Alignment and Realism

I recently came upon a discussion on RPGnet which included a comment about moral relativity that really pissed me off. So, you'll need to indulge me for a moment while I rant.

For some reason, there's a perception that a game with moral absolutes is somehow less realistic than one featuring moral relativism. The notion there is that the rampaging Orcs have a reason why they're trying to rape, loot and pillage their way across the kingdom, from their point of view it's 'good', and so that's okay. Clearly, this is more realistic than a game where they're doing these things because they're Eeevil.

Well, duh.

The thing is, though, that whether they have a reason for what they're doing has very little to do with moral relativism. Whether they see what they're doing as good or evil is also irrelevant. It is, after all, possible to sincerely believe that you're doing good while, in fact, being completely wrong. If nothing else, that can make for very effective tragedy.

The other thing to bear in mind is this: it really doesn't matter why the rampaging orc wants to kill you and take your stuff. He might have a very good reason for doing so. Assuming you aren't suicidal, you're going to want to stop him. And that may well require killing him.

All that said, the use of an alignment system in role-playing games almost necessarily makes them less realistic. The reason for this is that it's just easier to play to your alignment, and this means that character morality becomes rather simpler.

There's another issue at play here, too. If players just ran their characters without regard to their alignment, and the DM tracked the alignments of the group, a great many PCs (if not most) would rapidly gravitate towards a Chaotic Neutral alignment. The average PC shows next to no concern for society as a whole (and goes to great lengths to avoid taxes - which is a definate sign of Chaotic behaviour), and tends towards a distinctly mercenary bent ("I expect to be well paid" is Neutral, not Good).

Of course, many PCs require a particular alignment to retain their powers, and so they don't play their characters freely, but take pains to stay in the 'right' box. And many people are uncomfortable with the notion that their characters might be anything other than Good (because, hey, they're not bad people). So, they play to stick within the lines. And, yes, that hurts realism.

Of course, alignment concerns really only apply to PCs. The average NPC is on stage for a single encounter. And there just isn't time for detailed analyses of the exact alignment of the third orc on the right as he swings his axe at the barbarian. The only characters who exist long enough for alignment to be shown in any detail are the PCs.

I don't know if that's at all helpful, to be honest.

On a related note, it would be nice to see characters who have clearly defined moral codes. As opposed to the usual attitude of "what's in it for me?". A character who isn't Chaotic Good because the player needed to put something in the Alignment box, but who has taken that stance because he truly believes that only in a loose society can people flourish, or has seen too many people destroyed by oppressive taxes (or even completely fair and just taxes) and has dedicated himself to removing that burden. Or a Lawful Good character who is absolutely committed to building a Utopian society where all can live in peace, free from the tyranny of evil men.

Or, better still, a Lawful Evil character who is absolutely committed to building a Utopian society where all can live in peace, free from the tyranny of evil men, but who is absolutely willing to crush the right of others to protest his reforms, by violent and fatal means, if necessary.

Personal Codes of Honour

"My character is obviously lawful good. He follows a personal code of honour!"

Uh, no. Simply following a personal code of honour does not make you either lawful or good. In fact, any character can follow such a code, regardless of alignment.

Firstly, let's deal with the code=good argument. This is easily dealt with. Consider the character of Leon in the film of the same name (unless you're American, in which case it's "The Professional"). This character, at least at the start of the film, is an assassin for hire. He kills people for his own benefit, which is clearly evil. But his code is "no women, no children". Which does, indeed, amount to a personal code of honour. (Leon is, actually, a fairly interesting film from an alignment point of view, since the title character is obviously shifting towards good - or at least neutrality - as the film progresses, but remains a killer for hire.)

However, the code=lawful argument is harder to deal with. It seems obvious that a character who will bind himself with arbitrary rules should be lawful, and indeed many lawful characters follow codes. However, the key problem is the "personal code" part. The existence of the code says nothing about how the character interacts with others.

Consider, for instance, the knight errant. His code requires him to travel the lands righting wrongs, seeking out and vanquishing evil, and bringing hope to the masses. But his code says nothing about establishing a common set of social rights and responsibilities, nor does it suggest that he believes that this is the right way for anyone other than himself to live. Indeed, part of his code could be directed to removing the local tyrant, without any notion of replacing the tyrant with any other authority.

No, the knight errant's code is not inherently lawful, but more likely neutral, or perhaps even chaotic.

Amusing Observation

I found it somewhat amusing on Saturday that, after last week's ranting about alignments that I posted here, several people started commenting about their alignment, and how it should influence their actions. One asked if he could have a different alignment as regards orcs, while another pondered how his alignment and his upbringing should lead him to react to the practice of slavery.

Here's the key: the alignment on your sheet shouldn't affect how you play your character. If your view of your character states that he has no problem with slavery, then have your character act that way. If your character has an unreasoning and genocidal hatred of orcs, have him act on it. The alignment on your sheet should never change who your character is.

There is a flip side to that argument. If your character's behaviour is consistently at odds with the alignment on the sheet, I'll change the alignment on the sheet. And that is the full extent of my influence over your actions and alignment - I'll keep the one consistent with what I see of the other. Oh, and I won't warn you either - if you act that way, the sheet will simply be changed to reflect that. (And yes, there are some alignment shifts that I am currently considering.)

There is an exception to my "no warning" policy as regards alignments, and that deals with characters who have their abilities tied to alignment. For instance, I won't change a paladin's alignment without comment, since that seriously harms the character. Likewise, I won't change a cleric's alignment to one banned by his god without discussing the matter with the player first.

Of course, I also won't impose an alignment change lightly in any case. As I said, one out-of-alignment action does not make for an alignment change, except perhaps in the most extreme of cases. (For instance, you can point to the murder of Duncan as the time when Macbeth's alignment shifts from neutral to evil.)

See What I Mean?

The latest Dragon magazine includes a Prestige Class called the Battleguard of Tempus. Here are two quotes: "Harsh drill sergeants and exacting taskmasters...", and "Alignment: Any nonlawful".

So, what we have are warriors dedicated to battle, known for their mashalling of armies, and exacting in the standard of drill in their units. Yet, at the same time, they cannot be lawful.

Now, before I rant about how these positions are internally inconsistent, allow me to point out that, while Dragon magazine is no longer owned by WotC, and while the author of the article is not a WotC employee, the material in Dragon is all "official" Dungeons & Dragons content, and should be acceptable for use in any game (or, at least, just as acceptable as any WotC sourcebook). Moreover, the Forgotten Realms is the flagship setting for D&D, in fact if not in name, and so one would expect a certain level of editorial control.

Still, the above is just an aside. Here's the problem with the two quotes above:

The very rationale for exacting standards of drill in massed units of troops is that men working together are expontentially more effective than the same number of men working independently. Massed cavalry charges are so devastating precisely because they hit the enemy en masse, and so can just keep on going. Legions carry short swords, not longswords, because they require less space to wield effectively, allowing you to pack the men more tightly (something that is also true of polearms, which are deadly in massed combat, but not in individual combat, something that no version of the massed combat rules that I've seen since 3rd Edition has taken into account).

But, the notion of men being most effective when working together is a strictly lawful ideal. The counter ideal, embodied by the berserker horde, is that men are most powerful fighting individually, that a horde of berserk warriors can each create their own field of terror, and reign death and destruction on it.

So, then, how can one state that the Battleguards of Tempus are "harsh drill sergeants", while at the same time mandating that they are strictly non-lawful? Surely these are inconsistent positions?

Alignments

Alignments is a problem, people only play to their alignment when it suits them, and short of giving XP penalties, which we already have established is 'Teh Bad' what can you do to stop them? Well, change their alignment to whatever suits them best, but then they'll start breaking their new alignment by playing more like their old one. Someone is acting evil and mean all the time, you switch their alignment to evil, suddenly they’ll start behaving very well, because they don't want to get arrested for being too evil.

Everyone should just bloody well write Chaotic Neutral on their sheets and be done with it, because lets face it, this is what ever single player I've seen lately is playing. Or rather Chaotic Slightly Evil, an alignment which is sadly lacking from D&D. But on a more serious note, unless there is an incentive to play to your alignment people seem to forget all about it and do whatever they feel is right in the situation they are in, which defeats the point of the alignments in the first place.

Problem? Yes.

Do I have a solution? Nope, none what so ever. I just like ranting about it.