PDA

View Full Version : Breaking News: Young man in Germany discovers true purpose of alignment in D&D!



Yora
2015-02-26, 06:01 PM
I was just writing an article on my website why alignment in D&D is terrible and never makes any sense, and why people should try to make sense of it and just ignore it completely. To make sure I don't make any accidental claims that aren't actually completely true, I was going through the original texts for quotes on which to base my assertions. And in the sixth book I was going through, I almost slipped by one small sentence.



CHANGING ALIGNMENT
Whether or not the character actively professes some deity, he or she will have on alignment and serve one or more deities of this general alignment indirectly and unbeknownst to the character.

This is on the third and final page of the section on alignment in the DMG, near the very end in the section Changing Alignment.
I think just yesterday I read someone at rpg.net saying that Gygax wasn't a terrible game designer, he was just terrible at communicating some quite basic assumptions he had always been making, but are not at all obvious to anyone else. And this seems to be exactly one of those cases.

Apparently, it was obvious to Gygax that the alignments are actual "teams" of the gods in their strugles against each other, and that all mortal creatures are in some way involved in that cosmic strugle and are furthering one sides cause, whether they want to or not, and even if they don't know that they do. This is huge! This is the entire basis for things like alignment languages (later scapped) and why characters can't simply switch alignments any time they want and get penalties if they do (also scrapped long ago).

The Basic D&D line does have alignment languages, but doesn't explain how or why.
AD&D 2nd edition seems to have dropped alignment languages, but still has penalties for alignment changes, but doesn't explain how or why.
3rd edition and later all have alignment, but don't seem to know why and what for.

I believe this is the only time that "characters serving gods unkowingly" is ever mentioned, but if it was indeed something that Gygax simply assumed, then this whole mess with alignment suddenly makes sense. It has a purpose, it does something. In over 10 years of endless alignment debates, this is something I've never seen mentioned even once. People who have not read the Dungeon Master's Guide for AD&D 1st edition will never have seen it and I think even lots of people who have read it will have missed it. I've read that section of the book many times, trying to make sense of alignment, but it never occured to me to look for an explaination why alignment exist under the rules for changing alignment.

Within a game that has a cosmic struggle in which all life is in some way involved, alignment makes perfect sense. In any other, I still think it's pointless. But there was actually a reason for it! Once. Three decades ago.

Sith_Happens
2015-02-26, 06:30 PM
I believe this is the only time that "characters serving gods unkowingly" is ever mentioned, but

In comes up a lot in Forgotten Realms material.

cesius
2015-02-26, 06:33 PM
It reminds me of Rincewind from Terry Pratchett's Discworld. He's aligned with Lady Luck despite never interacting with her, praying to her, or relying on her.

Talakeal
2015-02-26, 06:35 PM
I know the BoVD and the BoED have a similar view, although they don't mention gods. They do say that if you do the wrong thing for the right reason (or vice versa) than you are actually hurting the cosmic forces of good and that even if something seems arbitrary or harmless when looked at with modern morality it may still be very harmful and evil by RAW because you altering the balance of power in the universe and indirectly bringing about all sorts of evil and suffering.

I have never liked this or used it in my games, but that is how it goes in D&D.

BRC
2015-02-26, 06:39 PM
You can extend this to a lot of Arbitrary Alignment things in DnD.

The Gods of Evil hold the patent on Poison, and get a nickel everytime it is used. Therefore, Poison is evil.

You can only be really good at stabbing people's vital spots if the Evil Gods tell you where to put the knife. Only Assassins can be evil.

You know, unless you're trying to avenge something, in which case you can be an Avenger, and the Good gods will show you how to stab.

johnbragg
2015-02-26, 06:51 PM
Cosmic struggle between good and evil, law and chaos also fits very well with Greyhawk's emphasis on demons and devils in constant contention with the gods.

Aliquid
2015-02-26, 06:56 PM
A lot of D&D's rules are based on working in the original D&D worlds (like Forgotten Realms). Stick you game in a different setting and the rules don't make as much sense or work as well.

Another example would be Clerics. Current D&D versions allow a Cleric to exist without having a god. But it doesn’t really work. The whole foundation of Cleric magic was based on the assumption that these are abilities granted by a god. Furthermore, the abilities are granted by a god so the god can have a mortal further promote its alignment agenda. Take that away, and the mechanics get clumsy.

Blackhawk748
2015-02-26, 06:57 PM
Well that explains a lot, doesnt work with all settings, but it works in a lot of them. Now im just gonna go back to what i was doing before (which was largely ignoring Alignments) but its nice to know that they once made sense.

Sith_Happens
2015-02-26, 07:11 PM
Well that explains a lot, doesnt work with all settings, but it works in a lot of them. Now im just gonna go back to what i was doing before (which was largely ignoring Alignments) but its nice to know that they once made sense.

When you get down to it it works in any setting that has something roughly resembling the Outer Planes or any equivalent thereof, matter of fact.

BeerMug Paladin
2015-02-26, 08:11 PM
When I was writing up my own homebrew setting, I originally had three more or less distinct teams of gods. The setting was only loosely associated with the alignment system of D&D, as some of them clearly fit into the good/evil or law/chaos perspective of things. But the teams themselves were mainly about stark, huge differences in emphasis each god's philosophy promoted. Gods without huge problems with each other were on the same general team.

Later, I broke each god up into their own distinct branch, with more loose alliances between individuals, rather than a broad, concrete alliance. For instance, two gods who were the closest to 'lawful good' disagreed about who is best suited to be put in charge, but not about most other aspects of government structure.

One of the lawful good gods promotes an (arguably) chaotic neutral god's ideal for a social norm. The other thinks that ideal is foolish, destructive and harmful. Notably, the chaotic neutral god doesn't care for one society's norms and is generally more accepting of the other society's norms. Even though the two lawful goods are mostly buddy-buddy together.

So this sort of thing sounds pretty reasonable to exist as a starting point.

Arbane
2015-02-27, 12:57 AM
I'm pretty sure D&D Alignment was ripped off from inspired by Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion stories, which had a cosmic struggle between Law and Chaos as a large part of the cosmology. Later editions added Good and Evil to the mix, and a million flamewars quickly bloomed.

SiuiS
2015-02-27, 03:31 AM
I was just writing an article on my website why alignment in D&D is terrible and never makes any sense, and why people should try to make sense of it and just ignore it completely. To make sure I don't make any accidental claims that aren't actually completely true, I was going through the original texts for quotes on which to base my assertions. And in the sixth book I was going through, I almost slipped by one small sentence.



This is on the third and final page of the section on alignment in the DMG, near the very end in the section Changing Alignment.
I think just yesterday I read someone at rpg.net saying that Gygax wasn't a terrible game designer, he was just terrible at communicating some quite basic assumptions he had always been making, but are not at all obvious to anyone else. And this seems to be exactly one of those cases.

Apparently, it was obvious to Gygax that the alignments are actual "teams" of the gods in their strugles against each other, and that all mortal creatures are in some way involved in that cosmic strugle and are furthering one sides cause, whether they want to or not, and even if they don't know that they do. This is huge! This is the entire basis for things like alignment languages (later scapped) and why characters can't simply switch alignments any time they want and get penalties if they do (also scrapped long ago).

The Basic D&D line does have alignment languages, but doesn't explain how or why.
AD&D 2nd edition seems to have dropped alignment languages, but still has penalties for alignment changes, but doesn't explain how or why.
3rd edition and later all have alignment, but don't seem to know why and what for.

I believe this is the only time that "characters serving gods unkowingly" is ever mentioned, but if it was indeed something that Gygax simply assumed, then this whole mess with alignment suddenly makes sense. It has a purpose, it does something. In over 10 years of endless alignment debates, this is something I've never seen mentioned even once. People who have not read the Dungeon Master's Guide for AD&D 1st edition will never have seen it and I think even lots of people who have read it will have missed it. I've read that section of the book many times, trying to make sense of alignment, but it never occured to me to look for an explaination why alignment exist under the rules for changing alignment.

Within a game that has a cosmic struggle in which all life is in some way involved, alignment makes perfect sense. In any other, I still think it's pointless. But there was actually a reason for it! Once. Three decades ago.

... I bring this up all the time. :smallconfused:
You're even there for some of those times!

Marlowe
2015-02-27, 03:41 AM
I'm pretty sure D&D Alignment was ripped off from inspired by Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion stories, which had a cosmic struggle between Law and Chaos as a large part of the cosmology. Later editions added Good and Evil to the mix, and a million flamewars quickly bloomed.

Law and Chaos in conflict featured heavily in Poul Anderson's "Three hearts and three lions", which predates Moorcock by a good few years. We also know that Gygax and co. DID read Anderson's book and even copied one monster from it wholesale. We can't really say the same thing about Moorcock.

Also, this thread is shockingly revelatory!

Yora's a man?:smalleek:

OldTrees1
2015-02-27, 04:23 AM
The nature of cosmic teams seems rather self evident to me merely by Celestials, Devils, and Demons existing as distinct warring monsters. The PCs being potentially ignorant of their impact is an emergent feature of NPCs(like the named Outsiders) having plots offscreen.

However the existence of teams does not explain whether Alignment is a function of the team(Good vs Evil) or if the team is a function of the alignment(good vs evil). In the first case, the Alignment is a signal of support for a team and the team has no inherent moral nature. In the second case, the Alignment is a signal of support for a moral direction and the team formed trying towards that end. Note that the team can be mistaken in either case due to a miscalculation, but only in the second case can the team be mistaken about details of their goals since those goals exist external to the team.

Seto
2015-02-27, 04:40 AM
That's an interesting find, well done.


In over 10 years of endless alignment debates, this is something I've never seen mentioned even once.


However the existence of teams does not explain whether Alignment is a function of the team(Good vs Evil) or if the team is a function of the alignment(good vs evil).

This. Even if you haven't seen mentioned the "alignment is serving the purpose of Gods with the same alignment" (and I know I have seen it ; someone here has a quote in their signature, to the effect of "Alignment doesn't tell you how to behave, it tells you which God thinks you're awesome"), you have seen us arguing countless times that Good, Evil, Law and Chaos (maybe Neutrality, that's trickier) are cosmic principles. That's also envisioning it in terms of teams. Only, the Gods are on the team of a principle (a powerful expression of what lies beyond even them), and mortals are on the same team or another (if you want to make it transitive mortals are on the Gods' team, but I don't believe it need be).

BeerMug Paladin
2015-02-27, 05:39 AM
Thinking about this a bit more made me realize something. Ever since reading in 2nd edition that a neutral character was someone who believes in balancing the cosmic forces, it's been a source of constant amusement for me that the alignment says a neutral character will betray good forces if evil is losing too badly, or turn their back on evil and help good win if evil comes close to winning. I know a guy who used to really hate that description of Neutral.

So, team Neutral characters doing that want to not only have the fight go on, they actively work to make sure nobody can definitively win and nothing will change. They're status-quo incarnate! Multiverse Integrity Commission!

Maybe they're hoping all the gods will just cancel/kill each other, so mortals can exist without divine intervention in their lives. Or maybe they just want to see conflict continue forever. And if you want to have an unending alignment argument, consider this: Would the latter motivation make the character Neutral or Evil?

Yora
2015-02-27, 05:54 AM
I'm pretty sure D&D Alignment was ripped off from inspired by Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion stories, which had a cosmic struggle between Law and Chaos as a large part of the cosmology. Later editions added Good and Evil to the mix, and a million flamewars quickly bloomed.

Alignment in the original 1974 version of D&D is even worse.

In regard to alignment it says:


Before the game begins it is not only necessary to select a role, but it is also necessary to determinewhat stance the character will take - Law, Netrality, or Chaos.

And that is all we get. Later there are mentions that player characters might ally with monsters and NPCs if they have the same alignment; that the reincarnation spell will reincarnate the character as a creature of the same alignment; and that intelligent magic swords can only be used by characters with matching alignment. That is all. At no point is there any mention what Law, Chaos, and Neutrality are.
He probably meant for the Anderson/Moorcock system of alignment to be used, but failed to consider that not everyone might know those books.

The Moldvay version of Basic D&D (B/X) actually spells out that Law equals good and Chaos equals evil. The Mentzer version (BECMI) copies that part unaltered. The Holmes version that precedes them and was released at the same time as Gygax's AD&D 1st edition has a weird and unique system, that was never used anywhere else and has five alignments. But I read on one website that Holmes pretty much stated in a magazine article that he would have prefered to keep the three alignments, but he created this weird hybrid because AD&D had introduced good and evil. I think he probably didn't know how that was supposed to work either and the next version of Basic ignored it to never be mentioned again.

Another very interesting thing is that all the description of alignment before 3rd edition are really very explicit in that character actions determine character behavior. Not the other way round. It always say characters of a given alignment "try" to act by certain priorities and "value" certain ideals. Basic even spells it out that characters not always succeed at it.
The 3rd edition PHB is not so good at it. It repeats the sentence "alignment is not a straightjacket", but the nine alignments are all described with "a character is", "a character does", "a character acts". That certainly didn't help at all with avoiding the idea of "your character wouldn't act that way". Previous editions were quite explicit that it doesn't work that way. AD&D 1st edition makes alignment changes the most complicated and has by far the most description of it, but Gygax just not being good at explaining things didn't really make it better.

goto124
2015-02-27, 07:54 AM
And that is all we get. Later there are mentions that player characters might ally with monsters and NPCs if they have the same alignment; that the reincarnation spell will reincarnate the character as a creature of the same alignment; and that intelligent magic swords can only be used by characters with matching alignment. That is all. At no point is there any mention what Law, Chaos, and Neutrality are.
He probably meant for the Anderson/Moorcock system of alignment to be used, but failed to consider that not everyone might know those books.

May I ask, what the Anderson/Moorcock system is? It sounds like a very mechanical approach to alignment.

hamishspence
2015-02-27, 07:57 AM
May I ask, what the Anderson/Moorcock system is? It sounds like a very mechanical approach to alignment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Chaos

Aedilred
2015-02-27, 09:35 AM
When you think about it, it's... not obvious, since it's hardly intuitive, but it is right there in the name. There's a reason it's called "Alignment" rather than "Morality" or "Outlook" or the like.

It is something that's been largely forgotten in later editions of the game, certainly by the players and arguably by the rules themselves, but the terminology stays with us.

goto124
2015-02-27, 09:40 AM
You can extend this to a lot of Arbitrary Alignment things in DnD.

The Gods of Evil hold the patent on Poison, and get a nickel everytime it is used. Therefore, Poison is Evil.

You can only be really good at stabbing people's vital spots if the Evil Gods tell you where to put the knife. Being an Assassin requires being Evil.

You know, unless you're trying to avenge something, in which case you can be an Avenger, and the Good gods will show you how to stab.

(Quote slightly edited.)

How would it work out IC-wise? If you detect that someone is Good, what does that actually mean? That she doesn't use poison? Do the NPCs recognise the disconnect between cosmic alignment and 'real' morality? Do people rules-lawyer the alignment system to stay Good?

Also, how would it work out OoC-wise? You can't have a Good Poison-user, for example. Not sure if that's actually a bad thing, like how some settings don't have Good undead or necromancers. Would the disconnect between good and Good, and evil and Evil be too jarring for players? Would it turn the alignment system into a game of 'Sucking up to the Gods'? How do you have Chaotic Good people like that anyway?

It's not addressed how an alignment system can be something the players actually want to use.

Eldan
2015-02-27, 10:04 AM
I thought that was always pretty clear... or at least, I always ran it this way. :smallconfused:

Not with gods. The gods aren't as big as they like to think they are. But with the planes. Planescape was pretty clear on that.

Ashtagon
2015-02-27, 10:32 AM
That actually kind of ties in with the way I have house ruled alignment. In my games, alignment doesn't exist, but worshipping a given deity will affect your personal aura in a way that can be detected magically, and magic items can function (or not) based on these auras.

Yora
2015-02-27, 10:35 AM
I think that's how most editions of D&D seem to assume alignment works in practice. Though instead of worshiping a god, it depends on how much you act lawful and chaotic, and that's where probably most of the trouble comes from.

D+1
2015-02-27, 11:38 AM
Apparently, it was obvious to Gygax that the alignments are actual "teams" of the gods in their strugles against each other, and that all mortal creatures are in some way involved in that cosmic strugle and are furthering one sides cause, whether they want to or not, and even if they don't know that they do. This is huge! This is the entire basis for things like alignment languages (later scapped) and why characters can't simply switch alignments any time they want and get penalties if they do (also scrapped long ago).
Well, since you've been doing this research you already know that alignment was not Gygax's own idea but something he took from the Elric novels by Michael Moorcock. In fact, when alignment first appeared in the original D&D rules it had no explanation whatsoever what it was for or how to use it. It just WAS. It was necessary to have read the Elric stories or to have had it all explained to you by people who had read them or already understood the idea. That did change with later editions when it was much better explained - but unfortunately it still wasn't explained well enough where the whole idea had come from, what you were supposed to be using it for and game mechanics of HOW to use it. And even at that, it was being CHANGED from what Moorcock was using it for and being adapted to something a bit different that had uses within a roleplaying game, not just for setting design (the whole "teams of gods choose up cosmological sides and the whole universe rotates around that conflict") but as a tool for players to use in producing more believable characters who exhibited CONSISTENT behavior because they were being held to SOME kind of standard or reference point.

But you never did (and still don't) have to build your D&D game around the idea. Despite the origins of the idea it isn't that the game is all about the big fight of one alignment versus another and no published D&D setting EVER HAS dealt with it that way.


People who have not read the Dungeon Master's Guide for AD&D 1st edition will never have seen it and I think even lots of people who have read it will have missed it. I've read that section of the book many times, trying to make sense of alignment, but it never occured to me to look for an explaination why alignment exist under the rules for changing alignment.
This is where problems with alignment have always centered. It isn't that alignment has no purpose, no use. It does. As I said it can be used the way Moorcock used it (and why Gygax thought it would be cool to include in the game in the first place) by having the world involved in a huge cosmological struggle between Order and Chaos (kind of as opposed to good vs. evil). But it immediately and significantly began morphing into something OTHER than that. It moved beyond Law vs. Chaos and incorporated Good vs. Evil as well. And it was VASTLY less about being a cosmological struggle and much more about giving PC's a roleplaying tool and point of reference.

But it was all still so BADLY explained and DEEP in the process of still being changed and explored for what it was, or what it could be, AND how best to use it. And then people just never bothered to REALLY, CAREFULLY read what was written in the rules about it and figure out what the game WASN'T telling you about it all. Even now, after having made your "discovery" you're insisting that mimicking Moorcock's stories as a setting design idea was it's sole purpose and only use, and you're completely ignoring it's altered and expanded purpose as a roleplaying tool (whether or not you think it does THAT in a poor manner or does it well).

Arbane
2015-02-27, 04:47 PM
That actually kind of ties in with the way I have house ruled alignment. In my games, alignment doesn't exist, but worshipping a given deity will affect your personal aura in a way that can be detected magically, and magic items can function (or not) based on these auras.

Some Old School Revival game I read about (I forget which) has its Alignment-equivalent (Pick one of Order, Chaos, Nature, Void and I forget the last one) specifically a matter of which Elder God you're affiliated with, with mortal morality being almost irrelevant to it. (And it was only important for magic types for the most part.)

Interestingly, IIRC the Elric BRP game doesn't have alignment at all. You can use Law or Chaos magic (I think they're mutually exclusive), but instead you get 'Elan' (:elan: not that one) a score for divine favor which goes up and down as you do things the gods like - and you can track your score with multiple deities. Do something one likes, it'll probably offend another....

dream
2015-02-27, 05:38 PM
From the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1st Edition) Dungeon Master's Guide (pg. 23);

"... 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 player
characters, 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 lawful good 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 player
character 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 ...":smallwink:

Sith_Happens
2015-02-28, 09:04 AM
However the existence of teams does not explain whether Alignment is a function of the team(Good vs Evil) or if the team is a function of the alignment(good vs evil).

Yes. See: Planescape.