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.

 

[Fenris-77]

Nobody does that. People don't do that. Not least of which because the party they're defecting to is going to kill them before the party they betrayed gets the chance.

Yeah, Chaotic Stupid always stuck in my craw. I played in one campaign where a player made a committed attempt to play the alignment. What a bloody shambles that was.

 

[pemerton]

I think that's problematic, actually, because I've seen some superb examples of trained assassins in fantasy who were much more Good than countless noble knights and other "heroic" figures. Being trained to kill particular targets, with precision, from stealth, does not, I think, make you necessarily non-Good. Your motivation and targets will surely determine your alignment.

To me this goes right back to questions of genre and fidelity to its tropes.

I'm no expert on viking law codes, but my understanding is that assassination was considered ipso facto murder, quite different from (say) killing in a duel or in warfare.

In Gygaxian terms (focusing on his presentation of alignment, and not so much his presentation of assassins which is a bit half-baked), the problem with assassination is not that it's killing per se, but that it doesn't affirm truth. Rather, It's sneaky and dishonourable.

discussions on the 5E reddit, where a lot of people feel that, for example, if an LG mercenary (if such a thing can be conceived - but NG/CG also applies) wasn't paid to protect a village, which he knew would be imminently attacked by orcs and suffer many casualties (i.e. the people refusing to pay were idiots or didn't value human life), then he could just walk off and say "See ya morons, if any of you live!" and still be "Good". Which is definitely not going to work under your definition, nor, I suspect, most definitions.

To me this seems to be a long way out of touch not only with romantic fantasy source material but even REH Conan, which doesn't involve this sort of thing.

And framing it a bit more abstractly, it's hard to see how that sort of thing could be framed as affirming the value of life over purely selfish considerations.

I don't think anything Tolkien has written about LotR supports him being definitely LG, for example. I'm not denying he's "awesome", or "on the side of light", but I am saying that I suspect if Tolkien was forced, at gun point perhaps, to assign D&D alignments to his characters, he wouldn't necessarily be giving Eomer an LG (LN, certainly nothing Evil). I feel like your opinions on Tolkien are predicted on reading LotR but really not reading stuff Tolkien said about LotR

<snip>

And which you are have failed to acknowledge, that in his letters and general writing, Tolkien was very clear was not his philosophy, and he didn't regard it as some sort of pure good (or possibly even good at all). He didn't think anyone who insisted on dominion over others was a wholly good person. That specifically included Aragorn. This isn't a matter of opinion, I would suggest. Tolkien was not unclear in his letters nor his opinions re: tyranny.

I'm not saying anything about JRRT's opinions. Though I wouldn't be surprised if they changed over time - many thoughtful people in Europe did change their opinions, in various ways, between 1914 and 1945. I am taling about the implicity moral and political theory of LotR.

I am not aware of any plausible reading of LotR which doesn't characterise the Captains of the West - Aragorn, Imrahil, Eomer in particular - as good. Nor Aragorn's and (after he is freed by Gandalf) Theoden's rulership as just. Even Denethor's rulership is not condemned, until the very end when (to quote Gandalf) he falls into madness and evil. Though in D&D terms I think it would be fair to characterise Denethor as LN rather than LG - he stubbornly elevates Gondor and its traditions and its traditional claims above the demands that current circusmtances make upon him and his realm.

Here (p 871 of my one-volume edition) is JRRT on Theoden leading the charge of the Rohirrim:

Fey he seemed, or the battle-fury of his fathers ran like new fire in his veins, and he was borned up on Snowmane like a god of old, even as Orome the Great in the battle of the Valar when the world was young.​

And then 10 pages later we get this:

Thus came Aragonr son of Arathonr, Elessar, Isildur's heir, out of the Paths of the Dead, borne upon a wind from the Sea to the kingdom of Gondor; and the mirth of the Rohirrim was a torrent of laughter and a flashing of swords, and the joy and wonder of the City was a music of trumpets and a ringing of bells. But the hosts of Mordor were seized with bewilderment . . . knowing that the tides of fate had turned against them and their doom was at hand​

There is not the least hint of irony in any of this. No doubt Orome is one of the wilder Valar, but his a Valar, something like an angel, and undoubtedly a force of, and for, good. Theoden is likened to him And the soldiers of Rohan manifest their legitimate joy and mirth by wielding their swords to inflict doom upon their foes.

This is a morality of permissible violence when wielded in a just cause - defensive and retributive - against a deserving enemy who have, themselves, sought to use violence to inflict harm.

It wouldnt surprise me if JRRT did not himself share the morality implicit in his work of fiction. It's a work of fiction, and he was a sophisticated literary critic. That said, if someone asked me to name important twentieth-century writers who were defenders of democracy and critics of tyranny, I wouldn't put JRRT at the top of my list. Graham Greene is another Catholic English writer who overlaps Tolkien in period (about 10 years younger). The moral vision of his work is very different.

But if I wanted a RPG to explore the sorts of iddeas found in Greene's work, I woudn't even think of using the D&D alignment system. It would have absolutely nothing to offer.

 

[Helldritch]

Nobody does that. People don't do that. Not least of which because the party they're defecting to is going to kill them before the party they betrayed gets the chance.

Ishhh... revise your history. Judas would not agree with what you just wrote. Yep the turn coat is often served his deserved fate. But it does not prevent him to try to get to the winner's side. So many example in litterature and in history that I can't even start to write about it. And from which alignment do you think that the police get its informants? The CN, of course (not always but more often than not.)

 

[DammitVictor]

Ishhh... revise your history. Judas would not agree with what you just wrote. Yep the turn coat is often served his deserved fate. But it does not prevent him to try to get to the winner's side. So many example in litterature and in history that I can't even start to write about it. And from which alignment do you think that the police get its informants? The CN, of course (not always but more often than not.)

Those aren't battlefields. Plenty of people defect from causes or organiations all the time-- but they do it from behind their friends' backs, and for reasons that make more sense than "the side I was on was winning too much".

 

[Oofta]

Nobody does that. People don't do that. Not least of which because the party they're defecting to is going to kill them before the party they betrayed gets the chance.

I literally had it happen in a game I ran.

Having said that, no alignment is a straight jacket. CN does not have to mean insane any more than LG always means Lawful Stupid.

 

[DammitVictor]

I literally had it happen in a game I ran.

I meant real people. In a game about fantasy adventurers, called Dungeons & Dragons, that handful of paragraphs is easily the least realistic thing.

 

[Helldritch]

Even in history there were mercenary companies that would flee the tide of a battle only to be hired the victorious side to press on. The Goth and Ostrogoth were great at that so were a lot of the mercenary armies of the medieval times. It is why mercenary armies were so low on the opinions of kings. They were useful as a decoy to provide plausible deniability. Nothing more. You could not rely on them on a battle. I don't fully remember well, but there was a "vicking" mercernary company/group/unit that was hired to defend a Danish castle or something and they turned against their first employer to help the attacker and that was during the battle. (Damn my memory... but I'll find it, eventually.)

And this is not counting the faithfull hireling that simply gets bought by the rival of his boss and when the things get rough, he is the one killing his boss. We saw this in many movies and documentaries about the mafia.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I still can not understand why so many people associate LG with zealotry. LE and LN can be associated with this too. Just as LG can be about caring and understanding others and making sure that everyone has his/her rights respected and cared for. Any alignment can fall into zealotry. From the LG (Peace and Security for all) to the CE (Might makes right! Kill the top when you can! Be the top!) to CG (Freedom for all!) to CN (Freedom for me!) to LN (Everyone is equal in the face of justice!) to LE (Follow the boss' rules until you get to be the boss) to any mockery of a parody of any of the 9 alignments.

Alignment is a general guide line. It is not an all encompassing static thing. It is an ideal a character strive for. He can do it perfectly right or fail miserably but most of the time a character will be in the middle ground of his alignment.

Probably because although those other alignments can also be zealous, LG is the most capable of feeling morally holy and also the most capable of assuming any who disagree are somehow less honorable and can only be disagreeing for selfish reasons. Its the holier than thou effect. It can happen with LN but is not quite as likely and it can happen with LE but is FAR less likely. If you are truly evil and not just morally inept, you know you are evil.

 

[R_Chance]

Probably because although those other alignments can also be zealous, LG is the most capable of feeling morally holy and also the most capable of assuming any who disagree are somehow less honorable and can only be disagreeing for selfish reasons. Its the holier than thou effect. It can happen with LN but is not quite as likely and it can happen with LE but is FAR less likely. If you are truly evil and not just morally inept, you know you are evil.

It doesn't really matter if you are evil and know you are (in D&D anyway). You still think you are right (not "good"). Good is simply wrong in the opinion of the evilly aligned. We are trained irl to think good is the only right way. Its why people in history always think they were right / the "good guys" even when everyone else is sure they were not. In D&D the people who are evil think they are right, or if you prefer they can be righteous about their beliefs. In my game the evil types know they are evil, they don't think they are good. Just correct about life and the world.

Any alignment can be zealous or not. That's a matter for the individual or organization. Some proselytize, others don't. Some crusade, others don't. Most are convinced of the righteousness of their cause, others may be open to questioning it. So, imho, anyone can feel morally holy and self righteous about their beliefs.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

It doesn't really matter if you are evil and know you are (in D&D anyway). You still think you are right (not "good"). Good is simply wrong in the opinion of the evilly aligned. We are trained irl to think good is the only right way. Its why people in history always think they were right / the "good guys" even when everyone else is sure they were not. In D&D the people who are evil think they are right, or if you prefer they can be righteous about their beliefs. In my game the evil types know they are evil, they don't think they are good. Just correct about life and the world.

Any alignment can be zealous or not. That's a matter for the individual or organization. Some proselytize, others don't. Some crusade, others don't. Most are convinced of the righteousness of their cause, others may be open to questioning it. So, imho, anyone can feel morally holy and self righteous about their beliefs.

Im not saying evil cant be zealous. Im saying that it tends to be signifficantly less common. Any alignment can be zealous. Obviously.