Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8346020" data-attributes="member: 82106">I've played since almost the earliest days of D&amp;D. The debate existed even BEFORE D&amp;D (I cite Moorcock, who is the grandparent of D&amp;D alignment for sure). The debates about exactly what 'chaotic' and 'lawful' meant and what then did it mean to be 'good' or 'evil' is what LEAD to 2-axis alignment in the first place! All D&amp;D needed was 2 sides, the 'friendlies' and the 'hostiles', which law&lt;-&gt;chaos already provided, the rest was spawned PURELY by players debating about it!So, no, this is not simply an academic question that some 'egg heads' pooped on the D&amp;D table with and made into an issue. It is implicit, with all its warts and bumps and debates about light-hearted &quot;kill all evil!&quot; black and white play vs more nuanced shades-of-grey, which pretty quickly led to the whole full-on debate (like by 1976 at most). The problem is, simplistic ideas of alignment, even 2-axis alignment with 'true neutral' as an option (the full 9 bin grid) doesn't cut it outside of some very simple adventures. What is the alignment of the baron who runs the Keep on the Borderlands? He's greedy, sly and dishonest when it can make him a gold piece, but totally fierce in his determination to defend the Keep and wipe out any threat to it (albeit at no cost to himself if possible). Is he good? Evil? Lawful? Chaotic? You cannot answer that, nobody can. Yet mechanically it could be important in a D&amp;D game, because alignment mechanics are baked in. So, outside of 'loot the dungeon' the whole bugbear had to be wrestled and some sort of consensus reached at the table so you can at least play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8346020, member: 82106"] I've played since almost the earliest days of D&D. The debate existed even BEFORE D&D (I cite Moorcock, who is the grandparent of D&D alignment for sure). The debates about exactly what 'chaotic' and 'lawful' meant and what then did it mean to be 'good' or 'evil' is what LEAD to 2-axis alignment in the first place! All D&D needed was 2 sides, the 'friendlies' and the 'hostiles', which law<->chaos already provided, the rest was spawned PURELY by players debating about it! So, no, this is not simply an academic question that some 'egg heads' pooped on the D&D table with and made into an issue. It is implicit, with all its warts and bumps and debates about light-hearted "kill all evil!" black and white play vs more nuanced shades-of-grey, which pretty quickly led to the whole full-on debate (like by 1976 at most). The problem is, simplistic ideas of alignment, even 2-axis alignment with 'true neutral' as an option (the full 9 bin grid) doesn't cut it outside of some very simple adventures. What is the alignment of the baron who runs the Keep on the Borderlands? He's greedy, sly and dishonest when it can make him a gold piece, but totally fierce in his determination to defend the Keep and wipe out any threat to it (albeit at no cost to himself if possible). Is he good? Evil? Lawful? Chaotic? You cannot answer that, nobody can. Yet mechanically it could be important in a D&D game, because alignment mechanics are baked in. So, outside of 'loot the dungeon' the whole bugbear had to be wrestled and some sort of consensus reached at the table so you can at least play. [/QUOTE]

Verification