I assume quite a few of us are familiar with the DnD alignment system. Many have criticized it for being simplistic and incapable of accounting for the complexities of actual human nature. However, there's one reason I, for one, really like the DnD alignment system: dualism. The notion that good and evil - or order and chaos - are forces of nature in conflict with each other is common to so many aspects of human folklore, mythology, religion, and philosophy that inform fantasy literature; from Zoroastrianism to Shintoism, good/order vs. evil/chaos is a theme that defines so much of modern fantasy. Even religions that ostensibly eschew dualism, such as Christianity and Buddhism, invariably have theological text replete with dualism. There's something about the collective human psyche that is drawn to these grand conflicts. Now, I personally don't believe good and evil are forces of nature akin to gravity and electromagnetism. But I don't think dragons exist either. Speculative fiction doesn't have to be "realistic".
I think the DnD alignment system is a simple, yet somewhat effective, way of expressing dualism as a force of nature. But, as many people have pointed out, human nature is complex. Even fictional characters are often too complicated to be described by a simple 2-axis alignment system. What was Achilles' alignment? Gilgamesh's? Lancelot's? However, I think there's a simple modification to the alignment system that would allow it to better describe complex characters: the distinction between temperament and aspiration. Think of temperamental alignment as the alignment you would be if you just did whatever you felt like. Whereas aspirational alignment is the alignment you strive to live by. I think that this distinction between temperament and aspiration is especially suitable to the world of Dragon age.
Dualistic conflicts are most interesting when both sides have appealing qualities. Good vs. evil stories are less interesting when one side is utterly unsympathetic [cough]Mass Effect[/cough]. That's why I think Dragon Age 2, despite its flaws, had the best plot of any Bioware game to date. The Arishok/Kirkwal and Templar/Mage conflicts included compelling antagonists that made for superior storytelling. One of the things that makes me excited about Dragon Age Inquisition is that these sort of conflicts will be further explored. Along, with such complex conflicts, come characters that aren't merely 2-dimensional. That's where the aspirational vs. temperamental alignment comes in. I like to think of Leliana as a temperamentally Chaotic Good character who - out of devotion to the divine - is aspiring to be Lawful Good. Cullen is a character who struggles to convince himself that Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral are one and the same. Finally, Varric is a Chaotic Good guy at heart who works hard to project a True-Neutral persona to those around him. What do you guys think? Does this fairly describe Dragon Age characters?
I for one am excited to create Inquisitors that'll be similarly conflicted:
Rodin Trevelyan: Human Rogue.
Rodin is a witty, charismatic, young noble with a love for the carefree, swashbuckling lifestyle. He has always managed to talk or fight his way out of any jams his noble birth couldn't protect him from... until now. While he personally bristles at authority and convention, Rodin understands that not everyone was born into privilege. For the vast majority of people in Thedas, laws and conventions are the only defense against capricious rulers and abominable mages. Rodin's goal is to forge as pragmatic and altruistic an Inquisition as possible. One that doesn't allow grand philosophical and theological debates to come before the well being of the common folk of Thedas.
Alignment: Chaotic Neutral (temperamental), Neutral Good (aspirational).
Ideal party: Iron Bull, Varric, and Vivianne.
Retour en haut
