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.

 

[pemerton]

This stuff about orcs having traditions, and obeying the laws of their CE kingdoms, etc in my view makes no sense within the 9-point alignment framework.

A kingdom of orcs with rules that boss everyone around and makes them miserable is a poster child for LE (which is what orcs used to be) and is an embarssament to LG, because it refutes their view that order produces wellbeing.

If it is posited that (i) there is such a thing as a "CE kingdom" or "CE society" and orcs are flourishing in it, then what work is the notion of Law vs Chaos doing? All we've got is societies I like and societies I don't. Which is fine enough, but doesn't seem to have the alignment system doing any work.

To make the point pithier: once I'm asked to imagine a "CE kingdom" or a "CE society" all I'm seeing in contrast to a "LE kingdome" or "LE society" is that when the guards yell at you it's a bit more unrestrained.

Whereas to me, at least traditionally, orcs and gnolls and the like don't have societies in any but the thinnest sense. That's why they have to raid to get food, gear etc - they're not capable of producing their own because they don't have a genuinely functioning social system.

 

[Aelryinth]

CE kingdoms aren't kingdoms, they are hordes ruled by the strongest. Saying they can't work is like saying Nature can't work because it doesn't have laws. The weak do what they are told because they are weak and live in fear of punishment. That punishment is usually fatal and very graphic in CE societies.
Orc 'kingdoms' just legitimize might makes right, and everythings stems from that. Are they productive? No. Do they advance the orcish race? No. Do they work as well as wolfpacks can? Yes... but there's more backstabbing and malignant brutality towards one's fellows.
Demon kingdoms work the same way, but with widespread telepathy and teleporting, the reach of the strong is farther and faster. Still, as soon as a demon is out of reach, they conveniently forget stuff and revert to me first, something lawfuls don't do.
Even CE people have self-preservation, and that's how things eke along. You'll keep a fellow orc alive because you can use him against the humans who want to kill you all, and the same for the next generation, who make good sacrifices and bodies to throw into the fight for you.
Lack of laws doesn't mean lack of survival instincts, even for the CE.

 

[pemerton]

CE kingdoms aren't kingdoms, they are hordes ruled by the strongest. Saying they can't work is like saying Nature can't work because it doesn't have laws.

<snip>

Lack of laws doesn't mean lack of survival instincts, even for the CE.

RIght, so CE kingdomes aren't kingdoms. I think that's what I was saying!

And nature doesn't have traditions.

 

[Oofta]

RIght, so CE kingdomes aren't kingdoms. I think that's what I was saying!

And nature doesn't have traditions.

But IIRC the only reason they can't be kingdoms* is because if they are kingdoms than anyone following all the rules of said kingdom is LG. Then you ignore questions about LE hobgoblins because someone living in that kingdom that follows all the rules is also LG if I understand you. Just like you discard any notion of two people in different kingdoms holding similar beliefs.

Which, to me, doesn't make any sense and makes alignment useless. Also quite convenient for your argument that anything that doesn't support your POV "can't happen".

Anyway this is no longer a productive discussion, I stick with my basic ideas from page one or so. Alignment works best for me as just another descriptor and general guideline of how people view the world.

*Which I disagree with anyway. An orcish kingdom may be disorganized mess ruled by the strong but it is possible. All you need is a decently large group with someone that's declared themselves king.

 

[jasper]

No fighting evil is not pass A. Nor is it Pass B. It is just an average default game so it Pass grade of C.

 

[Aelryinth]

RIght, so CE kingdomes aren't kingdoms. I think that's what I was saying!

And nature doesn't have traditions.

Nature doesn't ahve traditions because nature is not intelligent.
Nature has instincts.
Sapients have traditions, which are just standardized codes of conducts for getting involved with one another.
Saying orcs can't have kingdoms means demons can't have them either, yet there are tons of demon lords and princes with their own realms. There is no difference. Self-preservation gives way to codes of conduct, that are just not laws.

The difference in a CE orc and a LE hobgoblin is easy to illustrate.
A CE orc is assigned to stand guard over some prisoners. He does so because if he doesn't, he will be punished, and maybe killed as an example to others. He doesn't want to obey. He'd rather kill the prisoners and get done with his job, sneak off to go eat or have sex or gamble or abuse some slaves.

The LE hobgoblin does it because it's his job, he knows his place and his role, and not letting the prisoners get away is important. Of course, if they do get away, he will be quick to blame it on his superior so he gets a promotion and maybe more pay and benefits out of it.

The one obeys the law because its the law, and rules help manage the world. The other does it because if he doesn't, he is in for a world of hurt, and he doesn't want to die just yet. For enough money, he'd be happy to quit the tribe and take his chances out in the wild, having no real loyalty to his superiors or tribe. Another tribe will take him in just as readily.

 

[billd91]

This stuff about orcs having traditions, and obeying the laws of their CE kingdoms, etc in my view makes no sense within the 9-point alignment framework.

That's only true because your take on what the 9-point alignment framework means for societies takes the implications of those alignments to an EXTREME that has more in common with caricature than anything semi-realistic. Of course Chaotic Evil orcs and gnolls are going to have some kinds of traditions or laws, they're just not going to be pervasive, controlling, or as relied upon by more lawful creatures just as elves are going to have laws and traditions as well in the Chaotic Good area of the framework.