The problem with D&Ds use of alignment is, like many other aspects of the system, is it's stupid and doesn't work. Everyones beliefs, attitudes, actions, goals and peculiarities are crudely lumped together into these neat little categories.
On the one axis you're either Good or Evil. On the other you're evil Lawful or Chaotic. In the middle you have Neutral. So let's break this down and discuss why each doesn't work.
First and most important is the whole issue of Good and Evil. D&D assumes that these are discrete, quantifiable things. To the point where you can have Evil detectors and Evil proof shields, or terrible sharp pointy maiming weapons that are somehow inherently good. It assumes that morality is absolute. Which, quite obviously, it isn't. Life just isn't that simple. When we say something is good we in fact mean it is good FOR US. For ourselves, for our friends or family. That it brings a measurable benefit to out tribe or society. Where we get conflict is where two or more different groups have opposing views on what constitutes good. Whilst your Paladin might view his little murder vacation through the subterranean homes of the Goblins as a good act, I'm pretty sure that the Goblins have a slightly different view on the matter. And what about when you perform some act with the best of intentions, but it somehow works out for the worst? In this ridiculous scheme does that make you Good or Evil?
Evil of course also presents it's own issues. Beyond even being the simplistic opposite of Good as I've already discussed it. Yes, you could define Evil as simply stuff that's bad for you, but then why not just say Bad? We have this idea of Evil as a thing, deeply ingrained through years of story-telling. It's what the bad guys are. They are the enemy because they are Evil and we are Good. Evil has become like this pedestal of indefinable malevolence, and when people do bad things we don't understand we call the Evil, and put them in that box away from the rest of us. They are not people, they are monsters. Evil monsters.
And personally I think that's bullshit.
I just can't buy into the concept of Evil as a thing. I don't believe in it. People can be selfish, cruel, ignorant, spiteful, insane and stupid to be sure. They can do terrible things for barely understandable reasons. But by setting them apart and calling them Evil it's like we're glorifying them, giving them an excuse. rather than examining how and why these things happen we just say "Oh, he did it because he's Evil" and leave it at that.
Take Hitler as an example. He wasn't some terrible non human creature steeped in Evilness. He was a man. One who did terrible things for utterly stupid reasons. And it's that stupidity that I personally find more terrifying than any notions of evilness. Calling it Evil simply gives it more respect that it actually deserves.
Controversial as it may sound, this man was an idiot.
Think about pretty much any villain from anything ever. The best ones are the ones who have some clear motivation, some reason why they're doing whatever it is they're doing. The worst are the moustache twirlers, who are doing it purely for the evilulz. Because they're bad guys and that's what bad guys do. I'm not saying they need to be even remotely sympathetic, far from it. Everyone loves a thoughrally irredeemable bastard to hate. But I somehow doubt anyone in the history of violence has stood up and said "I'm going to kill you now because I'm so very EVIL!!!"
And let's face it, even if they did they're less embodying the principles of supreme macrocosmic malevolence as just proving what I just said about people being shocking STUPID.
Here's another example. Think about Darth Vader. He turns up in Star Wars and is Evil, but has a certain amount of intrigue because we know he wasn't always that way. We know he used to be a good guy. Then later we find out exactly WHO he used to be and the compelling drama readings suddenly spike massively. Then think about how AWFULLY Anakins' fall into evil was handled in the prequels, and how disappointed it made you feel (although I appreciate it may be hard to separate that from how disappointed you were with everything else in the prequels). Now think about how awesome it would have been if that was handled properly, and you may see where I'm coming from with this.
Or not, as the case may be
The we come to the issue of Lawful and Chaotic. Again, these fall down simply through their utter inability to model actual behaviour. The following of rules is not an either/or proposition, but again a question of personal choice and moral outlook. And most significantly it's always going to be on a case by case basis. face it, most people follow most laws. Largely this comes down to simple commonsense and courtesy rather than inherent lawfulness. Don't stab people, don't set things on fire, don't steal all the things. But equally there will be plenty of laws that aren't followed, be it obscure clauses in outdated lawbooks, or simply because they happen to think smoking marijuana is actually okay. At the end of the day, especially in a fantasy role-play setting, you're only going to follow the laws that you already agree with. Most people don't go out on killing sprees because it's against the law, they do it because they think that killing is wrong. Lawfulness or otherwise is simply a minor sub function of what we've already discussed about Goodness. And as already mentioned is entirely subjective. I suppose at least they make less of a fuss about one being better than the other. A blind adherence to the rules no matter what they may be is, after all, as bad as an utter disregard for them. Most people will fall somewhere in the middle.
Which I guess brings us to the Neutral Alignments. Do I really need to point out what's wrong with these?
Any character, race, god, or whatever is going to contain a mixture of all these elements. People are complicated, and often contradictory. It's simply not enough to say "this is bad because it's Evil". Let's go back to my favourite example of everything, Necromancy. This particular school of magic is typically labelled as wrong, evil and generally all around not good. But like most things it's simply a tool. It's how that tool is used that defines it's worth to particular group. Think about a fantasy kingdom locked in a terrible war with some foreign power or other. Now tell me which is more Good - sending out the young men and women to fight and die on the field of battle, or sending out the bones of those already slain to repel the invaders whilst your children sleep safe at home?
Thinking about it, this is probably why Clerics get powers over the Undead in the way they do (powers that Necromancers themselves are largely denied). The heroes need some way of dealing with Undead things, but can't be allowed to study Necromancy because it's Evil and bad and wrong.
You can use a hammer to build a table just as easily as to smash a skull. Which is the correct course of action is up to you to decide.
No comments:
Post a Comment