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.

 

[Fenris-77]

The only role I was suggesting that alignment take is to guide the production of descriptors. I would quite happily do without it, but as a sacred cow of enormous girth I was trying to find a way to 'leave it in' without, you know, really leaving it in.

 

[Fenris-77]

Inspiration feels like a lot of DM-side work without a lot of benefit to the game, so I ignore that, too. As a way to get into a character (player-side) it's fine as it is in 5E--but I say that after having played a lot of games without alignments and enjoying those.

Inspiration could have been the mechanic that really brought D&D into the present as far as TTRPG design goes. It could have been really, really, cool. Sadly, it's just blah. I'm always trying to find ways to use Inspiration to fuel other bespoke mechanics I tinker with, since Inspiration is a spendable and renewable game resource that isn't really in use. I will find uses for it!

 

[prabe]

For 5E, I could even see holding off on selecting an alignment until later on. Maybe at 3rd level when most classes have to pick their sub-class. See how the character comes across in actual play rather than deciding ahead of time.

I mean, many folks argue against having a backstory for a PC because they want those details to emerge through play. And while I don’t agree with that 100%, I would happily apply it to alignment.

I could see doing this as a thing, instead of my normal request for some amount of backstory (my ideal is about 1,000 words; in practice I get three sentences or a novella) just drop the characters into things and let their personalities emerge in play, let the players pick alignments later, ask for more like the backstory I normally want later. It'd take some buy-in from the players, maybe, but I can see it working.

 

[pemerton]

Another use of alignment which has historically been, and perhaps stil is, of some importance is as a GM tool to control player action declarations. Eg do that and you'll lose your class abilities or do that and you'll lose your PC because this is a no-evil campaign etc.

The absolute pits in my view, but there always seems to have been at least some of it about.

 

[Umbran]

The only role I was suggesting that alignment take is to guide the production of descriptors. I would quite happily do without it, but as a sacred cow of enormous girth I was trying to find a way to 'leave it in' without, you know, really leaving it in.

5e has left it in, but left it with no mechanical impact. I'm not sure how much more of a visible ghost it could become.

 

[prabe]

Inspiration could have been the mechanic that really brought D&D into the present as far as TTRPG design goes. It could have been really, really, cool. Sadly, it's just blah. I'm always trying to find ways to use Inspiration to fuel other bespoke mechanics I tinker with, since Inspiration is a spendable and renewable game resource that isn't really in use. I will find uses for it!

Inspiration feels to me like an uninspired (heh) take on Aspects from Fate. I ... have ... problems with Fate at this point, and they're probably not all connected to the game, but Inspiration really does feel like enough of an afterthought that I'm perfectly happy to ignore it.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Inspiration feels like a lot of DM-side work without a lot of benefit to the game, so I ignore that, too. As a way to get into a character (player-side) it's fine as it is in 5E--but I say that after having played a lot of games without alignments and enjoying those.

Yeah. Ive never actually given out inspiration. I have always viewed it to be a trash mechanic. Kinda hate it. Its on my short list of "things i would never use".

 

[hawkeyefan]

That could work. Beliefs change with time and experience, so it makes complete sense that how a character views the world could change over the course of a campaign.

Yeah, there’s no reason it can’t change over time. Back in the day, that may have been a big deal, but thankfully not so much anymore.

But I mean not even selecting it till 3rd level. Then, when you level up to 3, you need to declare alignment. And maybe the player and DM actually have a discussion about it. Even the other players may offer some insight. Seems more productive than what used to happen back in the day with a player selecting an alignment at level 1 and then the DM being the one to decide if that changed during play.

 

[prabe]

Another use of alignment which has historically been, and perhaps stil is, of some importance is as a GM tool to control player action declarations. Eg do that and you'll lose your class abilities or do that and you'll lose your PC because this is a no-evil campaign etc.

The absolute pits in my view, but there always seems to have been at least some of it about.

Given how, as @Fenris-77 said, alignment just floats unattached to any real mechanic in 5E (even detect/protection from evil and good are about creatures from other planes for the most part, whatever their alignment) it's harmless to leave it in, let the players use it as a handle on their characters. @Umbran describes it well as a "visible ghost."

 

[pemerton]

Given how, as @Fenris-77 said, alignment just floats unattached to any real mechanic in 5E (even detect/protection from evil and good are about creatures from other planes for the most part, whatever their alignment) it's harmless to leave it in, let the players use it as a handle on their characters. @Umbran describes it well as a "visible ghost."

In a currently active thread discussing a 5e game there is advocacy for the idea that the GM should use "that's evil" as a device to control PC action declarations.