In defense of alignment in D&D...

[thegreyelf]

So let's talk alignment. For decades now, Alignment has been one of the most hotly contested aspects of the Dungeons & Dragons game. Many people consider it to be either extraneous or some sort of limiting factor for playing characters. Some think it's "stupid." Many simply eschew it entirely, removing it from their game.

Others do use it as a hard definer as to how one is supposed to play their character. Both of these approaches fail to take into account the purpose of alignment in D&D...which, granted, is a difficult one to wrap one's head around.

Alignment is both an inherent and important part of the D&D cosmology, and an important descriptor of who your character is, what they believe, and how they view the cosmos. The key word here, however, is descriptor. Alignment describes your character; it doesn't lock them in a box.

Read more:

wastedlandsfantasy.blogspot.com/2018/12/alignment-and-dungeons-dragons.html

[doublejig2]

I've been given this some thought. What you say is true, concerning alignment and inherency. And, alignment can be given special consideration. Think of that cool alignment chart from the link as a straight up Cartesian plane. Let the X-axis present relationships: chaotic (-x) to lawful (+x). Or, in different terms, the X-axis ranges from self-centered (chaotic= -x) to group-oriented (lawful = +x). Let the Y-axis present morality: evil (-y) to good (+y).

Alignment (pairings) Coordinate correspondence
LG +x, +y, (upper right quadrant) empty origin
CG -x, +y, (upper left quadrant) empty origin
NG x=0, +y, and origin
LN +x, y=0, and origin
N Origin
CN -x, y=0, and origin
LE +x, -y, empty (lower right quadrant) origin
NE x=0, -y. and origin
CE -x, -y, and (lower left quardrant empty origin

Suppose, further that the axes are line segments (say 1 through 5), then cartesian coordinates rank the alignment result. Hence, LG (4,2) is more group-oriented (lawful) and less upright than LG (3,4), for example. And, at LN (4,0) a rules bound warrior has little in common with a very erratic and self-centered wizard at CN (-4,0). Last, alignment change might result in traversal along a line segment, say from +5 to +4. Only change that results in a change of row above counts as a full stepwise conversion to a new alignment; e.g., from +1 to 0.

[Deleted]

Crom's hairy nutsack. Just go read "Three Hearts and Three Lions" and "Operation Chaos" and all will be clear.

[talysman]

Dec 10, 2018 18:08:50 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Crom's hairy nutsack. Just go read "Three Hearts and Three Lions" and "Operation Chaos" and all will be clear.

I have yet to read "Three Hearts and Three Lions", but read "Operation Chaos" when I was a teen. Does "Three Hearts and Three Lions" provide a parallel description of Law and Chaos, or does it explain matters that aren't in "Operation Chaos"?

I did read "The Dragon and the George", by Gordon R. Dickson, and taken together with "Operation Chaos" and miscellaneous other fantasy written by SF authors around that time, I think it's pretty clear that Law does equal Good and Chaos does equal Evil for them, and by extension for early D&D. The later five-fold and nine-fold alignment systems are obviously a revision of this viewpoint.

I think the driving factor behind the alignment system expansion was that Law/Chaos was supposed to be Good/Evil in a grand sense, not what we could call "lowercase good and evil". An agent of Chaos is Evil, but not necessarily evil, and might actually behave like a "good guy", rather than twirling his mustache menacingly and tying maidens to train tracks. I see the later developments as being muddier and less useful.

[Deleted]

They are more cosmic tendencies than discrete pegs on a pegboard.

[talysman]

Dec 10, 2018 19:23:11 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

They are more cosmic tendencies than discrete pegs on a pegboard.

They certainly aren't rigid, completely exclusive tendencies. But still, since "Operation Chaos" equates Chaos to (a) a mystical anti-rational religious movement, and (b) Hitler, I think it's pretty clear Poul Anderson was afraid of irrational, destructive forces in the real world, opposed to rational, decent, civilized forces. And that seems to be part of Dickson's battle between Order and Chaos as well.

[Stormcrow]

Dec 10, 2018 19:16:22 GMT -6 talysman said:

I have yet to read "Three Hearts and Three Lions", but read "Operation Chaos" when I was a teen. Does "Three Hearts and Three Lions" provide a parallel description of Law and Chaos, or does it explain matters that aren't in "Operation Chaos"?

In Three Hearts and Three Lions, Law and Chaos are the sides in the battle between advancing civilization and the primordial world.

In the beginning everything was wild and magical. All was wilderness, there were no rules, and anything could happen. This was Chaos.

Then civilization began, mostly by human beings. They tamed and cleared the forests, brought rule and order to their lands, and established Christianity, which tends to stamp out magic. This was Law.

The two forces are diametrically opposed. Civilization advances into the primeval world, while the primeval world tries to destroy their advances. Most humans prefer their safe realms, and side with Law. Many fairy creatures prefer the old ways of magic and unpredictability. Although every population has a tendency toward one side or the other, each individual is free to choose a side. If you choose Law, you're not going to be wild and treacherous because that's not what you fight for. If you choose Chaos, you're not going to form orderly realms or religions because that's not what you fight for. Your alignment does not determine your attitudes or personality; you choose the alignment that fits your beliefs and preferences.

[Deleted]

Yes and no. In Operation Chaos, the Caliphate army, though aligned with Chaos, was still an ARMY; it had ranks, and structure, and troops in units, and logistics, and all the rest. The war, in fact, looked much like any war between two opposing nations; the fealty to Law or Chaos lay deeper than the structure of society.

[talysman]

Dec 10, 2018 23:56:31 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Yes and no. In Operation Chaos, the Caliphate army, though aligned with Chaos, was still an ARMY; it had ranks, and structure, and troops in units, and logistics, and all the rest. The war, in fact, looked much like any war between two opposing nations; the fealty to Law or Chaos lay deeper than the structure of society.

And the Gnostic Church later in the book also is organized. Chaos, in "Operation Chaos", is not opposed to "order" or even having "laws". It's opposed to one specific Law, the rational or natural order of things.

This may explain why people have such a tough time with Law/Chaos in OD&D. The text is not specific, the way the post-WWII fantasy fiction is. It's left open for the GM to decide, although I'm sure Gary had his ideas of what Law was, based both on your description of how he ran the game and on clues in the LBBs. But I think a lot of people feel uncomfortable with the idea that Law is the One True Way, however that may be defined for a campaign

[thegreyelf]

Dec 10, 2018 18:08:50 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Crom's hairy nutsack. Just go read "Three Hearts and Three Lions" and "Operation Chaos" and all will be clear.

Especially following the interesting observations from the books that follow this, they have been added to my "must read" list. Thanks!

[thegreyelf]

Hey, folks, also, for those interested, I've just updated the article with a discussion of law vs. chaos as intended by Gygax, after finding an article by the man himself from one of my old issues of The Strategic Review, which I'd completely forgotten about. My next article, incidentally, is going to look at another somewhat controversial topic from AD&D: material spell components.

[howandwhy99]

I see Alignment as a stat, like Strength or Race. But it mostly applies to how the world treats you.

NPCs use Alignment to determine their behavior, at least in part. In this way it is like Morale. NPCs follow their Morale which dictates a part of their behavior in combat.

Players choose to run from a combat by their own choice. They don't need to know their Morale. In the same way Alignment doesn't determine behavior, but alignment is a measure of the behavior played.

Referees can track player behavior, like running from combats, and determine scores like Morale. This enables them to run an absentee player's PC as an NPC. Bob's PC might have a Morale score, but it only determines behavior when the Referee is running them as an NPC. The same goes for Alignment.

Alignment however really is the focus of how a lot of the game world behaves, at least in a very general way, towards the PC. So it matters that the Players knows what their score is for that stat.

A player could declare their Alignment changed, after starting the game at least, but it only really changes when they take actions in the game to change it.

For my game, the entire Cleric class is focused on learning and practicing pragmatic (or wise) behaviors in the game depending on their preferred Alignment. (The focus changes to Combat for F-Ms and Magic for M-Us). Lawful is simply Cooperative, Neutral is self-directed, Chaos is Competitive. As D&D is a cooperative game it really is about being Lawful. Like other actual cooperative strategy games, there is no rule for the players to cooperate. Cooperation is a practiced skill for all the players and major focus of the game. Half of the game is playing the design, but the social focus is all about cooperation. Like Poker players bluffing and reading each other seperate from the card game, but with D&D resulting in the opposite practice from Poker's divisive competitiveness.

For me, Alignment is also about the perspective of seeing the game as a dynamic system rather than solely as a game design. Players can actively seek to rebalance the system they are playing in one of three directions: growth cycling, neutrality, and death spirals. An alternative to unfettered neutrality could also be creating equilibrium, like what referees do when setting up a campaign or creating a module. Seeking system equilibrium is what I believe Druids and True Neutrality are all about. If that's the case, True Neutral isn't about being a creature wedded to their desires, but steadfastly seeking to balance the amount of order and chaos in the world lest it becomes too rigid or collapses. I think Gary believed in something along these lines with his "neutrality as good philosophy" for Greyhawk's Circle of Eight.

[thegreyelf]

That is a really interesting take on alignment, and very much in line with how I view it, if a bit more codified. I like it!

[doublejig2]

This is an AD&D/2e thread. Here, there are nine alignments...

[talysman]

Mar 6, 2019 2:30:09 GMT -6 doublejig2 said:

This is an AD&D/2e thread. Here, there are nine alignments...

Yes, but we're discussing the axis people have the most trouble with (Law/Chaos).

[doublejig2]

I'd better go read Three Hearts & Three Lions, then...

[Mordorandor]

As an aside, in places in the LBBs, evil seems equated with Chaos.

Anti-Clerics (Chaotic Clerics) are always referred to as evil Clerics.

Under the alignment factions that list monster-types associated with each alignment. Under Chaotic: "Evil High Priests."

Before the spell descriptions: "A full explanation of each spell follows. Note that underlined Clerical spells are reversed by evil Clerics [Chaotic Clerics]. Also, note the Clerics versus Undead Monsters table, indicating the strong effect of the various clerical levels upon the undead; however, evil Clerics do not have this effect, the entire effect being lost."

Anti-Cleric level titles: "Evil Acolyte, Evil Adept, Shaman, Evil Priest, Evil Curate, Evil Bishop, Evil Lama, Evil High Priest."

Castle inhabitants: "Generally Evil High Priests will simply attempt to slay Lawful or Neutral passersby who fail to pay their tithes."

In all these cases, it seems evil is synonymous with Chaotic/Chaos.

It led me to interpret the spells with "evil" in them to read them as "Chaotic" or "effects that are from Chaotics," with the assumptions that it would be rare for Lawfuls to send "evil sendings" (read: reverse Bless, or place a curse, etc. on others).

Detect Evil introduces notions of evil thoughts or intentions, but one might argue that Chaotics are always consciously or unconsciously wishing malice, and thus the spell (for dungeon crawl game purposes) is really meant for Lawful Clerics to find/spot Chaotics in dungeons. The reverse of Detect Evil would Detect Good, which Chaotic dungeon denizens would use to root out Lawfuls. (Because as Gronan pointed out, Chaotics and Lawfuls could still look the same in terms of having organization, society, etc.).

[eotb]

How I run law/chaos:

It has zero to do with randomness or whatever. It's about the aforementioned primordial vs civilized, but another aspect is that chaos represents will to power. A lawful organization (say, the Vatican) governs itself according to traditions and rules it values above and beyond any particular individual; the best may lose out in an election for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability, and they will respect that decision. Another group that acquiesces to the strongest/"best" however they manage to get in the seat of power, is chaotic - most dictatorships, the early Soviet era, etc.

It's a bit more than that, of course, but that's one of my rules of thumb: does individual talent/will/desire carry someone; or does status/tradition/process, etc.

As noted upthread, chaotic organizations will have rules/ranks/laws. The difference is how ephemeral and malleable they are as people change in and out.

[talysman]

Aug 3, 2019 21:45:21 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

As an aside, in places in the LBBs, evil seems equated with Chaos.

Definitely think Gygax was a little too quick to mock people for equating Law with Good and Chaos with evil, given some of the things included in the LBBs and the selection of example monsters for each alignment. Law as presented in the LBBs definitely matches up with a specific archetypal representation of Good, an equation of the social order with the cosmic order, such as you'd see in medieval Christianity or Enlightenment-era rationalism. Chaos is opposed to that, and becomes Evil by default.

In terms of four-fold and nine-fold alignment, I usually explain Good and Evil as "I would die for ___" and "I would torture and kill for ___". Law and Chaos are what you'd die or kill for: protection of the group vs. freedom of the individual. Which I think makes it clear that Evil alignments are not really comic-book versions of evil. Your buddy who talks a lot about how we need to torture captured terrorists to stop terrorism is Lawful Evil, but a pretty nice guy. He's not doing evil things, he's just taking an evil stance when it comes to how far he's willing to go to protect what he cares about.

Still, I think the best approach is to treat them as sides in a battle and define Law and Chaos for your campaign. Law can be the monotheistic God or the gnostic Demiurge. Love for All or tyranny and oppression. Chaos can be nihilism or a cry for freedom. In my own campaign, Law is mostly good, but the main representative Lawful organization, the Church of Urizen, has a taint of evil and act more like the worst representations of medieval religion, complete with an inquisition and a history of crusades.

Detect Evil introduces notions of evil thoughts or intentions, but one might argue that Chaotics are always consciously or unconsciously wishing malice, and thus the spell (for dungeon crawl game purposes) is really meant for Lawful Clerics to find/spot Chaotics in dungeons. The reverse of Detect Evil would Detect Good, which Chaotic dungeon denizens would use to root out Lawfuls. (Because as Gronan pointed out, Chaotics and Lawfuls could still look the same in terms of having organization, society, etc.).

Totally disagree. Detect Evil is just Detect Enemy. Tying it to alignment was a big mistake in my opinion.

[Scott Anderson]

Respect for institutions versus will to power is a good one.

Jeff Rients formulated the explanation I give to a new player and sometimes use at the table:

LAWFUL is the good guys.
NEUTRAL is out for himself.
CHAOTIC is up to no good.

Yeah this conflates “good” with “law” in a linguistic sense, but it’s close enough for government work.

[creases]

Here's how I run alignment.

Alignment is a voluntary and conscious commitment to one of two great opposing spiritual forces. A character can choose to align themselves either with Law or with Chaos, or else choose to remain Unaligned.

Law sees the world as precious and needing our hard work to foster. Law is about healing, peace, safety, balance. It's about building something to last. It may not be an unqualified good: someone aligned with Law might be rigid in their thinking, but in any event, they always have a larger purpose or meaning in view. The ends never justify the means, but sometimes one gets one's hands dirty for the greater good. Force is used to defend the innocent, and to disarm and drive away the wicked, but only as a last resort. Law has regard for fairness, equality, and individual liberty within a framework of rights and responsibilities; it isn’t draconian. Law can make conflicting demands and appeal to different priorities, so Lawful characters may find themselves at cross purposes. Law requires respect for others and personal integrity.

Chaos sees the world as irreparably broken and indifferent. Chaos is about pain, wrath, fear, confusion. It's about tearing down and destroying anything that stands in your way. It need not be evil: someone aligned with Chaos might be a "dark knight" or a righteous destroyer operating by a personal code, but their mission will never bring them peace. There are no principles, only choices. Crime and violence are always on the table. Chaos balks at any control imposed on it coming from above, and subjugates any resistance against it coming from below. Chaos can very easily be divided against itself, so there is no contradiction in Chaotic characters opposing one another. Chaos celebrates ambition and passion without limit and without rule.

Alignment doesn't constrain how you feel or how you act. Someone aligned with Law may still feel pain, anger, and fear, and might lash out. Someone aligned with Chaos may still have hope and compassion, and may still work to make the world a better place if they see an opportunity to do so. When it comes down to it, though, the individual is, in some practically significant sense, implicated in the project of healing the world or destroying it. They have put themselves at the disposal of powerful benefactors, for them to use as their pawn in a cosmic game.

[doublejig2]

Might alignment be an ethos sphere of influence complete with language and enough shades of viewpoint to allow converse? In AD&D 1e...


It is probable that your campaign referee will keep a graph of the drift of your character on the alignment chart. – AD&D 1e PH, p.34


One way of making this chart (Cartesian) and the required graphing is described in a previous post above.

[eotb]

On the subject of alignment language, I no longer treat them as gibberish to otherly-aligned, instead as a dialect of beliefs and aims within a language that only adherents can vocalize. It’s all intertwined with mystical cosmic power and the compulsive inability resembles a geas in some ways.

This is why assassins are so feared - where a normal CE person could easily be ferreted out from the honor guard of the vicar of the church of good through his inability to repeat its homilies in front of the altar, an assassin would do it with a beatific rapture on his features and then go torture a street urchin for kicks when his shift was over.

[delta]

Late finding this thread, but here's some resources that may help exploring it. I've previously excerpted what I think are the uppermost sections on Law/Chaos alignment from Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions: Article one and article two.

Gygax in The Strategic Review #6, wrote:

There is considerable confusion in that most dungeon-masters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time.

[captainjapan]

Sept 5, 2019 10:07:18 GMT -6 delta said:

Gygax: "When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time."

[/quote]


hmm. Don't know quite what to make of this statement. He probably just misspoke.

It has been my inclination to treat the alignments as merely holdovers from fantasy themed wargaming where one side invariably plays the bad guy. Like re-fighting a civil war battle; somebody has to be the confederate army. As for neutral players, those are sell-swords. Their morale rolls are adjusted down to reflect their tendency to quit on you. Those other points on the alignment chart are just flourish, probably.

Lawful and evilly aligned magic weapons could be interesting, though.

[dicebro]

The 3 LBBs suggest to me that the 3 alignments are cosmic fields,or forces, that flow kind of like electricity. Thus, a chaotic sword will damage, and possibly kill, the lawfully aligned character who touches it. That’s pretty much it for me.