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

[Bohandas]

It says she's willing to work within the system and likely works ok in a group (lawful). And that she's willing to use means good people wouldn't to accomplish her goals which also (as she's an adversary) conflict with those of the group in some way.

That's about right. Although I'd render it in a slightly more complicated fashion

Lawful- willing to work with a majority of the following: Groups, plans, codes/patterns of behavior, society/the system/the establishment, OR is very enthusiastic about or heavily characterized by at least one

Evil- Willing to engage in both ruthlessness and cruelty, or heavily characterized by either by itself.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Might be something about draining the life-force of sentient beings to survive, breaking the laws of nature, and/or creepy freaking vibes.

Edit: ugly double quote

that is still nearly identical to a goat who eats life and spits out entropy and some walk on their hind leg chillingly.

 

[happyhermit]

Like pretty much everyone, I don't think D&D needs "evil", in other words of course it can function without it. IME though, it can be a super useful tool and I find myself "needing" it in order to maximize the fun in my games.

It's funny that others have pointed to problems coming from newer players because those are the ones who have really made me see the usefulness of the concept. A lot of the newer players I have run for are not the stereotypical (and probably never accurate) D&D nerd boys, most are female but IME that makes even less difference in playstyles than it did back a while.

Anyways, what I am trying to get at is that my players see the moral grey in EVERYTHING and it's great fun. Murderhobos they are not, 90% of the time. They and their characters often struggle with killing anything, often even wounding them is guilt inducing. Again though, we have great fun though it's sometimes a bit of a tightrope, especially with anything human-like (don't get me started on animals) to have them see how bad the NPCs are without it getting super dark. If they don't see vividly that they are really bad than at most they are going to end up captured and then questions of how to deal with them.

Basically, it's fun, we appreciate the stakes and the negotiations and the angst... but it's hard... and these same players REALLY enjoy some hack-n-slash, it just doesn't work for them to have their characters kill the lizard men (as mentioned earlier in the thread) or something to that effect. So, a world where Evil exists and they can just kill the; demon, devil, 5e gnoll, etc. without doing a thorough background check or catching them red handed, is fundamentally just more fun for them. Sure, there are middle-ground adversaries like robots, constructs, pop culture zombies, trust me, I use them too but they are a different tool.

IME this kind of player is very common these days; sensitive, feeling it necessary to show mercy if at all possible, and yet still straight up enjoying combat and occasionally wanting that to come without a bunch of baggage ie; prisoners, guilt, being shown/told how bad these guys are.

 

[Aldarc]

It's also unrelated to the OP's theme, which I disagree with. I think the game is better off with a general theme of good vs evil or, in MCEU terms, heroes vs villains. Even better, that's just a general suggestion that can be tossed out the window if you want.

Thank Thanos for the MCEU inventing the concept of heroes vs. villains. Where would our primitive storytelling be without our Disney corporate overlords inventing such novel ideas?

It's a game. Simplified concepts help sell the game and for a lot of people that's all we want most of the time. To roll the dice and be heroes for a bit without having to suffer from PTSD because too many times in the real world there is no right answer.

Sure, but I don't think that we need "evil" to sell the motivations of the antagonists to PCs. It's much as the OP says. It's more about whether the PCs have interesting challenges and opposition that conflict with their goals rather than whether their opposition is evil or not. Are the PCs trying to stop the Necromancer because they are "evil" or, rather, is it because the Necromancer plans on exacting their revenge on the noble lord who hired the PCs? I don't think that any of this requires the argumentative stretch that this somehow forces people to suffer from PTSD. There is a lot of room between those extremes.

 

[Oofta]

Thank Thanos for the MCEU inventing the concept of heroes vs. villains. Where would our primitive storytelling be without our Disney corporate overlords inventing such novel ideas?


Sure, but I don't think that we need "evil" to sell the motivations of the antagonists to PCs. It's much as the OP says. It's more about whether the PCs have interesting challenges and opposition that conflict with their goals rather than whether their opposition is evil or not. Are the PCs trying to stop the Necromancer because they are "evil" or, rather, is it because the Necromancer plans on exacting their revenge on the noble lord who hired the PCs? I don't think that any of this requires the argumentative stretch that this somehow forces people to suffer from PTSD. There is a lot of room between those extremes.

Good vs evil, heroes vs villains sells better than moral gray or anti-heroes because it feeds into a core desire of people everywhere to be the hero in their own life story. I think the game is better off with that flavor of the PCs being the good guys. It's why most public mods are save the world, or at least save the region.

Lucky for you, you can ignore it all you want since it's no longer core to the game and has no mechanical impact.

 

[Aldarc]

Good vs evil, heroes vs villains sells better than moral gray or anti-heroes because it feeds into a core desire of people everywhere to be the hero in their own life story. I think the game is better off with that flavor of the PCs being the good guys. It's why most public mods are save the world, or at least save the region.

Lucky for you, you can ignore it all you want since it's no longer core to the game and has no mechanical impact.

Would you mind engaging my argument rather than tilting at strawmen arguments about what sells? Thanks. It would be highly appreciated. Otherwise, I'll start arguing your points with irrelevant nonsense too and see how you like it.

 

[Oofta]

Would you mind engaging my argument rather than tilting at strawmen arguments about what sells? Thanks. It would be highly appreciated. Otherwise, I'll start arguing your points with irrelevant nonsense too and see how you like it.

Oh, right. Silly me. People who sometimes have clear cut conflicts between good and evil are just primitive people who have been brainwashed by Disney. Can't possibly be that some people just want a little bit of a relief and escapism/wish fulfillment while playing a game or watching a movie. Obviously entertainment must be morally ambiguous to be worthy.

Some opponents have simple motivations in my campaign, some do not. I'm not going to belittle your preferences. Since you seem to be incapable of doing the same I see no reason to continue with replies.

 

[Aldarc]

Oh, right. Silly me. People who sometimes have clear cut conflicts between good and evil are just primitive people who have been brainwashed by Disney. Can't possibly be that some people just want a little bit of a relief and escapism/wish fulfillment while playing a game or watching a movie.

This is not what I am arguing nor have I implied as such, Oofta.

Obviously entertainment must be morally ambiguous to be worthy.

I have never said otherwise in this thread, and you would be hard pressed to find evidence that I did.

Some opponents have simple motivations in my campaign, some do not. I'm not going to belittle your preferences. Since you seem to be incapable of doing the same I see no reason to continue with replies.

That's not my intention or point nor am I doing so with yours. I was merely reformulating the OP's point to get the conversation back on track.

 

[Rogerd1]

There are no need for DnD alignments, they make no sense and in many ways are like the Palladium alignment system. It forces players, and npc's into a set of behaviour that is not their own.

 

[Oofta]

This is not what I am arguing nor have I implied as such, Oofta.


I have never said otherwise in this thread, and you would be hard pressed to find evidence that I did.


That's not my intention or point nor am I doing so with yours. I was merely reformulating the OP's point to get the conversation back on track.

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

Where would our primitive storytelling be without our Disney corporate overlords inventing such novel ideas?