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.

 

[pemerton]

From a usefulness standpoint, I'd much rather use tags and statements of belief to construct a PCs moral and ethical worldview.

Agreed. Working from scratch, I wouldn't build the D&D alignment system, espeically not 9-box.

But if we're stuck with 9-point alignment, I think there's a way of making sense of it, as a dispute about the relationship between means (law/chaos) and ends (the good). Why fasten on law/chaos rather than anything else (peace/violence; prayer/effort; spells/swords; etc) as means? I don't think there's really a good answer to that except tradition and maybe also someone read Morcock and liked it but maybe wasn't the best literary critic around.

But if someone wants to run a game in which that question about means isn't foregrounded, or isn't even relevant, or is far too complex to address via a simply dichotomy, then what is alignment bringing to the table? Nothing that I can see.

Whereas personality descriptors can be interesting, for all sorts of reasons including the ones that you give.

 

[Fenris-77]

Perhaps there's some middle ground. You could slot some descriptors into the alignment box that elaborate on what that alignment tag means about that specific character. How are they lawful, how are they good? Any player with a well developed character concept should be able to generate a handful of statements like this. Alignment guides statements of belief which in turn guide interaction with the diagetic frame. At that point alignment itself is more of a push in a certain direction than a set of proscriptions, but alignment isn't the latter as it stands.

 

[prabe]

My approach to alignment is to treat it a mostly a player-side tool, kinda like the other personality stuff in 5E. There aren't any mechanics in 5E that depend on it, so I mostly ignore characters' alignments, and I pretty much just use NPC/monster alignments as personality components. Works for me.

 

[Fenris-77]

My approach to alignment is to treat it a mostly a player-side tool, kinda like the other personality stuff in 5E. There aren't any mechanics in 5E that depend on it, so I mostly ignore characters' alignments, and I pretty much just use NPC/monster alignments as personality components. Works for me.

This is a key issue. As a mechanic (of sorts) it just kind of floats there, unconnected to to the larger game by much of anything. That's poor game design. The same thing happens to inspiration IMO.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Perhaps there's some middle ground. You could slot some descriptors into the alignment box that elaborate on what that alignment tag means about that specific character. How are they lawful, how are they good? Any player with a well developed character concept should be able to generate a handful of statements like this. Alignment guides statements of belief which in turn guide interaction with the diagetic frame. At that point alignment itself is more of a push in a certain direction than a set of proscriptions, but alignment isn't the latter as it stands.

For 5E, I could even see holding off on selecting an alignment until later on. Maybe at 3rd level when most classes have to pick their sub-class. See how the character comes across in actual play rather than deciding ahead of time.

I mean, many folks argue against having a backstory for a PC because they want those details to emerge through play. And while I don’t agree with that 100%, I would happily apply it to alignment.

 

[Fenris-77]

That could work. Beliefs change with time and experience, so it makes complete sense that how a character views the world could change over the course of a campaign.

 

[Oofta]

This is a key issue. As a mechanic (of sorts) it just kind of floats there, unconnected to to the larger game by much of anything. That's poor game design. The same thing happens to inspiration IMO.

I will agree that it's been devalued in general, it's now just another descriptor like bonds and traits. It is no more or less important than the group wants it to be.

But considering how much disagreement comes up on this topic and always has, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. The alignment system and corresponding planes of existence got a little carried away in 3.5 IMHO.

So I don't think it's a bad thing that they seem to have accepted that it can't be any more than a general abstract thing like HP or AC.

 

[prabe]

This is a key issue. As a mechanic (of sorts) it just kind of floats there, unconnected to to the larger game by much of anything. That's poor game design. The same thing happens to inspiration IMO.

Inspiration feels like a lot of DM-side work without a lot of benefit to the game, so I ignore that, too. As a way to get into a character (player-side) it's fine as it is in 5E--but I say that after having played a lot of games without alignments and enjoying those.

 

[pemerton]

Perhaps there's some middle ground. You could slot some descriptors into the alignment box that elaborate on what that alignment tag means about that specific character. How are they lawful, how are they good? Any player with a well developed character concept should be able to generate a handful of statements like this. Alignment guides statements of belief which in turn guide interaction with the diagetic frame. At that point alignment itself is more of a push in a certain direction than a set of proscriptions, but alignment isn't the latter as it stands.

I think this makes either the descriptors, or alignment, redunant. Which I know is at odds wih your "middle ground", but at the moment I'm finding that a bit quixotic.

I'll explain why.

Suppose I come up with my CG bard, and elaborate that my chaoticness is all about a belief in the invidual spark of creativity and generosity as the true source of good; and that my goodness is esepcially focused on the cultivation, admiration and protection of beauty. (Maybe my bard's name is Bloomsbury.)

Now in a "black and white", "simple ideals" campaign (I'm thinking KotB and its latter-day descendants) this doesn't really do much work except maybe give me a bit of characterisation. Because in that campaign all the goods track together; the orcs are cruel and ugly and destructive; etc. So my reward-for-effort is at the lower end of the range.

In a more complex campaign this can quickly become interesting. I can save the artwork or my friend but not both - which do I choose? The evil villain has a beautiful voice - does he seduce me? Saving the world is possible only if we all pull together, forsaking our individuality - am I prepared to save that world? But now the alignment system provides excatly zero answers to those questions. It can barely even frame them, because they all involve trade-offs within the zone of the good - ie between genuine values.

So my tentative but considered conjecture is that either the descriptors sit idle, or alignment sits idle.

 

[Oofta]

That could work. Beliefs change with time and experience, so it makes complete sense that how a character views the world could change over the course of a campaign.

There is no penalty to changing alignment in 5E so if it makes a difference you can change it at any time.