Alignment
Alignment
Alignment describes the broad ethos of
thinking, reasoning creatures --
those unintelligent sorts being placed
within the neutral area because they are totally uncaring.
Note that alignment does not necessarily
dictate religious persuasion,
although many religious beliefs will dictate
alignment.
As explained under ALIGNMENT
LANGUAGES (q.v.) this aspect of alignment is not the major consideration.
The overall behavior of the character
(or creature) is delineated by alignment,
or, in the case of PCs,
behavior determines actual alignment.
Therefore, besides defining the general
tendencies of creatures,
it also groups creatures into mutually
acceptable or at least non-hostile divisions.
This is not to say that groups of similarly
aligned creatures cannot be opposed or even mortal enemies.
Two nations, for example, with rulers
of LG alignment can be at war.
Bands of orcs
can {hate} each other.
But the former would possibly cease their
war to oppose a massive invasion of orcs,
just as the latter would make common cause
against the lawful good men.
Thus, alignment describes the world view
of creatures and helps to define what their actions,
reactions, and purposes will be.
It likewise causes a PC to choose an ethos
which is appropriate to his or her profession,
and alignment also aids players in the
definition and role approach of their respective game personae.
With the usefulness of alignment determined,
definition of the divisions is necessary.
There are two major divisions of four opposite
points of view.
All four are not mutually exclusive, although
each pair is mutually opposed.
The opposition here is between organized
groups and individuals.
That is, law dictates that order and organization
is necessary and desirable,
while chaos holds to the opposite view.
Law generally supports the group as more
important than the individual,
while chaos promotes the individual over
the group.
Donblas
(god of law)
Tyr (god
of law)
Pholtus
(god of law)
Azathoth
(god of chaos)
Arioch
(god of chaos)
Pyaray
(god of chaos)
Xiombarg
(goddess of chaos)
richardstincer wrote:
Well, thanks Gary, but there
is one thing I know for sure. I don't agree with lawfulness in the game
and in real life because lawful implies the group over the individual.
All of my life, I have been living subordinate to society's laws because
the group or society of real life has been subordinating my needs and desires.
I don't see anything even or equal about that. It is more decent to be
neutral or chaotic because those alignments are less inclined to be corrupted
to evil.
No question law if force.
Any organized state needs laws to govern its actions and those of its peoples.
Whatever you choose to make
of the matter is up to you.
I am not concerned hereon
beyond the gaming standpoint of the subject.
Gary
Basically stated,
the tenets of good
are human rights,
or in the case of
AD&D,
creature rights.
Each creature is
entitled to
,
on the other hand,
does not concern
itself with rights or happiness;
purpose is the determinant.
There can never exist a lawful chaos ||
an good.
These, and their reverses,
are dichotomous.
This is not to say that they cannot exist
in the same character or creature if it is insane
or controlled by another entity,
but as general divisions they are mutually
exclusive pairs.
Consider also the alignment
graph.
If law is opposed to chaos,
and good to evil,
then the radically opposed alignments
are LN -- CN,
NG -- NE, LG -- CE, and LE -- CG.
Lawful groups might,
for xample,
combine to put down some chaotic threat,
for example,
just as readily as good groups would combine
to suppress some powerful .
Basic understanding and agreement, however,
is within the general specific alignment,
i.e. one of the nine categories. These
are defined as follows:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitey
Let's rewind time to 1986
- I was eight years old at the time. My friend's older brother was playing
D&D [Palace of Silver Princes, IIRC] and I've been fascinated ever
since. Thanks for fifteen + years of entertainment, and for your contributions
to the RPG community as a whole. I have just one question to pose here,
out of the thousands that've come up since then, and have been the root
of great RP experiences - it's a tricky epistemological one, and may not
have a simple answer. Do evil Outsiders or creatures listed as 'always
evil' think of themselves as doing wrong? Or do they think everyone else
is being naive or weak? I suppose Good subtyped beings raise a similar
issue.
Thanks again,
Whitey
Salut!
Semantics can be a problem.
"Outsiders" is a prooblem
term with me, as I don't think it appropos in describing creatures and
entities of unusual sort.
Ah well, that aside, semantics
is a problem in regards to defining "evil" and "wrong."
In my view those wholly evil
creatures are malign and purposefully wicked.
To their way of thinking,
"wrong" is desirable, mainly when they are doing it to others, not being
done themselves.
Of course they consider
all others not of the same mindset as naive, weak, foolish, and gullible.
"Wrong" is subjective, something
the non-evil creatures have invented, and a weakness connected to conscience,
something the evil ones do not have.
A W.C. Fields line is a working
axiom for evil: "Never give a sucker an even break." 
That's how I see it
Gary
NEUTRALITY: Absolute,
or true,
neutral creatures view everything which
exists as an integral,
necessary part or function of the entire
cosmos.
Each thing exists
as a part of the whole,
one as a check or
balance to the other,
with life necessary
for
death,
happiness for suffering,
good for evil,
order for chaos,
and vice versa.
Nothing must ever become predominant or
out of balance.
Within this naturalistic ethos,
humankind
serves a role also,
just as all other creatures do.
They may be more or less important,
but the neutral does not concern himself
or herself with these considerations except where it is positively determined
that the balance is threatened.
Absolute neutrality is in the central
or fulcrum position quite logically,
as the neutral sees all other alignments
as parts of a necessary whole.
This alignment is the narrowest in scope.
elementalawe (phasedoor)
wrote:
Gary, thanks for your reply,
but I want to know what you think about generality and true-neutral.
Can generality be related
to the alignment of true-neutral instead of nature connected to true-neutral?
Well Amigo...
I think my definition of
Neutral alignment in the DMG is sufficient, and the neutral isn't a generalist
but one who belioeves in the harmony of creation and a balance between
all of its forces.
It's up to you to rationalize
any changes you wish to make in the alignment for your own campaign.
cheers,
Gary
richardstincer wrote:
Gary, when you mentioned
dichotomies in the neutral paragraph of the alignment section in your 1979
ADandD DMG, does that mean the opposite things of nature or TN-alignment
can exist at the same time? I mean if purity and defilement, good and evil,
life and death can all exist at the same time so that I can be a TN-alignment
undead PC.
With all your learning get
understanding...
Any creature or person centered on one aspect of balance, True Neutrality, cannot perforce, be of that ethical belief. That the True Neutral holds that there must be opposites does not by any leap of imagination mean that one is of any such opposing forces it in itself of balance, only that the True Neutral understands their role in the cosmos.
A graphic example might be darkness and light. both are necessary for balance, but neither is balance per se.
Gary
phasedoor wrote:
Have a happy and safe holiday
time, Gary. There is one more important thing to know that I have in mind
about the neutral or true-neutral alignment. Your 1979 ADandD 1st edit.
DMG has it printed that neutral or true-neutral is narrowest in scope.
By narrowest in scope, what do you mean?
Christmas Cheer!
That alignment has less
moral, ethical, and philosophical leeway in their adherance to what they
believe than do the other alignments. It is as simple as that. Those of
that alignment are promoting no particular aspect--Law or Chaos, Good or
Evil--but rather seeking to maintain a balance between those polar opposities.
Yuletide best wishes,
Gary
NEUTRAL GOOD: Creatures
of this alignment see the cosmos as a place where law and chaos are merely
tools to use in bringing life,
happiness,
and prosperity to all deserving creatures.
Order is not good unless it brings this
to all;
neither is randomness and total freedom
desirable if it does not bring such good.
Similar to the neutral good alignment,
that of neutral
holds that neither groups nor individuals hove great meaning.
This ethos holds that seeking to promote
weal for all actually brings woe to the truly deserving.
Natural forces which are meont to cull
out the weak and stupid are artificially suppressed by so-called good,
and the fittest are wrongfully held back,
so whatever means are expedient can be
used by the powerful to gain and maintain their dominance,
without concern for anything.
LAWFUL GOOD: Creatures
of lawful good alignment view the cosmos with varying degrees of lawfulness
|| desire for good.
They are convinced that order &&
law are absolutely necessary to assure good,
and that good is best defined as whatever
brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent,
thinking creatures and the least woe to
the rest.
Hi Alan,
Indeed, the quote hit my
games list yesterday.
I am quite indifferent to
the author's opinions, believe his perjorative "imfamous" sounds pretty
much like like sour grapes, and appreciate the name mention.
As for minions of Good, especially
Lawful Good, it seems to me that most people fail to understand that Law
if the prime operative word in the consideration of the alignment.
They should consider the
Mosaic Law for the best example of how rigid and demanding the strict adherants
of LG are as the system was devised.
Good MUST come from adhering
strictly to Law. the corellary is: Law is force. the latter is, of course,
a matter of actual fact, while what is good is a subjective thing.
Other than that I really
don't have any comment
Cheers,
Gary
LAWFUL NEUTRAL:
It is the view of this alignment that law and order give purpose and meaning
to everything.
Without regimentation and strict definition,
there would be no purpose in the cosmos.
Therefore, whether a law is good or evil
is of no import as long as it brings order and meaning.
Obviously, all order is not good,
nor are all laws beneficial.
Lawful
creatures consider order as the means by which each group is properly placed
in the cosmos,
from lowest to highest,
strongest first,
weakest last.
Good is seen as an excuse to promote the
mediocrity of the whole and suppress the better and more capable,
while lawful evilness allows each group
to structure itself and fix its place as compared to others,
serving the stronger but being served
by the weaker.
Howdy Edena
SuStel hit the nail on the
head IMO.
What you need are a lot
of LE humans in the mix, for they are the worst of the worst, if you will.
For "color" I like to add
in renegades from otherwise Good races--dwarves, elves and halflings of
malign and wicked sort.
The detailing of the humans dwelling in the area should bring a lot of life and substance to it.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracuwulf
Hi Gary,
In the 1st edition monster manual, kobolds, goblins, and orcs are all lawful evil and of low intelligence. Besides their particular hates (i.e., elves, gnomes, etc) What should differentiate these creatures tactics-wise when a party encounters each of them?
Howdy,
The named humanoids are not particularly different in their method of attack, only in the weapons they employ, their AC, and the chance to hit. The LE alignment means that they are well-organized and can plan ambushes, fight in formation, and will likely obey orders from a superior.
Cheers,
Gary
Lawful Evil means that the
particular race is organized, cooperative within its own boundaries, and
capable of training and discipline. Those are the principle qualities in
regards to the aplication of the LE alignment. the rest is mainly window
dressing--the deities, social organization, heirarchy, dress, etc.
CE forces do not advance in formation but atack in a wild mass. think of LE as somethink akin to the Roman Legion, CE as the swarm of screaming barbarians, and NE as something in betwee,
Cheers,
Gary
To the chaotic good individual,
freedom and independence are as important
to life and happiness.
The ethos views this freedom as the only
means by which each creature can achieve true satisfaction and happiness.
Law, order, social forms,
and anything else which tends to restrict
or abridge individual freedom is wrong,
and each individual is capable of achieving
self-realization and prosperity through himself, herself, or itself.
This view of the cosmos holds that absolute
freedom is necessary.
Whether the individual exercising such
freedom chooses to do good ||
is of no concern.
After all,
life itself is law and order,
so death is a
desirable end.
Therefore, life can only be justified
as a tool by which order is combatted,
and in the end it too will pass into entropy.
The chaotic
creature holds that individual freedom and choice is important,
and that other individuals and their freedoms
are unimportant if they cannot be held by the individuals through their
own strength && merit.
Thus, law and order tends to promote not
individuals but groups,
and groups suppress individual volition
&& success.
Heh, sorry
No need to apologise to
me for that! I loathe the self-centered angst-ridden crap that gets passed
off as suiitable fare in a game of heroic action-adventure.
CE forces do not advance
in formation but atack in a wild mass.
think of LE
as somethink akin to the Roman Legion, CE as the swarm of screaming barbarians,
and NE as something in betwee,
Cheers,
Gary
<copy and paste 2 to BATTLESYSTEM>
<as well, this will help
for the Dungeon Craft AI scripts>
Each of these cases for alignment is, of
course,
stated rather simplistically and ideally,
for philosophical and moral reasonings
are completely subjective according to the acculturation of the individual.
You, as Dungeon Master,
must establish the meanings and boundaries
of law and order as opposed to chaos and anarchy,
as well as the divisions between right
and good as opposed to hurtful and evil.
Lawful societies will tend to be highly
structured, rigid, well-policed and bureaucratic hierarchical.
Class, rank, position,
and precedence will be important, so they will be strictly defined and
adhered to.
On the other hand, chaotic areas will
have little government and few social distinctions.
The governed will give
their consent to government,
acknowledging leaders
as equals serving those who allowed them to assume leadership.
Obedience and service
in a chaotic society is given only by those desiring to do so,
or by dint of some
persuasion, never by requirement.
Alignment With
Respect To The Planes:
Obviously, the material planes have no
set alignment, nor do the other "inner planes" or the ethereal or astral
ones either.
However, the "outer planes" show various
alignments.
This is because they are home to creatures
who are of like general alignment.
If the curves of the alignment table are
carried outwards to the planes,
only those planes at the corners will
correspond to non-neutral alignments,
i.e., lawful good, chaotic good, chaotic
evil, and lawful evil.
Similarly, those on the horizontal and
vertical axes correspond to the neutral-based alignments which support
an ethos,
i.e. neutral good, chaotic neutral, neutral
evil, and lawful neutral.
The remainder of the outer plane areas
are "gray" areas where alignments shade into each other.
Inhabitants of these planes will generally
have the same world-view as their fellows on the Prime Material Plane.
richardstincer wrote:
Gary, I think I remember reading in your
1979 DMG, in the section about alignment and the planes, that the inhabitants
of the gray area planes between the nine alignment-planes have a world
view similar to the inhabitants of the prime physical material plane. Does
that mean those gray area planes with the inhabitants can be considered
true-neutral? For example: if I am a PC human nondruid cleric of early
ADandD 1st edit., can I be between LN and LG for my alignment or does being
between LG and LN make me have the TN-alignment and thereby disallowing
me to be a nondruid cleric?
:
What it means is that those areas have
much the same nine alignments as are found on the PMP :wink: The location
on the alignment azis indicates the predominant alignment of the area,
be that tendency slight or considerable.
Cheers,
Gary
Graphing Alignment
It if importance to keep track of player
character behavior with respect to their professed alignment.
Actions do speak far more eloquently than
professions,
and each avtivity of a player character
should reflect his or her alignment.
If a professed lawful evil character is
consistently seeking to be helpful and is repecting the lesser creatures,
her or she is certainly tending towards
good,
while if he or she ignores regulations
and consistent behavior the trend is towards chaotic alignment
(see PLAYERS
HANDBOOK, APPENDIX III, CHARACTER ALIGNMENT
GRAPH).
Such dirft should be noted by you, and
when it takes the individual into a new alignment area,
you should then inform the player that
his or her character has changed alignemtn (see CHANGING
ALIGNMENT).
It is quite possible for a character to
drift around in an alignment area,
making only small shifts due to behavior.
However, any major action which is out
of alignment character will cause a maior shift to the alignment which
is directly in line
with the action,
i.e., if a lawful evil character defies
the law in order to aid the cause (express or implied) of chaotic good,
he or she will be either lawful neutral
or chaotic neutral, depending on the factors involved in the action.
It is of utmost importance to keep rigid
control of alignment behavior with respect to such characters as serve
deities who will accept only certain alignments,
those who are paladins,
those with evil familiars,
and so on.
Part of the role they have accepted requires
a set behavior mode,
and its benefits are balanced by this.
Therefore, failure to demand strict adherence
to alignment behavior is to allow a game abuse.
Lawful good characters should not be allowed
to ignore unlawful or shady actions by "looking the other way".
If, for example, a party that includes
a paladin decides to use poison on a monster that they know is ahead,
the DM shouldn't let the paladin be distracted
or "led away for a few rounds" when it is patently obvious that the paladin
heard the plan.
If the player does not take appropriate
measures to prevent the action,
the DM should warn the paladin that his
lack of action will constitute a voluntary alignment change and then let
the chips fall where they may!
richardstincer wrote:
Thanks for your response,
Gary. In your 1979 DMG for ADandD 1st edit., it is printed that the TN
alignment is narrowest in scope or focus. Does 'narrowest in scope' mean
it is easy to follow the alignment of TN? I like a simple, tit-for-tat
equality whereas Mordenkainen likes the alignment of TN to be complex.
Simply put, alignments are
for the use of the DM in the development of the nations and the peoples
that inhabit them, principally the dramatis personae that will interact
with the group of player characters. It is meant to serve the DM as a measuring
stick against the performance of the PCs in the campaign, after each has
elected an alignment as a general template for the ethical and moral views
of their game persona. In the same secondary role, they are meant to be
useful in regards use of magical spells and magic items that require the
imbuing of some spirit (force) in their making.
As compared to the reasons for which I created them, alignments are generally misused by DMs and I am sorry that I did not originally stress their principal meaning and uses.
Gary
:oops:
As i said, I blame blame
myself for not fully elucidating the purpose of alignments, assuming that
DMs would comprehend my thinking by some sort of osmosis :?
Cheers,
Gary
Dragon Fire wrote:
Well, don't feel to badly.
I didn't put near the "stock" into alignments that other DMs have. So,
maybe I absorbed some of your thinking.
Those DMs that understand the whole of the AD&D system are likely to do just that sort of thing. Unfortunately, there aren't all that many of them. anyway, good show on your part :wink:
Cheers,
Gary
JASON THE RULESREADER wrote:
Gary, do you think the following
characterization of an AD&D situation involving alignments as per your
concept of them is accurate?
...
I chewed that cabbage in
the DMG, and from then on it's up to the DMs to manage 
That's the extent of my comment.
Cheerio,
Gary
serleran wrote:
Just a general design question:
I've been thinking of trying to emulate a true Pulp Sword and Sorcery "feel" to my fantasy games, and thought, one of the best, and simplest ways to deal with this would be to remove certain alignments, and go with something more basic. In my version, I would simply have Good, Evil, and Neutral. Granted, this is very much like the Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral pre-nine-alignment system with which most are familiar. Anyway... the real question is:
Do you think that such a
decision is too restricting, or allows for too much variation in PC actions?
Alignments were placed into
the game to assist players in maintaining the role that they assume when
in game persona, for DMs to use as a measure of how well the players were
doing that.
I see nothing amiss with allowing characters a wide variety of ethical choices, and changing the alignment system should not be restrictive in that regard.
If you can maintain such functionality in the game with a G-N-E axis, why not employ it?
Cheers,
Gary
The alignments presented
in the DMG are not meant to be psychologically correct not a guideline
for comparative ethics. they are meant only to assist the player in assuming
the role of the make-believe character playing in a fantasy game.
In short I am not someone qualified to comment further.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray
Mouser
Colonel,
I recently had the opportunity to get all the OD&D books in pdf format! (Yee-ha!, btw. That really takes me back!). In these books I noticed that you use the Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic alignment system. I've heard from other people that when you first began designing AD&D (circa the MM) there were only 5 alignments (LG, CG, N, GE and LE) and that the other 4 were added in when you began working on the PHB.
When did you move from the L-N-C alignments to adding the Good/Eveil component? And when did it become the full-blown 9 alignment system that was the end result?
Thanks!
Gray Mouser
Yet another missed post,
and another apology from me.
When I enlarged the alignment system from the three used in D&D because chaoric does not necassarily mean evil nor lawful equate to good, I worked up the nine alignments found in OAD&D as I began work in the MM in 1976. A five-alignment system was not used by me, as the various NX slots were integral to the system I devised.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by MutieMoe
Where the idea of alignments
came from? I find this particulary interesting as it is one the game mechanics
that directly describes personality of the character in question. When
and why the need for alignments came in to play?
In OD&D I used the Moorcock
division of Law and Chaos to serve to describe the general motives of the
persons and creatures involved in the game, the Good and Evil. It soom
bacame evident to me that those descriptors were not synonyms, thet all
that was lawful was not good, all that was chaotic was not evil, and animals
were generally not concerned with any of those ethical mindsets.
So when I began writing the OAD&D game rules in 1976 I decided on the nine alignment system. The why is as noted above, and the wherefor was to enable the DM to roleplay the "monsters" encoutered by the player party and judge the players' manner of enacting the role of their separate PCs; for the players to more easily determine the nature of and properly play their character. Thus the rather lengthy descriptions of each alignment.
Cheers,
Gary
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron
My intention was humour,
but I missed placing a smile. Still, I don't think any society would be
able to interpret itself as good or evil. That said, I agree that Roman
legions were very organized, and thus lawful, compared to most of their
opponents.
In historical terms you
are spot on when assert that no society would be able, or willing, to interpret
its mores as those of malign sort. This is clearly not the case in fantasy--be
it mythology, folklore, fairy tailes, or authored fiction. When a state
is based on the worship of and service to evil entities, then there can
be no doubt that it defines itself as evil 
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron
Nice try but wouldn't you
agree that some real world politicians positions or alliances are quite
close to service to evil entities? 
I am pretty sure that some of the clearly evil men of history thought they
were just using extreme methods to extreme situations but, still, they
were working toward the greater good.
Nice try nothing 
We are speaking of actual historical societies here, not the individuals that have gheaded them up. without doubt many of them have been purely malign and wholly evil, but they does not mean that the populace at large believed that they were serving the malign and evil.
If Caligula, Hitler, Atilla
the Hun, Genghis Khan, Tammerlane, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot thought they
were working for a greater good, then Lord save us all from such do-gooders 
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by the
black knight
A fascinating answer to
be sure. I enjoyed reading about the respective characters quite a bit.
Thanks, Gary!!
Another question, if you don't mind. Have you ever seen a non-good party endure over any lengthy period of time? Do you feel the dynamics of such a group make for a different type of campaign? If so, are there any hidden benefits to such a party? have you ever played in one yourself?
I ask because I'm currently
in a group like that. We've held up for the last four levels (started mid-level,
now we're 8th level or so), but we tend to tone down the malevolence in
order to stay together. So far, so good.
Curious,
the black knight
Howdy!
When my son Ernie became angry with me as DM he switched to playing an LE character, Erac's Cousin. That PC adventured fairly frequently with two othe LE ones, Robilar and either Terik or the monk PC that Terry Kuntz liked to play. Those three never attacked each other--mainly because each character was able to win in a fight, so why take chances when there are easier targets around.
Mordenkainen would adventure
with that lot, always with a strong henchman.
He was never assualted or
even threatened.
I suspect that these players opted for Lawful Evil to avoid the necessity of random acts of evil nature against their fellows. Their strength was in cooperation--a pair of strong fighters and a mage, sometimes a monk replacing a fighter.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by heirodule
When you wrote up encounters
with Orcs, goblins, etc, that included noncom females and infants, did
you expect the Good PCs to put them to the sword, let them go, or have
a moral dilemma?
What did they tend to do?
I expected the DM to decide
how to handle such a situation, of course.
Cheerio,
Gary
*template***template*
:
