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

[Charlaquin]

Change the adventure and/or story no. Although, it matters mechanically. Good and Evil characters have certain abilities strengths and weaknesses. It's iconic for protagonists and antagonists to equip themselves for the big fight. Spells that offer protection, weapons that pierce defenses, and methods of scrying and hiding. It makes the adventure interesting from the game perspective. Alignment further allows nuances to this dynamic that can grow into planar and cosmic levels of adventure. Some folks really appreciate this element of D&D even if its grown out of fashion with many modern gamers.

5e doesn’t have those though. If you’re adding them in yourself, you could just as easily be adding in alignment too.

 

[Oofta]

Isn’t that what the OP is getting at though? As long as you have villains who oppose the protagonists, it doesn’t matter if you call them “evil” or not.

If I want an opponent that will likely only have 15 minutes of fame it's easier to just use a label. Even if they develop into more, it's still a handy shortcut that I can fall back on.

I'm not running D&D as philosophy 501, it's just a game.

 

[billd91]

That’s my point. The word evil is superfluous. As long as you have villains who are villainous, you don’t need the game to call them evil.

Kind of a loaded example, though. Life-sucking tyrants are pretty obvious. Whether or not evil, as a label, is helpful for the game/specific campaign comes in other margins. Having a game in which sides are as clearly defined as good vs evil can be kind of relaxing and fun - no need to worry about the gray morality and the psychological stress that might stem from that. If your campaign's trolls and orcs are twisted mockeries of other creatures (because evil cannot really create, only corrupt), then you know what to do with them. You cut loose and have fun without worrying about offering quarter. You can save that for the people deceived into siding with evil (like, oh say, Dunlendings) rather than being flat out servants of evil. Simplifies things - which is exactly the kind of game play some people want.

 

[Mort]

That’s my point. The word evil is superfluous. As long as you have villains who are villainous, you don’t need the game to call them evil.

You don't have to, but you don't have to beat around it either. "bad", "villainous" etc. are just other words for evil - and D&D has used the name evil long enough that evil immediately evokes something. No need to play semantic games.

Why wouldn’t I have a paragraph?

1. Because it's a quick throw away encounter and you just want a stat block (even abreviated) and a quick indication of leaning. If you ALWAYS have a paragraph and take that time? go ahead, some people like shortcuts.

 

[TheSword]

I’m going to say that D&D does need evil. It would be poorer without

• Dangerous corrupting forces beyond your control offering power
• The Nine Hells and the Abyss, as afterlife punishments/rewards.
• Evil artifacts
• Imprisoned Evil gods (and ones that aren’t imprisoned)
• Powers at work that represent existential threats to humanity. (Mind flayers, aboleth etc)

Of course you can play a D&d adventure without these elements but I think the wider game does suffer without them. Im
Not sure D&D is D&D without beholders and mindflayers.

Incidentally, Game of Thrones absolutely does have evil as used in D&D.

Spoiler: Game of Thrones Spoilers

A god who demands a follower burn his innocent daughter alive, is evil. A king who forces people to kill each other for his entertainment and kills a sex worker for fun with a crossbow is evil. A man who kills a man at a wedding for a petty grudge along with his pregnant wife is evil. A queen who burns alive a few thousand people for revenge and spite is evil.

The existence of some very cool grey neutral characters doesn’t mean evil doesn’t exist. I’d also say some of the characters change alignment as the show progresses… just like PC’s!

 

[Charlaquin]

If I want an opponent that will likely only have 15 minutes of fame it's easier to just use a label. Even if they develop into more, it's still a handy shortcut that I can fall back on.

I’m not sure how the label helps you here. As DM, you created the scenario, you know the villain or monster is bad, with or without the label. So unless you’re just outright telling the players it’s evil when they see it, what’s the label actually doing?

I'm not running D&D as philosophy 501, it's just a game.

Nobody said you should be running philosophy 501?

Kind of a loaded example, though. Life-sucking tyrants are pretty obvious. Whether or not evil, as a label, is helpful for the game/specific campaign comes in other margins.

What I’m not understanding is what those other margins are? Where is it useful to have a label for evil

Having a game in which sides are as clearly defined as good vs evil can be kind of relaxing and fun - no need to worry about the gray morality and the psychological stress that might stem from that. If your campaign's trolls and orcs are twisted mockeries of other creatures (because evil cannot really create, only corrupt), then you know what to do with them. You cut loose and have fun without worrying about offering quarter. You can save that for the people deceived into siding with evil (like, oh say, Dunlendings) rather than being flat out servants of evil. Simplifies things - which is exactly the kind of game play some people want.

Right, sure, I get that people enjoy games with clearly defined sides. These are the good guys, these are the bad guys. But the point is, if your bad guys are actually bad, the evil label isn’t doing anything. The only time I can imagine the label not being superfluous is if the “evil” creatures or characters don’t actually behave in a way that’s recognizably evil. If your monsters act like people, then labeling them as evil gives you permission to kill them without guilt anyway, and personally, I find that pretty uncomfortable. But if your monsters act like monsters, you don’t need the evil label to excuse killing them. The fact that they act like monsters should already be doing that job.

You don't have to, but you don't have to beat around it either. "bad", "villainous" etc. are just other words for evil - and D&D has used the name evil long enough that evil immediately evokes something. No need to play semantic games.

That’s literally the point of the OP though. If you “show don’t tell” why your enemies should be killed, it doesn’t matter if you call them evil or not. It’s semantics. The only time it matters is if your ostensibly evil characters aren’t actually coming across as evil.

1. Because it's a quick throw away encounter and you just want a stat block (even abreviated) and a quick indication of leaning. If you ALWAYS have a paragraph and take that time? go ahead, some people like shortcuts.

I’ll ask you what I asked Oofta then. Unless you’re showing the stat block to the players, what does having “evil” written in it actually accomplish?

 

[payn]

5e doesn’t have those though. If you’re adding them in yourself, you could just as easily be adding in alignment too.

I thought this was a general D&D discussion. You are right tho, D&D continues to move towards generic fantasy and its popular.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not in 5e it doesn’t.

Is it though? I’m pretty sure if you removed alignment from 5e it would change almost nothing. You wouldn’t be able to do double damage to Rakshasa with piercing weapons, I guess.

Right, but 5e already doesn’t have more than a handful of abilities like that. And if you’re homebrewing then in, adding alignmebt back in via house rule would be trivial.

I don’t play 5E. So I can’t say how it would impact abilities for that edition. I am just talking about it’s role in earlier editions

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m going to say that D&D does need evil. It would be poorer without

• Dangerous corrupting forces beyond your control offering power
• The Nine Hells and the Abyss, as afterlife punishments/rewards.

But you can have those things without having to label them evil. These fall under OP’s definition of “adversaries.”

• Evil artifacts
• Imprisoned Evil gods (and ones that aren’t imprisoned)

Here you’re using a word on its own definition. What makes these artifacts and gods Evil? If you have an answer to that, you have what makes them adversarial to the PCs and therefore don’t need the “Evil” label.

• Powers at work that represent existential threats to humanity. (Mind flayers, aboleth etc)

Right, adversaries.

 

[Charlaquin]

I thought this was a general D&D discussion. You are right tho, D&D continues to move towards generic fantasy and its popular.

I don’t play 5E. So I can’t say how it would impact abilities for that edition. I am just talking about it’s role in earlier editions

Oh, you’re right, the tag does say D&D general. Yeah, I would agree that in editions where there are mechanics that care about alignment, alignment does serve a useful role.