A Deep Dive into D&D Alignments
Introduction
The alignment system in Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) has long been a subject of debate and scrutiny. While the dichotomy of Chaos and Law seems to offer a robust framework, the concept of Elemental Evil introduces a layer of complexity that warrants closer examination. This post aims to dissect the alignment system and explore its implications for storytelling, character development, and societal norms.
The Robustness of Chaos and Law
Chaos and Law are not just terms; they are fairly robust, self-evident, universal, and consistent truths. Borrowed from Michael Moorcock's work, these terms are so objective that even criminal psychologists use them to categorize behavior. Serial killers, for instance, are classified by the FBI into Organized and Disorganized types. In this sense, the chaotic and lawful aspects of the D&D alignment system are hard to argue against.
The Murkiness of Elemental Evil
Where things get irreversibly muddy is when we introduce the concept of Elemental Evil. Labeling someone as "Evil," especially with a capital 'E,' removes the responsibility from the individual and assigns it to some nebulous supernatural force. This has a couple of effects. Firstly, it not only takes responsibility off those people but also weirdly glamorizes them for certain disturbed individuals. Secondly, it absolves society, parents, and the people who shaped these individuals, creating a convenient scapegoat.
The Importance of Specificity: Beyond the Term 'Evil'
The term "Evil" is not just limiting; it's lazy. There are far more specific words that can describe a person's actions or character—words like "malicious," "vindictive," "cruel," or "sadistic." These terms carry weight, meaning, and value. They allow us to deal with the complexities of character and motivation in a more nuanced way, enriching our storytelling and understanding of the world.
The Problem of Responsibility
When we label someone as Evil, we're essentially saying, "We cannot understand this, so let's assign it the one catch-all label we have." This takes the responsibility off society and the people who created these individuals. Hitler, for example, was not driven by some supernatural evil force; he was a product of a multitude of complex factors, including his upbringing and societal influences.
The Rigidity of the Alignment System
The alignment system in D&D leans heavily towards nature, leaving little room for nurture or a character's experiences to shape them. This rigidity does not lend itself to character growth or the powerful narrative of redemption. It also raises ethical questions about punishment and dehumanization, as labelling someone or a group as Evil can justify extreme actions against them.
Storytelling Beyond Alignments
Writers and actors don't rely on alignment systems. They delve into characters' emotional and historical contexts to bring them to life. Assigning an alignment, especially an evil one, flattens your character into a 2-dimensional cardboard cutout, devoid of any depth or humanity. This is the worst sin because it makes your character boring.
The Political Nature of Evil
The term "Evil" is not just superfluous; it's dangerous. It's a political word, a call to action, and a rallying cry for holy wars. It can be used to manipulate and control people en masse, often for the benefit of a select few who hold stakes in the game.
Conclusion
If you must use an alignment, stick to Law and Chaos. But remember, the real evils in the world are ignorance, greed, and a lack of humility. Let's strive for a more nuanced understanding of characters and the worlds we create, both in D&D and beyond. After all, if we don't try to understand why someone is sociopathic and violent, we learn nothing and perpetuate cycles of violence and trauma.
For my full and unabridged opinion on the matter of Evil, check out this youtube video: My unsolicited opinion on alignment.
I fully believe the word "evil" or at least the concept is, now, a social construct, perhaps it always has been. Language developed to serve a purpose and describe/define socially acceptable norms and traditional morality. Where philosophy can assist us in understanding these concepts, and hope to provide context, it would however behoove us to not loose a critical sense and blindly accept those writings as dogma. There is to much gradation in morality, so much so, its far to difficult (or perhaps easier in some ways) to simply deposit an action into the camps of "good and evil", wash ones hands of it and let (insert the deity of your choice) to sort it out. I,not being a particularl…