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

[Charlaquin]

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

Exactly.

 

[TheSword]

Definitely not getting into another point by point rebuttal with people who have a beef with Objective Evil on an ideological basis. If it’s not your cup of tea fine… I’m pretty sure one of the recent surveys showed most people want to keep it, which is good enough for me.

If you don’t like it fine, there’s no point baiting people into arguments about alignment again.

 

[Charlaquin]

Definitely not getting into another point by point rebuttal with people who have a beef with Objective Evil on an ideological basis. If it’s not your cup of tea fine… I’m pretty sure one of the recent surveys showed most people want to keep it, which is good enough for me.

If you don’t like it fine, there’s no point baiting people into arguments about alignment again.

My position isn’t that objective evil shouldn’t exist in the game, it’s that alignment doesn’t serve a useful purpose in 5e. In other versions of the game, where the rules actually cared about alignment more than once in a blue moon, it had a purpose. It doesn’t any more, it just causes arguments for no tangible benefit.

 

[TheSword]

My position isn’t that objective evil shouldn’t exist in the game, it’s that alignment doesn’t serve a useful purpose in 5e. In other versions of the game, where the rules actually cared about alignment more than once in a blue moon, it had a purpose. It doesn’t any more, it just causes arguments for no tangible benefit.

Yes, you’ve said so ten or twelve times. Other people disagree.

Do we need another thread to rehash this? I mean I could literally cut and paste the same argument from the many previous threads and you cut and paste your responses.

 

[TheSword]

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."

Which is useful in and of itself.

My toaster doesn’t boil water. It’s still useful.

 

[Umbran]

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

Yeah. This thing winds up reading like this:

A: X is not strictly required.
B: But I like X.
A: That's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that it is not strictly required.
B: But... It is useful!
A: That's fine. That doesn't change the fact that it is not strictly required. You can do without it, and nothing fundamentally breaks.
B: But it is traditional! And many people like using it!
A: That's fine. Still doesn't change the fact that it is not strictly required.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

It is almost as if recognizing that it isn't strictly necessary is viewed as a threat.

Anchovies aren't strictly necessary for pizza... or D&D. Is that a threat to either pizza or D&D?

 

[Mort]

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."

Even with this minimal context it's not that little.

It says she's willing to work within the system and likely works ok in a group (lawful). And that she's willing to use means good people wouldn't to accomplish her goals which also (as she's an adversary) conflict with those of the group in some way.

At in even a few more details (class, social position etc) and the two letters crystallize the position further.

The descriptor is by no means the be all end all, but it can help put things in context and add some flavor with minimal effort.

 

[Mort]

Yeah. This thing winds up reading like this:

A: X is not strictly required.
B: But I like X.
A: That's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that it is not strictly required.
B: But... It is useful!
A: That's fine. That doesn't change the fact that it is not strictly required. You can do without it, and nothing fundamentally breaks.
B: But it is traditional! And many people like using it!
A: That's fine. Still doesn't change the fact that it is not strictly required.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

It is almost as if recognizing that it isn't strictly necessary is viewed as a threat.

Has anyone in this thread argued it's necessary? Certainly not me or anyone I can think of.

Useful and necessary are FAR from the same thing.

 

[TheSword]

I do think its an important part of the D&D portfolio and mythos and an expected part of the D&D landscape. Like spell levels and stat points. Lots of things aren’t necessary but if you remove to many of them it stops being D&D and starts looking like… something else.

 

[Charlaquin]

Even with this minimal context it's not that little.

It says she's willing to work within the system and likely works ok in a group (lawful). And that she's willing to use means good people wouldn't to accomplish her goals which also (as she's an adversary) conflict with those of the group in some way.

Does it though? Ask any 10 people what Lawful Evil means and you’ll get 12 answers.