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.

 

[Mort]

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).

I think linking Lawful to "your own internal code of ethics" is significantly more problematic than the alternative! It basically justifies any behavior the even halfway decent roleplayer can come up with.

The lawful part of the alignment isn't just adherence to the law - it's how you act when you believe the law is vile and reprehensible. The lawful person's defiance of that law is going to (and should) take a different approach than the neutral or chaotic persons.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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).

So is thievery/trespass legal? Or not sufficiently illegal to make them not lawful?

I mean, that's not a totally unreasonable viewpoint. Some societies take different kinds of theft vastly more or less seriously than others. Maybe to hobbits, theft of food which doesn't make others go hungry, nor destroy livelihoods, is merely naughtiness rather than illegality.

Yet Farmer Maggot and his lads (also hobbits) seem to pretty clearly think thieving and trespassing is wrong, though not so wrong as to rat out Frodo et al to scary outsiders. And this is a specific incident I'm referring to. Frodo and apparently all hobbits are kind of nuts for mushrooms (... Tolkien wrote it not me!) and they discuss that they've stolen them before. I guess it's equivalent to "scrumping", low-end poaching and the like.

The hobbits are based on an idealization of English pastoral culture, but have interesting similarities to tribal cultures, and I feel like they would agree with the notion that, when outsiders are involved "snitches get stiches".

Also re: hospitality, I don't think there are many cultures which don't take that fairly seriously, and the historical ones I can think of who take it least seriously are clearly Lawful cultures in all other senses, so I think that's a very weak connection to make.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think linking Lawful to "your own internal code of ethics" is significantly more problematic than the alternative! It basically justifies any behavior the even halfway decent roleplayer can come up with.

Explain how good roleplaying and preventing adventures grinding to a halt and so on is a "problem", would you? Because that's what it sounds like you're describing to me.

 

[Lem23]

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.

Nah, CG would steal another pie for the guy's kids.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

An angel, a devil, and a modron are having a pint in a pub in Sigil. Their conversation shifts from casual chat to a heated discussion on the nature of the concept of Law, its relationship to mortal laws and codes, and how to reconcile discrepancies between the ideal of Law and its material manifeatations.

Which of them would be the likeliest to start the inevitable bar fight?

 

[Helldritch]

The slaad in the back.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The slaad in the back.

Yeah this. The Angel and Devil would be desperately baiting each other and accidentally baiting the Modron, but they'd all probably be trying to not be "the one who started it", so some troublesome being would use Minor Illusion or throw a mug or something to get it started.

 

[Mort]

Explain how good roleplaying and preventing adventures grinding to a halt and so on is a "problem", would you? Because that's what it sounds like you're describing to me.

I'm honestly confused by what you mean. How is a Lawful character, attempting to adhere to the laws of the land going to "grind adventures to a halt?"

How is someone who has outlined an internal code of ethics that wildly conflicts with anything the DM has put forth (but is both clear and consistent and the player is properly adhering to it - hence good roleplaying) NOT likely to grind things to a halt?

The point is laws are external, they are the binding agents of society (for good or for bad) - an internal code of ethics is expressly NOT that.

Both a lawful and a chaotic character can have very strong internal codes of ethics (they may even be the same or a very similar code) - but how they apply that to society as a whole is going to be wildly different.

 

[Fenris-77]

So is thievery/trespass legal? Or not sufficiently illegal to make them not lawful?

I mean, that's not a totally unreasonable viewpoint. Some societies take different kinds of theft vastly more or less seriously than others. Maybe to hobbits, theft of food which doesn't make others go hungry, nor destroy livelihoods, is merely naughtiness rather than illegality.

I don't think high spirited muchroom raids are a great barometer for whether or not Hobbits a a group are lawful or not.

Yet Farmer Maggot and his lads (also hobbits) seem to pretty clearly think thieving and trespassing is wrong, though not so wrong as to rat out Frodo et al to scary outsiders. And this is a specific incident I'm referring to. Frodo and apparently all hobbits are kind of nuts for mushrooms (... Tolkien wrote it not me!) and they discuss that they've stolen them before. I guess it's equivalent to "scrumping", low-end poaching and the like.

Teenage shenanigans. It happens everywhere and a little rebellion is part of growing up. The fact that the countryside is peaceful, and that even Farmer Maggot has, in reality, a pretty sift view of those shenanigans is all the info I need. It's not moving the needle on alignment.

The hobbits are based on an idealization of English pastoral culture, but have interesting similarities to tribal cultures, and I feel like they would agree with the notion that, when outsiders are involved "snitches get stiches".

I'd contend that "snithces get stiches" is a very poor characterization of hobbit culture. They are certainly insular and provincial, but the policing they do is due to a distrust of outsiders, a distrust specifically indexing a fear of the impact those outsiders will have on the peaceful order of the community. It's precisely because they value order and peace that they are distrustful of outsiders.

Also re: hospitality, I don't think there are many cultures which don't take that fairly seriously, and the historical ones I can think of who take it least seriously are clearly Lawful cultures in all other senses, so I think that's a very weak connection to make.

Laws of hospitality have formed bedrock portions of the 'law' of many different cultures. Talking those traditions seriously is a lawful thing to do. Taking those traditions seriously with enthusiasm and good cheer is a 'good' thing to do. You see where I'm going right?

I suspect your still holding onto a very legal interpretation of lawful, which is a partial definition at best. The fact that some cultures (more modern cultures generally) don't have those same traditions of hospitality does not change in the least the lawful nature of maintaining those traditions in a culture that does.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

wildly conflicts with anything the DM has put forth

What does this even mean?

Lawful does not mean "law-following", necessarily, unless they believe in those laws. If you look various revolutionaries through history, some of them are the most shockingly lawful-looking people you can imagine (others really not so, but anyway). The entire Yellow Turban Rebellion, for example, was a staggeringly "lawful" rebellion, in that it had internally consistent ideas, a specific code of ethics (which leaned LN/LG in D&D terms), yet flew utterly against the laws of the land.

You seem to be more concerned that a player might "get one over on you" than with people playing Lawful characters that make sense, to me.

I'd contend that "snithces get stiches" is a very poor characterization of hobbit culture.

I don't agree at all. Talking to outsiders is clearly frowned upon and has consequences. Not fatal ones perhaps, but physical violence or restraint may be involved. I need to re-read the first bit of LotR, but I'm pretty sure something along those lines is reported by one of the characters (not witnessed directly).

Also, the main motivation in most cultures where not talking to outsiders is a thing is to protect the community and the people in it, because the outsiders cannot be trusted.

I suspect your still holding onto a very legal interpretation of lawful, which is a partial definition at best. The fact that some cultures (more modern cultures generally) don't have those same traditions of hospitality does not change in the least the lawful nature of maintaining those traditions in a culture that does.

If we use your approach, just about every culture in human history is lawful, because your net is so broad.