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

[EzekielRaiden]

Ok, now we’re getting somewhere!

So, yes, evil is an abstract term, just like loud, and blue, and any number of other adjectives. But crucially. evil is different from these other adjectives in that it not only abstractly represents a broad range of behaviors, but also places a concrete value judgment on those behaviors. In other words, it abstractly describes a broad range of behaviors, which are not universally agreed upon, but concretely judges those behaviors as bad. We all agree that evil is bad, but we don’t all agree what constitutes evil, which makes the use of the term inevitably contentious. This is why I think it would be better to focus on the actual concrete behaviors and let the players form their own value judgments, rather than to abstractly label characters (let alone entire races!) as evil.

Aesthetic judgments are also value judgments. They entail different responses, but both often involve praise or condemnation--otherwise we wouldn't have phrases like "don't judge a book by its cover" or "all that glitters is not gold"(/Tolkien's version, "all that is gold does not glitter.") Heck, we've literally just seen another thread directly linking ugliness and evil. The two are much more strongly linked than you give them credit for, even when one is actively avoiding bias and unfairness.

Further, sometimes concrete actions are too numerous or distant to quantify. Using my devil-backstory (trying for brevity): it is claimed that the One made reality and tasked "Servants" to help guide, but never, ever control, mortals. Some broke that rule; there was War in Heaven, infinitely long to them, instantaneous to mortals. (Outsiders can do things like that.) Notably, priests of the One (celestials are unknown to mortals) and devils agree on the overall story, but disagree on the result. The "rebels"--devils--think they won, getting to show their way is best. The priesthood thinks devils lost, and were cursed to follow their own rules. Every devil fought an infinite war for the right to be what they are. If they were open to changing their minds, it seems they should already have done so, and joined the celestials.

Thus, it is generally pretty accurate to say that all devils are evil--but often incredibly hard to pin down a specific set of evils they've committed. They encourage mortals to do wicked things, like murdering children or driving people to suicide via blackmail. They actively promote and support a heretical assassin-cult, but tying that to specific devils is difficult, the assassin-cult isn't exactly public with its actions. Etc. It is entirely possible to have "evil" beings whose "evil" is very diffuse--and who would, if you spoke to them about it, provide all sorts of rational, understandable justifications for their actions.

But there's another side to this that I'll cover below.

And I believe it should be up to the players to decide that for themselves. Maybe they think something ought to be done about this tyrannical vampire, maybe they don’t,

That's how it's always been, though, even with the existence of the "evil" label. That's why we have the idea of moral neutrality: someone who rejects the notion that all actions labelled "evil" necessitate that anyone with the power to do so must oppose them. And it's not like "evil" people actually embrace that label all that often. Most either scoff and ignore it, or see it as a warped perspective on what they're doing--almost all folks who do "evil" things have (what they consider) a well-constructed argument for why their actions were the only acceptable choice in a field of bad options. "We had to burn the village in order to save it" vs., say, "we had to put the plague victims in quarantine to spare the rest of us, even though that meant some of them died."

Right, but as I demonstrated above, use of the term is inevitably contentious because by definition it means that the things it describes are so severely wrong that they must be opposed, yet in 2500 years we have not been able to agree upon what acts should or shouldn’t be described this way. The solution, in my view, is to not use the imprecise and contentious label. Instead, focus on the actions themselves and let the players judge them as they will.

Value-judgments will always be contentious, and you are still making value-judgments by saying the things you said about Stroud. "He's a tyrant" = "he uses his autocratic power in blame-worthy ways" (vs. "he's an absolute monarch"). "Oppressing [the] people" = "he performs the blame-worthy action of taking away rights and privileges without dire need and justification" (not sure if there's a non-judgmental way to say this one, "oppression" is about equally as loaded a term as "evil"). "Menacing one woman in particular - Aileen - who he wants to force to become his bride" = "he performs the blame-worthy action of threatening a person's safety and well-being, and the blame-worthy action of coercing someone into forming and maintaining a legal relationship against their will." Etc.

Again, the common thread throughout all of this is that you've already decided he's blame-worthy. You aren't inviting the players to consider whether he is or is not. You're just telling them he is, and they're permitted to either care about that, as implied by the use of such judgmental terms, or to not care about it, and thus implicitly condone the actions so judgmentally-described. There is still the fundamental, and controversial, is-ought distinction present, and you're still falling firmly on the "ought" side.

You're not actually removing any of the controversial elements. You're just avoiding the common label that describes them all. I don't see the benefit. You claim to be removing the controversial label and doing away with the pre-judgment so that players can choose for themselves, but....you're very clearly passing judgment and anticipating moral outrage. You still are expecting people to see these things as so severely wrong that they must be opposed. Why conceal the clear aim--that this person is a "villain" (itself a judgmental label for common folk, the morally-inferior underclasses!)--behind a smokescreen? You're still talking "ought," just with a pretense of talking about "is."

 

[Mort]

Perhaps for random encounters, but for me this doesn't really work for scenario design. For example, I am currently running the essentials kit for my nephew. The background of the scenario is that there is a white dragon (CE) who has been pushed out of its territory in North by other dragons, and has taken the fortress of some Orcs. If the dragon shows up, it's mostly to pick off a horse or mule for food. The Orcs (CE) have been forced to "flee into the foothills and forests," and have been raiding local villages. They have allied with some half-orc priests of talos (NE) because reasons, and the priests want to cause destruction because that's what their religion is I guess. The dragon also displaced a Manticore (LE) that's also attacking people randomly for food. In the dragon's new lair there is also a rival adventure party (NE) that wants to steal treasure from the fortress (unlike our heroes....??).

What's interesting about this setup is that you have multiple factions all of which have different interests within an inter-related scenario. What's not so great (again, to emphasize, FOR ME), is that the "Evil" tag doesn't do a lot of work in summing up these interests. The dragon's villainy seems to be that it...needs to eat? It also displaced the orcs, but if that's an evil act than the town and perhaps PCs are also potentially evil. Meanwhile the displaced orcs are just trying to survive. The priests of talos (who are all half-orcs for some reason) are probably the most cosmologically Evil group, in the classic one-dimensional way of evil religions in dnd. The manticore is also hungry (how are Manticore's lawful again? I looked up the entry in the MM and it doesn't read to me as particularly lawful). The veterans are evil I guess because they are bandits?

As this review puts it, there is potential for all these factions, with their different situations and motives, to create a lot of interactivity for the PCs, who can form alliances and decide for themselves who is "evil." Instead, the scenario would seem to lead to a series of combat challenges with "Evil" enemies of increasing CR.

Again, if a series of combat challenges against Evil enemies of increasing CR is your idea of fun, then go for it. What's more interesting for me are scenarios where there are a lot of factions with competing interests where the PCs can choose who's good, neutral, or evil, and who to side with.

The linked review says this better than I can:

evil doesn't have to mean one dimensional (and shouldn't if you want interesting interactions and adversaries).

And it certainly doesn't mean they can't be bargained with, aligned with - etc. But it does mean that their goals are leaning a certain way.

If the PCs choose to ally with a white dragon - they better be prepared for a temperamental, mercurial ally who might betray them at the drop of a hat - or just because someone offered it a better lunch!

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

Regardless how I feel about these (like Great Wheel planes in general), I still don't think any of these need 'Evil'.

• Dangerous corrupting forces beyond your control offering power

Does that need 'Evil' though? Between indifferent and alien forces (aka Lovecraft ripoffs of they weren't trying to enforce alignment dichotomy) and just plain body horror, we got that covered.

• The Nine Hells and the Abyss, as afterlife punishments/rewards.

1) They can still exist as threats by the gods for heretics.
2) Considering how many fiends exist to steal souls or barter them, is it really so much a punishment as a general risk of existence?
3) IF you're evil enough and good at it, you get to digivolve to ultimate and rule the place. How is that a punishment? It's the purest meritocracy in the setting and a lot of people strive for that for some reason.

• Evil artifacts

Are we talking about cursed junk, or artifacts of jackhole gods? Because neither still need Evil. Zeus wasn't evil, but he was still a jerk and you shouldn't use any of his stuff because ti'll probably impregnate you or something. Hades was the most chill of the brothers, but you also can't raid his fridge.

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

The World Axis Primordial managed to do this without actually being evil. The Primordials want to reset the material plane to make something better and consider the jerks living on it part of the thing being reset. Not evil, just antagonistic to the Material.

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

Mind Flayers don't need Evil because they have a biological imperative to consume us. They don't need the slave holding and black leather wearing trappings to be antagonists.

Aboleths are again cosmic horror watered down with human morality. It's a mean fish from the dawn of time trying to win back the dominion of the great x 10000 grandpappy still living in its head. What's the point of trying to put a label on it?

Of course you can play a D&d adventure without these elements

And with them!

Not sure D&D is D&D without beholders and mindflayers.

Really? I'm sure a fair number of players will never encounter either of these and by just fine for it? They're just IP.

Might as well declare displacer beasts and Umber Hulks essential too. I've only run into a displacer beast once and it was a kitten causing chaos at a bizarre. Not exactly iconic.

 

[Charlaquin]

Either way works out just as well as the other, though. It's only a matter of preference. Telling is just as good or even better to a lot of people.

Ok, but OP’s point was you don’t need evil, not that you shouldn’t use it.

 

[Charlaquin]

But the DM exists and he actively decides if something is evil or not (even IF he doesn't put the evil label on it). Or the game designer (even before the DM) decides what constitutes evil in his game. Not everyone WANTS some morally ambiguous relativistic quagmire where they have to get into arguments as to what's evil and not.

It’s not a quagmire, the players just get to decide what to do based on the actual events of the story instead of something external telling them who’s evil and who’s good.

But, in D&D, the players don't set this objective reality. They can let the tyrannical vampire go or not - but they don't get to decide if the vampire is evil.

Right, but the point is that deciding whether or not to let the tyrannical vampire go is enough. Deciding whether he’s evil or not doesn’t matter. It’s just a moral judgment, it’s immaterial compared to what the vampire is actually doing and what the PCs do about it.

That would be an incorrect interpretation of my post. I was saying that you were calling something evil without actually calling it evil - but it's evil none the less.

Maxperson and I were discussing Lanefan’s post.

 

[Charlaquin]

Funny. You tell me we aren't discussing philosophy 501, but then repeat that we've never come up with a definition of evil in 2500 years.

Right, to explain why the use of the label is contentious, not as an example of what subject matter the game should be about.

In scope of a game, evil is simple and easy. It doesn't need a lot of nuance, nor does there need to be anything more complicated than generalities for it to be useful for a lot of people.

In the scope of the game, you don’t need evil at all. If you want it, you can have it. But it isn’t needed, which is the topic of this thread.

It's a game that vastly oversimplifies just about everything. I'm okay with good and evil being another oversimplification.

Great, have fun with that. I’m not stopping you.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which means, go ahead and call him evil. That way, any relevant game mechanics* around his being evil are automatically invoked and can't later be questioned. If you don't tag him as evil you're leaving yourself open to potential rules-lawyering, if you have that sort of player (which some people do).

* - you may or may not have any such in your game but I sure as hell do in mine.

Yes, if there are game mechanics that care about alignment, obviously you need alignment to function. If there are no such mechanics, you don’t, and since alignment is so contentious, I would say that if it isn’t needed, then the game would be better off without it by default. Obviously since you don’t play the latest edition of the game, what WotC does in that edition doesn’t really affect you.

 

[Charlaquin]

And those decisions, made in character, will go toward determining whether the PCs themselves are evil or not...

Sure, but unless the game has mechanics that care about alignment, that doesn’t matter either.

 

[Bohandas]

All you're asking here is a semantic question - does it matter if the word "evil" shows up in the description or not - as your description clearly paints him as evil (and Evil) without using the actual word.

I think that's the point. Thay semantics is in general the extent of the distinction posed by the thread

 

[Faolyn]

Brevity has a purpose. If it takes 2 paragraphs to convey the same concept as 2 letters, sometimes the 2 letters is better. Certainly it's useful.

So if I say "Hey, there's a bad guy and she's LE," what exactly does that tell you about the bad guy? It doesn't tell me what she's doing, or why, or how she does it, or what her limitations are, or what about her is lawful or evil. It doesn't tell me how to run her as an NPC.

So those two letters aren't actually all that useful, other than to say "well, this person is lawful evil."