Alignment in D&D has been many things over the years. Apparently, the "9 alignment" grid of the possible combinations of law/chaos/neutrality and good/evil/neutrality was a blend of the two things. The first was from an early fantasy novel (Three Hearts and Three Lions, Poul Anderson, 1961) that puts things in the camps of law and chaos, with some remaining neutral. The other classic aspect of good versus evil (with some not choosing a side) became the other axis. To oversimplify, in D&D terms, this became a two-axis grid which had "are you a follower of the conventions of civilization or a loose cannon" on one side, and "are you good or bad or somewhere in the middle" on the other. I have always thought of this as following the rules vs heart (what you are deep inside).
Various editions of D&D have relied heavily on these concepts and classifications over the years. At the most basic fundamental (and restrictive level), certain classes required characters of certain alignments, and behaving "contrary to your alignment" had stiff penalties and consequences. Thieves couldn't be thieves. Paladins would lose their special abilities. And so on.
The silliest manifestation of this was always, to my mind, that in various editions, each alignment had its own language, and plane of existence. Souls of the lawful good dead went to one plane for their afterlife. Lawful evil people went to another. I've never been much for alternate planes, so this was a curiosity but didn't bother me much.
On the language front, I was never able to wrap my head around the idea the lawful good people (good hearted people who follow all the rules) and chaotic good people (good hearted people who will cheat the rules...i.e. the ends justify the means) had separate secondary languages that they spoke. Ridiculous and stupid. But that's just me.
So...why the ramblings? Just thinking about what alignment means in my campaign (if anything)...
Football coach Bill Parcells once said "you are what your record says you are." This is how I view alignment for my players and their characters. I don't ask them to pick an alignment. How they behave will determine what they are. In 5th edition terms, it really doesn't matter anyway, as most of the restrictions and limitations noted above have been removed. Or if not, I have removed them. However, a worshipper of a specific god (depending on them for spells and special abilities) who consistently behaves in a manner at odds with what a worshipper of that god should be, will create problems. Many character classes will never run into this kind of concern. And that is fine. A few classes and characters may be more restricted. And we play that as it comes.
In general, the only use I have for alignment in my campaign is a simple one. If I am making notes on a non-player character (NPC) that the players may encounter, or who is important for some other reason, I will often note one of the nine classic D&D alignments solely for the purpose of it being a shorthand way of reminding me how that specific NPC will behave. Chaotic neutral would be the unpredictable "I'm in it for me" NPC. Chaotic good would be "I'm unpredictable but I mean well." Lawful evil would be "I'm cold and calculating but all that matters is me." Chaotic evil would be "forget everyone else, it's me me me, all me and nothing but me." And so on.
For what I want in my campaign, that's enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment