR). It isn't anymore.

And it was pushed on people that didn't enjoy it, that's why we keep having these topics

 

[Oofta]

Very many issues involving alignment concern people playing 5e. Claiming that it is all stuff from previous editions is dismissive.

A lot of people keep bringing up that Gygax quote or issues from previous editions. In 5E alignment for PCs is just one descriptor and one with very few teeth. For monsters it's just the default and every published setting has exceptions for at least some of the most common monsters.

 

[Oofta]

It was pushed by WOTC (and TSR). It isn't anymore.

And it was pushed on people that didn't enjoy it, that's why we keep having these topics

So embrace the new edition. Most people playing D&D today have never played an older version.

EDIT: I assume most people playing D&D today have never played an older version simply based on the growth of the game and general demographics. Most people playing today are in their teens and twenties and grew up with different concepts.