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.

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.

 

[pemerton]

The issue is people conflate self defence with having to wait around till you get stabbed or shot at first. That is not (and never has been) the case in any context, historical, legal or otherwise.

I'm an academic lawyer and philsopher who has published on the morality of defensive violence and of violence in warfare. I say this to provide some context for my remarks.

It is generally accepted that permissible defensive violence must be proportionate and necessary, and that considerations of the proximity of the threat will factor into calculations of necessity and perhaps also proportionality.

There is no theory of just warfare I know of that says - for instance - that one can kill the children of an enemy country because otherwise they will grow up and be recruited as soldiers.

When it comes to attacks upon giant steadings, orcish strongholds and the like I think the most obvious framework, in a D&D context, is retributive violence. This was considered a legitimate ground of warfare in the classic just war tradition, although I don't think there are any contemporary scholars who would affirm it.

 

[Flamestrike]

Likewise, being Lawful is about preserving the legitimate political authorities of your culture...

Not necessarily. A Lawful person can flat out oppose the legitimate political authorities of their culture.

Frank Castle (LE) has a clear and strict code (only murder evildoers and criminals, spare the innocent), and a respect for family, honour and tradition making him very Lawful (and very evil, on account of the pitiless and brutal murder and torture).

He's also likely one of the most wanted murderers and criminals in the DC universe, up there with people like the Joker. He doesnt follow any laws of his society at all; he's just selective about who his victims are.

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm an academic lawyer and philsopher who has published on the morality of defensive violence and of violence in warfare. I say this to provide some context for my remarks.

It is generally accepted that permissible defensive violence must be proportionate and necessary, and that considerations of the proximity of the threat will factor into calculations of necessity and perhaps also proportionality.

There is no theory of just warfare I know of that says - for instance - that one can kill the children of an enemy country because otherwise they will grow up and be recruited as soldiers.

When it comes to attacks upon giant steadings, orcish strongholds and the like I think the most obvious framework, in a D&D context, is retributive violence. This was considered a legitimate ground of warfare in the classic just war tradition, although I don't think there are any contemporary scholars who would affirm it.

I'm also a Solicitor. And an ex Soldier.

If we're looking at the occupants of the steadings or strongholds as active hostile combatants (they have recently attacked a neighbouring village or what-not, and will likely do so again, or are clearly about to launch such an attack) then it's clearly a just war (and a defensive action) to take the battle to them.

Their existence alone isnt enough. They specifically need to have done something (or be clearly about to do something) to warrant the just use of force in response to that threat.

Storming in there and slaughtering them 'Just because they're Giants/ Orcs' is evil. A war of genocide is evil.

A morally good commander also does not slaughter the inhabitants out of hand simply because. He uses proportionate (and decisive) force until such force is no longer necessary to contain the threat. He constantly looks for non violent means to end the conflict, treats POWS and refugees fairly and with respect and courtesy, seeks to minimise non hostile casualties as best as possible etc).

 

[pemerton]

The positive spin on Lawful societies is that they are preserving traditional mores-- preserving and enforcing those mores upon people who do not conform to them. This means, by definition, that they are harming the well-being and liberty of people-- sometimes quite severely-- on the basis of behaviors that are not harmful to the well-being and liberty of others. Being Lawful is inimical to being Good.

Likewise, being Lawful is about preserving the legitimate political authorities of your culture... however one defines them. This means, among other things, respecting their authority to police themselves. Respecting that legitimate authorities-- however they are selected-- have prerogatives that do not need to be justified because they are superior to others and only their superiors, in turn, may discipline them. If a low-ranking official is predatory and his chain-of-command is apathetic... well... that's just the system. The system is more important than its victims.

Before you tell me that's "not Lawful Good", ask me how many separate incidents of Fallen Paladins I can name-- from other people's tables-- that were exactly this.

I don't know exactly what examples of fallen paladins you have in mind - but I'm imagining those who are deemed by GMs to be chaotic or even evil because they oppose (say) state-sanctioned slavery.

But I don't think that a morality of tradition and conformity - which LG undoubtedly is - has to affirm a fully content-neutral theory of obedience. Real-world natural law scholars do not. And nor does Gandalf in LotR - when Denethor goes mad and tries to kill himself and Faramir, Gandalf says the Steward that "others may contest your will, when it is turned to madness and evil" (p 886).

This is a fundamental difference between traditional forms of government and modern legal forms of government. I think it is the imposition of those modern conceptions onto a fantasy set-up that generates the paladin issues you describe. But equally a lawful paladin won't just overthrow the realm and set up a republic. S/he should look to restore the honour and integrity of the received traditions - as Gandalf and Aragorn do, with the support of Imrahil and Eomer. Of course a GM can always set up the gameworld to make this impossible - but that is like the sort of case @Ruin Explorer flagged upthread, of the GM making "simple" or romantic morality impossible.

Anyone in the fiction who sincerely affirms that "the system" is more important than human wellbeing ("it's victims") is committed to LN, not LG. Again, if a game is set-up so thtat this distinciton between LN and LG is elided that would be perfectly fine, but (i) romantic fantasy will be hard to pull off, and (ii) the D&D alignment system will be a serious impediment, not an aid to good play.

The purpose of retaliatory strikes is to make the prospect of attacking your people again less attractive

I was not talking about retaliation in pursuit of defence - which is unlawful in contemporary international law and I think immoral in most theories of just war, both classical and contemporary.

I was talking about retributive violence ie the infliction of violence as just punishment. I don't think any modern scholars of just war accept this as a reason for warfare, but the classical theorists tended to. And for me this makes much more sense of what goes on in the default approach to D&D. The giants, orcs etc have done evil things - unjustified raiding, looting, killing, etc - and the PC heroes are inflicting justified punishment.

My trope of the morally good fantasy hero is not 'slaughter your foes with no pity, remorse or mercy to the point of genocide' and I shudder at the thought that people can genuinely get down with such actions being morally good, or in the genre.

I think the discussion will be enhanced by moving away from notions like genocide and considering to what extent the tropes of the game and genre are best served by adopting (in imagination) a conception of good that is more permissive than many contemporary conceptions: that (i) allows for retributibe violence being carried out by "vigilante" heroes; and (ii) allows for consensual infliction of lethal violence in the form of duels, jousts, and even perhaps some warfare between willing warbands.

 

[Flamestrike]

I think the discussion will be enhanced by moving away from notions like genocide and considering to what extent the tropes of the game and genre are best served by adopting (in imagination) a conception of good that is more permissive than many contemporary conceptions: that (i) allows for retributibe violence being carried out by "vigilante" heroes; and (ii) allows for consensual infliction of lethal violence in the form of duels, jousts, and even perhaps some warfare between willing warbands.

Retributive violence can be carried out by vigilante heroes. It's just those heroes have an 'E' in the alignment section of their character sheet.

See also: Arya Stark, Frank Castle, Carol from TWD (middle seasons), many Vengeance paladins.

Consensual violence is a bit trickier. A morally good person would generally seek to avoid things like duels unless there was no other option reasonably open to them (and would seek a non lethal condition on the duel). Good people try to avoid harming and killing others. A morally neutral person would be ambivalent (as likely to agree as not to agree); neutral people lack the convictions of Good people, and possess enough empathy to avoid harming others. A morally evil person is totally OK with duels but only if they're likely to win. They dont care if people get hurt or killed, or in rare cases actually enjoy it.

Eddard Stark would seek to avoid a duel (unless honor bound to engage in one; and he would only do so reluctantly, and if no other option presented itself, and would grant mercy and treat his opponent with respect). He's good.
Jamie Lannister is all about duels. He revels in them. If he wins, you die. He's evil.
Stannis and Rob Baratheon are ambivalent about duels. If honor compelled them, then they would fight them. They're neutral.

 

[pemerton]

I'm also a Solicitor. And an ex Soldier.

If we're looking at the occupants of the steadings or strongholds as active hostile combatants (they have recently attacked a neighbouring village or what-not, and will likely do so again, or are clearly about to launch such an attack) then it's clearly a just war (and a defensive action) to take the battle to them.

Their existence alone isnt enough. They specifically need to have done something (or be clearly about to do something) to warrant the just use of force in response to that threat.

Storming in there and slaughtering them 'Just because they're Giants/ Orcs' is evil. A war of genocide is evil.

A morally good commander also does not slaughter the inhabitants out of hand simply because. He uses proportionate (and decisive) force until such force is no longer necessary to contain the threat. He constantly looks for non violent means to end the conflict, treats POWS and refugees fairly and with respect and courtesy, seeks to minimise non hostile casualties as best as possible etc).

I am neither a soldier (current or ex-) or a solicitor (I'm an academic lawyer).

I think that once you are killing giants etc who have (in effect) demobilised and are back home enjoying the spoils of their raiding, defensive violence would not be permissible. There is no contemporary legal or philosohpical scholar of warfare I can think of who would say (for instance) that you could invade a country to recover goods looted by it during past warfare.

In the D&D context, I really think we are talking here about retributive violence. That is, punishment for that past wrongdoing. In the real world punishment is not - today - considered a legitimate ground for warfare, But this is where I think D&D needs to draw on mediaeval tropes and a somewhat imaginary morality. I think that can be done without needing to think about genocide or killing them "just because they're giants".

I also think the idea of consensual violence can do a lot of work, once we allow for the incorporation of imaginary morality based on genre tropes. So the giants, to some extent, willingly engage in fights with the PCs. If they surrender, then of course it would no longer be legitimate to kill them. This is where the ideas of honourable ransom, redemption and the like becomes important in the game.

 

[Flamestrike]

I am neither a soldier (current or ex-) or a solicitor (I'm an academic lawyer).

I think that once you are killing giants etc who have (in effect) demobilised and are back home enjoying the spoils of their raiding, defensive violence would not be permissible. There is no contemporary legal or philosohpical scholar of warfare I can think of who would say (for instance) that you could invade a country to recover goods looted by it during past warfare.

By that logic, if (Nation X) invaded the USA, landed forces in NYC and stole the billions in gold from under Manhattan, it would not be a just war for the USA to deploy military assets to recover said gold, and/or take all such reasonable measures to ensure the leadership of (Nation X) could not do so again in the future.

In my understanding of a just war, it would be entirely appropriate to use such force as necessary to recover said gold, and to ensure such an act of aggression does not occur again in the near future.

In the D&D context, I really think we are talking here about retributive violence.

I dont consider the above to be retributive violence. The nation is perfectly entitled to recover its property, and to take such measures as are needed to ensure it doesnt happen again (removing the leadership who ordered the incursion, and any who support them).

They're not doing so as a punitive measure; they're doing so to recover stolen property, and end a demonstrable threat (one that has already manifested the once) to the extent necessary to ensure a repeat of said incursion does not occur in the near future.

 

[clearstream]

a lot of contemporary people have a lot of very stupid ideas about war, but I do think most of them recognize this as a negotiable middle-ground between "pre-emptive self-defense" and "actual self-defense".

War is a continuation of economics by other means.

All the rest is commandeering of culture and narrative to justify war.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

There is a thing called Natural Law. And you can't forget the respect of the human dignity is the core of our rights as citizens.

Even the criminal groups have got their own codes. To survive outer menaces all groups, even evil, need to share a common allegiance. Do you know the fitna of al-Andalus, the civil war in the Muslim Spain what caused the end of the Omeya dinasty?

In the game of thrones, in the fight for the power not all is about astuteness and mightiness but the right allies. If you don't behave as a true leader who makes true effects to get loyalty by allies and subordinates, but as a tyrant, mafia capo or a toxic boss you shouldn't hope smartest people sacrifice for you, neither you should be surprised if you are surprised by the betray for help to your rivales as revenagence for the suffered mistreament. The power is a shadow, an illusion, you need your subordinates and you can lose because psychopaths are bad of management of human recourses.

Some good people sometimes may do wrong things, but for gameplay effects, a character becomes evil when he voluntary, without mitigating circumstances of guilt, causes a serious injustice, or serious action against the Natural Law.

“There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts, a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading, a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition.”

Marcus Tullius Cicero​

“We should never forget that everything Adolph Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighers did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.

​

I would not wish to have to deal with an atheist prince, who would find it to his interest to have me ground to powder in a mortar: I should be quite sure of being ground to powder. If I were a sovereign, I would not wish to have to deal with atheist courtiers, whose interest it would be to poison me: I should have to be taking antidotes every day. It is therefore absolutely necessary for princes and for peoples, that the idea of a Supreme Being, creator, ruler, rewarder, revenger, shall be deeply engraved in people's minds.

Voltaire ​

If your point of view is as Nietzsche about the master-slave moralty, the mercy or kindness as signs of weakness, then you aren't a Übermensch or "super-man", but a f***ing psycopath, like Joffrey Baratheon with a crossbow.

 

[Flamestrike]

There is a thing called Natural Law.

Natural law is not universally accepted to exist. Not only is there no evidence it exists, there is no way of knowing what those laws are.

The Nazis would (and often did) say they were only following 'natural law' that made the Holocaust or their racist policies morally acceptable (to them). A liberal human rights advocate would just as equally fall back on 'natural law' to advocate for basic human rights.

I'm wary when people point to an invisible and intangible thing they claim objectively exists. It's invariably just them trying to give objective weight to their own subjective morality.

We have an advantage in RPG's that we dont have IRL. Namely the existence of a Dungeon master. Unlike IRL where we can never know for sure the objective truth or existence of anything (beyond mere self existence), in RPG's we have a person (the DM) who can say 'this exists' or 'this is evil' and it objectively is.

With a nod to Descartes, such knowledge is impossible in the real world, and equally impossible for our characters in the game to ever know.

Your PC might think they're genuinely a good person. Genuinely think it. Ditto the player.

The DM knows the truth of it however. Because what he says exists, exists, and what he says is evil, is evil.