D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

Oofta said:

Any game I've ever played any disagreement on alignment was incredibly minor, the DM made a ruling and we moved on.

Click to expand...

The vast majority of games I played in never even had minor disagreements. And I played with multiple groups that had many players come in and out, and with many strangers at 3 conventions a year. As I mentioned previously, the vast majority of those very few instances involved paladins. There might have been more, but since so few PCs rolled stats to be a paladin, and few of those that did wanted to play one, there weren't that many paladins to get into it over.

The Roaring Trumpet (1940) L Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt

A major influence on Poul Anderson’s Three Hearts and Three Lions.

Men and gods live by law; else they would be but giants.


Three Hearts and Three Lions (1953) Poul Anderson

Holger got the impression that there was a perpetual struggle between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. Humans, except for occasional witches and such-like, were, consciously or unconsciously, on the side of Law; the Middle World, which seemed to include such realms as Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants, was with Chaos… under Law, all men would live in peace and order, but this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working and scheming to prevent it and to extend their own shadowy dominion...

This business of Chaos versus Law… seemed to be more than just a religious belief. It reminded him [Holger] vaguely of the second law of thermodynamics, the tendency toward disorder and level entropy. Perhaps here the struggle between the two forces was basic to the universe. The wild folk of the Middle World would be doing what they could to break down order and restore some primeval state where anything could happen. Ordinary humanity would want to strengthen and extend Law, safety, predictability; that was doubtless why Christianity and Mohammedanism alike frowned on sorcery, which derived from Chaos forces rather than the unvarying principles of physical nature.

In the following passage, the sorceress Morgan Le Fay tries to persuade Holger Carlsen to join her, and Chaos.

What is there about dull and stodgy Law that drives you to defend it? Why, Holger... you’re but bulwarking loutish peasants and fat-gutted burghers, when the laughter and thunder and swirling stars of Chaos could be yours for the asking. When were you ever one for a safe and narrow life, locked in its own smugness, roofed with a sour gray sky and stinking of smoke, you who drove armies from the field? You could hurl suns and shape worlds if you chose!


While the Gods Laugh (1961) Michael Moorcock

It is believed by many sorcerers and philosophers that two forces govern the universe—fighting an eternal battle… These two forces are termed Law and Chaos. These are values supposedly set above the qualities men call Good and Evil. The upholders of Chaos state that in such a world as they rule, all things are possible. Opponents of Chaos—those who ally themselves with the forces of Law—say that without Law nothing material is possible.

I [Elric], like most sorcerers, stand apart, believing that a balance between the two is the proper state of things.

The Knight of the Swords (1971) Michael Moorcock

"The Lords of Chaos are the enemies of Logic, the jugglers of Truth, the moulders of Beauty. I should be surprised if they had not created these Flamelands out of some aesthetic impulse. Beauty—an ever-changing beauty—is all they live for."
"An evil beauty."
"I believe that such notions of 'good' and 'evil' do not exist for the Chaos Lords."

Chaotic Lives (2005) interview with Michael Moorcock

The SF Site: An Interview with Michael Moorcock

A lot of my work is really about… Law and Chaos… about common sense and romanticism, and finding a balance between the two.


Chainmail (1971) Gary Gygax and Jeff Perren




Playing at the World (2012) Jon Peterson

The categories of Law and Chaos [in Chainmail] are populated much as [Poul] Anderson might lead us to expect, with giants and trolls on the side of Chaos and heroes on the side of Law, though since the fantastic races derive mostly from Tolkien, the distribution of those types emphasizes Tolkien’s battle lines...

The "line-up" of Law, Neutral and Chaos… in Chainmail… serves as nothing more than a means to ensure that creatures sharing a side could plausibly ally in a fantasy setting—to prevent absurdities like a group of dwarves collaborating with orcs to destroy ents, rather than just falling on one another.


The First Fantasy Campaign (1977) Dave Arneson

Describes Arneson’s Blackmoor campaign that began in 1971 and was a precursor to D&D. In First Fantasy Campaign Law is synonymous with good, and Chaos with evil.

So far as alignment changes went, there were only Bad Guys, Good Guys and those in-between. Good Guys took prisoners, paid their taxes, and would undertake missions for the King, etc. Bad Guys turned their loot over to their leader, never took anyone prisoner (unless it was part of a geas). They also stabbed each other in the back at the first opportunity. Everyone else was in the middle. This severely limited the use of Lawful and Chaotic artifacts but kept the players honest. On mixed expeditions, everyone was obligated to try and kill the Neutrals due to the latter’s lack of "Purity".


The Meaning of Law and Chaos in Dungeons & Dragons and Their Relationships to Good and Evil (1976) Gary Gygax

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.


Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (1981)

Lawful behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called "good"...

Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called "evil".

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but alignment has been the most contentious element of D&D in pretty much every group I played with. To be more accurate perhaps, in every AD&D group I've played with, especially when it came to alignment-bound classes (mainly paladins, rangers, and druids).

3rd ed wasn't as bad in terms of what classes were allowed to do or not (which differed according to DM), but alignment was used as a justification for being a jerk more often that I'd like to remember. While this may have been an age/maturity thing, it is not an issue I've met in many other games and even then, it was more of a North-American vs European play thing rather than an inherent codification of the game.

Laurefindel said:

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but alignment has been the most contentious element of D&D in pretty much every group I played with. To be more accurate perhaps, in every AD&D group I've played with, especially when it came to alignment-bound classes (mainly paladins, rangers, and druids).

3rd ed wasn't as bad in terms of what classes were allowed to do or not (which differed according to DM), but alignment was used as a justification for being a jerk more often that I'd like to remember. While this may have been an age/maturity thing, it is not an issue I've met in many other games and even then, it was more of a North-American vs European play thing rather than an inherent codification of the game.

Click to expand...

Heh. I forgot about Druids. Probably because I saw so few of them. Like monks, druids were avoided like the plague over the fact that they would eventually have to fight an equally powerful member of the class in order to progress and if they lost they lost the level. Never mind the fact that between poison, energy drain, other save or die effects, save or die traps and just plain nasty monsters, nobody ever reached a level where they would have had to fight to progress. This character might be the first, so no druid or monk!

Laurefindel said:

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but alignment has been the most contentious element of D&D in pretty much every group I played with. To be more accurate perhaps, in every AD&D group I've played with, especially when it came to alignment-bound classes (mainly paladins, rangers, and druids).

3rd ed wasn't as bad in terms of what classes were allowed to do or not (which differed according to DM), but alignment was used as a justification for being a jerk more often that I'd like to remember. While this may have been an age/maturity thing, it is not an issue I've met in many other games and even then, it was more of a North-American vs European play thing rather than an inherent codification of the game.

Click to expand...

That sounds like an issue with versions of the game that have been out of print for a long time now. The game has moved on, not sure how it's relevant to the current release.

People who play jerks will always find some fig leaf to justify their behavior. It will just shift over to ideals/bonds/flaws.

Maxperson said:

You mean you've never had the players just out of the blue decide to go and see if there is a farrier or some other obscure NPC that you didn't include, but would likely be in the town/city? I have.

Click to expand...

If the are meeting the farrier to shoe their horses, that is the anticipated nature of the interaction. If they are seeking information, that is the anticipated nature of the interaction.
In both cases, assigning them a trait is more useful than assigning them an alignment, which would be equally arbitrary.

Maxperson said:

Considering how very few people(Maybe 3 at the most) have done that to me over the 38 years that I've been playing vs. the hundreds I've played with who used it correctly, you're going to have to cite a study or something proving that claim.

Click to expand...

I’m responding to your equally baseless claim that millions of people have not had problems with alignment.

Have more people gotten something positive out of alignment than something negative? Who knows?

FrozenNorth said:

I’m responding to your equally baseless claim that millions of people have not had problems with alignment.

Have more people gotten something positive out of alignment than something negative? Who knows?

Click to expand...

How many people have you played with over the years?

FrozenNorth said:

I’m responding to your equally baseless claim that millions of people have not had problems with alignment.

Click to expand...

It's not baseless man. Alignment has been an integral part of the game for decades. The truth of MY statement is apparent on its face. Millions have successfully used it. Heck I even went with a very low 50% number, rather than the much higher probable number. The absurdity of yours is just as apparent. Prove your ludicrous claim.

doctorbadwolf said:

I absolutely can and I will. Ignoring any hypocrisy of either figure, they both had soemthing like, “I will risk it all and use my intellect to lead my people into revolution.”

Could also go with, “Democracy and the dissolution of aristocratic hierarchy are necessary steps toward a better future and a just society.”

And that’s fine. Doesn’t make ideals any less useful in play. They’re guides to help the player develop their character.

Click to expand...

FrozenNorth said:

If the are meeting the farrier to shoe their horses, that is the anticipated nature of the interaction. If they are seeking information, that is the anticipated nature of the interaction.
In both cases, assigning them a trait is more useful than assigning them an alignment, which would be equally arbitrary.

Click to expand...

you can also fractalize that trait. Is the kingdom preparing for war because of a drought?... the boss might be too busy doing real work forging stuff in prep for the war & not be all that into putting new shoes on the horses for a bunch of adventurers. The apprentice might be hungry because of the drought & despite knowing that the boss doesn't want to shoe the horses because he'd need to get that bastard taxman over to authorize him to shoe them for an outsider... that apprentice is willing t do it on the side if you come back after dark pay extra & keep quiet..or food.. how about a sack of grain. Alignment by contrast is a dead & lifeless thing as the go read the draconomicon example nicely displayed