Alignment quote

[Finarvyn]

I was torn between posting this in M&M and in Fiction. M&M won.

When I think of Alignment, I always default back to Law v. Chaos and my primary inspirations are Michael Moorcock (Elric / Corum / Hawkmoon, etc) and Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions.

I was reading Moorcock's The Skrayling Tree when I came upon a quote (hardback p.54) that I thought was kind of neat.

There is madness in Chaos, just as there can be in Law. The forces take many forms and many names across the multiverse. To call them Good or Evil is never to know them, never to control them, for there are times when Chaos does good and Law does evil and vice versa.

I find this particularly interesting because since I began playing OD&D I've always used a black & white "Law = us = Good and Evil = them = Evil" model (much like Dave's Blackmoor terminology) and always attributed a similar alignment philosophy to Moorcock's universe. Clearly this is not so, and I'll need to keep that in mind as I re-read some of the books.

Of course, I know logically that there are examples where Law = Good is bogus (such as from Star Wars where the Empire is clearly Law but the chaotic Rebellion is the good guys), but it does trouble me when something that I assumed to be absolute and fundamental to OD&D turns out not to be.

Just me thinking out loud...

[waysoftheearth]

It's an interesting quote, especially for a Moorcock fan of old.

One could equally muse that to call Good and Evil "law" and "chaos" is to never know or control them, for there are times when Good acts chaotically and Evil acts lawfully (the Empire in Starwars) and vice versa.

I guess it's a question of scope; do we really need to solve questions of cosmic balance get a rat-tag bunch of 1st level adventurers started? Probably not.

That's why I've tried to stop thinking of alignment in terms of cosmic balance... that is far more work than I really need to do to get on with the game.

I've found it much easier to just think of alignment in terms of "personality guides". Good, Selfish and Evil are all well understood concepts that can be picked up right away by even novice players... so those are the alignments that are "in favour" with me at the moment

[Finarvyn]

Jun 27, 2010 21:38:19 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

I've found it much easier to just think of alignment in terms of "personality guides". Good, Selfish and Evil are all well understood concepts that can be picked up right away by even novice players... so those are the alignments that are "in favour" with me at the moment

And I think that is certainly the "modern" way of thinking about alignment -- in terms of the individual and how that person should act. Certainly that's the way my current gaming group wants to handle it.

I guess my "cosmic balance" roots run so deep. The cosmic balance approach is the way we did it back in the '70's and to a certain extent it has stuck with me even today.

[aldarron]

I think the complication about how we understand alignment comes from the direction Gygax took it in AD&D, splitting it into finer gradients of what basically is good and evil. But if you look at the original three, its not really about good and evil at all but about wether a character is libertarian or communal in outlook. I mean to what extent "law" - the socially predominant system of a given society - is upheld by the character. Thus a lawful character in early D&D will exterminate all "evil monsters" like the orc babies in CoC - any threat to the lawful society withou any moral qualms. Think "Spanish Inquisition" for truly lawful characters we might not think of as good in a moral sense.

[kesher]

Or, you could chuck the whole thing, and just go the route of Dungeonautica:

D13: Dungeonaut Alignment
In Dungeonautica, alignment represents your Dungeonaut's overall philosophy of life. Luckily, Alignment is just another Cliché! Just pick one from below, or make one up, and tack it onto one of your existing Clichés. If you put it on a Cliché with a lot of dice, then ethical concerns will wind up being important to the character. If you put it on a lesser Cliché then, for you at least, ignorance is bliss.

Angry
Brave
Cheerful
Cautious
Forgiving
Greedy
Helpful
Lazy
Prankish
Vengeful
Ummm... no offense, but 'alignments' are lame.

Yup. You might consider choosing a pithy quote that will color your entire character. For example, let's say you are a Nomadic Barbarian [4], Lonely Talespinner [3], Mysterious Master of the Oasis [2], Prizewinning Tomato Gardener [1]. That's all well and good, but try adding this for your Alignment:

Night is the university of the dervish

Now you're cooking with gas!

[snorri]

As far as I can see in the lbbs, Law = Life and Chaos = Death.

All spells and creature linked to nature tend toward Law (the whole idea of nature being neutral come later, starting with the Druid raising), and Law is strongly linked with curing wounds and disease. Law is also linked to light. In reverse, undeads and all death and painful spells are linked to Chaos.

Chaos is also linked to sin. Even if its unclear a Chaotic priest may be good, it's sure that the High Evil priest is always Chaotic and Evil. And a Law priest may become Evil if he overuse Finger of death. So, this also link Chaos to death, but also as a form of corruption of Law - the dark side of the law...

[irdaranger]

Jun 28, 2010 10:22:19 GMT -6 snorri said:

As far as I can see in the lbbs, Law = Life and Chaos = Death.

All spells and creature linked to nature tend toward Law ..., and Law is strongly linked with curing wounds and disease. Law is also linked to light. In reverse, undeads and all death and painful spells are linked to Chaos.

Chaos is also linked to sin. Even if its unclear a Chaotic priest may be good, it's sure that the High Evil priest is always Chaotic and Evil. And a Law priest may become Evil if he overuse Finger of death. So, this also link Chaos to death, but also as a form of corruption of Law - the dark side of the law...

That's a really good observation. And lawful characters in the LBB are the ones who can 'live' with other characters. Chaotic characters (and monsters) don't get along, and usually kill their neighbors and anyone handy.

The issue with Sin muddies the water a bit though. Unless you believe that Sins are actions that ultimately always lead to death (or an individual or a culture), in which case it holds together.

Jun 28, 2010 10:22:19 GMT -6 snorri said:

(the whole idea of nature being neutral come later, starting with the Druid raising)

Actually the Druid as Neutral works for your Life/Death dichotomy too, because the Druid is equally about life and death - the cycle of life. This is would explain why they get Reincarnation but not Raise Dead, since death is just as important as life to them, and rebirth is part of the cycle.

[waysoftheearth]

Jun 28, 2010 6:00:22 GMT -6 aldarron said:

I think the complication about how we understand alignment comes from the direction Gygax took it in AD&D, splitting it into finer gradients of what basically is good and evil. But if you look at the original three, its not really about good and evil at all but about wether a character is libertarian or communal in outlook. I mean to what extent "law" - the socially predominant system of a given society - is upheld by the character. Thus a lawful character in early D&D will exterminate all "evil monsters" like the orc babies in CoC - any threat to the lawful society withou any moral qualms. Think "Spanish Inquisition" for truly lawful characters we might not think of as good in a moral sense.

That's more or less how I tried to play too, with alignment being about politics. And it can work that way, for sure. But it isn't so strong when the PCs start getting involved in political change.

What happens to the PCs' alignments when the good King is replaced by his evil brother and the politics of the "given society" change dramatically? Are the lawful PCs still lawful? What about when they start fighting against the new, legitimate but evil king? Are they still lawful, or are they chaotic now? It can get tricky... but it's certainly interesting

[leon]

Gygax also made the distinction between law-good and chaos-evil early on. In Strategic Review 6 (so still OD&D), he introduced the familiar 2 axis alignment.
He writes:

Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters 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. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined.

[cooper]

Designating Law v. Chaos as more like two different teams in the same sport allows a group of players to swtich sides and roll up kobolds instead of halflings, Derro instead of dwarves, orcs instead of elves.

Misunderstood misfits works better than "hey guys, lets role play rapists and tortuous murderers!" a la Liane the Wayfarer from Jack Vance's, "Chun the unavoidable" being exactly the type of chaotic=evil character you would want to...avoid, as it were.

Obvious example is the horde vs. alliance in WoW as a model of law v. chaos being about style, not substance, about which team you play for, but not what kind of person you are. You can even see cold-war West as Chaos (free hand of the market place! free love! rock and roll! Let's change leaders every 4 years!) vs. Law of the Soviet Union (ordered society, you're a ballerina from age 5+ and your job is assigned to you at birth, politburo leadership lasts decades etc).

[snorri]

I like the West vs East analogy! have an exalt for that!

I tend to see the Law exactly as the Ten commandments, ie. really a Law, where civil rights, duties, morale values and relationship with the divine are blended. I see Law as more or less monotheist. After all, the Contact Higher plane contains the only God name in M&M : "gain knowledge from creatures inhabiting higher planes of existence (the referee)". The Referee is a perfect word for a nameless God of the Law.

In this view, Chaos is excatly the reverse and corruption of law, associted with death, darkness and corruption. That's why a priest who abuse from Finger of death is slowly corrupted and go toward the dark side, toward Chaos, becoming an high evil priest.

[coffee]

Jul 18, 2010 16:35:49 GMT -6 snorri said:

In this view, Chaos is excatly the reverse and corruption of law, associted with death, darkness and corruption. That's why a priest who abuse from Finger of death is slowly corrupted and go toward the dark side, toward Chaos, becoming an high evil priest.

This is the way I've always seen it, although I've never put it quite that that way.

The real problem I've had is getting that across to the players.

[Finarvyn]

Goes to "the Dark Side" as they say.

[snorri]

By the way, we could have a chronology of religions in OD&D world :

1/ First era: Primal struggle between Law & Chaos. Neutrality is feeble (as neutral clerics can't go further than 7th level). No deities, but concepts.

2/ Greyhawk era: rise of the Paladin. Apparition of the Dragon King & the Dragon Queen, as deities of law & Chaos.

3/ Blackmoor era: apparition of the first monastic orders.

4/ Eldritch era: Rise of druidism [so in OD&D, druidism is not the Old polytheist religion facing the new monotheist one, but quite the contrary, druidism spread as a new religion]

5/ Gods, demi-gods & heroes : Polytheism is now wide-spread, and the conflit bewteen Law & Chaos seems to fade away.

[piper]

In my 1970's OD&D campaign, I played the law-neutral-chaos as a continuum.

Law placed order and the greater good over individual freedom, though the best of lawful civilizations provided both.

There were two types of neutrals. 99% of neutrals were basically folks who cared little for what was happening in the world at large, or for the issues of Law versus Chaos, so long as it didn't directly effect them. I called these selfish neutrals and they were most often the peasants and farmers, i. e. the NPCs of the world.

True Neutrals were those who saw both Law and Chaos as necessary, both needed to keep the other from growing out of control. These individuals were rare and were often powerful behind the scenes type of figures. Assassins (NPCs only IMC, and a very organized secret society) were often true neutrals.

Chaos favors individual choice over law. Laws are for the unthinking masses and are to be ignored ad lib by exceptional individuals.

I favored this particular explanation because it allowed me to have "good" chaotic civilizations, such as the elven nations; and "evil" lawful civilizations in which the rule of law had grown monolithic and unyielding. This also allowed the peasantry to have the whole "when elephants war it is the grass that suffers" mentality about the whole thing, but smart enough to know that, overall, they benefited from Law holding dominance in the world at large.

[snorri]

According to spells and titles, Law refers to:
- Healing
- Purifying
- Good
- Light
- Blessing
- Life
- Patriarchy

And Chaos refers to
- Wounding
- Spoling
- Evil
- Darkness
- Cursing
- Death
- Shamanism

[Deleted]

I disagree that lawful characters put the greater good over personal freedom. The fact is they place law above personal freedom and they believe that, in and of itself, is good. To say the greater good is placed above all else would be to introduce a new concept, which would be utilitarianism.

Lawful characters put law above personal freedom or the greater good. They believe that simply following law is more important than the outcome of the law because only through following rules do they accomplish their goals. They believe that it is the order of things that make them desireable, where as Chaotic individuals believe the laws are pointless because all that matters is the outcome. That is what makes these two philosophies opposed. Just as evil characters believe that life, itself, has no value and good characters believe that life has some intrinsic value are philosophically opposed.

This distinction is what allows us to have chaotic characters that are good. They believe that life has value, but the only way to protect it is by not being forced to follow rules to protect it. Thus the plight of the vigilante. I like the Star Wars reference above. The empire was evil because the emperor was self serving and did not value life (except his own), but clearly there was law.

I don't think chaotic characters all believe that law is for the unthinking, just that it is not needed as it detracts from what is truly important which is protecting life in the case of good characters, or protecting personal freedoms in the case of evil characters. The way I think of it is good character protect life because it is intrinsically valuable. Those that destroy life need to be stopped.

Evil characters (honestly they get a bad wrap) do not place a value on life. They value personal choice. Anyone that limits personal choices (especially their own) must be stopped. Chaos and Law are merely the way of obtaining the underlying goal. Neutral characters, especially true neutral, I think, are the most difficult players to play. They value nothing. To them, life, freedom, and law are all equally valuable, which is to say none of them are more redeeming than the other. The concept is very difficult to understand unless you really think about it.

A true neutral character would have to admit that his life has no more inherent value than his death. Following rules is not better or worse than not. If you read the Gygax definition, then you would believe that they believe there needs to be some balance, but I struggle to understand why. You would have to play as though there is some inherent value in keeping a balance which would almost require you to keep a score card of what you did to make sure you were not leaning one way or another.

I understand what Piper is saying when he says that these figures would keep things in check, but I don't know why that would be needed.

[Falconer]

Paragraphs!

[piper]

Thanks for your thoughts, Gru. I obviously see alignment a bit differently than you do, but that's okay. There's plenty of room at the gaming table!

[piper]

One more thing I'd like to add to my thoughts, because it is so central to the way I run a game:

With all due respect to Gary Gygax (may he rest in peace) or the other greats of the halcyon days of TSR? They are not running my campaign. I am. Alignment works IMC the way I say it works.

Gygax, Arneson, Kunz, Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, Cook, Marsh (et al.) are excellent sources to cite, and I assure you I mean no disrespect to you or to them. In the final reflection, however, they merely provided the guidelines; I am the one breathing life into them.

[Falconer]

As Gygax wrote in SR#6: “most dungeonmasters 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...” Of course the rest of the article sets out to change that, but essentially, when using a 3-alignment system, I stick to that. Otherwise, why when they switched to 5 or 9 alignments were formerly Chaotic creatures often remapped as Lawful Evil, and formerly Lawful creatures often remapped as Chaotic Good?

So for me (“IMC”), the Emperor from Star Wars would be Chaotic in a 3-alignment system, and Lawful Evil in a 5 or 9 alignment system.

[piper]

(shrug) Well, don't get me wrong. I have no problem with the rules as written. I just have no problem changing things to suit my particular refereeing style. ;D

[James Maliszewski]

Jul 29, 2010 14:39:26 GMT -6 Piper said:

(shrug) Well, don't get me wrong. I have no problem with the rules as written. I just have no problem changing things to suit my particular refereeing style. ;D

Which is just as it should be.

[Deleted]

Sorry about the paragraphs and if I offended anyone by my opinions. I have always struggled with the the definitions of alignment and how to play within one, so I find the discussion quite interesting and I am always looking for others perspective.

[piper]

Gru, I won't speak for everyone but I wasn't offended. I'm rather enjoying the discussion.

[coffee]

Yes, as long as it remains civil, open discussion is always welcome here. And this has remained civil, despite it being one of the most contentious parts of OD&D!

All who participated may consider that I'd exalt them, if I hadn't just exalted somebody else.