For me, Garry, you’ve summed up the whole situation in one phrase, both problems and solutions: Don’t let the tail wag the dog. My different solutions over the years, and the way that I use alignment in my current games, is aimed exclusively at avoiding that situation while retaining the value offered by having some coherant system of classifying attitudes and morals.

The point of part five was to show exactly how far removed from the original and (standard) definitions one could move and still retain the value of the system, once liberated from the attitudes that lead to abuses of the game mechanic. It’s also a real-life example, as it was taken directly from the house rules / player briefing for one of my current campaigns. And, of course, it provides a template for others to follow should they wish to run what is ostensibly summed up as “an evil campaign”.

Regarding Children: when I first started as a GM, one of my earliest campaigns was for my brother (then aged 15 or 16). However, my younger brother, then six years of age, also wanted to play. Accommodating both proved to be a challenge, but we all had fun, and that was the main thing.

I want to thank you again for your contributions to the debate and hope that I didn’t butcher your original article too severely. It’s rare that two so diverse and contradictory approaches to a problem can be debated and examined in the public eye, especially without egos getting in the way.

An interesting take to be sure. You have basically eliminated alignment, but in a different way. By adding an infinite possible axises and ditching the “loaded” terms you effectively toss the system and replace it with a different one with finer graduations. Based perhaps on the raw idea but a much more refined, and most importantly, unrestrictive view. Far from 3 dimensional you have created a system by which as many dimensions as the game master can keep track of can be added. I still see this as a thinking tool and character development tool, and not something that should have in game effects.

The two axis system is not original with D&D by any means. I first saw in the pop psychology book I’m OK, You’re OK, labeled with the four temperaments. Choleric, melancholic, sanguine, phlegmatic. In medieval times they were associated with the four elements, also a dual axis chart. The tool is an old one and if not dogmatically applied useful. The flaw comes in it’s use as a dogmatic labeler. The difference between a viewpoint, and a moral judgment. My opinion in the matter is that as a dogmatic system it should be abolished. While a useful tool, it should not be a part of the game mechanics in any fashion. That is the usage that has lead to wide arguments and abuse.

I have seen games, and personality development systems that use a multitude of single axis “slider bars” if you will to help you define your character attitude. Again, if you find such a tool useful, use it. However I’m not in favor of making it part of the universal moral viewpoint.

Your use of issue axises as the political issue evolved is “alignment” only in term of one’s political beliefs. Said druids in the examples given align themselves with a given faction. There are no consequences to their druidness by holding any of these political opinions or even changing them. In that respect it is not an “Alignment System” in the traditional D&D meaning. There is no universal moral judgment here. It’s a tool for defining a political climate. Consequences might arise for holding and expressing a viewpoint, certainly from acting on one, but they happen at the in game level, not the meta game. (As an aside, I would never “label Druids as something as simple as “Neutral” Like any priest they are very pro their own belief system. As I stated the label is inadequate to explain anything.)

Your political examples in part four I believe prove the point I am making. You use the two axises, but use two sets of the two axis system a primary and a secondary. And, customized to the situation as you see it, not a general alignment system for the game as a whole. A tool to define political factions and a good one. As long as the tail does not wag the dog.

I’m having a hard time seeing what the point of part five was. Yes you redefine the alignments, however such redefinitions are part of the problem, not a solution. More dirt and water in the mud pile. “But I want to use this definition of Lawful Good, not that one.” Furthermore you have again, unhitched the alignment from the game system. The point of your game is to discover that the viewpoints presented are not universal and correct, but can be changed to the betterment of all. A political viewpoint, not a universal moral judgment.

As to the historical examples, it was less I think a simpler time as it has always been in the interest of authority to define the dichotomy as the zero sum of “Us vs. Them”. And being that history is written by the winners, we do not see the conflict as it was, but rather as the writer wished to present it. Talk to the vanishing veterans of those wars, on any side, and you find a more complex situation, both on the ground and in their minds. Propaganda should never be mistaken for the reality of the situation.

Ancient examples are even less telling. If any first hand accounts exist they are fragmentary at best. They certainly do not begin to represent the color of the political viewpoints that existed at the time. Indeed the color is as washed out as it is on the once bright ruins that contain them. As one archaeologist put it, understanding ancient Assyria on the evidence given is like trying to understand the British Government from one wastebasket out of Whitehall.

Humans have been Humans as we know them for over 50,000 years. From all evidence we can get the political process has evolved little in that time. Indeed not adequately to the pressures of our current population. Politics at the national level is no more complex than chimps hooting and tossing tree branches. Us vs. Them, you are for us or against us. Polar thinking to simply and disguise the real issues which are never as simple as Us vs. Them.

Further on the subject of children: I don’t run D&D for six to eight year olds. My son and his friend were 12 when they stated playing. That would be what, 1992. And no, I don’t believe that children today are more sophisticated. At 12 I was aware of plenty more than my parents wanted me to know. To avoid it one would have to bury their heads in the sand. I kept a dialog going with my son. I have always been open to discus things, in a noncritical way if required.

I never used dumbed down concepts to children of any age. Age appropriate explanations to be sure, but straight up data. Children are not stupid. Too many adults are and underestimate the capacity of a child. I would rather have to explain something twice, once as I normally world and again in simper terms than under explain, or brush away the true complexities of the situation. Remember children will live up to or down to your expectations, so keep the expectations high. If anything modern society infantilzes children. We invented the concept of teens. A period of life when you are capable of adult responsibilities, but denied same. A terrible thing to do to people if you ask me.