Alignment in general can work, but D&D Alignment can't be fixed

[Greywander]

Because it is tied too heavily to the lore, in particular, the Great Wheel cosmology and its associated outsiders.

Now, let me start by saying that different people have different expectations of the Alignment system, and many seem to mostly ignore alignments. That's fine. I'm not here to tell you that you're having fun wrong. Alignment doesn't "need" fixing. I think, for me, it's that I see the potential that Alignment has as a tool, and how that potential is wasted or misused in its present implementation. The argument I want to make here is that it's not possible to homebrew or houserule Alignment to make it work the way I want it to, not without rewriting a lot of the lore of D&D.

The Law vs. Chaos axis is fine, mostly (though everything I'm about to say also applies to anyone wanting to replace those). I'm not entirely sure what criteria Wizards is using to determine which is which, and how to sort a monster to one side or the other. I feel like I could make a strong argument why, say, undead should be Lawful Evil, and I could also make a strong argument why they should be Chaotic Evil, but the two arguments would be mutually exclusive with one another. Personally, what I'd like to see is a list of beliefs or tenets for each alignment that allow you to more clearly see what each side stands for, and why they might oppose each other.

At the end of the day, though, Law and Chaos are nuanced enough that you can have both heroes and villains on both sides, and Lawful characters are capable of cooperating with Chaotic characters without killing each other.

The Good vs. Evil axis is the real problem, and specifically the Evil alignment. "Good" is generic enough that different people can have different interpretations of what "Good" is, leading to a conflict of interests and creating more RP potential. You can have Good aligned antagonists, possibly as a well intentioned extremist, or someone doing it "for the greater good", or because "it had to be done, no one else would do it."

But Evil is just, well, evil. As in, cartoonishly, card-carrying evil. It has no redeeming qualities, you can't have an Evil aligned hero, and I'm left wondering why anyone would tolerate Evil aligned creatures (or why anyone would choose to be Evil). The Good vs. Evil axis doesn't seem to serve any real purpose except to neatly color-code the good guys and bad guys. This works fine for a Saturday Morning Cartoon where we just want to see the good guys beat up the bad guys without overthinking the moral implications of what the heroes are doing. There's no nuance to it, no tough moral questions. In fact, I feel like I would be justified to murder on the spot anyone that I detected with an Evil alignment, not because of anything they might have done, but because they have an Evil alignment. This was a bigger problem in older editions where spells could detect alignments, but even in 5e a 3rd level chainlock can still detect alignment using a sprite familiar.

What even is "Evil"? What are the beliefs and tenets of an Evil alignment? No one thinks of themselves as evil. "Taking over/destroying the world" is not an alignment, and I feel like Evil should actually represent a lack of alignment. If you were to ask an Evil character why they chose to be Evil, they would probably justify it one way or another, presenting themselves as morally right by their own logic. In their own mind, they are the "real Good" and the Good aligned people are "fake good". They're not just going to cackle and say, "Hail Asmodeus, may he destroy this world in fire!" If anything, they would believe that Asmodeus would be a just and fair ruler, unlike any of those self-righteous snobs in the Upper Planes. But I don't see this represented in the current version of the Evil alignment.

If you're going to go this route, then all mortals on the Prime Material should probably be forced into Neutral, leaving true Good and Evil alignments to outsiders, where "Bwahaha, destroy the world in fire!" is actually appropriate when it's coming from a demon. Even then, I don't like how it implies that Good and Evil are supposed to be balanced. We can understand that it would generally be a bad idea to destroy all Law or Chaos and that it's better to keep a balance between the two, but how is it a bad thing to destroy all Evil?

What I'd like to do is replace the Good vs. Evil axis with some variation of Good A vs. Good 1. Two different philosophies of what it means to be good, neither of which is totally correct (or complete) and both represent a different side of goodness. Some characters can strike a balance recognizing the importance of both types of Good while still favoring one over the other, while others can take things to a greater extreme and completely disregard the type of Good they don't favor, or actively fight against it. It makes any alignment valid for a PC and creates additional RP opportunities.

The problem with doing anything like this is that you then have to adapt the existing lore to your new alignment system. The Great Wheel is entirely predicated on dividing up the planes based on alignment, and the Lower Planes need to represent one of your alignments. The problem is they're too black and white. Good and Evil, or, in our case, Good A and Good 1, are embodied by Celestials and Fiends. You could imagine an evil celestial, but I'm doubtful you could find anything resembling a good fiend. The whole point of fiends is that they're evil, I doubt it's possible to come up with an alignment that they embody that could be called "Good" by any stretch.

(Let's call Good A and Good 1 "Light" and "Dark" so we know which one is supposed to go with the Lower Planes.)

You could tweak the Great Wheel so that the "Evil" planes are no longer on the wheel itself but tangential to it (and thus not representative of an alignment), but now you're going to have to decide which of the Lower Planes get moved and which ones stay on the wheel. Of those that stay, you then have to tweak them to be less "evil" and more "Dark" (i.e. the other Good). But it doesn't stop there. Depending on how you've defined Light and Dark alignments, you now have to resort existing Good and Evil aligned creatures as into the alignment that better suits them, with many Evil creatures becoming an Evil version of Unaligned while some can still be sorted into Light or Dark as corrupted versions of those alignments. And once you've sorted various gods and outsiders into Light and Dark, you might find that they no longer match the alignment of the plane they're on, needing you to either move them to a different plane or change the alignment of that plane.

This can work, but you'd almost be better off creating an entirely new setting with new monsters and gods and no Great Wheel. If you have clear enough criteria for your new alignments, you might be able to adjust on the fly what alignment to give to a previously Good or Evil creature.

TL;DR, Evil alignment makes no sense to me, and alignment is too heavily tied into the lore that trying to "fix" it by replacing one axis with a new one requires you to do a bunch of extra work to fit the existing setting to your new system.

I guess my problem with the current alignment system is that it feels like something that was thrown together haphazardly without being fully thought through, and the alignments themselves seem shallow and not well defined. This is mostly likely a result of D&D being the oldest RPG out there, with most of the alignment system being carried over from older editions. Since RPGs were still new, no one really knew what they were doing, and by the time they figured it out, alignment had already largely been set in stone. They could completely rewrite alignments in a new edition (6th?), but imagine the stink people would throw.

Again, many folks have no problems with alignment, and it doesn't "need" fixing. But for people like me, we like to hack the game to make it more interesting, and as such I'm interesting in hacking alignment.

But what do you think? Have you successfully hacked together a fix for alignments that didn't require a bunch of extra work? Maybe a small tweak that makes an Evil/Dark aligned PC viable in a Good/Light aligned party? Have you managed to create a "Dark" alignment that is consistent with various evil creatures, including fiends, without the alignment itself being strictly evil?

And yes, even if I never reply to the thread, I usually still come back and read replies.

[JoeJ]

The good-evil axis might make more sense to you if you relabel good as altruistic and evil as selfish. People don't root for cartoon evil, as you stated, but they do sometimes hurt others in order to benefit themselves.

[KorvinStarmast]

And yes, even if I never reply to the thread, I usually still come back and read replies. Try going back to the original single axis model.
Law, Neutrality, Chaos. The later two axis model was a sort of hack that to me resembled "a solution looking for a problem that wasn't there."

Remember that good and evil are labels that an author or narrator affixes to parties or actions as a means of keeping score. (Not sure where I first saw this critique, but it stuck).

Go back to Moorcock's Elric and Hawkmoon books, and Poul Anderson's Three Hearts/Three Lions.

It makes sense in that broad perspective in a way that the "look at it under a microscope" perspective cannot make sense and wanders into absurdity. It also leaves a lot of room to move around in terms of both role play and the character of varying social constructs. Are demons and their cultists trying to corrupt man, or just feed for a while in our area? Is this foreign religion a boon, or will it rot our culture? How do we deal with the lord of the undead (vampire) who sucks the life out of people and charms them into doing his bidding?

Then, for a setting background, go into deep archetypes like the pastoralist versus the city/agriculturalist conflict that is about 5000 years old. Consider that before there were nations, there were cities and city states. The story of civilization begins with the story of settlements and cities. The symbiotic relationship between the "wilderness" and "non settled" and the settled, in both trade, war, and other interactions is a never ending cycle. (There was a great book on the spread of disease called "Plagues and Peoples" that showed another twist to how the hinter land has to feed the cities, whose populations keep dying from self inflicted poison: disease).

That's enough to work with; throw in some monsters, without agonzing over where to place an act on a clumsy two axis model. You don't need orcs and goblins to have enemies. There is an old adage that "the most dangerous monster in the forest walks on two feet." It's a great basis to start from.

[MaxWilson]

But Evil is just, well, evil. As in, cartoonishly, card-carrying evil. It has no redeeming qualities, you can't have an Evil aligned hero, and I'm left wondering why anyone would tolerate Evil aligned creatures (or why anyone would choose to be Evil).

This isn't true in 5E. We know that casting Animate Dead, even with the best of intentions, is "not a good act, and only evil creatures cast it frequently" (paraphrased from memory). So in 5E, you can have benevolently Evil necromancers who, motivated by a desire to protect their people from a genocidal invasion, raise the corpses of the fallen invaders and turn them against their former comrades. They're Evil, and presumably they're going to go straight to the Abyss when they die, but they're motivated by love of their people and by self-sacrifice. The sacrifice of their souls is worth it in their hypothetical eyes.

I'd call that reasonably heroic.

Another less extreme and not 5E-specific example could be Morrolan e'Drien from the Vlad Taltos novels, a good friend and a loyal subject of the Empress who nevertheless enjoys painfully dismembering (in duels) anyone who insults his hero, Adron e'Kieron, and occasionally sacrificing whole villages to his Demon Goddess. (Yes, in wartime, but still... noncombatants and prisoners of war.) That can't possibly be Good and one sometimes gets the impression that the original RPG character who inspired Morrolan was in fact Lawful Evil. But he's definitely heroic!

[Naanomi]

The distinction, and sometimes disparity, between ‘good and evil’ VS ‘right and wrong’... that it might be the ‘right’ thing to act evil... is part of the nuance and tension of the Planescape setting. That angels are just as alien, and potentially dangerous, to mortals as any fiend is a good thing to me not a bad: the fact that alignments ‘don’t make sense’ and mortals struggle with the specifics make the Outer Planes more incomprehensible... and more interesting... and more playable in a lot of ways

[Lunali]

How I generally view it:

Good vs Evil: selfless vs selfish
Good people will help others, even when it hurts them personally. Evil people will act to benefit themselves, even if others will suffer as a result.

Law vs Chaos: should vs want
Lawful people will do what they feel they 'should' do according to some system of beliefs. Chaotic people will do what they want to do, even when they know they shouldn't for some reason.

[Darth Ultron]

I can see you problem: you don't understand evil. It makes you a good person.

The problem is the rules can't ever talk about ''real evil''. It is simply forbidden. The best evil you can ever get is the cartoon evil.

This will always be a problem....but it has gotten worse over the years. For lots of reasons.

I also see you use the classic ''evil people don't think they are evil" line. This is simply not true. Evil people think they are evil. Period.

Does the average evil person admit, more so in public, that they are evil to good people...no. But lying to good folks is part of being evil.

[bid]

I have a gamist approach to alignment. It all comes down to player effort.

You have to waste roleplay time to be altruistic or selfish.
You have to waste time making a lawful trap, or waste time dealing with the consequences of your randomness.

If you aren't willing to make the effort to screw people up with a contract they accepted, you aren't Lawful Evil.

[Draken]

The problem from my perspective is that alignment refers to three very distinctive things:

1. Human morality: good vs evil as we understand it. Bonus dissonance points because most D&D settings try to operate on classical - medieval standards which contrast very starkly with our modern standards.

2. The morality of other humanoids that are not human or close to: Simple fact, hobgoblins have different social etiquette and priorities than humans. Yuan-ti and lizardfolk don't think human thoughts. The gods of the Orcs inform them that everyone else are dirty thieves who stole the world of the orcs.

3. And the biggest issue. Cosmic forces wholly removed from any mortal experience.
This one is critical in my view, because the evil of a human brigand, psychopathic murderer, greedy merchant or corrupt bureaucrat is superficially similar to a Fiend's daily life and little else. At the most basic, all of the humans understand that what they are doing is socially unacceptable, whereas the Fiend is merely navigating daily societal mores. This is glaring when looking at Evil and only a bit less so when looking at Chaos, but honestly, I am fairly sure that if anyone had to interact with Good forces for an extended period of time, some sort of minor, easily overlooked gaffe would paint a mortal as evil in the eyes of an Angel and the longer you stay in their presence, the more you will accumulate red marks on yourself in the eyes of the Celestials. Cosmic Law is, of course, heartless and systemic and easy to see for the functionally useless, alien institution it actually is (if you have any actual understanding of actual law, that is), also easy to avoid as it simply and thankfully lacks jurisdiction in mortal matters, unless someone does something incredibly stupid.

[hamishspence]

I also see you use the classic ''evil people don't think they are evil" line. This is simply not true. Evil people think they are evil. Period.

Does the average evil person admit, more so in public, that they are evil to good people...no.

There's plenty of D&D characters in 3.5 splatbooks who "believe they are good and won't admit, even to themselves, that they are evil." Similar principles apply in any edition, not just 3.5.



Another less extreme and not 5E-specific example could be Morrolan e'Drien from the Vlad Taltos novels, a good friend and a loyal subject of the Empress who nevertheless enjoys painfully dismembering (in duels) anyone who insults his hero, Adron e'Kieron, and occasionally sacrificing whole villages to his Demon Goddess. (Yes, in wartime, but still... noncombatants and prisoners of war.) That can't possibly be Good and one sometimes gets the impression that the original RPG character who inspired Morrolan was in fact Lawful Evil. But he's definitely heroic!

And BoVD cites Elric of Melnibone as an "Evil hero" - and Champions of Valor discusses the "rare few Evil valorous heroes, who recognise that some evils must be battled" - although it focuses far more on Good valorous heroes.

D&D has a long history of having Evil heroes as well as villains.

[Darth Ultron]

There's plenty of D&D characters in 3.5 splatbooks who "believe they are good and won't admit, even to themselves, that they are evil." Similar principles apply in any edition, not just 3.5.


It's one of many ways of thinking a person can have yes. The point is that it is not everyone.

The evil person that won't admit they are good is a very popular trope...with good people. And, of course, only good people ever write anything in a published D&D book.

And the evil person that won't/can't admit they are evil is popular in fiction too. Again, good people like to write and read and think that.

[Thrudd]

Moral relativism isn't how D&D alignment works. They aren't what people believe about themselves, they are a universal truth determined no matter what a person believes. "Good" doesn't mean the person thinks they are good or thinks they are doing what's best. Like Aristotle says, everyone acts in the way they think is best. The goal of each alignment is not to end up with a functioning society, either. It's not like political parties who each have their own ideas about the best way for a country to function. In D&D, there are certain behaviors that are Good. There are other behaviors that are Evil. The cosmos/great wheel/DM says it is so. Not all people are willing or able to behave in the manner the cosmos calls Good. Being labeled Evil by the cosmos doesn't necessarily mean you think you're a bad person or a villain - it just means you think some Evil behavior is the best/right way to act.

The great wheel seeming like it's equal partitions for each alignment does not mean that there are equal numbers of mortal beings of each alignment. I'd say the majority of humans would be Neutral, with fewer actually qualifying as Good or Evil.

Also there already is "good1" and "good2", it's called "lawful good" and "chaotic good".

[MaxWilson]

The evil person that won't admit they are good is a very popular trope...with good people. And, of course, only good people ever write anything in a published D&D book.

Oh, that is so not true. I'd be willing to bet that most D&D writers wouldn't score as Good in my book, at any rate. The majority of them are probably where the majority of the human race sits: Neutral, with no strong history of either altruism or exploitation of others. They probably give the time to strangers when asked, and do various small favors for close friends and intimates, but I doubt that they are particularly likely to forgive those who abuse them or make real sacrifices to bring happiness to people they aren't already close to. Few of them are likely to have much spiritual strength of that sort. Maybe some of them do, but I doubt most of them do, and certainly not all of them.

As Sondheim would say, "Nice... is different than good."

[Naanomi]

I would agree that humanity as a race is mostly neutral; though as a society likely leans towards law at least somewhat (though not as naturally as dwarves)

[Unoriginal]

Oh, look, an alignment thead.

5e alignment system work if you stick to it and don't try to include preconception that are not part of it for no reason.

OP's perception of what D&D evil means is incorrect. Anyone whose typical behavior fits the evil alignments descriptions, be it methodically taking what you want without care for your victims, doing whatever you can to get on top as long as you can get away with it, or acting with arbitrary violence due to greed, anger, hatred, bloodlust or other desire, is evil. You don't have to be a Saturday Morning Cartoon villain. The Highwayman who shoot people to take their money or the person scamming people by selling ineffective medicine when they need the real stuff to live or live well are generaly evil for a reason. As to why anyone would choose to be evil: simple, they consider it benefits them more than the alternative. Most often because they consider their victims an acceptable privé to achieve their goals (be it gaining power or having fun).

As for the "evil people don't think they're evil" thing: some people know and agree they're evil, some don't. Most goblins are nasty bullies who dream to find someone weaker than them to make suffer, and a significant portion of Yuan-ti society is trying to bring the apocalyps. Both know they are bad people, they just think it's better to be evil.

[Millstone85]

The Good vs. Evil axis doesn't seem to serve any real purpose except to neatly color-code the good guys and bad guys.I believe that's what it boils down to, and it is enough. Do you want your PC to be a hero or a villain? Is a creature usually benevolent or malevolent? If they are something in between, that's what "neutral" is for.

Whether or not good and evil exist in real life is a question that goes far beyond the scope of D&D. Personally, I believe that people do act out of selfishness and/or cruelty, whether they admit it to themselves or buy their own excuses, which is a "badness" in human nature that sometimes reach evil proportions.


Even then, I don't like how it implies that Good and Evil are supposed to be balanced. We can understand that it would generally be a bad idea to destroy all Law or Chaos and that it's better to keep a balance between the two, but how is it a bad thing to destroy all Evil?On that I completely agree. I would present the Upper Planes as competing for which one possesses the ideal amounts of law and chaos. But the concordant opposition of the Outlands is straight-up bull.

[Unoriginal]

In 5e, it's said that evil is allowed to exist because free will is allowed to exist. Good beings don't want to force others to be good, giving the choice to do good or bad is part of that.

Now, the forces of the Upper Planes would certainly be glad if the Lower Planes didn't exist or at least didn't try to spread their malevolence... but it's not like they can do anything about it aside from foiling them anywhere they can.

[Tanarii]

The easiest way to "fix" alignment is to read the 5e typical behavior descriptions, use those, and stop adding in your own interpretations of Good and Evil and Law and Chaos as individual things to it.

[Unoriginal]

The easiest way to "fix" alignment is to read the 5e typical behavior descriptions, use those, and stop adding in your own interpretations of Good and Evil and Law and Chaos as individual things to it.

Amen.

dot dot dot.

[Naanomi]

Good tried to wipe out evil before, shortly after the end of the War of Law and Chaos.... it didn’t go well.

As long as there is Evil in the Great Wheel... mortal, Divine, Exemplar, precursor... there will be a ‘place’ for it in the Outer Planes; it isn’t about ‘balance’ (though some may champion that idea) and more about practicality; one that has been present since the beginning of the Outer Planes

[Unoriginal]

Good tried to wipe out evil before, shortly after the end of the War of Law and Chaos.... it didn’t go well.

Don't think the War of Law and Chaos is canon in 5e.

The Mordenkainen's make no mention of it, and in general makes clear that the Upper Planes don't want to be involved into that kind of conflicts (funnily enough, the Abyss doesn't want the Upper Planes to be involved either, while Asmodeus very much want them."



As long as there is Evil in the Great Wheel... mortal, Divine, Exemplar, precursor... there will be a ‘place’ for it in the Outer Planes; it isn’t about ‘balance’ (though some may champion that idea) and more about practicality; one that has been present since the beginning of the Outer Planes

This is true, though it's less practicality than inevitability. The Outer Planes (super)naturally represent what is in the existing beings. The only way for the Abyss to stop existing is if there was no creature capable of acting arbitrarily because of greed, bloodlust, anger, etc.

[Tetrasodium]

good & evil are fine, the problem comes when you try to apply absolute morality & settings where absolute morality is part of the world's baseline assumptions.
Here is a writeup on the much more nuanced way how Eberron handles it (http://keith-baker.com/eberron-flashback-good-and-evil/). I believe darksun is similar since death from dehydration & starvation is a pretty awful thought.

[Millstone85]

funnily enough, the Abyss doesn't want the Upper Planes to be involved either, while Asmodeus very much want them.It makes sense with the lore. The Nine Hells are all about corruption, with forces made of damned souls and fallen angels. The Abyss has those too, but it is a footnote compared to the endless stream of demons it can just conjure from its depths.

I would say the Abyss more than anything else makes the Great Wheel a crapsack world. The Nine Hells could be significantly starved by making the Material a better place, but the Abyss might be completely self-sufficient. Worse yet, Asmodeus may be right in that starving the Nine Hells would make the Abyss unstoppable.

[Kadesh]

Greywander thread and Alignment? Oh boy. *popcorns*

[ZorroGames]

This discussion has not changed since the three alignment system in the original three booklets.

Honestly the change to five alignments in Strategic Review/Dragon (short original magazines,) then 9 only made it more open to interpretation.

Get your DMs view then decide what your character will fit into that worldview.

[Vogie]

How I generally view it:

Good vs Evil: selfless vs selfish
Good people will help others, even when it hurts them personally. Evil people will act to benefit themselves, even if others will suffer as a result.

Law vs Chaos: should vs want
Lawful people will do what they feel they 'should' do according to some system of beliefs. Chaotic people will do what they want to do, even when they know they shouldn't for some reason.

By those definition, one could make the logical leap that the introduction of the Ravnica book is actually a herald of the removal of the nine alignments, replacing them instead with the 5 color philosophy from Magic.

http://s3.gatheringmagic.com/uploads/2015/04/08/AT_2.jpg

[Naanomi]

Don't think the War of Law and Chaos is canon in 5e.

The Mordenkainen's make no mention of it, and in general makes clear that the Upper Planes don't want to be involved into that kind of conflicts (funnily enough, the Abyss doesn't want the Upper Planes to be involved either, while Asmodeus very much want them."
Explicitly called out in the aarakocra monster manual entry, and hinted at a few other places

Lorewise it is super-ancient history, most planar historians even would only know it as the beginning place of the Blood War

[Wilb]

Explicitly called out in the aarakocra monster manual entry, and hinted at a few other places

Lorewise it is super-ancient history, most planar historians even would only know it as the beginning place of the Blood War

DMG has a description for the LG Wind dukes of the city of Aaqa, its location on the Elemental plane of air, their Aarakocra & Vaati servants and their long fight against Elemental chaos & evil.

[Darth Ultron]

I would agree that humanity as a race is mostly neutral; though as a society likely leans towards law at least somewhat (though not as naturally as dwarves)

That everyone is neutral is just one of the things people say as it sounds good. It's the classic ''I don't want to label people'' thing that is so common.

Though you might note the vast bulk of what would be called ''neutral people'', sure do Act Good, just about all the time. So it's a bit odd to say the people that Act Good 24/7, are in fact neutral.

Neutral good and evil are the most common alignments, so you could say ''most humans are neutral", but they are also good or evil. The vast bulk of people that follow laws, rules and traditions are Neutral Good: They follow what they think is right for themselves and society. The vast bulk of people that twist laws, rules and traditions are the Neutral Evil ones.

[JoeJ]

Neutral good and evil are the most common alignments, so you could say ''most humans are neutral", but they are also good or evil. The vast bulk of people that follow laws, rules and traditions are Neutral Good: They follow what they think is right for themselves and society. The vast bulk of people that twist laws, rules and traditions are the Neutral Evil ones.

In previous editions most humans were neutral, but in this one humans are all over the map. They have no racial tendency toward any particular alignment.

[Naanomi]

In previous editions most humans were neutral, but in this one humans are all over the map. They have no racial tendency toward any particular alignment.
Right, which sort of averages out to being ‘neutral as a race’ (in that all alignments are represented to some degree in most societies)... I probably could have been more clear about what I meant

[KorvinStarmast]

In previous editions most humans were neutral, but in this one humans are all over the map. They have no racial tendency toward any particular alignment. In the original book, Men and Magic, page 9: Humans were Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic. Orcs, were Neutral or Chaotic while Goblins were only Chaotic; Trolls and all undead were only Chaotic. Dragons were either neutral or chaotic.
-------------------
As to Clerics: the analogue to a Patriarch(Lawful) was an Evil High Priest (Chaotic). You had to declare for Law or Chaos at 7th level originally.(Lama, one below "name" level) When Druids came along they were explicitly Neutral (eldritch Wizardry) It actually fit thematically, and it wasn't all that complicated. It was pretty interesting to see that, originally, clerics had to make a choice: whose side are you on? Law, or Chaos? Fighters and Magic Users didn't, they could choose any of three. Thieves IIRC were only allowed to be neutral or chaotic. (Greyhawk). It made a certain sense, structurally.


Clerics: ... have the use of magic armor and all non-edged magic weapons (no arrows!), plus they have numbers of their own spells. In addition, they are able to use more of the magical items than are the Fighting-Men. When Clerics reach the top level (Patriarch){8th} they may opt to build their own stronghold, and when doing so receive help from "above". -- snip-- Note that Clerics of 7th level and greater are either "Law" or "Chaos", and there is a sharp distinction between them. If a Patriarch receiving the above benefits changes sides, all the benefits will immediately be removed!
The concept of anti cleric to cover evil or chaotic PCs and NPC's.

There are Anti-Clerics (listed below) who have similar powers to Clerics. Those Clerical spells underlined on the table for Cleric Spells have a reverse effect, all others functioning as noted. The chief exception is the Raise Dead spell which becomes: The Finger of Death: Instead of raising the dead, this spell creates a "death ray" which will kill any creature unless a saving throw is made (where applicable). Range: 12". (A Cleric-type may use this spell in a life-or-death situation, but misuse will immediately turn him into an Anti-Cleric.)
Compare Chaotic to Lawful
Evil Acolyte, Evil Adept, Shaman, Evil Priest, Evil Curate, Evil Bishop, Evil Lama, Evil High Priest. vs

Acolyte, Adept, Village Priest, Vicar, Curate, Bishop, Lama, Patriarch Gary loved him a thesaurus, he did. :smallbiggrin:

It's been interesting to see, since the beginning, how spells by clerics have associations with alignment or a label, and which spells can have reverse effects.
For the most part, 5e has dispensed with that, to which I say Good!
I like the idea of the spell as the tool, with any characterization on its use being where a label might get assigned.
Summon weather, big rain storm, to end a drought? Likely good.
summon weather, big rain storm to destroy a flotilla of barges / ships bringing grain to the region suffering from drought? Likely not so good.

Do I need a two axis alignment chart to tell me how to characterize either of the above? No.

[Darth Ultron]

Right, which sort of averages out to being ‘neutral as a race’ (in that all alignments are represented to some degree in most societies)... I probably could have been more clear about what I meant

Human Alignment: Any.

Most people do fall under the ''follower''(neutral good) or the ''scammer''(neutral evil), so that does let you to say ''most humans are neutral(evil or good)."

[hamishspence]

Most people do fall under the ''follower''(neutral good) or the ''scammer''(neutral evil)

"Followers" are TN. Active altruists are NG.

TN is likely to be a little more common than NG or NE. Maybe not quite to the extent of exceeding the other two put together.

I wouldn't say "Most people are neither good nor evil", but I would say that Neutral is a bit more typical than the other two are.

[JoeJ]

Human Alignment: Any.

Most people do fall under the ''follower''(neutral good) or the ''scammer''(neutral evil), so that does let you to say ''most humans are neutral(evil or good)."

Do you have a citation for most people being followers or scammers? I don't recall anywhere it says that. (We are still talking about people in D&D, not the real world, right?)

[Beleriphon]

At the end of the day, though, Law and Chaos are nuanced enough that you can have both heroes and villains on both sides, and Lawful characters are capable of cooperating with Chaotic characters without killing each other.

The Good vs. Evil axis is the real problem, and specifically the Evil alignment. "Good" is generic enough that different people can have different interpretations of what "Good" is, leading to a conflict of interests and creating more RP potential. You can have Good aligned antagonists, possibly as a well intentioned extremist, or someone doing it "for the greater good", or because "it had to be done, no one else would do it."

The well intentioned extremist, the "greater good", and "it had to be done" guys are all Evil in D&D.


But Evil is just, well, evil. As in, cartoonishly, card-carrying evil. It has no redeeming qualities, you can't have an Evil aligned hero, and I'm left wondering why anyone would tolerate Evil aligned creatures (or why anyone would choose to be Evil). The Good vs. Evil axis doesn't seem to serve any real purpose except to neatly color-code the good guys and bad guys. This works fine for a Saturday Morning Cartoon where we just want to see the good guys beat up the bad guys without overthinking the moral implications of what the heroes are doing. There's no nuance to it, no tough moral questions. In fact, I feel like I would be justified to murder on the spot anyone that I detected with an Evil alignment, not because of anything they might have done, but because they have an Evil alignment. This was a bigger problem in older editions where spells could detect alignments, but even in 5e a 3rd level chainlock can still detect alignment using a sprite familiar.

I'm going to use a Eberron example since the alignment setup in 3.5E there was more designed around the one 5E uses, although not quite. In Eberron one of the leaders of a continent-wide religion that was setup as being the Good Guys was Evil. Not evil as in he doesn't believe, or he's there to corrupt them from the inside. He was Evil because he was a totalitarian jerkwad that brooked no talk back and anybody that didn't believe deserves the sword. He also believes he's right, you're wrong (he he's in charge and you aren't so something has to be true there right?) so if you don't listen to him he'll make sure you pay the price.

That's what I would identify as mundane evil. Then there's supernatural evil: stuff like vampires and pit fiends.


TL;DR, Evil alignment makes no sense to me, and alignment is too heavily tied into the lore that trying to "fix" it by replacing one axis with a new one requires you to do a bunch of extra work to fit the existing setting to your new system.

I guess my problem with the current alignment system is that it feels like something that was thrown together haphazardly without being fully thought through, and the alignments themselves seem shallow and not well defined. This is mostly likely a result of D&D being the oldest RPG out there, with most of the alignment system being carried over from older editions. Since RPGs were still new, no one really knew what they were doing, and by the time they figured it out, alignment had already largely been set in stone. They could completely rewrite alignments in a new edition (6th?), but imagine the stink people would throw.

Again, many folks have no problems with alignment, and it doesn't "need" fixing. But for people like me, we like to hack the game to make it more interesting, and as such I'm interesting in hacking alignment.

But what do you think? Have you successfully hacked together a fix for alignments that didn't require a bunch of extra work? Maybe a small tweak that makes an Evil/Dark aligned PC viable in a Good/Light aligned party? Have you managed to create a "Dark" alignment that is consistent with various evil creatures, including fiends, without the alignment itself being strictly evil?


Really short answer: D&D is the wrong game for you if you don't understand what the alignment axes are for or don't want to use them as they are. If kind of like complaining that Mutants and Mastermind's books keep talking about superheroes and how to model comic books all of the time and you want to play a gritty zombie game.

Its possible to make M&M a gritty zombie game, after a fashion, but its not really meant for that. D&D is about punching cartoon evil in the face and taking its stuff. You can do other things with it sure, but the core assumption is you're going into some forgotten tomb, punching a cartoonishly evil necromancer in the face and taking his stuff.

If you look at the core assumptions one of them is Conan. Conan's whole shtick is punching cartoonishly evil wizards in the face. Conan wasn't Good according to D&D by any stretch, but he certainly isn't evil. Its a staple of the genre, evil is cartoonishly evil.

D&D has used more nuanced alignments, Eberron for example drops the necessity for a cleric to match the alignment of their patron deity/religion. So we have some religions that were started by evil characters and have good adherents because the basic tenets aren't evil

[Naanomi]

You can definetly have Good Villains in DnD... celestials make classic ‘well intentioned extremists’ and are by definition Good (though it is a good path to Falling in the long run)

[Unoriginal]

You can definetly have Good Villains in DnD... celestials make classic ‘well intentioned extremists’ and are by definition Good (though it is a good path to Falling in the long run)

No. You can have good *antagonists*, but not all antagonists are villains.

Villains imply evilness.

Celestials only make "well intentioned extremists" when people forget that Good outsiders are supposed to be Good because "muh subversion of expectation".

I think that among all the alignment ****ery people try to impose on D&D despite it being clear it's not the case, this is among the ones that piss me off the more.

Good outsiders are good people. If they cross the "well intentioned extremists" point, they're no longer good.

You can have a Deva making a judgment and refusing to accept an alternative. You can have conflicts between angels. You can have the forces of good oppose your PCs.

But no good outsider who is still good is going to do the whole "do horrible things because they feel they're justified". If they're doing horrible things, they have already fallen.


But for people like me, we like to hack the game to make it more interesting, and as such I'm interesting in hacking alignment.



No offense meant, but this reminds me of a quote from Gandalf the Grey: "He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

[Darth Ultron]

Do you have a citation for most people being followers or scammers? I don't recall anywhere it says that. (We are still talking about people in D&D, not the real world, right?)

I don't believe in the whole ''citation'' thing: it's just a cheap trick used by weak people to end discussions. The idea that there is some type of ''perfect fact'' is just silly.

I guess the idea is to pull out like page 66, point to some words and then everyone will bow down and follow the words...all hail the words on the page....because a citation is always right. Of course, if a citation is found and used that the other side does not like..well, then the citation is wrong, right?

[Unoriginal]

I don't believe in the whole ''citation'' thing: it's just a cheap trick used by weak people to end discussions.

Because insulting the other people is supposed to be a better way to end discussion?


The idea that there is some type of ''perfect fact'' is just silly.

You claimed that something was a fact. If you can't demonstrate anything that shows it's a fact, why would anyone trust that claim?



I guess the idea is to pull out like page 66, point to some words and then everyone will bow down and follow the words...all hail the words on the page....because a citation is always right. Of course, if a citation is found and used that the other side does not like..well, then the citation is wrong, right?

That's absurd. We're talking about what is a fact in a fictional setting. If one of the official writers or creators has established something as a fact in that setting, it's a fact in that setting.

If someone claims that Harry Potter's eyes are brown, but can't show any line of the text where the character's eyes are described as brown, and that the "other side" shows several quotes where the text and the author mentions Harry Potter has green eyes, then everyone better accept the words on the page unless they want to be disconnected with reality.

Note that it's up to the person making the claim to show evidences for it. Even if said claim is a negative and such cannot be proven.

So, respectfully, do you have anything to back up your claim, or were you just announcing a personal belief as a fact?

[Darth Ultron]

Because insulting the other people is supposed to be a better way to end discussion?


Insults don't ''end'' a discussion for most people. I guess there are some people that hear something and do just give up and walk away...but that is all on them.



You claimed that something was a fact. If you can't demonstrate anything that shows it's a fact, why would anyone trust that claim?

I'm not sure why anyone trusts anything.



So, respectfully, do you have anything to back up your claim, or were you just announcing a personal belief as a fact?

Well, until the other side does the same, I see no reason for me to do so.

So, unless a poster puts citations for every single thing they type to some place in the published 5E rules, I won't do so. Of course, no one else in this whole thread is doing so....so why would I suddenly do it?

[Thrudd]

I don't believe in the whole ''citation'' thing: it's just a cheap trick used by weak people to end discussions. The idea that there is some type of ''perfect fact'' is just silly.

I guess the idea is to pull out like page 66, point to some words and then everyone will bow down and follow the words...all hail the words on the page....because a citation is always right. Of course, if a citation is found and used that the other side does not like..well, then the citation is wrong, right?
It's called supporting your claims with evidence. You can't just make up facts. A citation's source needs to be considered according to its relevance to the argument, obviously not all are equal. There's no "perfect fact"- there is strong evidence and weak evidence (and no evidence).

If you're making a claim about the rules of a game, then it is a very strong argument to point to the page in the rule book that directly supports your claim.

If you don't want to back up your claims with evidence, then there is no discussion. One person says "I believe X", and then someone else says "I believe Y", and then they stop talking, because no one is willing to explain why they believe X or Y or what led them to their conclusions.

[Darth Ultron]

If you're making a claim about the rules of a game, then it is a very strong argument to point to the page in the rule book that directly supports your claim.


My point is very simple:

When I see a poster that does this for anything they post, then I will do so in return. If someone just types words, then I will just type words.

Casual postings don't need the hostile citations.

[MadBear]

My point is very simple:

When I see a poster that does this for anything they post, then I will do so in return. If someone just types words, then I will just type words.

Casual postings don't need the hostile citations.

First, It's ironic that you call it "hostile citations" since you're the one whose been insulting to others in this thread.

Second, let me illustrate what I believe others have been trying to say to you:

Jim: My lawn has an even number of blades of grass in it. That is just a fact.
Susan: How can you know that? What is your evidence to show that it's true?
Jim: I don't believe in showing evidence, words are just words. If you show me evidence that there's not an even number of blades of grass, I'll give evidence.


That is precisely how silly you look. No one has claimed that they have a citation that proves you wrong. They are asking if you have evidence that proves you are correct, and if you in fact do not have evidence, asking you to clarify that what you are saying is opinion, and not fact.

[Thrudd]

My point is very simple:

When I see a poster that does this for anything they post, then I will do so in return. If someone just types words, then I will just type words.

Casual postings don't need the hostile citations.
Why are citations hostile?
We just need to be clear about what is being discussed. If a person is claiming "the rules of the game say X" or "the game is meant to be played like Y", then it is appropriate to point out where the game's rules or literature support X or Y.
If someone is instead communicating a preference that is not dependant on what is published, then there would be nothing to cite- you just say "I like this because of x y and z" and nobody can really argue with that.

If you are saying "I am right and all you guys are wrong!", then that claim would need to be based on something other than preference, and it would be reasonable to ask for you to support what you're saying. At the very least, provide the chain of logic that leads to your position, and be prepared to defend the individual assertions on which your logic relies.

Otherwise, it is just people shouting at each other- "I like X and you're wrong!" "No, Y is better!". It's pointless.

[Naanomi]

“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence“

[JoeJ]

I don't believe in the whole ''citation'' thing: it's just a cheap trick used by weak people to end discussions. The idea that there is some type of ''perfect fact'' is just silly.

Since you're unwilling to present any relevant evidence, your claim that most people are either followers or scammers can be dismissed as not worthy of consideration.

[Darth Ultron]

Second, let me illustrate what I believe others have been trying to say to you:

Jim: My lawn has an even number of blades of grass in it. That is just a fact.
Susan: How can you know that? What is your evidence to show that it's true?
Jim: I don't believe in showing evidence, words are just words. If you show me evidence that there's not an even number of blades of grass, I'll give evidence.


I see it more as :

Jim looks over his lawn filled with weeds, crabgrass and normal grass then says ''my lawn is all normal grass!"
Susan: "Um, no, your lawn is a mix of weeds, crabgrass and normal grass.
Jim: "No it's not where is your proof!"



Why are citations hostile?

You might have noticed the ''citation people" only ask for a citation for something they don't like or don't agree with or even just for a set person and this shows their bias and hostility. They never ask for it if it is something they agree with or like. This right here, shows how humans are not 'true neutral'.



We just need to be clear about what is being discussed. If a person is claiming "the rules of the game say X" or "the game is meant to be played like Y", then it is appropriate to point out where the game's rules or literature support X or Y.
If someone is instead communicating a preference that is not dependant on what is published, then there would be nothing to cite- you just say "I like this because of x y and z" and nobody can really argue with that.

Well, again, like i said...no one else in the thread is doing this. They are just typing stuff. So, again, if anyone wishes to do the ''citation subgame'' they are welcome to do it.



If you are saying "I am right and all you guys are wrong!", then that claim would need to be based on something other than preference, and it would be reasonable to ask for you to support what you're saying. At the very least, provide the chain of logic that leads to your position, and be prepared to defend the individual assertions on which your logic relies.

Otherwise, it is just people shouting at each other- "I like X and you're wrong!" "No, Y is better!". It's pointless.

I'm always prepared to defend and debate. Sadly, most people don't want to do that. They, for example, will just say ''citation please'' and not engage or communicate or debate.

After all, I say X. Then someone says ''nut nu" and the conversation is over....no one ever wants a good back and forth debate.

[Sabeta]

Well, again, like i said...no one else in the thread is doing this. They are just typing stuff. So, again, if anyone wishes to do the ''citation subgame'' they are welcome to do it.


I'm fairly certain people in this very thread provide citations of their own free will to back up their claims. If you're going to discuss how a game works, it generally helps to be capable of providing an official source for how that game works.

[bid]

When I see a poster that does this for anything they post, then I will do so in return. If someone just types words, then I will just type words.
A good definition of passive-aggressive.


Now, some of your claims are interesting. Can you develop them in a constructive way?

[Peelee]

I see it more as :

Jim looks over his lawn filled with weeds, crabgrass and normal grass then says ''my lawn is all normal grass!"
Susan: "Um, no, your lawn is a mix of weeds, crabgrass and normal grass.
Jim: "No it's not where is your proof!"

Aside from how wrong this is, do note that Susan can easily provide proof. Jim cannot. If both parties were asked to provide proof of their assertive claims, who is the more likely to say, "I dont believe in citations"?

[GlenSmash!]

I play D&D in no small part to participate in the kind of fiction I enjoy, which has many compelling evil protagonists.

Nothing about putting the big E on a character sheet suddenly makes the game unplayable. Especially since good and evil people (both real and fictional) have teaming up to fight greater evils since time immemorial.


The easiest way to "fix" alignment is to read the 5e typical behavior descriptions, use those, and stop adding in your own interpretations of Good and Evil and Law and Chaos as individual things to it.

Also this.

I have my own interpretations for Good and Evil and Law and Chaos but those stay in my head, guiding my play, where they belong.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm fairly certain people in this very thread provide citations of their own free will to back up their claims. If you're going to discuss how a game works, it generally helps to be capable of providing an official source for how that game works.

I agree.

Should someone cite something in a post and I post a reply, then I with cite in return.


A good definition of passive-aggressive.
Now, some of your claims are interesting. Can you develop them in a constructive way?

You have an odd definition of passive aggressive...

And, yes, I can.


Aside from how wrong this is, do note that Susan can easily provide proof. Jim cannot. If both parties were asked to provide proof of their assertive claims, who is the more likely to say, "I dont believe in citations"?

This is known as barnyard targeting: you look at something specific and then make a general claim. You see one orc being evil and you say, yup, all orcs are evil.

[Peelee]

This is known as barnyard targeting: you look at something specific and then make a general claim. You see one orc being evil and you say, yup, all orcs are evil.

Actually, it's not. I asked which was more probable. I made no affirmative claims. Meanwhile, all your claims thus far are known as pulling things out of your butt while yelling "fake news!" at anyone who asks you to back anything up.

[bid]

And, yes, I can.
Citation please.

[KorvinStarmast]

Citation please.That would be the 2008 Obama campaign slogan, except that it was "yes we can." There's your citation. If you are going to quibble about first person singular versus first person plural, you're just a pedant. :smallbiggrin:

As to the lot of you badgering Darth Ultron: is there a purpose to this? I don't find the original statement that seems to have gotten a few folks all wound up to be worth that much effort. In a given group of people that kind of thing is variable enough to nearly be unprovable. To be charitable, it's in the category of generalization.

[Peelee]

That would be the 2008 Obama campaign slogan, except that it was "yes we can." There's your citation. If you are going to quibble about first person singular versus first person plural, you're just a pedant. :smallbiggrin:

As to the lot of you badgering Darth Ultron: is there a purpose to this? I don't find the original statement that seems to have gotten a few folks all wound up to be worth that much effort. In a given group of people that kind of thing is variable enough to nearly be unprovable. To be charitable, it's in the category of generalization.

Speaking solely for myself, I give much less a hoot about the accuracy of the original statement as I do about the mentality of "I can say what I think is correct and disregard any calls for me to back it up, which are themselves hostile and hamper discussion." Because that itself hampers discussion, and what's the point of even having forums if it's just people plugging their ears and yelling past each other?

[SociopathFriend]

One thing to remember is your alignment is not your free-will per say- your alignment is a conglomeration of all that you do. Many people pick an alignment and then base everything around it rather than the other way around- your actions define you and that overall definition will have a place on two axis- Law and Chaos, Good and Evil.

That's why your random thief stealing for himself just to eat might not show up as Evil per alignments, he has no true malevolent intent towards others and seeks only to live, there's no Evil there- just Chaos because the Law says not to do that.

[JoeJ]

As to the lot of you badgering Darth Ultron: is there a purpose to this? I don't find the original statement that seems to have gotten a few folks all wound up to be worth that much effort. In a given group of people that kind of thing is variable enough to nearly be unprovable. To be charitable, it's in the category of generalization.

I apologize if I came across as badgering. By asking for a citation I was trying to point out that this is a discussion about alignment in D&D, not about how to apply D&D alignments to real life.

[2D8HP]

I would agree that humanity as a race is mostly neutral; though as a society likely leans towards law at least somewhat (though not as naturally as dwarves)


A co-creator of D&D agrees with you:


"As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil"

- E. Gary Gygax

From:
THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL

by E. Gary Gygax

FEBRUARY 1976 (http://themagictreerpg.blogspot.com/2008/09/history-of-alignment-in-d-part-i.html?m=1)

[Darth Ultron]

Citation please.

Well, my proof is above, where I typed the word ''yes''.


Speaking solely for myself, I give much less a hoot about the accuracy of the original statement as I do about the mentality of "I can say what I think is correct and disregard any calls for me to back it up, which are themselves hostile and hamper discussion." Because that itself hampers discussion, and what's the point of even having forums if it's just people plugging their ears and yelling past each other?

I agree.

And as I said, should any poster provide citation for anything they post, then if I reply to them, I will in turn provide citations for anything I post.


I apologize if I came across as badgering. By asking for a citation I was trying to point out that this is a discussion about alignment in D&D, not about how to apply D&D alignments to real life.

I, for one, never talk about real life.

I'm just glad we don't live in boring Citation World...then we could not talk or debate or post in forums. People would just be like ''page 66" and everyone would be like ''all hail page 66".

[bid]

Well, my proof is above, where I typed the word ''yes''.
Which one would that be?
Is the word "yes" a constructive argument?
Or could anyone believe the chuunibyou trope "only true evil knows evil" can be construed as one?

I don't think you've brought any constructive argument to the table, but I could be wrong.
Would you care to enlighten me?

[Darth Ultron]

Which one would that be?
Is the word "yes" a constructive argument?
Or could anyone believe the chuunibyou trope "only true evil knows evil" can be construed as one?

I don't think you've brought any constructive argument to the table, but I could be wrong.
Would you care to enlighten me?

I can't take you through every word, you will need to do some of the work yourself. Look, read, understand.

I think you could be wrong too, so at least we agree on one thing.

[JoeJ]

I, for one, never talk about real life.

Okay, great. So starting over, you made the claim that, "Most people do fall under the ''follower''(neutral good) or the ''scammer''(neutral evil), so that does let you to say ''most humans are neutral(evil or good)." I am not aware of any evidence that would support this assertion. Why do you believe that it is true?

[Thrudd]

Speaking solely for myself, I give much less a hoot about the accuracy of the original statement as I do about the mentality of "I can say what I think is correct and disregard any calls for me to back it up, which are themselves hostile and hamper discussion." Because that itself hampers discussion, and what's the point of even having forums if it's just people plugging their ears and yelling past each other?

That's all I was reacting to, as well. I lost interest in the actual discussion. It was the hostility to the idea of providing citations and the dismissal of the dialectic in general that I think is a real problem. Like: "oh you guys and your 'facts'. Everyone knows we all choose whatever facts we like best, so you can't win an argument that way."
It's important to defend and encourage clear logical discourse in any context, because ignorance in this area arguably is causing significant societal problems.

[ZorroGames]

That's all I was reacting to, as well. I lost interest in the actual discussion. It was the hostility to the idea of providing citations and the dismissal of the dialectic in general that I think is a real problem. Like: "oh you guys and your 'facts'. Everyone knows we all choose whatever facts we like best, so you can't win an argument that way."
It's important to defend and encourage clear logical discourse in any context, because ignorance in this area arguably is causing significant societal problems.

And back to the IRL we supposedly are not discussing.

Imagine blue type in the sentence above. I tend to ignore most rules that I find unappealing.

[Peelee]

I agree.

And as I said, should any poster provide citation for anything they post, then if I reply to them, I will in turn provide citations for anything I post.

How would one provide citation for "can you cite this?" Take the following example:

Alice says "My lawn has no weeds." Bob says, "can you prove this?" Alice replies, "I'll prove it when you prove what you say."

Do you see how this fails? You can only call for citations for assertive claims. If I say, "I think the sky looks pretty today," that's not an assertive claim, that's an opinion. If I say, "In the Iron Giant, the robot was made of metalized Hydrogen," that is an assertive claim, because I'm stating something as if fact. And it's perfectly acceptable for people to ask me to cite where I got that from, because if I don't then it's a bull**** argument where I'm just spouting off stuff with nothing to back it up.

This is what you are doing. You are just spouting off stuff with nothing to back it up. If you want literally everyone else to cite everything they say before you cite any of your actual assertive claims, that just makes me thing you have no cites, you can't point out where you got what you said from, and you are just pulling it out of your butt. There's no reason for me, or anyone else, to think otherwise. It's a very good way to get people to completely ignore what you say, because you may as well just be making it all up.

[2D8HP]

I tend to ignore most rules that I find unappealing.


Gotcha, aligned with Chaos.

So,
Chaotic good "act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect"
Chaotic neutral "follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else"
or Chaotic evil "act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust"

So conscience, whim, or arbitrary violence?


Also upthread someone suggested that most people are Neutral Good or Neutral Evil, and others True Neutral (I thought that was a 1e term?).

So in the interest of scientific evidence of what Alignment people are I took an Alignment Test (http://easydamus.com/alignmenttest.html) and it said I was Lawful Neutral.

I'm totally "one of the people".

So therefore people are Lawful Neutral.

Science!

What you're not convinced?

Okay, the quote upthread by Gygax:

"....most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil...."

- E. Gary Gygax


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-orkrl_JCxGo/VKMvSEOdLCI/AAAAAAAAC30/BVIa-CwK4Gg/s1600/531001_400433280025300_1590190270_n.jpg

Still not convinced?

From:
Feet of Clay by Terry Pratchett


'...They think they want good government and justice for all, Vimes, yet what is it they really crave, deep in their hearts? Only that things go on as normal and tomorrow is pretty much like today....'

- Lord Vetinari

http://www.ealasaid.com/fan/vetinari/images/vetport.jpg


So authority!

I'm AWESOME at this citation stuff!

Hooray for me!


http://78.media.tumblr.com/3e676417a041ce1b03fb7df0a7572a27/tumblr_nlom0gOXdx1u48hg0o4_500.gif

[Thrudd]

And back to the IRL we supposedly are not discussing.

Imagine blue type in the sentence above. I tend to ignore most rules that I find unappealing.

So the way a person would reasonably express that tendency in the context of a discussion of game rules, would not be to claim that rules citations are wrong or attack the idea of requiring evidence for claims. They would acknowledge the obvious fact of the rules but express the fact that they prefer not to follow those rules, and cite the precedence of the ubiquitousness of house rules historically in RPGs to say that what is exactly written in the book actually isn't all that relevant to how many people play.

And if someone wants people to accept or understand a non rule-based, not book-citeable assertion, they give examples as evidence to demonstrate how they arrive at their point of view- that is if they actually want people to understand them or to persuade people of something.

[2D8HP]

Do you have a citation...?



You want some book-learnin'?

Well okay....

So, the "rules" on alignment and everything else are up to each individual table:

Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "..The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play...."


AD&D 2E, DMG, p. 3: "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone, I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question -- what do you feel is right? And the people asking the question discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."


D&D 5e DMG, p. 263:: "...As the Dungeon Master, You aren't limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual..."

(All praise to Jay R, for most of that)


A History of "Alignment" in Dungeons & Dragons

Part One: The War between Law & Chaos

For the Dungeons & Dragons game, Arneson and Gygax got Law vs. Chaos from stories by Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock.

Poul Anderson invented Law vs. Chaos in '53 for Three Hearts and Three Lions (which had a Dwarf on the side of Law, and Elves on the side of Chaos, Anderson's Elves were not Tolkien's Elves, though they drew from the same well. The "Ranger" is from Tolkien, the "Paladin" is from Anderson).

Anderson had Law on the side of most of humanity, and "the hosts of Faerie" on the side of Chaos. When Chaos was ascendant latent Lycanthrope became expressed for example.

Michael Moorcock adopted Law vs. Chaos for his Elric stories, and it was his works that were far more known by those of us who played D&D in the 1970's and '80's.

While Moorcock's 1965 novel Stormbringer had the triumph of Chaos being humanity's doom, by '75 he was clear that humanity would suffer under extreme Law as well, and "The Balance" was to be sought.

Okay, in the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions) by Poul Anderson,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg/220px-ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg
which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict in the Elric and Corum novels, and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

Now in the 1961 novel (based on a '53 short story) Three Hearts and Three Lions (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/12/pulp-fantasy-gallery-three-hearts-and.html), we have this:

"....Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them were almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants--an actual creation of Chaos. Wars among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and extend their own shadowy dominion....."

.which suggests that Law vs. Chaos is about "teams" in a cosmic struggle rather than personal ethics/morality, which is how the terms are used in the old Stormbringer RPG, and would be my usual preference.

Before D&D, Gygax & Perren had Law vs. Chaos in the Fantasy appendix to the Chainmail wargame:I suppose it waa inevitably when Greyhawk added Paladins that were "continual seeking for good" but I think that adding "Good" and "Evil" to "Alignment" was a mistake, and it was better the way the predecessor of D&D, Chainmail had it as:

"GENERAL LINE-UP:
It is impossible to draw a distanct line between "good" and "evil" fantastic
figures. Three categories are listed below as a general guide for the wargamer
designing orders of battle involving fantastic creatures:

LAW
Hobbits
Dwarves
Gnomes
Heroes
Super Heroes
Wizards*
Ents
Magic Weapons

NEUTRAL
Sprites
Pixies
Elves
Fairies
Lycanthropes *
Giants*
Rocs
(Elementals)
Chimerea


CHAOS
Goblins
Kobolds
Orcs
Anti-heroes
Wizards *
Wraiths
Wights
Lycanthropes*
Ogres
True Trolls
Balrogs
Giants *
Dragons
Basilisks

* Indicates the figure appears in two lists.
Underlined Neutral figures have a slight pre-disposition for LAW. Neutral
figures can be diced for to determine on which side they will fight, with ties
meaning they remain neutral."


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wb-QFUiuEqk/T_x0sXHILMI/AAAAAAAAFME/rEhioR7Tw3I/s280/ch☆nmailalign.jpg

So it was clear that it's sides in a wargame, not an ethics debate.

But the turning of a heavily house ruled Chainmail into what we now call a "role-playing game", brought character behavior in the mix:

Dave Arneson wrote that he added "alignment" to the game he made up because of one PC backstabbing another (http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/Archive_OLD/rpg2.html)

"We began without the multitude of character classes and three alignments that exists today. I felt that as a team working towards common goals there would be it was all pretty straight forward. Wrong!

"Give me my sword back!" "Nah your old character is dead, it's mine now!"

Well I couldn't really make him give it to the new character. But then came the treasure question. The Thieves question. Finally there were the two new guys. One decided that there was no reason to share the goodies. Since there was no one else around and a +3 for rear attacks . . .. well . . Of course everyone actually KNEW what had happened, especially the target.

After a great deal of discussion . . . yes let us call it "discussion" the culprit promised to make amends. He, and his associate did. The next time the orcs attacked the two opened the door and let the Orcs in. They shared the loot and fled North to the lands of the EGG OF COOT. (Sigh)

We now had alignment. Spells to detect alignment, and rules forbidding actions not allowed by ones alignment. Actually not as much fun as not knowing. Chuck and John had a great time being the 'official' evil players.
They would draw up adventures to trap the others (under my supervision) and otherwise make trouble"

And here's in 1974's Gygax & Arneson's Dungeons & Dragons: Book1, Men & Magic

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MlEVGRiLVK0/T_xGEnCu73I/AAAAAAAAFL4/jalyY-BOFgM/s280/oddalign.jpg

(Orcs can be Neutral as well as Chaos, as can Elves, Dwarves/Gnomes as well as Law, and Men may be any)

And "Law, Chaos, and Neutrality also have common languages spoken by each respectively. One can attempt to communicate through the common tongue, language particular to a creature class, or one of the divisional languages (law, etc.). While not understanding the language, creatures who speak a divisionsl tongue will recognize a hostile one and attack."

Easy "detect alignment"!

Originally there were three classes; "Cleric", "Fighting-Men", and "Magic-User" (as in "wake up the user, it's time to cast the daily spell"). Clerics didn't have any spells at first level, but they could "turn" some undead (a bit like a 5e Paladin really), and other than hints that "Law" Clerics, and "Chaos" Clerics were in conflict, there wasn't much info on what was meant until the Paladin class was introduced in La Chanson de Roland the 1975 "Greyhawk" supplement (which also introduced Thieves hmm... what a coincidence funny that). From "Greyhawk":
Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for the character. If such fighters elect to they can become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained. The paladin has a number of very powerful aids in his continual seeking for good......".
(Ok this is the fun part the special powers which include......PSYCH! Back to the restrictions)
"Paladins will never be allowed to possess more than four magically items, excluding the armor, shield and up to four weapons they normally use. They will give away all treasure that they win, save that which is neccesary to maintain themselves, their men and a modest castle. Gifts must be to the poor or to charitable or religious institutions , i.e.not tho some other character played in the game. A paladin's stronghold cannot be above 200,000 gold pieces in total cost, and no more than 200 men can be retained to guard it. Paladins normally prefer to dwell with lawful princess of patriarchs, but circumstances may prevent this. They will associate only with lawful characters"
Huh? What's lawful? What's chaotic? What's associate? And what is this charitable? I don't believe PC's know this word. :smallwink:
Well...helpfully there are some clues:
" Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that - chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederate in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place".
OK Paladins are "continual seeking for good", "All thieves are either neutral or chaotic - although lawful characters may hire them on a one-time basis for missions which are basically lawful" "Patriarchs" (high level Clerics) "stance" is "Law", and "Evil High Priests" "stance" is "Chaos". So we can infer that Law = Good, and Chaos = Evil in early D&D, which fits how the terms were used in novels Gygax cited as "inspiration", first in Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions", and than later in Moorcock's "Stormbringer" (though Moorcock eventually in his novels show that too much "Law" is anti-human as well, which is probably why Gygax added the separate Good-Evil axis so you could have "Lawful Evil" and "Chaotic Good" alignmemts later).

I'm gonna stress that I didn't know Anderson's novel when I first played D&D in the very late 1970's, and I'd bet that most other players didn't either, but knowledge of Moorcock's Elric was far more common then, from comic books!:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/S76VaPmTHxI/AAAAAAAAB90/jp_QEn8jKSg/s320/conanelric1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/S76i4WQ-17I/AAAAAAAAB-E/xdEuV-lr0as/s320/conanelric2-1.jpg

If you've read the "Elric" series, from which D&D "borrowed" much of this, you may remember that Elric visits a "world" (plane/dimension/alternate reality) of "Chaos" and finds a whirling cloud, in-which creatures and objects sometimes flash in and out of existence. He also visits a "world of Law" which is nothing but a grey mist.

(BTW, a nice 21st century use of the Law vs. Chaos trope is in Genevieve Cogman's Invisible Library series, in which different worlds (alternate realities) have more or less "Chaos" or "Law".

Heavy Chaos worlds are ruled by the Fey, who are the main antagonists, Law world's are ruled by (often hidden) Dragons, and we are told that while too much Chaos is worse, with too much Law humans are controlled by Dragons and not free)..

Going back to the 1962 Moorcock story To Rescue Tanelorn we have:

"...At the place where the winds met they found the second gateway, a column of amber-coloured flame, shot through with streaks of green. They entered it and, instantly, were in a world of dark, seething colour. Above them was a sky of murky red in which other colours shifted, agitated, changing. Ahead of them lay a forest, dark, blue, black, heavy, mottled green, the tops of its trees moving like a wild tide. It was a howling land of unnatural phenomena.

Lamsar pursed his lips. "On this plane Chaos rules, we must get to the next gate swiftly for obviously the Lords of Chaos will seek to stop us."

"Is it always like this?" Rackhir gasped.

"It is always boiling midnight-but the rest, it changes with the moods of the Lords. There are no rules at all."

They pressed on through the bounding, blossoming scenery as it erupted and changed around them. Once they saw a huge winged figure in the sky, smoky yellow, and roughly man-shaped.

"Vezhan," Lamsar said, "let's hope he did not see us."

"Vezhan!" Rackhir whispered the name-for it was to Vezhan that he had once been loyal.

They crept on, uncertain of their direction or even of their speed in that disturbing land.

At length, they came to the shores of a peculiar ocean.

It was a grey, heaving, timeless sea, a mysterious sea which stretched into infinity. There could be no other shores beyond this rolling plain of water. No other lands or rivers or dark, cool woods, no other men or women or ships. It was a sea which led to nowhere. It was complete to itself-a sea.

Over this timeless ocean hovered a brooding ochre sun which cast moody shadows of black and green across the water, giving the whole scene something of the look of being enclosed in a vast cavern, for the sky above was gnarled and black with ancient clouds. And all the while the doom-carried crash of breakers, the lonely, fated monotony of the ever-rearing white-topped waves; the sound which portended neither death nor life nor war nor peace-simply existence and shifting inharmony. They could go no further.

"This has the air of our death about it," Rackhir said shivering.

The sea roared and tumbled, the sound of it increasing to a fury, daring them to go on towards it, welcoming them with wild temptation-offering them nothing but achievement-the achievement of death.

Lamsar said: "It is not my fate wholly to perish." But then they were running back towards the forest, feeling that the strange sea was pouring up the beach towards them. They looked back and saw that it had gone no further, that the breakers were less wild, the sea more calm. Lamsar was little way behind Rackhir.

The Red Archer gripped his hand and hauled him towards him as if he had rescued the old man from a whirlpool. They remained there, mesmerised, for a long time, while the sea called to them and the wind was a cold caress on their flesh.

In the bleak brightness of the alien shore, under a sun which gave no heat, their bodies shone like stars in the night and they turned towards the forest, quietly.

"Are we trapped, then, in this Realm of Chaos?" Rackhir said at length. "If we meet someone, they will offer us harm-how can we ask our question?"

Then there emerged from the huge forest a great figure, naked and gnarled like the trunk of a tree, green as lime, but the face was jovial.

"Greetings, unhappy renegades," it said.

"Where is the next gate?" said Lamsar quickly.

"You almost entered it, but turned away," laughed the giant. "That sea does not exist-it is there to stop travellers from passing through the gate."

"It exists here, in the Realm of Chaos," Rackhir said thickly.

"You could say so-but what exists in Chaos save the disorders of the minds of gods gone mad?"...."

And

"...The two travellers were given foods, both soft and brittle, sweet and sour, and drink which seemed to enter the pores of their skin as they quaffed it, and then the Guardian said: "We have caused a road to be made. Follow it and enter the next world. But we warn you, it is the most dangerous of all."

And they set off down the road that the Guardians had caused to be made and passed through the fourth gateway into a dreadful realm-the Ream of Law.

Nothing shone in the grey-lit sky, nothing moved, nothing marred the grey.

Nothing interrupted the bleak grey plain stretching on all sides of them, forever. There was no horizon. It was a bright, clean wasteland. But there was a sense about the air, a presence of something past, something which had gone but left a faint aura of its passing.

"What dangers could be here?" said Rackhir shuddering, "here where there is nothing?"

"The danger of the loneliest madness," Lamsar replied. Their voices were swallowed in the grey expanse.

"When the Earth was very young'" Lamsar continued, his words trailing away across the wilderness, "things were like this-but there were seas, there were seas. Here there is nothing."

"You are wrong," Rackhir said with a faint smile. "I have thought-here there is Law."

"That is true-but what is Law without something to decide between? Here is Law-bereft of justice."

They walked on, all about them an air of something intangible that had once been tangible. On they walked through this barren world of Absolute Law...."

So two vast impersonal cosmic forces struggling for dominance, ultimately neither with any place for or consideration of human happiness if even allowong for the existence of humanity if they triumph.

Now choose!

Part Two: Enter Good & Evil
1976's Eldrich Wizardry supplement added the Mind Flayers which were the first monters that were explicitly both "lawful" and "evil", and it could be a coincidence but while Moorcock's 1965 novel Stormbringer had the triumph of Chaos being humanity's doom, but in later works he was clear that humanity would suffer under extreme Law as well, and "The Balance" was to be sought, so Michael Moorcock in A Quest for Tanelon wrote:

"Chaos is not wholly evil, surely?" said the child. "And neither is Law wholly good. They are primitive divisions, at best-- they represent only temperamental differences in individual men and women. There are other elements..."
"
..which was published in 1975 in the UK, and 1976 in the USA, and '76 was when Gygax added "good" and "evil" to D&D Alignment in an article that I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/TSvlWfi0wuI/AAAAAAAAC5E/kwE-DYf3GtU/s1600/alignmentchart.jpg

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KYLvpKSI/AAAAAAAAGrk/gxPmMlYaDIQ/s1600-h/illus1%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KaWTQKmI/AAAAAAAAGrs/EY_aYEhHcvs/s1600-h/n1%5B5%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KcgaWCfI/AAAAAAAAGr0/cZZSquIxTn4/s1600-h/n2a%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KfERen3I/AAAAAAAAGr8/Sb0VAeS3nKM/s1600-h/N2b%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KifB_yhI/AAAAAAAAGsI/O4eV2OSXAng/N3_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KhU85a1I/AAAAAAAAGsE/nnA-2gMCFyI/s1600-h/N3%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600-h/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KmQCwDXI/AAAAAAAAGsU/_suYkwtUadA/s1600-h/Illus3%5B2%5D.jpg)



THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL

by Gary Gygax

FEBRUARY 1976

Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined. In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil. Before going into the definitions of these four terms, a graphic representation of their relative positions will help the reader to follow the further discourse. (Illustration I)

Notice first that the area of neutrality lies squarely athwart the intersection of the lines which divide the four behavioral distinctions, and it is a very small area when compared with the rest of the graph. This refers to true neutrality, not to neutrality regarding certain interactions at specific times, i.e., a war which will tend to weaken a stronger player or game element regardless of the “neutral” party’s actions can hardly be used as a measure of neutrality if it will benefit the party’s interest to have the weakening come about.

Also note that movement upon this graph is quite possible with regard to campaign participants, and the dungeonmaster should, in fact, make this a standard consideration in play. This will be discussed hereafter.

Now consider the term “Law” as opposed to “Chaos”. While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e., a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

Basically, then, “Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification various creatures is shown on Illustration II.

Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that selfseeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category. What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration. Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are not subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.

"As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil"

- E. Gary Gygax

http://hilobrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/gygax-futurama.jpg


So the article added the "good and evil axis", but made clear in this graph:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg

..that creatures don't just exist on one of nine points of ethics/morality, there's a range:

Also in the article (http://themagictreerpg.blogspot.com/2008/09/history-of-alignment-in-d-part-i.html?m=1) Gygax states:

"Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity....

....Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things."


So in general "Law" was the side of humanity, and "Chaos" was on the side of the supernatural in Anderson and early Moorcock, and very early D&D, but 'Good" and "Evil" complicate matters.

Per Gygax, I infer from that "Alignment" didn't control the PC's actions, PC actions are a guide to what "Alignment" the DM rules a character is for game effects.

So I leave the entry blank, and let the DM deal with the alignment claptrap (frankly as a player I'd rather keep a character possessions inventory sheet and foist the "stats" on the DM anyway)![/SPOILER]

But oD&D was just "guidelines", nothing was "official" until Advanced Dungeons & Dragons which was a completely different game!

"No royalties for you Arneson! Mine all Mine! Bwahahaha!
Wait, what's that Blume?"
-Gygax


:biggrin:

Fitting as a "bridge" between oD&D, and AD&D, the 1977 "Basic Set" had a "5 point Alignment system" (Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil, and Neutral), but the 1978 Players Handbook had the full "nine-points" that we know today.

Part Three: The 5-point system of the 1977 "bluebook"

CHARACTER ALIGNMENT
Characters may be lawful (good or evil), neutral or chaotic (good or evil). Lawful characters always act according to a highly regulated code of behavior, whether for good or evil. Chaotic characters are quite
unpredictable and can not be depended upon to do anything except the unexpected -- they are often, but not always, evil. Neutral characters, such as all thieves, are motivated by self interest and may steal from their companions or betray them if it is in their own best interest. Players may choose any alignment they want and need not reveal it to others. Note that the code of lawful good characters insures that they would tell everyone that they are lawful. There are some magical items that can be used only by one alignment of characters. If the Dungeon Master feels that a character has begun to behave in a manner inconsistent with his declared alignment he may rule that he or she has changed alignment and penalize the character with a loss of experience points. An example of such behavior would be a "good" character who kills or tortures a prisoner.
https://retrorpg.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/screen-shot-2011-03-10-at-4-43-37-pm.png

Part Four: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons

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 neutral, a paladin is lawful good, a thief can be neutral or evil, an assassin is always evil. Yet, except for druids and paladins, such restrictions still leave latitude - the thief can be lawful neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, chaotic evil, chaotic neutral, neutral, or even neutral good; and the assassin has nearly as many choices. The alignments possible for characters are described below.

Chaotic Evil: The major precepts of this alignment are freedom, randomness, and woe. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained. life has no value. By promoting chaos and evil, 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.

Chaotic Good: 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 chaotic good, characters of this alignment seek to spread their values throughout the world.

Chaotic Neutral: Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder.
Good and evil are complimentary balance arms. Neither are preferred, nor must either prevail, for ultimate chaos would then suffer.

Lawful Evil: 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
lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.

Lawful Good: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good 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.

Lawful Neutral: 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 neutral 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.

Neutral Evil: The neutral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary
considerations, for pure evil 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: Unlike those directly opposite them (neutral evil) in
alignment, creatures of neutral good 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.

True Neutral: The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets
of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil 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 except 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.

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 evil. 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.
-1978 PHB

Anyway, the '79 DMG recommended graphing a PC's Alignment, and if they slipped into a new one they'd lose one level of experience,
"If the alignment change is involuntary (such as caused by a powerful magic, a curse etc.), then the character can regain all of the losses (level, hit die, etc.) upon returning to his or her former alignment as soon as possible and after making atonement through a cleric of the same alignment - and sacrificing treasure which has a value of not less than 10,000 g.p. per level of experience of the character."

That'll teach those pesky PC's not to stray!


:amused:

Oh and
"Until the character has again achieved his or her former level of experience held prior to change of alignment, he or she will not be able to converse in the former alignment's tongue nor will anything but the rudest signalling be possible in the new alignment language."


1e AD&D DM's were always supplied with pizza with the correct toppings!


:wink:

(Not really, I have no memory of those rules ever being used at any table that I played).

Wisely the 1981 "Basic rules" went back to Law/Neutral/Chaos, which was retained in the RC.

Part Five: The 1991 "Rules Cyclopedia":

Alignment

An alignment is a code of behavior or way of
life which guides the actions and thoughts of characters and monsters. There are three alignments in the D&D® game: Law, Chaos, and Neutrality. Players may choose the alignments they feel will best fit their characters. A player does not have to tell other players what alignment he or she has picked, but must tell the Dungeon Master. Most Lawful characters will reveal their alignments if asked. When picking alignments, the characters should know that Chaotics cannot be trusted, even by other Chaotics. A Chaotic character does not work well with other PCs.
Alignments give characters guidelines,to live by. They are not absolute rules: characters will try to follow their alignment guidelines, but may not always be successful. To better understand the philosophies behind them, let's define the three alignments.
Law (or Lawful)
Law is the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life. Lawful creatures will try to tell the truth, obey laws that are fair, keep promises, and care for all living things.
If a choice must be made between the benefit of a group or an individual, a Lawful character will usually choose the group. Sometimes individual freedoms must be given up for the good
Lawful characters and monsters often act in predictable ways. Lawful behavior is usually the same as "good" behavior.
Chaos (or Chaotic)
Chaos is the opposite of Law. It is the belief
that life is random and that chance and luck rule the world. Laws are made to be broken, as long as a person can get away with it. It is not important to keep promises, and lying and telling the truth are both useful.
To a Chaotic creature, the individual is the
most important of all things. Selfishness is the normal way of life, and the group is not important. Chaotics often act on sudden desires and whims. They have strong belief in the power of luck. They cannot always be trusted. Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called "evil." Each individual player must decide if his Chaotic character is closer to a mean, selfish "evil" personality or merely a happy-go-lucky, unpredictable personality.
Neutrality (or Neutral)
Neutrality is the belief that the world is a balance between Law and Chaos. It is important that neither side get too much power and upset this balance. The individual is important, but so is the group; the two sides must work together.
A Neutral character is most interested in per-
sonal survival. Such characters believe in their own wits and abilities rather than luck. They tend to return the treatment they receive from others. Neutral characters will join a party if they think it is in their own best interest, but will not be overly helpful unless there is some sort of profit in it. Neutral behavior may be considered "good" or "evil" (or neither).
Alignment Behavior
Take this situation as an example: A group of player characters is attacked by a large number of monsters. Escape is not possible unless the monsters are slowed down.
A Lawful character will fight to protect the
group, regardless of the danger. The character will not run away unless the whole group does so or is otherwise safe.
A Neutral character will fight to protect the
group as long as it is reasonably safe to do so. If the danger is too great, the character will try to save himself, even at the expense of the rest of the party.
A Chaotic character might fight the monsters or he might run away immediately—Chaotics are, as always, unpredictable. The character may not even care what happened to the rest of the party.
Playing an alignment does not mean a character must do stupid things. A character should always act as intelligently as the Intelligence score indicates, unless there is a reason to act otherwise (such as a magical curse).
Alignment Languages
Each alignment has a secret language of passwords, hand signals, and other body motions.
Player characters and intelligent monsters always know their alignment languages. They will also recognize when another alignment language is being spoken, but will not understand it. Alignment languages have no written form. A character may not learn a different alignment language unless he changes alignments. In such a case, the character forgets the old alignment language and starts using the new one immediately....

Unfortunately 'Law' was "usually "Good"', and 'Chaos' was "usually Evil", but "not always".

Because my 2e to 4e books are on a higher shelf (and I never played those versions) than my 0e/1e AD&D/BX/RC/5e books (which I have played some) I'll just give you this link (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php?topic=691.0) for info on those editions Alignment systems (all praise to Kish for the link).

For 5e I still see the point of Alignments in the Monster Manual, but now that D&D has dropped ""Alignment Languages", I'm not sure what the point is of players writing one on their character record sheets, as "Ideals", "Flaws", "Bonds", etc. seem to replace "Alignment" as a role-playing aide.


*whew*

Now, I'll just tell you which Alignments are what most DM's (in my experience) are less likely to tell you that "You're not playing your Alignment",

Alignments in order (From least likely to incur "You're not playing your Alignment", to most, in my experience):

1) Neutral Evil

2) True Neutral

3) Chaotic Evil

4) Lawful Evil

5) Lawful Neutral

6) Chaotic Good (most are wrong in their interpretation of this Alignment IMNSHO, but whatever)

7) Chaotic Neutral

8) Neutral Good

and the one that your DM is least likely to consider you "Doing it right" in my experience.

9) Lawful Good.
.

Your welcome.

[GlenSmash!]

I never new there was a Conan/Elric crossover!

[2D8HP]

I never knew there was a Conan/Elric crossover!


Yep, in Marvel comics, Moorcock authored it himself.

Meanwhile DC did a Wonder Women/Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser crossover:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a3/WW202.jpg/220px-WW202.jpg

[GlenSmash!]

Yep, in Marvel comics, Moorcock authored it himself.

Meanwhile DC did a Wonder Women/Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser crossover:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a3/WW202.jpg/220px-WW202.jpg

Neat!

I know DC just did Conan/Wonder women cross over.

https://www.dccomics.com/comics?seriesid=432368#browse

[2D8HP]

Neat!

I know DC just did Conan/Wonder women cross over.

https://www.dccomics.com/comics?seriesid=432368#browse


What the...?!

*sputter*

IT MUST BE MINE!

*hurries to comics shop*

[Peelee]

You want some book-learnin'?

I was prepared for some book learnin'. I was not prepared for a whole book. :smalltongue:

[Darth Ultron]

How would one provide citation for "can you cite this?" Take the following example:

Alice says "My lawn has no weeds." Bob says, "can you prove this?" Alice replies, "I'll prove it when you prove what you say."

Do you see how this fails?

Well, do you see how this fails:

Bob says-"Everyone that sees my back yard is happy"
Alice says-"The emotions of most people are not effected by seeing a back yard"

Oscar-SLAM! "Alice, I demand you give proof of what you just said!"

Well, ok, so why does Bob have to offer no proof? Bob said something, so Alice said something. Bob gave to proof, so Alice gave to proof. See how that works?

[JoeJ]

Well, do you see how this fails:

Bob says-"Everyone that sees my back yard is happy"
Alice says-"The emotions of most people are not effected by seeing a back yard"

Oscar-SLAM! "Alice, I demand you give proof of what you just said!"

Well, ok, so why does Bob have to offer no proof? Bob said something, so Alice said something. Bob gave to proof, so Alice gave to proof. See how that works?

Ah, I see. Okay.



Humans tend toward no particular alignment. The best and worst are found among them.


This is the part of the rules that I paraphrased in an earlier post. I didn't give the page number in that post because I assumed most people would recognize it. Had you simply asked for a citation, I would have provided it.

Your claim that most humans are either neutral good or neutral evil appears to be contradicted by this text, which clearly indicates that they have no tendency toward any particular alignment. I have now presented evidence to support my claim. Can you offer any evidence to support yours?

[hamishspence]

Your claim that most humans are either neutral good or neutral evil appears to be contradicted by this text, which clearly indicates that they have no tendency toward any particular alignment.

While this is 3.5 info - it may be of interest regarding the "TN is rare, NG and NE are common" argument:

The power center demographics from DMG do support the notion that Neutral (overall) human rulers are slightly less common than either Good or Evil ones:

DMG (p138):
41% Good, 23% Neutral, 36% Evil

but for the community as a whole (at least if large) Neutral becomes more common:

Urban center (small city or larger) community alignment (this is the overall outlook of the community taken as a whole).
Cityscape (p8)
36% Good, 33% Neutral, 31% Evil

For NG, TN, and NE specifically, the figures were:

DMG (p138):
Power Centers
NG: 4%
TN: 2%
NE: 8%

Cityscape (p8):
Communities:
NG: 8%
TN: 6%
NE: 6%

[Willie the Duck]

Well, do you see how this fails:

Bob says-"Everyone that sees my back yard is happy"
Alice says-"The emotions of most people are not effected by seeing a back yard"

Oscar-SLAM! "Alice, I demand you give proof of what you just said!"

Well, ok, so why does Bob have to offer no proof? Bob said something, so Alice said something. Bob gave to proof, so Alice gave to proof. See how that works?

No one has demanded anything. People have been very clear--Bob has posited a position. If Bob doesn't want to back up their position (through citation or reason, depending on situation), he doesn't have to. However, without such, it is an unsupported position, and is indistinguishable from something Bob made up out of thin air.

The only burden Bob is under is one he puts himself under if he wants to successfully convince anyone else.

If you don't want to provide citations for your original statement (which in all honesty I've forgotten at this point), don't. But then don't be surprised if people move on as though you never said anything at all.

[Kadesh]

Greywander thread and Alignment? Oh boy. *popcorns*

Called it.

[Darth Ultron]

Your claim that most humans are either neutral good or neutral evil appears to be contradicted by this text, which clearly indicates that they have no tendency toward any particular alignment. I have now presented evidence to support my claim. Can you offer any evidence to support yours?

Now we can get somewhere.

Ok, but first of all, you mis read what I wrote. I used the word 'people'. And you no doubt though people = humans.

Now, I, of course was using the word 'people' to describe 'any and all beings of sentience' as the fantasy world of D&D includes many non-human races.

Now if you want to be difficult, you can say the word 'people' is just for humans. But if you do, I would ask you what word you would find acceptable for 'any and all beings of sentience' in the fictional universe of D&D. Would you demand I must use a word like 'beings' or 'sentiences' or something more awkward? Or, can you accept that in the context of a D&D discussion 'people' applies to 'any and all beings of sentience' and not just humans?

Either way, you ''thought'' I was talking about only humans, and I was not, as I was talking about 'any and all beings of sentience' in the D&D universe.

D&D alignment is not just for and used by humans, it is for 'any and all beings of sentience' in the D&D universe. And what you said, only and specifically about the fictional human race in the D&D universe is true. But again, humans are not the whole D&D universe.

Maybe this helped to clear up what I typed?

[JoeJ]

Now we can get somewhere.

Ok, but first of all, you mis read what I wrote. I used the word 'people'. And you no doubt though people = humans.

Now, I, of course was using the word 'people' to describe 'any and all beings of sentience' as the fantasy world of D&D includes many non-human races.

Now if you want to be difficult, you can say the word 'people' is just for humans. But if you do, I would ask you what word you would find acceptable for 'any and all beings of sentience' in the fictional universe of D&D. Would you demand I must use a word like 'beings' or 'sentiences' or something more awkward? Or, can you accept that in the context of a D&D discussion 'people' applies to 'any and all beings of sentience' and not just humans?

Either way, you ''thought'' I was talking about only humans, and I was not, as I was talking about 'any and all beings of sentience' in the D&D universe.

D&D alignment is not just for and used by humans, it is for 'any and all beings of sentience' in the D&D universe. And what you said, only and specifically about the fictional human race in the D&D universe is true. But again, humans are not the whole D&D universe.

Maybe this helped to clear up what I typed?

Okay, so by people you mean all sentient beings. What has led you to believe that most people (defined as you have) are either neutral good or neutral evil?

[Darth Ultron]

But then don't be surprised if people move on as though you never said anything at all.

This would be my basic point though: it does not matter.

I type X, and a hater says 'citation'. Well, even if I did provide that hater with a citation it would not matter: to them I'm always wrong and they will always just move on. At best they will say the citation is 'wrong' in some way or does not 'count'.


Okay, so by people you mean all sentient beings. What has led you to believe that most people (defined as you have) are either neutral good or neutral evil?

It is just my own personal option.

[2D8HP]

....It is just my own personal option.


Wha....?

Who are you and what have you done with Darth Ultron?!

I expected way more fight.

So sad.

[JoeJ]

It is just my own personal option.

Well that was a little anticlimactic.

[Thrudd]

Well that was a little anticlimactic.

Well, if people want to discuss it further they just need to ask questions. Like "that's interesting. can you describe how you arrived at that opinion? Is it based on something, or just how you like your D&D world to look?"
But I think people probably don't really want to know or talk about it, so this is the best and clearest possible thing that could have been said.

[Darth Ultron]

Well that was a little anticlimactic.

Well, what were you hoping for?

5E, being very politically correct and very one sided does not say much about alignment. Continuing the trend from the same types of people started in 3E. They toss some words out about alignment, and then say ''but hey just fight dragons, pew pew!". That is modern D&D.

More classic D&D had much more, just scroll up and see the big post.

Also, I'm not a fan of the ''almighty rules book'' because I know the writers are very politically correct and very one sided. So they will always say ''X''. And I'm not the type that reads that, and then falls down in awe saying how amazingly right, true and correct page 66 is. But that is just me.

[2D8HP]

Well, if people want to discuss it further they just need to ask questions. Like "that's interesting. can you describe how you arrived at that opinion? Is it based on something, or just how you like your D&D world to look?"....


Well, almost all sentients being either (Neutral) Good or (Neutral) Evil does have a nice binary simplicity to it.


Well, what were you hoping for?

5E, being very politically correct and....


Ah, there's the old Darth Ultron back.

*whew*

Things are back to usual at the Forum.

[Darth Ultron]

Ah, there's the old Darth Ultron back.

*whew*

Things are back to usual at the Forum.

Oh...well, you see, that post before


was just the Introduction to the Opposites!

[JoeJ]

Since we're now sharing unsupported personal opinions, my opinion is that the majority of people (meaning sentient beings) are chaotic evil. I think that the inhabitants of the Abyss outnumber the inhabitants of all the other planes combined, and that their numbers continue to grow as one Prime Material world after another becomes infected and slides into the Abyss.

[Darth Ultron]

Since we're now sharing unsupported personal opinions, my opinion is that the majority of people (meaning sentient beings) are chaotic evil. I think that the inhabitants of the Abyss outnumber the inhabitants of all the other planes combined, and that their numbers continue to grow as one Prime Material world after another becomes infected and slides into the Abyss.

Sounds good to me, as a love Chaotic Evil.

It think this is true in real life too :)

[JoeJ]

Sounds good to me, as a love Chaotic Evil.

It think this is true in real life too :)

You think that worlds in real life are being infected by demons and drawn into the Abyss? That's... interesting.

[KorvinStarmast]

Since we're now sharing unsupported personal opinions, my opinion is that the majority of people (meaning sentient beings) are chaotic evil. I think that the inhabitants of the Abyss outnumber the inhabitants of all the other planes combined, and that their numbers continue to grow as one Prime Material world after another becomes infected and slides into the Abyss.
This is either a veiled reference to "the world's going to hell in a handbasket" or a metaphor for entropy (disorder increases) or something else.

[2D8HP]

Since we're now sharing unsupported personal opinions, my opinion is that the majority of people (meaning sentient beings) are chaotic evil. I think that the inhabitants of the Abyss outnumber the inhabitants of all the other planes combined, and that their numbers continue to grow as one Prime Material world after another becomes infected and slides into the Abyss.


Sounds good to me, as a love Chaotic Evil.

It think this is true in real life too :)


Dudes (doooods?) I already gave the answer upthread:


Lawful Neutral


I even used:

Science!


and:

citation stuff!


But if I must (and I totally do because of all these damn demons buzzing around!), I shall investigate the question of "are most people Chaotic Evil", with citations!

*ahem*

From Chainmail :
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wb-QFUiuEqk/T_x0sXHILMI/AAAAAAAAFME/rEhioR7Tw3I/s280/ch☆nmailalign.jpg
"Heroes" and "Superheroes" which were humans are aligned with Law, and the only humans that may also be aligned with Chaos are Wizards, so not "most people"


From the 1974's Gygax & Arneson's Dungeons & Dragons: Book1, Men & Magic

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MlEVGRiLVK0/T_xGEnCu73I/AAAAAAAAFL4/jalyY-BOFgM/s280/oddalign.jpg

Okay, Men may be aligned with Chaos but other than that "Evil High Priests" (which are humans) are aligned with Chaos) what that meant behavior-wise had to wait for a supplement:

1975's Supplement I (Greyhawk), pp 6-7:
"Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that -- chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederates in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place."

Most people are that back-stabbing?

On to the two-axis Alignment System!

1978 Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook

"Chaotic Evil: The major precepts of this alignment are freedom, randomness, and woe. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained. life has no value. By promoting chaos and evil, 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.

Wow, that's pretty dark, but I'll go with "maybe".

1981's Moldvay/Cook (B/X) Basic:
"Chaos (orChaotic) is the opposite of Law. It is the belief that life is random, and that chance and luck rule the world. Everything happens by accident, and nothing can be predicted. Laws are made to be broken, as long as a person can get away with it. It is not important to keep promises, and lying and telling the truth are both useful.

To a Chaotic creature, the individual is the most important of all things. Selfishness is the normal way of life, and the group is not important. Chaotics often act on sudden desires and whims. They cannot be trusted, and their behaviour is hard to predict. They have a strong belief in the power of luck. Chaotic behaviour is usually the same as behaviour that could be called "Evil".

"Most people"? I'll still class that as "maybe" (yes I know that for the "two axis system" Chaos =/= Evil but if I'm gonna do citations, I'm gonna cite!)

2nd Edition AD&D:
"Chaotic Evil: These characters are the bane of all that is good and organized. Chaotic evil characters are motivated by the desire for personal gain and pleasure. They see absolutely nothing wrong with taking whatever they want by whatever means possible.
Laws and governments are the tools of weaklings unable to fend for themselves. The strong have the right to take what they want, and the weak are there to be exploited. When chaotic evil characters band together, they are not motivated by a desire to cooperate, but rather to oppose powerful enemies. Such a group can be held together only by a strong leader capable of bullying his underlings into obedience. Since leadership is based on raw power, a leader is likely to be replaced at the first sign of weakness by anyone who can take his position away from him by any method. Bloodthirsty buccaneers and monsters of low Intelligence are fine examples of chaotic evil personalities."

Damn that's harsh!

3rd Edition "D&D":
"Chaotic Evil, "Destroyer"
A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.

Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend."

"arbitrarily violent"? Most people? Really?


4th Edition:
"The Chaotic Evil Alignment
'I don’t care what I have to do to get what I want.'

Chaotic evil characters have a complete disregard for others. Each believes he or she is the only being that matters and kills, steals, and betrays others to gain power. Their word is meaningless and their actions destructive. Their worldviews can be so warped that they destroy anything and anyone that doesn’t directly contribute to their interests.

By the standards of good and lawful good people, chaotic evil is as abhorrent as evil, perhaps even more so. Chaotic evil monsters such as demons and orcs are at least as much of a threat to civilization and general well-being as evil monsters are. An evil creature and a chaotic evil creature are both opposed to good, but they don’t have much respect for each other either and rarely cooperate toward common goals."

"each believes he or she is the only being that matters", as a parent, I'm gonna say no.


And that brings us to,

5th Edition:
"Chaotic evil "act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust""

Oh yeah, totally. ..


....not.

C'mon!

Yes, some people sometimes do "act with arbitrary violence", but not most, and not commonly!

Even my old shriveled blackened heart doesn't see most people as Chaotic Evil.

[JoeJ]

This is either a veiled reference to "the world's going to hell in a handbasket" or a metaphor for entropy (disorder increases) or something else.

I prefer to think of it as a story that can remain in the background until wanted, and that can challenge any tier of play depending on how early an incursion is detected.

[Thrudd]

Even my old shriveled blackened heart doesn't see most people as Chaotic Evil.
Their definition of "people" includes every single intelligent being in the cosmos, including the basically infinite number of demons on the 666 layers of the Abyss. So compared to the number of chaotic evil demons, all other types of creatures combined are the minority of the people in the cosmos.

[Naanomi]

Their definition of "people" includes every single intelligent being in the cosmos, including the basically infinite number of demons on the 666 layers of the Abyss. So compared to the number of chaotic evil demons, all other types of creatures combined are the minority of the people in the cosmos.
You have to be careful with that kind of thinking... there are an infinite number of Prime worlds as well, so an infinite number of mortals... there are infinite Gods, many likely to have infinite worshipers... comparing such things quickly devolves into trying to do comparative infinites, and discussing the difference between infinite and transfinite... and usually deciding that mortal brains just aren’t well built to think about the Planes in that scale

[JoeJ]

You have to be careful with that kind of thinking... there are an infinite number of Prime worlds as well, so an infinite number of mortals... there are infinite Gods, many likely to have infinite worshipers... comparing such things quickly devolves into trying to do comparative infinites, and discussing the difference between infinite and transfinite... and usually deciding that mortal brains just aren’t well built to think about the Planes in that scale

That's why I said right up front that it's my personal opinion, unsupported by any evidence. It's just the impression I got from reading a bunch of Planescape material.

[bid]

You have to be careful with that kind of thinking... there are an infinite number of Prime worlds as well, so an infinite number of mortals... there are infinite Gods, many likely to have infinite worshipers... comparing such things quickly devolves into trying to do comparative infinites, and discussing the difference between infinite and transfinite... and usually deciding that mortal brains just aren’t well built to think about the Planes in that scale
Indeed.:smallbiggrin:

If it's the countable infinite, then you will have an infinite number of groups containg one mortal of each alignment... without any leftovers.

There are an infinite number of odd numbers and an infinite number of even number, but there are as many odd and even numbers as there are odd numbers.

[MaxWilson]

There are an infinite number of odd numbers and an infinite number of even number, but there are as many odd and even numbers as there are odd numbers.

Be careful about that claim... it rests on a specific definition of cardinality which conventional among mathematicians but is not logically necessary or universally accepted.

Mathematicians are very good at exploring the implications of their assumptions and definitions, but you get to decide whether to buy into those assumptions in the first place. If you want to define "just as many" based on some criteria other than bijections (e.g. so that there are more integers than there are odd integers, or so that sizes of infinity cannot be compared at all), no one will be able to prove that your definition is more or less correct than the Cantorian definition bid refers to. All they will be able to do is help you explore the implications of your new definition.

[JoeJ]

Indeed.:smallbiggrin:

If it's the countable infinite, then you will have an infinite number of groups containg one mortal of each alignment... without any leftovers.

There are an infinite number of odd numbers and an infinite number of even number, but there are as many odd and even numbers as there are odd numbers.

Demons are really hard to count too, because they keep moving around and sometimes they change form, so it's hard to keep track of which ones you've already counted and which ones you haven't. And the fact that they're constantly trying to kill you while you count them makes it even harder.