Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BookTenTiger" data-source="post: 8404397" data-attributes="member: 6685541">Here's an idea:D&amp;D doesn't need evil.I would argue that no D&amp;D adventure actually needs the concepts of &quot;good&quot; and &quot;evil&quot; to be successful. D&amp;D only needs the idea of an &quot;objective&quot; and &quot;adversaries.&quot; 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?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.In this sample adventure, all the &quot;enemies&quot; 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.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!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BookTenTiger, post: 8404397, member: 6685541"] Here's an idea: [B]D&D doesn't need evil[/B]. 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 [I]have[/I] to be evil? Let's say the necromancer has hired some Tough Guys as guards. Do they need to be 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. In this sample adventure, all the "enemies" just need motivation- what they [I]want. [/I]The necromancer [I]wants [/I]to raise an army of undead in order to attack a nearby kingdom. The Toughs [I]want[/I] to protect the necromancer because they're getting paid. The villagers [I]want [/I]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 [I]subjective[/I] that they are less useful than actual motivations. What do you think? [B]QUICK NOTE: [/B]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! [/QUOTE]

Verification