So this video inspired me today to come out of my hole and start writing a little bit. Now, I have GM'd and played in a lot of RPG's some good, and some bad, and alignment, humanity and how a character should act is one of the most divisive and beaten topics that ever gets brought up. The basic crux of it is this. Say you have a DnD character who is Lawful Good, or a Vampire on Humanity 2. How does the character act, what does it say about the character, does the GM have a right to say you're acting out of character, and how do deal with conflicting alignments. I'm attempting to write an article that will at least give my perspective and experience, both as a long time GM and player.
Alignment
Now, Alignment gets thrown around a lot, and essentially, it describes a character's moral outlook. There's a scale of Good and Evil and a scale of Law and Chaos, and already we've opened up something of a moral can of worms. Good characters tend to try to be nice and work to the betterment of the world around them, while evildoers tend to try to make the world work for them. Now, that's not to say that a good character cannot commit an evil act or an evil character cannot have a moment of kindness. They aren't robots programmed to act in a certain way. The way I see alignments is that it describes the character's outlook on life. Evil characters see the world as a brutal, cynical one where everyone is preying on someone else and they are no exception. Good characters see it through a more idealistic lens. Neutral (an alignment that always caused me some confusion) either don't see the world through any lens or have some kind of crazy dedication to maintaining a balance between good or evil, law and chaos (I'd argue that automatically puts them on the more Lawful side, but I digress).
Law and Chaos are actually the alignments that people seem to have the most trouble with, because, arguably more than good or evil, Law and Chaos are more subjective. If a person predictably breaks every law they come across, or deliberately acts out, then, well, they're not really chaotic are they? If a character has his own moral code that he thinks supersedes any code of law or justice in an area he's in, well, he's not being exactly Lawful is he? I'd argue that being truly chaotic is impossible, or at least very hard without being totally manic and insane, and a lot of bad players agree, playing characters that would make the most loony fishmalk cringe, and putting a lot of stigma on the alignment of Chaotic Neutral.
The main thing I think to remember is that the characters are people first. Their alignments are two-word representations of their outlook. Even most paladins aren't totally, one hundred percent squeaky clean, just as most villains aren't totally, out of their gourd child cannibals who worship Hitler-Satan. I have played many evil characters in my time, and I have always tried to make them work with the group. Now, that might seem contrary, but just because a person has a poor moral outlook doesn't mean they don't care about anything. It doesn't mean they don't have friends, or loved ones. Evil characters who take any excuse to betray the party, cause trouble, or sell out anyone who would trust them aren't evil, they're just fucking idiots and the people who play them are just looking for an excuse to make trouble, and would do so with any alignment, not just an evil one. One of my favorite character archetypes is the reluctant hero, a character with a poor, or outright amoral outlook, who is forced by circumstances to become do good, either because their loved ones are in danger or because it's in their own best interest. My first DnD character was a Neutral Evil changeling rogue, who despite his alignment, actually sacrificed a massive horde of gold to save a group of orphans (admittedly by knocking them unconscious and dragging them away from danger). It's important to remember that good and evil aren't just a switch to flip. They're a scale. Just because the character was ok with stealing a person's wallet, or running scams that bankrupt organizations doesn't mean they're fine to let children die in agony.
Humanity and Paths of Enlightenment
Vampire: the Masquerade is unique among the Old World of Darkness games in that it had a morality system, namely how in touch a character was with their Humanity, represented by a rating of 1 to 10, where 10 was a living saint who could barely think selfish thoughts and 1 represented a barely-sentient monster who would slit their best friend's throat to jump ahead in line. Obviously, most characters fall somewhere in between those two extremes, and those who do actually try to hit either of those are probably not long for this world. Now, Humanity is quite strict, as a system, and vampires have to struggle to maintain it, and lower Humanity has penalties like an increased risk of Frenzy when hungry or scared and waking up later in the night. This all changed when the Sabbat book came out, and introduced probably one of my favorite, but also controversial aspects of the game: Paths of Enlightenment.
You see, when the Sabbat were in it's inception, they were just the generic baddies for the players to hunt down and kill. Their exceeding popularity allowed them to become a fully fleshed out faction in their own right, ala the Camarilla, and the developers had the conundrum that if Vampires indulged in most of the gorier pastimes in the Sabbat, they would be dropping their Humanity like a hot potato.
To counter this, White Wolf came up with Paths of Enlightenment, which is yet another great idea that gets ruined by asshole powergaming shits. The basic idea was that when a Vampire dropped to a low enough Huamnity (3 or lower), they could switch onto a Path, literally rewriting their morality into a new and alien philosophy, that quite literally turned them into inhuman, alien beings. Now, some of these paths were good ideas (Path of Honorable Accord, which emphasized honor and truthfullness and dignitas over being a particularly nice person, Path of Cathari, which emphasizes pleasure and indulgence and Path of Metamorphosis, which emphasizes transhumanism and study being my personal favorites) and some of them were not so good ideas (Path of Evil Revelations, which emphasizes selling your soul and being a douchebag and Path of Paradox, the path of being a stupid prick were my least) but I loved the concept. It made perfect sense for the Sabbat, an entire sect based around the rejection of base Humanity and the exploration of Vampirism in all its facets would realize that as they were no longer human, human morality was irrelevant.
Naturally, once again, many, many players have dragged this otherwise good idea through the shitter. Players started taking on Paths and trying to use them to justify consequence-free atrocity. The thing is, as far as I can remember, all the Paths were just as restrictive in their own way, as Humanity itself. A few may have had no compunctions against killing and torture, but if you were on Metamorphosis, you'd best be studying yourself and your condition. If you were on the Path of Honorable Accord, breaking your word is the equivalent sin of participating in a gang rape on Humanity. These are not just 'get out of jail free' cards, these are genuine alternate moralities, but because of a lack of understanding on the parts of the GM's and abusive players, Paths are soiled in the eyes of many GM's. I can only say that if you're using these systems, try to understand them and and actually enforce them, because ignoring them robs the game of so many of its themes.
Party Dynamics
Now, where all this is heading is how it makes the party dynamic. It's a complete myth that Good and Evil characters cannot work together for mutual benefit, or that people cannot find some kind of common ground. To use the example of my Changeling Rogue, he traveled with a Chaotic Good paladin and a party of other, mostly good guys, because, well, firstly, they mostly liked or tolerated each other, and secondly, they had bigger problems to take care of then a few snatched purses or backstabs here and there. As my character pointed out to a Lawful Good paladin who wanted to arrest him one day after detecting evil on him, merely being evil is not actually a crime. Characters, and good players, will find a reason to compromise, and some of the best roleplaying I got was playing a morally conflicted character who still managed to have friends and colleagues who were righteous, with genuine mutual respect and friendship.
Evil characters and characters with opposing alignments get a bad name because of the arguments they start, like the aforementioned Prisoner's Dilemma (eg. we come across a group of baby orcs. Kill the little bastards or don't and let them grow into evil orc raiders?), but I've always been of the opinion that if the players are mature enough to separate their characters from themselves, there's no problem with an in-character argument or moral dilemma. I've played in Black Crusade games (Alpha Legionnaire, for the record. Praise the Hydra) where my character has detested every one of his teammates, but recognized that they were the only ones who would help him get the job done. Out of character, the other players were good friends of mine, but in character, the teeth-clenched teamwork was a fun dynamic, as every member of the party had their own reasons to dislike everyone else but had to stick together as something of an odd little family.
The point I'm trying to get across here is that it all comes down to the players. If someone new, who you don't trust arrives at your table, by all means, you have the right to veto any stupid idea he might have about playing a Chaotic Evil necromancer or a Path of Blood 10 Assamite (Don't EVER bring me the last one, because I'll be wondering why you're working with these scrubs instead of Diablerising literally everyone around you for the glory of Haqim, infidel), but don't let the idea get soiled in your head. Remember that even strangest sounding ideas can be played well, and can enhance the game instead of wrecking it. Much like alignment, humanity and other argument starters, it all comes down to your perspective. Any bad player can use any alignment, even Lawful Good, or Humanity 7 to troll your game, and any good player can make even a Chaotic Evil motherfucker work for the benefit of the same.
- Kephn
No comments:
Post a Comment