THE REAL ALIGNMENT WARS IN AD&D

Alignment was always a very big deal in the campaigns in which I played. So much, in fact, the abuse of alignments has become a pet peeve of mine.

I have always felt the character of the individual determines one's alignment. Unfortunately, many players seem to have this backwards; they think one's alignment determines their character. As such, they treat it like a straitjacket. They wish their character could do something, but man! That would be against their character's alignment!

Have you ever heard the phrase "Let's go find a lawful good reason to kill."? This is a classic abuse of the alignment system. We've all seen supposedly good characters out right murder a passing orc who, as far as anyone knew, didn't do anything wrong. And why? Because the orc was evil! But was he? And even if he was evil in thought, was he evil in deed? And even then, would any past deeds even matter when compared to future deeds?

On the other hand, playing in the midst of an evil campaign, I have seen evil clerics refuse to heal their comrades. Why? Healing somebody would be good, wouldn't it? It didn't seem to matter such an action would be smart, advantageous, or even, in the long run, promote more evil; it just shouldn't be done; right? And that's assuming they are actually trying to promote evil rather than simply doing things that may be considered evil. It might be more the case, under such an evil game, that the cleric took that opportunity to force a wounded comrade to give them something, agree to something, or in some other way benefit the evil cleric or the cleric would refuse to heal the wounded character, instead letting them die. An evil person might do something so ruthless, but they wouldn't refuse to heal someone simply because it may violate some abstract notion. Alignments are not so artificially used.

And, if that wasn't bad enough, I've seen neutral comrades suddenly turn on their companions because, as it turned out, their companions represented a strong force of good or evil, law or chaos, and the neutral character took it upon themselves to balance the scales of the very universe and switch to the losing side. How ridiculous! I realize there is actually an example like that in the book, but it is ill conceived. If it weren't, all true-neutral characters would be shunned as people that may eventually turn on their own comrades. It is far better for such neutral characters to have faith things will always balance out of their own accord, and if they are with a group that represents a strong force in one alignment's direction, they can be sure another true neutral character is somewhere with a group who is opposing that very force (after all, everything is in balance or soon will be, isn't it?). Besides, if such open conflict actually took place, it would probably end with the death of the true neutral or the death of the rest of the group. Certainly, if both sides survived they would no longer adventure together, thus putting another serious rift into the game. Alignments are not so artificially used.

And so the alignment wars continued. Good vs. Evil fighting one another for no other reason than the fact they were on opposite sides. They may as well have been a green team and a blue team. The same thing would be true of Law vs. Chaos. All in the name of interesting conflict. That was their reason - wasn't it?

Eventually I came to the conclusion most people couldn't be trusted to play their alignments properly, or at any rate, not up to my apparently high standards. This is what led to the true alignment wars. It wasn't the pretend conflict between characters on sheets of paper; it was the conflict and bad feeling between players over clashing views on alignment and the proper ways to play them.

I, of course, enjoy a good discussion or debate about religion, politics, or philosophies. You know everything you're suppose to avoid discussing in polite society? As such, I positively loved a good alignment fight. Now don't get me wrong here, I said a good fight. Unfortunately the majority of those things easily degraded into the bad ones. But during the course of many years of play, there were enough good ones wherein like minded people calmly discussed alignment, its proper use, and its proper definitions.

THE PROPER USE OF ALIGNMENTS

Today, I am of a philosophy that, since alignments are difficult for most players to get their minds around, it is best to use them only in a quiet, subsurface kind of way. I don't even have a space for alignment on the character sheet I designed. This doesn't mean a character is devoid of an alignment or its considerations, but simply it is hidden from the prying eyes of other players, just like it should be. Unfortunately, or fortunately as the case may be, clerics, rangers, monks, and paladins, as well as some other character classes are unable to totally conceal their alignments. These characters, and the people that play them, still may have problems conforming to their necessary alignments. The others do not, for it is I who determine their alignment after several sessions of play. This can't be as easily done with character classes that demand certain alignment restrictions. (You may wonder why clerics were on that list since they can be of any alignment. In this context, clerics must be the alignment of their deity, so a player who wished to play a cleric of Athena, for example, would be constrained to play LG, thus making the list of "forced" alignments).

In order to keep PC alignments secret, and NPC alignments as well, and in order to avoid the stupid character alignment wars, certain steps needed to be taken. On Orlantia, the spells "detect good" or "detect evil," "know alignment," and other like spells have been trashed or altered. I have replaced them with "detect enemies" or similar spells. Here, an enemy is defined as someone intending to do you or your apparent friends or companions harm of some sort in the very near future. Protections from good or evil spells and powers have been replaced with similar protection from enemy spells or powers. They still help in the protection against summoned creatures and the like, but are no longer alignment specific. This makes it easier to lose a PC's alignment in the background.

So now I try to keep a handle on a PC's alignment. By the time they're 7th level, I can really lock it down. By this time the PC has chosen a primary deity, and by their actions they have already determined their alignment. I usually take some time then to discuss alignments with each player on a one-to-one basis. I tell them what I believe their PC's alignment is and why. I tell them how their actions have determined their alignments. I discuss the other PCs in general and how the PCs are interacting with one another. I use the sounding board of known alignments of PCs and NPCs and help the player get a good idea of where they are, why, and what they must continue to do to remain there. It is only after this time that I would punish a character with alignment damage for deviations. The only exceptions to this rule are for those characters that have alignment restrictions to begin with.

In my world, the struggle of good and evil is at least twice as important as the struggle between law and chaos. Good and evil are in conflict over WHAT should be achieved, whereas law and chaos are NOT arguing about WHAT so much as HOW it is to be achieved. This is why an alignment shift on the good/evil scale brings twice the penalty as a shift on the law/chaos scale.

THE NATURE OF GOOD AND EVIL AND
LAW AND CHAOS

To briefly generalize, GOOD strives for the mutual benefit of everyone. EVIL is the absence of any desire in this direction. Selflessness and altruism characterize GOOD. EVIL is characterized by selfishness and the belief one's personal concerns are more important than any other person's is.

LAWFUL beings believe order and structure may best achieve their goals. They believe individual rights are superseded by the rights and needs of the many. CHAOTIC beings believe order and structure can't possibly be as useful or better than the individual's freedom of choice. They believe they know what is best for them and probably what is best for others as well. They rely on their individual sense being better than societies' and know the individual's rights should supersede societies'. After all, the reason an individual joins a society is to benefit from joining. Right? Otherwise why join?

One type of NEUTRAL being may be neutral because they are unintelligent or unaware. This places them in a category of beings that is neither good nor evil, nor lawful or chaotic. Another type of neutral character simply doesn't care. Like an animal, such considerations are of little or no importance to them, even if unlike an animal they are capable of understanding various philosophies, even without agreeing with them. Or, the other type of neutral being is neutral because of a belief in the natural balance of creation and an understanding of the fact you can't have one without the other. In the fullness of time all things will balance out without the need of any intervention on their part. In fact, the apparent desire to intervene would be, if anything, an indication of their lack of faith, a shortcoming in their own beliefs or commitment to the natural order of things. At most, abuses in the forces of nature may have to be curtailed. A Druid, of course, would get all bent out of shape at the abuse of a forest or the mindless slaughter of animals not because of the Druid's alignment, but because of their religion. Most fluctuations in the balance of the universe are simply that, and only temporary at best. And if a true neutral character really didn't like what their associates were doing, instead of suddenly becoming disloyal and attacking them, they would try to convince them to alter their plans; failing that, they would probably withdraw from the scene, choosing to take no part in such extreme actions. To attack them, despite what the book may say, is lame. Alignments are not so artificially used.

It is a fact most humans are neutral-neutral with various tendencies. As an aside here, I simply would like to indicate alignments on my world have a four-letter designation. For example, NNLG would be neutral-neutral with lawful good tendencies. That is, more often than not, their thoughts and actions are NN, but occasionally they do some LG things. Furthermore, CE actions and thoughts wouldn't be characteristic of their nature. If they were, at least even occasionally, the LG tendency wouldn't be there, but would be replaced with another NN. This would indicate their actions would range from LG to CE, but would usually be found in the NN range. After all, any alignment designation is meant to convey the idea that your character does have strong feelings about certain things, and if you do not wish to play a character with strong feelings, then don't. Play NNNN and do whatever strikes your fancy. That should be realistic enough for anyone.

Naturally, to cover all possibilities one would have to further divide alignments into about as many different classifications as there are people. You can, for example, have a NNLG character that does occasionally do CE things, but does LG things far more frequently (and NN things more often than any other action). This designation might be NN w LG/CE. Thus, they would be NN and have more LG tendencies than CE one (LG over CE), but this system soon becomes rather ridiculous since alignments were never meant to be used as such specific indicators of all actions but were rather intended for broad classifications of one's personal philosophies and outlooks on life. In any event, most humans are NN with various tendencies.

So many people are NN, in fact, that many players have a hard time visualizing any other thing and may easily consider alignments to be ridiculous or unrealistic since they do not have such strong moral convictions or feelings in the abstract that they would find certain actions unthinkable, let alone undoable. To them all I can say is this. If you find alignments unrealistic may I suggest it is simply because you have probably only experienced them in a game where they were being used as artificial excuses to motivate the character's actions. The personal philosophies of people, in general, are not so artificially used. And when conflict does arise in the real world over various matters it is frequently the case the culprit, so to speak, can to traced to low intelligence, low wisdom, a misunderstanding, or some other reason and NOT a difference in abstract philosophy. We know there are exceptions, but we are talking about the rule and not the exceptions. Alignments are not so artificially used.

And so we may only rely on a few examples, and perhaps examine our own beliefs and know what we are and whether or not we are pleased with our own character. If, for example, you mistakenly receive an extra five dollars change at the store, what do you do? As a PC you may wish to decide for yourself what you will do and object to being told you have to return it because you are lawful or good, thus thinking of the alignment system as a straitjacket that forces you to do things and takes the decision out of your own hands. But it isn't like that. It is assumed you had a desire to play a character that would feel badly about not returning such things (as the $5). This is why you chose that alignment. (Naturally, if you only chose the alignment because you wanted to play something cool like a paladin and not because you wanted the moral convictions that went with it, you may feel put upon by the alignment system). That is no one's fault but your own. You shouldn't take an alignment you have no desire or intention of playing, and if this means some character classes or religions are no longer available to you, then ask your DM if they have something non standard that might fit your desire to play an aspect of the class while not being saddled with an alignment you hate. For example, you think playing a ranger would be cool, but you do not wish to be confined to playing a "good" character. Perhaps the DM can come up with a fighter who has a high tracking skill, if that's what interest you, or some other thing that might give you what you desire. If not, oh well, try playing something else.

Thus, under the assumption that you know and understand what the alignments are before you decide upon your character, and under the assumption you pick your character class and/or religion fully expecting and wanting to play a character of the required alignment, then you have no one to blame but yourself if you change your mind or wish to play something else later on since it was your decision. It isn't the alignment system's fault, nor it is because the system is unrealistic. It was a poor or shortsighted choice on your part that is the cause of your current woes and not a straitjacket quality to one's alignment. Alignments are not so artificially used.

And true to that old comic book adage we find that "with great power comes great responsibility." This is a responsibility to one's alignment, philosophy, or belief system. It is typical that high levels of education, high levels of money and economic wealth, or high levels of power have a tendency to fix one's alignment away from the NN center. In fact, it is those types of power that give rise to most humans of corner alignments. Still, if you could find an entry for a typical human in the Monstrous Manual, it would read as NN. This is because the majority of them are NN.

In fact, it is generally believed in the Alodarian Empire that humans are born NN and may or may not become something else as a direct result of one's up bringing. Of course you are still legally responsible for your own actions typically by the time you reach the age of consent, and morally responsible by the time you reach the age of understanding, commonly thought to be 7 Orlantian years or 7.67 Earth years old.

Now, since humans are NN, or at least the majority, what are the other creatures in the monster manuals? We know humans have varied alignments. Most are NN, but not all. Therefore, it is a fact on Orlantia that most creatures have an alignment as given in the monster manuals - most, but not all. This is why it was particularly bad for the CG character to kill the orc on sight. The orc may not have even been LE. Besides, like I said, even if he was that is still no excuse to murder him. And any CG character playing like that doesn't understand his or her alignment. Again, it isn't like a blue team and a green team with an open invitation to trash one another. It is nothing like that. Alignments are not so artificially used.

As DMs we have access to something most people don't have, insight into the mind of a PC. This is absolutely vital in the determination of alignments. Actions may speak louder than words, but actual insight into the mind speaks volumes.

I am reminded of a story of a man who, when seeing a little girl drowning in the lake, dove 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," NN). But 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. As a DM with insight into the mind of the character, an accurate determination of alignment can be made. This assumes, of course, the player is telling you the truth. I have seen a player lie about his reasons for his PC's actions. He did this to preserve his PC'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.

If nothing else, you should have learned one thing by now about Orlantia. You should always be careful with your alignment on my world. Even if it isn't important to you, you can be sure it's important to me.

For further thoughts on alignments, you may wish to follow this link.

The Problems Of Playing Evil Characters

My Final Word On Alignments, and An Alignment TEST

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