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

[Rob Kuntz]

I did not describe evil as a purely Christian/Western concept, I wrote that the kind of good and evil D&D portrays is rooted in this tradition. Look, for example, at the 1E alignment graph from Deities and Demigods: "saintly," "beatific," "diabolic," "demoniac." Given that you co-authored this book, it surprises me that you would take issue with this assertion.

View attachment 144485


The point of my post was that the D&D conception of "good" and "evil" is poorly-equipped to deal with real-life phenomena, and is best confined to idealized or fantastic notions, so I'm not sure why you're invoking real-life phenomena and trying to insinuate otherwise.



Not me, for sure. I'm not sure why you're trying to insinuate otherwise.

I can only assume that I have not been communicating clearly. I will do my best to remedy this in the future.

Your two quotes that I use for reference:

Note: This is a game, even its authorial representation of humans, under scrutiny, could find caricature and cliches even in Modern thought or Classical. Since Invoking a line of comparison of thought (the real world expectations and experiences in relation) is not what D&D claimed to be as an "idealized" "lack" of "mechanisms," I found the mixing misleading as well as supefluous re "real vs. game."
Its better as, "This is a game of Fantasy with the inability to reduce the human experience for that was not its intent," for indeed we as a race are still in a quandary about its fine points." At least in post modern thought.

The representative idea of alignment then remains that alone--an authorial view--and although by attempting to impose a simple (and simplified) breakdown of morality may summon such reactions as "cliche"etc., as you have, the real fact is that this is the author's best take within an impossible to nail down subject area. Arguing it from any other stance, of course, would make all those parts of D&D that represent human factors relative to humans-as-represented-in-game-factors
caricatures as well, like "Brigands, pirates," et al., whereas they are not. They exist in the real as an embodiment of type (which, if one were to probe deeper, could also be labeled a caricature, primarily by the group themselves!) and are represented in the non-real for purposes of engaging same in the non-real and not for evaluating their non-comparative "realities".

This type of thread didn't start here, this line of questioning and argument started with the Simulationists who were, pre-D&D wargame era, championing on every level, even the most minute, "realty in games". It has taken upon various manifestations as acceptance of that "idealized," albeit unachievable, goal continued digging deeper its own rabbit hole with its various intersecting tunnels and support beams.

Pardon me for any misspellings and such, I haven't had my first cup as yet as I awoke late from a long work day yesterday.

"D&D deals primarily with caricature and cliché and does not weather the postmodern critique terribly well."

"D&D lacks the mechanisms to adequately deal with (actual, human) evil and deals instead with the idealized; the fantastic."

 

[d24454_modern]

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.

It's only really prescriptive in a game perspective (as well as outsiders). In universe, they have about as much choice as real life people do.