Understanding Alignment

[Ariosto]

If memory serves, in the magazine article presenting his new, two-axis alignment scheme, Gygax noted that at first Law and Chaos (the opposing sides in the Chainmail fantasy supplement) had been in his mind "almost but not quite" synonymous with Good and Evil respectively -- but that more nuances had crept in by the time Supplement I was published.

The relatively straightforward idea of alignment in war-game alliance terms was very useful in the kind of campaigns that Arneson and Gygax were running in the early days. This is undoubtedly not the last time I'll make a similar observation about some aspect or other of old-style D&D.

The two-axis scheme could serve similar ends if taken as a "quick and dirty" stand in for detailed sociology. ("Alignment Language" is similarly a game-facilitating abstract artifice.)Relations with henchmen and hirelings were important, and AD&D quantified the effects of alignments along with charisma, racial preferences and other factors.

Where it really got tricky, in my opinion, was in the treatment of alignment as a very personal combination of psychological and spiritual affinities.

Gary wrote in the DMG that it was up to the DM to define the terms. I think he did a disservice in his write-ups of Neutrality, which in his own campaign appears to me much more commonly to have meant "Unaligned" (whether Amoral or Mind Your Own Business and You Won't Be Minding Mine) than to have meant the pseudo-Buddhist philosophical "maintenance of Balance".

The spell notes in the 1e DMG include, iirc, an admonition that detection of evil or good applies only to profound concentrations of those qualities.

That's a bit of a shift from OD&D -- in which, however, spells (and many other things) were often but suggestively described. In my old dungeons, a scroll of protection from evil would keep at bay Night Gaunts and Ghouls and sundry other Things one might discover by trial (or learn by buying libations for librarians).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Agreed.

Incidentally, one of my first Dragon magazines (#149 I think) had a useful article outlining four different types of LG Paladins. Two of these lined up quite nicely with your descriptions. I found that article very useful.

There have been several Paladin articles in Dragon over the years. One of my faves was the one in which they pointed out that it was entirely possible to find Paladins on both sides of a vicious war.

Oh boy... There are a couple of points here to respond to, but it's an inherently tricky subject (how does one discuss the Bible without getting into religion?).

Taking a page from one of my English profs, Bates Hoffer (who taught "Biblical Themes in Literature"): you talk about it as a literary/historical source (which we've been able to do, so far, and hope to continue).

True, although I suspect this representation isn't based on an actual reading of the Bible, but rather a half-remembered partial reading and caricature.

None of those "holy warriors" you mentioned would be Paladins - the Bible makes it clear that they were all deeply flawed people called upon to do necessary but distasteful things. Samson was basically a murderous thug, who casually violated the only three strictures placed on him (no alcohol, no touching dead bodies, no cutting his hair - it was when he broke the last of these that he lost his strength). Ehud was, quite simply, an assassin.

Well, I didn't mention any by name, actually.

I was more indirectly referencing talion law in general- a.k.a. "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" type ethics that dates back to the Code of Hamurabi, as well as several divine edicts to wipe out entire peoples (there are a couple in Joshua, as I recall)- IOW, genocide- because that people would not hear God or repent.

(IMHO, the "justified genocides" were probably revisionist history on the part of some long lost scribe...but that's a different story.)

Samson is probably the best example of a Paladin getting hosed by a RBDM ()- he didn't cut his hair, it was shorn by Delilah while he slept. Really, what he was guilty of was not keeping a secret! (That and being criminally dumb- Delilah tried 3 times previous to bind him and make him "as weak as any other man." before he completely opened up to her.)

The injunction against wine, hair cutting and touching the dead was initially directed at his mother, since Samson was to be a under the Nazirite vow, and she had to maintain ritual purity. As a Nazirite, though, he still had to eschew wine and let his "freak flag fly." (I couldn't remember if/when he drank, however- was it under Delilah's ministrations?)

As for him being a thug, he beat a bunch of Philistines after his wife had been married off to the man who had been best man at his wedding...for which he he burned their grain. In response, they killed his wife and her family, so he killed them. After Delilah's trickery, he lost his powers- just like any Paladin who violates his vows- but also like a Paladin, he regained them after prayer.

Ehud? The Israelites had ticked of God, and set the Moabites against and over them. However, after 18 years of brutal servitude "...the Lord raised up for them a savior..." -definitely a call from the divine. And his assassination was "...a message from God for you." IOW, classic JJ&E. Was it an assassination? Sure. But nobody ever said Paladins had to be "Lawful Stupid"- he freed Israel from Moab by killing one man, as opposed to the Lancelot method of killing everyone on the way in and on the way out. And shortly thereafter, he led the Israelites in battle, slaughtering thousands of Moabites in true holy warrior fashion.

David, like the others before him, was called directly by God- a characteristic of many (all?) legends of even the latter day Paladins.

Did they all have failings? Sure- and in many cases, those flaws ultimately doomed them, or at least brought them low.

All that that means is that they eventually failed as Paladins, not that they never were Paladins to begin with. If their late in life failings disqualify them from being Paladins, then Lancelot is equally disqualified, as is King Arthur.

So, perhaps the true OT Paladin would actually be a whole lot closer to NT than was formerly thought?

I don't know- David was merciful, but he really was the exception...on many levels.

(Of course, none of that really makes any difference to the way people actually play their games. Your analogy is a good one.)

Ultimately, though, it's as you say: both types of Paladin are valid for the game, and both can be fun to play. But what's absolutely crucial is for the player and DM to discuss these things, preferably before the campaign starts, and make sure they're on the same page.

Thanks!

While I did come up with the OT/NT terminology, perhaps there is another way to distinguish the 2 viewpoints linguistically in order to further distance the discussion from the minefield of religion?

Merciful/Merciless
Avenger/Savior

The Trolley Problem is an artificial philosophical construct, not an in-game situation in a fantasy universe where you have effectively unlimited options. Any DM who presents an equivalent to the Trolley Problem to their players is effectively giving them a binary bottleneck, which is pretty poor adventure design. It's an interesting philosophical question, but it's not a convenient analogue to alignment.

There are, however, RW situations every bit as nasty as that in which there are no good answers according to a consensus of ethical theories. I presented one in the (now lost) WWYP Do thread. It dealt with the commander of an overloaded lifeboat who must decide who gets a chance to live by deciding which people will no longer be supported by the lifeboat and the supplies within it. For purposes of the thread's examination of alignment/paladin issues, the commander was a Paladin.

Not only would a Paladin have an issue with the problem, there is no Good alignment that wouldn't have at least some difficulty.

However, I was of the opinion that in no way should such a scenario be used in game unless you give the players some kind of satisfactory "out."

 

[Ysgarran]

I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking, here. “Judgment” of an NPC? Do you meaning figuring out their character or discerning their alignment?

Well, I see an NPC's alignment heavily influencing their character so I'm really asking how does a PC determine when a NPC is deserving for a chance at redemption. By the rules that NPC is evil but it still leaves room for contra-indicators in the NPCs personality and actions. I enjoy creating villians with complex motivations. The PCs in my campaign agonized over the final fate of the main antagonist in Pazio's "Burnt Offerings". I don't think I could have done that if the NPC was remittingly evil without some at least some redeeming qualities. The lawful characters thought the case was pretty cut and dried. The neutral ones argued for a bit more leniency.

How about an NPC who greatly desires to help, protect, and respect innocent life, but is only kept from doing so because of fear of retribution (say he’s in a really bad city).

I usually like symmetry but I'm not sure if it holds up here. As we go back to the definition of 'good' this NPC has not been willing to make sacrifices in the cause of good. I would lean towards neutral. An aspect to the campaigns I run is that alignment is not a straight-jacket and NPCs can display a variety of actions and behaviours.

Is an evil person still evil if they are locked in prison? They can’t actually perform evil while imprisoned.

For me the answer is a very clear yes.

Sounds Good to me, under the game definition. What has their never having met someone from outside got to do with it? Unless you’re saying their morals/personality completely changes in the presence of non-tribesmen?

There is the key, behaviour can be based on the cultural milieu and how that culture interacts with other cultures. It is not uncommon for treatment of others to be strictly determined on cultural boundaries. If you are part of the tribe then you are treated with kindness and respect, if you are not part of the tribe then you have no protections (within the tribal traditions). Cultural overlays do have an effect on how someone is treated. Depending on the tribe the reaction can be anywhere from extreme and violent xenophobia to a polite escort out of the tribal lands.

I also said this is not how D&D is often played (i.e not a common paradigm for D&D). If you consider this one of those strange *edge cases*...shrug...thats fine too.

 

[Clavis]

In my opinion, much of the problem with understanding Alignment seems to be the fact that Alignment as articulated in 1st edition AD&D posited a fundamentally unfair multiverse. A person isn't Lawful Good because he does lawful and good things. He is Lawful Good because his spiritual essence is aligned with that of the Seven Heavens. On that account he will tend to do lawful and good things, but he might do some evil and chaotic things and still end up in the Seven Heavens when he dies. Going to the Seven Heavens isn't a reward; it's simply a matter of his soul going home.

On the other hand, being Chaotic Evil doesn't mean that a character always does evil and chaotic things, just that his spiritual essence compels him towards those kinds of actions. He might choose to do kind, loving things for people all the time, but such actions are against his nature. Either way he is still going to end up in the Abyss. The demons won't torture him as a punishment for being evil, but rather because they simply enjoy torturing those weaker than themselves.

In a multiverse like that, apparent redemptions and falls are really just a character revealing or obscuring their true nature. Nothing an essentially Evil person can do will get them in the Seven Heavens. This provides a motivation for the kind of vile, epic evil common in swords & sorcery stories. After all, if a character figures out that they are spiritually Evil and going to Hell anyway, then the most reasonable course of action is to be so evil that the Devils will take notice and decide to induct him into their numbers. Conversely, even Good people might tend to be corrupt in their actions, because they are going to the Upper Planes either way.

A world-view like the one articulated above is fundamentally opposed to modern concepts of progress, equality, and free will. You can't be anything you want to be - the choice has already been made for you. Evil people and things are fundamentally and irredeemably evil, so trying to make them good is a waste of time. Orc tribes have to be wiped out to the last member, because by definition no Orc can be innocent. Conversely, the good actions of Evil people are more purely good, because those people cannot hope for any kind of reward for their goodness. A view of Alignment like that was never going to sit well with modern Americans, so Alignment was changed into a mere description of beliefs and actions. Once that happens, the whole point of Alignment is lost, and it might as well be disposed with altogether.

 

[delericho]

Taking a page from one of my English profs, Bates Hoffer (who taught "Biblical Themes in Literature"): you talk about it as a literary/historical source (which we've been able to do, so far, and hope to continue).


Well, I didn't mention any by name, actually.

True that.

I was more indirectly referencing talion law in general- a.k.a. "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" type ethics that dates back to the Code of Hamurabi, as well as several divine edicts to wipe out entire peoples (there are a couple in Joshua, as I recall)- IOW, genocide- because that people would not hear God or repent.

Fair enough.

Samson... <snip>

Ehud... <snip>

David... <snip>

Other than a couple of nit-picky little things, I don't really have any disagreement with you there.

I do still have a problem with the character being characterised as Paladins (particularly Ehud, less so David), but that's perhaps because I interpret the law as stated in Leviticus/Deuteronomy rather differently than perhaps many do.

I guess that means I lean more towards the "NT-Paladins only" end of the spectrum.

All that that means is that they eventually failed as Paladins, not that they never were Paladins to begin with. If their late in life failings disqualify them from being Paladins, then Lancelot is equally disqualified, as is King Arthur.

True. Lancelot, certainly, was a Paladin who fell. Indeed, he may be the foundation of the archetype.

There are, however, RW situations every bit as nasty as that in which there are no good answers according to a consensus of ethical theories. I presented one in the (now lost) WWYP Do thread. It dealt with the commander of an overloaded lifeboat who must decide who gets a chance to live by deciding which people will no longer be supported by the lifeboat and the supplies within it. For purposes of the thread's examination of alignment/paladin issues, the commander was a Paladin.

Not only would a Paladin have an issue with the problem, there is no Good alignment that wouldn't have at least some difficulty.

Quite. It's often easy to see the "right thing to do" in the big, obvious examples. It's in the difficult corner cases that the situation gets muddy. And, IMO, it's there that the whole area gets most interesting. That's also where alignment mechanics get most interesting. Of course, those are also the areas that generate the arguments.

However, I was of the opinion that in no way should such a scenario be used in game unless you give the players some kind of satisfactory "out."

I don't necessarily have a problem not giving the players a way to win - the Kobayashi Maru is a scenario that conceivably could appear in my campaign - but if I did place the PCs in such a position, I wouldn't strip the Paladin of his status as a result of his actions, almost regardless of the choices that he made. I'm willing to screw my PCs over... but only so far.

 

[Celebrim]

In my opinion, much of the problem with understanding Alignment seems to be the fact that Alignment as articulated in 1st edition AD&D posited a fundamentally unfair multiverse.

I think that what you are saying is a specific case of a more general problem people have with alignment - they want to make alignment conform to their own ethical precepts, instead of trying to fit ethical precepts within the alignment system.

Let's for the moment assume you describe the 1st edition cosmology well.

Why would you say that it is 'unfair'? Doesn't everyone get what they deserve? The fact that they are predestined to get what they deserve doesn't make it unfair. On the contrary, if everyone always gets what they deserve it is more fair. It might be less just, it might be less compassionate, it might be less merciful, but its definately fair.

Plenty of philosophies have described the universe as being predestined in some way or the other. That you object to those philosophies in the real world is no reason not to deal with them in a hypothetical world. Why not make what you percieve to be the injustice of the world to be the intellectual focus of the campaign?

One thing you are hugely missing in your analysis is that in the 1st edition cosmology, all of the alignments are peers of the other and there is no preferential description of any of them. All of them are equally 'good' and 'valid' as described by the system. Good is no better than evil. There is no inherent reason to choose any of the systems of belief. There is no heirarchy where good is the 'best', nuetral is 'worse' and 'evil' is even worse, or for that matter where 'law' is the best and 'chaos' is the worst or vica versa. For that reason there is no reason to describe any of it as a reward or punishment, and so no reason to suggest that an evil being has a worse destiny in the system than a good being.

In a multiverse like that, apparent redemptions and falls are really just a character revealing or obscuring their true nature. Nothing an essentially Evil person can do will get them in the Seven Heavens. This provides a motivation for the kind of vile, epic evil common in swords & sorcery stories. After all, if a character figures out that they are spiritually Evil and going to Hell anyway, then the most reasonable course of action is to be so evil that the Devils will take notice and decide to induct him into their numbers. Conversely, even Good people might tend to be corrupt in their actions, because they are going to the Upper Planes either way.

Note again your implicit heirarchy when you describe peoples motivations. Evil people are motivated to be more evil, but good people... or also motivated to be more evil. You are imposing real world philosophies on to the system. There is no reason to suppose that Good beings won't be motivated to be equally one dimensional as their Evil counterparts (assuming that your description of one is true) to obtain similar rewards from their Celestial benefactors, because the cosmos as described was symmetrical and balanced. It was a ring, not a ladder. People don't 'fall' or 'ascend' in such a system.

A world-view like the one articulated above is fundamentally opposed to modern concepts of progress, equality, and free will.

Assuming your describe is correct, then absolutely, it is opposed to modern Western concepts. However, it is not fundamentally opposed to historical and Eastern philosophical concepts, or internally opposed to itself.

However, in addition to being a fundamentally non-Western, non-modern (non-Christian) conception of the universe, I think it also left alot more room for flexibility than you describe. For mortals at least, morality wasn't an absolute. It could drift. You could change alignment, albiet at a cost. Also, the system could be understood as more fair by a Westerner if you introduced an Eastern concept to it - reincarnation. Perhaps the person was born with a certain predisposition because of what they'd done in past lives, and the most they could hope to do was change this karma a little, so that they'd be born with slightly different inclinations the next time.

That's just one way of looking at it. In my campaign, many philosophers and theoretical magicians are somewhat consumed with the idea of obtaining the Unified Axiom, which you might think of as sort of a magical equivalent to the Grand Unified Field Theory - the foundation from which all other truth proceeds. People in my campaign world believe that there are four sides to every coin - the positive, the negative, the anti-positive, and the anti-negative. That is, for every thing there is a counterpart concept which is opposite but congruent to it, and two counterparts which are tangential to it but congruent to each other. So for example, in this conception of the world, leisure is the opposite of industry, but they are congruent to each other, and sloth and drudgery are tangential to both but congruent to each other. Many philosophers believe that you fold these concepts together in some fashion to show that leisure and industry are fundamentally the same things, or perhaps leisure and sloth are fundamentally the same things, to produce a binary two principle system which would reveal more basic and deeper truths than the 'obvious' four principle system everything is arranged according to. A few nutcases go even further, and believe you can fold everything into a single principle from which all truth is derived.

The various religions differ with each over how far this folding principle can be taken and what its end result would be like. For example, intellectual neutrals believe that the world requires all four principles in some measure and shouldn't or can't be tampered with. Intellectual neutral good believers on the other hand believe that the single underlying principle is in some fashion 'Good', and that eventually their will be a spiritual triumph in which the world will be perfected and fold back to its single original principle, after which time there will be a paradise. Intellectual neutral evil believers, by contrast, believe the universe is derived fundamentally from 'Evil' and wish to bring about this triumph (which they generally believe will end all existence, and indeed it will all be as if it had never been which is as it should be). And so forth. And you can see that there are complexities like groups that may believe the other side is in fact right, and who - because they enjoy their own existence - are still trying to thwart the other sides triumph. In any event, any sides triumph - if it were possible - would be an apocalypse for the other sides. They would literally cease to exist. So, the intellectual underpinning of the campaign, is that the players are supposed to take some sort of side in this debate. Where do they stand? ("Who are you?", "What do you want?", "Where are you going?")

 

[Raven Crowking]

SHAMELESS PLUG: There's a fantastic article on alignment in Dragon Roots #0.

I decided to remove alignment from RCFG, because it is easier to add into a game than it is to take out, and I know that there are folks who are troubled by it. Alignmnet has never caused me any problems.


RC

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Regarding paladins in history:

It's important to note one of the major differences in D&D as opposed to real life, is that in D&D there are very much big E Evil religions, unabashedly evil ones involved in necromancy and the servitude of literal existing Evil gods.

While in real life it gets a bit, urm, touchy to talk about people going on a righteous crusade against the heretics/infidels/pagans/what have you, in D&D, those cultists are literally doing the whim of a malevolent and existing force of anti-good. As such, it's important to transfer those D&D-isms in when you want to talk about such figures.

One paladin-trope I've used that I REALLY love that involves historical tales calls back to Saint George, and uses the idea of Good and Evil being actual forces. A great evil - maybe a rampaging horde of orcs, or a great number of demons, or maybe a classic evil dragon - is approaching the town, and the players are outclassed. Instead of running away, I give a hint to the cleric or paladin of the group: convert the people. As more and more citizens of the town/city turn good, the literal power of Good swells, the enemy is weakened, the players are empowered, and they defeat the enemy that previously outclassed them. The party has stories of their heroism written down, and maybe a holy blessing visits the town, much like the spring waters that cure disease in the story itself.

Stuff like that is exactly why I love the alignments as powers view.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I do still have a problem with the character being characterised as Paladins (particularly Ehud, less so David), but that's perhaps because I interpret the law as stated in Leviticus/Deuteronomy rather differently than perhaps many do.

I guess that means I lean more towards the "NT-Paladins only" end of the spectrum.

Fair enough...

Of course, the whole OT/NT divide- and our discussion of it, kind of begs the question "What makes a Paladin a Paladin?"

On the one hand, there is always a Code. They are all bound by ethical strictures. However, the same could be said of Clerics, Druids and Monks- only the details differ.

I think the main difference- the key to the heart of the class- is The Call. People may seek out the monastic way. They may be attracted to The Old Faith. They may be forced into the priesthood because they're the 4th son of a poor Baron.

But almost without exception, every Paladin has been directly called by their god to serve. That has to alter your worldview at a fundamental level. Clerics, Druids and everyone else may talk to gods, but gods talk to Paladins.

I don't necessarily have a problem not giving the players a way to win - the Kobayashi Maru is a scenario that conceivably could appear in my campaign - but if I did place the PCs in such a position, I wouldn't strip the Paladin of his status as a result of his actions, almost regardless of the choices that he made. I'm willing to screw my PCs over... but only so far.

What I meant by having an out is something like what you're talking about. If I'm going to screw you for your PCs alignment, I'm not going to do so long term. Your PC's redemption will be close at hand...assuming, of course, you actually want it. If you warm to the idea of roleplaying a fallen Paladin, more power to you!

It's important to note one of the major differences in D&D as opposed to real life, is that in D&D there are very much big E Evil religions, unabashedly evil ones involved in necromancy and the servitude of literal existing Evil gods.

While in real life it gets a bit, urm, touchy to talk about people going on a righteous crusade against the heretics/infidels/pagans/what have you, in D&D, those cultists are literally doing the whim of a malevolent and existing force of anti-good. As such, it's important to transfer those D&D-isms in when you want to talk about such figures.

One paladin-trope I've used that I REALLY love that involves historical tales calls back to Saint George, and uses the idea of Good and Evil being actual forces.

<snip good stuff>

Stuff like that is exactly why I love the alignments as powers view.

YEAH!

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Fair enough...

Of course, the whole OT/NT divide- and our discussion of it, kind of begs the question "What makes a Paladin a Paladin?"

On the one hand, there is always a Code. They are all bound by ethical strictures. However, the same could be said of Clerics, Druids and Monks- only the details differ.

I think the main difference- the key to the heart of the class- is The Call. People may seek out the monastic way. They may be attracted to The Old Faith. They may be forced into the priesthood because they're the 4th son of a poor Baron.

But almost without exception, every Paladin has been directly called by their god to serve. That has to alter your worldview at a fundamental level. Clerics, Druids and everyone else may talk to gods, but gods talk to Paladins.

I do agree that the Call is the standing feature to the paladin. Something in them burns brighter then the sun and causes them - not forces them, but makes them desire to - serve the Good. Now, for each paladin, the reason for answering the Call might be different, and paladins themselves are not supernaturally good, which leads to character flaws potentially leading to them falling.

That said, I would go so far as to claim that the Call doesn't even need a god. People who've read Dresden Files can note that there's a buddhist and even an agnostic Knight of the Cross.

Speaking of which, I would argue that Michael is a perfect example of the NT archtype paladin.