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

[Rogerd1]

One of the better things about 4e was that nothing was actually truly evil, nor truly good - it was a set of choices.

This incessant need to codify all species as being irredeemably evil, or good, does not seem to emulate comics. As this simplified cosmology from 4e, which like Champions, put all the deities, demons etc, in the astral. It just works better, and allows for good / evil mythical beings.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Good vs evil, heroes vs villains sells better than moral gray or anti-heroes because it feeds into a core desire of people everywhere to be the hero in their own life story. I think the game is better off with that flavor of the PCs being the good guys. It's why most public mods are save the world, or at least save the region.

Lucky for you, you can ignore it all you want since it's no longer core to the game and has no mechanical impact.

You do not have to be "good" in order to want to save the world.

Rocket Raccoon: Why would you want to save the galaxy?
Peter Quill/Star-Lord: Because I'm one of the idiots who live there!

And being evil doesn't make you want to destroy it (that's why Ultron is such a rubbish villain - his only reason for wanting to destroy humanity is "'cos I'm evil muah ha hah").

 

[Aldarc]

D&D needs evil. And good! What it doesn't need are Neutral middle-of-the-roaders and fair weather acquaintances! Signed, Robilar, Lawful Evil since 1973, so there!

 

[Rob Kuntz]

*...You know, I remember a time when things were a lot more
"Fun around here
"When good was good, and evil was evil
"Before things got so, fuzzy..." "In the Garden of Allah" by Don Henley

 

[Aldarc]

*...You know, I remember a time when things were a lot more
"Fun around here
"When good was good, and evil was evil
"Before things got so, fuzzy..." "In the Garden of Allah" by Don Henley

I'll be honest, but I'm not all that into Good vs. Evil as a conflict. I'm more of a Law vs. Chaos kind of guy.

 

[Oofta]

Let me clarify:

I think the stories that D&D tells: hero vs villain, treasure hunts, dungeon crawls, epic destinies... don't need Objective Evil. That's not to say the word "evil" isn't going to be thrown around! But because I think evil should be an entirely subjective term, I believe "evil" should be left to the beings of the setting to decide, not the rules.

So for example, you have a classic campaign of the Heroes of the Realm helping fight off an invasion of Hobgoblins, Goblins, and Worgs. To me, labeling the invading force as Evil isn't needed, since you can instead say they are, say, Bloodthirsty Warriors Driven by a Dogmatic Leader. Or... Warriors of an Empire Seeking New Territory. Or so on and so forth.

After all, do you really think a Hobgoblin considers itself to be Evil?

Absolutely nothing changes about the story by removing the idea that the Hobgoblin forces are, by the rules, Evil. The townsfolk they are invading and slaughtering definitely consider them evil!

But I think D&D operates just fine, and in fact better, when Objective Evil is taken out of the rules.

Again, a rose by any other name. If the PCs are opposing enemy X because X is doing evil things, X is evil. Sometimes conflicts can come up for other reasons, but I think part of the appeal of D&D for a significant percentage of players (I'd guess a significant majority, but there's no way of knowing without broad-based polling) is that desire for a more simple world where good and evil are easily identified and defeated. Something different from the real world.

Anyone, any group, any creature I introduce to the game has a role to play in the story. Sometimes it's because they're the evil guys who just need to be stopped. As far as monster alignment labels, I think we should go back to 3.5 and have labels such as "frequently" or "usually" and so on. How they're used in individual games should be up to the group.

I mean, I don't run campaigns where the opponents have big "I'm evil" neon signs, but I also don't shy away from it. For some people cartoon evil works best. For others it's all grey. It's a mix or something in between for others. But ultimately? It's wish fulfillment that we could just somehow identify the "bad/evil" parts of our lives and have some concrete actions we could take to counter them. D&D let's us play that out now and then.

 

[payn]

Why are the rituals evil? What makes the magic dark? What defines the deities as evil?

I think it's likely that these adversarial NPCs have an objective that's met by praying to these gods, and are willing to make whatever sacrifices are needed in order to gain their power. They are powerhungry, cruel, and fanatical, which makes them great opponents and evil in the eyes of most people they encounter.

But the label of evil should come from the setting, not the rules. They are considered evil because they are doing things frowned upon by society for selfish purposes. I don't think the rules should be the ones telling me they are evil.

What do you think?

I like evil being a tangible force in my D&D games, just like law, chaos, Gods, and magic. The settings already inform us of what type of deities and magic is present. I mentioned that I like characters being able to arm and protect themselves for or against such forces. I know 5E has mostly removed this ability but thats one reason its not my preferred D&D.

 

[BookTenTiger]

@Oofta I was actually inspired by a past comment of yours to start this thread.

In the past, you've said you want an enemy labeled as evil so you can pop them in a dungeon and the players know it's okay to kill them.

I still stand by the idea that enemies don't need to be labeled as evil by the rules in order for characters to use their tools (swords, spells, etc) against them.

As long as the enemy opposed their intentions, that's enough.

If there's a room with a treasure chest an a _____ guarding it, it doesn't matter if the rules say the ______ is evil. The fact that it is stopping the characters from getting what they want is all the game needs to justify battle, spellcasting, etc.

Evil is unnecessary.

 

[payn]

@Oofta I was actually inspired by a past comment of yours to start this thread.

In the past, you've said you want an enemy labeled as evil so you can pop them in a dungeon and the players know it's okay to kill them.

I still stand by the idea that enemies don't need to be labeled as evil by the rules in order for characters to use their tools (swords, spells, etc) against them.

As long as the enemy opposed their intentions, that's enough.

If there's a room with a treasure chest an a _____ guarding it, it doesn't matter if the rules say the ______ is evil. The fact that it is stopping the characters from getting what they want is all the game needs to justify battle, spellcasting, etc.

Evil is unnecessary.

It's true that evil can be so much more interesting than a hall pass to murder. Evil societies existing in settings along good ones is an interesting dynamic. A long time ago when I started biking, I was told, "there is always somebody slower than you, but also somebody faster". Evil foes may be too powerful for folks to take head on, or they could be useful against other foes as strange bedfellows. How it comes out in the wash is what makes the game so interesting.

 

[Oofta]

@Oofta I was actually inspired by a past comment of yours to start this thread.

In the past, you've said you want an enemy labeled as evil so you can pop them in a dungeon and the players know it's okay to kill them.

I still stand by the idea that enemies don't need to be labeled as evil by the rules in order for characters to use their tools (swords, spells, etc) against them.

As long as the enemy opposed their intentions, that's enough.

If there's a room with a treasure chest an a _____ guarding it, it doesn't matter if the rules say the ______ is evil. The fact that it is stopping the characters from getting what they want is all the game needs to justify battle, spellcasting, etc.

Evil is unnecessary.

If I have a scenario where the PCs are fighting in a war and the enemy army is making heavy use of conscripts, the PCs will be killing individuals who have no choice. By and large I want to avoid that because I want them to feel like their actions can be justified. I don't want to run games with murder hoboes that are only after treasure, the treasure is incidental to fighting evil and is (normally) only necessary to move the plot forward. I tend to run a relatively resource poor game unless a plot point requires lots of gold such as funding an army.

Now, there will be times when they aren't fighting evil because the variety adds spice and alternative options. If everything is a potential moral dilemma, I think people tend to just throw up their hands and not seriously consider them. Kill that guy who is begging for mercy because he has a wife and kids and had no choice to be there? Just another day that ends in "y". When moral dilemmas are rare they stand out and are significant.

But it still goes back to general theme of the game of being wish fulfillment and being heroes vs villains. If the villains are just the opposition, they're no longer villains. They're just the opposition and there are no heroes, no villains.