|
Post by oakesspalding on Dec 29, 2014 21:54:39 GMT -6
...the vast majority of us were Neutral, and you had to do something pretty egregious to change alignment...As Aldarron stated above, it was a game artifact used to enable having sides. Thanks! I was hoping you hear your comments. As usual a fascinating answer that leads to more questions. Why was everyone neutral? Is it because there was perceived to be an advantage in not declaring for a side until or unless you had to?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2014 22:06:30 GMT -6
I can state without fear of contradiction that this thread has already represented more time and effort than Gary and Dave put into alignment. It was something in CHAINMAIL to divvy up magic critters, based off Poul Anderson. It existed in Greyhawk, but the vast majority of us were Neutral, and you had to do something pretty egregious to change alignment. As Aldarron stated above, it was a game artifact used to enable having sides. Really Mike? Yes, really, since we are talking about alignment as it appeears in the Little Brown Books and you've jumped ahead three years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2014 22:08:07 GMT -6
...the vast majority of us were Neutral, and you had to do something pretty egregious to change alignment...As Aldarron stated above, it was a game artifact used to enable having sides. Thanks! I was hoping you hear your comments. As usual a fascinating answer that leads to more questions. Why was everyone neutral? Is it because there was perceived to be an advantage in not declaring for a side until or unless you had to? Because as "neutral" you were only "one step away" from either Law or Chaos, and by learning both of those alignment languages you had at least a chance of being able to communicate with any sentient creature. This was especially important in terms of wandering monsters.
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Dec 29, 2014 22:36:50 GMT -6
Whoa! Sorry, I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but that is a surprise. Given that people "had to do something pretty egregious to change alignment" are you saying that neutrals could somehow learn the Chaotic or Lawful divisional tongues?
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Dec 30, 2014 9:16:22 GMT -6
It existed in Greyhawk, but the vast majority of us were Neutral, and you had to do something pretty egregious to change alignment. [snipped] From a reading of the Gord books, it seems clear to me that Gary personally viewed Neutral as the best Alignment to be. Was this not so? And could not his players, having perceived that, have chosen Neutral out of something like self-preservation (much as my players lean towards Good alignments, knowing how much I dislike evil characters)? ~Scott "-enkainen" Casper
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2014 12:41:43 GMT -6
Whoa! (Sorry, I don't mean to sound disrespectful, that was just a surprise.) But given that people "had to do something pretty egregious to change alignment" are you saying that neutrals could somehow learn the Chaotic or Lawful divisional tongues? ummm... since it says in the LBBs that you can learn extra languages based on intelligence, yeah. Usually the other alignment tongues were the first ones we chose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2014 12:43:03 GMT -6
It existed in Greyhawk, but the vast majority of us were Neutral, and you had to do something pretty egregious to change alignment. [snipped] From a reading of the Gord books, it seems clear to me that Gary personally viewed Neutral as the best Alignment to be. Was this not so? And could not his players, having perceived that, have chosen Neutral out of something like self-preservation (much as my players lean towards Good alignments, knowing how much I dislike evil characters)? ~Scott "-enkainen" Casper No, you're reading WAY too much into it. "If you're Neutral you can talk to anybody" was the usual way it was put. It seemed obvious to us. Also, this is WAY before Gord.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 30, 2014 16:23:02 GMT -6
Yes, really, since we are talking about alignment as it appeears in the Little Brown Books and you've jumped ahead three years. I understand the context, but your comment suggested that alignment wasn't really that important during the early days and seemed to imply we were wasting time discussing it because: 1. Dave and Gary didn't put much time or effort into it. 2. Most of the early players were Neutral- so they essentially didn't choose a side anyway. 3. It was an artifact from wargaming- I took "artifact" as a pejorative. Now I realize alot can and did happen in the two years between the publication of the LBB's and Gary's article for the Strategic Review in 1976. So, if I'm to take your comments at face value, what exactly changed? Why all of a sudden does alignment not only become more significant, but actually takes on new meaning in the game, with the 5 part system, where it did not before? It's important enough that we find it's inclusion in Holmes who in most cases sticks closely to the LBB's.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Dec 30, 2014 16:26:20 GMT -6
[T]he vast majority of us were Neutral, and you had to do something pretty egregious to change alignment. I like that. It reminds me of the paladin in the Wilderlands who lived in a palace with his harem, and who handed out slaves as rewards. Or the paladin in Tegel Manor who is a coward.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Dec 30, 2014 17:20:22 GMT -6
Beowulf is a christian work, so the “ eotenas ond ylfe ond orcneas” line can actually be a "christianisation" of the myth , casting elfes in tne side of demons alongside with the gods of paganism. As for Norse sources, Snorri's works can effectively be suspected of some kind of "re-interpretation". But other sources as the Lokasenna also put the Alfar and the Aesir side by side : And there is some elements pointing towards some fertility cult of dead ancestors as possible origin of the norse alfar like the story of king Olaf Gudrødsson, being worshipped as the "elf of Geirstad".
But as a matter of fact, being on the side of Gods (i.e. the "Law") doesn't preclude them from being dangerous to mortals. After all, the chief deity of the Aesir is the God of the battle furor, magic and a trickster who sometimes has his "chosen ones" killed !
To come back to the original question of "Law" vs. "Chaos", the "migration" of the elves reflects their position towards the divinity.
In Norse myths, the Aesir are the main gods, and the "Law" is being in their side. The Jotun are the enemy of the Aesir, so they are the Chaos. Alfar are on the side of the Aesir, so they are Lawful. In the Middle Ages, the Christian God is now the Law; heathen gods are cast in the side of the démons, and so are th elves, who are now chaotic.
|
|
|
Post by kingofelfland on Dec 30, 2014 19:11:01 GMT -6
We played more MERP when I was a kid and it's 1st ed didn't have alignment. But I got the hardback 2nd ed as a backup rule book. Looking at it the other day I noticed it did have an alignment. I wouldn't bring it up here except that it has this lovely gem:
It took me a moment to realize I didn't rename the war in my head as I read it. I just felt like sharing but to make it somewhat apropos to the thread: it helps to define the conflict to understand the meaning of the allegiances.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Dec 30, 2014 20:21:38 GMT -6
krusader74, thanks for your thoughtful and thorough replies. I never mentioned either Augustine or Aquinas, so I am flattered that after reading my post you would head straight for those two great ones! As someone who understands himself within that living tradition of thought, I must object just a little to characterizing their language as "antiquated." We make language as relevant as we want to. What is antiquated for some is current for others -- especially within maintained traditions. So that is neither here nor there, it is just where I am. I think I understand what you are trying to say: you want something game-i-fiable and you are wanting to represent medieval positions in a kind of simplified way in order to render them more game-able. Am I reading you right here? I get that. I do not think your simplification would be one that I would want to work from. I think I would rather render one more accurate to the source material. Another point I understand you to be making is that the classical tradition is not very game-able. Indeed, that is your motivation behind your developing your "toy model." Clearly this is just going to be a matter of opinion. I think the classical tradition is game-able as is. Like war-gamers, I take delight in trying to figure out mechanics that engage counterfactuals. War-gamers ask "what if this Napoleonic battle went this way"? I like to ask things like, "what if there was a fantastical Christendom"? So there you go. For example, I disagree that the classical Christian understanding of free will is not "gameable." I think it is -- if you take alignment to be about the line-up at the Last Battle, rather than about some predetermined personality disposition. That brings me back round to what my main point has been so far in this thread: alignment isn't a "thing" or a "substance," it is a stance towards an end. It has been a long time since I've used my modal logic. That was nice to see and a good brain twister for me. In the end I'm more of a continental than an analytic style philosopher, and although I love speech-act theory, I hang more on the continental side of the modern philosophical "alignment" system! Even if that. I'm not much of a fan of modern philosophy so, truth be told, I'm just a good old fashioned Platonist (in the broad, cumulative, "philosophia perennis" sense). You make many other points of detail that, of course, I could spend all sorts of time disagreeing with, but I do not really think that is the point of this thread and I want to honor the OP. It would be really fun to have a cup of coffee or a beer and talk this stuff out with you sometime, but I am going to try to keep it simple here! Thanks and peace!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2014 23:10:16 GMT -6
So, if I'm to take your comments at face value, what exactly changed? Why all of a sudden does alignment not only become more significant, but actually takes on new meaning in the game, with the 5 part system, where it did not before? It's important enough that we find it's inclusion in Holmes who in most cases sticks closely to the LBB's. Because in 1973 it's Gary and Dave and their gaming groups playing a game. More than once Gary answered a question with "Who cares, it's fantasy." In 1976 it's a game that's already sold something like 30,000 to 40,000 copies and TSR was getting literally hundreds of letters a week; many of these players had never read Moorcock, Anderson, or CHAINMAIL.
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Dec 31, 2014 3:15:15 GMT -6
Well, Greyhawk (1975) substantially increased the emphasis on alignment as a personal guide, with paladins that could only perform "lawful deeds", warnings against too much cooperation in parties made up of chaotic characters and so on. Yet Greyhawk was published at a time when hardly more than a few thousand copies of the rules had been sold. And work on that supplement was probably under way many months earlier when only hundreds had been sold.
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Dec 31, 2014 4:34:18 GMT -6
Rather than clog up this thread with a bunch of long rambling posts (which I deleted), I'll just quickly summarize how I think the alignment system would work in a Medieval European setting dominated by thinkers like Augustine or Aquinas: There would only be two alignments: The first would be Law. It would apply to humans and offshoots/branches of human. The second could be called Neutral, Chaotic or Non-Law. The label isn't important. It's simply the absence of Law. It would apply to animals and monsters. Elves: In the Anglo-Saxon part of the world, elves would be considered monsters and therefore Non-Law. But in some areas of Scandinavia, elves might be considered offshoots of humans rather than monsters, so there they would be considered part of Law. Good/Evil: If AD&D's "second axis" were introduced to the alignment system, it would only apply to Law. So you would have Lawful Good and Lawful Evil. But no such distinctions would be made in the Non-Law category. Those animals and monsters simply follow their nature and aren't really capable of Good/Evil. Moreover, Evil is nothing more than the absence/privation of Good. There is no diabolical evil. That is to say, all Law-aligned beings only Will to do Good. The only thing preventing them from doing Good is ignorance---their limited intellect doesn't allow them to imagine or know the true Good, which is only known to God. There are, of course, possibilities for other alignment systems based on the ideas of Medieval European heretics or Gnostics. And a Fantasy system not trying to re-enact historical conditions could surely adopt any imaginable alignment system. They certainly don't need to be constrained by any Medieval school of thought! Why not, for example, have a continuum of alignments from 0% Lawful to 100% Lawful? When your 100% Lawful character breaks the law, the DM subtracts from your alignment rating, 5% for misdemeanors, 20% for felonies. He adds back points for paying fines, making restitution and so forth. Below a certain threshold, you become a notorious outlaw, wanted dead or alive. Lots of interesting possibilities to consider! Hope this post clears up what I was ineptly trying to say before. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png)
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 31, 2014 6:15:14 GMT -6
Because in 1973 it's Gary and Dave and their gaming groups playing a game. More than once Gary answered a question with "Who cares, it's fantasy." In 1976 it's a game that's already sold something like 30,000 to 40,000 copies and TSR was getting literally hundreds of letters a week; many of these players had never read Moorcock, Anderson, or CHAINMAIL. So, really your earlier comment was specific to how the game was run by Dave and Gary prior to the initial publication of the rules-1973. You're suggesting that, after publication, it was the new fans that pressured Gary into reconsidering his handwave approach to the alignment system-1974-76. Was there really 30-40,000 copies sold by this time? Strategic Review was published the second month of 1976. Peterson's book PatW gives some figures as quoted by Gygax (footnote p.496). 1st print 1974- 1000 copies 2nd & 3rd print 1975- 3000 copies 4th print 1976- 5000 copies This is still a lot of copies in distribution and I can see how the popularity would have created many letters to TSR for clarifications. Thanks for the input Mike
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Dec 31, 2014 7:20:53 GMT -6
Although I don't claim that the math adds up, don't forget that there were a ton of pirated copies of the rules floating around as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2014 16:25:07 GMT -6
Was there really 30-40,000 copies sold by this time? Strategic Review was published the second month of 1976. Peterson's book PatW gives some figures as quoted by Gygax (footnote p.496). 1st print 1974- 1000 copies 2nd & 3rd print 1975- 3000 copies 4th print 1976- 5000 copies This is still a lot of copies in distribution and I can see how the popularity would have created many letters to TSR for clarifications. Thanks for the input Mike I was trying to extract sales figures from the Acaeum, this looks like it is probably more accurate. My point stands, though.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 1, 2015 6:17:53 GMT -6
This thread certainly makes me wish I'd paid more attention in my Philosophy classes. A large percentage of this stuff makes me go "huh? what was that?"
For me, alignment has always been simple. Most people were simply neutral and had no stake in any large-scale conflict. Chaos was the "bad guys" who threaten the safety of the world. Law was the "good guys" who protected the world from Chaos. If you were Law and the bad guys started to take over, you had an obligation to oppose them. If you were neutral you could choose to side with Law or choose to go off and adventure elsewhere. My players never chose Chaos. Alignment didn't (and still doesn't) come up often in play. It was a thing used to move along a story arc, sort of a "Sauron is back, you'd better try to stop him" kind of thing.
I find it interesting that so many folks read so much into alignment. I don't understand most of the discussion and don't think I want to bring that kind of thing into my RPG, but it's interesting to read and ponder.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 1, 2015 7:50:36 GMT -6
I find it interesting that so many folks read so much into alignment. I don't understand most of the discussion and don't think I want to bring that kind of thing into my RPG, but it's interesting to read and ponder. I think you can look at alignment in D&D in a few different ways. You can look at it as a way to establish that overarching story line. You can use it as a means for character development or a way to flesh out demeanor. And/or you can look at it as a meaningful mechanic in the game. Whether this would be for choosing sides, affecting loyalty and reactions, inhibiting communication or chance at negotiation, spell selection and special abilities, etc. The final approach is the one that is the most important to me because if something does not have any practical impact on the game, it is being discarded. I think alignment could have been and can be made a little more practical in this way. It may be we would not really be having this discussion at all if Gary didn't expand the alignment system in later editions. But I would argue he had already chosen to somewhat complicate the very simple function of choosing sides in a wargame through his choice of descriptors and inclusion of Neutrality. He also opened the door of speculation on the broader meanings of the categories by tying them to literary sources where they did have signifcant meaning beyond simply choosing sides. Imagine instead, if early on, Gary simply wrote in Chainmail "good guys" vs "bad guys". Not very entertaining, but it gets to the point ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jan 1, 2015 11:28:01 GMT -6
This thread certainly makes me wish I'd paid more attention in my Philosophy classes. A large percentage of this stuff makes me go "huh? what was that?" For me, alignment has always been simple. Most people were simply neutral and had no stake in any large-scale conflict. Chaos was the "bad guys" who threaten the safety of the world. Law was the "good guys" who protected the world from Chaos. If you were Law and the bad guys started to take over, you had an obligation to oppose them. If you were neutral you could choose to side with Law or choose to go off and adventure elsewhere. My players never chose Chaos. Alignment didn't (and still doesn't) come up often in play. It was a thing used to move along a story arc, sort of a "Sauron is back, you'd better try to stop him" kind of thing. I find it interesting that so many folks read so much into alignment. I don't understand most of the discussion and don't think I want to bring that kind of thing into my RPG, but it's interesting to read and ponder. Fin, I totally read you here. As someone who likes philosophy talk, I'll put out this quick defense: the real problem is not philosophy itself, per se, but thousands of years of human beings talking about it and complicating it with overlapping layers of terminology and historical arguments and all that. Once you cut through that, I am convinced that philosophy is just really fundamental to being human: it is just where we ask our most fundamental questions. And I think that is what you are engaging in your own post, Fin. I don't think we always need all those arguments and historical figures and histories of discourse. Knowing it abbreviates discourse for some, while obfuscating it for others. I think one just needs a good head on the shoulders and to be of general good will: like the way this forum is run. D&D is so cool because it took the war-game counterfactual ("what if Napoleon had done this instead?") and extended it in a couple of really cool directions at once: from large scale warfare to 1 to 1 scale combat, from historical re-enactment to counterfactual scenarios in fantasy legends and literature, etc. I think once it did that it opened itself up to "philosophy." And "who is fighting on what side" that seemed so simple when historically reconstructing a wargame battle suddenly gets complicated when you add those two layers: a.) how do "sides" affect characters at a 1 to 1 scale? and b.) who and what are the sides in a "fantastic medieval wargame campaign"? It ain't the North and the South, you know? So I completely agree with your "simple" description of alignment. Alignment is an over-arching more end-game (larger, wargame scale) thing that is not going to affect the average dungeon-crawl. It defines things at the war-level and at the character level only in-so-far as how they are going to choose to line-up at that larger level of scale. But I like to play my D&D with that end-game ever in mind. That' just me, I know. But because the characters find themselves lost in a vast wonderful world full of enchantment, suddenly those lines of battle that seems so far off (when is this so-called "Last Battle" really going to happen?) can come crashing in and take hold of them. Like a lawful FM who picks up a black-hilted sword and suddenly feels something come over him. Something has changed. He can't figure it out, but something feels wrong. And now suddenly he starts behaving in ways he never would have imagined for himself. He either embraces it "by the power of Grey Scull!" or finds a lawful cleric as fast as he can! Now that is good adventure. And, I think, good philosophy! And what the mechanics of the original edition were trying to engage: How those higher-level battle-lines sometimes come in and magically grip the hapless characters. I just love that and think it is rad. Thanks, Fin!
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 1, 2015 11:27:59 GMT -6
from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions (1953)
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 1, 2015 12:29:34 GMT -6
For my part, I've enjoyed this discussion and have found everyones comments fairly constructive. I may not share the same perspective on the subject, but it's all been interesting.
I thought I would share a few snippets from the FFC that seemed relevant to what others have shared and may help with the OP's question. Most of this should be understood in the broader perspective of Dave's campaign setting instead of just dungeon exploration.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 1, 2015 13:31:36 GMT -6
The creatures players of this game have three major motivational factors. They are: Hate, Greed, and Egotism. That's more like it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 14:27:50 GMT -6
This thread certainly makes me wish I'd paid more attention in my Philosophy classes. A large percentage of this stuff makes me go "huh? what was that?" For me, alignment has always been simple. Most people were simply neutral and had no stake in any large-scale conflict. Chaos was the "bad guys" who threaten the safety of the world. Law was the "good guys" who protected the world from Chaos. If you were Law and the bad guys started to take over, you had an obligation to oppose them. If you were neutral you could choose to side with Law or choose to go off and adventure elsewhere. My players never chose Chaos. Alignment didn't (and still doesn't) come up often in play. It was a thing used to move along a story arc, sort of a "Sauron is back, you'd better try to stop him" kind of thing. I find it interesting that so many folks read so much into alignment. I don't understand most of the discussion and don't think I want to bring that kind of thing into my RPG, but it's interesting to read and ponder. Pretty much how Dave's and Gary's groups did it.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Mar 4, 2019 18:14:09 GMT -6
I can't remember who inspired me on this, I think it was delta but I can't find his blog post on it. Here is my current version of alignment: Law = human law is good for everyone. Neutral = human law is good for human beings. Chaos = human law is no good for anyone. Here is a recent blog post on it: campaigns-playable.blogspot.com/2019/03/more-on-general-line-up.htmlFight on!
|
|
|
Post by delta on Mar 4, 2019 21:46:04 GMT -6
I can't remember who inspired me on this, I think it was delta but I can't find his blog post on it. Ha! Thanks for the shout out -- that's nifty and I wish I could take credit for it, but I don't think I can. A couple of my (very curt!) metaphors for OD&D alignment have been: - Fights Cthulhu vs. flees Cthulhu vs. friends Cthulhu [standard explanation in my house rules] - Avoids desire paths vs. uses them vs. starts them [ link] - Tells truth vs. tells lies vs. tells bullnuts [see blog & search for "Harry Frankfurt"] - Rules apply to all & me vs. all but me vs. nobody [same] [N.B.: "bullnuts" is an auto-replacement by the board for what I actually wrote, in reference to the #1 New York Times Bestseller book by philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt]
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Mar 5, 2019 11:51:16 GMT -6
- Tells truth vs. tells lies vs. tells bullnuts [ link] - Rules apply to all & me vs. all but me vs. nobody [same] delta, that is the one I'm thinking of. But, for whatever reason, the link isn't working for me. rules apply to all = human law is good for everyone rules apply to me = human law is good for human beings rules apply to all but me, roughly = human laws aren't good for anybody I've just blown it out from the personal to the corporate. Which makes a lot of sense to me in a wargames campaign / world-building context. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on Mar 5, 2019 12:07:23 GMT -6
A couple of my (very curt!) metaphors for OD&D alignment have been: ... - Avoids desire paths vs. uses them vs. starts them [ link] Just wanted to comment on how much I loved this concept, as an avid (at least before we had kids) hiker/cyclist/mountain biker it's a readily digestible analogy. I never thought twice about using a desire path (or creating my own) before I got my degree and got involved in the conservation/trails-and-greenspace/non-profit world. Now I actively avoid them and/or find them before trails are created so they can be incorporated into the design (if possible).
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Mar 5, 2019 19:18:21 GMT -6
|
|