By Matthew Meyer
Alignment has been a staple of many roleplaying games since the industry’s beginnings. It’s been the subject of countless essays in fanzines and blog posts. Most people either love it or hate it; some could take it or leave it. I myself have gone from one extreme to another over the years, using it as a weapon against my players in my early-and-inexperienced years as a GM, then later completely banning it from my games for a few years, and finally embracing a balance that allows it to influence the game without getting in the players’ way.
Why Bother Using Alignment?
In D&D, the alignment system is used to suggest how your character or an NPC might act in a certain situation. This is great for one-shots and archetypal characters, but for developing a well-rounded, evolving character, it actually hampers growth more than it helps. Lawful Good characters end up being rigid, obnoxious, and poor company, while Chaotic Evil characters turn into comic book villains and think its fun to kill babies and wreak wanton destruction. One fatal flaw of this system becomes apparent with characters who must maintain an alignment, like monks or paladins. Are characters that have a strong set of self-guiding principals but ignore the law of the land chaotic or lawful? Does a paladin who breaks an unjust law lose his Lawfulness? What about an acetic monk who shuns society but follows a rigid set of personal rules? On the good/evil axis, is it evil or good to kill a baby goblin? What about a baby succubus? The D&D alignment system is vague to a fault, and it has caused countless arguments between players and DM’s, which often end up souring the mood of the game. The descriptions of Law and Chaos, Good and Evil recognize that the system is not black-and-white, and yet the rules do at times require a clear delineation – and this can become a serious problem.
The idea to drop alignment from one’s game seems to be a common discussion topic between many GM’s. If alignment is used improperly, it can restrict a player’s free will (“Your character wouldn’t do that; he’s Lawful Good!”) or even be used to punish a player (by removing their abilities, or severing a connection to a god, or causing followers to leave). On the other hand, it is also integral to some game concepts — particularly magic spells, the planes and outsiders. The trick lies in avoiding the temptation to use alignment as a tool to manipulate characters and instead view it as an impartial reflection of a character’s actions and values. To that extent, I’ve started use house rules for alignment in my games. My system goes something like this:
Alignment
There are nine alignments, just as there are in classic D&D/d20 games, following the same Law-Neutral-Chaos and Good-Neutral-Evil axis. They represent an aspect of your character’s personality, like a fantasy version of Facebook’s politics and religion sections. Remember how in 2nd Edition asking a character’s alignment was a huge social faux pas? That makes sense if you consider the rudeness of asking a stranger about their political or religious beliefs. Aside from the social aspect, alignments also have repercussions in game mechanics, notably certain magic effects (detection spells, circles of protection, holy avengers, etc.) and in dealings with the planes and extra-planar creatures like gods and devils.
To avoid the vagueness that has caused problems in D&D games, I use this more clear-cut description for alignments: the Law-Chaos scale is a reflection of your character’s view of the importance of society vs. individuality. (“Society” here refers to his or her native society, not necessarily where he or she is right now.) Someone who values compliance with societal norms over individual desires is Lawful; someone who values individuality over customs and traditions is Chaotic. This scale has less to do with you actually following the law than it does with you following the norms of your society (if course there are many cases where laws and societal norms do overlap). The Good-Evil scale is a reflection of whether your character’s actions are self-serving or altruistic. A PC who values their own well-being at the expense of others would fall on the Evil end of the scale, while someone who puts the needs of others ahead of their own needs would fall on the Good end of the scale. This has less to do with actually being a good or a bad person than it does with your personal values (though again, a person with certain values may end up being perceived as being nicer or nastier than someone else).
In this system, character classes are not restricted by their alignments; as they were in older editions of D&D. The GM should take special care to define the limitations for these classes in terms of their duties and vows. A monk doesn’t have to be Lawful as long as he is highly self-disciplined. A barbarian who shuns the city police but remains true to his ancestral customs should be Lawful, not chaotic. A Paladin who stands up against an unjust ruler and leads a resistance movement would not be at risk of losing his powers, as long as he remained true to his church’s laws.
One important thing to keep in mind here is that the concepts of good and evil are very subjective; almost nobody views their own actions as evil, and all people try to act in the way they feel is good. If you use this system, keep in mind that the alignment designation “Evil” does not necessarily mean someone is a bad or a nasty person. They may indeed be perfectly pleasant and amicable, however when push comes to shove they choose to help themselves before anyone else. (Perhaps a better way to describe the scale would be Altruism-Egotism, however that would involve changing many spell names and effect descriptions.)
To illustrate this point, an average Roman citizen from 500 BC might be Lawful Good, because he values the welfare of the state and society over his own life, gladly throwing himself on the sword to protect the integrity of Rome. A modern day Libertarian might be Chaotic Evil, because he believes in individual effort and doesn’t want any government involvement at all. They could both be perfectly nice and decent people, but their alignments are polar opposites. (Some more examples using this scale: Starfleet captain: Lawful Good; Ferengi: Lawful Evil; Conan the Barbarian: Chaotic Evil; Average Human: Neutral.) In short, alignment reflects your personal values, but doesn’t actually dictate who you are what you do. We all know that real people are more complex than this, and (at least in the game I run) we strive to have our character seems as believable as possible.
Alignment changes
Alignment is a reflection of your actions, not vice versa, so if your alignment changes in game, it won’t change the way your character works — it just means you’ve been playing according to that alignment more. A cleric whose alignment changes shouldn’t lose his spells unless he actually did something contrary to his faith. There shouldn’t be any direct penalties for changing alignments, though it will change the way certain spells affect you.
Discussion
It seems that everyone has come up with various ways to overcome the pitfalls that alignment can present. Every group has a different chemistry and perhaps that requires each group to have their own set of adjustments to the alignment system. Have you come up with a similar system to this one? Do you have something entirely different? How do you handle the role of alignments in your games?
Edited by Jonathan Jacobs
I think your approach to alignment is interesting. My first exposure to a similar model was in Privateer Press’s Iron Kingdoms. Evil was less about being Venger-evil and more about being self-focused with little concern for the feelings or needs of others. The unfortunate side effect is that we still use the terms good and evil when there’s nothing really “evil” about being self-centered. In other words, it probably makes you a jerk, but it doesn’t make you evil. I wonder if you have any thoughts on using different morality terms than Lawful/Chaotic and Good/Evil. There’s obviously mechanical issues in terms of many magical abilities (Detect x, Smite x, etc), but the alignments have such strong attachments to certain meanings that redefining them could be problematic with players new to your game.
Thanks for stopping by Mike! How’s the Swarm going these days? Shamefully, I haven’t stopped by to visit in too long a time…
I’d be interested in seeing what matt says too. Hopefully we’ll see a reply.
In the meantime, I’m going to go back to developing my Meyer’s Briggs Spell Compendium… “DETECT ENTJ” and “Resist ENFP 10″ spells are really tough to work out in terms of game mechanics.
bySwarm’s going well. I’m busy prepping for Gen Con with 6 game sessions (one session 2x and a second session 4x) plus seminars on e-tools and publishing at bySwarm. I think our first product will be an adventure based on the 4-hour Gen Con sessions so folks playing in them will have a chance to live on in perpetuity. The games are all sold out, so I’m excited.
You could also go simpler with Type A and Type B. There’s a lot fewer things to playtest that way.
I think your ideas on alignment are interesting, and they bring another level of ‘realism’ to the game table imho. I’ve never met anyone truly evil, but I’ve met more than a few folks who couldn’t have cared less about the wants/needs of others.
I’m big on house rules like this because of that sense of realism. Always makes the games I’ve played in just a bit more enjoyable to me. Kinda like not being brought back to reality when you’re in the movie theater by the fact that Hollywood threw an exaggerated special effect at the wrong moment. It keeps things ‘smooth’.
Hey Mike! Thanks for your reply!
I’ve thought a lot about what terms could be used other than the standard terms. For the most part, I don’t have such a big problem with Law/Chaos, although a minor clarification might help reduce confusion — perhaps the scale should be Order/Chaos. Or to go further, though, one could call it the Society/Individuality scale, but I personally don’t like the way that rolls off the tongue. Order/Chaos just sounds better.
Good/Evil is the one that poses the most trouble, I think. Particularly for the reasons you said — it doesn’t mean you’re “evil” even it you’re a jerk. It’s just another worldview, and frankly, a lot of popular philosophies are based on that concept (consider how popular Ayn Rand is today). Calling the scale Good/Evil produces a lot of confusion and would probably be improved a lot by giving it a new name. Altruism/Egoism might work, or Selfish/Selfless. Unfortunately it’s hard to find a term that sounds good and could be plugged into the existing system of spells. Detect Altruism and Protection from Selfishness just sound silly.
Have you ever come up with any usable different terms?
Agreeing with Mr Media Mail, labeling modern political viewpoints as good or evil is going to be . . . problematic and should probably be avoided (at least in gaming circles).
I am of the opinion that “Good” and “Evil” in fantasy games, the pure metaphysical versions, should mostly be confined to the beings that embody metaphysical concepts such as demons or angels. Rarely a person can achieve that level of purity of purpose to align with such concepts and embody them but people are not often so focused.
Sean,
Absolutely. Though I hope I made it clear enough that I dno’t consider that designation of Evil to be the standard colloquial definition of “evil” (and in no way do I consider Libertarians evil — in fact that example was one of the first ones that was given to me by the 3 Libertarians in my gaming group).
If it wasn’t for the game mechanic definitions connected to spells and magic items, I would drop the terms Evil and Good as game terms altogether. They should be replaced with something else, as everyone considers themselves to be good and others to be evil. They’re far too subjective terms to be permanantly applied to any characters (except for maybe, as you point out, angels and demons and outsiders who embody that concept).
Maybe Benevolent and Malevolent? Maybe that would be a good way to do it because you would end up with most characters being neutral on that scale – they are neither benevolent or malevolent all the time. But those things that are truly benevolent or malevolent would justifiably be affected by things that traditionally affect good or evil respectively. Altruism and egoism would work well in the others vs. self approach, too. In thinking about a society of malevolent people could function, it might be that altruism/egoism would work better.
Off site discussion about this post going on here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/crmil/rpg_character_alignments_nevermet_press/
In case you’re interested in replying to those comment Matt.
I think you’re on the right track with the good/evil axis, you just haven’t gone far enough. I think the clinical psychopath embodies the far end of the evil axis (and also the chaotic axis). Most people lack a reference frame for understanding how really bad (evil) these people really do act. They’re far worse than just selfish or egotistical. The wikipedia page says psychopaths “gain satisfaction through antisocial behavior, and do not experience shame, guilt, or remorse for their actions.” They are usually glib, charming, and likable, but would not think twice about the harm they cause you in pursuit of their own desires. Seriously, read about it. It makes more sense than putting Libertarians at the evil end of the scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199401/charming-psychopath
I’ve toyed with three axes for alignment in an attempt to bring some depth and new perspective to the traditional alignment system. The first is civilized/wild, which basically would be an indication of the character’s disposition towards living in civilization or wilderness. Scholars, bureaucrats, politicians, and most thieves would all be highly dependent on civilization and trend towards that end of the axis. Bandits, rangers, tribal peoples, back-to-nature folk, and Robin Hood would all trend towards the wild end of the axis. The second axis is cultured/savage, which on first glance might sound a bit like civilized/wild, but applies more to a character’s proclivity towards using negotiation or “social combat” skills (cultured) vs. outright violence (savage). The third axis is moral/immoral, and this is perhaps the closest to the traditional “good” and “evil” of RPGs. Moral characters would have some framework of values–it doesn’t necessarily matter what they are–which would distinguish “right” from “wrong”. Immoral characters would not have such a framework, or have a weaker version of it. Each character would be rated along the three axes. The combination of these three axes breaks down into eight alignment categories: 1) civilized, cultured, moral; 2) civilized, cultured, immoral; 3) civilized, savage, moral; 4) civilized, savage, immoral; 5) wild, cultured, moral; 6) wild, cultured, immoral; 7) wild, savage, moral;
wild, savage, immoral. I think this system allows for a more diverse array of characters than the traditional D&D alignment system. Each axis is intended to represent a distinct set of characteristics, yet remains vague enough for creativity on part of the players and GM. The three-way combination creates some interesting descriptors, as well. Of course, the system does not import well into D&D, but could add some spice to a new game system or be used as a house rule for a system that does not already have rules for alignment, such as Savage Worlds.
Charles, that’s an awesome take. You’re right — I don’t think it would import well into D&D, but it certainly would make a good system in other games. Cool ideas!
Overall I think you did a great job clarifying and making the existing system more workable without diverging from the original feel. Which deserves to be commended. One thing I’ve been toying with for a completely different system is a behavioral code system that has “Ethics” which are universally respected across all societies because they are founded on respect for life, and then the character gets to choose certain “Moral Codes” which are not universal but make up belief systems that the character’s society or personal life experiences imparted on him. For example, “do not kill” and “don’t betray my friends” are ethical codes, wheras, “don’t eat meat” or “never accept the sticker price” would be moral codes. Your system does this too I see… but it’s lost in the noise of the good, evil, neutral + societies thing somewhat.
I never got why people where so obsessed about Lawful = obeying any laws no matter what… I mean the whole idea behind the Monk having to be Lawful was that the Shaolin Monks lead very strict lives, not that they obey whatever the government says.
IMO the best way to define Lawful vs Chaotic would be more along the lines of doing things based on some (somewhat) fixed, externalized set of moral rules (honour dictates) vs based on emotions alone (it feels right)… with neutral being somewhere in between. And that way one can have somewhat chaotic societies where individual rights are protected against societal norms (which are not the same as laws), like we actually have in RL.
…
And i disagree with the altruistic vs egotistic thing because they’re not a one or the other thing… and it doesn’t really matter if no one thinks of themselves as evil, not anymore then when people don’t consider themselves any other negative thing they might actually be…
I think that evil should be extreme of selfishness, and should be unwilling to help even if it costs them nothing, or the gain for themselves isn’t way greater then the effort… and that’s without being sadists or trill killers, which should be included too. Good on the other hand should be people that go beyond simply easing their conscience and actually provide help any way they can (within reason, they don’t have to be unrealistic about it).
Just being somewhat selfish or putting your life before that of others is more neutral (“i’ll help for the reward, but i’m not going to sacrifice myself or do more then what i consider fair for the money”). Of course neutral should also be “i want to help, but i don’t want to die either”…
The real problem is that people seem to think that evil = psychotic stupid… just screwing someone over in a small way because you think they might be an impediment down the line is enough, being a crazy killer should be about as common as being Ghandi, and even then you shouldn’t be so stupid to murder babies when there’s a good chance people will realise it was them.