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.

 

[Lanefan]

What D&D text suggests this?

<definitions snipped for brevity>

The definitions given take the most optimistic viewpoint for each alignment. Me, I also look at the 'underside' - in all three of those definitions there's an undercurrent that amounts to 'a Lawful character wants to impose laws and rules on others because [reasons vary by Good-Evil axis position].'

It's a pretty short jump from there to ask 'why is this the case?', and conclude the answer is 'because society left to its own devices is or would become unruly'.

 

[Fenris-77]

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

Actually not quite, no. I posted the actual very definition upstream.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

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

So citing your sources is bunk now?

 

[Lanefan]

So citing your sources is bunk now?

In an informal discussion forum like this, which I always try to equate with having the same discussion around a table full of beers in the pub, citing sources would seem to be overkill.

This ain't Wikipedia, or a classroom where we're expected to pass an exam.

 

[pemerton]

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

But when the scales fall from their eyes, their alignment changes! Depending on context and details, to NG or CG. Or a different sort of realisation might prompt a change to TN. (That would be one interpretation of Jet Li's character arc in Tai Chi Master.)

If there is no alignment shift to reflect this fundamental change of attitude to society, then alignment isn't doing any work! So why would we bother with it.

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[/uoqte]This shows that the person is Good. They value life, wellbeing, truth, beauty etc.

But not LG. I mean, a CG person also believes that whatever laws and government exist should be for the betterment of people too. But unlike a LG person, a CG person is doubtful that law and government will do that per se, or - for a more anarchcic CG person - at all.

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.

I'm not making an issue of "free will". It's about trying to achieve some sort of coherence within 9-point alignment.

If we have a character who is looking at an established social system, and sees that it produces misery rather than flourishing, how can they believe that there is the tight connection between order and wellbeing that the LG affirm?

 

[Oofta]

But when the scales fall from their eyes, their alignment changes! Depending on context and details, to NG or CG. Or a different sort of realisation might prompt a change to TN. (That would be one interpretation of Jet Li's character arc in Tai Chi Master.)

If there is no alignment shift to reflect this fundamental change of attitude to society, then alignment isn't doing any work! So why would we bother with it.

All I can say is I disagree completely. A persons alignment may (or may not) come from an external source, it is not controlled by an external source.

Alignment is just a guideline on how someone approaches the world and makes decisions.

But this is a circular argument so have a good one.

 

[pemerton]

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

If someone descibes a story arc that happened in their campaign, and I say "That reminds me of the film Ladyhawke", I'm not appealing to autority. I'm making a comparison. It might be a helpful comparison, too, if it gives the person who reads it ideas about how to further develop their campaign.

If I describe a particular sort of oultook, and say it resmebles Bukre or Kymlicka, I'm not appealing to authority. I'm making a comparison. It might be a helpful comparison, too, if it helps the reader get a richer conception of the outlook I described, it's possible variations and implications, etc.

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.

I very regularly on these boards see references to historians - especially of mediaeval European warfare and martial arts - and also to practititioners of martial arts, and their YouTube videos.

I treat these references as intended to be helpful. Sometimes I follow them up; sometimes I ignore them. Where I don't want to follow them up, and don't have any independent knowledge, I tend to refrain from expressing strong views about the topic.

If you're not interested in what various thinkers over the years have said about the relationship between society, culture and human flourisihing, of course that's your prerogative.

 

[pemerton]

The definitions given take the most optimistic viewpoint for each alignment. Me, I also look at the 'underside' - in all three of those definitions there's an undercurrent that amounts to 'a Lawful character wants to impose laws and rules on others because [reasons vary by Good-Evil axis position].'

It's a pretty short jump from there to ask 'why is this the case?', and conclude the answer is 'because society left to its own devices is or would become unruly'.

But all you're doing here is expressing the view of a Chaotic person.

Of coufrse a Chaotic person disagrees with the claims of the Lawful. But you can't use the Chaotic criticism to express the views of the Lawful.

Alignment is a contest. It's not a site of consensus. I'm not saying that Lawful people are correct - I mean, it simply can't be true that both LG and LE are correct, given that they have radically conflicting views about the nature of social order. I'm trying to coherently state what they believe.

A persons alignment may (or may not) come from an external source, it is not controlled by an external source.

I've not said anything about where a person's alignment comes from.

Alignment is just a guideline on how someone approaches the world and makes decisions.

I don't hink anyone disagrees with this.

But if the way that someone approaches the world and makes decisions changes, and that change reflects one of the alignment axes - eg in your example the person stops regarding society as, in and of itself, a way to human wellbeing - then their has been a change of alignment.

 

[Lanefan]

But all you're doing here is expressing the view of a Chaotic person.

Of coufrse a Chaotic person disagrees with the claims of the Lawful. But you can't use the Chaotic criticism to express the views of the Lawful.

Why not? The definition of an alignment comes from all directions, not just that of those who subscribe to it.

Alignment is a contest. It's not a site of consensus.

Alignment is a contest. Defining alignment is not, I don't think.

 

[Oofta]

But all you're doing here is expressing the view of a Chaotic person.

Of coufrse a Chaotic person disagrees with the claims of the Lawful. But you can't use the Chaotic criticism to express the views of the Lawful.

Alignment is a contest. It's not a site of consensus. I'm not saying that Lawful people are correct - I mean, it simply can't be true that both LG and LE are correct, given that they have radically conflicting views about the nature of social order. I'm trying to coherently state what they believe.

I've not said anything about where a person's alignment comes from.

I don't hink anyone disagrees with this.

But if the way that someone approaches the world and makes decisions changes, and that change reflects one of the alignment axes - eg in your example the person stops regarding society as, in and of itself, a way to human wellbeing - then their has been a change of alignment.

So Bob grows up in LG kingdom. Jon grows up in LE kingdom but does not recognize it until later on in life. Or maybe he does but can't help where he was born.

Further suppose that they are identical in every way other than where they grew up. Exactly 100% the same outlook on life and what they believe and in how they act.

If they have different alignments then alignment serves no purpose in the game.

This isn't some deep philosophical debate, it's a minor descriptor, at least in the current edition.