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

[Fenris-77]

Totally, fantasy is usually an escape for me. I just want to be a Paladin of Justice sometimes, not a Paladin who needs to pay alimony.

Yup. A lot of the stuff I run is, IDK, morally grey? one way or another? Nature of the beast. So sometimes, yeah, I want to run Star Wars, not Schindler's List.

 

[Aldarc]

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

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

I don't think that "LE" itself really provides context because what's needed to decipher its meaning and signficance is context supplied from elsewhere. Or to put it another way, "LE" requires more context than it actually provides. The vast bulk of the actual context doesn't come from "LE" itself, but, rather, the giant entry of flavor text that describes the NPC or monster: e.g., Devils. It comes from the pages of ink spilled discussing Devils in the Blood War. It comes from having these descriptions of Devils reinforced by other descriptions of Devils and other Fiends across books, editions, and actual gameplay. If you removed those two letters from these pages, no significant context changes or is lost. When it comes to describing a specific person and not some elemental evil, IMHO, then that "LE" becomes even less contextually useful much for the reasons that @Faolyn has already mentioned.

 

[Fenris-77]

Can someone fill me in on how LE doesn't have context? I mean there's has been a river of ink over the editions... Am I missing something?

 

[Oofta]

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 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.

You don't need attributes, races, feats, skill proficiencies, dungeons, dragons, wizards, clerics ... the list goes on. We have many aspects of the game that make it as flexible and broadly appealing as it is. D&D is the most successful TTRPG ever. The fact that we have evil is part of the secret sauce, removing it is easy for an individual campaign, removing it from the game altogether is what's being discussed.

Your game doesn't need evil. It's easy to ignore. To continue to appeal to the broad majority of people, D&D as a game needs evil. It's an easy and simple concept to grasp that just works for a lot of people.

 

[Aldarc]

You don't need attributes, races, feats, skill proficiencies, dungeons, dragons, wizards, clerics ... the list goes on. We have many aspects of the game that make it as flexible and broadly appealing as it is. D&D is the most successful TTRPG ever. The fact that we have evil is part of the secret sauce, removing it is easy for an individual campaign, removing it from the game altogether is what's being discussed.

Your game doesn't need evil. It's easy to ignore. To continue to appeal to the broad majority of people, D&D as a game needs evil. It's an easy and simple concept to grasp that just works for a lot of people.

The success of the secret sauce survived the removal of THAC0 and many other past key ingredients.

 

[Oofta]

This very thread illustrates my point. Literally any time the subject of alignment comes up, a huge argument ensues.

Yet you can't really say why labeling something as evil causes a problem. Just that you don't like it. Don't like it? Don't use it.

But it's the same old same old. Don't like something? Be vocal about opposing it and then say "well, it's controversial, so therefore it's a problem!".

 

[Oofta]

The success of the secret sauce survived the removal of THAC0 and many other past key ingredients.

THAC0 was just math that was replaced by a system that did the same thing. The core concept never went away.

Besides, I have yet to hear a cogent argument of why evil is bad for the game other than "it's controversial". It's only controversial because people say they don't want to use it in their games with no argument about what the negatives are.

 

[Charlaquin]

You don't need attributes, races, feats, skill proficiencies, dungeons, dragons, wizards, clerics ... the list goes on. We have many aspects of the game that make it as flexible and broadly appealing as it is. D&D is the most successful TTRPG ever. The fact that we have evil is part of the secret sauce, removing it is easy for an individual campaign, removing it from the game altogether is what's being discussed.

Again, that’s baggage you’re bringing, the topic is “D&D doesn’t need evil,” not “D&D shouldn’t have evil.”

 

[Charlaquin]

Yet you can't really say why labeling something as evil causes a problem. Just that you don't like it. Don't like it? Don't use it.

But it's the same old same old. Don't like something? Be vocal about opposing it and then say "well, it's controversial, so therefore it's a problem!".

The fact that so many people don’t like it is a problem. It puts people off the game. It causes interminable arguments for no tangible benefit, or at least none that couldn’t be satisfied - more effectively I might add - by something less polarizing.

 

[Charlaquin]

THAC0 was just math that was replaced by a system that did the same thing. The core concept never went away.

Right, and alignment could likewise be replaced with another form of “shorthand”.