D&D General The History of Alignment: Why D&D Has the Nine-Point Alignment System 4 UR Memes

[Snarf Zagyg]

I will be doing requests until closing today, please tip your server generously.

As Mama Snarf used to always tell me, "When they are bein' generous, you get more than just the tip. Now hush your whinin' 'bout that colony of racoons that live in your room and git yer Mama a jug o' moonshine and some video head cleaner."

 

[TwoSix]

As Mama Snarf used to always tell me, "When they are bein' generous, you get more than just the tip. Now hush your whinin' 'bout that colony of racoons that live in your room and git yer Mama a jug o' moonshine and some video head cleaner."

I mean, if the tip is more than 25%, the meal probably wasn't worth it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Alignment is another example of how the MM, despite the cover saying AD&D on it, was to a substantial degree written and designed for OD&D. Which only makes sense. There was a pre-existing OD&D audience to sell it to, who went bananas for such a nicely-organized (by comparison with OD&D's scattered and shorter write-ups) and comprehensive monster book.

This is also why when you compare MM statblocks to FF and MM2, and those from AD&D modules, the MM creatures often look underpowered. Lower damage and HP, for example.

Agree completely! The first Monster Manual really is the strangest duck, almost a platypus of editions; not exactly OD&D, but not fully AD&D either.

I think that is why I ignore it so much in my historical writings. Don't misunderstand me; I love the OG Monster Manual with the same intensity that Gygax loves tables, but it really is sui generis in a lot of ways. And, as @Hriston correctly pointed out, that can create blind spots. I honestly didn't even think about it when it came to the alignment system, and if I hadn't gone back and checked, I would have assumed it was using the nine point system.*

But as you saw in the essay (and as I tend to do to avoid the issue) I always view "1e" as beginning with the PHB, not the MM.


*Obligatory joke, risqué but SFW
Courtney Hole is reported to have said about Trent Reznor, "I don't know why he called his band Nine Inch Nails; it's more like Three Inches."

 

[Voadam]

Alignment is another example of how the MM, despite the cover saying AD&D on it, was to a substantial degree written and designed for OD&D. Which only makes sense. There was a pre-existing OD&D audience to sell it to, who went bananas for such a nicely-organized (by comparison with OD&D's scattered and shorter write-ups) and comprehensive monster book.

This is also why when you compare MM statblocks to FF and MM2, and those from AD&D modules, the MM creatures often look underpowered. Lower damage and HP, for example.

This also shaped the core of D&D monsters in every edition since and why there are so few NE monsters.

The four axis alignments only showed up in those later FF and MM II books so all the core D&D monsters, orcs, giants, dragons, beholders etc. are all corner alignments until you get specific individual changes like goblins going from AD&D LE to 3e NE.

 

[Zeromaru X]

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.

What's the difference between "chaotic evil neutrals" and "evil chaotic neutrals"?

 

[Zeromaru X]

@Snarf Zagyg, I am disappointed that you didn't delve into the changes to alignment in 4e, especially the introduction and treatment of Unaligned.

This. I think the same.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What's the difference between "chaotic evil neutrals" and "evil chaotic neutrals"?

The same as the difference between WEST-NORTHWEST (WNW) and NORTH-NORTHWEST (NNW).

Secondary intercardinals .... weirdly, not a part of a church hierarchy!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

How come Holme's basic lacks an example of kinda sorta chaotic good, unlike with the other four alignments?

BECAUSE KANT TELL ME WUT TO DO! IMA CHATOIC GUD, WOOT!

(Also, why all the B monsters? Eh ....)

Here's the image again-

Honestly, no idea.... my first thought was that there wasn't an appropriate monster. But while there are very few, Pegasi are listed and are chaotic good (neutral) which would seem perfect!

So I looked further. What about the monsters that are listed?

The cockatrice is in the graphic as neutral, and is neutral in the book. YAY! But hold on, it starts to get weird. Because there is a second example (Ape) ... and that is so weird I have to circle back to it....

The four examples of PURE alignment are lammasu, brass dragon, demon and blue dragon.
Looking them up, the actual alignment for them in Holmes are:
Lammasu: NOT IN HOLMES!
Demon: NOT IN HOLMES!
Blue Dragon: NOT IN HOLMES!
Brass Dragon: neutral / chaotic good

WHAT WHAT WHAT? So the four pure alignment examples he used included three monsters that aren't in the book, and one that isn't a pure example???!!!!? Oh no.

Okay, what about the three examples of monsters with an alignment that aren't all about that alignment... the tendency examples?
Blink Dog: lawful good
Bugbear: chaotic evil
Beholder: NOT IN HOLMES!

Also, the Ape? It's listed as a neutral monster, but again.... NOT IN HOLMES! And you know why that is super-duper weird? Because Holmes has a sample dungeon to use, and room S2 has ... wait for it ... an APE that will attack. No stats. I can't even.

To sum up-
1. No idea why that spot is blank. You can't say that there wasn't a monster to put in there, because (1) there was one, and (2) even if there wasn't, the majority of the monsters in that chart aren't in Holmes.

2. Of the four most "extreme" alignment examples, three aren't in the book, and one isn't extreme. But of the four non-extreme example, the three that are present are all extreme- not tendencies.

3. So the answer? Shut up. And reasons. Also, things were different back then. Also also, you are a bad person for making me go down that rabbit hole. I just had my whole David Fincher Zodiac moment, except with words and stuff.

 

[Voadam]

Let me just say again, WotC put out a PDF of Holmes Basic.

My copy of HB is old and in a drawer. I want to pay for a PDF to reference.

~90%+ of TSR D&D products available in PDF and the few oddball omissions stand out.

 

[Zeromaru X]

I think it would have worked better as three point good, unaligned, and evil and left Chaoskampf for the cosmology Dawn War setup mythology narrative and out of alignment with evil gods.

Oh, no. If equating law to good and chaos to evil is problematic (although is not something exclusive to 4e, according to what Snarf posted, but is only considered a problem in 4e, it seems...), doing only good vs evil would have been worse.

Personally, I would have preferred an order -unaligned/neutral- chaos line, leaving good and evil as the purview of the players and DMs.