Alignment in Moldvay is
not a matter of determining “which side” your character is on in the fight
between Law and Chaos, nor is it simply a means of determining the effect of
spells or magical items that operate differently with respect to a creature’s
alignment (there are no such items in Basic), nor is it a means of restricting
certain character classes. This is an
exhortation on how to think like your character within the game, and it is
quite specific. It even provides an “Example
of Alignment Behavior” showing how each type of alignment should act…as
well as how the character should feel:
The [chaotic] character will not care what happens to
the rest of the party.
Oh, I won’t, will I? Who is Tom Moldvay to say how I or my character will feel, or what I
(or my character) will care about?
The game designer, that’s who.
Moldvay spends a full page
on the subject of Alignment which, considering Basic is only a 64 page book
(including glossary, literary appendix, coverleaf, and GenCon advertisement) is
an absolutely huge amount of space to devote to the subject. 3rd Edition
devotes roughly three pages to alignment out of nearly eight hundred pages spread between three core volumes. Giving that
much space to alignment shows that Moldvay thought it was an important (perhaps
core) concept that needed to be
clarified (and was further described in a later example). And yet the whole concept
of “alignment” is often denigrated, even by (or especially by) game designers
who find it a “throwaway” system due to its lack of mechanical impact. You can
count me as one of those people, by
the way.
So, okay…I’ve since changed
my mind.
D&D is a role-playing game, created at a
time when role-playing (as a concept of gaming) was a new and radical
concept…one which I believe was a complete side-effect outside of the original
designers’ intention. I believe wargamers Arneson and Gygax were trying to create
a different kind of wargame: one based on heroic myth and fantasy literature. I
believe that the game they designed facilitated
role-playing incidentally…by accident, in other words…but that it was
precisely because of this “accident of design” that the game gained the
popularity (across all walks of gaming life) that it did. I don’t know this is the case, I can only
speculate based on my 21st century retrospective view point…but that’s
what I believe.
By the time Moldvay came
along to provide an additional editing of the rules, the role-playing
subculture participating in the D&D game was an entrenched part of the group
playing…and even if it wasn’t properly understood, it was recognized by the powers-that-be. Moldvay, in his writing,
emphasizes alignment as a system,
because it is the easiest and clearest way (at that point) of teaching players
how to “get inside the mind of their character,” i.e. teaching new players how to role-play. It’s clunky and it’s
simplistic, but it’s there and ready-made with a slight twist and re-purposing
of the alignment “mechanic.” The alternative would be to include some sort of
section on “how to role-play” which (even if understood at the time) may have
been a “turn-off” for some players, notably wargamers, who may have still been
a target demographic. Or perhaps there was a perception at TSR at the time that
(regardless of “target demographic”) the idea of role-playing was viewed with suspicion and it was felt better to
just kind of “sneak it up on players” in the course of play…the same way it had
incidentally sneaked up on those
early players.
Look at the great Example of Combat on page 28. This is a pretty well-written example, displaying all
the facets of an encounter in Basic D&D: reaction rolls, initiative, morale
checks, melee, missile fire, spell use, and character death. If the example had
simply stopped where the hobgoblins provided instructions for finding treasure
(and disarming the trap), the page would easily have fit the instructions to any
small-scale skirmish game…from D&D4E to Mordheim or Necromunda. But then
you add the last three paragraphs
and you get something else entirely.
From the D&D
Basic Rules (Tom Moldvay, page B28):
Before the party leaves, they gag the hobgoblins to
make sure that no alarm will be raised. Morgan is Neutral in alignment, and
argues that it is not safe to leave a sure enemy behind them, even if that
enemy is temporarily helpless. Silverleaf is also Neutral, but he believes that
the hobgoblins are too terrified to be of any further threat. If Morgan wants
to kill the prisoners, he won’t help her, but he won’t stop her, either.
Sister Rebecca, a Lawful cleric, is shocked by
Morgan’s suggestion. She tells Morgan that a Lawful person keeps her word, and
that she promised the hobgoblins that they would be spared. Her god would never
allow her to heal someone who killed helpless prisoners…
Morgan agrees that killing captives is wrong, and that
it was only the great pain from her wound which caused her to say such things.
Sister Rebecca casts her cure light
wounds spell on Morgan. It does 5 points of healing, bringing Morgan back
to her normal 6 hit points.
Note that all proper names
here are the names of characters not
players, though throughout the example players are referred to by their
characters’ names; for example, “Silverleaf
rolls a 4 for initiative.”
There are plenty of things
to discuss here, but the most important for purpose of the topic at hand is the
passage as a specific example of character
motivation influencing player behavior. We recognize that characters are
run by their players, not vice versa, and as such the decision of “Sister
Rebecca” to withhold healing from a party member is a decision being taken by
the PLAYER that is running the cleric.
And why the hell would he
(or she) choose to do that?
If the purpose of the game
is “to explore dungeons, not characters” then withholding a needed spell from
the only surviving front-line fighter is
kind of a dick move. You’ve got one
player down to 1 hit point (and no other wounds in the surviving party
members), but you’re just pulling this manipulative,
passive-aggressive shit to exercise control over another player at the
table? Is this what’s going on? If
so, what an ass!
In Moldvay Basic, one
can’t even argue the player is withholding the spell for the possibility of
needing another in the future since clerics memorize (“pray for”) their spells
ahead of time, just like magic-users. In other words, the ONLY spell available
to Sister Rebecca is cure light wounds,
and so she has to find SOME way to use it. Again, unless you’re some kind of
jerk, you’d think a cooperative player would help further the party’s ambition
by using her spell resources constructively (assuming the player remembers
having the spell, which this one obviously does).
Here we see an explicit
example of players matching their behavior and in-game choices to the
motivations of their characters. THIS is role-playing, folks. It’s
the only way the exchange between players makes sense in a non-dysfunctional
gaming group. “Sister Rebecca” is “shocked” by “Morgan” and her suggestion to
slay the (completely imaginary!) prisoners. There is nothing truly shocking to
the players about this…it’s a logical course of action even for non-wargamey
players. Hobgoblins are evil…hell, they just killed your dwarf buddy, Frederick!...and
it’s not like REAL blood is going to wash all over your new, doeskin boots or
something. It’s a game…a game in
which survival (or rather, lack thereof) is the only real measure of whether or
not you, as a player, have “lost.”
But to the Lawful
character, playing in the explicit manner presented means honoring your
word, not killing prisoners, being merciful, etc…and not standing by while
others act against the tenets of your creed.
This doesn’t earn the PC
any extra experience points. It doesn’t give the character a bonus to hit, or
double the amount of gold found. It doesn’t do ANYTHING mechanically,
system-wise. But in addition to “playing by the rules” (as described in the
Alignment section), it allows the player to escape for a moment into the
character being portrayed. And because the other players are on the same page
and willing to do the same thing (as opposed to Morgan’s player bitching and
moaning about what an ass and buzz-kill Sister Rebecca’s player is) it allows
the entire group to experience an imaginary drama that enriches the entire play
experience.
This isn’t a game of just
moving miniature figures, throwing D20s, and maneuvering to avoid “attacks of
opportunity.” This is a role-playing game, in which you get to experience
(vicariously, through your imaginary avatar) the thrill of BEING ANOTHER PERSON
IN A FANTASY LANDSCAPE ENGAGING IN HEROIC RISKS AND ADVENTURE. Instances like
this within a game are what ADD to this escapist feature of D&D gaming, and
is what is addicting in terms of play.
[to be continued]
Again my question: what playing according to alignment (ALL versions of D&D have alignments) has to do with "moving miniature figures, throwing D20s, and maneuvering to avoid “attacks of opportunity.”" ? That's quite a rather cheap shot at 3e and later. But I might (I do, actually) use minis and maps with B/X AND play according to alignment, so by translation, I suppose I am doing something wrong? I hate to say this, I usually enjoy your posts, but more than analyses, they look like carefully worded expressions of your bias. I am no lover (nor play) 3e, 4e etc. but this lack of objectivity is really irking.
ReplyDeleteYour comparison of "space devoted to alignment description vs. rest of the rules" is somewhat off. I suppose since you hate 2e you missed on the excellent job it does at explaining alignments. And obviously relative measures only tell a part of the story; absolute measures (i.e. how much REALLY you need to tell about alignments) do play a role. The other games offer larger bestiaries, more race and class options, bigger spell lists, bigger equipment lists etc. Mentzer devotes the same space that Moldvay does at describing alignments, yet the game is bigger, does it mean that its description is less valid? Sorry, but however you slice it, your comparison doesn't seem to make much sense.
ReplyDelete"The game designer, that’s who."
ReplyDeleteBig whup.
Okay, you have clearly drunk the Kool-Aid.
Where this entire argument breaks down is at the place where players, generally, let's say 99%, aren't writers; they are playwrites, they have never put together a novel, they aren't literary critics or devotees of literary deconstruction.
As a result, the 'characterizations' they create - and the characterizations that Moldvay advances - are bland, simplistic and repeated over and over again from the great playbook of Television. They're dull as dishwater, and they're exhausting. This is what makes them such good substance for satire, for jokes, for mocking and insults. Because they are SHIT. And unless you're the simple minded fool television writers work down to, after a few years in the game, most would rather people just quit playing the crappy motivation-driven clichés and would just play the damn game.
But, as I say JB, you have CLEARLY downed the Kool-Aid, and in your drugged, near-to-death state, you can't see all this.
This is a great blog post! Not sure why you're getting flack for it. I don't see any edition warring going on. Sure, you have a particular bias - we all do. That doesn't detract from your investigation.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that real roleplaying evolved as an accidental byproduct of individual fantasy wargaming is an intriguing one. Without knowing the whole story or being a fly on the wall at those inaugural sessions, I'm inclined to agree with you. Fascinating stuff!
VS
Count me amongst those that don't understand the heat of the earliest comments, either. Odd stuff - and I say this coming as a player of GURPS, who uses the tactical mini combat rules!
ReplyDeleteI think that Alignment in D&D gets short shrift today because, as you said, when it was introduced people didn't explicitly know what was meant by role-playing. Now, many of them do - or they have friends to tell them what it means (don't get me started on how bad that can be) - and alignment feels less like a guiding attribute than it does a straight-jacket to them.
I am a perfectly comfortable role-player. I don't need an abstract, potentially rigid construct to tell me how to feel when I inhabit the skin of an imaginary character. But, even today, some people do need that sort of guidance regardless of what system they're playing.
"It’s a game…a game in which survival (or rather, lack thereof) is the only real measure of whether or not you, as a player, have 'lost.'"
This particular sentence leaves me scratching my head a bit. I'm pretty sure that for me, living or dying have very little to do with my sense of losing when playing an RPG. Instead, the gauge is how good a story emerged from our character choices and random dice, and was a good time had by all.