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

[Bohandas]

Alignment becomes more necessary when certain game elements are in play. Fiends and celestials for one thing.

 

[Scribe]

The most basic use of Evil is as a tag that you put on creature that your PC can kill freely without remorse.

I just want to note something.

By the definition of a few folks in here, evil can be applied at pretty basic acts. By more than just this statement, people have also said something to the effect of 'it gives you a pass in killing them.'

I'm not saying one must reflect on the morality of the act of removing the life of another being, while they play their games. Admittedly I have been a gamer since I was young, early adopter of Nintendo, PC gamer since Wolf3d, where it was 'justified' because you know, Nazi. I've been 'killing' things in games across different mediums, from PC, to Console, to RPG, to Table Top, and in the media I watch, for the majority of my life. I still play WoW (Classic TBC!) and I've killed 10's of thousands of critters, but I dont consider it, because I'm not playing a role, and they are pixels on a screen that will refresh in a minute or two.

None of that is the same, as painting another as evil (or Evil), and not feeling remorse when you are immersing yourself in a character/story that you actively participate in and drive.

To determine if evil/Evil has a role in D&D is one thing, but if the only mechanism it provides is carte blanche for the PC's behavior towards those branded/labeled/identified as evil, and the removal of any moral question or responsibility when you are ROLEPLAYING as the character in question?

Then it REALLY should be questioned on if its adding anything worth keeping.

 

[BookTenTiger]

To determine if evil/Evil has a role in D&D is one thing, but if the only mechanism it provides is carte blanche for the PC's behavior towards those branded/labeled/identified as evil, and the removal of any moral question or responsibility when you are ROLEPLAYING as the character in question?

Then it REALLY should be questioned on if its adding anything worth keeping.

This is pretty much exactly the thought process I was having when I was inspired to create this thread.

 

[Krachek]

I just want to note something.

By the definition of a few folks in here, evil can be applied at pretty basic acts. By more than just this statement, people have also said something to the effect of 'it gives you a pass in killing them.'

I'm not saying one must reflect on the morality of the act of removing the life of another being, while they play their games. Admittedly I have been a gamer since I was young, early adopter of Nintendo, PC gamer since Wolf3d, where it was 'justified' because you know, Nazi. I've been 'killing' things in games across different mediums, from PC, to Console, to RPG, to Table Top, and in the media I watch, for the majority of my life. I still play WoW (Classic TBC!) and I've killed 10's of thousands of critters, but I dont consider it, because I'm not playing a role, and they are pixels on a screen that will refresh in a minute or two.

None of that is the same, as painting another as evil (or Evil), and not feeling remorse when you are immersing yourself in a character/story that you actively participate in and drive.

To determine if evil/Evil has a role in D&D is one thing, but if the only mechanism it provides is carte blanche for the PC's behavior towards those branded/labeled/identified as evil, and the removal of any moral question or responsibility when you are ROLEPLAYING as the character in question?

Then it REALLY should be questioned on if its adding anything worth keeping.

I think you overestimated the will of immersion in a role of many players. Hack and slash is a legitimated style of play, and it may look real close to a WoW sesssion.

 

[Scribe]

I think you overestimated the will of immersion in a role of many players. Hack and slash is a legitimated style of play, and it may look real close to a WoW sesssion.

Absolutely true! But I don't need the Snake men in WoW to be evil. It's irrelevant, they have the drops I need, so, tank em and I'll kil em.

I don't think Wizards is pushing D&D as a hack and slash sim, but if it was? Evil is irrelevant, they have your loot.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

That doesn’t follow, actually. There is no reasoning given for the idea that necromancy is always evil, in 5e. Describing that as hamfisted doesn’t mean that all lore is hamfisted.

 

[Krachek]

Absolutely true! But I don't need the Snake men in WoW to be evil. It's irrelevant, they have the drops I need, so, tank em and I'll kil em.

I don't think Wizards is pushing D&D as a hack and slash sim, but if it was? Evil is irrelevant, they have your loot.

Still Hack and slash is presented in the DM guide as an iconic play style, where adventures face clearly evil monsters and opponents and meet clearly good and helpful NPCs.
In such a game, « evil « is a kind of tag equivalent to « oppenent to kill ».

 

[Scribe]

Still Hack and slash is presented in the DM guide as an iconic play style, where adventures face clearly evil monsters and opponents and meet clearly good and helpful NPCs.
In such a game, evil is a kind of tag equivalent to opponent to kill.

I suppose, but I dont think its needed at all in this scenario. I'm all about that Hack and Slash/Sword and Sorcery, kick in the door life. Go nuts.

You dont need an 'Evil' tag in this case though imo, but thats just me.

 

[Krachek]

I suppose, but I dont think its needed at all in this scenario. I'm all about that Hack and Slash/Sword and Sorcery, kick in the door life. Go nuts.

You dont need an 'Evil' tag in this case though imo, but thats just me.

I perfectly agree, the Evil tag is totally optional in such a game. PCs will crush anything that look aggressive and mean.

But otherwise in a more immersive play, Evil-Good classic opposition, can be replaced with the Law-chaos opposition, or a setting where Honor take a crucial role, or a totally shades of grey world where PCs struggle with morale conflict.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think D&D needs dungeons or dragons. I rarely use either. It also doesn't really need attributes, saving throws, multiple races, monsters.

But I like having the PCs being the good guys fighting evil. Not every opponent is evil, but having a BBEG is part of the fun for me.

On the other hand, this whole thread seems to be just another "alignment is bad". Playing D&D as a fun high fantasy campaign is somehow bad-wrong-fun, or at least bad-wrong-fun adjacent. That for more "advanced" gamers, all morality is a gray abyss.