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

[Crimson Longinus]

BECAUSE KANT TELL ME WUT TO DO!

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

(That's Kant telling you what to do.)

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

This doesn't account for the missing stats for an Ape in the sample dungeon, but I wonder if the alignment diagram and explanation might possibly have been a Gary addition at that edit stage where he famously inserted the references to AD&D? And if so, whether he might have been referencing AD&D monsters because he was using the (also 1977) Monster Manual for stocking the chart?

You know who might know? @zenopus !

 

[Nikosandros]

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.

It's a shame. Unfortunately, the scanning program seems to have more or less stopped. And it's not like it would be too hard to do for them; after all, there are unofficial copies floating around.

 

[Nikosandros]

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

I was recently thinking along the same lines. Something somewhat moorcockian with Law as a force for stability and order, but also stagnation and Chaos as a force for evolution and change but also destruction and Neutrality trying to keep the balance. Those would be the cosmic forces, while good and evil would "personal" issues.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This doesn't account for the missing stats for an Ape in the sample dungeon, but I wonder if the alignment diagram and explanation might possibly have been a Gary addition at that edit stage where he famously inserted the references to AD&D? And if so, whether he might have been referencing AD&D monsters because he was using the (also 1977) Monster Manual for stocking the chart?

You know who might know? @zenopus !

You know, I coulda called for THE expert.

But then I would have saved myself the JOY of banging my head repeatedly against the wall!!!!!

(Do you have any ideas for this @zenopus .... the weird choices for monsters in the alignment chart? The invisible ape? Anything? Because I have gazed into the apebyss, and grape ape has stared back at me.)

 

[Gradine]

Man, my friends and I were happily ignoring alignment since the 90's and our AD&D 2e games. I can clearly remember most of my favorite 3.X characters I ever played; I don't think I could remember what their "listed" alignment was, and I struggle to peg them anywhere on the nine-point scale even in retrospect.

Also, I know it's small potatoes and not even the worst example of this particular style of awfulness from Gygax, but I had to double-take at:

The Happy Hunting Grounds of neutral good chaotics.

 

[Gradine]

View attachment 388362

Trying to play OD&D:

 

[The Soloist]

Wiki: "1977-: Advanced D&D​

Stephen R Marsh claimed that when Gary Gygax was developing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, he convinced Gygax to add a Good and Evil axis to D&D's character alignment system. (Originally, characters could only be Lawful, Chaotic or Neutral. By adding a second axis, the number of possible alignments based on combinations of Law, Chaos, Good, Evil and Neutral grew from three to nine.)"

1. producer Vincent Florio (2011-09-05). "Interview with Steve Marsh". Save or Die. 14:00 minutes in.

 

[The Soloist]

When we played Basic and Expert Sets, we never had alignment debates. But when we started playing AD&D, I recall several alignment debates that became pretty heated. I felt it was too distracting.

I found Pendragon's Personal Traits more useful and playable. They are not abstractions:

The Traits are: Chaste / Lustful, Energetic / Lazy, Forgiving / Vengeful, Generous / Selfish, Honest / Deceitful, Just / Arbitrary, Merciful / Cruel, Modest / Proud, Pious / Worldly, Prudent / Reckless, Temperate / Indulgent, Trusting / Suspicious, and Valorous / Cowardly.

 

[Staffan]

Wiki: "1977-: Advanced D&D​

Stephen R Marsh claimed that when Gary Gygax was developing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, he convinced Gygax to add a Good and Evil axis to D&D's character alignment system. (Originally, characters could only be Lawful, Chaotic or Neutral. By adding a second axis, the number of possible alignments based on combinations of Law, Chaos, Good, Evil and Neutral grew from three to nine.)"

1. producer Vincent Florio (2011-09-05). "Interview with Steve Marsh". Save or Die. 14:00 minutes in.

I kinda wish I still had my copy of Roleplaying Mastery. The one thing I remember from it is that it says something like "The AD&D system has nine alignments, arranged as combinations of Good, Neutral, or Evil, with Law, Neutral, of Chaos. The system in your game might not be that complex, but..."

Which implies that all games should have alignment systems, and that the AD&D one is particularly complex. Which is... a take.