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]

This is why I am suggesting a (3) - look at the literary and other fictional works that D&D draws upon and in some sense aspires to emulate, and notice how they begin from (1) but vary it in certain ways that (i) reflect the pseudo-mediaeval context, and (ii) therefore relax the permissibility of violence in recognisable and far-from-unlimited ways.

Which works would those be though? Because the morality in the works in the Appendix N books varies so widely that it's neither consistently "pseudo-medieval" nor consistent in the types of violence and other actions that are permissible. LotR certainly is not, morality-wise, for example, pseudo-medieval, it's vastly more modern, and looks down on pseudo-medieval morality. Conan is very far from LotR, and permits violence in circumstances that even the middle-ages would have got you labeled a murderer and at best paying a blood price or something. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are less keen on truly thuggish violence but are close to amoral in many regards, and the societies they inhabit are not just ones. Moorcock essentially rejects good and evil in favour of Law and Chaos (indeed this is where D&D gets it from).

I could go on and on. And that's just appendix N, not the litany of works that have influenced D&D since then. I don't say this to be mean, but to make the point that what you're describing appears essentially impossible in any meaningful or valid sense.

What I could believe is a picking one of those sources, or a couple of very similar ones, and drawing out a morality from that. But from the whole canon that inspired D&D? Hardly.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

which then causes confusion when we ask who detects as evil or who, when they die, will go to the lower planes?

So you're not talking about 5E, right? Because those aren't 5E concerns. For example:

Roll20 - Compendium and Rule Set Directory

Browse and reference your favorite RPG rule sets for systems including D&D, Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu, and Cyberpunk RED.

roll20.net

Yeah no, that's never going to detect a human as evil.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Moorcock essentially rejects good and evil in favour of Law and Chaos (indeed this is where D&D gets it from).

It largely down to labels though. Moorcock's books certainly have characters who are "right" and characters who are "wrong". Especially in later books, both Law and Chaos, taken to extremes, are "wrong" and maintaining a balance is "right".

Moorcock's philosophy boils down to anti-extremist, anti-fundamentalist, and anti-fascist; and pro-freedom, tolerance and harmony.

 

[Hoffmand]

I stopped using Alignment in my games shortly after I started playing D&D. All it seemed to do is cause arguments.

In reference to the "in a world where gods are real" train of thought... I can't imagine, in a world where gods are active and in direct contact with their servants, that they would not immediately and directly put down anybody trying to pretend to be or speak for them.

I like it conceptually ad a rp tool. But I agree. It’s way easier to give basic precepts and so forth. A list of beliefs of the religion or subclass is easier for rp purposes anyway.

 

[Helldritch]

It took a long time for me to respond to the quotes and questions about my position. I'll resume it here.
You can simply not take into account what we, modern day people, take for good or evil. But why?

Simple.
D&D is, generally, set at the end of a dark age and early start of renaissance. At least that is what the base game assumes with ruins of ancient empires for the PCs to explore. What was considered good and evil at that time was not what we would expect with today's standard.

For example. We all agree that a man is innocent until proven otherwise. Well, small news for you, it is a relatively new mindset as almost every civilizations considered that a man was guilty until proven otherwise. And it was often the family of the victim that would ask for a specific sentence or could give absolution of a crime (by forgiving the convicted). By the standard of the medieval societies, the criminals have it way too easy in our society. We are so evil that the victims are left without justice (according to them). For the medieval society, better 10 innocent men killed in the name of justice than just one killer on the loose. For them, we would be fools and even evil to allow a killer to get away because of an error in the arrest procedure.

The death penalty (which is an aberration in my mind) was not only common but often preceded by torture. Executions were public and were attended by children (if only to show them that if you do not follow the rules...). In addition, you were considered an adult by the age of 13 (11 in some cultures). Not fully responsible but you would be accountable for any crime you would commit. Poaching could even lead to your death if it so suited your lord (and if you were a repeated offender).

To our modern mindset, a lot of what was happening during medieval times would simply be too much to endure and accept. Just being of the wrong religious belief would be enough to warrant your death or enslavement. The liberty we take so much for granted was not seen as a right but as a civic boon given to people a lord was either fond of or that have helped him so much that they were rewarded with it. Slavery was even seen in some society to be a human way to treat prisoners. There were codes of conducts on how to treat a slave humanly and correctly...

I should not go into the bigotry and misogyny that would come with a full essay of medieval societies. But here is one example. On the night of your wedding, a lord could get the first night with your new wife because there was the "droit de cuissage". It was a revolting practice but it was there in some countries. It was not systematically enforced but it was there. Was the lord evil for doing it? For us yes, for the people at that time, it was not so. It was simply a disgusting right that the lords had. This is why I say that we can not apply our modern view of good and evil to a fantasy setting. Too much changed in history to make it logical.

So it is safe to assume that we have a blend of medieval and modern mindset (that much I agree). The closer we want to RP the assumed world, the closer to the medieval mindset we have to be. Of course, we do not want to fall into the pit trap where women would be relegated to the kitchen and child raising. That we have equality in our "Fantasy" setting is absolutely necessary and logical. If only because in fantasy, women can become quite powerful in magic and priest(ess)hood. This would have open the mind of even the worst of worst misogynist. And I can not stress enough that this is a good thing. I want my female players to feel as important as any of their male counter parts. This is the only modern day mindset that I won't let go. Other than that, I think that we should try to put ourselves in the shoes of the assumed setting. As I have shown, good and evil were pretty much extreme in these times. A lot of what we assume as evil today would simply be a matter of survival in a fantasy setting.

Edit: Why do I know so much about medieval societies? Simple, I'm a fan of history and I discuss about this a lot with my wife. She has a university diploma in history specialized in medieval societies around the world (the evolution of women rights in the society through time was her thesis)

 

[Hoffmand]

It took a long time for me to respond to the quotes and questions about my position. I'll resume it here.
You can simply not take into account what we, modern day people, take for good or evil. But why?

Simple.
D&D is, generally, set at the end of a dark age and early start of renaissance. At least that is what the base game assumes with ruins of ancient empires for the PCs to explore. What was considered good and evil at that time was not what we would expect with today's standard.

For example. We all agree that a man is innocent until proven otherwise. Well, small news for you, it is a relatively new mindset as almost every civilizations considered that a man was guilty until proven otherwise. And it was often the family of the victim that would ask for a specific sentence or could give absolution of a crime (by forgiving the convicted). By the standard of the medieval societies, the criminals have it way too easy in our society. We are so evil that the victims are left without justice (according to them). For the medieval society, better 10 innocent men killed in the name of justice than just one killer on the loose. For them, we would be fools and even evil to allow a killer to get away because of an error in the arrest procedure.

The death penalty (which is an aberration in my mind) was not only common but often preceded by torture. Executions were public and were attended by children (if only to show them that if you do not follow the rules...). In addition, you were considered an adult by the age of 13 (11 in some cultures). Not fully responsible but you would be accountable for any crime you would commit. Poaching could even lead to your death if it so suited your lord (and if you were a repeated offender).

To our modern mindset, a lot of what was happening during medieval times would simply be too much to endure and accept. Just being of the wrong religious belief would be enough to warrant your death or enslavement. The liberty we take so much for granted was not seen as a right but as a civic boon given to people a lord was either fond of or that have helped him so much that they were rewarded with it. Slavery was even seen in some society to be a human way to treat prisoners. There were codes of conducts on how to treat a slave humanly and correctly...

I should not go into the bigotry and misogyny that would come with a full essay of medieval societies. But here is one example. On the night of your wedding, a lord could get the first night with your new wife because there was the "droit de cuissage". It was a revolting practice but it was there in some countries. It was not systematically enforced but it was there. Was the lord evil for doing it? For us yes, for the people at that time, it was not so. It was simply a disgusting right that the lords had. This is why I say that we can not apply our modern view of good and evil to a fantasy setting. Too much changed in history to make it logical.

So it is safe to assume that we have a blend of medieval and modern mindset (that much I agree). The closer we want to RP the assumed world, the closer to the medieval mindset we have to be. Of course, we do not want to fall into the pit trap where women would be relegated to the kitchen and child raising. That we have equality in our "Fantasy" setting is absolutely necessary and logical. If only because in fantasy, women can become quite powerful in magic and priest(ess)hood. This would have open the mind of even the worst of worst misogynist. And I can not stress enough that this is a good thing. I want my female players to feel as important as any of their male counter parts. This is the only modern day mindset that I won't let go. Other than that, I think that we should try to put ourselves in the shoes of the assumed setting. As I have shown, good and evil were pretty much extreme in these times. A lot of what we assume as evil today would simply be a matter of survival in a fantasy setting.

Edit: Why do I know so much about medieval societies? Simple, I'm a fan of history and I discuss about this a lot with my wife. She has a university diploma in history specialized in medieval societies around the world (the evolution of women rights in the society through time was her thesis)

i have done several setting similar to this over the years. But I done it as an example of an evil society. i generally play with almost all kingdoms and societies being evil because i don’t like players with the attitude of “lets go to the authorities”.

i really like your post. And these are things to consider for any game. It’s had lots of good ideas.

 

[Hoffmand]

In my culture. The death penalty is seen as a good thing. As well as killing in self defense and for your country. It is something to be proud of. We also grow, raise, and slaughter our own food and hunt our own food. I have difficulty understanding many values of people that feel otherwise. But I respect them and enjoy reading about them. Although I would never want to participate in them.

 

[Helldritch]

I can't agree with the death penalty (in cases of mass murder where there is 100% certainty of guilt, I could buy it but iiiiishhhhh...).
On the self defense and defense of your country, however, I fully agree.

Again, good and evil. Culture and history. These evolves through times. You want to RP in and a fantasy world? Then adapt your RP to what a fantasy setting would look like. In my mind it helps a lot to appreciate what we take for granted.

 

[pemerton]

Have you ever taken an undergraduate course in philosophy?

Yes. I"ve also delivered them. I'm an academic philosopher and lawyer. Philosophy is not concerned primarily with definitions. It's concerned primarily with the analysis of phenomena.

When you say it's evil what does that mean?

I keep saying an evil and you keep dropping the indefinite article in quoting my words back to me. But it's not unimportant in this context.

In describing something as an evil one is saying that the world is a worse place for including it. And not just less happy, but not as good from the point of view of human action. Someone who describes a justified killing as a necesary evil is saying that the world would be a better place, from the moral as well as wellbeing point of view, if no person ever had to kill another.

This is similar to the sense in which acts of mercy and charity are superogatory (ie not demands of duty) but a world in which they occur is a better world.

 

[pemerton]

See...the thing is...according earlier logic professed by yourself you're not right.

Its highly dependant on you making a lot of presupositions.

What you just said COULD be right. But according to your earlier logic it would be incorrect to say "this will just always be correct".

What bit of my post are you talking about?

Are you contesting my account of the classical view of justice and the superogatory? I'm thinking of Aristotle and the large number of thinkers influenced by him. Who are you thinking of?

Are you suggesting I'm wrong about the typical vengeance paladin? If so, what do you think the typical vengeance paladin looks like?