The Curious Origins of D&D Alignment

ABOUT EARTHMOTE:

This channel uses affiliate links, which support Earthmote at no additional cost to you.

Artist Thumbnail Credit: Darrell K. Sweet
______________________________________________
Resources Mentioned in this video:

Resources I like and use:
______________________________________________
#dnd #osr #sandbox #ttrpg #dungeonsanddragons
_______________________________________________
Copyright Disclaimer: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statue that might otherwise be infringing.

[kendiamond]

The 3 Alignment System, which I started with, is infinitely more elegant than what followed.

[animationlover]

I care about alignment mainly because the Planescape cosmology, which provides the only interesting and coherent framework for official D&D lore on gods, fiends, and celestials that I have ever seen (I know that some official worlds, such as Eberron, put those beings into other frameworks, but my impression is that they have to bend their general lore to do it, and it is still a somewhat questionable fit), and that is some of the lore that most interests me. By throwing out alignment, you throw out too much world building.

So yes, cosmic forces.

[KnightKashmir]

I'd suggest Bandit's Keep's video on alignment languages if you want to know more about how they could be used.

[buchenrad]

The trouble with alignment, specifically as it pertains to PCs, is that some people act like alignment informs the character instead of the character informing the alignment.

But thats true of all labels. When a label goes from being one of the outputs of the equation of who you are (or who your PC is) to being an input, the person (or PC) begins to become more one dimensional, basic, and boring and you relinquish some of your agency (or your agency over your PC) to the social systems that define that label.

[BanditsKeep]

You might find Quag Keep by Andre Norton interesting. She wrote it after playing D&D with Gygax and it is set in Greyhawk- alignment is mentioned and used, what’s interesting to me is how the people in the story react to those who are neutral. Not my favorite work by Norton, but a cool insight.

[Miguel-bkyo]

Hugely informative video and confirms some suspicions&conjectures I've had deep-diving into curse of strand lore/history

[vaultscribe]

I think it’s pretty clear that the alignment system acts as an umbrella analysis tool by which cultures can be categorized. Speaking the language of law doesn’t represent a literal lettered language, so much as the sentiments that inform the formation of common tongues between adjacent or related cultures with similar beliefs on the world. The concept of a law language represents the ways in which two people from similar cultures could rhetorically come to understand one another’s beliefs—or simply that they would have more such paths, even without a literal shared lettered language, than two persons whose origins were from lawful and chaotic societies respectively.

This is why the definitions in the three point system defaulted to using ideas of the “good” and the “evil” for associative clarification of boundaries between law and chaos. The authors were relying on concepts of shared world views to define their system. They were saying groups fit in one or the other if they share beliefs we commonly call good or commonly call evil. That’s classifying cultures, not individuals.

Now, individuals, we know, are never one thing over enough time, but at any given time an individual can become an archetype of their culture’s beliefs and values—especially when executing the actions said values call be enacted on those in outside groups, or ‘others’. Think about how a soldier at war will be much harder to reason with than a random civilian from an opposing civilization met during a war. Both will be tense situations, but the soldier has literally been trained to reason less and rely on established rules informed by their culture’s axiomatic beliefs more.

Cosmic forces then become the emergent identities who are either literally or figuratively constructed as a result of a culture’s ideas and ideals calcifying (gods made by certain beliefs or that latch onto them for the psychic energy shared with them, the more they become concentrated representatives of said beliefs). The older and more common across cultures a concept or axiomatic belief is, the more elder and possibly othering the god becomes. Meaning the more potent and archetypal the belief, the more alien and eldritch to the individual the god is—given that no individual could possibly live up to such a rigid maximalist form of their culture’s views for long (think about how lovecraft wrote the cause of madness, or the death caused by seeing the face of the divine).

In this way you of course have player characters able to play a member of any species how they want as an individual, but still have a true to life reality where conflict can seem inevitable or even encouraged between and among peoples otherwise capable of reasoning out differences.

Ironically, the dude saying “it’s what my character would do” is close to the mark—though they are still being a dingbat over the table. What should be said though is: “it’s what my character believes that is rationalizing and determining their behavior. It’s what their village, parents, and peers would do”. But then, that same character should either be capable of change as an individual, with enough outside pressure from the adventuring group’s own sub-culture—or they need to be jailed or exiled, like every other obstinate person in real life that refuses to play by their group’s cultural norms.

All this allows for villains who can otherwise be reasonable to still commit horrible atrocities as an npc by the way. Just like how a country’s people in real life can just not care about horrible things happening because of their tax dollars—or cheer it on through rationalization—while also having in their majority population decent persons individually

[michaelmullenfiddler]

I'm 60. I discovered DnD in 1982, after my senior year in high school. When I looked the Appendix N list, I went "oh, right, of course". I had already voraciously devoured books by 2/3rds of the authors on that list, probably before I even got into high school. As a youth, 3 heats and 3 lions was one of my favorite books. It's been so long since I read it, I don't know what I would think of it now. Perhaps I should reread it... Anyway, the Law v Chaos thing was in alot of books, by lot of authors. Roger Zelazny's Amber novels featured a polar reality with the perfect kingdom (law) on one "end" of reality and the Courts of Chaos on the other. Every book that Michael Moorcock wrote (Elric, Hawkmoon) included some version of the Law v Chaos duality. It was very popular in the 40-60s in pulp sci-fi and fantasy fiction. 3 Hearts eas important, but far from the only source of that mythological frame device

[strawpiglet]

Cool, I didn't play basic so I hadn't seen those alignment descriptions. I like them a lot aside from neutrality seeking balance. That's like the True Neutral in ADnD which never made sense to me. Druid: There's just too much good happening in that town, I need to go tell the orcs about this.

[bobbycrosby]

Alignment is the biggest round peg into a square hole for D&D. It was pulled from stories without definite gods or a cosmology. Shoe horning your people and deities into it has always felt misapplied. I love the suggestion of using Law vs Chaos for campaigns you don't want to delve deeper into this stuff, it's kinda the thought I had after reading 3 hearts and 3 lions.

I haven't read Moorcock, but my impression from 3 Hearts and 3 Lions was that things that were Lawful represented things that helped human society thrive - laws, order, religion, etc. And forces of Chaos were those that didn't - war, magic, barbarians, monsters, etc.

[thomriley]

Michael Moorcock also cites Poul Anderson as a big influence in the forward of his novel 'Elric of Melniboné'.

That said, if you play Module Q-1: Queen of the Demonweb Pits, you can find a magic portal that players can use to visit the very world of Caer Sidi from 'Three Hearts and Three Lions' in a direct nod to Poul Anderson.

This also implies that the Pharisees from this novel were the direct inspiration for both the Melnibonéans and the Drow.

[TimothyRice-pr]

One of the things I find fun and interesting about RPGs is the way they provoke deeper philosophical discussions, for example on ethics and metaphysics. Whatever its other strengths and weaknesses, the D&D alignment system is good for sparking these sorts of discussions, because of the different views players have about the definitions of Good and Evil, and the complexity of weighing Lawfulness vs Chaos, and the relationship between the D&D alignment system and the Great Wheel cosmology.

For example, the Great Wheel metaphysics of D&D seems to gives equal power to Good and Evil, and to me this implies that a third of the NPCs in the general population must be Evil. If there were fewer, it would mean Evil isn't pulling its weight at attracting followers. So what are a third of the population seeing in Evil? It can't just be a love of kicking puppies, right? How does society hang together if a third of everyone you meet is Evil? The conclusion you need to come to is that, given the metaphysics, there must be very sensible reasons why characters in D&D could be drawn towards Evil alignments. Unlike some definitions of Evil in the real world, it's not just a matter of ignorance or error, for in D&D evil does have real teeth; there must be a question of, which of the powers of the outer planes does a person most sympathize with, and why? What does it mean that, of everyone with WIS 20 and INT 20, one third of them have "sympathy with the devil"?

I imagine that Good resonates with people who believe that humility and compassion are the paths to a happy life, and Evil resonates with those who regard the most effective path to happiness as a combination of indulgence and the realization of personal ambition. Drawing the line in this way doesn't mean Good people can't be ambitious, and doesn't mean that Evil people can't be compassionate; instead it means some people weigh one side more strongly than the other.

If a player sees their character as ambitious and indulgent at the expense of humility and compassion, I'd rather they just be honest about their character's Evil alignment. I'd prefer an honest player who wants to play an edgy character, than a hypocrite who slaps the Good brand on their character as an excuse for ruthlessly slaughtering everything which they perceive to be "on the other side."

[LordStJohn-nqnp]

I use three point alignment as cosmic forces: Law which is creation and natural law, Chaos that which seeks to degenerate, pervert, destroy, and Neutral which seeks balance between the two. Law is generally Good as Man naturally creates communities based on the family unit and communities coalesce to create nations; creation is given capacity with orderly social structures. Chaos is hell bent on eradicating Law and its components. It tends to be Evil as within its campaign to destroy it brings about harm to communities and individuals.

Neutrals tend to be ambivalent towards the cosmic struggle between Law and Chaos; only a few neutrals are dedicated to Neutrality as a cosmic force of Balance.

Like those of us in real life who sublimate selfish, short term, personal gratification into discipline, self improvement and order, PCs can regulate their behaviour without surrendering agency. Controlling one's behaviour through a dedication to one's tenets and showing internal consistency is not limiting.

I see the alignment language of Law similar to something like Latin, a common linguistic currency endowed by the Lords of Light. Chaos is a debased tongue that reflects corruption and degeneracy itself, understood by beings devoted to the Great Old Ones or similar.

[nutherefurlong]

I wind up making new systems, usually a choice feels substantially different-- I guess anyone can more succinctly define law and chaos in their world if they want, but I've made a simple flip of expectations and suggest that chaos means freedom of action, law means a rigid set of rules that is rigorously imposed on the world. Another would be a selection of religious views, or lack thereof, that define what the players might start with

I think alignment languages stemmed from the original more monotheistic idea GG had in mind. Like Lawfuls could speak something akin to Latin since they were all faithful. Something to that effect, I half remember it now

[TryssemTavern]

Order (law) and Chaos was also the oldest form of conflict. Chaos of nature vs the order (law) of creation (civilization) is common in a lot of ancient mythologies!

[Subject_Keter]

For me about "Groups of creatures and alignment" I think of WoW goblins.

They can be "Good" but their baseline is usually backstabbing each other, blowing stuff up, blowing up the competitions and trying to thugmax.

Meanwhile like the Orcs were evil but generally do stuff to help them survive.

I think knowing a entity alignment is nice to know "if they want a cookie or gem, how many warcrimes are they willing to do?" 😂

[DCdabest]

I always thought it was more explicitly something lifted from The Elric of Melniboné stories and the Moorcock Universe in general.

[FortunaMajorACappella]

I've been a fan of the AD&D alignment graph for as long as I've known about it. Rather than an even 3x3 square, you have oblong shapes within a square graph that allow for interesting placements if you look at it like an X/Y axis where sliding along either side can reflect a different alignment. Because of that, you can get really interesting interactions between alignment and character actions. A Lawful Good character, for instance, could be less "Good" than a Lawful Neutral character who is too far to the extremes on the Lawful axis. True Neutrality is also a very small bullseye, so it can make playing into that alignment a challenge (and, hopefully, a fun challenge).

[kevinm]

I thoroughly enjoy the usefulness of alignment, but have only encountered players since 1E that hate the pigeonhole effect it has. I prefer to pose problems in campaigns that pit Civilization (Law) vs Nature (Chaos) to my players, and noting the choices the player’s actually make. Actions, as opposed to thoughts, demonstrate their alignment in these situations. My best campaigns have been Planescape-setting games, which wholely revolved around alignment.

[Redlock_youtube]

I have been an adamant anti-alignment person in my short time playing D&D, but this gave a fresh perspective to me thanks! I think I got some new things to try with my players.