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

[Oofta]

Did you mean to type "NPC" here?

Umm, maybe? Depends. If my new PC is an elf, it's highly unlikely they'll survive the first session.

 

[Aldarc]

Personally I don't really see much of a distinction. Why ask if it's needed if not to "prove" that it should be eliminated? If my wife asks me if I really need that old sweater, it's not a philosophical question. She really just wants me to get rid of it otherwise she wouldn't ask in the first place.

We all know your wife is right.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Personally I don't really see much of a distinction. Why ask if it's needed if not to "prove" that it should be eliminated? If my wife asks me if I really need that old sweater, it's not a philosophical question. She really just wants me to get rid of it otherwise she wouldn't ask in the first place.

We all know your wife is right.

man, this reminds me I am young still.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Have you ever actually had an argument anywhere close to “interminable” about alignment in person?

I know I haven’t, in the 25+ years I’ve been playing D&D and regularly discussing it with people.

Online, sure. But I don’t consider “problems” that only or even mostly just appear on online message boards to be legitimate problems, in the context of a primarily “meat space” hobby.

 

[Scribe]

I find this book mostly useless, but this chart (p. 90) is maybe relevant for this discussion

View attachment 144371

See, most of Evil in that case looks fine.

Domination, is not evil on its own.
Greed, certainly is a selfish thing, but well Capitalism. (Set the grenade down...do not pull the pin...)
Might, is not evil on its own.
Pain, and infliction of? Yeah, thats going to be evil. (EDIT) Actually, Self Flagellation, and similar lines of behavior, are not evil, but involve pain.
Retribution, is not evil on its own.
Slaughter, yeah, thats in the evil region as well.

So Greed (Subjective), and Slaughter, would all fall under almost certainly default 'easy to define' evil concepts.
Domination, Might, Pain (see edit), and Retribution? Those can all be just.

I dont know, I always come back to 'what are we calling evil'. If its basic stuff like 'this NPC raises the dead to kidnap villagers' thats a well duh kinda moment to me. You dont need to label that as evil to understand that it is intrinsically so.

But if we classify Evil (just using the label) as things like favouring Might, or Retribution..that makes the term a bit more nuanced, to me.

I understand the usage in D&D, I understand the appeal as short hand, but its only acceptable I believe to me, because I look at it as a label for a definition that I personally accept.

 

[Redwizard007]

Sidebar but I'm curious how a concept I like to explore would work in your campaign.

I'm a struggling farmer. I have to work all day to tend the farm and support my wife and 12 young kids. I will do anything to protect my family. My buddy Steve, who happens to have powers involving life and death self me a death I durance policy. When I die, Steve will raise my body and allow my wife to use me on the farm to keep the family cared for. We all think it's a practical solution.

Is this evil?

I use a lot of "did it for the cause" undead in my campaigns. Guardians in mummy tombs aren't there because some evil guy forced them to. They gave their lives to eternally guard their leaders resting place willingly.

3e used to have non-evil undead (I believe they were instead called undying???) and I always felt like that was something that would happen in a world with pragmatists populating it.

Great example.

The motivation for creating the mindless undead is neutral. Providing for one's family is fairly self serving, but this doesn't harm anyone. At least that's the way it looks on the surface.

If we look a little deeper we can make solid arguments that this is actually an evil act. For one, in some editions the creation of undead involves tying the corpse to the negative energy plain (or equivalent) and allows a little more evil into the world with each casting. Of more immediate concern is the actual skeleton. The skellie is doing productive work while controlled, but as soon as control is lost it reverts to a mindless killing machine in close proximity to lots of innocents. Should the caster die unexpectedly, run out of spell slots for any number of reasons and not refresh the casting, or lose control for any number of reasons the skeleton doesn't simply stop working. It kills as many living beings as possible before someone puts it down. That is criminally negligent at best, and down right diabolical at worst.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The biggest hit movies are the ones that revolve around the fight of good versus evil. I think one of the reasons D&D is as big as it is because for a lot of people it supports this idea of good versus evil.

The MCEU doesn't need to be about good versus evil, heroes versus villains. Then again, The Watchmen didn't exactly spawn a multi-billion dollar franchise. I don't think D&D would be as big without the core concept of good versus evil that can be easily ignored if you want.
.

Exactly. D&D needs (Good and) Evil because that is part of the brand ID, as well.

Yes. Probably because the ones I play with haven’t been playing for decades (well, most of them haven’t, anyway). It’s mostly the new crowd who take issue with alignment. Unsurprisingly.

My library game was all new players, and I’ve played with plenty of kids and young adults. They take issue with orcs being monolithically evil, not with Evil being a real force in the game world.

Sure.

Say the PCs are in a dungeons and meet a Izouna, a LE mage. That's the info you get on her. How do you RP Izouna?

As someone else said, the adventure and session will provide most of the context for most NPCs regardless what you put on the statblock.

Beyond that, I know she keeps her word, doesn’t value others’ lives or freedom as a “good” in itself, is willing to work as part of a system/hierarchy, and combining my own life experience with what LE means, she probably has a visceral distaste for liars, and people who break rules, and is completely willing to hurt people for small “infractions” because she believes in the power of negative reinforcement.

From there, I’m going to build on what could be a foil to a PC who hasn’t had the spotlight in a bit. Ie, the rogue or warlock are easy, but also the LG Paladin who agrees about rules but who believes in the power of mercy and compassion, that’s some good tension.

Domination, is not evil on its own.

Yes, it is. Domination, “on its own” is the taking of power over others without their consent, using force or the threat of force. Which is unambiguously evil.

 

[Mind of tempest]

See, most of Evil in that case looks fine.

Domination, is not evil on its own.
Greed, certainly is a selfish thing, but well Capitalism. (Set the grenade down...do not pull the pin...)
Might, is not evil on its own.
Pain, and infliction of? Yeah, thats going to be evil. (EDIT) Actually, Self Flagellation, and similar lines of behavior, are not evil, but involve pain.
Retribution, is not evil on its own.
Slaughter, yeah, thats in the evil region as well.

So Greed (Subjective), and Slaughter, would all fall under almost certainly default 'easy to define' evil concepts.
Domination, Might, Pain (see edit), and Retribution? Those can all be just.

I dont know, I always come back to 'what are we calling evil'. If its basic stuff like 'this NPC raises the dead to kidnap villagers' thats a well duh kinda moment to me. You dont need to label that as evil to understand that it is intrinsically so.

But if we classify Evil (just using the label) as things like favouring Might, or Retribution..that makes the term a bit more nuanced, to me.

I understand the usage in D&D, I understand the appeal as short hand, but its only acceptable I believe to me, because I look at it as a label for a definition that I personally accept.

spite works so much better and hate.

 

[Scribe]

Yes, it is. Domination, “on its own” is the taking of power over others without their consent, using force or the threat of force. Which is unambiguously evil.

"He Dominated the competition."

Nope, its not evil.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Great example.

The motivation for creating the mindless undead is neutral. Providing for one's family is fairly self serving, but this doesn't harm anyone. At least that's the way it looks on the surface.

If we look a little deeper we can make solid arguments that this is actually an evil act. For one, in some editions the creation of undead involves tying the corpse to the negative energy plain (or equivalent) and allows a little more evil into the world with each casting. Of more immediate concern is the actual skeleton. The skellie is doing productive work while controlled, but as soon as control is lost it reverts to a mindless killing machine in close proximity to lots of innocents. Should the caster die unexpectedly, run out of spell slots for any number of reasons and not refresh the casting, or lose control for any number of reasons the skeleton doesn't simply stop working. It kills as many living beings as possible before someone puts it down. That is criminally negligent at best, and down right diabolical at worst.

but why is the negative plane evil it should just be neutral? why do they turn to mindless killing machines other than someone programmed them that way?