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.

 

[Flamestrike]

Yes. I definitely think it is. You're preaching to the choir here, if it's unclear

I tend to make my points forcefully. No harm intended. I'm stuck in isolation, and... well... its the Lawyer in me.

 

[lewpuls]

Firtly, you dont know they're evil Gods (you can assume, you cant know). Secondly it is not a requirement of worship of an evil god to be evil yourself (plenty of Neutral and even Good followers of such deities, and there are plenty of Evil worshippers of good gods).

(Total) Wartime morality tends to be different from peacetime morality . . .

If I'm intending to be Good, and I know there's a war on between good and evil, and my Good god says that the orc gods are Evil, and I should smite all orcs . . . then yes, I KNOW I'm doing the right thing, in a way no person in the real world can ever know.

 

[Oofta]

Again you are, as many others, applying a modern mentality to a fantasy setting. Modern morality do not apply. Real world morality do not apply either. As the only sentient species of our planet, a genocide is immediately related to humans. Humans that you can have common grounds to negociate, that can become your friends, your allies. At the very least, everyone can have redemption.

If we were not the only sentient species, it would be another thing entirely. With some species we could find some common ground but with others it might and surely would be totally impossible. The only solution would then be genocide, however distasteful it would be. Sometimes you have to use extreme solutions to extreme problems. Especially with a species that would find humans exquisitely excellent when on the menu. It would only become a matter of survivability.

As for what I consider "evil". It is certainly the same as you. It is just that I do not apply my personal morality to a fantasy setting. So rest assure that I am not a psychopath bend on killing everyone who cross my path.

Not to mention that fantasy species don't need to adhere to rules that govern real world creatures. I would not expect that neanderthals were all that much different than humans. But orcs? Orcs were created by a vengeful god with a singular purpose - kill Gruumsh's enemies. They aren't human and they certainly don't have to have the same flexibility or freedom of will we would expect with a real species.

Depends on campaign of course.

 

[Oofta]

Discussions of morality always seem to make the basic assumption that monsters aren't really evil. That all sentient creatures have a choice of alignment. D&D is not the real world. Some monsters were literally created evil. Well that and we know they're evil because it's written right there in the rule book. Some monsters are not evil because other people decide they are evil, it has nothing to do with tribalism. They're evil because they have no conscience and live to slaughter innocents and anyone weaker than them.

You don't have to run your game that way, but it certainly seems to be the default. It's a game.

But let's take the poster child of evil, demons. Demons are chaos and evil incarnate, most people would not blink an eye at killing them. There is no call to send demons to a reeducation center so that they can be civilized.

So ... is it evil to kill Manes? They're effectively baby demons.

In previous discussions it's regularly "but fiends are different". Why?

 

[SkidAce]

The Nazis thought they were the good guys though. This is where it gets very slippery. In fact most atrocities were committed in the name of good.

They did THINK that.

But they were wrong.

(Don't jump on me, I know life is not simplistic, I'm just making the point that thinking you are the good one when doing evil, doesn't make you good.)

 

[Flamestrike]

(Total) Wartime morality tends to be different from peacetime morality . . .

No, it doesn't. People just do more evil naughty word in wartime. The morality stays the same. Its just the frequency of evil that increases.

If I'm intending to be Good, and I know there's a war on between good and evil, and my Good god says that the orc gods are Evil, and I should smite all orcs . . . then yes, I KNOW I'm doing the right thing, in a way no person in the real world can ever know.

And the telepath in the corner with a grudge against the Orcs/ God of Evil/ Demon who was deceiving you laughs as you storm out, righteously falling from Grace thanks to the 'message from God' he/ they/ it put in your brain.

No you dont know for sure you're doing the right thing. Its impossible for you to know you're doing the right thing, or indeed if that is your God in front of you at all. Cogito ergo sum.

I mean heck, your character probably thinks he's a real person. We know that not to be true dont we

You cant know anything for sure other than your own self existence. Rene Descartes proved this pretty convincingly centuries ago (although he had his critics, but I've yet to be persuaded). And that's doubly true in a world with illusion magic, telepathy, dominate person, actual Demons and Evil Gods and so forth.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Natural law is not universally accepted to exist. Not only is there no evidence it exists, there is no way of knowing what those laws are.

If you say racism, machism (male chauvinism) or homophobia are wrong then you have admit, even if you don't notice, they are against the Natural Law, universal and eternal ethical principles.

In the ancient Rome there was gladiators killing each other in the circus, slavery, but also infanticides, and foundlings, but not in a religious convent or an orphanage, but in the middle of the street, or to say it softly, child slaves in the owner's bedroom.

If emperor Palpatine gives the order 66 but you don't want to execute padawans children then you are admitting something is wrong and the authority doesn't matter if you can't obey a criminal order.

Ravenloft is full of cursed people who didn't have a true ethical code.

 

[Flamestrike]

Discussions of morality always seem to make the basic assumption that monsters aren't really evil.

No, they just say that assumption is irrelevant. The alignment of your victims is not important anymore than the clothes they wear.

That all sentient creatures have a choice of alignment. D&D is not the real world. Some monsters were literally created evil.

Irrelevant. Even in DnD creatures that are literally the essence of evil (and good), working under the guidance of a literal God of evil (or good) in planes comprised of literal evil (or good) in Angels and Fiends can (and canonically, have) changed alignment.

Well that and we know they're evil because it's written right there in the rule book.

Your characters have access to the Monster Manual do they?

But let's take the poster child of evil, demons. Demons are chaos and evil incarnate, most people would not blink an eye at killing them. There is no call to send demons to a reeducation center so that they can be civilized.

You dont kill Demons. 'Killing' them simply sends them home to the Abyss. Bashing ones head in with a hammer is no different to casting Banishment on one.

In previous discussions it's regularly "but fiends are different". Why?

That's why. Among other reasons.

 

[Flamestrike]

]

If you say racism, machism (male chauvinism) or homophobia are wrong then you have admit, even if you don't notice, they are against natural law.

Natural Law as you understand it.

If emperor Palpatine give the order 66 but you don't want to execute padawans children then you are admitting something is wrong and the authority doesn't matter if you can't obey a criminal order.

What is Palpatines understanding of 'natural law' and the natural order of things? That the weak were born to be ruled by the strong, and/or culled without mercy.

See the problem with 'natural law'? It's not some objective thing that exists in and of itself. It's simply a fictitious and purportedly 'objective' thing a person appeals to in order to give their own subjective morality a semblance of authority.

I dont believe in natural law, any more than I believe in leprechauns.

 

[Oofta]

No, they just say that assumption is irrelevant. The alignment of your victims is not important anymore than the clothes they wear.



Irrelevant. Even in DnD creatures that are literally the essence of evil (and good), working under the guidance of a literal God of evil (or good) in planes comprised of literal evil (or giid) in Angels and Fiends can change alignment.



Your characters have access to the Monster Manual do they?



You dont kill Demons. 'Killing' them simply sends them home to the Abyss. Bashing ones head in with a hammer is no different to casting Banishment on one.



That's why. Among other reasons.

You certainly can kill demons if you are in the abyss. Some extremely powerful demons can create an amulet to store their essence but that's rare.

Personally I'm okay with saying Jeffrey Dahmer was evil. There's no moral ambiguity to me. The guy kidnapped, tortured, killed and ate people because it's how he got his jollies. If you want to hide behind moral relativism that's fine. But do you seriously think Mr D was not evil?

If there's a monster who thinks and acts like Dahmer, then yes, they are also evil. No monster manual needed.