Originally Posted by Mercury4711
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
-snip-

If the alignment system was unclear, then it could have been made more clear instead of simply being removed. A world where the Good and Evil are explicitly associated with certain planes of existence/gods, defines certain creatures (e.g., devils and demons are by definition evil), and can be used to cover the majority of certain creatures' tendencies (mind flayers and goblins are *generally evil, gnomes and halflings are *generally good, githyanki are *generally lawful, etc) can be both useful and interesting. I think D&D will be lesser for their removal, if simply because we've lost world definition that isn't, afaik, being replaced with anything.

I see your point. In my opinion the characterization of creatures, gods or even planes of existence do not need good or evil. There are plenty other ways to make it more interesting and nuanced. Does, for example, a god of fire or love or secrecy need to be categorized as evil or good? Fire can harm but also nurture, love is beautiful but if unrequited it just hurts, secrecy can destroy trust and alienate but also protect. So instead of limiting ourselves to using the old alignment i'd say using broader concepts as characterizations is way more compelling.

I hope that made sense, english is not my native language and trying to write about philosophical stuff like this is really hard smile
That makes sense, yeah. But there's already a perfect alignment for such a fire deity within the Good-Evil spectrum: Neutral. Beasts and nature-related things are typically neutral. Whereas, say, a god of selflessness and justice will be Good, and a god of cruelty and despair will be Evil.

To bring the discussion back to companions: given that D&D gods exist and embody certain traits & alignments (even if mortal creatures aren't given specific alignments), it's fair to assume that a worshipper of an evil god is themselves evil. Especially when it's such a world-ending, turn-everything-to-nothingness goddess such as Shar. Now, such a worshipper *might* not actually be evil, but it's completely fair to come into the relationship with that initial opinion.

The rest of the alignment talk is getting off topic so I'll spoiler it

Originally Posted by benbaxter
Dude, even the source books break these rules all the time. By strict standards it would likely only be Devils and Modrons who could ever truly be considered lawful since it is innate in their being and they are unable to do otherwise. All other non-programmed beings break at least one law that they agreed to throughout their lifetimes. As soon as that happens they are strictly neutral in perpetuity, unable to regain lawful status.

Any other interpretation becomes moral relativism immediately, thereby invalidating a strict reading of the Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic definitions.

Zariel broke the codes of her heavenly alignment, but is somehow still considered lawful in the books. By a strict reading of what it means to be lawful, she can no longer be classified as such, and therefore the source books are not following the tenants of their own definitions.

They don't even differentiate in the spell literally titled, "Protection from evil and good". Instead of labeling anything as good or bad, they just list out the creatures that have attributes than maybe sorta could be good or bad including celestials, undead, and fiends. I would argue that lesser undead can't even be 'evil' themselves, but only constructed by evil means. At which point shouldn't you be protected from all tieflings and dragonborn who were created by creatures of one alignment or another?

It is all B.S. which is fine to accept for creatures made of the essence of one alignment or another for gaming simplicity, but as soon as you bring free will into the discussion, all rules are out the window. The origin characters are meant to be representations of humanoids with free will, so binding them strictly to an alignment is a detriment to both the storytelling and the philosophical realities of the real life the game is attempting to emulate.
...so your argument is that even a single non-good action prevents a creature from being good, ever? That's not how alignment works. An overall lawful good character can slip up a few times and be somewhat cruel or not fully follow their code, as long as they overall stay lawfully good (and ideally repent/feel remorse). The Lawful-Chaotic and Good-Evil axes are spectrums.

I don't think moral relativism is the term you're looking for here. Moral Relativism would state something like "your good is my evil, and thus who really knows what is truly good vs evil?" However, this isn't applicable as D&D has an Absolute Reference Frame as *defined* by the Gods and the Planes of Good/Evil.

The 5e spell "Protection from evil and good" is an example of how WotC is already removing alignment from D&D; you can't use it as an example of how older editions of D&D did alignment wrong.

Idk, at the very least the contrast between your views and my understanding of alignment are an indication that it should be more well-defined by WotC, not that it should be scrapped.