Basic Fantasy: There's No Alignment System

A fantasy roleplaying game without an alignment system?

Now, I know there are many fantasy games lacking alignment systems, but to see an old-school fantasy game like this without one is a very interesting thing indeed. Basic Fantasy lacks an alignment system, the monsters have no alignment data, and the referee is free to run NPCs and monsters as he or she sees fit.

In D&D, everything is guaranteed to have an alignment. Chromatic dragons are not only chaotic, they are inherently evil. All orcs are likewise. All dark elves are lawful and evil, because they follow an evil spider god or goddess.

Got it? Good.

Really? Did I need to be told this?

I like Basic Fantasy ditching the alignment system, and the referee is free to decide how monsters and races fit into the game world without a stereotype or label automatically attached to an entire species or race.

Maybe there is a tribe of goblins that mines iron a couple of miles from the party's village that everyone gets along with. Sure, those goblins are different, but they live in the dangerous woods, and everybody gets along and the town gets the iron it needs. Maybe some of the village's traders speak goblin, or goblins live inside the town and come out at night to barter and raucously drink and break things. Maybe the town puts up with it because the business is good for everyone.

What if that red dragon up on the mountain above the village keeps to himself, and is known to only take a cow if he is hungry? He isn't evil or chaotic per-se, and the town has this legend of the dragon living there that they grow accustomed to? Maybe the dragon's presence scares off other monsters from the valley, and the townspeople kind of like having him up there. You can imagine the fun if a party of 'adventures' would have if they showed up in town saying 'we're here to kill the dragon!'

Run out of town or offered for sacrifice to the dragon?

Your call.

Question Everything

It is an interesting world more like the Brother's Grimm fairy-tales I feel, where you can't assume the motivations of something just based on its shape. Everyone is capable of good or evil, and just because something looks evil doesn't mean it is. You have to take into account motivations, situation, and personality. You have to talk, to understand, and to investigate. You have to judge a monster based on its actions instead of its race, and it becomes self-interested.

The word 'monster' is used to describe actions and intent, not color or shape.

Take the inverse role as well. Even supposedly 'good' creatures can be twisted into interesting roles once the alignment system is ditched, and the referee can apply common sense and imagination to their place in the world. A unicorn that is so fiercely protective of its grove it attacks anyone who comes near, even merchants and villagers? A cult of dark fae that worship a god of nightmares? A gold dragon that has become so greedy that it hires mercenaries and bandits to bring it more treasure, taxes roads and towns, and runs a protection racket to fill its cave higher and higher with gold.

Yes, in D&D you can ditch alignment just like this and do all of the above. But I guarantee you are going to get called on it by some players who will argue 'goblins aren't like that' or 'a unicorn would never attack innocents!' All because of an admittedly abstract and all-encompassing label called alignment. At times alignment really only feels like it exists to cause arguments.

Really, it is the referee's world, and what the referee says is how things go. That's how I play things, but really, what use is an alignment system if all it does is elicit strange looks from my players if I try to make dark elves reasonable or good monsters hostile?

Back to Basic Fantasy. Having a game that recognizes that is very interesting. Even if you use the argument that 'alignment is a guide for new players' it really doesn't have that much usefulness, because players will come into the game having watched Lord of the Rings and played other videogames that will set their expectations on what an orc is or how goblins should act, and having alignment take away a referee and group's choices on how these will act is a negative thing and not a positive one.

But, alignment is used by a referee to judge NPC reactions!

If a referee wants Sir Galahad to be a paragon of good, just play him like that. You don't need a nine-axis system for every NPC in the world telling the referee what type of person someone is, you just need a descriptive word that is often more useful that a limiting alignment choice. If this merchant is "greedy" he is greedy, and he may do things that are good or evil, depending on if it helps him earn money. In an alignment system, greed is evil, so you would probably rate him "lawful evil" if he played by the rules but cheated people for money, and that would put the merchant in an odd ideological alliance with the dark elves.

Does he go to the spider goddess' church on Sunday?

Trust me, I know how to play a greedy merchant. I don't need to know alignment. It is not useful to me. Lawful evil could mean a million things compared to the simple and expressive word of "greedy" in this situation. Even if you throw it in there, "lawful evil; greedy" it still doesn't mean much to me and it is just extra words because somebody wants to justify tagging everything with extra words to support the alignment system.

Good Always Fights Evil!

You can't really ditch alignment in D&D, because the game needs this automatic sorting bucket in which to toss the souls of the world into. The universe's cosmology is based on alignment. Deities are based on alignment. The histories of the official game worlds and kingdoms therein are based on alignments. Everything is tagged, even some pieces of equipment are more evil than others (edged weapons and poisons). If a referee goes outside that tagging the referee will get questioned, or it will be seen as a strange 'one off.'

There is another reason for alignment in D&D, and this has to do with preset motivations and a videogame-like design philosophy. It is easier to put all the bad guys into buckets. Orcs are evil. Goblins are evil. Chromatic dragons are evil. It is okay to beat them over the head and take their loot, because they are evil - the game says so.

That's what good does, right?

Yes, in a simplistic world, that is what good does. It is the same as a videogame where everything else that is moving that isn't you is a bad guy. But I don't like simplistic worlds, and I like the freedom and creativity to do what I want with a game - and not have second guessing my decisions built into the rules. More importantly, I don't want what this does to players affecting their actions in the game - I want them to think and to judge actions and intent.

If the players encounter that village full of town-friendly iron-mining goblins in my Basic Fantasy game, I want them to ask questions, think, and judge the situation based on what they see and experience. I don't want players programmed to 'see goblin, kill goblin' because 'the rules say they are evil!' They aren't so easily labeled. Pay attention to my descriptions. Stop and think. Don't let an alignment label think for you. Make your own choices based on how you want to play your character in this situation, not your alignment tag.

A paint-by-labels game is not the sort of game I run, and frankly, alignment-buckets are not the sort of help I want in a roleplaying game. The classic D&D alignment system feels like it is meant to 'grease the skids' for a hack and slash game, making the experience a simple 'us versus them' affair, and simplifying motivations so the game can be more about combat. When you eliminate the need to question motivations and actions, you can get into the next battle faster.

The Freedom to Decide

As a player, I like to have the freedom to roleplay and deal with the goblins based on how they act, not what the Monster Manual says they are. Yes, a referee in games with alignment can just do this, ignore alignment, and run the goblins this way. But the question will always be there. A new player coming in needs to be explained why the goblins aren't 'kill on sight.' Your creativity could be seen as a variant game. The game tells you 'it's your world' and then takes that back some by setting expectations on how monsters act - and players notice.

Maybe the goblins in the iron-mining village have a problem with giant burrowing beetles down in the mine the players could deal with. If they ask questions first and parlay, maybe they will be able to help. In my world, there are things that are evil, like a village-burning tribe of marauding orcs under a demon-worshiping war-chief. But I don't want them to assume all orcs are like that. That tribe could easily be evil humans burning orc villages for the same reason.

It is, in the end, a motivation thing. It is how simple you want player motivations to be. Do you just enjoy the fights and don't want entire sessions being consumed by figuring out who the bad guys are? Then yes, alignment is a useful 'us versus them' tool. Do you want a more thoughtful game where you want to focus on story, unique motivations, and have players question the world they live in? Throw alignment out and embrace freedom and creative world-building and play.

It is a personal decision, ultimately. But it is one that if you are better informed, you can make better decisions on the games you want to play, and also the parts of them that you choose to use. More importantly, you understand the motivations behind why an alignment system is used and what it does to both players and referees. What do they offer, and what limits do they impose on you?

You need to question why rules do what they do, and not blindly accept them 'because they are' or 'because they are popular.' Alignment is one of those big 'invisible systems' that are meant to control player and referee behavior, and it deserves to be examined, questioned, and understood.

The way Basic Fantasy tossed out alignment is an interesting and fascinating design choice that has more implications than saying 'it is a fantasy game without alignment.'