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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Thousands of years of this treatment justifies such an approach.

And here comes the moral relativism!

 

[jgsugden]

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.

There is a difference between being under the employ of someone as opposed to being part of the power structure, but putting that aside - yes, roving bands of soldiers that kill people if they meet the hobo side are pretty much murderhobos.

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?

Wow. You put a lot of prestige into being a murderhobo. If it comes with a $1M reward, I might have to consider a life change.

We do put a silly emphasis on competence in our legal systems when it comes to punishing wrong doing. Shoot and miss someone - attempted murder. Shoot and hit someone with a fatal shot - murder. Why treat it different? Do we think a lesser punishment for attempted murder is appropriate because we want to discourage incompetent people less?

Etc.

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

You didn't need to say those things as I said them right before you, and then demonstrated how we hits the definition. Now, you might bicker about whether he takes stuff (although taking control over the entire population qualifies for me, and he did take Surter's 'Crown/Head', but really ...

Thor. Murderhobo. If it is an achievement, he unlocked it by Dark World and continued to Murder and Steal in Ragnarock, Infinity War and Endgame. Is there a second level in the achievement structure? Murderhobo 2? Or Killervagrant?

And there really hasn't been anything to say for several posts as all you've done is repeat me and think it supports your argument somehow, but I'll let you decide whether you want to repeat the exercise. You have not posted video yet - perhaps you can copy me there, too.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And there really hasn't been anything to say for several posts as all you've done is repeat me and think it supports your argument somehow

Wow, you didn't read those definitions huh? This is amazing

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

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

It was the start of a fight between two champions.

David vs Goliath
Achilles vs Hector

And since Thor was not Lawful Stupid, and achieved surprise on Initiative, he did not give his enemy the first strike.

 

[Helldritch]

And here comes the moral relativism!

No. Simple logic. The giants eat dwarves because they like it. Whenever they get into a new territory, they actively hunt dwarves (and other sentient beings by the way) and eat them. This is not moral relativism, this is a matter of survival. The entire race is bent on killing and eating anything they get their hands on. No negociations as they will forget it as soon as they can get away with it. Do not apply real world moral to fantasy setting. Bad bad bad way of proving your point. Stay in the fantasy world.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No. Simple logic. The giants eat dwarves because they like it. Whenever they get into a new territory, they actively hunt dwarves (and other sentient beings by the way) and eat them. This is not moral relativism, this is a matter of survival. The entire race is bent on killing and eating anything they get their hands on. No negociations as they will forget it as soon as they can get away with it. Do not apply real world moral to fantasy setting. Bad bad bad way of proving your point. Stay in the fantasy world.

It's literally moral relativism, and I'm going to say so if it is. This entire thread revolves around "real world moral" you put it. But either way, it's a moot point - that lore appears to be out-of-date now. No ferocious dwarf-chasing is not noted in VGtM, nor do present-day dwarves have their previous anti-giant capabilities.

I guess Clangeddin needs to get with the times, man.

 

[prabe]

I have told the players in my campaigns that I wanted characters who were at least willing to be heroes, and I've made efforts to keep the morality relatively uncomplicated--at least when there was violence involved--by having them fighting undead or fiends or extraplanar invaders or other clearly bad things. When they have had to settle problems with beings that were ... closer to human, I guess, they've often managed to do so without killing them. There are also characters in both parties that tend to actively give money to charity (in one case literally overflowing an alms-box). One party has rescued orphan orcs and at least found them good orcish homes (orcs in my world are no longer relentlessly hounded by their gawds to be reavers, though some do carry on the old ways). It's possible to have interesting heroic campaigns that don't grate on more-modern sensibilities, but it does require a little work.

 

[jgsugden]

Wow, you didn't read those definitions huh? This is amazing

Wow, you still don't see that I gave essentially the same definition several posts above your post. And - you know - it is pretty much all in the name. Homeless guy - kills people - takes stuff.

You may argue Thor has a home - but he certainly wanders around a lot (murder in 5+ realms). We've hit that killing over and over and over and over/ And we addressed the taking control of the realms, the crown/head. So, yeah. When I addressed all of those points before you even (re)posted a definition for the term... Yes, I read. I've seen no evidence you do, as you seem to fail to notice anything I've said.

 

[aramis erak]

D&D early on doesn't seem to be about good vs evil at all. A number of the earlier/simpler editions only have L, N, C alignments. It feels like it was added on later, and it doesn't always work.

As Doug says, a lot of 1E and some 2E stuff makes the PCs look very much the baddies, or like certainly they aren't "goodies". In that they're invading places and slaughtering sapient beings which seem to be largely minding their own business (sometimes definitely so).

The Moorcockian Law versus Chaos was, in many ways, an "Evil A- Good - Evil B" scale. both ends unreasonable.
And Moorcock is explicitly the inspiration in D&D.

That also gets muddled when good-neutral-evil gets added.

I'm not sure that I really agree with the notion that genre fiction was more good vs evil in the past either. Look at Lord of the Rings. Sure, the evil is evil, but, the good isn't exactly good. There's a pretty broad range of "good" opposing Sauron.

And, frankly, the simplistic, "we can kill them because they are evil" thing is becoming more and more cringeworthy as time goes on. While it isn't intentional, it mirrors real world colonialism to a rather uncomfortable degree.

OTOH, if you actually have anything like a plot in your campaign, it becomes a lot easier to drive things forward. You're not going into the orc's home to kill and loot. You are going there to free the slaves they have taken which include several people you personally know. It doesn't matter at that point if you use orcs, humans, or something else altogether.

It's worth noting that most of the "evil races" in tolkien are created to be evil by their in-setting creators. A good-aligned orc in tolkien's world is essentially impossible. Any prosocial behaviors in them are there solely to keep them working for the evil leader's causes.

The only species in tolkien that are definitely able to choose bewtween good and evil are men, elves, dwarves, and hobbits. Most of the other evils appear choiceless in that aspect.

I'm not a big fan of anti-heroes or cutthroat everyone-for-themselves entertainment. It's just not for me. I'd rather watch The Avengers than Breaking Bad.
[snip]
I do want a chance for good to triumph over evil just like any other fiction that I enjoy. That's neither good nor bad, it's a preference. It's a game.

QFT...

I'm curious where this idea in D&D fandom came from, that abject hypocrisy is somehow a simpler and more elegant form of moral reasoning than... literally anything else.

It's not abject hypocrisy. It is an unpopular mode of thought, and a different definition of evil than many take.
Many religions consider every other religion to be evil at work. some of those take it a step further, and believe that violence is in fact a good way to end the evil of other religions.
The real world understandings of evil aren't universals.

The really old school games were more "kick down the door and kill your enemy" style games. Dungeon crawls, DM vs player attitude, D&D as a war game on a small scale.

The game has always been what people made of it, other than some mention of not playing evil PCs in 3.5 era as a result of the Satanic D&D backlash.

It goes back way further. AD&D 2 renamed demons and devils to Ba'atezu and Ta'nari (sp? Order?)

Many games from the 80's carried "This is just a game. We don't believe real people should engage in the activities PCs do" in various wordings. Palladium largely still does.

 

[Helldritch]

It's literally moral relativism, and I'm going to say so if it is. This entire thread revolves around "real world moral" you put it. But either way, it's a moot point - that lore appears to be out-of-date now. No ferocious dwarf-chasing is not noted in VGtM, nor do present-day dwarves have their previous anti-giant capabilities.

I guess Clangeddin needs to get with the times, man.

No it's not.
If your life is at stake because you know your neighbors eats people like you. You have to defend yourself. You did try to reason with them at some point but it never worked. What do you do? Simple. You kill those who would eat you. It's not morality. It is self preservation. Dwarves do something really well that humans don't. They remember their history and take lessons from it so as to not repeat the same mistakes again.

On the other matter. Clangeddin does not need to get with the times. He is a god and does pretty much what he wants to and he will not forget nor will he let the dwarves forget about the giants. Authors on the other hands tends to forget what was before in favor of rebooting whatever they want. How many Spiderman did we have in 3 decades? Too much for my tastes.