Scripture & the Megadungeon Part 5: Alignment

Strap in folks, this is a long one, but one that I am rather excited about. I hope you find it as useful as I have found it to be fun to work on and write.

Of all of the various “controversial” mechanics in D&D, Alignment is probably the most, because it doesn’t really work. What started out as a simple guide for which fantasy troop types could or would work together, it evolved into the nine-fold metaphysical mess that it is today. This failure is largely due to the fact that it couches Good and Evil in materialist language:

Basically stated, the tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of AD&D, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable. Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is the determinant. — 1e DMG

The inherent problem with this is that materialism has no real metaphysics. Indeed, once one starts to seriously look into metaphysics, the materialist world-view begins to collapse in on itself. Note the relativism implied in "life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness." What is life when undeath is a reality? What is freedom when dangerous and powerful magics, including spells like Charm Person are available? Though undesirable, what if cruelty and suffering are the only means towards happiness? Is the purpose to serve others evil? All of these platitudes have no real meaning.

Thus, the instinct by many players today to entirely eliminate Alignment from the game is quite correct, from a materialist POV. I, however, reject materialism and my instinct is that it should be part of the game. The question has always been how.

In the modern, materialist world-view, the opposite of being is nothing — something that is no thing, has no being, has no material form. This is not how ancient Greek philosophers, and much of Western thought prior to the Enlightenment, understood things. Plato, Platonism, and Neo-Platonism all find that the opposite of being is becoming. Aristotle developed this into potential and actuality. To possibly over-simplify, there are things that change and things that don't. Those that don't are superior to those that do. As to why, remember death is the one change none of us can escape.

When one reads the Fathers of the Church, they use Platonic, Neo-Platonic, and Aristotelian language and concepts to explicate the Gospel, but ultimately reject the metaphysics of philosophy in favor of Scripture. English translations of Genesis describe the opposite of being as:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. (1:1-2)

The words "without form" and "void" in the Masoretic Hebrew are ṯō·hū and ḇō·hū, the latter only being used twice in the OT, both in conjunction with the first. In fact, the only way that we have an idea of how to translate ḇō·hū is other translations, specifically the Septuagint Greek. Ironically, a close examination of that Greek offers a different meaning.

The first word is ἀόρατος, which means "unseen" or "invisible." The second is ἀκατασκεύαστος, meaning "not properly prepared." This lack of preparedness implies something unformed, or (far more relevant to the subject of this post) chaos.

This primordial unseen chaos is represented by "darkness upon the face of the deep." Here, "the deep" is ἀβύσσου or the abyss. This abyss, however, is described in terms of the sea with the Holy Spirit hovering over the face of the water. In the Masoretic Hebrew, the abyss is rendered ṯə·hō·wm, which has been etymologically linked to Tiamat — the Babylonian goddess of the sea and a symbol for the chaos of primordial creation.

Being, therefore, is the order brought by God's creation and the purpose with which it is endowed. Using philosophical categories to explain the image and likeness of God in humanity, we are created to become like God and have the potential to share in God's eternity by the actualization of the divine in us. Paul describes this with the Greek word δικαιόω. Often translated as "justified," it literally means set right and shares the same root as righteousness. All of this, of course, is made manifest in the person of Jesus Christ, because without Him through whom all things were made, we are completely incapable of being.

Jesus also reminds us that only God is good (see Mark 10:18) and His brother James states:

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

Thus, the source of all good in the world is God the Father, in whom is no change (note the link to Plato's thinking). Given this, there is no neutrality in creation. Either God's goodness flows through something or it doesn't and humanity has been given the task of tending creation — ordering the world according to the goodness of God.

It should be noted that the word alignment means to set in a straight line and the word for sin in both Greek and Hebrew means to miss the mark — the alignment of your life and actions have failed to align with the purpose set before you by God.

Let us now look at how D&D actually uses Alignment. It is possible to break down Alignment mechanically into four broad categories:

• A code of conduct required of a PC to take advantage of class abilities. See clerics, monks, paladins, etc.
• Something that determines the efficacy of certain spells such as Detect Evil and Protection from Evil.
• An effect of a magic trap or item that either changes the alignment of a PC or determines the ability of a PC to use said item. See Helm of Alignment Change, Intelligent Swords, etc.
• Alignment Languages.

Let's take a look at how Scripture might help to clarify these mechanics.

Class Requirements

Scripture clearly shows that there is no one way that an individual can become righteous. People from all walks of life from both the Old and New Testament are today recognized as Saints in the Orthodox Church: shepherds, kings, prophets, judges, fishermen, lawyers, tax collectors, physicians, slaves, women, children, etc. At the same time, many of these very same saints spent time falling away from God. It was an act of repentance that separates a King David from a King Saul, both of whom where made righteous by being chosen by God and anointed by the Prophet Samuel. All of this suggests that the core idea of having certain class abilities tied to behavior is Scriptural, as is the idea of quests of penance to get those abilities back after a fall. 

The behavior that is and isn't acceptable, however, is not necessarily going to be universal. The way a monk and a paladin deal with a situation, given their different set of skills, is necessarily going to be different. This all suggests that Players and Referees need to world build so that various organizations that represent various classes have clear cut Codes of Conduct. I might also suggest having clear paths of penance so that players can weigh the cost/benefit of breaking their codes. This would also free the Referee to be rather strict about enforcing those codes. Given the fact that most of the classes that have such codes are some of the most powerful in the game, and given that the Referee and players are clear as what is expected, this seems to me to be a reasonable ask for these classes.

Spell Effects

There are two basic types of spells that specify evil: Protection from Evil and Detect Evil. If we take a look at the original wording of the former, it really doesn't have anything to do with evil mechanically, despite its mention of "evil attacks:"

Protection from Evil: This spell hedges the conjurer round with a magic circle to keep out attacks from enchanted monsters. It also serves as an “armor” from various evil attacks, adding a +1 to all saving throws and taking a –1 from hit dice of evil opponents.

These spells specifically target attacks from enchanted creatures. Depending on how one interprets enchanted this could theoretically include traditionally Good creatures such as unicorns. Later editions do try to define "enchanted," such as Moldvay's "summoned or created" — a definition that does fit nicely into a Scriptural POV. Given this definition, however, this spell seems to be a variation on Protection Scrolls, which specify a type of creature that are affected — Protection from Lycanthropes, for example. While more recent versions of the game expand the scope of this spell to include Law/Chaos as well as Good/Evil, I think it far more practical to move that variety more in the direction of the Protection Scroll. Either PCs can have access to a variety of Protection spells or a specific category of creature is invoked when the spell is memorized or cast. Thus, this category is less about Alignment than it is about a targeted category of creature.

When it comes to the spell Detect Evil, the original explanation runs very much counter to Scripture:

Detect Evil: A spell to detect evil thought or intent in any creature or evilly enchanted object. Note that poison, for example, is neither good nor evil. Duration: 2 turns. Range: 6”.

Given that humans sin in thought all the time, this spell would produce nothing of any real import. Although it specifies an ability to detect an evil enchantment on an item, it explicitly declares a mundane object, such as poison, which is almost exclusively used for evil intent, as undetectable due to its neutrality. Given that it is impossible to be neutral when it comes to God (the source of all good), this use of this spell is non-sensical from a Scriptural POV.

To fix this, I think that the whole concept of detecting thoughts ought to be abandoned. Not only are there other spells that deal with this ability (ESP, for example), but the explanation is so ambiguous that, in my experience, the spell is rendered largely useless in this regard anyway. In order to make Detect Evil into a useful utility spell, we can take advantage of the Scriptural understanding of the co-creative role of humanity. In other words, the spell is able to detect the manner in which an object was last used — something aligned with God or aligned with a human desire for power, money, lust, etc. 

Thus, in context of a murder mystery, Detect Evil might be an interesting spell to use in order to try and determine a murder weapon, for example. It also gives the Referee a clear directive as to whether or not an object reeks of evil. In terms of world building, it also drives the need for spells like Bless and Purify Food and Water in non-adventure settings. Every year at Epiphany, for example, the priest goes from house to house blessing houses with the holy water blessed during the services of the Feast.

Magic Traps and Items

Now we finally come to a subject directly relevant to the subject of the megadungeon, and something that I think ought to be far more common, at least from a Scriptural POV. In Genesis, God warns Cain as he meditates on murdering his brother Abel:

So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin crouches at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.” — 4:6-7

The Masoretic Hebrew for "crouches" is etymologically linked to an Akkadian word rabitsu, which is a crouching demon that hides near doors. This warning refers to the fact that not all thoughts originate from within our minds. We are constantly being bombarded by thoughts from the holy and the demonic. To illustrate this, try praying the Jesus Prayer multiple times concentrating on the words: "Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on me a sinner." Very quickly, our minds will wander away. These thoughts that catch our attention are from the same rabitsu that were waiting at the door of Cain's heart.

In other words, as adventurers delve into the depths of the megadungeon trying to align themselves and the dungeon itself to the purposes of God, the challenges PCs should face ought to go beyond the physical. This can take the form of traps and magic items that force a PC to change their alignment away from God's purpose. Their resistance can either take the form of a Saving Throw or the Player's choice to refuse the power available to them through use of an item.

This is all well and good, but in the traditional D&D alignment system, the alignment change is the consequence in most cases. The rest lies in that nebulous space where Players try to interpret how their characters would now act "evil" or "chaotic" instead of "good" or "lawful." Unless the PC was a character that depended upon a specific alignment, there is no clear cut way as to how this mechanically affects the game.

If, however, "Alignment" referred strictly to a PCs relation to God's purpose, then there are some mechanical choices that can be made and imposed. In Orthodox Christianity, the "likeness" in the "image and likeness" of God refers to our eternal quest to become more and more like God. Thus, we can tie level progression to Alignment. Thus, a PC can't progress in level, regardless of the amount of XP accumulated, unless they are properly aligned. 

Those that fail a Saving Throw or choose to use a powerful magic item with an Evil Alignment must then perform some kind of act of repentance. This could take the form of tithing in cases of a missed Saving Throw, or a quest in cases of choosing to use evil magics. To my mind, this makes Alignment consequential and can make many Alignment decisions by Players far more meaningful: "I don't have the magic weapon necessary to defeat this monster, unless I pull out and use this evil sword."

Languages

Alignment Languages have long been a source of confusion and mockery. The idea that a PC who dons a Helm of Change Alignment simultaneously and instantly forgetting one language and learning a new one is rather laughable. In context of Scripture, however, understanding speech is tightly linked to a relationship with God. Prior to their attempt to control God by building the Tower of Babel, humanity all spoke the same language. As punishment for their audacity, God confused the languages. We see another explicit example in the Gospel of John:

[Jesus said,] "Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven: “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.” The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. — 12:28-29

Those that were ready — Aligned to the purpose of God — heard the voice. Those that were not merely heard thunder. This suggests that Alignment languages can be understood by anyone who is willing. Thus, if a PC were willing to change their Alignment (as with the evil magic items above), an otherwise unreadable text would become known; however, like those willing to use evil magic items, they would then have to repent in order to advance in level. It would also make texts written in a heavenly language indecipherable. This renders spells like Read Languages and Comprehend Languages even more important than they already are, because they would allow a PC to read a forbidden text without making the necessary Alignment change.

Conclusion

If we are to use Scripture as a guide for making Alignment mechanically meaningful, we are forced to understand that the traditional Good/Evil and Law/Chaos dichotomies are meaningless. All order and good that is in the world have their source in God. Everything else is a manifestation of evil and chaos. Thus, a more useful language to use is In or Out of Alignment (with God's purpose).

At first glance, this may seem to run counter to the existence of Assassins, Barbarians, Druids, Thieves and any other class that have Alignment requirements that in traditional D&D embrace Chaos, Neutrality, and/or Evil. In a world in which Chaos manifests itself as the megadungeon, however, even PCs that live and operate in that grey area between Civilization and the Wilderness can align themselves with God's purpose by becoming adventurers that delve into the megadungeon.

Understanding Alignment as "In" or "Out" allows us to have some very clear mechanical consequences for choosing one over the other:

• Classes that require a code of conduct to use certain class abilities are Out if they break that code
• All PCs that are Out may not advance in level, regardless of XP earned
• PCs that are In may read and understand "heavenly" languages
• PCs that are Out may read and understand "demonic" languages
• PCs that are Out may avoid certain magical traps and use certain magical items
• PCs that are Out must perform penance in order to become In
• The penance necessary to become In is up to the Referee and may include quests of various kinds

To my mind, this is a far more useful Alignment system than any I have encountered in D&D or elsewhere. It helps portray a world in a way that helps players understand how their choices interact with the realities of that world.

So, are you In or Out? ;)

Alignment Languages, the Scarlet Brotherhood, and Flutes

JB of B/X Blackrazor has been meditating how to go “Advanced” from his usual B/X D&Ding. As seems always necessary in such endeavors is the long, hard struggle with Alignment.

I myself have waxed poetic about the subject many, many times.

The thing that interested me about JB’s post has almost nothing to do with JB’s near abandonment of the system. D&D has several mechanics that depend upon Alignment and therefore one must deal with those mechanics on some level if any major changes are to be made with Alignment (like getting rid of it entirely). One such mechanic in AD&D is the much maligned Alignment Languages.

Back when I got into blogging, one of the bigger blogs was James Maliszewski’s Grognardia. At the time he was trying to wrestle with OD&D as written using the axiom that the rules were always right and therefore he needed to find a way to make them work. The results were often surprising and fun. It is a principle that I enjoy applying to various editions of the game for that very reason — I often come up with ideas that wouldn’t exist otherwise.

With that in mind, here is what Gygax has to say about Alignment Languages on pg. 24 of the DMG:

Alignment language is a handy game tool which is not unjustifiable in real terms. Thieves did employ a special cant. Secret organizations and societies did and do have certain recognition signs, signals, and recognition phrases — possibly special languages (of limited extent) as well. Consider also the medieval Catholic Church which used Latin as a common recognition and communication base to cut across national boundaries. In AD&D. alignment languages are the special set of signs, signals, gestures, and words which intelligent creatures use to inform other intelligent creatures of the same alignment of their fellowship and common ethos. Alignment languages are NEVER flaunted in public. They are not used as salutations or interrogatives if the speaker is uncertain of the alignment of those addressed. Furthermore, alignment languages are of limited vocabulary and deal with the ethos of the alignment in general, so lengthy discussion of varying subjects cannot be conducted in such tongues.

This largely harkens back to the 0e version of Alignment, where it was about which side of the larger conflict are you willing to fight with rather than a code of behavior. It also introduces the idea of secret(ive) societies that use various means of communication that those outside their clique cannot understand.

Which brings me to my favorite love/hate political entity within the Greyhawk campaign world. I love the idea of a bunch of racist monks working in secret to further their political agenda, but I hated the idea of there being a country on the map called The Scarlet Brotherhood. I always wished that they were a secretive society that were the real power behind several different throwns and were always looking out for a way to whisper sweet nothings into the ears of the rich and powerful.

Here is an organization that would definitely have something akin to an Alignment Language as Gygax describes. There is even an historical template on which to build this vision of both the Scarlet Brotherhood and Alignment Languages: the Fuke monks.

As I noted in my last post, many Shoguns took advantage of the Fuke monk’s anonymity and mobility to create spy networks. One simple way to identify oneself, in an Alignment Language kinda way, would be the music a monk would play on their flute.

This also suggests why characters lose the use of an Alignment Language once their alignment changes. Secret symbols and signs are in constant flux in order to keep them secret. Think about pitching symbols in baseball or sideline play signals in football. The form is almost always the same, but their meaning is in constant flux because other teams are constantly trying to steal signals. Once a character leaves and organization, they lose the ability to update the current meaning of the signals being given or to recognize if a signal is being given at all.

The exciting thing about the idea of Alignment Languages is the world-building implications: secret societies abound in a political climate that is cutthroat and in constant flux. That sounds like a really fun atmosphere to throw a bunch of Player Characters at.

I Love Lawful Stupid

I am going to hop on the bandwagon and throw my two cents worth at the alignment question asked over at Tenkar’s Tavern. It should be obvious to anyone who has read this blog over the years that alignment is an important part of the game to me, since I have spilt so much digital ink on the subject; however, I am not going to re-tread over that ground. Rather, I’d like to spend some time with the phrases, “Lawful Stupid” and “Chaotic Selfish.”

As a player and as a GM/Referee/DM/whatever I love “Lawful Stupid” characters and I find “Chaotic Selfish” characters to be utterly boring. It is much more challenging as a player to bring a Lawful Stupid character to life in a meaningful way. The choices they make and the reasons they make them are often alien to even to my own predilections. As such, they push me as a player — especially if I want this Lawful Stupid character to find a way to survive holding the bridge from a small army of goblins as the party gets away with the prisoners we’ve just rescued. That is fun to me — finding that creative balance between fulfilling the Lawful Stupid role and finding a way to accomplish some of the primary goals of the typical player — survive, get enough treasure to level up, etc.

Just going around a world being chaotically selfish is neither challenging nor particularly very fun. From a player POV, it is so easy to do and I’ve done it so many times that I am not really interested anymore.

From the perspective of a GM/Referee/DM/whatever, my favorite aspect of the game is seeing how my worlds interact with player action. Lawful Stupid characters are the ones most likely to have the greatest impact — even in death. Think about how many Lawful Stupid people the world lionizes verses the billions of Chaotic Selfish people that we bump into every day. My worlds evolve and become living things when Lawful Stupid characters do their thing — most especially when they are creative about it. All Chaotic Selfish characters do is allow the status quo to be the status quo.

Why Alignment is So Hard

Inspired by St. Augulus, I meditated once again on alignment, something I do quite often here in my corner of the internet. In fact, I would argue that it is the most difficult aspect of D&D. In response to my post, Roger of Roles, Rules & Rolls asked my thoughts on this observation:

I've observed that a trouble with alignment is that people get confused between its cosmic, political, and character facets.

Thus without contradiction a single figure can serve cosmic Law while espousing political Freedom and walking a Neutral path between personal predictability and whimsy.

And when the agent of political Law persecutes the agent of cosmic Law there is likewise no contradiction.

I feel this deserves an entire post, because I fundamentally disagree that there is no contradiction when a single figure serves the cosmic Law, preaches political freedom and embodies Neutrality personally.

Whether we like it or not, Western Culture has Judeo-Christianity as its foundation (despite repeated attempts to abandon it). At its core, Judaism sets forth an ideal that the cosmic, the political and the personal can and should all be united. This ideal is codified in the Mosaic Law. In Christianity, this unity is made manifest in the person of Christ. In both cases, it is the individual’s calling to strive for that unity, either through participation in the Law or in Christ.

Thus, what Roger identifies as confusion really isn’t; however, it is an ideal. From the Christian point of view the Mosaic Law has no salvific value. Rather, its purpose is revelation. One of the things it makes perfectly clear is that humanity, on its own, is completely incapable of fulfilling the Law and therefore uniting the cosmic, the political and the personal. In religious lingo, we call this sin.

Therefore, one of the realities of the fallen world is that, especially when one talks about politics, contradiction is inevitable. Let me give you an example that has been bandied about recently in U.S. politics — vaccinations.

The state government where I live requires by law that all children receive a schedule of vaccinations in order to participate in government funded public education. At odds here are two concepts that most Westerners would find good: Freedom and Security.

As a parent I am not free to choose and therefore control the healthcare of my children, even if I have religious, personal or individual health concerns about my kids and vaccinations.

On the other hand, I live with relative security that serious contagious diseases in my community are kept to a minimum.

The two are diametrically opposed. Not only that, but each choice brings with it an extra cost:

• If we were free to choose vaccination or no, diseases we thought long ago defeated would have a serious chance of returning to our communities. Even if I choose vaccination, my kids may very well contract these diseases through the children of parents who opt out of vaccinating their children. 
• In the state where I live, some of the mandated vaccinations use fetal matter from abortions.

Regardless of which side you are on, your choice leads to suffering and death.

The crux of ethics, therefore, is what sacrifice are we personally and/or societally willing to make — who is going to suffer and die for our security and freedom?

This question is at the core of Firefly and Serentity. Both the Operative and Mel are right; however, each answer requires a different sacrifice.

For those curious, Christ’s answer to that question is Himself. Therefore, it becomes possible for us to overcome the pain and death necessitated by the fallen world and enter into His Kingdom where that unity is made manifest.

The alignment system is born of the idealized unity of the cosmic, political and personal in Judeo-Christianity. We run into so many problems with it because what PCs are doing is almost entirely political. Therefore, player action will inevitably create dissonance with their alignments.

I would argue that this isn’t a bad thing. Firstly, it duplicates what the Mosaic Law reveals. Secondly, it is fodder for good adventures. It is always interesting to see how people react to situations where two “goods” come into direct conflict.

In the end, I am back to my preferred alignment system: Law-Neutral-Chaos. It gives me the freedom to explore this facet of our fallen nature without getting caught up in the minutia of a nine-point axis.

Saintly Saturday: St. Augulus

When you spend enough time reading the Synaxarion, you run across entries about saints who have no name or saints about which we really only know scant information about and only because they are mentioned in passing by one or more ancient sources. Today is the Feast of St. Augulus and he is one of these saints.

We know him primarily because he is listed by St. Jerome as a martyr and a bishop from Britain. Most likely he was martyred in London. Time references (circa A.D. 300) suggest that he was killed during Diocletian’s persecution of Christians.

One might speculate as to why his story is not widely known. My own guess has to do with the remoteness of the Roman colony in Britain and the fact that a few centuries later it was overrun by pagan Goths when Rome abandoned their British territory. The fact that we still know of him is rather spectacular.

***

His story, what there is of it, does get me thinking about alignment, of all things. I have done a lot of posts on alignment, and no matter how I might pontificate about the matter, I always fall back on the three-alignment system found in 0e and B/X in actual practice.

While I could probably play sans any alignment rules, the Law-Neutrality-Chaos axis does provide for a useful — and very flexible — reference point. This is true not only for players, but for for me as well.

Let me illustrate my point with one of my all time favorite movie antagonists (note, I am specifically using that word because I would not call him a villain):

The Operative from the movie Serenity would seem to fit nicely in the Lawful Evil section of the nine-point alignment system. He even admits that what he actually does is quite monstrous; however, he does it so that no one else has to. He also endeavors to do it in the most honorable and merciful way possible. The reason being, his real interest is in the greater good. As he sees it, someone has to do his job so that all the good people of the world are free to go on being good. This clearly places him outside Lawful Evil as it is described in the AD&D PH:

life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned. By adhering to stringent discipline, those of lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.

as well as Lawful Neutral:

Those of this alignment view regulation as all-important, taking a middle road betwixt evil and good.

Thus, the nine-point alignment system cannot adequately describe the Operative and his philosophy of life. The three-point axis, on the other hand, can. As an agent working to protect Civilization, he is clearly Lawful.

In the same way, the soldiers who arrested and murdered St. Augulus during the reign of Diocletian were not agents of Chaos. They, too, could be described with the label Lawful.

The implication here is that the Civilization (Law) vs. Wilderness (Chaos) dichotomy need not be a black and white affair. Indeed, one could duplicate a purge in a D&D campaign similar to the one Diocletian was attempting. In his eyes, the Christians were traitors and posed a serious threat to the stability of the Empire. When such a persecution shows up on the borderlands where PCs normally go adventuring, this leaves them with a very interesting question:

What kind of Civilization are we making the Wilderness safe for?

Saintly Saturday: St. Nicetas the Great Martyr

Today is the feast of St. Nicetas the Great Martyr. He was a Gothic Christian who was captured, tortured and thrown into fire by the pagan usurper Athanaric in A.D. 372.

Normally, I would now go into more details about St. Nicetas’ life, however, yesterday I was struck by one of the hymns the Orthodox Church sang during the feast of The Elevation of the Venerable and Life-Giving Cross, which we are still celebrating today:

O Cross of Christ, the hope of Christians, the guide of the wayward, the haven of the storm-tossed, the victory in wartime, the security of the civilized world, for the sick a physician, for the dead resurrection, have mercy on us. [emphasis mine]

The feast commemorates St. Helen (mother of St. Constantine the first Christian Roman emperor) finding the True Cross in Jerusalem after the Edict of Milan, when Christianity was officially tolerated within the empire. When she had found three crosses lying next to each beneath a pagan temple, the bishop, St. Macarius, had a woman who was greatly ill touch the crosses. When she drew near the True Cross, she was healed.

Thus, the hymnody of the feast tacitly equates Civilization with Christian civilization. This, of course, is one of the assumptions that I make with my own use of the three-tier alignment system in D&D and its derivatives: Law = (Christian) Civilization.

The life of St. Nicetus, therefore, takes place in context of the expanding influence of Civilization in the form of the Christian Roman Empire. It also mirrors many tropes of the classic D&D sandbox campaign:

• His life took place in the lands of the Goths — at the edge of civilization. He spent it spreading the Gospel. His analog is a PC adventuring in the Wilderness, where Chaos = paganism.
• St. Nicetas was baptized by the Gothic Bishop Theophilus, who participated in the First Ecumenical Council. His analog is the former PC who has set up a stronghold and attracted followers, which then go on to be the next generation of PC adventurers.
• The area in which Nicetas operated was liberated by Fritigern, who led an army against the pagan Athanaric. Fritigern’s analog would be a fellow party member with Theophilus.
• The successor to Theophilus is the Arian Bishop Ulfilas. His analog is the NPC complication at the home base creating difficult choices for the PCs. While technically on the PCs side and able to help and supply them, this help comes with a price.
• Finally, the usurper Athanaric (who captures, tortures and martyrs St. Nicetus) has an analog in the lurking Chaos that the former party beat back, but failed to completely destroy. It is this threat that the current PC party must investigate and defeat.

For those interested, these tropes can be found in Gygax’s classic T1: The Village of Hommlet. Additionally, take a gander at Erin Smale’s The Bastard’s Blade. He doesn’t post there very often, but what he does have fits the life of St. Nicetas very nicely (and maybe some extra traffic will inspire him to write more often…)

Saintly Saturday: St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus

Today is the feast of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus. Born in Palestine in A.D. 310, he was the son of poor farmers. In his youth he accepted the Christian faith and eventually became a monk in Egypt. His faith and virtue became known far and wide and the people wanted him elected as bishop.

This portion of his life is akin to the story of Jonah. Rather than acquiesce to the people, he fled. Everywhere he went, the calls of the people to elect him bishop followed. Finally, his friend St. Hilarion advised him to go to Constantia (also known as Salamis) in Cyprus. Knowing that such a voyage would result in his ordination, Epiphanius boarded a ship to Gaza; however, contrary winds forced the boat to come to port in Constantia. At this point, the saint bent his will and became bishop.

He became a fervent defender of orthodoxy against the Arians. He was held in such high honor that even Arian emperors dared not move against him.

St. Epiphanius is probably most famous for his seminal work, the Panarion, which catalogues eighty different heresies. Though modern scholars question the accuracy of some of his entries, the Panarion is still an indispensable historical witness for the history of Christian dogma and the Church.

I suppose I could spend some time talking about how the life of St. Epiphanies and Jonah appear to justify a rail-roady style of game play. Personally, I would argue the opposite. In both cases, Epiphanius and Jonah were free to disobey and run away from their calling — they just had to live with the consequences. This is fundamentally different than a rail road, which (at best) makes the players feel as if they have choice when no matter what they do, they will always end up in the same place.

This does not interest me, however, as much as his efforts to catalogue all the various heresies of his day. At the risk of having commenters claim that alignment causes brain damage, I can’t help but see the parallel to alignment in D&D.

From an Orthodox POV, the Panarion is a necessary exercise. Dogma answers that vital question, “Who is God?” Different answers have different consequences in behavior, ethics, institutional structure and a whole slew of other ways faith gets expressed. Thus, if one is interested in maintaining a particular faith experience, one must insist upon answering the question “Who is God?” in the same way from generation to generation.

The Panarion mirrors alignment in D&D because it is an attempt to categorize different kinds of behavior and ethical systems for use in game play. This is particularly true of the nine-point alignment system of AD&D — a system that has always raised my hackles. Ironically, the Panarion is a good way for me to explain why.

Although I have spilled a lot of digital ink over the past several years meditating upon alignment on this blog, in practice I have come to the conclusion that the three-point alignment system of OD&D and B/X is the most practical and the one that allows the most freedom for both referees and players. Though the AD&D alignment system appears to grant three times as much choice, it is actually extremely limiting. The Panarion demonstrates why.

If one considers that Christianity in all its various forms (both orthodox and heterodox) to fall under Lawful or Good alignments, then St. Epiphanius demonstrates that it is necessary to create at least eighty different categories within this narrow spectrum of the alignment system, since each of the different heresies brings with it a different (if similar) ethical outlook.

Whereas the three-point system is general enough to allow for this variation all under the umbrella of Lawful, the nine-point system of AD&D does not. Indeed, Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil are all so narrow as to completely ignore a vast amount of Lawful human behavior. Personally, this is one of the reasons why I think alignment has historically been one of the most controversial aspects of the game.

For better or worse, however, I will always find the tension between the need for practicality one one hand (the three-point alignment system) and the need for an expansive explanation of ethical behavior on the other (the Panarion) to be fascinating. Therefore I seriously doubt this will be the last time I touch on the subject...

On Alignment and Character Morality

Brendan at Untimately has written an interesting analysis on alignment (and in passing mentions one of my many musings here). He does something that I think very much needs to be done in any discussion of the alignment system, which is narrow it down to the mechanical and practical reasons within the game system. He mentions two:

• Spells like Detect Evil and Protection from Evil
• Ethos classes such as assassins, druids, monks, paladins and rangers.

He goes on to illustrate how LotFP and Carcosa handle the first in heuristic way — every action can be clearly understood as being in or out of a particular alignment. For my own purposes, this can be simply stated as (Christian) Civilization vs. (Demonic) Wilderness. Or, to put it more bluntly: are you in or out of the Church? I say this in context of the pre-Reformation world where being Christian and Christianity was inseparable from being part of the Church.

The second is where D&D has historically ran into trouble. The five- and nine- alignment systems do not lend themselves well to an heuristic approach. In addition, they are so ambiguous in their moral/ethical distinctions as to be indistinguishable — True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil might as well be the same. This confusion is only exacerbated by our modern relativistic inability to define good and evil.

Even so, such definitions are not necessarily useful in terms of determining whether or not a particular class is adhering to the class ethos and therefore is qualified to retain or lose all class abilities. Take, for example, this Christian understanding of good and evil:

• Good = God (and therefore, the presence of God)
• Evil = the absence of God

Thus, any act that moves us toward God and being like Him is good. Any act that takes us away from Him and His likeness is evil.

Given this criteria, the killing of any human being for any reason is evil because it is a willful destruction of God’s image and likeness. Thus, every time a paladin or a ranger killed an evil human, they would lose their class abilities. This only gets messier when dealing with demi-humans — are they or are they not made in the image and likeness of God? Why? In the end, this approach will most likely place the vast majority of PCs in the evil camp and make it virtually impossible for either the paladin or ranger to be played at all.

I suppose that if one was willing to limit the image and likeness to humans and if evil human opponents were used in moderation, one could have a simple means by which a paladin or ranger could be reinstated (such as confession). If handled correctly, this could introduce some interesting moral choices into the game; however, this is a very narrow interpretation of the game that severely limits the utility of these classes. Even in campaigns, such as my own, which strive to equate the Wilderness with the monstrous and demonic, this line gets fuzzy when players interact with and humanize monsters. There are currently at least five henchmen NPCs in my current campaign that started out as monsters.

The ugly reality is that PCs represent that morally ambiguous part of civilization that has to do dark and nasty things so that everybody else doesn’t have to. Thus, having a mechanical consequence that punishes players for doing the morally ambiguous things that the game (in essence) requires that they do is inherently unfair (and one of the reasons we’ve been arguing about how to implement the paladin since its inception).

When I did the meditation on alignment that Brendan cites in his post, I was purposely sidestepping the moral issue for exactly this reason. From a practical point of view, determining “sides” in a manner akin to the wargaming roots of the game makes much more sense than the moral/cosmic adherence implied by the traditional D&D alignment system. Brendan, by the way, was ultimately critical of this approach because he not only sees a need for the moral/cosmic, but sees the dynamism implied by my approach as a problem. I tend to see it as a feature — changing alignments is more akin to changing political parties than changing religion and is therefore less dramatic or earth shattering. Indeed, depending upon the mechanics a particular campaign ties to those alignments, it could even be good strategy.

However, I recently made reference to a speed bump that the Pathfinder campaign I’ve been participating in ran into. This is in part due to an absence of the moral/cosmic alignment system, despite the fact that we had no real ethos classes. Some of our more inexperiences players — lacking a moral/cosmic basis by which to weigh their decisions — did a few things that some of the more experienced players found to be rather heinous and offensive.

This has reminded me that there is one more practical way that alignments are used in games:

• A basis which aids a player in deciding how their character should act in certain situations.

Given that a cosmic alignment doesn’t necessarily imply a moral/ethical code (see the heuristic approaches of LotFP and Carcosa above) and that a more traditional (Christian) definition of good and evil is not very useful in context of the average adventuring party, there has to be a different criteria by which to aid players in making moral decisions for their characters.

Given my recent experience, I am going to propose this schema:

• Evil = selfishness
• Good = service to others

This does several things:

• It anathematizes selfish play (and all of the various vices that unfold from this kind of play). 
• It nicely plugs into the cosmic schema of Civilization vs. Wilderness while allowing for the kind of moral ambiguity that adventuring requires while also being applicable to the more diverse alignment system that I proposed here.
• Finally, it gives characters of diverse backgrounds a means of negotiating cool reasons to work toward a common goal. Take, for instance, a thief who is loyal to one of the local crime families and a fighter who is loyal to the local city guard. In a normal schema, these two would not work together. However, when serving others is understood to be the moral center of a character, it is possible to understand the taking down of a rival family’s smuggling operation as mutually beneficial. Ultimately, it gives players of wildly different characters a means by which justify the kind of trust necessary for really good games.

Conan and Alignment

While I was bedridden last week, I spent quite a bit of time with REH and his creation Conan. Since the latest Hollywood version has been deemed a disaster by just about everybody, I had decided to get my Conan fix the old fashioned way. [BTW I myself do not have an opinion on the movie other than to say that I trust Hollywood about as far as I can throw California and I choose to spend my entertainment dollars on Netflix and the like, because it is has the wonderful side effect of changing customer expectation and therefore threatening the status-quo among our entertainment elite.]

One of the things that I found most fascinating is the way REH played with the theme of civilization vs. barbarism. My take on REH is that he sees both as necessary and as correctives for the abuses of the other. As they come into contact with each other, each must necessarily adapt or perish. This view flies in the face of the Alignment systems of D&D, which are more or less static. Personally, I believe REH is much closer to historical reality than D&D's alignment system.

Let me explain by first drawing attention to this simple diagram:

• LG = Lawful Good
• LE = Lawful Evil
• CG = Chaotic Good
• CE = Chaotic Evil

Every society goes through this cycle. If we begin with a benign government (the form does not matter) we have a LG society. Eventually, the need to maintain government control over society supersedes the welfare of the citizenry or the ruling elite simply lose touch with those over which they rule. Thus, society drifts toward LE. This transition can happen gradually over time or happen overnight, depending on the situation.

In response to an oppressive (LE) government, rebellions and revolutionaries rise up. These movements, at least in their beginnings, are CG. At their best they dip into the necessary evil of war (thus briefly becoming CE) and then replace the existing government with what they hope is a LG regime. At their worst, they drag society into anarchy (CE) which demands that someone rise up to bring order. This LG impulse will either result in benevolent stability (gradually devolving into LE) or it will dive quickly into another LE situation where order is more important than individual welfare.

For example: The Weimar Republic can be classified as a LE society (it played fast and loose with morality). Both the fascist and communist movements began as a positive alternative to the failures of the Weimar Republic (portrayed as the failure of capitalism). Both movements quickly dived into CE as they purposely fostered chaos and anarchy in the streets. The fascists used this opportunity to offer the Germans order and stability. The German people, in hopes of a LG alternative to the chaos of the Weimar Republic ushered in the Nazi era of Germany, which quickly became LE.

This cycle reflects the old adage that today's revolutionaries are tomorrow's establishment. Even Conan himself shifted from being the barbarian outsider to being the King of Aquilonia. Thus, people, movements and societies can shift from one alignment to the next over the course of a lifetime. It is not beyond the realm of possibility for these shifts to happen more than once.

This reality also suggests why the D&D alignment system rubs so many of us the wrong way. It isn't that it flies in the face of historical reality, it is the fact that it tries to do two things at once:

1. represent an attitude/belief/ethical system 
2. represent certain game mechanics

As I meditate on this, I am coming to believe that these two things are mutually exclusive.

Attitudes and beliefs are not static. Even in context of my own Christian faith, there is an expectation of growth — a lifetime is a journey whose goal is becoming more and more like Christ. This growth necessitates change. On the other hand, mechanics such as spell effects and alignment languages are static. Protection spells are designed to always help my guys against the other guys. One can't exactly forget an entire language just because one's attitudes or beliefs have changed.

I am inclined to answer this conundrum by going back to the wargaming roots of the game. Alignment was originally designed to mark which troops were available to which side. Lawful armies could take Lawful troops. Chaotic armies could take Chaotic troops. Both armies could use Neutral troops. In other words, it wasn't about behavior, ethical systems, philosophy, etc. It was simply about which side a troop type was willing to fight for.

I am reminded of Eddie Valentine, the mobster from the movie Rocketeer. Upon finding out that his employer was a Nazi spy, he and his cohorts immediately switched sides because when push came to shove, they were willing to fight for America but not Nazi Germany. In other words, the fact that they were criminals who we would label as evil was irrelevant in the question of his alignment with the U.S. over Germany.

Thus, a proper alignment system should be divorced from questions of good vs. evil behavior. Rather, it should have to do with sides. What those sides are depend upon the campaign world. They could have magical and/or supernatural elements — aligning oneself to the Church or to the College of Magic, for example. Most properly, alignment should bring with it mechanical advantages that are paid for through obligation — if the College of Magic is being persecuted by the authorities, characters aligned with the College would be obliged to come to its defense. Neutrality would then have a real meaning (as opposed to the meaningless nihilism that it usually is in most versions of D&D). By forgoing all of the mechanical advantages, characters become free agents with no obligations.

I am very tempted to explore this idea further, because like Prestige Classes, they are a means by which players can engage in the campaign world through play.

Holmes & Cook: Alignment Redux

Over the past couple of days I have been musing about alignment. These musings have garnered some excellent commentary and food for thought. From it, I have come up with a hypothesis as to why alignment (especially in a multi-axial model) seems to be so clunky:

• As can be seen by my initial attempt at pulling a working alignment system out of Holmes & Cook, there is more than a little ambiguity between alignments and between axis. For example, not only is Neutrality difficult to differentiate from Chaotic, but Lawful is difficult to differentiate from Good.
• This ambiguity makes it difficult to understand the necessity for, the process of and the means by which mechanics such as the Protection from Evil spell work (especially given an alignment system that does not define evil).

Thus, in order to come up with a better alignment system with more than one axis, these axis need to be clearly defined. Once that definition is in place, there needs to be a means by which to understand why such things as a Protection from Evil spell are efficacious.

Keeping in mind that I am still in the midst of my thought experiment with Holmes & Cook, I am going to try and cast my net a little further out, taking into consideration some of the conclusions I have made about the implied culture and civilization of Holmes. I say this because I believe that one of the problems of the two axis alignment system (especially as presented in Holmes and Cook) is that both axis delve into ethics and morality. This should properly be limited to one axis — Good and Evil.

In order to differentiate the Law/Chaos axis from the Good/Evil axis, I think it necessary for it to represent an allegiance or loyalty to a certain concept, culture, and/or set of behavior. An excellent example (postulated by J.D. Higgins) is honor. Rather than an ethical system, honor is an adherence to a set of behaviors. Thus, it is possible to be amoral but honorable (the Japanese Yakuza can be understood this way, for example).

Implied in this hypothetical amalgam of Holmes & Cook is an ancient human culture that was steeped in powerful arcane magic. This civilization came crashing down, most likely from the collapse of a slave economy and a revolt by those very slaves. Some of these were very likely dragons and giants.

There is also a classical civilization that existed prior to the modern civilization. I postulated a number of possibilities for what this classical civilization might have looked like. For the purposes of this exercise, I will be opting for a pagan civilization which was either led by dragons and giants or that sees them as liberators.

Given that arcane magic is dangerous, that divine magic is relatively new when compared to arcane magic and that there is an implied move from paganism to a psuedo-Christianity if not Christianity itself, we can set up the modern civilization in opposition to the classical civilization.

Thus, Law is a loyalty to the modern, Christian-leaning civilization that marshals in the use of divine magic and Chaos in an adherence to the classical, pagan civilization that seeks to restore the arcane might of the ancients. Tied in with this is the idea that the classical civilization sees non-human monsters as liberators/leaders. Modern civilization, in contrast, sees humanity as proper leaders. Since the former wants to re-discover the power of the ancients and the latter holds the ancients up in opposition to the monster-led classical civilization, both have a reason to go delving into ancient ruins to find their magics.

In terms of mechanics, both Cook and Holmes equate Evil with enchanted monsters in some of their spell descriptions. Since these creatures are inherently magical and since Clerics (practitioners of divine magic) have the most resistance to this inherent magic, it follows that Protection from Evil and Dispel Evil ought to be renamed Protection from Chaos and Dispel Chaos — due to the strong association that Chaos has with this ancient magic. Neither spell is reversible — they purely represent the resistance afforded to those who align themselves with the Church over the influence and consequences of the ancient arcane magics.

Does this, then, mean all magic-users must be Chaotic? Though thematically it may very well make sense, it is certainly possible to have magic-users who see the advancement of the modern civilization over the classical as absolutely essential. They could understand, for example, that arcane magic by itself is inevitably corruptive. Bolstered and aligned with divine magic, however, arcane magic can be properly used without being corruptive.

Detect Evil, on the other hand, deals primarily with ethical and moral behavior. Therefore it can remain as written — able to detect thought and intention.

To summarize, my hypothetical alignment axis would look something like this:

• Lawful Good: Supports the modern civilization through a strong moral and ethical behavior. A typical Christian would be a good example.
• Lawful Evil: Supports the modern civilization by any means necessary. An Inquisitor would be a good example.
• Neutral: Animal
• Chaotic Evil: Seeks to restore the classical civilization to glory by any means necessary. Most dragons and their followers are good examples.
• Chaotic Good: Seeks to restore the classical civilization by using arcane magic for the benefit of all/the group. Elves are a good example.

This set-up answers some conundrums and has some interesting implications:

• Holmes has the displacer beast with a neutral (evil) alignment. This, then, could mean that despite having animal intelligence, displacer beasts display enough guile to appear to have amoral and unethical behavior.
• Several dragons are listed with both a chaotic alignment and a neutral alignment. This implies that either there is a larval stage in a dragon life cycle that merely has animal intelligence or that being so closely associated with ancient magics has cursed entire dragon populations to be nothing more than animals. The neutral/chaotic evil alignment for white dragons seems to indicate this latter option and that these dragons were more affected than other dragon populations.
• Holmes lists fire giants as Lawful Evil while Cook gives them a Chaotic alignment. Storm giants in holmes are Chaotic Good while in Cook they are Lawful. This suggests that the giant population is split. For some reason, there are some fire and storm giants that have rebelled against the classical civilization and now support the modern one.

Holmes & Cook: Evil

While answering Roger's question this morning I realized that I had failed to utilize the various spells with Evil as part of their monicker in trying to figure out what Holmes & Cook might mean about evil as part of an alignment system. Between the two, there are four of these spells:

• Detect Evil
• Dispel Evil
• Protection from Evil
• Protection from Evil 10'r.

Let me begin with the latter two, since they are supposed to be the same spell with a different area of effect; however, since the basic spell is in Holmes and the radius spell is from Cook, we are given two different views on how the spell works:

Protection from Evil — This spell hedges the conjurer round with a magic circle to keep out attacks from enchanted monsters such as elementals, invisible stalkers, demons, etc. [Holmes]

Protection from Evil 10'r. — This spell circles the caster with a magical barrier that will protect all friendly creatures within 10' of the cleric, magic-user or elf. The spell serves as some protection from "evil" attacks (attacks by monsters of an alignment other than the caster's). [Cook]

These two appear to contradict each other. Cook is dealing with an alignment axis of Law-Neutrality-Chaos, so "evil" needs to be redefined — as an alignment other than the caster's. In reality this isn't that far off from Holmes' version, in that Protection from Evil is a reversible spell in Holmes. Thus, it ostensibly protects the caster from those of differing alignments.

What is missing in Cook, however, is the implication that the spell will be ineffective against Neutrals. Intriguingly, though, two of the three examples Holmes gives for "enchanted monsters" have, according to Cook, a neutral alignment.

If, however, neutral = animal then it is possible to say that the spell has no effect on animals and therefore maintain the implication of not affecting neutrals despite Cook's presentation of the invisible stalker and elementals.

Unfortunately, this doesn't say much about evil as an alignment. The examples of enchanted monsters given by Holmes have less to do with alignment than they do with summoning magics. This continues the theme that arcane magic is inherently dangerous and potentially corrupting, but doesn't really say anything to what an evil alignment looks like.

Dispel Evil — This spell will banish or destroy any enchanted or undead monster that comes in range if the creature fails its saving throw vs. Spells. [Cook]

Cook aligns the undead with Chaos, and, as noted above, there are several examples of enchanted monsters that are neutral. Once again, this says less about alignment than it does about the nature of arcane magic.

Detect Evil — A spell to detect evil thought or evil intent in any creature or evilly enchanted object. Poison, however, is neither good nor evil. [Holmes]

Given that the word evil isn't really explained, this, too, isn't much help for defining evil as an alignment; however, it does speak to the notion of meta-gaming. The way Holmes describes this spell, it is possible to detect evil from a Lawful Good creature and completely fail to do so from a Chaotic Evil creature, depending upon the circumstance. Holmes gives the Referee a lot of leeway as to how this spell can be implemented.

I suppose one might be tempted to take these spells and postulate that divine magic is good and arcane magic is evil. Personally, I do not want to go there. From a practical point of view, it appears to prevent magic-users and clerics from being in the same adventuring party. Having someone else's choice of class impose upon everyone else what they can and cannot be is not fun (I've been there with barbarians and paladins).

From a personal point of view, I do not believe that any part of creation is inherently evil. God called His creation very good. What makes something good or evil is in how we use it. This is why I prefer describing arcane magic as dangerous rather than evil.

More on Alignment

I have found that one of the topics that always gets comments (and more so than most other topics) on this blog is alignment. Yesterday's post was no exception. One line of these comments usually questions why alignment is even necessary. An example of this is a comment from Roger over at roles, rules & rolls in response to my claim that spells like Protection from Evil require an alignment mechanic (and thus require alignment):

Why not just call it "Protection from Unholy," define that as undead and extraplanar creatures (plus whatever other monsters you think the spell should protect from) and leave it at that?

This is a good question, especially when one looks at Protection from Evil in Holmes and Dispel Evil in Cook:

Protection from Evil — This spell hedges the conjurer round with a magic circle to keep out attacks from enchanted monsters such as elementals, invisible stalkers, demons, etc.

Dispel Evil — This spell will banish or destroy any enchanted or undead monster that comes in range if the creature fails its saving throw vs. Spells.

Evil is clearly equated with enchanted monsters and the undead. Therefore, Roger's question deserves an answer.

It's in the game. This is particularly important given this thought experiment. I am not trying to create my own definitive version of D&D with all the house rules that I think are best for my game Rather, I am trying to create the one that I would have played back in 1981 with only the Holmes & Cook editions available to me, and given a slight prejudice for Holmes over Cook when there is a difference. As such, I need to figure out what exactly these rule-sets mean by alignment (especially since it does have mechanical function).

It has a wargaming pedigree. Alignment has its roots in Chainmail. This is the origin of its mechanical properties and consequences. As I've pointed out before, I am as much of a war gamer as I am a role-player (in some ways more so). In fact, there are plenty of scenarios where I would choose an evening of war gaming over an evening of role-playing (especially if minis were involved). As such, I have a soft spot for those elements of D&D that harken back to its wargaming roots.

Unholy is an alignment. The reason that the Cross has the ability to ward off the undead is not because of the Cross, but rather the God who willingly was crucified upon the Cross in order to defeat death. In other words, the Cross is able to drive off the undead because God Himself works through the Cross. There is a catch, however. If we do not believe in the power of the Living God to affect our lives, our own pride and sin get in the way. Only by properly aligning oneself with God do we allow God to work in and through us.

Having spent much time with the saints by reading their lives, as well as spoken with priests who have had to do exorcisms, I know that evil is a real thing. It can be seen, felt, heard etc. (thus, being able to "detect" it isn't necessarily meta-gaming, especially if you skin it with a "I have a bad feeling about this" kind of vibe). It has power, but only if we allow it to — by aligning ourselves with it. Therefore, as much as I'd like to dump the whole alignment system because it doesn't work as nicely as I'd want, there is a theological reality to it that I, as a Christian, truly appreciate.

This is why I keep revisiting the idea. Despite my reservations, I think it is useful and potentially evocative enough to keep around.

Holmes & Cook: Alignment

As I've stated before, and despite my own attempt to re-imagine it, Alignment is one of the least satisfying aspects of D&D for me. Despite this, one has to deal with it on some level, because there are mechanics within the game tied to the alignment system (Protection from Evil, for example). Unfortunately, Holmes and Cook use two different versions of the alignment system and neither is very helpful. Let me begin with Cook, because he uses the simpler Law-Neutral-Chaos axis:

Law (or Lawful) represent respect for rules, and willingness to put the benefit of the group ahead of the benefit of individuals. Lawfuls respect fairness and justice.

Chaos (or Chaotic) is the opposite of Law. A chaotic is selfish and respects no laws or rules. Chaotics cannot be trusted.

Neutral (or Neutrality) is concerned with personal survival. Neutrals will do whatever is in their best interest, with little regard for others.

I have big problems with this explanation. To my mind, doing "whatever is in their best interest, with little regard for others" is a very good definition for "selfish" — the first word that describes Chaos. What is the difference? To boot, "willingness to put the benefit of the group ahead of the benefit of individuals" can also be selfish and have little regard for the law (especially in places where individualism is codified into the law, as it is in the U.S.). It also very well describes such totalitarian and (I would argue) evil regimes as Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Neither of these "lawful" societies were trustworthy.

Ultimately, Cook's explanation of this alignment system is meaningless. Unfortunately, Holmes is not much better:

Characters may be lawful (good or evil), neutral or chaotic (good or evil). Lawful characters always act according to a highly regulated code of behavior, whether for good or evil. Chaotic characters are quite unpredictable and can not be depended upon to do anything except the unexpected -- they are often, but not always, evil. Neutral characters, such as all thieves, are motivated by self interest and may steal from their companions or betray them if it is in their own best interest. Players may choose any alignment they want and need not reveal it to others. Note that the code of lawful good characters insures that they would tell everyone that they are lawful. There are some magical items that can be used only by one alignment of characters. If the Dungeon Master feels that a character has begun to behave in a manner inconsistent with his declared alignment he may rule that he or she has changed alignment and penalize the character with a loss of experience points. An example of such behavior would be a "good" character who kills or tortures a prisoner.

Once again, there is no real distinction between Neutrality and Chaos. The explanation that Neutrals "are motivated by self interest and may steal from their companions or betray them if it is in their own best interest" sounds an awful lot like Chaotics who are "quite unpredictable and can not be depended upon to do anything except the unexpected." I do appreciate Holmes' take on Lawful, however, because it allows for both good and evil codes. The only guidance for what is good or evil, though, is whether or not one is willing to torture and kill prisoners.

Holmes does provide a diagram of his two axis alignment system. Regrettably, this, too, is mostly useless because the various examples it provides are meaningless fictional and mythical monsters with little cultural or historical reference. The only concrete example he gives is demon, for Chaotic Evil. He further muddles things by the way he assigns alignments to monsters. For example, Brass Dragons (which he uses as an example for Chaotic Good on his diagram) are listed as neutral/chaotic good. White dragons are neutral/chaotic evil while red dragons are chaotic evil/neutral. What is the difference? Further, displacer beasts are neutral (evil) and black puddings have no alignment at all.

Fortunately, Cook is a bit more consistent in assigning alignment to monsters, and this actually helps to clarify a few things. With a few exceptions, animals — normal, giant and fantastic — dominate the neutral monsters. Thus, in practice, neutrality is more about behaving as an animal in nature would. Or, to put it another way, neutrality approximates animal intelligence.

All undead are Chaotic. This strongly suggests that Chaos is related to the unholy and unnatural.

The list of Lawful creatures is very short:

• Blink Dog
• Dervish
• Pegasus
• Roc
• Storm Giant
• Treant
• Unicorn

Derivishes are described as being fanatically religious and the others can be easily associated with being guardians or symbols of the natural world in balance.

If we accept that neutrality = animal (and therefore jettison the notion that all thieves are neutral), we can glean from both Holmes and Cook the following adjectives for Law, Chaos, Good and Evil:

• Law: religious, natural, follows a code of behavior
• Chaos: unholy, unnatural, selfish, untrustworthy
• Good: merciful
• Evil: merciless

While still not wholly satisfying, it is still more useful than the explanations provided by either Holmes or Cook while still trying to adhere to those explanations.

Meditations on Alignment

In my last entry for Saintly Saturdays I argued for an alignment dynamic of Law = Christian civilization and Chaos = demonic wilderness. Since then, I have been meditating on how to bring more nuance and depth to this basic system by attaching various theologies (mostly heretical) to the alignment system, keeping in mind the traditional D&D axes of Law/Chaos and Good/Evil.

This process could very easily get messy very quickly. There are a plethora of heretical movements throughout the nearly two thousand year history of Christianity. Enumerating them all not only would be an arduous task, but I believe it would also be unnecessarily complex and rigid. If one doesn't mind a bit of oversimplification, it is possible, however, to boil down all heresies into one of two categories.

Law vs. Chaos

Christian dogma is always about God and Salvation. It answers the fundamental question, "Who is God and how does He save us?" Central to this is the person of Jesus Christ. The orthodox dogma insists that Christ is perfect God and perfect man. Heresies can therefore be categorized into those that overemphasize Christ's divinity and those that overemphasize Christ's humanity (or created-ness).

When Christ's divinity is overemphasized, created matter and its role in salvation is de-emphasized, denied or even seen as evil. Some historic examples include:

• Monophysitism — the belief that Christ's humanity was absorbed into the divinity of Christ, much like a sugar cube dissolves in water. Thus, the role of humanity and human nature in salvation is minimal.
• Sabellianism — the belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different modes of one God instead of three distinct persons. This denies personhood within the Godhead, therefore within the image and likeness of God in human beings. Our individual personhood, therefore, plays no role in salvation.
• Gnosticism — the belief that the creator God (often called the Demiurge) is actually the devil. Thus all created matter is evil and salvation can only happen through knowledge of the true God.

When Christ's humanity is overemphasized, God's direct participation in salvation is minimized. What is left, then, is moral and ethical systems. Salvation is measured by how closely one adheres to these systems. Some historic examples:

• Donatism — the belief that lapsed Christians (those who had sacrificed to the statue of the emperor during the persecutions of Diocletian and thus set free) could not be received back into the Church through repentance. Further, any sacrament performed by clergy who were not "pure" was not valid.
• Nestorianism — the belief that Christ's divinity and Christ's humanity are two separate persons, where the divinity came only into contact with the humanity (in some variations, this contact happens at the baptism of Christ). An interesting consequence of this is compartmentalization. It is possible to justify two entirely different sets of behavior depending on circumstance. As long as one set is in contact God, all the others are saved, regardless of how heinous they may be.
• Arianism — the belief that there was a time when the Son was not. In other words, Christ is part of creation and only united to God in will, not being. Thus, aligning oneself through will (and thus, those in power who represent God's will) is the only means of salvation.

In terms of the Law vs. Chaos alignment system, those heresies that over-emphasize the divinity of Christ fall under Chaos and those that over-emphasize the humanity of Christ fall under Law. The former because matter and civilization (or the lack thereof) is irrelevant (or even hostile) to salvation. The latter because the power structure of civilization is necessary to protect and/or impose ethical and moral codes.

Good vs. Evil

In classic Christian theology, evil is the absence of God and those things that separate us from God. This understanding, however, is not of much use in terms of alignment, because, technically, all heresies would be evil because they separate us from God.

Rather, I think a more useful understanding of Good vs. Evil is the value one places on the individual person. Good sees every individual as valuable, no matter who they are. Evil sees either no value in individuals or places the collective above the individual.

Neutrality

I am not a big fan of neutrality in the alignment system. True Neutrality is nothing more than a dressed up version of nihilism, which is actually Chaotic Evil. In terms of Law (civilization) vs. Chaos (wilderness), neutrality really means apathy — not something that adventuring PCs could be accused of.

In terms of Good vs. Evil, as I've proposed it, one might argue that Neutrality represents placing value on certain individuals — as in nationalism, for example. This, however, means that it would be possible to make the uncomfortable argument that Nazi Germany was a Lawful Neutral country.

The way around this would be to define neutrality in terms of positive action — the willingness to act to protect/save a certain type of individual persons but not others. When this positive action proactively seeks to destroy or oppress other types of individual persons, then this dips into the Evil category.

Conclusion

This, then, allows for an interesting take on a seven-alignment system:

Lawful Good (orthodox Christianity)
Lawful Neutral
Lawful Evil
Neutral (Apathy)
Chaotic Evil
Chaotic Neutral
Chaotic Good

What I find interesting about this is the depth it adds to the traditional demi-human/human dynamics. Elves, being Chaotic Good, would make for mysterious and potentially dangerous allies. Whereas they would place a high value on someone's soul, they would place little value on their body. In addition, they would see no problem with meddling with demonic forces if they thought it would help save one of those souls (and demonstrates the path eventually taken by Dark Elves).

In contrast, Dwarves, being Lawful Good, would be much more stalwart (and Christian!) allies and their relationship with Elves would be justifiably shaky, at best.

Saintly Saturday: St. Basil the Great

Today is the feast of one of my favorite saints — St. Basil the Great. He is one of those few people in the history of the world where the monicker "Great" doesn't do the man justice. He was extremely well-educated, having studied at Athens — one of the great centers of learning in the ancient world. I think a lot of so-called intellectuals today would be surprised at how well-educated and intelligent St. Basil is, especially given our culture's current assumption that being religious is equivalent to being ignorant. St. Basil used all of his education and talent to come to a very reasoned belief in Christ.

One of my favorite stories about St. Basil demonstrates how he personifies what a bishop should be:

St. Basil was the bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. During the latter part of the 4th century, Emperor Valens was putting pressure on church hierarchs to accept Arianism — one of the great Christian heresies. He sent the prefect Modestus to threaten the bishop. St. Basil's response is wonderful:

If you take away my possessions, you will not enrich yourself, nor will you make me a pauper. You have no need of my old worn-out clothing, nor of my few books, of which the entirety of my wealth is comprised. Exile means nothing to me, since I am bound to no particular place. This place in which I now dwell is not mine, and any place you send me shall not be mine. Better to say: every place is God's. Where would I be neither a stranger and sojourner? Who can torture me? I am so weak, that the very first blow would render me insensible. Death would be a kindness to me, for it will bring me all the sooner to God, for Whom I live and labor, and to Whom I hasten.

When the stunned Modestus replied that no one had ever spoken to him with such audacity, St. Basil informed him:

Perhaps, that is because you've never spoken to a bishop before. In all else we are meek, the most humble of all. But when it concerns God, and people rise up against Him, then we, counting everything else as naught, look to Him alone. Then fire, sword, wild beasts and iron rods that rend the body, serve to fill us with joy, rather than fear.

Emperor Valens left him alone.

One of my goals in starting this blog was to demonstrate that religion and RPGs can not only coexist but speak to and bolster each other. I am not sure why, but largely absent from our hobby is an understanding that religious belief can be a very rich source for adventure, conflict and character motivation. The life of St. Basil is a prime example. He was caught in the middle of the theological storm of Arianism in the tumultuous fourth century. People suffered and died over the issue.

What I find ironic is that we have played D&D for decades with belief systems hard-wired into the game. Yet it still escapes us that alignments represent the historic reality exemplified by the life of St. Basil that beliefs matter. In fact, many of us have been actively trying to get rid of the alignment system for years.

I, myself, have struggled with alignment and am no fan of the AD&D alignment system; however, if we took the time to hardwire religious theology into the alignment system it could not only answer my own (and others) long-standing conundrum of what to do with D&D's systemic reliance on alignment (cf. Protection from Evil), but add a layer of realistic flavor to our gaming experience.

Instead of the secular understanding of Law vs. Chaos as found in the DMG (which I have always found lacking), we can add a level of meaty realism with the very basic assumption that Law = Christian civilization and Chaos = demonic wilderness. From here we can further add to the realism by breaking down Law and Chaos into various assumed theologies.

Gnosticism, for example, would be a Chaotic alignment because it sees created matter as demonic. Salvation cannot come through society, civilization or the taming of the wilderness. It only comes through knowledge. This opens up all kinds of possibilities for NPCs (mad wizards), monster races (illithids) and the adventures that could surround them.

To take an example directly from the life of St. Basil, Arianism would be a Lawful alignment, because it firmly upheld the belief in Empire. Since Christ is not of one essence with God the Father, but only of one will, salvation is not found in God's being, but rather in subjecting oneself to the will of God. Thus, it is a faith that easily supports authoritarian states, where salvation is found in doing the will of those in positions of power and who represent the will of God. Again, this breathes life into entire civilizations, let alone NPCs.

What I really like about this idea is that understanding alignment in context of theology actually gives players a lot of wiggle room — it isn't nearly as restrictive as the AD&D alignment system. Concepts like salvation through knowledge, will and being allow for a much broader range of behavior. This kind of freedom not only allows for a much meatier campaign world, but also usually means more fun.

On Alignments and Psalm 8

Psalm 8

O Lord, our Sovereign, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens.

Out of the mouths of babes and infants you have founded a bulwark because of your foes, to silence the enemy and the avenger.

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?

Yet you have made them a little lower than God, and crowned them with glory and honor.

You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under their feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas.

O Lord, our Sovereign, how majestic is your name in all the earth!

I've been meditating upon this, the first Psalm of praise within the Psaltery. It asks an important question: who is man that God should give us the role of royal regent within His creation? That God made all of humanity in His image and likeness — His representation within creation — and His priests — His representatives within creation — is an awesome reality. When doing a little research I ran across this little piece of analysis by James Luther Mays:

Human dominion extends over domestic and wild animals, birds and fish. The list is meant to include all living creatures. This designation of the sphere of human dominion reflects the struggles of early humans to domesticate and control, to live with and by the use of the wilderness of the world. It represents the entire human undertaking to do what the other animals cannot and do not do, order and shape what is already there into habitat. Animals are dependent on a habitat; humans depend on their capacity to craft one. The power and responsibility that belong to that capacity are interpreted by the psalm as a regency given to humankind in the world. The psalm invites us to see all the civilizing work of the human species as honor and glory conferred on it by God and, therefore, as cause and content for praise of God.

What struck was the last line: The psalm invites us to see all the civilizing work of the human species as honor and glory conferred on it by God and, therefore, as cause and content for praise of God. This puts an interesting spin on alignment. It reinforces the notion that within the three alignment (Law/Neutral/Chaos) system, Law equals civilization and Chaos equals the wilderness. But more than that, civilization is defined as the human activity that specifically gives rise to the praise of the One God.

This reinforces my own adherence to the three alignment system and further clarifies my own discomfort with the nine alignment system introduced in 1e. The pseudo-Christian Cleric of OD&D actually makes sense within context of Law/Neutral/Chaos. There is enough flexibility within three alignment system to accommodate a wide variety of world-views, especially a scriptural one. Once D&D moves away from this flexibility into the specific world-views of the nine alignment system, that freedom is severely hampered. The pseudo-Christian Cleric no longer fits as well and the system begins to demand a pagan/polytheistic world-view. This demand found its full expression in 2ed and thereafter, which marks the beginning of my own alienation from the game.

Once again, I find the freedom found in OD&D and her clones allows me to play the game we love in a way that I can live up to the call of Psalm 8.

On Revolutions and Monsters

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States...

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Contained in these two quotes from the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence are two appeals to God — something we often forget about. The American Revolution is an anomaly, not only because it succeeded, but because it didn't replace a tyrant with another one. Whether or not we claim that the men who signed the Declaration and later gathered to write the Constitution are Deists, Christians, or whatever, these men had a Biblical understanding of humanity. They understood that we are fallen, that we are subject to sin, and that without God any endeavor is doomed to failure. One need only look a few years after the American Revolution and see all of these things born out in France — tyranny was replaced with tyranny, people were seduced by power, all of the ideals upon which the Revolution was built were trampled under foot as an entire continent suffered.

Like many Americans, I am enamored by revolution, by the underdog, and by the struggle against tyranny. It is for this reason, I think, that I find myself going back again and again to the Githyanki and Githzerai and trying to find some way to put them into my games. Theirs is a deliciously cool back story that fires my imagination every time I think about it; however, it is also a story of tragedy. 

I love the fact that Githyanki and Githzerai are human — mutated from long exposure to the Mindflayers and by their own sin, but human nonetheless. This makes their tragedy more real and closer to home. As slaves seeking freedom from harsh masters (and those masters being Mindflayers is a huge bonus), I can't help but be sympathetic. This struggle, however, has a tragic undertow. They succeed in throwing off their slavery to the Mindflayers, only to fall into the slavery of their own sin. As Chaotic and Evil beings, the unity that they found under the leadership of Gith is rent asunder, and they are plunged into a vicious civil war. Worst of all, their sin and their war threaten the rest of humankind. This is brilliant stuff. 

Great villains see themselves as the heroes of their own stories. The Githyanki and Githzerai have this in spades. Not only does this add a wonderful flavor to any adventure in which they are involved, but it also means that they are redeemable. It gives the players an option not usually available — to try and save the monster.

From a Christian perspective, this is the story of humanity sans God — one repeated over and over again in revolutions throughout history. We are capable of great things — such as unity and freedom. However, because we are subjected to sin, all of our accomplishments will ultimately fail. Only in God can we find true freedom and unity. Only in Christ can we overcome sin.

On this 4th of July may we all appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world and have a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence. Happy 4th.

Alignments

I have always been of two minds about alignment. On one hand, I have found the AD&D system of LG, LN, LE, CG, CN,CE and N to be far too complex and restrictive at the same time. Even James' excellent house rule on alignments, which I find far more insightful and useful than the AD&D system, is a tad bit too restrictive. Sure, we have a lot of choice that covers several world-views, but that choice eliminates subtleties that exist in reality and in fiction.

I have also noted that the characters that I have played over the years often become through play. Although I conceive of a starting point and what I think is a personality and belief system for a character, these things are very rarely, if ever, what the character becomes through interaction with other players and the game world. Thus, on paper, my character may be Chaotic Neutral, but through play is very keen on and busy stamping out evil of every stripe. By the time the party has accidentally released a being of pure chaos into the world (an event a Chaotic Neutral character might have actually seen as a goal) my character is actually extremely uncomfortable with the idea and seeks to repair the damage done through his actions. What good has putting "Chaotic Neutral" on my character sheet done anyone?

On the other hand, I do believe there is a need for codes of behavior. Given classes like the Assassin, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, and Monk, there has to be a means of determining whether or not the character is behaving in a manner that qualifies them for their profession. An Assassin who won't kill isn't an Assassin at all, and therefore could not continue to progress in skill as an Assassin.

Additionally, within Christianity, there is a very clear dichotomy between God and those who direct their lives and the world around them toward Him versus the Demonic and those who either actively work against God or passively turn their back to Him. As I've noted before, Schmemann leaves no room for neutrality in the Christian world view.

For gaming purposes, where does this leave me? I have come to appreciate the flexibility of the Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic alignment system. Lawful can encompass all those who are Godly, those who would fight on the city wall in order to save civilization from destruction at the hands of demonic minions, and/or those who desire to live an orderly life. Chaotic represents the demonic, and those forces that would destroy civilization in any form. Neutrality, to me, is a bit of a cop-out. The idea of Balance in any fashion is really a Lawful world-view. Thus Neutrality really means apathy.

However, in practice, this system means that all characters are going to be Lawful. No adventurer would be apathetic and thus Neutral, and no adventurer would be Chaotic because then they would be siding with the monsters, and personally I would never allow it (primarily because it is never fun to have that kind of destructive behavior in a group).

This leaves us with the conundrum of what to do with the Assassin, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, and Monk classes. For this I find that there does need to be some kind of code of conduct set up from the very beginning by the Referee. This code needn't (nor really should be) all-encompassing, but does need to be restrictive. If you cannot or will not behave in some basic fashion, you cannot be these classes. In addition, I would encourage players to come up with an ethos through play. For example, within the martial arts world there are several styles and philosophies behind those styles. A practitioner of Karate thinks differently than a practitioner of Tai Chi. By the time the character has reach 2nd or 3rd level, I would expect a player to have settled into a personality and a set of behaviors that represent an ethos above and beyond their code of behavior. These in combination would then represent a base line for determining whether or not the player has acted counter to his code of behavior and thus lose the benefits of the class. This allows a creative cooperation between the referee and the player that will at the same time be challenging and entertaining.

I do believe that having such codes of behavior are integral to the entertainment value of a game. One of the most fun I have ever had playing a character was during a d6 Star Wars game. I played a Fallen Jedi who at the beginning of the campaign was a drunk and an alcoholic. The other players actually asked be to play another character because this one was too disruptive. I assured them that I had no intention of being a drunk forever, and by the time the campaign came to a close, my character was the de-facto party leader and had retired from the game to become the Master of two of the other PCs who wished to become Jedi. This evolution could not have been possible without the Jedi code of behavior.

In the end, I suggest to do what is fun. For me, having a restrictive code of honor that I must live up to is challenging, entertaining, and ultimately very rewarding.