Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 4656587" data-attributes="member: 7635">This is why D&amp;D had originally three alignments: Law (order and civilization, status quo), Neutrality (nature and balance) and Chaos (anarchy and destruction, change). Typically, Law was equated with &quot;goodness&quot; and Chaos with &quot;evil&quot;, but exceptions could be made. A lawful fighter fought for Queen and Country, even if he did evil acts (slaughter baby orcs) or goodly acts (heal the sick). A despotic ruler who maintained draconian laws was still lawful, same as a noble paladin of ideals. Chaos was viewed as the antithesis of this, wild destructive impulses which sought a free, independent view of the world. A wronged noble forced into banditry to stop the ruthless despot and the savage orc hordes fell into chaos on the scale, both were seeking the end of the status quo for different reasons.This system created some strange-bedfellows, so a moral &quot;good-evil&quot; axis was added, making five alignments. (LG, CG, LE, CE, N) Now, the paladin and noble-bandit could be G, even if one fought for law and the other chaos. That expanded into the classic nine alignment system for AD&amp;D. Fairly soon though, the G/E axis overruled the L/C axis. When was the last time a paladin lost his powers for doing a CHAOTIC act? Its the eventual reason why L/C was neutered in 4e to being a specific type of GOOD and EVIL (kinda full circle, eh?) This is important because originally morality was not mechanical element of D&amp;D. Alignment didn't register your goodness or evilness, it measured how you responded to the cosmic balance of status quo/change. I assume the push toward a Good/Evil axis came of orc-slaughtering and a desire to add Tolkien-like Evil and Goodness elements to the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 4656587, member: 7635"] This is why D&D had originally three alignments: Law (order and civilization, status quo), Neutrality (nature and balance) and Chaos (anarchy and destruction, change). Typically, Law was equated with "goodness" and Chaos with "evil", but exceptions could be made. A lawful fighter fought for Queen and Country, even if he did evil acts (slaughter baby orcs) or goodly acts (heal the sick). A despotic ruler who maintained draconian laws was still lawful, same as a noble paladin of ideals. Chaos was viewed as the antithesis of this, wild destructive impulses which sought a free, independent view of the world. A wronged noble forced into banditry to stop the ruthless despot and the savage orc hordes fell into chaos on the scale, both were seeking the end of the status quo for different reasons. This system created some strange-bedfellows, so a moral "good-evil" axis was added, making five alignments. (LG, CG, LE, CE, N) Now, the paladin and noble-bandit could be G, even if one fought for law and the other chaos. That expanded into the classic nine alignment system for AD&D. Fairly soon though, the G/E axis overruled the L/C axis. When was the last time a paladin lost his powers for doing a CHAOTIC act? Its the eventual reason why L/C was neutered in 4e to being a specific type of GOOD and EVIL (kinda full circle, eh?) This is important because originally morality was not mechanical element of D&D. Alignment didn't register your goodness or evilness, it measured how you responded to the cosmic balance of status quo/change. I assume the push toward a Good/Evil axis came of orc-slaughtering and a desire to add Tolkien-like Evil and Goodness elements to the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification