Alignment in O.G.R.E.S.

 Alignment is a hot button issue in modern games. It is a core part of characters in O.G.R.E.S, and indeed, the corruption system for spellcasting does not properly function without it. It is, then, important to look at what alignment is, how it works, and most importantly, what it is not and how it is constantly misread and misinterpreted by many in the gaming community - particularly those reactionary to traditional old-school gaming tropes. 

What Alignment is Not

There is a constant refrain out there from alignment detractors that alignment is nothing but a way for the GM to control player characters for them, for the GM to force characters to act a certain way or to deny them a certain course of action based on two words written on their character sheet. 

Look, I'm all for personal interpretations when it comes to games, but let me be clear: there's no argument here. 

This is wrong. 

This is 100% wrong.

This couldn't be wrong-er. 

I'm going to be very, very clear on this: Alignment is not, and never was, a box into which characters were meant to be stuffed and kept. Perhaps when you're talking about old-school classes like Paladins or Cavaliers, but those are exceptions built upon the idea of being utter paragons. 

Even within those classes, however, alignment was a very nebulous thing. If one looks at the old alignment graphs in the First Edition Player's Handbook, one sees that there is a lot of room to move, even within the Lawful Good section. Any GM that treats alignment as a rigid set of rules and strictures for character conduct is missing the entire point. 

The original AD&D alignment graph

What Alignment Is

Alignment, just like your character's physical description or whatever notes you jot down for their personality, is nothing more than another nebulous descriptor of how your character views the universe. In old-school D&D, it's a description of their moral (good-evil) and ethical (law-chaos) axis, and within those two axes, there is a lot of room for fiddling about. 

Even Gygax and Arneson were not clear about the original law-neutrality-chaos axis. In many ways it was built upon the Eternal Champion of Michael Moorcock...but in some places OD&D says outright that Law represents those things we generally view as "good" and Chaos represents those things we generally view as "evil." In other places, however, the original creators are very crystal clear that chaos is not, in fact, necessarily evil (which presents a major issue with game play, if you're really digging in).

In the end, however, the concept behind alignment originally was that there were these grand cosmic forces in play - at first just law and chaos, and then later, adding good and evil to the mix as well - which were constantly at war, and by choice or by nature, the beings that populate the mortal realms were pawns and soldiers in that great war. Alignment just showed where they basically fell on that broad spectrum of outlooks. 

By the time AD&D had moved into its later sourcebooks and certainly by the time second edition came around, this idea had largely (if not entirely) been jettisoned, and some see alignment as an artifact of that era, to be jettisoned along with it. 

Still, however, it has a place. It has a place, as stated above, as a broad descriptor of how your character views the cosmos and life in general. It is, in some ways, something that feeds into their personality. It's not a box. It's not restrictive (unless a specific character class places moral or ethical restrictions). It's just who they are, and like all of us, our outlook on the world is shaped by our experiences. Player characters can and should move around - that's why the original AD&D had an alignment graph for the GM to use to track it. Even among those classes with some restriction (rangers being good, for example, or clerics remaining within the ethos of their deity) still had a lot of space in their "quadrant" to move before they actually slid out and started suffering for it. 

The Reason for the Perception

I am not certain for the reason behind this common perception that alignment is some sort of straightjacket instead of an incredibly useful tool to describe at a glance what kind of person your character is, and their outlook on the cosmos. I can only assume that for many years, a lot of people suffered under GMs that treated it that way unfairly. 

But that's just me spitballing. 

Alignment in O.G.R.E.S.

O.G.R.E.S. fully embraces the idea of alignment as a descriptor. The only way that it becomes important in a game-sense is when using the corruption and degeneracy rules, which create a slow slide into amoral inhumanity and megalomania. The core rulebooks for Night Shift, Wasted Lands, and Thirteen Parsecs deal more specifically with the exact rules, but the way alignment functions is still a descriptor of where your character is in a moral and ethical sense. 

Rather than using the traditional law/chaos axis, O.G.R.E.S. has switched over to a Light/Dark axis, which is more akin to introversion and extroversion, as well as the time of day in which a character draws their own personal "energy," not necessarily in a mystic sense (though for Sorcerers and Witches it definitely defines when they prepare their spells), but in the sense of what time of day do they thrive. When do they feel most energiezed. 

Part of this was to move away from the traditional OGL presentation of alignment, but the light/twilight/dark idea is something with which I've wanted to play for a long time. It seems to be working out very well, and really hammers home the idea of alignment as a core part of your character's personality, and the way in which even someone who was formerly an introvert can, through finding self-confidence and through experience, become more forceful and extroverted in their persona. 

It's also much easier to see in one's mind, for example, the classic Goth in a coffee shop, sitting in a corner late in the evening with a Clove cigarette and a cup of Joe, reading a book, being a Dark character. If they're highly moral, they might be Dark-Good (or Good-Dark), while if they are just disenchanted with life in general and want nothing to do with traditional morality they might be Neutral-Dark. Those that are on the brink of committing a horrific crime because they have no empathy left for humanity? Evil-Dark. 

A megalomaniac leader of a cult of personality, screaming their hateful rhetoric into a microphone at a podium while their followers rally around them? Evil-Light. 

It all presents a very elegant and interesting way to use alignment in game and it gets away from the rather limiting law and chaos idea, whereas, in truth, I think the vast majority of folks fall into neutrality on the law/chaos axis - they just aren't committed to order or chaos. They might be highly organized at work, but their home life is a disorganized mess. They might be staunchly law-abiding citizens, but only because they don't want to go to jail. 

I'm sure similar shortcomings exist in the Light/Twilight/Dark axis, but I still think it works better in a broader spectrum of descriptors. 

That's about all for today! 

---

Find Elf Lair Games Online: https://linktr.ee/elflairgames