Critical Hits

Everything tabletop gaming since 2005

Bad Alignment

by

From my first exposure to the game, when there were just the three alignments and I was creating a dwarf named Thorin Silversword, alignment seemed so artificial and unyielding, like a saccharin straightjacket. When complexity was folded into the mix, in the form of good and evil, and the three options ballooned to nine, the straightjacket became vented, silk-lined, and double-breasted, very fancy and good for an evening out, but still, you know, lashed in the back and making dancing a challenge. Yes, I’m pleased that 4E gave alignments a good shake, reducing the number to five, but I still feel like that might be five too many.

Alignment was supposed to inform the player what the character would do in a given circumstance, except, of course, it didn’t. Most of my friends would take alignments that impacted their gameplay the least. Tell me if this sounds familiar: “Because I’m [alignment], I can do anything I want.” “Because I’m True Neutral, I can do anything I want.”  “Because I’m Chaotic Neutral, I can do anything I want.”  “Because I’m Neutral Evil, I can do anything I want.” At best, they would wind up playing a variation of Chaotic Cartman.

About the only alignment that actively restricted a player’s actions at the table was the big scarlet LG, which stands for Lame Guy. This was the buzz-kill, the wet blanket. This was the droopy dog who would show mercy to the enemy, march the rogue to the authorities, and get in the way of a good torture session. He would also avoid the gambling halls and the houses of ill repute, the silly twit.

Needless to say, this was the alignment I frequently chose. And even when I didn’t, I kind of did. I had a Lawful Good Monk (who started as Lawful Neutral), I had a Neutral Good Magic-user/Cleric (who obeyed the laws of the land and preached goodness and temperance to the party), and a Neutral halfling Fighter (who would sacrifice himself for the sake of another). Yeah, I’m the dope who bought into all that heroism nonsense, who fought for the greater good, who wanted to be more than I was in this thing called “real life.”

The thing is, I would have acted that way regardless of some 2-letter notation on my character sheet. It was “me as player” getting in the way of “me as character.” I’ve played a black-hearted Necromancer who would always think of others first, a lawless pickpocket who endangered himself to protect an NPC child, and a psychotic half-ogre who became BFF’s with the party dwarf. When I have tried to be the villain, I’ve always wound up as the hero. Or failing that, as the cuddliest, wuddliest villain you ever did see.

Clearly, this is a role-playing problem with me, but I feel like I’m not the only one. I’ve known players who portray jerks and scoundrels and traitors effortlessly, and more often than not, that’s all they ever play. Every single one of their characters fit into that mold. I’m not saying these people are chaotic or evil or neutral in real life (any more than I’m saying I’m lawful or good in real life, as you know if you’ve ever driven slowly in front of me). However, these did seem to be roles that came very easy to them – that perhaps came automatically to them – and they went right into that flow. In moments of high stress, that persona came out. It didn’t matter what was written on the character sheet.

There was so much misinterpretation (or reinterpretation) of alignments, one of the Players Handbooks included a story about a how a party of nine differently-aligned characters would act inside a battle. There’s also that excellent nine-panel representation of comic book characters, with Superman as Lawful Good, Wolverine as Neutral Good, the Joker as Chaotic Evil, and so on. It even includes quotes from real-live often dead famous people demonstrating what a person of that alignment thinks. Both of these were show-don’t-tell exercises, and both were brilliantly constructed, marvelously executed, and universally ignored.

People (and I reluctantly include myself in this group) just went on playing their characters however they bloody well pleased, never stopping to think, “Wait, Chaotic Neutral means cheese-off-the-cracker crazy? You’re saying I should occasionally attack characters in my own party, just to stay in-character? That doesn’t seem fun at all.”

And it probably wouldn’t be, assuming you want to be invited back to games. DMs could make with the giant hammer of enforcement (YOU ARE A LAWFUL GOOD PALADIN AND YOU JUST COMMITTED AN EVIL ACT… PREPARE FOR YOUR JUDGMENT!), but that would only result in more people jumping over the chaos / neutrality fence. After all, if chaos equals unpredictability, who’s to say you wouldn’t help that orphanage? Wouldn’t that be unpredictable?

All of this is to propose the following: let’s just do away with alignment. Let’s have a big farewell dinner, and then shuffle alignment out the door with a pat on the back and a nice gold watch. It was great working with you all these years, you were always prompt and reliable, but we need to go in a new direction, and your time is over. Collect your last paycheck at the reception desk, and please don’t flirt with Pam on your way out.

Of course, that would leave us with a sad and gaping hole on our character sheets, and we certainly couldn’t allow that. What if we replaced alignment with something more accessible and dynamic, like Personality? Players would put a single word in here which would act as a touchstone for decisions. The word would be a suggestion rather than a mandate, and there would be no hovering punishments for players who stepped outside of their touchstone word.

For example, I could write the word Selfish or Angry or Gentle or Hopeful, and then, over the course of the game, I could think, “How would I act in this circumstance? How would a selfish / angry / gentle / hopeful person act?” While playing, I might discover an evolution in the character, as my Coward becomes Noble, as my Brawler finds Fear.

I think there’s definitely room for exploration here. More importantly, it’s a simplification of an aspect that can be opaque to new players. How is good different than Lawful Good? Why not just call it super-duper good? How is evil any different than chaotic evil? “Well, you have to understand, this one would kill you and your family and then burn your house down, but that one would do all those things AND kick the dog on the way out.”

Compare that to telling a new player, “Think about your character and come up with a one-word description.” That player might pause and then say, “Stubborn,” and you’re off to the races. I have to say, that sounds a lot easier.

Comments

  2. Actually the 4th edition phb includes a “personality traits” section in the character creation chapter, whic
    h also has a space in the official character sheet. It is almost identical to what you propose.
    Like alignment, it is universally ignored, which is probably why you missed it.

  3. I’m convinced that alignment has a place, but it needs to be more flexible and to get rid of neutral.

    In my case I make players choose between what is in essence law and chaos, good and evil, and which of the two is more important. I also make sure the only thing it impacts is how they FEEL about their issues.

    You could have a “Lawful Good” villain, who feels deep guilt and regret over his actions. Or a Heroic Evil Chaotic necromancer who feels inside like he’s a clown being taken advantage of by others and deep desire to stand up for himself and ‘get his’ or ‘make them pay’. Its how you feel about what you do, not what you do.

    for more:
    http://zzarchov.blogspot.com/2009/07/alignment-and-morality-topic-sure-to-go.html
    .-= Zzarchov´s last blog ..Giving some control over ones destiny – now with darts! =-.

  4. I would bet that every single one of my players is “unaligned,” or “good.” I find alignment so vague now as to be irrelevant. The reason I have to bet on my players’ alignments is because I’ve never asked. What’s important to the story is not alignment, but character. And it’s not like we have “detect evil” anymore, so who would even know if your party rogue is evil unless he tells you through his actions?

    I’ll paraphrase Dollhouse–it’s not what we think, what we will be or have done, it’s what we’re doing now that defines us. That’s all there is to it.

    If I ask a player why he chose an action, I’d be flustered by a response of “my alignment made me do it.” I instead expect the player to explain why, in the context of his character’s experiences and temperament, he chose that action. Alignment alone doesn’t provide that context.

    Although, all this from a chick who plays characters that have no self control and do whatever they want, impulsively, so there’s a grain of salt to be had regarding my own attitude towards my own alignment.
    .-= Jenny Snyder´s last blog ..A word from our sponser… =-.

  5. The main issue here is the cosmology and the magic. I don’t like alignment either, but I see it as a necessary evil (no pun intended).

    What would we do about spells like:

    -Protection from evil
    -Magic circle against evil
    -Blasphemy
    -Chaos Hammer

    And abilities like:

    -Damage Reduction
    -Detect Evil
    -Smite Evil
    .-= Bahamut´s last blog ..Talleres =-.

  6. In response to Bahamut, I would suggest doing away with such spells and abilities, as its done in 4E
    Simply removing alignment-detecting spells does wonders to any intrigue-based campaign

  7. Thanks for the answer. Yeah, I forgot to mention I’m playing Pathfinder.

    I guess you could do away with the spells, but abilities such as Smite Evil and the whole paladin concept are more tricky to adjust.

    I’ll tinker with that a little.
    .-= Bahamut´s last blog ..Talleres =-.

  8. Bahamut: I always thought it (Smite Evil) was more interesting to just have it work against strongly evil monsters like Demons, Devils, and Undead. Take the guess work out.

  9. I’m all for ‘out with alignments’! I’d put Beliefs, Goals and quirks instead… but then again, I’m a closet Indie game fan now.

  10. One of the nice things about 4e is that your alignment doesn’t really matter. You can be good or evil or unaligned, but it doesn’t actually have any mechanical effect on your character. You can completely ignore it (as my group does.)

    This contrasts starkly with 3rd edition, which had hundreds of different feats, spells, items and effects that targeted or triggered on alignments. It was nearly impossible to strip alignment out of your 3rd edition game.
    .-= pworthen´s last blog ..World’s Largest City =-.

  12. My group have ditched the alignment system the moment we started playing 4th edition, and never looked back. Instead we do almost the exact same thing as you, and fill in the Alignment spot on our sheets with a one-word virtue or vice. Reading over the manuals made us realize just how much ye olde alignment system got in the way of genuinely cool characters, and certain situations that we’ve been through really blur the lines between good and evil.

    Example: The party is a group of spies sent to the heart of enemy territory in order to sabotage and aid the war effort back home as much as possible. One day, their conversations are overheard by an innocent passersby, and they chase her down and are presented with a conundrum – kill her and save thousands of soldiers lives, or let her live and have their plans fail? Is one of those decisions truly evil, good or neutral? How does someone act in this situation? Does a chaotic evil person look at the person and say “Let her go, so more people will die!” or “Kill her, I want to see her DIE!”? Does a good person say “Let her go, we can’t kill an innocent person.” or “We must kill her for the greater good.”?

    The group eventually decided to kill her in cold blood, and it was probably the most dramatic event we’ve ever had to go through as a group. It was such an awesome narrative, and the players [two of them new to DND] were immediately thinking of how their characters would act after the fact and judging themselves.

  15. I’m with Peter and Phil about using beliefs, though I do like the simplicity of a Virtue or Vice that fits neatly into the emptied Alignment slot.

    The nice thing about beliefs (or passions, instincts, duties, or whatever they might be called) is they give you insight into what the players want from their characters. Imagine a player writes these three beliefs for their character after you deliver the campaign blurb:

    “I am the greatest swordsman in Elidor.”
    “I don’t need the gold, just the fame.”
    “I must reach the MacGuffin Sword before Count B. Beg does!”

    Not only do they give the DM an interesting picture of the character, but they can guide the player in many situations better than an alignment can. (Depending on the players, too, writing those before characters are generated might make for less focus on optimal builds in favour of more character personality.)
    .-= d7´s last blog ..Paizo’s response to criticism of their portrayal of women =-.

  16. I’ve used alignment as a metaphysical label for the character. I like the idea of amoral law vs chaos from Moorcock’s and Anderson’s works. That’s why I prefer the basic D&D alignment system to ad&d or 3.x.

    4E system is ok too, but I’d make it LG-L-none-C-CE where L/C would present otherworldly corruption or dedication (eg. priesthood) and LG/CE full-blown dedication, corruption or servitude. LG could be preservers, servants of astral powers or vassals of benevolent gods. CE could serve destructive elemental powers.

    Anyway, I don’t currently use alignment in my 4E campaigns since there are finally no alignment-based spells/powers (with a couple exceptions).

  17. @ Vandell

    To kill or not kill is of course a logical fallacy since there were many more options. You could’ve imprisoned him and later let him go, charmed him, tinkered with his memory, intimidated or bribed him etc.

    LG doesn’t have to mean Lawful Stupid. Playing a character with strong principles creates great roleplaying possibilities although I’ve always disliked the pre 4E paladin. His unbreakable code of conduct always becomes code for the rest of the group too.

  20. I also agree with the idea that Mouse Guard/Burning Wheel style writing beliefs, instincts, & goals are much more useful than alignments. Traits are useful as well such as fearless or curious. They provide much more insight to the DM and the rest of the players as well as giving you an easy guide to roleplay your character. Instead straight jacketing you with these beliefs and traits you are encouraged to play against them. That creates interesting dramatic conflict for your character.

  21. The only characters I’d see have any real problems with not having alignment would be divine.

    I’d say Divine characters should be the same alignment of their god and act according to their tenants. Everyone else would probably be a little more neutral and then it kinda depends on whether or not you adhere to the laws or not. 4e took a step in the right direction by minimizing it.

    I’ve had this same conversation with my cousin when playing once and it turned into an ethics debate.
    .-= Marc´s last blog ..lawlDnD: Good game last night guys. My favorite part was you guys making your ship survive the crash landing. Promise to be more prepared next week. =-.

  22. Ah, alignment. Nothing in the history of gaming has been quite as malformed, maligned, and misused.

    In addition to the Burning Wheel model, I’d also suggest you check out Aspects from Spirit of the Century/FATE. Extremely powerful, infinitely flexible, and most importantly they actually have some mechanical impact.

    Which is my basic problem with the “just replace it with a word” solution. If alignment has no impact on play, would a random word have more impact? Most of my characters can’t be boiled down to a single word. Even if they could, what’s the actual benefit of putting it on the sheet? I don’t get any benefit from being, say, “Stubborn,” and there is no penalty for ignoring it. So, why not just call it “Lawful?”

    The one possible benefit of calling it out is to serve as a flag to your DM and other players. But, if that is what you are doing, I would suggest using much more than a single word. There are a dozen good systems out there for using simple words and phrases to start the conversation with your DM about what kind of play you want to see.

    As a final note, try thinking of alignments as political parties. There is no “one right way” to be a Republican. Similarly, there is no “one right way” to be Chaotic. And, you can agree with your party on 99% of the issues, but have an opinion on one particular one that is radically different from the norm. And, yet, you’d still well deserve that label. Alignment should call out which team you want to play for in the campaign, not be a list of allowable actions.
    .-= Lugh´s last blog ..Advice we can all take to heart =-.

  23. Oh man. I was going to throw out that this is why I miss some of my White Wolf gaming roots. Say what you want, but the old Archetype system was a great little tool, finding a middle ground between a game mechanic and your roleplaying concept. Of course on the way to type that I read the comments and of course the current White Wolf thing (No more Archetypes in current edition apparently) is to use Virtues and Vices, just as you guys said. Just throwing that out there. If you’re not familiar with the old WW archetype system check it out. Doesn’t jive with D&D but it was pretty robust…you didn’t have to worry about simplifying a moral stance to a word.

CC License

All articles and comments posted posted on the site (but not the products for sale) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. References to trademarks and copywritten material are included for review and commentary use only and are not intended as any kind of challenge.

Recent Comments

Contact The Staff

Critical Hits staff can be reached via the contact information on their individual staff pages and in their articles. If you want to reach our senior staff, email staff @ critical-hits.com. We get sent a lot of email, so we can't promise we'll be able to respond to everything.

Recent Posts

Top Posts & Pages