Alignment of enemies in modules

[pemerton]

I've been re-reading some old-ish modules (late 80s/early 90s).

In a couple (Night of the Seven Swords; Five Shall be One) I've noticed a recurring phenomenon.

In NotSS, the PCs have to escape across country from a haunted castle to an imperial inn, carrying a box of magical swords. They are working for Clan A, and are being pursued by the soldiers of Clan B.

None of the backstory establishes any deep difference between Clans A and B - they are political rivals, but there is nothing to suggest this political rivalry has a moral foundation. Yet the soldiers and samurai of Clan B, who try to stop the PCs, are all labelled as "evil". (Eg LE samurai.)

In FSbO, at one point the PCs are carrying a magical sword of viking origins across the northern plains, and are assaulted by rival vikings wanting to get the sword for themselves. Again, there is no suggestion in the backgroudn to the encounter of any moral difference between the NPC rivals and the PCs. The PCs have no particuarl claim to the sword, and are not taking it on any sort of holy mission.

But the enemy vikings are framed as "evil (mostly CE).

I find this a curious thing. I expect cultists to be evil, and naturally evil overlords are evil. But it is strange that these adventures seem to feel the need to present what are essentially politial conflicts - who is going to control some important asset whose heritage (and the entitlements to which that gives rise) is contested? - are framed, simply via the alignment labelling of NPCs, as moral conflicts.

It also rules out what would otherwise be quite cool possibilities: one of the NPC samurai, say, challenging a PC samurai or kensai to a duel to see who gets to fulfil his/her duty; or the attacking viking NPCs joking cheerfully (rather than cynically or brutally) about which of the combatants is going to dispatch the other to the halls of the dead.

I think the original DMG talked about the possibility of two LG countries going to war because they can't find a way to reconcile their apparently conflicting interests. Whether or not that makes sense, it seems odd that these modules don't even seem interested in thinking about ways that NPCs might find themselves at odds with the PCs (out of duty, out of passion, etc) even though they are not evil.

 

[Campbell]

I think what we are seeing here is the use of alignment as a flag for both DMs and players who utilize divination spells like Know Alignment. Stuff you are meant to fight or arrange for unfortunate events to befall upon is Evil. Stuff you are meant to parley with is Good. Stuff you need to decide between fighting with and parleying with is Neutral. Beating the scenario requires acknowledging those flags.

It's D&D as team sports.

 

[GMMichael]

In FSbO, at one point the PCs are carrying a magical sword of viking origins across the northern plains, and are assaulted by rival vikings wanting to get the sword for themselves. Again, there is no suggestion in the backgroudn to the encounter of any moral difference between the NPC rivals and the PCs. The PCs have no particuarl claim to the sword, and are not taking it on any sort of holy mission.

But the enemy vikings are framed as "evil (mostly CE).
. . .
It also rules out what would otherwise be quite cool possibilities: one of the NPC samurai, say, challenging a PC samurai or kensai to a duel to see who gets to fulfil his/her duty; or the attacking viking NPCs joking cheerfully (rather than cynically or brutally) about which of the combatants is going to dispatch the other to the halls of the dead.

There's no moral difference between the viking clans? It seems like one of the clans finds it morally acceptable to "assault" another clan, on the loose moral grounds that the "good" clan has something they want.

Evil enough to me.

I wouldn't say anything is ruled out, either (especially under the "chaotic" banner). Why can't an evil viking joke cheerfully? They have to be in a good mood sooner or later.

 

[ccs]

First, in my opinion your just over thinking it.
Second, has it occurred to you that your meant to add onto encounters however you see fit? So what if the module doesn't cover the backstory/politics of random viking raiders. If that'll add to your game? Make something up. If not...

And finally, how does the alignment as written prevent stuff? Especially if the pcs have no mechanical means to determine it? Or doesn't use it?
Ex; In our PF game 2 weeks ago the party had breakfast & accepted some much needed aid from a satyr bard. The party has a paladin in it. The Bards evil. But since I wasn't RPING the Bard as hostile the paladin never tried detect evil. They parted ways peacefully & the party is actually hoping to run in the Bard later on.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think what we are seeing here is the use of alignment as a flag for both DMs and players who utilize divination spells like Know Alignment. Stuff you are meant to fight or arrange for unfortunate events to befall upon is Evil. Stuff you are meant to parley with is Good. Stuff you need to decide between fighting with and parleying with is Neutral. Beating the scenario requires acknowledging those flags.

It's D&D as team sports.

Good post. That is 100 % what I was going to say.

Prepare for combats and prep your Enchantment spells!

 

[pemerton]

Stuff you are meant to fight or arrange for unfortunate events to befall upon is Evil. Stuff you are meant to parley with is Good. Stuff you need to decide between fighting with and parleying with is Neutral. Beating the scenario requires acknowledging those flags.

It's D&D as team sports.

I think the "team sports" remark isn't really doing justice to your analysis. Which is that it's a system of flags for how to tackle encounters.

That's quite a difference from the earlier idea of alignment as a set of teams that affected reactions, alliances, etc, but wasn't itself meant to dictate how encounters are to be handled (except as a restriction/disadvantage on certain classes, eg paladins).

There's no moral difference between the viking clans? It seems like one of the clans finds it morally acceptable to "assault" another clan, on the loose moral grounds that the "good" clan has something they want.

Evil enough to me.

I don't think respect for property rights has ever been part of the characterisation of "good" vs "evil" in D&D, has it?

Especially when those property rights are based on something as tenuous as "we were the first to find this ancient artefact in a shadow dragon lair". Those who killed a shadow dragon to take it don't seem to be standing on the highest moral ground to complain about others attacking them to take it!

 

[chaochou]

...it seems odd that these modules don't even seem interested in thinking about ways that NPCs might find themselves at odds with the PCs (out of duty, out of passion, etc) even though they are not evil.

Maybe 'odd' in the sense that we may have a more sophisticated understanding of the interplay of morality, culture, power, politics, war, violence and law than the places represented in the game...

And when a game defines your purpose as stealing everything you can and killing anything which tries to stop you, creating moral uncertainty is disruptive. Alignment is a crude, but superficially workable, legitimacy generator.

 

[pemerton]

when a game defines your purpose as stealing everything you can and killing anything which tries to stop you, creating moral uncertainty is disruptive. Alignment is a crude, but superficially workable, legitimacy generator.

At least notionally, that's not what these modules are about, though.

One is OA, which tries to use AD&D mechanics to present a slightly different motivational framework for the player and their PCs.

The other is 2nd ed GH, and starts with a description of northern barbarian (= viking) culture.

Maybe 'odd' in the sense that we may have a more sophisticated understanding of the interplay of morality, culture, power, politics, war, violence and law than the places represented in the game

Again, I feel this is more a case of the game product (ie the module) selling short the places that it is representing.

 

[Manbearcat]

Again, I feel this is more a case of the game product (ie the module) selling short the places that it is representing.

Well it is definitely that. But it can definitely be that as the thin veneer of setting verisimilitude over shallow D&D alignment as mandate for "these are obstacles...obstacles are bad guys...you're the good guys...so kill them or charm them and take their stuff!"

 

[chaochou]

At least notionally, that's not what these modules are about, though.

I don't own them, so I can't comment!

But my point was that alignment is a mechanism to legitimise player action. You're not meant to question the validity of the labels...

The moment you do, you get the kind of problems you outline - viking clans that have no real claim to the moral high ground being given a moral label. Or samurai - that in their own eyes would probably see themselves as good - being labelled evil to legitimise the players slaughtering them.

Alignment is a design which allows dark ages freebooters or medieval warriors some simple moral certainties when they are being played by 20th century Winsconsin insurance underwriters. The game isn't really set up to challenge those certainties, just to legitimise the resulting killing and looting.