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

[Blue Orange]

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.

It's fun to go to Rotten Tomatoes and see the different Audience and Critic scores. You can parcel out 'franchise movies enjoyed by their target audience' (high-A, low-C) and 'critically acclaimed movies with less mass appeal' (high-C, low-A).

 

[Scribe]

I dont think the argument can be made that 'Good vs Evil' or 'Hero vs Villain' where Good Triumphs, is unpopular or cannot be successful, nor do I believe thats the primary point of discussion?

 

[Bohandas]

It's fun to go to Rotten Tomatoes and see the different Audience and Critic scores. You can parcel out 'franchise movies enjoyed by their target audience' (high-A, low-C) and 'critically acclaimed movies with less mass appeal' (high-C, low-A).

If you design something so that everyone will like it a little, it seems natural that you'll need to make concessions that will prevent anyone from liking it a lot

 

[Oofta]

I dont think the argument can be made that 'Good vs Evil' or 'Hero vs Villain' where Good Triumphs, is unpopular or cannot be successful, nor do I believe thats the primary point of discussion?

Did you read the OP? Unless I missed something it's very definitely "We don't need good vs evil, heroes vs villains"

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.

...

I also disagree with good and evil being entirely subjective. Babies know the difference between right and wrong before the age of two.

... the ideas of Good and Evil are so subjective that they are less useful than actual motivations. ...

Obviously the world is a fuzzy mess and great evil has been done in the name of good. That doesn't mean all moral are subjective, or even if they are in the real world that they need to be in a game. Sometimes all a DM needs (especially for bit actors) is a label that states "here there be evil".

In addition just because an opponent is described as evil doesn't mean they can't also be complex or that we can't have opponents that are not evil. Some of my best NPCs started out as just a general idea of "evil" but grew through the course of the campaign and gained a lot more depth.

 

[Oofta]

If you design something so that everyone will like it a little, it seems natural that you'll need to make concessions that will prevent anyone from liking it a lot

I disagree. I like a lot of things that appeal to a wide audience, not just 5E.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I disagree. I like a lot of things that appeal to a wide audience, not just 5E.

Also, 5e, the MCU, the Lord of The Rings, etc, aren’t things that no one likes a lot. They’re things that many people love so much they will brand themselves with references to it, name their kids after parts of it, create art about it, and make it a strong component of their self-identity. And they also have very broad appeal to most people.

 

[Scribe]

Did you read the OP? Unless I missed something it's very definitely "We don't need good vs evil, heroes vs villains"

I did, but I interpret it differently I guess.

To me, its not discussing if we need good or evil, but Good and Evil. As this thread has wound its way through the topics, thats what I feel the primary question is.

Does my character need to have Good somewhere, or are my actions what determine it. Do my opponents need 'Evil' in their rules or descriptions, or can the actions which they perform, and their role in aiding or hindering my actions, determine if they are to be dealt with, or worked with?

You also cut their original premise on subjectivity...

"But to me, the ideas of Good and Evil are so subjective that they are less useful than actual motivations."

Which is fine, as they are referring to themselves.

Now to ME the more interesting question is how D&D functions with Good/Evil as actual entities, cosmic forces unto themselves that are distinct from behaviors of mortal beings.

If the question of the OP is not if we need that cosmic force, but if we need even bother with short hand labels, of good/evil as descriptors, thats what I feel is under discussion.

Many forms of Fantasy again are foundationally based on Good vs Evil. I dont believe thats the point of contention here, but I could be wrong.

 

[Voranzovin]

So, I think an awful lot of people are talking at cross purposes here. For instance, I'd hold up the MCU as an example of precisely the opposite assertion--that adventure stories don't need Good vs Evil to be meaningful to a wide audience, because the MCU doesn't look to me like it has any concept of either Good or Evil at all. Compare it to Star Wars or LOTR, where the bad guys aren't just doing cruel and harmful things, but are actively aligned with a metaphysical concept of "Darkness," with the Jedi and Elves/Numenorians similarly metaphysically positioned as inherent good guys. No such concept exists in the MCU. Even Thanos is just a fanatic who happens to have access to the resources to commit mass murder, and the heroes oppose him because they don't want themselves or the people they care about to get mass murdered, not because anyone is Evil or Good. The only MCU character I can think of that seems like it could kind of represent a concept of evil if you squint hard enough is Dormammu, and he's honestly more capital-A Alien then capital-E Evil.

I don't see anything wrong with using Good vs Evil themes in a DnD campaign, especially one modeled on Tolkienesque or general high-fantasy tropes. But I do think it is pretty clear that it's neither necessary for the game to be fun nor necessary for it to be successful--just a set of genre tropes that will be more appealing to some then others.

 

[Malmuria]

Now to ME the more interesting question is how D&D functions with Good/Evil as actual entities, cosmic forces unto themselves that are distinct from behaviors of mortal beings.

If the question of the OP is not if we need that cosmic force, but if we need even bother with short hand labels, of good/evil as descriptors, thats what I feel is under discussion.

Many forms of Fantasy again are foundationally based on Good vs Evil. I dont believe thats the point of contention here, but I could be wrong.

I think there's a place for Good and Evil as cosmic forces, but one annoying effect of that is that it tends to guide player RP decisions. Once an Evil npc or faction as been identified, what the PCs choose to do is automatically constrained. One could argue that such constraints are good, especially for new players, but I feel it does potentially close down ways that players engage with the world.

Similarly, when you have team Evil, representing the interests of different evil groups becomes more challenging. For example, in the example from the Essentials Set that I mentioned above, there is an evil white dragon, evil orcs, an evil manticore, and an evil adventuring party that are all to some degree at odds with each other. The fact that they are all evil, not really because of their situation or actions but more just because of what they are, might lead players to just defeat each antagonist in combat as they level up. Whereas, if you look at their more concrete motivations, there are opportunities for players to use negotiation, subterfuge, or deal with the problem in a totally unexpected way. Whereas, if you negotiate a truce with a cosmically evil force that you could have vanquished, are you now evil?

 

[Scribe]

I think there's a place for Good and Evil as cosmic forces, but one annoying effect of that is that it tends to guide player RP decisions. Once an Evil npc or faction as been identified, what the PCs choose to do is automatically constrained. One could argue that such constraints are good, especially for new players, but I feel it does potentially close down ways that players engage with the world.

Yep, I know I've mentioned this a few times across a few threads perhaps (or maybe it just is this one) but if there is a cosmic Evil, and Evil is truly only the nasty stuff that (most) anyone can objectively say is bad for the general person to either engage in, or promote, then to thwart or kill an Evil entity, will (most) always be an act that is justified, and it removes agency in a way.

I was thinking of a possible poll, but I'm not sure if its too many variables to get any meaningful data, regarding Alignment as a Cosmic Force, Evil Gods, and (or course) PC options and how they all interact.

The Great Wheel for example, exists on the basis that Alignment is a Cosmic Force. The Planes are based upon it being such, OR the Gods created the Planes to mirror it, OR the Gods themselves are bound by this Alignment as Cosmic Force (AaCF). Depending on how one belives those things to exist, it then trickles in the Prime Material, and thats where we sit now.

Is AaCF a real thing which impacts the Prime Material?
Are the Gods a real thing which impact the Prime Material directly?
Are the beings of the Prime Material AWARE of both of those things and created by them?

If building out a custom setting cosmology I cant think of a more foundational set of questions which will then inform how you use Alignment (and Gods, and Races) throughout the rest of the setting, assuming you wish to touch on those area's at all.