A Look at Alignment Through the Editions

[Ahnehnois]

I wonder if alignment would be more or less controversial if each edition had presented broad demographic comments like this? (Or even percentages!)

A question I've often wondered. I adopted a model wherein roughly 33% of people are Neutral, 13% of each of the single alignments (NG, NE, LN, CN), and 3% each of the double alignments. To be, it was always clear that to get an alignment, you had to be pretty devoted and pretty atypical. And that all alignments were equal. But that's just me. It would be nice if the books were clearer on this subject.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.

Yeah, the objective-subjective contradiction has been the biggest surprise to me. I'd love to be able to chat with the folks who wrote the 2e alignment chapter.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

A question I've often wondered. I adopted a model wherein roughly 33% of people are Neutral, 13% of each of the single alignments (NG, NE, LN, CN), and 3% each of the double alignments. To be, it was always clear that to get an alignment, you had to be pretty devoted and pretty atypical. And that all alignments were equal. But that's just me. It would be nice if the books were clearer on this subject.

Yup, that's pretty much how I imagine alignments shaking out IRL, and in fantasy humanity.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Yup, that's pretty much how I imagine alignments shaking out IRL, and in fantasy humanity.

But not everyone. I've definitely met people who assumed that Lawful Good was the "default" alignment and anyone who wasn't actively a muderer/anarchist/etc. and who basically minds their own business was LG.

Also, in some iterations, True Neutral was presented as being more of an active devotion to opposing both good and evil as opposed to relative indifference or nuanced and balanced views (and thus would seem to represent a much smaller niche).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, the objective-subjective contradiction has been the biggest surprise to me. I'd love to be able to chat with the folks who wrote the 2e alignment chapter.

I have to read the entry again, but my interpretation has always been these are objective forces in the setting but individual groups will have their own subjective understanding of them.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Yeah, the objective-subjective contradiction has been the biggest surprise to me. I'd love to be able to chat with the folks who wrote the 2e alignment chapter.

I have to wonder if the "three points of a triangle" bit comes from Tracy Hickman's famous use of it to describe Dragonlance's Good/Evil/Neutrality (or Chaos) bit, which was in turn taken from Jeff Grubb's OD&D campaign pantheon that was divided between good Lawfuls, evil Lawfuls, and a "Chaotic Confederation" that straddled the good/evil divide.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Lawful Evil

• 2e LE characters use laws and society which elevate themselves above others. They obey laws out of fear of punishment, and are stingy with giving out their word because they don't like being forced to honor unfavorable agreements.
• The 3e nickname for LE is the Dominator. LE characters follow rules or personal codes, but without mercy or compassion. Some LE characters have personal taboos, such as not personally killing in cold blood, which they imagine sets them above unprincipled villains. LE is the most dangerous alignment because it’s methodical and often successful evil.

Neutral Evil

• 
  
  [*]2e NE is simple: whatever has to be done to get ahead gets done. Working alone or with others are both acceptable. 2e comments that NE characters are especially susceptible to bribery.
  
  [*]The 3e nickname for NE is the Malefactor. NE characters are out for themselves, pure and simple; they hold no illusions that following laws or codes would make them more noble; but neither do they seek out conflict. NE is the most dangerous alignment because it’s pure evil.
  
  [*]NE is simply ‘Evil’ in 4e, and its motto is “It is my right to claim what others possess.” E characters don’t necessarily go out of their way to hurt others, but are perfectly willing to do so for the sake of expedience or convenience. They use rules and order to maximize personal gain, and enjoy caste structures which put them at the top of the heap at the expense of others.
  
  

Chaotic Evil

• 
  
  [*]CE characters in 2e are motivated by personal gain and pleasure. Laws and governments are the tools of weaklings, who don’t deserve to keep anything they can’t hold. CE characters might band together to oppose a powerful enemy, but such groups are subject to abrupt and frequent changes of leadership.
  
  [*]The 3e nickname for CE is the Destroyer. CE characters are greedy, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. CE characters can be made to work together by force, but the leader lasts only as long as he can avoid assassination. CE is the most dangerous alignment because it destroys beauty, life, and order.
  
  [*]4e’s CE motto is “I don’t care what I have to do to get what I want.” CE characters each believe that him or herself is the only person who matters, and will kill, steal, and betray to gain power. Their word is meaningless, and some have such warped views that anything not directly contributing to his or her goals become targets of destruction.
  
  

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

But not everyone. I've definitely met people who assumed that Lawful Good was the "default" alignment and anyone who wasn't actively a muderer/anarchist/etc. and who basically minds their own business was LG.

Wow, it's amazing how different readers can draw such drastically different implications from the same text...

I have to read the entry again, but my interpretation has always been these are objective forces in the setting but individual groups will have their own subjective understanding of them.

That could be. If so, it could use a much better explanation!

I have to wonder if the "three points of a triangle" bit comes from Tracy Hickman's famous use of it to describe Dragonlance's Good/Evil/Neutrality (or Chaos) bit, which was in turn taken from Jeff Grubb's OD&D campaign pantheon that was divided between good Lawfuls, evil Lawfuls, and a "Chaotic Confederation" that straddled the good/evil divide.

Whoa, never heard of this Jeff Grubb take. Having read the DL Chronicles, it does sound plausible though...

 

[M.L. Martin]

Whoa, never heard of this Jeff Grubb take. Having read the DL Chronicles, it does sound plausible though...

You can find it all here. It's a fascinating glimpse into the origins of DL's mythos.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, the objective-subjective contradiction has been the biggest surprise to me.

As I've mentioned on the other thread, I'm not really able to make sense of it.