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

[Malmuria]

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.

Except no one is saying that you are having badwrongfun or that you are less advanced. The original post was essentially a reflection on scenario design and how to create factions with varying agendas. Other posters have commented on how your setting might be different if you use a cosmological/objective notion of Evil and Good vs a subjective understanding of good and evil as in-world characterizations.

It's difficult to have a discussion when venturing any sort of opinion counts implies "badwrongfun." If you like Good vs Evil, you do you! I would even say Evil is necessary if you want to lean into high fantasy or perhaps in a planar great wheel campaign.

 

[Scribe]

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.

I dont really think so.

I've fallen on the Alignment side of the discussion for quite some time now, but when looking at the larger picture of Alignment (as a Force/Entity) -> Gods (as Real and Known) -> Race, and the interaction of all that stuff, I dont think how Wizards is handling it (or not handling it really) actually stands up to scrutiny.

At least not well enough for me.

I'm certainly not saying morality within D&D should be a grey abyss, or that High Fantasy/Good vs Big Bad, is a bad thing. Its essentially the bedrock of my childhood lol.

 

[Oofta]

Except no one is saying that you are having badwrongfun or that you are less advanced. The original post was essentially a reflection on scenario design and how to create factions with varying agendas. Other posters have commented on how your setting might be different if you use a cosmological/objective notion of Evil and Good vs a subjective understanding of good and evil as in-world characterizations.

It's difficult to have a discussion when venturing any sort of opinion counts implies "badwrongfun." If you like Good vs Evil, you do you! I would even say Evil is necessary if you want to lean into high fantasy or perhaps in a planar great wheel campaign.

See for a moment there I was with you. Then you have to qualify that Evil is only okay in a very specific type of campaign that I have never and will never run. It' s only okay in a pigeon hole.

There are many aspects and types of opponents in my campaigns. Some are evil, some are Evil, some are just other people doing the best they can but they have different goals. I want the whole mix so I can use whatever makes the most fun for me and my group. If that means cartoon villains, so what? If I want reprehensible evil that only wants to destroy, actual literal monsters that don't exist in the real world*? I don't see a problem with that.

It's a game. A game that I largely use to forget about a complex, messy world that I can do little to change. Sometimes it's nice to have clear black and white while pretending for just a moment that there is a way to fix all the evil and ugliness of the world without getting into philosophical debates about the nature of good and evil or requiring some cosmological dictate of what it means other than what feels right at the table.

*some people are evil monsters but that's not what I'm talking about.

 

[Oofta]

I dont really think so.

I've fallen on the Alignment side of the discussion for quite some time now, but when looking at the larger picture of Alignment (as a Force/Entity) -> Gods (as Real and Known) -> Race, and the interaction of all that stuff, I dont think how Wizards is handling it (or not handling it really) actually stands up to scrutiny.

At least not well enough for me.

I'm certainly not saying morality within D&D should be a grey abyss, or that High Fantasy/Good vs Big Bad, is a bad thing. Its essentially the bedrock of my childhood lol.

My statements were not directed at anyone in particular, nor even really totally prompted by just this thread that I've only been skimming. In any case, I need to go back to ignoring this thread again.

 

[Malmuria]

See for a moment there I was with you. Then you have to qualify that Evil is only okay in a very specific type of campaign that I have never and will never run. It' s only okay in a pigeon hole.

I did not say that Evil is "only okay" in any particular situation. I proposed, per the terms of the OP, that Evil might be a necessary if running a high fantasy campaign. I mentioned high fantasy in response to you saying:

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.

So, in response, I was saying and will say again: you do you! If you like high fantasy, and you like your high fantasy with Good vs Evil, that makes total sense.

The question of what's necessary is separate from what is fun.

It's a game. A game that I largely use to forget about a complex, messy world that I can do little to change. Sometimes it's nice to have clear black and white while pretending for just a moment that there is a way to fix all the evil and ugliness of the world without getting into philosophical debates about the nature of good and evil or requiring some cosmological dictate of what it means other than what feels right at the table.

Great! That's fine. Is it necessary to have fun though? I would say no. You can have fun with complex factions, some of which might be evil, some good, and some...neutral.

 

[Scribe]

My statements were not directed at anyone in particular, nor even really totally prompted by just this thread that I've only been skimming. In any case, I need to go back to ignoring this thread again.

Fair enough, I just dont think its the typical alignment bash we see a bunch.

 

[Mort]

I did not say that Evil is "only okay" in any particular situation. I proposed, per the terms of the OP, that Evil might be a necessary if running a high fantasy campaign. I mentioned high fantasy in response to you saying:


So, in response, I was saying and will say again: you do you! If you like high fantasy, and you like your high fantasy with Good vs Evil, that makes total sense.

The question of what's necessary is separate from what is fun.


Great! That's fine. Is it necessary to have fun though? I would say no. You can have fun with complex factions, some of which might be evil, some good, and some...neutral.

I agree with @EzekielRaiden 's point earlier that asking if evil is necessary is the wrong question.

Necessary means you can't run D&D without it - and that's just not the case.

The better question: - is "evil" or "Evil" useful? And it certainly is to me, much of the time and in most campaigns. I find exploring and playing with the the concept of evil (big or little E) enhances the play experience for my players - and I find that useful.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree with @EzekielRaiden 's point earlier that asking if evil is necessary is the wrong question.

Necessary means you can't run D&D without it - and that's just not the case.

The better question: - is "evil" or "Evil" useful? And it certainly is to me, much of the time and in most campaigns. I find exploring and playing with the the concept of evil (big or little E) enhances the play experience for my players - and I find that useful.

So, I want to dive into this a little further. I recognize that many people find the label of “evil” useful (I’m not going to get into big E vs. little E here, I don’t think it’s really relevant to the point). But I struggle to understand why. Maybe you can help me make sense of it.

Let’s look at a more specific example, instead of talking in broad, abstract terms. And let’s use an example that’s less loaded than always-evil races. Let’s say instead we’ve got a villain. Call him Stroud Van Shmarovich. Now, Stroud is clearly a bad guy, who does lots of bad things. He’s a tyrant who rules over the duchy of Blargovia, oppressing its people and menacing one woman in particular - Aileen - who he wants to force to become his bride. And imagine also that he’s a vampire, so he literally feeds on the blood of Blargovians to sustain himself, and he will theoretically rule forever if someone doesn’t kill him. So, the adventurers have to track down a magic spear (cause it’s like a big stake!) and kill him to save Aileen and free Blargovia.

What does it matter whether we describe Stroud as evil or not? Does it change the adventure in any way?

 

[Bird Of Play]

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

Everything is simple.
If people want to make it complicated, it's only because they don't want you to understand it.

 

[Lyxen]

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.

There is no reason for the FR to have the Weave, or to have evil gods like Bhaal. It's just a design decision, put in place because the designers want a certain ambiance in their setting. Maybe they wanted necromancy to be evil because they did not want neutral zombies and skeletons all over the place being used as tools by indifferent people. Or maybe it's to support the core setting of the FR where people who animate bodies are usually evil. What makes this decision more hamfisted than any other ?

In any case, note that even low level undead are evil in 5e, contrary to 3e for example. They are based on negative energy after all. The decision is consistent.