Gygax OD&D Additions

[oakesspalding]

Well, I think the nine point (or, perhaps in this case, five point) alignment system is stupid. But this is something that reasonable people can disagree on.

But worse, even if you accept that system as spiffy, precisely graphing every monster on a chart like this is ridiculous.

First note that the mechanism of the graph is sort of inconsistent. You can have a blend on the lawful/chaotic axis, but it seems not on the good/evil axis, unless you're in that middle square.

Ogres seem to focus only on their evilness, whereas for Vampires, while evilness is cool, lawfulness is in a sense just as cool and not to be dismissed.

Mummies are 100% lawful, whereas Spectres are only 80% lawful, Wights are 75% lawful and Beholders are 50% lawful. Green Dragons are only 20% lawful, but we always knew that.

All of this if of course insane.

And just a few years later this would turn into (for all extents and purposes) "if you don't think Spectres are only 80% lawful, then you just wouldn't be playing AD&D."

[Falconer]

Well, I will disagree. I love that article, and especially the illustrations. It’s fun to see that Dwarves on a whole are good but not THAT good. I always appreciated that each alignment is depicted as describing a vast and quite general field of possible behavior, rather than a fixed point, showing that you have plenty of latitude in behavior before your alignment changes. So Dwarves might be (barely) more inclined to ally with a Paladin than with Tiamat, but that doesn’t mean my dwarf has to behave like a Paladin just because “but you’re supposed to be Lawful Good!”. It’s nice to know that an Ogre Mage will abide by an oath, whereas a Djinn is likely to try to screw you over. All this is completely practical and useful in a game. Just as one anecdote, from time to time my players have decided they will simply magically detect the alignment of an NPC or monster, and automatically kill anything that is evil. Showing them Illustration I causes them to pause and think that policy might not be completely just and wise.

It seems to me you are arguing against the idea of “precisely graphing” each type; however, Gygax describes it rather as a “general classification”. He most certainly does not assign actual percentage alignments, as you suggest, let along assign any game mechanics to such differences.

[scottyg]

Looking at that alignment graph, and you assume that reflects EGG's conception of those creatures, and there are some surprises. Good liches? Even the evil ones aren't that evil. How close to neutral unicorns and dwarves are. I would have assumed ogre magi would have been more evil.
I am sure his thoughts continued to evolve over time, but it's an interesting look.

[howandwhy99]

I prefer the list in Men & Monsters, but I believe Alignment is one of the game systems meant to be gamed by players. Most of the subclasses are tied to alignment restrictions, so I take it to be one of the bigger aspects of customization for the game at that time.

I don't feel wedded to any classification of alignment for any creature. Just like I don't feel I have to use some official game setting for the game.

[Zenopus]

Nov 13, 2017 18:36:30 GMT -6 scottyg said:

Looking at that alignment graph, and you assume that reflects EGG's conception of those creatures, and there are some surprises. Good liches? Even the evil ones aren't that evil. How close to neutral unicorns and dwarves are. I would have assumed ogre magi would have been more evil.
I am sure his thoughts continued to evolve over time, but it's an interesting look.

So Liches had three phases:
Greyhawk Supplement: Listed twice, under the columns of Neutrality and Chaos
SR Alignment Graph: Near the border of Neutrality between Lawful Good and Lawful Evil
Monster Manual: Neutral (evil)

The shift from Greyhawk is the biggest, since "Chaos" is completely lost, but it makes sense in the context that "Chaos" was originally a bucket that held all evil creatures.

In the Monster Manual, the full nine-point alignment had not been developed, and there's a trend to give every monster a single alignment (probably driven by the format of the stat blocks), so subtleties of the alignment chart are lost.

In this case, the Neutral (evil) seems to represent the "near Neutral, but with evil tendencies" option of this chart. This streamlining drops the alternate good version, and the lawful tendencies of both the good and evil versions.

* * * * *

If anyone is interested, there are two later, greatly simplified versions of the alignment chart that appear in Holmes Basic. They can be seen here:
mythopoeicrambling.blogspot.com/2011/12/holmes-on-alignment.html

These later charts are not by Holmes, so presumably Gygax (or someone else at TSR under his direction) created them based on Gygax's original chart in SR.

The 1st version appeared in the Holmes 1st edition and is closer in design to the SR chart. But it includes a few monsters not found in Holmes Basic, so it was redone in the 2nd edition of Holmes (Nov 1978) in a more stylized format.

[geoffrey]

I like the fact that Gary's old chart shows that druids are (as the article states) "slightly predisposed towards evil actions". I much prefer that to the fatherly and benign nature-lovers and caretakers that I all too often read about.

[oakesspalding]

As well, I think "neutrality" implies that you might be inclined to occasionally sacrifice people (and they might be volunteers) in order to help the harvest. You're not doing it to be mean or sadistic but to, you know, preserve the balance...

[howandwhy99]

Nov 14, 2017 14:10:28 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I like the fact that Gary's old chart shows that druids are (as the article states) "slightly predisposed towards evil actions". I much prefer that to the fatherly and benign nature-lovers and caretakers that I all too often read about.

The Ur-Flan have heard you. And still remember their practice of the Old Faith in the days of yore.

[Deleted]

Can any one please tell me what happens if you get a 
Table 1 Periodic checks - Roll of 11-13?  Because it is not there.
In the Solo Adventure Dungeon generation.
Thanks

[dragondaddy]

Interesting. Early on, I always used the the dungeon generation chart on page 41 of the Judges Guild Ready Ref Sheets, as well as in the JG Wilderlands of High Fantasy Guide... I never saw even one issue of the Strategic Review until after 2000.

Best of the Dragon, published in 1980 featured a reprint of the same Solo Dungeons & Dragons Adventures article on page 66, and the PERIODIC CHECKS chart still did not have entries for 11-13. I simply wrote in the following and annotated the entry;

11-12 Continue Straight, Check again in 10'
13 Door

Also published in December of 1979, The 1e AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide also has Appendix A: Random Dungeon Generation.
the entry is identical except that the entry for 11-13 reads thusly;

11-13 Passage Turns (see TABLE IV., check width on TABLE III) --Check again in 30' (this table)

[Deleted]

Hi dragondaddy. Thanks a lot for the reply. I was thinking about doing something like you did but i'm still new in this game so i said i'd better ask. Thanks again mate.

You've been a great help

[sonicracer100]

Does anyone happen to have any idea on how monsters were determined for the dungeon solo adventure? Did you roll on the level indicated in Vol III, or did you first roll on the level encountered on the encounter matrix, and then chose the corresponding level?

[asaki]

May 25, 2018 20:35:41 GMT -6 dragondaddy said:

11-13 Passage Turns (see TABLE IV., check width on TABLE III) --Check again in 30' (this table)

That's what AD&D says, and also, the "Passage Turns" table never, ever gets called in the original article, so it makes the most sense to me.

The real mystery is what happens if you roll a 19 on the "traps" table? The last few choices on the AD&D version of the table are quite different, so we can't just copy it verbatim.