• 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
So it's evil to keep yourself and everyone else alive in that world?

No, its evil to kill a helpless human sacrifice. The ends are a different story to the means.

Im saying the act is evil. If a 1-3E paladin were to do such a thing (no matter the reason why) he'd better start looking for an atonement spell.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
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.

I read it. He doesn't say "always". Again, quote him if you disagree. He plays them their nature is inborn rather than societal - which is what the rules say as well.

You said orcs are the way they are because of the society they grew up in. Right? You admit you said that, repeatedly and loudly, right?
 

No, its evil to kill a helpless human sacrifice. The ends are a different story to the means.

Im saying the act is evil. If a 1-3E paladin were to do such a thing (no matter the reason why) he'd better start looking for an atonement spell.
Why should they if the live in that world?

In that world, said sacrifice is a good act, because it's trading one life for hundreds of millions. Is that not an acceptable trade? Or do you just not understand that moralities different from your can exist in the world?
 

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

You equated Orcs to (in your words) indigenous peoples, in order to make the point that eradicating evil aspects of their culture was wrong.

You cant argue (on one hand) Orc culture is reprehensible and evil (making them deserving of slaughter by the forces of good) and the next minute equate that culture to a human culture and call 'colonialism' for wanting to end that evil with non violent means!
 

You compared Orcs to (in your words) indigenous peoples!

You cant argue (on one hand) Orc culture is reprehensible and evil (making them deserving of slaughter) and the next minute equate that culture to a human culture and call 'colonialism' for wanting to end that evil with non violent means!
You completely missed the point, but okay.
 

You completely missed the point, but okay.

No I understand the point (colonialism is wrong), but it needs to be taken in context of a person objecting to the removal of distasteful aspects of a culture (such as rapine, demon worship etc) with non violent means (because thats colonialism and thats wrong), when he's been arguing we should instead be slaughtering the members of said culture due to those exact same aspects existing.

it's a bit of a disconnect!
 
Last edited:


If moral is relative, can I create an army of sentinel robots to hunt mutants and other humanoids with superhpowers to proctect the helpless masses of "flatnscan" or muggless?

If a character in Ravenloft kills his alduteress wife to clean his honor and to avoid an expensive and scandalous divorce.... shouldn't be he punished by the dark powers?
 

No I understand the point (colonialism is wrong), but when its taken in context of a person arguing that the culture we shouldn't be removing aspects of with non violent means (because thats colonialism and thats wrong), we should instead be slaughtering the members of it due to those exact same aspects existing, it's a bit of a disconnect!
No, he just has his own opinion on the idea of "redeeming" orcs (which he views the "redeeming" as "annihilating their culture and making them adopt our more 'civilized' ways") much the same way people has seen those same effort to First Nations people in Canada or Aboriginal Australians (seriously, look that stuff up, it's horrifying)
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Related Articles

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top