NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lewpuls" data-source="post: 7949819" data-attributes="member: 30518">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 <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4981-Heroes-In-Shades-Of-Grey" target="_blank">until I played some neutral characters</a>, years after I started.[ATTACH=full]120192[/ATTACH] <a href="https://pixabay.com/photos/angel-devil-end-time-prophecy-4241932/" target="_blank">Picture courtesy of Pixabay.</a>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 "<a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/worlds-of-design-chaotic-neutral-is-the-worst.667279/" target="_blank">behave however you want as long as you don't get caught</a>" 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 (<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4981-Heroes-In-Shades-Of-Grey" target="_blank">see reference</a>). 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?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In a "Game of Thrones" style campaign, the politics and wars of great families could provide a focus where good and evil hardly matter.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"There's a war on" might be between two groups that aren't clearly good or evil (though each side individually might disagree).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A politically-oriented campaign might be all about subterfuge, assassination, theft, and sabotage. There might be no big battles at all.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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. </li> </ul>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.</blockquote>

Verification