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.

 

[pemerton]

Which works would those be though? Because the morality in the works in the Appendix N books varies so widely that it's neither consistently "pseudo-medieval" nor consistent in the types of violence and other actions that are permissible. LotR certainly is not, morality-wise, for example, pseudo-medieval, it's vastly more modern, and looks down on pseudo-medieval morality. Conan is very far from LotR, and permits violence in circumstances that even the middle-ages would have got you labeled a murderer and at best paying a blood price or something. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are less keen on truly thuggish violence but are close to amoral in many regards, and the societies they inhabit are not just ones. Moorcock essentially rejects good and evil in favour of Law and Chaos (indeed this is where D&D gets it from).

I could go on and on. And that's just appendix N, not the litany of works that have influenced D&D since then. I don't say this to be mean, but to make the point that what you're describing appears essentially impossible in any meaningful or valid sense.

What I could believe is a picking one of those sources, or a couple of very similar ones, and drawing out a morality from that. But from the whole canon that inspired D&D? Hardly.

If someone wants to play a Conan-esque or even Lankhmar-esque game, do they need alignment? I wouldn't think of that as a "fighting evil" game. SImiarly for Moorcock - as I understand it part of the premise of the Elric stories is to reject the sort of moralism that Moorcock finds so insipid in JRRT's work.

But if a group wants to run a "fighting evil" game - which is the premise of the thread, I think - then works like LotR, Arthurian legend, and the like would be the relevant sources. And I think those suggest a pretty consistent morality: wanton killing is evil; defensive violence is permissible (pacifism might be admirable in some contexts, but is not obligatory); retributive violence is permissible, at least against serious or inveterate evildoers; and consensual violence is not per se evil, though it might be problematic to engage in it too readily or too enthusiastically.

So you're not talking about 5E, right? Because those aren't 5E concerns.

I'm replying to @Lanefan, who doesn't play 5e. And I still think 5e has Upper and Lower Planes where living beings' spirits/souls/etc go when they die.

If you're going to play an "evil is in the eye of the beholder" game, then why would you use the D&D alignment system? At that point, what is it bringing to the game?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If someone wants to play a Conan-esque or even Lankhmar-esque game, do they need alignment?

I don't think you need alignment in any sort of game. For example, I've played quite a lot of FASA Star Trek. And I've found that players just buy into the idea that they are Star Fleet and act that way without any intervention from the GM.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

What bit of my post are you talking about?

An important skill for doing PHIL 101 is to be able to answer questions like "If Bentham's view was correct, then would such-and-such be a permissible action?" Some of the posters in these threads, though, seem to be very reluctant to exercise their imaginations in this way - whereas that's exactly what you have to do when you read LotR or watch The X-Men and cheer along with the heroes!

But I would say that I see very few people affirming moral relativism in any of these threads. Rather what I see them doing is projecting their own moral views onto the gameworld, with no mediation or stopping to ask How do I have to change my moral views - in imagination only, of course! - to make this game work? They seem to be able to do that when engaging with other fictional media, but for some reason RPGs cause a problem.

this. This is what i was saying you werent really applying thoroughly. Justice could change wildly depending on what you are using as the focus to be or not be in accordance with. I believe you made some unwaranted presupositions (ones you would be permitted for not noticing because they seem normal) that caused you to exclude possibilities.

Are you contesting my account of the classical view of justice and the superogatory? I'm thinking of Aristotle and the large number of thinkers influenced by him. Who are you thinking of?

Are you suggesting I'm wrong about the typical vengeance paladin? If so, what do you think the typical vengeance paladin looks like?

no and no.

 

[Helldritch]

I don't think you need alignment in any sort of game. For example, I've played quite a lot of FASA Star Trek. And I've found that players just buy into the idea that they are Star Fleet and act that way without any intervention from the GM.

But in a game where we do have an alignment system. We should try to at least, work within the restriction of the said system. If only to use it as a guideline to what is acceptable or not.

I am a Star Treck fan myself and I "Star trek mastered" STMed? it. It was a blast and you're right, players are systematically filling the shoes of Star Fleet. It was a blast!

 

[Son of the Serpent]

what does "LN DM" mean?

 

[Lem23]

It took a long time for me to respond to the quotes and questions about my position. I'll resume it here.
You can simply not take into account what we, modern day people, take for good or evil. But why?

Simple.
D&D is, generally, set at the end of a dark age and early start of renaissance. At least that is what the base game assumes with ruins of ancient empires for the PCs to explore. What was considered good and evil at that time was not what we would expect with today's standard.

For example. We all agree that a man is innocent until proven otherwise. Well, small news for you, it is a relatively new mindset as almost every civilizations considered that a man was guilty until proven otherwise. And it was often the family of the victim that would ask for a specific sentence or could give absolution of a crime (by forgiving the convicted). By the standard of the medieval societies, the criminals have it way too easy in our society. We are so evil that the victims are left without justice (according to them). For the medieval society, better 10 innocent men killed in the name of justice than just one killer on the loose. For them, we would be fools and even evil to allow a killer to get away because of an error in the arrest procedure.

The death penalty (which is an aberration in my mind) was not only common but often preceded by torture. Executions were public and were attended by children (if only to show them that if you do not follow the rules...). In addition, you were considered an adult by the age of 13 (11 in some cultures). Not fully responsible but you would be accountable for any crime you would commit. Poaching could even lead to your death if it so suited your lord (and if you were a repeated offender).

To our modern mindset, a lot of what was happening during medieval times would simply be too much to endure and accept. Just being of the wrong religious belief would be enough to warrant your death or enslavement. The liberty we take so much for granted was not seen as a right but as a civic boon given to people a lord was either fond of or that have helped him so much that they were rewarded with it. Slavery was even seen in some society to be a human way to treat prisoners. There were codes of conducts on how to treat a slave humanly and correctly...

I should not go into the bigotry and misogyny that would come with a full essay of medieval societies. But here is one example. On the night of your wedding, a lord could get the first night with your new wife because there was the "droit de cuissage". It was a revolting practice but it was there in some countries. It was not systematically enforced but it was there. Was the lord evil for doing it? For us yes, for the people at that time, it was not so. It was simply a disgusting right that the lords had. This is why I say that we can not apply our modern view of good and evil to a fantasy setting. Too much changed in history to make it logical.

So it is safe to assume that we have a blend of medieval and modern mindset (that much I agree). The closer we want to RP the assumed world, the closer to the medieval mindset we have to be. Of course, we do not want to fall into the pit trap where women would be relegated to the kitchen and child raising. That we have equality in our "Fantasy" setting is absolutely necessary and logical. If only because in fantasy, women can become quite powerful in magic and priest(ess)hood. This would have open the mind of even the worst of worst misogynist. And I can not stress enough that this is a good thing. I want my female players to feel as important as any of their male counter parts. This is the only modern day mindset that I won't let go. Other than that, I think that we should try to put ourselves in the shoes of the assumed setting. As I have shown, good and evil were pretty much extreme in these times. A lot of what we assume as evil today would simply be a matter of survival in a fantasy setting.

Edit: Why do I know so much about medieval societies? Simple, I'm a fan of history and I discuss about this a lot with my wife. She has a university diploma in history specialized in medieval societies around the world (the evolution of women rights in the society through time was her thesis)

Droit de seigneur / cuissage / ius primae noctis (and several other forms), is a myth. I'm assuming that the reference to 10 innocents is a reference to a tithing; if that's the case, then death was never the penalty for the other members of a tithing. It was simply a measure to attempt to use peer pressure and ad-hoc policing in a time when there was no police service. Slavery was very rare in the high and late medieval periods, and going out of fashion in the early medieval period (hence the rise of serfdom and manorialism).

How do I know so much? I have three degrees in medieval history (BA, MA, PhD).

 

[Son of the Serpent]

How do I know so much? I have three degrees in medieval history (BA, MA, PhD).

tooting ye olde timy long straight trumpet looking thingy watzit eh? Nah really thought thats pretty cool.

 

[Helldritch]

Do not restrict yourself to Europe. Eurasia, Middle East and Far East were there too. So was Africa and its different empires (to which almost nothing remains but simple mentions in history books). We have a lot of speculation about what was going on in the Americas at that time.

Also, a lot of people would disagree that the Droit de cuissage was a myth. We had a lot of discussions about that with a Teacher that had a Doctorate PhD in Mediaval Europe in our university and it seems that, although rarely used it was there. But you are right, a lot was changing during the High Medieval Era and early Renaissance and that is a good thing.

 

[Lem23]

tooting ye olde timy long straight trumpet looking thingy watzit eh? Nah really thought thats pretty cool.

It was more a comment from the person I was posting, that they must be correct because their wife had a diploma in medieval studies. I can dig out references for the stuff I was posting if anyone's interested though or wants to know mroe (medieval crime can be a fascinating area of study, though its not my focus, that's monasticism and lay religious movements).

My go to book for people to learn about medieval society is Robert Bartlett's The Hanged Man, a wonderful, fairly short book, written for non-academic audiences and that reads almost like a novel, from a very esteemed medieval historian.

Also, if you're talking about medieval crime, you also need to discuss which courts you're referring to - canon law, english common law, roman law, Germanic vendetta law are all very different.

 

[Lem23]

Do not restrict yourself to Europe. Eurasia, Middle East and Far East were there too. So was Africa and its different empires (to which almost nothing remains but simple mentions in history books). We have a lot of speculation about what was going on in the Americas at that time.

Also, a lot of people would disagree that the Droit de cuissage was a myth. We had a lot of discussions about that with a Teacher that had a Doctorate PhD in Mediaval Europe in our university and it seems that, although rarely used it was there. But you are right, a lot was changing during the High Medieval Era and early Renaissance and that is a good thing.

No, droit de seigneur was a myth. Do a basic google search, and you'll find that just about all medieval historians agree that it's a myth. Search for any primary sources that mention it. It's a myth.

(I also teach medieval history at university. If you've found a historian who does think it was real, would you mind naming them, so I can see if they've written on the subject, and perhaps I can ask them why they think so?)