D&D General D&D doesn't need Evil

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
One leads to the other either way - it's very much a chicken-and-egg situation.

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.

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.

The party's idea that an NPC is, in fact, a bad dude that just needs killin' - not so much implication for universal metaphysics.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

TheAlkaizer

Game Designer
Sure. To me, the evil of murder offsets any good in the situation and is at best neutral.
And to me, it doesn't. Jaime Lannister is a tragic character. To me, he's very far from what I'd consider evil. But that's the issue that's already been raised in this thread. Evil is a very subjective concept. It ties into complex topics like ethics and morals.

So saying that something is evil in a tabletop game relates to someone like you that that individual could break his oath and murder his king to save the life of thousands of innocents, to me, it doesn't.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Sure. However, there's a huge difference between deducing that the word is apt based on evidence, and using the word as a prescriptive definition.
I get that. My response was in the context of the thread and the OP which said...

"I would argue that no D&D adventure actually needs the concepts of "good" and "evil" to be successful. D&D only needs the idea of an "objective" and "adversaries." Good and Evil are often shorthand for these, but are not needed."

My point is that the concept will be present, whether or not alignment or any explicit reference to evil is made.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
And to me, it doesn't. Jaime Lannister is a tragic character. To me, he's very far from what I'd consider evil. But that's the issue that's already been raised in this thread. Evil is a very subjective concept. It ties into complex topics like ethics and morals.

So saying that something is evil in a tabletop game relates to someone like you that that individual could break his oath and murder his king to save the life of thousands of innocents, to me, it doesn't.
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.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
And to me, it doesn't. Jaime Lannister is a tragic character.

"Tragic" and "evil" are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed, we can say he is tragic - and when we first see him he is a pretty horrible person (willingness to casually kill children to protect personal reputation is had to call "neutral" or "good"). He then has a redemption arc - the effectiveness of which is left to the reader to decide.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
My point is that the concept will be present, whether or not alignment or any explicit reference to evil is made.

Yes, but back in the day, Doritos and Mountain Dew were present, even if no explicit reference to them was made. That doesn't mean they were necessary. In fact, they were not.

We should not confuse "traditional" or "a common result" for "necessary".
 

pming

Legend
Hiya!
Here's an idea:

D&D doesn't need evil.

I would argue that no D&D adventure actually needs the concepts of "good" and "evil" to be successful. D&D only needs the idea of an "objective" and "adversaries." Good and Evil are often shorthand for these, but are not needed.

Let's take an extremely simple adventure:

A necromancer has occupied a local dungeon, and their skeletons and zombies are raiding a nearby village for resources. The characters are hired to stop the necromancer.

Does the necromancer have to be evil? Let's say the necromancer has hired some Tough Guys as guards. Do they need to be evil?
Yes...because sending undead out to 'raid' a village (killing, harming and stealing) is an EVIL ACT in the D&D game. So yeah...in this case, he's evil.

In my opinion, no. They only need to oppose the characters, and try to prevent the characters from achieving their goal. This is all the justification needed for characters to use their tools and abilities against them.
It's not what the "bad guy" has for justification. That is irrelevant. It's what and how he goes about trying to get what he wants that will determine his alignment...if he's evil or not.

In this sample adventure, all the "enemies" just need motivation- what they want. The necromancer wants to raise an army of undead in order to attack a nearby kingdom. The Toughs want to protect the necromancer because they're getting paid. The villagers want to be left alone in peace. Whether the necromancer or the toughs or even the villagers are good, neutral, or evil are pretty irrelevant.

Now I'll admit that Good and Evil tend to be shorthands for motivation. But to me, the ideas of Good and Evil are so subjective that they are less useful than actual motivations.
To you, they may be subjective...to the game of D&D...they are not. If you want to toss out alignments in your game, go for it. You can then drench your campaign in "but that's what my PC/NPC would do" juice and it can be a very fun game. Many games out there don't have any sort of an "Alignment" system in them and they run fine. But we are talking about D&D here...where Alignment is a metaphysical/multiplanar "thing", with a definition in the Rules.

What do you think?

QUICK NOTE: Because past threads about alignment have gotten heated, let's please stay away from prescribing what other people should do at their own tables, or passing judgment on if other people are doing things right or wrong. This can be a constructive argument!
Impossible. That's like starting a thread about removing Classes and then saying "Ok, lets just talk about it, but please don't anyone try and define what a Class is or what Classes exist in the game". You're asking about "Evil" (and "Good", "Neutral")...and then asking people to not talk about what is Evil/Good/Neutral as defined in the game.

But, as I said above, if you want to remove ALignments from your game, go for it! :) I have done this once or twice before for small little mini-campaigns. Didn't make much difference, but it did, to me, remove a bit of the "feeling of playing D&D".

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 


TheAlkaizer

Game Designer
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

your_mother

Explorer
Here's an idea:

D&D doesn't need evil.

I agree, but here we are, talking about evil.

Let's take an extremely simple adventure:

A necromancer has occupied a local dungeon, and their skeletons and zombies are raiding a nearby village for resources. The characters are hired to stop the necromancer.

Does the necromancer have to be evil? Let's say the necromancer has hired some Tough Guys as guards. Do they need to be evil?

Is the power of necromancy derived from a force that wants to create suffering, destroy, or enslave the world? Because usually "evil" in D&D is about a force that wants to end "good" by killing or enslaving it, right? Isn't that why you have "evil Gods" and all the "evil forces" that follow them are identified by "detect Evil" and therefore, they can be slaughtered by the "Lawful Good Paladin"?

If you're running a game where the "God of Death" is neutral, why would you stop a necromancer? Because he's animating the town's people's deceased ancestors and causing them to suffer? That is an evil act, right?
 

Remove ads

Top