Proper Villainy Virtuosity

Today, I'd like to expand a bit on the concepts Dante discussed in his post on Good characters earlier this week. I'd planned to do this awhile back, but life (and recently, Rock Band) got in the way.

Just like evil characters, good isn't quite so cut and dried as it might seem.

Dudley Do-Right

One commonly used model for Good characters is the stereotypical Knight in Shining Armor. He's on a neverending crusade against Evil, feeds the hungry, saves the day, and gets the princess. He always does what's right, and everyone loves him for it.

Works in the storybooks, right? Well, one reason that works is that usually the stories are pretty simple. Dragon kidnaps princess, knight slays dragon, kingdom rejoices. It's kind of a no-brainer as to what that knight ought to do. But what if it wasn't that easy?

Er, which thing is the "right" thing?

About the only thing you can really definitively say about what "Good" is is that it's really subjective! Sure, there are some very widely used interpretations of how Good people are supposed to act ("thou shalt not kill", "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", etc.), but even these don't hold up in all cases. All you have to do is stick a "unless they're evil" or "unless they're the enemy" on the end of the statement and a lot of self-proclaimed Good types will start doing things that certainly resemble Evil -- but do it in the name of Truth, Justice, and the <your faction here> Way and it's a Good action! Right?

Nevermind the fact that what's Good to some is not Good to others. I dread the possible impact this might have on our poor unsuspecting comment system, but one need look no further than the issue of abortion. I'm not EVEN going to get into whether or not I believe it's right or not on this blog. (Are you kidding??!) But I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that some people VERY CLEARLY have differing opinions on what is the right thing to do (or even what's remotely acceptable) than others. And then when people start killing off doctors and blowing up clinics in the name of saving lives, were those good or evil acts? Or both?

The temptation exists with topics like these to try to analyze everything and argue one side or the other on what's Good and what isn't. And you can argue the fine points of every little part of an issue until you're blue in the face, the DM kills everyone, and none of the other players speaks to you for a month. (Raise your hand if you've ever been in a game session where this happened. <raises hand> And no, it wasn't me!)

However, this is not a philosophy blog, and you're not here to peruse arguments over what is virtuous and what is not. You're here to think about roleplaying. I submit that no character (or action) is ever truly Good(tm) or Evil(tm), and it is best simply to figure out how your character would react given the circumstances, his personality and ethics, and his past experiences. A Basically Good character will likely be kind, generous, and will sometimes royally screw up and really, really regret it. (Just like real people!) And maybe, just maybe, they'll try to seek redemption somehow.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is like super Quik-Gro fertilizer for roleplaying. Perfection is boring!

As with Proper Villainy, this topic is much bigger than one post. And while I cannot tell you what a Good character is or isn't, I will be taking a closer look at some of the things that traditionally Good characters share.

Until next time.... um... <glittery laughter of faeries>

I don't think I'll be doing that anymore. That's scarier than the evil laugher......

Why I Hate Alignment

If I had to pick one concept in D&D that has always driven me completely insane, I would have to pick alignment. How many times have you had a discussion with another player about something his or her character did and whether or not they played their alignment correctly?

Chaotic Retarded

The rules for alignment are JUST vague enough to be confusing, and are frequently the subject of some very... shall we say.... liberal interpretation. Here are some of the doozies I've heard over the years:

• Lawful -- Always obeys laws, no matter what.


• Lawful Neutral -- The ONLY thing this person ever cares about is laws. Always.


• True Neutral -- Can't decide what to do because they're always on the fence. Actions that require a decision must always be taken at random by a roll of the dice. Frequently switches sides in the middle of a battle.


• Chaotic Neutral -- Always does the first thing that pops into their heads. Always chosen by the guy in the group who doesn't want to be labelled as "evil" but never wants his alignment questioned.


• Chaotic Evil -- Enjoys killing everything. On sight. Always murderous.


• Lawful Evil -- Always obeys laws, but has to find loopholes to still do evil.

And these aren't just from one poor misguided gaming group I was in during college. I still hear these things from time to time, and it's a wonder I have any hair left.

Never Always

See the common thread between every stupid thing said above? Every last one of them has the word "always" in it. Nobody always or never does something. People are much more complex than that, and under the right circumstances, you can see people do some pretty unexpected things.

The problem with alignment is that it's a label. And the problem with labels is that one can be stuck on something complex and people will only see the label. Even if the label is pretty accurate, most people will never ever be able to see beyond what is printed on it.

Let's take a guy who would be, by most definitions, a good guy. He goes to church every weekend, loves the wife and kids, gives back to the community, and goes the speed limit. But he steals money from his workplace and kicks his dog too. Is he Good? Evil? Chaotic? I'd say he's got some of each in him. ALL people do, to a certain extent. But what label do you slap on him? You can't slap "Good" on him, he's a thief. You can't slap "Evil" on him, he's good most of the time.

I'm expecting emails from some of the rules lawyers out there saying "He's OBVIOUSLY Neutral!" or "He's Neutral Good with Evil Tendencies!" or something like that. But you're missing the point -- why are we working so hard to classify something that defies classification? Emotion is notorious for being wildly irrational, and human behavior is largely based in emotion. I submit that it doesn't matter one bit what Official Alignment someone is -- they are who they are. And no two word description can accurately portray that.

This Dial Goes Up To Eleven

Another problem with labelling something with an alignment is that in not seeing past the label, they also exaggerate what it means. So if someone is "good" they hug puppies, shit candy canes, and are Dedicated to the Eradication of Evil. On the other hand, Evil people rob the elderly blind for fun and always have at least two people killed before 11am. I'm exaggerating, of course, but raise your hand if you've ever been in a party where somebody does something slightly morally questionable and another party member immediately drew their blade and tried to kill them on the spot BECAUSE OMG THEY ARE EVIL!!!!!

That's a lot of hands.

OMG But What About Classes And Other Things That Are Alignment-Specific??!!?

I think those rules are silly!

I can understand the spirit behind wanting paladins to be Lawful Good or they lose their paladinhood. But paladins are holy warriors, and it really ought to be up to their chosen deity whether or not they're doing what they ought to. Especially in groups with.... interesting ideas on alignment, if the paladin doesn't see a "keep off the grass" sign, they could wind up a fighter in fancy armor in short order.

Monks have the same problem, and if they're not always "lawful" they lose their monk status. If the Lawful part that needs preserved is all about discipline, then if someone doesn't obey laws or does "something chaotic", how does that mean they don't train every day? Now, I understand the monk's powers in D&D are supposed to be supernatural abilities. That's fine. But I've been in martial arts every bit as long as I've played D&D and I mean to tell you there are some seriously chaotic martial artists out there. And last time I checked, they all still train and none of them lost the ability to do Flurry of Blows.

A Helm of Alignment Change? Start acting more evil. DUH.

The Heart of The Matter

I was once in a campaign where I was playing a monk, and something happened in battle where the DM thought I was being "chaotic". I think I jumped over a short party member, accidentally knocking him over in the process. And I got warned that if it ever happened again, I would be stripped of my monk status. I thought that was completely ridiculous, and we got into a big argument over it.

And it was after that when I realized why I really hate alignment. It is really vague, open to interpretation, and regarded with incredible importance for some unknown reason. It's the D&D equivalent of talking about religion or politics at your in-laws during Thanksgiving dinner, and somebody's going to get their panties in a wad.

Sure, I think all of the things I said above are true. But so does everybody else who has an opinion about alignment. It has a tendency to bring out the worst in D&D players. And for something that can be so easily overcome by good roleplaying, I see no reason why we should trouble ourselves further with it.

But then, the problem really isn't about alignment, is it? As always, talk to your friends at the table, and try to reach a reasonable consensus. Once you have, stick with it. It's the Lawful Good thing to do!