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

[FrozenNorth]

I wonder if part of my issue is that the PHB and Monster Manual are written as if they are setting agnostic, and yet certain monsters are labeled as Evil when that would be totally dependent on a setting!

D&D seems to want its cake and to eat it too with respect to setting. It both wants the option for deeper lore that a default setting provides but also clings to the benefits that being “generic” brings.

The result is a muddle. The issues extends beyond the fact that Evil in Faerun is meaningless in Eberron. For instance, with the exception of Theros, new settings tend to have to shoehorn all the PHB races regardless of whether they fit in the setting. Adventures have to write around all D&D spells or specify which spells don’t work and why.

 

[Oofta]

.... Adventures have to write around all D&D spells or specify which spells don’t work and why.

Such as? Not that I'm questioning, I really don't know. I agree that the detect/protect against evil and good is at best misworded because that's not what they do any more. But beyond that? Not sure I see it. Of course I also don't use or read published mods very often either so I could be missing it.

 

[Aldarc]

Not sure how else to interpret things when you say stuff like:

How about "the concept of heroes vs. villians predates the Marvel Cinematic Universe"? Nothing in there accuses people of being primitives who are being brainwashed by Disney. You inserted those words on your own.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Something else that struck me in this thread is the idea of what is evil being decided by the DM. For some reason that never came up for me before! I think I set what is evil to each community in the game, but I let the players (and their characters) decide what they think is evil.

I keep seeing that allusion too and yeah... setting the objective morality of the universe to 'me' is something I'm comfortable with and not a conversation I really want to have with my friends if they try to apply it. Having distant faceless designers telling me lying is evil is bad enough.

Honestly, I find just not doing Evil to be easier than trying to enforce it. The bad guys are doing a thing for reasons; there's a reason to stop them. Done. You're doing a thing for reasons. Someone has reason to stop you. Done. The second I start making moral judgements about something normal people accept but some weirdos might find wrong like murdering wrong-doers without trial and looting their corpses, now we have to stop playing and talk about it because I'm not about to force them to accept it just because I'm the DM.

 

[Oofta]

How about "the concept of heroes vs. villians predates the Marvel Cinematic Universe"? Nothing in there accuses people of being primitives who are being brainwashed by Disney. You inserted those words on your own.

It may not be what you meant but it certainly reads that way to me.

I was simply using MCEU as an example of a successful product versus say, The Watchmen or several other media enterprises that depict a more morally gray area. It's one example of how successful having fairly clear-cut heroes and villains can be. Adding in some complexity to both sides just makes for better story telling even if it still boils down to "Good vs Evil" and "Doing what's right".

I think D&D having a default but not exclusive of heroes vs villains, good vs evil is a big part of it's success. Add in that animal studies have repeatedly shown that a sense of right and wrong, basic morality, is hard wired into humans and a wide variety of animals.

Hence I disagree with the premise laid out by the OP. D&D may not need "evil" but I think it's more successful because of it's inclusion. That's all.

 

[Aldarc]

It may not be what you meant but it certainly reads that way to me.

Then that's your personal hang-up, but it's not what I wrote.

 

[le Redoutable]

And what about celebration = reputation x popularity ?

 

[Blue Orange]

I always wondered how much the general trend of other RPGs lacking good and evil was a reaction to D&D. I mean, White Wolf still had good and evil, but it was more evil-trying-not-to-be-REALLY-evil in Vampire (remember the Humanity ticker?), nasty-fighting-against-evil in Werewolf, and good-against-evil in the 1st edition of Mage at least. But the moral element was always there, you just weren't necessarily a pure 'good guy'. The rest of them kind of leave it out there for the GM and players to decide.

I think with D&D's huge market position (it seems to have been 75-90% of the RPG market in most eras) a lot of RPGs have to specifically distinguish themselves as not-D&D--Call of Cthulhu had weak characters who avoid fighting, White Wolf leaned hard into moral ambiguity and a modern setting, GURPS and later Savage Worlds would be setting-neutral, Powered by the Apocalypse leaned hard into relationships between characters, etc.

 

[Bohandas]

Not sure how else to interpret things when you say stuff like:

You were the one who invoked the MCU

 

[Oofta]

You were the one who invoked the MCU

Yes. As an example of the type of entertainment that people enjoy, in contrast to movies that are "morally grey" which tend to not gather traction with the wider public even if they are sometimes critically acclaimed.