One of the subjects to which we have returned periodically in this series is alignment, as it was presented in that venerable (in multiple senses of that word) game, original Advanced Dungeons & Dragons™. We opened the discussion forty-three weeks ago with the suggestion that alignment represented the true Beliefs of the characters, the real religions of the game which controlled their actions through its impact on their values and their view of reality. Beneficence was our explication of that which the game calls good, the desire to provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. The opposite value, evil, was described in the article Selfish, in which Adam Smith, originator of the concept of capitalism, was identified as the patron saint of this value, as he asserted that everyone will always act in his own perceived self-interest, and that any action which appears to be otherwise is actually based on the individual’s different perception of his own self-interest (truly altruistic actions do not exist). Freedom was identified as the core value of chaos, the recognition that individuals were more important than governments, societies, or groups. In contrast, we recognized that some people valued Societies above individuals, and that this lawful preference had been represented in the twentieth century most notably by the rise of socialism and, ironically, the belief that structured governments would be unnecessary once everyone placed the good of society above that of individuals.
Having thus identified the four sides of our alignment grid, we examined the middle, neutrality, as a sort of Aristotelian concept of Moderation; we found several approaches to this internally conflicted values system, including the pragmatic, oblivious, druidic, and cross-principled, and considered how it fit with other values. We returned to neutrality as it expressed itself in combination with those other values, and saw the Dedication inherent in the side alignments, beliefs that moved toward the fanatical as they focused on one value above all else.
There remains still one more aspect of alignment to discuss. It has taken all that we examined to this point to lay the foundation for it. Perhaps this is why alignment proves so difficult for so many players: the most commonly played alignments are the most complex in their structure. I speak, of course, of the corners: Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil, and Lawful Evil. These are the alignments in which the player through his character embraces two values, values which are not in opposition to each other but which can at times lead to different actions, different choices, in the same situation.
If you remember Kelly Tessena’s wonderful vignette, Paladin, about a choice that had to be made by her character, it was an excellent example of this sort of situation. Aelia, the paladin of the title, is entering an unfamiliar city, and becomes aware that possession of holy symbols within the city walls is against the law. To part with the holy symbol Aelia carries is unthinkable; the good paladin would not be without it for a moment, and has never removed it since donning it three years before. Much of the power this character could wield to help the wretched refuse within the city lay within that talisman, and giving it up would be to deny them the benefit of that aid. There is a risk that surrendering this to the guard would result in its disappearance, as it is not at all clear how one recovers such property upon departure. Yet to fail to surrender it would be to violate the laws of that city.
These are the kinds of conflicts corner alignments create. Let me recall to your mind another example.
My character was that lawful good leader of that very mixed party which encountered on the road a slave caravan, headed by a hobgoblin. Most of the slaves were of little concern to us–fifty goblins, two drow females, and a giant. Yet as we came upon this entourage, I realized I had a problem.
Part of my problem, as mentioned back when we discussed chaos, was that some of the members of my band were chaotic; one was chaotic neutral. I knew that they would not willingly allow a slaver caravan to pass unchallenged if they had the opportunity to do otherwise. Part of my problem, though, lay in my own alignment. I was certain that these slaves were being mistreated. The female drow were naked in an open cage, a mode of transport that apart from being humiliating was probably painful under the unfamiliar sunlight. The goblins were in chains, dragged behind a horse-drawn wagon which undoubtedly forced them to march at a demanding pace for their short legs. Perhaps it was my own in-game version of racial prejudice, but I could not imagine that a hobgoblin was treating his slaves well. Yet slavery was legal in the city, and presumably in the surrounding countryside. The slave trade was big business, a major feature of the economy. To attack a slave trader conducting his lawful business would be a criminal act. Members of my party would, I knew, be eager to stop this caravan; they had my sympathy, even my moral support, but ultimately they could not have my assistance. I had to order they stand down and let the slavers pass, and then leave it to them whether to obey my orders or take matters on themselves.
Both of those examples are situations in which law and good collide. There are more extreme cases for these. The Paladin article mentions places in which the laws themselves are evil, and the difficulties that poses to a person dedicated to supporting society while at the same time committed to doing good to all. Yet there are equally difficult conflicts at each of the corners. The chaotic good must at times choose between someone’s freedom and their safety and well-being. Arguably, this is an issue in our world today: do we permit our governments to take away our individual rights and independence in order to help defend us against terrorists and so protect the lives and well-being of the many? Do we choose good over chaos, beneficence over freedom?
Evil characters don’t escape the problem, either. It is fairly easy for most of us to see the inherent difficulties the lawful evil has: how does he line his own pockets while working always to keep the law and maintain society? What does he do if the king demands he do something to help the poor? Yet the chaotic evil character has his own conflicts. At what point does his own selfishness have to yield to the rights of others? At what point do the rights of others give way to his own selfishness? If we remember that the American combination of democracy and capitalism is ultimately an expression of the values of chaos and evil (chaos because democracy is ultimately about the rights, freedoms, and voices of individuals, evil because capitalism functions through individual self-interest), the conflict between rights and self-interest is in many ways the central theme of much of our legislation and jurisprudence.
We speak of neutrality as a balancing act; but in truth, it is the corner alignments that provide the most interesting and challenging balancing problems in play. Time and again the character must answer which of two values is more important to him in the present situation. As no man can truly serve two masters, so too the character with a corner alignment must choose one over the other when they come to conflict. Frequently a pattern emerges, in which one character is more lawful and another more good, one more chaotic and another more evil. Before long the character is drifting toward the side alignment, beginning to look like he is dedicated to the one value, the other being little more than a statement of a theoretical preference to be discarded whenever the important value is at stake. Rare is the character who is so centered on the balance of the two values that he is equally devoted to each. Some of my lawful good characters are extremely lawful; others are more good. They got that way primarily because they had to make choices during play which set their values against each other, and each time they chose that choice defined them a bit more clearly, identifying them the more closely with one value, the less with the other.
Modern roleplaying theory makes much of the introduction of moral choices into play. I would not minimize this concept in recent game design, as it is often done extremely well, incentivizing play that addresses moral and ethical dilemmas. However, such conflicts of moral and ethical issues are at the heart of the old alignment system, and when it is allowed to function as intended it brings moral and ethical conflicts to the very core of the character’s definition. It is not the only nor the best way to introduce such issues in play; but it is a workable system that can create dynamic conflicts and raise difficult questions over which characters and players will agonize and debate at great length.
In my now classic defense of role playing games, Confessions of a Dungeons & Dragons™ Addict, I wrote,
In fact, the game gave us the opportunity to talk about moral, ethical, and spiritual questions with nonbelievers in a way we had never done before. It is a strong point of Dungeons & Dragons(tm) that it contains “alignment”: every player must decide whether his character is good or evil, lawful or chaotic. The character must then abide by that decision, and face the consequences of his actions whether he chooses something required by his beliefs, or turns against those beliefs to act otherwise. The player is also bound by that decision, but in a different way. The player controls his character in exactly the same way as the author of a book. Alignment is a major decision about a character, and the player must follow the alignment decision in other decisions he makes for the character in order to remain “in character”.
Alignment brought moral dimensions into play in ways that highlighted the rarity of such aspects in most other games. No one ever asked whether it was good to conquer all of Asia in Risk™, except if they were wondering about its strategic value. No one wondered whether taking your opponent’s chess queen off the board said something about the human condition. Few players of Monopoly™ ask whether their selfishness is in conflict with their belief in individual freedoms when they capture their fourth railroad and raise the rents on all those properties. Yet when a player is challenged to consider whether in this situation he should follow his moral or his ethical beliefs, and to recognize that they are in conflict, pointing to different choices under these circumstances, values are laid bare and truths are uncovered in ways and to depths that baseball never touched.
I do hope that these eight articles have opened new insights into the potential alignment holds in your games. It has been poorly understood, badly maligned, and generally rejected by many gamers, but still has great potential to make for much more interesting play when well understood and applied.
Next week, something different.
—–
M. Joseph Young is co-author of Multiverser and Vice President for Development at Valdron Inc. His many contributions to online literature are indexed for convenience, and he looks forward to discussing these things by e-mail or on our Gaming Outpost forums.
