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.

 

[prabe]

I think laws of the land, or of a temple, or wherever, have a lot to do with it.

Why?

Because one could - and I think I will - argue that one of the fundamental differences between Lawful and Chaotic is that a Lawful person looks to and relies on external authorities for rules and guidance on how to live (and for enforcement of such), where a Chaotic person looks within him-herself for these things and relies on his-her own judgment.

So, when faced with a thorny situation, a Lawful person is going to ask "What do the external laws and rules say must be done here?" while a Chaotic will ask "What does my own conscience say?". A Neutral person might consider both...or neither.

Sure, but those external authorities don't have to be the ones where you are. If you internalize a code from, say, a church order, you can stick to that even when it conflicts with local ordinances and still be lawful, IMO.

 

[Lanefan]

There's no surprise there. Law is a means, not an end. The end is life, wellbeing, truth and beauty.

Which of course raises the next obvious question: which is more important - the means, or the ends?

 

[Oofta]

I think laws of the land, or of a temple, or wherever, have a lot to do with it.

Why?

Because one could - and I think I will - argue that one of the fundamental differences between Lawful and Chaotic is that a Lawful person looks to and relies on external authorities for rules and guidance on how to live (and for enforcement of such), where a Chaotic person looks within him-herself for these things and relies on his-her own judgment.

So, when faced with a thorny situation, a Lawful person is going to ask "What do the external laws and rules say must be done here?" while a Chaotic will ask "What does my own conscience say?". A Neutral person might consider both...or neither.

Whereas I would say that many would, but it's not a requirement. They may have cobbled together a moral code from myth, experience and teaching from multiple sources. I may agree with [insert philosopher A] on some things but modify the teachings based on the thoughts of [philosopher B]. I still have a very static set of rules I follow

So the lawful person is more ... locked in to a set structure of how to interpret and interact with the world. That structure does not necessarily have to come from an external source. A chaotic person is just going to do what makes sense to them at the time.

Other hand other than the occasional philosophical debate I don't see why it matters. It's not like alignment is useful in anything but broad brushstrokes.

 

[Lanefan]

But sure, if I'm DMing a group that just wants to kick in the walls and fight evil, I won't make them consider whether the goblins they just killed had goblin babies who are now orphaned and going to die in the cold. I won't make the Paladin decide whether to kill the baby or not. That's not the game they signed up for. Most Paladin players I know, however, WANT to face those moral tests of character. The trick is balancing that interest with the interest of the CG Barbarian player who just wants to kick in the door. My normal answer to that is, we need separate D&D groups.

Wouldn't it be easier just to let the Barbarian kick in the Paladin and see where it goes from there?

 

[Oofta]

yeah. "your alignment changed to evil and therefore you surrender it as an npc to the dm" rules have always seemed weird to me.

I've played with people who ran evil PCs before. In one particular case, the guy described some things I consider pretty reprehensible. Forcing himself on women, details of torture and how he committed murder and so on. Honestly it made me really uncomfortable how he seemed to be getting into some really gross stuff. He was describing details I would never go into as a DM.

I decided that I just didn't want to deal with it. I know the response in the past has been "but I can be evil without doing those things." Which, fair. But then why play an evil PC in the first place?

In addition, if someone wants to play a good character of any sort, associating with a murderer is going to be problematic. I'm pretty lax when it comes to this stuff but yeah, I want to run games for heroes, not mobsters.

Nothing wrong with allowing evil PCs, just not my cup of tea. In the same way that there is no way a game can be perfect for everyone, no DM will be a perfect fit for every player.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, if it goes from all Lord of the Rings to unrepentantly Lord of the Flies it's probably time to put the screen down. All murderhobos can now exit my basement using the stairs, please obey your stewardess and thanks for flying Air Fenris. Bye bye now.

Hey, leave that screen up - I'll take over DMing. This is just starting to get interesting!

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, but those external authorities don't have to be the ones where you are. If you internalize a code from, say, a church order, you can stick to that even when it conflicts with local ordinances and still be lawful, IMO.

Yes, sometimes external laws from different sources will conflict, and the choices thus forced can make playing a Lawful character a challenge sometimes - which IMO is cool.

What it comes down to when these choices arise is in effect picking one set of laws or rules - be it those of a nation, or a temple, or a guild - and sticking with them.

The character is also somewhat expected to be consistent with which set of laws or rules it follows and not cherry-pick. Cherry-picking whose laws to follow (or ignore) just to gain an advantage in a situation is not cool for a Lawful; and I've seen this done way more than once.

 

[Lanefan]

Other hand other than the occasional philosophical debate I don't see why it matters. It's not like alignment is useful in anything but broad brushstrokes.

Depends what system or edition you're using.

In my game alignment most certainly has some effect particularly for a few classes (all the religious ones, plus Assassins, Necromancers and Monks). Also, aligned items are very much a thing as are alignment-specific effects and-or divinations.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Whereas I would say that many would, but it's not a requirement. They may have cobbled together a moral code from myth, experience and teaching from multiple sources. I may agree with [insert philosopher A] on some things but modify the teachings based on the thoughts of [philosopher B]. I still have a very static set of rules I follow

So the lawful person is more ... locked in to a set structure of how to interpret and interact with the world. That structure does not necessarily have to come from an external source. A chaotic person is just going to do what makes sense to them at the time.

Other hand other than the occasional philosophical debate I don't see why it matters. It's not like alignment is useful in anything but broad brushstrokes.

I meant this in cases where the dm doesnt have an established rule against it and seems relatively ok with evil. There are editions (dont know if its a thing in 5e) where occasionally you will find alignment effecting effects (effects the force an alignment change and nothing else) that instruct the dm to take over the character. Stating the reason as being the alignment shift itself (not an additional effect). These are the dumb rules im talking about. Typically they are in a supplement book and not core. It would make sense if the pc was mentally enslaved by something maybe. But there are rules for certain effects where the only stated reason is "there was an alignment shift". I have no problem with a dm just not wanting to deal with evil characters. Not what i was talking about. Never had to deal with it myself personally but they are rules i recommend ignoring. Its unnecessary if the stated reason is the shift alone and no mind controlling effect. Most dms will realize they shoukd ignore these rules. But ive heard of dms following them.

 

[prabe]

I meant this in cases where the dm doesnt have an established rule against it and seems relatively ok with evil.

There are editions (dont know if its a thing in 5e) where occasionally you will find alignment effecting effects (effects the force an alignment change and nothing else) that instruct the dm to take over the character. Stating the reason as being the alignment shift itself (not an additional effect).

These are the dumb rules im talking about. Typically they are in a supplement book and not core.

It would make sense if the pc was mentally enslaved by something maybe. But there are rules for certain effects where the only stated reason is "there was an alignment shift".

I have no problem with a dm just not wanting to deal with evil characters. Not what i was talking about.

Never had to deal with it myself personally but they are rules i recommend ignoring.

I remember seeing suggestions to that effect for people turned into things like werewolves or vampires, but that doesn't sound exactly like what you're talking about. I don't remember that the Helm of Opposite Alignment called for the PC to become and NPC--it just ruined the character for the player, maybe. I never saw those come up, either, for what it's worth.