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.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

In a D&D World, climate change may well be caused by the corruption of the earth mother (or equivalent deity) by evil forces. So sure, why not?

I mean, in Pathfinder there is literally a demon lord of pollution, it works.

 

[Fenris-77]

Gentrification in Waterdeep needs the hero it deserves.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

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.

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.

Communism is one of those things that works well on paper, but never in practice, because humans are greedy, selfish, and power-hungry. But in a fantasy world, where a fantasy race may be mostly incapable of those things, a kingdom run by that race could easily be functional using the ideals of communism. And it would probably be a very Lawful Neutral society, maybe even just Neutral, because without those human urges, the laws of the land would not have to be that restrictive or heavy. Of course, beings on the outside who believe in the accumulation of wealth, like dragons and dwarves, may look on this kingdom as evil because this is not allowed in the laws. and this makes me wonder if Tolkien meant his dwarves to be compared to the extreme versions of capitalism in the real world? And this is not meant to get anyone to connect this to modern politics or anything, so don't answer that way, so no one gets modded over the discussion.

 

[R_Chance]

Im not saying evil cant be zealous. Im saying that it tends to be signifficantly less common. Any alignment can be zealous. Obviously.

Agreed any can. I think we have a tendency to assume "good" religions would somehow be more zealous (and obnoxious). I just think that any religion, regardless of alignment, can be zealous. When "evil" is an acceptable philosophical position in the world it evens out the "whos who" of zealotry.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In a D&D World, climate change may well be caused by the corruption of the earth mother (or equivalent deity) by evil forces. So sure, why not?

There's entire D&D setting whose central point was man-made climate change (which, back in 1992, was kind of more daring than it might be now - or less - I'm not really sure), that being Dark Sun. And the people who keep things messed up are definitely an evil bunch, on the whole.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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?

Which King Arthur? I mean can think of a half-dozen different ones who would have reactions anywhere from rage bordering on murderous violence at the impertinence, to polite listening before dismissal, to very serious consideration of the idea and possibly working to achieve it, especially as some Arthurs very much originate in a post-Roman Britain with idealized notions of Roman republican quasi-democracy and so on, and Arthur never had an heir, so some kind of council or democracy or whatever might actually have been the best way to continue his ideals.

It totally depends on the specific Arthur and their surrounding setup, though. He's a very varied character.

 

[Hoffmand]

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.

I agree. “Your own personal code” does not cut it for being lawful. It has to to include more ideas, like building a better world or society or community. Or something like that.

I think someone using the system, law or regulations just for personal gain could very well be chaotic. And intelligent chaotic person using the system for his own gratification and gain or possible to collapse the system.

 

[Oofta]

I agree. “Your own personal code” does not cut it for being lawful. It has to to include more ideas, like building a better world or society or community. Or something like that.

While alignment being just one more descriptor of a character and there is no detailed explanation, LN does explicitly state " individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes."

For me all that matters is that someone lawful believes in a set of rules. No reason to think those rules have to come from an external source.

 

[Mort]

While alignment being just one more descriptor of a character and there is no detailed explanation, LN does explicitly state " individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes."

For me all that matters is that someone lawful believes in a set of rules. No reason to think those rules have to come from an external source.

It's interesting that LG and LE both reference external sources (...do the right thing as expected by society ..., ...take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order ....) while LN states a personal code as 1 example.

I suppose that could mean LN is more concerned with rigid following of a dogma while LG and LE are both more concerned with place within a group?

 

[Oofta]

It's interesting that LG and LE both reference external sources (...do the right thing as expected by society ..., ...take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order ....) while LN states a personal code as 1 example.

I suppose that could mean LN is more concerned with rigid following of a dogma while LG and LE are both more concerned with place within a group?

I think it just means that they spent a minimal amount of time on this particular topic because it's not very important to most people. When it is important, what it means is going to vary from group to group.

In other words, I wouldn't read too much into it.