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.

 

[prabe]

Completely agree with Oofta here. Any alignment can be a problem if a player wants it to be. And any are fine if the player wants it to be.

I think it's "if the player and the DM want it to be" but otherwise I agree, and even in instances of good faith it probably works better if the player/s and the DM have talked through what the alignments (at least those in the party) mean.

I'm happy to treat alignment as descriptive, not prescriptive. It doesn't prevent you from doing anything but it helps predict your actions. I like that there aren't mechanical aspects to alignment in 5E, other than where your soul ends up in the Outer Planes (if it ends up there). I never liked punishing people for a character (or their view of a character) evolving.

 

[Hoffmand]

My problems were never with the players wanting to play a paladin or be LG. It was always the others.

 

[Mort]

Hence LG is a problem alignment. I get your point that it shouldn't be, but shouldn't and isn't are different things.

Often it's "problem" because too many DMs place a big "kick me" sign" on the LG player especially for a paladin PC.

I've seen way too many otherwise reasonable DMs turn every situation into a "lets test that LG alignment" scenario - turning even hum drum situations where the LG PC has to slog through a moral quagmire (as in heads I win tails you lose). It's irritating.

 

[Helldritch]

What do you mean here? Paladins don't exist IRL (and Charlemagne's lot weren't the same thing), and obviously loads of people who've played Paladins have expected that, or DMs have expected all LG people to live like that, over the years, hence the problem.

Dragon articles of the time, the chivalry code in the unearthed arcana, the books about the knights of the round table and just literature in general. Even samurai did not expect the common "rabble" to act as honorably as they were. (not saying that samurai were paladin here, but they were following the Bushido code. Something very hard to follow.)

All those who have expected all LG to act like paladins totally missed the point.

Hence LG is a problem alignment. I get your point that it shouldn't be, but shouldn't and isn't are different things.

LG is not a problem alignment. Do not put words in my mouth. It is a problem when not played as it should be (as most alignments are). And most people playing LG as the LStupid are really playing a LE-N character/society. I know that it is not a problem in my games or any games in my area (may be because I had such a huge impact in my area). But I know that whenever I see a game in a hobby shop I talk with the players and the LStupid vision is not always there. In fact, with the new generation of player and DM it tends to disappear. Paladin is now a class like any other opened to all alignment. So the feel/need to restrict the paladin through his alignment is no longer there. So new players (from my experience so far) have less and less problems with LG. It might be a 1980-90's players' problem.

 

[Umbran]

There's a big difference between L meaning respects the laws and values an ordered life, and would never under any circumstance break any law and will snitch on people who do.

Well, there's a question of... priorities here.

A person who is LG should, broadly speaking, be putting the laws and traditions of an ordered life as an equal priority to good outcomes for people.

That means that sometimes, when faced with a situation that Law seems to be in conflict with what is Good.. they will, sometimes choose the Law - "I'm sorry if this hurts you right now, but breaking precedent here is apt to cause issues later." So, like.. they're going to snitch on you half the time, basically.

If, in those conflicting situations, you are usually willing to discard the traditions of your people to make things better... you're more NG.

This goes the other way, too. A CE character/monster will sometimes support a thing that is good for people... just because it cheeses off stuffy folks!

I will agree that hobbits, generally, are LG - But not Bilbo, Frodo, or Merry and Pippin. Most hobbits find "adventures" to be... highly questionable activities, remember. Samwise Gamgee was probably still LG, as he went along out of strict loyalty.

Lobelia Sackville-Baggins was the stuffy Aunt Petunia. LG communities can totally be filled with gossipy busybodies who look down on whatever you are doing that isn't in line with social traditions.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, there's a question of... priorities here.

A person who is LG should, broadly speaking, be putting the laws and traditions of an ordered life as an equal priority to good outcomes for people.

That means that sometimes, when faced with a situation that Law seems to be in conflict with what is Good.. they will, sometimes choose the Law - "I'm sorry if this hurts you right now, but breaking precedent here is apt to cause issues later." So, like.. they're going to snitch on you half the time, basically.

If, in those conflicting situations, you are usually willing to discard the traditions of your people to make things better... you're more NG.

This goes the other way, too. A CE character/monster will sometimes support a thing that is good for people... just because it cheeses off stuffy folks!

I will agree that hobbits, generally, are LG - But not Bilbo, Frodo, or Merry and Pippin. Most hobbits find "adventures" to be... highly questionable activities, remember. Samwise Gamgee was probably still LG, as he went along out of strict loyalty.

Lobelia Sackville-Baggins was the stuffy Aunt Petunia. LG communities can totally be filled with gossipy busybodies who look down on whatever you are doing that isn't in line with social traditions.

Or, a third path, to approach the rule breaker, discuss the issue with them, and then report any repeated behavior. The options aren't snitch or don't, and reduction to such don't make for reasoned discussion of alignment.

If alignment is such a straightjacket, then it's amazing any play gets done rather than endless reviewing of alignment vs actions. I mean, you just proposed that anything less than a 50/50 split on snitching or not moves your from LG to NG on the under, and, presumably, from LG to LN on the over. If LG can only exist at the perfect midpoint of this proposed dichotomy, why even bother having it -- just skip to NG or LN because 50/50 isn't really very likely to occur.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Umbran - I respect your reading of LG, but it's not quite the same as mine. I think the idea of Law needs to be read on more levels than simply the legal. There's tradition and custom too, which in my reading might be far important to a LG character than the law of the land, which may or may not reflect that characters community (Hobbits are a good example). Not to say they wouldn't respect the law of the land, only that it might not at the top of their list of priorities.

Also, there are a lot of options between being upset that someone is breaking the law and dropping a dime on them. a LG NPC might not report a law breaker if that person was important to them, but they would agonize over the decision. IMO your reading preferences the L over the G, where as I tend to go the other direction.

As for Lobelia, she was stealing stuff from Frodo and Bilbo in fits of pique, I don't think she's LG. Stuffy aunt Petunia's can totally be LG though, for sure, they just aren't my yardstick for what LG looks like.

 

[Helldritch]

I would side with Fenris on that one. A LN would do the thing Umbran describe without hesitation but a LG would chastise the offender, insist that he gives back the goods (or right the wrong done in some way) before going to the law (if it was warranted and the offender would not comply) and his/her personal involvement with the perpetrator would affect the outcome too. The NG might do nothing (if it were a minor offense, like stealing a pie to eat) and the CG would probably ask for a share of the same pie.

 

[Oofta]

Hobbits are a terrible yardstick for LG, I'd suggest. They're a decent yardstick for NG. I mean, you remember that time when Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry broke into, and trespassed on, a farmer's field and stole tons of mushrooms and had to run away because they were thieves and how they talked about the fact that they did this kind of habitually and it wasn't the first time, right?

They're very G, but they're not really L.



"It's the people who are the problem not the system" works the first couple of times the system breaks down. When there are problems as widespread and reliable as LG and CN have caused, there are problems with the system. The same exact argument as yours is traditionally used with LF/QW. And "WELL UR GAMES SUCK BUT MINE ROCK" is just not an actual argument at all, it's an anecdote/insult.

And 2E, as discussed, presenting the alignments basically as personality disorders (in the PHB, later sources discussing them were sometimes much better or much worse), really did not help with this.

I'm sorry it's an issue for you, I have never seen it. Ever. I've played thousands of hours with probably hundreds of different players over the years in public campaigns. We joked about it now and then but that's all. I have had issues with people playing CN as either insane or actually CE now and then.

So again ... your experience is your experience but it is not universal so it is not an issue with the game or definitions. Certainly not an issue with 5E.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Ugh alignment sucks