A Look at Alignment Through the Editions

[Tequila Sunrise]

What with the current Thread That Won't End, I thought it might be enlightening to go through and read what each PHB has to say about alignment.

See, I'm not actually all that familiar with D&D alignments. I think I read the 2e AD&D alignment chapter once or twice back in the '90s, and then the 3e chapter once or twice after 2000. In both cases, I promptly forgot the details and quirks of each alignment and simply used my own sensibilities to think about alignment. Until this week, I hadn't even bothered to read 4e's chapter. (Because alignment doesn't matter in 4e, so what's the point?)

This probably has something to do with my inability to relate to all the angst which alignment generates for others. So I've decided to transcribe each alignment description into my blog -- at least from the three editions I currently have access to -- so that I can compare and contrast alignment through the editions. If you can provide me with descriptions from other editions, I'd appreciate it!

Alignment Across the Editions

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Introductions


Each chapter begins with an intro to what alignment is, and how it should be used.

• In 2e, alignment is the final step of character creation, while it comes near the end in 3e and 4e.
• 2e and 3e both adhere to the 9-alignment grid, while 4e simplified things down to 5 alignments.
• Both 2e and 3e make a point to say that alignment is a tool for role playing, rather than a straitjacket to restrict characters. This makes me suspect that alignment has been a hot topic of debate since D&D's earliest days.
• Both 2e and 3e mention that nobody is entirely consistent in their actions, and that alignment does not restrict a player from acting out of character. In passive contradiction to these assurances, both editions impose penalties on characters for acting too much out of character. In 3e, only characters of certain classes are penalized for changing alignment, but 2e docs xp from anyone who changes alignment!
• Both 3e and 4e advise players to choose only Good or Neutral (Unaligned) alignments. I expected to find a similar injunction in the 2e chapter, but I guess evil PCs weren't considered such a no-no in the 2e era? Or maybe it was considered common sense to avoid Evil PCs?
• The 3e intro begins with a description of a holy book that zaps evil-doers, followed by an emphatic statement that alignments are real and fundamental cosmic forces. This contrasts with parts of the 2e alignment chapter, which states that good and evil are in fact subjective!
• The 4e intro describes alignments as cosmic teams, which transcend even the gods and all other allegiances. (Except for Unaligned, which is a non-alignment.) 4e's 4 actual alignments all represent a conscious choice to play for one team or the other. This is in contrast to 2e and 3e, which present alignments as either conscious choices or as mere attitudes.
• Oh, and most people in the 4e game world are Unaligned. I wonder if alignment would be more or less controversial if each edition had presented broad demographic comments like this? (Or even percentages!)
• The 2e intro ends with the claim that the 9 alignments serve well to define the attitudes of most people in the world. Setting aside the questionable validity of this claim, it implies that some attitudes fall outside of the 9 alignments...but doesn't follow up with guidelines or even hints at what to do so.
• The 3e intro ends by giving DMs explicit permission to change a PC's alignment if his actions better match something other than what the player has written on his CS.

 

[tuxgeo]

AD&D (1E) DMG, (c) 1979 by Gary Gygax, p. 23:

"Law And Chaos: The opposition here is between organized groups and individuals. That is, law dictates that order and organization is necessary and desirable, while chaos holds to the opposite view. Law generally supports the group as more important than the individual, while chaos promotes the individual over the group.

"Good And Evil: Basically stated, the tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of AD&D, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable. Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is the determinant."

He goes into further details for each of the 9 choices.

(That definition of good is very close to the "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" of the American Declaration of Independence; he may have been showing some ethnocentricity there.)

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Law, Neutrality, and Chaos

• 2e pits all three alignments against each other. ("Imagine three points of a triangle, each pulling against the other two.") Whereas 3e pits law against chaos, with neutrality as the wishy-washy middle-ground. Personally, I think the latter reflects the majority of humanity, whatever philosophy/beliefs/ethos we're talking about.
• 2e associates Law with order, organization, society, and strong government. A choice quote of mine is "Although man does not create orderly structures, it is his obligation to function within them, lest the fabric of everything crumble."
• 3e associates Law with honor, honesty, obedience to authority, respect for tradition, concern with duty, and reliability. 3e also mentions the potential downsides of lawful attitude: close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and lack of adaptability.
• 2e takes a very philosophical view of Neutrality: neutrals believe that all forces in the universe have an opposite, and they must all remain in balance, lest the universe vanish.
• 3e describes Neutrality as a normal respect for authority, combined with the possibility of being tempted to lie and deceive.
• 2e takes a philosophical view of Chaos: chaotics believe that there is no preordained order or careful balance of forces in the universe, and that things happen independently of each other. Chaos in 2e is associated with individual will and anarchy.
• 3e associates Chaos with freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. 3e also mentions the potential downsides of chaotic behavior: recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

I haven't even gotten to individual alignments, and I'm already starting to see why so many gamers have issues with alignment as-written. Both Law and Chaos are associated with a jumble of attitudes and beliefs, in such a way that many real people (and plausible characters) simultaneously qualify for several alignments.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Good, Neutrality, and Evil

• 2e associates Good with honesty and charity. 2e clarifies that nobody is perfect; good people make mistakes, but try to fix them.
• 2e further makes a point of clarifying that Good has no absolute values; different cultures have different interpretations of what is good and evil. While this statement is in unusual agreement with the real world for 2e, it makes one wonder what happens when a Good character from culture A visits culture B, which has dramatically different notions of what is right and wrong. Does he become neutral (or even evil)? Or does he simply ping as neutral/evil to know alignment spells cast by culture B casters?
• 3e associates Good with altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to protect innocent life, and to generally help others.
• 2e associates Neutrality with a refusal to pass judgment on anything. Things are neither good nor evil; whatever is, is.
• 3e again paints Neutrality as a middle-ground...mostly. Neutrals are committed to others via personal relationships, and have compunctions against killing innocents, but lack the commitment to protect innocent strangers. Later, 3e mentions that some Neutrals actively seek a balance between Good and Evil.
• 2e defines Evil as the antithesis of Good, with a similar clarifier that Evil too is subjective. 2e clarifies that few evil people actively seek to harm others; most simply don't realize or care that the pursuit of their personal goals hurt others.
• 3e associates Evil with hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some Evil creatures simply lack compassion, while others actively seek to harm others.

So I'm not sure what to make of 2e's emphasis on Good and Evil being subjective; this assertion doesn't seem to be carried over into its individual alignment descriptions, and it makes no similar claim for Law and Chaos.

It's odd how honesty went from being a Good trait in 2e to a Lawful trait in 3e.

I again find myself preferring 3e's middle-ground take on Neutrality to 2e's odd philosophized take.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

(That definition of good is very close to the "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" of the American Declaration of Independence; he may have been showing some ethnocentricity there.)

Indeed! More than a bit of 2e's chaotic text screams "DEMOCRACY!"

 

[Manbearcat]

I haven't even gotten to individual alignments, and I'm already starting to see why so many gamers have issues with alignment as-written. Both Law and Chaos are associated with a jumble of attitudes and beliefs, in such a way that many real people (and plausible characters) simultaneously qualify for several alignments.

It gets further disjointed still when you consider that many people have a general ethos system for the macro (organization of society, the common good, et al) while compartmentalizing another (which may be at tension with the macro) for micro decision and lifestyle.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Lawful Good

• 2e LG focuses on strong governments that work for greater good.
  
• Like all 3e alignment descriptions, LG has a nickname and a "This alignment is best because..." ending. LG's nickname is the Crusader, and in contrast to 2e LG, is focused on the adventuring aspect of LG -- fighting evil, helping the needy, and being honest. LG is best because it combines honor and compassion.
  
• Like all 4e alignment descriptions, this one begins with a motto: "An ordered society protects us from evil." 4e LG is focused on codes of conduct and laws as the best means to achieve goodness. LG ideals include the value of life, protection of the downtrodden, and honor.
  
• The 4e description ends with commentary about what happens when legitimate authority becomes exploitative authority -- a LG character is obligated to fight such exploitation, preferably through the system itself.

Neutral Good

• 2e NG is rather philosophical -- NG characters believe in the balance of all forces...except that Good should outweigh Evil.
  
• The 3e nickname for NG is the Benefactor. NG is the best alignment because it's about doing good without bias for or against order.
  
• NG is simply 'Good' in 4e. "Protecting the weak from those who would dominate or kill them is just the right thing to do." G is focused on protecting the weak. G characters can follow rules and respect authority, but realize that power tends to corrupt.

Chaotic Good

• 2e describes CG as individualism marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence. CG characters follow their own moral compass, and have no use for laws or regulations.
• The 3e nickname for CG is the Rebel. Much of the 3e description may as well be copy-pasted from the 2e description. CG is the best alignment because it combines goodness with a free spirit.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Lawful Neutral

• LN characters in 2e believe that the benefits of order, organization, and strong government outweigh any moral questions that arise from the actions of an organization or government. Fascism at its finest, baby!
• 3e's nickname for LN is the Judge. LN in 3e is about tradition, law, or personal codes. LN is the best alignment because it means you're reliable and honorable without being a zealot. I'm not sure whether 'zealot' is a reference to 2e's fascist take on LN, or 3e's take on LG.

True Neutral

• 2e TN is all about the balance of forces, and simultaneously refusing to see actions as either good or evil. Not sure how one can refuse moral judgment and at the same time say "Good and evil must be balanced." 2e admits that this view is extremely rare.
• 2e also comments that TN characters often find themselves shifting alliances as yesterday's underdog becomes today's top dog. Which I imagine doesn't inspire much confidence in allies of any alignment.
• TN is simply 'Neutral' in 3e, and its nickname is the Undecided. 3e states that most N characters simply lack ethical and moral conviction, rather than being actively committed to the pursuit of balance. (Though some are.) N is the best alignment because it allows natural action, without prejudice or compulsion.
• I threw 4e's Unaligned under the TN category, even though it's sort of a non-alignment. The unaligned motto is "Just let me go about my business." Most unaligned characters are in the "Doesn't actively seek to harm others, but doesn't go out of his/her way to help other" category, but some actively pursue balance between good and evil, or see themselves as above such concepts. The Raven Queen (goddess of death) is mentioned as an example of the third category.

Chaotic Neutral

• 2e says that CN characters believe that there is no preordained order to anything...including their own actions. As a result, they do things like gambling everything they own on a single die roll. They're unreliable, and crazy people fall under the CN category.
• 3e's nickname for CN is the Free Spirit. 3e CN is all about individualism and liberty. 3e makes a point of stating that CN characters don't intentionally disrupt organizations or act gonzo random. CN is the best alignment because it's freedom from both society and do-gooder zeal.

 

[Yora]

I've long suspected it, but this closer examination pretty much proves that alignment throughout the edition was completely inconsistent. Not only between editions, but also contradictory within each. 2nd Edition seem to be the one which makes both the strongest claims that alignments are subjective, and the strongest claim that they are objective.