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.

 

[Fenris-77]

I see. So when DnD talks about good andevil and morality, those words have different meanings than we are expected to understand in the context we read them in?

So when the book says 'Orcs are Chaotic evil' what does that mean to you? Do you not apply real world moral standards (todays standards) to determine what the word 'evil' means, and how they are likely to act?

Or do you apply some other moral standard when determining what those words (evil, good) mean?

Do you think the game designers did this (intended us to apply some moral standard other than the socially agreed on moral standard that killing/raping/enslaving/ opressing others is evil) for some nefarious reason?

The fact that we have the words good and evil in the book at all makes it different, for one, not that I expect you to agree since it would sink your whole position. Two, I can play them anywhere along the moral spectrum I like without having to explain that to you in terms that you've chosen. Fantasy works in part with strong black and white elements. People like being sure about good versus evil. If I want to use Orcs to get there then I will. I'm not beholden to your dimestore moralizing about whether that makes me an awful person because I don't agree with you.

People in these threads always fall back on real world examples and ethical arguments. That's fine, but fantasy, at least some of the time, works by sidestepping that whole issue. If Orcs are evil in my game, they're evil. Irredeemably evil. Or they might not be, but I get to pick. That doesn't need me to defend or explain it. One because evil is a pretty useful and descriptive term all by itself, but also because you aren't the keeper of ethics and morality. This can be an interesting topic, but once you start telling people how their game should work, or that they are insufficiently moral to meet you intellectual standards, I'm pretty done.

 

[Flamestrike]

The fact that we have the words good and evil in the book at all makes it different, for one, not that I expect you to agree since it would sink your whole position.

Doesnt affect my position at all. Orcs tend to be evil (in 5E). It's their default alignment. Its not an inherent trait of the Orc, its a byproduct of the society they grow up in.

Two, I can play them anywhere along the moral spectrum I like without having to explain that to you in terms that you've chosen. Fantasy works in part with strong black and white elements.

When you have your white elements acting like Kharn the Betrayer when they stumble on an Orc village, and justify slaughter of Orcs simply because they're Orcs, I struggle to see how black and white the fantasy universe you're talking about really is.

I mean Star Wars is black and white, and genocide or slaughter of a race simply because they're that particular race is evil. Even creatures like Trandoshans, Sand People and Gamorreans, all cultures nearly identical to that of Orcs in 5E.

Luke Skywalker doesnt butcher them out of hand. He retaliates only in self defence or the defence of others. If he were to kill them out of hand, he'd be clearly evil.

His father on the other hand, butchered a lot of Sand people. And not just the men...

Is there any doubt that was an act of evil? These are people that enslaved and killed his mother remember.

 

[prabe]

My understanding of the evil races in D&D (as of 5E) is that the ones closer to human--including but not limited to drow, orcs, goblinoids, duergar, and kobolds--are evil mainly because their gods have warped them to be, and even those who fit more into society struggle with the impulses forged in them by their deities. In my setting, the world has been cut off from the gods, so those races (those that still exist, anyway) have had time to adjust to the absence of their gods. Some of them aren't evil anymore, in ways that I try to make still consistent with their cultures; some still are. It's part of why I haven't put the characters I specifically asked to be willing to be heroes in a position to kill off a whole tribe--closest they've come has been a rather large hobgoblin expeditionary force, which they extirpated forthwith.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is where I have a problem. I'm more bothered by colonialism and orcs if orcs can be reformed if only they dressed, behaved and worshiped the "right way". Because then orcs are only evil because society has decided they are.

This is an interesting approach, but I think takes a narrow view. Just because a species typically behaves in one way, doesn't mean someone from that species can rise up and change it. It doesn't have to be missionaries or another species/culture coming to "bring them to the light", and I agree that can be grim.

Warcraft, of all things, managed this pretty well. Orcs were aggressive warriors on their own world, but no worse than say, Celtic/Gallic tribes IRL (I'd say), but they were essentially tricked into drinking demons blood and invading another world after it had made them far more aggressive and crazed. Yet it was an Orc who fixed this - admittedly partially raised by humans, but in slavery, and he didn't emulate humans, or try to form a human-style society, he formed the Horde, a civilization which didn't pretend to be human, but also wasn't just a rampaging bunch of raiders, rather it's own thing.

You could fairly easily do better than that, too.

I'm not saying "this must be done" or something btw, just that you it's not "colonialism or eternal evil".

 

[Flamestrike]

My understanding of the evil races in D&D (as of 5E) is that the ones closer to human--including but not limited to drow, orcs, goblinoids, duergar, and kobolds--are evil mainly because their gods have warped them to be

Not the case, and even if it was it doesnt matter. Even inherently evil (or good) creatures like Angels and Devils can change alignment (i.e. they have free will).

As rare as it may be.

And even if were the case and Orcs only murder and kill and enslave because they have no choice in the matter (they're inherently evil and cant help doing those things), who is really the evil ones? Them or the creatures with free will, that choose to slaughter and enslave them in return?

If Orcs (or whatever) lack the free will to choose something OTHER than evil, they're no different from the Walkers in TWD (a show that is at pains to show that while the undead have no choice, the real monsters are the people around them doing bad things, who do do have a choice).

 

[Oofta]

Doesnt affect my position at all. Orcs tend to be evil (in 5E). It's their default alignment. Its not an inherent trait of the Orc, its a byproduct of the society they grow up in.

Nothing in the monster manual says they are evil as a byproduct of their society.

As far as the rest ... I tire of being told what is right and wrong. Have a good one.

 

[Flamestrike]

Nothing in the monster manual says they are evil as a byproduct of their society.

Its in Mordekainens tome of Foes. I provided you the page number last time. It states it clearly.

I can also provide you a quote from Mearls (the guy behind the book) where he states the same thing.

 

[Oofta]

This is an interesting approach, but I think takes a narrow view. Just because a species typically behaves in one way, doesn't mean someone from that species can rise up and change it. It doesn't have to be missionaries or another species/culture coming to "bring them to the light", and I agree that can be grim.

Warcraft, of all things, managed this pretty well. Orcs were aggressive warriors on their own world, but no worse than say, Celtic/Gallic tribes IRL (I'd say), but they were essentially tricked into drinking demons blood and invading another world after it had made them far more aggressive and crazed. Yet it was an Orc who fixed this - admittedly partially raised by humans, but in slavery, and he didn't emulate humans, or try to form a human-style society, he formed the Horde, a civilization which didn't pretend to be human, but also wasn't just a rampaging bunch of raiders, rather it's own thing.

You could fairly easily do better than that, too.

I'm not saying "this must be done" or something btw, just that you it's not "colonialism or eternal evil".

Which goes back to ...
Orcs are not inherently evil although they do tend towards chaotic evil, it's their culture that shapes them.
If you take orcs out of their culture and give them a proper upbringing they can be good.
You just have to strip away the cultural identity and religion replacing it with the religion of your choice.
Once they get rid of all that orcish mumbo-jumbo and act like civilized folk they can be good people.

Then say that orcs really represent the "ignorant savage" trope.

Go back and replace "orcs" with "indigenous people".
Indigenous people are not inherently evil although they do tend towards chaotic evil, it's their culture that shapes them.
If you take indigenous people out of their culture and give them a proper upbringing they can be good.
You just have to strip away the cultural identity and religion replacing it with the religion of your choice.
Once they get rid of all that indigenous people mumbo-jumbo and act like civilized folk they can be good people.

Orcs serve a purpose in the game. They're the evil bullies and (generally) low level thugs. But it's just a game and I have no problem following the rules on this one.

Anyway, there's nothing new here and it's nice out. Have a good one!

 

[Mistwell]

Doesnt affect my position at all. Orcs tend to be evil (in 5E). It's their default alignment. Its not an inherent trait of the Orc, its a byproduct of the society they grow up in.

That's not what the book says. Right from the Basic rules, under alignment:

"The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc gods, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god’s influence.)"

So, it says the opposite of what you've been claiming it says this entire thread. "Inborn tendencies" is not "byproduct of the society they grow up in."

"Struggling against innate tendencies" even if they choose a good alignment is not "byproduct of the society they grow up in" either.

Nor is "lingering pull of the orc god's influence" about a society they grew up in.

None of this is anything like you were describing. It's not societal, it's supernatural and inherent.

 

[Oofta]

Its in Mordekainens tome of Foes. I provided you the page number last time. It states it clearly.

I can also provide you a quote from Mearls (the guy behind the book) where he states the same thing.

Then I simply choose to disregard Mordy's and I disagree with Mearls. Replace orcs with bugbears, goblins, gnolls, trolls, hill giants or any number of other races.