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

[Aldarc]

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).

I don't think that actually adds much room, if any, in practice as Good vs. Evil tends to drown out the significance and variance of Law vs. Chaos. Demons and Devils are rarely played or perceived, IME, as Chaotic Evil vs. Lawful Evil, but, rather, as chaotic EVIL vs. lawful EVIL. Nuance is functionally absent when good and evil exist as an objective reality.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think that actually adds much room, if any, in practice as Good vs. Evil tends to drown out the significance and variance of Law vs. Chaos. Demons and Devils are rarely played or perceived, IME, as Chaotic Evil vs. Lawful Evil, but, rather, as chaotic EVIL vs. lawful EVIL. Nuance is functionally absent when good and evil exist as an objective reality.

Maybe in your experience. Personally I haven't used Devils very much over the years (I really should give them another look someday); in my games LE more often comes up under the Black Knight concept, or the Evil heirarchical bureaucracy, or the Evil-but-competent ruler of a place, etc.

What I find more often comes into play is the difference between LG (or even NG) and CG, mostly among PCs.

 

[BookTenTiger]

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.

How would that add to the gaming experience at all?

If one of my players introduced this concept into the world, I would leap on it! I feel it doesn't benefit at all from being labeled as evil.

 

[Lanefan]

How would that add to the gaming experience at all?

It would be consistent with the idea that messing with the dead like that is evil with a capital E (and with a small one, too), a tenet I've held in all my games since forever.

If one of my players introduced this concept into the world, I would leap on it! I feel it doesn't benefit at all from being labeled as evil.

As an outside observer I think it's a cool concept.

As DM I'd label it Evil without a second's thought; though I'd of course allow it in play as PCs in my game can be of any alignment.

As player my reaction would completely depend on what character I was playing; I've a few that would probably try to kill someone like this on sight and others who'd ask "where do I sign up to get in on this!?".

 

[Bohandas]

When you get down to it, there is very little that the game strictly needs. There is much, even just in core, that could be struck off without replacement and still leave a perfectly servicable game.

 

[Mind of tempest]

When you get down to it, there is very little that the game strictly needs. There is much, even just in core, that could be struck off without replacement and still leave a perfectly servicable game.

true but would it just end up the toast sandwich of games dull and unfun?

 

[Lyxen]

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

If you take it that way, all settings constraints and descriptions are hamfisted decrees. Moreover, you are 100% free to ignore this in your campaign, I'm just telling you what the designers decided for this edition, just like they made different design decisions in other editions.

 

[payn]

A lot of the problem with evil comes from the player side of the table, but is often enforced by DMs. Players have had a history of playing awful evil characters that rob from every weak person and kill folks just for fun. These chuckle jerkers also end up in a mixed party of folks who want to help weak people and rid the world of tyrants. Before long no village will admit the party and the PCs are drawing on each other because of how incompatible they are. Hence the DM creed, "no evil!".

Its unfortunate because a lot of mixed morality games can explore evil concepts in a satisfying way. Instead you now you have players trying to bend over backwards explaining why their necormancer or assassin is actually "good" instead of just being evil that doesnt kick every puppy and steal every baby's candy. The evil tag doesnt command a character to be a chuckle jerker. Cool concepts can be explored for being dark or expedient in methods considered taboo or extreme. Having evil characters also sets up the dynamic where you also have "E"vil as folks have been pointing out. Its an interesting contrast that can give games an extra layer of intrigue to explore. Which is why having evil in D&D is interesting and fun. It's just been ruined for many with the baggage of chuckle jerker behavior and folks with hang ups just letting evil be evil.

 

[Malmuria]

Wargames? And there was no big evil?!?!??
Great/Powerful heroes need a Great/Powerful nemesis who is their opposite.

Who was the capital-E Evil in the war of the roses, or the Norman invasion, or in the Gothic wars in Italy? Games that Arneson was playing, like Braunstein and Diplomacy, are really not about Good vs Evil in a high fantasy sense.

Loads shades gray games; let DND remain full on good 'guy' versus evil 'guy'.

And the Big E was in DND from the first ever module

I'm confused by this claim. Part of what we are talking about is alignment, which did not include Good and Evil in OD&D or in Basic DND, even in the RC. Further, early dungeon crawls were more about ne'er-do-wells searching for treasure by exploring ancient tombs and caves in a sword and sorcery setting (hence xp for gold). High fantasy came later. I'm sure plenty of individual scenarios involved aspects of good and evil, but I don't see how it was essential to the game as plenty of others did not.

I do find it telling that when the OSR looks back to the roots of the hobby, the Good-Evil axis of alignment, and in many cases alignment as a whole, is not by any means one of the essential features they bring forward in their rules lite games.

 

[Krachek]

So may be I can take a look at what are the uses of evil in DnD!

The most basic use of Evil is as a tag that you put on creature that your PC can kill freely without remorse. It is very video gamy, basic reasoning, but for some game it is all they need.

An another use is to oppose Evil and Good, as two opposite factions. Evil team up and fight Good until the final armagedon! It makes basic plot and alliance, but remove endless debate.

Another option is to let Evil as a floating concept, that the PC explore and debate about for long hours around the table. Usually it makes session where fight last 10 minutes, and debates around prisoners last for hours.

To conclude, players dont need Evil to kill others creature, nor they need Evil to team up or find enemies. And those who like to debates for hours can easily find others subject than Evil.
So all those uses are optional.