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.

 

[Oofta]

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.

So I have a PC based on Superman. Not the abilities, but the moral code: truth justice and Tyr's way. Even favors blue and wears a red cape. Maybe suppose he's named Sven and calls his horse Snert. Totally hypothetical of course.

He walks into a kingdom run by some demon lord because the group is on a mission to rescue people that were kidnapped by a raiding party and were enslaved. Slavery is perfectly legal in the KOE (Kingdom of Evil).

Does that mean my paladin can do nothing to rescue the slaves? That given the option to overthrow the rules of KOE that he should not take it?

As far as other stuff, Sven doesn't like lying to people. But he also understands the concept of being undercover and that openly declaring himself to be a paladin of Tyr will get him and the rest of the party killed. He's not an idiot.

Play however you want, but please don't tell me I'm playing wrong if I don't play LG as idiot pain in the ass who demands everybody does as they say.

 

[Mort]

So I have a PC based on Superman. Not the abilities, but the moral code: truth justice and Tyr's way. Even favors blue and wears a red cape. Maybe suppose he's named Sven and calls his horse Snert. Totally hypothetical of course.

So he follows a set code of external laws (the code as put forth by a God sure qualifies). What's the issue?

He walks into a kingdom run by some demon lord because the group is on a mission to rescue people that were kidnapped by a raiding party and were enslaved. Slavery is perfectly legal in the KOE (Kingdom of Evil).

Does that mean my paladin can do nothing to rescue the slaves? That given the option to overthrow the rules of KOE that he should not take it?

You're describing a conflict of laws - which can be a really fun adventuring scenario.

The Paladin is anything but helpless - he has TONS of options. Starting with possible legal ones - Paladins have a high charisma for things other than just smiting their enemies! As for overthrowing the rulers of this land, he might just do that - again a conflicts of laws issue.

As far as other stuff, Sven doesn't like lying to people. But he also understands the concept of being undercover and that openly declaring himself to be a paladin of Tyr will get him and the rest of the party killed. He's not an idiot.

Play however you want, but please don't tell me I'm playing wrong if I don't play LG as idiot pain in the ass who demands everybody does as they say.

And here where that high Charisma comes into play - nowhere am I arguing Paladins have to play stupid - far from it. Heck my favorite character (who I rarely get to play ) is a paladin with the urchin background that's all about talking his way out of tough situations.

 

[Mort]

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.

Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.

That's from the D&D beyond PHB (I'm away from the actual physical book re: page reference).

That seems "law following" to me - not to the point of idiocy - sure, but law following.

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'm not the least bit concerned about a player getting one over on me. I have great players and our play-styles mesh. Also I'm not in some kind of competition with my players.

 

[Fenris-77]

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).

Being insular is one thing, and "snitches get stiches" is another. I was suggesting that the term was perhaps more loaded than is useful and doesn't really apply as-is to Hobbits very well at all.

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.

And that stems out of a concern for ... the protection of the culture and the maintenance of the order that allows it to prosper. I'm sure we can spin an example up where it's simple xenophobia, unconnected to concerns about the peace and order, but not in the case of Hobbits.

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

That sound broadly correct. Most real world cultures develop law and order to maintain certain cultural expectations of behavior in situations where the population get big enough or spread out enough that not everyone knows each other. Smaller communities don't need the same level of legal overhead. The degree which a particular culture in human history is lawful would very much depend on broader considerations of that culture. Vikings, for example, had very strict laws of hospitality, but also a culture of raiding and piracy. Law on the one hand and chaos on the other. Looking at the broader context in a particular case is where you'll find the knobs and dials to adjust putative alignment. In the case of Hobbits they have a peaceful, well ordered society, and no extraneous reason to count them as anything but lawful. This matched the write for Halflings in the PHB to btw, and that isn't a mistake.

 

[Aaron L]

This whole topic connects to something that I get kind of tired of in D&D: treating the Lawful Good Alignment as matching the baseline ideals of modern liberal democracy, and matching the other Alignments to fit that standard. For example, all of those Alignment Charts online that always label Captain America as Lawful Good (they do usually properly peg Spider-Man as being Neutral Good, however.) But the truth is that the ideals of modern liberal democracy, the concept of "all men are created equal," are incredibly Chaotic Good. The ideals of Lawful Good are much closer to the concept of Faufreluches from Dune: "A place for every man and every man in his place," but with the concept of Noblesse Oblige taken seriously and dutifully. The ideals of Lawful Good include rulership by rightful Kings, with nobles standing below them and above commoners, and everyone occupying their proper places in society and honoring those above them, while those above dutifully take care of those below. The ideals of Democracy, that everyone is equal and should have a say in government, is very Chaotic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The ideals of Democracy, that everyone is equal and should have a say in government, is very Chaotic.

Yeah I don't think anyone agrees with that, and Faufreluches sound distinctly LN, not LG.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

This whole topic connects to something that I get kind of tired of in D&D: treating the Lawful Good Alignment as matching the baseline ideals of modern liberal democracy, and matching the other Alignments to fit that standard. For example, all of those Alignment Charts online that always label Captain America as Lawful Good (they do usually properly peg Spider-Man as being Neutral Good, however.) But the truth is that the ideals of modern liberal democracy, the concept of "all men are created equal," are incredibly Chaotic Good. The ideals of Lawful Good are much closer to the concept of Faufreluches from Dune: "A place for every man and every man in his place," but with the concept of Noblesse Oblige taken seriously and dutifully. The ideals of Lawful Good include rulership by rightful Kings, with nobles standing below them and above commoners, and everyone occupying their proper places in society and honoring those above them, while those above dutifully take care of those below. The ideals of Democracy, that everyone is equal and should have a say in government, is very Chaotic.

I'd say Liberal Democracy is more Neutral Good, with Chaotic Good matching more towards the ideal Communist society (not to get political, please don't start a political discussion)

 

[Aaron L]

I'd say Liberal Democracy is more Neutral Good, with Chaotic Good matching more towards the ideal Communist society (not to get political, please don't start a political discussion)

I could agree with that, but still the ideal of every man being equal is distinctly CG.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd say Liberal Democracy is more Neutral Good, with Chaotic Good matching more towards the ideal Communist society (not to get political, please don't start a political discussion)

I don't see any "Chaotic" in Communist society. Quite the contrary. It's extremely focused on rules and order.

 

[Aaron L]

Yeah I don't think anyone agrees with that, and Faufreluches sound distinctly LN, not LG.

Faufreluches would definitely be LN without the ideal of Noblesse Oblige also being dutifully adhered to. That's what makes LG distinct from LN. Do you think that King Arthur would think it proper to abdicate the throne in favor of a Democratically elected ruling body of peasants, or would he think the whole concept to be a chaotic insurrection against his rightful rulership?