ALIGNMENT
ALIGNMENT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After generating the abilities of your
character, selecting his or her race,
and deciding upon a class,
it is necessary to determine the alignment of
the character. It is possible that the
selection of the class your character
will profess has predetermined alignment:
a druid is 
,
a paladin is
lawful good, a thief
can be neutral or 
, an
assassin
is always . <revise>
Yet, except for druids
&& paladins, such restrictions still leave latitude -- the
thief can be lawful ,
lawful , ,
chaotic , chaotic
, ,
or even good; and the
assassin has nearly as
many choices. The alignments possible
for characters are described below.
Q: Since Good characters
usually don't
attack other Good characters,
will Evil
characters usually not attack
other Evils?
A: A bit of clarification:
Law/Chaos describes
behavior, while Good/Evil
has to
do with motivatioin. A Good
character
usually doesn't hurt others
unless necessary;
an Evil one often does.
Lawful
Evils usually don't attack
each other (unless
a power struggle is going
on, or
something along that line),
but who can
tell what a Chaotic will
do?
(Polyhedron #3)
In preparing to re-open my
AD&D
campaign
I?ve been going through
my meager collection of
DRAGONS and have
found nothing but contro-
versy over one of the linchpins
of AD&D role-
playing: alignment. After
all, a 25th level
magic-user is just like
every other 25th level
magic-user, except for his/her
outlook on life.
Thus, alignment is the major
method of defining
a character?s personality.
Normally, I would have kept
this to myself and
the players in my campaign,
except for two of the
letters in The Forum for
issue #82: the ones from
S.D.
Anderson and Ralph Sizer.
Both show a
tendency rife within the
AD&D
?community? to
read more into alignment
than what is in the
source material.
Basically speaking, alignment
is a general
definition of where an individual
stands in refer-
ence to the two great struggles:
Law vs. Chaos
and Good vs. Evil.
First, look at Law vs. Chaos.
I feel this is a
poor choice of words, giving
an undertone of
good vs. evil and value
judgment. (How many
readers would rather live
in a chaotic society than
a lawful one?) Perhaps better
titles would have
been ?Groupism? and ?Individualism,?
for this
is basically what the question
boils down to. The
lawful person believes that
the ?true path? lies in
a strong central government,
that the needs of the
individual should be secondary
to the needs of the
group. The chaotic person
believes in the right of
the individual to determine
his/her own destiny.
A lawful person, then, will
voluntarily submit to
rules and regulations because
this will make
society as a whole stronger.
The chaotic will
submit to rules and regulations
mainly to stay out
of jail and retain his/her
freedom of action.
Good vs. evil boils down
to the value placed on
human life. (This also extends
to other races as
well. It?s up to the DM
to determine which races,
but the players have to
be informed!) Those of
good alignment value life
highly and will not kill
without good cause. Torture
would not normally
be condoned, depending on
the needs of a greater
struggle. Truth is revered,
but can be stretched if
circumstances dictate. The
evil one, on the other
hand, feels no remorse at
killing, torture, or
lying. Again, circumstances
may dictate saving a
victim or telling the truth.
Seen from this viewpoint
alignment becomes
quite clear. Although variations
are apparent
within each alignment, the
lawful good character
will have his/her viewpoint
unique from that of a
chaotic good.
Now on to the letter from
S.D. Anderson,
wherein the author cites
the civilizations of Rome
and Greece as lawful. Rome
I accept without
question, but Greece?! A
civilization that fought
numerous wars to avoid the
ascendancy of one
city over the other and
form a central govern-
ment? One that felt that
each individual citizen
should be in on all decisions
of central authority?
Granted, each city-state
could be described as
lawful, but the whole thing
? never!
And as for Mr. Sizer?s ?Why
there can never
be an Anti-Paladin? letter,
I find that one major
point has been overlooked:
choice. A person
chooses his/her alignment.
Thus it is no more
difficult to be lawful good
if one chooses to be
than it is to be chaotic
evil if that is your choice.
And as for Mr. Sizer?s penultimate
sentence,
chaotic evil gods would
reward a character for
?having fun? for the same
reasons the lawful
good gods reward their paladins
? the character
is furthering the ends of
the god(s).
I do agree, somewhat, with
the lack of chaotic
paladins. A chaotic could
not submit to all the
rules and regulations required
of a paladin and
still be chaotic. A neutral
could barely squeak
through. But there is nothing
to stop the gods of
the other eight alignments
from bestowing
paladin-like powers on those
who champion their
cause, too. It would require
the character to
adhere just as strictly
to his/her alignment as the
true ?paladin? and
similar penalties for backslid-
ing. So all you anti-paladins
can breathe a sigh of
relief ? you can
exist after all.
Jeff de Remer
Jefferson, Ore.
(Dragon #86)
THE NINE ALIGNMENTS:
The major precepts of this alignment are
freedom, randomness, and woe.
Laws && order, kindness, &&
good deeds are disdained.
Life has no value.
By promoting chaos && ,
those of this alignment hope to bring themselves to positions of power,
glory, and prestige in a system ruled by individual caprice and their own
whims.
Arioch
(god of chaos & evil)
Xiombarg
(goddess of chaos & evil)
<find another image> <image=x>
While creatures of this alignment view
freedom and the
randomness of action as ultimate truths,
they likewise place value on life
and the welfare of each individual. Respect
for individualism is also great.
By promoting the gods of CG, characters
of this alignment seek
to spread their values throughout the
world.
Question: is it okay
for a CG character to torture others?
To slay helpless opponents?
To back
stab?
Answer: The act of
torturing is basical-
ly “ungood,” and even in
the case of ex-
treme hatred for another
race or creature
type a good character will
not perform
such an act. But there might
be times
when it is justified, if
the end result is
good and it cannot be achieved
any oth-
er way. A character who
can justify his
actions (to the DM) in such
a manner
might expect to be able
to torture an
enemy without changing his
alignment
status. The “clean” slaying
of helpless
opponents is acceptable,
if those oppo-
nents had previously presented
a chal-
lenge to the character and
his party and
had attempted to harm the
CG
character. The act of back
stabbing by a
CG character is acceptable
when it is performed on
an enemy of the
character and his party
— but turning on
other party members in the
middle of an
adventure is not a good
act. — J. Ward,
W. Niebling
Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit":
Above respect for life and good,
or disregard for life and promotion of
evil,
the chaotic
places randomness and disorder.
Good && evil are complimentary
balance arms. <??>
Neither are preferred,
nor must either prevail,
for ultimate chaos would then suffer.
<small .gif symbol of chaos?>
Creatures of this alignment are great respecters
of laws and
strict order, but life, beauty, truth,
freedom and the like are held as
valueless, or at least scorned.
By adhering to stringent discipline, those
of LE alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.
Lawful
Good, "Crusader":
While as strict
in their prosecution of law and order,
characters of LG
alignment follow these precepts to improve the
common weal. Certain
freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to
bring order; but
truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great
importance. The
benefits of this society are to be brought to all.
QUESTION:
We had a bit of trouble last week with this
problem:
A LG Ranger was in our party and we came
across
a wounded Wyvern. He and the DM said he
had to
protect
it from the rest of the party until it attacked him. What
happens
now?
ANSWER:
I don’t see what the problem is.
If
your DM said that the
Ranger will protect the
Wyvern,
then I guess he will.
All
you can do is wait and see if the Wyvern attacks him or anyone else in
the party.
Simple
matters similar to this are the sole responsibility of DMs. If a DM
writes
and asks this question, then I would give him an answer slightly
different
from yours. Otherwise, the DM is the final word in matters of
his
or her own campaign.
Question:
If a Ranger is hired to do a job, signs a con-
tract,
and then walks out on the agreement, is he in violation
of
his lawful good alignment?
Answer:
It’s impossible to answer this question accurately, be-
cause
I don’t know what the circumstances were behind his not
fulfilling
the agreement, or for him signing the contract in the first
place.
In fact, I don’t even know what the agreement was. This is
something
that the DM of your game must decide, based upon the
conditions
of the agreement which was violated. Was it a fair
arrangement?
Was the Ranger forced into signing it? If so, did he
then
try to manipulate events so that the agreement would be
impossible
to fulfill? All these questions, and more, are important to
deciding
this issue. You can’t simply charge someone with violating
his
alignment just because he failed to live up to an agreement.
Question: Are lawful good characters able to use poisoned weapons?
Answer:
Page 107 of the Players Handbook discusses poison
in detail,
with
the major conclusion being that poison usage should be severely limited.
Ultimately,
the decision lies with your DM. — W.Niebling, J. Ward
LAWFUL GOOD
DMPrata
wrote:
Gary,
seeing how you define Lawful Good, to what alignment would you ascribe
the qualities of mercy, benevolence, and -- dare I say -- pacifism? Would
you consider such traits Chaotic? Evil?
To my mind, the example you just described of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" represents Lawful Neutral. That is, for society to be viable, order must be upheld at any cost. Those who do not conform to the will of society forfeit their right to exist within it, and are subject to whatever punishment (death included) best serves the society.
I
am not going to waste my time and yours debating ethics and philosophy.
I
will state unequivocally that in the alignment system as presented in OAD&D,
an eye for an eye is lawful and just, Lawful Good, as misconduct is to
be punished under just laws.
Lawful Neutrality countenances malign laws. Lawful Good does not.
Mercy
is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence
is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would
be slaves.
They
have no place in determining general alignment, albeit justice tempered
by mercy is a NG manifestation, whilst well-considered benevolence is generally
a mark of Good.
Gary
DMPrata
wrote:
Gary,
seeing how you define Lawful Good, to what alignment would you ascribe
the qualities of mercy, benevolence, and -- dare I say -- pacifism?
Would
you consider such traits Chaotic?
Evil?
Cildarith
wrote:
Lawful
stupid? 
With
regard to pacifism, that is aprpos, also with regards to athesim in the
FRPG where there are active deities.
Only
idocy or mental derangement could explain such absurd beliefs in such a
milieu.
Gary
Quote:
I
just wanted to say how much I enjoyed the Gord the Rogue series. I just
finished "Dance of Demons" and it was a blast. Reading these books has
given me a new take on how demons and celestials act. The rigid dogma and
inflexible attitudes of the Solars they encountered was interesting. No
turn the other cheek attitude there.
Heh,
and the alignments as defined in OAD&D are fairly narrow, and as I
mentioned earlier, Lawful good is LAWFUL first, that being the qualifier
of Good.
The
Biblical example in the Hebrew Scriptures of the Mosaic is a good guideline
as to how the LG ethos operates.
Those of this alignment view regulation
as all-important,
taking a middle road betwixt evil and
good. This is because the ultimate
harmony of the world -- and the whole
of the universe -- is considered by
lawful
creatures to have its sole hope rest upon law and order. Evil
or good are immaterial beside the determined
purpose of bringing all to
predictability and regulation.
LAWFUL NEUTRAL
fid wrote:
Gary, one more alignment
question if you don't mind. Trust me you'll get a laugh after I fill you
in. What alignment is this character?
He chooses what rules/laws to obey, with an eye toward the likelihood of apprehension/retribution in deciding which ones must be given public lip service.
His actions are highly organized and reflect pragmatic behavior within a society of 'laws'. He lives within the parameters of a code established by his own thoughts, not imposed from the outside. (He thus has little respect for 'authority'.)
He has no evil motivations, and has been known to be kind, merciful, and generous. However, the general orientation is produced from within.
Gary wrote:
Howdy Fid,
I'd judge the character
to be Lawful Neutral, as he ignors the societal norms and adheres to his
own sort of law and order.
Although he has no Evil
intent, it is well known that "The road to Hell
is paved with good intentions."
Cheers,
Gary
Anonymous wrote:
Here, Gary, is the first
variation within the alignment of LN for ADandD 1st
edit. that I have in mind: can my PC claim to be LN by adhering
to my own personal code or principle? Or does LN for ADandD 1st edit. mean
that it has to be the law, code, or principle of at least two or more persons,
characters, and creatures?
Law is not personal in society.
It is established by members of the society. The Lawful Neutral ethical
viewpoint puts adherance to the Law over Good or Evil.
Law id force. Remember that.
Gary
JASON THE RULESREADER wrote:
Law as force....? The divine
will.
So divine force over personal will.
...
...
Actually, I am speaking
of actual fact and applying it to the FRPG medium.
All law is force...or else it isn't law, it is a suggested course of behavior. Law is enFORCED. Simple as that and no need for vapid philospphizing over what is demonstrable fact.
Cheers,
Gary
The neutral
creature views law && chaos
as unnecessary considerations, for pure
is all-in-all.
Either might be used, but both are disdained
as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum evilness to the
world.
Neutral Good, "Benefactor":
Unlike those directly opposite them (neutral )
in
alignment, creatures of NG believe that
there must be some
regulation in combination with freedoms
if the best is to be brought to the
world - the most beneficial conditions
for living things in general and
intelligent creatures in particular.
Anonymous wrote:
Gary, what about if I am
a TN-alignment nondruid cleric of Fharlanghn in your GreyHawk campaign
for ADandD 1st edition. Fharlanghn's alignment
is listed as N(g), which to me is awesome. That is exactly the TN-alignment
variation that I am. N(g) means true-neutral with a beneficial overview
for all persons, characters, and creatures?
To force the ethos of True
Neutrality, let alone good, upon others violates the major tenet of the
alignment, that is truely neutral in regards all things.
If one is Neutral Good one is not a TN, but rather one determined that Good is superior to all other ethical views--something I personally agree with, but that has nothing to do with the game alignments.
Cheers,
Gary
Anonymous wrote:
Gary, I forgot to add in
my above Guest post about Fharlanghn: for ADandD
1st edit., can my PC intellectually embrace a variation of TN-alignment
that spreads the ideals of balance and fairness? Each alignment in ADandD
1st edit. has all variations and shades of tendencies as you stated
in your 1978 PHB for early ADandD 1st edition.
That's up to your Dm, but
I would tule that the cleric in question is Neutral Good, no two ways about
it. Fairnedd is not a TN concept, save as a counterweight to unfairness;)
Cheers,
Gary
phasedoor wrote:
Gary, i remember you saying
in a reply to me that fairness is not the same as TN-alignment. my character
in ADandD 1st edit. likes fairness, so what is his alignment? am i correct
to think that the ideal or value of fairness in the world of ADandD 1st
edit. can be represented by any nonevil alignment.
Fairness and equity are
likely best represented by Neutral Good. Lawful Good would place Law above
its equitable component. Any other alignments will likely consider fairness
to abstract a concept to be a major consideratiom
Cheers,
Gary
dcas wrote:
Col_Pladoh wrote:
Fairness and equity are
likely best represented by Neutral Good. Lawful Good would place Law above
its equitable component. Any other alignments will likely consider fairness
to abstract a concept to be a major consideratiom
By equity do you mean epikeia?
Please!
Arguments over semantics are a waste of everyones' time.
I mean equity in English language sense of being just to all parties concerned.
Gary
dcas wrote:
Gary, I wasn't arguing over
semantics, I promise! 
Sometimes
moralists use the word "equity" to mean "epikeia" and I was wondering if
you were using it in the same (albeit technical) sense.
I mean the classical sense
of the English word, impartiality and justice according to natural law,
those defining fairness.
Gary
The "true" neutral looks upon all other
alignments as facets
of the system of things. Thus, each aspect
- and good, chaos and
law -
of things must be retained in balance
to maintain the status quo; for
things as they are cannot be improved
upon xcept temporarily, and even
then but superficially. Nature will prevail
and keep things as they were
meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding
the hub of Nature does
not become unbalanced due to the work
of unnatural forces -- such as
human and other
intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be.
ADQ: Attached is my 2401 page double-spaced
typewritten manuscript
dealing with the differences between the
Neutral and True Neutral alignments
(the former being suitable for most
characters, but the latter restriced to
druids). Will you please publish it as
a
member submission?
ADA: No.
(Polyhedron #23)
TRUE NEUTRAL
WyzardWhately,
Not much to add to your exposition,
other than to say that Concordant
Opposition is Balance.
The Oriental concept of
Yang and Yin is good example of the True Neutral concept.
How I would love ID political parties with the D&D alignments, but that's a no-no <EEK!>
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by WyzardWhately
5. Additionally, any thoughts
you have on the True Neutral alignment would be appreciated. My character
leans in that direction, and I've started taking crap from one of the other
players who says no one would ever act that way (My defense that real people
don't throw Fireballs either has shut him up, but it won't last. I swear
this guy puts more effort into criticizing my characters than roleplaying
his own. Sheesh.)
Che true neutral sees all
of the cosmos as a whole mechanism, the opposing forces necessary to keep
the "mechabnism" running as it should.
Daek balances light, death
life, evil good, suffering pleasure, etc. that help?
Cheers,
Gary
richardstincer wrote:
Gary, in my signature below,
I have the belief that TN is a general alignment--am I correct? All of
the other 8 alignments seem to be more specific.
hi richard,
TN is True Neutral, those
that believe that all other alignments are simply a part of the whole picture,
each necessary to counterbalance the others. To maintain the cosmos, the
True Neutral holds than each of the other eight ethoi must remain viable
and active. for example, this view holds than one can not know good without
evil.
Cheers,
Gary
richardstincer wrote:
if I get a TN-alignment
dragon to pull it, it ensures the quality of my life and travelling. I
will have it as my equal partner to spread fairness and balance, which
is TN(g).
Oops!
I don't think a TN individual
would be much interested in spreading his beliefs, only seeing that those
who have opposing views do not gain a preponderance in the scheme of things.
Live and let live is a good TN motto;)
Cheers,
Gary
Anonymous wrote:
Gary, what about if I am
a TN-alignment nondruid cleric of Fharlanghn in your GreyHawk campaign
for ADandD 1st edition. Fharlanghn's alignment is listed as N(g), which
to me is awesome. That is exactly the TN-alignment variation that I am.
N(g) means true-neutral with a beneficial overview for all persons, characters,
and creatures?
To force the ethos of True
Neutrality, let alone good, upon others violates the major tenet of the
alignment, that is truely neutral in regards all things.
If one is Neutral Good one is not a TN, but rather one determined that Good is superior to all other ethical views--something I personally agree with, but that has nothing to do with the game alignments.
Cheers,
Gary
Anonymous wrote:
Gary, I forgot to add in
my above Guest post about Fharlanghn: for ADandD 1st edit., can my PC intellectually
embrace a variation of TN-alignment that spreads the ideals of balance
and fairness? Each alignment in ADandD 1st edit. has all variations and
shades of tendencies as you stated in your 1978 PHB for early ADandD 1st
edition.
That's up to your Dm, but
I would tule that the cleric in question is Neutral Good, no two ways about
it. Fairnedd is not a TN concept, save as a counterweight to unfairness;)
Cheers,
Gary
Neutrality is an ethical
and moral alignment that is disinterested in the concerns of Good and Evil,
Law and Chaos, seeing them as necessary for the overall harmony of the
human cosmos.
the principal value judgements
of the True Neutral concern balance, and what causes any particular position
to become overbearing is unharmonious and so to be opposed.
Cheers,
Gary
Richard
wrote:
Also,
can you please answer this question of mine: Gary, I remember that your
TSR Hobbies, ADandD 1st Edition rpg, 1978 Player's Handbook has it printed
that the TN alignment can opt for some more specific alignment, but any
radial movement has to be proved by acts or something like that. Does radial
movement mean that I can shift diagonally upwards to--and diagonally downwards
from--the two corners of lawful-good and chaotic-good? Because there are
some 1st Edition ADandD Greyhawk deities who have alignments listed as
CG(TN), TN(CG), TN(LG), LG(TN), and other similar alignment tendencies,
I am thinking the answer is yes, but I'm not sure.
One
can change from TN to another alignment by acts that are strongly of that
other alignment.
At
that moment the PC is no longer a TN.
It
is NEVER possible to have two alignments.
Cheers,
Gary
Re:
An Alignment Question for ya EGG
Quote:
Originally
posted by Son_of_Thunder
Whew,
Page 10 before I found this.
Gary, I don't know if this has been asked before. My question is about the true neutral alignment. I believe I have the other alignments worked out in my head but I'm having trouble imagining the motivations or characteristics of someone of true neutral alignment.
How did you come up with the neutral alignment and; How do you represent someone with the alignment?
Thanks,
Son
of Thunder
Heh....
I'd thought this thread had slipped even further back
The
true neutral ethos is one that sees all as part of a whole.
One
must have evil to know good, disorder to know order, and so on.
Looking
at the cosmos as consiting of all permutations of that sort of opposition,
the
true neutral is convinced that these balancing forces are necessary for
the whole to operate properly,
allow
people and nature and everything their freedom to be as they are meant
to me--or opt to be.
In
this light,
if
any one opposing force becomes too powerful,
the
whole system is threatened,
so
thus true neutral opposes the ascendency of law or chaos,
good
or evil.
That
is out of the harmony necessary in the cosmos.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally
posted by Son_of_Thunder
Ok
Gary,
While I can intellectually accept your reply, I have trouble internalizing it.
I've pondered your reply but as yet has not made sense to me. Take for example a gnome wizard we had in a high level game. He gave his alignment as true neutral, we were in 'A Paladin in Hell' by Monte Cook. We were facing some demons and winning. Now the player of the gnome says that he's going to join the side of the demons because it is unbalanced. His statement was met by incredulity around the table and if he would of went through with it he would of had five high level PC's attacking him.
The true neutral seems a self destructive life to me. Does the character believe in anything? Does he do good and then do evil to balance it out? It seems to me that one or the other would effect the soul to which one it truly likes to do.
I don't know, maybe I'm rambling but take a true neutral fighter, for example. What does he believe in? What motivates him?
Son
of Thunder
Pardon
me for saying so, but the play of the gnome PC
was simply a sorry example of bending alignment information to suit a particular.
disruptive, purpose IMO. The example isn't logical for someone believing
in balance, as the party was in the midst of LE foes, and the gnome was
supposedly a member of that group. A victory for them would hardly unbalance
the cosmos... He was unbalancing things, not seeking to level the matter.
What that character could have done was to ally with a team of LE PCs bent on stopping the Good one. That would have been seeking a balance.
The TN character believes in the cosmos as a whole entity, one with many aspects, all of which are necessary to life and that which is greater. Perhaps Zen Buddahism is near to that concept.
Think of a world without contrasts, no loght and dark, joy and sorrow, etc. Each specific alignment would remove many of the contrasts that oppose their ethical viewpoint. the TN character does not want that to happen
What I really wonder is how the other party members knew that the gnome was a TN individual, as alignment is not meant to be announced. for characters it was a guideline for roleplay and a measure for the DM to use when judging the PCs actions.
Cheers,
Gary
Naturally, there are all variations and
shades of tendencies within each
alignment. The descriptions are generalizations
only. A character can be
basically good in its "true" neutrality,
or tend towards . It is
probable
that your campaign referee will keep a
graph of the drift of your character
on the alignment chart. This is affected
by the actions (and desires) of your
character during the course of each adventure,
and will be reflected on
the graph. You may find that these actions
are such as to cause the
declared alignment to be shifted towards,
or actually to, some other.
While involuntary change of alignment is
quite possible, it is very difficult
for a character to voluntarily switch
from one to another, except within
limited areas. Evil alignment can be varied
along the like axis. The neutral
character can opt for some more specific
alignment. Your referee will
probably require certain stringent sacrifices
and appropriate acts -
possibly a quest, as well - for any other
voluntary alignment change. In
fact, even axial change within evil or
good, or radial movement from
neutrality may require strong proofs of
various sorts.
Further voluntary change will be even more
difficult. Changing bock to a
forsaken alignment is next to impossible
on a voluntary basis. Even
involuntary drift will bring the necessity
of great penance.
Question: If a character
changes his alignment from
Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic
Neutral Good, does the char-
acter have to lose a level?
Answer: A character
cannot be Chaotic Neutral Good, because
this violates the alignment
structure. A character could, however, be
described as Chaotic Neutral,
tending towards Good. If a character
exhibits this tendency,
he/she should not lose a level. However, if
he/she changes completely
from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Good,
then a loss in level becomes
necessary.
(Reminder: Unless
0-level rules are being used, a PC must be L2 or higher in order to lose
a level from alignment change).
(Correction: Technically,
there are CnNg characters, according to the Character
Alignment Graph, and the Alignment rules at GHA.117.
Level loss can only occur
if one of the CAPITAL LETTERS changes).
SA: Loss of neutral alignment equals loss of druid powers.
THE FORUM
The debate about character alignment of late
has driven me to give my thoughts on the subject.
In the original edition of the D&D®
game, all
characters were told that ?it is not only necessary
to select a role, but it is also necessary to determine
what stance the character will take.? To the
new hobby of fantasy role-playing, character
alignment was an important concept. Not only
did it state what the imaginary player character
believed, but it also served to help the player to
better take on the role of his or her persona.
In later supplements of the original rules set,
alignment was taken a step farther. It was used as
a means (along with ability scores) to determine
whether or not a PC was eligible for one of the
more specialized (and often more powerful) subclasses.
In this way, alignment was a tool used by
both the players and the Dungeon Master to
relate to the characters? beliefs, ways of acting,
and to restrict entrance into certain sub-classes.
It has been eleven years since the original D&D
game appeared. While many of the ideas found in
those little brown booklets and supplements were
expanded and revised for inclusion in the AD&D
game, alignment was not one of them. Even
though the number of possible alignments has
been tripled and more detailed descriptions of
each ethos given, they are used as little more than
tools for the players and Dungeon Master, in
much the same way as was done over a decade
ago.
My belief is that alignment should be used to
restrict entrance into certain character classes and
to determine how a player character will act in
most circumstances. For example, an assassin, no
matter how evil or chaotic he or she may be,
would not attack the first group of good and/or
neutral adventurers sighted simply because of
their conflicting alignments. The assassin character
class as written is composed of very intelligent
individuals who make a living by killing those
individuals who are deemed ?troublesome? by
the assassin?s employer. Being as intelligent as he
is, an assassin would know when a particular job
was over his head. Intelligence, not only alignment,
should dictate how a character reacts to
certain situations. Similarly, paladins do not
charge the first demon prince they see, even
though such a creature is diametrically opposed
in its beliefs and actions.
Thus, alignment has been around with fantasy
role-playing games too long simply to be forgotten.
It is still an integral part of the game. Alignment,
like other aspects of the game, needs only
to be restructured in order to once again take its
place of importance among the minds of players
and their fantasy personae. Remember that all
that needs to be done is use your head!
James Maliszewski
Baltimore, Md.
(Dragon #105)
richardstincer wrote:
Thanks for that, Gary, but
I am having trouble understanding your last sentence in your above post.
For early ADandD 1st edit., does that mean my PC nondruid human cleric
can have the alignment of NG(LG) if my alignment is between LG and NG for
example?
Of course your PC can be
of any alignment you desire regardless of where on the planes he calls
home--
although being of other
alignment in the outer planes dedicated to
a specific alignment makes such a character problematical, likely short-lived.
A character can certainly have a differentiation from the nine primary alignments. A LnG Pc for example, or a NlG, the lower-case indicating the propensity towards the second alignment while remaining in the main one. For example NlG= Neutral (with a leaning towards lawfulness) Good.
Cheers,
Gary
Anonymous wrote:
Hey Gary,
I 've been trying to strike a balance in the tone of my campaigns where the PC's are not all one "big family". I find that everything becomes to convenient and isn't very "realistic" in the sense that not even with your best friends would people behave in such fashion. The PC's should also have some personal motivation that might or might not coincide with the party. I have ruled that sharing info such as alignment, true personal finances, etc. are to be kept secret as much as possible and character sheets are absolutely to be kept secret.
I always had the impression that during your campaigns with 20-30 players( total I mean) that when someone brought out their 8th level wizard that the other PC's around the table would also feel nervous. Not knowing if this "wizard" was completly sane or "good".
Did you only allow Neutral and Good PC's to adventure together to avoid intra-party rivalries or conflicts? Consequently, allowing Evil PC's to only adventure with Neutral PC's as well?
Why were evil alignments allowed if it wasn't to create intra-party conflicts or at least keep players "honest" and wary? (were "evil' PC's mainly used in all "evil" parties?)
Is it contrary to the spirit of the rules to foster PC independence? Will it lead to unforseen problems later? Like bitter PC rivalries and a cut-throat game?
thanks,
Alex
I don't interfere in the
PC relationships in campaigns I run. I do expect personal background and
motivation to be detailed and considered by players when I am mastering
an LA game campaign.
No dictation of alignment has ever been made in any of my A/D&D campaigns, save for some special tournament adventure scenatio.
Cheers,
Gary
richardstincer wrote:
Thanks, Gary, and I think
I understand your answer above, but I'm not sure. Another thing that I
don't understand in the alignment section of the 1978 ADandD 1st edit.
PHB is: "naturally, there are all variations and shades of tendencies within
each alignment."
I understand the shades
of tendencies part, but I don't understand what variations can there be.
Can I say that my variation
of TN is practical, philosophical, simple, or nonphilosophical for example?
Remember that the alignments
as set forth are primarily for the use of the DM.
In any brief survey of moral
and ethical considerations meant for a game, that describing the treatment
of Alignments you refer to, no complete metaphysical discussion of the
moral compass shown is set forth.
As with people, if you lined
them up for visual grading there would be great fifficulty, as each would
be at least margnally different from those to either hand, even though
they seemed to look alike.
The variation within a moral
and ethical grouping is as diverse as the people that fall within its paramaters.
In light of that, it is virtually impossible to answer your general question.
Cheers,
Gary
DMPrata wrote:
Gary, I'll spare you the
philosophical debate 
, but I'd like to ask a more practical question pertaining to the whole
"killing prisoners" matter.
If it is perfectly acceptable
in the game milieu for Lawful and Good characters to execute prisoners,
then why on Oerth would any foe surrender to them?
It seems as if we can pretty
much throw out the Morale rules, as there is no reason not to fight to
the death.
As a matter of fact, to
me this whole discussion is rather pointless. however, I'll answer more
of your questins and somments:
Pray tell how do humanoid foes know the alignment of their opponents?
Why is it that in actuality troops would surrender even knowing that the victors were prone to slaughtering captives. The Japanese did that as did the Nazis.
When I am DMing, humanoids do usually fight to the very last, (bold added - prespos)
How you wish to run your game is your business, and debating my take on the matter is not going to validate how you choose to manage matters. that needs no validation.
Quote:
I feel as if I've been playing
the game "wrong" somehow for the past 23 years. In my games, evil humanoids
tend to surrender quite often when they're being trounced by the PC's.
I figure, from their perspective, they've been taught that "those goody-goody
humans don't have the stomach for killing. If you surrender, you'll live
to fight another day." If, however, even paladins -- the paragons of purity
and righteousness -- have a reputation for executing their captives, I
can't see how any opponent would consider surrender an option. Every battle
would be a fight to the death, it being deemed a better alternative to
die fighting than to die on one's knees pleading for mercy.
If the foes of these humanoids
are so foolish as to accept surrender and allow their prisoners to eventually
go free and perform further depredations, your "Good" forces are really
"Stupid."
Neutral and Evil PCs in my campaign would indeed accept surrender of humanoids, enlist them to fight on their behlaf, and thus they would die for the profit of their human or demi-human masters.
Quote:
Does anyone ever surrender
in your games? If so, why? If not, then why present it as an option in
the Morale rules?
Hope springs eternal. Fear,
sheer exhaustion, and panic are all reasons for surrender. The surrendering
troops have no certain knowledge of how they will be treated.
Gary
Quote:
That said, I think I am
starting to come to terms with this. If nothing else, I can see how releasing
potentially dangerous prisoners would be a Chaotic act (sparing the individual's
life to the detriment of society at large). If I may pose one (hopefully)
final question, what would be an appropriate way for the Lawful Good PC
to deal with humanoid females and young? This comes up frequently in my
games, and generally the PC's release them to fend for themselves. I can
see the argument being made, though, that they will become the next generation
of evil, and thus must be exterminated.
Would you care to opine?
Pretty please? With bourbon on top?
If the bourbon is Jack Daniel's
Single Barrel you have a deal!
Ah well, back to reality :?
I offer the following:
The non-combatants in a humanoid group might be judged as worthy of death by a LG opponent force and executed or taken as prisoners to be converted to the correct way of thinking and behaving. A NG opponent would likely admonish them to change their ways before freeing them. A CG force might enslave them so as to correct their ways or else do as the NG party did. CN and LN opponents would likely slaughter the lot. Evil opponents would enlist, enslave, or execute them according to the nature of the Evil victors and that of the survivors. Enlistment would be for those of like alignment, slaughter for those opposite the victors' predisposition to order or disorder. Enslavement is an option for any sort of Evil desiring workers.
Cheers,
Gary
PapersAndPaychecks
wrote:
Moving away from the alignment
question for a moment, how do you handle the capture and interrogation
of prisoners, Gary?
Is it common in your games for the players capture an intelligent creature and put it to question, possibly with the use of charm or similar magics to enhance its co-operation? If that does occur, and the players ask it (for example) to draw a rough map of its lair and mark the location of any traps of which it is aware, or for detailed intelligence about the number of foes and their usual deployment, or other information that you might reasonably expect the monster to possess, would you tell them what it knows, thereby making the adventure that much easier for them?
Heh, and how I love to play
the role of a stupid humanoid that has been captured and is being interrogated!
Also, it is fun to roleplay
a humanoid that is sly and cunning and seemingly cowed and/or charmed,
but is neither.
Of course the lazy, greedy,
and cowardly lot of PCs will do their best to make their adventure a cakewalk,
but the GM is there to see the matter is dangerous and demanding
If the team actually succeeds
in charming a relatively knowledgeable humanoid and properly questions
that individual, then they will indeed gain much.
They must use cleverness
and real cunning to outwit or impress the GM to manage such a feat (sorry),
though.
Cheers,
Gary
PapersAndPaychecks
wrote:
Eeep! My normal dungeoneering
tactics are lazy, greedy and cowardly! 
why should you be different
from the rest of us? 
[/quote]Hmm, I think you're
saying that evil humanoids, when put to the question, will tend to lie.
Sounds fair enough, that's what Detect Lie is for...[/quote]
and that is why the clever
GM will be evasivE in responding for the sly and cunning humanoid, not
tell outright lies 
Heh,
Gary
Anonymous wrote:
Gary, I'm on the precipice
of belief between the alignments of TN and NG. What is the letter notation
symbol for that? Whatever it is, that is my alignment for ADandD 1st edit.
or ADandD 2nd edition. I want the alignment of neutral-good to have its
fair share of glory. After all, good makes sense because it is beneficial.
Almost everything that people do is for getting some kind of benefit or
credit. The alignment of neutral-good gives credit where credit is due
and so does true-neutrality.
Alignment gives nothing.
Sentient beings and creatures of alignments might do so if envy or jealousy
or suspicion ot hatred or pride or social class difference or the like
doesn't prevent such acknowledgement.
Gary
phasedoor wrote:
Gary, the DandD 3.5 game
has it printed in the PHB or DMG that each alignment represents a broad
spectrum of personal philosophies or personal outlooks. Does that mean
the same thing as the different wording in your 1978 ADandD 1st edit. PHB
that states: naturally, there are all variations and shades of tendencies
within each alignment--the descriptions for each alignment are generalizations?
In a word, yes. The alignments
are broad general ethical grouping. /as wuth lining up people by height,
there is a gradation towards the extremes of the spectrum at either end,
and there is no real mean.
Of course alignment is meant mainlu as a DMs' tool to judge PC behavior, guide clerics, and use as a hook for adventures in Iding the dastards and the allies;)
Cheers,
Gary
phasedoor wrote:
thanks for your effort,
Gary, to explain TN-alignment in general for ADandD 1st edition. what about
if i am 50% TN and 50% NG because fairness and equity are the only aspects
or things within the NG-alignment that i like. because i like only two
things out of the many things or aspects that make up NG, am i correct
to think that it would be more accurate for me to be 50% NG and 50% TN?
One is of one alignment
only. It is not possible to be of two alignments. One ethical bent will
prevail.
Cheers,
Gary
Anonymous wrote:
OK, something all the uber-geeks
have always wanted to know, what is your alignment?
My bets on Nuetral Good or
perhaps pure nuetral. Of course, this might be another "good one" for the
book, so....
Well...
To be frank I do not think
of myself in terms of any RPG
Anonymous wrote:
I wrote: "OK, something
all the uber-geeks have always wanted to know, what is your alignment?"
You wrote: "To be frank I do not think of myself in terms of any RPG"
I new I was pushing it.
A funny and true story. My
sister is a psyciatrist in Denver, and every now and then when doing her
brain squeezing during analyses, explains YOUR alignment system to her
patients (without saying AD&D of course), having them identify what
they think they are; thus forcing them to generalize about themselves and
come to some conclusions. Anyhow, she swares this is helpful. A nut cracking
nuts... 
Well...
Just consider me as the one
who set for the alignments as a tol for others to use 
Heh,
Gary
phasedoor wrote:
Game Master Gary
For ADandD 1st edit. from 1977-1988, if I am basically good with my true-neutrality, what is my letter symbol notation?
Pardon?
One can NOT be True Neutral and of Good alignment. The closest alignment to that is Neutral Good.
If one favors Good then one
is not True Neutral, of curse, as one is biased towards Good, i.e. Neutral
Good.
True Neutral is of disinterested
comcern in regards Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, save as they are balanced
one against the other.
Cheers,
Gary
Applying alignments from
a fantasy game to real life is always a stretch. The information presented
in describing alignments is genberal and subjective.
Cheerio,
Gary
Quote:
Originally posted by blackshirt5
I've got one Gary(not sure
if it's been asked before, feel free to sack me if it has).
What do you think about people being able to play evil characters in D&D? Does it go against your vision of the game and genre?
We had a fair number of
Evil PCs in my original campaign.
Mostly the experience gained
from such play convinced the players the futility of having such unheroic
characters.
For example, in 1974 I created
a half-orc cleric-assassin for a member of an Evil adventuring party.
He was soon killed, and
of course none of the others in the group cared to do more than loot his
body
The game was really designed
to facilitate a Good vs. Evil sort of struggle, and I subtly weighted the
original AD&D game towards the Good side, but I never thought it "wrong"
to play Evil characters as a means of exploring that particular aspect
of human nature.
I do think it abnormal to
do nothing but play Evil PCs, FWIW...
Cheers,
Gary
There is often player pressure
to add complexities and complications to rules and systems, such additions
being urged in areas that the players like and believe to be critical to
enjoyment of the game. I did that for some writing in OAD&D and regretted
it considerably thereafter--mainly weapons vs. armor types and psionics.
I would have been better advised to have explained alignment more carefully,
stressing that is was mainly for the DM to use in judging a PCS actions,
and not something that should ever be discussed in character unless with
clerics or in a debate of morals and ethics, mainly philosphical. Actions
should speak for alignment, and a player should have his PC perform according
to the alignment chosen without speaking of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordVyreth
Second, there has been a
fairly lively series of debates on the Wizards boards lately about alignment.
A lot of people seem to be very vocal on the issue of alignment, and exactly
what a good alignment creature can do to evil or potentially evil creatures.
Some even went so far as to suggest it's right to kill all babies of a
typically evil race like, say, hobgoblins, just because they'll probably
grow up to be evil. Others suggest that detect evil should suffice for
immediate punishment, especially for paladins. This could mean a paladin
has the right to kill every greedy merchant and pickpocket he sees, just
because he detects them as evil, without even witnessing the crime. What
is your opinion on how a paladin should react in these and similar situations,
or any good creature in general? I could post the links to the debates
if you want.
Alignment was meant primarily
as a role-playing tool.
(Despite what some of the
"mature" and "sophisticated" gamers assert, roleplay was indeed a central
feature of the AD&D game from the proverbial get-go.) the player was
to be guided by it when role-playing his character, and the DM had the
same benchmarks to use in judging the PC's actions.
The debates now make me regret
that I ever included the system feature, as it is being taken beyond the
pale.
Better to have the character's
actions speak for their ethics and morality than some letter set.
Rhe main problem seems to
be that the players are assuming alignment in a vacuum, without reference
to any deities establishing and overseeing the matters concerned with such
judgements and actions.
Bacause the main system
fails to provide properly for deities to be active in such matters, abuses
of the most eggregious sort take place.
A paladin is supposed to
be the architype of the Christian knight.
that means focusing on doing
right, spreading the word about the faith (in the deity the paladin serves),
helping others of goodwill, protecting the weak, etc.
Judging others not opposing
the paladin is quite out of the picture.
This is a subject that I
could write a complete essay on, but it is bootless.
Let those who publish the
system clean up the mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by S'mon
I was going to ask Gary
about this - Alignment, I already asked him about the
prostitute table. 
I was looking at a 1981 copy
of Basic D&D yesterday, thinking about how there were just 3 alignments
- Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic. Very Moorcockian (which I like). Most literary
fantasy worlds either don't have defined alignments - eg most sword &
sorcery settings (Leiber, REH et al) or for high fantasy they have a clear
good-evil split (Tolkien & his imitators). The 9-alignment system of
D&D seems unique, and has a huge impact on the game with eg the Outer
Planes' Great Wheel. Gary, I was wondering why you decided to create the
9-alignment matrix? How did it function in your own play - from the Gord
books it seemed like 'Good' forces often came across as sanctimonius hypocrites,
with Neutrality preferred. Yet 'good' by definition would seem to be the
'best' alignment. Did you define 'good' as something like 'current American
moral values', or was it defined by the moral values of the setting, which
for Greyhawk seem close to medieval Catholic
Europe?
Hopefully, the descriptions
of the various alignments speak for themselves in terms of game ethoi.
I devised the nine alignments in order to provide what I envisioned as the total spectrum of human and other-than human mores so as to offer players complete range of role-playing for their PCs, to guide DMs in their play of NPCs including the nether sorts--demons to devils.
Good and evil have a lot of cultural and social relativivity, so I did my best to focus on features that are generally constant in moral and immoral cultures, leaving the grey areas open for the DMs' interpretation.
I believe you are confusion
Law with good, however.
A Lawful good places LAw
foremost, and Law is force.
Anyway, the perspective I
wrote from is basically that of the Judeo-Christian--my own background.
I included all the other
views i could based on my studies and readings of other major religions
and social anthropology works.
(Can you believe that one
twit of a female book editor from a large NYC publishing firm once asked
me in all seriousness why I wrote from the male perspective?)
Finally, medieval Catholic Europe wasn't all that far off from the Bible in its professed morals and ethics.
Cheers,
Gary
When I am less busy I'll
see about the humor on the website you note.
As for playing an evil-race
character as non-evil, sure! Why not, as there is variation of such outlook
in most fantasy races.
The general alignment category
speaks to the racial propensity and the bent of the majority of it, but
certainly a lot of individuals can be different.
That does not apply to it
inherantly evil entities such as vampires, let alone demons and devils.
There the modification might
be in orderliness (Law-Chaos) and the degree of Evil, the dilligence
with which the wicked and malign is pursued.
Just as there are truly
evil
people with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, so too all such creatures
of Evil, for they epitomize that trait.
Cheers,
Gary
Setting aside the debate
of nature versus nurture, there are always abberations, and with intelligent
creatures change is possible. Consider how many monks and priests were
martyred in the conversion of the Friesains to Christianity, but eventually
they prevailed. Contrast that with non-intelligent species, a wolverine
for example. The likelihood of one not being an aggressive hunter-killer
is infinitismal.
"Outsiders" is not a term that properly connotes non-human origination. It implies that the world is the inner, central place. Demons and devils are creatures of pure evil, just as there those of pure good. Neither sort of entity can ever be anything else in my view. It is akin to the wolverine example given above.
"Minorities" aren't that
in their own country, and RPGs, D&D in particular, are played in thre
majority of nations of the world. It is social-economic class that is the
determanant, not ethnicity. Most gamers are highly literate and of the
middle class. About a quarter of them are connected to information technology.
In all, males outnumber females by about 9 to 1--so there's the minority
that publishers would most like to attract to RPGs
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray
Mouser
This is pretty interesting,
Gary. Is this a fairly recent development or did you stop using Alignment
(and I assume alignment languages) back in your TSR days? Any problems
rear up when DMing or playing a traditionally alignment-bound class (viz.,
Paladins, Druids, Assassins, etc.)?
Personally, I never had a problem with alignments as I was a big Michael Moorecock fan (I also thought that the 9 alignment variations was a marked improvement over the L/C/N triad). I know some people don't like alignments, or try to use alignments that are some "realistic", e.g., Palladium's alignment system (at least the one it used to use, it's been a while).
Gray Mouser
Allow me to answer in this
manner:
When players began to announce
their character's alignment to other participants I shuddered.
I suggested that such information
was not for broadcast, that the PCs might not actually think of themselves
as categorized thus, and the alignment categories were meant more to guide
the player in playing his character in the game.
As for alignment language,
I assumed that it was akin to Latin in regard to use.
Clerics would be fluent
in their use of their alignment language, the devout and well-educated
nearly as able, and at the middle and lower end of the spectrum only rudimentary
communications could be managed.
Somehow I supposed that DMs would arrive at similar conclusions unaided.
The Lejendary Adventure
game uses Repute, Dark Repute, and Disrepute as pubicaly known measures
of the characters' reputation.
These generally equate to
honorable, shady, and wicked.
Cheerio,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Al the Absentminded
Question for Gygax:
...
So, 1) Am I being coherent enough to follow, and 2) Was this the kind of attitude you expected of good-aligned PCs?
-Albert the Absentminded
I believe that I comprehend
your questions. As a matter of fact, any non-chaotic PC party should exercise
a good deal of caution, investigate and prepare, before setting forth to
assail any potential foe, provided they are not in service to a leige lord
that directs them to venture out immediately.
Prudence is not an ethical trait, rather one of general understanding--intelligence and wisdom.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonelHardisson
Gary, when playing D&D,
what alignment did your characters gravitate towards?
I have to admit that as a DM, I always ruled out evil PCs, and strongly encouraged good over neutrality. My players never really had a problem with it.
How D' Do Colonel 
Most of my PCs were Neutral so that they could adventure with virtually any other alignment of PCs. There was a need for that, because alignments of the PCs I would join was all over the chart, chaotic to lawful, evil to good, with the neutral shades in the mix. I did have a few Chaotic Good ones, and one Chaotic Evil half-orc cleric/assassin that met an early end. The last PC I created for OAD&D was about five or six years years ago, one Snurre Sharpnose, a gnome illusionist/thief of chaotic neutral sort.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by airwalkrr
Gary, got a question for
ya; sorry if it's been asked before. Have you ever allowed evil player
characters in your campaign? Did it work well or did it cause a lot of
disruption? Were the characters still heroic or were they more of the "anti-hero?"
Thanks!
But of course.
Ernie, Terry, and Rob all
eventually played LE PCs at times, some exclusively.
As they tended to adventure
together or alone, there was never any disruption.
Mordenkainen as a TN character would sometimes accompany one or more of those PCs when another DM was running the session.
Yo be rounded in my playing
experience for a brief time I played a NE cleric assassin PC with a group
of all evil characters.
He died and his body was
looted and left, so that ended that.
Cheers,
Gary
<origin (9-point<>
alignment system) = Three Hearts &&& Three Lions, by Poul Anderson>
Reduce - Reuse - Recycle