Magic in Fantasy Stories

Brandon Sanderson famously defined magic systems as either soft or hard, with soft magic having no defined rules, while hard magic has known rules. When using magic in a narrative, the more the reader understands the rules of the magic, the more the author can use it to solve the protagonist's problem. The idea being that if the reader doesn't understand how magic within this fantasy world works, then it feels like the author is just creating a convenience for the characters to use to solve their problem. This can lead to a feeling that there are no stakes within the story and that the characters are never in any real danger.

Soft Magic

While soft magic can certainly exist within a setting, it can't really be used by the characters. What I mean is that soft magic works well for magic that is not controlled by the characters, but instead comes from the environment or a rare phenomenon. In any fantasy world, if a character is using magic, by its very nature, it must be a hard magic system.

The idea that characters can utilize a soft magic system is a silly one at best. If you are going to make use of something, you have to have at least some idea of how it works. Assume for a moment that there's a supernatural force in the world, and you can freely tap into it, but it has no rules at all. This force essentially is pure chaos. Each time you use it, you have no idea if you're going to get what you want, or if you're going to accidentally blow up your house. You'd never use it. The risk of catastrophic outcomes just isn't worth it. What if it's not pure chaos? What if you know that this force is only able to produce a limited range of outcomes? Well, now it has rules. That makes it hard magic.

When describing soft magic, a lot of people will point to The Lord of the Rings as a soft magic system. This isn't accurate at all. The Lord of the Rings actually uses hard magic. For instance, Gandalf remarks that he once knew all the spells in the languages of men, elves, and orcs. That tells us that in order for people in Middle Earth to cast spells, these spells must be known, and there are a limited number of spells in existence. We don't know if it's possible to experiment and create new spells, or if the spells of Middle Earth simply exist and people had to discover what works and what doesn't, but in either case, we know that there are a limited number of spells. In The Hobbit we see Gandalf ignite pinecones and hurl them at the goblins. In The Lord of the Rings Legolas suggests that Gandalf might wield a flame to melt the snow to make the passage over Caradhras easier, and Gandalf says that he can't simply create a flame. He needs something to ignite. This tells us that there are limits to these spells and Gandalf can't simply do whatever he wants. When the wolves attack the Fellowship in the night, Gandalf draws flames from their campfire to hurl at the wolves. This shows us that Gandalf can manipulate fire, but it didn't just come from nowhere, there was a source. He also says that if anyone was watching, he just announced his presence to everyone for miles around. This shows us that using magic, especially powerful displays like this, makes it easier for other magical beings to sense him.

So, while the reader doesn't get to see all of the rules of magic in The Lord of the Rings it does abide by a set of rules. You might think that "Avatar: The Last Airbender" uses a soft magic system. Nope, that's hard magic, too. There are rules. You must be born a bender, and you will only ever bend your native element. Bending comes from a natural energy flow, and is typically focused through the use of a particular martial arts style. Bending can be shut off by blocking chi flow within the body. These are all rules that exist within that world.

What about the Force? Yes, even the Force has rules. While it is possible for people within "Star Wars" to use the Force, it's typically in a limited capacity until they are trained. The Jedi spend years in training in order to properly wield the Force. The Sith require a lot less training because they're willing to accept the corruption of the Dark Side, enabling them to obtain power quickly. If the Force didn't have rules, then the Jedi wouldn't need to spend so much time training. Other practitioners, such as the Night Sisters use rituals akin to our concept of witches in order to use the Force. Again, that's a set of rules. They have different traditions, but they know that if they perform certain rituals, the Force will react in a particular way, thus, rules.

So What is Soft Magic?

The weather of Middle Earth is a good example. Sometimes the world itself responds to what's going on. An evil army of Uruk-hai march upon Helm's Deep, ready to exterminate the kingdom of Rohan. This causes it to rain. You can include elements of soft magic in a narrative by tying it to the world. The best way to utilize soft magic is to have environmental things just happen. Soft magic should never be wielded by your characters, because by its very nature, it can't be.

Is Sanderson Wrong?

No, of course not. The basic principle is sound. The more your reader understands how magic works in your world, the more natural it will feel for your characters to use it. If you solve problems in your story by using magic in a way that the reader can't justify, then your narrative begins to suffer. That doesn't mean that you can't have your character use new powers. It just means that when your characters suddenly do something new, it needs to feel natural. If characters in your story never fly, and suddenly your protagonist flies, you better have a good explanation. However, if flight has already been shown as a possibility, then your protagonist learns to fly, it feels natural. You didn't just pull it out of nowhere, you laid the ground work to establish what was possible.

I've spent quite a while talking about hard vs soft magic, but there's another aspect of magic that Sanderson codified, and that is the fact that what really makes magic interesting is its limits. If absolutely anything can eventually become possible, then you're writing a story about omnipotent gods. However, if your characters need a specific material to cast spells, or if every spell cast consumed a resource or had a rippling effect elsewhere in the world, or if you simply decide that you don't want your magic to be able to do certain things or affect certain things then you've introduced something interesting to your world. Remember, the most interesting part of your characters is their flaws. Think of magic as another character. It needs its own flaws to make it interesting.

Alignment in TTRPGs

Anyone who has played D&D has seen the alignments of law vs chaos and good vs evil. While the alignment system was an important part of old D&D, it no longer fits with the more modern sensibilities of our TTRPGs, and that's a problem for D&D.

Why Alignment Mattered

When Gygax and Arneson first created D&D, it was originally an extension of their Chainmail wargame, but once it took on its own life, the core gameplay loop of D&D was about exploring dungeons, killing monsters, and taking their loot. In this context, alignment was a helpful tool. If you invade someone's home, killed them, and took their stuff, you were obviously evil. However, by labeling monsters as evil, it provides a framework that these monsters are a threat and probably obtained their loot through questionable means, so the players can feel justified in attacking them.

Alignment served as a simple and easy shorthand that allowed players to know what to expect. If the monster is evil, it's probably going to attack you. Chaotic? It's highly likely to lie to get what it wants. Lawful? You can trust them to keep their word.

D&D Has Changed

Over the years, players have come to expect more from Dungeons & Dragons than dungeons. They want quests, stories, and to feel like their characters matter. D&D's core gameplay loop is no longer just explore a dungeon and find loot. Now, players expect a goal, they want villains to defeat, and a D&D adventure can involve just as much time outside of a dungeon as inside.

As we come to expect more from our TTRPGs than the simplistic style of the 70s and 80s, D&D has expanded to include more interesting locales to explore and official products sometimes contain a variety of plot hooks you can use to get your players interested in the adventure. However, alignment hasn't changed.

With increasingly complex plots and a quest-driven structure, this mechanic still sticks out like a sore thumb.

What is Evil?

Good and evil are social constructs. You can't objectively state whether something is good or evil without some higher sense of a moral compass. Well, killing someone is definitely evil. Is it? If your god demands a human sacrifice once a year during an important festival, is that evil? It can't be, because your god demands it. Is that example too extreme for you? Alright, how about this: is it evil to kill an animal if it's not a threat to you and you don't intend to use any part of its body afterward? Well, if you read the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, that used to be an important part of regular worship. Certainly, if you believe the Christian God is good, then you can't possibly think that an animal sacrifice is evil.

Good and evil aren't what we think they are. In the real world, good and evil are concepts, they aren't absolutes. Our sense of morality comes from what we as a society decided upon.

Alignment is Absolute

Within D&D, there exists spells and magic items that react differently depending on a creature's alignment. If good and evil are not absolute, then how would the magic know how to affect someone? There are gods who are good and gods who are evil. Why? In the real world, if you are religious, your sense of evil comes from what your god says is evil. So, how can there be an evil god in a fantasy setting? Either, they rebelled against the other gods and are evil in the eyes of the majority, in which case, they're outnumbered, or good and evil is an absolute not determined by the gods, therefore some gods can be evil.

In order for the magic and the pantheons of D&D to function properly, alignments can't be subjective. There must be some fundamental truth in the universe that determines what an alignment means, and that truth can't simply come from the gods.

Absolute Alignment Limits Modern Story

Consider an epic fantasy story. Your heroes are obviously good, the villain is obviously evil. This is fine for this type of story. The reader even knows what's going to happen: the villain will eventually lose. That's perfectly fine. It's what's expected of the genre. The goal of the narrative isn't the story, the journey is the story. Before you even get a few pages into a story like The Lord of the Rings, you already know that the ring will be destroyed. The fun is seeing how it happens.

Now, consider A Song of Ice and Fire. These characters are all over the place. You have no idea who's going to die, or who's going to end up on the Iron Throne at the end of it all. This is a story about intrigue and character interactions. Good luck figuring out the alignments of these characters.

As we come to expect our gamemasters to create more intricate and detailed stories for our characters, the concept of D&D's alignment becomes more and more of a hindrance. Imagine how political intrigue would go if you could simply detect who is evil? What about if their alignment can't be detected at all? On the one hand, you immediately know who not to trust. On the other, you immediately know who not to trust.

Absolute Alignment Limits Players

When you create your character, you probably have an idea in mind for how they will act and what they care about. Now, fit them into one of nine predetermined alignment labels. You have to portray that alignment now.

Once you put a label on your character's morality, it now looms over everything your character does, right? "No, alignment is open to interpretation," you say. Well, no, it's not. As I already pointed out, alignment within D&D can't be open to interpretation, because of the simple fact that there is magic which can definitely identify good and evil, law and chaos. If it can be defined by a spell, then there must be a universal definition for it. If there is a universal definition, then you, as the player, don't get to interpret it how you want.

Conclusion

The alignment system was fine for what the game used to be, but now that D&D has become something more, it's an outdated remnant that needs to be changed. Some modern TTRPGs don't even use an alignment system. Unfortunately, if you change the alignment system of D&D, you also have to change a handful of spells and magic items, so we're not likely to see WotC change alignment with the newest version of D&D. As a gamemaster, you can, of course, ignore alignment, but then you also have to tell your players that all of the magic that interacts with alignment won't be used in your game.

Whether you like it or hate it, D&D's alignments no longer serve their original purpose. It's a flawed system that has become such an entrenched part of the game that it's likely to never change, and ends up being largely ignored by players and GMs alike, until a paladin wants to detect or smite evil...