D&D General D&D doesn't need Evil

One thing I haven't seen discussed in this thread: evil vs. Evil.

evil is what's been discussed so far, orcs, the human stuff in Game of Thrones etc. Mostly, mortals doing bad stuff against each other. D&D seems to be moving away from needing evil in this context already. There are no longer spells that detect evil (small e) or protect against it. Alignment hasn't mattered, on this front, for some time - certainly not in 5e.

So in that sense, we don't even have "evil" so much anymore - it's just a label on a character sheet or stat block (and some stat blocks don't even have it).

Evil, on the other hand, is different. Undead, Demons, Devils etc. They are not "evil" but "Evil" - and that means something a bit different - more monolithic and enduring. D&D (5e) still has means to detect and protect against Evil and treats it as a wholly different concept than just run of the mill mortals doing bad stuff. I don't think every campaign needs Evil, but I do think D&D as a whole does - a monolithic force that's bigger than the petty us vs. them squabbles of mortals.

Umbran said:

Not really. It is a conscious choice, and has different implications depending on the direction.

Players inferring it from materials presented to them is their opinion. It implies nothing for the world at large.

The game using it as a definitional term, however, leaves to no room for error (as it is definitional), and has significant implications for the world at large.

Click to expand...

If something in the game is labelled as evil its actions will reflect that. (label leads to actions). If something in the game does a series of evil acts it'll end up getting labelled as evil (actions lead to label). Chicken and egg.

Umbran said:

As a very simple example - in past editions, Good and Evil were cosmic forces that could be detected, manipulated, and used by magic (see, for example, Protection from Evil). They were part of the metaphysics of the universe.

Click to expand...

Exactly, and in D&D I wouldn't have it any other way.

Does D&D need evil? Need? Probably not. Core part of the genre and game? Yeah.

I do think how D&D treats evil has shifted over the decades, and with good reason. The more we analyze our stories, from literature and mythology, the more we realize (sometimes uncomfortably) that the concept of "good" and "evil" is often problematic, and also often racist/xenophobic.

In real life, people can make evil (selfish) choices or good (altruistic) choices . . . but cosmic or inherent good/evil? Nah, doesn't exist. But we often ascribe evil to those who are different, or fail to see the full humanity in those who do commit evil (selfish) actions. Evil creatures in myth and legend often (not always) parallel racist stereotypes of "other people". It's where we get the orc (or drow) problem in modern D&D gaming and storytelling.

Does that mean we should get rid of good and evil from our D&D games? I don't think we need to do that, although each table (or campaign) will vary. But I do think moving away from having creatures or races being inherently evil (or good) is a good start.

Even demons and devils? Yeah. There's plenty of modern fiction presenting devils/demons as not really capital "E" evil, but more on the losing side of a cosmic war, or filling a necessary role in the cosmos, or unfairly condemned to eternal torture . . . . plenty of examples of not-all-that-evil demons/devils. This would correspond to D&D-style devils (baatezu). Elder beings of cosmic horror, like D&D-style demons, aren't really evil either, but more alien, destructive, and antagonistic to mortal life. They all still make great adversaries.

I think the problem, or discomfort, I have with how good and evil are often used in D&D (and other gaming or fiction) . . . . is that it's often reductive.

If we label something "evil", we can kill it without remorse or guilt. If we label something "good", we can generally trust it to not harm us. This goes for individual characters or species/races, organizations, etc.

Labeling something (or someone) as good or evil takes complexity and reduces it down to simplicity. To me, that's dangerous storytelling, and also not as interesting storytelling.

Dire Bare said:

I think the problem, or discomfort, I have with how good and evil are often used in D&D (and other gaming or fiction) . . . . is that it's often reductive.

If we label something "evil", we can kill it without remorse or guilt. If we label something "good", we can generally trust it to not harm us. This goes for individual characters or species/races, organizations, etc.

Click to expand...

I certainly think there is a danger of that yes. The trick is to recognize that it happens and to make sure the interactions/associations are still interesting. And again, good and evil are now more fluid labels when it comes to most organizations/individuals.

One good model - the Vorlons of Babylon 5. You spend much of the show thinking they are the "Good" guys but it becomes apparent that order (as they see it) is not necessarily good - certainly not from a mortal perspective

Dire Bare said:

Labeling something (or someone) as good or evil takes complexity and reduces it down to simplicity. To me, that's dangerous storytelling, and also not as interesting storytelling.

Click to expand...

IMO, that depends. Nothing wrong with a game where the bad guys are BAD guys and the players don't have to wade through morality quagmires , some players greatly prefer that. On the other hand, some groups greatly prefer complex interactions where "good" guys do bad things and "bad" guys are actually doing the greater good. And of course, many (most) prefer a mix.

Yup.

Lyxen said:

Second, just because you don't put evil labels doesn't mean that evil does not exist. Raising dead people and condemning them to an eternity of suffering as your servants is clearly evil. Defending someone that is doing this to villagers is certainly not good.

Click to expand...

2500 years of philosophy say it’s not that cut and dried.

TheAlkaizer said:

Well, yes, these are all morally reprehensible things to do. But you have to put things into context, not that I'm excusing these things.

There's a reason we don't (at least in my part of the world) judge premeditated the same way we do crimes of passion. Or that we don't judge children the same way we do adults, or that we consider mental illness to be a factor in determining someone's intents.

What Jaime Lannister does, most of the cast of the show would have done (or actually have, or enabled it indirectly). In many ways, the book series is a commentary on the social and political system of the middle ages. But in my opinion, being born in such a system and having to partake in it is bad, but there's understanding that society builds itself and forces the individuals inside it to act in a certain way. Soldiers fighting a war are not inherently evil, yet they do evil things.

Jaime is raised in a system where it's a us vs them mentality. We win or they win. It's family before anything else. The most important thing is to save your family. And he acts accordingly to that system.

There might be a linguistic factor is (english not being my mother tongue), my understanding of the word evil might not be as deep as yours. Evil in french could be translated as "mal", which is also used as a word for wrong and mad. But evil to me, is something done out of malice, out of wanting to hurt others to hurt them.

Once again, that doesn't excuse the actions themselves. But excusing and understanding are not the same. But one is important to how we judge these things today.

Click to expand...

Evil to me means profoundly immoral or wicked. The later part, wicked would match up to your definition above and involve malice. The former doesn't required malice, just profound immorality.

I get what you are saying. We definitely view things differently now than people did in the era that Jaime is set in. However, people in that era knew that raping woman harmed them and was wrong. Many armies forbade it from happening and killed those who engaged in it. They knew that murder was wrong, which is why it was a crime. They may have been willing to do these things for family and/or country, but they still knew it was wrong to do them and did them anyway. That's profound immorality, even if it was not outright malicious(wicked).

Basically, Jaime might not have been the most evil bastard in the world, but he was still evil in my eyes. At least until after he lost his hand. At that point he had what would in D&D terms be an alignment shift.

To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton (frequently misattributed to Sir Terry):

“D&D does not tell people the evil exists. People already know that evil exists. D&D tells people that evil can be defeated.”

I think there's something to be said for being able to defeat tangible, real evil within the game. To being able to stand up to injustice and see it cast down.

That being said, I also think that the game becomes way more interesting when enemies have a motivation beyond just "we're evil" and that you can't just have whole peoples be unredeemably evil. There's room for an elf necromancer that is evil because they view the dead, the living, and the undead as just things that serve their selfish needs, and a good (or at least non-evil) orc necromancer that animates skeletons to protect their village from dangerous monsters in the wild. And the game becomes more vibrant, more interesting for having the both of them in it.

Maxperson said:

If someone who murders peasants, steals their food and torches their fields, brings in women to be raped, commits incest, and throws children off of towers is not evil to you, I shudder to imagine what someone has to do in order to be considered evil.

Click to expand...

Which then leads to the Darth Vader question:

At what point does a character become irredeemably evil?