Evil in D&D
What Do We Mean By Evil?
D&D’s concept of alignment has always been a decisive idea. It allows clear cut game mechanics such as Protection from Evil spells and the Turning Undead ability that mimic the effects found in fantasy and horror fiction. But it has always been problematic whenever it is applied to a “realistic” situation. Were the terrorist behind the Twin Towers attack evil? What about the crews who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How about George Custer and his attacks on the native Americans?
The simple fact is that evil is merely a matter of perspective rather than a clearly definable act or belief system.
Good Characters in an Evil World
My thoughts on this are promoted by my Rome campaign and Rob’s point in 5 Roleplaying Tips. My campaign world is based on historical Rome with very few fantasy elements. The problem I had with alignment was how can you define a character as good or evil in 1st century Rome?
Slavery was legal and widespread yet I think everyone reading this would consider slavery evil. A slave owner could kill a slave they owned. Not only was this perfectly legal but it was socially acceptable. Likewise a man could kill his wife if he believed she had committed adultery. No trial or hearing was needed, the husband could simply killed her. A ‘good’ person may not actually kill their wife or slaves but they would knowingly associate with people who do. How does guilt by association work in an alignment system?
The famous roman gladiatorial games raise even more alignment problems. Actual gladiators were often volunteers so proper fights are an ethical gray area but what about the punishment of criminals? After a quick trial (if they were lucky) tens or hundreds of prisoners would be killed by animals, burnt alive or executed in inventive and painful ways. Clearly an evil act to inflict that much suffering but is it evil to watch it? The Coliseum seated 80,000 people who cheered as the unfortunate souls in the arena died terrible deaths. Are all those spectators evil?
In such a city as ancient Rome, nearly every citizen could be reasonably classed as evil.
Drastic Solutions
Faced with a situation where the simplistic alignment system did not work, I simply ditched the whole concept. No alignment means no alignment based spells so any spell relating to good, evil, law or chaos was now meaningless. It also means that gods cannot demand their worshippers be a particular alignment and that various magic items are now junk.
On the plus side, a necromancer can be the kindest, gentlest soul on the planet who just happens to spend their time playing with dead bodies.
Does It Work?
Yes. Ditching the alignment system works for Rome because the whole campaign is written with this in mind. I suspect that trying to run off-the-shelf adventures in an alignment free world would be more problematic. Though I like the idea of starting a campaign normally and, once the characters have gained a few levels, then removing alignment due to some cataclysm in the divine world. Both players and monsters now have to cope with a world where all there old certainties have disappeared.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Alignments are one of the few things, I think most people can agree are problematic at times. Any type of historical setting, like the one you presented, make it hard to use the alignment system. The alignment system is what I would call an idealized reality. It is based on more modern concepts of good and evil and applied to all things. I doubt some of the “evil” aligned creatures in DnD would even think that they are evil. As you point out the system is really a tool and mechanic. Without it, you would have to know the point of view of what is good and what is evil for NPC or the NPC that created a magic item. Of course that might be fun as well. I think you could have some nice roleplaying opportunities in such a system/setting.
bonemaster´s last blog post..The Art of the GM notebook
November 26th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Well, I suppose you could make the argument that everyone in Rome was evil. There are biblical scholars who believe the Revelation of John was written in a response to Roman society at the time (and not the doomsday prophesy as many people believe). You can ditch alignment (as it’s very codified), but a person’s actions will usually be weighted towards one philosophy of living or another. Either you get along benevolently with your fellow creatures, or you do not. I don’t believe in absolutes, but I also don’t believe that “well, everyone in this society thinks its acceptable, I guess it’s not evil”. It’s a sure bet that the slaves didn’t appreciate their lot (although they were helpless to do much about it).
When the rules for D&D were first written, there was just Law and Chaos. It’s my thought that Gygax and Arneson assumed that order and civilization (Law) were preferable to disorder and anarchy (Chaos). Therefore, one former was “better” than the latter. I don’t think it was until the 1st Edition Advanced D&D rules came out was there any real codification of “good” and “evil”.
Just my random thoughts on the subject…excellent thought provoking post!
Dead Orcs´s last blog post..Dead Orcs…Assemble!!
November 26th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“On the plus side, a necromancer can be the kindest, gentlest soul on the planet who just happens to spend their time playing with dead bodies.”
I love this line. :) Great post!
Zachary´s last blog post..Roaring 20s Cthulhu: The Silver Screen
November 26th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Why would everybody in Rome being Evil be a problem for a campaign? Presumably everybody in the entire Drow civilization is Evil, but nobody bats an eye. I’m not particularly advocating the D&D alignment system, but I just don’t see why Protection from Evil being potentially very useful and Detect Evil not at all is a setting breaker.
Joshua´s last blog post..Supporting the Old School
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 am
Joshua
The problem with everyone being evil is that if the characters are good or neutral, how can they work for and co-operate with the bulk of the population. Doing so would violate their alignments. In fact staying in the city could be considered a violation of any good alignents.
This makes being true to D&D alignments (at least how they are written) incompatible with the setting. Leaving the choice of either making alignments into something new or ditching the whole lot.
Chris
Chris Tregenza´s last blog post..D&D Dice
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:46 pm
There are inherent conflicts and contradictions in the dnd alignment system, but player interest in ethics and morals might lead them to new questions if not discussions on the relationship between subjects such as war, religion, and propaganda. For instance, is it the nature of an expanding empire to conquer weaker nations? Is there one system of values for the upper class, and another for the servants and foreigners? There is the pickle of a philosophical question of whether acts in the name of god are by definition “good”, even if they are perpetrated against defenseless civilians. Where do hypocrisy and rationalization fit into the moral code? Playing the game with straight use of the alignment system might force the game to take ludicrous turns in a purely fantastical direction, like having the god force a “good” king to be kind to all his people, and rule lawfully, honestly and good. That is quite a fantasy.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Walter,
I like the idea of a ‘good’ king being force to be kind to all his people. There is real scope for a party of tax collectors trying to enforce a fair tax system ont he rich & powerful of the land.
Chris
November 8th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
The good players go and kill a group of goblins that may or may not have actually attacked the village to get some food however these said to be good players go and kill all goblins they run in to. if you base simple fact there evil that still does not excuse killing the goblins that did not attack the village for food becouse we think there all evil