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.

 

[Hoffmand]

I think that part of the issue is that those who are claiming to look at things in as black & white a way as possible aren’t really doing so. They’re already allowing for circumstances and nuance to factor into their view.

At it’s most black & white.....is killing good or evil?

Pick one, without the comfort of situational justification.

That’s not what black and white mean for the purposes of morality. You are using a very limited language where more specific words or just more words are needed. There’s a reason we can write paragraphs instead of just sentences. And paragraphs can also be connected together and so forth.

 

[Flamestrike]

NOBODY you argued against said an orc cannot be good.

Yes they have. @Oofta did it literally a few posts above.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes they have. @Oofta did it literally a few posts above.

He really didn't. And you're again dodging the main response while distracting with a minor part of it.

You spent an entire thread claiming it was society and not inherent evil. You repeatedly told people that was the Rules As Written as if anyone who didn't agree with that view was not following the rules.

You were wrong. Acknowledge that. Change with changing data. Don't dig in to a position which no longer makes sense now that you have new facts.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think that part of the issue is that those who are claiming to look at things in as black & white a way as possible aren’t really doing so. They’re already allowing for circumstances and nuance to factor into their view.

At it’s most black & white.....is killing good or evil?

Nah. No one's looking at everything in black and white. Elements of black and white is what people are talking about. Grand evil and good. Anyone who says that isn't a big part of the genre is being disingenuous. The stuff in the middle is still grey, players will still struggle with their actions and doubt themselves, moral conundrums will still ensue. Struggle and growth makes fiction great. If I want orcs to play the part of black in my game they will, period. I don't need a sermon about how they can be good if they really tried. I could just as easily pick that version if I wanted. But I didn't. I'm not going to tell someone else they 'picked wrong' because they wanted some other race to play the big bad and I can find a way to read the rules that implies that not every member of that race has to be evil. That's an arrogant and annoying way to discuss a shared hobby.

 

[Flamestrike]

No, stop. You've spent an entire thread claiming the opposite of what the text says, while chiding others for not following RAW. Stop. Apologize for your whoopsie if you want this to go further.

NOBODY you argued against said an orc cannot be good. That's a complete strawman to try and save face. Everyone argued with you about the primary point you made - that it was society and not something inherant in the orc which made them evil.

That was wrong. You were mistaken. Acknowledge it. Please. Then we can go on to what the ramifications of the actual rules might be. But not while you're still pretending you didn't repeatedly claim orcish evil was purely societal influence and than anyone who disagreed with you was not following RAW.

And its not the inherent nature of Orcs that makes them evil. If that were the case, how can some choose to be good? Its inherent in an Orc to act with savagery (like say... responding to an insult with violence). It doesnt say they're inherently evil; it states they're drawn to violence and savagery which inclines them to be evil.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Still evil. Evil for a good purpose perhaps, but evil nontheless.

But what if that is absolutely necessary? Due to some futzery with the world or whatever, the gods need the deaths of humans in order for the world to continue?

Like, for crops to grow, you need to skin someone and wear their skin for a week, or for rain to fail you need to throw screaming children into fire (these were both real aztec sacrifices, AFAIK). Are the people of that world, and hell, the gods that are in that world and accepting those sacrifices evil?

 

[hawkeyefan]

That’s not what black and white mean for the purposes of morality. You are using a very limited language where more specific words or just more words are needed. There’s a reason we can write paragraphs instead of just sentences. And paragraphs can also be connected together and so forth.

Is the act of taking life good or evil?

Yes, you can tack on additional words to try and explain or justify any specific instance of killing. But does that justification change the inherent nature of the act?

I think it absolutely helps to define the act in and of itself as something good or bad, and then once we’ve done that, I think it helps further discussion.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

And its not the inherent nature of Orcs that makes them evil. If that were the case, how can some choose to be good? Its inherent in an Orc to act with savagery (like say... responding to an insult with violence). It doesnt say they're inherently evil; it states they're drawn to violence and savagery which inclines them to be evil.

I mean, it's human nature to be selfish jackwagons, yet we sill manage to work together for good causes, even if the primary motivation is self-advancement.

 

[Flamestrike]

He really didn't.

Yes he did. He even went as far as to include a list of other non human creatures that fit into the same category.

 

[Mistwell]

And its not the inherent nature of Orcs that makes them evil. If that were the case, how can some choose to be good? Its inherent in an Orc to act with savagery (like say... responding to an insult with violence). It doesnt say they're inherently evil; it states they're drawn to violence and savagery which inclines them to be evil.

Did you argue orcs are the way they are because of the society they were raised in, or not?