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

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm increasingly convinced that the core problem isn't alignment, but changing ideas over what monsters represent.

I wouldn't call this a problem as such. But I think it's important to understand that monsters do "represent" something, and what that something is can be different for different people.

 

[Zardnaar]

I normally create the transformers.

I'm getting addicted to merchant Guilds and megacorps.

 

[hopeless]

So how do you differentiate between those that were cursed for their actions and others cursed purely out of malice?

Do we have to provide two or more different alignments to cover that character or society's viewpoints?

So the Lawful Good Noble born Paladin is Lawful Evil when dealing with those they think are beneath them whether through social rank or their species but becomes Chaotic Evil towards those that don't recognise their faith as one everyone should be following?

And that minotaur who was born like they are (due to their parents being cursed by a passing priest who was offended they got a village priest to consecrate their marriage instead of them) is viewed as a monster by those who don't know them and a few others who take advantage of their condition, exactly who is actually evil here?

 

[Helldritch]

So how do you differentiate between those that were cursed for their actions and others cursed purely out of malice?

The setting is the answer. In one setting you might apply race alignment and in an other you want. Orcs from Eberron can be anything. Orcs in one of my setting (Dunadoria) are simply monsters to be killed.

Do we have to provide two or more different alignments to cover that character or society's viewpoints?

No, a LG a**hole is still LG. You can have your TIBF and still be LG. Alignment never was an absolute.

So the Lawful Good Noble born Paladin is Lawful Evil when dealing with those they think are beneath them whether through social rank or their species but becomes Chaotic Evil towards those that don't recognise their faith as one everyone should be following?

Nope. Alignment never did that.

And that minotaur who was born like they are (due to their parents being cursed by a passing priest who was offended they got a village priest to consecrate their marriage instead of them) is viewed as a monster by those who don't know them and a few others who take advantage of their condition, exactly who is actually evil here?

It is for the DM to decide if he wants to make an exception or not and if it will further the story he wants to put into motion.

 

[Oofta]

This post from earlier in the thread jumped out at me, and I'm a bit surprised it didn't get more attention. (A note, this is not me wanting to get into an argument Max). This post was in response to Oofta who was talking about Strahd's alignment over the editions, with a comment to the effect of "it is easy, you just use the current edition"



I think this highlights one of the biggest issues with this discussion. Every defender of alignment that I have ever seen started in 3.X, 2e or earlier. It is almost universally something that people who have been playing with alignment for decades support.

However, many of us who are not for alignment are looking toward how it is implemented in 5e. And, it seems clear in this post (and Oofta I believe liked the post, so I will assume they agreed) that even people on the other side recognize that there is a barrier here for new players.

It is much much easier for someone to use alignment if they have been using it for decades and is intimately familiar with the lore that they are using. It is much harder to simply jump in with no knowledge of alignment or the monsters, and try and make it work.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Hexmage-EN I like that idea a lot. PErsonally, I've never really found medusa super interesting in DnD (Eberron is the exception) but the 5e write up gives me so much that I've been trying to find a way to fit a proto-medusa into the game for ages.

Minotaurs who are these blood-soaked monsters that were once human is far more terrifying to me than if they were just born flesh-eating monsters. And I love your idea for trolls, very cool.

And I also agree that it solves the "hundreds of sentient races in the world" problem very well.

There are a ton of memes out there on alignment. Everyone I've ever introduced to the game including newbies who never played before 5E grasp the basic concept. Even if we don't agree 100% it will be close enough. Everyone knows that Superman is LG, The Joker is CE. I preferred the older edition descriptions, but it's not a big deal. It's a role playing aid for those that want it. Nothing more, nothing less.

The people who have the most issues with it either have bad DMs who are dictating what they should think or basing it off assumptions from editions no longer in print. I always find it funny when people say "alignment is worthless" and then follow it up with "because my DM told me I was chaotic and not lawful". Seriously? If alignment is worthless then it doesn't matter if your DM just told you your alignment was purple.

If you don't like alignment, ignore it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So how do you differentiate between those that were cursed for their actions and others cursed purely out of malice?

Well, depending on the type of curse their actions would let you know. A minotaur who was just cursed that way may have a craving for meat, but they stay out in the woods and hunt animals. While one cursed for their actions hunts people in the city sewers.

Or, if the curse contains the component of forcing them to harm others at certain times, you do the classic werewolf of having them secure themselves for the safety of others.

Do we have to provide two or more different alignments to cover that character or society's viewpoints?

So the Lawful Good Noble born Paladin is Lawful Evil when dealing with those they think are beneath them whether through social rank or their species but becomes Chaotic Evil towards those that don't recognise their faith as one everyone should be following?

And that minotaur who was born like they are (due to their parents being cursed by a passing priest who was offended they got a village priest to consecrate their marriage instead of them) is viewed as a monster by those who don't know them and a few others who take advantage of their condition, exactly who is actually evil here?

You don't use alignment at all. It doesn't add anything to the equation.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't think it's a barrier, so much as there is just very little to go on. It will still be a very rough aid, but it won't aid much, because there's not much there to go on. There is also very, very little for DMs and players to abuse.

Just like the vast majority defenders started with 3e or earlier, the vast majority of those who have issues are talking about things from 13+ years ago, when mechanics were still tied to alignment.

It will work, just not very well. One sentence just isn't going to be much help.

IF there is nothing to much to abuse, and there is nothing much to go on... wouldn't alignment be... nothing much?

I mean, you are stating it right here, "one sentence isn't going to be much help" and "it will work, just not very well". Seems like if I was talking to a new DM I'd be best off telling them to ignore alignment entirely, they aren't losing much and it can prevent them from falling into pits they can otherwise avoid

 

[Chaosmancer]

There are a ton of memes out there on alignment. Everyone I've ever introduced to the game including newbies who never played before 5E grasp the basic concept. Even if we don't agree 100% it will be close enough. Everyone knows that Superman is LG, The Joker is CE. I preferred the older edition descriptions, but it's not a big deal. It's a role playing aid for those that want it. Nothing more, nothing less.

The people who have the most issues with it either have bad DMs who are dictating what they should think or basing it off assumptions from editions no longer in print. I always find it funny when people say "alignment is worthless" and then follow it up with "because my DM told me I was chaotic and not lawful". Seriously? If alignment is worthless then it doesn't matter if your DM just told you your alignment was purple.

If you don't like alignment, ignore it.

See, I want you to consider the opposite point from the bolded as well. The People who like it the most are also basing it off of editions no longer in print. In fact, the reason that they see alignment as so strong and well-defined is because they have layered edition after edition of nuance on top of it, but that leads to ignoring what the rules actually are in favor of a personal homebrew, that frankly is never going to go away.

And, yes, everyone is going to completely 100% understand the basic concept of alignment, because kindergartners understand the basic concept. Some people are good, some people are bad, some people follow the rules, some people break the rules. That is the basic concept.

 

[Oofta]

See, I want you to consider the opposite point from the bolded as well. The People who like it the most are also basing it off of editions no longer in print. In fact, the reason that they see alignment as so strong and well-defined is because they have layered edition after edition of nuance on top of it, but that leads to ignoring what the rules actually are in favor of a personal homebrew, that frankly is never going to go away.

And, yes, everyone is going to completely 100% understand the basic concept of alignment, because kindergartners understand the basic concept. Some people are good, some people are bad, some people follow the rules, some people break the rules. That is the basic concept.

The people who post to this forum are most likely to be people that have been playing for a long time. So I can only base it on my personal experience: it's not an issue for new players. I honestly don't care how anyone else uses alignment, I know how I use alignment for my monsters, PCs and NPCs. I don't know or care about the alignments of my player's PCs because it's their tool to use or not.

It's not my job as DM to police anyone else and tell them whether or not they're using alignment "right". If alignment helps them, great. If not, they don't need to use it. All I will tell them is that I don't want murder hobos, insane PCS, antisocial loners that hate everyone else or evil PCs.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

So how do you differentiate between those that were cursed for their actions and others cursed purely out of malice?

I'm taking "cursed" to mean "transformed from humanoid to monsters" here. Let me try to think of the default lore for several creatures off the top of my head and construct some categories for them:

• Willing Cultists: This includes lamias and minotaurs, who are cultists of demon lords (Graz'zt and Baphomet, respectively). As far as I can tell there is no mention of them being able to reproduce.
• Willing Cultists and their Descendants: This includes yuan-ti, who are either cultists created by a ritual that involves cannibalism and bathing in a pool of blood and live serpents or the descendants of said cultists. Another example are the merrow, who are descended from a population of merfolk who worshiped Demogorgon and were transported to his layer of the Abyss for generations until they became the creatures they are today.
• Wicked Creatures Transformed Against Their Will: Medusas start out as humanoids who wanted eternal youth and obtained it by some means, but later transform into medusas (for some reason that isn't made particularly clear).
• Creatures Transformed Against Their Will: This includes sea spawn, who are the victims of evil entities of the sea such as krakens. They were transformed through no fault of their own.
• Creatures Transformed Against Their Will and Their Descendants: In the world of Critical Role, goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears were created by the god Bane from his worshipers long ago. As the god of tyranny who created the goblinkin to be his army, Bane effectively brainwashes goblinkin from birth unless magic is used to prevent or end his influence (interestingly, other evil gods seemingly don't do this or are unable to do this, as evidenced by a minority of yuan-ti who oppose Zehir and a vast majority of drow who oppose Lolth in the Wildemount setting book).

Of course, this is all just the default lore. Someone could easily have minotaurs who were transformed from humans against their will by Baphomet (there's also the fact that 5E effectively has more than one kind of minotaur; the PC-suited Medium variety that presumably can reproduce and the NPC-suited Large variety that seemingly can't).