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.

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.

angel-4241932_960_720.jpg

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
Except, you know, the battle was stopped, everyone was standing around, and Thor launched a suckerpunch to murder him. But do go on.

Sure, but it might make you a lot of things, but it doesn't make you a "murderhobo". That's like saying bottling a guy in a bar fight makes you a "serial killer". Yeah, a murderhobo might do that, but you to need to do so much more to earn that title. You're totally debasing a very debased term it's just amazing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Evil in the eye of the beholder. The good guys are a threat to the evil guys, as thery are buying swords and spells for their foray into their lands to fireball their children

On Kickstarter currently campaign for the evil side, called Kingslayer.
 

Shiroiken

Legend
Games can run in a variety of options. I generally like to classify things by emphasis. For example, an elf is good, but an angel is Good. Elves may generally have good tendencies, but individually they may particularly good or drift to the point of complete evil. Angels on the other hand, are otherworldly and embody the true spirit of Good.

The reverse is also true; an orc is evil, while a demon is Evil. Killing orcs is generally acceptable to civilized society, since orcs are generally evil (not to mention a nuisance from raiding). However, there can be rare orcs that can move beyond their natural tenancies and potentially become accepted by those same societies. All goodly folk would condone the destruction of a demon, however, since they are irredeemable aspects of Evil.
 

Oofta

Legend
The nature of evil is a separate topic but I will say that I disagree with people that say that there is no good or evil even in the real world much less a fantasy world.

Jeffrey Dahmer got off on killing innocent people and eating them. If he's not evil then words have no meaning.

If there were an entire species of Jeffrey Dahmers clones that behaved the same way he did, I would also consider them evil.

Just my 2 coppers.
 

Jiggawatts

Adventurer
I've always preferred heroic style characters and campaigns. I try to stay open minded, but I've found the current day gaming trend towards CN to be offputting, and when I've found myself in groups of such type, I generally derive little enjoyment from said games. Im not one of the OG guys either, Im in my 30s, I guess the optimism and positivity of the late 80s and 90s pop culture seeped its way into my soul.
 

jgsugden

Legend
Sure, but it might make you a lot of things, but it doesn't make you a "murderhobo". That's like saying bottling a guy in a bar fight makes you a "serial killer". Yeah, a murderhobo might do that, but you to need to do so much more to earn that title. You're totally debasing a very debased term it's just amazing.
Like use lethal force to subjugate multiple populations, go to the land of the Frost Giants to murder them, and go to the kingdom of an enemy to murder them on their throne?

Seriously - replay that scene in your mind, but replace the hammer with a gun and the "bad guys" with the government that replaced the Asgardians when access was cut off. Ooops, that isn't a replacement. That is who they were.

Murderhobo is a personality type, not an achievement. There are no murderhobo points. You don't need a specific number of murderhobo points to get the title. If you're wandering around and killing to get your way, you put the murder and hobo in your title. Thor is not waiting for enemies to come to Asgard to fight - he fights on 5 of the other different realms in those movies. And he kills enemies that are not fighting him at the moment. This guy, Thanos (at the start of Endgame), etc...
 

Remember that these giants are feasting after their raiding on Sterich where they killed thousands of people with their bigger brethren (Frost, Fire and Cloud giants). They do not expect anyone to come after them because everybody fled this zone. Hardly a peaceful race if you don't mind.

Humans aren't a "peaceful" or "good-aligned" race. I mean, you just described something humans routinely do, and I don't see an adventures based around rolling up on I dunno, wherever Ragnar Lothbrok lived and burning that down and killing everyone (not that they adventurers actually did in our case but that's a long story).

My point really though was that the Clangeddin justification for killing Hill Giants is apparently that they're mindless, locust-like, dwarf-eating brutes (murderhobos literally written large!), and the ones in Steading are, again, portrayed almost exactly as Saxons or perhaps Vikings (but I lean Saxon-wards). But it's "okay" because they're not humans I guess?

I'll always love that adventure because I literally made a player tremble in fear through the power of description alone (the Thief, with a ring of invisibility was scouting through the steading, and I was describing everything pretty well and he just got more and more freaked out and had to flee). But it's a bit messed-up.

I try to stay open minded, but I've found the current day gaming trend towards CN to be offputting

lolwut?

Today? You seriously think people are playing more CN characters today than they were, say, thirty years ago? Because mate no. It was a persistent problem and any sort of "DM advice" column or early forum in the '80s and '90s would get tons of stories that were so hair-raising you wondered how the group even functioned!

CN is definitely rarer now, that it was in Ye Olde Dayes. Evil alignments are very rare too. Good is the norm, and that wasn't always the case - it used to just be a slight majority, it seems.
 

Like use lethal force to subjugate multiple populations, go to the land of the Frost Giants to murder them, and go to the kingdom of an enemy to murder them on their throne?

Seriously - replay that scene in your mind, but replace the hammer with a gun and the "bad guys" with the government that replaced the Asgardians when access was cut off. Ooops, that isn't a replacement. That is who they were.

So by the logic above, all soldiers of aggressive/interventionist nations are "murderhobos"? It feels you're intentionally removing any value from the term by using it so wildly broadly.

Murderhobo is a personality type.

Maybe, but it incorporates situational elements see below:

And yeah it is an achievement. You can't be a murderhobo just by thinking about being a murderhobo. What, are we giving out nobel prizes for attempted chemistry now?




Etc.

I don't think there's anything left to say.
 


Humans aren't a "peaceful" or "good-aligned" race. I mean, you just described something humans routinely do, and I don't see an adventures based around rolling up on I dunno, wherever Ragnar Lothbrok lived and burning that down and killing everyone (not that they adventurers actually did in our case but that's a long story).

My point really though was that the Clangeddin justification for killing Hill Giants is apparently that they're mindless, locust-like, dwarf-eating brutes (murderhobos literally written large!), and the ones in Steading are, again, portrayed almost exactly as Saxons or perhaps Vikings (but I lean Saxon-wards). But it's "okay" because they're not humans I guess?

I'll always love that adventure because I literally made a player tremble in fear through the power of description alone (the Thief, with a ring of invisibility was scouting through the steading, and I was describing everything pretty well and he just got more and more freaked out and had to flee). But it's a bit messed-up.

Yep... in the real world we bring back those we killed in the war/raid and we cook them "a la broche" with a nice wine sauce... They were not portrayed as Saxons or Vickings. I think your imagination associated the scene with these but I never read it that way. It was more like a tribal victory feast scene but this is an other case of the perception is in the eye of the beholder (Xanathar get away!).

I encourage you to reread the mythology of the dwarve. The giants enslaved them and the hill giants were eating the young, the old and the too rebel to follow orders. Thousands of years of this treatment justifies such an approach.

As for the fear... Yep, every time I played it, the players were affraid of what could happen. Got the same reaction you did almost every time.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top