jcg@cbosgd.UUCP (Jim Grams) (05/11/85)
Ah, alignment! Now here is a topic that can really be latched onto. (Please excuse the length of this, but I think I eventually get to the point. And I think it may be an interesting one, too.) I've been FRPing for longer than I can remember, and have had a few stints as a DM too. As a DM, I try to invent everything, as I don't particularly like the sort of constraints that rules, pre-programmed modules or the like impose on play. However, there must be a framework to play within, or sessions become terribly disorganized, and no fun at all. Therefore, I use AD&D in my campaigns. Not because AD&D is good, or even very playable, but because it is so pervasive, that is forms a very convenient departure point for my campaigns. Most of my players prefer to think in terms of a rules format, and so calling the campaign an AD&D one, serves many purposes. When it comes to alignment, though, you can play many ways. Some people use alignment as a straight-jacket for their characters. This obviously can be done for Paladins who have some pretty hefty restrictions on their behavior, but I have seen it applied to Neutrals and Chaotics just as chokingly. Other people tend to ignore alignment problems completely, except when confronted by an obviously philosophical situation or question. I have played and DMed alignment several ways and have learned a couple of things: 1) Strict alignment rules are NOT critical to the play of the game. The characters will evolve their own philosophies if left alone anyway. The AD&D alignment rules merely give players a way of realizing that their characters are supposed to have minds, consciences, philosophies, goals, souls, etc. and they should flesh them out to include such things. 2) No situation can be strictly decided on alignment alone. The single paragraph descriptions of what Lawful Neutral is supposed to mean will always be hopelessly inadequate. It is like trying to live your life guided by messages you find in fortune cookies. The short descriptions are exactly what is needed to give someone a taste of alignments, but it must go farther than that. 3) Characters should never be single-minded. Sure there are extreme types in any society (Jim Jones, Hitler, St. Francis D'Asissi, etc.) but the great majority of people, even major players, in history have moved around in their ideas, thinking, beliefs, etc. (E.g. For example, how many of you have changed your thinking on Vietnam, The Church, Capital Punishment, Palestinians, etc. in your lives?) 4) Life is inherently mysterious, religion more so, FRP gods should be too. When a character does something claiming that God X requires the action, I hold my breath praying another character will cry out "How in the hell do you know that?" Normally, the player will turn to the DM and say, "If I don't off this helpless, blind child, I'll lose my anti-paladin hood, right?" To which my answer is ALWAYS, smiling, "Try it". Okay, you ask, where is all this going? Well, recently I starting DMing a slightly experimental campaign. I convinced a number of experienced players who were used to playing high-level characters to start over using naive 1st level characters. The campaign has centered on a small, back-water town near where the characters grew up. The populace is hopelessly ignorant about religious issues and the alignments of the locals are so hard to figure out the players have expressed dismay at the lack of signs I have put into the environment to tell them how to act. Their own alignments are indistinct, the gods mostly unknown to them, their actions mostly un- directed by questions of philosophy. There is only a small, terribly administered shrine to Cor'Thankil, reputedly a God of Mountains. The single cleric in the party "worships" Cor'Thankil without understanding him/her. Her powers at this stage seem more a mystery (especially to the other party members who are being played by players whose clerics in the past have been just as likely to be found lunching with their deity than serving it) than a clerical skill. Paladins are, so far, unheard of in the region. Interestingly, the party has begun to miss some of the old structure, asking the DM why I let the cleric (who behaves, shall we say, dangerously chaotic, at times) retain powers when she obviously has no conception of what she is doing. I answer, "she thinks she knows what she is doing". Their adversaries, so far, are being characterized (by them) as evil types. Enslavers of magic users, captains of orcs, thieves, murderers, etc. They continue to make assumptions about what is going on, and how they should behave, on their own, without me telling them that such and such an act is inappropriate or not. Some players don't seem to like this as much, but others, I hope, are being challenged to put more thought into their characters. So whats the point? As play progresses, I believe the characters will develop a version of the "cosmos" that fits their perception. They will worship who they choose, behave as they like, and have a rationalization for every- thing they do. My job is just to provide positive or negative reinforcements that is consistent with my idea of how the "cosmos" really works. Whether the players ever discover any "truths" about the gods, is immaterial. They will form consistent philosophies and I will reward each philosophy by giving out powers, information, etc. as we go along. In the end, the char- acters will have a much more satisfying image of the world, then if I had laid it all out ahead of time and imposed it on them. I should stress, that I did lay it all out. I just neglected to tell anyone about it. Without the key background information, the DM's actions may seem inexplicable. But, characters should have the capability to explain things for themselves and they have (and will) come up with reasons for what goes on around them. Keep in mind, I don't want them to try to guess the right answer (why should the DM have the only answer?). I just want them to devise AN answer, test it, believe it, act on it. As we are playing in a multi-verse, with a multi-theistic basis, several explanations are likely for any mystery, anyway, so all I am doing here is saying that alignment is just a character's perception of the world, and what works for one character may not for another. This appears to bother some players. They want that old consistency offered by a 3x3 matrix, and rules that say a Paladin can cure wounds because he is so bloody Lawful Good. As Dave Bryant said in his Alignment article recently "we are trying to embody an amazingly complex set of concepts in a small 3x3 matrix of alignment components, and are therefore going to radically over simplify". This is exactly right, and as I don't want my FRPing to be too simple, I reject a strictly simple approach. To be fair, Dave (who happens to be a player in my "experimental" campaign -- and may be trying to say something to me in his recent posting) is addressing the point of how to explain alignment simply to newer players. In this, he is quite right to propose a simple definition that gives a new player the image of opposing forces at work. A good role-player should soon begin to see a blurring of the 3x3 concept, however, and I believe experienced players should begin "pushing the outer limit of the envelope" after awhile. Much of the discussion here can be viewed as people struggling with the constraints this limited thinking enforces. Staying within (and behind) the 3x3 matrix is ultimately stagnating, and nearly everyone breaks away from the matrix anyway. They just don't always notice what they have done, and, perhaps unfortunately, come "home" to it time and time again. Comments are welcome. Jim Grams ..!cbosgd!nscs!jcg