The Alignment Conundrum

[peterlind]

Here with a couple of posts, with your indulgence, I offer some thoughts on the alignment question, and how it varies among the different editions of D&D:

In Original D&D, the selection of an “alignment’ was a part of the character generation process. A character’s alignment could be Law, Chaos, or Neutrality. An alignment choice was described as a character’s “stance” taken, presumably in the kind of cosmic struggle that is described in works such as Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Anderson or in Moorcock’s Elric saga. As E. Gary Gygax continued to develop D&D, the 3-point alignment system was expanded to a 5-point alignment system. Now it was possible to be Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Neutral, Chaotic Good, or Chaotic Evil. The expansion was made in an article that Gygax published in the Strategic Review, Feb. 1976.

On the surface, this expansion seems to answer to questions that will logically arise in response to the original 3-point alignment system: Is it not possible for a lawful person to be evil? Is it not possible for a chaotic person to be good? In the article, E. Gary Gygax states that he had received questions about what would constitute a “lawful” act or a “chaotic” act; a “good” deed or “evil” deed. In the article, Gygax affirms that it is possible to be lawful and good or evil; chaotic and good or evil. When Gygax later expanded the 5-point alignment system to a 9-point alignment system in AD&D, he used the same logic and brought it to its ultimate conclusion. Now it was possible for a neutral person to be chaotic, lawful, good, or evil.

There also was another benefit to the 5 point, or 9 point alignment systems – internal conflict between good, neutral, or evil forces. From the standpoint of literary drama, it might eventually get old and cliché if conflict is always described in black and white terms, as essentially always good vs. evil. When there are evil forces of differing alignment, now things start to get interesting – now you can portray evil forces as being in conflict with each other -- something which could potentially be exploited by opposing forces.

[peterlind]

Another possible way to look at alignments is to take it from two different perspectives rather than one: alignment from the perspective of “ethos” and from the perspective of “praxis.” “Ethos” is the ultimate belief or cause that a person stands for while “praxis” will be the process or method that is undertaken in support of that belief or cause. In ethos, I see the original three alignments Law, Neutrality, and Chaos. I suggest that Law may be associated with the Celestial planes (such as Heaven); Chaos may be associated with the Nether Planes (such as Hell); Neutrality may be associated with the Terrestrial planes (such as Fairyland). So “Law” may be briefly described as the ultimate good for people being achieved through a law or order established by the Gods of Law (whoever they may be). “Chaos” may be seen as a rejection of this philosophy, and so anything established “not of the Gods of Law” may be seen as good from their standpoint. “Neutrality” may see that if a balance may be achieved that keeps the Gods of Law and Chaos in check, with neither overcoming the other, this would be good.

Now let’s take elves as an example. They are listed as lawful or neutral in OD&D but listed as chaotic good in AD&D. Elves, since they are associated with the fey, may be seen as neutral in their ethos. In other words, they will be staunch defenders of nature and so forth. However, in praxis, elves may be described as freedom loving, individualistic, carefree, etc. which may be seen as “chaotic” qualities. I suggest that though elves may be somewhat unpredictable in practice, this does not change that they are essentially neutral in terms of all that they really stand for; all that really matters to them. So elves may be described as neutral in ethos, but chaotic in practice.

[cooper]

A great subject. No discussion of the 3 point alignment system is complete without tolkiens essay on Beowulf and the relationship of Christianity/Norse paganism/monsters

[jacar]

I have grown to dislike the alignment system. It makes no sense that an entire race is generally evil while another is entirely good thus giving each license to murder the other and take their loot.

[Finarvyn]

Nov 27, 2013 14:59:09 GMT -6 jacar said:

I have grown to dislike the alignment system. It makes no sense that an entire race is generally evil while another is entirely good thus giving each license to murder the other and take their loot.

I really like simplistic Law-Neutral-Chaos alignment, but I also enjoy a simplistic "Jedi are good and the Empire is evil" approach to my gaming. While not realistic, I have no problem assuming that "all" orcs are chaotic (for example) and that players are highly unlikely to find an orc who lives by the principles of law.

I guess I like my world to be a little more black and white. Those shades of gray tend to lead to a lot of deep philosophizing on subjects where I don't want to tread. For example in the real world I believe that killing is a bad thing, yet in my OD&D game folks kill monsters all the time. If the monster is simply "misunderstood" then it opens up a whole Pandora's box that I can't close.

Just my two coppers. A great topic, by the way.

[oakesspalding]

I've always interpreted the designations in the three-point system of Law, Chaos and Neutrality in OD&D as stand-ins for Good, Evil and Inscrutable. But using the terms "Law" and "Chaos" sounds cooler and is more swords and sorceryish than simply saying "good" and "evil", although one can still use those terms robustly--e.g. "Evil High Priests". It also gives a bit of seeming cover to those that are uncomfortable with the good vs. evil dichotomy, thinking it too obvious, Disneylike, Christian, bourgeoise or whatever.

There is a strong strain in Christian theology that order itself is good. In Genesis, God after all doesn't just create stuff, but ordered stuff (out of the swirling void) and it is called "good". And looked at in one way, Satan's chief desire seems to be to smash it. I've never thought of order as being opposed to freedom. On one view, freedom isn't acting out of mere, so to speak, random desire but rather applying one's rational will to particular goals without outside constraint. Thus, the Paladin might, for example, be a devotee of decentralized government if he feels that that sort of institutional arrangement best promotes order as opposed to the risk of, say, having a demented monarch issue decrees this way and that.

I've decided that characters in my game are simply assumed to be lawful--even Thieves (although admittedly they may have some, as it were, growing to do ). I do this for a number of reasons that I won't argue for here. But among other things it just seems to clear the air. Note, though, that that doesn't mean that everyone is assumed to be perfect or a prude, or whatever. There's still lot's of room for disagreement about precisely HOW to be good and of course what the "balance" should be between trying to accumulate loot and doing one's part in advancing the cause of the just. I've always found it curious that some find this limiting or just plain wrong, as if it's evil or fascist to say one can't be evil or fascist in the game. Presumably no one playing the game would describe themselves as evil or fascist, so why is it so important that they should want to play such a character? Is the game really about pretending to be a nasty jerk every Friday night or about exploring dungeons? Frankly I think that for some there's this slight feeling that being Lawful or Good implies being a prig or being boring, but I don't think you have to look at it (or play it) that way.

Admittedly, some players simply want to accumulate loot more efficiently (nothing wrong with that, per se) and simply look at being evil as the best way to do that--almost by definition, not being constrained by moral laws or qualms gives you more opportunities than being constrained by them. But in a certain sense if you just take away the option the "disadvantage" doesn't seem as great.

Just my two cents. This isn't a criticism of anyone, let alone a moral criticism of anyone, and indeed I suspect that many if not most would disagree with me on this.

[inkmeister]

Alignment does make for an interesting topic to discuss. As an adult, it's never really made much sense to me in my gaming, and I wonder why it is treated in all the rules texts like it means anything at all. Why choose this description of attitude and behavior BEFORE gameplay? I could see having alignment assigned after some play, possibly.

The good and evil thing is kind of weird. One thing I like about Game of Thrones is that, to some degree, you can understand most of the characters, even as they do some screwed up things. In real life, it would be a very rare person who would describe themselves as evil. Most people believe they are basically on the right path. Some of my guitar students are scientists that work on a military base, and they rationalize what they do: "it is for science - not to kill people." Many, if not most, Nazis would have said the same sort of thing "I have to protect my country" "I have to do my job" Etc.

Nietzsche wrote a book called Beyond Good and Evil which does a really interesting job of dissecting and complicating law and chaos, good and evil. I remember in one part of it he said something along the lines of how people talk about "laws of nature" because they are trying to impose structure on the world, and that really such statements have a lot more to do with psychology than with truth. I find this kind of thinking resonates for me very well. What is seen as structure or chaos will depend a lot on the person looking at it. This "relativistic" viewpoint is something I like to have in my games. I like for my players to think for themselves and make their own purpose, and they have to do so without perfect information. I don't want clear lines between good and evil. For me, part of the thrill of roleplaying is that it gives an opportunity to play out some interesting thought experiments, to make interesting choices and play out the consequences. I tend to feel that a clear alignment system simplifies this sort of thing in a way that is not desirable.

[inkmeister]

I seem to recall that Rob Kuntz would disregard alignment as he ran his parts of Greyhawk dungeons. So apparently even way back at the beginning in the play-test days, it wasn't clear to everyone that alignment was a worthwhile aspect of the game.

Of course, I have no problem with folks who enjoy that aspect of the game. For my part though, I disregard it.

I will say, however, that the 9 point alignment system is somewhat helpful as a shorthand for creating tone for towns and cities and the like. I do sometimes consider alignment for that sort of purpose. That's all on my side of the screen though - the players won't ever hear anyone described as "lawful" or "evil."

I remember one campaign where the DM wouldn't let me choose my own alignment, and he also was very particular about the meaning of the various alignments, and I very much disagreed with his interpretation. It was annoying and kind of lame, and it could have been bypassed by not having alignment be a formal part of the system.

[Porphyre]

The Nine-fold alignement system can be -imho- a somewhat useful short-hand for the DM to characterize a NPC (especially from a written module): is the villain a cackling psychopath, just a selfish bastard, or an anal-retentive control freak?
Apart from that, this system, when too heavily enforced, leads to some absurdities, especially if you throw the Alignment languages in the balance (except maybe in Planescape, where the concept was emphasized to the point where it goes beyond absurd to find another "supra-naturel" logic).

The three alignment system, on another hand, seems pretty reasonable to me. For an individual, it helps to determine the rough outlines of a personality and moral codes of conduct without being a straightjacket ("plays by the rules/doesn't play by the rules" ); at the scale of the world/campaign, it allows to differentaite the main "sides" (the Gondor/the armies of Sauron) and avoids the endless discussion about "What is good? What is evil? How can our modern code of ethics be applied to a fantastic/medieval world?" etc.
You can even use Alignment languages in a (fairly) consistent way...

[Finarvyn]

Nov 27, 2013 19:47:16 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

I've always interpreted the designations in the three-point system of Law, Chaos and Neutrality in OD&D as stand-ins for Good, Evil and Inscrutable. But using the terms "Law" and "Chaos" sounds cooler and is more swords and sorceryish than simply saying "good" and "evil"...

There is a lot to be said for this stance.

(1) You notice that there are spells like "Protection from Evil" yet technically no "Evil" in the game. This suggests to me that Evil and Chaos can be considered to be somewhat interchangible.

(2) Evil is sort of assumed to be those chaotic forces. Clerics can turn undead (evil) and if you look at the alignment chart (M&M p.9) you see that the critters there aren't sorted according to being "individualistic" but instead are more a list of "good guys" and "bad guys" with some "undecided" in between.

(3) While everyone cites Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions" and Moorcock's Elric as classic cases of alignment, I think that Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" is actually closer to the mark. Actually, I often wonder if Dave had Anderson and/or Moorcock in mind at all when alignment came into being. Anderson and Moorcock get credit because they use the same terms like Law and Chaos that OD&D uses, but Tolkien clearly followed a "Fellowship" (Law) versus "Forces of Sauron" (Chaos) that fits the alignment chart (M&M p.9, again) a lot closer than the others do. And if you look at Dave's FFC campaign it seems certain that this was his interpretation of alignment as well, as it was a "Good Guys" versus "Bad Guys" sort of game with players cast in the roles of both sides.

Anyway, oakesspalding, nice post and I think you make some solid points.

[geoffrey]

In my Isle of the Unknown D&D campaign, I use the 3-fold alignment system thusly:

Lawful means living in accordance with the natural law as explained by Thomas Aquinas.

Chaotic means seriously flouting the natural law.

Neutral means ignoring the natural law when convenient.

Or, to be less obtuse:

Lawful beings are upstanding, brave, and virtuous.

Chaotic beings are vile, wicked, criminal, etc.

Neutral beings are either animals (i. e., not smart enough to be otherwise) or average people who are not particularly good or bad.

[krusader74]

Nov 27, 2013 12:23:05 GMT -6 peterlind said:

Now let’s take elves as an example. They are listed as lawful or neutral in OD&D but listed as chaotic good in AD&D.

Orcs might be something else to consider when trying to get a handle on alignment. As mentioned in this post:

Oct 9, 2012 18:45:16 GMT -6 aher said:

On page 9 of Volume I, in the section on Character Alignment, Including Various Monsters and Creatures: it lists orcs as either neutral or chaotic.

In Chainmail (page 30) we read, "orcs are nothing but overgrown goblins." But goblins are never neutral in Volume I. Later, in the AD&D MM (1978), orcs are always lawful evil. But in Holmes (also 1978) orcs are always chaotic evil. So there's quite a divergence in AD&D away from Basic D&D in terms of orc alignment. Orcs are spread all over the Law-Chaos alignment axis in just 4 years.

In my Crusader-era campaign,

Mar 14, 2013 18:42:10 GMT -6 krusader74 said:

Law is Church canon law, the Church hierarchy, and the inquisition; Chaos are heretics, rebels, satanists and anarchists opposed to Church rule. Neutrals are outsiders to this conflict, including Jews, Saracens and Pagans.

[jeff]

I really like the good/evil angle.

Much like Finarvyn, I am leaning towards blanket good/evil (or law/chaos if you prefer) for all my games.


The one I am prepping/writing now is going to the extreme. There are no elves, dwarves, or halflings in the game world, and the only lawful creatures are men. Man is the last great hope of the world. Not all men are good, but the only good left in the world is in the hands of men. The gods of mankind are of all stripes, both law and chaos, balance and imbalance...but there are no sentient creatures that worship gods of good anymore. Magic is almost universally evil (or, at least, used for evil), where power (spells) is gained through pacts with demons or other nefarious creatures. I want my players dropped into a dismal world where they can be beacons of good, lords of evil, or mighty weights for balance...depending on their choices.

[deathanddrek]

I prefer to think of alignment as:

- what magic you're vulnerable to (protection from evil)
- what magic you command (turning, reversible spells)
- what part of the planar cosmology is looking out for you (saving throws) or the source of your power (clerics)
- what side of the "map" you live in ("division" and alignment/divisional language)

... and much less "this is my guy's personality".

Elric wields the power of Arioch but he's not really Chaotic Evil in personality is he? More neutral I'd say. But he's got the Chaotic Evil master and the Chaotic Evil sword.

This fits better with the three alignment system. Did M&M ever go into archetypal alignment personalities in the same way as nine-point editions?

[Mushgnome]

The 2nd best take on Alignment I've ever seen is Lamentations of the Flame Princess. It says something like (I am paraphrasing from memory): "Every real-world human who has ever lived was Neutral." In other words, to be Lawful or Chaotic (as opposed to lower-case lawful or chaotic) requires some kind of fantastical/supernatural influence (i.e. living in a world where magic is real and deities take an active interest in worldly affairs).

My personal favorite take on alignment however is simply not to use it.

[Red Baron]

Since this is coming from LOTFP, would geoffrey's sorcerers be neutral because they can't begin to grasp the truths and motivations of the great old ones? Do their human desires driving them to sorcery make them neutral, or does their mere affiliation with alien, eldritch beings make them chaotic?

[peterlind]

Wow, great posts. I mostly agree with you guys!

"tolkiens essay on Beowulf and the relationship of Christianity/Norse paganism/monsters." Thanks for the reference. I checked this essay out and found it very interesting. . .

In trying to make sense of the D&D alignment system, my first observation is that D&D's 3 point alignment seems to have a different focus or perspective than the AD&D one does. D&D's 3 point alignment is asking for a character's "stand" in an existing cosmic struggle between Law and Chaos. The list of creatures associated with the alignments seems to bear this out. There is no information here about the moral leanings of a given character. But with Greyhawk, we have Paladins that must refrain from committing chaotic acts and thieves that must be neutral or chaotic.

I see Paladins as truly aligned with the forces of Law, and thus they derive their class abilities from them. Hence, their code of conduct. But Thieves I do not see as particularly aligned with the forces of Neutrality (or Balance) in the same sense as Druids, for example. I see Thieves as being "neutral" in the sense that they are not taking sides in the struggle between Law and Chaos. They would be willing to steal from a lawful person as from a chaotic person. . . . (I see the Neutral Blackmoor Assassin in s similar way). Thus, we really have two approaches to alignment -- one based on which side of the cosmic struggle that a character aligns with (OD&D 3 point alignment). The other seems more focused on the individual's life choices, personal moral code, etc., than on the cosmic struggle (i.e. the 5 or 9 point alignment system).

[oakesspalding]

Nov 29, 2013 10:14:17 GMT -6 Mushgnome said:

The 2nd best take on Alignment I've ever seen is Lamentations of the Flame Princess. It says something like (I am paraphrasing from memory): "Every real-world human who has ever lived was Neutral." In other words, to be Lawful or Chaotic (as opposed to lower-case lawful or chaotic) requires some kind of fantastical/supernatural influence (i.e. living in a world where magic is real and deities take an active interest in worldly affairs).

That sounds like it could be right but I couldn't track it down. I did come up with this:

"Alignment is a character’s orientation on a cosmic scale. It has nothing to do with a character’s allegiances, personality, morality, or actions. Alignments will mostly be used to determine how a character is affected by certain magical elements in the game" Rules Book, p. 23.

"In all honesty, Alignment in this game is purely a game construct to allow certain spells to operate in a traditional manner. The meaning of 'Law, Neutrality, and Chaos' is intentionally vague, and not much in the way of explanation is given for what exactly Law means. So it is not necessary to worry about it any more than 'Chaotic is for magical beings, Neutrality is for normal beings.' If you want to involve Alignment in your cosmology, it is recommended that you read the works of Michael Moorcock and Poul Anderson, as the basic ideas of Alignment were originally taken from their works" Referee Book, p. 96.

So I think one could say that LOFP basically dispenses with alignment except as a sort of special case "construct".

Oddly, however, while the rules supposedly refuse to ask anyone to "bind" themselves, morally or otherwise to any normative philosophy, much of the text sends a different message:

"Fighters are these soldiers that have seen the cruelty of battle, have committed atrocities that in any just universe will d**n them to Hell, and have survived", Rule Book, p. 7.

The segment on Clerics has a drawing of one fellow wearing a particular holy symbol, literally lynching another fellow wearing wearing a slightly different holy symbol (the victim's eyes are bulging out as his opponent smiles with glee) against a background of a burning church. (It's a more sinister version of the story of the Sneeches, I guess.)

LOFP is brilliant in many ways, but I find the dichotomy on this issue to be curious, to say the least.

[Porphyre]

Nov 30, 2013 1:46:50 GMT -6 peterlind said:

In trying to make sense of the D&D alignment system, my first observation is that D&D's 3 point alignment seems to have a different focus or perspective than the AD&D one does. D&D's 3 point alignment is asking for a character's "stand" in an existing cosmic struggle between Law and Chaos. The list of creatures associated with the alignments seems to bear this out. There is no information here about the moral leanings of a given character.  

Actually, that's more OD&D "proper" that D&D classic.
If you read the description of the 3 alignments in Moldvay's Basic, there is a "morality" subtext, like the one geoffrey described :

Lawful beings are upstanding, brave, and virtuous.



Chaotic beings are vile, wicked, criminal, etc.



Neutral beings are either animals (i. e., not smart enough to be otherwise) or average people who are not particularly good or bad.

It even comes with a visual support; three adventurers: the chaotic one is torturing a goblin prisoner, the lawful one tries to stop him, and the neutral one looks somewhere else. 

[Mushgnome]

Nov 30, 2013 0:06:49 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

Since this is coming from LOTFP, would geoffrey's sorcerers be neutral because they can't begin to grasp the truths and motivations of the great old ones? Do their human desires driving them to sorcery make them neutral, or does their mere affiliation with alien, eldritch beings make them chaotic?

In LotFP, *all* Elves and Magic User are, by definition, Chaotic. Raggi explains it much better than I can, so download the free version of the rules if you are curious the reasons why. I'm not saying it's the system I use in my game, I'm just saying that I think it is interesting and prefer it in some ways to classic D&D.

[Anathemata]

My confusions regarding alignment revolve around one question: the relationship between Chaos and Neutrality and Selfishness/Individuality.

Lawful characters, however you interpret them, almost invariably allow for some level of self-denial/altruism, at least in the sense of putting the rules above themselves.

In 1st and 3rd ed, most 'individualistic' good guys (Elves, 'rebels' and Robin Hood-types) are presented as Chaotic Good. So Chaos is associated with individualism and not being held back by impersonal legal structures. Chaotic Evil creatures are selfish and uncooperative, often unable to maintain cohesion on anything other than a brute military level.

However, most interpretations of Neutrality that I have encountered in the old school world tend to see it as the 'selfish' or 'self-interested' alignment, uncommitted to either side in the conflict between Chaos and Law. So Neutral characters are often seen as the 'mercenary' alignment, or at least the alignment least concerned with the struggle between civilization/anarchy or humanity/the Great Old Ones or whatever.


So if I'm 'individualist' or 'selfish' (I recognize there is a difference, but what I mean is 'unconcerned with wider social/metaphysical conflicts') am I Neutral? Chaotic?

[TheObligatorySQL]

I've always like the 3-point Law/Chaos system. It seems more flexible. Then again, I've noticed that a players' feelings on alignment (or anything for that matter) is really based on their perception of it (and by players I include DMs/Refs).

I've always seen Law as adhering to the Laws of nature and everything it entails (i.e., the natural order). Note that what would be perceived as natural chaos (hurricanes, natural disasters, etc.) is not true Chaos. True Chaos is blatant disregard for the natural order. Humans and demihumans are naturally Lawful, even if they value freedom (freedom being a part of the natural order).

When it comes to the Good/Evil axis of later games, I really saw is as more of Altruistic/Egocentric. Good is usually defined as focusing on the group over oneself, while Evil is defined as focusing on oneself over others. Makes more sense if I change the names.

I've slowly been adapting the game world of 4th Edition into some of these older styles, and I've found that the 3-point system of Law/Chaos works well with that world. Law easily fits in with the realms of the Astral Sea (the realms of the Gods), Chaos in with the Elemental Chaos (a creation of the Primordials), and Neutrality to the mortal world in the middle. For those not familiar with the 4th Edition lore (paraphrased): The world was created by the Primordials, while the Gods created life and established the Laws that govern it. The Primordials, being creatures of Chaos, wished to for an eternity of neverending creation and destruction, and grew angry that this cycle was stifled by the Laws set by the Gods. The Gods, regardless of their ethical standing (i.e. Good or Evil), refused to have the Laws they established for life, and life itself, to be destroyed, and so fought against the Primordials to prevent it. Thus began the conflict of Law and Chaos.

[cooper]

However, most interpretations of Neutrality that I have encountered in the old school world tend to see it as the 'selfish' or 'self-interested' alignment, uncommitted to either side in the conflict between Chaos and Law. So Neutral characters are often seen as the 'mercenary' alignment, or at least the alignment least concerned with the struggle between civilization/anarchy or humanity/the Great Old Ones or whatever.

This is where Beowulf is helpful. The reason Druids and barbarians are neutral isn't because they seek "balance" or because they are selfish in nature, but because neutrality in the ur sense, represents pagan-Norse England and Law represents roman Christian England that existed and co-habitated around the 5th century. I have a few threads on this subject you can search for where I go into how this works with alignment tongues. Pagans (including Greek polythiests) and Christians had a differing world view toward monsters aka Chaos. This is a model even JRR Martin adopts in game of thrones with the uncivilized tribes living north of (hadrians) wall who worship the "old gods" instead of the new.

Of course in ad&d alignment became less an aligned-with-ment and more of a personality descriptor.

[Porphyre]

Nov 30, 2013 10:22:32 GMT -6 Anathemata said:

Lawful characters, however you interpret them, almost invariably allow for some level of self-denial/altruism, at least in the sense of putting the rules above themselves.

In 1st and 3rd ed, most 'individualistic' good guys (Elves, 'rebels' and Robin Hood-types) are presented as Chaotic Good. So Chaos is associated with individualism and not being held back by impersonal legal structures. Chaotic Evil creatures are selfish and uncooperative, often unable to maintain cohesion on anything other than a brute military level.

Chaotic Good could be deemed Lawful in a 3-fold alignment interpretation, for they still put some principles above their own interests (even if they see freedom and individuality as the "higher good").

When I want to use the three aignment system as a morality compass, lately, I like to compare alignments to the three instances of psychanalysis:
-Law is the SuperEgo: lawful chatacters follow some moral principles and put them above their own interest: God's will, Honor, Charity, the defence of the Civil rights, whatever.
-Neutrality is Ego: neutral characters are motivated by their sense of interest and self-preservation
-Chaos is Id: chaotic characters are moved by their urges and impulses : lust, greed, avarice, ambition, etc.

A tyrannical control-freak king-sorcerer would be labelled as Lawful Evil in Ad&D , but Chaotic in this interpretation: his appetite for control is only an expression of his power-hungriness, urge for control, and thus incertainties and fears.
The villainous mook in his army could be neutral if he is the "I'm just following orders, ma'm, I don't want to get in trouble" type (true Neutral in Ad&D). He is chaotic if he is a selfish b*****rd who is there for loot (Neutral Evil in AD&D) because greed is his main motivation; but a fanatical devotée of the dark lord , even if is is "loyal" to him , he would be "chaotic" for he is driven by an impulse (fanaticism usually finds its roots in our irrational fears or hates )

[cooper]

he villainous mook in his army could be neutral if he is the "I'm just following orders, ma'm, I don't want to get in trouble" type (true Neutral in Ad&D). He is chaotic if he is a selfish b*****rd who is there for loot (Neutral Evil in AD&D) because greed is his main motivation; but a fanatical devotée of the dark lord , even if is is "loyal" to him , he would be "chaotic" for he is driven by an impulse... [of fanaticism rooted in fear]

Of what benefit is it to describe the character using alignment instead of the descriptors I've bolded above? If the character is, "a selfish bastard just in it for the loot", why not just list that under alignment? Calling him neutral evil actually just makes it harder to determine his personality, not an easy short hand. If a character is selfish and cruel why use the words chaotic and evil instead of selfish and cruel?

Alignment is a real word. If a players desire is to describe personality, alignment is the wrong word. You cannot be "aligned" with "in it for the loot". If neutral can mean a druid interested in preserving the balance and a ruffian interested in loot then the word "neutral" is so broad as to loose all meaning.

Chaotic evil: ogre (creature of chaos)
Chaotic neutral: ogre who prefers to eat sheep to hobbits
Chaotic good: an ogre named Ferdinand who likes to spend his days smelling flowers

All a creatures of chaos, speak the black speech, born to the customs of chaos, but have different personalities.

<alignment> <personality> <lawful/neutral/chaotic> <good/neutral/evil>

Lawful evil: twisted paranoid cleric of st. Cuthbert who sees forces of chaos everywhere, tortures and extracts confessions (still a cleric in good standing and is not an anti-cleric). Would not hesitate to kill Ferdinand the kindly ogre. Lie cheat and break contracts without a thought.
Lawful neutral: cleric who protects civilization by whatever means necessary. Would probably kill Ferdinand the kindly ogre unless a superior told him not to.
Lawful good: cleric of st. Cuthbert who would not kill Ferdinand the kindly ogre.

Neutral evil: a cruel and witless Druid who sacrifices babies in wicker baskets to appease the Forrest gods
Neutral: Druid cares nothing for civilization or or chaos. Puts nature above mankind, but isn't into the whole sacrifice thing...
Neutral good: pagan Druid who's first priority is his villages well being.

So here good/neutral/evil really are short hand descriptors. Evil encompasses cruelty, lies, hate, fear and phobia.


Take our own civil war.

9 point alignment Union Good lived and worked with union evil NPCs against confederate good and confederate evils with both courting Indian tribes (good and evil) to help their side. Or you can play a game of 3 point alignment Union, Confederate, and Indian and paint a broad brush over general characteristics and goals of all three.

What doesn't work is making everything about alignment personality. You cannot have a lawful good Indian unless that Indian was raised in Boston because lawful means "civilized" it means "union".

Now when should a campaign abandon alignments and simply use descriptives (selfish, trustworthy, ruthless, small-c-chaotic?). You abandon alignment when there is no allied vs. axis alignment. When there is no "forces of weal and woe". When an ogre might be a famous and well respected merchant in a metropolis as often as a hulking brute in a cave. What if there are lots of civilizations but they all war with each other or align based on real world political reasons? What if you are in fritz liebers or jack Vance's world where the gods are indiffierent or hostile and there's no tolkinian-world defining struggle?

Abandon alignment. Cudgel the clever is craven, violent, sentimental and untrustworthy, but he is not chaotic evil.

[Porphyre]

My whole point was precisely to ditch the 9-points alignement, and simplify things with the 3-points alignment (Lawful="heroic"; Neutral=interested in self preservation; Chaotic= "villain").

I still will be using alignment, just for the sake of magic items (intelligent swords being not the least). As a matter of fact, I like to use the alignment rules in various interprétations, depending of the campaign: as a morality compass, like in D&D classic, as a stance in the world/cosmic struggles , like in OD&D, etc.

The whole thing is to dutyfully inform your players beforehand:
"In this campaign, alignment is just a stance in the cosmic struggle between the Lords of Stability and the Princes of Change. You can be altruist and compassionate and be chaotic. Just know that you will probably "ping" on a lawful cleric's radar"

"In this campaign, the Law is human civilization, and Chaos the hordes of goblins and ogres. Lawful knights can be an umpleasant lot sometimes, but monsters are always monters"

Und so weiter

[Red Baron]

Dec 1, 2013 1:42:45 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

My whole point was precisely to ditch the 9-points alignement, and simplify things with the 3-points alignment (Lawful="heroic"; Neutral=interested in self preservation; Chaotic= "villain").

I still will be using alignment, just for the sake of magic items (intelligent swords being not the least). As a matter of fact, I like to use the alignment rules in various interprétations, depending of the campaign: as a morality compass, like in D&D classic, as a stance in the world/cosmic struggles , like in OD&D, etc.

The whole thing is to dutyfully inform your players beforehand:
"In this campaign, alignment is just a stance in the cosmic struggle between the Lords of Stability and the Princes of Change. You can be altruist and compassionate and be chaotic. Just know that you will probably "ping" on a lawful cleric's radar"

"In this campaign, the Law is human civilization, and Chaos the hordes of goblins and ogres. Lawful knights can be an umpleasant lot sometimes, but monsters are always monters"

Und so weiter

That in no way goes against what cooper was saying. 

If the players are lawful, than law is the "good guy side", but that doesn't mean that all lawfuls are necessarily good people, just as a chaotic is a "villain", but that doesn't mean that he can't be a nice, altruistic guy.

[premmy]

Personally, I've ditched the alignment system and never regretted it. However, ignoring that for a moment, I think there's a fundamental difference between the original 3-point system (which I WOULD be willing to use in one of my games, hypothetically) and all the others (which I wouldn't).

The Law-Neutrality-Chaos system works because it FIRST existed within the implied gameworld (or, as it were, the reading list that informed it) as objective universal forces of existence, and CONSEQUENTLY ended up in the game rules. In comparison, all the other systems FIRST existed as purely out-of-setting rules constructions and THEN the designers came up with some sort of after-the-fact explanation of how they do (or don't) relate to anything within the actual gameworld. And the results of that are just jarring.

[Chainsaw]

Nov 27, 2013 15:48:27 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Nov 27, 2013 14:59:09 GMT -6 jacar said:

I have grown to dislike the alignment system. It makes no sense that an entire race is generally evil while another is entirely good thus giving each license to murder the other and take their loot.

I really like simplistic Law-Neutral-Chaos alignment, but I also enjoy a simplistic "Jedi are good and the Empire is evil" approach to my gaming. While not realistic, I have no problem assuming that "all" orcs are chaotic (for example) and that players are highly unlikely to find an orc who lives by the principles of law.

I guess I like my world to be a little more black and white. Those shades of gray tend to lead to a lot of deep philosophizing on subjects where I don't want to tread. For example in the real world I believe that killing is a bad thing, yet in my OD&D game folks kill monsters all the time. If the monster is simply "misunderstood" then it opens up a whole Pandora's box that I can't close.

Same here. I like to keep the D&D game nice and gamey so that everyone can relax, socialize and temporarily escape complicated real-life social, political and moral issues that plague us from day to day. We're not re-purposing the game to explore those in any way.

[jacar]

Back in the day, when we played GURPs, folks were "basically good". The bad guys were "basically evil". However, it was up to the player to figure out which was what. Some evil characters could be insidiously sneaky. They might be Orc Marauders who come from some Orc village nearby. The Village would be no more evil than a village of humans which had some of their own evil individuals.