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

Lem23

Adventurer
Oh that should be easy to find out then, I'm based in Toronto, and my mentor studied and taught in Quebec, so she'll almost certainly know him. I'll have a chat to another of my professors when I was doing my dissertation, he specalised in medieval law and economics, so he would be aware both of anything he wrote and of the current state of play regarding droit de seigneur.
 

Lem23

Adventurer
And as I remarked in my reply to your PM, there's no primary source that mentions it, there are no contemporary commentaries that mention it (that I'm aware of), and consider this: What do you think the Church would make of it? At the very least, even if it was a dying practice, there'd be church commentary on the subject (if only to gloat at their victory in ending the practice), and we have very, very good church records on subjects relating to sex, matrimony, legality, and morality. You'll almost certainly never get the chance to visit the BAV (Vatican Library) because their admission criteria are very strict, but I can assure you from personal experience that it's vast in scope and size.
 

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
Who detects as evil is certainly affected by the viewpoint of the caster, as one of several factors with past actions, absolute (i.e. universal) alignment, religion or deity followed, and so forth being some others. An Orc Shaman casting detect evil might pull some of the PCs but not all of the Orcs around her (as in her view they're not evil), while a PC Cleric in the adventuring party casting detect evil might pull all the Orcs but none of the adventurers.

Meanwhile a non-involved third party might find everyone present is evil; the Orcs for their past raiding and the PCs for their actions while adventuring. :)

I would postulate the opposite.

The orc shaman casting detect evil, would pull in all their fellow orcs, except that one nice, weak willed one, and show the players as good.

Then of course, they would attempt to slay all those do-gooders, and toss the weak willed orc in with them.
 

Seeing as D&D is a fantasy game, I think it also require a fantasy definition of Good and Evil.

In my game, Good is defined by Natural Law as theorized by St. Thomas Aquinas. I don't always agree with his definition of "good," but it's a fantasy game that operates by different principles than the real world.

Why bring real world morality into a silly elf-games?
 


hawkeyefan

Legend
Seeing as D&D is a fantasy game, I think it also require a fantasy definition of Good and Evil.

In my game, Good is defined by Natural Law as theorized by St. Thomas Aquinas. I don't always agree with his definition of "good," but it's a fantasy game that operates by different principles than the real world.

Why bring real world morality into a silly elf-games?

Because you may want to?

I think that whatever level of moral granularity a group may want for their game is fine.

If folks want to play a very good versus evil game where they don’t examine things a lot and the good guys and whatever they do are good, and the bad guys and whatever they do are bad, that’s fine.

But it’s also fine to want a deeper view of morality in a game. It’s the difference between fiction like Star Wars and fiction like Game of Thrones. Both are fantasies, one is more simple and straightforward, and another is more complex.

There’s room for both and any degree in between when it comes to RPGs.

Labels such as Good and Evil having impact on the game...such as with D&D’s alignment system....seem to matter more in the simpler game, generally speaking.
 

DammitVictor

Trust the Fungus
Supporter
That seems to misconstrue my comment. To continue economics, or politics, through violence, is what is on the table. The censure that you rightly sensed in what I wrote is of the said continuation; not of the economics or politics.

Distinguishing oneself from lesser beings through violence toward them or sustaining ourselves through violence to others is what would be censured. Though FTM that attitude (of superiority) in the first place is suspect: were you being ironic?

What I am saying is that while people have the obligation-- and the capacity-- to seek survival through peaceful industry and trade, that tends to be something of a work in progress. People have a tendency to sneer at "economics" as something of a lesser concern or even a dirty business and not, say, the food on their plate, the roof over their head, and their pile of firewood heading into a long winter.

It doesn't matter what side of the equation you're sitting on-- if peaceful industry and trade isn't putting food on your children, you're going to pursue economics via other means. To bring it back on-topic... whether or not D&D's "objective morality" has a problem with this seems to depend entirely on whether or not your race is in the PHB.
 

DammitVictor

Trust the Fungus
Supporter
I wonder how many times I'm going to have to ask a simple question before anyone bothers trying to answer it:

If D&D's morality isn't supposed to have anything to do with real-life morality, why does D&D need to have a rigid and punitive morality system at all, in the first place? What is your justification for this?
 

I wonder how many times I'm going to have to ask a simple question before anyone bothers trying to answer it:

If D&D's morality isn't supposed to have anything to do with real-life morality, why does D&D need to have a rigid and punitive morality system at all, in the first place? What is your justification for this?
Because The Outer Planes exist.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top