Alignment

alignment

A lot of people despise alignment.  I think the distaste for it comes from the idea that alignment as a mechanical character attribute impedes your ability to roleplay.  However, I’m not in the group of GMs that insist characters play their selected alignment so I don’t think I’ve ever really gotten that complaint from any of the players in my game.  In my view human beings (and I suppose, by extension the other playable races) aren’t consistent, and certainly characters of the disposition of adventurers may not always be consistent in their internal philosophies.  I’ve rarely said, “are you sure?” to a player’s actions for reasons of alignment.  Even so, I’m perfectly willing to adjust a player’s alignment if they either perform acts contrary to their alignment (over time), or are willing to perform significant actions contrary to their alignment (immediately).  I will almost never do this without thoroughly discussing with the player, outside of the game and away from the other players, whether they have the same view of their actions and their alignment shift.  Only in the most extreme circumstances would I change a character’s alignment without the agreement of the player.  I think it’s only happened once, and not since the players of my game hit puberty.  I think the most hated arguments I’ve witnessed related to alignment were players debating with other players, which can sometimes, for a short while, be an interesting debate to have at the table.  It can elevate the game to a level of self-analysis that surpasses simply slaying the gremlins of the world.  I also like to include plenty of morally grey choices, although my group is pretty sophisticated in understanding the moral issues involved and they try to interpret how their individual characters would respond.

But, why have heated alignment debates at all?  We could have just as deep, if not deeper, characters and decisions if we didn’t have 9 alignment responses.  What does alignment give us that we couldn’t do a better job if we either described it differently (with character aspects, perhaps) or didn’t describe it at all (allowing players to roleplay without worrying about a preselected alignment).  I think alignment really gives you two things:

  1. A game mechanic to hinge game effects (ex. Protection from Evil, class prerequisites, etc.)
  2. A roleplaying guide for players who are on the fence about how to respond with their character to a choice

Alignment as a Game Mechanic

I suppose it’s obvious since I’m exploring the topic, but I’m on the fence about whether Lost Worlds should have game mechanics that key off of alignment.  On one hand, you could get around most of them with changes such as “detect malice” instead of “detect evil” which would work equally well for characters of any “alignment.”  You could also “detect non-believer” to know whether a person did, or did not, worship the god granting the divination.  Protection from Good or Evil could be changed as well, to either instead protect against cosmic level good/evil (angels/demons) or to protect against gods of opposing viewpoints.  You could do all of this and avoid having the need to “type” characters by whether they are good or evil.

On the other hand, there’s something that appeals to me about having good and evil as character types, even for non-cosmic level beings.  In my game, players are generally limited to alignments of neutral or good.  I don’t mind the occasional evil character, but I don’t think I’d enjoy a long-running game where the players committed acts of infamy rather than acts of heroism.  I would also find it pretty frustrating to GM for a group that always had a mix of evil, neutral, and good characters – let alone try to understand why they continue to travel together.  It’s a conceit of the game that all the players are going to want to work together towards a goal, otherwise the game breaks down, or requires a much better GM than I to manage.  So, assuming the characters in our playing group are either neutral or good, with good predominating and neutral being the shadier heroic types, will players really mind whether they are “typed?”  I suppose if they want to commit selfish acts but have powers attuned to a specific alignment, such as for a Paladin, they might care.  Still, I feel that if a player is playing a Paladin, they’re doing it because they want to roleplay that bastion of un-wavering good.  In my game, if you’re alignment is evil, you’re soon to becoming an NPC, and that comes with a lot of conversation.

So I think the Good vs Evil axis makes some sense to preserve for thematic purposes.  We’re starting to tread into the purview of campaign setting here over core rules.  To make this more apparent, let’s talk about the first three alignments for Dungeons & Dragons: Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic.  These original three alignments don’t really do much for me, and I think I’m perfectly happy allowing them to be handled by character traits instead of a formal alignment.  Original Dungeons & Dragons though has a default setting where the gods of law war against the gods of chaos, and a character’s affiliation, while normally neutral, could be a very clear statement about what side of this war you are on.  I understand that it’s inspired by the works of Michael Moorcock.  I haven’t read the novels yet, and none of my players have either, and maybe that’s why the law vs chaos alignment conceit doesn’t really speak to me.  I think it’s unique to a very specific campaign setting.  Understanding the origins of Dungeons & Dragons alignment as tied into the Moorcock mythos is important to understanding how they were combined with the good and evil axis to produce the nine standard alignments.

Alignment as Roleplay Guide

I’ve given alignment some credit for its use as a thematic game mechanic for a game that focuses a great deal on good and evil.  I think when it comes to a roleplay guide, we can easily do much better.  FATE uses a system of aspects to tie character themes into the story line.

I think Lost Worlds will use something similar, at least as a thematic guide to the character, both for that character’s player and the other players at the table.  I am not sure what, if any, mechanical impact these aspects will have quite yet.  I think though that aspects will free the system from using alignment to stick characters into the 9-pt grid.  I think it’ll also help me get away with removing the law/chaos access from alignment.  You can still play someone who is rigidly lawful, but that would be expressed as a character trait or aspect instead of through alignment.  My thought is that, since my default campaign setting does not have a war between gods of chaos and gods of law, there’s no need to identify a keyword for game mechanics that interact with law or chaos.  It’s gone as a cosmic concept, but nuances between good and evil can still play out through the use of aspects – which can be a lot more varied and interesting than a generic lawful/chaotic flag on a character – and far more useful for roleplaying.

Conclusion

I think I may do away with alignment and instead give characters a “keyword” for mechanic purposes.  My thought is that most characters will be unaligned (not have a Good or Evil keyword) at their creation.  I’ll likely do away with the entire Law and Chaos axis, since the nuances there don’t concern me very much.  Certain classes may have access to a Good/Evil keyword based on their theme (such as Clerics and Paladins).  In addition, the Good or Evil keyword might be a quest reward for certain quests, allowing a player to, optionally, gain the particular keyword if they so desire.  This means that a lot of mechanics that might work on Good or Evil will have no impact on a vast majority of your average people.  Detect Evil no longer works as a complete radar, since it would only really detect the Evil keyword, something only the most nefarious would have gained.

I’m leaning against calling this alignment  because I might want to hang quite a few other things on this keyword mechanic.  I may try to tie it into the aspect/trait system, and make it a bonus trait or aspect.  This might allow players who aren’t in a particular class to get the Good/Evil keyword on character creation if they want to spend an aspect on it.  I also think I’m going to end up with a lot of variety in magic that does key off of Good or Evil, such as Detect Malice as a spell instead of Detect Evil.

And all of this is assuming a pretty cosmic idea of Good and Evil.  In actual play, this can get pretty muddy.  In the end, Good and Evil almost have to be built into the campaign setting and communicated to the players at the outset.  For example, let’s say you’re a Chaotic Good Viking using the old alignment system (or are you a Chaotic Evil Viking?):

I’m a Viking. I have several wives, and lots of children, but only a little farmland with rocky soil and a short growing season. So I do the only “Good” thing I can to feed my family – I go a-viking. We set sail for Gaul, and we raid several Blackcloak monasteries  We kill many of our mortal enemies, the death cultists that call themselves Christians. We perform a powerful act of defiling their chapel by performing a human sacrifice to Odin on the alter in their chapel.

Then we take as many of their nuns as we can carry back with us to liberate them from the oppressive life they are forced to lead in Gaul. Once home, we will marry those women off to eligible bachelors, but probably a few of the more attractive ones will be claimed by those that paid for this raid, and married into a wealthy lord’s household. The woman will be better treated, and have more rights then they did in Gaul.

After several months, the long ships return home. So, I’ve looted enough money to feed my family for another few years. I’ve also helped free over twenty women from an unnatural life of enforced celibacy  and given them the ability to have children. I’ve killed numerous death cultists, and helped to weaken their unnatural hold on lands that were once friendly to my people. Since the death cultists have forbidden trade with my people, we simply take what we need. I have also procured a wife for my eldest son, who is nearly 25 and still unmarried. I have done very, very good, and I can feel very proud of myself. Praise be to Thor.

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Alignment

  1. Andy

    The thing alignment does well is remind people that their characters are different than themselves and that they should act as their character would. I like that it causes you to think about what your character would do vs. what you yourself would do.

    I’m not married to alignment, but I do think it drives this discussion a bit more than if you didn’t have it at all.

    BTW I’m quite comfortable saying that the vikings in the above are not chaotic good. Let’s analyze from a morality perspective –

    “I have several wives, and lots of children, but only a little farmland with rocky soil and a short growing season. So I do the only “Good” thing I can to feed my family – I go a-viking. We set sail for Gaul, and we raid several Blackcloak monastaries.”

    You have nothing so you steal it. Got it. Definitely not lawful. Definitely leaning away from good.

    “We kill many of our mortal enemies, the death cultists that call themselves Christians.”

    You kill people in order to steal their food. Chaotic Evil.

    “We perform a powerful act of defiling their chapel by performing a human sacrifice to Odin on the alter in their chapel.”

    You kill more people. Evil. You defy the rules of their temple. Chaotic.

    “Then we take as many of their nuns as we can carry back with us to liberate them from the oppressive life they are forced to lead in Gaul.”

    You enslave people. Evil. You justify it by saying that the ordered life they chose was oppressive. Chaotic.

    So the Vikings are chaotic evil. I’m pretty comfortable with it and to me its not even close.

    I agree that alignment can be subjective but you didn’t do a very good job of convincing me with this example. To me, I can’t role play very effectively in a world where murder and slavery aren’t considered evil. And I don’t want to. I’m fine roleplaying an evil character if that is what we are doing, but I have no concept of how a “good” character could agree that the vikings are good. Having said that, i like the idea of keywords and think it could work well as a replacement.

    Reply
    1. JackOfHearts Post author

      I’m thinking of using something like Aspects from FATE where, instead of picking one of the Nine Alignments. So instead of “Chaotic Good” for Han Solo, you might have:

      “Smuggler”
      and
      “Comes through in the end despite himself”

      You might not have the Good keyword at the outset, but you might gain it as an additional aspect when you fly back to protect Luke in a suicide mission against the Death Star.

      The question would be, if the player didn’t want the Good keyword, do they get it anyway based on their actions? My initial thought is, “no,” but I could see getting the Evil keyword if they committed certain evil acts. I think in general though, if the player still didn’t want that aspect, I wouldn’t force it on them.

      As for the Viking example, I agree we’d call them evil – but the other Vikings in that culture probably wouldn’t. That’s what I mean when I say that it needs to be built into the setting. I could see a theoretical game where the party played Vikings and raided the evil empire to the south who oppresses them and refuses to sell/trade food and other necessities, and the Viking described above could be considered Chaotic Good in that game.

      Still, maybe I should come up with a better example.

      Reply
  2. Brian

    Theft = evil
    murder = evil
    kidnapping = evil
    slavery = evil

    Vikings are definitely evil, however I can see the vikings as being lawful – if the law of the land says that the above items are acceptable – often is the case with laws.

    For me – law/chaos, good/evil are all very much intertwined. A law says that you may take from your neighbor as long as he has more than you – evil . Law says that you cannot possess certain plants – superficially the intent may be “good” but in my mind it is evil.

    I would even go so far as to say that most laws, by their nature, are ways for some individuals to force others into modes of behavior they wouldn’t normally choose and are therefore evil. This is accomplished through the threat of violence (theft of your property, theft of your life via incarceration, death for resisting said law) at the point of a gun..or sword or knife or billy club.

    The only “good” laws are those that protect the individual from the aggression of others.
    ————————
    That all said – I’m inclined to do away with the 9 point grid system and implement something along the lines of what you are suggesting above.

    I like the idea of alignment acting as check to keep players “in character” but the idea of good/evil/law/chaos differs for most people so I question the systems effectiveness in doing this.

    I would simplify the good/evil axis to revolve around the non aggression principal (very easy for players to understand what is and isn’t evil). From there you can allow various good/evil mechanics as you’ve outlined and keep from having to worry too much about it.

    Reply
  3. Andrew

    HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR HODOR

    Reply
    1. Andrew

      And to make an actual comment, its been interesting how much alignment has influenced our current gaming session. If we weren’t being led by a LG paladin, how much different would our game look? I think the alignments are important and prevent the ol’ “well lets just take whatever action is the most optimal at all times regardless of morals” that people like to use when they select chaotic neutral or chaotic good.

      Reply
      1. Brian

        is it alignment – or an individuals interpretation of what that alignment entails? Boil it down to a line and choose sides.

        Let us just say that I was in control of said LG paladin – would I make different decisions due to my interpretation of what Lawful Good is? I’d certainly open that damned door if I could find a way to do it without forcing a choice upon anyone. Yes . There is much good to discover and potential evil to conquer…

        I’m very much in favor of sending the 9 point grid to bed.

  4. JackOfHearts Post author

    In defense of removing the alignments, formally – as a Paladin, you’d still likely have the “Good” keyword, since being a paragon of good is kind of thematic to the class. Also, I think you’d have a “Paladin’s Creed” that would act as one of your aspects and be a more in-depth guide to your character’s personality than the nine alignments (or rather 1 alignment for all Paladins: LG).

    Players/GMs of RPGs are pretty split on whether they like alignment, and it looks like our group is too! The main axis that doesn’t really do much for me is the law/chaos axis, since it’s not really built into my concept of a fantasy campaign world in the way it was in D&D 1, where your alignment was truly a team allegiance in the battle of the gods of law and the gods of chaos.

    I’ve actually resolved to read the Elric novels, since I’ve already referenced them multiple times on the blog. Maybe that’ll change my mind about it all.

    Reply
    1. Andy

      I think that works in place of alignments Brett. I wouldn’t say that I “like” alignment. I just like it better than having nothing. Aspects works for me. I just don’t want people always optimizing their actions regardless of moral consequences because I think the moral issues are one of the more interesting facets of the game.

      Reply
  5. Daisy the (Abandoned, Homeless) Donkey

    I admit, I only got one sentence in this article before I dropped right down to make a comment so if this was already covered, my apologies. HOWEVER. It’s easy to avoid getting complaints about not letting people explore within their alignment when you flat out refuse to let people play evil-aligned characters, Mistah Brett….. 😉

    Reply
    1. futuresheep

      Certainly Daisy, if the campaign already has an alignment, I think that overall Brett’s side discussions with players is the extent needed to enforce this overriding Alignment. I have rarely seen alignment do anything that a solid back-story didn’t do better (Apart from adding a few key words for special spells, which I mostly despise anyway). I think Alignment should remain in the purview of ONLY Paladins and Faith based characters, and apart from that all players should have a back-story that explains their thoughts. Trying to impose a black and white rule on a completely ambiguous and disagreeable topic like morality seems to be a bad idea.

      Also on evil characters, my current group for Kingmaker currently has a slightly more evil shift to their actions, and as the DM at first I hated the idea, but actually I find myself liking it more and more, as they go on. It seems it makes the players role play all the more as decisions become less obvious, and cause more player to player interaction as evil actions more often disagree. I think the real impact, and cost, with evil actions (especially in Kingmaker) is what their actions do to NPC/Monsters around them.

      This has also lead to some very “interesting” solutions to certain Kingmaker events. Doesn’t every group in kingmaker resolve Grigori the bard disparaging their kingdom by framing him with a battered whore, paying him off to leave, and then murdering him to get the money back as he leaves town…..Ok they went a little overboard on that one. I think George R.R. Martin shares a little of the blame for that one.

      Reply
      1. JackOfHearts Post author

        I think playing a game with evil characters can be fun for short campagins or one-shots, but I think over time I would really start to dislike it. I don’t want to run a game where the party is stealing, raping, and murdering as a general practice. I just wouldn’t enjoy it. I’m fine with individual characters that have evil bents, or good characters that have moments of weakness, but in general, I want to run a game where the players are trying to do something heroic.

        I’m sure there is a place in the world for normal people wanting to explore darker themes of the world in a relatively safe environment of an RPG, but I don’t much think I’d enjoy being the one running it.

        All that being said, I don’t generally allow “evil” characters in my campaign game, at least not for long periods of time. Evil characters tend to retire from the PC and become NPCs pretty quickly.

  6. Pingback: Dungeon World – Alignment | Lost Worlds

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s