"Narrativist" 9-point alignment

[Starfox]

it is different from what Gygax says in his DMG/PHB alignment descriptions (though perhaps his presentation of the planes in Appendix IV fits with your approach) - and it is these descriptions that I draw on in the OP.

I recently had reason to look at the 1E Deities and Demigods; it has a round alignment graph. I'm not saying this is proof of my idea, but I think my interpretation was one that was going around in the heads at TSR at the time.

 

[pemerton]

I recently had reason to look at the 1E Deities and Demigods; it has a round alignment graph. I'm not saying this is proof of my idea, but I think my interpretation was one that was going around in the heads at TSR at the time.

In Appendix IV of the PHB, you also get the following:

The planes of Limbo of neutral (absolute) chaos (entropy). . . .

Hades"Three Glooms" of absolute (neutral) evil. . . .

Nirvana of absolute (neutral) lawfuls.​

These all imply that neutral E/L/C somehow implies a degree of absoluteness or purity or perfection in respect of the non-N alignment component. (Oddly, Elysium does not get the same description: "The planes of Elysium of neutral good.")

 

[Tony Vargas]

In the approach I find in those descriptions, LG is not a compromise between lawfulness and goodness - it is a claim/conviction that good can best, perhaps only, be realised by means of social order. Conversely, CG is a claim/conviction that good can best, perhaps only, be realised via relatively unconstrained self-realisation. Neither of these claims would make sense if we already knew that both law and chaos are self-standing values in their own right that dilute goodness.

They'd make sense as arguments directed at a neutral good character, or at eachother, for that matter. Good is the common ground. If a CG were trying to convince a CN of the rightness of CG, he might argue that only when everyone embraces the respect for others implied by Good, can each individual be secure in his own freedom. There's gradiations of alignment in AD&D, too. Not just LG, but L(N)G or LG(N) or (L)NG, etc... All those goofy outter planes. So you can be LG but put either Law or Good first. If Law, then Good is the best way to create a stable, Lawful society (folks are less likely to rebel), of Good, the Law is the best way to achieve a Good society.

Maybe it was a stretch, but I always saw the ethic axis as being as important as the moral. Maybe because OD&D just had Law/Chaos.

LN just cares about order, honor, and sticking to some arbitrary idea of what is proper, particularly his own personal honor, his own proper behavior, and being part of an order of some sort (a society, religion, heirarchy, whatever). He'd see an LE society as corrupt, and LG one as soft.

CN just cares about personal freedom, particularly his own personal freedom. He doesn't want anyones freedom abridged, and certainly wouldn't do so himself, but he doesn't feel obligated to prevent it, just avoid it on his own behalf. He'd see a CG as foolishly abridging his own freedom to help others, and a CE as foolishly abridging his own freedom out of spite & cruelty.


I also think mere amorality undersells the supernatural evil implied by early D&D. Evil is a detectable force, and being evil means you'll take damage from things that wouldn't harm a good person. That's pretty objective, and implies opposition, not just failure to rise to a moral standard. Not merely amoral, but actively immoral.

Taken that way, Evil doesn't just disregard the 'weal' of others, it resents it. Supernatural Evil doesn't ever commit 2nd degree murder, because they care too much about the suffering of others to have even depraved indifference, it's always with plenty of malice.

TN might be amoral and unethical - perhaps merely self-interested or weak or perhaps philosophically obtuse with moral/ethical relativism or obsessed with balancing the titanic ethic and moral forces threatening to tear the world apart.


Another point I remember being made about alignment in 1e is that the same alignment doesn't mean the same goals. Two LG kingdoms might still go to war, for instance. Maybe over a point of honor, a difference in religion, a desperate lack of resources - maybe because one views conquest as the only sure way to impose their vision of good on the other.

 

[Starfox]

Tony has many valid points here. I also think that from a narrative perspective, the ongoing debate between all the non-evil alignments is valid. A LN can claim, with some justice, that LG is short-sighted, that in the long perspective only absolute law can preserve society. Yes, some of the weak will suffer, but not nearly as many as would suffer during anarchy. And a CN could justifiably claim that any positive right is an infringement on his negative rights - the right to not be monitored, not be restricted, and not pay taxes.

IMC, the question has always been how good you need to be to be of good alignment - and how evil you need to be evil. Some players insist you have to be saintly to be good, and consequently call themselves neutral. Others are more relaxed and feel that as long as you are fighting evil, you are good.

Some claim even a minor amount of selfishness makes you evil, which of course means that punishing those who are evil becomes morally ambiguous - being evil is not in itself a crime. Using detect evil and punishing those who trigger it becomes evil or at the very least authoritarian. And they have a point. Others say that if you are evil, you got that way by evil acts, and thus just being evil justifies punishment. From a LN standpoint, this is certainly justified.

And thus the discourse goes on. In my protagonist games, these are mostly discussions between sessions. In a narrative game, I suppose this discourse could be the basis of the action.

 

[Starfox]

TN might be amoral and unethical - perhaps merely self-interested or weak or perhaps philosophically obtuse with moral/ethical relativism or obsessed with balancing the titanic ethic and moral forces threatening to tear the world apart.

I always saw True Neutral as the "specialist alignment". A smith who is very conscientious about his craft, but cares nothing for politics, can be TN. A god of smithcraft definitely can be. This is the alignment of elemental lords and the line "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? / That's not my department', says Wernher von Braun." - which is not a quote but a satire.

This does not deny the existence of the druidic neutral alignment, which actively strives for balance. But this kind of neutral would be a lot more common. The "philosophically obtuse with moral/ethical relativism" version of TN certainly exists, but it implies a degree of learning that would be quite unusual in most fantasy worlds - it is more of a modern phenomenon.

 

[pemerton]

If a CG were trying to convince a CN of the rightness of CG, he might argue that only when everyone embraces the respect for others implied by Good, can each individual be secure in his own freedom.

In my OP, I envisaged the structure of argument slightly differently: "chaos" is defended as a means to wellbeing, and the desirability of wellbeing is treated as largely self-evident (at least within the scope of the alignment system), because it has been given the label "good".

the same alignment doesn't mean the same goals. Two LG kingdoms might still go to war, for instance

There was some discussion upthread of whether alignment makes sense as a property of social collectives (like kingdoms). I doubt that it does, unless it is simply a shorthand for widespread beliefs (or perhaps the beliefs of the rulers) - whereas there is a widespread tendency to use alignment as a label for social realities.

A king who was committed to good and thought order necessary to ensure it might go to war with another king with similar convictions, because they disagree over the right form of social order (or, perhaps, over the precise nature of wellbeing). But I don't think that the alignment system helps frame or analyse that sort of dispute, precisely because it happens within the confines of convictions in respect of which the alignment system has nothing useful to say.

 

[Starfox]

There was some discussion upthread of whether alignment makes sense as a property of social collectives (like kingdoms). I doubt that it does, unless it is simply a shorthand for widespread beliefs (or perhaps the beliefs of the rulers) - whereas there is a widespread tendency to use alignment as a label for social realities.

A society may have a set of ideals, set by faith, the ruler, or tradition. Much like the American tradition of "pursuit of happiness" enshrines a value of general weal and liberty (CG?). These are ideas and do not describe every individual of a society, but as an abstraction and memory tool quantifying the societies in a particular game world relative to each other, it can be useful. Thus a chivalric nation can be said to be LG, while a meritocracy might be LN or NG, depending on its emphasis and a cruel bureaucracy on the infernal model can be LE. Naturally, many members of each society will not conform, but these are the ideals held up as models for citizens.

 

[Umbran]

A king who was committed to good and thought order necessary to ensure it might go to war with another king with similar convictions, because they disagree over the right form of social order (or, perhaps, over the precise nature of wellbeing).

I think that any king (or leader) who has *seen* war, and is honestly dedicated to good, is going to have o go a *long* way to justify war, in general, much less over theoretical things like "the right form of social order". War entails *much* woe. In order to really justify war, you'd have to see some really nasty things from that other social order, or see major threat.

This, as opposed to most real-world war, which is more usually not about the good of the people, but about power and wealth, with a rationalization of idealism and goodness layered on after the fact.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think that any king (or leader) who has *seen* war, and is honestly dedicated to good, is going to have o go a *long* way to justify war, in general, much less over theoretical things like "the right form of social order". War entails *much* woe. In order to really justify war, you'd have to see some really nasty things from that other social order, or see major threat.

This, as opposed to most real-world war, which is more usually not about the good of the people, but about power and wealth, with a rationalization of idealism and goodness layered on after the fact.

And THAT is where you can generate the conflict between L and C. The elf can say "See, look at that, those two 'lawful good' kingdoms go to war. Law leads to nothing but paying lip service to good. This war is just all about preserving the social order!" Of course the lawful dwarf can say "That other dwarvish kingdom really has no right to claim our gold mine. They've broken the ancient treaty, if we don't take it from them how will we feed our children? If they were REALLY lawful they'd give us what is ours. Its law vs chaos!" etc etc etc.

 

[pemerton]

I think that any king (or leader) who has *seen* war, and is honestly dedicated to good, is going to have o go a *long* way to justify war, in general

Sure. In my day job I publish on just war theory.

But D&D takes a very relaxed approach to the legitimate moral threshold for the use of defensive violence, and I was tending to assume this in my post.

I'd also add, [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s post above this one does a good job of showing how the war between the two LG kings fits into the scheme of my OP: the war itself isn't the focus of the alignment conflict, but rather provides grist for conflict between the LG participants and CG third parties.