"Thou Should Not
Broach the Topic: An Old-schooler’s New Perspective on Alignment”
There is one fiery topic that starts wars among those who
discuss their opinions - ‘Alignment’. I
will first say there is no true method to prove one opinion is more valid than
another. Some have greater merit, but
this quickly becomes a philosophical debate that no one enjoys. I am sure anyone reading this has had one ‘debate’
over the topic, maybe a fistfight or two.
But, I will ask you to take a moment to reflect on what I propose as a new
way of implementing alignment without creating discord in the ranks, the use of
the Sliding Scales of Alignment.
There are two dichotomies - “good vs. evil” and “lawful vs.
chaotic”, with a neutral ground between each one. It is true, the original descriptions of the alignment
terms put a tradition characterization to explain good and evil, lawful and
chaotic. I would contend that this is the
source of player and DM frustrations. And
I would also say they instilled a now defunct idea of what we have come to
understand as good or evil. Literature
and film have blurred those lines significantly, allowing the popular hero architype
to be transcended by the antihero.
People are flawed, which makes for colorful and compelling stories. The old way needs a little revision as I see
it, to keep up with the evolving role-playing aspect of the game.
In the ‘real’ world, the battle for good vs. evil is found
in all parts of the world - in our religion, our society, and even our personal
lives… at times. You know that irritating
bastard I’m talking about. (No offense
to bastards.) This is where the ‘heat’
in those highly-argumentative discussions stems from. They influence how we read and understand
what an alignment means to us, to be then projected onto the character. I would never say that this option I am proposing
is meant to tear apart your perspective, just offer an alternative in
understanding how it is applied as a game feature. Here is where I would start as the foundation
when implementing alignment:
1. Know that alignment is not a black and white approach
to role-playing your character. It is
more a cornerstone, so when you step beyond, you are allowing your character to
have some internal conflict. The benefit
of this is by allowing for character growth at a later time. The DM can use those slight indiscretions to add
layers to a campaign’s story arc.
2. Your
alignment doesn’t give you permission to run rampant over the game and other
characters. By twisting up the adventure,
having a character derail a campaign, does nothing for the overall experience. In fact, this leads into…
3. If
your alignment creates contention between players, characters, or the DM, you
have to ask some important questions that arrive at valid answers. Why would your character travel with the
party? Why would the party allow your
character travel with them? How does your
character contribute to the actual game?
Are the decisions you are making in line with someone motivated by the
plot/story/campaign? Your understanding
of your character’s alignment, although just a game, should be realistic and
grounded to some degree.
Why this approach? As
you hopefully have noticed when deriving your own concept of alignment, your
understanding of good vs. evil, lawful vs. chaotic, is greatly influenced by
your experiences. And other people have
their own ideas as well. And, when asked
to consider some of the flaws in the traditional approach, a big one is there
are very few pure evil people in the real world. Remember, there are billions of people with
only a handful of notable evil individuals.
So, remove the personal aspect, look at it with an outside perspective
by pinpointing your characters placement on the sliding scales of ‘good vs.
evil’ and ‘lawful vs. chaotic’.
GOOD VS. EVIL
When you don’t drive home the quintessential definitions of
good and evil, you free yourself of the main issues. So, I propose to think of good vs. evil more
as a selfless vs. selfish sliding scale.
At the core, good actions could be considered selfless acts. While evil acts are generally selfish in
nature. Even murder generally is the result
of a selfish act. As crazy as it sounds,
I find this as the easiest of choice when putting together a personality. There may be things you selfishly hoard… a
good ale, your tools of the trade, a lovely lass/gentleman. But, overall, you will have a general personality
everyone encounters that reflects whether you ‘put yourself over others’ or ‘put
others before yourself’.
As a simple but very complex example of how to implement and
know that it can work – you can finally run an evil campaign without fear. There is no need to be a murder-hobo or a villainous
scoundrel to everyone. That would make
the game sputter and you would never get far.
Imagine you are among the nations around Cimmeria, Conan’s home. It is a violent and chaotic realm that
requires some questionable moments in order to survive. To be selfish/evil, not everything must be
bled by your sword. You just have a
larger gray area when taking jobs or have no problem burglarizing a nobleman’s
home to feed yourself for the next month… and not sharing with the party (yes,
chaotic evil).
LAWFUL VS. CHAOTIC
Looking at lawful vs. chaotic, I find this one more
challenging to pinpoint a strong base when deciding my stance for a character. The central qualifier depends on the who, where,
and when. If you are lawful, what laws
are you abiding by? I imagine it could
be the birthplace or where your character was raised as one option. Or, it could be your allegiance to a
particular organization. Maybe also
stemming from an ideal or faith. Either
way, it would establish a baseline on how your character reacts to situations
and confrontations. Not a bad way to
start when choosing an alignment.
Now, let’s muddy the water.
What if it more relies on your character’s trust in law, regardless of
who’s laws? They respect a base of authority
and believe it is an essential institution to prevent anarchy. I like this one more even though fantasy will
often push the envelope on social structures.
The one social system that illustrates this is the drow city of Menzoberranzan. Isolated in the Underdark, this highly
evolved matriarchal culture demands a lawful population for it to
function. But yet, with its webbed intricacies
(you see what I did there?), the system embraces deceit, murder, and
unquestioning loyalty. These are the
tools of daily living and advancement in their social order. There is also a prevalent religious element
led by their primary deity, Lolth. What
is lawful in this setting is frowned upon by most other societies. How do players and DMs make an agreed
understanding?
In the end, another sliding scale should be established at
the campaign setting at the start. It is
up to the DM to designate where the vital points on this scale are placed. After all, the campaign centers on their
story. Who better to answer these
questions? In most cases, it still
results in a subjective challenge and continues the cycle but there needs to be
a standard. This is where the campaign
setting strongly dictates the lawful vs.
chaotic scale so things are not so confusing. There will always be slight cultural differences
as well, but some issues like theft and murder are commonly addressed in the
established laws of the governments encountered. Punishment is a separate issue but may
influence the overall effect on a person’s tendencies. So, as painful as it may be to hear, ignore
punishment as grounds to embrace or reject law.
Desperate people will do what they need… such as a mother or father killing
a buck in the King’s Wood to feed their starving family. They may be lawful people, but a hungry family
comes first.
Unfortunately, there is no simple answer when using alignment
in character builds. I will say that if
you do, just use it sparingly. The Sliding Scales of Alignment offers an
alternative that can avoid some of the pitfalls. If the DM needs to check your sheet for your
alignment, that may be a sign of problems.
Otherwise, if your game is looking to branch out into the gray areas,
stepping away from the traditional definitions and using these suggestions
could allow for some leeway for characters without breaking the game.
Happy adventuring (you vile scum)!
--- James S. Austin
