Hopefully I remain sufficiently obscure that this post doesn't break containment and make a lot of people angry. If it does I only accept replies on Mastodon, or as blog posts but only if I happen to follow your blog already.
The Problem With Classical Alignment As Character Traits
Originally I was writing a totally different blog post. I still am, but that blog post got so out of hand that I had to break the part about why I'm writing it at all into another blog post.
I don't think that Good vs Evil or Law vs Chaos are useful ways of defining characters unless you are playing an extremely specific type of game. As values, these are so broad as to be useless in characterizing anyone, and also inherently impossible to define in a way everyone can agree on.
The problem with Good and Evil: Most people would agree that their values are Good and values unlike theirs are Evil, by definition. Prominent figures in RPG history have definitively stated that certain actions are Good which I would consider unambiguously Evil. If anyone ever describes their values as being Evil they are usually doing so to be subversive or rebellious, usually to oppose an authority who has the power to define Good and is using that power for evil. You can tell stories about an evil villain who enthusiastically embraces evil for no particular reason, but that isn't usually what people are interested in most of the time.
The problem with Law and Chaos: This seems like the more interesting and sophisticated pair, but that is only because Law and Chaos are so impossible to define as to be meaningless. Ok, so barbarians are chaotic because they live outside of society's norms. But which society's norms? Presumably not their own. Lawful Good characters uphold the law (unless the law is unjust) and Chaotic Good characters oppose unjust laws - but this seems to say more about the quality of the laws than anything. If Lawful characters adhere to a strict internal code, people who are opposed to authority can have some of the strictest moral codes. And if you define "Chaos" as "acts randomly and for no reason", then Chaotic characters are both annoying and unrealistic. Law and Chaos define an assortment of different spectrums of values that can be in opposition to each other.
The one way that a Law vs Chaos axis can be interesting is if Law and Chaos are fundamental forces of the universe, rather than character traits. I tihnk it's even possible for Good and Evil to be interesting in the same way, but only if they are slightly disjoint from actual morality. Consider Good Omens as an example of this. Or maybe taken farther, His Dark Materials.
I actually think the 9 square classic alignment chart has remained popular precisely because it is so confusing and ambiguous. You can argue about what it means to be Good or Evil or Lawful or Chaotic forever. Because it's a topic that is very good at generating endless Internet arguments with no possible conclusion, it has an outsized footprint on the larger TTRPG culture.
Do you have an alternate suggestion?
I do in fact, I have a blog post that I'm writing, but it has grown out of control to the extent that this blog post is actually broken out of the draft of the other one. Although, to be honest, I made this list because a lot of other people have made lists of values to define characters, and I haven't been satisfied with any of them.
These are the goals I had in mind when defining this one:
- Values should be relatively objective. Of couse it's impossible for values to be truly objective, but people are generally going to have an easier time agreeing on what "impartial" means and what such a character might look like, versus "good".
- Values should result in interesting, complex characters.
- Arbitrary combinations of values should be both plausible and interesting.
- Each value should be able to produce both a protagonist and an antagonist, and should be phrased in a way someone might describe themselves.
- There should be real life people who align with each, and who would be proud of doing so.
- Opposing values should clash, and it should feel natural that they clash. They should generate conflicts that feel natural and human.
I did not try to make all the values have the same level of seriousness. I didn't try and make them be topics I personally am neutral on either, even if I try to describe them neutrally.
I brainstormed ideas by a mix of thinking of the cultures and subcultures, past and present, that I'm aware of, including religious and political cultures, supplemented by a lot of reading Wikipedia. I came up with 24, which after about a year I have narrowed down to 20 that I like, a convenient number to pick from randomly using commonly used dice.
The complete list
- Mercy vs Ruthlessness
- Courage vs Prudence
- Cunning vs Honesty
- Ambition vs Humility
- Impartiality vs Loyalty
- Self-Sacrifice vs Survival
- Passion vs Stoicism
- Asceticism vs Extravagance
- Frankness vs Propriety
- Novelty vs Tradition
This is still a bit of a work in progress. I feel like these require some explanation (coming soon in a later blog post). But I think it is already apparent just from reading this that meaningful conflict can stem from these values. For instance, I expect the reception to this post to relate to differing values with regards to Tradition and Novelty.