The Plague of the 9 Alignments

When someone starts talking about the nine point Alignment System that is commonly found in Dungeons and Dragon products (and related material) my knee jerk thought process can be summed up by reading the first couple sentences on the top right of the first page in this document.

I did not always have a such an utter revulsion to the alignment system becuase the spirit of the idea is a clever way to help build your characters personality. What changed it for me was when it started to be commonly used as a mechanical tool to enforce character behavior, to punish character behavior, put classes/races/abilities behind an alignment lock, and the worst thing of it all is players would see their alignment as an unwavering iron law of how to play their characters (I can only do X in Y situation becuase of Z alignment. What is especially infuriating are the people that try to claim true neutral becuase unless your brain dead you have an opinion). I have also seen how are all this can create some real heated tension at the table which runs the experience. This right here is the plague of the 9 alignments.

The fact of the matter is that good and evil are relative and not black and white, they are shades of grey. Even the most boy scout or depraved of the Gods and Goddesses operate in these areas of shades of grey. This brings us to the subject of morality which is connected to the relativity of good and evil and the age old idea of doing what's best for the majority even if that action unsavory. An example that comes to my mind is in the World of Warcraft story, the Paladin Arthas slaughters an entire village to stop the spread of corruption. Then there is the classic Sociology question of "Would you kill Hitler as a baby (Like in the crib and the whole nine yards)? I am not going to get in deep explanation about these two examples but they are stated as good for thought.

With that being said, I do prescribe to cosmic bondage, which consists of the theories of Law, Chaos, and Neutrality (I use these in just about all of my games). These theories or philosophies are not meant to be abused as another alignment system but ideas of how the character interacts with the universe and how the universe interacts with the character. Believe it or not, TSR actually had one of the best descriptions I have ever seen:

Attitudes toward order and chaos are divided into three opposing beliefs. Picture these beliefs as the points of a triangle, all pulling away from each other. The three beliefs are law, chaos, and neutrality. One of these represents each character's ethos--his understanding of society and relationships.

Law: Characters who believe in law maintain that order, organization, and society are important, indeed vital, forces of the universe. The relationships between people and governments exist naturally. Lawful philosophers maintain that this order is not created by man but is a natural law of the universe. Although man does not create orderly structures, it is his obligation to function within them, lest the fabric of everything crumble. For less philosophical types, lawfulness manifests itself in the belief that laws should be made and followed, if only to have understandable rules for society. People should not pursue personal vendettas, for example, but should present their claims to the proper authorities. Strength comes through unity of action, as can be seen in guilds, empires, and powerful churches.

Neutrality: Those espousing neutrality tend to take a more balanced view of things. They hold that for every force in the universe, there is an opposite force somewhere. Where there is lawfulness, there is also chaos; where there is neutrality, there is also partisanship. The same is true of good and evil, life and death. What is important is that all these forces remain in balance with each other. If one factor becomes ascendant over its opposite, the universe becomes unbalanced. If enough of these polarities go out of balance, the fabric of reality could pull itself apart. For example, if death became ascendant over life, the universe would become a barren wasteland.

Philosophers of neutrality not only presuppose the existence of opposites, but they also theorize that the universe would vanish should one opposite completely destroy the other (since nothing can exist without its opposite). Fortunately for these philosophers (and all sentient life), the universe seems to be efficient at regulating itself. Only when a powerful, unbalancing force appears (which almost never happens) need the defenders of neutrality become seriously concerned.

Chaos: The believers in chaos hold that there is no preordained order or careful balance of forces in the universe. Instead they see the universe as a collection of things and events, some related to each other and others completely independent. They tend to hold that individual actions account for the differences in things and that events in one area do not alter the fabric of the universe halfway across the galaxy. Chaotic philosophers believe in the power of the individual over his own destiny and are fond of anarchistic nations. Being more pragmatic, non-philosophers recognize the function of society in protecting their individual rights. Chaotics can be hard to govern as a group, since they place their own needs and desires above those of society.