I've been pondering the question of alignment for the last few days. The AD&D-style alignment system (LG, LN, LE, etc) is very much related to morals and values. Under this system, the player selects a moral code, such as Chaotic Good, and is expected to adhere by the tenets of that code or suffer various penalties, such as losing levels or certain class-based abilities. This is so far removed from the realm of "adventurous behavior" exhibited in Sword & Sorcery literature, that I marvel that the concept was included in D&D at all (more about that below).
The typical Sword & Sorcery protagonist ("hero" doesn't really seem to fit), exhibits behavioral and moral examples of all alignments. Revenge, greed, passion, honor, mercy, anger, pity, murderous rage, melancholy, curiosity, mischief, and so on and so on. In fact, it would be fair to say each Sword & Sorcery protagonist often has their own unique alignment. That moral ambiguity is often part of their attraction - they are wholly unpredictable, capable of great deeds of kindness one day and of shocking violence the next. Anything is possible. Does the Sword & Sorcery protagonist rescue the maiden from the arms of the ravisher to protect her honor, or because he wants her for himself? You have to finish the story to find out.
As to its inclusion in D&D, I suspect there was quite a bit of evolution involved. First there was Law and Chaos, and Neutrality. Given that the roots of these alignments are in Moorcock's works of the Eternal Champion, these "alignments" would have been more aptly termed "allegiances" or "obligations". As presented in Moorcock's world, Law and Chaos were forces you served, and in return your patrons gave you favors (if they were feeling whimsical or bored enough). Yet in D&D, Law and Chaos would come to mean Good and Evil, respectively. Elric of Melnibone, as a highly favored servant of Chaos, could no more have been considered wholly good or wholly evil than Conan or the Gray Mouser.
In a sense, the alignment system seems doomed to failure when applied to a Sword & Sorcery setting (and quite possibly other fantasy genres as well). It is an attempt to impose absolutes on an environment where anything should be possible. The ability for an adventurer to be capable of great charity one moment and great treachery the next should be celebrated, not penalized. As the character develops, so too does their own unique moral code. If there are obligations to be honored in return for power, such as those of the cleric or paladin, focusing on a generic alignment rather than a unique code of ethics seems to be a great waste of potential. Can one not obey the specifics of chivalry and still be twisted and resentful inside? Imagine the possibilities when the DM or player is free to disregard the restrictions of an arbitrary alignment system when developing a cleric's set of holy tenets!
To better reflect what I think "alignment" should be, in my future campaigns all characters would start as "Neutral" (or, perhaps more appropriately, "unaligned") with the possibility of taking on allegiances to Law and Chaos as the character develops (such as when that cleric gets their first spell at level 2, or the magic user gets that imp familiar). Whether there is an obligation to a higher power or not (with the accompanying risk of retribution for perceived offense), players will be encouraged to forge their own codes of ethics, just as they forge their own destinies.
I've always struggled with alignment. I think I agree with you that players should play their characters and let their actions determine where their alignment lays. The D&D system seems backwards. I'm contemplating running a game sometime in the near(er) future, and I need to really think about how I will approach alignment. I might just let character's have an alignment they wish to aspire to, and get rid of harsher penalties for straying. They just won't get experience points when roleplaying out of alignment. Unless they officially declare that their character is changing to another alignment to aspire to, that is. Hmmm, need to dwell on this some more...
ReplyDeleteYeah, I think of Law and Chaos as being extreme points of view, with 99% of the population of a fantasy world being neutral in respect to those to cosmic factions.
ReplyDeleteI've dumped all the alignment rules from my games, as everyone on a S&S world is Neutral Evil.
ReplyDeleteEven the do-goody hero.
Why? Because they are not proper heroes. They want fame, glory, treasure... Sometimes they are merciful enough, but usually that is related to some hidden agenda.
So, no heroes have an alignment. Paladins have a code to follow, but they are sometimes clever enough to twist it and still remain "honorable".
in my C&C game, which makes nods to S&S tropes but is not fully a S&S campaign, I eliminated alignment for PCs, but kept it for monsters, items, and, sometimes, for NPCs. I have had on a few occasions to remind players of the consquences of their actions - not so much in the strict AD&D way ("You're drifting into NE here, Joe") but in the sense that actions elected will influence the reaction of other groups and individuals to the players.
ReplyDeleteI was musing about the same thing the other day. Check out my beginning thoughts on alignment here.
ReplyDeleteI'm all for dumping alignment in games like LL and S&W.
ReplyDeleteAre you familiar with Stormbringer/Elric! The Allegiance system is pretty much exactly what you are talking about.
ReplyDeleteActually, the alignment system does make sense and does work - unfortunately only for very specific fantasy settings, settings with a clearly antimodern approach: Due to their highly stylised nature, campaigns primarily influenced by medieval literature, the works of Malory and Lord of the Rings (the novels, of course) pose a suitable environment for this kind of "ethical tryptich" of law, neutrality and chaos. For nearly any other approach, the concept as originally proposed needs quite heavy tinkering (if it isn't dumped in the first place).
ReplyDeleteOne point people seem to be missing is that alignment is really just an abstract game device whose purpose is to facilitate intuitive characterisation. I think the whole point of the alignment system is to provide a set of signposts for players (including the DM- especially the DM)- to let them navigate basic moral positions without a need for deep reflection. Knowing that system, if I see "Lawful Evil", a whole bunch of tropes are instantly unpacked for me , which allows me to run an NPC on the fly. This is handy of course, most especially in a world which includes furry footed hobbits and vile goblins.
ReplyDeleteS&S does offer other challenges, however. I have only to think of the time Conan spent with Belit as a murderous sea-reaver to agree whole-heartedly with Al's assessment of a proper S&S setting. I do think that the successful evocation of such a setting can only really be the goal of an experienced gaming group, however. With a group who know all of the proper tropes, and who understand that playing their character need not involve method acting, an alignment free system can work. The problem with less experienced players is the tendency towards in-character soul-searching at the table. In my view, complex characters are difficult to get right in a game meant to be more fun than thought provoking. Hamlet is just no fun to have along on a dungeon crawl...
If you feel that the players know their characters well enough to be able to respond to a fork in the road intuitively, then it will work. If your players are likely to be torn and conflicted to the point of halting the game with anxious cries of "What do I do, what do I DO?", then its best to keep the training wheels for now, I think.
Hmm...consider for a moment that D&D was closest to the S&S genre when it was in its earliest stages, i.e. back when alignment was limited to Law, Neutrality, and Chaos. And consider perhaps that Howard's Conan was actually Lawful in alignment, by the game's earliest definition...
ReplyDelete@Ragnardbard "training wheels" - love it! :)
ReplyDeleteI may be unduly influenced by Warhammer and CoC, considering that I'm posting on more of a DnD site, but I've always felt that alignment in general isn't terribly useful for playing a PC, but that Chaos/evil, at least, is helpful in a cosmological and plot-motivating sense. I like for there to be a hostile, alien force out there as an irredeemable opposing force, and for a human devotee of such to be insane per se, by virtue of such devotion.
ReplyDeleteThe contrary cosmic force of Law/good, I think is a bit more problematic, in that having a celestial cavalry out there, ready to save the day if the heroes drop the ball, runs counter to the goal of preserving dramatic tension.
Did you know that you and I run alignment in exactly the same way? All characters start Neutral except Clerics, who may begin with Law or Chaos aligments, depending on if they serve the gods of Law or Chaos, respectively. Everybody else can choose to change aligment in game, but it's mostly a moot point for most adventurers.
ReplyDeleteWow! Its great to see a general consensus developing here. I too, have always struggled with the morality based AD&D model and prefered the older law/chaos allegiance paradigm.
ReplyDeleteIts funny listening to the age old AD&D alignment debates on Roll for Initiative podcast, where again the 9 alignment system causes so much debate.
Anyways I have a post on this very topic which basically agrees with all that has been said above....
http://dungeondelving.blogspot.com/2010/01/alignment-and-alignment-languages.html
I don't even tell my PC's I'm graphing their actions on a -100 to 100 scale with 2 axis. I use it more for my own edification and for use with some worship and some magic. But the PCs are all started at zero, and their actions define what happens from there.
ReplyDeleteIt's always funny when a PC tells me that his actions would be percieved as something that is totally contrary to what I've graphed.