Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6620069" data-attributes="member: 42582">Whereas my take is that he made social order vs self-realisation the focus of conflict. I've got <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?451419-quot-Narrativist-quot-9-point-alignment" target="_blank">an active thread</a> talking about how I see this working.On this approach, other questions, like what exactly is the best theory of human wellbeing, are put to one side. And the fact that some people are hard to categorise as good or evil, or that most people end up in (say) the LE or LG camps, is not a problem. Because on this approach the goal of the alignment system wouldn't be to categorise the range of human moral outlooks and practices, but to make one particular conflict, which has some resonance in fantasy literature (especially REH's Conan, I think), come to the fore.I agree there are issues with the way TN is used. In single-axis Law vs Chaos, Neutral is exactly what it's name suggests: neutrality as between the cosmic struggle. But in 9-point alignment it becomes something else. In his DMG, Gygax says of TN that "This alignment is the narrowest in scope." Which makes sense when you think of TN as being the stoic/naturalist view that human interference in the world is a source of problems, and the the world should simply be allowed to take its course; but doesn't make sense if TN is meant to be a catch-all for the uncommitted.Interestingly, in the Strategic Review article I mentioned upthread, Gygax says that "Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral - although slightly predisposed towards evil actions." That looks more like its in line with your 3E approach than the "official" AD&D approach. On the "official" approach, the reason that they are TN is because of their belief in the wheel of nature, and their commitment to keeping it in harmony.As for the "live and let live" types that the Complete Book of Thieves says should be TN (I don't know that book myself, but am guessing from your account that that is what they are talking about), I think in AD&D alignment those people can go two or three main ways.If they are "live and let live" but within received systems of social power, they probably end up as weakly LE (as per my example above). This is the sort of casual disregard for the wellbeing of others on which devils thrive!If they are "live and let live" in the sense of asserting their own personal freedom and letting others do likewise (and so, for instance, turning a blind eye to law-breaking that doesn't affect them personally) they look CN (much like Conan as portrayed in stories like The Tower of the Elephant, though not so much in the stories where he is king). I think that CN actually has much more scope to do useful work than the very strange 2nd ed AD&D definition.The third option is as the CN option, but weakly CG, if they also sometimes make an effort not just to leave people alone but to help them out.Thanks!</blockquote>

Verification