Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
With some trepidation, I have been following a little bit of the thread about alignment. And it's gone off the rails a bit ... you can almost say that it's out of, um, alignment. Anyway, since past is prologue, I thought I'd go into a little bit of the history of the alignment system we have in D&D. From the dawn of the prehistory to the codification of the standard, "nine-point" alignment system in 1e.
As usual, if you aren't familiar with some of the acronyms, please check out this prior post:
www.enworld.org
A. The pre-history of D&D.
Not a lot here, really! If anyone wants to correct me, please feel free to. If we assume the "standard creation myth model" (that D&D was born from the amalgamation of Arneson's early Blackmoor Campaign and Gygax's Chainmail), then we can look to see where it existed in the pre-history of D&D.
Guidon Press published Chainmail, predating OD&D, with a Fantasy Supplement. On page 35, you find, under the "General Line Up" the following written:
It is impossible to draw a distinct line between "good " and "eviI" fantastic figures. Three categories are Iisted below as a general guide for the wargamer designing orders of battle involving fantastic creatures:
(list of creatures sorted by LAW, NEUTRAL, and CHAOS)
Underlined Neutral figures have a slight pre-disposition for LAW. Neutral figures can be diced for to determine on which side they will fight, with ties meaning they remain neutral.
(Chainmail, 2d Ed. p. 35)
Arguably, the earliest roots of alignment that we see are simply for picking sides in a fantasy wargame; there is one side (LAW) and another side (CHAOS) with others (the neutrals) available to fight for either side.
From that early framework, there is Arneson. Now, it is my understanding ....
Brief Interjection: Other than specific quotes from books that I am going to lookup, I am going to be writing a lot of this off of memory of stuff I have read in the past. Do not expect everything to be extensively sourced! If you have a correction, please note it in the comments.
In addition, please note that I am simplifying a few things, and that anything involving the early history of D&D, and especially Arneson/Gygax, is subject to controversy and occasional disputes about memories, sources documents, credit, and so on.
...that in Arneson's early campaigns, "Law" were the forces of good that defended Castle Blackmoor, "Chaos" was the forces of evil led by the Egg of Coot, and "neutral" was everyone that could be hired by Law or Chaos.
So the original start was that there weren't really three alignments. There were two opposing forces! Law (good) and Chaos (evil). The players were all lawful or chaotic (as we would call them), and the "DM" (Arneson) would control the others who were neutral (who could be hired, etc., and then fight on either side). It is my understanding that as Arneson's players began to be more interested in the "dungeon" aspect and less in the wargaming aspect, alignment would also be used for other issues, such as magic swords (a sword would have an alignment and could only be wielded by a person of a matching alignment); hardly a surprise given that magic weapons were coded with alignments in Chainmail.
This was later translated into use by Gygax when he adapted and expanded Arneson's notes and campaign into OD&D; note that the basic idea that animated the earliest D&D adventures would be that the adventurers would be Lawful (good) and would venture into dungeons populated by Chaotic (evil) monsters. But from the very beginning with Gygax, and in Chainmail, there was a tension between the overlap of "Law/Good" and "Chaos/Evil."
B. OD&D and the Three-Point Alignment System
You're ready to play D&D when it first comes out. You have your Chainmail Fantasy Supplement, and you crack open Book 1: Men & Magic. On page 9, you find the following entry:
Character Alignment, Including Various Monsters and Creatures: Before the game begins it is not only necessary to select a role, but it is also necessary to determine what stance the character will take — Law, Neutrality, or Chaos. Character types are limited as follows by this alignment (list of monsters and characters).
(Men & Magic, p. 9)
Following that is a list of races and monsters under Law, Neutrality, and Chaos. Men (humans) can be any alignment; Elves and Dwarves can be any non-chaotic alignment, and halflings must be lawful. Interestingly, given our current debates, Orcs can be Chaotic OR Neutral.
And what do these alignments mean? Well, it doesn't say! Arguably, it is less informative than Chainmail was. Later on, in Book 2 we find that magic swords can be coded by alignment. Up to this point, the concept that, in general, lawful is a fancy name for good, and chaotic is a fancy name for evil.
But we get the first inkling of a change in Greyhawk. After adding in alignment restrictions for various classes, such as Paladins and Druid, there is the following note ....
Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player’s part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that — chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederates in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place. While there is no rule to apply to groups of chaotic players operating in concert, referees are urged to formulate some rules against continuing cooperation as fits their particular situation, but consideration for concerted actions against chaotic players by lawful ones should be given.
(Greyhawk pp. 6-7).
This is, as far as I can tell, the first time we truly see this confusion. Chaotic no longer just a stand-in for "evil," but is now serving double duty as a by-word for "chaotic" or "changeable" or even "irrational." Uh oh. Up until Greyhawk, alignment mattered. It told you what "side" you were on. It had effects on hiring henchmen, and encounters, and magic items you could use, and RPing (helms that could change your alignment, and so on), but it was also fairly vague.
But Greyhawk begins the change. You have the start of both "alignment confusion" (does chaotic mean evil, or chaotic, or both) as well as becoming a more serious matter for the character:
Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for that character. If such fighters elect to they can then become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained.
(Greyhawk p. 8).
Woah! This isn't just about picking sides, and maybe magic items, and general roleplaying; now it has serious consequences. And yet ... there still isn't a great definition of what it means, because (if anything) the system just had become even more muddled.
All this said, the concept that there were, basically, two "sides" (good and evil, law and chaos) and you would either choose a side, or remain "neutral" persisted. In Blackmoor, you can see this made explicit - if you attack or kill a sage, you become Chaotic (evil). On the other hand, because assassins assumedly could kill for either side, the OD&D rules have them as a required .... neutral alignment. HA!
C. Views of Mt. Fuji; an interlude as to why there is Chaotic and Lawful alignments
This is going to be a little contentious and should be considered (informed) opinion only. If you believe Gygax, alignment, like all of D&D, sprung forth fully-formed from his head, the Athena from the brow of Zeus, a concept he took from books he had read and incorporated into D&D. This, however, does not seem to square with the alternate view that there were two side (Lawful and Chaotic, with "neutrals" not taking sides) that appeared to exist in Arneson's Blackmoor, pre-dating Gygax. In addition, the term neutral (as in, remaining "neutral" like Switzerland) seems to play much more into the Arneson's concept than it does the muscular and aggressive "keeping the balance" version of neutrality that we later see in Gygax.
One way to square this wheel is to think of it in terms of both evolution, and as a product of its time. Gygax has credited Moorcock and Anderson with some of the concepts behind alignment, but it is somewhat difficult to overstate how prevalent the themes of law and chaos were in science fiction and fantasy at that time. Not just Moorcock and Anderson, but also Zelazny's great Amber series focused on the conflict between law and chaos. To an extent that is incredibly difficult to conceptualize today, the genre fiction of the 50s - 70s was filled with battles between the forces of Law (good, light, order) and Chaos (evil, corruption, darkness). This stark and Manichean view popped up over and over again, whether explicitly named as such (Moorcock, Zelazny, Anderson) or implicit in the work.
Given the general gestalt of the time, it is unsurprising that we would see games reflexively incorporate references to Law and Chaos as opposing forces; that Arneson would use this, and that Gygax would expand upon this, is almost unremarkable. But (and this is the big but) the genesis of "law" and "chaos" is not rooted necessarily in the mundanities of human personalities, but rather in cosmic conflicts. And that translation (is it good v. evil, or orderly v. random) continued to be a problem, until ....
D. Gygax .... no, Holmes, no, really, Gygax. The Brief Bridge to 1e.
Before Dragon Magazine, there was a little TSR publication call The Strategic Review (get it ... wait for it, you'll get it). Anyway, what was obvious to anyone reading OD&D was obvious to the people writing it .... alignment was confusing. Do Evil critters (Chaotic critters) attack each other randomly? Does evil mean irrational? What if you're super orderly but also super evil? Ugh! Words, man, do they have meanings?
So in February 1976, Gary Gygax sought to overexplain these concepts in the way that only he could, in an article called The Meaning of Law and Chaos in Dungeons & Dragons and their Relationship to Good and Evil. Now, the best thing about the article is beginning, where Gygax overexplains how confusing it all is, and blames the early material, yet somehow absolves himself (the person who wrote that material) from any complicity in the problem! Most importantly, he introduces the nine-point system we are all now familiar with, with Law/Chaos opposed, and Good/Evil opposed, and states that these are continuums.
This is also the introduction of the concept that player characters (and the alignments we see on the prime material) are merely pale reflections of the Platonic ideal alignments.
Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated.
(TSR Feb. 1976 p. 5) (italics added).
The whole, three-page article is a fascinating insight into how alignment was meant to be used. Notably, for purposes of the interminable debates that we have here, is the following passage:
As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil.
(TSR Feb. 1976 p. 5).
Anyway, this nine-point system was officially introduced in Basic..... wait, what? Holmes Basic, not, um, Basic Basic D&D (you did read the linked-to article, right?). Holmes, codifying OD&D and paving the way for AD&D, used the expanded alignment system.
Notably, however, it was more of a five-point system. Here, let's read it together:
Characters may be lawful (good or evil), neutral or chaotic (good or evil). ...
Lawful good, lawful evil, chaotic good, chaotic evil, and neutrality also have common languages spoken by each respectively.
(Holmes pp 8-9).
Wait, what? Okay, so in that earlier article in The Strategic Review, Gygax calls out that you are either going to tend to evil, or good (unless you're "true neutral") and that almost no one who is, for example, chaotic would not also have a predisposition toward either good or evil (with the possible exception of Crom!). So ... in expanding OD&D, Holmes also simplified the alignment system that Gygax originally proposed.
E. AD&D Puts the Smack Down on Alignment
In 1978, the skies parted, and the light shined down, and upon us was delivered the Player's Handbook. And we viewed the contents, and we said, "Grease is the word." Eh, right year, wrong thing.
The PHB explicitly referenced that alignment was how you roleplayed your character, and that it was you philosophical and moral ethics. (PHB 7). It referred to alignment (as we know it) as one of the FOUR main attributes to define a character (abilities, race, class, alignment). (PHB 8). It had restrictions on everything from class to poison use based on alignment. It had "alignment languages." It codified the nine alignments that we know of today. Here's a sample of two descriptions to give you the feel:
Lawful Neutral: Those of this alignment view regulation as all-important, taking a middle road betwixt evil and good. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world - and the whole of the universe - is considered by lawful neutral creatures to have its sole hope rest upon law and order. Evil or good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation.
Neutral Good: Unlike those directly opposite them (neutral evil) in alignment, creatures of neutral good believe that there must be some regulation in combination with freedoms if the best is to be brought to the world - the most beneficial conditions for living things in general and intelligent creatures in particular.
Notably, there are additional (and different!) descriptions of the the alignments in the DMG published later. Importantly, while people at the time often fixated on the "fall" of the proverbial Lawful Stupid Paladin, any character who changed alignment lost a level. (DMG 25). BOOM! That's right. Between this and the training bonuses/penalties for roleplaying your alignment (DMG 86), alignment had massive mechanical functions throughout the game, in addition to the uses and restrictions for spells and magic items.
In effect, Gygax did what Gygax often did; created rules and a superstructure around another part of the game; alignment (and the associated mechanics, from penalties and training to restrictions and magic items) was a codification around roleplaying; in much the same way that "combat" had rules associated with it to provide it structure, alignment was a mechanism that was used to provide some roleplaying structure.
Interestingly, alignment (and more specifically, the nine-point system) was also the basis of the D&D cosmology. The early, Strategic Review article with the concept of Platonic ideals is echoed in the PHB, which has the oft-forgotten Appendix III (Character Alignment Graph) followed immediately by Appendix IV- the Known Planes of Existence.
For more on that-
www.enworld.org
F. Moldvay did what?
So after OD&D with the three-point system evolved in "Basic OD&D" with the five-point system evolved into AD&D with the nine-point system we know and love, we can keep on chugging (with a brief 4e detour), right?
Not exactly. See, there's this whole 'nother branch of D&D that persisted for a little while. The B/X or BECMI or R/C line, or, as we often just call it, BASIC (as in, "YER BASIC, MOLDVAY!"). Anyway, Moldvay went back ... to the future ... and re-introduced the three-point system of Law / Chaos / Neutrality.
I don't want to go to deep down that rabbit hole, other than noting that Moldvay's page on alignment (B11) is excellent, with a great and memorable illustration.
And that he provides great advice, as usual, at the end:
Note that playing an alignment does not mean a character must do stupid things. A character should always act as intelligently as the Intelligence score shows, unless there is a reason to act otherwise (such as a magical curse).
(Moldvay B11).
But the point of this is just a reminder that while the nine-point system is the longest-lived system in D&D (from either 1976 or 1978 until the present), the three-point system has also been around for a very long time, and also tends to pop up in retroclones.
G. All we do crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see
What do I take out of all of this? What does it all mean, Basil? What does the history of alignment have to do with current issues regarding alignment, let alone the price of oolong at Whole Foods? I tend to be a big fan of the idea that you can't know where you are going unless you know where you've been. There are many parts of D&D that are quintessentially D&D, but also might not exist but for the fact that they are D&D.
Everyone has their own issues; for example, the six abilities (SIWDCCCh, or SDCIWC) are the way they are, because they are that way. Same with the majority of core races. Heck, the entire "class" system is a legacy. And hit points. And so on. D&D is what it is; and quite a bit of D&D, including vast swathes of what many people consider "D&D cosmology" are tied into the nine-point alignment system.
Like many things within the game, the origin of the system, and the accretion of details, means that parts of it will always remain an artifact of its time; a legacy. The idea of great battles between the forces of "law" and "chaos" does not seem as intuitive today as it did in the 70s and 80s, as the fluency with writers like Anderson, Moorcock, and Zelazny has decreased. For that matter, a comment that would seem as unobjectionable at the time as Gygax's in 1976 that humans tend toward law will probably generate a great deal of heat (if little light) today.
I would postulate that these origins are what give alignment a continuing strength today. Not just for the memes (although there are some awesome ones), but for the ways in which it provides a clean line from the past to the future. Perhaps alignment has outlived its usefulness completely, and maybe the cosmology of D&D was never meant to last forever; I, for one, will be pouring out a cold one the night that alignment slips away, never to be argued over again.
Anyway, opening this up to the constructive conversation I am sure will ensue!
EDITING NOTES:
1. Section A edited to to reflect comment of @Hriston re: Chainmail.
As usual, if you aren't familiar with some of the acronyms, please check out this prior post:
D&D General - A Brief Glossary of Acronyms and D&D Terms
So on another thread, some people asked "What is B/X?" And "What is OSE?" Other than the joke-y answers, which are great, I thought I'd post a quick reference for those people who see the terms bandied about but where confused as to what all the various acronyms mean. This is not meant to be...
www.enworld.org
A. The pre-history of D&D.
Not a lot here, really! If anyone wants to correct me, please feel free to. If we assume the "standard creation myth model" (that D&D was born from the amalgamation of Arneson's early Blackmoor Campaign and Gygax's Chainmail), then we can look to see where it existed in the pre-history of D&D.
Guidon Press published Chainmail, predating OD&D, with a Fantasy Supplement. On page 35, you find, under the "General Line Up" the following written:
It is impossible to draw a distinct line between "good " and "eviI" fantastic figures. Three categories are Iisted below as a general guide for the wargamer designing orders of battle involving fantastic creatures:
(list of creatures sorted by LAW, NEUTRAL, and CHAOS)
Underlined Neutral figures have a slight pre-disposition for LAW. Neutral figures can be diced for to determine on which side they will fight, with ties meaning they remain neutral.
(Chainmail, 2d Ed. p. 35)
Arguably, the earliest roots of alignment that we see are simply for picking sides in a fantasy wargame; there is one side (LAW) and another side (CHAOS) with others (the neutrals) available to fight for either side.
From that early framework, there is Arneson. Now, it is my understanding ....
Brief Interjection: Other than specific quotes from books that I am going to lookup, I am going to be writing a lot of this off of memory of stuff I have read in the past. Do not expect everything to be extensively sourced! If you have a correction, please note it in the comments.
In addition, please note that I am simplifying a few things, and that anything involving the early history of D&D, and especially Arneson/Gygax, is subject to controversy and occasional disputes about memories, sources documents, credit, and so on....that in Arneson's early campaigns, "Law" were the forces of good that defended Castle Blackmoor, "Chaos" was the forces of evil led by the Egg of Coot, and "neutral" was everyone that could be hired by Law or Chaos.
So the original start was that there weren't really three alignments. There were two opposing forces! Law (good) and Chaos (evil). The players were all lawful or chaotic (as we would call them), and the "DM" (Arneson) would control the others who were neutral (who could be hired, etc., and then fight on either side). It is my understanding that as Arneson's players began to be more interested in the "dungeon" aspect and less in the wargaming aspect, alignment would also be used for other issues, such as magic swords (a sword would have an alignment and could only be wielded by a person of a matching alignment); hardly a surprise given that magic weapons were coded with alignments in Chainmail.
This was later translated into use by Gygax when he adapted and expanded Arneson's notes and campaign into OD&D; note that the basic idea that animated the earliest D&D adventures would be that the adventurers would be Lawful (good) and would venture into dungeons populated by Chaotic (evil) monsters. But from the very beginning with Gygax, and in Chainmail, there was a tension between the overlap of "Law/Good" and "Chaos/Evil."
B. OD&D and the Three-Point Alignment System
You're ready to play D&D when it first comes out. You have your Chainmail Fantasy Supplement, and you crack open Book 1: Men & Magic. On page 9, you find the following entry:
Character Alignment, Including Various Monsters and Creatures: Before the game begins it is not only necessary to select a role, but it is also necessary to determine what stance the character will take — Law, Neutrality, or Chaos. Character types are limited as follows by this alignment (list of monsters and characters).
(Men & Magic, p. 9)
Following that is a list of races and monsters under Law, Neutrality, and Chaos. Men (humans) can be any alignment; Elves and Dwarves can be any non-chaotic alignment, and halflings must be lawful. Interestingly, given our current debates, Orcs can be Chaotic OR Neutral.
And what do these alignments mean? Well, it doesn't say! Arguably, it is less informative than Chainmail was. Later on, in Book 2 we find that magic swords can be coded by alignment. Up to this point, the concept that, in general, lawful is a fancy name for good, and chaotic is a fancy name for evil.
But we get the first inkling of a change in Greyhawk. After adding in alignment restrictions for various classes, such as Paladins and Druid, there is the following note ....
Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player’s part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that — chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederates in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place. While there is no rule to apply to groups of chaotic players operating in concert, referees are urged to formulate some rules against continuing cooperation as fits their particular situation, but consideration for concerted actions against chaotic players by lawful ones should be given.
(Greyhawk pp. 6-7).
This is, as far as I can tell, the first time we truly see this confusion. Chaotic no longer just a stand-in for "evil," but is now serving double duty as a by-word for "chaotic" or "changeable" or even "irrational." Uh oh. Up until Greyhawk, alignment mattered. It told you what "side" you were on. It had effects on hiring henchmen, and encounters, and magic items you could use, and RPing (helms that could change your alignment, and so on), but it was also fairly vague.
But Greyhawk begins the change. You have the start of both "alignment confusion" (does chaotic mean evil, or chaotic, or both) as well as becoming a more serious matter for the character:
Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for that character. If such fighters elect to they can then become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained.
(Greyhawk p. 8).
Woah! This isn't just about picking sides, and maybe magic items, and general roleplaying; now it has serious consequences. And yet ... there still isn't a great definition of what it means, because (if anything) the system just had become even more muddled.
All this said, the concept that there were, basically, two "sides" (good and evil, law and chaos) and you would either choose a side, or remain "neutral" persisted. In Blackmoor, you can see this made explicit - if you attack or kill a sage, you become Chaotic (evil). On the other hand, because assassins assumedly could kill for either side, the OD&D rules have them as a required .... neutral alignment. HA!
C. Views of Mt. Fuji; an interlude as to why there is Chaotic and Lawful alignments
This is going to be a little contentious and should be considered (informed) opinion only. If you believe Gygax, alignment, like all of D&D, sprung forth fully-formed from his head, the Athena from the brow of Zeus, a concept he took from books he had read and incorporated into D&D. This, however, does not seem to square with the alternate view that there were two side (Lawful and Chaotic, with "neutrals" not taking sides) that appeared to exist in Arneson's Blackmoor, pre-dating Gygax. In addition, the term neutral (as in, remaining "neutral" like Switzerland) seems to play much more into the Arneson's concept than it does the muscular and aggressive "keeping the balance" version of neutrality that we later see in Gygax.
One way to square this wheel is to think of it in terms of both evolution, and as a product of its time. Gygax has credited Moorcock and Anderson with some of the concepts behind alignment, but it is somewhat difficult to overstate how prevalent the themes of law and chaos were in science fiction and fantasy at that time. Not just Moorcock and Anderson, but also Zelazny's great Amber series focused on the conflict between law and chaos. To an extent that is incredibly difficult to conceptualize today, the genre fiction of the 50s - 70s was filled with battles between the forces of Law (good, light, order) and Chaos (evil, corruption, darkness). This stark and Manichean view popped up over and over again, whether explicitly named as such (Moorcock, Zelazny, Anderson) or implicit in the work.
Given the general gestalt of the time, it is unsurprising that we would see games reflexively incorporate references to Law and Chaos as opposing forces; that Arneson would use this, and that Gygax would expand upon this, is almost unremarkable. But (and this is the big but) the genesis of "law" and "chaos" is not rooted necessarily in the mundanities of human personalities, but rather in cosmic conflicts. And that translation (is it good v. evil, or orderly v. random) continued to be a problem, until ....
D. Gygax .... no, Holmes, no, really, Gygax. The Brief Bridge to 1e.
Before Dragon Magazine, there was a little TSR publication call The Strategic Review (get it ... wait for it, you'll get it). Anyway, what was obvious to anyone reading OD&D was obvious to the people writing it .... alignment was confusing. Do Evil critters (Chaotic critters) attack each other randomly? Does evil mean irrational? What if you're super orderly but also super evil? Ugh! Words, man, do they have meanings?
So in February 1976, Gary Gygax sought to overexplain these concepts in the way that only he could, in an article called The Meaning of Law and Chaos in Dungeons & Dragons and their Relationship to Good and Evil. Now, the best thing about the article is beginning, where Gygax overexplains how confusing it all is, and blames the early material, yet somehow absolves himself (the person who wrote that material) from any complicity in the problem! Most importantly, he introduces the nine-point system we are all now familiar with, with Law/Chaos opposed, and Good/Evil opposed, and states that these are continuums.
This is also the introduction of the concept that player characters (and the alignments we see on the prime material) are merely pale reflections of the Platonic ideal alignments.
Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated.
(TSR Feb. 1976 p. 5) (italics added).
The whole, three-page article is a fascinating insight into how alignment was meant to be used. Notably, for purposes of the interminable debates that we have here, is the following passage:
As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil.
(TSR Feb. 1976 p. 5).
Anyway, this nine-point system was officially introduced in Basic..... wait, what? Holmes Basic, not, um, Basic Basic D&D (you did read the linked-to article, right?). Holmes, codifying OD&D and paving the way for AD&D, used the expanded alignment system.
Notably, however, it was more of a five-point system. Here, let's read it together:
Characters may be lawful (good or evil), neutral or chaotic (good or evil). ...
Lawful good, lawful evil, chaotic good, chaotic evil, and neutrality also have common languages spoken by each respectively.
(Holmes pp 8-9).
Wait, what? Okay, so in that earlier article in The Strategic Review, Gygax calls out that you are either going to tend to evil, or good (unless you're "true neutral") and that almost no one who is, for example, chaotic would not also have a predisposition toward either good or evil (with the possible exception of Crom!). So ... in expanding OD&D, Holmes also simplified the alignment system that Gygax originally proposed.
E. AD&D Puts the Smack Down on Alignment
In 1978, the skies parted, and the light shined down, and upon us was delivered the Player's Handbook. And we viewed the contents, and we said, "Grease is the word." Eh, right year, wrong thing.
The PHB explicitly referenced that alignment was how you roleplayed your character, and that it was you philosophical and moral ethics. (PHB 7). It referred to alignment (as we know it) as one of the FOUR main attributes to define a character (abilities, race, class, alignment). (PHB 8). It had restrictions on everything from class to poison use based on alignment. It had "alignment languages." It codified the nine alignments that we know of today. Here's a sample of two descriptions to give you the feel:
Lawful Neutral: Those of this alignment view regulation as all-important, taking a middle road betwixt evil and good. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world - and the whole of the universe - is considered by lawful neutral creatures to have its sole hope rest upon law and order. Evil or good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation.
Neutral Good: Unlike those directly opposite them (neutral evil) in alignment, creatures of neutral good believe that there must be some regulation in combination with freedoms if the best is to be brought to the world - the most beneficial conditions for living things in general and intelligent creatures in particular.
Notably, there are additional (and different!) descriptions of the the alignments in the DMG published later. Importantly, while people at the time often fixated on the "fall" of the proverbial Lawful Stupid Paladin, any character who changed alignment lost a level. (DMG 25). BOOM! That's right. Between this and the training bonuses/penalties for roleplaying your alignment (DMG 86), alignment had massive mechanical functions throughout the game, in addition to the uses and restrictions for spells and magic items.
In effect, Gygax did what Gygax often did; created rules and a superstructure around another part of the game; alignment (and the associated mechanics, from penalties and training to restrictions and magic items) was a codification around roleplaying; in much the same way that "combat" had rules associated with it to provide it structure, alignment was a mechanism that was used to provide some roleplaying structure.
Interestingly, alignment (and more specifically, the nine-point system) was also the basis of the D&D cosmology. The early, Strategic Review article with the concept of Platonic ideals is echoed in the PHB, which has the oft-forgotten Appendix III (Character Alignment Graph) followed immediately by Appendix IV- the Known Planes of Existence.
For more on that-
D&D General - The Brilliance of the Original Gygaxian Multiverse
Good artists borrow, great artists steal. I was looking at the following conversations in these two threads about the multiverse in D&D, and how that certain Card Game's setting can be incorporated into the D&D multiverse, and, for that matter, how the multiple D&D settings that we are seeing...
www.enworld.org
F. Moldvay did what?
So after OD&D with the three-point system evolved in "Basic OD&D" with the five-point system evolved into AD&D with the nine-point system we know and love, we can keep on chugging (with a brief 4e detour), right?
Not exactly. See, there's this whole 'nother branch of D&D that persisted for a little while. The B/X or BECMI or R/C line, or, as we often just call it, BASIC (as in, "YER BASIC, MOLDVAY!"). Anyway, Moldvay went back ... to the future ... and re-introduced the three-point system of Law / Chaos / Neutrality.
I don't want to go to deep down that rabbit hole, other than noting that Moldvay's page on alignment (B11) is excellent, with a great and memorable illustration.
And that he provides great advice, as usual, at the end:
Note that playing an alignment does not mean a character must do stupid things. A character should always act as intelligently as the Intelligence score shows, unless there is a reason to act otherwise (such as a magical curse).
(Moldvay B11).
But the point of this is just a reminder that while the nine-point system is the longest-lived system in D&D (from either 1976 or 1978 until the present), the three-point system has also been around for a very long time, and also tends to pop up in retroclones.
G. All we do crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see
What do I take out of all of this? What does it all mean, Basil? What does the history of alignment have to do with current issues regarding alignment, let alone the price of oolong at Whole Foods? I tend to be a big fan of the idea that you can't know where you are going unless you know where you've been. There are many parts of D&D that are quintessentially D&D, but also might not exist but for the fact that they are D&D.
Everyone has their own issues; for example, the six abilities (SIWDCCCh, or SDCIWC) are the way they are, because they are that way. Same with the majority of core races. Heck, the entire "class" system is a legacy. And hit points. And so on. D&D is what it is; and quite a bit of D&D, including vast swathes of what many people consider "D&D cosmology" are tied into the nine-point alignment system.
Like many things within the game, the origin of the system, and the accretion of details, means that parts of it will always remain an artifact of its time; a legacy. The idea of great battles between the forces of "law" and "chaos" does not seem as intuitive today as it did in the 70s and 80s, as the fluency with writers like Anderson, Moorcock, and Zelazny has decreased. For that matter, a comment that would seem as unobjectionable at the time as Gygax's in 1976 that humans tend toward law will probably generate a great deal of heat (if little light) today.
I would postulate that these origins are what give alignment a continuing strength today. Not just for the memes (although there are some awesome ones), but for the ways in which it provides a clean line from the past to the future. Perhaps alignment has outlived its usefulness completely, and maybe the cosmology of D&D was never meant to last forever; I, for one, will be pouring out a cold one the night that alignment slips away, never to be argued over again.
Anyway, opening this up to the constructive conversation I am sure will ensue!
EDITING NOTES:
1. Section A edited to to reflect comment of @Hriston re: Chainmail.
Last edited:
