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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

Mike Myler

Have you been to LevelUp5E.com yet?
I am a big fan of the inverse (evil vs. good) and made a setting predicated towards both giving evil folks motivation to focus their efforts, and a logical reason for them to not just backstab one another when it proves convenient—a world that is fundamentally unjust to wicked souls because of a proliferated technology that elongates the lives of the good of heart. There's nothing necessarily wrong about the world and its (1920s era decopunk) technology promoting goodness, but there's for sure an injustice to being saddled with an unnaturally shorter lifespan right off the bat from birth. Just a few sinister souls against the world. ;)
 

imagineGod

Legend
I am a big fan of the inverse (evil vs. good) and made a setting predicated towards both giving evil folks motivation to focus their efforts, and a logical reason for them to not just backstab one another when it proves convenient—a world that is fundamentally unjust to wicked souls because of a proliferated technology that elongates the lives of the good of heart. There's nothing necessarily wrong about the world and its (1920s era decopunk) technology promoting goodness, but there's for sure an injustice to being saddled with an unnaturally shorter lifespan right off the bat from birth. Just a few sinister souls against the world. ;)
But how evil is evil?

Most Lawful Evil characters can work by changing perspective. Colonial Empires are usually such.

But Chaotic Evil characters just bent on sadism, torture and chaos for no logical reason are impossible to play and remain mentally untouched as a human being.
 

imagineGod

Legend
By the way, I would probably class Warhammer 40,000, especially the new Imperium Nihilus as the definitive Evil RPG.

You have Lawful Evil Imperium of Mankind and some Neutral Evil xenos allies (Aeldari) fighting the Chaotic Evil of Abaddon the Dedpoiler and chaos spawn.
 


Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
It may be the authoritarian in me but I tend to create characters who are opposed to corruption in the Church or oppression from the (apparently good) Empire.
 

I, for one, hate the modern view of "shades of grey". I much prefer the Good vs Evil approach. This have the advantage of not cluttering the game with needless questions like: "Is it ok to kill this orc, hobgoblin, dragon, priest or whatever?" Removing this from the equation speed up greatly the RP aspect of the game without cluttering it with moral aspects derived from our modern thought pattern.

It is not to say that there is no RP in my games, far from that. But I simply got away from moral implications a long time ago because what is ok with someone might not be with an other and so on. A black and white view is way easier to manage at the table because a consensus about a situation/action can easily be reached. In grey areas, it is an endless argument over and over again.

Edit: Corrected a word because autocorrector... I hate these.
 
Last edited:


I’m a veteran of many good vs. evil campaigns. To the point where I’m kind of burned out from them.

Heroes against the Dark Lord was the standard in my 3.5 days. But all those campaigns played out the same way. We quest to defeat the Evil Dark Lord, but we’re only level 1 and too weak to actively oppose it

So we spent most of the time on random fetch quests that have nothing to do with the actual Evil. After all the time spent leveling up, the campaign then petters out or the group breaks up or the DM loses the thread.

I think if you want a good vs evil campaign you have to set the scope correctly. If you are starting the game at level 1, make the evil be the corrupt town mayor or a goblin boss. Have the campaign present actionable opposition.

if you want to do the heroes overthrowing the evil empire, start at level 10 or something.

My DMs during that time tried too hard to recreate LoTR and that is a very difficult things to pull off.
 

Doug McCrae

Legend
In Role-Playing Mastery (1987), Gary Gygax agreed that D&D was about good vs evil, with the PCs being good.

I shall attempt to characterize the spirit of the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons game. This is a fantasy RPG predicated on the assumption that the human race, by and large, is made up of good people. Humans, with the help of their demi-human allies (dwarfs, elves, gnomes, etc.), are and should remain the predominant force in the world. They have achieved and continue to hold on to this status, despite the ever-present threat of evil, mainly because of the dedication, honor, and unselfishness of the most heroic humans and demi-humans - the characters whose roles are taken by the players of the game. Although players can take the roles of “bad guys” if they so choose, and if the game master allows it, evil exists in the game primarily as an obstacle for player characters to overcome.​

Whether he was right is another matter. The 1e AD&D assassin must be of evil alignment and "most thieves tend towards evil". I've a feeling he may have been responding to the 'Satanic Panic', pushing too hard in the other direction.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top