by John Lees

-
 

The Ramifications of Alignment (D&D)	-	Good	-	Front-End Alignments
Evil	-	Evil Player Characters	-	Evil Player Characters II
Dragon #60	-	-	-	Dragon

There is nothing confusing about the
purpose of character alignment in the
ADVANCED D&D® game: to motivate
and guide the actions of a character. But
problems occur when a player tries to
actually use the alignment of a character
to help determine the character’s actions.
“Hmmm. Zarko is of alignment x;
so what the heck does that mean in this
situation?” The terse paragraphs in the
PH and the slightly longer
explanations in the DMG describe 9 distinctly different
alignments in broad terms, but overall
offer few details which players and their
characters can apply directly in situations
where alignment should, or could,
determine a character’s course of action.

Axiology, the study of moral and ethical
philosophy, is a complicated and
confusing pursuit even in the real world.
Moral philosophy is particularly slippery,
because the subject matter concerns beliefs,
which don’t “exist” in the same way
that trees or chairs exist. If I say, “I believe
that thing there is a chair,” you can
attempt to convince me that it is really
only a packing crate by asking the opinions
of other people, showing me a picture
of a chair in a catalogue, and so
forth. The chair is an object in the world
of sensory perception, and can be objectively,
straightforwardly discussed by
many people.

On the other hand, if I say, “I believe
God is a cruel and just god,” you’re up a
creek if you don’t agree with me. You
can’t even find a roomful of people (except
possibly in a church) who all have
the same definition of “god.” You can’t
show me a picture of a god in a catalogue.
Even if you show me the DEITIES
& DEMIGODS™ book and I point to a god
description and say, “There. I believe in
that one,” you cannot be certain that
what I think in my mind about that god is
what you think in your mind about that
god. And discussing what a third person
“really believes” is pure folly. A belief is
not an object in the world of sensory
perception. (Beliefs include ideas, feelings,
and emotions; all those fun things
that make bull sessions tend to be full of
<bullshit>.)

A belief system is difficult to formalize.
Even more difficult is the task of convincing
someone else of the truth and validity
of your belief system. A belief system
cannot be objectively challenged. If I
firmly believe that the world is carried on
the back of a giant snail and is being
slowly buried in metaphysical slime,
there really isn’t anything you can do to
change my mind, short of running me
through with a sword. (Note: Philosophers
frown on such crass forms of
discourse.)

Any time you deal with systems of belief,
you are treading on treacherous
ground. But treacherous ground can be
fun, so let’s have a go at defining a
framework for belief systems in the
AD&D™ game. Our major goal is twofold:
Make character alignment clearer and
more usable, and don’t make any substantial
changes in the AD&D system.
1st off, let’s define a few terms (otherwise,
you won’t believe this is a philosophical
discussion). Three of the slipperiest
terms around are morality, ethics,
and laws, followed closely on the slipperiness
scale by good and evil.

An ethic is a set of general-purpose
guidelines intended to help you decide
how to act in a wide range of situations.
Some familiar ethics are the physician’s
Hippocratic Oath, the Golden Rule, and
the Ten Commandments. Ethics are usually
very short on particular details and
require some interpretation on the part
of the person trying to follow the ethic.
Hence the need for priests, clerics,
judges and the like, to smooth the way
for people who don’t have time to dwell
overlong on such problems.

An ethic is a guide to right action, but it
is not an explanation of why those actions
are right. The Golden Rule, “Do
unto others as you would have them do
unto you,” is a prescription for how to
act, but says nothing about why you
should act in such a way. Philosophers
have devoted thousands of pages of argument
to attempting to prove that a
prescription as simple as the Golden
Rule is the best guide to right action.
A morality is a belief system that leads
to the formation of a particular ethic, or
tries to justify an existing ethic. To a
large extent, the Bible is an attempt to
explain the belief system that gives rise
to Christian ethics such as the Ten
Commandments. Much of the past three
thousand years of philosophy has been
devoted, without success, to attempting
to find or create some form of universal
morality that is obviously implied by the
physical structure of the universe, or at
least one a reasonable person could be
convinced of the existence of, purely
through intellectual argument.

A law is not a moral statement, because
a law does not provide reason or
justification for itself. A law is not necessarily
an ethical statement, because there
may be no formal reason or justification
for the law. Often, laws are an attempt to
spell out an ethic to a ridiculous, bureaucratic
extreme. As such, laws often
maintain only a tenuous connection with
the inspiring moral system (especially
since the lawmakers may not all agree
with that moral system), and laws have
little of the flexibility that allow more
generally stated ethics to remain viable
for centuries.

Laws derived from no obvious morality
and not part of a consistent ethic are
often perceived to be senseless and stupid,
and are rather difficult to enforce.
Often the situation degenerates to “might
makes right”; the state versus the individual.
Experiments through the centuries
with various legal systems have
shown that laws are a royal pain to everyone
except lawyers and judges.
The terms ethics, morality and law are
neutral in connotation. Our culture tends
to link all three terms with “good,” but
there is no basis for this. A high priest
who rips out the hearts of animals and
offers them as tributes to his deity is just
as moral, ethical, and lawful as a Southern
Baptist minister leading a revival. A
morality cannot be inherently “good” or
“evil,” since it is the morality itself that
defines good and evil. Only from the
viewpoint of. some other morality can a
particular morality be good or evil. A
“moral person” is not a “good person” in
any universally absolute sense. You can
have a room full of people such that each
person believes him or herself to be
good and everyone else to be evil.

So what does all this have to do with
character alignment? Quite a lot. The
good-neutral-evil continuum is essentially
a moral one, and determines what kind
of ethic will guide a character’s actions.
You can think of this as motivation, if you
wish.

GOOD && EVIL
There is a very general overriding
moral structure to the AD&D universe.
As stated in the DMG,

Good: a character of good alignment will generally
uphold another character’s right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;

Evil: an evil character doesn’t believe
that other characters have rights;

Neutral: and a
character of neutral alignment (with respect
to good and evil) doesn’t become
involved with such considerations.

Once
your group has decided in what kind of
world it is adventuring, the DM should
decide on the prevailing moralities or religions.
Keep firmly in mind that goodneutral-
evil alignment will mean slightly
different things, depending on which beliefs
or gods a character follows. The
DEITIES & DEMIGODS Cyclopedia can
be of considerable help here.

The lawful-neutral-chaotic continuum
is slightly more complicated. A character’s
place on this continuum determines
how he or she interacts with other characters,
how readily he or she forms alliances,
joins groups, obeys laws, and
respects order — in contrast to the goodneutral-
evil continuum determining a
character’s motivations and reasons for
acting. A character’s lawful-neutral-chaotic
alignment comes close to what is
commonly meant by personality.

The rules of the AD&D game concerning
character alignment are an attempt
to formalize something that has defied
formalization through centuries of studies
in moral philosophy. This is a good
place to reiterate that the AD&D game is
a game, and its rules are quite insufficient
for real life. This article is trying to
give you a better feel for how to play the
game, not how to live your life!

LAW && CHAOS
Lawful: A character of lawful alignment puts
great importance on order and rules, and
is usually a member in good standing of
some group. (This group may not be
very large: a band of adventurers or a
thieves’ guild.) To the lawful character,
the group is more important than the individual
and the decisions of the group
take precedence over individual desires.
A lawful character will actively advocate
law and order and will attempt to convince
other characters to follow the tenets
of the group. A lawful character is a
good follower.

Neutral: The character aligned neutrally with
respect to law and chaos might be more
properly called “independent” rather
than “neutral.” The independent, or
“inner directed,” character may observe
laws when necessary, but will certainly
not be an advocate of the desires of any
particular group. (This is not to say that
the independent character cannot be an
advocate of the teachings of a particular
morality; but if so, it is because the character
believes strongly in the morality,
not because the morality has the support
of some group.) Although the independent
character will join a group in order to
achieve a particular end, he or she will
always attempt to avoid situations which
place constraints on her freedom of action.
The independent character does
not make a very reliable follower.

Chaotic: The chaotic character does not pay
attention to laws and does not desire
order. A chaotic character will not join a
group (agree to abide by the rules of the
group), but may possibly be found in a
group if the group just happens to be
going in the same direction, or if a group
is necessary to achieving some very limited
end. Example: If a chaotic character
needs to travel through a dangerous
forest, and a group of armed adventurers
also needs to travel through the forest,
the chaotic character will likely go along
with the group (if the group will tolerate
him or her), but that does not mean the
chaotic character has “joined” the group
in the same sense that a lawful fighter
joins the group. In such a group, the
chaotic character will be an obvious misfit.
The chaotic character makes a lousy
follower.
Once again it must be stressed that
law and order have no direct correlation
with good and evil. A thoroughly rotten,
nasty, evil character can still be a loyal,
obedient member of a group. A champion
of creature rights and all that is good
may not get along with anyone and may
actively avoid group membership.

Now let’s go through the nine alignment
combinations and show how this
approach at defining them makes them
clearer:

Lawful good: Respects law and order
and is willing to suffer limitations on individual
freedom for the benefit of the
group. Puts moral principles before material
considerations. The lawful good
character will be a very faithful member
of the group, but if the laws of the group
clash with the ethics dictated by his or
her moral alignment, the character will
probably leave that group and look for a
group more closely aligned with his or
her ethics. The lawful good character is
an active advocate of his or her beliefs.
(PH) (DMG)

Lawful neutral: Respects the laws and
customs of the group, but does not necessarily
consider creature rights to be
the highest good. Because the lawful
neutral character is not too concerned
with questions of morality, he or she will
be a more faithful group member and a
more loyal follower of his or her alignment
than any differently aligned character.
The lawful neutral character is an
advocate of law and order.
(PH) (DMG)

Lawful evil: Respects the laws of the
group, as long as those laws do not clash
with his or her evil moral alignment. This
is not quite as much of a problem as it is
for the lawful good character, since “evil”
is not as well defined as “good.” The
lawful evil character is an active “advocate”
of evil, although not in quite the
same sense that a lawful good character
is an advocate of good. In the AD&D
structure, “evil” is most easily defined as
“anti-good,” so a lawful evil character’s
advocacy of evil takes the form of opposing
good at every opportunity.
(PH) (DMG)

Neutral (independent) good: Often
goes along with the laws and desires of
the group as being the easiest course of
action, but ethical considerations clearly
have top priority. May pursue quite abstract
goals. Often aloof and difficult to
understand.
(PH) (DMG)

Neutral (independent) neutral (true
neutral): Not actively for or against anything.
Uses whatever means are necessary
to maintain a situation to his or her
benefit. Has his or her own reasons for
doing everything. Usually difficult to
understand.
(PH) (DMG)

Neutral (independent) evil: Puts self-
interest before all else. Will only cooperate
when material rewards are high. Untrustworthy;
has contempt or fear for all
others.
(PH) (DMG)
 
 

Chaotic good: Unwilling to be governed
by the laws and desires of any
group. Interacts with other characters
on a one-to-one basis and, within such
bounds, follows the good ethic of upholding
creature rights. The stereotypical
chaotic good character is the white
knight who refuses to join any group and
goes about on his own, doing good.
(PH) (DMG)

Chaotic neutral: The almost totally
unpredictable non-conformist loner. Will
stand by and watch the white knight battle
the black knight without feeling compelled
to take sides.
(PH) (DMG)

Chaotic evil: Actively opposes law,
order, good, and all other sissy constraints
on doing whatever he or she
feels like doing. The stereotypical chaotic
evil character is the black knight,
roaming around on his own, looking for
something nasty to do.
(PH) (DMG)

Of course, there are gradations between
alignments. Few characters are
likely to be pure: A character of predominantly
neutral moral alignment may lean
toward good, for instance. Also, character
alignment is not an absolute prescription
for the actions of a character, any
more than “being a good Christian”
completely describes the actions of a
real person. There will be lapses in behavior
that might be more proper of a
different alignment, ill-considered actions
in the heat of emotion, actions influenced
by some very charismatic character
of a different alignment, etc. But if
there occur many and frequent deviations
from actions appropriate to a character’s
stated alignment, the DM will
probably (and properly) declare the
character’s alignment to have changed.

It is an unstated assumption that most
characters act in their own self-interest
to some degree; i.e., are not suicidal. A
lawful good character may sacrifice oneself
for the greater good, but will not do
so lightly. A chaotic character will cooperate
enough to aid that individual’s
goals and protect his or her own hide.

The Character Alignment Graph in the
PH continues to make
sense with these clarified definitions. It
is even easier to understand how a lawful
evil character tends toward the diabolic,
a chaotic evil character toward the demonaic,
a lawful good character toward
the saintly, and a chaotic good character
toward the beatific. Also, the outer planes
continue to bear a meaningful relation to
character alignment. This slightly different
approach to alignments clarifies the
distinctions between them while not significantly
changing the way in which the
AD&D game is played.

THE FORUM
The debate about character alignment of late
has driven me to give my thoughts on the subject.
In the original edition of the D&D® game, all
characters were told that "it is not only necessary
to select a role, but it is also necessary to determine
what stance the character will take." To the
new hobby of fantasy role-playing, character
alignment was an important concept. Not only
did it state what the imaginary player character
believed, but it also served to help the player to
better take on the role of his or her persona.

In later supplements of the original rules set,
alignment was taken a step farther. It was used as
a means (along with ability scores) to determine
whether or not a PC was eligible for one of the
more specialized (and often more powerful) subclasses.
In this way, alignment was a tool used by
both the players and the Dungeon Master to
relate to the characters? beliefs, ways of acting,
and to restrict entrance into certain sub-classes.

It has been eleven years since the original D&D
game appeared. While many of the ideas found in
those little brown booklets and supplements were
expanded and revised for inclusion in the AD&D
game, alignment was not one of them. Even
though the number of possible alignments has
been tripled and more detailed descriptions of
each ethos given, they are used as little more than
tools for the players and Dungeon Master, in
much the same way as was done over a decade
ago.

My belief is that alignment should be used to
restrict entrance into certain character classes and
to determine how a player character will act in
most circumstances. For example, an assassin, no
matter how evil or chaotic he or she may be,
would not attack the first group of good and/or
neutral adventurers sighted simply because of
their conflicting alignments. The assassin character
class as written is composed of very intelligent
individuals who make a living by killing those
individuals who are deemed ?troublesome? by
the assassin's employer. Being as intelligent as he
is, an assassin would know when a particular job
was over his head. Intelligence, not only alignment,
should dictate how a character reacts to
certain situations. Similarly, paladins do not
charge the first demon prince they see, even
though such a creature is diametrically opposed
in its beliefs and actions.

Thus, alignment has been around with fantasy
role-playing games too long simply to be forgotten.
It is still an integral part of the game. Alignment,
like other aspects of the game, needs only
to be restructured in order to once again take its
place of importance among the minds of players
and their fantasy personae. Remember that all
that needs to be done is use your head!

James Maliszewski
Baltimore, Md.
(Dragon #105)
 

Regarding Paul Griffins comments in issue
#118 about the restrictive nature of alignments,
I find myself in partial agreement with his
sentiments. However, I take exception to his
comment that none of the alignments given
allow a player character ?to do good deeds
when he wants to and sometimes do bad deeds
in order to survive.? I can quickly point to
neutrality as an alignment that does allow
such behavior and, in some ways, even encourages
it.

If alignment (as presented in both the Players
Handbook and DMG) is properly played and
adjudicated, most characters would eventually
wind up in the section of alignment graphed as
neutral or in the sections graphed as lawful or
chaotic neutral.

The DM?s part in this alignment migration is
simple, as is the player?s: Just let what happens,
happen. When a PC does a ?bad? (i.e., evil)
action, his alignment moves along the graph
toward evil; when the PC performs a ?good? act,
it balances out the bad, and an equilibrium is
achieved at the graph equivalent to neutral.

Robert Waldbauer
Delavan WI
(Dragon #121)
 

I’ve been playing the AD&D game solidly for
over five years, and the problem that has
plagued me the most concerns deviations of
alignment. Too long have I seen “lawful-good”
rangers threaten their party with arrows of
slaying, “good” clerics who refuse to heal their
compatriots, and paladins who sit and watch
thieves torture peasants.

Worse yet, these deviations seem to go unpunished.
I have known otherwise excellent
Dungeon Masters who look away when characters
totally disregard their alignment. When you
think about it, this is both senseless and unacceptable,
especially where clerics are concerned.
How would Thor feel if one of his
clerics decided to bribe his way out of a battle?
How would Tyr react to seeing a priest pilfering
from the innocent? Repercussion from the gods
is inevitable. The DM should feel free to strip
the offending cleric of a few spells until he
repents.

Clerics are certainly not the only ones whose
alignments should haunt them. The DM should
put his foot down on any PC who severely
deviates from his alignment, and I don’t just
mean a slap on the wrist. Saying “You can’t do
that!” will not solve the problem, because the
rebellious player will say “It’s my character! I
can do what I want!” If you really need to get
the message across, put the PC on a quest to
further the ends of his alignment and teach him
a lesson not to disobey the principles of his
alignment.

Chris Patterson
Welland, Ontario
(Dragon #122)
 

It seems that over the past several years a
considerable number of people have, in various
ways, attempted to explain or justify why player
characters in the AD&D game system should be
of good alignment. There has never been, in my
estimation, a soundly stated and supported
argument why players should be limited to
having characters of certain alignments. While I
realize that this philosophy has not been presented
as a hard-and-fast rule, it has been subtly
and sometimes not so subtly ingrained into the
game system itself.

I am not advocating the wholesale embrace of
the evil alignments in any way. I do, however,
see the enjoyment that can at times come from
playing such characters. There is an inherent
challenge in playing an assassin character well,
and we all realize that the assassin is by definition
an evil character due to his disregard for
life. However, the definition of evil in the AD&D
game system may be the problem, and not the
playing of evil characters,

If you are playing a character who exists in a
culture that views only humans as worthy of
respect and sees all other races as beneath
humanity and its privileges, then the assassination
of a nonhuman being, within that culture,
would not be viewed as an evil action. Try
looking at the question of Good and Evil from
and cultural perspective, not merely the
modern American view. In this instance take
the Druidic and Celtic cultural perspective in
which all things form necessary portions of the
integrated and balanced whole. Now add to this
the fact that if the beings presented in the
Monster Manual who possess alignment and
are native to the Prime Material Plane are
broken into good and evil camps, almost twothirds
of them are of one evil alignment or
another. You are thereby presented with an
interesting imbalance. If you look at the whole
question of alignment and why player characters
should be of a good alignment, the argument
that they are needed on the Prime
Material Plane to help in the maintenance of the
balance is probably as close to a rational reason
as one can produce in a fantasy construct.
Think about it!

The main point to this letter is not that the
playing of evil characters by the AD&D game
player is either appropriate or inappropriate,
but rather that this question should be decided
on a case by case basis according to a great
number of factor only two of which (culture
and alignment view) are even touches upon in
this letter. My characters run in a culture loosely
based on the Celtic culture of Europe prior to
the first century, with the game rules and
system added to make what I think is a coherent
cultural setting. In that culture, the assassination
of people from other lands and even other
clans is not viewed as evil by the culture or the
clerics (most of whom are druids). This setting
may not be to the liking of all who play the
game, but we like it, and it is both consistent
and coherent. Have fun with your own camppaigns!

Robert Montgomery
Roswell GA
(Dragon #122)
 

Most of what has been written about the nine
alignments of the AD&D game universe is quite
arcane. It?s time to state clearly what alignment
means in terms of character behavior. Let me
share what has worked for my group.

When we speak of our own neighbors as
?good,? ?bad,? ?living a chaotic life,? ?an organization
type team-player,? etc., we are describing
the way they feel about whatever they do. It?s
surely the same in the worlds of fantasy. Good
people are those who are proud to do some
kind and generous deeds. Evil people are proud
of how much they hate someone or something.
Lawful types are those who take special pride in
their ability to carry out orders in doing what
they believe is important. Chaotics are capricious
loners. Yet all these types can work together
? just as they do in our world.

Too often, I?ve heard a ?true-neutral? player
from another campaign say, ?I guess I just did a
good deed, so I must now do an evil deed to
balance it.? This is silly. Guidelines for alignment
behavior should be clear and concise without
adding metaphysics. Here are my suggestions:

Good characters deviate from their alignments
by using poison, causing unnecessary suffering,
or failing to give what help they can to the poor,
the sick, and the oppressed. Evil characters
deviate from their alignment by showing pity
(except in cunning self-interest, of course).
Characters who are neither good nor evil may
act in their own interest, although acts of great
kindness or cruelty are uncharacteristic.

Lawful characters are always identified with
some organization. They deviate from their
alignments by doing anything that is clearly
contrary to the organization?s interests. Lawfulgood
characters typically work for the lawfulgood
churches ? those governing by consent of
the governed, the underground resistance
against the evil ruler, etc. Lawful-neutral characters
are champions of the fighters? union, the
big corporation, the mafia, the thieves? guild, the
karate society, the ?one true church,? the police
state, etc. Lawful-evil characters devote their
lives to serving the secret racist society, the
cruel dictator, etc.

Chaotic characters deviate from their alignment
by joining any of these lawful organizations
(except as infiltrators, of course).
Characters who are neither lawful nor chaotic
may support organizations or not as seems best,
but they are unlikely to be chosen for higher
offices. True neutrals deviate from their alignment
only when they worry about the morals
and ethics of particular actions.

One of my friends has developed a code of
conduct for the adventurers whom he sponsors,
to which members of all alignments can easily
subscribe. The PCs are licensed to kill living
creatures only under certain circumstances.
They may kill persons encountered only if the
persons are bad enough to radiate evil (if this is
consistent with other evidence of evil behavior).
For instance, a name-level evil cleric will radiate
slight evil. In other instances, PCs may kill
persons who are doing obvious evil and cannot
be safely apprehended ? especially when
attempting to negotiate would be unsafe or has
already failed. They may kill persons who are
wanted, dead or alive, by lawful-good, lawfulneutral,
lawful-evil, or neutral-good rulers. They
may kill monsters that are normally evil-aligned,
if there is no reason to think the particular
monster is any exception. They may kill neutral
monsters that pose real dangers to humans and
demi-humans. Undead and dangerous non-living
monsters may always be attacked. There is a
100% experience-point bonus for bringing such
creatures back alive for trial (criminals) or for
scientific study (monsters). Conversely, there are
no experience points awarded for killing avoidable,
non-evil monsters. (If PCs blunder into a
trap containing a purple worm, they can expect
to gain nothing.) Fighters are also expected to
serve in the national guard, clerics to help
decent creatures in need, magic-users to offer
academic services, and thieves to serve as
security consultants. In exchange, a major NPC
equips beginners at his expense and gives free
clerical spells between adventures. Evil characters
could easily subscribe because of the many
selfish advantages this arrangement offers.

Lawful adventurers can expect to be offered
positions of responsibility in the government
when they reach higher levels. I?ve required
chaotic adventurers to roll their charisma or
less on 1d20 before each adventure or end up in
jail ?for having done something.? The jail, never
keyed, is positively escape-proof. Terms of
release are negotiable and usually involve
accepting a quest to undertake the session?s
adventure. (This does no one any harm, and
players like it ? I have the jailed chaotics tell
the rest of the group what they think their
character probably did.)

I believe that the real magic in our own mysterious
universe works for good, and I hope that
it is the same in fantasy worlds. I especially
hope that levels are never lost by an evil character
for deserting evil, nor by any character for
becoming good. As Oriental Adventures hints,
there are rehabilitated neutral-good and chaotic-good
thieves and assassins who progress in their
profession as adventurers. (Lawful thieves have
always been rare, but one could nonetheless be
lawful good.)

Let me urge that no DM ever inflict an involuntary
alignment change on a beloved PC.
Physical violence is part of the game, but violence
to one?s convictions is unacceptable.
Rather, allow the good character who tries on
the helm of opposite alignment to be teleported
alive to his or her alignment plane and replaced
by an imposter, thus returning at the imposter?s
death at the hands of the party.

My experience has been such that if characters
start fighting among themselves (due to
?alignment hatred,? or any other cause), it tells
the DM that he is not doing the job of presenting
interesting opponents and obstacles. The
real fun of any AD&D game is running characters
with radically different skills, all working
together to achieve a common goal. The characters
? outlooks on life can differ too, without
their having to be involved in open conflict. I?m
glad things work out this way in our own
world, too.

Ed Friedlander
Johnson City TN
(Dragon #126)
 

I would like to respond to Ed Friedlander's
suggestion in issue #126 that chaotic-aligned
characters be regularly and arbitrarily placed in
jail to provide a reason for adventuring. He
claims the players like this. His players may like
it, but I believe many players prefer to control
their characters actions. The DM has no right to
force a character to commit a crime. The situation
may arise, but only in role-playing or by
agreement.

Stephen C. Paylor
Towson MD
(Dragon #129)
 

In response to comments by Paul Griffin and
Robert Waldbauer on the issue of alignment
flexibility, I propose that a new alignment be
created in order to resolve the problem of
overly restrictive alignments.

The new alignment would be called "false-neutral"
and would hold the precept that, with
all things being equal, the forces of good, evil,
law, and chaos exist only in the minds of individuals
and do not actually form a balance of
power in the universe. The false-neutral character
believes that nothing is ever "meant to be,?
and that there are no driving forces which tend
to either support or disrupt the cosmic balance.
The false-neutral character may believe that
there are gods and other divine beings, but
would not actually worship them or follow their
creeds, because such deities exist only to
serve their own interests and purposes.

The false-neutral alignment would be the
antithesis of the true-neutral alignment, because
its beliefs are diametrically opposed to those of
true neutrality.  DMs may rule that a false-neutral
person cannot be resurrected after
death because such a person does not have a
plane of alignment as such, but may also rule
that the soul or spirit of the false-neutral person
goes to an extraplanar void which exists outside
the other planes of the multiverse, and may be
recalled back to a waiting body as normal.

Such an alignment would free individuals to
perform actions which are deemed desirable at
the time, without having to defy the principles
of a religion or deity.

Tim Jensen
Cross Plains WI
(Dragon #127)
 

I am writing concerning the topic of alignments
in the AD&D game. I feel that not only
are evil characters going to lose status in the
AD&D 2nd Edition game, but that they are
already inferior. Sure, there are assassins,
poisons, and reversed clerical spells, but there
are paladins, healing, and magical items of holy
power. How many +5 un holy avengers do you
know of? A party with any evil character is
probably not going to be favored by any good
or even neutral cleric, and a party cannot live
on potions of healing alone. (This brings up the
role of the cleric as a battle medic, but that is
another matter altogether.) The character
classes open to evil characters are also limited
by the exclusion of rangers, druids, and paladins;
level for level, they are as powerful (if not
moreso) than any assassin I know of..

Next, the complaint that most of the monsters
in the game are evil makes no sense whatsoever.
This is so for a very simple reason, and that is
that evil monsters are by far the most versatile.
If you have a party of good or even neutral
characters, it is going to fight evil by virtue of
alignment. However, if you have an evil party, it
will fight your monsters because of the nature
of evil. If you were to have a majority of good
monsters, good parties would be out of luck,
and you might as well call it the ?Friend Folio?
instead of FIEND FOLIO® tome.

K. B. LaBaw
Ridgecrest CA
(Dragon #143)
 

In issue #138, Sean Jump complains that the
rules favor good-aligned PCs over those with an
evil alignment. As the AD&D game and RPGs in
general have grown from relative obscurity by
serving the merest fringes of society, blossoming
into the recreational giants they now are, they
have drawn a lot of fire from many different
groups. TSR, Inc., in an effort to stem some of
the criticism aimed at it (as the producer of the
most widely played RPG) has made certain
changes in the wording and balancing of the
AD&D game rules. One such change was the
balancing of the scales against evil-aligned
characters.

I have been a player for quite a few years
now in a campaign that we simply refer to as
?the evils,? because all of the player characters
are of one evil alignment or another. I play an
evil paladin who suffers none of the penalties
described in the AD&D game volumes, and let
me assure you, he?s no pansy! I created this
character with the campaign?s DM by changing
the rules to allow greater excitement and a type
of fun that this sort of game variant allows. It
has certainly been no cakewalk for my antipaladin,
but it sure has been a barrel of laughs!
Granted, I would never dream of bringing this
player into another DM?s campaign or to a
tournament, but then again, who cares? I can
always start a new character! So Sean, if you
really want to play an evil character, my advice
is to go ahead, but some of the most powerful
creatures in gaming will be out to turn you
from your evil ways, one way or another.

John C. Tiedemann
Baldwin NY
(Dragon #143)
 

I have just finished last month’s issue and am
forced to respond to the battle that continues to
be debated in “Forum.” I am not talking about
the struggle between Good and Evil, but rather
the struggle about Good and Evil.

I have been reading DRAGON Magazine for
six years now, and I have played role-playing
games of all types for the same amount of time.
It still amazes me how many people write in and
voice objections to those who play evil characters
in the AD&D game.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not a psychologist,
and I don’t pretend to be an authority on
role-playing, I also do not worship Satan, beat
my dog, abuse my girlfriend, take drugs, or
have a criminal record. However, according to
some people who have written in to “Forum,” if I
play an evil character in a game, I might as well
be in any or all of those categories.

Some people suggest that the choosing of an
evil character is actually linked to the person’s
subconscious personality, and any evil acts his
character commits during the course of the
game will therefore be possible in his real-life
personality as well. I say, “Dragon <shit>!”

Is the actor who portrays a mass murderer in
a film then considered psychotic himself? Is the
person who wrote the script automatically a
bloodthirsty madman?

I have played evil characters and good characters
in equal proportions over my experience as
an RPG enthusiast. The flavor of the game came
from successful role-playing of the character I
chose, not from slaying innocent townsfolk or
sacrificing victims to an evil deity.

The whole reason for the success of the
AD&D game (and others like it) is singularly
based on role-playing. Good and Evil within the
constraints of the game make no difference. A
lawful-good paladin is just as removed from my
personality as a chaotic-evil assassin. I find it
difficult to believe that average people of the
sort that play the AD&D game could aspire to
either of these extremes in the real world.

I choose to play these characters to experience
a different personality, to role-play, not
because I have a desire to seek out and destroy
all Evil in the world or to become the Dark Lord
himself. My characters may have these ambitions,
but these characters are pieces of paper. I
play the AD&D game, like many gamers, as a
hobby and a release. (I would also like to add
that I am just as mentally stable now as I was
before I played the AD&D game regularly.)

It has also been said that the AD&D game was
created to preserve the struggle between Good
vs. Evil, with Good always being the victor. This
is totally inaccurate. The fact that there is an
assassin character in the game shows that it was
not created for the Good only.

This whole suffocating attitude borders on
paranoia. I believe it was this fear that caused
the controversy a few years back about the
AD&D game as a whole. One girl I talked to
during this time said to me, “You play that?
That’s an evil game.” She obviously knew nothing
about the AD&D game. I am assuming,
however, that most people who write in about
this subject do. I would expect then, that they
realize that it is only a game, and its purpose is
to role-play. Though I take the game itself very
seriously, it is fantasy. It is not reality.

Michael J. Natale
Westborough MA
(Dragon #152)
 

I am a DM running a campaign with four PCs
between levels 4 and 7. By starting with the
module N4 Treasure Hunt, I have solved the
problem of alignment. This module starts with
the players as zero-level civilians with no set
alignment or class. As the players go through
the module, the DM keeps track of their PCs?
actions. At the end of the module, the characters
are declared 1st level, with the alignment
and class that they acted most like. The characters
almost never end up acting out of alignment
after this, and it can be seen how the
party works together with a variety of alignments
within it.

Also responding to the anonymous letter in
issue #152 about the ineffectuality of castles in a
campaign featuring magic and flying creatures,
I agree. But I would like to point out that rather
than abolishing castles, this situation just
changes the way in which castles are built. The
Tower of the High Clerist, in DRAGONLANCE
module DL8 Dragons of War, is a good example
of this. Almost fully roofed and magic resistant,
it is highly defensible and protected. If this is
not enough, the entire place is designed to stand
even if every gate in the place is breached. It is
a vast maze with huge numbers of magical and
mundane traps and tricks. A small number of
knights who knew the place could easily protect
it against huge armies.

James Wise
Schenectady NY
(Dragon #155)
 

I am writing in regard to Dan Humphries'
letter in issue #152. As a DM of seven years, I
find that players should be allowed to have evil
PCs if they want. In fact, I am for abolishing the
alignment system altogether because it limits
characters too much, The players should just
describe their characters? personalities. If they
say their PCs are brave, daring, and follow the
law, then have their PCs kill other characters?
don?t stop the game. You should kill those PCs
by giving each monster fighting them 10 more
hit points or something like that. Of course, a
character who plays a paladin cannot say his PC
is selfish and greedy.

One of my most successful adventures was
meant to turn people away from being greedy?
the main cause of cheap characters. The adventure
ended with one of the PCs killing the other
over a pair of high-hard (instead of high-soft)
boots. Both players had fun.

About people saying that the AD&D game is
an evil thing to play and makes people evil: I
haven?t heard much about this lately. If AD&D
games make people Satanists, and if someone
can get hard facts to prove it, then good for
them. I believe everyone is entitled to his
opinion.

While I am writing this, I would like to say
some things about the druid class and some
changes I propose. If you keep it the way it is,
the name should be changed from ?the Hierophant
Druid? to "The Hypocrite Druid." One
major change is that druids should not be allowed
to wear armor. This is because all armor
has metal (which ruins druids? spells) or leather.
Leather is made from cow hide. Druids would
not want to kill a cow just to get armor! Small
wooden shields should not be allowed, either.
Instead, I believe that at the 3rd level, the ceremony
spell should be extended to include hallowed
tree, which allows the druid (or an
armorer, if the druid does not have that nonweapon
proficiency) to make a small wooden
shield that will allow the druid?s shield to block
five attacks instead of one (with a - 1 to armor
class as usual).

Larry Lidz
Bala Cynwyd PA
(Dragon #155)
 

When I wrote "The Goals of the Gods" (issue
#153) I hadn?t yet been exposed to the AD&D
game and its alignment system. Since then. I?ve
learned that the AD&D system is intelligent and
attractive, and it offers a good basis for roleplaying.

Unfortunately, the system isn't always played
as well as it was designed. This is why an article
such as Tom Littles "Your Place in the Grand
Scheme" (issue #153) is so valuable. With the
play of alignments in a campaign too often
misunderstood, extended guidelines such as
Tom's are vital.

This is why I?d like to plead for more extended
guidelines on alignment?an article or column?s
worth. No, I?m not offering myself as the author
of the piece. This will require someone who has
more experience in AD&D games than I do. But
I will tell you what I?d like to see: Specific examples
of what the alignments mean in a practical
sense. Specific, because ethics (which is what
we mean when we say ?alignment?) are no use
to role-players on a theoretical level. We need to
know exactly what?s expected of a given alignment
in a typical situation. Not long ago, in a
back issue of DRAGON Magazine [issue #51], I
read Roger Moore?s account of an adventure in
which a paladin first saved a dryad, then
punched her in the nose when she tried to
ensnare one of his companions. The DM penalized
him for such a seemingly chaotic act, then
later decided that he shouldn?t have, and gave a
very well-reasoned account of why. This is the
sort of thing I?m talking about: specific instances
in ancedotal form of how different alignments
should and should not act, and the reasons
behind the judgments.

After all, a lot of us, particularly those who
are just coming into gaming, tend to be confused
about how alignment affects play?for
good reason, I think. Let?s face it, in most circumstances
an RPG campaign requires a modern
person (with all the baggage of modern
ethics and morality, such as it may or may not
be understood) to pretend to be a premodern
person (with a different load of ethics and
morality). The two can easily conflict.

For example, in the modern world we abhor
the institution of slavery?and rightly so. In the
best of circumstances, it?s an evil thing. Under
the worst of circumstances, it?s evil squared and
cubed. But in this you hear a modern person
talking, a person brought up on a tradition of
personal freedom and ethical responsibility. I
can look back on ancient and medieval history
and say that some people, free men and citizens,
were ?ahead of their time? when they preached
that every man should be free. But even in that
statement, it?s a modern man talking. For in the
context of time, most men believed in slavery,
believed it was a necessary institution, believed
that it was sanctioned by the gods, and indeed,
in some cases, believed that the gods had created
certain people to be slaves! Often, the men
who believed these things were considered not
only to be lawful, but good?while a slave who
rebelled against the system was considered to
be both chaotic and evil. (To mix metaphors, we
make a hero of Spartacus, but any medieval
paladin who refused to destroy him would have
been roundly condemned.)

A peripheral issue? Perhaps, since slavery ?isn?t
prominent in most RPGs. But it serves to illustrate
the point. (And didn?t the Monster Manual
I explain how to subdue and enslave dragons?
beings often having greater intelligence and
wisdom than humans? But, of course, the evil
dragons deserve to be enslaved. .

More specifically, what about the Crusades?
While I consider them interesting from a military
standpoint, and great fun to read about as
a student of history, from a moral viewpoint the
waste of life was tragic and the unwarranted
intrusion into Middle Eastern affairs was legally
indefensible. But, again, that?s a modern man
talking. From a medieval Christian viewpoint,
the crusades were a vital element of Christianity
(just as the Moslems considered the jihads to be
a vital part of Islam), and the loss of life was
irrelevant since it served a higher purpose. In
an age of predators, might was expected to
make right, and any Frankish knight who argued
that he has no ?right? to attack Moslems
would have been branded a coward. A lawfulgood
paladin would not only be categorically
absolved for taking part in a crusade, it would
be considered his duty to do so! The Templars
and Hospitalers, sworn to religious virtues,
were heroes of Christendom, whatever we may
think of them in the modern world.

The Moslems held similar attitudes, and their
saints actively preached religious war (as did
Saint Bernard in Europe, badgering and hounding
secular rulers until they took the oath to
?win back the holy land?). It?s only when a
Saladin or a Francis of Assisi appears that we
begin to see an injection of modern ethics?and
Saladin fought and clawed his way to the top in
the most approved feudal style. Did Richard the
Lionhearted slaughter 2,500 Moslem prisoners
before the walls of captured Acre, just because
their ransom was overdue? Saladin massacred a
regiment of black Africans in Cairo?with their
women and children?to prevent them from
jeopardizing his control of Egypt. Contemporaries
didn?t bat an eye over either action. Even
today, Saladin is spoken of in the Moslem world
as a gentlemen. If asked, the average Westerner
would probably class Richard I Plantagenet
(who nearly taxed his kingdom into ruin in
order to make his crusading adventure more
splendid, and callously left his wicked brother
Prince John in control of England while he went
crusading) as something approximate to the
AD&D game?s ?lawful good.

To cap it all, St. Louis (King Louis IX of France)
took part in not one but two crusades, dying in
the second. His government was just and generous;
he made an excellent revision of judicial
standards within his realm, considered the royal
authority (bestowed upon him by God) to be
beyond infringement, sent 10,000 livres to his
erstwhile Moslem captors when they accepted a
deficient ransom payment, and treated the Jews
of France abominably (a fault any contemporary
Christian would happily have forgiven). A
?lawful good? man? I doubt you?ll find any
secular ruler in all premodern history who
more deserves the title. I also doubt you?ll find
any modern liberal who would grant it to him.

I hope I?m not being too wordy in getting my
point across: Modern ethics are different from
premodern ethics; premoderns expected different
things from lawfulness and goodness (and
from chaos and evil) than we do. If we?re going
to dress up modern role-players in premodern
clothes without expecting them to adopt premodern
attitudes (which I personally would
strenuously oppose), we have to give them
specific examples of alignment from which to
operate.

I?m rather disappointed that the ?neutral?
alignment is so consistently portrayed as sort of,,
?wishy washy.? In my opinion, the neutral-good
character?recognizing as he does that sometimes
law is the enemy of justice and sometimes
its friend?is the most admirable of all. I could
hope that you?ll give some attention to the idea
of neutrality being ?flexibility? rather than
?indecisiveness.?

Craig H. Barrett
Canon City CO
(Dragon #158)