TL:DR version:
Want to improve the alignment system?
a) Change;
Lawful vs Chaotic
to
Honorable vs Capricious
Settled!
------
If this whole post comes of sounding like a Myerr-Briggs test, that's because of the way the Myerr-Briggs test, and indeed EVERY personality test in existence, is structured. Of course you fit into one of those binary categories, that's all these tests are: identification of specific traits. You could conceivably have a test going "Let's profile you by the color of your hair. Aha! You have black hair. Therefore you fall under the category of "Hair: Black"."
For the purposes of role playing games, personality traits we are really concerned about are those personality traits which people are interested about that character and relevant to medieval fantasy's context. So everything in the Myerr Briggs test is out, for instance. People aren't generally interested if the Drow are introverted or feeling or intuitive or prospective. Folks who play D&D are more interested to know that Drow society is characterized by astounding cruelty. These are terrible people so it's okay to kill them because they are really really baaad.
This topic is all about semantics and theme. What matters to the whole discussion about alignments categories is that the categories sound right and are thematically appropriate for a medieval fantasy.
First Good vs evil,
then Lawful vs Chaotic
-----
Oddly enough, the exact qualities of Good and Evil can be unusually subjective. So how about we look at some more specifically defined qualities that are normally associated with good and evil and work from there?
a) Cruel vs Kind
I'm not going to insult you by trying to explain what these mean.
b) Selfish vs Altruistic
Nor this.
You may have noticed that being Kind and Altrustic overlaps a little. They kind of do. When a person is both kind and altrustic, it's difficult to differentiate their acts of kindness from their acts of altruism when they are acting on both at once.
However, selfish but kind people are really really common in reality. By reality, I mean outside of fiction. In fiction, most stereotypical rogue protagonists are selfish but kind. They're looking out for #1, but when they see cruelty they turn in disgust. If it's not too much trouble, they may even help out the person who is suffering. A lot of people in real life would self identify themselves as selfish but kind. Acts of altruism are always hard to perform, but it's easy to sympathise with those in sufferring. The most common thing for selfish but kind people to do is to pray for those who are suffering: no personal cost to self but "My thoughts and prayers are with you".
Altrustic folk who lack kindness are those who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of society, but will not blink at eye at sacrificing others for the greater good. Or purging society of unwanted elements. The needs of the many outweigh the needs and rights of the few. Tony Stark in the comics is well known to sacrifice the few for the greater good of the many.
-----------
Yuck, must we try to do Lawful vs Chaotic? Really? Fine, let's try.
a) Conforming vs Independent, or Establishment vs Anarchy
b) Measured vs Impulse
c) Civilised vs uncivilised
d) Honorable vs Capricious
a) Conforming vs Independent
When you see the terms lawful vs chaotic, this is probably what you are thinking of: The person with a propensity to obey the set rules and norms of society vs the person who forms own opinions and morals and doesn't give two shits about what everyone else thinks. By the book vs whatever I think works best.
The trouble is, in current popular culture/fiction there are so many bad connotations to being a conformist and so many positive connotations to being an independent thinker that everyone will choose to pick independent over conforming. Even Captain America, the so-called gold standard for the Lawful part of lawful good (compared to Wolverine who is often considered chaotic good), is now best known for this quote:
This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world -- "No, YOU move.”
Sounds pretty non-conformist to me. Rules of society? Law and order? That's not the American way when you believe you are in the right, apparently.
So there two are completely out.
Structure vs Impulse, or Establishment vs Anarchy
Here's the other thing folks think of for D&D's law vs chaos. The person who plans and wants stability, structure and order vs the person who does crazy things on impulse and doesn't think things through. The Joker of course is the poster child for this type of chaos:
Introduce a little anarchy, upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos, I’m an agent of chaos , and you know the thing about chaos? It’s fair.
Alternatively, there's V from V for Vendetta.
Eve: All this riot and uproar, V... is this Anarchy? Is this the Land of Do-As-You-Please?
V: No. This is only the land of take-what-you-want. Anarchy means "without leaders", not "without order". With anarchy comes an age or ordnung, of true order, which is to say voluntary order... this age of ordung will begin when the mad and incoherent cycle of verwirrung that these bulletins reveal has run its course... This is not anarchy, Eve. This is chaos.
...I'm not really convinced people reaaaallly care about all that for D&D. Anarchy vs establishment depends largely on context; in settings where questions of rule of society vs independent freedoms are interesting to look at. D&D isn't really about law vs chaos its iterations being of much interest because Law vs Chaos has very little effect on the world of D&D, in spite of the pantheon supposedly following the alignments strictly.
Heroes in D&D are crushing fantasy monsters and creatures of mysterious origin which do terrible things to ordinary folk. D&D's villains are selfish and power hungry or become liches because they fear death. Villains in medieval fantasy are dangerous because they have awesome magical powers or command evil armies of undead or savage orcs who want to murder the common folk.
Villains in medieval fantasy settings are not villains just because they are part of the 1% who keep the rest of the populace in servitude. Villains in D&D are not mundane politicians of the established order who must be overthrown by inciting the local populace. Revolutions are a bit past medieval and renaissance, moving into early modern history territory.
Anarchy vs establishment just isn't one of the typical themes in medieval fantasy like D&D.
For example, Han Solo. We're reminded time and again that he looks out only for himself. It's the exceptional time when he decides to come back and help at risk to his own self that makes him more interesting. Certainly more interesting than someone who always puts his life on the line every time.
Folks who are almost always kind are more interesting when they take special joy in seeing someone suffer. Perhaps that someone "had it coming" or had committed acts of unspeakable evil. Or perhaps it is a mother who steps-in to protect her daughter from a psychopath with remarkable savagery.
Someone who looks out only for #1 is a lot more interesting if there is someone in his life who he would lay down everything for, and whose death he will avenge at any cost with the untold fury.
---
b) Measured vs Impulse
Only interesting in differentiating disciplined monks from savage barbarians. Being "measured" and careful and controlled vs not thinking things through and being passionate and flying into rages. Other than monks or barbarians though, I'm not convinced these are important enough descriptions for everyone else.
c) Civilised vs uncivilised
Same here. Comparing urban, civilised folk to those who live in the savage wild. Kinda relevant to medieval fantasy themes, but not by much. It doesn't really say enough about the character's actual personality and view on life.
-----------
Then again, maybe I'm overthinking the purpose of good vs evil in D&D.
Functionally, I think what we really want are just categories which help players and DM quickly understand the type of NPCs they are dealing with. We want to use categories because people use categories such as "bad guys" and "good guys" to label others around them. For the purpose of D&D and the power fantasy, players want a quick shorthand of which sentient races are okay to kill because they are evil. It's really that simple.
Drow? Cruel, evil culture of men-hating women. All evil, very few exceptions. Kill on sight... unless they're named Drizzt or worship a good god (see Solaufein). Leave those ones alone.
Kuo-Tuo? Not just evil, they're insaaaaane. Murder 'em double quick.
Sprites? Whoa, they're good guys. Just protecting their homes. Leave em alone or make friends.
And so on. So at least for the purpose of the Monster Manual, I think the "good" and "evil" labels are too useful to let go of, if simplistic. In a word, these labels immediately the the DM what the mythos and established lore say about these creatures or if they are meant to be dangerous enemies or potential allies for the players. Effective and simple is a good thing, right?
Law vs chaos still seems useless though.
Or is it? I've left one out: d) Honorable vs Capricious
---------
d) Honorable vs Capricious
Probably one of the better ways to tell if an alignment system is working well or not if people CARE about the labels and connotations that the name of the alignments implies. Good vs evil is the primary example: If you ask a person to describe themselves as either good or evil, most will choose good. Most folk don't appreciate being called evil and would like to think of themselves as good people at their very core.
Lawful vs chaos though... if you ask a person if they are chaotic or just plain crazy, they may not be so inclined to disagree. As I mentioned earlier , being willing to bend the rules in the right circumstances is often seen as desirable in current culture.
If you ask a person to describe themselves as either honorable or capricious instead of lawful or chaotic, I figure you're more likely to get more people wanting to identify themselves as honorable. Being described as dishonorable and capricious sounds like people trying to say you are undependable and untrustworthy. Or having no principles.
Really, the terms honorable and capricious actually carry very very similar meaning to lawful vs chaotic as per D&D tradition. My housemate points out the *nuance* is different. Sure. I think that different nuance is just enough to make it relevant.
-----------
On another note, I've kind of hit writer's block on the whole isekai idea. It's a case of too many options and having difficulty pinning down the one which will make the most sense for the setting and the target audience since the concept is so fresh.
No comments:
Post a Comment