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

[BookTenTiger]

Given that there are plenty of other RPGs out there without G vs. E like we find in D&D so I have to agree with you here. However, I need good and evil in my D&D games and if it's removed from the game in its entirety I'll go play something else. For me, D&D is a game of high fantasy where good and evil are palpable forces. I don't play D&D for shades of grey where morally ambiguous anti-heroes wreak havoc across the land for the highest bidder. I play D&D because it's a game where good fights and triumphs over evil. Though most modules are written with the assumption that the PCs are good guys, I wonder if my love of good versus evil in D&D is in the minority now.

I would argue you can still have black and white morality without an evil alignment!

All it takes is a defined morality for the culture that is being threatened. If you start the heroes in a culture where necromancy is outlawed or reviled, then any necromancer they come upon can be considered evil without the existence of an evil alignment.

If raiding, murdering, and slavery are considered bad, then any raiders, murderers, and slavers can be fought without a second thought!

And you don't need alignment to guide you in that at all.

 

[MGibster]

I would argue you can still have black and white morality without an evil alignment!

You can. But I might have missed the point of the thread. Are we literally talking about evil only as an alignment or as a concept in general as it relates to the game?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I said games not campaigns.

White Wolf? Nope.
Shadowrun? Nope.
GURPS? Nope.
Fate? Nope.
Cortex? Nope.
Gumshoe? Nope.
Savage Worlds? Nope.

I daresay Evil with a capital E as a game term is pretty much restricted to D&D and it's blood-kin. The rest of the RPG world largely does without it.

Somewhat interestingly, Torg has two distinct "Capital Evil" concepts.

In Aysle, which is their take on a fantasy genre, there is darkness and light which are mechanical paths a character can invest in. Darkness is akin to Disney Bad Guy dead trees and misty swamps type of bad guy while Light is your yellow glowing paladin types.

Totally separately is the idea of Good or Evil as an alignment in the Nile Empire which more has the feel of white hat and black hat characters from pulp stories.

Both "Evils" have distinct rules supporting them in the mechanics for both sides.

This contrasts with some of the other realities in the game where lowercase evil abounds (in Orrorsh, the victorian Cthulhuesqe reality or in Tharkold where Hellraiseresque Technodemons reign) but there isn't a corresponding light side to balance it.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Given that there are plenty of other RPGs out there without G vs. E like we find in D&D so I have to agree with you here. However, I need good and evil in my D&D games and if it's removed from the game in its entirety I'll go play something else. For me, D&D is a game of high fantasy where good and evil are palpable forces. I don't play D&D for shades of grey where morally ambiguous anti-heroes wreak havoc across the land for the highest bidder. I play D&D because it's a game where good fights and triumphs over evil. Though most modules are written with the assumption that the PCs are good guys, I wonder if my love of good versus evil in D&D is in the minority now.


I'm a member of Necromancer Local #666 and we're drafting you a firmly worded letter regarding your libelous statement. We're just misunderstood.

You....most certainly....don't want to ay in my campaign. My encounters and adventure opportunities are almost entirely choosing what shade of grey you want to assist.

Example: You are accompanying a dwarven caravan of weapons already purchased and headed to a delivery in a human city. Along the way the caravan is stopped by a druid and aligned beasts demanding the dwarves turn around and go home so as not to contribute more to a regime that continues warring with their neighbors.

The dwarves owe the items to the purchasers....but at the same time the weapons are no doubt going to lead to more slaughter which is a global scale issue.

The party chose to sit that fight out.

 

[Peter BOSCO'S]

D&D needs evil so the players know it's OK to kill them and take their stuff.

Other games can have more nuance.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm a member of Necromancer Local #666 and we're drafting you a firmly worded letter regarding your libelous statement. We're just misunderstood.

There's a few PCs in my game who'd like to co-sign that letter.

(in our 1e variant we made Necromancer its own PC-playable class a while back, kind of on par with Illusionist; and so far it's worked out OK)

 

[Maxperson]

I would argue you can still have black and white morality without an evil alignment!

Sure, but we basically have that now. Alignment is just an RP tool at this point. It ain't what it used to be, and I think that's a good thing.

 

[Maxperson]

You can. But I might have missed the point of the thread. Are we literally talking about evil only as an alignment or as a concept in general as it relates to the game?

The OP states good and evil as concepts, which are greater in scope than alignment.

 

[Bird Of Play]

the ideas of Good and Evil are so subjective

They're not.
Good and Evil are NOT subjective.
Good: anything that brings advantage, gain, benefit, happiness, to yourself and/or others.
Evil: anything that brings disadantage, loss, harm, sadness, to yourself and/or others.

The thing is that there are times when the two mix ups: if a bear attacks you, you gotta kill the bear. You did evil (killed a living being) but it's justified by self-preservation.
And then if you want complex storytelling you can of course make it much harder a decision than that.

And the biggest evil of all is the evil that brings "good" to another group. In that case, that group does evil to others to do what they perceive as good for themselves.

There's no avoiding putting good and evil in a story. There needs to be a conflict, and for a conflict to happen there has to be something that is evil (i.e. harmful, painful, disadvantageous) to someone and therefore that someone wants to stop it.

Now you can go the kids cartoon simplified approach of absolute evil (the villain has no redeeming qualities) and absolute good (the protagonist does no wrong). But keep in mind even Disney cartoons soon moved away from that, because it's boring. And even the evil witch of Cinderella has her reasons for doing what she did. Even Scar had a reason for being evil.

The only situation when you can successfully use absolute evil is when you do the cannon fodder approach. Works wonder in action games; I hate it how companies such as Bioware used that for storydriven rpg tho.

 

[Lyxen]

They're not.
Good and Evil are NOT subjective.

Indeed, this was one of the biggest (but certainly not the only one) of 2e, in which alignment was subjective to culture. It's the only edition that tried this and it was a dismal failure.

And the biggest evil of all is the evil that brings "good" to another group. In that case, that group does evil to others to do what they perceive as good for themselves.

Yes, it's not because the basic principles are, well, basic, that it prevents interesting debates amongst characters, as well as conflict, etc.