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.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I'm not "appealing to authority". I'm pointing to authors who have done more work on the nature of socialisation, and culture, and its relationship to the "internal" vs "external" than anyone on these boards.

i mean...that does directly describe an apeal to authority. You just added more words ti also describe how it was one.

 

[pemerton]

Lawful does see the natural state of society as being unruly, and seeks to constrain it (or shape it, or guide it, or whatever other term fits here) with rules.

What D&D text suggests this?

From AD&D (which is the game you say that you play), here are some relevant extracts:

DMG​

(p 23):

Law And Chaos: The opposition here is between organized groups and individuals. That is, law dictates that order and organization is necessary and desirable, while chaos holds to the opposite view. Law generally supports the group as more important than the individual, while chaos promotes the individual over the group.​

Nothing there suggests that the lawful think that society is naturally unruly. It also leaves it an open question why order and organisation are seen as necessary and desirable. But we find answers - different ones - for each lawful alignment (PHB p 33, DMG p 23):

LAWFUL EVIL: Obviously, all order is not good, nor are all laws beneficial. Lawful evil creotures consider order as the meons by which each group is properly placed in the cosmos, from lowest to highest, strongest first, weakest last. Good is seen as an excuse to promote the mediocrity of the whole and suppress the better and more capable, while lawful evilness allows each group to structure itself and fix its place as compared to others, serving the stronger but being served by the weaker.

Lawful Evil: Creatures of this alignment are great respecters of laws and strict order, but life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned. By adhering to stringent discipline, those of lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.​

These people clearly think order and organisation are necessary and desirable because, without them, individuals will flourish in their own ways rather than being harnessed to the yoke of those who can benefit from such order. These people like external laws - these are a key component of the yoke. They don't care about, or even celebrate, the fact that imposing the yoke and extracting the benefits might undermine life, beauty, truth and freedom.

LAWFUL NEUTRAL: It is the view of this alignment that law and order give purpose and meaning to everything. Without regimentation and strict definition, there would be no purpose in the cosmos. Therefore, law is good or evil is of no import as long as it brings order and meaning.

Lawful Neutral: Those of this alignment view regulation as all-important, taking a middle road betwixt evil and good. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world - and the whole of the universe - is considered by lawful neutral creatures to have its sole hope rest upon law and order. Evil or good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation.​

The PHB entry here gets a bit carried away with its rhetoric, but the key idea is clear: the LN value order and organisation because they insist on regulation, regimentation and harmony as necessary for meaningfulness. They are order fetishists! It is possible that some of these people regard society as at risk of unruliness if not delieberately ordered. But that doesn't seem to be mandated.

LAWFUL GOOD: Creatures of lawful good alignment view the cosmos with varying degrees of lawfulness or desire for good. They are convinced that order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good, and that good is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest.

Lawful Good: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.​

These people value order because it brings wellbeing to all, including life and beauty. There's no evidence that they thing society is unruly by nature and in need of discipline. They like society becaue it makes people happy!

 

[pemerton]

i mean...that does directly describe an apeal to authority. You just added more words ti also describe how it was one.

I'm confused. I didn't appeal to any authority. I didn't cite Kymlicka or Burke as evidence for anything. I said that a certain view has affinities with well-known and important positions in social philosophy. Do you disagree?

And furthermore: if someone asks me about the motion of light rays, and I refer them to Einstein's work on relativity, is that a fallacious "appeal to authority", or a helpful reference to an expert? And converesely, if someone has never heard of Edmund Burke, are there views on the nature of society and its connection to value reliable?

 

[Fenris-77]

Yup, noting the fact that solid research and academic work exists on a subject is not an appeal to authority. To suggest that it is indexes a lack of understanding both of the value of academic work and the nature of the fallacy itself.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I'm confused. I didn't appeal to any authority. I didn't cite Kymlicka or Burke as evidence for anything. I said that a certain view has affinities with well-known and important positions in social philosophy. Do you disagree?

And furthermore: if someone asks me about the motion of light rays, and I refer them to Einstein's work on relativity, is that a fallacious "appeal to authority", or a helpful reference to an expert? And converesely, if someone has never heard of Edmund Burke, are there views on the nature of society and its connection to value reliable?

It depends on whether you refer them to einstein, or if you instead, like einstein, explain the reasoning. Refering to einstein's work and explaining the rationale behind his work and some of how his experiments pointed to this and that is different than referring them to einstein.

If someone apeals to an authority it makes no difference that the authority is correct (like einstein on light rays, which of course he is)

As much as possible i prefer to go withoit referencing other people. If a matter can be explained without name dropping, soley through logic and evidence, that is best. Sometimes you have to refer to work done prior by another individual granted. But you explain the work. You dont just refer to it. This takes a lot of time and forces others to do "homework". Bad strategy. Hense why i favor explaining as much as possible without refering to another person's work. And i never just refer to an author.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not "appealing to authority". I'm pointing to authors who have done more work on the nature of socialisation, and culture, and its relationship to the "internal" vs "external" than anyone on these boards.

@Lanefan from time to time talks about weather in his games, and his expertise in that respect. Well just as meteoro;logy is a field of knowledge, so is sociology and social philosophy.

Such a person would not be following custom or tradition. Hence would not be an example of what @Fenris-77 and I are suggesting as a paradigm of LG.

It seems likely - given the experiences you describe - that such a person would not tae the view that the best, perhaps only, way to achieve general wellbeing is by way of social organisation. Hence it seems unikely that such a person would be LG at all.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm suggesting a certain understanding as paradigmatic of LG. If alignments don't have some relationships to, and implications for, how a character would think and act, what are they for?

There's a pretty common heroic trope. The protagonist was raised in a position of privilege only to realize one day to have their world shattered when they realized the true nature of their society was a sham and actually evil. Lots of variations to this, perhaps they had a kindly teacher were into philosophy or were otherwise influenced.

I think that protagonist could easily be LG, wanting to change the system but still having a core belief system of law and justice. Laws and government should be for the betterment of the people, the society they were raised in does not support that.

So that's what I have a problem with. With your definition an individual has no free will to believe that while law and order is the best way to have a happy society even while living in a society that does not support those ideals.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Son of the Serpent - What you are describing is not quite an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is a fallacy wherein you claim that your argument is true simply because 'an authority' believes the same thing. Just referring someone to Einstein, or mentioning a body of academic work, whether you explain anything or not, is not an appeal to authority.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

@Son of the Serpent - What you are describing is not quite an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is a fallacy wherein you claim that your argument is true simply because 'an authority' believes the same thing. Just referring someone to Einstein, or mentioning a body of academic work, whether you explain anything or not, is not an appeal to authority.

If you agree with an authoritative figure and you cite them because your position is shared by them but you dont prove an understanding of their work youve made an argument from a point of ignorance and the fact that an expert agrees with you and you both are correct is essentially just a fortunate situation for you.

This and the fact that you should want your audience to actually understand the reasoning and the evidence is why you must also explain the work. Otherwise the only differentiating factir between such an argument and an appeal to authority is your correctness.

Also, like i said, appealing to someones work is not what im talking about. Im talking about just apealing to the person. This is in his reference to "authors" not studies and models.

 

[Fenris-77]

I was talking about whether the fallacy was in play or not. You can argue badly without committing a fallacy. The Appeal to Authority is a specific thing though, not a general index for citation related commentary. IN this case @pemerton very clearly did not Appeal to Authority. You might disagree with his position, but its not fallacious.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not "appealing to authority". I'm pointing to authors who have done more work on the nature of socialisation, and culture, and its relationship to the "internal" vs "external" than anyone on these boards.

Which seems the very definition of an appeal to authority: "if you don't believe me, these authorities in the field said so too."

@Lanefan from time to time talks about weather in his games, and his expertise in that respect.

And by the same token I could invoke some names of people who know a crapton more about weather and meteorology than I do, but frankly, what would be the point?

All it would be is presumptuous on my part in expecting you to have ever heard of these people, and further so in expecting you to go and read whatever they have to say.