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.

angel-4241932_960_720.jpg

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
I just got done re-reading the Dresden File books and one of the characters he has is a paladin in all but name. Michael is quite religious, very lawful good. Harry is ... not.

Yet they get along just fine. Harry doesn't agree with Michael but respects him. Michael gives his opinion if asked and states what he thinks now and then but doesn't force his point of view on Harry. He may question now and then, he may not agree with certain courses of action.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

One other thing on lawful alignments ... I disagree that a lawful character necessarily cares about the laws of the land. They have a code and a moral compass but that doesn't mean they necessarily believe the laws of the land are just or worthy. A PC does not suddenly change their view of slavery and murder just because they cross a border.
 

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.

I agree at least that it's not an issue with 5E in any noticeable way.

But I will continue to point out "it's not been a problem for me" is not any kind of rational argument, if it's intended to be. It is logically wrong to say that because an experience is not universal, it is not a problem caused by a game or definitions.

CN I've always found the biggest problem was that most people interpret it as either:

A) Just bonkers, taking random actions that make no sense (several descriptions of it in TSR books kinda support this interpretation, unfortunately).

B) Terminal refusal to follow or go along with plans or anything that has been agreed to. This is I feel a bit more on the player than the description of the alignment, but it is a problem that can derail adventures and split the party and cause absolute havoc.
 

One other thing on lawful alignments ... I disagree that a lawful character necessarily cares about the laws of the land. They have a code and a moral compass but that doesn't mean they necessarily believe the laws of the land are just or worthy. A PC does not suddenly change their view of slavery and murder just because they cross a border.

I concur. Unfortunately the wording in again a lot of TSR books (and possibly some 3E ones) suggests L characters just rules-followers, even where the rules are wrong. I haven't got my Complete Handbooks to hand but I'm pretty sure a number of them have a bit on alignment examples for the relevant classes and the earlier ones have some fairly bonkers stuff to say on this.
 


One other thing on lawful alignments ... I disagree that a lawful character necessarily cares about the laws of the land. They have a code and a moral compass but that doesn't mean they necessarily believe the laws of the land are just or worthy. A PC does not suddenly change their view of slavery and murder just because they cross a border.

I'm not sure I agree.

Even if a Lawful character disagrees with the laws of the land, they would still try to work within them before resorting to extra-legal methods.

Lets take the slavery example:

A LG character is in a place where slavery is legal - they might try to influence the rules makers to change the law, they might try to put themselves into a situation where they could change the law themselves. If they have the means - they might buy as many slaves as possible and free them, etc. Their first go-to would not likely be to incite a rebellion against the legal authority to put in place a different one that agrees with their views.

This, of course, could get complicated if the LG character believes the legal authority is not "in fact" legal and needs to be replaced.
 

I'm not sure I agree.

Even if a Lawful character disagrees with the laws of the land, they would still try to work within them before resorting to extra-legal methods.

Lets take the slavery example:

A LG character is in a place where slavery is legal - they might try to influence the rules makers to change the law, they might try to put themselves into a situation where they could change the law themselves. If they have the means - they might buy as many slaves as possible and free them, etc. Their first go-to would not likely be to incite a rebellion against the legal authority to put in place a different one that agrees with their views.

This, of course, could get complicated if the LG character believes the legal authority is not "in fact" legal and needs to be replaced.
William wilburforce is a good example.
 

If I may self-promote a little, this thread may be of interest--feel free to necro it if you have anything to add :)

 

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.
Really? They seem like the definition of well ordered law-abiding folk. The shire has essentially no crime, and Hobbits have a treasure trove of traditions and societal connections they take very seriously. Things like hospitality, as a duty, and fulfilling societal expectations are pretty quintessentially Lawful. Just because they don't go in for a lot of legal bureaucracy doesn't make them not lawful. They don't have to because the innate qualities of their culture mitigate against needing it (and can be most useful indexed in D&D terms as LG).
 

I'm not sure I agree.

Even if a Lawful character disagrees with the laws of the land, they would still try to work within them before resorting to extra-legal methods.

I don't think that's necessarily true at all. It's going to be entirely situational. I think what you're suggesting, if seen as the rule, not the exception, causes problems rather than solving them. If a properly-RP'd LG character things a country's laws are vile and misguided, they have no duty to work within them, I would suggest, and DMs who insist they do, otherwise they're "not lawful" are exactly the sort of problem we've been discussing here.

It's one thing is a generally-just country has a few problematic areas, like maybe indentured servitude being widespread and perhaps abused, or debtors prisons (to an LG character, that's clearly "not okay"), they may well work within the law.

But if the country is broadly unjust, no matter how "legitimate" the government is (let's face it, it probably isn't very legitimate, whatever it is), I don't think there's any reason they'd follow the laws of that country (though they will still continue to follow their own internal code of ethics/mental laws/rules).
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top