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.

 

[Oofta]

You know, the "appeal to authority fallacy" doesn't mean that every layman's shots in the dark are equally as legitimate as an expert's opinions in their own field of expertise. It means one, that the claims of an expert in one field aren't particularly important to arguments in another field and two, it means that not even the claims of an expert in their own field should supercede empirical evidence.

But real world philosophy is tangential to game rules. D&D is not some sophisticated real world simulation when it comes to morality any more than it is a combat simulator. Alignment is a gross over-simplification just like HP an AC.

In other words, there is no "empirical evidence" of what alignment stands for. It stands for whatever the authors of the book intended as interpreted by the players.

I'm not sure why I would grant the second supposition. How can these two people have the same outlook in every way despite their radically different experiences of social order and its connection to human wellbeing?

This example also drives home what I and one or two others posted a way upthread, that alignment is unhelpfully used to do to many things.

By "LG kingdom" I assume you mean a kingdom with benevolent laws. By "LE kingdome" I assume you mean a kingdom with oppressive laws. If both those kingdoms are possible - which they must be if they both exist! - then the whole dispute between LG and CG has evaporated, because the answer to the question Is social order a source of wellbeing or a source of oppresssion simply becomes "It depends".

At which point 9-point alignment is doing nothing useful and all we need is personality descriptors.

Then as others have stated, an orc that believes and follows the traditions of their CE evil kingdom is really LG and alignment is meaningless.

I don't believe in moral relativity, especially when it comes to a game.

Have a good one!

 

[Aelryinth]

I have a novel on Royal Road called Power of Ten: Sama Rantha. Part of the world is the idea that the Alignments are Real Things, and that they stand independent of what little mortals believe.

That is VERY different from how a game has to proceed, because players tend to define Good as what THEY believe is good for them.

Home

The Escapist is an outlet dedicated to providing our readers and viewers with smart coverage of video games, movies, tv shows and everything geek culture.

v1.escapistmagazine.com

The above article is a wonderful show of what 'good' for a mortal is (LE, CE!) vs what is 'Good.' Trying to enforce Good when your players are doing 'good' is a good way to trash a game. In short, trying to actually play the ALignments is extremely difficult, because the players believe they define the Alignments, and not the other way around!

So, in that context, grey gets introduced into the world.

Happily, when I'm writing the story, I don't have to cater to players. In any reality where Alignments exist, they transcend the players, and even the gods themselves.

Good is where you choose and have chosen to stand relative to Good. Good exists independently of what you or the billions of ants like you consider 'good'. Good is Itself. To be Good, you must stand with what the Good Alignment is.

The Alignments are martial. They have all sorts of spells to attack and defend themselves against other Alignments! The Alignments are not weak, and they are not passive. They are meant to go out there and attack and defend against other Alignments!

Thus, Good people going out and attacking Evil monsters is a thing, and always will be.
An Evil monster isn't Evil because 'oh, he's Evil and minding his own business.' No, it is Evil because it believes the same things as the Evil Alignment, and it has done things in accordance with that belief. Just because you caught him at home doesn't mean he didn't eat a baby last week, murder travelers for pocket change, or something similar. If he's got a deeply EVil aura, he most assuredly did things to deserve that aura, it's not just paint thrown on a wall!

Likewise, Lawful doesn't mean 'obeys all laws'. No, Lawful means it obeys a personal code probably formed by another party, and does so even when it does not have to. Lawful people can have tremendous differences.... kingdoms vs tyrannies vs democracies vs socialism is all Lawful philosophies conflicting with one another, and no, they don't have to respect the laws of the others that are in conflict with their own philosophies.

It is perfectly reasonable for Lawful Good people to disobey the laws of an LE kingdom that conflict with their own beliefs. Indeed, such perversion of laws meant to support and raise the world out of darkness and ignorance may be one of the most corrupting, damning things they witness in their lives. CE are just animals to be put down, but twisting the bedrock of civilization towards Evil is something truly wicked!

Likewise, Good is unique among all the Alignments in that being Good transcends Law and Chaos, because Good includes tolerance and open-mindedness, and realizes that not everyone can be like them, and everyone has a place. So, it is the OTHER ALignments who divide among Law vs Chaos, not Good.

Thus, the idea of War in Heaven is laughable. The only way that can happen is if one of the parties falls from Good. There are too many other ways for conflict resolution, from great debates to honorable contests of arms to athletic contests to bragging competitions to drinking games to ever resolve to death among the Good.

People have always moaned an complained about the Paladin (and Ranger) getting Good stuff because they are Good, ignoring the fact that being Evil means you get to do whatever you want and can get away with, which gives you MUCH more flexibility in any situation.

Good, and especially LAwful Good, is by far the most restricted of the ALignments in the actions you can undertake. A CE person can act freely like any of the Alignments, he doesn't HAVE to act like a rabid dog all the time. He can pet puppies, give candies to kids, dance with maidens, help an old lady with the groceries, and all that.
However, he's CE. He can break out of his nice guy actions that are covering for his real self at any time, and then he's going to do some BAD naughty word. He's not doing those things because he's CE.... he's CE because he does that stuff, something players just don't want to see.

So, when Sama looks out over a troop of mercs, and they're showing Evil, it means they did bad naughty word in the past, they got away with it, and they're perfectly willing to do so in the future.
They chose where they stood, and it shows on their ALignments. If she discriminates against them because of that, it's perfectly reasonable and to be expected... and of course they are going to complain about being caught.
She doesn't have to know exactly what they did, it's not a court of law. The color of their souls shows what they did in the past, what they are perfectly happy now to do in the future, and she doesn't have to treat them like trusty LG people because she knows the details.

The same goes true of monsters. Again, it doesn't act x way because it's CE. No, it's CE because it acted like that in the past, and it's willing to do so in the future. Taking it out if you are Good, and even Neutral, is doing the world a service... especially from the view of the ALignments themselves.

Start thinking of the Alignments as living things that are greater then the Gods, and your view of your world will rapidly shift.

 

[pemerton]

Then as others have stated, an orc that believes and follows the traditions of their CE evil kingdom is really LG and alignment is meaningless.

There are no traditions among the orcs. That's part of the explanation for why they're CE, why the strong dominate the weak, and why they can only be kept in line by those more powerful than them.

 

[Aelryinth]

There are no traditions among the orcs. That's part of the explanation for why they're CE, why the strong dominate the weak, and why they can only be kept in line by those more powerful than them.

traditions are probably the only things they have, since they don't have laws and rules. Me have biggest fist make rules is quite a tradition.

 

[Oofta]

There are no traditions among the orcs. That's part of the explanation for why they're CE, why the strong dominate the weak, and why they can only be kept in line by those more powerful than them.

That's a unique take on things. Anyone who pokes a hole in your argument just means that the creature doesn't qualify. Devils, orcs and so on don't have a culture or traditions. So what about ... hobgoblins? LE culture if they follow their laws of slavery and exploitation of the weak where only results matter does that mean they're really LG? Or do they not have culture or traditions either?

Every society has culture and traditions. But again, I don't think lawful means following all the laws of the land. Making all alignment relative makes alignment pointless to the game.

 

[Aelryinth]

That's a unique take on things. Anyone who pokes a hole in your argument just means that the creature doesn't qualify. Devils, orcs and so on don't have a culture or traditions. So what about ... hobgoblins? LE culture if they follow their laws of slavery and exploitation of the weak where only results matter does that mean they're really LG? Or do they not have culture or traditions either?

Every society has culture and traditions. But again, I don't think lawful means following all the laws of the land. Making all alignment relative makes alignment pointless to the game.

Devils most certainly have a culture, traditions and laws. It's pretty famous. It's called Hell, in all its many layers.
Hobgoblins are imperialists. As LE< they definitely have their own internal codes and laws they didn't come up with.

Agree with you that ALignment can't be relative. That link I posted above shows how VIEWPOINTS can be relative... i.e. what is 'good' differs by alignment. But the Alignments themselves are static because they define everything.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I've been reading these discussions and have changed my views on alignment in light of them. I've decided to separate alignment from the fundamental competing forces of the cosmos (Law and Chaos, Good and Evil).

Alignment
The four philosophical forces of Law and Chaos, Good and Evil direct the fate of the cosmos. Unlike real-world ethics, they are as real and tangible area gravity. A character’s alignment defines his or her general outlook and place in that cosmic battle. Choose Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Neutral, Lawful Evil, or Chaotic Evil for your character. Each alignment is described below.

Lawful Good, “Truth, Justice, and Cooperation”: Adherents believe that only through law and order can the benefits of good be brought to the greatest number. When things are in proper order, the whole system works smoothly. If a title is honorable, the person holding the title should be given the respect the title deserves.

Chaotic Good, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”: Chaotic Good characters believe that only true personal freedom can bring happiness and prosperity to all. They see hierarchy as a barrier to personal fulfillment. If the old order needs to be replaced so that people can be free to pursue their own goals, so be it. The ends never justify the means.

Neutral, “Cosmic Balance”: The Neutral alignment promotes “cosmic balance.” Its adherents believe that neither Law nor Chaos, Good nor Evil should be allowed to become too powerful. Many exhort that the state of nature is the true embodiment of cosmic balance.

Lawful Evil, “Might Makes Right”: Lawful Evil characters believe in hierarchy and that the powerful deserve to rule over the weak – sometimes for the greater good, other times for personal power. Individuals have no inherent value, if they threaten the established order. The ends always justify the means.

Chaotic Evil, “Trust a Dishonest Man to be Dishonest”: Adherents are entirely self-centered. They care nothing for others and will do anything to ensure their own freedom and wellbeing. Individuals have no inherent value, except as tools of personal pleasure. The worst Chaotic Evil characters may kill or cause pain simply because they enjoy it.

Cosmic Forces
Unlike alignment, which overlays humanistic principles over the intersection of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil the forces themselves are inhuman and unknowable.

Law: The force of Law pushes the cosmos towards a state of perpetual clockwork in which everything happens according to a grand plan. Free will is nullified and automation overtakes consciousness.

Chaos: The force of Chaos propels the cosmos towards a state unpredictable variability. Random and senseless creation and destruction reigns supreme.

Good: The force of Good strives to establish a cosmos free of death and suffering. The concept of empathy is strongly aligned with the Good, though it will stop at nothing establish a utopian reality.

Evil: Evil is the least understood of the four philosophical forces. It sees no difference between living creatures, decaying flesh, and lifeless matter, though what end evil desires to push the cosmos towards remains a mystery.

 

[Doug McCrae]

A CE person can act freely like any of the Alignments, he doesn't HAVE to act like a rabid dog all the time. He can pet puppies, give candies to kids, dance with maidens, help an old lady with the groceries, and all that.
However, he's CE. He can break out of his nice guy actions that are covering for his real self at any time, and then he's going to do some BAD naughty word. He's not doing those things because he's CE.... he's CE because he does that stuff, something players just don't want to see.

So, when Sama looks out over a troop of mercs, and they're showing Evil, it means they did bad naughty word in the past, they got away with it, and they're perfectly willing to do so in the future.
They chose where they stood, and it shows on their ALignments. If she discriminates against them because of that, it's perfectly reasonable and to be expected... and of course they are going to complain about being caught.
She doesn't have to know exactly what they did, it's not a court of law. The color of their souls shows what they did in the past, what they are perfectly happy now to do in the future, and she doesn't have to treat them like trusty LG people because she knows the details.

The same goes true of monsters. Again, it doesn't act x way because it's CE. No, it's CE because it acted like that in the past, and it's willing to do so in the future.

This account of alignment seems to be both descriptive and prescriptive. You say "He's not doing those things because he's CE.... he's CE because he does that stuff" (descriptive) but you also say "he's CE... he's going to do some BAD naughty word" (prescriptive). If alignment is only a record of past acts, how does Sama know he's going to commit evil in the future? He may repent.

What would be the alignment of:
1) A person who has committed evil acts in the past but has repented and now fully intends to do good.
2) A being such as an orc child who hasn't yet done anything evil but intends to in the future.

Is evil alignment a record of previous actions or is it an indicator of an evil will?

 

[Aelryinth]

This account of alignment seems to be both descriptive and prescriptive. You say "He's not doing those things because he's CE.... he's CE because he does that stuff" (descriptive) but you also say "he's CE... he's going to do some BAD naughty word" (prescriptive). If alignment is only a record of past acts, how does Sama know he's going to commit evil in the future? He may repent.

What would be the alignment of:
1) A person who has committed evil acts in the past but has repented and now fully intends to do good.
2) A being such as an orc child who hasn't yet done anything evil but intends to in the future.

Is evil alignment a record of previous actions or is it an indicator of an evil will?

It would start shifting hue and color, lacking depth in CE, etc. He'd still show CE, since he's colored by his past, and he hasn't actually undertaken those good deeds for good reasons to prove that his beliefs are real. It takes more than intentions to change an existing alignment.

The orc child would be neutral but hinting strongly towards the black, since it's not set in stone, either. Once he starts taking action, he'll fall fast. Evil is seductive once you set on that slippery slope.

Naturally someone who uses this as an excuse and continually keeps backslipping is just trying to fool themselves, and the Alignments don't play the game.

Might be saved is why you don't kill evil people out of hand as you are walking down the street, but if you have to throw down, there's no better indicator for who you should be guiltless in getting rid of.

However, it doesn't justify paladin murder-sprees. The average Joe who radiates as evil should be seen by a paladin as a candidate for conversion and uplifting, not termination. Lawful Stupid is not an acceptable alignment for a paladin.

 

[Aelryinth]

I've been reading these discussions and have changed my views on alignment in light of them. I've decided to separate alignment from the fundamental competing forces of the cosmos (Law and Chaos, Good and Evil).

Alignment
The four philosophical forces of Law and Chaos, Good and Evil direct the fate of the cosmos. Unlike real-world ethics, they are as real and tangible area gravity. A character’s alignment defines his or her general outlook and place in that cosmic battle. Choose Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Neutral, Lawful Evil, or Chaotic Evil for your character. Each alignment is described below.

Lawful Good, “Truth, Justice, and Cooperation”: Adherents believe that only through law and order can the benefits of good be brought to the greatest number. When things are in proper order, the whole system works smoothly. If a title is honorable, the person holding the title should be given the respect the title deserves.

Chaotic Good, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”: Chaotic Good characters believe that only true personal freedom can bring happiness and prosperity to all. They see hierarchy as a barrier to personal fulfillment. If the old order needs to be replaced so that people can be free to pursue their own goals, so be it. The ends never justify the means.

Neutral, “Cosmic Balance”: The Neutral alignment promotes “cosmic balance.” Its adherents believe that neither Law nor Chaos, Good nor Evil should be allowed to become too powerful. Many exhort that the state of nature is the true embodiment of cosmic balance.

Lawful Evil, “Might Makes Right”: Lawful Evil characters believe in hierarchy and that the powerful deserve to rule over the weak – sometimes for the greater good, other times for personal power. Individuals have no inherent value, if they threaten the established order. The ends always justify the means.

Chaotic Evil, “Trust a Dishonest Man to be Dishonest”: Adherents are entirely self-centered. They care nothing for others and will do anything to ensure their own freedom and wellbeing. Individuals have no inherent value, except as tools of personal pleasure. The worst Chaotic Evil characters may kill or cause pain simply because they enjoy it.

Cosmic Forces
Unlike alignment, which overlays humanistic principles over the intersection of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil the forces themselves are inhuman and unknowable.

Law: The force of Law pushes the cosmos towards a state of perpetual clockwork in which everything happens according to a grand plan. Free will is nullified and automation overtakes consciousness.

Chaos: The force of Chaos propels the cosmos towards a state unpredictable variability. Random and senseless creation and destruction reigns supreme.

Good: The force of Good strives to establish a cosmos free of death and suffering. The concept of empathy is strongly aligned with the Good, though it will stop at nothing establish a utopian reality.

Evil: Evil is the least understood of the four philosophical forces. It sees no difference between living creatures, decaying flesh, and lifeless matter, though what end evil desires to push the cosmos towards remains a mystery.

I would say that Evil is the most well-known of the forces, because it is the Alignment which accepts the fewest, or no, limits upon its behavior. CE is defined by no restrictions whatsoever, it is simply a matter of scale and fear. LE has a smattering of honor and discipline, but whether those can withstand the desires of the person is a different matter, and those who fall outside the code of honor are treated no better than a CE person would.

The Good Alignments accept the most limits upon their behavior, and call for demands upon their adherents that Evil will not. The variation in those limits is what makes Good so changeable, while in the end Evil falls into unlimited banality where everything goes.

True Neutral is a philosophy of balance. Nature is False Neutral... it doesn't care and doesn't comprehend. Nature is completely ruthless and completely impartial... while it seems to nurture life, it is always at the price of some other life in an endless cycle of sustainability and temperance. When things go out of balance, even more things die, so balance is advisable... and over the long term, even forest fires, hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes, droughts, famines, and Ice Ages are but part of that balance, giving chances for new life to rise up out of the deaths of the old.

===Aelryinth