Policing Alignment

Let's take an example of design function and behaviour and examine it closely (this is part of a series on the closed blog).  For instance, alignment.  The base premise for alignment from the 1979 DMG, rarely quoted, is this (p.23):

"The overall behavior of the character (or creature) is delineated by alignment, or, in the case of player characters, behavior determines actual alignment. Therefore, besides defining the general tendencies of creatures, it also groups creatures into mutually acceptable or at least non-hostile divisions. This is not to say that groups of similarly aligned creatures cannot be opposed or even mortal enemies ... bands of orcs can hate each other. But the former would possibly cease their war to oppose a massive invasion of orcs, just as the latter would make common cause against the lawful good men ... it likewise causes a player character to choose an ethos which is appropriate to his or her profession, and alignment also aids players in the definition and role approach of their respective game personae."

You can read the whole thing yourself with the link provided.  This is the muddiest thinking imaginable, ignoring everything we know about emotional behaviour, even in 1979.  There is absolutely no logic whatsoever that orcs side together because they are all evil; they, like any group, must be expected to side together because they are all orcs.  Yet the general gaming public bought this idea; they continue to buy it, and argue its legitimacy, because it seems like a good idea.  We must structure our character ideals upon something, we are told ~ and alignment seems to represent an approximation of every kind of behaviour.

As psychologists, Gygax and his peers all get an 'F.'  But let's set that aside and discuss it strictly from a gaming perspective.  The design is intended to enable DMs and players to "group" creatures, presumedly to provide a better playing experience.

Shown here is one of the hundreds of alignment charts one can find on the internet that attempts to use figures from fiction or reality to specify what is meant by each alignment.  They can be found for Star Wars, world leaders, the Big Lebowski, Game of Thrones, Batman, the television show Community, the cast of the movie Pride and Prejudice, CGP Grey themes, Star Trek (the original series and later incarnations), the Big Bang Theory ... the list goes on and on and on.  The apparent need for clarity is itself evidence that there is a problem here.  Over and over we have to create memes that try to categorize highly vague categories into human behaviour (for that is what we're doing in every case, whether the depiction is real or fictional).  And in every case, just as in the example shown, it doesn't really work.  And how, exactly, it doesn't work is different for every witness.  Were I to begin a debate upon Lockhart's placement in the above, we could quickly find ourselves in an insolvable discussion based entirely upon our personal experience with what we believe is the accurate definition of a made up term that itself, in the rules, is no better than your position or mine.

In terms of player behaviour, this being the way the alignment tool was used, we're all over the map.  And attempts to nail down each of the categories are utterly subjective.  Yet in his original rules, Gygax spoke of the DM's need to "keep track of player character behavior."  If it deviated from the assigned alignment, we are told, "Such drift should be noted by you, and when it takes the individual into a new alignment area, you should then inform the player that his or her character has changed alignment."  And yet, according to Gygax, "It is quite possible for a character to drift around in an alignment area ..."

How exactly is this tracked?  I've never seen anyone try to break down one of the alignment fields into nine or perhaps 16 subfields, each with a perfect definition so we can plot the player's behaviour and be sure they're still inside the boundaries.  Ah, but Gygax says, "... any major action ... will cause a major shift ..."  How, I am forced to ask, do we delineate "major" from "minor"?  Except, of course, with the subjective opinion of the only person who counts, this being the DM.

In terms of user behavioural problems, this is recipe for disaster ~ and it was in every game that I played where alignment was used as a feature.  It doesn't matter what the actual opinions were; players would insist they were living up to their alignment while others would insist they were not.  And the more firm the DM would try to be in dictating alignment, the more the players would chafe at being told the motivations and limitations of how they were allowed to use their character.

This in turn created a long list of logical arguments for how and why a good character could "get away" with behaving cruelly or indifferently, while lawful characters found loopholes that would allow they to act selfishly and greedily.  None of this really matters, except as evidence that humans will find a way if they feel they deserve one.

The problem is from a behavioural perspective, what does the alignment actually do for the player once the alignment is chosen?  It can give me an inflexible standard to play ... which is nothing like a real person in any sense, and therefore becomes dissatisfying after awhile.  What with all the necessity of staying alive, adding alignment feels a lot of the time like having to fight the world with one arm tied behind your back.  "Sorry; I would happily ride on your back across this river, but I'm neutral evil, you understand, so both our characters have to die."  While an interesting tale for why we don't trust scorpions, it makes for a rather frustrating play experience.

And here is the larger thing: if we play without tracking alignment or caring about alignment, this doesn't keep any of the characters who want to use alignment for building their character to continue doing so.  It simply means that if I start as a lawful good person, I can change my mind later on.  Or with a particular incident.  Since no one is measuring my character's behaviour in a real sense, I can style myself as a fellow who floats casually between four alignments and that's fine.

Which means that alignment can still be useful as a means to group creatures (if you're going to embrace that concept) and for designing a personality ... so nothing is actually lost if we remove the policing concept.  The only person the policing concept actually serves is the DM; and only in the sense that the DM can slap a label on the player for "reasons."  The DM's actually running of the game, the presentation of the adventure and the dialogue between player and NPC can all take place without any change whatsoever ... except, perhaps, that where before the DM could say, "You have to fight the orcs because you're lawful good," the DM no longer has the legitimacy to make that argument.

I'm unclear myself on why the policing of alignment is still a thing.  It plainly is, because the community spends so much time on defining it.  Alignment itself, though psychologically ridiculous, and utterly useless if a writer wants to make three-dimensional characters, at least has the benefit of giving people two scales on which they can graph a character in the game.

I could argue this practice has led to an awful lot of misery ... but the reader would just argue back and then we'd be in a flame war, and who really cares anyway.

The larger point is that as a design concept, the strategy proposed by the invention of the alignment was never realized ~ and, in fact, the players did not need it to be realized.  Inconsistency makes a better story.  And something that is meant to be consistent, but cannot be rationally defined, yet is believed to be rationally defined by every person willing to argue about it, only creates obstacles to the playing experience, rather than obstacles between the player and achievement.