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.

 

[Fenris-77]

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

Hah. No, law, as a concept encompasses far more than just whatever legal code happens to be enforced, and character who is lawful could indeed find themselves at odds with a legal code. If you think of it strictly in terms of legality, which some of the posters in this thread seem to, it gets wonky fast.

 

[Lanefan]

My problems were never with the players wanting to play a paladin or be LG. It was always the others.

That's because of the tone set in 1e, where Paladins, unlike any other class, have rather severe restrictions on who-what they'll run with: no Evils, and Chaotics for one adventure only.

Which means, someone bringing in a Pally is very much dictating what everyone else is expected to play: the choice of 9 alignments for all other PCs has just been reduced to 4 (LG,LN,N,NG).

What follows, inevitably, is someone (me, often as not) then wants to bring in something like a Chaotic Good Illusionist. This is fine for one adventure...but after that either the Pally or the Illusionist has to go. Boom - instant party dispute.

 

[billd91]

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

And he's probably closer to being correct than not. If our understandings of historical cultures are correct, there doesn't seem to be a lot of leeway given to individual liberty compared to social expectations and conventions. Social structures could be pretty rigid - individual liberty and the dignity of the individual tends to come later, philosophically. The good of the individual paled in comparison to the good of the tribe, the caste, the clan, the city-state, etc. There were, of course, some exceptions - but probably not enough to really make for a lot of Chaotic cultures and a big cluster in the Lawful and Lawful-to-Neutral columns.

 

[Hoffmand]

That's because of the tone set in 1e, where Paladins, unlike any other class, have rather severe restrictions on who-what they'll run with: no Evils, and Chaotics for one adventure only.

Which means, someone bringing in a Pally is very much dictating what everyone else is expected to play: the choice of 9 alignments for all other PCs has just been reduced to 4 (LG,LN,N,NG).

What follows, inevitably, is someone (me, often as not) then wants to bring in something like a Chaotic Good Illusionist. This is fine for one adventure...but after that either the Pally or the Illusionist has to go. Boom - instant party dispute.

i never experienced a problem with paladins not getting a long with CG. It was more like a friendly disagreement followed by lets drink some ale. But I never played in a group with evil alignments. And are CN player was more just a crazy guy looking for fun. We might be bailing him out of jail after a night of drinking. That was it. Oh there was the pick pocket phase. But that got old for him.

 

[Hoffmand]

And he's probably closer to being correct than not. If our understandings of historical cultures are correct, there doesn't seem to be a lot of leeway given to individual liberty compared to social expectations and conventions. Social structures could be pretty rigid - individual liberty and the dignity of the individual tends to come later, philosophically. The good of the individual paled in comparison to the good of the tribe, the caste, the clan, the city-state, etc. There were, of course, some exceptions - but probably not enough to really make for a lot of Chaotic cultures and a big cluster in the Lawful and Lawful-to-Neutral columns.

We are by nature lawful beings. And trying to create laws that benefit us. Most disputes aren’t to get rid of law. But to create a new system with laws we want. We may later find out those laws don’t work however.

 

[Lanefan]

B) Terminal refusal to follow or go along with plans or anything that has been agreed to. This is I feel a bit more on the player than the description of the alignment, but it is a problem that can derail adventures and split the party and cause absolute havoc.

I don't mind any of this, actually. Players like that are almost a necessity at some tables, just to get things moving!

Derailing adventures? Don't matter much to me as DM or player as long as people are having fun.

Split the party? I've always said that if playing your character true to itself leads it out of the party, then out it goes; and I've roleplayed myself out of numerous parties over the years on just this principle.

Havoc? Given a choice between a session of chaos and havoc and a session of sitting and planning, I'll take chaos and havoc all day long thanks!

 

[Lanefan]

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).

The two - justness and legitimacy - are not connected.

In Robin Hood, King John was the legitimate ruler, based on the assumption that Richard had died in the wars, and had quite legally and properly appointed the Sheriff of Nottingham to his post.

Didn't exactly lead to just rulership over the locals, however.

 

[billd91]

We are by nature lawful beings. And trying to create laws that benefit us. Most disputes aren’t to get rid of law. But to create a new system with laws we want. We may later find out those laws don’t work however.

I don't know that I'd agree with that, but basic subsistence takes a lot of effort for a long, long time. Cooperation tends to be necessary. It becomes a lot easier to develop philosophies and social structures that value and protect the individual once basic survival is met and the population is large and diverse enough to support the kind of specialization it requires.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Players like that are almost a necessity at some tables, just to get things moving!

My experience is that they do the exact opposite. The party has decided that they're invading the evil wizard's tower. Mr CN goes along with it until they get there, then wanders off and starts exploring a nearby forest, at which point you have to faff about with his idiocy, wasting the time of the rest of the group, and everyone has less fun.

The two - justness and legitimacy - are not connected.

Did I suggest they were? I'm confused. I thought I suggested they weren't.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

IMO no it couldn't, barring some divine (i.e. DM) intervention.

Sure the Half-Orc might severely disagree with how her society does things, but there'd be a boatload of obstacles in the way of her becoming a Paladin: who's going to train her; what deity is going to support her; will she survive what her society does to her once it comes to realize she's on this path, and so forth.