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]

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.

Using your same logic (kill the orcs barbecue they're evil), we can now slaughter these indigenous people out of hand because they're eviiil like the Orcs!

Your argument here doesnt help you either.

Seriously though, you're comparing human cultures to that of Orcs. if a neighbouring human culture was all about Demon worship, rape, slavery and murder/ slaughter then yes, prohibiting members of that culture from engaging in those practices, and steering them away from them (and into the worship of non evil gods) is not evil, indigenous or otherwise.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

So Orcs in your games have no free will, They're evil because they have to be?

Also; define evil.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Using your same logic (kill the orcs barbecue they're evil), we can now slaughter these indigenous people out of hand because they're eviiil like the Orcs!

Your argument here doesnt help you either.

Seriously though, you're comparing human cultures to that of Orcs. if a neighbouring human culture was all about Demon worship, rape, slavery and murder/ slaughter then yes, prohibiting members of that culture from engaging in those practices, and steering them away from them (and into the worship of non evil gods) is not evil, indigenous or otherwise.

Isn't that just colonialism in a different form though?

And what if they're doing what you consider evil to say, keep the world working, like The Aztecs?

 

[Fenris-77]

I've been avoiding reference to PC actions. Players get to pick there too, but I would agree that some, perhaps even many, players are optimistic about the relationship between their actions and their alignment. That wasn't what I was talking about though.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

Youre ignoring the words 'Even if an Orc chooses a good alignment'. Right there in the Basic rules. It expressly states that Orcs can choose a Good alignment, and (with a struggle) be good.

 

[Fenris-77]

So Orcs in your games have no free will, They're evil because they have to be?

Because he said they are. DM fiat baby, no ethics or explanation required.

Also; define evil.

Why in the world would this be productive? Do you feel the need to take another run at someone because they don't want to play the philosophy game with their D&D campaign?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think that part of the issue is that those who are claiming to look at things in as black & white a way as possible aren’t really doing so. They’re already allowing for circumstances and nuance to factor into their view.

At it’s most black & white.....is killing good or evil?

Pick one, without the comfort of situational justification.

 

[Flamestrike]

Isn't that just colonialism in a different form though?

No, im not starting a colony over the top of them. You could call it ethnocentrism perhaps.

If you can be ethnocentric towards cultural practices like slavery, rapine and wanton slaughter.

Nothing evil about telling the Orcs in your lands to cut out the human sacrifice, slavery and rapine you know.

And what if they're doing what you consider evil to say, keep the world working, like The Aztecs?

Still evil. Evil for a good purpose perhaps, but evil nontheless.

 

[Mistwell]

Youre ignoring the words 'Even if an Orc chooses a good alignment'. Right there in the Basic rules. It expressly states that Orcs can choose a Good alignment, and (with a struggle) be good.

No, stop. You've spent an entire thread claiming the opposite of what the text says, while chiding others for not following RAW. Stop. Apologize for your whoopsie if you want this to go further.

NOBODY you argued against said an orc cannot be good. That's a complete strawman to try and save face. Everyone argued with you about the primary point you made - that it was society and not something inherant in the orc which made them evil.

That was wrong. You were mistaken. Acknowledge it. Please. Then we can go on to what the ramifications of the actual rules might be. But not while you're still pretending you didn't repeatedly claim orcish evil was purely societal influence and than anyone who disagreed with you was not following RAW.

 

[Flamestrike]

Because he said they are. DM fiat baby, no ethics or explanation required.

At least we an acknlwedge the postion 'Orcs are inherently evil and have no say in the matter' to be DM fiat an not RAW.

We're getting somewhere.

Why in the world would this be productive?

Because he's entered a debate on evil and good, and stated all Orcs in his game are inherently evil (by fiat).

Id like to know what 'evil' means, or is it just a tag with no meaning other than 'kill this thing on sight'?