• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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.

angel-4241932_960_720.jpg

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
That's perhaps unsurprising given that D&D isn't by design a game that encourages player-driven play. The default is very much on the GM-established concern and goal side. A lot of the tinkering I do with D&D is at least in part aimed at moving player-driven play more to the forefront. I also get the feeling that some players and DMs don't really grok player-driven play because they have essentially zero experience with it. That isn't a criticism mind, just a statement of fact.
 


What's the relationship here between characters and players?

That's fair, and a distinction with a difference. A rephrasing: If the players stopped playing their characters as willing to be heroes, I'd probably terminate the campaign.
 


That isn't a criticism mind, just a statement of fact.
Sure. We're talking here about lesiure/hobby preferences.

I was more suggesting that there isnt really that big an unlimited player agency crowd. Or maybe that in that crowd the threshold for player agency is that the GM lets the action declaration occur and then explains why it doesn't work or visits the thwarting consequence upon the character. As opposed to what I would think of as genuine player agency in a RPG which is, once an action is declared in which the player is seriously committed to the stakes, then either the GM says yes or the mechanics are invoked.
 

I just posted in it, replying to a reply. I think that counts as currently active.

I wasnt saying i didnt believe you. I just really wanted to see it. Because i dont think ive personally ever seen a game with the dm doing that so it was interesting to me.
 

Furthhermore, as a Player, my interests are in constantly being challenged with walls against my narrative progress - otherwise the narrative falls to a lull. Every action I take should have ripple effects. How big or small those ripples are is an important quotient given that I'm not the only player in the party and we've all got our own subplots to explore. But if I do something "wrong," I should have to face the consequence for that. It's just another wall for me to scale and become a better character by the end of it. If I do something REALLY wrong, maybe I should die as a character. Even then, we could explore a story about death and rebirth, or adventures in the afterlife. Or maybe it's time I roll up a new character who can learn from the failures of my previous one and do better because of it.

As a DM, I want to give my players the agency to climb those walls. It's not about railroading them: in fact, consequence free actions is a railroad in and of itself, since it doesn't matter whether the Fellowship goes right or left out of Rivendell, they still end up in Mordor (rather than Angmar or something). The challenges they face should reflect the choices they make, not some grand plan I have in my back pocket which I want to force on them one way or another. This is about collaborative storytelling.

But sure, if I'm DMing a group that just wants to kick in the walls and fight evil, I won't make them consider whether the goblins they just killed had goblin babies who are now orphaned and going to die in the cold. I won't make the Paladin decide whether to kill the baby or not. That's not the game they signed up for. Most Paladin players I know, however, WANT to face those moral tests of character. The trick is balancing that interest with the interest of the CG Barbarian player who just wants to kick in the door. My normal answer to that is, we need separate D&D groups.
 

That's fair, and a distinction with a difference. A rephrasing: If the players stopped playing their characters as willing to be heroes, I'd probably terminate the campaign.
Yeah, if it goes from all Lord of the Rings to unrepentantly Lord of the Flies it's probably time to put the screen down. All murderhobos can now exit my basement using the stairs, please obey your stewardess and thanks for flying Air Fenris. Bye bye now.
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top