• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! 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



So we agree that some individuals are evil.

Of course we do.

As to killing Dahmer, where do you draw the line? If he's about to kill you? A child? What if you know that he's about to kill someone in the near future and there is absolutely no other way to stop them?

All are cases of legitimate self defence or the defence of others. The only time it is morally OK to take a life.

If you walked up to Dahmer while he was sitting at a table having a coffee and minding his own business, you would go to jail for murder. What you did was wrong. Society would condemn your actions as evil and morally reprehensible. You go to prison.

If you heard screams next door, and looked through a window and saw him about to stab a child (or anyone else), shoot him in the face with extreme prejudice. What you did was not wrong. Society would not condemn your actions as evil or morally reprehensible. You have committed no crime that society deems as sanction-able. You walk free.

Do you see the difference? Society considers killing a person in circumstances other than reasonable self defence (or the defence of others) to be morally reprehensible and sanction-able as a crime.

You might think its not an evil thing to do, but good luck arguing that to a judge.

Because in many cases adventurers often have no option. There is no internment camps, no jail. If they tell the monster to leave that just means the monster will hunt people somewhere else.

So what? That's on the monsters head, not on yours. You dont know what the monster is going to do, and the monster can answer to its own Gods when it dies. If the monster isnt threatening you, hasnt threatened you, has take no agressive action towards you, then killing it out of convenience simply because you stumbled upon it in its home, or because of what you think it might do in the future, is evil.
 
Last edited:

I consider what the Nazi movement did in general as evil. But individual Nazis? Not inherently evil. Many became evil, others were just soldiers fighting for their homeland. Some committed evil acts based on what they were told and believed ... and yes there are major gray areas for some of them because they are human.

I would consider very few humans inherently evil. Heck, approximately 1% of people have antisocial personality disorder. The common term would be psychopath or sociopath. Roughly 35% of people in jail fall into this category. Effectively they have little or conscience.

But many people with antisocial personality disorder are still functional members of society even if they lack empathy or empathy. What they do and how they function, IMHO is what makes them evil.

A lack of empathy or antisocial personality disorder doesnt make you evil, any more than psychopathy makes you evil. Harming others is what makes you evil. Psychopaths dont all harm other people; they just dont care when they do.
 



So it's okay that some monsters are evil given form.

Yes, but I think it's totally to suggest a degree of caution about this, lest one get into very murky, grim waters.

When it's a purely supernatural being, which doesn't have any kind of sane lifecycle, if it even lives at all, or which is created from another being or the like (as undead are), then I think it's fairly safe to have those sort of things be inherently evil.

When you start making a humanoid race, who talk, live, reproduce, build functioning societies (even a tribe is a functioning society), die of old age and generally are totally mortal and normal be "inherently always evil from birth" (as opposed to say, lacking the same in-built instincts of morality as humans, but capable of acquiring them), you're getting into territory that I don't think is typically interesting or fun to explore in an RPG. It might not be terrible for a book or something, but it tends to get real genocide-y real fast in an RPG.
 


Lot of D&D characters with "Good" on their character sheet looking at each other nervously right now.

If they're walking around slaughtering things for no other reason than 'it was there, and while they're normally pretty dangerous, but this one was talking to us and was friendly' then yeah, they're evil.

I dont know about you, but 99 percent of my games encounters start with 'As you enter the room you see some [orcs/ trolls/ a dragon/ demons/ undead/ monster]. It/ they snarl at you and attack! Roll initiative.' or words to that effect.

If (on the other hand) the PCs opened a door and saw a pathetic Kobold, unarmed and begging for mercy, with tears in its eyes, and slaughtered it out of hand, that's evil.

Id have a 3.X and earlier Paladin fall for it (with a warning first of course).
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top