There are two things that have always sort of bothered me about manuals of monsters, folios of fiends, and other fantasy bestiaries—both of which, in my opinion, are at the root of why some find them objectionable (or object to certain representations within them). Those two things are included in every monster's statblock: alignment and intelligence. Neither of these are necessary to describe an entire population of a type of monster.
Longtime readers of Applied Phantasticality are aware of my opinions on alignment in role-playing games. In general, alignment rules tend to constrain believable character development, impede player agency, and impose a view that entire species and cultures share a monolithic worldview. Any one of these is enough to justify disposing of alignment (as the majority of role-playing games have done since Tunnels & Trolls shed that burden in 1975). And, as I have stated here in previous articles, the only time alignment needs to be embedded in the rules is when they are overtly embedded in the fiction on which the game is based, such as Stormbringer (and even then, alignment is not inherent to all beings, but is an allegiance chosen by some individuals). My younger brother, when he was very young, blacked out the alignments of evil creatures in the original Monster Manual and replaced them with "Good." Although the defacement of a book ordinarily causes me considerable discomfort bordering on horror, it was his book, and I had to admit he had a valid point. He loved monsters, and the summary labelling of an entire species as irredeemable struck him as, well, evil. To my mind, actions speak louder than alignment. If I am running a game where alignment matters at all as a concept in the setting, characters will begin with no alignment. Over the course of their adventures, their actions will determine what their alignments actually are. To be honest, though, treating alignment as anything other than faction loyalty is a waste of time. Just jot down what faction the character or creature is aligned with and let that be the guideline, not the restraint.
Why do monsters have alignment in their entries in the first place? We know from the earliest edition of Dungeons & Dragons from 1974 that creatures were separated into three basic alignments for the purpose of determining who can target whom in combat, who might be an ally, and who might be lured to either side or refuse to get involved. Eventually, things became more complicated, especially with the publication of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons with its nine alignments. For player characters, alignment became a more detailed description of their ethics. For monsters, however, it became a statement of the moral nature of an entire species (and, to some, the justification for sparing creatures or murdering them on sight). One could easily leave out alignment and just include a brief description of the monster's behavioral tendencies and perhaps a bit of history. Just because most of a species behaves one way doesn't mean they all do (unless they are part of a hivemind). People of good conscience have a reason to be offended by labelling an entire culture or species as "evil." And yes, I know someone will say, "But what about demons?" Demons are obviously representations for Evil, so why does anyone need the statblock to tell them so? And if demons are intelligent, then there is the possibility that a demon might choose not to be evil. Alignment rules are unnecessary. Just play your characters (player and non-player alike) with believable motivations, behaviors, and personalities.
Intelligence has also been used by some as a justification for devaluing the lives of others whether by mockery or physical violence. If the intelligence of an entire species is declared "Low," one can imagine the ease with which some can excuse the mistreatment of any member of that species. Intelligence, as with alignment, varies within any species. Just look at how much it varies within humankind. Any attempt to define intelligence itself as a single overall characteristic is fraught with inaccuracy and gross exaggeration, but to apply a rating within that definition to an entire species or culture is, frankly, grotesque. I imagine the excuse for rating the intelligence of monsters is to provide guidance in role-playing them, but even within a single creature there are multiple kinds of intelligence. A creature might be cunning, but not philosophical. A creature might be resourceful, but not creative. A creature might be empathetic, but not eloquent. And this doesn't even touch on the variety of specific subjects about which an individual may know much, little, or nothing. It is neither reasonable nor necessary to rate the intelligence of a whole species.
If we were to drop alignment and intelligence from all the entries in the Monster Manual, would anything be lost? Would we suddenly be unable to include these monsters as either friends or foes in the adventures we create? Would we be unable to discern ally from adversary—even when we have our senses and minds—without their alignment declared in a bubble floating over their heads? What is lost if we have to make judgements based on our experience and observation instead of reading virtual nametags that say, "Hi, I'm a goblin. Intelligence: Low. Alignment: Lawful Evil."? I think the world should be more interesting than that.
