A three point alignment system

[leon]

Ok this is more of thinking out loud than anything else.

Law and Chaos pretty much mean good and evil in D&D, before we Gygax differentiated them and introduced the familiar AD&D nine point alignment (or the 5 point one of Holmes). Yet, interestingly, while chaos was equated with evil the spell was still called "detect evil" instead of "detect chaos". Obviously the words evil and chaos are considered synonyms and are used interchangeably and there's nothing more to it.

But it got me thinking of another "alignment" system and thought that I could introduce it to D&D without difficulty. There are two forces in the universe fighting for supremacy: Chaos which is the force of pure creation and perpetual change and Law which is the creator of patterns and order. But there is a third force: Entropy or Evil. This is the antithesis of the world, its dark mirror, anti-matter: when it comes into this world it brings complete destruction, it's the end of all things.

And as above so below: On earth there are two main factions fighting: Law is civilization which wants to bring order and dominate the wild aspect of nature and Chaos which represents a more primitive society (barbarism) which embraces the wild and lives within it. Law brings safety to men but is authoritarian. Chaos gives freedom but it is far more dangerous. Nature is capricious and it can kill you. Law is Reason, Chaos is Instinct. Law is the super-ego while Chaos is the Id.

The priests of Law are the Clerics, believers of one anthropomorphic god (or a highly structured, pyramid-like pantheon). Its champions are the paladins. Even magic-users are in the side of law, since they seek man's domination over the elements in a highly structured manner (magic-users of D&D are like scholars).

The priests of Chaos are the Druids. Followers of the old faith which embraced the wild, which had many spirits as "gods". Believers of a mythical age where all was possible and faerie had yet to be divided from earth. The champions of chaos are the Berserkers. The magic-users of chaos are the witches with a far more intimate approach to magic and nature in stark contrast with the magic-user's highly intellectual one.

Most people are neutral as are most fighters and thieves. I'm thinking of having humans and hobbits as inherently neutral, while Elves are chaotic (Descendants of Faerie) and Dwarves lawful.

While these two factions are in constant struggle, the people don't have to always be enemies. There might be a common cause to unite them. It can be loot or the common enemy: Entropy, which brings the destruction of both.

Most creatures are law and chaos as normal. Chromatic Dragons represent the destructive force of the elements and they are most definitely dangerous to human society, but they are not evil, they are chaotic.

Inherently evil creatures are the undead (the antithesis of life), Demons (bringers of utter destruction) and perhaps monsters which could come out of a Lovecraft book like the Mindflayers.

There are of course evil magicians and priests who want to open the gates of our world so they can bring the creatures from the outer void and such, of course. And they serve as the main bad guys.

So detect evil would detect undead, demons and such things which don't belong in our world.

[coffee]

That's a very nifty viewpoint on things! I like it a lot better than I ever did the 9-alignment system.

Have an exalt for this.

I'd like to see this used in a game.

[capvideo]

I was noticing something similar to what you suggest as I reread the old D&D rules for an article on GodsMonsterscom..

The Moldvay red book, for example, has two paragraphs on neutrality:

Neutrality (or Neutral) is the belief that the world is a balance between Law and Chaos. It is important that neither side get too much power and upset this balance. The individual is important, but so is the group; the two sides must work together.

A Neutral character is most interested in personal survival. Such characters believe in their own wits and abilities rather than luck. They tend to return the treatment they receive from others. Neutral characters will join a party if they think it is in their own best interest, but will not be overly helpful unless there is some sort of profit in it.

Those two paragraphs describe two very different ethos. The first paragraph describes the traditional Druid-like outlook, which in practice ended up being very strict and lawful in nature. (I much prefer the idea of Chaotic, i.e., wild, Druids, as you describe.)

The second paragraph is awfully close to evil.

The Holmes blue book describes neutrality similarly to that second paragraph, but the differences make it clearly evil:

Neutral characters, such as all thieves, are motivated by self interest and may steal from their companions or betray them if it is in their own best interest.

It almost looks to me like some people played the original alignment system as Law, Chaos, and Evil.

[kesher]

leon: I second coffee's opinion---that's a nice framework that lends itself to an interesting play of power dynamics even between player characters. I mean, alignment could be that too, but this is less abstract, and so easier to role-play. Then, with their actually being evil, too, the followers of Law and Chaos have the opportunity to unite against a common foe every now and then.

Where would you place humanoids in this model?

[Finarvyn]

I ran into this particular issue when putting together the S&W WhiteBox rules set. At one point I had tried to resolve things by changing "Detect Evil" to "Detect Chaos" but the members of the steering committee hated the change.

I tend to equate good=law and evil=chaos even though I know that some creatures like the fae are quite chaotic but probably not so evil. I don't usually stress over those details.

And of course histoically the distinction was law=us and chaos=them, at least in Dave's early Blackmoor campaign.

[bluskreem]

Sounds alot like White Wolf's Wyrm /Wyld/ Weaver mythos.

Dragons at Dawn has a take on this as well: Chaos, selfish, and law.Chaotics believe in the ends justifying the means, and seek power to get to these ends, Selfish characters are well, selfish, and Lawfuls believe in the needs of many outweighing the needs of one. interestingly Chaotics and Lawfuls will work together if it helps them acheiev their goals, but both will execute Selfishes on principle.

[leon]

Nov 20, 2010 18:49:53 GMT -6 coffee said:

I'd like to see this used in a game.

I intend to use it, but it will require some work with a published campaign setting. But since most campaign settings are for AD&D, it does require some work to convert them to D&D alignment anyway.

But since the core classes can be lawful or neutral (neutral here meaning unaligned, not serving the Balance) the game can still be played normally. They either beat the bad guys (in the Lawful view the chaotics) or the really bad guys (the truly evil). So most modules and such could work ok with a little effort, I think.

Nov 20, 2010 20:10:16 GMT -6 capvideo said:

I was noticing something similar to what you suggest as I reread the old D&D rules for an article on GodsMonsterscom..

The Moldvay red book, for example, has two paragraphs on neutrality:

Neutrality (or Neutral) is the belief that the world is a balance between Law and Chaos. It is important that neither side get too much power and upset this balance. The individual is important, but so is the group; the two sides must work together.

A Neutral character is most interested in personal survival. Such characters believe in their own wits and abilities rather than luck. They tend to return the treatment they receive from others. Neutral characters will join a party if they think it is in their own best interest, but will not be overly helpful unless there is some sort of profit in it.

Those two paragraphs describe two very different ethos. The first paragraph describes the traditional Druid-like outlook, which in practice ended up being very strict and lawful in nature. (I much prefer the idea of Chaotic, i.e., wild, Druids, as you describe.)

The second paragraph is awfully close to evil.

Neutrality in the system I propose means "unaligned". Actively serving the Balance is extremely difficult and if such thing exists at all it will be some ultra secret organisation or something. Druids don't seem to fit the bill. I was considering druids as priests of more primitive civilizations (druids/shamans) who venerate nature spirits instead of anthropomorphic gods. It's a more ancient and primitive form of religion. So (for example) the Roman Empire is Law and its priests are Lawful (they serve the Dodekatheon) vs. the barbaric Celtic and Germanic tribes which are Chaos and their priests (like the Celtic druids) are Chaotic. In such a conflict it's obvious that Druids are in the side of Chaos and they are not Neutral.

Nov 20, 2010 20:45:36 GMT -6 kesher said:

Where would you place humanoids in this model?

Most monsters and humanoids will stay in their law-chaos category. For example orcs are both neutral and chaos. In the sense that Orcish barbarian tribes raid human cities and such, they are chaotic.
Elves of Lord of the Rings are definitely Lawful, but the more mischievous kind of folk legend places them (along with faerie creatures in general) to the side of Chaos.

Both Law and Chaos have a "dark side" (which is NOT represented with an alignment: it's not "Evil" in a supernatural term). Law might be oppressive and Chaos' unpredictability can be extremely dangerous. For example a lawful country might conquer, oppress and enslave other countries. Some Chaotic Elves which consider themselves superior to humans might hunt them for sport (That's ffrom Terry Pratchett). If you are on the sufferer's side you will find the other side evil, but it's not the supernatural evil which seeks corruption, the destruction of all life and the entire universe.

Nov 20, 2010 21:52:35 GMT -6 bluskreem said:

Sounds alot like White Wolf's Wyrm /Wyld/ Weaver mythos.

Indeed. I thought I had written it in the original post but I forgot it.
In truth, I was making this up as I was going along. At first I was going for a two point alignment: Law vs. Chaos where it was Man vs. Nature, Civilization vs. Barbarism, Well-being of Society vs. Personal Freedom and such. In the cosmic struggle it was the chaotic, wild, unpredictable, creative (but also dangerous) force of the universe (like the big bang, super novas, etc) vs. the creation of order and patterns (like the formation of galaxies, solar systems, etc). But then I thought where does Cthulhu fit in all of this? Hey, entropy! And then I remembered that I had seen something like this in Whitewolf and thought that it fits. Creation->Pattern->Destruction->Creation and so forth.

All three forces are needed for the balance of the universe and if one side wins it will mean the end as we know it. If chaos wins it will be like the micoseconds of the big bang happening for eternity. If Law wins the universe will become some kind of crystal or something (a beautiful diamond frozen for eternity) and if Entropy wins, well...no more universe. Be that as it may, Entropy is considered extremely hostile by most humans since it's the antithesis of existence (either perpetually mutating or perfect but unmoving), thus Evil.

By the way, none of the above have anything to do with real science. Entropy has very little to do with the scientific term and Law and Chaos don't even exist.

[terje]

Makes me think of the pantheon of Pavar in Tekumel, where you have the Gods of Change and the Gods of Stability who fight to control the worlds of the multiverse, but also the Pariah Gods who tend to simply make the worlds disapear.

[aldarron]

Nov 20, 2010 21:52:35 GMT -6 bluskreem said:

Sounds alot like White Wolf's Wyrm /Wyld/ Weaver mythos.

Dragons at Dawn has a take on this as well: Chaos, selfish, and law.Chaotics believe in the ends justifying the means, and seek power to get to these ends, Selfish characters are well, selfish, and Lawfuls believe in the needs of many outweighing the needs of one. interestingly Chaotics and Lawfuls will work together if it helps them acheiev their goals, but both will execute Selfishes on principle.

Yeah that's the way Arneson had it in the FFC. Coot being the exemplar of Chaos and the Great Svenny the exemplar of Law.

I used to really hate the concept of alignments but that was really a rebellion against the confusion that is AD&D. a simple good vs evil system can be a lot of fun.

Originally, I think Gygax's idea was, as mentioned, basically civilazation vs. barbarism. Since the "barbarians" were all monsters, chaos was naturally synonomous with evil.

This post www.freeyabb.com/trolllordgames/viewtopic.php?mforum=trolllordgames&t=7269&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=perenity&start=30&mforum=trolllordgames has a very interesting take on alignments by Saarlander.

Saarlander inspired me take take my own stab at a "realistic" alignment system that has a number of similarities with the OP. Characters get a primary and secondary alignment. The primary alignments are what are somewhat akin to leons. Personally, for my tatse, what I did is too detailed and realistic and "fiddly" for my games but it was an interesting thought exercise anyway. Could be usefull for helping to flesh out characters. The whole thing will be in the appendix to Dragons at Dawn Supplement I, but I'll post the basics here.
There are two prime Alignments:

1) Structuralism – this outlook, sometimes perceived as a top down approach, is by far the most common. Structuralists perceive the world to be made up of discreet, definable and somehow natural systems. Things are the way they are because that is how they are meant to be. Life is organized, ordered and subject to natural law. Systems function normally just as they are supposed to and are meaningful and need to be preserved for life to prosper. The disruption of natural and traditional systems is destructive and usually should be avoided. It may be necessary to destroy or modify some systems to preserve the most important ones. However some argue that no matter what, divine order will always prevail. The king is in his palace, the bankers in their banks, the gods are in their heaven and all is right with the world. The structure is always greater than the sum of its parts.

2) FreeAgency – an uncommon and often unappreciated outlook sometimes characterized as a bottom up approach. Those with Freeagency alignment do not believe in natural systems except as aggregates of individual action, in continual flux due to random and often unexpected factors. Individual actions and events may collectively self organize as “systems” but these are in no way inherently stable, proper, or inevitable and certainly not monolithic orders that must be preserved at all costs. Ideas and ideals are of far more importance than supposed natural orders. Any structures that exist are always just the sum of their parts and have no reality beyond them.

Secondary alignments

1) Greatness is for characters who value high ideals, causes and enterprises who reach beyond their own life concerns to the society at large.

2) Equality - a belief that all persons are of equal value or nobility, and deserving of respect as human beings, regardless of actual social position, ability, knowledge or wealth.

3) Power is the conviction that being at the top of a hierarchy is of paramount importance, allowing one to have influence and control over others.

[Malcadon]

I usually see Law as the heroes, Chaos as the villains, and Neutral as the anti-heroes. I never really cared for much for Alignment on a cosmic-level, but your example is really cool. Cosmic Order, Discord, and Entropy seems a little less black and white.