A reader with the tenebrous name of The Shadow has a point to make about alignments in role playing games:
To give an example I’ve sometimes used before: Sir Henry passionately upholds the classic ideals of knighthood, even when others mock him for it, even at personal risk. He is unfailingly courteous to all regardless of station, especially women. But he is inordinately proud of his lineage, to the point of unreason. He sometimes gets rather too deep in his cups, and on such occasions he has been known to profess his undying devotion to the Lady Caroline, whom he has long loved silently from afar, though she is entirely out of his reach.
What, I ask you, is gained by saying that Sir Henry is Lawful Good? In what way does it help anyone to play him?
I can speculate as to what the point of Gygaxian alignment is, even if I cannot say what the good is.
If I am the moderator, and I have put in my D&D world a magic sword, Goodalibur, which can only be drawn from the stone by a good knight, but I also unwisely put in my D&D world a magic sword, Lawthung, which can only be plucked from the roofpost by a lawful knight, having the words “Lawful Good” written on the character sheet by the player enable me not to make a value judgment of the player’s actions, nor to assess his moral worth.
Let me hasten to say, I myself would never, ever approach such a situation as a moderator in any such way. I fundamentally cannot accept such a division of labor between moderator and player: it deeply offends my sensibilities.
Let me explain why.
Read the remainder of this entry »