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

[Lyxen]

If I recall correctly, that's essentially what Gygax had Mordenkainen's view being back in the "original" Greyhawk campaign. It's been brought out in a few of the supplements.

Of course, that's not how good and evil work - but it's a game so maybe they do!

It works really well for games, and it was certainly Gygax' views, although I think they were heavily influenced by Moorcock's writing on the cosmic balance, which has already its own servants and actually city (Maybe a precursor to Sigil ?).

And it was developped in Gygax' books as well, in which Gord becomes an agent for balance, although because evil is so much stronger than good in the situation, it mostly aligns itself with good, although it can also employ more sneaky and debatable means of action.

The books are not that well written, but there are interesting things in there, in particular for fans of G1-3/D1-3, there are a few NPCs that you might recognise.

 

[grimslade]

Does D&D need Evil? No. You can happily play with complex morals and shades of grey. I think D&D can benefit from having Evil in play. A group of Harengon bandits can be brutal and cruel, without giving the Paladin a headache from the existential corruption and taint of their souls in the world. Now a group of demonic cultists and their summoned demon friend might corrupt the world with their very presence. It is a different feel, but nice to have as an option for games.

 

[BookTenTiger]

You can. But I might have missed the point of the thread. Are we literally talking about evil only as an alignment or as a concept in general as it relates to the game?

The OP states good and evil as concepts, which are greater in scope than alignment.

Eh, to be fair I've been using it both ways.

 

[BookTenTiger]

They're not.
Good and Evil are NOT subjective.
Good: anything that brings advantage, gain, benefit, happiness, to yourself and/or others.
Evil: anything that brings disadantage, loss, harm, sadness, to yourself and/or others.

I don't know if I have just misunderstood the word, but to me you have just described the concept of "subjective."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Here's an idea:

D&D doesn't need evil.

It totally depends on how you are running the game.

I think that in order to have a lot of the lore of D&D as it related to D&D's cosmology, you do need the concept of objective good and evil (and law and chaos, for that matter).

It doesn't mean that you have to use it for PCs, or for most monsters; but there has been a lot of ink spilled and books written about the outer planes- and they have been built around this supposition.

It's entirely possible to play without these concepts (I imagine most games don't even get to the point where the outer planes, or D&D overall cosmology, make a difference), but the concept of objective good and evil, law and chaos, is hard-baked into a lot of concepts of D&D. You don't necessarily need it, but it is certainly part and parcel of a good deal of lore of the game ("D&Disms") that go far beyond just the alignment of PCs and humanoids.

 

[Maxperson]

They're not.
Good and Evil are NOT subjective.
Good: anything that brings advantage, gain, benefit, happiness, to yourself and/or others.
Evil: anything that brings disadantage, loss, harm, sadness, to yourself and/or others.

If they're objective, then you can quantify it. How much evil is shoplifting bread? How about shoplifting a diamond? Tripping a little old lady? Bilking her out of her life savings? I need to know so that I can measure it against the good of rescuing a puppy from a river and returning a stolen painting in order to determine the alignment of my PC.

If you play with alignment good and evil are set forces, but even if they are, good and evil are still not objective as the players and DM have to interpret the actions and we do so through real world subjectivity. One person might view any theft as evil. Another might view theft of bread to eat as not evil at all.

You can't escape the subjective nature of good and evil in D&D, even though they are objective forces in game.

 

[Lyxen]

It totally depends on how you are running the game.I think that in order to have a lot of the lore of D&D as it related to D&D's cosmology, you do need the concept of objective good and evil (and law and chaos, for that matter).

Indeed, it's fundamental for the Great Wheel in particular.

It doesn't mean that you have to use it for PCs, or for most monsters; but there has been a lot of ink spilled and books written about the outer planes- and they have been built around this supposition.

It's entirely possible to play without these concepts (I imagine most games don't even get to the point where the outer planes, or D&D overall cosmology, make a difference), but the concept of objective good and evil, law and chaos, is hard-baked into a lot of concepts of D&D. You don't necessarily need it, but it is certainly part and parcel of a good deal of lore of the game ("D&Disms") that go far beyond just the alignment of PCs and humanoids.

And, on the other hand, a lot of people in our groups including myself are hardcore fans of Planescape (for us Torment is the best game ever ), and our campaigns usually fairly quickly drift into some planar landscapes.

But it's indeed a matter of taste.

 

[Lyxen]

If they're objective, then you can quantify it. How much evil is shoplifting bread? How about shoplifting a diamond? Tripping a little old lady? Bilking her out of her life savings? I need to know so that I can measure it against the good of rescuing a puppy from a river and returning a stolen painting in order to determine the alignment of my PC.

And this is exactly what fiends do when weighing your soul and your sins.

If you play with alignment good and evil are set forces, but even if they are, good and evil are still not objective as the players and DM have to interpret the actions and we do so through real world subjectivity. One person might view any theft as evil. Another might view theft of bread to eat as not evil at all.

You can't escape the subjective nature of good and evil in D&D, even though they are objective forces in game.

The one thing that you are not accounting for is the fact that there is a DM, who actually has the objective view of he multiverse on your actions, and who plays the archons and devils you weigh your soul, in a purely factual (for them) manner.

Of course, each PC can have a view as to whether his acts were evil or not, and for what reasons, but the DM knows and records everything as your alignment. Once more, it is not prescriptive, it does not tell you how you should play your character "according to his alignment", you play your character exactly the way you want, but the universe, incarnated by the DM, is the one with the objective view.

Again, it's not mandatory to play this way, but if you play with the Great Wheel and most standard D&D settings,

 

[Maxperson]

And this is exactly what fiends do when weighing your soul and your sins.

You can say, "the devil weighs your soul." in the game, but no actual objective weighing occurs. The DM cannot do it, because the DM cannot possibly be objective about it. He MUST use his subjective interpretation of good and evil to do any weighing.

The one thing that you are not accounting for is the fact that there is a DM, who actually has the objective view of he multiverse on your actions, and who plays the archons and devils you weigh your soul, in a purely factual (for them) manner.

The DM has no objective view of my actions. That's impossible unless he knows in real life how much evil killing a little old lady gives vs. the good of saving 10 kids from a fire. He doesn't and can't, so he can only have his subjective opinion of my actions. Or are you saying that the DM's subjective interpretations of good and evil become objective for the game?

 

[Lyxen]

You can say, "the devil weighs your soul." in the game, but no actual objective weighing occurs. The DM cannot do it, because the DM cannot possibly be objective about it. He MUST use his subjective interpretation of good and evil to do any weighing.

Of course, as a person, the DM's interpretation is subjective, but what matters is that, in the game world, his interpretation is the supremely objective one by definition.

And as the players trust him to run the universe objectively in all matters, including this one, it should works perfectly well, and it does at our tables.

The DM has no objective view of my actions. That's impossible unless he knows in real life how much evil killing a little old lady gives vs. the good of saving 10 kids from a fire. He doesn't and can't, so he can only have his subjective opinion of my actions. Or are you saying that the DM's subjective interpretations of good and evil become objective for the game?

Yes, it's exactly that, because it's a roleplaying game. As a person living in the real world, his view is totally subjective, but just as the other players play their characters with their personality, the DM plays the absolute truth of his universe.