Alignment part one

Wait, when did this make sense again?

Note: most of the discussion of alignment is related to pre 4E D&D, when it still mattered. Also, “the game” refers to 3.5 edition Dungeons & Dragons. Not the game that you just lost.

Well, its time for my first article on this blog, so I figured I might as well start this off with a controversial statement that will raise as many eyebrows as possible, and cause enough arguments and outraged replies that my poor site will most likely crash from the amount of traffic on the comment section. So, let’s talk about alignment. I’ve already written a lot on this topic, and later in this blog one of my intentions is to host a special event every week where I define the alignment of a fictional character or historical figure, so it seems like a good place to start

Of all the issues with D&D, alignment has always been the most controversial topic, by far. Unlike many of the games’ problematic aspects, the alignment system itself is not actually at fault for its own problems, just the way it’s perceived. More than anything, the alignment system is simply misunderstood and is the victim of quite a few fallacies. In fact, almost every problem with the alignment system is, in fact, brought about by misconceptions of the system, with a few notable exceptions (undead, poison, mind control, ect). In my first draft, I instantly launched into a detailed explanation of alignment, and a complicated, in-depth essay that could make the writings of Mark Twain look like a mere fan fic. When my dad looked at my writing and said something along the lines of “I have no idea what your talking about,” “This stuff doesn’t make sense to me because I’m not familiar with the nature of alignment” and “I secretly wish to disinherit you,” I decided to include some explanation for those of you who don’t have enough free time to learn about the morality of fantasy role-playing game (no, you cannot judge me).

Now if this doesn’t scream controversial I don’t know what will, but unlike most of their products, the makers of the game had actually thought this one through. The general idea is that the alignment system creates nine categories (along the axis of good, neutral, evil and lawful, neutral, chaotic) for everybody in the world, based upon their actions, personal morals and belief systems. Somebody’s alignment can change based upon their actions. For example, a good person who starts torturing people for information will slip very quickly into neutral then evil. The purpose of this system is that is to have a well-defined understanding of good and evil within the game’s world, at least in the first 3 editions where the designers actually cared. Now first I want to make this clear, there are two ways to do morality in a game, which I will explain in detail. They are 1) The relative and 2) the absolute.

Relative morality is a system where morality isn’t cleanly defined. Good and evil are not laid out for you in the game, but are left up to each person's personal beliefs. Basically, morality is totally left up to the player’s own decisions and options. Song of Fire and Ice is a great example of how most people imagine Relative morality. Good and evil are really a matter of personal choice and every single person has a different idea of them. A subset of this type of morality in play is to have cultural alignments. Cultural alignments work just like absolute alignments, except the system is clearly only limited to the culture itself. Legend of the Five Ring’s honor system works like this; a character’s honor is absolute, but the morality of the entire world are not defined by only one honor system, just the morals a particular country. In a relative system, an action doesn’t make you “more good” or “more evil”; it only effects how people perceive you. A society that magically raises its dead on a regular basis is only evil if certain characters (or nations, or gods, for that matter) object to them, and even then it’s just a personal basis more than anything else. It’s very much like real life; things that are offensive or criminal in certain cultures are A-OK in others. Murder in Japan or the Aztecs wasn’t a sin, while today it is a big deal in most first world nations. Other morals don’t matter on the good and evil basis, but different cultures perceive them differently. For example sex can be viewed as a sin, as an art, or as unimportant. The advantage and disadvantage of this system is that there can be no real “evil” things in the world. In an absolute system, it’s kind of nice to have an actual unholy entity that is clearly evil. But more importantly, you lack some options in terms of the realms beyond. Most people can put up with this, but in a game like D&D, where planar travel, coming back from the dead, and the matter of the afterlife comes into question, considering heaven and hell. If morals are relative, then the after life is really nothing more than you going to your own gods.

Now, here is a problem. I actually prefer absolute alignment system, but I really do like Song of Ice and Fire, and I feel like I’ve given the relative morality too good of a description. Yeah, I’m just too bloody good for my own good (lets just go with that, shall we, and avoid pining the problem on indecisiveness). Now, what I don’t like about relative morality is that I actually like the idea of good and evil being forces on their own, absolute forces. Creatures like demons and devils as the actual absolute embodiments of evil are actually quite cool, a position that they can’t claim in a relative system. Also, the “Always Chaotic Evil” Trope, when used well, is actually quite scary. I like the idea that the world functions on absolutes, it can bring out so much more from the game. I also like the idea of a massive standard that is held over what is just and what is unjust. It also gives the world a sense of justice, which can vary on whether that is a good thing or not. That being said, contrary to what most people believe, relative alignments are easier to do, because morality is a personal ideal rather than something the DM has to control, which is nice. I’ll explain more when I get into our next section.

Absolute alignment. This is the alternative to morality, and is the basis of the D&D morality. The basis of absolute morality is that good and evil are clearly defined entries, and the same goes for people. For example, in D&D good and evil are actual concepts. Not ideals or beliefs, literally forces of the cosmos. Everything in the world has to follow their rules, including gods. Everything simply fits within the realms of good, evil or in-between, as defined by their actions. For example, rape is always evil, no matter what the situation is (short of mind control or accident but I’ll cover that when I get to understanding of the situation below). So if somebody willingly rapes another, they will cease to be good and eventually become evil if they keep it up. There are certain actions that are always evil, like torture, murder, rape, worship of evil gods, human sacrifice, summoning demons, genocide, use of poison, disagreeing with me, and FATAL (For those out of the loop: the worst game ever made. Ever!). These things are always evil, not mater what the situation is and anyone who commits them will start going down the dark path. Some actions are by their nature good: mercy, kindness, honesty, protecting the innocent, etc. And some actions vary, like lying, cheating, killing (not murder), and fanaticism, which depend upon the situation and the morality behind them, essentially neutral. I’ll go into more detail about these later; the important thing I want to make clear is the fact that good and evil are very absolute about what is what.

Now, I want to address this issue later, but I realize the massive amount of misconceptions that are going to come up will prevent me from going on unless I make this clear now. So I want to make this very clear, good and evil may be absolute, however right and wrong are not. Just because one set of morals is classified as “good” doesn’t mean that they are necessarily right (I think so but that isn’t the point). What is considered just or unjust, right and wrong, true and false is still left up to personal option. For example, slavery is always evil according to D&D, but many real life societies had no problems with it. These societies would simply reject the morals of good as wrong and ignorance, and embrace their own as “just”. I mean, evil doesn’t mean that you’re a sociopath or a baby eater; it just means you’ve committed evil acts and haven’t repented. So logically, a lot of people in the world would be evil, because evil acts are so easy to commit. Here is a very long list of elaborate examples where I prove my point again and again until the smarter members of my audience get sick of me mercilessly patronizing them. Naw, I’ll spare you with just one.

Take Farmer Joe. He grew up in a village, he was a good worker, he was loyal to his family and his nation, and he did his job thoroughly and honestly. As he got older he got married, got his own farm and worked to support his wife and kids. He occasionally cheats on his taxes, has gotten in fights a few times, and has the usual prejudices of his nation, but despite this, he is a dedicated member of his community and has worked hard to support his village. Then he was drafted in war with another nation. There he was used as a basic foot solider in the field, forced to fight in tough conditions, often being used as fodder, far away from home against an enemy who was intent upon killing him. The men he served with were already hardened by the war, and he had seen his friends die horribly or be maimed in a foreign, hostile land. He slowly losses empathy for those around him, and he shields his mind so that he doesn’t have to confront his actions, and no longer feels connected to those who he hurts. He starts to loot both his enemies’ and allies’ bodies, take from their houses and land, and rob the prisoners. He takes out frustration upon enemy spies during integration, he murders enemies who surrendering, knowing they would do the same for him, and he kills civilians who get in his way. He murders innocents in order to protect himself, he allows his fellow solders to torture and beat enemy civilians, and once he even rapes a woman while drunk. In the end of the war, the men sack the enemy city, and he, along with most of this soldiers, burn, kill, and loot the thing clean. Then the war ends and he returns home. He takes his money and uses it for his family in order to help repair the damage done by the war in his village. He has more kids and raises them to be honest hard working citizens, he gives up his free time to help the community, he gives money to charity and he helps the town when it comes to group activities. He still cheats on his taxes and dice, and he holds the prejudice of his nation, but he is also a kind and honest person generally speaking. On one occasion he and his town burned the hermit outside the village as a witch, and another time he and his community lynched a man who most likely murdered a young boy (not sure through in hindsight). This man is still Neutral Evil or Lawful Evil. He doesn’t feel bad about his actions in the war, where he was a true monster; he has committed evil acts since then. He may love his family and at heart be a pretty good person, but he is still evil, both for the deeds he has committed, his inability to repent for them and his ability to do it all over again. Historically, most of the famous figures are evil. The Khan was a ruthless and dictatorial man. And yet, he was also brave, honorable and extremely loyal to his people. Napoleon was a genius, charming, intelligent, likable, and considering the time, actually not that bad as far as rulers go. Elizabeth I authorized the brutal oppression of Ireland. The Scots at Prestonpans massacred fleeing British troops, and British troops at Culloden slaughtered hoards of defeated Scots. A lot of these were culturally acceptable evils, for instance, in Rome, the Vikings, early China, pre WWII Japan, the Aztecs and early Europe. Being evil does not make you a sociopath; it just means you’ve committed evil actions. The point is that what the D&D system defines as “Good” is not automatically justice. Because the morality system is absolute, Good is just a force of nature in the D&D universe, its part of the elemental structure of the cosmology. It is not a golden list of rules that define justice. Justice is what your character, or any other person in the world believes justice to be. Just because one moral system is named “Good” doesn’t make it right.

This is the biggest problem -- that people who find their own personal morals are listed as evil, instead of questioning the validity of good and evil, simply deny the rules that state their idea/actions as evil and instant they are good despite having nothing to back this up. Of the countless alignment threads spread about the dreaded interwebs, the most common is “Torture is acceptable in order to get info needed from bad guys” -- sort of a Sergeant White/Dirty Harry way of looking at things -- with the second being a defense of their favorite characters actions, to the point of denying the actual factual basis of the game in avoid having their character classified as evil (everybody who says V’s latest murder wasn’t evil, yeah, I mean you people). I mean, I can understand the aversion to having yourself or your favorite character declared “evil” because of the negative connotation, but really you need to understand the implications of good and evil. Of all the alignments, evils pretty much covers both the most amount of idea, and the largest range of people, because it has such easy requirements. I mean, by D&D standards I’m LN, I don’t care. The thing is, right and wrong are not the same as Good and Evil. Good and Evil are like two different political parties, which one is right is up to you personally. Take Song of Ice and Fire, where we see every character’s perspective and it really helps in terms of getting a legitimate understanding of everybody’s goals and motivations. They don’t see themselves as evil remember. Or Goblins. Say what you will about Goblins slayer and friends, they do honestly think they are doing good. Ok it is a little heavy handed, but even so they believe what they are doing is right. Rome is a good example of cultural differences of other times.

The basic idea of alignment is that

Alright, since I covered the main issue, let’s get into the specifics in part 2. . I’ll also explain the mechanics of alignments, the way it works, and flaws in the system (poison, mind control ect). Until then, I’m going to sleep while the rest of you dedicate hours of your lives to either drowning me in praise (and if that seems like a negative statement, let me assure, that’s a great way to handle your time) or quoting me words and trying to prove how I’m wrong. Now if your excuse me, I’m going to go pretend to sleep while I worry about how this will be received

From

EE