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

What is xenoblade generally about?

Xenoblade is a video game series - they're on the Nintendo Wii (Xenoblade 1), new 3DS (Xenoblade 1), Wii U (Xenoblade X), and Switch (Xenoblade 2, Xenoblade 1 HD). They're 3 separate world settings with shared details (overlapping themes, races & monsters, gameplay mechanics, and all 3 have giant mecha and giant, alien open world environments). A bit of Eberron, a bit of Gundam, a bit of Zelda, and a bit of Metroid in the DNA.

I don't want to spoil the connection I saw with your Necromancer-Mecha pilot companion, for fear of ruining some fantastic storybeats in the original game (which is being remastered this summer - quite exciting), but there's more than a little overlap.

The games also feature allusions to and similar themes with the old Playstation titles Xenogears and Xenosaga (from the same development team, before they became second party developers for Nintendo).
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Xenoblade is a video game series - they're on the Nintendo Wii (Xenoblade 1), new 3DS (Xenoblade 1), Wii U (Xenoblade X), and Switch (Xenoblade 2, Xenoblade 1 HD). They're 3 separate world settings with shared details (overlapping themes, races & monsters, gameplay mechanics, and all 3 have giant mecha and giant, alien open world environments). A bit of Eberron, a bit of Gundam, a bit of Zelda, and a bit of Metroid in the DNA.

I don't want to spoil the connection I saw with your Necromancer-Mecha pilot companion, for fear of ruining some fantastic storybeats in the original game (which is being remastered this summer - quite exciting), but there's more than a little overlap.

The games also feature allusions to and similar themes with the old Playstation titles Xenogears and Xenosaga (from the same development team, before they became second party developers for Nintendo).
Well you now have probably provided me with some corona-boredom-away-spray that i need to buy and try. Thanks for the tip. They sound fun.
 

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!

People can always use the rules from Adventurer's League. A couple of the Evil alignments are not allowed in AL play and last time I paid attention to the rules there, a DM is within his right to disqualify a PC if the player continually played it as a banned alignment.
 

Well you now have probably provided me with some corona-boredom-away-spray that i need to buy and try. Thanks for the tip. They sound fun.
Glad to help!

Also, re: children, YES! I'd be one lucky person to be able to introduce this medium to young'uns. :)

I love that balance of 3 goals you've got going there. That's a saved screenshot post for sure. This is a great way to describing what I look for when I'm playing or running D&D.
 

People can always use the rules from Adventurer's League. A couple of the Evil alignments are not allowed in AL play and last time I paid attention to the rules there, a DM is within his right to disqualify a PC if the player continually played it as a banned alignment.
yeah. "your alignment changed to evil and therefore you surrender it as an npc to the dm" rules have always seemed weird to me.
 

Glad to help!

Also, re: children, YES! I'd be one lucky person to be able to introduce this medium to young'uns. :)

I love that balance of 3 goals you've got going there. That's a saved screenshot post for sure. This is a great way to describing what I look for when I'm playing or running D&D.
Other people make family videos of their kids. What i am gonna do is keep a book of the campaigns stories they contributed to so that when they are old enough they get to see that they have been influencing the story since before they even started to play with us.

Im hoping to start a tradition in my family of doing this with rpgs.

Plus itll give them a head start on knowing how to dm.
 

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.

Thanks for the explanation.

I'm not very familiar with either of those two games, but I understand that both are more PC-oriented in terms of the collaborative storytelling and both feature strong party-dynamics mechanics similar to the Trait/Ideal/Bond/Flaw system of 5e backgrounds, but perhaps more rigorous? I also understand that Burning Wheel actively attempts to avoid DM railroading with prenegotiated scenes and Let It Ride rules.

I do think this is a bit of what 4e was trying to do by putting a lot of the mechanical resolution in the hands of the players (trying to make a power or martial practice or ritual or skill challenge/usage for every possible action they could think of the players doing), though I think 5e functions far simpler by giving much of those action resolutions back to the hands of the DM.
 

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.

Agreed. I posted there a few times, then stopped. I always felt as though I was selling the players and the sessions short. If I were going to describe the next session, though, it'd almost always start with "The next session will start with ..." because I genuinely have little idea what the PCs will do (unless they're in something like a dungeon crawl, where their options are more limited).
 

I couldn't disagree more. Laws of the land have nothing to do with a lawful person's code. A LE person is going to murder someone if it is necessary, a LG is not going to agree to the murder of innocents even if it's "legal".

I have no idea where this "law of the land trumps personal morals" comes from but if that's how you run it, go for it. Have a good one.
I think laws of the land, or of a temple, or wherever, have a lot to do with it.

Why?

Because one could - and I think I will - argue that one of the fundamental differences between Lawful and Chaotic is that a Lawful person looks to and relies on external authorities for rules and guidance on how to live (and for enforcement of such), where a Chaotic person looks within him-herself for these things and relies on his-her own judgment.

So, when faced with a thorny situation, a Lawful person is going to ask "What do the external laws and rules say must be done here?" while a Chaotic will ask "What does my own conscience say?". A Neutral person might consider both...or neither.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top