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.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

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.

And when there is a conflict between a person's personal code and the laws of their homeland, either they abandon their personal code in favor of kingdom law and stay LN or they stick with their personal code and become non-Lawful.

 

[prabe]

And when there is a conflict between a person's personal code and the laws of their homeland, either they abandon their personal code in favor of kingdom law and stay LN or they stick with their personal code and become non-Lawful.

If they start working to peacefully change the laws of their homeland, I wouldn't necessarily call that a non-lawful act.

 

[Oofta]

And when there is a conflict between a person's personal code and the laws of their homeland, either they abandon their personal code in favor of kingdom law and stay LN or they stick with their personal code and become non-Lawful.

Let's just agree to disagree on this one. Laws of the land may or may not inform the decisions of my PC.

If, for example, my background is "escaped slave from the KOE" I sure as heck don't support my homeland's laws. External laws may or may not be just.

To each their own.

 

[DammitVictor]

The problem with "personal codes" is that my rigid adherence to personal codes of absolute moral principles is why I'm compelled to undermine and tear down lawful authority, burn their works, and salt their fields.

I'm Chaotic Evil because Lawful Good isn't Lawful or Good enough.

 

[Mort]

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.

I'll grant that alignment is nowhere near as important as it was in early editions. But just passing the text off as, well they just short changed the descriptions seems unsatisfying.

I stand by my point that allowing LG to be defined by a personal code as opposed to ties to society, community etc. renders the alignment much less meaningful if not almost meaningless (which of course is is ok if you don't put much weight on alignment!).

 

[Marandahir]

Video game RPGs like The Elder Scrolls have trained us to play Chaotic Neutral (and/or Evil) - do whatever you want as long as you don't get caught. D&D isn't a video game.

D&D offers such an open framework that the game can SHOW the hardship that happens to that shopkeeper that the PCs robbed blind. In a video game, robbing the shopkeep is an exercise in stealth and fencing: as long as you can sneak well enough, grab the stuff when someone isn't looking, and either use it yourself or sell it to a fence, there's no punishment. Your stealthy skills allowed you to get away with actions that in real life could be incredibly harmful.

Sure, occasionally doing so would cause a random encounter with hitmen hired by the victim to try to "teach you a lesson," but the vast majority of these cases you the player could get away with horrific crimes, from robbery all the way down to murder if you're that good.

In D&D, as a DM, I want players to recognise that their actions have consequences. You don't need to be Lawful Good to avoid them (that comes with other challenges), but when you steal something, you're not getting it for free. It comes back to haunt you in the narrative.

Maybe the player will keep doing it - the rewards outweigh the problems. That's okay. But I don't want to handwave their actions that cause other people harm in the game. The NPCs in a D&D game should not be "Welcome to Corneria!" single-dialogue folks, they have their own lives, and when you involve yourself in those lives, they may involve themselves in yours. Maybe the PCs are no longer welcome in the only town within a 3 day's journey, and so they'll have to rough it up in the wilderness. Maybe that NPC's sibling in the big city confronts the players, having spent the last few months hunting them down.

And if the players don't get caught at all? Maybe introduce victims in the next session who are down on their luck because the their family lost everything after the players stole from them.

It doesn't mean the act of theft here is always evil - in the correct circumstances (robin hood rob from the rich sort of deal), it could be Chaotic Good. But All actions have and should have consequences.

When you do good and lawful things, those should have social consequences too. They might be positive ones, or they might not - what if you captured the evil murderous bandits because it's the right thing to do, but later on they escape and come back for revenge? Or their client puts a hit on the players for interfering with the plans?

 

[Oofta]

I'll grant that alignment is nowhere near as important as it was in early editions. But just passing the text off as, well they just short changed the descriptions seems unsatisfying.

I stand by my point that allowing LG to be defined by a personal code as opposed to ties to society, community etc. renders the alignment much less meaningful if not almost meaningless (which of course is is ok if you don't put much weight on alignment!).

I've run campaigns where the society was corrupt and evil. Yet my wife played a LG paladin. She absolutely did not follow the tenets of her society or community. One of her goals became overthrowing the local regime.

I don't see why you think external laws mean anything. Could a LG paladin half-orc raised in an orcish (with the standard CE) society ever happen?

But we're just going round and round so have a good one.

 

[Fenris-77]

There's a serious disconnect somewhere in this thread about exactly to what extent the 'law' in 'lawful' refers to the legal code of a place. I would submit that less you think about LG that way the more sense it actually makes. Talking about the law without the good is to talk about a different alignment.

 

[Helldritch]

There's a serious disconnect somewhere in this thread about exactly to what extent the 'law' in 'lawful' refers to the legal code of a place. I would submit that less you think about LG that way the more sense it actually makes. Talking about the law without the good is to talk about a different alignment.

It makes perfect sense. Law without good or evil is Lawful Neutral.

 

[Lanefan]

These side-changers all seem to be NPCs. Have I got that right?

In this instance, yes.

On a couple of other occasions I've introduced new PCs by having the character start as opposition (e.g. as a guard watching over slaves the party are trying to rescue) and then leaving it up to the player as to how to change sides and join the party. Hasn't failed yet.