• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D General Worlds of Design: Is Fighting Evil Passé?

When I started playing Dungeons & Dragons (1975) I had a clear idea of what I wanted to be and to do in the game: fight evil. As it happened, I also knew I wanted to be a magic user, though of course I branched out to other character classes, but I never deviated from the notion of fighting evil until I played some neutral characters, years after I started.

When I started playing Dungeons & Dragons (1975) I had a clear idea of what I wanted to be and to do in the game: fight evil. As it happened, I also knew I wanted to be a magic user, though of course I branched out to other character classes, but I never deviated from the notion of fighting evil until I played some neutral characters, years after I started.

angel-4241932_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” Albert Einstein
To this day I think of the game as good guys against bad guys, with most of my characters (including the neutrals) on the good guy side. I want to be one of those characters who do something about evil. I recognize that many do not think and play this way, and that's more or less the topic of this column. Because it makes a big difference in a great deal that happens when you answer the question of whether the focus of the campaign is fighting evil.

In the early version of alignment, with only Law and Chaos, it was often Law (usually good) against Chaos (usually evil). I learned this form from Michael Moorcock's Elric novels before D&D, though I understand it originated in Pohl Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions. That all went out the window when the Good and Evil axis was added to alignment. That's the axis I'm talking about today.

This is a "black and white" viewpoint, versus the in-between/neither/gray viewpoint so common today. But I like my games to be simple, and to be separate from reality. I don't like the "behave however you want as long as you don't get caught" philosophy.

Usually, a focus on fighting evil includes a focus on combat, though I can see where this would not necessarily be the case. Conversely, a focus on combat doesn't necessarily imply a focus on fighting evil. Insofar as RPGs grow out of popular fiction, we can ask how a focus on fighting evil compares with typical fiction.

In the distant past (often equated with "before 1980" in this case) the focus on fighting evil was much more common in science fiction and fantasy fiction than it is today, when heroes are in 50 shades of gray (see reference). Fighting evil, whether an individual, a gang, a cult, a movement, a nation, or an aggressive alien species, is the bedrock in much of our older science fiction and fantasy, much less so today.

Other kinds of focus?

If fighting evil isn't the focus, what is?
  • In a "Game of Thrones" style campaign, the politics and wars of great families could provide a focus where good and evil hardly matter.
  • "There's a war on" might be between two groups that aren't clearly good or evil (though each side individually might disagree).
  • A politically-oriented campaign might be all about subterfuge, assassination, theft, and sabotage. There might be no big battles at all.
  • A campaign could focus on exploration of newly-discovered territory. Or on a big mystery to solve. Or on hordes of refugees coming into the local area.
I'm sure there are many inventive alternatives to good vs evil, especially if you want a "grayer" campaign. I think a focus on good vs evil provides more shape to a RPG campaign than anything else. But there are other ways of providing shape. YMMV. If you have an unusual alternative, I hope you'll tell us about it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
You can separate your fantasy gaming world from real life world all you like. It doesn't matter. The parallels are still there. Middle Earth isn't the Real World either. That doesn't make any difference. It's still based on the same thing.
So what?

One can embrace and even play up all sorts of unpleasant things in a fantasy game while still opposing them in reality.
 

tommybahama

Adventurer
No. This is flatly false.


The word "orcneas" existed in old English, but it certainly didn't mean anything like D&D orcs, and it definitely wasn't "inspired" by Huns/Mongols/Goths etc. There's absolutely zero evidence for that and it doesn't make sense given the origin of the word orcneas being with a group of people who had never clashed with any of those groups due to their location.
I didn't mean the orcs were inspired by Mongols, the Huns, etc. I'm saying that a group of evil, savage creatures doesn't require colonialism to envision because there are plenty of historical sources for a fictional race of purely evil creatures. I'll chalk it up to my bad writing and your bad comprehension. ;)
 

I didn't mean the orcs were inspired by Mongols, the Huns, etc. I'm saying that a group of evil, savage creatures doesn't require colonialism to envision because there are plenty of historical sources for a fictional race of purely evil creatures. I'll chalk it up to my bad writing and your bad comprehension. ;)

Mate, you said:

Orcs existed in myth long before Tolkien.

Again, that's not true, as I said. Nothing that could be called an "orc" in D&D sense existed as far back as you're suggesting. You could maybe get back to the 1600s in Italy, but if you read the actual wikipedia article, it's clear that's not the source Tolkien was drawing from.

Also re: colonialism you're proving you totally didn't understand the point because I wasn't talking about colonial racism. That's a whole other kettle of fish.
 

tommybahama

Adventurer
Orlando Furioso was 16th Century
Nothing that could be called an "orc" in D&D sense existed as far back as you're suggesting. You could maybe get back to the 1600s in Italy, but if you read the actual wikipedia article, it's clear that's not the source Tolkien was drawing from.

There certainly was something that could be called an orc in the D&D sense going all the way back to the Middle Ages. The Wikipedia article says Tolkien based it off the goblins in another book. Goblins go back at least as far as the Middle Ages.

And that 16th Century Italian source you mentioned was certainly an influence on D&D with the pig-like orcs. It probably influenced Tolkien as well since C.S. Lewis was a fan of that work and was a friend of Tolkien.
 

Mate, you said:



Again, that's not true, as I said. Nothing that could be called an "orc" in D&D sense existed as far back as you're suggesting. You could maybe get back to the 1600s in Italy, but if you read the actual wikipedia article, it's clear that's not the source Tolkien was drawing from.

Also re: colonialism you're proving you totally didn't understand the point because I wasn't talking about colonial racism. That's a whole other kettle of fish.
If i REALLY stretch the envelope i could say bogey men and some trolls are reminiscent of orcs going back further than 1600s. But, and i think this lends to your point, those are never ever the main interpretations of these entities. Also they never form large roving bands. I think orcs are partially INSPIRED by things that go back a ways, but orcs themselves dont go back much further than the name "orc".

Boogeymen are typically much closer to ogres.

Trolls are...trolls. Some times they are a little similar to something else.

Side note:

There is a really weird theory that boogeymen may actually have been the result of a distant and degraded cultural backwater of a memory of isolated denosovans or denosovan hybrids living on the outskirts of early european society. I think there could be some merit to that. Though still a bit unlikely.

(Denosovan instead of neanderthal mostly due to size and the prolifically common reference to a weirdly shaped nose and overly large jaw. Both qualities neanderthal likely had in slight measure. Not enough to comment on as frequently as is mentioned in boogeyman legends. Denosovan may have had these feature just enough larger and weirder to be mentioned so commonly.)
 
Last edited:

pemerton

Legend
I, for one, hate the modern view of "shades of grey". I much prefer the Good vs Evil approach. This have the advantage of not cluttering the game with needless questions like: "Is it ok to kill this orc, hobgoblin, dragon, priest or whatever?" Removing this from the equation speed up greatly the RP aspect of the game without cluttering it with moral aspects derived from our modern thought pattern.
Nobody talks about the Dungeon Master who says that they want simple, idealistic heroes... and throws morality traps into the game, has the lawful authorities and the common folk treat their "Shining Heroes" like hot garbage, and then expects the player characters to selflessly defend that status quo like the heroes they are.
In fantasy RPGIng I generally prefer a game in which the PCs are good in at least some tenable sense, and that fits the general tropes of romantic fantasy (King Arthur, LotR, the film Hero, etc).

I don't think that necessarily makes the game simplistic. If you're playing Lancelot, it might be hard for you to choose between Guinevere (your love) and Arthur (your lord and friend).

I read accounts of campaigns, and have occasionally experienced ones as a player, where the NPCs treat the PCs with little respect or even disdain. I put this down to (i) a lack of adequate social mechanics, and (ii) GMs who are too scared of losing control to accept serious player input into the game.

If you want genuinely good PCs, then most people who interact with them need to treat them at least okay, rather than with this strange generalized hostility a lot of DMs seem to think is really awesome and cool.
I think we're broadly in agreement.

I would add that a further corollary of playing romantic fantasy is that redemption and honour are genuine possibilities. This means that when hobgobins prisoners are released on their own parole, having promised to lay down their arms and make recompense, the GM should honour this. If the GM has the paroled prisoners break their words it is s/he, not the players, who is undermining the simple/ideal morality of the game.
 

pemerton

Legend
Lawful Good is an oxymoron.
This claim is pretty controversial, and I think is better treated as a possible conclusion of play, rather than as an input into play.

Gygax in his PHB and DMG identifies a pretty clear contrast between LG and CG: both aspire to achieve wellbeing, ensure that rights are honoured, that truth and beauty are fostered, etc. But the LG think this is best achieved through preserving, fostering and perhaps improving communities and their traditions; whereas the CG think this is best achieved through encouraging independent self-realisation.

If at the start of the game everyone already agrees that LG is impossible - ie that you can't foster truth and beauty, nor honouor rights, nor encourage wellbeing, by preserving communities and building on traditions - then it would be pointless to include LG as a serious player option. It would be no different from LN - ie a form of order- or tradition-fetishism.
 

pemerton

Legend
I think people often forget that the inspirations for evil humanoid races are not rooted in colonialism. Whether we are talking about Lord of the Rings Orcs (inherently corrupt creatures that exist in service to the setting's Satan equivalent)
I will speak only about LotR, which I've just been re-reading.

Orcs use scimitars, are "swarthy" and "bandy-legged" in appearance, and speak a guttural language. When JRRT wanted to depict the servants of evil, he drew directly upon obviously racialised tropes.

The same is evident in his descriptions of "Easterlings", "Southrons" etc who serve Saruon and fight alongside the Orcs of Mordor. Even Gollum is horrified by the prosect of dark-skinned people (pp 667 and 672 of my one-volume edition).

EDIT: typed 668 rather than 667 for my page reference.
 
Last edited:

I've had many a discussion on forums with people attempting justify 'the forces of Good' storming into an Orc village and butchering everything out of hand 'because they're Orks and Orks are evil'. Taking no prisoners (or taking them and slaughtering them for convenience anyway). Literally had this exact conversation on this forum a week or two back.

I have a picture on hand of these Lawful Good protagonists here:

1587800457209.png


When your definition of 'morally good' includes concepts such as massacre of prisoners, genocide of sentient species, murder, indiscriminate slaughter and killing with no mercy, remorse, or quarter, I genuinely shudder to think what the 'morally evil' peeps are getting up to.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Related Articles

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top