MY FINAL WORD ON ALIGNMENTS

Much has been written about alignments, mostly due to the inherent problems with them. Poorly defined - and naturally so since ethical concerns are too frequently subjective or relative to one's own culture, position, situation, and/or feelings - and all too frequently used only as a short cut for those who lack the imagination to come up with better reasons why conflicts might arise in a game that thrives on conflict - a lot of misunderstandings and bad feelings have come from alignments and the varying views on how best to play them. So many, in fact, one wonders if the original intent of putting them in a game isn't lost.

After all, alignments were meant to save time by using shorthand notation as to how NPCs might react or how PCs might work together in a variety of situations. Weren't they? Or were they just meant to give PCs an excuse to fight against anyone of a widely differing alignment and generate artificial conflict for a game that doesn't do as well without conflict? Well, who really knows? Let's give the authors of AD&D the benefit of the doubt and go with the former rather than the latter.

Unfortunately, with so many different ideas as to the proper way to treat alignments, define alignments, and look at a character's ethical make up, disputes were bound to happen. So many disputes, in fact, that the time spent dealing with them rivals any time that may have been saved by using such shorthand notations in the first place.

The alignment system almost begs to be let go and forgotten and taken out of the game entirely for the sake of harmonious play. Alas, people and players being what they are, they would almost certainly find other reasons to bicker and argue. So perhaps alignments are not the true culprits and are not as bad as one may think. Thus, they might yet be saved if used properly. They are, after all, useful, despite their shortcomings.

This lengthy paper was written in the hopes that a better understanding of alignments, what they are, and how to play them could in some small way help you, the player, avoid the so called Alignment Wars. That is, the arguments and bad feelings between players - and not between PCs or NPCs. To that end, I have in large part reproduced the text of the 2nd edition Player's Handbook from pages 46 to 49. This is Chapter 4: Alignment. Within that text I will make comments between their paragraphs using bold text to offset my remarks from the PHB's, and to give you some possible problems and mistakes I feel are a source of trouble. Eventually, after commenting on their text, I will finish by trying to define in more realistic terms the alignments, give some methods and/or suggestions as to how the DM can help avoid alignment conflict between the player's PCs, and, in general, wrap up the paper with any additional or final thoughts about alignments based on my 20 years experience with the game of AD&D. Then, just for fun, at the end I have included an alignment quiz that will help you decide your character's alignment - or perhaps your own alignment ;-)

CHAPTER 4: ALIGNMENT

"After all other steps toward creating a character have been completed, the player must choose an alignment for the character. In some cases (especially the paladin), the choice of alignment may be limited."

Right away this strikes me as at least superficially wrong. It has been my experience that alignment considerations frequently arise long before all other steps are completed. If this is not the case, for example, and someone has built a character of a particular class that just happens to have alignment restrictions, then naturally they'd feel like a straitjacket was placed upon them. "What do you mean, my paladin has to be LAWFUL GOOD?" or "What? Why does my ranger have to be GOOD?" Springing alignment restrictions on a player as a last step in character generation is just plain wrong. Properly done, after a player has a general idea of the character they wish to play, alignment should be one of the first things considered just to avoid the feeling of being forced into something you don't want to play after all. I know this may seem like I'm taking the book too literally, but I find comments like that frequently add to the problem and they should be excised wherever possible.

"The character's alignment is a guide to his basic moral and ethical attitudes toward others, society, good, evil, and the forces of the universe in general. Use the chosen alignment as a guide to provide a clearer idea of how a character will handle moral dilemmas. Always consider alignment as a tool, not a straight jacket that restricts the character. Although alignment defines general attitudes, it certainly doesn't prevent a character form changing his beliefs, acting irrationally, or behaving out of character."

This is true, or at least, it should be - especially the part about alignments being used as a guide. Unfortunately, many players approach alignments as something that compels their characters to act in a certain way rather than acting as they wish. It is the PC's actions - and their reasons for them - that come first, and their alignment is based upon these things - not the other way around.

However, I start to take exception to the very notion that alignments have cosmic, universal significance - "The forces of the universe in general." All too often, except for the very, very, rare and unusual circumstances, a PC's actions do not have universal consequences. The very idea that universal balance is somehow dependent on an individual's actions is ludicrous on its face. A lot of the AD&D alignment justifications held early on this cosmic importance and incorporated them into the alignment's very definition. Then the authors go out of their way to say in some instances that such people with such an alignment are so rare as to be almost nonexistent. This shows already even they didn't think their cosmic ideas about alignments were that common or useful for game purposes. After all, if the way they define an alignment is such that hardly anyone would qualify, then what good is it? Better to define alignments as something most people and PCs can relate to, and not epic, far-reaching cosmic forces, but rather the typical, more reasonable social concerns.

"Alignment is divided into two sets of attitudes: order and chaos, and good and evil. By combining the variations within the two sets, nine distinct alignments are created. These nine alignments serve well to define the attitudes of most people in the world."

LAW, NEUTRALITY, AND CHAOS

"Attitudes toward order and chaos are divided into three opposing beliefs. Picture these beliefs as points of a triangle, all pulling away from each other. The three beliefs are law, chaos, and neutrality. One of these represents each character's ethos - his understanding of society and relationships."

Again, right away I don't like the way they depict this as a triangle. It should be more linear, with law and chaos opposing one another and neutrality in the middle, to varying degrees, a compromise of the notions between law and chaos.

"Characters who believe in law maintain that order, organization, and society are important, indeed vital, forces of the universe. The relationships between people and government exist naturally. Lawful philosophers maintain that this order is not created by Man but is a natural law of the universe. Although Man does not create orderly structures, it is his obligation to function within them, lest the fabric of everything crumble. For less philosophical types, lawfulness manifests itself in the belief that laws should be made and followed, if only to have understandable rules for society. People should not pursue personal vendettas, for example, but should present their claims to the proper authorities. Strength comes from unity of action, as can be seen in guilds, empires, and powerful churches."

The dichotomy of the alignment system's basis already becomes apparent with this paragraph. They strive to define it once for philosophers and once again for the common man, as if they are two different things with two different positions and two different definitions. Mostly, this is the fault of looking for cosmic significance where none exists. Trying to build a system of ethical behavior based on the false premise that one's action here may alter reality in another country, let alone another galaxy, seems silly. Yet, for the extreme epics - epics are fantastic stories which I already have a problem with just because they are at odds with reasonable probabilities - I suppose some scenarios may be - and have been - contrived where the fate of the very UNIVERSE depended upon the actions of a single individual. But let's face it, people; if you define the alignment system on such rare or nearly unique actions or situations, practically all people will not qualify under that definition. This is why they must always tell us what the common man thinks after they go on about the philosopher - and this is particularly annoying to me since I am a pretty philosophical person. Yet since I don't agree with their philosophy, this suggests I'm not philosophical.

Since their philosophical take on the matter is nearly useless due to its rarity and sometimes complete difference from what the common man thinks, the philosopher and his view on the cosmic significance of alignments is faulty and must go. It simply isn't useful or common enough to bother with, and taken the wrong way - as many people have done, including the authors, I'm sorry to say - it can lead to some silly, unrealistic alignment disputes. Such things rarely happen in real life, and if you'd rather have a more realistic system than the artificial method of generating conflict, we had better revisit the definitions of these philosophies.

"Those espousing neutrality tend to take a more balanced view of things. They hold that for every force in the universe, there is an opposite force somewhere. Where there is lawfulness, there is also chaos; where there is neutrality, there is also partisanship. The same is true of good and evil, life and death. What is important is that all these forces remain in balance with each another. If one factor becomes ascendant over its opposite, the universe becomes unbalanced. If enough of these polarities go out of balance, the fabric or reality could pull itself apart. For example, if death became ascendant over life, the universe would become a barren wasteland."

As you can see, they have already backed away from their Law/Chaos - neutral triangle and now have neutrality as a balance, like the fulcrum of a lever or the middle of a seesaw. Rather than a force pulling both law and chaos out of line, it is the middle ground ON the line. But this is minor. And though the cosmic thought that there are two sides to everything - like a coin, good and evil, law and chaos, etc. - has merit, the belief that it is up to you, the individual, to maintain this balance on a cosmic scale is ridiculous. In fact, some describe neutrality as an absolute faith in the balance of the universe. The universe seems to take care of itself; you can't have one side without the other. And yet, for some strange reason, they lose their very faith in neutrality when a small localized imbalance may appear, even to the point of feeling compelled to personally correct the scales of the universe - either initially siding with the underdog for no other reason than the fact they are the underdog, or perhaps even changing sides in mid-battle. Who are these people? And what happened to their faith? If what they believed before was true, if you can't have one side without the other, then anything they or anyone else does cannot destroy that balance or correct it. How do you make a one sided coin anyway? And if someone gave you a one sided coin, how could you fix it? Clearly, such things are beyond us. Have faith, let it alone, and the universe will balance itself. Take action, and you will demonstrate to all your lack of faith in the balance of the universe, thus proving you are NOT neutral after all - according to that definition - but something else. Of course, this again assumes a cosmic significance to neutrality, and that's a silly and unrealistic way to look at it.

In fact, it is so silly that they failed to come up with an example on the Law/Chaos scale - which is what they are currently talking about - as to how the universe might come to a screeching halt. Even the example they made for the Good/Evil scale - which is an odd example to use in a discussion about law and chaos - only worked when they equated good to life and evil to death, even though life is not necessarily good, and death is not necessarily evil. Then their example had death in ascendance, destroying life and leaving a dead universe. But even this didn't bring the universe to an end, and no argument was given as to why a universe with life was intrinsically superior to one with no life. In the beginning, after all, the universe started out with the big bang and NO life. Yet, somehow, the evolution of life - life's ascendancy - didn't seem to bother these philosophers of neutrality at that time. Go figure. But clearly, this particular fault lies with equating good to life and evil to death rather than an actual problem with universal balance.

"Philosophers of neutrality not only presuppose the existence of opposites, but they also theorize that the universe would vanish should one opposite destroy the other (since nothing can exist without its opposite). Fortunately for these philosophers (and all sentient life) the universe seems to be efficient at regulating itself. Only when a powerful, unbalancing force appears (which almost never happens) need the defender of neutrality become seriously concerned."

Defenders of neutrality? Who are these cosmic-knights, these self-appointed watchdogs of the universe? I certainly don't see them around here in the real world. Even the authors went out of their way to state - "which almost never happens" - because they knew such things were so rare as to be next to valueless or ridiculous. And all of this is again based on the notion that alignments are perfect cosmic forces, intrinsic properties of the universe, well defined, or some ever-present powers that be. How can they maintain this premise when they also go out of their way to say many such considerations are relative after all? Apparently, even they do not believe what they are saying. And for some reason, while defining them as such, it is now supposed to be up to the individual character to fight for these? That seems a bit like fighting to maintain the universal gravitational constant, as if you could affect it anyway.

I think characters are more concerned with themselves, their family and friends, their coworkers, their village or city, their nation or country, or even their world or religion long before they'll ascribe to abstract philosophies that make them responsible for the entire universe. To base the alignment system on something like that is to make it nearly useless.

"The believers in chaos hold that there is no preordained order or careful balance in the forces of the universe. Instead they see the universe as a collection of things and events, some related to each other and others completely independent. They tend to hold that individual actions account for the differences in things and that events in one area do not alter the fabric of the universe halfway across the galaxy. Chaotic philosophers believe in the power of the individual over their own destiny and are fond of anarchistic nations. Being more pragmatic, non-philosophers recognize the function of society in protecting their individual rights. Chaotics can be hard to govern as a group, since they place their own needs and desires above those of society."

You see, according to this what I have said before means I'm chaotic, despite my overly strong belief in law, government, society, or order, etc., all because I have an idea that killing an orc on one planet in no way affects how a pixie might behave in another galaxy, far, far away. Altering the balance of the universe in such a manner is nonsense. This is a poor way to define chaos. How can my ideas of the necessity of law and order be thrown out and described as chaos simply because I don't believe actions here significantly affect actions far, far away - especially on the galactic scale? Obviously, when one tries to incorporate the false cosmic notion into what are, for the most part, real 'Down To Earth' social and behavioral concerns, one is going to get it wrong. Furthermore, the idea that Chaotics place their own desires above those of society is misleading. Evil people do that, not Chaotics. Chaotics place the individual's rights over the rights of the society. It is the individual in the abstract, and not the concrete individual of one particular character, who is to benefit most, so I think they are already getting certain ideas of chaos and evil mixed together. This should be avoided.

GOOD, NEUTRALITY, AND EVIL

"Like law and order, the second set of attitudes is also divided into three parts. These parts describe, more or less, a character's moral outlook; they are his internal guidepost to what is right and wrong."

No argument there. Except, I think the authors of the PHB meant to say "Like law and chaos" and not "Like law and order," for the first sentence of this paragraph.

"Good characters are just that. They try to be honest, charitable, and forthright. People are not perfect, however, so few are good all the time. There are always occasional failings or weaknesses. A good person, however, worries about his errors and normally tries to correct any damage done."

Though the first sentence of the above paragraph is valueless, the rest of the paragraph is essentially correct, and the last sentence makes up for the first. Good people ARE concerned for others and they DO worry about their own errors and they WOULD try to correct them. Evil people are not concerned about such things.

"Remember, however, that goodness has no absolute values. Although many things are commonly accepted as good (helping those in need, protecting the weak), different cultures impose their own interpretations on what is good and what is evil."

Yet they never felt compelled to tell us how such a thing like Detect Good or Detect Evil or Know Alignment made such value judgments in such absolute terms. It was almost as if they clearly intended such things to have absolute definitions at first, but then backed away from that position when they realized the relativity of many moral concerns - i.e. it was as if they had intended for alignments to be absolute universal truths, but had to later back away from that position since it was obviously wrong.

Much of AD&D's alignment system was written from the viewpoint of the Lawful Good individual ONLY. After all, it did seem in some instances that GOOD was favored over EVIL by the authors of the game since they clearly gave many GOOD things in AD&D the advantage. For example, Rangers have to be good. Where is their evil counter part? They should at least give us an explanation as to why Rangers have to be good? Paladins can only be Lawful Good. Why? Can other, non-Lawful Good gods NOT have 'holy' warriors as well? And when some aligned magic items made the scene, the good ones were better, more powerful, or simply had more charges than their evil counter parts. Clearly, a lot of AD&D was written from the absolute standpoint of the Lawful Good position rather than that of a relative standpoint.

Do people with EVIL alignments think of themselves as evil? Or is evil something one calls them simply because they call themselves good? Wouldn't those 'evil' people call the 'good' people evil? It's a real mess, that's for certain.

At least the authors recognize the fact there is a relative element to all this, even if much of the alignment system was based on less relative, more absolute, and rather dogmatic points of view.

"Those with a neutral moral stance often refrain from passing judgment on anything. They do not classify people, things, or event as good or evil; what is, is. In some cases, this is because the creature lacks the capacity to make moral judgments (animals fall into this category). Few normal creatures do anything for good or evil reasons. They kill because they are hungry or threatened. They sleep where they find shelter. They do not worry about the moral consequences of their actions - their actions are instinctive."

This is one of three or more ways to look at neutrality. For the animal, of course, they are correct, and creatures of non-intelligence, animal-intelligence, or semi-intelligence - 0, 1, or 2-4 - are so different from us that trying to force our - more intelligent - outlook on them is a mistake. Thus, their neutral designation is only applicable when neutrality isn't looked upon as a wild desire to balance nature or the universe, but is instead regarded as simply a middle ground between law and chaos, or good and evil. This makes all animals neutral by virtue of the default position and a lack of concern for the extremes.

Animals are naturally not concerned with such things since they don't have the intellect to think and be concerned about such abstract things, and would therefore be considered neutral. The virtue of having neutrality as a "lack of concern" over the extremes is that one need not define neutrality differently for animals than for people. Thus, there are those who lack concern because they lack the intelligence - like animals - while some other's lack of concern stems from more philosophical reasons - like a druid or a NN character. In either event, it is the lack of lawful OR chaotic desires that makes the character Neutral, and not some cosmic concerns for universal balance.

"Evil is the antithesis of good and appears in many ways, some overt and others quite subtle. Only a few people of evil nature actively seek to cause harm or destruction. Most simply do not recognize what they do is destructive or disruptive. People or things that obstruct the evil character's plans are mere hindrances that must be overcome. If someone is harmed in the process. . . well, that's too bad. Remember that evil, like good, is interpreted differently in different societies."

I guess I can't find too many faults in defining evil as the opposite of good, but I had hoped for better - like more examples. They do, however, point out that players, who approach evil as almost random destruction, or even harm and destruction for its own sake, are not playing evil properly. Many a time I have seen this almost natural tendency to equate evil with stupidity and/or wanton destruction. This is not evil, or at any rate, not what evil characters are trying to do. However, the idea that the majority of people who are evil do not realize the harm they do leaves something to be desired. You can be very good and cause incredible harm just through ignorance of the consequences of your actions. This is unfortunate, but not evil. Evil must be reserved for those who both know the harmful nature of their actions but choose to do them anyway, despite the harm, just to get something they want. The "guilty mind" is important in determining evil, and if truly ignorant of the detrimental consequences of one's actions, one can hardly call that evil, just unfortunate.

ALIGNMENT COMBINATIONS

"Nine different alignments result from combining these two sets. Each alignment varies from all others, sometimes in broad, obvious ways, and sometimes in subtle ways. Each alignment is described in the following paragraphs."

Now who can argue with that?

LAWFUL GOOD: "Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of the people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed. When people respect the laws and try to help one another, society as a whole prospers. Therefore, lawful good characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm. An honest and hardworking surf, a kindly and wise king, or a stern but forthright minister are all examples of lawful good people."

Ultimately, one should have expected the author's definition of Lawful Good to be their best one since they clearly are writing from the Lawful Good point of view. In and of itself, I see no great problem with this paragraph. There is, however, a trick to it. When talking about benefiting the most people, what people are they talking about? The people in your family or clan, the people in your society, the people in a different country, all people in general, all sentient life everywhere, or what? The Lawful Good character visiting a Lawful Evil society would not feel compelled to obey its laws simply because they are laws, nor would breaking such laws make him more chaotic. So one must always be careful and define what people they are talking about when making such statements. It is even the case that a Lawful Good character visiting another Lawful Good kingdom may similarly run into a law that would be detrimental to the people back home, and they could easily violate such a law without fear of alignment troubles, assuming they did no great or obvious harm in doing so. But it's a tricky problem, weighing the possible harm to another society with the harm it may cause back home. Where do you draw the line? Fortunately, as LAWS are quite different from LAWFUL behavior, this question is mostly academic in nature, but I'll speak more on that later.

LAWFUL NEUTRAL: "Order and organization are of paramount importance to the characters of this alignment. They believe in a strong, well-ordered government, whether that government is a tyranny or benevolent democracy. The benefits of organization and regimentation outweigh any moral questions raised by their actions. An inquisitor determined to ferret out traitors at any cost or a soldier who never questions his orders are good examples of lawful neutral behavior."

Again, this paragraph seems to be fine, though more or better examples would never hurt. Also, most of their examples describe actions and do not give us insight into the reasons why these characters are taking these actions. What one intends or desires to accomplish and why, is frequently more important than their actual actions, and this must be taken into account when determining alignments.

There is for many, however, comfort in the security and purpose in the orderly structure of government. Although, I do find that governments would take the Lawful Neutral position more than individual people would. But that is more of a comment on the dispassionate, Lawful Neutrality of a bureaucracy rather than a comment on the lawful neutrality of people as individuals.

One must be careful, however, not to equate Law or Laws with Lawful Behavior. As an alignment, LAWFUL has certain beliefs as to how things should be done to benefit society as a whole, and a belief that structure and order are important to this end. Furthermore, the basic notion is that the concerns of society, or the group, outweigh the concerns of the individual, or the one. Lawful people do not, however, hold that legal Laws are good, right, and proper simply because they are laws. If such were the case, a law decreeing that everyone was a slave subjugated to serve some chaotic being would have to be obeyed. But in the course of human events, when such laws do not value society over the individual, such laws may be broken, and rightly so, even by lawful characters. This is why LAWS should never to confused with LAWFUL. They may have similarities, but they are not the same.

LAWFUL EVIL: "These characters believe in using society and its laws to benefit themselves. Structure and organization elevate those who deserve to rule as well as provide a clearly defined hierarchy between master and servant. If someone is hurt or suffers because of a law that benefits lawful evil characters, too bad. Lawful evil characters obey law out of fear of punishment. Because they may be forced to honor an unfavorable contract or oath they have made, lawful evil characters are usually very careful about giving their word. Once given, they break their word only if they can find a way to do it legally, within the laws of society. An iron-fisted tyrant and a devious, greedy merchant are examples of lawful evil beings."

This is one of the two alignments that are almost at odds with itself, the other being Chaotic Good. The Lawful Evil society would only tend to favor the strong and powerful, those who both understand and can manipulate the system for their own advantage. Thus, since this is bound to be only a handful of people in comparison to the masses, what advantage is there for the majority of the people in this society? And without such an advantage, the masses will not willingly support it since they are not part of the elite. This is why I do not understand the Lawful Evil society where it is assumed the masses share this alignment, but I do understand the Lawful Evil individuals at the top and an oppressed people at the bottom who do not share the Lawful Evil alignment, but may be in no position to do anything about their lawful evil masters.

Lawful Evil characters thrive by taking advantages afforded to them by whatever system is available to do so, almost equating what is legal to what is right and proper even when it is legal to seriously harm another. After all, if it weren't right and proper, the law should be changed, and since it hasn't been changed, it must still be right. The evil component to their alignment allows them to willingly, and mercilessly, crush all that oppose them just as long as they do it legally or within their accepted code of behavior.

My main problem with their paragraph is the notion that Lawful Evil characters only obey the law or keep their word when the authorities force them to do so, with absolutely no internal, personal concern about breaking the law or going back on their word if they feel they can get away with it. If they only obey out of fear, and if they know they can get away with it, what does the law matter? I think, therefore, that the Lawful Evil character must have their own sense of honor, code, or law and they would keep their word not because of the outside threat of punishment, but because they believe that everyone should keep their word. This is how one knows where they stand in society, and dishonesty isn't really their source of power, nor does their position in society depend on lies.

The Lawful Evil character is probably Lawful Evil because they have the skill, ability, intellect, or whatever it takes for them to do far better than the masses beneath them, and that's not born of a lie, but actual superior qualities - even if that superiority comes from external sources, like inherited money or titles, rather than more intrinsic properties, like intelligence or strength. This is the MASTER MORALITY. Thus, they keep their word and expect others to do the same. This is the lawful component of their own nature, and not just something imposed on them by outside forces compelling them to keep their word or obey the laws. True, their evil nature will let them twist things regardless of the detrimental effects to others, as long as they continue to conform to the letter of the law or their own code of conduct. But they do believe in keeping their word of their own accord. And if they find a way to "break their word legally," then they are NOT really breaking their word, as the paragraph suggests. Their word is their bond, and their word is law. Some person who thought nothing of breaking their word - when they discovered they were not going to be forced to keep it - is probably not really lawful.

As an analogy, Lawful Evil would like playing a game you happen to be exceedingly great at - in comparison to most other players. You obey the rules - keep your word - and expect others to do so as well. If they didn't - i.e. they cheated - then even despite your skill at the game, you'd still lose. Your success in the game doesn't depend on cheating, but depends on playing it within the rules - even if the rules harm others, that's O.K. Thus, you'd keep your word since that's part of the game, and if everybody does that, including you, then you'll do much better than most.

NEUTRAL GOOD: "These characters believe that a balance of forces is important, but that the concerns of law and chaos do not moderate the need for good. Since the universe is vast and contains many creatures striving for different goals, a determined pursuit of good will not upset the balance; it may even maintain it. If fostering good means supporting organized society, then that is what must be done. If good can only come about through the overthrow of existing social order, so be it. Social structure itself has no innate value to them. A baron who violates the orders of his king to destroy something he sees as evil is an example of a neutral good character."

The opening two sentences of this paragraph are not very helpful, I think. The important thing is once again to strive for good - and cosmic balance is not a concern here at all. The good is important, not as a force or power in and of itself, but as actions, thoughts, deeds, and whatever the character feels is good, right, and just. To that end, such a character would obey GOOD laws and disobey EVIL ones. They would follow GOOD orders and disobey EVIL orders, etc. Again, their neutral component means they have NO great concern for how good is achieved, as long as it is goodness, fairness, and justice that one strives to accomplish.

TRUE NEUTRAL: "True neutral characters believe in the ultimate balance of forces, and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil. Since the majority of people in the world make judgments, true neutral characters are extremely rare. True neutrals do their best to avoid siding with forces of good or evil, law or chaos. It is their duty to see that all of these forces remain in balanced contention."

"True neutral characters sometimes find themselves forced into rather peculiar alliances. To a great extent, they are compelled to side with the underdog in any given situation, sometimes even changing sides since the previous loser becomes the winner. A true neutral druid might join the local barony to put down a tribe of evil gnolls, only to drop out or switch sides when the gnolls were brought to the brink of destruction. He would seek to prevent either side from becoming too powerful. Clearly, there are very few true neutral characters in the world."

This is one of the silliest positions taken in the entire alignment system. In fact, it is so ludicrous that even the authors state that people acting like this would practically never happen. Unfortunately, one of the better classes in the AD&D system - as far as fun is concerned, and in case you didn't know, I'm talking about the druid - REQUIRES the character to take this alignment position - often times alignment restrictions on classes themselves being rather foolish - and playing a druid properly under this alignment definition would make the druid a hated figure, a person to be shunned, and certainly the last guy you'd want in your party of adventurers. After all, they'll turn on you the second you start to win - or at least abandon you and your cause, perhaps even going so far as to undo all your good effort. This idiocy is directly linked to the crazy notion of cosmic balance. Of all the things the books say on alignment, this is one of the most untenable.

And, sadly, most people - humans - are probably of the neutral alignment - with various tendencies, of course. So getting the definition for neutrality right is something we had better do properly. Also, ideally speaking, as a middle ground it is the neutral position that has the best chance to define, in absolute terms rather than relative ones, what alignments should be.

Characters of the neutral alignment, therefore, should be those that have no great concerns for law or chaos - thus achieving neutral status on that scale - and no great concerns for good or evil - thus achieving the other neutral component of their Neutral-Neutral status. I do not like the term TRUE NEUTRAL, but prefer the term NEUTRAL-NEUTRAL. I'm sure these Neutral-Neutral characters have philosophical reasons for their position, and much of what the book had to say about them may even be true, except the part about them being self-appointed guardians of universal balance or going out of their way to correct the cosmic scales. That's foolish. Instead, everything has two sides - as it must - and there will always be disputes about it with no headway ever really made one way or the other. So why not go with the flow, like a leaf floating on a stream, quiet, peaceful, and naturally moving through life? In many ways this is a dispassionate view, but Mother Nature herself is like that, giving not a single concern for what she does.

The druids, or even other Neutral-Neutral characters, are different from animals, however, in that they can see and judge things to be good or evil, lawful or chaotic, and they DO, or at least CAN, make these distinctions. They simply believe that in the fullness of time such concerns are ephemeral and transitory. Thus, they come to their stoic lack of concern philosophically rather than through the default of a lack of understanding or appreciation of the ethical or moral positions. They just have a broader, longer-term outlook on life than most.

However, the druidical example in the above paragraph is a good one, though his reasoning bears closer scrutiny. - "A true neutral druid might join the local barony to put down a tribe of evil gnolls, only to drop out or switch sides when the gnolls were brought to the brink of destruction." - The druidical character is a priest of nature, in many ways a conservationist in modern terms, studying nature, trying to live in harmony with nature, and trying to live with a love for the land and its flora and fauna. He may have had legitimate concerns for the villagers when the gnolls were not living harmoniously with the villagers, and thus he helped the baron. But he also has concerns for the gnolls, even from the start. So the druid does not switch sides out of the blue and for reasons of cosmic balance, but instead continues to do what he intended to do in the first place. His goal was to restore balance and harmony to the region. His reasons for this are quite simple: his emulation of the natural and harmonious peace of nature, not to mention the fact that his life is less disrupted in times of peace rather than times of war, and the fact that the land, fauna, and flora suffer less during times of peace than they do during times of war - and the fact that he is probably human and not a gnoll plays an important part of this. He may have family, friends, and acquaintances in the village, not to mention business concerns. Certainly he was NOT concerned for some strange notion of cosmic balance, but was instead concerned with restoring nature. And, of course, the barony with the humans and the tribe of Gnolls are part of nature. Neither should be obliterated. The druid knew this from the start, even if the baron didn't and seemed surprised at the druid's subsequent actions.

NEUTRAL EVIL: "Neutral evil characters are primarily concerned with themselves and their own advancement. They have no particular objection to working with others or, for that matter, going it on their own. Their only interest is in getting ahead. If there is a quick and easy way to gain a profit, whether it is legal, questionable, or obviously illegal, they take advantage of it. Although neutral evil characters do not have the 'Every man for himself' attitude of chaotic characters, they have no qualms about betraying their friends and companions for personal gain. They typically base their allegiance on power and money, which makes them quite receptive to bribes. An unscrupulous mercenary, a common thief, and a double-crossing informer who betrays people to the authorities to protect and advance himself are typical examples of neutral evil characters."

Like the Neutral Good character, the Neutral Evil character has no great concern for law and order or chaos and anarchy, but will do what he will, going with the flow on the Law/Chaos scale wherever that may take him. His lack of concern for the welfare of others, however, earns him his evil status. He is primarily concerned with himself and hardly someone to be trusted even in the best of circumstances.

An evil person, however, probably does not consider himself to be evil, but almost certainly considers himself to be intelligent, wise, shrewd, and on the ball rather than foolishly concerning himself with the welfare of others, as those idiotic dopes who speak of the common good are concerned. Often, the evil character thinks of themselves as naturally superior to others, their own needs coming first, and the needs of others coming much further down the list - if at all. In fact, an evil character would not only place their own survival over most others in nearly all situations, but they may even place their own comfort over the very survival of others.

Actually, in a society that was predominately good or had a strong moral streak in it - even if this may be nothing more than lip service given to this morality - both neutral and evil characters may tend to think of themselves as good, often justifying and rationalizing their actions in any way possible. Of course, since this is frequently a hard sell, they would more often than not tend to hide their evil actions, thus avoiding the problem of having to justify them. Yet, in their minds, they may believe themselves to be essentially of good alignment, and would actually and honestly be quite offended at the suggestion they were evil. After all, the reason they hide their actions is simply because most people aren't as smart as they are and wouldn't understand the actions, and not because the actions are evil. Right? Yet, when push comes to shove, they will nearly always look out for number one. As for the "guilty mind," they do "know" their actions would be evil or considered evil, and this is why they refrain from openly doing them and tend to hide such things under the table or behind closed doors. They know there is something wrong with their actions; they just don't care. And for those characters that strive to avoid evil within themselves, they must continually ask themselves if they feel any need to conceal their actions. If they do, maybe they should give those actions further thought before proceeding with them.

CHAOTIC GOOD: "Chaotic good characters are individuals who are marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence. They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they have little use for laws and regulations. They have no use for people who "try to push folk around and tell them what to do." Their own moral compass, which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society, guides their actions. A brave frontiersman forever moving on as settlers follow in his wake is an example of a chaotic good character."

This is the other alignment that is almost at odds with itself, the other being Lawful Evil, as I have already mentioned. The reason for this is that the greater good may frequently depend upon law, order, structure, or government, and to circumvent it, even occasionally for a few instances, runs the risk of corrupting the whole system. Such a person would have a hard time living with the thought that a criminal got to walk away on a legal technicality. In fact, they would have such difficulty with it they would often feel compelled to do something about it other than just feel badly or bitch and complain about the injustice of it - i.e. they might even be willing to break the law in their pursuit of justice. These Chaotic Good characters believe they know what is best, not only for themselves, but also often for others. They may think they can replace the law whenever their sense of justice demands it. They may never understand why a lawyer would even defend evil scum. They may even elect to punish the criminal that walked on a technicality themselves - as a vigilante - to ensure justice and good were done.

I do not like the paragraph's example of a Chaotic Good character since they do not make it perfectly clear why the man is always leaving when society shows up - unless, of course, they are trying to imply that Chaotic Good characters are unable to function within society. I do not believe this to be the case, so I'd like a better example or a better explanation as to this frontiersman's motives for moving.

CHAOTIC NEUTRAL: " Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at the moment. Good and evil are irrelevant when making a decision. Chaotic neutral characters are extremely difficult to deal with. Such characters have been known to cheerfully and for no apparent purpose gamble away everything on the roll of a single die. They are almost totally unreliable. In fact, the only reliable thing about them is that they cannot be relied upon! This alignment is perhaps the most difficult to play. Lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior."

This is the second most ridiculous thing the AD&D alignment system says. Their Chaotic Neutral characters are practically insane - they even say as much with their examples. Yet, I simply do not believe this to be the case. Why would a priest of Poseidon be insane? Why would anyone be nuts simply because they didn't have strong feelings on the Good/Evil scale and tended to dislike big government? And how, pray tell, do either of those things make a character so fool hardy they would act almost randomly, gambling away a fortune, cheerfully or otherwise, on a single roll of a die? And worse yet, why couldn't a Lawful Good character, for example, gamble away a fortune on the toss of a single die? I really think they were reaching for examples when they wrote this one up.

Chaotic Neutral characters are not crazy, nor do they act randomly. And what's more important, Chaotic Neutral characters are not unreliable as a group, but each character must be assessed on their own merits. After all, there is nothing about chaos in and of itself that is unreliable, and other partially Neutral characters such as Lawful Neutral or Neutral-Neutral are not described thus for that component of their alignment. This unfortunate definition is perhaps the result of mistakenly equating chaos - in the alignment sense of the word - with randomness - its more colloquial meaning. Alas, they are not the same thing.

When speaking of alignments, chaotic does NOT equate with random, incomprehensible behavior. The ideal of "Chaos" supports the notion that the individual is the basic, most important unit. Chaotics believe that an individual's rights must nearly always surpass the rights of society. They hold the needs of the individual, or the one, is more important than the needs of the many. After all, social structure must exist to benefit the individual; otherwise, why would an individual join society, or support society, if doing so meant they would always do worse for themselves? As such, true Chaotics would tend to be loners and might try to stay ahead of society - especially if they lacked the skills necessary to fit into society without difficulty - but this is not necessary. They function well within societies too, more often being born and raised in them rather than joining of their own accord. Once a member of society, however, chaotic individuals are often champions of personal rights.

CHAOTIC EVIL: "These characters are the bane of all that is good and organized. Chaotic evil characters are motivated by the desire for personal gain and pleasure. They see absolutely nothing wrong with taking whatever they want by whatever means possible. Laws and governments are the tools of weaklings unable to fend for themselves. The strong have the right to take what they want, and the weak are there to be exploited. When chaotic evil characters band together, they are not motivated by a desire to cooperate, but rather to oppose powerful enemies. Such a group can be held together only by a strong leader capable of bullying his underlings into obedience. Since leadership is based on raw power, a leader is likely to be replaced at the first sign of weakness by anyone who can take his position away from him by any method. Bloodthirsty buccaneers and monsters of low Intelligence are fine examples of chaotic evil personalities."

Such a group? The implication that a Chaotic Evil "group" would naturally exist and invite further comment upon them is disturbing to me. Sure, they might exist, but I wouldn't count on it, and if it did, I wouldn't count on it lasting long. As for their examples, I would not define buccaneers as Chaotic Evil, though many individuals among them might be - especially a strong, chaotic evil captain or leader. As a group, buccaneers are not chaotic, for the lawful structure of men at sea under the captain has a strong, lawful tradition. Groups, in general, do not tend to be chaotic.

Also, there isn't anything about low intelligence in a monster that makes them Chaotic Evil, so it's a bad example, too, unless somehow they are equating evil with stupidity again, and I think we have had enough of that.

Hypocrisy, on the other hand, is typical of chaotic evil characters. For example, they believe the strong have the right to take what they want from the weak - when they are the strong - yet they will band together to oppose a powerful enemy. Doesn't this powerful enemy have the right to use and abuse them after all since they are the stronger? Clearly, hypocrisy is a one trait of the chaotic evil character. And for the record, almost any character can be killed by their acquaintances. They must sleep sometime, and if the suggestion a Chaotic Evil character would take ANY opportunity to take out a leader is true, it will happen like clockwork. I think their example is rather simplistic and simply unrealistic.

However, practically all of what the paragraph says about Chaotic Evil being the antithesis of the Lawful Good is fine, and from the Lawful Good point of view, they have done a good job. A Lawful Good job, in fact.

Shades of the original alignment system of D&D - as opposed to AD&D - are still reflected in the fact that originally the system's alignments were only LAW and CHAOS, and the way they were defined mostly equated yesterday's LAW with today's Lawful Good and yesterday's CHAOS with today's Chaotic Evil. In fact, I believe this is partially why there still lingers the strange flavor found in the Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil alignments. The cross over of the aspects that used to be diametrically opposed in the Law vs. Chaos system made the mix seem somehow off, almost as if what was CHAOTIC was counter productive to GOOD and what was EVIL was counter productive to what was LAWFUL. But that's not really the topic for this paper.

Let us proceed to their odd example of the party of nine adventurers, each having one of the nine alignments.

The lawful good character says, "Before we went on the adventure, we agreed to split the treasure equally, and that's what we're going to do. First, we'll deduct the cost of the adventure and pay for the resurrection of those who have fallen, since we're sharing all this equally. If someone can't be raised, then his share goes to his family."

I don't think so. Here, they have the Lawful Good character trying to impose a good concern on others while perhaps violating the agreement. Assuming they agreed to split up the treasure equally - as it seems to say - nothing was said about expenses or bringing people back from the dead. I think the Lawful Good character would have, and should have made such contingency plans before the adventure and during the agreement phase, and not try to retroactively rewrite the agreement. Being Lawful Good is not, after all, stupid or dishonest. Sure, he'd want to bring the others back, maybe even making an impassioned plea for donations to this cause, but he shouldn't be trying to force the rest of the party to bankroll it, and deciding for others how their money should be spent is tantamount to stealing it. It may be an excellent example for an evil thief since the desire to take what does not belong to one and spend it as they see fit might be typical of them, but it should not be the example of a lawful good action.

"Since we agreed to split equally, that's fine," replies the lawful evil character thoughtfully. "But there was nothing in this deal about paying for someone else's expenses. It's not my fault if you spent a lot on equipment! Furthermore, this deal applies only to surviving partners; I don't remember anything about dead partners. I'm not setting aside any money to raise that klutz. He's someone else's problem."

Naturally, I can see the Lawful Evil character trying to do some of this; trying to distort the agreement within reason and argue for a point of view that would benefit him, but I think some of this is wrong as well. The Lawful Evil character would have, perhaps, connived to leave such concerns out of the agreement before they went adventuring - perhaps leaving several points deliberately vague so they could be interpreted in two ways - and then press the letter of the law afterwards in the way it benefited them most, or not press it when it didn't help his own cause. I don't think he'd try to screw the dead party members out of their legal share. After all, the agreement was that all present - before hand - would get an equal share of the treasure, and this included the dead since they were alive and present at the time of the agreement, so their share would be used to help raise them or would go to their heirs. Of course, the exact wording of the agreement is important to the lawful character, so I'm guessing.

Flourishing a sheet of paper, the lawful neutral character breaks in. "It's a good thing for you two that I've got things together, nice and organized. I had the foresight to write down the exact terms of our agreement, and we're all going to follow them."

This is not atypical behavior for a Lawful Neutral character. In fact, I quite like it. Take note, however, that again his behavior is mostly concerned with something he did while making the agreement and not something he did after the adventure. I'd give a lot to see the actual agreement, but the authors thoughtfully didn't include it in their example. I guess they thought it would be best to remain vague when dealing with alignments, even in their example on alignments. Too bad. However, I think we can glean the terms of the contract from context.

The neutral good character balances the issues and decides. "I'm in favor of equal shares - that keeps everybody happy. Each adventurer's expenses are their own business: if someone spent too much, then he should be more careful next time. But raising fallen comrades seems like a good idea, so I say we set aside money to do that."

There's that balance stuff again. As if! However, raising people may be good, but forcing others to pay for it is not. Oh, how easy to be generous with somebody else's money. Truly good people are generous with their own property, and not with other people's property. He should offer part or even his own entire share to help pay for them, or shut up about it. Better yet, he should make sure such good ideas and good things are agreed to beforehand next time.

After listening to the above arguments, the true neutral character decides to say nothing yet. He's not particularly concerned with any choice. If the issue can to solved without his becoming involved, great. But if it looks like one person is going to get everything, then he'll step in and cast his vote for a more balanced distribution.

Who is this moron? Doesn't he have any feelings other than ridiculous abstract concerns for balance? I think he must have had a reason for going on the adventure - probably for cash or experience or whatever. If he really didn't care about the money, he would have said before hand during the agreement phase that the party could keep his share or use it for whatever they wished. And if he didn't trust them to do the "right" thing with it, he should get it himself and further his cause with his share. He'd certainly do more than sit back and act only if some form of imbalance occurred. There are plenty of nice ways to spend money for the benefit of nature, etc., so I think he'd care.

The neutral evil character died during the adventure, so he doesn't have anything to say. However, if he could make his opinion known he would gladly argue that the group ought to pay for raising him and set aside a share for him. The neutral evil character would also hope that the group doesn't discover the big gem he secretly pocketed during one of the encounters.

This thief is probably in for a shock since I'd bet good money a body is thoroughly cleaned before such a holy ritual as a Raise Dead or a Resurrection, and they'd discover anything like a gem. They'll find it, all right. He'd better hope they think he had it before the adventure. I sure wouldn't want to raise some one who thinks nothing of stealing from me. As for his point of view, who can argue with that? Sure, he'd say whatever suited him and was to his benefit. If he could swing it, he'd even claim he should get more treasure, not less, since he died for the good of the group and lost some of his constitution. Naturally, the next time someone else died and he didn't, he'd try to take a different position, probably saying such a person died from foolishness and not for the good of the group, as he had done.

The chaotic good character objects to the whole business. "Look, it's obvious the original agreement is messed up. I say we scrap it and reward the people for what they did. I saw some of you hiding in the background when the rest of us were doing all the real fighting. I don't see why anyone should be rewarded for being a coward! As for raising dead partners, I say that's a matter of personal choice. I don't mind chipping in for some of them, but I don't think I want everyone back in the group."

Who would expect a chaotic to be overly concerned with the letter of the agreement in the first place? He's interested in his sense of justice, not any notions of law. And he's all for the individual over the group, so naturally he'd feel what he's saying is true, but would he say it or do it? Is the agreement really messed up? If so, why? Hell, it's even written down. I'm very concerned that not one of these so-called "good" examples thinks twice about violating, twisting, or ignoring what they agreed to in the first place in order to press the cause of abstract good, or whatever it is they are trying to accomplish. As for wanting some of the party members back but not others, that's typical of the Chaotic Good. Yet, rather than try to screw people out of their share for being cowards, I think he'd push for such cowards to be invited to leave the party and adventure with them no more, but only after the treasure is split up. They didn't pull their weight, after all, and would likely do the same in the future. Getting rid of them now just makes good sense.

Outraged at the totally true but tactless accusation of cowardice, the chaotic evil character snaps back, "Look, I was doing an important job, guarding the rear! Can I help it if nothing tried to sneak up behind us? Now, it seems to me that all of you are pretty beat up - and I'm not. So, I don't think there's gong to be too much objection if I take all of the jewelry and that wand. And I'll take anything interesting those two dead guys have. Now, you can work with me and do what I say, or you can get lost - permanently!

Here again, I cringe at evil being equated with stupidity, or even mere cowardice. I assume, of course, that this group of adventurers plans on staying together - since a few references to 'next time' were made. Anyone taking the position they can have all the loot - or most of it - simply because they are currently the strongest, is either planning on leaving the group immediately - and traveling so far away that the likelihood of meeting these people again is remote - plans to always be more powerful and capable of bullying them into submission, or is a complete idiot. This time the latter most seems to be true, again adding to the false notion that evil is the same as stupid. I think the Chaotic Evil character wouldn't care about the dead party members and would try to exclude them from getting their share, maybe even trying to steal what the fallen had on them, but to make a power play like that is idiotic and foolish! They will not be beat up long, and the second they are not, they may turn on him and kill him, or more likely, collectively beat him up, take his stuff, and kick him out of the group. This is not indicative of chaotic evil behavior, but is instead indicative of stupidity and shortsightedness, which seems, unfortunately for many, including the authors - to think they are one and the same thing. They are not.

The chaotic neutral character is also dead (after he tried to charge the Gorgon), so he doesn't contribute to the argument. However, if he were alive, he would join forces with whatever side appealed to him the most at the moment. If he couldn't decide, he'd flip a coin.

Arrgggghhhhh! Again, this ridiculous notion that Chaotic Neutral characters are nothing more than random idiots rears its ugly head. They even had him brainlessly charge a Gorgon. Why? Surely nothing in the Chaotic Neutral alignment would make him do that, yet they give that impression in this example. As for whatever side appealed to him, well, naturally the side that appealed to him would be obvious. He'd want to be brought back and he'd want his share. Their suggestion is that the Chaotic Neutral character might not want this, perhaps even needing the random flip of a coin to make up his addled mind. What are Chaotic Neutral characters here, brainless suicidal idiots with death wishes? I don't think so.

WHAT DO WE DO NOW?

Thus, we see just a few of the problems with the alignment system as it was written. Even the authors of it seem confused, and since they all too frequently liken alignments to cosmic forces or other things well beyond our everyday experiences, there is little wonder such confusion ensues between many players. They simply do not have any examples to support these abstract notions, and ultimately, if we wish to keep alignments and use them in some meaningful way, the entire abstract approach of universal cosmic balance has to go.

Furthermore, in order to make meaningful definitions one must set the standard or absolute upon which all others will be compared - else, nine clerics with nine different alignments each casting a Know Alignment spell on one individual would get nine different results. This may actually be a good way to do this since for each cleric the only result that really matters is how the target's alignment is in agreement or disagreement with the cleric's own alignment - and ostensibly their deity's alignment. But such a system is a bit unwieldy. So how to do it? Unfortunately, to use any other standard or absolute other than the Lawful Good one already in use would doom it to failure since too much of the system is already written and in place. Only TSR itself could pull off such a major revision and expect it to gain acceptance through the new printing of their next edition. But I am not TSR and this is only one little paper, despite its length. So I am more or less forced to use much of their standard, or forced to forget the whole thing. But I did not write this paper to forget it, and you didn't read it this far to be let down. And so, using the Lawful Good standard, but modified to exclude the abstract, universal, cosmic notions of balance, we proceed.

A BETTER ALIGNMENT SYSTEM

With all the problems of the alignment system one may well ask, "Why keep it?" As a dungeon master with some experience, I can only tell you that it greatly helps me run my NPCs, human or otherwise, by giving me a brief overview of what sort of behavior I can expect from the PCs and NPCs, all from a simple glance at a 2 letter designation - or 4 letters for a more detailed consideration. I would hate to be without such a useful, shorthand notation.

Furthermore, when preparing scenarios for up coming games, I can take into account a rough idea of what the players might have their PCs do based upon their alignments. Of course, they might do something else - alignments are not straitjackets after all - but more often than not, the story-line will stay on track and take the players to areas I have better prepared for them rather than into areas where I haven't prepared, forcing me to wing it. A good DM does not want to force his players to go where he wants them to go or force them to do what he wants them to do, but with a good understanding of their alignments, he can make some good guesses as to what path they will take and what they might do when they get there. Again, if the DM correctly guesses all this, the story more easily comes to fruition, and what has been written naturally unfolds. It is usually true that what is well written and prepared is better than something a DM can concoct on the fly. The DM may be able to run a campaign on the fly with PCs going almost in random directions for almost random reasons, but it's a lot harder.

Finally, as DM, it helps to know if the players and their PCs will be able to get along with one another. Potential points of contention are easily identified - though the players may not see them if alignments are played more secretively and less openly, and this is usually a good idea. Thus, unless the idea is to see what they might do in situations where ethical and moral concerns arise, the DM can actually avoid putting in certain elements into the story and thus avoid having the game blow up in his face due to alignment arguments between players and their PCs. The DM can also selectively choose which PCs will be allowed into his or her game. For example, the DM would know that sticking a paladin into an existing group of chaotic neutral to chaotic evils would be a bust, or the inclusion of a neutral evil thief to a more lawful and/or good group would cause problems. Thus, they can right away suggest changes for more harmonious play. For example, "Try a ranger rather than a paladin, or a CG holy warrior, or make your thief more neutral, or even neutral good." This will avoid problems before they start.

As a player I can also use alignments as a guide or reminder of the sort of behavior I was trying to emulate or roleplay with a particular character, again just by glancing at my character sheet or notes. I have a good idea of how the characters would behave even if I haven't played that character in a long while. If you play many characters of many different alignments, these signposts help you maintain a handle on your characters, and help maintain a consistency from them. Whereas you may forget certain things about your character - due to lack of play for an extended period - you will always remember what the alignments mean and can ease your way back into this character once more.

So, as you can see, I like alignments and really would rather keep them instead of scrapping the system, so I'll do a lot to help fix it. Even writing scholarly, in-depth papers for publication to the Internet is not unheard of ;-)

Then, to achieve this goal, we must start again and follow a similar path as before, but this time try to make sure we avoid the pitfalls that have come before.

LAW, NEUTRALITY, AND CHAOS

We must resist the temptation to equate the LAW of alignments with law and order this name may imply from its colloquial, everyday usage. We must also resist the temptation to equate the CHAOS of alignments with random, chaotic fluctuations this name may imply from its colloquial, everyday usage. These words, in their alignment sense, may have similarities, but they are different from their colloquial expressions.

Simply put, LAW strives to benefit the society over the individual and CHAOS strives to ensure the individual benefits, sometimes even at the expense of society. Most humans have mixed feelings in this area, and are therefore closer to the neutral middle ground. So close, in fact, many people would have a difficult time understanding what they would consider to be extreme points of view from others - all LAW or ALL CHAOS. However, any ALL OR NOTHING attitude isn't very helpful anywhere, and thus LAW is not trying to have everything for society with no exceptions, nor is CHAOS everything for the individual with no exceptions. These two alignments should instead be thought of as strong desires and tendencies toward their extremes. Lawful and Chaotic people would be very opinionated about how best to achieve their personal and social goals. They would tend to greatly favor society OR greatly favor the individual, but hardly ever to the exclusion of the other.

Even though most people are probably neutral with slight tendencies one way or the other, enough strongly opinionated people exist to make this definition worth while, and there will be many LAWFUL people, and many CHAOTIC people, with most people falling somewhere in between. Of course, high levels of power, education, unusual situations, extraordinary abilities, or the like tend to give these people strong opinions. Thus, many PCs - especially in epic games of adventure - could easily have LAWFUL or CHAOTIC alignments. With great power - or whatever - comes great responsibility - to one's ethical beliefs or alignment or philosophy.

Lawful people would therefore tend to favor government, laws, order, and structure, not because these things exists naturally or are worthwhile in and of themselves, but because historically speaking, such structures tend to benefit groups - the majority - over individuals - the minorities. Lawful people, for example, would not support any laws, order, or structures that do not do this. And when laws support the weak, the infirm, and the feeble, rather than letting them die off as unfit, society benefits for a variety of reasons: these people still make meaningful and sometimes extraordinary contributions, benefiting all, and the social comfort one feels for caring for others, and the comfort and security in the knowledge that one may themselves be cared for if necessary, is not to be underestimated. Finally, it is through such unified organization that the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts. Lawful people believe that even though individual sacrifices of themselves and others must be made from time to time, over one's lifetime they will benefit many times over anything they may have lost in individual freedom.

Chaotic people also tend to live within social structures, but they have a strong dislike for big government, bureaucracies, or "blind justice" as the law is sometimes referred. They are not blind themselves and frequently see the failings of the law. They are often outdated in a current situation, never really did its job in the first place, was not written to cover unforeseen circumstances that frequently arise, or perhaps it was just written to benefit the wrong people. Thus, many laws are poor approximations of social justice. When they help the individual, fine, but when they trample on him, this is not acceptable.

Such Chaotic characters frequently have a greater confidence in their own individual sense of ethics and may frequently circumvent or twist the law, or just plain ignore it, whenever it lets them down. Chaotic characters do not hate laws simply because they are laws, but only because many laws frequently fail to live up to their expectations, or in some way hamper their activities for no apparent reason. Chaotic characters perhaps believe that the unbridled freedom of individuals, unfettered by laws, is the only way every individual can achieve their maximum potential, and society will naturally be better off when everyone does this.

Neutral characters, on the other hand, can see that both points of view have merit and feel a middle ground is the best for which one can hope. People who expound on the virtues of such extremes points of view - such as LAW or CHAOS - to the exclusion of other points of view, frequently go too far and probably should NOT be trusted wholeheartedly, but should be considered, and watched, to make sure their extreme points of view are kept in check. This is not for a desire to cosmically balance LAW and CHAOS, but more of a reflection of the basic mistrust in extreme points of view that the neutral character doesn't happen to share.

GOOD, NEUTRALITY, AND EVIL

Since different societies look at issues of good and evil differently - not to mention different people within the same society - it is hard to define good and evil in absolute terms without displeasing somebody. Yet, an attempt must be made and we must try to use less absolute terms than before.

GOOD characters are concerned for the welfare other people. They will frequently go out of their way to help others in times of need. Furthermore, they have a clear idea of how they, themselves, would like to be treated by others, and would feel badly if others treated them in such a way where it didn't meet their expectations. To that end, since they are concerned for others rather than just for themselves, they strive to treat others in the manner they would like others to treat them. Simply put, good characters believe in and try to live by THE GOLDEN RULE.

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

This is not "Do unto others before others do unto you." There are, of course, times when human failings and weaknesses get the better of them, but a good character would feel badly about their errors and would normally try to correct any damage they did by their actions, or any damage done by their failure to act.

It has even been suggested, and quite rightly so, that good and evil is simply a matter of empathy for others, or a lack thereof. With empathy for others, you will naturally do 'good.' Without such empathy, you are the sort who is capable of crimes against humanity - or whoever.

A good person often tries to envision how they would feel if they walked a mile in the other man's shoes. After considering this, they usually come up with a course of actions that seems fair to them since while in that other man's figurative shoes, they decided how they would liked to have been treated - if the shoe had been on the other foot.

Defined in this way - whether it is a decent absolute or not - individual actions may be considered good or not depending on the culture, but it isn't the actions alone so much as the intent that is important. Whether someone intended to help - rather than the actual result - is frequently the most important consideration as far as determining alignment is concerned. And, as such, even though different cultures may view different actions as good or evil, the intent should be clear. Lying about one's intent is another topic. Here we will assume we can know the intent of a character.

For example: Our society may consider a headhunting society to be evil. That society, however, may hold that the soul of the captured head enjoys eternal bliss in the afterlife. They may even see taking an enemy's head to be helpful, since for an enemy to die in another fashion would condemn that soul to hell. Thus, their intent may be to help. Whether you agree with their actions or not becomes irrelevant. The intent is clear - at least to that character, if not to the observer or the victim. The headhunter, on the other hand, would look upon our society and see, perhaps, that taking a photograph of a person would trap the soul and torment it. The action would appear to be evil to them. But the photographer's intent is not evil, no matter how you slice it, since he is not intending to trap the soul or torment it. Oddly enough, if the photographer knew of the headhunter's belief and openly took his photograph anyway - showing no great care or concern for the headhunter - the photographer might actually be considered evil, probably because his intent was not to help the headhunter, but merely to help himself get the photograph he needed for his job - or whatever. Here you can clearly see the INTENT is very important and the actions can be very misleading in and of themselves.

By using the "intent to help" others as a criteria for good, despite the fact our actions may confuse one another and lead to serious misunderstanding and conflicts, we at least have a more universally accepted absolute for the definition of GOOD.

Altruism - the unselfish concern for others and the intent to help them - is GOOD.

EVIL, on the other hand, would be the antithesis of altruism. Selfishness, a lack of concern for others, putting themselves before all else and taking care of their needs first - even assuming other people's needs will come second or even make the list of concerns at all - possibly to the exclusion of anyone else's needs or welfare, the EVIL character's primary intent is to help only themselves. Like the intent to help others defines GOOD, the intent not to help others or the intent to help only his or her self is the hallmark of the EVIL character. This is especially true when the detriment of others and their well-being is inconsequential to the evil character.

Even when they do not attempt to hurt others in their quest to look out for number one, the simple fact that others may be hurt - and their lack of concern for this consequence, or their willingness to follow through on their plans anyway, despite the foreseen consequences - will earn them their EVIL designation. For example, killing a man for his money is clearly evil, but so is robbing a bank. Despite clear intention NOT to kill or hurt anyone, it is still evil since such things can EASILY lead to harming someone, if not killing them, and the robber knows this but goes through with the robbery anyway. This reckless endangerment to human life is basically evil, though a case could be made to consider it less evil than outright murder.

Here we see a major difference between Chaos - individual in the abstract over society in the abstract - and EVIL - individual in the concrete, namely the character themselves, over society in the concrete, namely all others who are not the character. But there are further philosophical reasons to support CHAOS, while evil is purely and simply a selfish act, and the tendency to easily equate the two should be avoided.

Of course, a strong selfish streak may be with everyone, but not everyone succumbs to it all the time - or even most of the time. Most people are probably NEUTRAL on this scale, doing good and/or evil throughout their lives. The same women who helps run a charity - for altruistic reasons - may steal another woman's boyfriend or husband - for totally selfish reasons - not at all too concerned for this other woman's feelings, economic status, or even the welfare for this man's children. It all sort-of balances out and such a person would probably and properly be considered neutral. Again, not because the character is trying to achieve or maintain balance, but simply because it just works out that way. They almost certainly are not keeping score.

And like the LAW/CHAOS scale, the GOOD/EVIL scale should not be an ALL OR NOTHING affair. Arbitrarily, if one's actions were 80% good OR 80% evil, they might qualify for that respective alignment. Less than that, they would be neutral with varying degrees and tendencies toward good or evil. Naturally, you can use a different percentage if you wish, or just expect more from certain people than other people. Perhaps one would expect 95%+ of a paladin's actions to be good. Who knows? I will leave that minor detail up to the DM since it is their world.

However, I do wish to make it clear that one action - or even intent - that is GOOD does not make a character good, and one action or intent - that is evil - does not make a character evil. A single instance of an evil action will not condemn a good character, nor will a single good action make up for a lifetime of evil. It is a pattern of behavior, a tendency to act mostly good, or mostly evil, to a strong degree that would make a character of that alignment. And, if they so happened to be more balanced, such a character would be considered neutral. Again, not because they are keeping score or trying to maintain balance on some cosmic scale, but simply because it usually works out that way in such people without a strong tendency to favor one alignment over the other.

ALIGNMENT COMBINATIONS

"Nine different alignments result from combining these two sets of ethical and moral beliefs. Each alignment varies from all others, sometimes in broad, obvious ways, and sometimes in subtle ways. Each alignment is described in the following paragraphs."

LAWFUL GOOD: Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of the people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed. When people respect the laws and try to help one another, society as a whole prospers. Therefore, lawful good characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm. Furthermore, though there is a tendency to consider those at home before considering those abroad - or one's family before one's town, state, or nation, etc. - Lawful Good characters probably hold that all life - or at least all sentient life - has value, and helping them and/or not harming them is also important in addition to their more immediate family concerns. However, this does not mean they can harm others to benefit their family - or more immediate concerns - but only reflects the fact that, for example, all his children should have a sweater before he becomes overly concerned that his neighbor's children don't have sweaters in the cold weather. But having a sweater in cold weather is more important than having toys. So he might wish to help his neighbor out by buying new sweaters for his children and giving the old ones to his neighbor or to charity before he's spends a lot on luxuries for his family. He cares that much. However, his limited resources will only stretch so far, so he helps as many as he wishes or feels is right. How far he goes is his decision.

A hard working shopkeeper or surf, the kind, helpful, benevolent teacher or king, and a stern but forthright minister or officer would be examples of lawful good characters.

LAWFUL NEUTRAL: Order and organization are of paramount importance to the characters of this alignment. They believe in a strong, well-ordered government and expect such law and order to benefit them as well as the majority. Though they may prefer the government be lawful good, they themselves needn't live up to such high moral standards. However, so important is their belief in law and order that they would gladly accept any kind of government - good, neutral, or evil - before they'd wish to sink into the chaos of anarchy. The benefits of organization and regimentation outweigh most moral questions raised by their actions.

Soldiers who never questions orders, or law officers who always follow the letter of the law - even if they don't fully agree with it - both exhibit lawful neutral behavior.

LAWFUL EVIL: These characters believe in using society and its laws to benefit themselves. Structure and organization elevate those who deserve to rule, as well as provide a clearly defined hierarchy between master and servant. If someone else is hurt or suffers because of a law that benefits the master, tough. Frequently, these lawful evil people come to be so since they have a talent or ability - or some edge - to work the system for their own benefit. Thus, the system not only elevates them, but also maintains their status. Because their personal beliefs may require them to honor an unfavorable contract or oath they have made, lawful evil characters are usually very careful about giving their word. However, they have no problem using fine print, verbal agreements superseded by subsequent and final legal written contracts that are slightly different from their original verbal exchanges, or taking advantage of other people's misfortunes or ignorance. They expect these poor saps to honor the letter of the agreement even to the sap's detriment since they would honor their own legal agreements. It is for this reason the lawful evil character is reluctant to make such a contract unless they feel they have the advantage. This is also why lawful evil people feel more inclined to need contracts since they know they may be morally cheating someone or giving them improper consideration or return, and they'll need the power of the contract to prevent other's from getting out from under their thumb. Since these people can really work the system for their personal benefit, and since they have confidence they can do it better than most others, they have a strong desire to keep this system going, obey its laws, keep their words and oaths when given, and in all other ways help perpetuate whatever it is that is giving them their advantage - even if other people get hurt; they are evil, after all. Keeping one's word is just part of the game, and if by doing so they discover they didn't have the advantage after all, they accept the fact they were out played by a few who were better than they were. Why not? They are still better than the majority, and probably still doing better within the system. Breaking their oath is cheating, and would invite those lower and less skilled than themselves to beat them too, so it is important to keep one's word or oaths - even if the chances of being caught cheating are low or nonexistent. Lawful Evil people are not hypocrites, after all.

Lawful Evil people believe in their own superiority over the majority of others. If things ever changed where they no longer enjoyed some advantage over the masses, they might change their alignments toward one of Good, or slave morality, but they do not believe that will ever happen to them. While in power, they probably believe any who embrace the Good alignment only do so because they are not superior individuals and thus must embrace that philosophy - not because they are strong, but because they are weak. It is this weakness that Lawful Evil people do not share that justifies them as masters.

An iron-fisted tyrant and a devious, greedy merchant are examples of lawful evil beings - assuming the merchant sticks to the letter of the law, for a greedy merchant who breaks the law or out right lies or steals is not a fine example of a lawful evil character.

NEUTRAL GOOD: Above all, neutral good characters strive for absolute good, trying to help others who need it, even frequently putting others before their own concerns. Whether good and justice is accomplished by LAW or by CHAOS does not matter to them. The only important thing is that the needy are helped, the weak are protected, the sick are healed, the naked are clothed, the homeless are sheltered, the guilty are punished, or whatever other form of aid that needs to be given is given. When laws do this, great, but when laws fail, there are others ways to get things done and achieve justice.

A baron who violates the king's law to destroy something he sees as evil, a soldier who disobeys orders and acts on his own initiative - knowing full well and accepting the fact that this will either lead to his death, his court martial, or a medal - or a thief who steals from the greedy and dishonorable rich to give to the more worthy poor are examples of neutral good characters. NOTE: Being rich in and of itself is not sufficient to be considered dishonorable. Similarly, being poor in and of itself is not being worthy. But the neutral good thief may steal from Prince John, who collected taxes unfairly, or the lawful evil greedy, merchant who used legal trickery to foreclose on the widow Brown.

NEUTRAL NEUTRAL: The neutral-neutral character is perhaps the easiest character to play. They needn't have strong feelings one way or the other about anything. Going with the flow when other alignments in the group prevail, the neutral-neutral character can fit into any group and do nearly anything and get along with nearly anyone. However, the player must strive not to demonstrate favoritism toward good or evil, law or chaos, else they'll lose their neutral status. If they want to play someone with such strong feelings, they should take another alignment.

NOTE: It is the PLAYER who may take balance into consideration, making sure their CHARACTER does both good and evil, law and chaos. The CHARACTERS themselves do NOT strive for this balance; their neutrality arises naturally from their lack of strong feelings or convictions one way or the other. But the PLAYER, to play the neutral alignment properly, must make certain their character does not spiral into a pattern of behavior that would make their character of a particular alignment other than neutral. For example, a neutral character, though perfectly capable of evil actions, should not be allowed to do nothing but evil actions, but should also have a fair share of good actions as well. This is what makes them neutral. Otherwise, the player is playing an evil character, not a neutral character. Similarly, they should not be allowed to do only good things. If they want to do that, they should play a good character. Fortunately, if the "mark" or "standard" is "high" enough, even a tendency toward good or toward evil - or toward lawful or toward chaos - will not be enough to move them off their NN alignment, thus allowing them more freedom while preserving any alignment restrictions. Even a druid may do good things 75% of the time if the standard for good is set to 80%; yet, they would still be NN, even if they were NNNG.

Needless to say, the neutral-neutral character has no strong feelings or positions on law and chaos or good and evil. This doesn't mean they would not give lip service to one over the other, but only is a more accurate reflection of their personal willingness to go the distance or not, to help others or not, to support society over the individual or not. Hardly anyone claims to be evil, since the general perception is that GOOD is the way to go. Many evil people may consider themselves good, and many neutral people may consider themselves good. In general, neither evil nor neutral people consider themselves evil. This makes spells like Know Alignment or Detect Evil a tricky business, but this is nothing new. Ultimately, the alignment that registers with such a spell would tend to give a character the relative position of the target's alignment to their own OR insight into their true character. As players, then, we may know many things our characters do not, even their own alignment. I may play an evil character, but my character would doubtlessly NOT consider himself to be evil. In fact, if he cast detect evil on a good character, it may register as evil as far as he was concerned.

Most people are fine examples of neutral-neutral characters, and even though the majority of them may strive toward good or fall toward evil, work toward law - society - or work toward chaos - the individual - it is assumed this effort too often falls short of the mark when push comes to shove, and thus these people are NNNG, NNNE, NNLN, NNCN, NNLG, NNCG, NNLE, or NNCE. Very few would be exactly NNNN, except perhaps those who are unintelligent, passionless, or dead.

Fortunately, no character class really requires one to be NNNN - even the druid is only required to be NN and may have any of the various tendencies. Here, the first NN represents their general alignment, and the second two letters represent their tendencies. NNNG, for example, is neutral-neutral with neutral good tendencies. A little more effort may change a tendency into an actual alignment other than neutral-neutral. However, ultimately it isn't lip service to or simple belief in these things, but a strong enough conviction to inspire actions that will qualify the character as something other than NN.

NOTE: All players who do not wish to adhere to a particular alignment, or who don't understand the alignment system at first, would generally do well by playing a neutral-neutral character with whatever tendencies they naturally fall into. If they subsequently strongly tend toward one alignment - such as when 80% of their actions and intentions qualify for a particular alignment - then the DM should explain that's all playing someone of that alignment means, and allow them to alter their character's alignment to that alignment without penalty. This should be done sometime prior to achieving 8th level if their class has no alignment restrictions, but much sooner if their class does have them. The DM should explain, however, they would thereafter be expected to adhere to that alignment, and subsequently moving below the 80% mark - or wherever arbitrary percentage set by the DM - might result in alignment penalties.

NEUTRAL EVIL: Neutral evil characters are primarily concerned with themselves and their own advancement. So much so, in fact, that concern for others is secondary at best, or nonexistent at worse. The neutral evil character has no particular interest in LAW or CHAOS in the abstract; they are simply concerned with looking out for number one. Their only interest is in getting ahead. If there is a quick and easy way to gain a profit, whether it is legal, questionable, or obviously illegal, they'll probably take advantage of it - often 'getting caught' is their only concern, so if they think they can get away with it, they almost certainly will try. The neutral evil character typically bases their allegiance on power and money, which makes them quite receptive to bribes. They are not to be trusted and probably trust no one in return, often judging the possible motives of others by their own.

Neutral evil people may care about a select few people in their lives, but it is a general lack of concern for people outside their lives - and how badly these strangers are treated when they unfortunately cross the neutral evil character's path or get in their way - that is indicative to the true alignment of the neutral evil character, and not the occasional good things they may do for their family or loved ones. As much as one may wish to see redeeming traits in the evil character when they have loved ones, even these may be considered selfish. On the whole, however, it must be how they treat the majority of people which would be indicative of their true alignment, and not just how they treat their loved ones, friends, acquaintances, coworkers, or the party members they happen to like.

An unscrupulous mercenary, a common thief, and a double-crossing informer who betrays people to the authorities to protect and advance himself, are typical examples of neutral evil characters.

CHAOTIC GOOD: Chaotic good characters are individuals who are marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence. They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they have little use for laws and regulations. Thus, they will frequently replace the judgment and wisdom of the majority, or of society's laws, with their own brand of justice, mostly in the certain belief that unlike blind justice, they are not so blind. Their own moral compass, which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society, guides their actions. The individual's rights, after all, must be protected, and if one must step outside the law to perform some act of justice that would otherwise not be done, then so be it.

A vigilante going after crooks who seem to be untouchable by the law, a brave revolutionary trying to overthrow a corrupt government, a doctor who violates hospital protocols on the sly to aid one patient, or an officer of the law who plants evidence on a well known but slippery criminal, or commits perjury to help convict the scum, are good examples of chaotic good individuals. And, if it just so happens that a few innocent people get hurt in this process, they can take solace in the fact that many, many more evil culprits - in comparison to the lost innocent ones - will pay for their crimes, who would have otherwise gotten away with evil. In fact, by getting this evil off the street, the Chaotic Good Character can be certain that more people are saved than the number of innocent people - they may have mistakenly planted evidence on or committed perjury against - who were punished, despite their innocence. So in the long run, more justice and good are done in this manner than evil, and this is a good thing, at least numerically speaking.

CHAOTIC NEUTRAL: Chaotic neutral characters believe that the individual and his or her rights are more important than anything, even if need be, the rights of the group. Individuals and minorities are not slaves to the greater good, nor should they be. If society ever puts someone in a position where they no longer benefit from being a member of society, that individual may freely ignore all social codes, laws, morals, or ethics to break free of a society that has failed them. Unfortunately, even if many people will get hurt along the way, that's too bad, they had it coming. After all, these people were members of a society and supported its actions and therefore they share in its guilt. If his or her rights can be restored without hurting anyone, great, but if not, that's tough. And though the chaotic neutral character is hard to predict since you never really know what they will care about or why, this is hardly the same as one who engages in random actions, even if it may seem like it to an outside observer. The chaotic neutral characters do care about things and certain people the same way most others do, but they can take good or leave it, or take evil or leave it, whatever happens to be most expedient to them to protect themselves and the people and things they care about, while they champion the individual's cause. Frequently, random events will determine what situations they find themselves in, and they will act accordingly, but their own actions are NOT randomly determined, but are instead dictated by the situation at hand. Now if your character has no depth and you are not really into playing the role, a player may be able to simulate the CN character's concerns by randomly flipping a coin, but I highly recommend you do not do this as it is NOT role playing; it is roll playing. The actual character, however, would not flip a coin to decide what he or she cared about. Players who do use dice or coins to determine such matters are at least admonished to be consistent. For example, if they use a coin to see if they'd care about their nephew or not, fine, but thereafter, they should strive to be consistent in this care, or lack of care, toward their nephew.

People who break the law to get what they want are fine examples of chaotic neutral characters. However, what they want may be self-serving and evil, altruistic and good, or something in between. Indeed, stepping outside the law to do a selfish thing one day - stealing a necklace for his girlfriend - and stepping outside the law to do an altruistic thing the next - picking the unscrupulous banker's pocket and giving the widow Brown enough to pay off her mortgage - is not atypical behavior of the chaotic neutral character, and though many may see this as random actions or even inconsistent behavior, they are not since he cares about his girlfriend and his neighbor and doesn't like the banker but does like the widow Brown. If you know this character and know what he cares about, his actions ARE more predictable. If he is a stranger, his actions may seem random to you, even though they are not. Randomness is NOT what makes a character chaotic. So a chaotic neutral character is far from unreliable just because of their alignment. If you know them, if you know what they care about, then you can rely on them to do their best to protect these interests, and if those interests are common to your own, they are excellent allies. A chaotic neutral character does not typically throw dice or flip coins to make up their minds. This is roll playing, not roleplaying, so stop it. And remember, using a coin or die to simulate this is something a PLAYER may do, but their character would not. They are not random beings with no cares about anything, no matter what they may SEEM like to a stranger who doesn't know them well.

CHAOTIC EVIL: These characters are the bane of all that is good and organized. Chaotic evil characters are motivated by the desire for personal gain and pleasure. They see absolutely nothing wrong with taking whatever they want by whatever means possible. Laws and governments are the tools of weaklings unable to fend for themselves. The strong have the ability and therefore the right to take what they want, and the weak are there to be exploited. When chaotic evil characters band together, they are not motivated by a desire to cooperate, but rather to oppose powerful enemies. By temporarily banding together, they become powerful and again have the ability and therefore the right to have things go their way, and the powerful enemies be damned. Even then, such a band will almost certainly fall apart unless each and every person there knows that in the current situation, unless they hang together, they will surely hang separately. Once this problem has passed, it is once again every man for himself. Actually, even before the situation has passed, they are probably making plans, perhaps even killing a few of their "comrades" when they feel they have already served their purpose, even though the enemy may yet to be defeated. Naturally, they do not do this simply for a desire to kill, but because they can foresee a time when such a comrade will be a liability rather than a help to their plans and they feel they no longer need them anyway. It is, after all, one more share of the loot for them to keep rather than split up, right? Of course, they were asking for it since they outlived their usefulness. Highly intelligent but evil characters most often strive to ensure they never outlive their usefulness to those more powerful than they are.

Assassins for hire, poisoners for profit, or murdering thieves and thugs are fine examples of chaotic evil characters

NOTE: This example does violate the rule that thieves need to be partially neutral, but that 1st ed. rule is a bit artificial and can be ignored in this instance, especially since Chaotic Evil people can steal, and the term "thief" should not be taken as the class "thief or rogue" anyway.

Also, a variety of things one may normally consider sick, aberrant, behavior may be classified as chaotic evil - perhaps pedophiles and psychopaths, for example. However, such characters may instead be considered insane and therefore not guilty of evil behavior, but rather are more like animals inasmuch as their brains do not recognize the harm they are doing. Whether they recognize it or not, however, it is still a fact they are quite broken - socially speaking - and often either need to be fixed, eliminated, or at least locked away for the good of society.

Let us proceed to my odd example of the party of nine adventurers, each having one of the nine alignments.

The lawful good character says, "Before we went on the adventure, we agreed to split any treasure we found in the cave equally, and that's what we're going to do. But we also found more treasure in that Harpy lair we encountered along the way back home. Since we have no agreement concerning this, I vote that we deduct the cost of everything that everybody used and replace it if possible with these funds. Furthermore, we should pay for the resurrection of those who have fallen, since to be fair we should all share things equally. If someone can't be raised, then his share goes to his family. In fact, this is such a wise policy that I vote we make it standard practice from now on. Furthermore, if we still don't have enough money to raise our fallen comrades, I'll donate part of my share to raise them and implore you to do the same since it could just as easily have been you this time, and may very well be you the next time someone lies upon the cold, stone slab of death."

"Since we agreed to split the cave treasure equally, that's fine," replies the lawful evil character thoughtfully, "but there was nothing in this deal about paying for someone else's expenses. It's not my fault if you spent a lot on equipment! As for the Harpy treasure, the truth is we have no set agreement and I seem to recall only a few of the braver and more highly skilled of us were even doing anything worthwhile during the fight. As far as I am concerned, the Harpy treasure belongs to just those who fought and none of the rest of you. As for bringing the dead back, I'm not setting aside any money to raise that klutz. He's someone else's problem. If he has enough of his own cash or his share of the Gorgon's treasure is sufficient, fine, we'll use it to buy a Raise Dead for him, but I'm not giving him any of my money. And for future reference, I'm leaving enough money at my temple to have me brought back if I should fall, and since I'd do the same for you, I think we should all sign this contract stating that we all will do whatever is reasonable to bring the fallen back home to their own temple."

Flourishing a sheet of paper, the lawful neutral character breaks in. "It's a good thing for you two that I've got things together and had the foresight to write down the exact terms of our agreement, and we're all going to follow them. But I say the LE character - he actually doesn't say this but calls him by name, you understand - is right and I'll sign his contract. The LG character also makes a good point, and I have written up an agreement to reflect his plan. I'll happily adventure with any of you who will enter into this contract. As for the rest of you, I say get lost if you won't sign it. The party needs unity to achieve strength and strength to grasp victory and rewards. By this common agreement, we can cement our relationship and hold together and achieve greatness."

The neutral good character then says, "I'm in favor of equal shares - that keeps everybody happy, but I feel expenses are each adventurer's own business. If someone spent too much, then he should be more careful next time. But raising fallen comrades seems like a good idea, so if necessary, I say I'll donate part of my share to do that, and I hope you will do the same. As for those contracts, I'll sign them both."

After listening to the above arguments, the neutral neutral character decides to say nothing yet. Things seem to be on track, his share seems to be forth coming, and he likes the idea of not having to pay for one of the dead but doesn't mind paying for the other. He was, after all, getting along with that one, even though the other one rubbed him the wrong way, so he'll chip in for the one but not for the other. The contracts do not bother him, and since they seem necessary to some, he'll sign them both. How strongly he'll feel about honoring them will just depend on subsequent circumstances, but he'll cross that bridge when he comes to it.

The neutral evil character died during the adventure, so he doesn't have anything to say. However, if he could make his opinion known he would gladly argue that the group ought to pay for raising him and set aside a share for him. In fact, if he thought he could swing it, he'd argue for a greater share for those who laid down their lives for the good of the party. This time, such a position works for him. Next time, he wouldn't blink an eye and would probably sing a different tune if it were someone else who had died, claiming while he died for the good of the party, that klutz died from his own stupidity. When, and if he is brought back, he'll sign the contracts since they are required for him to stay with the group. But he'll only honor them as long as it is safe, convenient, and inexpensive for him to do so. If honoring the contract were ever otherwise, he'd probably take that opportunity to steal whatever he could and leave the party behind forever.

The chaotic good character objects to the whole business. "Look, it's obvious the original agreement didn't take everything into account. I say we scrap it and reward the people for what they did. I saw some of you hiding in the background when the rest of us were doing all the real fighting, both against the Harpies and against the Gorgon in the cave. The real muscle should get two shares to the coward's one, and if he doesn't like it, he can either fight better next time or leave the party with his share now! I don't see why anyone should be rewarded more than that for being a coward! As for raising dead partners, I say that's a matter of personal choice. I don't mind chipping in for some of them, but I don't think I want everyone back in the group. I'll sign the contract that has us bring a body back so his own money can be used to bring him back, but I'm not going to sign the other agreement. Equipment is one's own responsibility, and I'm not paying for the mage's expensive material components just so he can do things in a flashy style or in a grander way, and you shouldn't pay to replace my equipment simply because I lost it or was too lazy to properly maintain it. Everyone should take care of themselves, and knowing that, I think they will do a better job at it rather than expect a handout. And if you don't want to adventure with me for that, then screw you.

The others revise the contract to put in spending limits and define what could be spent and why. Now the CG character could live with the contract under the new revisions, and he - as well as the others who had already signed to show they accepted the new revisions - signs the new contract since it reflects his concerns to a sufficient degree. But if evil ever abuses the spirit of the agreement, he'll probably not think twice about correcting the situation somewhere, in some way, down the road, contract or no contract.

Outraged at the totally true but tactless accusation of cowardice, the chaotic evil character snaps back, "Look, I was doing an important job, guarding the rear! Can I help it if nothing tried to sneak up behind us? You hypocrite, you'd be blaming me if something attacked us from behind and I wasn't there to give warning or handle it. And it's not my fault I don't walk around in a tin can for protection. That's your job. Hell, without my skills we'd never have gotten into the Gorgon's cave. I probably deserve more treasure, not less. You're lucky I was there and damn lucky if I agree to let you stay in the group with your attitude. Am I supposed to take less just because the worth of my skills was less obvious during combat? I use my skills the same as you use yours, you moron, and I won't take your abuse."

Now, the chaotic evil character may even be planning on the chaotic good character's demise, perhaps letting him "accidentally" bleed to death if the situation arises, or failing to point out a trap or pitfall when the CG character is right behind him, or maybe even more actively harming the CG character the next time he thinks he can get away with it. The opportunity will come in the fullness of time. Really, it just depends how petty he is and how outraged he was at the CG character's suggestion. In the mean time, he'll sign the contracts. It is not like he'll honor them if it isn't to his advantage, so why not sign?

The chaotic neutral character is also dead - after he tried to charge the Gorgon - so he doesn't contribute to the argument. However, if he were alive, he would join forces with whatever side appealed to him the most at the moment. In this case, he'd probably want his share and he'd want to be brought back - unless someone or something he loved needed the money more. The afterlife is probably not so bad, after all. But, baring such extraordinary situations, he almost certainly wants his life and his share. The last thing he's going to do is flip a coin - even if he weren't dead, considering the dead do not normally carry coins - to make up his mind.

SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON
ALIGNMENTS WITHIN THE GAME

Now, I know some may say "Hey, I'd never trust any chaotic character just because they signed a contract, and these others are fools to trust them." I must point out, however, that it is unlikely these characters know each other's alignment with the clarity the players seem to know them - even a character MAY not know his own alignment with the certainty his player knows it - and properly roleplayed, most people should have high expectations that all will honor their word and contracts until actually given a reason to think otherwise. By then, of course, it's too late sometimes, but until then, the contracts serve their purpose. Furthermore, violation of the contract might be enough to kick somebody out of the group, and that is worth the price of the violation for the lawful character, just to get rid of the chaotic character.

This brings us to one of the first things I did in my campaign to make alignments more playable. I got rid of the Detect Good and Detect Evil spells, the Know Alignment spell, and most other spell or abilities that allowed the PCs and NPCs to look at each other and know all. I also rid the world of the so-called, alignment languages. This also alleviated the relative and subjective nature of who determines what is good or evil, and in comparison to what. I still feel that if these spells did exist on my world, or do exist on your world, that the aura that returns from such a spell will give the caster an idea of the target's alignment only insofar as it compares to their own. This will let them know if they can trust someone or not, and that's the important thing.

However, I did replace these spells and abilities with the Detect Enemy spell. This spell searches for the intent to actively harm you or your immediate and obvious associates. An evil thief sitting in the bar minding his own business, or even casing the joint, wouldn't register on the paladin's detect enemy ability, but the assassin hired to kill the paladin's traveling companion would since the assassin is actively planning on doing just that when he falls under the paladin's gaze. Similarly, a thief simply planning on picking the pocket of the paladin's friend would register since this is harmful and active.

NOTE: The paladin's ability to detect evil or enemies is NOT automatic, but the player must actively state he is looking for an enemy. Furthermore, it is a LOS ability - Line Of Sight. A paladin is said to "sense" these things, but this is not to imply they can do this through solid rock, but only they can sense these "hidden" things in people or creatures that they can see. In addition to this, the Detect Enemy spell has similar properties for other planar creatures that the original Detect Good/Evil spells had. And Protection From Enemy gives similar protection for those trying to hurt you or yours.

However, if your players are still using differing alignments of others as an open invitation to attack and kill these characters, then they are probably playing evil characters - evil characters would still do this - or they are not playing their neutral or good characters properly. The neutral characters shouldn't care what another's alignment is, and the good ones should object to murder. And if they're playing evil, no one need even try to justify their actions.

Also, there is an unfortunate tendency for players to wish to impose on others their own ideas on how to "properly" play alignment. Thus, if one player knew the alignment of another player's character, and THEY didn't agree HE was playing it properly, oddly enough THEY may feel compelled to "correct" this character or bring HIM "into line." This can get real ugly, real quick, and often leads to bad feelings or even ruins a game and brings it to a halt. It is far better players are kept in the dark about any PC's alignment other than their own PC's alignment. The DM is and should be the only one who needs to worry if a player is playing their PC's alignment "properly."

The DM should also convey to his or her players that simply because a creature has an alignment given in the book, that is not a positive, absolute indication that if they met such a creature, that this creature would have that alignment. Most humans are neutral-neutral, after all, yet many have other alignments. Similarly, most kobolds and orcs are Lawful Evil, but not all, and the orc standing there may not be evil at all. Automatically attacking the orc and killing them is evil or bad roleplaying since:

A.) You didn't really know its alignment, and

B.) Even if it were evil, that wouldn't justify murdering it, and

C.) This is probably a use of "player information" anyway since characters probably do not have such books indicating various alignments on creatures - so stop it.

Fortunately for a game that thrives on conflict, many monsters are evil or of animal intelligence, or for some other reason quickly and openly attack our intrepid adventurers, and self defense is nearly always an acceptable reason to fight and kill. There should be no shortage of reasons for conflict without needing to simply say characters are fighting since they have different alignments. That's silly.

Another thing you may wish to consider it this: Unless you, the DM, can think of a very good, in-game reason to tell the characters - and not the players for reasons of game balance - why a character class MUST have an alignment restriction, get rid of it or allow PCs to play alternative classes, similar, but with different alignments. For example, I allow a class similar to Rangers but who do not have to be of good alignment. They are called trackers or scouts and the only significant difference between them and rangers is the tracker's tracking percentage is 15% lower - or at -3 the normal ability. The rangers belong to a secret organization, a worldwide brotherhood that can tap into a force of good and nature, thus giving them a 15% edge - or so I contrived to justify this and maintain a certain flavor. This edge requires them to be good, but if a player wished to play a ranger type but not adhere to a good alignment, then he has this option. Similarly, a monk class that is less than lawful, the holy warrior - a warrior of a god of any corner alignment - rogues and bards that are not necessarily neutral, or other classes with alignment restrictions either have more options and less alignment restrictions as viable, yet similar classes to play. These things only differ from the standard classes in minor ways so this does not take a lot of work. Ultimately, I find this lets people play the class AND alignment they wish to play, and not only have I seen no detriment in doing this, but also I have seen many advantages - especially inasmuch as no IC reason need be manufactured to explain some silly alignment restriction that you felt was inappropriate to begin with.

If you still feel certain classes should have alignment restrictions, that's fine. Just be sure to explain why they must - on the IC level - in something other than OOC game balance terms. Otherwise it makes no sense a character would conform to it, even if a player must. Furthermore, I still think a watered down version of the class should be made available. If they play the proper alignment, then they get the full powers and abilities given in the book, but if they are willing to take a minor cut in power - and it should be minor - then they should be able to play something similar with a different alignment.

To further alleviate any alignment problems - except for certain class restrictions that are simply too hard to avoid - I don't make any character pick an alignment until after they've been playing that character for a while. In fact, on my world, they can play a character until 7th level without really locking down their alignment - unless the class needs it before this, like a priest or holy warrior of a particular deity, or a full-fledged "good" ranger. By not forcing this alignment issue on them, many players can feel freer and enjoy playing more. The DM will eventually tell them what their character's alignment is based on what they have been doing, and why, and by asking the player what the character's intentions were. Any alterations the player wished could be made at that time. It is only after this - after 7th level or so - that I, as DM, would think of punishing someone for alignment deviations. After all, they have had enough time to become familiar with the DM's points of view on this matter. Punishing newbies who have not yet had this opportunity is wrong, but punishing veterans of your world is fine, when necessary.

I mentioned intentions since they are important to determining a PC's alignment. I am reminded of a story of a man who, when seeing a little girl drowning in the lake, dived in and saved her. Now what do you think that man's alignment was? Judging by his actions, most people would say LG or NG or even CG - or at "worst," LN, NN, or CN. But what was he really? If it turned out the man recognized the girl as the daughter of a wealthy man and saved her only for the probable reward, would that change your mind? What if you found out the man took that opportunity to rescue the little girl only because he needed a virgin sacrifice? If it became clear, on the other hand, the man had no ulterior motive and could hardly swim himself, but still risked his life to save her, how about then?

The alignment of this man certainly depends on this man's intentions, what he was willing to risk, and why, and not simply on his actions. As a DM with insight into the mind of the character - simply by asking the player the whys and the whatfors - a more accurate determination of alignment can be made. This assumes, of course, the player is telling you the truth. I have seen players lie about their reasons for their character's actions. He did this to preserve their character's alignment, or perhaps to cover up his own motives. Once, I recall, player A was angry with player B. Player A's PC "accidentally" let player B's PC die by letting it bleed to death. He wouldn't admit it, but everyone felt sure it was true. Oh well, no system is perfect.

Finally, magic items with alignments should be use sparingly, but magic items that change a character's alignment are not particularly fun - unless there is a simple way back that can be done in a reasonable amount of time. No player wants to be saddled with an alignment he doesn't want to play, whether from the beginning or later in life when a bad magic item forces it on him. To add insult to injury, if the new alignment is not in accord to that character's class, he may be forced to give up playing that class as well. Now he's saddled with both a class and an alignment he had no desire to play. As a game, I recommend trying to keep it fun for everyone, and being forced to play something you'd rather not in any long-term way isn't very fun.

Now, if you've read this paper from the top to this point, I salute you. You obviously care. I thank you for your time and patience and your interest in what I had to say, and I wish you well and hope your gaming experiences may be the better for it. Have fun, and happy gaming ;-)

And if you are interested in taking the alignment test - either for your character or for yourself - follow the link below.

© November of 1999
by
James L.R. Beach
Waterville, MN 56096

If you'd like to email me any comments you may have on this material, feel free to do so.

Email Jim Your Comments (Send Praise, Critique, Complaints, Suggestions, Ideas, Corrections, or Submissions).