• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! 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

log in or register to remove this ad

Hoffmand

Explorer
Is the act of taking life good or evil?

Yes, you can tack on additional words to try and explain or justify any specific instance of killing. But does that justification change the inherent nature of the act?

I think it absolutely helps to define the act in and of itself as something good or bad, and then once we’ve done that, I think it helps further discussion.
Murder and killing are not the same thing. Your use language is deliberately vague to force something to appear vague that is not vague.
 


Did you argue orcs are the way they are because of the society they were raised in, or not?

Yes I did. An Orc raised outside of its evil society will have a much higher chance of turning out good than if it was raised among other (evil) Orcs. It'll need to keep its savagery in check of course, because if it acts on that savage tendencies it'll likely fall to to evil, but its perfectly OK for the Orc to choose to be Good, and live a morally upstanding life.

If it was raised in an (evil) Orc society, they would encourage its violent and savage tendencies.
 

He didn't say they cannot be good. If you disagree, quote where he said they cannot be good.

He states above that in his games he fiats Orcs (and Ogres and trolls and Bugbears etc) to be inherently (and always) evil. Like they have no choice in the matter.

Go back a few pages and read for yourself.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
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.
No we aren't. I agree with him that CE is what Orcs are, that's the default. The orc equivalent of Drizzt doesn't change that in the least. The exception in the book is specifically there to provide a narrative that allows an Orc PC. The exception is obviously not meant to describe the race as a whole. There are pages and pages in the MM describing how CE Orcs are, and one mention of exceptions. The person who is trying to change the reading of the rules is you, not me or Oofta. I was saying he doesn't need to excuse his game to you, not that it requires DM fiat for Orcs to be CE (which is exactly as ridiculous as it sounds on face value, I assure you).
 


Oofta

Legend
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.

Either you didn't read what I wrote or you're just deliberately making naughty word up and trolling. Stop.
 



Voidrunner's Codex

Related Articles

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top