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.

 

[Marandahir]

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.

Curious about your definition of player agency here. Are you saying that either the player succeeds or the game's rules accommodate all the possibilities of success or failure? I believe D&D to be a lot less rigid a game than that, though of course if there's no chance of the player failing at the action they're committing to, there's no reason for a roll.

But I think in general, we're talking more about the narrative consequences of actions. This is very much akin to the background elements the players choose if backgrounds are being used. Beyond success or failure of stopping the bad guy or hitting the ogre with that arrow or picking the lock, there are further narrative fallouts that could happen BECAUSE the player took that action. This is not necessarily to punish the player, but as a jumping off point for plot hooks.

I think some of the best storytelling happens when the players don't know all of the stakes of their actions, but have a general idea of what could go right or wrong by doing what they're about to do. Surprise is a very powerful narrative device, though of course it should not be over-invoked.

 

[Fenris-77]

Curious about this. I think some of the best storytelling happens when the players don't know all of the stakes of their actions, but have a general idea of what could go right or wrong by doing what they're about to do. Surprise is a very powerful narrative device, though of course it should not be over-invoked.

Knowing the stakes and knowing the outcome aren't the same thing. A character can be committed to a high stakes course of actions without being fully aware of the potential outcomes. Of course there might also be stakes the players don't know about as well, which is also cool. I think you and Pemerton are paddling the same canoe.

 

[Marandahir]

Knowing the stakes and knowing the outcome aren't the same thing. A character can be committed to a high stakes course of actions without being fully aware of the potential outcomes. Of course there might also be stakes the players don't know about as well, which is also cool. I think you and Pemerton are paddling the same canoe.

Good points. I've been on an Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. binge lately, ahead of Season 7's release, and what's really impacted me is the ripple effect down the line throughout the series of almost every narrative thread raised, whether for major science-fantasy conflicts that wouldn't be there if the heroes hadn't solved a previous mystery, or for evolving character motivations and personalities and alignments and actions, to the point where members of the main cast are willing to become antagonists to the rest of the team within the context of the current circumstances. I think well-written, long-running action-adventure shows like SHIELD are a great template for how D&D campaigns can evolve and grow to challenge the PCs in unexpected ways, while their characters are also evolving and growing.

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.

I don't DM Book of Vile Darkness campaigns either, but I do believe that there's room in the hobby for playing the villains in a quest to conquer good. In fact, I admire the DMs who are willing to take on such an endeavour, because it's not easy.

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.

4e was well designed for PC-driven play, but 5e is not. There are pluses and minuses to these respective choices, and it's one of the big differences between the two editions, in my opinion.

 

[Fenris-77]

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with evil campaigns. Those are a hoot. I just don't have any time for asshats going all redrum on my heroic campaigns. I'm always up front about expectations, so there's really no excuse.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Good points. I've been on an Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. binge lately, ahead of Season 7's release, and what's really impacted me is the ripple effect down the line throughout the series of almost every narrative thread raised, whether for major science-fantasy conflicts that wouldn't be there if the heroes hadn't solved a previous mystery, or for evolving character motivations and personalities and alignments and actions, to the point where members of the main cast are willing to become antagonists to the rest of the team within the context of the current circumstances. I think well-written, long-running action-adventure shows like SHIELD are a great template for how D&D campaigns can evolve and grow to challenge the PCs in unexpected ways, while their characters are also evolving and growing.



I don't DM Book of Vile Darkness campaigns either, but I do believe that there's room in the hobby for playing the villains in a quest to conquer good. In fact, I admire the DMs who are willing to take on such an endeavour, because it's not easy.

3.5 campaign. Very lax on level adjustments. Someone plays a necromancy specialist wizard who died (before the beginning of the campaign) and became a restless spirit. Continues progressing in this vein. Builds a flesh golem and uses it as a mech. It was beautiful. He killed a young radiant dragon and ATE him while posessing the golem. Said he had devoured the sun.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

for the record, not a campaign i dm'd. I was just a player in it. But yeah. They can be pretty great. We also didnt have any runaway powergamers. Not powergaming is mostly just about self discipline. You got mature players? Then you can loosen things like LA up to see interesting stuff without worrying about powergaming. Everyone just needs to be mature.

 

[Marandahir]

3.5 campaign. Very lax on level adjustments. Someone plays a necromancy specialist wizard who died (before the beginning of the campaign) and became a restless spirit. Continues progressing in this vein. Builds a flesh golem and uses it as a mech. It was beautiful. He killed a young radiant dragon and ATE him while posessing the golem. Said he had devoured the sun.

Wow, that's awesome. Love it! Reminds me a bit of Full Metal Alchemist and a bit of Xenoblade Chronicles. A lot to play with there. This is the sort of inventive storytelling D&D allows, regardless of edition. It doesn't need to be this involved and it doesn't need to explore intricate morality conflicts, but the fact that there's room for all of these things is what makes this game so special.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Wow, that's awesome. Love it! Reminds me a bit of Full Metal Alchemist and a bit of Xenoblade Chronicles. A lot to play with there. This is the sort of inventive storytelling D&D allows, regardless of edition. It doesn't need to be this involved and it doesn't need to explore intricate morality conflicts, but the fact that there's room for all of these things is what makes this game so special.

a lot of my group's dms (myself included) and the players as well when trying to create a story, a world, or a creature/person in it try to observe 3 main things toward that end. Internal consistancy of realism respective to the world, mythological structure (that also includes restrictions), and a bucket of child like playful creativity. Some of us who have little kids or relatives who are still little kids will actually use them to spit ball ideas and take notes when either they find something really interesting or they reinterpret it in a cool way.

The mind of a child is the fertilest of fields. And as a result yes a lot of anime makes it into our campaigns lol. (Also i love anime)

It can be aplied to any edition too. (We mostly play 3x though)

I cant wait to have kids and have them get old enough to play...

 

[pemerton]

Curious about your definition of player agency here. Are you saying that either the player succeeds or the game's rules accommodate all the possibilities of success or failure?

It's probably easiest to give examples: Apocalypse World and Burning Wheel are two that I think are at least somewhat well known.

Roughly, if a player commits his/her PC to something serious by way of action declaration - where serious means both that the player is serious about it, and that it is capable of being taken seriously given the genre and established fiction of the game - then we find out what happens by way of action resolution.

And then those consequences actually matter to how the fiction unfolds subsequently.

Which is all to say - the players' choices actually affect, in serious and significant ways, the fiction that unfolds. There are posts on the Last Session thread in which a GM says "In the next session, XYZ will happen". That is clearly not a game in which anything the players do matters to how the fiction unfolds subsequently.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Wow, that's awesome. Love it! Reminds me a bit of Full Metal Alchemist and a bit of Xenoblade Chronicles. A lot to play with there. This is the sort of inventive storytelling D&D allows, regardless of edition. It doesn't need to be this involved and it doesn't need to explore intricate morality conflicts, but the fact that there's room for all of these things is what makes this game so special.

Ive never watched xenoblade. I see the FMA connection the.

What is xenoblade generally about?