Post by tetramorph on Dec 20, 2013 15:41:41 GMT -6
This is a great thread and I would like to contribute. Thanks for getting it started!
For me, when I GM, No PC can be “chaotic,” because no one campaigns with someone they cannot trust to keep sides.
The so-called “Good – Evil” axis makes little sense to me in fantasy role-play. It seems to me that "good" and "evil," in a game, is always simply relative to the campaign goal. Contribution to the goal of the campaign determines whether a character is relatively “good” or “evil.” The way players role-play proves their relative "alignment" with that regard. So, in that, I agree with a couple of other previous posts.
When I read the alignment system, I read moving forward from Chainmail, rather than backwards from 1e. In Chainmail, alignment is literally about how we can expect "fantastical troops" to "form a line" on the battle field. So, much like historical nations and people groups, fantastical troops fall along certain lines.
Lawful means, the troops will line up with their allies. They will fight for more than just themselves. They find alliances helpful, perhaps even necessary. But they could be "evil" alliances! Or, more realistically, they could have a lot of "bad apples."
Chaotic means the troops may line up, they may not. And once they have, they may just choose to bolt half way into the battle -- or switch sides! Now here I may be fudging a bit, doing a bit of "reading into" the rules. But when I think of chaos I think about the way knights are described in Chainmail and how you have to give them an "obedience" role. Knights can be good or evil, for order or in it for themselves. But in Chainmail they are always "chaotic" because you simply cannot predict how they are going to line up. "Sir Lancelot, please defend me against King Mark" -- "Certainly" (On the battle field the next day, Sir Gawain shows up): "I am sorry sir, I cannot fight against so great and worthy a knight," etc.
Neutral means they won't line up. That doesn't mean they won't fight. It means they are like Switzerland: they will only fight for self-defense, for their own people group or land, etc.
This lines up more with Tolkien's legendarium, therefore, than with others mentioned: the Elves and the Dwarves wind up becoming insular, unwilling to "line up," except in self defense. They are "neutral" in the Switzerland sense, not in the "noble pagan floating monk" sense. But what about Gondor and Mordor? Are they both "lawful" because they are both willing to "line up" with their allies. Hmmph. I really enjoyed Tolkien's article on Beowulf and the difference between Christian ("law"), pagan ("neutral") and chaos ("monster"). Even as I write out my post, I am seeing why others are convinced of its usefulness to making sense of alignment issues.
So then things get iffy in 0e, as has been said earlier, there are spells like "detect evil" but there is not alignment "evil," so what are we detecting? And the lists seem to map, more or less "evil" to chaos and "good" to law. So I can see the Moorcock connections.
I think the mess comes in when trying to apply the alignment system already inherited from Chainmail -- a war game -- to D&D with its one to one player to "soldier" (now, "character") level of correspondence. It seems that law, chaos and neutrality describe troops, battle lines, nations, tribes, etc. It may start to break down at the individual level. Perhaps that is why 1e went the direction it did in developing the 9 point system.
Okay those are my thoughts for now! Thanks, this is fun!
For me, when I GM, No PC can be “chaotic,” because no one campaigns with someone they cannot trust to keep sides.
The so-called “Good – Evil” axis makes little sense to me in fantasy role-play. It seems to me that "good" and "evil," in a game, is always simply relative to the campaign goal. Contribution to the goal of the campaign determines whether a character is relatively “good” or “evil.” The way players role-play proves their relative "alignment" with that regard. So, in that, I agree with a couple of other previous posts.
When I read the alignment system, I read moving forward from Chainmail, rather than backwards from 1e. In Chainmail, alignment is literally about how we can expect "fantastical troops" to "form a line" on the battle field. So, much like historical nations and people groups, fantastical troops fall along certain lines.
Lawful means, the troops will line up with their allies. They will fight for more than just themselves. They find alliances helpful, perhaps even necessary. But they could be "evil" alliances! Or, more realistically, they could have a lot of "bad apples."
Chaotic means the troops may line up, they may not. And once they have, they may just choose to bolt half way into the battle -- or switch sides! Now here I may be fudging a bit, doing a bit of "reading into" the rules. But when I think of chaos I think about the way knights are described in Chainmail and how you have to give them an "obedience" role. Knights can be good or evil, for order or in it for themselves. But in Chainmail they are always "chaotic" because you simply cannot predict how they are going to line up. "Sir Lancelot, please defend me against King Mark" -- "Certainly" (On the battle field the next day, Sir Gawain shows up): "I am sorry sir, I cannot fight against so great and worthy a knight," etc.
Neutral means they won't line up. That doesn't mean they won't fight. It means they are like Switzerland: they will only fight for self-defense, for their own people group or land, etc.
This lines up more with Tolkien's legendarium, therefore, than with others mentioned: the Elves and the Dwarves wind up becoming insular, unwilling to "line up," except in self defense. They are "neutral" in the Switzerland sense, not in the "noble pagan floating monk" sense. But what about Gondor and Mordor? Are they both "lawful" because they are both willing to "line up" with their allies. Hmmph. I really enjoyed Tolkien's article on Beowulf and the difference between Christian ("law"), pagan ("neutral") and chaos ("monster"). Even as I write out my post, I am seeing why others are convinced of its usefulness to making sense of alignment issues.
So then things get iffy in 0e, as has been said earlier, there are spells like "detect evil" but there is not alignment "evil," so what are we detecting? And the lists seem to map, more or less "evil" to chaos and "good" to law. So I can see the Moorcock connections.
I think the mess comes in when trying to apply the alignment system already inherited from Chainmail -- a war game -- to D&D with its one to one player to "soldier" (now, "character") level of correspondence. It seems that law, chaos and neutrality describe troops, battle lines, nations, tribes, etc. It may start to break down at the individual level. Perhaps that is why 1e went the direction it did in developing the 9 point system.
Okay those are my thoughts for now! Thanks, this is fun!