D&D General D&D doesn't need Evil

[Thunder Brother]

I prefer to have the setting and PCs define what is good and evil, with plenty of debate and disagreement arising as a result. Ideas of good and evil should be based upon actions and events. Making these things inherent is overly simplistic and needlessly self-limiting.

The subjectivity of good and evil is where the fun lies.

He changed after he lost his hand, but before that he was a right evil bastard. Not a whole lot of redeeming anything going on up until that point.

One of the defining events of his backstory might say otherwise.

 

[ReshiIRE]

He changed after he lost his hand, but before that he was a right evil bastard. Not a whole lot of redeeming anything going on up until that point.

To be fair [significant spoilers]

Spoiler

he did dishonour himself and kill the Mad King not because of the coming invasion (of which he was massively conflicted but still did his duty, right or wrong), but because the Mad King was about to kill everyone. It seems it's after that point that he really becomes a massive naughty word, and a lot of that seems to be concentrated in the first book. Unless I'm missing something.

EDIT: appears King Babar has gotten my point across more succiently.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

If PCs have to be atunned with a magic item to can used my opinion is characters and lots of creatures can be atunned with blessed or unholy supernatural powers, Heaven and Hell.

Antagonists with a piece of anti-villain are more interesting, of course, but if I am watching a Rocop movie or Terminator I don't worry if the bad guys could have got their own little heart. I don't mind if the psycho-slasher with supernatural powers from horror movies could be a good person with the right terapy.

And the divine magic from D&D is strongly linked with cosmic powers, and not only deities of politheist pantheons. Evil sorcerers and necromancers have got a different aura and this should be showed in the gameplay.

 

[jgsugden]

I disagree.

While not every adversary needs to be Evil, Evil has a place in the game. Demons, Devils, etc... need to be EVIL to be demons and devils. It defines them.

I say this despite a basic element of my setting is Asmodeus' primary argument is that Evil and Good are (using the parlance of today) misinformation and that he is just seeking what he was promised, and what is due to him, for fighting the Blood War for the benefit of all throughout the Multiverse. While he doesn't see himself as evil, he MUST be Evil, as do Demons, for them to be Demons and Devils.

All this being said - you can run a game where all adversaries are shades of grey, and they all see themselves as the heroes of their own tales. However, there is design space and utility in having creatures that lack the capability to be good. You just have to be real careful in how you use them.

 

[Maxperson]

One of the defining events of his backstory might say otherwise.

Murdering a crazy king that he was sworn to protect, in cold blood?

 

[payn]

Does D&D need evil? No. Do I want it and expect it? Yes.

 

[Thunder Brother]

Murdering a crazy king in cold blood?

That's an interpretation. I would rather see it as him dishonoring his vow by killing one delusion man to save thousands of innocent lives. That's pretty good in my book.

But that brings us back to the whole issue of subjectivity.

 

[Maxperson]

That's an interpretation. I would rather see it as him dishonoring his vow by killing one delusion man to save thousands of innocent lives. That's pretty good in my book.

But that brings us back to the whole issue of subjectivity.

Sure. To me, the evil of murder offsets any good in the situation and is at best neutral.

 

[Lanefan]

Not a big jump to expand the question to "Does D&D need [any alignment]?".

The answer is yes, in that one of the core things about D&D that in some ways distinguishes it from other RPGs is alignment and its use thereof.

Sure. However, there's a huge difference between deducing that the word is apt based on evidence, and using the word as a prescriptive definition.

One leads to the other either way - it's very much a chicken-and-egg situation.

 

[Umbran]

...but then it ties back to what D&D is simulating and the associated settings....

I would question that D&D is "simulating" much of anything specific. It is inspired by, and occasionally may be used to emulate, various fantasy genre works, but calling D&D a simulation would seem to be a stretch, to me.