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 don't see any "Chaotic" in Communist society. Quite the contrary. It's extremely focused on rules and order.
True, but it's also pretty damn individualistic ("ever man according to his needs" and all that.) and that feels pretty Chaotic to me. It all boils down to, again, personal preference, ideals, and thoughts on things.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Small 'c' communism seems pretty lawful. Big 'C' communism on a (real world) nation state level, not so much. It could work in fantasy though, and if it did, the level of chaos would be lower.
 

I don't see any "Chaotic" in Communist society. Quite the contrary. It's extremely focused on rules and order.
I think (or hope? I dunno) they meant communist in the sense of a stateless, classless, moneyless society where resources are distributed "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"; not a "communist" (quotation marks emphasized) society that got stuck in the transitionary state socialist/dictatorship of the proletariat phase.

Like, I'm not 100% sure on the lore about Argandor and elvish society there, but that's the general vibe I'm thinking of. Maybe Arborea as a whole (except maybe the Olympus region; the Olympian gods be crazy). Contrast Mount Celestia, which has tons of bureaucracy and organized hierarchy going on with all the angels and archons.
 

I don't see any "Chaotic" in Communist society. Quite the contrary. It's extremely focused on rules and order.
The on-paper ideals of Communism are radically Chaotic Good, with everyone being equal and all wealth being held in common to be shared according to need. It's the way in which people attempt to enforce those idealistic principles that end up being rather less-than idealistic.
 

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 think the whole concept to be a chaotic insurrection against his rightful rulership?

The problem is mixing myth and reality. Arthur believes he is entitled by divine right to rule - and in a setting where that's a real thing - he's right!

Now, what if Arthur receives a divine sign that he must abdicate in favor of a Democratically elected ruling body of peasants? Assuming the sign is real, the LG thing to do is to step down!

Of course, this being Camelot, he's likely to claim it's a trick of his evil stepsister and refuse - and the adventure may be to show who's right.
 

The problem is mixing myth and reality. Arthur believes he is entitled by divine right to rule - and in a setting where that's a real thing - he's right!

Now, what if Arthur receives a divine sign that he must abdicate in favor of a Democratically elected ruling body of peasants? Assuming the sign is real, the LG thing to do is to step down!

Of course, this being Camelot, he's likely to claim it's a trick of his evil stepsister and refuse - and the adventure may be to show who's right.
I am talking about the fantastical worlds of D&D, so basing it on myth is just proper. :) And that's a really cool idea for an adventure! You really should write it up! The PCs could be recruited by the Democracy movement to determine whether the King is telling the truth, maybe?

According to the 1E Dungeon Master's Guide (the source I still use to define Alignment) Lawful Good is defined as:
"Creatures of lawful good alignment view the cosmos with varying degrees of lawfulness or desire for good. They are convinced that order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good, and that good is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest."

So going by that, I suppose any system which attempts to bring the most benefit to the greatest number while also bringing the least harm to the smallest number is Lawful Good. Therefore, I retract my statement about Lawful Good. I do, however, still think that most LG would prefer a more structered order to society.
 





Remove ads

Remove ads

Top