|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 12, 2007 13:21:32 GMT -6
I'm of several minds about Alignment. I've seen it used as a strait-jacket, and I really dislike that. On the other hand, the Law/Neutrality/Chaos split works well in Moorcock, but seems a bit simplistic to me, even as an overarching perspective. On the third paw, I'm not sure if I like alignment, at all, anyway. What might be interesting is to take the Law/Chaos, Good/Evil split and instead of a nine-cell table (including Neutrality), you make one of these primary and the other secondary, to represent which element is most prevalent in someone. This might seem fiddly for people who want a taxonomy, but it allows you to figure out pretty quickly were someone stands: - Neutral/Good - someone who does the right thing for others, but otherwise might bend the law or uphold it, depending on what would be good to do.
- Neutral/Good - someone who strives to maintain balance, but is otherwise pleasant and helpful to others.
- Lawful/Evil - Willing to uphold the law, despite a cruel streak. Not willing to break the law even if that would be advantageous.
- Lawful/Evil - willing to twist the law so as to gain advantage and do harm to others. Quick to interpret the law in evil ways.
This is mostly thinking out loud, but it might provide a different interpretation of the old 3 x 3 system. "Alignment: Myers-Briggs for D&D characters"
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Dec 12, 2007 13:46:18 GMT -6
* 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. I wish I could dig up the quotes but I'm fairly certain that both Gygax and Moorcock have, at various times, indicated that it was Anderson's conception of Law vs. Chaos that served as the primary inspirations for their own idiosyncratic takes on it (and, of course, Gygax's interpretation doubles back on itself, being clearly influenced by Moorcock as well). My own take on this aspect of the game varies from campaign to campaign -- that's the strength of OD&D, as I keep saying -- but in general I go for the notion that "mundane" reality is Lawful, while "outsidedness" is Chaotic. Outsidedness includes magic (at least of the MU variety), as well as most magical creatures, because their mere presence, never mind action, upsets the very foundations of reality as most normal people experience it. Chaos isn't necessarily evil -- elves are strongly chaotic for me, like most "fey" creatures -- but it is disruptive and follows no known logic, which is why it is frequently associated with evil. Interestingly, Law and Chaos seem somehow bound up with divine power, or at least the cleric's vocation, since M&M makes it clear that clerics 7th level and above must decide for one alignment or the other. The possibility of Neutrality isn't available, which may explain in part why the druid eventually crossed the stage.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 12, 2007 13:49:08 GMT -6
Whatever the literary origins, my copy of Chainmail includes a 'general line-up' which makes it clear that one side is the 'good guys' and the other is the 'bad guys'.
And that works for me.
Your mileage may vary, as it always does in such matters.
|
|
wulfgar
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 126
|
Post by wulfgar on Dec 12, 2007 14:00:43 GMT -6
I think the 3 alignment system works well and is by far the easiest to explain to someone unfamiliar with D&D. You've got Lawful, Chaotic., and Neutral Which translates into:
Good Guys Bad Guys Guys who are out to save their own skin
or in other words
Luke Vader Han
It's simple and anybody gets it.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 12, 2007 14:31:21 GMT -6
I think the 3 alignment system works well and is by far the easiest to explain to someone unfamiliar with D&D. You've got Lawful, Chaotic., and Neutral Which translates into: Good Guys Bad Guys Guys who are out to save their own skin or in other words Luke Vader Han It's simple and anybody gets it. This is beautiful. Have an exalt! And it shows the flexibility of the system, as well. Say you're running a Star Wars game using the nine alignment system. Luke disobeys Ben to run off and find his aunt and uncle murdered. Then he disobeys Yoda to run off and try to rescue Han and Leia. Under a strict 'personal ethos' system, he's no longer lawful because he didn't keep his word. He may still be good (assuming he started as LG). Either way, it sparks off a long ranting discussion that takes people out of the game (and which therefore is A Bad Thing tm). But with the three alignment system, it's about sides. Everything he did, rash or not, was done to fight the other side, so he doesn't change alignment at all -- in fact, he's acting properly within his alignment.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Dec 12, 2007 14:55:42 GMT -6
I'm going with the "sides" interpretation myself, however, I would point out that Han really is on the "good guys" side, he just appears to be a neutral at the beginning.
Frank
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 12, 2007 14:59:24 GMT -6
I'm going with the "sides" interpretation myself, however, I would point out that Han really is on the "good guys" side, he just appears to be a neutral at the beginning. Frank I'm gonna have to disagree here. In the beginning, he starts out as neutral. He's just interested in his own hide. It's only at the battle of the death star, when he makes the decision to return to the fight (and save Luke's bacon), that's when he changes alignment (or more accurately, declares for the good guys.) Chainmail had something along the lines of "neutrals can be diced for to see which side they fight on". (I'm paraphrasing here, my copy of Chainmail is at home.) Anyway, again, this is my interpretation of what happened. I don't expect anyone else to be bound by it.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Dec 12, 2007 15:06:55 GMT -6
Of course I should have known better than to step into a discussion of applying game mechanics to fiction in other media... They never map over quite right (which is why I think things the "Gandalf was only a 5th level magic user" are silly statements, especially when used to justify some extreme set of houserules).
Frank
|
|
wulfgar
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 126
|
Post by wulfgar on Dec 12, 2007 15:07:33 GMT -6
I think one could argue either way on if Han changes alignment from neutral to lawful.
Now if he comes back and saves Luke and joins up with the Alliance because he wants to bring an end to the Empire, well then I think it's say to say he became "a good guy"
On the other hand, if he did everything he did just because he's after the RICH and BEAUTIFUL princess- well then I think he's still serving his self interests, so he could still be neutral.
In any case, I think we can all agree that the DM made Anakin change his alignment after slaughtering the Jedi preschool.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2007 16:27:11 GMT -6
Yeah, he was sure rackin' up those Dark Side Points. ;D ffilz is right, though. Applying alignment to other media is rather diffucult (hence the issue with alignment, anyhow). Alignment never really translates to real life events well, either. People change their alignment hourly. Heck, I'm sure in our lives we have ALL done something "against the law"-like speeding while driving, to use a simple example. The bottom line is (a) breaking the speed limit is wrong & "against the law" (a check against the Law column), & (b) it's dangerous, putting your life & other's lives at potential risk (well that certainly isn't a Good act, so there's another check for ya). And there you are: one very simple & willful act has already cost you on the "alignment scale". If only Obi-Wan had slapped that lesson into his little brat...
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 12, 2007 17:06:00 GMT -6
(I was gonna open a huge old can of worms here, but I thought the better of it. Not the right place for it.)
Nothin' to see here; move along...
|
|
|
Post by crimhthanthegreat on Dec 13, 2007 14:50:41 GMT -6
Very interesting reading, oh and my pm box is open for cans of worms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2007 15:48:47 GMT -6
So is mine, coffee. I love worms... ;D
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 13, 2007 15:51:37 GMT -6
It's the same old argument I've been having regarding alignment for, oh, 26 years now (give or take). I'll need to get back into the mindset I was in earlier, but when I have time (like later tonight, when I'm home from work) I'll see if I can reconstruct it.
Thanks for the interest!
|
|
|
Post by crimhthanthegreat on Dec 13, 2007 17:42:10 GMT -6
You are quite welcome! Everyone on hear seems to post such interesting stuff I hate to pass up anything. It is hard to keep up with everything and read the online games. Such a problem. ;D
|
|
Stonegiant
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
100% in Liar
Posts: 240
|
Post by Stonegiant on Dec 14, 2007 10:50:27 GMT -6
I have always been a fan of the 5-alignment system from the Holmes edition-
Lawful Good Lawful Evil Neutral Chaotic Good Chaotic Evil
It has always felt to me to be a happy medium between the 3-alignment system and the overly structured one in AD&D.
|
|
|
Post by evreaux on Dec 14, 2007 15:28:52 GMT -6
Good Guys
Bad Guys
Everyone Else
Anyone thinking more about it, or *arguing* more about it, at my table is summarily tarred and feathered. ;-)
|
|
sham
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 385
|
Post by sham on Mar 31, 2008 18:26:07 GMT -6
I think the 3 alignment system works well and is by far the easiest to explain to someone unfamiliar with D&D. You've got Lawful, Chaotic., and Neutral Which translates into: Good Guys Bad Guys Guys who are out to save their own skin or in other words Luke Vader Han It's simple and anybody gets it. This is perfect! I'll be 'borrowing' this analogy if you don't mind!
|
|
|
Post by dekelia on Mar 31, 2008 22:11:44 GMT -6
I think the 3 alignment system works well and is by far the easiest to explain to someone unfamiliar with D&D. You've got Lawful, Chaotic., and Neutral Which translates into: Good Guys Bad Guys Guys who are out to save their own skin or in other words Luke Vader Han It's simple and anybody gets it. I agree, it's just what side you're on. However, if you think about it, Luke = Chaos, Vader = Law. Luke was part of the rebelion trying to bring down the order of the Empire.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Mar 31, 2008 22:43:13 GMT -6
But at the same time, Palpatine was the Chaos of the past and the Law of the present.
Heh, maybe it's just a temporal, political classification of those who defy order (whichever this might be) and those who defend it.
Today's chaotics are tomorrows Lawfuls.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Apr 1, 2008 1:42:09 GMT -6
Just because the Empire appears orderly doesn't mean that they are "lawful" unless you're including lawful evil.
Just because the rebels are fighting them doesn't make them Chaotic, even with the 5 (or 9) alignment system; the rebels are trying to restore the Law of the old Republic. It was the forces of Chaos who undermined that system and took over, plunging the universe into Darkness.
I think way too much has been made over the years of the whole Law and Chaos thing, especially by people (like me) who haven't read Three Hearts and Three Lions.
As far as I'm concerned, they're names for sides. That's all.
You could as easily call them Good and Evil, or Right and Wrong.
Or Soup and Salad, for all of me.
And any of that would be fine. But what really bugs me is the people out there who use alignment to try to tell someone else how to play their character. Or to punish them for playing their character. A lot of mechanisms for that were put in place in AD&D and it's one of the many reasons I prefer the real thing (OD&D) instead.
But hey, I'm just feeling a bit ranty at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Apr 1, 2008 2:11:19 GMT -6
... in general I go for the notion that "mundane" reality is Lawful, while "outsidedness" is Chaotic. Outsidedness includes magic (at least of the MU variety), as well as most magical creatures, because their mere presence, never mind action, upsets the very foundations of reality as most normal people experience it. Chaos isn't necessarily evil -- elves are strongly chaotic for me, like most "fey" creatures -- but it is disruptive and follows no known logic, which is why it is frequently associated with evil. One benefit of this approach, for me, is how well it meshes with the concept of the Underworld as a mythic place outside the natural order. An Underworld dungeon is a cancer of "outside-ness" in the world. Chaotic beings are drawn there. Maybe they even spawn there out of pods and lightless, black pools (neatly sidestepping another "alignment issue:" the orc baby question).
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 1, 2008 7:29:07 GMT -6
One benefit of this approach, for me, is how well it meshes with the concept of the Underworld as a mythic place outside the natural order. An Underworld dungeon is a cancer of "outside-ness" in the world. Chaotic beings are drawn there. Maybe they even spawn there out of pods and lightless, black pools (neatly sidestepping another "alignment issue:" the orc baby question). I agree. I'm not a huge fan of mythic underworld approach to dungeons, but I also find some of the naturalism of Gygaxian D&D problematic, both from a mechanical and a "dramatic" perspective. Of course, I'm starting to come round to the notion that, in OD&D, at least until later in its run (I'm thinking around the time of Eldritch Wizardry or thereabouts), Law = Good and Chaos = Evil. There's very little hint that my interpretation is what Gygax and Arneson had in mind. With the exception of Men, Chaotic-aligned creatures are all monsters and I think that's rather telling.
|
|
|
Post by dekelia on Apr 1, 2008 9:36:00 GMT -6
Just because the Empire appears orderly doesn't mean that they are "lawful" unless you're including lawful evil. I would absolutely include the possibility of evil in Law, as long as the evil were on the side of order. Just because the rebels are fighting them doesn't make them Chaotic, even with the 5 (or 9) alignment system; the rebels are trying to restore the Law of the old Republic. It was the forces of Chaos who undermined that system and took over, plunging the universe into Darkness. I was more of less joking, but I do think it's true. In D&D to me, they really are just two sides. Depending on the campaign, you can pick what those two sides are. In "standard" OD&D it seems to me that the two sides are "Law" = Civilization, cities, order, "Chaos" = the creatures/people trying to bring down that order (even if to establish their own order). Under those guidelines a left wing militant insurgency (e.g. the Rebel Alliance) would definately fall under "Chaos" even if they were "good" and the "Law" was "evil". My real point was though, that it isn't the moralistic outlook that defines the sides, its just the sides themselves (and the name given to it almost doesn't matter). You can just as easily play it red vs. blue, etc. Good and Evil bring in morality which actually confuses it I think. As far as I'm concerned, they're names for sides. That's all. You could as easily call them Good and Evil, or Right and Wrong. Or Soup and Salad, for all of me. And any of that would be fine. But what really bugs me is the people out there who use alignment to try to tell someone else how to play their character. Or to punish them for playing their character. A lot of mechanisms for that were put in place in AD&D and it's one of the many reasons I prefer the real thing (OD&D) instead. That I agree with! Although again, I wouldn't personally use Right vs. Wrong, etc because adding moral terms seem to make people start to think its something else other than side. I think I'll use Soup vs. Salad from now on. ;D
|
|
jjarvis
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 278
|
Post by jjarvis on Apr 1, 2008 10:13:45 GMT -6
There is an element to the Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic alignment system that I like- It's possible to have "realistic" civilizations.
Two Lawful states can go to war with each other and there is no great moral conflict. rules of "civilized warfare" could evolve and would be in place. Prisoners can expect mercy, treaties are likely to be respected, you might get crazy rules like only 6 week of campaig allowed. Of course neutrals can't always be trusted and chaotics are unlikely to obey any civilized rules of law and lawful folks might not even be expected to overly restrict themselves while fighting chaotic folks.
Plenty of medieval laws were certainly developed and maintaiend in lawful societies but not ones that we would always consider good. Trial by combat...not good, might does not always make right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2008 21:07:27 GMT -6
Wouldn't it just be better to use Good, Neutrality and Evil instead of Law, Neutrality and Chaos?
Good and evil are easy to understand and is easy to apply in any given setting. Law and Chaos are not so easy to understand and ordinary situations in which they could be applied are not so easy to come by. Evil monsters will most likely attack the party unless the party seems to present too great a threat. Good and neutral monsters will not unless the party seems to present a threat. Neutral, unintelligent monsters may attack the party for food or to defend its lair. Actually, the last is its own alignment, the "animal alignment."
But what about Law and Chaos? OD&D seems to imply that the paragons of Law (usually the party) and Chaos (usually the monsters) seem to always be at odds. There must be some ideological struggle that motivates players to attack monsters and vice versa. However, as the 9-alignment system easily demonstrates, Laws are not always beneficial and follower of chaos does not imply a moral leper. This means that it is not necessarily sure that Lawful monsters will refrain from attacking or Chaotic monsters will attack on sight. I think that monsters will more likely attack based on considerations other than ideology. It is up to the DM to decide what they are.
|
|
|
Post by BeZurKur on Apr 6, 2008 22:59:46 GMT -6
Alignment is a roleplaying aid; it guides the player on what actions are suitable for his character. Like most things in OD&D, it requires the DM and players to work it out together to make their games work.
That said, I'm not a fan of the law=good/party and chaos=evil/dungeon. That breakdown already exists so alignment doesn't add anything or offer any guidance. What's the point of having it?
What I do like is the picture in Moldvay's Basic book that has three party members approaching the execution of a goblin from three different perspectives. In this case, the party's goal (explore/plunder the dungeon) allowed them to work together till the execution of a goblin opened up an interesting roleplaying situation.
I don't have a clear definition of what they are (that is up to the group to decide), but I do believe that every option should be available to every player withing the group; they should still be able to accomplish their ultimate goal despite it; and, it should offer guidance for roleplaying.
|
|
|
Post by kormydigar on May 1, 2008 12:48:30 GMT -6
The guys from WOTC seem to have a good sense of humor about alignments. On April fools day they posted a "preview" of the 4E character sheet with alignment as a checkbox. There were two options, no text and each with its distinguishing graphic: Autobot or Decepticon ;D
|
|
Bard
Level 3 Conjurer
The dice never lie.
Posts: 87
|
Post by Bard on May 13, 2008 7:30:55 GMT -6
When I started role playing, it was ad&d, I was reading lots of Moorcock and Tolkien. In Tolkien, there was two sides, the good and the evil. In Moorcock there was the Chaos and the Order. So the nine alignment system made perfect sense for me. Moorcock wanted to go away from the black&white cliche, but this is only another two poles... Anyways Moorcock's message was that no matter which side are you on, it has nothing to do with good, or evil. This philosophy isn't in the od&d LBB. They tried to correct this with the five or nine alignments system. But, I think, it went wrong. Moorcock didn't do it that way. He didn't defined the good and evil. The point is, that we can define Law or Order or Chaos, or Neutrality, but we cannot define good or evil. So the original concept Law, Neutral, Chaos is enough, but it shouldn't be confused with the good/evil polarity. More about neutrals. Dave Arneson used the neutral as a synonym to selfish. This makes perfect sense, when we think about the Law and Chaos as cosmic "sides". When you don't choose a side, you are on your own, you do whatever seems best for you. You are "selfish", a neutral. Some see this as evil, just to show, that this system is complicated enough when we use three variations only... I never actually played in a three alignment system, so I don't have experience with "detect evil", or "protection from evil" spells in this context. But I think if I were to DM in a setting like this, then "evil" in this context would mean: against the caster. If the thing wants to kill the caster, or harm him, then it is "evil".
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on May 13, 2008 7:52:18 GMT -6
I think that "evil" in those spells is to be interpretated as = danger, foe, menace, etc. So a paladin could be "evil" in that sense.
Evil in the sense that "it will do ME no good".
|
|