The Great Alignment Debate in Action

Good and Evil as a Function of Time

Saromatia is a setting, relatively free of any game mechanics. When specific mechanics have been needed, I have referred to GURPS as the system of choice.

But I am a long-time AD&D player, and as most familiar with that system know, it imposes "alignments" on the PCs and NPCs populating its settings. Alignments are supposed to loosely define if a person is basically good or evil, lawful or chaotic. It enables holy knights to "detect evil," and dark clerics to strengthen themselves with "protection from good."

And as most long-time AD&D players know, the Great Alignment Debate constantly swirls around this system, thick with interpretations, exceptions, and questions. I see it broken down into two separate questions, myself.

Sin or Taboo?

This is the easiest one to address. People like to use eating sentients as an example. "Look, my orc barbarian didn't kill him just to eat him. But he's dead now, and my orc is hungry, so what's the problem?"

People tend to confuse evil actions (I'll call them "sins," but without respect to any particular religion as yet) with tabooed actions. Some things are culturally considered wrong, even if they hurt no one. Personally, I don't consider breaking taboos to be evil, so this conflict is easy for me to weigh in on.

Relativistic or Absolute?

This is the much thornier question. Should a PC judged "good" or "evil," "chaotic" or "lawful," based on the culture in which he exists, or by some ideal standard of sentient behavior?

Slavery is a perpetual favorite. People who keep slaves are obviously evil in nearly ever game setting I have ever seen. Yet in our world, people from many cultures whom we admire and praise as great and enlightened kept slaves. The American Founding Fathers are the obvious target, but many of the great thinkers of Greece and Rome would have had slaves as well. Poorly treating a slave might be seen as immoral, but owning one was all right. (Granting some unease with the practice in the Americas, it was practiced nonetheless).

So what's the alignment of Thomas Jefferson, author and patriot, slaveowner and possible father to a slave's daughter? Is he Lawful Good, because he went on to become a famous president? Chaotic Good, because he spoke in favor of rebelling against England? Lawful Evil, because he used the laws of his period to keep slaves?

What Do the Players Think?

That's an important question, too. As a GM, I wanted to develop Saromatia as a mostly egalitarian place, but with vestiges of prejudice against men. How strong those vestiges were to be has risen and fallen over the course of game design, as I rethink what sort of flavor I want for my campaign. But the question I need to revisit time and again: What will my players think of a sex-segregated society?

They won't like it, chances are, especially since most of them are men playing male characters. It'll oppress them, ignore them, and belittle them if I construct it that way. Female NPCs will deride their ideas, ignore their suggestions, and take credit for their accomplishments. And they're supposed to feel like they're working for the Good Gals? More likely that I'll have a PC-instigated gender revolt on my hands!

There's a trick to it, constructing a society that has warts but is beautiful despite them. That sort of thing inspires a party to seek to remove the warts while maintaining the beauty. But too often, players think in terms of "RIGHT!" and "WRONG!!" - if there is any scar or blemish the society is EEEVIL! and must be destroyed.

Slipping Out the Back Door

So, I am ignoring the whole issue by switching to a game mechanic that does not seek to pigeonhole the morality of the major players into one of nine slots. Saromatia and its women are who they are. I don't have to answer questions about the alignment of a baroness who is deeply concerned with the welfare of her people but who thinks men should be kept on leashes. Does her concern for the commoners make her good? Does her chauvanism make her bad? Yes to both. People are complex. They can be good and evil. The question is usually whether or not the evil is tolerable within their culture. It isn't right to oppress people based on sex. But is it worthwhile to crusade against an otherwise decent baroness when her peer the next barony over is killing young men and women in a crazed attempt to stay forever youthful? Magnitude is important, and that's an oft-overlooked aspect of the Great Alignment Debate.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws