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.

 

[Helldritch]

It was more a comment from the person I was posting, that they must be correct because their wife had a diploma in medieval studies. I can dig out references for the stuff I was posting if anyone's interested though or wants to know mroe (medieval crime can be a fascinating area of study, though its not my focus, that's monasticism and lay religious movements).

My go to book for people to learn about medieval society is Robert Bartlett's The Hanged Man, a wonderful, fairly short book, written for non-academic audiences and that rads almost like a novel, from a very esteemed medieval historian.

Also, if you're talking about medieval crime, you also need to discuss which courts you're referring to - canon law, english common law, roman law, Germanic vendetta law are all very different.

Very interesting. I'll try to get that book and read it.

As for the different laws. Sure, there was a lot of difference from country to country. That much is expected. Each country was more or less enlightned or barbaric depending on your POV. What you could have in France would be very different from what was going on in Japan, Korea, India and Arabia. D&D is a blend of these.

 

[Oofta]

I view the definition of good and evil in D&D as a game term. What do I mean? D&D necessarily simplifies a lot of things. HP, AC, sequential turns and so on.

So when we start discussing nuances of what good and evil means in the real world to a certain degree I think we're missing the point, or at least asking too much nuance from a game. I don't personally look at good and evil (in game) from a cultural perspective. I try to break it down into more abstract terms but of course nothing is perfect.

I think this would require a whole separate thread so an abbreviated version. I view good as having empathy, an acceptance of how our actions affect others, of not inflicting harm and pain on others if it can be avoided. General kindness and honesty. On the other hand evil tends to look at others as objects with no inherent value. In many cases loving another akin to a favored possession like how I love my car. They may also kill or cause pain because they enjoy it.

In the real world, I don't think people are entirely good or evil. I like to think of myself as a moderately good person (definitely not a saint) but I'm typing this up on a computer that was built with minerals who's mining causes massive amounts of environmental damage and personal suffering. There is no way to perfectly balance the scales.

So, yes, I think slavery is evil. Maybe not EVIL, but certainly not good. For example, in the Roman empire slaves could become citizens. Was that really evil? Maybe? On the other hand there were slaves that were thrown into the mines as disposable assets that were only expected to last a couple of years. Then again, I view the Roman Empire as LN at best. In part of course because thing changed a lot over time and region by region.

But I accept the tantalum that makes this message board possible means I accept at least some of the responsibility for the damage the mining of the mineral caused. Again, I accept some evil because of my privileged perspective as a member of a "first world" country.

So real world? Way too messy for something as simplistic as alignment. Probably not good for Star Trek games which at least attempts a sort-of reality based sci-fi. But for D&D? Eh. It works. It's a game. I don't pay too much attention to it, but it does help me decide what role certain creatures are going to fit in the stories I tell.

P.S. Yes, some of this, especially the mining aspect, comes from The Good Place. It was my version of advanced philosophy class.

 

[Lem23]

Very interesting. I'll try to get that book and read it.

As for the different laws. Sure, there was a lot of difference from country to country. That much is expected. Each country was more or less enlightned or barbaric depending on your POV. What you could have in France would be very different from what was going on in Japan, Korea, India and Arabia. D&D is a blend of these.

There was a lot of difference within each country. Canon law sat alongside Roman law (in some countries), or alongside English Common Law (in England). Quite a few countries had both Roman Law and Germanic Vendetta Law in operation depending on who was trying you, in addition to canon law.

Monasteries had their own laws too, especially those which didn't have any oversight by local bishops, and based on whatever rule was followed. In double houses and those that also contained laybrothers and / or laysisters, each group was usually subject to different Rules (or addenda) too.

 

[Lem23]

@Helldritch Would you mind giving me the name of the historian who suggests it wasn't a myth? I wouldn't mind chatting to them to see why they think so, since they're very much an outlier. You can PM me if you'd prefer.

 

[Helldritch]

He died about 10 or 15 years ago (at the young age of 75 or so) and didn't speak English (but could speak latin, greek and arabic... go figure...). He mainly said that it must have had roots in deep dark age near the fall of the roman empire. It was no longer used in the late medieval period but there was rumors about it.

Of course I am citing this from memory. It was a long time ago as my University days are long gone. I just turned 50 today...

But talking with you about the medieval period is enlightening. What was a truth 30 years ago can be proven wrong today. And what is true today might get proven wrong in 30 years from now. Who knows?

 

[clearstream]

I think that many (certainly not all) contemporary people would affirm that taking a life is an evil, and even when justified - eg in self-defence - it is a necessary evil.

Do you think it would be a fair argument to say that in say Forgotten Realms D&D, any creature that one could hold ethical concerns toward would be one that would also not really die, but only planeshift? That could act to put violence on a more consensual, even playful level.

 

[clearstream]

Economics is the ecology of intelligent life. Beyond being the means by which we distinguish ourselves from lesser beings, it is also the means by which we sustain ourselves-- it's our food chain and our respiration cycle.

That seems to misconstrue my comment. To continue economics, or politics, through violence, is what is on the table. The censure that you rightly sensed in what I wrote is of the said continuation; not of the economics or politics.

Distinguishing oneself from lesser beings through violence toward them or sustaining ourselves through violence to others is what would be censured. Though FTM that attitude (of superiority) in the first place is suspect: were you being ironic?

 

[Lem23]

He died about 10 or 15 years ago (at the young age of 75 or so) and didn't speak English (but could speak latin, greek and arabic... go figure...). He mainly said that it must have had roots in deep dark age near the fall of the roman empire. It was no longer used in the late medieval period but there was rumors about it.

Of course I am citing this from memory. It was a long time ago as my University days are long gone. I just turned 50 today...

But talking with you about the medieval period is enlightening. What was a truth 30 years ago can be proven wrong today. And what is true today might get proven wrong in 30 years from now. Who knows?

Could you give me his name anyway? I have colleagues that might remember him, and I know several people who have studied this area in quite some depth who I could ask about what he may have written about the subject, so they would be able to comment on the sources he used to come to this rather strange conclusion.

I'm also in my 50s (well, I'm 50), and also understand Latin quite well (unsurprisingly) and have a decent enough reading knowledge of several other languages, so finding anything that he wrote on the subject would be enlightening.

And while some things do get a more nuanced approach with time, we don't usually see a theory completely overturned in that way; if there are primary sources that reflect a position, then we still tend to have records of those primary sources, if not always extant manuscripts themselves. Commentaries on primary sources (especally contemporary ones) can be almost as revealing (more so if we're looking for contextual reception).

 

[Helldritch]

I don't think he ever wrote on that subject but his name was Pierre Jaques. He was specialized in the technological evolution of medial societies. He was a nice person and his death was a sad thing.

 

[Lem23]

I'm not finding anything about him, what university did he teach at?