| Kazaan |
Alignment debates are something of a point of contention among players of games with such a system, especially when that system has more than fluff-based effects within the game (ie. classes and abilities tied to a specific alignment). One of the biggest points is the situation of "Evil" aligned characters as part of a Heroic party. You've got the Paladin, champion of justice and morality, you've got your disciplined if morally neutral Monk, your morally motivated Cleric who's willing to bend the rules to help people... and your Sorcerer who doesn't care who gets hurt so long as his own goals are met. LG, LN, NG, and NE all in the same party going off to kill the BBEG for the sake of the hapless peasants. How do we, as Roleplayers and from the angle of the mechanical RPG system reconcile the option to have Evil aligned characters in an otherwise good-motivated party? There are many standpoints on the issue. "Just don't do it". Forbid the option of taking an Evil character on a heroic quest. "Let it all play out". Let the Evil character in and it's up to him to hide his alignment from the others. "Evil Party". The whole group is evil and is looking to beat the BBEG just so they can install themselves as the new tyrants. But is all this really necessary? Is Evil destined to be the alignment of Villains while Good be the alignment of Heroes?
Good vs Evil:
At its core, the morality system of games like this comes down to a distinction between a respect for individual life and well being or a fundamental disregard. Respecting life doesn't mean you never take life; we have to eat, of course and that involves killing a living thing (animal or plant) and it's justified to take another life if it's a clear and present danger to yourself or another (after all, respect for life includes respect for your own life). Disregarding life, likewise, doesn't mean you're always out to kill something; preferring a dead enemy over a live one doesn't mean you go out actively seeking conflict for the sake of killing and the belief that people should live or die by their own power rather than rely on others doesn't mean you hope that they die, just that they should try their hardest rather than be so reliant on others for their well being.
Heroism vs Villainy:
This is the thing that always trips people up; they presume that Good = Hero and Evil = Villain. This is the same frame of mind that presumes Light = Good and Dark = Evil. Sure, it's natural for a Good-motivated person, a person who respects the sanctity of life and tries their best not to kill out of hand, to be a Hero. But does that mean that the guy who says, while he doesn't look for a fight, he'll kill dead anyone who challenges him because that's the goal of a fight, is any less a hero? It also works from the other angle; that of the Villain. Sure, the Evil villain who is out for his own power or just to see the world burn is clearly a villain. But what about the villain who wants to end suffering and crime by setting up a totalitarian, martial state or wants to usurp the power of the Gods because he thinks he can do a better job of "herding the flock"? Is he any less a villain for his Good motivations? Was Robin Hood any less heroic for going against the law of the land? Was Darth Vader any less villainous for wanting a galaxy ruled by strict law so the people wouldn't suffer tragedy and loss?
Reconciliation:
How do you reconcile the idea of the Good Villain or the Evil Hero? Well, what, exactly, makes a Hero or a Villain? I think that, in a fantasy universe at least, Heroes and Villains are those who are guided by some sort of destiny; those "picked out" by the universe as focal points for events. The Hero who is a hero just so he can kill and maim without getting in trouble for it is still a Hero. The Villain who thinks he can do better for the people than the Gods is still a Villain. In that sense, just being the PCs establishes you as the "Heroes" and it shouldn't matter what alignment you have; you're in a party pursuing a shared goal. Now certainly, there may be contention when a Paladin bound by oaths has to fight alongside a Barbarian who thinks nothing of cleaving down any in his way, the fact that the Barbarian is a member of this party, fighting towards a Heroic goal means that he's already decided that this is what he "wants" to do and it's too much trouble for him to have a run-in with the Paladin; so even a CE Barbarian who's thirsty for blood will say, "Yeah, I can do that later, right now, I'll just kill the guys the Paladin says are OK to kill" and it's perfectly justified regarding the alignment. That's where responsibility to the player comes in; If you're going to play a Chaotic and/or Evil alignment as a member of a Heroic party, you're kind of obligated to remember that you are a Hero first and foremost. Trying to deny that and falling back on "CE means I can do whatever I want regardless of consequence" is bad role-play because you're failing to remember that you're a Hero and not just a Hapless who somehow got filed into a Heroic party due to a Celestial Bureaucracy error. Again, your failure isn't in acting CE but in not acting Heroically CE. Furthermore, there's no reason for non-Evil or non-Chaotic party members to "automatically distrust you" just because they find out you're "evil" or "chaotic" or even both. Remember, these are terms that we, as players, utilize to categorize aspects of play. Unless they have a specific ability that lets them "see" your alignment, characters don't have signs on their foreheads spelling out their alignment. It's a pretty standard trope that if the players are all in the same party, it's presumed they are all "on the same side" regardless of individual motivations towards sanctity of life and order. Yeah, the Evil guy might decide to stab you in the back if it suits him... but so could the Chaotic guy. Sure, a CG character may not literally injure you, but he could benignly go do his own thing that suits his own goals. And the Evil guy isn't likely to be working with you in the first place if he's just going to double-cross you first opportunity; he would have just attacked you right off. If he does intend to double-cross you, well, that's a plot element right there. It's usually pretty meta-gamey to preempt plot elements just because you know alignment, especially from the mindset of Good doesn't necessarily mean Hero and Evil doesn't necessarily mean Villain.
For example, suppose your party (including a Paladin) come across a Demon's lair. Every encounter they've had leads them to conclude that this Demon is the source of ills for the nearby village which has contracted the party to investigate the source of their problems. So you bust into the Demon's lair, and bust him up. He then pleads that he wasn't the source of the problems and offers to help you find the real source if you let him go. Now, the conventional logic would say, "Demon = Evil = Villain. He's lying, destroy him." However, your party being "chosen out by destiny" to be Heroes, if this Demon really is telling the truth (selfishly motivated, for sure) there will be some indication for you as a party of heroes to know to spare him (This is the GM's responsibility). That is the core of storytelling and roleplay; understanding that it is a story subject to certain tropes and cliches and you are obligated to portray your character in a believable light. It's rather poor behavior as both a gamer and as a person in general to just say, "To hell with anyone else, I'll play the game however I want regardless of who's fun it ruins," and just proceed to vent all your pent up sociopathic behavior on a fantasy world because it, "doesn't really matter." Save that attitude for playing Elder Scrolls and going on a rampage after saving your game; it has no place on an RPG table. Once that attitude of "I'm Chaotic and/or Evil, I can do whatever I want" is removed, it makes room for the idea of separate duality between Good/Evil, Law/Chaos, Hero/Villain to fall into place and see common use.