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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But the giants in the G1 module have committed crimes - raiding, looting, terrorising etc. The violence that is meted out by the PCs is not defensive violence but retributive violence. The intro to the module even makes this clear - the king is sending the PCs to strike back at the giant raiders. I think a lot of contemporary people would regard that sort of quasi-vigilante retributibe violence as problematic. But in a quasi-mediaeval setting I think it can fit in.

It still looks very much like the PCs are the aggressors and behaving in an essentially amoral way, though, because they're attacking a settlement full of non-combatants. And there's kind of vibe to the module that it doesn't think the non-combatants are non-combatants because they're Giants, but it is ambivalent on the issue.

My players came up with a horrific but extremely effective plan that got the giants out of the hall and separated the combatants from the non-combatants, though I'm pretty sure even medieval types would have considered it akin to a war-crime (specifically they caused, then attacked, a funeral). Pretty sure most ways this adventure turns out, the PCs are just "perpetuating the cycle of violence" (including the one I saw). Sure, they'll kill a lot of Giants, but I think most cases, the non-combatants and some others will escape (there are really a LOT of Giants in there!), and even if the Steading is burned down, they're going to either become a roaming band, or set up somewhere else with stories of the horrific violence inflicted on them for their traditional ways, and so on. It's not going to end well.

Also the quasi-medieval setting is I think too convenient an excuse a lot of the time. I'm not accusing you personally of doing this, you just reminded me, but we very frequently see this argument used by people in a way that is very inconsistent and appears to be based on whatever works right at that moment. If it's convenient to excuse D&D not being like the middle ages, well, it's only quasi-medieval, but if its' convenient for D&D to be like the middle ages to excuse some dubious element, it's quasi-medieval. You know what I mean?

EDIT - Kind of an aside here but one thing I really like about the campaign I'm playing in right now is that oaths, such a huge part of early medieval and some other earlier societies, actually mean something. Swear a formal oath and break it and you get cursed and not in a remove curse kinda way. I feel like a lot of situations in D&D-as-medieval might work better if oaths sworn formally to the gods and so on reliably had consequences. I think any new setting I came up with that was even quasi-medieval would include that sort of thing.

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

I think your approach works well for a lot of situations, indeed the vast majority of them but if followed in a completely dogmatic way, can quickly be campaign-ending, basically the moment the DM "gets it wrong" for the majority of people in the group, and in my experience usually it's not that the DM will claim something is Evil that isn't, it's that he'll claim something is Good that's horrific and morally abhorrent. I've literally seen that end a campaign. I mean, a lot of groups I saw early in my D&D days, the players had a better grasp on alignment than some of the DMs, and they also often had a better grasp on morality, contrary to stereotypes re: murderhobos.

Also, is it a cop-out for the DM to answer directly? I mean, if we could look up to the sky and say "Yo god dis Evil or what?" and get "Wait, one sec checking the alignments page... Yes my son that is Evil!" "Okay god thx won't do!", the world would be an entirely different place.

 

[Flamestrike]

I think your approach works well for a lot of situations, indeed the vast majority of them but if followed in a completely dogmatic way, can quickly be campaign-ending, basically the moment the DM "gets it wrong" for the majority of people in the group, and in my experience usually it's not that the DM will claim something is Evil that isn't, it's that he'll claim something is Good that's horrific and morally abhorrent.

If the DM is claiming something as morally Good thats morally abhorrent (rape, genocide or whatever) then find a different DM.

And a different friend.

Also, is it a cop-out for the DM to answer directly? I mean, if we could look up to the sky and say "Yo god dis Evil or what?" and get "Wait, one sec checking the alignments page... Yes my son that is Evil!" "Okay god thx won't do!", the world would be an entirely different place.

It wouldn't help your PC with objective knowledge even if the DMs avatar or Ao himself appeared in front of your PC and told your PC what was Good or Evil.

Your PC (like you, IRL) cant ever know anything as being objectively true other than self existence. Everything else is subjective, and may or may not actually exist.

The DM can (and indeed should) tell the players what his view on alignment is during session 0 of course.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If the DM is claiming something as morally Good thats morally abhorrent (rape, genocide or whatever) then find a different DM.

Quite. Some people shouldn't be DMs or playing D&D, but I've equally seen a situation where a DM insisted something was Good, was taken aback that no-one agreed, we discussed vehemently but politely, and he actually agreed. I can't even remember exactly what it was.

But equally another DM did manage to end a campaign and his run as DM that way, in an event I've spoken about before, the "Killing orphaned orc babies is Good, taking same orphaned orc babies to be raised non-Evil by the clergy of Illmater is a betrayal of Good and means you are now all Neutral!" incident. 100% of the group disagreed with this. DM was fired on the spot.

(PS what kind of DM even puts in orc babies to get orphaned by the PCs! Come on!)

It wouldn't help your PC with objective knowledge even if the DMs avatar or Ao himself appeared in front of your PC and told your PC what was Good or Evil.

Your PC (like you, IRL) cant ever know anything as being objectively true other than self existence. Everything else is subjective, and may or may not actually exist.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I mean, that's objectively true re: self-existence vs everything else (and you don't even actually know that much, but let's get into the whole blindsight deal, but I do think like, 95% of people would go "Oh wow holy naughty word okay AO!" if that happened, which is why I feel it's a bit of a cop-out, because for most people it would be "But is AO even real?" it'd "Yikes AO just told me that was Evil, not going to do that!".

 

[Flamestrike]

IMG I explain to the players that:

1) 'Evil' is harming, killing and oppressing others.
2) 'Good' is mercy, compassion, altruism and self sacrifice.
3) 'Law' is respect and adherence to family, tradition and honor.
4) 'Chaos' is individualism, unconventionality and a disdain for Law.
5) A person who is 'Neutral' lacks the convictions to follow a code of honor (law) or go out of his way to help people (good), but also has enough empathy to avoid killing and harming people (evil), and can generally be counted on (chaos) - depending on if they're neutral with respect to law/chaos or good/ evil (or both).

The only time it is not morally evil to harm or kill others, is when such harm is necessary to protect yourself or others from imminent harm, and is proportionate to that harm. Situations include a just war of self defence, and self defence as understood in legal codes around the world.

That doesnt make such violence morally good, but it is not morally evil within that context either.

I also advise them that I reserve the right to 'correct' any mistakes they've made on their character sheets in the alignment section during play, and such 'corrections' are final. We can discuss it during the week after the session, but no arguments during play.

Finally, I'll also advise players before an action if that action is out of sync with their stated alignment, or if the action is likely to see their removal from the game (murdering a random NPC for example). Player agency stands of course, but they get a warning first up.

 

[Flamestrike]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I mean, that's objectively true re: self-existence vs everything else (and you don't even actually know that much, but let's get into the whole blindsight deal, but I do think like, 95% of people would go "Oh wow holy naughty word okay AO!"

Meanwhile the illusionist in the corner who created the AO illusion, chuckles to himself as you head off and slaughter his enemies 'because AO said it was ok.'

You cant know for certain the objective existence of anything. You cant know anything for certain beyond your ability to doubt everything (which proves your own existence). Cogito ergo sum.

You can assume, but you cant know.

 

[Flamestrike]

On point, look at games like Star Wars which hinge on the DM awarding 'Dark side points' (DSP) for acts of evil.

Force choke a NPC during a social encounter? DSP. Kill Stormtroopers who have surrendered? DSP. Torture someone to get information you need? DSP. Etc.

While its pretty clear cut, there are some grey areas. If you're in a grey area, you know you're at risk of getting one, so it shouldn't come as a surprise. Its a judgement call of course; but the players have to trust the DMs judgement. If they don't, then the game has bigger problems!

If a player whines after getting a DSP, 'I'll shrug and say 'Dont blame me, blame the Force. We can talk about it during the week if you would like, lets not slow down the game for the other players, the decision stands for now.'

The game isnt adversarial; its a collaborative effort. No DM is doing to hand out DSP's 'just because', and if he does, why are you playing with a Jerk? The whole point of the game is to have fun.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You can assume, but you cant know.

I mean, I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying the world runs on assumptions

Re: DSPs I think "don't blame me, blame the Force!" has worked increasingly well since the prequels, because thanks to midichlorians and the general presentation of the Jedi as idiots who have no idea what the Force actually is, people increasingly don't trust the Force and think it might have an agenda.

 

[Flamestrike]

I mean, I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying the world runs on assumptions

Re: DSPs I think "don't blame me, blame the Force!" has worked increasingly well since the prequels, because thanks to midichlorians and the general presentation of the Jedi as idiots who have no idea what the Force actually is, people increasingly don't trust the Force and think it might have an agenda.

In my experience, the guys that sulk about getting DSPs, or whine when you point out a certain act is evil are almost invariably immature and argumentative players most tables are better off without.

The kinds of dude that will do an act of extreme barbarity (brutally torture some captured Kobold) and sulk when you point out how beyond the pale it is.

We've all had that session early in a campaign where 'that guy' decides to murder some prisoner for convenience or some equally brutal act, and the players with Good aligned PCs stare at him uncomfortably and try to think about some way they can rationalise wanting to hang around such a monster in character.

Not sure about you, but If you just met someone at a tavern and they then proceeded to ruthlessly kill someone we had just subdued in a fight without blinking or any hint of remorse, I wouldnt want to hang out with that person anymore (to say the least!). I'd instantly write them off as a dangerous psychopath.

It's why I (as DM) stop the player and give him a clear warning first. If he wants to proceed, and his character gets abandoned by the others, its time to roll up a new character. Cant say he wasnt warned.

 

[Flamestrike]

For what its worth, I've played in evil campaigns a lot, where PvP was the norm.

The only thing that kept people in check was the allegiances that would form in the group. If you were going to throw down on a fellow PC, you'd better be all in, and be sure your allies in the party were on your side.

We'd have 'party charters' that stipulated the punishments for betraying or stealing from the party. Usually death. New characters would be forced to pitch camp for the rest of the party and do menial tasks and generally treat them like naughty word (a further disincentive to calling out another character).

If everyone is on board with a campaign like that, it can be an awful lot of fun. Not everyone's cup of tea though.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

View attachment 120192
Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

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.

Most of the plot for my campaign involves the characters doing what would generally be regarded as "good". That doesn't always involve fighting evil however.
Some involves stuff that I would consider neutral (doing non-good work for pay), but the party have never strayed into Evil territory.
Its helped by having a couple of the characters, including a paladin who follow the Silver Flame, so are inclined to do good and fight evil.
They do associate with some evil people/allies, but overall its a Good-based campaign and I've not had any of the horror stories that I'm seeing on this thread.