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.

 

[prabe]

In a currently active thread discussing a 5e game there is advocacy for the idea that the GM should use "that's evil" as a device to control PC action declarations.

There's no support for doing so in 5E's rules. There might be non-mechanical in-game consequences for the actions being discussed, but there are zero penalties for acting against alignment or changing it.

 

[Fenris-77]

Inspiration feels to me like an uninspired (heh) take on Aspects from Fate. I ... have ... problems with Fate at this point, and they're probably not all connected to the game, but Inspiration really does feel like enough of an afterthought that I'm perfectly happy to ignore it.

There is no doubt it's badly realized and generally bloody useless. It could be great though. I think D&D could benefit greatly from a spendable/renewable resource like Inspiration that's actually tied to some mechanics that matter. This is why it's my usual suspect when it comes to where to plug in a new mechanic I've created. It's just kinda sitting there not getting used anyway, so I'm not upsetting the apple cart to purloin it for my own nefarious purposes.

In a currently active thread discussing a 5e game there is advocacy for the idea that the GM should use "that's evil" as a device to control PC action declarations.

Where's the give me unlimited player agency or give me death crowd? Normally someone would have been shouting about railroads and player agency loud enough to be heard over on rpg.net. Personally, I prefer consequences to fiat. The whole point is to provide space and agency for the players to have to make difficult decisions and deal with the consequences, not to tell them what decision to make.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

In a currently active thread discussing a 5e game there is advocacy for the idea that the GM should use "that's evil" as a device to control PC action declarations.

What? What thread? I would like to see that. Most unusual.

 

[Oofta]

In a currently active thread discussing a 5e game there is advocacy for the idea that the GM should use "that's evil" as a device to control PC action declarations.

I will say that I don't allow evil PCs in my game. On the other hand, I have no clue what my player's PC's alignments are. Lawful? Chaotic? I have a general idea and if someone new is struggling with how to find motivation for their PC I might check it out.

But there's a line when things are going into areas that I just don't want to deal with in a game. So yes, it's my personal definition of evil which includes things like torture. So before a player crosses that line I'll just let them know what I think.

Whether it would be evil in your game or your campaign is not particularly relevant to me. I don't think there is a universal definition, nor could we ever have one.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

There is no doubt it's badly realized and generally bloody useless. It could be great though. I think D&D could benefit greatly from a spendable/renewable resource like Inspiration that's actually tied to some mechanics that matter. This is why it's my usual suspect when it comes to where to plug in a new mechanic I've created. It's just kinda sitting there not getting used anyway, so I'm not upsetting the apple cart to purloin it for my own nefarious purposes.

Where's the give me unlimited player agency or give me death crowd? Normally someone would have been shouting about railroads and player agency loud enough to be heard over on rpg.net. Personally, I prefer consequences to fiat. The whole point is to provide space and agency for the players to have to make difficult decisions and deal with the consequences, not to tell them what decision to make.

Im hoping pemerton acquiesces to my request for the thread because im also very curious to observe this. Ive let pemerton know i am curious.

 

[pemerton]

There's no support for doing so in 5E's rules. There might be non-mechanical in-game consequences for the actions being discussed, but there are zero penalties for acting against alignment or changing it.

I'm not 100% sure what sort of penalties you have in mind. I'm talking about a GM who says (1) this is a non-evil campaign and (2) your PC is now evil and hence (3) you can't play that PC in this campaign.

It's not a mechanical penalty, but it's a pretty serious piece of alignment adjudication!

What? What thread? I would like to see that. Most unusual.

2 year campaign down the drain.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I'm not 100% sure what sort of penalties you have in mind. I'm talking about a GM who says (1) this is a non-evil campaign and (2) your PC is now evil and hence (3) you can't play that PC in this campaign.

It's not a mechanical penalty, but it's a pretty serious piece of alignment adjudication!

2 year campaign down the drain.

I thought you said "currently active"

Can i haz teh link?

 

[pemerton]

Where's the give me unlimited player agency or give me death crowd? Normally someone would have been shouting about railroads and player agency loud enough to be heard over on rpg.net. Personally, I prefer consequences to fiat. The whole point is to provide space and agency for the players to have to make difficult decisions and deal with the consequences, not to tell them what decision to make.

At the risk of courting controversy - if you look at actual play posts on these boards (eg not just the thread I mentioned but, say, the How was you last session thread) you'll see that most play is very, very heavily
driven by GM-esablished concerns and goals for the unfolding of the fiction. There is relatively little reporting of player-driven play, especially when it comes to D&D.

 

[Marandahir]

I think there are some risks in a RPG when the GM uses his/her power over the introduction of content and the resolution of actions to make the game a morality lesson for the players.

For instance, the players might have different views, which produces needless conflict.

It's not a morality lesson. I'm not saying this is how every and all D&D games go or should go.
I'm saying that D&D has the potential to be a lot more involved of a collaborative storytelling experience. Characters' actions can have consequences because there's humans actively modifying the story and narrative in response to those actions, rather than the limited set of possibilities being coded in from the start, as in a video game.

That limited response matrix has given rise to a culture of consequence-free games, where players can carry out fantasies of being expert assassins or master thieves without the risk of punishment for their crimes. That's OKAY, and there's abundant evidence that video games like FPSs make people no less removed from real-world morality. I may despise those games, but if that's someone's fantasy, that's fine. This is a safe space, and D&D absolutely must be also.

That said, D&D has the capacity to explore consequences in a way those games do not. It's not an angle that EVERY table should explore, but it's a potent roleplaying tool for deep and involved shared storytelling. Obviously the Players should be on the same page with the DM for what sort of game they're playing, and DMs should not be punishing players for playing a game the DMs don't want to play (clearly, the DM and the players are incompatible). But assuming mutual buy-in, D&D has a real cathartic, exploratory power to work through real-world issues in a hypothetical or fictional context; it's one of the most advanced tools of game theory out there.

I understand your concerns about Player agency. 5e has given a lot of the narrative agency back to the DMs. I personally think that roleplaying requires consent from all parties. The rules, while carrying an established baseline, are guidelines for play. It can go in very personal directions very quickly, and that can hurt a lot of feelings.

 

[prabe]

I'm not 100% sure what sort of penalties you have in mind. I'm talking about a GM who says (1) this is a non-evil campaign and (2) your PC is now evil and hence (3) you can't play that PC in this campaign.

It's not a mechanical penalty, but it's a pretty serious piece of alignment adjudication!

2 year campaign down the drain.

I meant mechanical penalties. Nothing like the 1e penalties on XP for alignment drift.

I've been pretty fortunate. I asked for characters at least willing to be heroes, and that's what I've gotten. There are a couple of characters with additional/ulterior motives, but those motive aren't evil (IMO). That said, I'd probably terminate a campaign if the characters started being unwilling to be heroes, and killing scores of uninvolved civilians at a go would probably be an indicator of such unwillingness.