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

[Scott Christian]

Sure. However, there's a huge difference between deducing that the word is apt based on evidence, and using the word as a prescriptive definition.

While I agree in concept that it is not needed. What is wrong with a word that describes or summarizes. There are lots of types of castles, and I don't go around saying: "Before you stands a large building of brick construction with high stone walls and it' surrounded by a body of water that has this wooden frame that seems to lower over the water."
And yes, I know I am being hyperbolic. I also understand that evil can be dependent on the viewer. But it is the DM's job to know their players. And if they know their players would find a necromancer's actions horrid, they can use evil. In fact, even in an evil campaign I ran, the concept of evil still existed. When the PCs were tricked, they sought revenge because the theft went against their "moral code." Even intelligent, evil things in movies that get worked over by a bigger badder evil are pissed and try to avenge because the badder evil crossed the line.

 

[Mort]

Well, I have to add context because LE by itself has none.

See I have a really hard time with this statement.

Alignment is one of the more visible parts of D&D and has been for a long time. Quite often even people who don't play will recognize an alignment reference and have a pretty good idea what you mean. Gamers? Almost all of them will.

It doesn't have to be perfect, it just have to be Evocative - and that gives it context of its own.

Arguing you don't like the context and that it CAN be replaced/removed/substituted as @Charlaquin is doing? I can see it, even if I don't agree.

But to argue a term like LE provides NO context to a D&D player? I guess I just don't see it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Perhaps there is an important distinction to draw here.

I value "evil" (whether capitalized or not) as a descriptive tool for narration and story construction. E.g., I can tell my players that the Cult of the Burning Eye is "bad guys" who do "evil" things, which they can then confirm for themselves if they wish. I can tell them that demons are all evil by choice (having decided that breaking things and messing stuff up during the War in Heaven was more fun/interesting/worthwhile than either of the proper "factions" of the war), and yet still have a redeemed succubus* who is not evil.

I mean, if you want to use the word evil in your narration, knock yourself out, I don’t think anyone cares. The discussion, as I understand it, is about game design, not vocabulary use.

I do not much value "evil" as an expressed mechanical component of the rules. That almost always invites the real controversy, e.g. "all necromancy spells are evil" when that includes things like "spell to keep my buddy's body from rotting so we can get a resurrection." Such prescriptive diktats are not just often badly-reasoned, they're usually broken by the very ruleset promulgating them. Such things mostly just waste my time, confusing issues that should instead be clarified by the use of words like these.

It’s interesting you feel this way about necromancy spells but not, like, gnolls or whatever.

Saying, "Is evil necessary?" strongly communicates to me that it should be done away with entirely--that one should never speak the word in the context of D&D at all, and anything that might do so should be scrubbed of it. I mean, is there any other reason to talk about "unnecessary" things? We live in a time where the game design fashion is minimalism, and the "necessity," or rather lack thereof, of a given element, whether in rules or descriptions, is almost always treated as its justification for inclusion vs exclusion.

I don’t think not being necessary on its own is a reason to excise something from the game. If a thing has value, it may be worth keeping, even if it isn’t strictly needed. Alignment though, and particularly evil alignments, seem to detract from the game - causing disputes about what counts under what category and why, which are completely irresolvable because there is no one agreed upon definition of any of these moralistic and heavily baggage-laden terms. So, since they cause problems, there seems to be reason to remove them. Is there reason to keep them? Well, they don’t seem necessary, and the value I’ve been able to gather that they do add to the game: “a shorthand” seems like it could be served by something else, which would not cause the same problems.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, if you want to use the word evil in your narration, knock yourself out, I don’t think anyone cares. The discussion, as I understand it, is about game design, not vocabulary use.

If he wants the big E, he should also knock himself out. Nobody else should care. It's none of their business.

Alignment though, and particularly evil alignments, seem to detract from the game - causing disputes about what counts under what category and why, which are completely irresolvable because there is no one agreed upon definition of any of these moralistic and heavily baggage-laden terms.

This hasn't really been true in years. With virtually no mechanics attached to it(a few items), alignment is purely a descriptive tool. It doesn't matter if the DM or anyone else disagrees with a player. It's not like they can do anything about it without house ruling in some serious changes.

The vast majority of alignment issues that I've seen are stories from the distant past. And the vast majority of current "alignment issues"(in quotes because they aren't really about alignment) are abusive DMs or players misusing it to be jerks. That's not going to stop if you get rid of alignment.

 

[Charlaquin]

If he wants the big E, he should also knock himself out. Nobody else should care. It's none of their business.

Obviously. We're talking about the base rules of the game here. If somebody wants to run their own game differently, they're free to do so.

This hasn't really been true in years. With virtually no mechanics attached to it(a few items), alignment is purely a descriptive tool.

Not having mechanics attached to it gives alginment less reason to exist, not more.

It doesn't matter if the DM or anyone else disagrees with a player. It's not like they can do anything about it without house ruling in some serious changes.

The vast majority of alignment issues that I've seen are stories from the distant past. And the vast majority of current "alignment issues"(in quotes because they aren't really about alignment) are abusive DMs or players misusing it to be jerks. That's not going to stop if you get rid of alignment.

I'm sorry, have you not seen the orc threads?

 

[Maxperson]

Not having mechanics attached to it gives alginment less reason to exist, not more.

This is very wrong. A great many people use it very effectively as a roleplaying aid. That aid without the negatives of mechanics(which caused the vast majority of what problems there were) gives it MORE reason to exist, not less.

I'm sorry, have you not seen the orc threads?

The ones about race? Yes. Alignment isn't really the problem there.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is very wrong. A great many people use it very effectively as a roleplaying aid. That aid without the negatives of mechanics(which caused the vast majority of what problems there were) gives it MORE reason to exist, not less.

No, those arguments exist whether there are mechanics attached to alignment or not. At least when mechanics are attached to it, there’s a specific thing alignment is adding to the game that some people are willing to put up with those arguments for. Without mechanics attached to it, alignment only invites argument for no tangible benefit. Except “a shorthand,” which again, could be satisfied by something else that doesn’t invite those arguments.

The ones about race? Yes. Alignment isn't really the problem there.

Alignment is absolutely part of the problem there. It isn’t the whole problem, but it’s definitely part of it. But whatever, there are plenty of other arguments caused by alignment if you don’t want to pretend that one doesn’t count.

 

[Maxperson]

No, those arguments exist whether there are mechanics attached to alignment or not.

Not really. Very, very few anyway. Mechanics were 90+% of the problems. 90% of the new problems aren't with alignment, but with jerks.

Alignment is absolutely part of the problem there. It isn’t the whole problem, but it’s definitely part of it. But whatever, there are plenty of other arguments caused by alignment if you don’t want to pretend that one doesn’t count.

No. Alignment isn't an issue at all. With the very, very, VERY simple fix of using the 3e monster alignment system, the entire alignment portion of that problem evaporates. 3e never had orcs that were all evil. Entire countries of 3e orcs could be LG by RAW.

The issue with the orc threads was the language used to describe them that people are linking to real world racially charged language. THAT'S the issue with orcs.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not really. Very, very few anyway. Mechanics were 90+% of the problems. 90% of the new problems aren't with alignment, but with jerks.

The problem is absolutely with alignment, jerks just make the problem worse.

No. Alignment isn't an issue at all. With the very, very, VERY simple fix of using the 3e monster alignment system, the entire alignment portion of that problem evaporates. 3e never had orcs that were all evil. Entire countries of 3e orcs could be LG by RAW.

The issue with the orc threads was the language used to describe them that people are linking to real world racially charged language. THAT'S the issue with orcs.

I don’t want this thread to get locked too, so I’m not going to get into this. But while what you say is absolutely an issue with orcs, it is not the only issue, and alignment does play a role in the issues many (though not all) take with the portrayal of race in D&D.

 

[generic]

Alignment in general has never represented anything beyond a vague gauge of behavioral characteristics and moral outlooks to me, but, having looked back to older editions, it becomes clear that alignment was, and sometimes is, presented as a be-all end-all system of morality, wherein different philosophical archetypes would essentially have different languages, inherent affiliation with deities and or demons, and a set of definitive, immutable traits.

In the sense that alignment is an issue in discussions surrounding Orcs, it's much the same issue as claiming that any humanoid people is overwhelmingly, and, in fact, usually evil. People will have objections, especially when Orcs can interbreed with Humans, and have been cast in racially charged ways before.