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.

 

[MGibster]

I think that many (certainly not all) contemporary people would affirm that taking a life is an evil, and even when justified - eg in self-defence - it is a necessary evil.

I think we need to establish some definitions here. What is evil? And once we define that how do we reconcile that with an action we say is justified but evil? Because when someone says an act is justified they typically mean it was good, legitimate, or righteous. Killing someone might not be "good" in a general sense but it can certainly be good in a moral sense.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I think we need to establish some definitions here. What is evil? And once we define that how do we reconcile that with an action we say is justified but evil? Because when someone says an act is justified they typically mean it was good, legitimate, or righteous. Killing someone might not be "good" in a general sense but it can certainly be good in a moral sense.

i would say a "just" act is not necessarily attached to good or evil. Rather, it is a "correct" or "right" act in accordance to something. Typically a law or custom.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

In this manner a typically evil act might be considered "just" in accordance with a law associated with "good" or pertaining to "exceptional circumstances" recognized by "good" and therefore not be "evil" or "good" if the law we are saying its in accordance with happens to be "moral good". But it neednt even be in accordance to good to be just. It just needs to be in accordance to something.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Someone kills your kid? According to the customs of your people and natural responsibilities of fatherhood it may be considered just and or good to then go and kill the man and or his wife and children depending on the standard. It may also be considered UNJUST if the other guy somehow had adequate justification for killing your child. Perhaps your child is a child genius who killed an entire town to gain power from a demon prince he discovered in his studies as a freakishly advanced wizard for his youthful age. Or depending on factors even then you may be justfied in vengeance. Or not. It really depends on what standards you have been applying.

 

[Lanefan]

So, one thing I've noticed in is that people who think D&D's alignment system adds needed moral dimension to their game often claim that people who object to D&D's alignment only want their characters to be able to commit Evil actions without the mechanical consequences of being Evil, or even simply being identified as Evil out-of-character.

Well, at least here I can claim to be consistent: my character will do what is does and I don't much care if it gets pegged as Evil.

As much as I've been generally enjoying and agreeing with your contributions to this thread, this quote-- this right here-- is why the alignment system in D&D and morality mechanics in RPGs in general need to go away and never come back.

The Force did not issue the character a Dark Side Point. You did. You interpreted the rules of what is Good and Evil in the campaign setting-- rules that are deliberately and necessarily vague-- and you made a decision and you imposed consequences. You did. And whether that decision was right or wrong, because I've never really seen an egregiously bad call in a Star Wars game, it was your decision and you were 100% responsible for it.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

If the game asks its DMs to a) make the call on what's Good and what's Evil, and b) to impose whatever mechanical benefits or penalties go along with said call, then - like it or not - making those calls and imposing those consequences becomes part of the DM's job.

Now disputing a specific call is fine - simple fact of life that not everyone's going to agree with every call - but to blame the DM for making the call at all when the game insists she does is a bit much.

 

[Lanefan]

So orcs raiding as a way of living is acceptable?

To the Orcs, it is.

To those being raided, it (probably) isn't.

It all depends whose viewpoint you want to take. Most of the time, typical adventuring types side with those being raided, and try to put those raids to a stop.

Later, those same adventurers might more or less become raiders themselves when at higher level they go into the G-series; and to those adventurers this would be an acceptable way of living.

 

[pemerton]

I think we need to establish some definitions here. What is evil? And once we define that how do we reconcile that with an action we say is justified but evil? Because when someone says an act is justified they typically mean it was good, legitimate, or righteous. Killing someone might not be "good" in a general sense but it can certainly be good in a moral sense.

I don't think definitions are very helpful. We're in the territory of encyclopedias, not dictionaries.

The idea that something might be justfied yet be an evil is not particularly odd. Killing in self-defence is widely (not universally - eg by pacifists) seen as justifiable. But I think that few people would say that killing in self-defence is a good and I think many would say that it is regrettable and I think that some would say it is a necessary evil.

There are lots of discussions in both philsophy and literature of more tricky and controversial cases, but I don't think they are going to help most D&D games.

 

[pemerton]

i would say a "just" act is not necessarily attached to good or evil. Rather, it is a "correct" or "right" act in accordance to something. Typically a law or custom.

In the most classic account, which I think is the one that best fits D&D, to do justice is to give others their due. Everything else being equal, people are entitled not to be killed and hence killing them willy-nilly is unjust.

Mercy and charity are acts of generosity that go beyond what is due. In that sense, they are gratuitous. In most approaches to D&D morality that I've encountered over the years, these are treated as superogatory for good characters, just as in the classic account of justice they are superogatory.

That said, a character who professed to be good but never demonstrated mercy or charity might be considered a little suspect, or at best a borderline case.

In 5e D&D, I would expect the typical vengeance paladin to show little mercy or charity, and perhaps also to sometimes act unjustly (eg attacking those who are themselves innocent, and hence have done nothing to merit the attack, but who are in the way of the exacting of vengeance). This is why the typical vengeance paladin is probably not good. (But not necessarily evil. Some might be LN. Or even CN, if they are idiosyncratic or mercurial in respect of those upon whom they wreak vengeance.)

 

[pemerton]

It all depends whose viewpoint you want to take. Most of the time, typical adventuring types side with those being raided, and try to put those raids to a stop.

I don't think this coheres very well with standard D&D alignment. Eg it tends to suggest that being evil is in the eye of the beholder - which then causes confusion when we ask who detects as evil or who, when they die, will go to the lower planes?

 

[Lanefan]

This is why, even if D&D alignment categories are being used in a game, I don't favour GM adjudication of alignment. Because that way conflicts and madness lie!

No conflicts when the GM's word is law.

Also, if the GM doesn't adjudicate alignment, who does? Not the player, certainly, when you consider how often the alignment written on the character sheet disagrees with what the character actually does in play. And not the other players, as they too will have biases for/against the PC being judged.

Once a character has entered play its alignment comes from its actions, not letters on a character sheet.

In theory the GM is the most small-n neutral voice at the table. Couple that with her job description being to in part act as referee, and it becomes clear she's the one to make that call.