At worse, alignment is the justification for playing like a dick. Don’t believe me? Think back to the last time a player did something dickish in a D&D game. Something that made everyone shout, “what the hell?!” Usually when the offending player justifies himself, he points to his alignment. It doesn’t even matter what his alignment is. It could be lawful good, they will find a way. Sure, sometimes they will point at their race, other times they will blame a magic item, I have one player in particular who always points at me and says, “but you said…” and then promptly mangles some small point of descriptive minutia in order to make the decision seem plausible. He typically fails. But more often than not alignment is the culprit for dickish behavior.
Okay, it’s not a culprit. It’s an excuse. I’m all for the illusions of D&D specifically and fantasy in general. At best, alignment is a tool that allows characters to make a choice in the cosmic struggles that abound in D&D. It’s a way to pick a side, and when it is done well, that side should count. But the fact is that most of us write unaligned or some variation of neutral on our character sheet (or whatever alignment we are required to have in order to play the class that we want) and go our merry way.
“The Dragon” #24 features one of the best variants on alignment I’ve ever read: Lawrence Schick’s “Choir Practice at the First Church of Lawful Evil (Orthodox): The Ramifications of Alignment.” The article also appeared in “Best of Dragon I”. I first read this article when it was being passed out by a wild-eyed DM at the first gaming convention I attended (Wizard Con at the Columbia University in New York City). The funny thing was that he was singing its praises and passing out the article with the fervor of the newly converted. See what alignment can do to people!
After a while, many players start to ask why we even have alignment in D&D.
Alignment was a puzzle even back before my time, when the early players of D&D made the first characters using Men & Magic, volume 1 of the three OD&D books. While that book told players that it was not only necessary to select a role (and that’s what Gary called it you 4e haters), it was also necessary to select an alignment. Back then you had three choices: Law, Neutrality, or Chaos. It provided a list of creatures, and where they fell on this alignment continuum. Provided examples of critters that appeared on multiple alignment lists (which you could assume was a permission to choose between multiple alignments since “Men” was listed on all three lists, which made you wonder if you could even play a neutral halfling or elf without DM fiat). Other than that, the statement that there where alignment languages (say what?!) and a handful of spell like protection from evil (what’s an evil attack? And why is evil not part of alignment?). It was essential and also poorly defined. I think Gary just assumed you were reading Moorcock at the time. That was a pretty huge assumption, given the fact that most of use 80s D&Ders were introduced to that writer either by early copies of 1e Deities & Demigods, Appendix N of the 1e Dungeon Masters Guide, or maybe Blue Öyster Cult.
So what do you do with a puzzling system? Well, you give it better definition in the advanced versions of your rules…oh, and if you’re D&D you make it more complicated as well. I started with AD&D 1e, so my first run-in with alignment with the dual axis 9 alignment system. On first blush it was like everything in D&D—complex, arcane, almost occult (and I don’t mean that in the supernatural sense that spawned so many books, propaganda comics, and Geraldo Rivera specials in the 80s. I mean it in that not comprehensible by mere mortals sense). As time when on I really started questioning its assumptions. Chaos valued freedom and “randomness”, but evil seemed to be personal freedom and capriciousness to the extreme. At other places on the axis, good worked for the common weal, but neutral worked toward harmony. The entire system seemed to be splitting hairs and jumping though strange philosophical hoops to get everything into nice and neat packages. Alignment languages were commonly ignored, and the Dungeon Master’s Guide almost tries too hard to justify their existence.
“Alignment language is a handy game tool which is not unjustifiable in real terms. Thieves did employ a special cant. Secret organizations and societies did and do have certain recognition signs, signals, and recognition phrases—possibly special languages (of limited extend) as well. Consider also the medieval Catholic Church which used Latin as a common recognition and communication base to cut across natural boundaries.”
-1e AD&D Dungeon Master’s Guide page 24
The section goes on to say, that alignment languages are never flaunted in public and are quite limited, more like the secret society symbols than a real living language. In practice, we found that to be true. We didn’t use them, and that extremely limited its usefulness. I was always puzzled as to why it was a handy game tool. Sure, it let likeminded monsters and characters talk to one another, but so did some other shared language, a translator, or a spell. And those things are exactly what I used and still use when I need such a device. As far as characters go, you’d be lucky if two of them shared the same alignment (even if you limited it to the six nonevil alignments) and characters have a de facto secret language anyway—the metagame chat of their players, that you can try to limit, but can never truly stop. Even in the 1e game I play in (run by that madman Mike Mearls, and reported on by Erik Mona on ENWorld), my assassin and Erik’s cleric have the same alignment (neutral evil) and we use the language once—to make sure we were both the same alignment. So maybe that’s its value—as a dog whistle.
The nine spoke alignment system did make protection from evil function better. But that design also started the eternal question of what’s an evil creature or a good creature? Does alignment alone suffice, or does it need something more, like a Great Wheel outer planes origin? 3e tried to answer that question definitively. 4e gave up and largely discarded alignment mechanics. 4e also trimmed the alignments in often puzzling ways, and relabeled neutral to unaligned for reasons I still don’t comprehend, and I was there during those decisions. They mean the same thing.
When all is said and done, alignment just seems like the mangled mess of D&D. It tries to tackle the complexities of moral and philosophical choice in ways that seem complex, but are actually just strange shades of rigid black and white. At the same time, I’m a D&D dork. I want to find some way to fix it before I discard it. The conflict of ideas can be very important in fantasy, and I would like to find a way to create not only signposts and dictions for players to talk about those choices within the game, but also to be able to act on those ideas on a mechanical level in some way shape or form. After all, D&D is a game of the imagination, and so is the game of ideals.
So am I right or wrong. Is alignment worth saving? Or should it, after all these years, finally make its way to the graveyard of bad ideas?
I would like to save alignments. There is much to be said for archetypes (as opposed to roles whether or not Gygax envisioned them) and while some may deride me for being a Grognardus Masqueradus, take a look at the new World of Darkness. They use a Vice and a Virtue to define what would amount to alignment in D&D. These are not defining characteristics but strong archetypes to help direct roleplaying rather than define a character. A vampire with a Vice of Lust is urged to attack pretty women and do his undead best to sex them up (though lust is obviously not just sexual but for the ease discussion I’m gonna go with it anyway). He does not have to sex those girls up, he doesn’t even have to resist it most of the time. But when he does there’s a carnal satisfaction for acting within his character which translates for the player as an extra point in his willpower pool.
Additionally there are cases and circumstances where appealing to a character’s Vice or Virtue may lead them to take actions (either by storyteller fiat or simple in-characterism) or can change the purpose, effectiveness of certain powers and skills. I think the problem is the game has so far tried to hard to make the alignment an actual mechanic. Monks doing law damage at level whatever it was in 3 and 3.5 was cool, but a little silly if you think about it. Detect alignment spells take all the wonder and excitement about being betrayed. Constant scrutiny of the gods kind of betrays the metaphysics that gods in the main fluff of D&D are errant and can and have been tricked and defeated by mortals.
I see, as a player and a blue-moon DM, the alignment as a guide for me throw specialized challenges and temptations toward certain characters. I liken that thought to a gravitational or magnetic orbit. The character wanders around in a mostly meaningless circle constrained by the inertia of something so strictly defined. Frankly I would prefer it as a texture that influences a character by leaving gentle grooves that may aim him or her in a certain direction but still allow a little bit of exploration in other directions too.
SRM, could you explain how to play an evil or other self-centered character without being an asshat? I’m a bit confused on that point. In my experience, most gamers consider role playing asshatery to include:
1) Not sharing loot, or worse, stealing form other PCs.
2) Not sharing information, or worse, lying to other PCs.
3) Unilateral decision making that could adversely affect other PCs (breaking laws or killing NPCs).
It seems to me that most of those problematic alignments would partake in those three if they are playing their alignments. If they only suggest evil stuff all the time, I could see it working, but that would constitute a remarkably mild mannered evil character, don’t you think?
All three of your points are not necessarily the acts of evil characters.
I can imagine a paladin not sharing loot if he thinks the greater good will be served by giving it to his church or a village in dire straits.
I can imagine that same paladin not sharing information and lying if he thought it was for the greater good. He may be covering up a secret of his church that could harm the common good if it were ever to be released (something that you find in the history of many religions–even the best ones.)
Paladin characters often make unilateral decisions that could adversely affect other PCs (example: I attack that evil creature that is too powerful for us to defeat because it is the “good” thing to do.)
Maybe I’ve read too much relativist fiction and watched too many HBO series.
But I’ve also seen this in actual game play.
I’ve played a number of evil characters, and I have been in a number of games with good roleplayers who played evil characters who didn’t do any of these things. That said, I will admit that to introduce an evil character into the campaign takes maturity and work with the DM.
For “evil” characters that can work within a group, look at westerns. Doc Holliday, Billy the Kid, Al Swearengen from Deadwood are all good examples. Also take a look a True Blood. Erik Northman is absolutely an evil character who can work within a group, and often does so quite well and to the benefit of others. Evil is selfish and self-serving not always mindlessly destructive or even disruptive.
Heck, I just watched “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” Lisbeth Salander does some truly evil shit in that story (she also has some truly evil shit done upon her…if you have a weak stomach for evil, don’t watch the movie or read the book). At least in the context of that story, her acts may garner her an evil alignment. Strangely, like Blomkvist while we can’t condone it, we can understand it. She does tend to do these evil acts for the good of the people around her. But as they say the path to Hell is paved….
I guess it’s those kind of “evil” characters that can be very rewarding to play for a lot of good roleplayers.
There is a difference between players acting like asshats and evil characters. The trouble is many young or newer players want to be evil characters because they think it gives them the freedom to justify those desires. It does not.
There’s a lot of good points here, but they’re all on the PC side of things; what’s missing here is DM involvement—enforcing alignment. If you’re lawful good and you do something that solely benefits yourself, you should be punished (by your god(s) or whatever means); same is true if you’re chaotic evil and you help an old lady across the street.
This is currently in play with Paladins at least: if you do something against your alignment, you can’t use your spells; and if you fall evil you become a fallen Paladin—a whole different class. There are quite a few other classes that actually *require* a particular alignment. Assassin’s have to be evil, Monks have to be lawful, and actions otherwise would keep them from gaining levels in that class.
Another solution could be to not allow C/N characters unless they have a very good reason to be. I’ve known DMs that won’t allow evil at all (because it causes bad parties) and had harsh restrictions on C/N, and if they swayed their alignment was changed.
In my All Flesh game, there’s no alignment system. The PCs play the characters they’ve made, but unless I remind them constantly (“What would your character do? Does he really care if this guy has a knife?”) they tend to play to what benefits them the most. The characters are pretty two-dimensional, and enforcing in-character actions becomes difficult. There’s bonus XP for playing in-character, but that’s not really enough sometimes.
Alignment is a great tool for helping the PC play his character correctly, and I think that a good chunk of the responsibility falls on the DM here to make sure there are consequences for alignment breaks.
Yes, I think it’s worth saving. I think the key is to move away from prescriptive alignment (“My character is a dick because he’s Chaotic Neutral”) and to use descriptive alignment (“My character’s Chaotic Neutral because he’s a dick”). Alignment shouldn’t be an excuse for any behavior, nor should it be a “straight-jacket” that forces any behavior, because it shouldn’t be used as a personality mechanic or even as a role-playing guideline — instead, everybody plays characters however they want, and then the DM determines what alignment they all are.
This matches the source material very well, in which Good and Evil are cosmic forces with a tangible existence. A character’s actions may “align” them with one side of this conflict or the other — whether or not the character wishes it or is even aware of it! This is why I think alignment should stay: because the epic battle of Good vs Evil is such a part of fantasy literature (I don’t really care about Law vs Chaos) and sometimes it’s important to know where the PCs stand.
The only things I’ve ever seen alignment used for was: 1) To see if a particular protection spell worked against foes. 2) When casting ye olde Know Alignment spell it would tell you whether or not you could reasonably be certain to wake up in the morning while camping. 3) To reign in that over zealous cleric or, god’s forbid, paladin by merely reminding them of their alignment and how they are “supposed” to act.
While these these things made it slightly easier for the DM to do things and gave an edge in certain situations to players, its not in the slightest bit necessary. In fact it could make for better role-playing without it. For example, what do you do when you happen across a band of orcs who aren’t evil, and they come into conflict with those stubborn elves who refuse to see them as anything but evil?