#including belkar | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

sepiadice · 7 years

Text

In defense of alignments

I avoid homebrew systems. I’m more than happy to sit down for homebrew settings, or accept any limitations you wish to introduce, but as soon as you begin tweaking with or adding mechanics, I’m out. Further, I will not touch your heartbreaker with my standard issue ten-foot pole.

Mostly because I prefer systems designed to be as intuitive as possible,[1] as simple and user friendly as possible, and so adding new mechanics, mostly only noted down for the GM’s eyes, so I don’t even have a standard issued reference book.[2]

Also, most of the time, the presented selling points are either:

Hey! I fixed the magic system![3] Hey! I fixed/got rid of the alignment system!

On that last point… well, fair play if you just ditched it. I personally like it, but plenty of systems function perfectly fine without it.

Still, the odd vitriol felt for alignments always confused me. It’s possibly a feeling grandfathered in by grognards and outdated GMing philosophies, which deserves to be challenged and considered.

I believe the biggest misunderstanding is simply thus:

Alignments are a starting point and basic reference for a character’s motives, not the be all end all of them.

Like introducing someone as a vegetarian, it just gives a general thrust of their personality, but they probably possess more depth than not liking meat.[4]

There’s a reason alignment is kept in the same box as Name, Race, and Class: they’re important to know, but it’s flexible trivia.

Yes, my character may be a rogue, but Trix has never stolen a thing. She’s a stage magician.

Alignment does have a few mechanical components, but such spells only tell you what team they’re generally on.

Besides, it’s always a super fun discussion topic to debate where characters fall on the chart.[5]

Just because a character is Lawful Good doesn’t necessarily mean they’re unmovable goody-goodies.

I mean, take Sam Vimes as an example. He’s a man that believes in Law, with a capital L, and is steadfast in bringing justice the proper way, even when other means are simpler. Yet he is rough and tumble, very suspicious of those around him, and believes, at all times, that deep down he is not a good person, despite every action showing otherwise. He is a Lawful Good Character that is conflicted and complex.

Heck, Even Captain Carrot Ironfoundersson, a near textbook goody-goody, who resolves child gang conflicts by introducing them to football and a ridiculous scouting set up, still has a sense of cunning to him. He memorizes the law book, to the punctuation, and thus knows it well enough to exploit Exact Words.

The best advice I’ve heard about playing a paladin, the paragon of Lawful Good, is not to play them as men avoiding the breaking of their vows and falling. The best way to play a Paladin is with the knowledge that, as with apples and birds, even those with a higher purpose must someday descend. The question isn’t If they’ll fall, but When. The paladin must always be asking themselves ‘Is this the cause worthy of me sacrificing my powers and position?’

Maybe they’ll be lucky, and the answer is always no, and they reach their ends days as a paladin.

But they must always be ready to consider it. The final weapon in the Paladin’s arsenal.

AD&D instituted a vow of poverty on paladins not as a limitation, but to tell the player that, hey, your character can’t put their own glory and profit above the cause. They serve their god and the people, willing to sacrifice what’s necessary, including their very Paladinship.

Returning to the broad concept of alignments: with the right consideration, alignments don’t even limit a character’s narrative role.

One of literature’s most famous antagonists is arguably Lawful Good: Inspect Javert. ((the song “Stars” is an example of a wrong-thinking paladin, and is thus beautiful)) Heck, Javert could be played as a wrong-thinking paladin, and still be impressive. At least, based off my knowledge gleaned from the Movie and the 25th Anniversary concert of Le Mis.

Javert’s main belief is that law is the only path. Now, that may sound like Lawful Neutral (and I admit is a valid reading), but his solo, “Stars”, makes it very clear that Javert equates abiding the law with being a good and pious person. He doesn’t follow the law because there’s no other way, he champions the law because he views it as wholly good.

It’s why Javert takes Valjean as his nemesis. Valjean is a scofflaw, lies his way to power, and flees the law. A good man, Javert believes, wouldn’t do such things. It’s only after several chance encounters, over the course of years, maybe decades, for Valjean’s true nature to be crystal clear to Javert.[7]

Because, until their final encounter, Javert could always be suspicious. Always know that Valjean’s morally good acts must have some devious intentions. Valjean becomes a mayor for power. Adopts the daughter of a dead woman as a cover or to con money from people. He’s at the barricades because he’s an anarchist.

It’s only when, alone with one another, and Valjean being able to kill Javert without any possible repercussions, able to rid himself of the one man who knows Valjean’s history and will not cease hunting him when possible, that the truth becomes clear. With nothing to gain, and when it is tactically disadvantageous, Valjean spares Javert.

And Javert’s realization that law and goodness can be independent of one another shocks Javert so deeply, so thoroughly, that Javert can no longer bare to live. His Lawful Good alignment is so core to him, that he ceases once it breaks.[8]

Javert is solidly Lawful Good.

In Pratchett’s Night Watch, as it is subtly parodying Les Miserables, Sam Vimes is essentially cast broadly as Javert, taking only the barricade from Valjean. This is because, as a Lawful Good Character, Vimes can only don the boots of another Lawful Good character.

Comparing Javert and Vimes also showcases a nice bit of fidelity to the alignment system: how the character internally defines the terms, and how resolutely they hold it.

Javert believes Good comes from the Law. When the two are opposed, Javert’s rigid beliefs allow him to only crumble.

Vimes believes the Law serves the Good. When they are opposed, the Law must be redefined to support Good.

So, when building a character, maybe consider how an atypical alignment might feed into story roles.

Admittedly, it’s hard to make a Chaotic Evil hero. I can think of no perfect examples, with only Belkar Bitterleaf (who’s a supporting protagonist) coming close. Sure, they can be protagonists, moving the plot forword by their actions, which 8-Bit Theater showed us with Black Mage, but a protagonist is different than a hero.

A hero has to have admirable traits. It’s literally in the definition. It’s hard to admire someone who, by their alignment, is entirely selfish and focused on disorder.

Lawful Evil at least has a code of ethics, so with the right plot, they can be forced to do right if it suits their purpose. Even neutral evil can swing that way. Chaotic Evil might be locked out of the Hero badge. But I’d be happy to hear arguments against that idea.

Honestly, the only alignment I find restrictive is, ironically, Chaotic Neutral. Because that means you’re solidly dedicated to anarchy and so forth. Good for comedic characters, certainly, but not for much else. Even True Neutral can be moved into various positions based solely on the need for survival, but CN is bound by the need to justify their chaotic label.

Again, in a straight comedy, or a comedic bit character, that’s good. They can even be used to incite conflict. But it’s hard to tell a compelling, serial narrative without being forced by character growth to position the CN elsewhere.

So, for those of you who dislike D&D’s alignment system, that’s fine. Feel free to disregard it. It’ll leave no damage.

But I implore you. Don’t just put in a different alignment system. That’s just being petty. Either eschew it, or embrace it. And let those of us who like it have our fun.

Thank you for reading. If you want to see more content from me, please consider supporting my patreon. I’m intending to expand the scope of my tabletop output, and money would help that along immensely.

Until next time, may your dice make things interesting!

[1] See: my many snipes at (and one full essay about) my hatred of Shadowrun. [2] For those who want to snark about my love of GURPS: that’s a system whose necessary components fit in a 32-page document, and that’s still bogged down by overwritten text. Heck, it can be distilled down to a single sheet of paper. [3] Possibly an essay topic for another time. [4] Maybe that is the full extent of their personality, but I probably don’t want to be their friend. [5] Maybe if literature classes brought that aspect into analysis, I’d make fun of the subject a little less.[6] [6] Or maybe they’d find a tedious way to ruin it. [7] Javert’s delayed realization can be easily justified by the two figures having very rare direct interactions with one another. At least in the movie, the two just kinda bump into one another occasionally, and have to just deal. [8] The miniseries adaptation, by the way, modifies the sequence by having Valjean present for the suicide, then smiles as he walks away from the man who just drowned himself.[9] [9] That’s the only thing I saw of the miniseries, and it instantly murdered Valjean’s character. Dude, a man killed himself, stop looking so triumphant!

#SepiaDiceRants #d&d

1 note · View note

fridaydoesmedia · 7 years

Text

in media res [week four]

things i have watched

life! housemate and i got through the last two episodes today and. boy. it was emotional. we are very sad there is no more. we are bereft and don’t know what to watch next.

the march family letters! which was kind of a slog to start with and then really enjoyable (i sent a lot of screenshots of joan and meg to irenabean and squeed about beth a lot) and then the ending made me mad! it was a rollecoaster.

things i have read

lots of archie comics (they were half price!) including the first two volumes of the archie reboot and the first two issues of betty & veronica.

also the new issues of the backstagers (so good!), saga (so sad!), spell on wheels (so delightful!)

caught up on lumberjanes which just. i am so full of hearteyes

some fanfic, nothing to rec

order of the stick! it became kind of a downhill roll. it gets really good after a point! tarquin is such a good villain and i love v and elan and hayley and even belkar a bit???

things i am watching

i am ALMOST DONE with stargate atlantis, i stg. four more episodes.

still no more asoue or mr robot. ugh.

but i am watching nothing much to do! beatrice is v annoying but overall i like it.

things i am reading

the less than epic adventures of tj and amal. v cute so far.

froi of the exiles. which. i’m just so emotional. no one has had nice things happen to them ever. everyone has had such awful things happen to them. but they’re still alive! feeling positive things! big things! doing positive things! big things! i feel! a lot!

[sic] which is...not what i was expecting. but i’m intrigued by it.

bitchfest, which is interesting but kind of all over the place. which i guess it often is when you get lots of people writing about lots of things in one place.

girls & sex which i’m still not sure about.

vicious, which i’m definitely enjoying and just. slowly savouring.

locke & key. i forgot how stressful the last part of this was! like!! ahhhhh! i hate knowing things that characters don’t.

jughead! he is my favourite.

still reading from almaty, with love and also prince charming.

things on my to do list

same things on my bedside table as previously.

there are so many comics i want i don’t even know where to start. this week we’ve added slam, goldie vance and diesel.

i think there’s a new episode of supergirl i should be watching and i should probably also start on season two of the flash?

0 notes