|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 22, 2007 11:42:56 GMT -6
One thing I like about OD&D is the simple system for alignment: Before the game begins it is not only necessary to select a role, but it is also necessary to determine what stance the character will take Law, Neutrality, or Chaos. Pick a side and play. Either you side with the forces of Law or of Chaos or you try to maintain the balance of the cosmos. This is very Moorcock-like and very black-and-white. The chart in Men & Magic shows that some creatures have a single alignment and others could be from more than one. I think that this polarity is part of what makes OD&D so "old school" -- the fact that some monsters simply won't want to talk but would rather kill you than look at you. Thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2007 22:59:53 GMT -6
Either you side with the forces of Law or of Chaos or you try to maintain the balance of the cosmos. This is very Moorthingy-like and very black-and-white. Er...I think that Poul Anderson did this in THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS before Moorcock. And you could trace the basic concept back to King Arthur versus Mordred, or Robin Hood versus the Sherrif of Nottingham.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Jun 25, 2007 11:45:08 GMT -6
One of the things I particularly like about the alignment chart in OD&D is that a lot of creatures are found in 2 columns -- both law/chaos and neutrality -- so you can have neutral (rather than lawful) dwarves, gnomes, and elves who won't necessarily be friendly or helpful to a group of lawful PCs, and you can also have neutral orcs and ogres who won't necessarily be hostile. I consider both of these a staple of OD&D -- a group of neutral elves or dwarves who will attack you unless you pay them off, and a neutral ogre who will help you kill the other monsters if you pay him off. Both of these mess with the expectations of players raised on later editions, in a good way.
|
|
|
Post by crimhthanthegreat on Jun 25, 2007 21:02:30 GMT -6
I like the having only the basic three alignments. And it also lends itself to the original style of play where you didn't attack everything that moved but were always off balance since you might need to attack, defend, run, hide, parley etc. I have seen players make some pretty strange looking alliances and hire some pretty strange henchman. I also remember things like a paladin and a lawful ogre combo.
|
|
WSmith
Level 4 Theurgist
Where is the Great Svenny when we need him?
Posts: 138
|
Post by WSmith on Jun 27, 2007 8:14:56 GMT -6
Three alignments are the only ones I will ever use again, (if I use them at all) as a Ref' or DM.
|
|
serendipity
Level 4 Theurgist
Member #00-00-02
Bunny Master
Posts: 140
|
Post by serendipity on Jul 4, 2007 19:48:28 GMT -6
And you could trace the basic concept back to King Arthur versus Mordred, or Robin Hood versus the Sherrif of Nottingham. I can see the law and chaos in those examples, but I'm not sure I see the depiction of working towards balance. Who or what represents that in King Arthur or Robin Hood?
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Jul 8, 2007 16:17:39 GMT -6
I took from the table in the book (and Gary agreed) that alignments were sort of meant as sides in a cosmic battle. Not so much moral standpoints as much as "which team did you play for". Interesting attitude and new look on such an ancient system.
|
|
|
Post by meepo on Jul 9, 2007 6:54:57 GMT -6
Three alignments are the only ones I will ever use again, (if I use them at all) as a Ref' or DM. Three Alignments, or NO Alignments for me only. I like it fast & abstract in all areas. Further definition of Alignment pigeonholes into one way of playing, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Jul 9, 2007 11:23:56 GMT -6
I had started to abandon alignment, but I'm more and more inclined to go with the three alignment system, and make them cosmic sides not so much moral stances. Empire of the Petal Throne is a good though on how this might work (especially with the more revalation in the newer Tekumel game systems, the novels, etc.).
Frank
|
|
|
Post by crimhthanthegreat on Jul 9, 2007 20:37:48 GMT -6
I took from the table in the book (and Gary agreed) that alignments were sort of meant as sides in a cosmic battle. Not so much moral standpoints as much as "which team did you play for". Interesting attitude and new look on such an ancient system. This is the way that we always understood it and it is (I think) pretty clear this way. It is when you get into the later alignment systems that it begins to get too complex and complicated to use.
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Jul 24, 2007 22:37:25 GMT -6
I prefer a more complicated alignment system. Currently, I'm using the quirky alignment system from Holmes.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 25, 2007 1:07:46 GMT -6
I started with the Moldvay basic set, so I had a weird conception of alignment from the get-go.
Then I got the Best of the Dragon v. I, with Gary's article introducing the five alignment system. Okay, this made things clearer.
But my original playing group played AD&D, using the nine-alignment system. It was then that I learned that 'Chaotic Neutral' meant "I'm really evil, but I can't be busted for it!"
It took me a long time and much thought to grasp the 'cosmic sides' version of alignment of Original D&D, but now I see that it's vastly superior to all the other permutations. It's not a strait-jacket; it's a commitment. And that works for me.
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Jul 25, 2007 1:17:03 GMT -6
I learned that 'Chaotic Neutral' meant "I'm really evil, but I can't be busted for it! That's the best description of CN that I've ever heard. Actually, CN is one reason I went with 5 alignments (LG, LE, N, CE, CG) rather than the full-blown AD&D version. I read Best of Dragon Vol. I years and years ago, but I don't remember it. I may need to seek it out.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 25, 2007 1:21:57 GMT -6
I learned that 'Chaotic Neutral' meant "I'm really evil, but I can't be busted for it! That's the best description of CN that I've ever heard. One guy actually had written (I saw his sheet): CN (E). I thought about the five alignment system, but I like the "Cosmic Sides" idea better. I haven't tried them out on players, though, so I don't know which way I'll actually go. But that's one of the great things about OD&D; if something isn't working, you can just change it!
|
|
|
Post by Rhuvein on Jul 25, 2007 18:59:13 GMT -6
It's interesting that there is no description of what these alignments are. Projecting one's self back to '74, I guess I would have figured law = good, chaos = bad and neutral is neutral from the table. If I were to actually use alignment, I would use Holmes. In our current game, we just use good/evil/neutral ~ simple OD&D.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 25, 2007 19:15:50 GMT -6
It's interesting that there is no description of what these alignments are. You're right. The closest thing I could find was a passage in Supplement I Greyhawk which says: Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that — chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederates in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place. Not much to go on; don't they always tell you never to use a word in its own definition? I suppose they just assumed that people could figure out what "Law" or "Chaos" represents. Again, this is one of the strengths (in my opinion) of OD&D because it left things up to the interpretation of the DM.
|
|
|
Post by tgamemaster1975 on Aug 8, 2007 19:22:06 GMT -6
The three alignment system is elegant and simplistic and pretty easy to run. I like the Law & Chaos system in opposition with the Neutrals running around trying to keep either side from winning or getting an advantage. You can't trust Neutrals anymore than you can a Chaotic over the long term, except in a lot of ways Neutrals are worse since the lull your natural suspicions to sleep and then they can pull you into their web and then turn on you. Although one must remember that Lawful is not necessarily Good and Chaotic is not necessarily Evil. But Neutrals are always scum IMC.
|
|
serendipity
Level 4 Theurgist
Member #00-00-02
Bunny Master
Posts: 140
|
Post by serendipity on Aug 9, 2007 6:33:44 GMT -6
You can't trust Neutrals anymore than you can a Chaotic over the long term, except in a lot of ways Neutrals are worse since the lull your natural suspicions to sleep and then they can pull you into their web and then turn on you. Although one must remember that Lawful is not necessarily Good and Chaotic is not necessarily Evil. But Neutrals are always scum IMC. Yowsa. I'm glad I'm not in your campaign, then! I tend towards PCs with neutrality because in doing the right thing, my characters may have to break the laws of the land. That doesn't mean they're apt, after gaining their companions' trust, to murder them in their sleep and steal their belongings. Fairness is my battle cry, not greediness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2007 17:20:00 GMT -6
I agree with Crimhthan The Great, Fin & themattjon. I don't belive alignments to be necessarily your character's moral standing, but as their standing in the greater scheme of things. As for the other alignment system (which I did play for a long time), it becomes too descriptive, & loses the impact. To me, Lawful certainly doesn't imply Good (the N.S.D.A.P., circa 1932-1945), Chaos doesn't imply Evil (American colonists, circa 1770-1783), nor does Neutrality imply Impartiality (no historical example here, for a reason; no one person or state can ever be absolutely, truly, neutral (not even Switzerland; I'm sure they would rather have Liechtenstein as their neighbor than Nazi Germany, even if they did stash some of the Germans' ill-gotten gains). Everyone has their own personal goals & tastes in mind, no matter what (& are willing to help people who favor their own personal goals & tastes). 3 alignments-that's all that are reallly needed. As for Good vs. Evil, I like this quote (I can't seem to recall who stated it; some Greek I suppose): "The difference between the good & the evil is that the evil put into practice what the good are content to merely dream." Not verbatim, but the gist of it anywhoo. ;D
|
|
|
Post by crimhthanthegreat on Aug 9, 2007 21:01:33 GMT -6
Personally, I think it is a lot more fun and much easier overall to play alignments as your character's standing in the greater scheme of things instead of it being their moral standing which must be monitored to see if they are being consistent to what they said they were. (In Real Life) Everyone makes mistakes and everyone has their moments when they do things that are normally out of character for them, why should it be different in the game.
|
|
serendipity
Level 4 Theurgist
Member #00-00-02
Bunny Master
Posts: 140
|
Post by serendipity on Aug 10, 2007 6:59:54 GMT -6
I agree that having occasional inconsistencies in one's actions is a human trait, and so having them in a game is not a fatal flaw but a vote of realism. But by looking at past actions, you can see where that person's basic morals lie. Thus, alignment becomes an analysis of past decisions rather than current ones. This doesn't mean I shouldn't consider current actions at all; after all, that's what ultimately creates the alignment. If you make enough decisions in one direction, your alignment shifts. As a player, I do sometimes stop and think about whether I'm being consistent and acting appropriately. Actually, I do this in real life, too. Not being perfect, I sometimes find myself thinking, "Rats, this would be easier, but that's the right thing to do," before racing off to do it. It's not always the automatic reaction I might wish it to be.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 10, 2007 7:11:08 GMT -6
I find it interesting that the term “alignment” means so many different things to different people.
One way to interpret it is like choosing sides. In this case, it’s more like allegiance and a character must choose to fight for whichever alignment best represents his view of the world.
Examples include: * Paul Anderson’s Law versus Chaos struggle in Three Hearts and Three Lions, The Broken Sword, and others. The trolls and fairy folk were clearly “chaotic” and most humans were not. * Tolkien’s “Forces of Sauron” versus the world. Orcs were “chaos” in alignment as a group, even if some orcs were nicer than others. * Moorcock’s Law versus Chaos struggle in Elric and other Eternal Champion books. The gods were constantly trying to recruit beings to their side. * Zelazny’s Amber versus the Courts of Chaos. Political intrigue similar to USA/USSR cold war activity in the 1960-1980 years. * In Star Wars, one could argue that the Empire represented Law (but not good) while the Rebellion was Chaos (but not evil). * and countless others.
The other way to interpret it is personal actions. In this case, each person is a scale and the way you act will tip the scale one way or the other. A person’s alignment would then be in continual change according to most recent actions. Alignment could then serve as a stereotypical guide as “how to” act in a given circumstance.
* This is where it is possible to ask the question “can there be a good Orc?” and perhaps answer “yes”. While Tolkien’s orcs (for example) are considered to be a vile and nasty race, it’s clear that some orcs are mean just because they can be while other orcs are not so bad in comparison. Thus, a “neutral alignment orc” would be possible. * The Melniboneans are a nasty and arrogant race of demi-humans in Moorcock’s writings, but Elric is clearly different. He is contemplative, thoughtful, and not so quick to just kill for the fun of it. One could argue that those of Melnibone are evil, but Elric is not.
|
|
|
Post by evreaux on Aug 10, 2007 10:12:23 GMT -6
One way to interpret it is like choosing sides. In this case, it’s more like allegiance and a character must choose to fight for whichever alignment best represents his view of the world. I *greatly* prefer this approach to alignment, and use it in my own game. This is both because it represents the feel I want for my "world" (if you call a town, a dungeon, and a bit of surrounding area that) and because alignment discussions--with their hypothetical scenarios, arguments over ethics and real world philosophy, Nazi analogies, microanalysis of behavioral choices, sweeping statements on subjective matters, etc.--just bore the dog fire out of me. Wholly uninterested in that aspect of gaming--as I say in my sig at DF, we explore dungeons, not characters.
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Aug 11, 2007 20:08:59 GMT -6
Actually, the choosing sides approach doesn't strike me as incompatible with the more expanded approaches. That is, it would be very easy to say that Law/Chaos is the primary cosmic struggle, with evil/good being a secondary categorization. Thus instead of LG, it would be more like L(g). Also, some groups or individuals might not realize that law/chaos is the primary cosmic struggle, and retain a "misleading focus" on good/evil.
Has anyone who doesn't use the good/evil axis ever run into problems or arguments over things like detect evil or protection from evil? (For example, "Hey, I think he was acting with 'evil intent,' so my detect evil spell should have warned us -- I don't care if he's Neutral and he doesn't consider his action evil!")
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Aug 11, 2007 23:30:37 GMT -6
I suppose that the wargame roots of D&D are to blame for some of the "Alignment Problem". It would make sense to have simple spells to reveal evil or good, or protect a character from good or evil in a face to face skirmish game. Personally I think better alignment systems have been created in other game systems. I really like the idea of being Amoral in Arduin- a character does not know, or care about right from wrong! What a great idea! Some of the palladium systems had an alignment for abberent behavior, that fit the Batman/revenge background of a character.
What is Lawful in one society, may be immoral, taboo, or evil in another! Of course those folks are all heretics anyway.... And all those self interested fence sitters are just, well sitting! Oh I know this all Philosophy 101 stuff, but it's just too much fun!
|
|
|
Post by Rhuvein on Aug 11, 2007 23:31:47 GMT -6
I find it interesting that the term “alignment” means so many different things to different people. One way to interpret it is like choosing sides. In this case, it’s more like allegiance and a character must choose to fight for whichever alignment best represents his view of the world. Examples include: * Paul Anderson’s Law versus Chaos struggle in Three Hearts and Three Lions, The Broken Sword, and others. The trolls and fairy folk were clearly “chaotic” and most humans were not. * Tolkien’s “Forces of Sauron” versus the world. Orcs were “chaos” in alignment as a group, even if some orcs were nicer than others. * Moorcock’s Law versus Chaos struggle in Elric and other Eternal Champion books. The gods were constantly trying to recruit beings to their side. * Zelazny’s Amber versus the Courts of Chaos. Political intrigue similar to USA/USSR cold war activity in the 1960-1980 years. * In Star Wars, one could argue that the Empire represented Law (but not good) while the Rebellion was Chaos (but not evil). * and countless others. The other way to interpret it is personal actions. In this case, each person is a scale and the way you act will tip the scale one way or the other. A person’s alignment would then be in continual change according to most recent actions. Alignment could then serve as a stereotypical guide as “how to” act in a given circumstance. * This is where it is possible to ask the question “can there be a good Orc?” and perhaps answer “yes”. While Tolkien’s orcs (for example) are considered to be a vile and nasty race, it’s clear that some orcs are mean just because they can be while other orcs are not so bad in comparison. Thus, a “neutral alignment orc” would be possible. * The Melniboneans are a nasty and arrogant race of demi-humans in Moorcock’s writings, but Elric is clearly different. He is contemplative, thoughtful, and not so quick to just kill for the fun of it. One could argue that those of Melnibone are evil, but Elric is not. Very interesting post, and one that reminds me of a couple more books on my list to read. Until then, I can't respond, right?
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 12, 2007 5:57:13 GMT -6
I suppose that the wargame roots of D&D are to blame for some of the "Alignment Problem". It would make sense to have simple spells to reveal evil or good, or protect a character from good or evil in a face to face skirmish game. Actually, this is a really interesting point. Anyone notice that alignment choices are Law/Chaos, yet there are spells such as Protection from Evil. Um, but "evil" wasn't one of my options. Nor can I cast Protection from Chaos. Clearly, it would seem that some duality existed from the onset, unless "Chaos" and "Evil" were considered to be the same thing, which doesn't make sense to me but if you look at the list of critters in the alignment table on page 9 of Men & Magic I'd say that Law=Good and Chaos=Evil isn't that far from the mark.
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Aug 27, 2007 12:56:25 GMT -6
Clearly, it would seem that some duality existed from the onset, unless "Chaos" and "Evil" were considered to be the same thing, which doesn't make sense to me but if you look at the list of critters in the alignment table on page 9 of Men & Magic I'd say that Law=Good and Chaos=Evil isn't that far from the mark. Here's what Gary said about this issue in his article, "The Meaning of Law and Chaos in Dungeons & Dragons and Their Relationship to Good and Evil" (from The Strategic Review Vol. II No. 1): That part about the "universal contest" is especially interesting, to me. It's basically what I was suggesting, above, about the L/C and G/E axes not being equal in their "cosmic significance."
|
|
|
Post by crimhthanthegreat on Sept 6, 2007 6:16:18 GMT -6
It's interesting that there is no description of what these alignments are. You're right. The closest thing I could find was a passage in Supplement I Greyhawk which says: Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that — chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederates in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place. Not much to go on; don't they always tell you never to use a word in its own definition? I suppose they just assumed that people could figure out what "Law" or "Chaos" represents. Again, this is one of the strengths (in my opinion) of OD&D because it left things up to the interpretation of the DM. I think part of it is that Gary assumed that you had read much or at least some of the same fantasy fiction that he had and therefore you would have some of your own basic understanding and could go from there.
|
|
|
Post by crimhthanthegreat on Sept 6, 2007 6:19:47 GMT -6
Actually, the choosing sides approach doesn't strike me as incompatible with the more expanded approaches. That is, it would be very easy to say that Law/Chaos is the primary cosmic struggle, with evil/good being a secondary categorization. Thus instead of LG, it would be more like L(g). Also, some groups or individuals might not realize that law/chaos is the primary cosmic struggle, and retain a "misleading focus" on good/evil. Has anyone who doesn't use the good/evil axis ever run into problems or arguments over things like detect evil or protection from evil? (For example, "Hey, I think he was acting with 'evil intent,' so my detect evil spell should have warned us -- I don't care if he's Neutral and he doesn't consider his action evil!") No, we don't have arguments, the Ref ruling is final. They get a chance to make their case, and then I rule and then we move on. We hammered all of that out well over 30 years ago.
|
|