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.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

That's one thing.

But the player who, after a real-time hour or two of planning, says in-character "screw it, I'm heading for the tower right now" can be a godsend; as almost nothing is duller than a long session of planning.

An extreme example of this came in a 3e game I'd just left, some years ago, where the party spent nearly an entire session discussing a) whether or not to open a door in a dungeon and b) planning for what might be behind it. One player arrived very late, when the session was almost over, and on getting a quick update along the lines of "you didn't miss much, they haven't moved, they've been discussing what to do about this door" he immediately had his PC just go over to the door and open it.

That's what I mean about 'getting things moving'.

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

Your line "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) ... " strongly imples that unjust governments generally aren't legitimate; hence my response.

 

[Helldritch]

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.

Mmmm... Never saw that part about chaotic alignment. I see the non evil neutral alignment for a one shot adventure that would further the cause of lawful good but not the chaotic part... Maybe its my edition that is missing something. It is on P24 of the 1ed PHB. To left corner, condition no 4. Nowhere does it mention chaotic alignment. So I always put LG, NG, CG for long term, LN, N, and CN for short term mission and it must further the cause of LG.

 

[Lanefan]

i never experienced a problem with paladins not getting a long with CG.

It's baked into the rules in 1e: a Paladin will not associate with a Chaotic character for longer than a single adventure.

 

[Helldritch]

It's baked into the rules in 1e: a Paladin will not associate with a Chaotic character for longer than a single adventure.

In my version of the PHB it only says non evil neutral characters. Nowhere does it mention chaotic. Where did you see it? It's not in the UA either...

Edit: I have the 1978 version.

 

[Lanefan]

Mmmm... Never saw that part about chaotic alignment. I see the non evil neutral alignment for a one shot adventure that would further the cause of lawful good but not the chaotic part... Maybe its my edition that is missing something. It is on P24 of the 1ed PHB. To left corner, condition no 4. Nowhere does it mention chaotic alignment. So I always put LG, NG, CG for long term, LN, N, and CN for short term mission and it must further the cause of LG.

Huh. Would ya look at that. I stand very much corrected.

Somewhere along the line (very long ago!) I must have interpreted 'non-evil neutrals' as 'chaotics' and just gone with it.

What this does point out is that Paladins see the Good-Evil axis as being more important than Law-Chaos; maybe my interpretation was an attempt to balance this out?

 

[Helldritch]

Phew... I thought it might have been changed in later edition because you are not the first one to say something like this (to my knowledge).

It would be pretty restrictive to an already restricted class. Because it would only associate with 2 alignments for any extended period of time. LG and NG. Not a lot of choice and diversity don't you think?

Edit: Damn the auto-corrector...

 

[Lanefan]

Phew... I thought it might have been changed in later edition because you are not the first one to say something like this (to my knowledge).

Maybe it changed in 2e? It's a long time since I read the 2e PHB; does someone out there have one handy to check?

It would be pretty restrictive to an already restricted class. Because it would only associate with 2 alignments for any extended period of time. LG and NG. Not a lot of choice and diversity don't you think?

Yes, which might be why I also allowed LN and N - i.e. the three alignments one step removed from LG.

 

[Helldritch]

When I get back home, I'll check. But I am pretty sure that 2nd edition alleviated the one shot adventure for neutral non-evil and only kept the "will not associate with evil characters".

 

[Oofta]

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.

I agree that it would be unlikely that a good-aligned individual (or even non-CE evil) would survive. My point was that people are saying that the society a character belongs to somehow dictates what they must believe. That the LG half-orc paladin, no matter how unlikely, would have to support the laws and mores of his home country.

 

[Fenris-77]

I agree that it would be unlikely that a good-aligned individual (or even non-CE evil) would survive. My point was that people are saying that the society a character belongs to somehow dictates what they must believe. That the LG half-orc paladin, no matter how unlikely, would have to support the laws and mores of his home country.

I think perhaps the laws and mores of his faith perhaps, at least as a first tier above the law of the land. If he were a LG Paladin from a place that had legal slavery for example he would be in no way obligated to support the idea of slavery just because it happens to be legal where he's from.