Am I insane? No - but I will address insanity in this essay.
Haven't I had enough of alignment debates throughout the past thirty years?
Yes, I have. This is not a debate. This is a treatment of alignment, and ethos,
in my own campaign setting.
Let's establish the outline and tone right from the start: I
do not believe in character alignment. I define alignment as orientation - an
agreement to pursue a common cause. To me, alignment is a group concept.
Organizations have alignment. Religions have alignment. Nations have alignment.
Individuals, in my opinion, do not. I believe we must fall back on ethos at
that point. Practices and principles make more sense to me than monolithic good
or evil.
During the history of the D&D game, alignment has been
treated differently almost from one edition to the next. In the beginning
(brown booklet), we had Law, Neutrality, and Chaos. These absolute alignments
equated to Good, Balance, and Evil. Very Moorcock-ian. Very abstract. Possibly,
too abstract. Maybe it was just the names that gave me fits. Nazi Germany was
all about Law. Most people would deny that it was Good. Robin Hood broke the
laws of the land to benefit the common people. Few would call him Evil for
doing so. Neutrality, back then, seemed to be a catch-all for everything in
between. Chronologically, the D&D game then progressed into Good and Evil
to expand the absolutes of Law and Chaos. Now, Law implied order and Chaos was
about individuality. Neutrality still sat quietly in the middle. This was
alignment in the Holmes book. With the Basic Set, alignment went back to Law,
Neutrality, and Chaos for Good, Vanilla, and Evil. For the scope of this essay,
I choose not to stray further into AD&D or later editions. For the most
part, they all subscribed to the full Law-Chaos and Good-Evil ranges...until
4e.
Like many DMs, I have experienced the frustration of players
who use alignment as an excuse to be abusive and/or obnoxious in-game. I have
also encountered players that absolutely cannot play any alignment except for
Neutral Good, regardless of class, race, or actual character alignment.
Sometimes, Chaotic Good. For a long time, I asked myself why the game even
included rules for alignment.
I mean, who just rides down a city street blasting innocent bystanders for no good reason --- oh...right.
Why alignment? For role-playing purposes. That is one
answer. To help the hapless player run his/her character in the
"proper" fashion. If that is the case, then alignment is definitely
an outmoded concept as we all seem to have a decent handle on good and evil in
a typical fantasy setting. Personally, I prefer to let race and class inform my
role-playing. In fact, in my current campaign, it is assumed you are running a
heroic adventurer. This means you are risking life and limb for more than just
treasure and fame - you are also up for noble quests and rescuing damsels in
distress. In short, you try to do "the right thing." You will become
famous someday - not infamous.
This is an important distinction in my game.
Under the presumption that the player characters are heroes,
the basics of alignment are well established from the start. Obviously and
absolutely, the characters are not evil. Period. Simple. Note, this does not
mean they are necessarily "good." As a DM, I want the players and
characters to act and react according to the circumstances of the campaign, not
by the artificial tenets of some abstract code of conduct. Alignment is a
metagaming concept - that is to say, a device for encouraging the player to
consider the rule before the role. I want a player to be gaming as much
in-character as possible. I don't want them to be skimming the rulebook or
relying upon a die roll for every little thing.
Remember when I mentioned insanity at the beginning of this
essay? Someone that is always Lawful Good or always Chaotic Evil is probably
out of their mind. Of course, this applies mostly to human beings. I do not
believe very much in human nature and suspect that there are precious few
people in our mundane world who are truly "good" at all times. I feel
we all have good intentions - but these can be thrown right over if the
temptation or gain are great enough. We have laws to keep people in line,
right? I think it would be more accurate to say we have laws to inform those
who might want to do something "wrong" just what the consequences are
of their actions. Laws become a deterrent more than a guideline. We choose not
to commit crimes because we fear the punishments.
But, this is a fantasy world. We have true mustache-twirling
villains. We have gods of good and bad. We have dragons. We have knights in
shining armor on white horses. We have demons. We have angels. There is good
and evil because these concepts serve to define the genre. The heroes are free
to hack and slay the monsters and bad guys because the heroes are GOOD and the
bad guys are EVIL. Stomp on the gas and have at it. But, for my money, drama
and pathos can also come from those gray areas in between. Pathos? No, that's
not a Musketeer. That is the quality of a story that encourages you to feel
actual emotion for a character. Why do they bother giving Ensign Jerry a name
when they are just going to kill him the minute the away team sets foot on the
alien planet? Why bother mentioning he has a little sister back home? What is
the point of making him the captain's childhood friend? So you feel a little
lump in your throat when he dies in some senseless way to show how evil the
villain really is.
What about the stuff that falls in the shadows? What about
the thief that steals the relic that is the only way to save the village from a
terrible plague, only to sell the thing without realizing the true value or
importance of the item he swiped? Is this thief evil? Not really, no. He is
opportunistic and dishonest. He stole the relic for profit - not out of spite.
He doesn't even know about the plague, he just wants a score. Would he have
stolen the relic had he known? Maybe. Maybe not. That is the appeal of the
gray. Suddenly, the "villain" of the adventure becomes more
three-dimensional than a monolithic evil mastermind who throws innocent people
to the sharks just to show what an evil mastermind he is. The thief becomes
someone with motivations and possibilities. He becomes a person that might not
be so easily slain on sight - because he deserves punishment instead of
execution. He might even become an ally if the player characters can convince
him of the error of his ways. Maybe he has a mother in the plague-ridden
village. Maybe he'd want to save her. You have to interact with him to find out
- and not with a sword.
This brings us to ethos. Ethos begins where alignment fails.
Lawful Good? All the time? If you happen to be a paladin, maybe. If you've
sworn an oath, we can believe a little easier. But, does the paladin uphold her
oath because she believes it is right - or because she risks losing all her
nifty powers? Faith or fear? This is ethos.
I believe in ethos. Not WHAT you do, but WHY you do it. Are
you not breaking the law because it is the right thing to do? Are you doing it
because you've never had a good reason to do otherwise? Because everyone else
is doing it and you want to belong to the majority? Because you fear the
consequences of doing otherwise? What will you do when presented with the
"hard choice?" What will you risk your freedom or life for? Where do
you draw the line? That is your ethos - not your alignment. Alignment can be an
adequate tool to guide you along the way, but ethos is what you have when you
reach the edge and have to decide whether to jump or hesitate. This is where my
interest lies. This suits my preference in engaging the PLAYER as much as the
CHARACTER.
Is there monolithic Good and Evil in the D&D game? Of
course there is. Any game with alignment-oriented planes of existence and
afterlives can claim such. Any game with angels, devas, demons, and devils is
going to have extremes of light and dark. Magic items and artifacts can
certainly be dedicated to Good or Evil. And so on. Are such extremes of
alignment suitable for player characters or ordinary monsters? Should they
serve as absolute reminders of how we should be running our characters during
the game? Are they really necessary? I don't think so.