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

[TheSword]

But you can have those things without having to label them evil. These fall under OP’s definition of “adversaries.”

Here you’re using a word on its own definition. What makes these artifacts and gods Evil? If you have an answer to that, you have what makes them adversarial to the PCs and therefore don’t need the “Evil” label.

Right, adversaries.

Evil adversaries can be more impactful than neutral ones. It’s just a different type of game.

If you don’t like the idea of objective evil then obviously you aren’t going to think evil is needed in D&D.

 

[Charlaquin]

Evil adversaries can be more impactful than neutral ones. It’s just a different type of game.

If you don’t like the idea of objective evil then obviously you aren’t going to think evil is needed in D&D.

What I’m saying is, if your adversaries actually act evil, the evil label is irrelevant.

 

[jayoungr]

"Doesn't need"? Sure, I'll agree with that.

"Shouldn't have"? That's blocking off too much story space for my comfort.

 

[Mort]

That’s literally the point of the OP though. If you “show don’t tell” why your enemies should be killed, it doesn’t matter if you call them evil or not. It’s semantics. The only time it matters is if your ostensibly evil characters aren’t actually coming across as evil.

"evil" in the descriptor is just that - it's a reminder that this is a bad guy. It's easy, it's unambiguous and it conveys quickly to the DM what he should be looking for in this particular NPC. also it's gotten to be bit of a term of art in D&D. When you see LG in the descriptor, you know (as the DM) where this NPC likely stands. When you see CE, same thing. Could the concepts be conveyed in a different manner? Sure, but why change something that works?

I’ll ask you what I asked Oofta then. Unless you’re showing the stat block to the players, what does having “evil” written in it actually accomplish?

It conveys, in one word or less, what I can expect from the monster/npc. Again, it's a shortcut for when you don't need more. And even if it's an important NPC - it's a quick label on top of the actual actions.

Labels mean something. It's nice to be able to cut through a 2 page description of various deeds down to 2 letters-CE. This is a game, the descriptor simplifies things for the game and distills concepts - for the game. Hence it's useful.

 

[billd91]

Right, sure, I get that people enjoy games with clearly defined sides. These are the good guys, these are the bad guys. But the point is, if your bad guys are actually bad, the evil label isn’t doing anything. The only time I can imagine the label not being superfluous is if the “evil” creatures or characters don’t actually behave in a way that’s recognizably evil. If your monsters act like people, then labeling them as evil gives you permission to kill them without guilt anyway, and personally, I find that pretty uncomfortable. But if your monsters act like monsters, you don’t need the evil label to excuse killing them. The fact that they act like monsters should already be doing that job.

Depends what you mean by "act like monsters" vs "act like people". Would a group of monstrously evil creatures be less evil because they were spotted cooking food and/or joking around a campfire? Or do 100% of their actions have to be recognizably evil to be guilt-free victims of righteous violence?
Even Strahd probably has events in his day that aren't recognizably evil and are the things normal people do - like sleeping or reading a good book. Should the fact that he does them give anyone pause in their resolution that he should be destroyed? Or are the monstrous things he does, when he does monstrous things, enough to qualify?

 

[Mort]

What I’m saying is, if your adversaries actually act evil, the evil label is irrelevant.

And the evil label can be there to remind the GM that these adversaries SHOULD be acting evil.

Rather than an adversary that's actually good. the "good" label can be there to remind the GM to have this adversary NOT act evilly.

A one word reminder (especially when things are moving quickly) can be a better aid to the DM than an entire paragraph of explanation.

 

[Umbran]

if you are asking what makes a ‘game’ a game I will humbly bow out.

I am not, and I have no clue how you might come to the idea that I might be.

 

[Oofta]

I’m not sure how the label helps you here. As DM, you created the scenario, you know the villain or monster is bad, with or without the label. So unless you’re just outright telling the players it’s evil when they see it, what’s the label actually doing?

Nobody said you should be running philosophy 501?

What I’m not understanding is what those other margins are? Where is it useful to have a label for evil

Right, sure, I get that people enjoy games with clearly defined sides. These are the good guys, these are the bad guys. But the point is, if your bad guys are actually bad, the evil label isn’t doing anything. The only time I can imagine the label not being superfluous is if the “evil” creatures or characters don’t actually behave in a way that’s recognizably evil. If your monsters act like people, then labeling them as evil gives you permission to kill them without guilt anyway, and personally, I find that pretty uncomfortable. But if your monsters act like monsters, you don’t need the evil label to excuse killing them. The fact that they act like monsters should already be doing that job.

That’s literally the point of the OP though. If you “show don’t tell” why your enemies should be killed, it doesn’t matter if you call them evil or not. It’s semantics. The only time it matters is if your ostensibly evil characters aren’t actually coming across as evil.

I’ll ask you what I asked Oofta then. Unless you’re showing the stat block to the players, what does having “evil” written in it actually accomplish?

I run a very open game, people can do whatever they want and frequently games take turns I don't expect.

A quick label helps me remember the role later on.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Demons and Devils are rarely played or perceived, IME, as Chaotic Evil vs. Lawful Evil, but, rather, as chaotic EVIL vs. lawful EVIL. Nuance is functionally absent when good and evil exist as an objective reality.

Frankly, this is due to how these entities have been characterized, entirely outside/separately from their alignment. And mostly, it's because these allegedly super-intelligent beings are really quite stupid and fail to learn from their mistakes, repeatedly.

E.g., devils are associated with making contracts, usually that involve signing over one's soul. Except that almost every devil then immediately proceeds to try to cheat the contractee out of as much as they can, while denying the contractee any rights whatsoever that aren't in the contract. They have earned reputations of being liars, cheaters, and thieves--making them no different from Neutral or even Chaotic Evil other than the window-dressing they use to achieve their aims. Further, even among their own kind, such open disdain for truth, correct conduct, and forthright dealing is commonplace. Most devils seek "Klingon promotions" as TVTropes puts it.

My devils, and my demons, aren't stupid, though demons can be easier to manipulate due to their fundamentally impulsive, desire-driven nature. Devils make genuinely honest contracts, contracts that clients will want to fulfill and that THEY want fulfilled. And they seem to give away great power at a tiny cost because they're earning power you can't see, can't touch, because it's wrapped up in symbols and hierarchies and cosmic order that is literally outside the perceptions of mortals. A devil, call him Malael, might contract a heroic adventurer to kill, by certain symbolic means, a man who has secretly murdered children and who will never be caught. Of course, it is irrelevant that the reason Malael wants this murderer dead is that the murderer has a contract with a different devil, and killing the servants of that devil proves Malael's greater status and power. When the business is concluded, it is genuinely so, though any good businessman will tell you that you check in with past clients to see how they're doing from time to time...and to offer your services.

Souls are a crappy consolation prize compared to gaining influence and prestige in Hell. You certainly can use souls, but that's primitive stuff, child's play. The ultimate goal is rather to get more, and more powerful, servants who are beholden to you just as you are beholden to your liege-lord. Sure, you want to replace your liege-lord, but you must do so correctly, lest you lose all the contracts and obligations others owe to them. Prestige and legitimacy are of paramount importance, and the difference between "real" and "symbolic" victory begins to vanish--words have meaning and names have power, and symbols transform and control.

Demons are, by comparison, simpler folk, but that doesn't make them safe, nor stupid. Ruled by gnawing hungers and thirsts that cannot be slaked, they desire fulfillment of desire, and thus tend to raise people up quickly...and bring people down hard and fast. Negotiating with a devil is scary because you never truly know how much the other side is winning, even if you ARE truly, sincerely getting everything you wanted. Plying a demon (they aren't generally the "negotiating" type, though exceptions exist) is scary because they are flighty, impulsive, and absolutely ready and willing to pull a Vader "I'm modifying the deal, pray I do not modify it further." Plus, again, they see and feel what mortals can't. They know the deep secrets, the ways that a million small actions, the prayers and sins of mortals, the falling of the leaves, the rising of the sun, children singing a particular song, all wrap together to be and become the continuation of the world. They know that corruption or control are served by certain actions even if no mortal, no matter how smart, could see those connections. It is extraordinarily rare for a human to be better-informed about reality and the effects of future choices than an outsider would be. They simply do not have the same awareness of reality.

So, I want to dive into this a little further. I recognize that many people find the label of “evil” useful (I’m not going to get into big E vs. little E here, I don’t think it’s really relevant to the point). But I struggle to understand why. Maybe you can help me make sense of it.

Let’s look at a more specific example, instead of talking in broad, abstract terms. And let’s use an example that’s less loaded than always-evil races. Let’s say instead we’ve got a villain. Call him Stroud Van Shmarovich. Now, Stroud is clearly a bad guy, who does lots of bad things. He’s a tyrant who rules over the duchy of Blargovia, oppressing its people and menacing one woman in particular - Aileen - who he wants to force to become his bride. And imagine also that he’s a vampire, so he literally feeds on the blood of Blargovians to sustain himself, and he will theoretically rule forever if someone doesn’t kill him. So, the adventurers have to track down a magic spear (cause it’s like a big stake!) and kill him to save Aileen and free Blargovia.

What does it matter whether we describe Stroud as evil or not? Does it change the adventure in any way?

Two responses.

The first is that you have, by the very construction of the example, moved out of the primary domain of usefulness of "evil." The term is, to some extent, inherently an abstraction; by demanding that we never speak in anything but singular, discrete, concrete realities, of course one can argue that "evil" must be useless, because we're not allowed to speak about the places where it is most useful. "Evil," as a label, bundles together a lot of things, in much the same way that "good" does; e.g. if someone says "I'm trying to be a good person," though they are speaking abstractly, that abstraction is still useful, because it signals that this person has realized that some of their past actions are blame-worthy and that they are putting in the work to stop their blame-worthy actions and commit to virtuous ones instead. Likewise, someone saying, "What I did was evil," is not just admitting that they committed some past action, but rather that they have come to understand and accept that they deserve blame and feel guilt and remorse about that action. It is, most certainly, the case that "X person is evil" can only be determined after observing something like "X person coerces others into abusive romantic relationships," "X person tortures prisoners," or "X person kills innocent people for their personal enjoyment." But by that same token, things like "X object has a color resembling the ocean and the sky" or "X object emits a sound like an avalanche or a bomb" must be observed before we can call objects "blue" or "loud," yet these abstractions linked to physically-observable states of behaviors are perfectly acceptable. (And certainly colors are abstractions, otherwise languages wouldn't have so much disagreement about how many of them there are. Categorizing sounds by loudness is more concrete, but still abstracted across many distinct instances with little in common: 100 dB is abstract unless it is represented as some specific pressure wave, and could be a roaring furnace, a concert, or a trumpet right in your ear.)

The second is a bit different, and perhaps overly technical. You mention all these things: feeding on the life-force of others, coercion of weaker people into relationships, relationships that are built on a dramatic power differential. And I mentioned other things, like deriving joy from killing individuals that are unrelated to oneself or one's situation, or intentionally inflicting pain on individuals over whom you have power. But you may notice a common thread in the descriptions I just gave: none of them imply any need for action on anyone else's part. Why should I care that these facts are true? What factor turns these "is" statement into any kind of "ought" statements for me, or indeed for anyone? Obviously if I wish to avoid being coerced etc. then I should avoid this Stroud fellow, but apart from that, the brute fact "is" statements compel nothing from me. Unless, that is, we are including an implicit evaluative judgment. Unless we are saying, "Stroud has done X and Y and Z, and those things are blame-worthy." Sweeping the evaluative judgment under the rug by simply assuming that we all agree that it is wrong(!) to coerce or to torture or to enjoy the killing of innocents does not in any way mean the evaluative judgment did not happen. And the common thread through all these evaluative judgments is not merely that they are wrong, but that they are of sufficient wrongness that anyone who has the power to prevent these actions from continuing to occur should--even must--do so. English has a word very specifically for this kind of thing, for actions that are so severely wrong, they must be opposed by any who have the means to do so. That word is "evil."

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I am not, and I have no clue how you might come to the idea that I might be.

Forget that—let’s move on.

you said interests and likes are not relevant.

if the rules of the game include a concept that impacts the game, it’s needed.

if we have detect evil and evil magic items that only work for evil characters, evil is essential.

if you don’t like to include that in your 5e game, it is not necessary. Evil is necessary in 1e AD&D. It is not necessary in 5e.

you can certainly play games without evil but not games that have in game effects associated with it.

clearly you do not need “evil” to play checkers. If you are playing 1e, the rules suggest that you do need evil.

can you play a game without evil? Refer to checkers and 5e.

it depends which game you are playing and which rule set you prefer to use.