The Dreaded Nine-Letter Word

[sham]

Yep, A-L-I-G-N-M-E-N-T.

I've been kicking around a web log post for weeks now on this topic, and rather than bore everyone here with the actual details (that's what my blog is for), I figured I'd paraphrase the lengthy treatment so I could hear what others think. I'm very close to expunging Alignment from my games altogether.

Here's my current take on it anyway:

Alignment in D&D is is the attitude of the character formed for emotional or intellectual reasons, one which is applied to individuals and not just an arrangement of forces ala Chainmail's “General Lineup”.

Law is the “For It” side, Chaos is the “Against It” side and they cannot exist without the other. Neutrality is the absence of Alignment; those which are not engaged on either side. So what is “It” then? This is not defined, but surely the original authors intended “It” to roughly equate to mankind's greater good; Right vs. Wrong as we know it.

How important Alignment is beyond Anti-Clerics and picking up Artifacts is for the individual referee to determine. Although this understanding does support the “no Neutral Clerics” assumption. There are no higher Neutral forces in the epic struggle of Law vs. Chaos. Pick a side if you want to be a Cleric.

As a caveat I offer the fact that Law is also defined as the Will of God, so it encompasses both ideological and political matters. There is no separation of Church and State in OD&D.

If I'm going to go so far as to mostly ignore the ramifications of Alignment, why is it needed at all? Declare yourself a Cleric or Anti-Cleric, make Artifacts tied to Class or Race, and be done with the oft debated topic altogether.

Now give me a good reason not to do so. Don't muddy it up with the burdensome post LBB interpretations

[Finarvyn]

Jul 29, 2009 1:51:43 GMT -6 sham said:

Law is the “For It” side, Chaos is the “Against It” side and they cannot exist without the other. Neutrality is the absence of Alignment; those which are not engaged on either side. So what is “It” then? This is not defined, but surely the original authors intended “It” to roughly equate to mankind's greater good; Right vs. Wrong as we know it.

This was the interpretation back in "the day" and it's still the way I like to play alignment.

I've seen lots of "well, the Empire in Star Wars would be Law so Law could be good or evil" arguments, but I prefer the simpler approach whereby Law is essentially Good and Chaos is essentially Evil.

Looking in the LBB one sees evidence of this kind of thing. Alignment is divided into Law-Neutral-Chaos, but spells are "Detect Evil" or "Protection from Evil" and as such I think they were intended to be interchangable terms. Not everyone agrees with this, but it's the way I like to play it.

Nice post, by the way!

[thegreyelf]

In my workup, I've replaced "Law" and "Chaos" with broad concepts of "Good" and "Evil," and have instituted two different types of Neutrality: "Unaligned" and "Balance." These concepts are quite broad and general and serve to generalize a character and/or faction's general outlook on Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Good, as said in the 3.x books, implies altruism, respect for life (all life), personal liberty, respect for authority and disdain for tyranny. Good characters exhibit mercy, stand up for the weak and downtrodden, and will help others, even at danger to themselves, so long as it is the morally right thing to do. The Wiccan mantra of "An it harm none, do what thou wilt," and the Judeo-Christian "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" describe Good in general.

Evil implies enforcing one's will over others, Darwinism taken to an extreme, selfishness, and a complete lack of respect for life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness (save your own). Evil characters trample the downtrodden, enforce their will on the weak, and help others only if doing so is beneficial or useful to them in some way. Evil is described by "Do what *I* will" or "Do unto others as I will, and force them to do as I wish."

Unaligned represents the majority of the people in the world. These people neither fit into the greater cause of true good nor evil, and while most tend to believe themselves generally good folk, selfishness gets the better of them more often than not. These people will help those they care about, but may hesitate or even refuse (with apologies) if the danger in helping is too great.

Balance represents a true Buddhist or Taoist philosophy. Characters who champion balance make this choice consciously, believing that the universe exists in a delicate alignment of forces and for these forces to be out of alignment is catastrophic. Thus, a champion of Balance holds few if any attachments in the world, and while he may care about his friends, he also might (again, with apologies) betray them if he feels their exploits are in danger of throwing the cosmos out of balance. Balance characters believe in an ordered society, and generally acknowledge that good is preferable to evil, but also believe that evil must exist for good to exist in equal measure. Thus, while a balance character will stand against an evil and oppressive tyrant, he may also work to introduce elements of corruption into an Utopian society, believing such societies to be doomed to entropy anyway due to the lack of challenges and struggles, and believing that manageable corruption in measured doses is necessary to maintain the overall goodness of the society.

Not surprisingly, few people tend to play Balance characters as they're exceptionally difficult to pull off.

[simrion]

Since thegreyelf brought up a reference to 3.x I will as well. In Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed he simply did away with the headache of alignment. Other than affecting some of the traditional spells (like detect good/evil, which IMNSHO were there primarily to see if the monster you were approaching was likely to try and kill you,) lack of alignment did not seem to affect game play in any way.

[thegreyelf]

Well, I was only attributing my writeup, not trying to introduce any kind of edition discussion...

[coffee]

I don't think it needs to turn into an edition discussion -- we're just discussing Alignment.

I gotta say, I'd be willing to try a game without Alignment. You'll still have good guys and bad guys (and those caught in between). It seems to most dispensable of the original "quirks" of the game.

I'd much sooner give up Alignment than character classes or Vancian magic, for instance.

[Mr. Darke]

I haven't used alignment in years. You do still have the good vs evil dynamic and it doesn't change the game much. I did have to switch up some spells but not many. In the end I think the game is actually a bit better off without it as you get some ambiguity that creates a more gritty and realistic world.

[Finarvyn]

Jul 29, 2009 10:03:15 GMT -6 coffee said:

I gotta say, I'd be willing to try a game without Alignment. You'll still have good guys and bad guys (and those caught in between). It seems to most dispensable of the original "quirks" of the game.

Well, if you have two sides then you have alignment with one or the other no matter what you call each.

In James Bond books, England and the British Secret Service qualify as "good" because Bond is the hero, not necessarily because England was always right.

I like the simplicity of Law vs Chaos. Works well in my game.

[ragnorakk]

heh! i just counted the letters of that word to myself last night!
law == good and chaos == evil is pretty heavily implied in OD&D,
by the EHP and such - I don't know when Gygax first started tweaking with
it (as far as Stategic Review, Dragon, etc) , but it has to have been one of the
earliest things that DM's (at least those that got hooked on the game)
elaborated on (Holmes is a pretty earlish 'update'...)

i know i've generally found it pretty hard to play 3-way alignment without
unconsciously adopting Lawful Good Guys and Chaotic Bad Guys and
Neutral Ambivalent Guys. I'm really starting to think that alignment was introduced
to just to produce antagonism - not in a pejorative sense, in a dramatic sense -
to give actors in the game some reason to not-like and fight each-other, other
than race - a hook for setting tension in a campaign.

I've always appreciated games that do not hard-code alignment in, and tended
to ignore alignment in play as much as possible. In play I'd rather not deal with
a character's alignment - but it's really ingrained during development and such,
and it creeps into prep fpr other games that don't themselves mention the a-word...
ugh

[kesher]

Jul 29, 2009 10:03:15 GMT -6 coffee said:

I gotta say, I'd be willing to try a game without Alignment. You'll still have good guys and bad guys (and those caught in between). It seems to most dispensable of the original "quirks" of the game.

I'd much sooner give up Alignment than character classes or Vancian magic, for instance.

Okay, I'm not sure why, but Will, you just lit the torch for me. I say, in our campaign, we toss alignment out the door. I'm still for aligning magic swords, but just as "good" and "evil", and instead of them causing damage, if they have a high enough int/ego, they'll simply impel you towards using their particular powers under that broader umbrella.

Doing that actually makes clerics more potentially interesting, too. Right now, a "Lawful" cleric, say, who acts unLawful simply ceases to be a cleric. Without alignment, individuals are free to turn the most wonderfully compassionate religious tenets to the worst of uses.

Kinda like real life, I guess...

[jcstephens]

It's often useful to go back to the source:

"Chaos expresses the principle of possibility unfettered by rules. In general, magic and witchcraft draw on the powers of Chaos because they break the laws of nature. The effects of Chaos can be beautiful, but left unchecked, they become too disruptive for life.

Pure Chaos stuff sometimes manifests in the material world. It is swirling, constantly changing, multicolored matter with the power to melt and twist anything with which it comes in contact, including living flesh. Mortals find the sight of pure Chaos disturbing. Ironically, a realm controlled by Chaos becomes stagnant: the state of constant change lacks meaning and eventually all possibilities are exhausted.

The Chaos Lords have the powers of gods but the behavior, and often the appearance, of demons. When they appear at their worst, they deliberately inflict pain and suffering on mortals for amusement; even at best, they are not concerned with the harmful effects of their creations. Witches often gain power by entering into diabolical pacts with Chaos Lords. Mortals who ally with Disorder gradually become misshapen or corrupt.

Law provides order, structure, and justice to the world. Without it nothing material could exist. Law appears friendly to life, but a realm controlled by Law alone becomes just as stagnant as one stifled by Chaos. Ordinarily, however, Law is benevolent and beautiful in its perfect regularity.

The Lords of Law are usually more benevolent than the Chaos Lords, who are seductive but also sinister and prone to losing their temper. However, mortals who meet with the Lords of Law are wise to remember that what benefits the gods does not always suit the aims of mortals.

The Cosmic Balance maintains the balance of power between Law and Chaos by keeping both sides from overstepping the rules of war. It rarely manifests directly, but when it does it appears as a great pair of scales suspended in the sky. The Balance is the power most beneficial to life, which needs a mixture of Law and Chaos to exist. It is also the agent of Fate.

The Grey Lords are pledged neither to Law nor to Chaos but will sometimes help either side if the whim takes them. The Grey Lords take pride, ironically, in their humility. These purposefully neutral gods are servants of the Balance."

So there you have it. The interplay between Law and Chaos is the motor that powers the entire Universe, giving people something to fight over is just one small part of it. As a Prime Mover, it's a little more elegant than the Divine Puppet Show that's the most common alternative.

Once again, an Exalt to Michael Moorcock. Though he knows it not, I remain grateful.

[Deleted]

After a discussion with Gary at a GenCon regarding alignment and how he intended it to be used, I joined the "don't tell me, show me" school of determining alignment. I tracked it in my referee's notebook and referred to it as need arose. In other words, my players demonstrated their alignment, but I alone knew exactly what it was when a player would (for instance) touch a holy artifact.

[coffee]

Jul 29, 2009 11:15:33 GMT -6 jcstephens said:

It's often useful to go back to the source:

Which is great and all, and I'm a fan of Moorcock as well. But he's not the source.

The Law/Chaos divide in D&D came from Poul Anderson, specifically Three Hearts and Three Lions.

[coffee]

Jul 29, 2009 10:40:07 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Jul 29, 2009 10:03:15 GMT -6 coffee said:

I gotta say, I'd be willing to try a game without Alignment. You'll still have good guys and bad guys (and those caught in between). It seems to most dispensable of the original "quirks" of the game.

Well, if you have two sides then you have alignment with one or the other no matter what you call each.

In James Bond books, England and the British Secret Service qualify as "good" because Bond is the hero, not necessarily because England was always right.

I like the simplicity of Law vs Chaos. Works well in my game.

First of all, I agree with everything you say. I'm just saying that I could try playing without Alignment and see how it goes.

I, too, like the simplicity of Law vs Chaos. But what do you do when the players show up for your game and half the party is Chaotic and the other half is Lawful? Does the party duke it out between themselves and then the winners explore the dungeon? Do you "agree to disagree" and then have Chaotic party members side with the monsters?

If everyone understands how the individual referee sees Law and Chaos, then it works for everybody. If the party is divided among Which Side, Personal Ethos, Societal Morals, etc. -- that's when it becomes troublesome.

Some see Chaos as just a different philosophy. Others see it as something to be slain, immediately, player character or no.

(Kesher's game, which I'm in (as indicated above), is a pick-up game at our local game store. We don't know who all is going to play -- or what their notion of alignment is going to be. (I say this by way of explanation -- if in your long-running game everybody knows how you see it, then obviously it will work better for you. Sure, you can tell people "this is how alignment works here, but it doesn't seem to sink in.)

[sham]

OD&D Character Alignment per Vol. 1: "Before the game begins it is not only necessary to select a role, but it is also necessary to determine what stance the character will take – Law, Neutrality or Chaos."

Terms: Alignment: an arrangement of groups or forces in relation to one another, Stance: intellectual or emotional attitude.

Law: For It. Chaos: Against It. Neutrality: The unaligned in regard to It.

I agree with Will that the referee should define what It is, and make his players aware. It can vary from campaign to campaign, but with Clerics and Anti-Clerics it becomes clear what It is in OD&D.

According to the Alignment Table in M&M, only Men and Men infected with Lycanthropy can take a stance in all three Alignments. As far as player characters are concerned, the following limitations are placed upon the races:

Men: Any, Dwarves and Elves: L or N, Halflings: L.

Furthermore Clerics/Anti-Clerics of 8th Level or higher are in the L and C columns, respectively. I suppose at 8th level the Cleric character can no longer alter his or her stance by changing the attitude associated with Alignment. The Church owns their rear-end. I'm fairly sure that this table differs from the one found in earlier printings, though.

Anyway, just more food for thought on the topic of the dreaded nine-letter word.

[bluskreem]

In one of my most recent games I used Alignment as a culture rather than a moral code. In the setting's ancient past their were two great empires; Chaos and Law. the Empire of Chaos valued the rights of the individual over all else, and made great strives in the fields of magic. Their rival in the Theocracy of Law were fanatical followers of their gods, and believed that the sole purpose of their exsistence was to serve and spread the word. In between these two clashing titans was the nomadic Neutrals. Loosly based off of Rom Culture, the Neutrals had no homelands, and were primarily traders and entertainers.

Hundreds of years of war lead to an inevitable decline in both cultures that lead to a Dark Ages. The small and petty city states that were left in their wake still hold old prejudices. Accents and native tongues are used to judge people on their ancestory. The stereotypes in the alighnment descriptions are generaly held to be true, but are not neccesarily such.

A Chaotic Character speaks Chaotic, and their common culture may give them some level of trust from other people of Chaotic Ancestry (+1 to the reaction table,) but their alignment does not restrict their actions.

[dwayanu]

The greyelf's characterization of "a true Buddhist or Taoist philosophy" resembles none I have encountered -- and I have looked into the subject somewhat. "Lawful" and "good" would seem very much more appropriate; there certainly is no neutrality toward moral evil, much less an aim of preserving or cultivating it.

Perhaps the concept has been muddled by mapping Moorcock's cosmology onto mundane matters. Tanelorn opposes the triumph of the Lords of Law as much as that of the Lords of Chaos because either would be as inimical to life. It is in practical terms a "neutrality" like (but involving vastly greater consequences than) not wanting to be conquered by either Hitler or Stalin, while being unable to defeat them both; a stalemate is simply a lesser evil.

[coffee]

Yeah, I've never really grasped that whole "preserve the balance" thing. For me neutrality was more a lack of conviction than a supreme conviction.

[sham]

It's always seemed rather clear to me that Neutral was a lack of Alignment. Whatever the "For It" of Law and the "Against It" of Chaos was creating as measured by Alignment, Neutral meant you didn't have a horse in that race. You occupied the middle only as a result of the desire to place everyone on the same scale.

Aside from Will, no one has really chimed in about removing Alignment from the campaign. I suppose I'll leave it and continue to reference it rarely if at all. Clerics need it, and one of these days someone IMC will actually roll one up.

[thegreyelf]

Dwayanu, I have a degree in religious studies. My characterization of Taoism may be off a bit, as I haven't extensively studied that philosophy, but true Buddhism, as created by Siddartha, is characterized by:

* Utter lack of attachment to anything material or spiritual
* All things in delicate balance
* Complete lack of concern with the existence of gods - Gods are trapped within the same cycle of Samsara as the rest of creation, so worshipping them makes you continue to be a prisoner of the same.

Buddhists understand above all else that there's a balance to the universe, and view absolute good and absolute evil as equally bad. Now, this is a seriously simplified version of the philosophy, which is exceptionally complex and difficult to explain. It's also true that a Buddhist seeks to be kind and compassionate to people and not cause harm and suffering...but that same Buddhist would view a utopian society as blind and doomed to eventual corruption and decay because they have no balance. What might appear good on the surface is actually just the illusion of goodness, and death will follow.

But it serves for the purposes of defining alignment in D&D.

I did a paper on the Buddhist themes in The Matrix back in college, on which I got an "A" and a few faculty suggested I revise for publication in a religious studies journal*...I just never got 'round to bothering. Here it is if anyone wants to read:

www.grey-elf.com/Buddhist_Matrix.pdf

*Yes, more and more academic channels are accepting Wikipedia as a valid source these days, so long as the articles are heavily and properly cited (which for the most part the series on Buddhism is)

[thegreyelf]

You'll also note that I have two versions of neutrality in my games--only one is balance, and it's the one most rarely played, as it's the most difficult to pull off. The other is unaligned.

[kesher]

Jul 29, 2009 23:44:47 GMT -6 sham said:

Aside from Will, no one has really chimed in about removing Alignment from the campaign. I suppose I'll leave it and continue to reference it rarely if at all. Clerics need it, and one of these days someone IMC will actually roll one up.

Actually, I chimed in: I'm going to do exactly that. And I truly don't believe clerics need it. Actually, scratch that, I think it suddenly makes sense to me why, in the rules, clerics don't have to choose a side until 7th level---they're just not important enough to their deity to warrant that sort of micro-management. It could actually lend an extra bit of power to clerics in that, at higher levels, there would be items or artifacts that only characters who were actually aligned could use.

It'd also open the door for the possibility of other characters making alignment a conscious choice at some point, with all of the attendant pros and cons...

[Deleted]

Whoever put "of 7th level and greater" in the newer printings really screwed up. I think "of 8th level and greater" or "greater than 7th level" was the missed target. This paragraph was about 8th + clerics losing benefits, not when clerics choose an alignment.

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2009 7:05:04 GMT -6 kesher said:

It'd also open the door for the possibility of other characters making alignment a conscious choice at some point, with all of the attendant pros and cons...

Hmmm ... just an idea, not completely thought out, for your consideration.

How 'bout forcing an alignment choice on players reaching "name" level? As a player grows in power, he becomes more and more involved in politics and greater powers in the world. This makes it more difficult to avoid "choosing a side". You could even throw NPCs into their path, urging one particular philosophy or another; exerting more pressure as they approach name level.

Choosing an alignment would grant the player a prestige class similar to BECMI.

Just off the top of my head, so to speak.

[kesher]

That's a great idea! I don't know that I'd use the prestige class part of it---in my mind, benefits roll out from being able to use Aligned magical items and forming relationships with Aligned creatures (I'd keep monsters Aligned, since they're fantastical by nature...)

I've recently been reading the Greyhawk supplement, and I'm becoming enamored of the original version of the Paladin. I think that, in the case of someone who actually rolled a 17 in Charisma (admittedly rare), I'd let them choose an alignment immediately. Though this still gets rid of the whole "only adventure with Lawful characters" nonsense, since all the rest of the characters would be unaligned until later (which could create interesting frictions with former paladin companions...)

[jcstephens]

Jul 29, 2009 12:00:50 GMT -6 coffee said:

Jul 29, 2009 11:15:33 GMT -6 jcstephens said:

It's often useful to go back to the source:

Which is great and all, and I'm a fan of Moorcock as well. But he's not the source.

The Law/Chaos divide in D&D came from Poul Anderson, specifically Three Hearts and Three Lions.

Apparently my notes are in error, thank you for the correction. I haven't read 3H3L recently, and don't own a copy. Could you quote some of the relevant passages?

[jcstephens]

I wonder if perhaps we're over analyzing the whole alignment business. I don't pretend to understand the purpose of the real universe, but my game universe is nothing more than a stage where interesting and entertaining events are happening. The eternal conflict between Law and Chaos is a device to ensure a constant supply of interesting events, and taking a character alignment is just another way for players to react to those events. Obviously it's possible to do without, but why discard such a useful tool?

[coffee]

Jul 30, 2009 10:59:55 GMT -6 jcstephens said:

Jul 29, 2009 12:00:50 GMT -6 coffee said:

Which is great and all, and I'm a fan of Moorcock as well. But he's not the source.

The Law/Chaos divide in D&D came from Poul Anderson, specifically Three Hearts and Three Lions.

Apparently my notes are in error, thank you for the correction. I haven't read 3H3L recently, and don't own a copy. Could you quote some of the relevant passages?

I really can't at the moment. I finally got a copy of it last fall -- and then we bought the house and moved. I was halfway through it -- and I haven't unearthed the box it's in yet.

I, too, for a long long time thought that Moorcock was the originator of the Law/Chaos thing, but fairly recently learned (somewhere on this very forum, I think, but don't quote me on that) that Gary had gotten it from Anderson.

Maybe somebody else with their copy close to hand can discuss this further?

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2009 11:09:30 GMT -6 jcstephens said:

I wonder if perhaps we're over analyzing the whole alignment business.

I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I'm quite certain I'm not. Alignment plays a peripheral role, at best, IMC and serves mainly as a tool for the referee (who would be me).

[thegreyelf]

Jul 30, 2009 11:18:19 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Jul 30, 2009 11:09:30 GMT -6 jcstephens said:

I wonder if perhaps we're over analyzing the whole alignment business.

I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I'm quite certain I'm not. Alignment plays a peripheral role, at best, IMC and serves mainly as a tool for the referee (who would be me).

And truthfully, that's probably the best way to handle it.