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

[EzekielRaiden]

I keep seeing the "D&D does not need X" standard used as a talking point.

Games do not ever need anything. They are, inherently, unnecessary activities, like art and friendship (as Lewis put it). Using "need" as a standard for game design is like using "need" as a standard for poetry in the generic. It is at best a distraction.

The question should always be whether the thing is useful for some goal, and how that utility compares to other options (including the option of forgoing that goal entirely).

So. Does capital-E Evil, however one chooses to define it, serve a useful purpose in D&D gaming? I certainly think so. By that same token, however, I do think its utility has been inflated. I try to include a mix of "wicked because of how they choose to be" and "capital-E Evil," favoring the former slightly, or restructuring capital-E Evil so that it is more nuanced than "well they're just Evil so whatever we do to stop them must be Good, right?" I know I've blathered about my explanation of why devils and demons are Always Evil, I'm far too proud of it for my own good. Things along those lines fascinate me: not merely having Evil, but learning the road by which such pure, unadulterated Evil could come to be--and why it is that, even though it's "part of" them, they could still be classified as sapient beings and willing moral actors.

 

[Umbran]

do we need it? Do we need to say give different weapons names? We could just say d6 piercing weapon I guess.

That's the thing folks fail to see in the original question - Does the game NEED this?

If you set aside personal preferences for a moment, the fact that mechanically, 5e does perfectly well almost entirely without it, and that scores of other games do perfectly well without it, says pretty clearly that it is not absolutely necessary.

All the rest is quibbling not over needs, but wants, sometimes without the acknowledgement you gave that there is, in fact, a difference between needs and wants.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Again, 2500 years of philosophy says it’s not that simple.

 

[Scribe]

As much as I like my D&D to have Good and Evil, I sure as heck would never apply it to real life situations. People aren't Lawful Good or Chaotic Neutral in real life.

Pretty sure as I age, I'm Lawful Neutral.

I realize this is not popular opinion, and don’t care. It works for me.

I like alignment as a palpable force that may even be tied to the planes.

I like items to that respond to that force. What was that item? Something of ineffable damnation?

I like holy avengers aligning with LG characters.

Personally, I agree, but it drives a lot of assumptions that I'm not sure Wizards cares to address for 'default' D&D.

Alignment represents 'cosmic power' of Law/Chaos, and Good/Evil.

If it's a cosmic power, and Gods embody/represent it, then they will seek to promote it.

To 'promote it' one must define 'it'.

If Gods promote it, and it's a 'real thing' can it be threaded through the creation of sentient beings? Does this make Good and Evil intrinsically part of a being?

I don't mention this to put you on the spot or demand a response, but it's a thread I have been picking at for my own setting.

Ultimately, I think the next iteration of my own world/cosmology/setting needs to make the Gods an unknown, the same with Alignment as a 'cosmic power'.

The alternative no longer makes structural sense, to how I've approached my own works.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

That's the thing folks fail to see in the original question - Does the game NEED this?

If you set aside personal preferences for a moment, the fact that mechanically, 5e does perfectly well almost entirely without it, and that scores of other games do perfectly well without it, says pretty clearly that it is not absolutely necessary.

All the rest is quibbling not over needs, but wants, sometimes without the acknowledgement you gave that there is, in fact, a difference between needs and wants.

It depends totally on what you want.

if you like devices activated by the morals and ethics of creatures, yes.

in the same way we need short sword or one handed spear to define d6 piercing damage potential. If you concepts to have representation in game, it’s very useful to have a word for it.

if you don’t want alignment effects on game, no.

can the game run without it? The game can run without most words representing all things.

whether it’s damage sticks that do d6 or a spear it is what it is. We could say a stick with a sharp tip that does x damage. Or we could say spear.

likewise we can talk a long time about the selfish behaviors and harmful tendencies of creature or use a summary term evil.

 

[Umbran]

It depend totally on what you want.

if you like devices activated by the morals and ethics of creatures, yes.

But, the question was not "Does the game need this to satisfy you, personally and specifically?"

Edit to add: It is like... apocalyptic fiction, in which people say that something that destroys humankind is, "the end of the world!" No, it isn't. You could remove every human from the face of the Earth right now, and the world would not end. The world would be fine, and life would go on without our species.

Understanding the difference between one's own wants and needs, as opposed to the needs of larger contexts, is pretty important for engaging with any larger context - like a world with billions of people, or a game community with millions.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

But, the question was not "Does the game need this to satisfy you, personally and specifically?"

Edit to add: It is like... apocalyptic fiction, in which people say that something that destroys humankind is, "the end of the world!" No, it isn't. You could remove every human from the face of the Earth right now, and the world would not end. The world would be fine, and life would go on without our species.

Understanding the difference between one's own wants and needs, as opposed to the needs of larger contexts, is pretty important for engaging with any larger context - like a world with billions of people, or a game community with millions.

In a world of billions, there will be different games with different needs, the game will function at each table though.

if you are asking what makes a ‘game’ a game I will humbly bow out.

really all you need are some parameters and an objective. That’s pretty loose and as you add each piece as you get closer to D&D I guess you can ask “which one do you need?”

To me that begs the question of what are you trying to play?

let’s play ball. Now do you need a big goal or uprights to kick a field goal or a basket with a hoop?

do you really need these items?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A soul is not there, but desecration of the dead has and is regarded as evil. It's pretty hard not to view raising the dead to be servants and warriors for you as desecration of the dead.

It’s easy, actually. If the soul isn’t involved, there is no necessarily evil element to it outside of what you then use them for. Unless a setting says that using necromancy sucks life out of the world or something.

I once played a necromancer who saw all dead people as worshippers of his goddess. Raising them as skeletons and zombies was just calling the faithful to service.

That works, yeah. And in a world with actual necromancy, and a goddess of death who isn’t opposed to ethical necromancy, why not?

It was not the case in all editions of D&D (in particular in 3e there was a clear distinction between skeleton/zombies which were just animated corpses and the rest of the undead), but 5e has clearly made necromancy evil.

Sure, but only by way of hamfisted decree, which is…not helpful.

Depends on your cosmology. My recollection is that there are some published D&D cosmologies in which, if the body is raised as any form of undead, the soul cannot reach its resting place.

In a world like that, yeah definitely evil.

In a world where that isn’t the case, and there isn’t the old negative energy annihilates positive energy dynamic, then necromancy is just a grosser version of conjuration.

 

[Lanefan]

So not even B/X D&D?

I personally find Good vs. Evil to be boring. Law vs. Chaos is where it's at! Chaoskampf! Woohoo!

I prefer the 9-alignment system over the 3-alignment; having the G-E axis to go with the L-C one gives more room for variance.

The 3-align system might say L-N-C on the package but invariably ends up as LG-N-CE in play. Given that the most common alignment for our characters is and has always been CG, you can see the issue I think. Further, LE has no real place there either, and LE is a very useful alignment for DMs (and a few players).

 

[Lanefan]

I once played a necromancer who saw all dead people as worshippers of his goddess. Raising them as skeletons and zombies was just calling the faithful to service.

And were I the DM such a character would get an 'E' tag faster than you can say "Quidditch", and were the goddess truly interested in animating the dead I'd have a long hard look at her alignment as well.