• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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.

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

tommybahama

Adventurer
Let's be honest here. It's not 1982 anymore. There's no excuse for people not knowing the sources of the bigotry that led to things like orcs in the genre. Whether it's beast men, or whatnot, the source is still the same - colonialist bigotry. We can claim that that's not what we mean all we like, but, the connection is always there, whether it's recognized or not.

Orcs existed in myth long before Tolkien. Some trace it to Beowulf, others to the Romans. Regardless of the source, we have the Old Testament and the Huns, Mongols, and all the various Germanic tribes for inspiration. Western colonialism is just a bugaboo.

Thor is, admittedly definitely Avenger you'd vote "Most likely to be seen in a D&D party" and not just because of his outfit/background, he certainly is the least reliable (100% has a Chaotic alignment) and has the lowest WIS score (definitely an 8).

Thor is already a part of D&D and his WIS is way above an 8!

The Mighty DnD Thor.jpg

Appropriated from Twitter
 

log in or register to remove this ad

My game is an antique in some ways. My campaign started in the Law - Neutral - Chaos days. The High Church of Law (named in my high school days 1974-76) in my game includes LG, LN, and LE orders and people. and crusades against other religions were a thing in the old days.

Fewer crusades these days though :D The modern Church is reasonably nuanced in its relations with other religions. It defines its relation with other churches / religions in three ways.

1. Toleration, this means you may be a member of the Church and also worship that god. The NG Goddess of Agriculture and Fertility is a prime example of a tolerated religion. Every peasant farmer loves the Goddess as well as the Church :)

2. Prohibition, this means you may not be a member of the Church and worship that deity. You are not required to wipe them out or run a crusade though. The NN Goddess of Luck is an example of that. Gambling is bad for you, but hey gambling halls pay taxes :)

3. Proscription, this means as a member of the Church it is your duty to destroy the worship of these deities. The various Demon worshipping sects are examples of this. Chaos and Evil are a bit too much for Holy Father Church to take. The LE Grand Inquisition really hates these people. It's the combination of the two (C and E) and their dedication to destroying the Church and society that is the problem :)

And, as someone (I need to look back and see who) said, there is evil and Evil, good and Good, as in one (small capital) is learned and subject to change while the other is inherent and not. Same with Law / law and Chaos / chaos.
 
Last edited:

Religion/politics
But, apparently it does. It means that you see the world as more black and white, according to some in this thread. So, it becomes okay to use incredibly racist concepts in our fantasy, because, well, the world is black and white and those folks over there are obviously evil, so, it's okay to murder them all you like.

No, not black and white. Shades of gray. Some darker than others. If you are comparing the motives of the Nazis to the Democratic Party in the U.S. I think its pretty obvious. Sure, there's bigotry and intolerance among Democrats, but they're not holding a Holocaust. And yes, I'm very familiar with the internal problems in the U.S. I teach history. I have 3 degrees in it (and a fourth in Cultural Anthropology). Irritatingly enough my classes have gone to "distance learning". sigh

Which, frankly, is EXACTLY THE SAME as the real world justifications for all sorts of very real world evil.

No. I don't excuse anyone's bigotry, evil and genocidal tendencies.

I reject this notion that our grandparents were somehow holding the moral high ground because of the Nazi's. Sorry, but the second half of the 20th century, hasn't exactly painted our grandparent's, or our parent's our, frankly, our generation with a wonderful light.

It's very easy to discount the effects of colonialist fiction when it's not about you.

They may not have been on top, but they were further upslope than their enemies. And as for me, my mother is from the Cayman Islands and was raised in Jamaica.

edit One more thing, I separate my fantasy gaming world from the real life world.
 

Hussar

Legend
You can separate your fantasy gaming world from real life world all you like. It doesn't matter. The parallels are still there. Middle Earth isn't the Real World either. That doesn't make any difference. It's still based on the same thing.

Look, you can claim that a winged cross is all sorts of things. It's an ancient symbol after all and it has many meanings. But, at the end of the day, if you put winged crosses into your fantasy setting, they're still going to connote swastikas. Regardless of what justifications you use, they are still going to symbolize Nazis.

As I said, intentions here really don't matter.
 

You can separate your fantasy gaming world from real life world all you like. It doesn't matter. The parallels are still there. Middle Earth isn't the Real World either. That doesn't make any difference. It's still based on the same thing.

Yes, I can. Parallels with what exactly? The real world I assume? I think your losing me here if not, but then I haven't read every post in this thread. Middle Earth? I didn't catch Tolkien in this thread, but I guess it's in here and I am familiar with the racist tropes people find in it. I also don't think my 46 year old fantasy campaign has that big an impact on real life...

Look, you can claim that a winged cross is all sorts of things. It's an ancient symbol after all and it has many meanings. But, at the end of the day, if you put winged crosses into your fantasy setting, they're still going to connote swastikas. Regardless of what justifications you use, they are still going to symbolize Nazis.

As I said, intentions here really don't matter.

I was unaware that a winged cross was Nazi. Looking at the various images this brought up on a search I can understand some of them having a vaguely satanic / Nazi motorcyclist vibe.... others not so much. I'd have to plead ignorance on that but it's been a long time since I tracked white extremist symbols. I can recall the swastika being referred to as a "broken cross" from somewhere. and of course, the iron cross was coopted long ago. Guess I'm not hanging with that crowd and I haven't been on the SPLC website in years. I think I'll pay them a visit.
 


Laurefindel

Legend
TL;DR: yes, it's passé. At least in the classical sense.

I've always seen D&D as an old school "Order vs Chaos" confrontation, with order seen from the perspective of human peasants. Dragons and kobolds disrupt their way of life; they are elements of chaos, so they pay adventurers to "put things right". But monsters are not the only evil. People can be elements of chaos too.

There is good and evil, an then there is "Team Good" and "Team Evil". There are objectively evil people in Team Good (as much as there is an objective evil), but they play for their team. Being good for goodness sake has never been what D&D is about, but players were encouraged to play for Team Good, which comes with its own club rules (being fair and virtuous and all) which some embrace more than others, and some fake it to be part of the club. Divert to blatantly and you'll be kicked out. No more cookies for you fallen paladin...

We can assume that there are nice people/dragons/kobolds in Team Evil, but that's what they are; the other team. The big guys on Team Evil play by the rules of their own team of course, which dictate different virtues.

But in most games I know - and at this point this becomes admittedly annecdotal - there are several Teams Good, and that there are many Teams Evil, and teams we are not sure about, and teams we don't care about too much because they are not in direct conflict with us. The Team Good vs Team Evil becomes more complex, it's a whole league now, and the PCs are making the playoffs.
 

Lem23

Adventurer
I've found that it's the characters that are evil that are getting more and more passe by the day. Bonus points for tedium if they're tiefling warlocks too.
 

The opinions of Nazis - living, dead, past, present, future, or fictional - don't matter.
They are an example of the evil you stamp out.
And an example of what happens when you don't.

And along with this, after reading through everything here, either I missed it or nobody has made the differentiation between evil and Evil, or in the case of the Nazi leadership: EVIL.

All three types can happen in a game campaign. Those bandits or roving band of orcs are evil. The leaders they work for are Evil. And those leaders may work for true EVIL like Vecna or Acerak, etc.

And unless a campaign is made for the PCs to be the evil ones, the party will be dealing with a mix of those three types. Even a campaign that starts out as seeming to be Neutral alignment-wise, the choice will eventually need to be made to fight for good or for evil. In a world where gods and demons and exist, it is very hard to truly stay neutral without becoming "evil by omission". Do nothing and you are part of the problem.
 

Orcs existed in myth long before Tolkien. Some trace it to Beowulf, others to the Romans. Regardless of the source, we have the Old Testament and the Huns, Mongols, and all the various Germanic tribes for inspiration.

No. This is flatly false.


The word "orcneas" existed in old English, but it certainly didn't mean anything like D&D orcs, and it definitely wasn't "inspired" by Huns/Mongols/Goths etc. There's absolutely zero evidence for that and it doesn't make sense given the origin of the word orcneas being with a group of people who had never clashed with any of those groups due to their location.

Anyway it's worth reading the wikipedia article in detail (and the sources if you're going to dispute) it, because this is a very, very well-traveled road.

Next you'll be telling me Tolkien's Orcs have a specific, confirmed method of reproduction/creation, when in fact the man himself came up with many different ideas of this and never quite pinned it down. But the number of times someone online has tried to tell me one of the ideas he came up with is the "definitive" one is just staggering.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top