D&D General D&D doesn't need Evil

TheSword said:

I do think its an important part of the D&D portfolio and mythos and an expected part of the D&D landscape. Like spell levels and stat points. Lots of things aren’t necessary but if you remove to many of them it stops being D&D and starts looking like… something else.

Click to expand...

This is the strongest argument in favor of alignment sticking around, in my opinion. Which for me is a clear sign it has outlived its usefulness and should be phased out. But, I like 4e, so what do I know?

TheSword said:

Which is useful in and of itself.

Click to expand...

OK, how?

Umbran said:

Anchovies aren't strictly necessary for pizza... or D&D. Is that a threat to either pizza or D&D?

Click to expand...

What?! Next thing you know you'll be telling me a plain piece of flatbread with no toppings is a pizza!

#nochanges (That's a World of Warcraft Classic joke, FYI. I even spelled it out to be sure you got it. I won't add a second smiley though.)

One more drive-by: If you're ever in Portland, Oregon, be sure to visit Secret Pizza Society and get their Pyro Pizza. (That's Pyro like Gyro, not like Pyro...maniac.)

Mort said:

Even with this minimal context it's not that little.

It says she's willing to work within the system and likely works ok in a group (lawful). And that she's willing to use means good people wouldn't to accomplish her goals which also (as she's an adversary) conflict with those of the group in some way.

At in even a few more details (class, social position etc) and the two letters crystallize the position further.

The descriptor is by no means the be all end all, but it can help put things in context and add some flavor with minimal effort.

Click to expand...

But the problem is, by adding in the class, social position, goals, etc., you've come up with the two paragraphs that "LE" is supposed to replace. "Willing to work within a system and willing to use non-good means" is by itself practically useless information since, quite frankly, other evil and neutral beings are willing to work within the system to one degree or another (chaotic beings don't automatically flout the system any more than lawful beings automatically obey it slavishly) and are willing to use non-good means.

Charlaquin said:

Ok, but OP’s point was you don’t need evil, not that you shouldn’t use it.

Click to expand...

You need one race. That's it. Nothing else in D&D is needed. You don't need classes, hit points, armor class, spells, monsters, skills, and so on. It can all be changed to something else or ignored. In my opinion using the lack of need as the reason to get rid of something is silly.

Faolyn said:

But the problem is, by adding in the class, social position, goals, etc., you've come up with the two paragraphs that "LE" is supposed to replace. "Willing to work within a system and willing to use non-good means" is by itself practically useless information since, quite frankly, other evil and neutral beings are willing to work within the system to one degree or another (chaotic beings don't automatically flout the system any more than lawful beings automatically obey it slavishly) and are willing to use non-good means.

Click to expand...

To me, you're just adding context.

And IMO, it adds more than enough to justify its existence.

But again, don't like it, don't worry about it /use it.

niklinna said:

What?! Next thing you know you'll be telling me a plain piece of flatbread with no toppings is a pizza!

Click to expand...

Bread and cheese, and being basically flat. There's several forms of bread that will do. We can quibble about sauces, or lack thereof. It can be deep, it can be stuffed, it can be square and thick, or round and thin, cut in wedges or squares. It can be Chicago or Sicilian or New York. If it is edible, it can be a topping.

We can quibble that maybe anything called "flatbread" should be excluded not by form, but by basic principle that pizza does not countenance the cynical pretention of taking a different name to market it to hipsters.

Maxperson said:

You need one race. That's it. Nothing else in D&D is needed. You don't need classes, hit points, armor class, spells, monsters, skills, and so on. It can all be changed to something else or ignored. In my opinion using the lack of need as the reason to get rid of something is silly.

Click to expand...

I agree that D&D doesn't need more than one race. It doesn't necessarily need classes, HP, AC, spells, monsters, skills, etc. but it does need game mechanics to be a game, and many of those mechanics have good reasons for existing in the game. Also, I don't think the OP said "get rid of evil in D&D," they just said "D&D doesn't need evil." Getting rid of it is baggage you're adding.

Now, personally, I think alignment causes problems due to its contentiousness, and should be removed for that reason. And since, as OP has observed, D&D doesn't need it, I don't see much in the way of good reasons for it to continue existing in the game. The main one seems to be tradition, and a secondary one seems to be "a shorthand." I don't care about the former and I think the latter could be satisfied with something less contentious.

Mort said:

To me, you're just adding context.

And IMO, it adds more than enough to justify its existence.

But again, don't like it, funny worry about it /use it.

Click to expand...

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

Charlaquin said:

Now, personally, I think alignment causes problems due to its contentiousness, and should be removed for that reason. And since, as OP has observed, D&D doesn't need it, I don't see much in the way of good reasons for it to continue existing in the game. The main one seems to be tradition, and a secondary one seems to be "a shorthand." I don't care about the former and I think the latter could be satisfied with something less contentious.

Click to expand...

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 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.

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.

*Rather, ex-succubus, since she actually managed (without realizing it) to change her true name. During the War in Heaven, she was Al-Yattara. After various journeys and getting a legitimate shot at changing her ways, she found she actually really loved the mortal world, because it was full of so many beautiful things, things that would be lost in the cacophany of her unending hunger if she fed it. Then she met a human, Badr, that legitimately charmed her, and they raised a family together, though that was long ago. Her great-grandson is the party bard, who helped her realize that her husband is the one who gave her her new name, Zamira. She was his nightingale as he was her moon.