Exploring the Role of Evil in TTRPG Storylines

Understanding Evil in TTRPGs

When crafting a tabletop role-playing game (TTRPG) campaign, game masters frequently face a critical question: How should evil be represented at the table? In this episode of the Wizard’s Respite Sanctorum, hosts Ash and Zach explore the nuances of incorporating “evil” into storylines, discussing when and how to employ the concept while considering its impact on players and narratives.

Evil as a storytelling device can shape campaigns in powerful ways, but its use requires careful thought. Should you include morally ambiguous villains, purely malevolent forces, or something in between? And how do alignment systems and player expectations influence the presentation of evil? In this episode, we dive into these questions and offer actionable insights to help you navigate this complex aspect of TTRPG storytelling.

The Origins of Evil in Role-Playing Games

Historically, the concept of evil has been a cornerstone of many TTRPG systems. From the early days of Dungeons & Dragons to countless third-party supplements, alignment charts and predefined “evil” creatures have guided players and dungeon masters alike. The trope of “the evil villain” or “the evil race” has long served as a shorthand for conflict, providing straightforward challenges for adventurers.

However, as the hobby has matured, so too have the conversations around these tropes. Modern gaming communities increasingly scrutinize traditional depictions of evil, questioning the assumptions that underlie them. These discussions reflect broader societal shifts, encouraging creators to think critically about how their stories engage with themes of morality, ethics, and cultural representation.

The Case for Complexity: Moving Beyond Pure Evil

One of the most compelling arguments made during the episode is that evil, in a nuanced TTRPG campaign, rarely exists in a vacuum. Villains become more interesting when they have clear motivations and humanizing traits—even when their actions remain unquestionably wrong. By providing a rationale for their villainy, you create characters that players can understand, even if they vehemently oppose them.

For example, a character who commits terrible acts out of a misguided attempt to protect their homeland or achieve a twisted version of justice can provoke deeper reflection than a villain who is evil for the sake of being evil. The hosts argue that giving your antagonists understandable—if not justifiable—reasons for their behavior adds complexity and emotional weight to your campaign.

Pure Evil: When It Has a Place at the Table

That said, pure evil can still serve a purpose. Sometimes, a story needs a dark force that is unapologetically malevolent—a presence so clearly defined as “wrong” that it sets the stakes and motivates the heroes without ambiguity. A prime example is the kind of evil embodied by undead hordes, eldritch monstrosities, or ancient, malevolent deities. These entities exist not as sympathetic characters, but as forces of destruction that must be stopped at all costs.

Even so, the episode encourages caution when relying solely on this approach. Purely evil forces work best when used sparingly and in contrast to more complex, morally gray characters. By mixing these different types of antagonists, you can create a richer tapestry of conflict and give your players a wider range of challenges—both tactical and philosophical.

Evil Alignments and Player Dynamics

Another key point raised in the episode is the usefulness—and limitations—of alignment systems. Ash and Zach discuss how alignments can be helpful training wheels for new players, providing them with a framework to understand their characters’ motivations. For more experienced groups, however, alignment can sometimes feel restrictive.

Advanced players often prefer to explore moral growth, shifting allegiances, and evolving values—elements that don’t always fit neatly into a fixed alignment box. By de-emphasizing alignment or using it as a flexible guideline rather than a rigid rule, game masters can empower their players to develop characters that feel more authentic and multi-dimensional.

Best Practices for Game Masters

So, how can game masters effectively handle the concept of evil at their tables? The hosts suggest the following approaches:

Collaborate with Players: Discuss themes and comfort levels in advance. Ensuring everyone is on the same page prevents misunderstandings and keeps the game fun for everyone.
Provide Motivation for Villains: Even if a character is ultimately irredeemable, give them motivations that feel real. This enhances the narrative and challenges players to think critically.
Balance Pure Evil and Nuance: Include a mix of evil archetypes—some that are purely destructive, and others that provoke ethical dilemmas. This keeps the campaign dynamic and engaging.
Stay Flexible: Be willing to adjust the portrayal of evil as the campaign progresses. The story and characters may evolve in unexpected ways, and remaining adaptable ensures that the game continues to resonate with your group.

Crafting Meaningful Conflict

Evil is a powerful storytelling tool, but it should be wielded thoughtfully. By exploring different approaches to villains, considering the impact of alignment systems, and engaging in open dialogue with your players, you can create a campaign that is both exciting and meaningful. Whether you choose to present evil as a complex, multifaceted concept or as a stark, elemental force of destruction, the key is to ensure that it enhances the experience at your table.