|
Post by coffee on Dec 28, 2007 16:06:12 GMT -6
The key to alignment is that it provides an "us against them" system for the campaign. This is a pretty universal concept (Emprire v. Rebellion in Star Wars, Fellowship v. Sauron in Lord of the Rings, Axis v. Allies in WWII, or whatever) and is needed in some way in order to give some meaning to the conflict in a campaign. What makes alignment unusual in many RPGs is the fact that the alignment starts to dictate actions, rather than the other way around. 1. My character acts this way so he must be this alignment. 2. My character is of this alignment so he must act this way. A subtle difference, but an important one. A very, very important one! I don't really see Neutral as being an alignment; I see is as "unaligned". I.e.; you haven't taken a side yet (or are unaware that there are sides, as in the case of animals). Otherwise known as "Lawful Stupid". I've never liked that interpretation of alignment as straightjacket.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 28, 2007 20:09:13 GMT -6
I seem to be in Doc and raithe's camp - I've been doing some pondering about alignment (slowly trying to lay the foundations for a campaign, you see), and the Lax vs. Chaos thing seems to me to be an expression of 'natural law': the tendency either against or toward entropy. Good vs. Evil, however, is a purely human invention, and the lines of which acts are good and which evil are not always clear. (snip) On another level, I wonder if we could take a page from Tekumel, where the deities were divided into two camps: "Stability" and "Change." On the "human" level, I could easily envision temples in every city for deities of "Stability", "Balance", or "Change"; but away from the eyes of men, the nature of those three forces takes a rather darker turn (from our limited point of view, at least). I *used* to want a more complex alignment scale, or have none at all, but this discussion has changed my thinking. I'm more inclined now to simply use Law, Neutrality, and Chaos, and let "good" and "evil" be a matter of social and cultural construction. It keeps the clarity for the purposes of a theme in a campaign without getting bogged down in a kind of liturgical parsing that you get with the L/G and N/E and C/N, etc. system, which interferes with a player-character's free will. 'Sides, it keeps things simple for the explanation of why the dungeon is there. ;D
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Dec 29, 2007 14:44:05 GMT -6
I see Neutral as basically selfish. Most normal men are N. So are some Orcs. They are inclined to look after their own immediate welfare, lying doggo or bugging out when the war between Law and Chaos gets too close to home.
My impression is that most of Gygax's PCs are Neutral, and I'm inclined to think that most common -- especially among MUs. Clerics must eventually choose sides. Fighters face a pressure to do so, as basically Neutral henchmen and subjects favor one side or the other (with telling effects on Loyalty and Morale).
The Lords of Law and Chaos are naturally not inclined to favor much someone who has not cast his lot with their camp. Neutral high-level MUs must regard themselves as strong enough to treat with such worthies if not as equals than at least as figures whose interests must be considered.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 29, 2007 20:42:11 GMT -6
Okay, so Neutral might not be an alignment, but you get the gist of what I was trying to say. The paladin has an alignment requirement but I don't think any other class does, so the paladin has the "alignment dictates actions" rather than "actions dictate alignment" problem.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 29, 2007 20:48:00 GMT -6
Okay, so Neutral might not be an alignment, but you get the gist of what I was trying to say. The paladin has an alignment requirement but I don't think any other class does, so the paladin has the "alignment dictates actions" rather than "actions dictate alignment" problem. Ya know, I'm really not into dualistic constructions of practically anything, so the "Law vs. Chaos" dynamic doesn't work for me. Now add in Neutrality as another force, and life starts to get interesting. And paladins' behavior is dictated more by the strictures of their deity than by any larger force, or so I would think.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Dec 30, 2007 5:17:22 GMT -6
Thinking about it, I really prefer the "alignment is a side you're on" interpretation. What springs to mind is the Elric series, where Elric is aligned with Chaos not out of his own personal moral code or a reflection of some absolute morality, but instead because Chaos is the force in the cosmic struggle that his family's traditional allies have been on. I think it's more appropriate and evocative for a game than the interpretation that it's just a measure of your own personal morality. It's fitting for a fantasy game that the philosophical difference between Law and Chaos is a real thing, about which there is a cosmic struggle, and something that can find you some unexpected bedfellows. (It also puts a spin I like on the paladin as a sort of "commando of the Law side" rather than a simplistic good guy.) I would also say that I don't see the conflict as particularly good vs. evil; some "evil" creatures may simply be playing out a part in a much bigger tapestry, while human-scale evil tends not to be involved, or could take any side.
|
|
Stonegiant
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
100% in Liar
Posts: 240
|
Post by Stonegiant on Jan 10, 2008 12:28:06 GMT -6
Well, today, he attributes nearly every facet of AD&D to that book though, at one time, other attributions were made. I've long since learned not to take everything that EGG says at face value. He waffles a lot on certain topics (where inspiration for AD&D came came from is one such topic). While I'm sure Mr. Gygax's memory, like that of all of us, can sometimes be faulty, I'm pretty sure he's correct on this particular point. Indeed, if I recall correctly, Moorcock himself has stated that Anderson was his inspiration on the idea of Law vs. Chaos as cosmic principles. Seeing as how Anderson's book predates Elric, I can believe that. I remember reading that in a interview with Moorcock that Anderson was his primary influence for his Law vs. Chaos but that he provided his own twist to it.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 11, 2008 9:24:42 GMT -6
I was re-reading Holmes Basic the other day. I had forgotten that he used a 5-alignment scale.
OD&D = 3 alignments: * law * neutral * chaos
Holmes Basic = 5 alignments * law good, or law evil * neutral * chaos good or chaos evil
AD&D = nine alignments: * law good, law neutral, law evil * neutral good, neutral neutral, neutral evil * chaos good, chaos neutral, chaos evil
While the Holmes breakdown is a bit strange, it is also sort of logical if you assume that law-chaos is not the same as good-evil. It still allows for the law-chaos breakdown, but also accounts for the fact that order isn't always a good thing.
Somehow, once you get to a nine-alignment system in AD&D, this seems to be where alignment dictate actions rather than actions dictating alignment.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Mar 6, 2008 13:15:24 GMT -6
I'm in the OD&D camp. The lists of Law, Neutral, and Chaos creatures and where they fall (sometimes 2 or 3 of the lists) means that Chaos is an alignment you don't get to play under. Law or Neutral, that's it. Throw in your lot with civilization or do your own thing. Start being actively destructive and you've passed over.
The coolest thing about such simple chaos theory, life lives on the edge of each, style of play is that the big E & G are absolutely left undefined by the game. No one is telling you what Good or Evil is. You decide. If you want it in, say a quick Detect Alignment spell, the Good & Evil axis or spectrum is by that caster's God's personal preference. Thor, Zeus, and Set tend to see Evil differently. But all will join together to save civilization from chaos.
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Sept 3, 2009 16:36:07 GMT -6
Well, my view on this keeps changing, so all I can tell you is how I feel about it today. I have five Alignments - Good, Evil, Chaotic, Lawful and Natural. Natural is most people's Neutral, or Unaligned. A Natural being merely seeks to meet his basic needs and doesn't care about the Big Important stuff. They're content with Gold, Ale, Sex and (maybe) a little Gambling. Bears are Natural. As for the others, there's no cosmic forces. There's no "sides." The other Alignments are about what consumes you. Evil characters are consumed by Envy, Anger and Hate. We all feel these things occasionally, but to be consumed by them is to let them control your actions and dictate your strategies. The Evil character hurts others because it makes their pain just a little less for a little while. The Evil monsters driven by Envy, such as the Maimed One living in the Tunnels, are sometimes pitiable - but they are no less Evil. Chaotic characters are consumed by their Passions, whether that's painting, collecting butterflies, or eating human flesh. Both elves and goblins are Chaotic, demonstrating the lighter and darker sides of chaos, respectively. Some elves have dark passions though. Lawful characters have rules, and by God you're gonna live by them. Sometimes these Laws (or Traditions) serve good and important purposes, but that's not why the Lawful character follows them. They follow because them's the rules, and the Lawful character is consumed both by a desire to submit to something larger and more important than himself (and sometimes to make other people submit too). Lawful characters can also be sub-divided into Monks and Paladins - those who live by a code, and those who make everyone else live by a code. Good characters are consumed by Love and Compassion. It guides their every action. They're willing to put down rabid dogs if necessary, or kill to defend the innocent from the aggressor, but they'll feel regret in the doing. Genuinely Good characters are rare, since they're required to Love and be Compassionate towards all who objectively deserve it - not just friends and family. And they would also defend the innocent against even their brother's aggression, with lethal force if necessary. Most people just can't handle that sort of fairness. ----- My campaign world isn't all hopey-dopey though. All Orcs are Evil, and all Goblins have dark (Chaotic) passions, usually involving human sacrifices and wild dancing under the moon. No one needs to feel bad about killing them though. Occasionally I like to mix it up though with "the bad guy" just being a Natural (Sociopath) who just wants a little barony to rule so that he can feel safe and secure in the big, bad world - and he's willing to enslave a village of halflings or two if that's what it takes. Or a Lawful NPC who's "rules" aren't very nice, involving slavery and stuff.
|
|