What, it's Wednesday again??!!! Wait, it's not Wednesday.... it's THURSDAY? Wow, time flies when you're out of pocket. I mean, I haven't even had the chance to catch up on the 500 posts that I generated in the nuTSR thread about the etymology and usage of "out of pocket"!
But anyway, as @Bedrockgames reminded me, it's time to smell what the Snarf is cooking! Yes, it's time for another trip down memory lane, back to those halcyon days before I started telling people in every post that they should just go and read, um, That Book already. Anyway, today's special presentation of Mastersnarf Theater is about the history and birth of the alignment system, detailing how it came about and settled into the nine-point alignment system that we all love today and that causes no arguments whatsoever.
I hope you enjoy it. Also, someone said recently that my essays were getting almost readably short. HA HA! Suck it, short-attention-span fans! You should know better than to taunt the Snarf. For your sins, not only will you get this, but a new essay modeled on The Power Broker, but with more thrilling details about funding roads.
***
There's nothing like a good ol' debate about alignment in D&D. Because the one thing you can predict, with 100% certainty, is that the thread will go off the rails ... you can almost say that the thread is out of, um, alignment. That's right, you walked right into that one! Hey, do you know why they have fences around cemeteries? Because everyone is dying to get in!
Thank you! Thank you! Next week, catch me in the Poconos!
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 used in 1e that has been with us (mostly, with some detours) ever since.
If you aren't familiar with some of the acronyms used, please check out this prior post that helps you understand the difference between OD&D and 1e:
www.enworld.org
Brief Interjection: Other than specific quotes from books that I am going to look up and refer to and have completely italicized, a lot of this essay is written from the memory of the sources 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.
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 see where alignment existed in the pre-history of D&D.
Guidon Press published Chainmail, predating OD&D, with a Fantasy Supplement. On page 35 you can 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 usage of alignment that we see is simply a way 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. It's kind of like kickball.
From that early framework, there is Arneson. Now, it is my understanding that in Arneson's early campaigns, "Law" were the forces of good that defended Castle Blackmoor, "Chaos" were the forces of evil led by the Egg of Coot, and "neutral" was everyone that could be hired by either Law or Chaos.
Which means that originally, 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 referee (later called "DM" and still later "GM"), Arneson, would control 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 also coded with alignments in Chainmail.
This rudimentary concept of alignment (which flowed from Gygax to Arneson) was later translated back into use by Gygax when he adapted and expanded Arneson's notes and campaign into the LBBs that started 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" which were often thought of as synonyms, but weren't exactly synonyms.
B. OD&D and the Three-Point Alignment System.
So it's 1974 and you are ready to play D&D when it first comes out. You have your Chainmail Fantasy Supplement for combat (HA!), 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 how often this SPECIFIC issue pops up as a debate, Orcs can be Chaotic OR Neutral.
And you think to yourself .... cool cool! But what do these alignments mean? Well, the book doesn't say! Arguably, Book 1 of the LBBs is less informative than Chainmail was. It told you that you had to select an alignment, but not what "law" or "chaos" meant. 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, wasn't clear at all if you're just going strictly by the text ... although it could be easily inferred by the list of monsters that was in each group.
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).
Before getting to why this is important, let's all just marvel at the verbiage. BETOKENS? Seriously, how often have you seen "betokens" in the same sentence as "buddy?" But why is this important?
This passage is, as far as I can tell, the first time we truly see the confusion between the concepts of good and evil, as opposed to law and chaos. Chaotic is 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 the 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 very 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 alignment has serious consequences. And yet ... there still isn't a great definition of what any of it means, because, if anything, the introduction of serious consequences for alignment was introduced at the same time that the concept of alignment became muddled. You're playing a Paladin ... so you can't commit chaotic acts. But did that mean evil acts, or "changeable" acts?
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 between those sides, 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. That's right ... OD&D assassins are neutral. How neutral? MUSCULARLY NEUTRAL!
C. An Interlude: Why? Good and Evil are RIGHT THERE! Why Chaotic and Lawful?
This is going to be a little contentious and should be considered my (informed) opinion only. If you believe Gygax, alignment, like all of D&D, sprung forth fully-formed from his head, akin to 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 Gygax employ.
*
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 implicitly 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; and that it would be used without any comment or thought by Gygax and Arneson. But (and to quote Sir Mix-A-Low, 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 (Moorcock, Zelazny). And the issue with translating that concept from wargaming sides to individual personality and from cosmic conflicts to mundane activities continued to be a problem, until it was "solved" by complicating it even more!
D. Nine? Five? It's Just Numbers, Man! The Brief Bridge from OD&D 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, like your Aunt who has a schedule and notification system set for insulting you? Ugh! Words, man, do they have meanings?
So in February of 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 the 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)
The entire 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 explaining terms, right?). Holmes, codifying OD&D and paving the way for AD&D, used the expanded alignment system! Yay! Except ... he didn't. Not exactly. As Dolly Parton famously never said. Holmes worked it from Nine alignments to Five alignments. 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.
Addition h/t @Hriston - Weirdly, the very first book for 1e, the Monster Manual, continued to use the Holmes "five point" alignment system. So for a brief period of time, D&D was firmly in the five-point alignment camp.
We went from two sides to three alignments to nine alignments to ... five alignments. Okay, so how did we get back to nine?
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 the character's philosophical and moral ethics. (PHB 7). It referred to alignment 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- he created rules and a superstructure around yet another part of the game; alignment (and the associated mechanics, from penalties and training to restrictions and magic items) was a codification of rules 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 for alignment 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-
F. Moldvay did what?
So after OD&D with the three-point system evolved in "Holmes Basic" 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 with a brief detour in 4e), 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 about different things in D&D; 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. You might want to ignore what professional athletes say, but we can certainly adopt one of their phrases when asking about the "why" for D&D-
D&D is what it is.
Why is alignment the way it is? Because ... it is what it is. Moreover, 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 or disappeared completely. 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 mean ... do humans tend toward law? I'm not even sure that lawyers tend towards law! Although that might not be a great example, given that I am not sure that lawyers are human.
But as silly as might seem, I would postulate that the origins of alignment are why we still have it 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!
ETA 12/6/24. A comment by @Hriston clued me in to the fact that the 1e Monster Manual used the five-point system! Thank you to Hriston. Slight edit to post made to reflect same.
But anyway, as @Bedrockgames reminded me, it's time to smell what the Snarf is cooking! Yes, it's time for another trip down memory lane, back to those halcyon days before I started telling people in every post that they should just go and read, um, That Book already. Anyway, today's special presentation of Mastersnarf Theater is about the history and birth of the alignment system, detailing how it came about and settled into the nine-point alignment system that we all love today and that causes no arguments whatsoever.
I hope you enjoy it. Also, someone said recently that my essays were getting almost readably short. HA HA! Suck it, short-attention-span fans! You should know better than to taunt the Snarf. For your sins, not only will you get this, but a new essay modeled on The Power Broker, but with more thrilling details about funding roads.
***
There's nothing like a good ol' debate about alignment in D&D. Because the one thing you can predict, with 100% certainty, is that the thread will go off the rails ... you can almost say that the thread is out of, um, alignment. That's right, you walked right into that one! Hey, do you know why they have fences around cemeteries? Because everyone is dying to get in!
Thank you! Thank you! Next week, catch me in the Poconos!
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 used in 1e that has been with us (mostly, with some detours) ever since.
If you aren't familiar with some of the acronyms used, please check out this prior post that helps you understand the difference between OD&D and 1e:
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
Brief Interjection: Other than specific quotes from books that I am going to look up and refer to and have completely italicized, a lot of this essay is written from the memory of the sources 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.
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 see where alignment existed in the pre-history of D&D.
Guidon Press published Chainmail, predating OD&D, with a Fantasy Supplement. On page 35 you can 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 usage of alignment that we see is simply a way 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. It's kind of like kickball.
From that early framework, there is Arneson. Now, it is my understanding that in Arneson's early campaigns, "Law" were the forces of good that defended Castle Blackmoor, "Chaos" were the forces of evil led by the Egg of Coot, and "neutral" was everyone that could be hired by either Law or Chaos.
Which means that originally, 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 referee (later called "DM" and still later "GM"), Arneson, would control 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 also coded with alignments in Chainmail.
This rudimentary concept of alignment (which flowed from Gygax to Arneson) was later translated back into use by Gygax when he adapted and expanded Arneson's notes and campaign into the LBBs that started 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" which were often thought of as synonyms, but weren't exactly synonyms.
B. OD&D and the Three-Point Alignment System.
So it's 1974 and you are ready to play D&D when it first comes out. You have your Chainmail Fantasy Supplement for combat (HA!), 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 how often this SPECIFIC issue pops up as a debate, Orcs can be Chaotic OR Neutral.
And you think to yourself .... cool cool! But what do these alignments mean? Well, the book doesn't say! Arguably, Book 1 of the LBBs is less informative than Chainmail was. It told you that you had to select an alignment, but not what "law" or "chaos" meant. 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, wasn't clear at all if you're just going strictly by the text ... although it could be easily inferred by the list of monsters that was in each group.
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).
Before getting to why this is important, let's all just marvel at the verbiage. BETOKENS? Seriously, how often have you seen "betokens" in the same sentence as "buddy?" But why is this important?
This passage is, as far as I can tell, the first time we truly see the confusion between the concepts of good and evil, as opposed to law and chaos. Chaotic is 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 the 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 very 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 alignment has serious consequences. And yet ... there still isn't a great definition of what any of it means, because, if anything, the introduction of serious consequences for alignment was introduced at the same time that the concept of alignment became muddled. You're playing a Paladin ... so you can't commit chaotic acts. But did that mean evil acts, or "changeable" acts?
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 between those sides, 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. That's right ... OD&D assassins are neutral. How neutral? MUSCULARLY NEUTRAL!
C. An Interlude: Why? Good and Evil are RIGHT THERE! Why Chaotic and Lawful?
This is going to be a little contentious and should be considered my (informed) opinion only. If you believe Gygax, alignment, like all of D&D, sprung forth fully-formed from his head, akin to 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 Gygax employ.
*
While Arneson did appear to borrow some of the alignment concept from Chainmail, which is from Gygax, I am slightly hesitant on this for two reasons. First, Arneson's use, especially as the game became more Dungeon-centric, evolved. Second, there is a lingering issue regarding Chainmail borrowing from Leonard Patt, and alignment was simply a way of demarcating forces since Chainmail was explicitly (just implicitly) Tolkien.
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 implicitly 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; and that it would be used without any comment or thought by Gygax and Arneson. But (and to quote Sir Mix-A-Low, 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 (Moorcock, Zelazny). And the issue with translating that concept from wargaming sides to individual personality and from cosmic conflicts to mundane activities continued to be a problem, until it was "solved" by complicating it even more!
D. Nine? Five? It's Just Numbers, Man! The Brief Bridge from OD&D 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, like your Aunt who has a schedule and notification system set for insulting you? Ugh! Words, man, do they have meanings?
So in February of 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 the 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)
The entire 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 explaining terms, right?). Holmes, codifying OD&D and paving the way for AD&D, used the expanded alignment system! Yay! Except ... he didn't. Not exactly. As Dolly Parton famously never said. Holmes worked it from Nine alignments to Five alignments. 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.
Addition h/t @Hriston - Weirdly, the very first book for 1e, the Monster Manual, continued to use the Holmes "five point" alignment system. So for a brief period of time, D&D was firmly in the five-point alignment camp.
We went from two sides to three alignments to nine alignments to ... five alignments. Okay, so how did we get back to nine?
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 the character's philosophical and moral ethics. (PHB 7). It referred to alignment 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- he created rules and a superstructure around yet another part of the game; alignment (and the associated mechanics, from penalties and training to restrictions and magic items) was a codification of rules 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 for alignment 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-
The Seven Heavens of absolute lawful good.
The Twin Paradises of neutral good lawfuls.
The planes of Elysium of neutral good.
The Happy Hunting Grounds of neutral good chaotics.
The planes of Olympus of absolute good chaotics.
The planes of Gladsheim (Asgard, Valhalla, Vanaheim, etc.) of chaotic good neutrals.
The planes of Limbo of neutral (absolute) chaos (entropy).
The Planes of Pandemonium of chaotic evil neutrals.
The 666 layers of the Abyss of absolute chaotic evil.
The planes of Tarterus of evil chaotic neutrals.
Hades "Three Glooms" of absolute (neutral) evil.
The furnaces of Gehenna of lawful evil neutrals.
The Nine Hells of absolute lawful evil.
The nether planes of Acheron of lawful evil neutrals.
Nirvana of absolute (neutral) lawfuls.
The planes of Arcadia of neutral good lawfuls.
The Twin Paradises of neutral good lawfuls.
The planes of Elysium of neutral good.
The Happy Hunting Grounds of neutral good chaotics.
The planes of Olympus of absolute good chaotics.
The planes of Gladsheim (Asgard, Valhalla, Vanaheim, etc.) of chaotic good neutrals.
The planes of Limbo of neutral (absolute) chaos (entropy).
The Planes of Pandemonium of chaotic evil neutrals.
The 666 layers of the Abyss of absolute chaotic evil.
The planes of Tarterus of evil chaotic neutrals.
Hades "Three Glooms" of absolute (neutral) evil.
The furnaces of Gehenna of lawful evil neutrals.
The Nine Hells of absolute lawful evil.
The nether planes of Acheron of lawful evil neutrals.
Nirvana of absolute (neutral) lawfuls.
The planes of Arcadia of neutral good lawfuls.
F. Moldvay did what?
So after OD&D with the three-point system evolved in "Holmes Basic" 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 with a brief detour in 4e), 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 about different things in D&D; 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. You might want to ignore what professional athletes say, but we can certainly adopt one of their phrases when asking about the "why" for D&D-
D&D is what it is.
Why is alignment the way it is? Because ... it is what it is. Moreover, 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 or disappeared completely. 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 mean ... do humans tend toward law? I'm not even sure that lawyers tend towards law! Although that might not be a great example, given that I am not sure that lawyers are human.
But as silly as might seem, I would postulate that the origins of alignment are why we still have it 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!
ETA 12/6/24. A comment by @Hriston clued me in to the fact that the 1e Monster Manual used the five-point system! Thank you to Hriston. Slight edit to post made to reflect same.
Last edited:
