EDIT --- sblocks didn't make it from Googlecache over to here. See further down.
Here's how to end alignment arguments, with the whole darn thing ev'ry edition.
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down
Author Topic: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages (Read 6532 times)
Offline Libertad
Epic Member
****
Posts: 3459
Walk the Path of Explosions with me!
Respect: +102
View Profile
My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Topic Start: December 14, 2012, 03:14:40 PM »
D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
For a handy piece of reference, I've decided to take the official descriptions of Alignment in the various Editions of Dungeons & Dragons and compile them into one post. As of now, I cannot find examples from Original D&D. Tell me what you think!
Also, reprinted text from the Books of Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds. Thanks, FlaminCows!
Original D&D, with comments courtesy of Talysman (RPGSite):
(click to show/hide)
Holmes Basic
(click to show/hide)
Plus a graph, four corners and the Neutral centre, with example creatures marked how far from the centre circle they are.
Moldvay/Cook Basic (B/X):
(click to show/hide)
Mentzer Basic (BECMI)
Cut & Paste from Moldvay. Plus an earlier intro for the kids.
(click to show/hide)
1st Edition
(click to show/hide)
2nd Edition
(click to show/hide)
3rd Edition
(click to show/hide)
4th Edition
(click to show/hide)
« Last Edit: December 29, 2012, 05:38:07 PM by Libertad »
Logged
My product and storefront links.
Libertad's List of Links
Offline sirpercival
Epic Member
****
Posts: 10639
you can't escape the miles
Respect: +126
View Profile
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #1: December 14, 2012, 03:43:47 PM »
2E, I believe:
Chapter 4:
Alignment
After all other steps toward creating a character have been completed, the player must
choose an alignment for the character. In some cases (especially the paladin), the choice
of alignment may be limited.
The character's alignment is a guide to his basic moral and ethical attitudes toward
others, society, good, evil, and the forces of the universe in general. Use the chosen
alignment as a guide to provide a clearer idea of how the character will handle moral
dilemmas. Always consider alignment as a tool, not a straitjacket that restricts the
character. Although alignment defines general attitudes, it certainly doesn't prevent a
character from changing his beliefs, acting irrationally, or behaving out of character.
Alignment is divided into two sets of attitudes: order and chaos, and good and evil. Bycombining the different variations within the two sets, nine distinct alignments are
created. These nine alignments serve well to define the attitudes of most of the people in
the world.
Law, Neutrality, and Chaos
Attitudes toward order and chaos are divided into three opposing beliefs. Picture these
beliefs as the points of a triangle, all pulling away from each other. The three beliefs are
law, chaos, and neutrality. One of these represents each character's ethos--his
understanding of society and relationships.
Characters who believe in law maintain that order, organization, and society are
important, indeed vital, forces of the universe. The relationships between people and
governments exist naturally. Lawful philosophers maintain that this order is not created
by man but is a natural law of the universe. Although man does not create orderly
structures, it is his obligation to function within them, lest the fabric of everything
crumble. For less philosophical types, lawfulness manifests itself in the belief that laws
should be made and followed, if only to have understandable rules for society. People
should not pursue personal vendettas, for example, but should present their claims to the
proper authorities. Strength comes through unity of action, as can be seen in guilds,
empires, and powerful churches.
Those espousing neutrality tend to take a more balanced view of things. They hold that
for every force in the universe, there is an opposite force somewhere. Where there is
lawfulness, there is also chaos; where there is neutrality, there is also partisanship. The
same is true of good and evil, life and death. What is important is that all these forces
remain in balance with each other. If one factor becomes ascendant over its opposite, the
universe becomes unbalanced. If enough of these polarities go out of balance, the fabric
of reality could pull itself apart. For example, if death became ascendant over life, the
universe would become a barren wasteland.
Philosophers of neutrality not only presuppose the existence of opposites, but they also
theorize that the universe would vanish should one opposite completely destroy the other
(since nothing can exist without its opposite). Fortunately for these philosophers (and all
sentient life), the universe seems to be efficient at regulating itself. Only when a
powerful, unbalancing force appears (which almost never happens) need the defenders of
neutrality become seriously concerned.
The believers in chaos hold that there is no preordained order or careful balance of
forces in the universe. Instead they see the universe as a collection of things and events,
some related to each other and others completely independent. They tend to hold that
individual actions account for the differences in things and that events in one area do not
alter the fabric of the universe halfway across the galaxy. Chaotic philosophers believe in
the power of the individual over his own destiny and are fond of anarchistic nations.
Being more pragmatic, non-philosophers recognize the function of society in protecting
their individual rights. Chaotics can be hard to govern as a group, since they place their
own needs and desires above those of society.
Good, Neutrality, and Evil
Like law and order, the second set of attitudes is also divided into three parts. These partsdescribe, more or less, a character's moral outlook; they are his internal guideposts to
what is right or wrong.
Good characters are just that. They try to be honest, charitable, and forthright. People
are not perfect, however, so few are good all the time. There are always occasional
failings and weaknesses. A good person, however, worries about his errors and normally
tries to correct any damage done.
Remember, however, that goodness has no absolute values. Although many things are
commonly accepted as good (helping those in need, protecting the weak), different
cultures impose their own interpretations on what is good and what is evil.
Those with a neutral moral stance often refrain from passing judgment on anything.
They do not classify people, things, or events as good or evil; what is, is. In some cases,
this is because the creature lacks the capacity to make a moral judgment (animals fall into
this category). Few normal creatures do anything for good or evil reasons. They kill
because they are hungry or threatened. They sleep where they find shelter. They do not
worry about the moral consequences of their actions--their actions are instinctive.
Evil is the antithesis of good and appears in many ways, some overt and others quite
subtle. Only a few people of evil nature actively seek to cause harm or destruction. Most
simply do not recognize that what they do is destructive or disruptive. People and things
that obstruct the evil character's plans are mere hindrances that must be overcome. If
someone is harmed in the process . . . well, that's too bad. Remember that evil, like good,
is interpreted differently in different societies.
Alignment Combinations
Nine different alignments result from combining these two sets. Each alignment varies
from all others, sometimes in broad, obvious ways, and sometimes in subtle ways. Each
alignment is described in the following paragraphs.
Lawful Good: Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with
a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of the people.
To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed. When people respect the
laws and try to help one another, society as a whole prospers. Therefore, lawful good
characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people
and cause the least harm. An honest and hard-working serf, a kindly and wise king, or a
stern but forthright minister of justice are all examples of lawful good people.
Lawful Neutral: Order and organization are of paramount importance to characters of
this alignment. They believe in a strong, well-ordered government, whether that
government is a tyranny or benevolent democracy. The benefits of organization and
regimentation outweigh any moral questions raised by their actions. An inquisitor
determined to ferret out traitors at any cost or a soldier who never questions his orders are
good examples of lawful neutral behavior.
Lawful Evil: These characters believe in using society and its laws to benefit
themselves. Structure and organization elevate those who deserve to rule as well as
provide a clearly defined hierarchy between master and servant. To this end, lawful evil
characters support laws and societies that protect their own concerns. If someone is hurt
or suffers because of a law that benefits lawful evil characters, too bad. Lawful evil
characters obey laws out of fear of punishment. Because they may be forced to honor an
unfavorable contract or oath they have made, lawful evil characters are usually verycareful about giving their word. Once given, they break their word only if they can find a
way to do it legally, within the laws of the society. An iron-fisted tyrant and a devious,
greedy merchant are examples of lawful evil beings.
Neutral Good: These characters believe that a balance of forces is important, but that
the concerns of law and chaos do not moderate the need for good. Since the universe is
vast and contains many creatures striving for different goals, a determined pursuit of
good will not upset the balance; it may even maintain it. If fostering good means
supporting organized society, then that is what must be done. If good can only come
about through the overthrow of existing social order, so be it. Social structure itself has
no innate value to them. A baron who violates the orders of his king to destroy something
he sees as evil is an example of a neutral good character.
True Neutral: True neutral characters believe in the ultimate balance of forces, and
they refuse to see actions as either good or evil. Since the majority of people in the world
make judgments, true neutral characters are extremely rare. True neutrals do their best to
avoid siding with the forces of either good or evil, law or chaos. It is their duty to see that
all of these forces remain in balanced contention.
True neutral characters sometimes find themselves forced into rather peculiar alliances.
To a great extent, they are compelled to side with the underdog in any given situation,
sometimes even changing sides as the previous loser becomes the winner. A true neutral
druid might join the local barony to put down a tribe of evil gnolls, only to drop out or
switch sides when the gnolls were brought to the brink of destruction. He would seek to
prevent either side from becoming too powerful. Clearly, there are very few true neutral
characters in the world.
Neutral Evil: Neutral evil characters are primarily concerned with themselves and
their own advancement. They have no particular objection to working with others or, for
that matter, going it on their own. Their only interest is in getting ahead. If there is a
quick and easy way to gain a profit, whether it be legal, questionable, or obviously
illegal, they take advantage of it. Although neutral evil characters do not have the everyman-for-himself attitude of chaotic characters, they have no qualms about betraying their
friends and companions for personal gain. They typically base their allegiance on power
and money, which makes them quite receptive to bribes. An unscrupulous mercenary, a
common thief, and a double-crossing informer who betrays people to the authorities to
protect and advance himself are typical examples of neutral evil characters.
Chaotic Good: Chaotic good characters are strong individualists marked by a streak of
kindness and benevolence. They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they
have little use for laws and regulations. They have no use for people who "try to push
folk around and tell them what to do." Their actions are guided by their own moral
compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of
society. A brave frontiersman forever moving on as settlers follow in his wake is an
example of a chaotic good character.
Chaotic Neutral: Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything,
including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever
whim strikes them at the moment. Good and evil are irrelevant when making a decision.
Chaotic neutral characters are extremely difficult to deal with. Such characters have been
known to cheerfully and for no apparent purpose gamble away everything they have on
the roll of a single die. They are almost totally unreliable. In fact, the only reliable thingabout them is that they cannot be relied upon! This alignment is perhaps the most
difficult to play. Lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior.
Chaotic Evil: These characters are the bane of all that is good and organized. Chaotic
evil characters are motivated by the desire for personal gain and pleasure. They see
absolutely nothing wrong with taking whatever they want by whatever means possible.
Laws and governments are the tools of weaklings unable to fend for themselves. The
strong have the right to take what they want, and the weak are there to be exploited.
When chaotic evil characters band together, they are not motivated by a desire to
cooperate, but rather to oppose powerful enemies. Such a group can be held together only
by a strong leader capable of bullying his underlings into obedience. Since leadership is
based on raw power, a leader is likely to be replaced at the first sign of weakness by
anyone who can take his position away from him by any method. Bloodthirsty
buccaneers and monsters of low Intelligence are fine examples of chaotic evil
personalities.
Non-Aligned Creatures
In addition to the alignments above, some things--particularly unintelligent monsters
(killer plants, etc.) and animals--never bother with moral and ethical concerns. For these
creatures, alignment is simply not applicable. A dog, even a well-trained one, is neither
good nor evil, lawful nor chaotic. It is simply a dog. For these creatures, alignment is
always detected as neutral.
Logged
I am the assassin of productivity
(member in good standing of the troll-feeders guild)
It's begun — my things have overgrown the previous sig.
Offline Nanshork
Epic Member
****
Posts: 9882
Boo!
Respect: +50
View Profile
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #2: December 14, 2012, 03:47:27 PM »
Clean that shit up percival.
I'll double check on that 2E when I get home. Also, 2E Dark Sun had a pretty good one, I'll dredge that up too.
Logged
Nanshork's "Notes to Self" (Extended Signature Thread)
Offline Libertad
Epic Member
****
Posts: 3459
Walk the Path of Explosions with me!
Respect: +102
View Profile
My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #3: December 14, 2012, 04:17:24 PM »
This page supports Percival's claims.
Logged
My product and storefront links.
Libertad's List of Links
Offline Nanshork
Epic Member
****
Posts: 9882
Boo!
Respect: +50
View Profile
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #4: December 14, 2012, 04:18:33 PM »
Quote from: Libertad on December 14, 2012, 04:17:24 PM
This page supports Percival's claims.
I didn't doubt him. I was just saying that I'd check since he said "I believe". I'm more concerned with the horrible lack of editing he did on his post. :p
Logged
Nanshork's "Notes to Self" (Extended Signature Thread)
Offline Libertad
Epic Member
****
Posts: 3459
Walk the Path of Explosions with me!
Respect: +102
View Profile
My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #5: December 14, 2012, 04:29:54 PM »
Put it into my original post, but edited up. I think that it reads pretty well.
Logged
My product and storefront links.
Libertad's List of Links
Offline awaken_D_M_golem
Epic Member
****
Posts: 7053
(un-) Amazingly Unproductive
Respect: +68
View Profile
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #6: December 15, 2012, 02:37:19 PM »
Niice.
4e was an intentional simplification.
The various Outer Planes from 1e to 3e
get down and dirty with the subtleties.
iirc - one of the non AD&D products had
the Neutral plane Concordant Opposition
closed to everyone and everything.
Sort of a neutral ultra- Xenophobia.
There should be differing varieties of N.
True Believing Neutral is very different
from Don't Give A Darn Neutral.
Logged
avatar#3 , gravitational lensing edition ... I'm way on the other side of the universe but look like pretty rings
Offline Libertad
Epic Member
****
Posts: 3459
Walk the Path of Explosions with me!
Respect: +102
View Profile
My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #7: December 16, 2012, 08:45:39 PM »
Edition Comparisons: Chaotic Neutral
Let us look at the most controversial alignment, and how it has changed over the years.
Quote
1st Edition: Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and
promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder.
Good and evil are complimentary balance arms. Neither are preferred,
nor must either prevail, for ultimate chaos would then suffer.
2nd Edition: Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at the moment. Good and evil are irrelevant when making a decision.
Chaotic neutral characters are extremely difficult to deal with. Such characters have been known to cheerfully and for no apparent purpose gamble away everything they have on the roll of a single die. They are almost totally unreliable. In fact, the only reliable thing
about them is that they cannot be relied upon! This alignment is perhaps the most difficult to play. Lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior.
3rd Edition: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.
All 3 versions have some problematic behavior, with 2nd Edition being the most so.
1st Edition CN is that of an ideologue to unpredictability. Interestingly it implies dedication to a larger role within the Multiverse, that of preventing Good and Evil alike from growing too dominant. The idea of being beyond concern for life (either its promotion or destruction) sounds close to apathy. Beyond that, we're left with "I value disorder," which doesn't make for interesting, well-developed characters.
2nd Edition CN is definitely my least favorite. It pretty much leaves room for only two concepts: that of someone who lives for the short-term and follows things without rhyme nor reason, and somebody afflicted with mental illness. How many problem players used this description as an excuse for disruptive behavior, or to engage in acts which most would describe as Evil?
3rd Edition CN also goes for the "lives by their whims" description, but they also use it to describe characters who generally just resent authority. The final two sentences were much needed, a direct rebuke to the whole "totally random!" stereotype which the previous Editions supported.
What are your thoughts?
« Last Edit: December 22, 2012, 01:21:14 AM by Libertad »
Logged
My product and storefront links.
Libertad's List of Links
Offline Concerned Ninja Citizen
Legendary Member
****
Posts: 1581
I am Concerned
Respect: +10
View Profile
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #8: December 16, 2012, 10:43:46 PM »
My problem with many conceptions of Chaotic Neutral, including the 1st and 2nd ed descriptions above, is that they hit the Chaotic but ignore the Neutral.
To wit, the 3.5 SRD on neutrality on the G/E axis
Quote
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
The "compunctions against killing the innocent" and "committed to others by personal relationships" aspects tend to get ignored in the classic "CN means I can do whatever I want" character.
Logged
Offline Libertad
Epic Member
****
Posts: 3459
Walk the Path of Explosions with me!
Respect: +102
View Profile
My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #9: December 17, 2012, 02:05:53 AM »
Ever get the odd feeling that someone used your post for reference?
Just a guess, guys.
Logged
My product and storefront links.
Libertad's List of Links
Offline Amechra
Epic Member
****
Posts: 4556
Thread Necromancy a specialty
Respect: +97
View Profile
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #10: December 17, 2012, 02:28:14 AM »
Along with completely missing the point of this thread?
Yep.
Jeese, man, what did you do to grognards.txt? They seem to irrationally hate you for some reason.
Logged
"There is happiness for those who accept their fate, there is glory for those that defy it."
"Now that everyone's so happy, this is probably a good time to tell you I ate your parents."
Offline linklord231
Epic Member
****
Posts: 3270
The dice are trying to kill me
Respect: +48
View Profile
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #11: December 17, 2012, 02:47:48 AM »
I think (hope?) the guy who reposted your "Edition Comparisons: CN" was being satirical when he said it was totally verisimilitudinous and that confusion over it is a sign of intellectual immaturity.
Logged
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.
Offline Libertad
Epic Member
****
Posts: 3459
Walk the Path of Explosions with me!
Respect: +102
View Profile
My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #12: December 17, 2012, 11:09:12 AM »
Quote from: linklord231 on December 17, 2012, 02:47:48 AM
I think (hope?) the guy who reposted your "Edition Comparisons: CN" was being satirical when he said it was totally verisimilitudinous and that confusion over it is a sign of intellectual immaturity.
Yes, they were being satirical. Part of the thread is making fun of gamers who insist that the flaws of pre-4E games weren't really flaws. In regards to alignment, some of these gamers argue that stupid "Chaotic Neutral" PCs are playing the alignment wrong.
Personally I'd guess that LightWarden read the thread, read how dumb and inconsistent Chaotic Neutral has been over the years, and provides the inconsistent examples to make fun of people who defend the alignment system. If he did read it, he didn't quote my analysis or thoughts, just the text from the PHBs.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 12:38:30 PM by Libertad »
Logged
My product and storefront links.
Libertad's List of Links
Offline Libertad
Epic Member
****
Posts: 3459
Walk the Path of Explosions with me!
Respect: +102
View Profile
My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #13: December 17, 2012, 12:29:10 PM »
Edition Comparisons: Lawful Good
This alignment is of particular importance for one major reason: Paladins. Before 4th Edition, they could be of only one alignment. Playing as a holy warrior definitely has its appeal, despite heavy role-playing restrictions, tough prerequisites, and relative lack of power in 3rd Edition. I'd make an educated guess that about half of Lawful Good PCs were Paladins. Over time, the class' values and the alignment's values became interchangeable in the minds of many gamers, even if this was not always the case.
Quote
1st Edition: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order,
characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the
common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to
bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great
importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.
2nd Edition: Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of the people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed. When people respect the laws and try to help one another, society as a whole prospers. Therefore, lawful good characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm. An honest and hard-working serf, a kindly and wise king, or a stern but forthright minister of justice are all examples of lawful good people.
3rd Edition: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.
4th Edition: An ordered society protects us from evil.
If you’re lawful good, you respect the authority of personal codes of conduct, laws, and leaders, and you believe that those codes are the best way of achieving your ideals. Just authority promotes the well-being of its subjects and prevents them from harming one another. Lawful good characters believe just as strongly as good ones do in the value of life, and they put even more emphasis on the need for the powerful to protect the weak and lift up the downtrodden. The exemplars of the lawful good alignment are shining champions of what’s right, honorable, and true, risking or even sacrificing their lives to stop the spread of evil in the world.
When leaders exploit their authority for personal gain, when laws grant privileged status to some citizens and reduce others to slavery or untouchable status, law has given in to evil and just authority becomes tyranny. You are not only capable of challenging such injustice, but morally bound to do so.
However, you would prefer to work within the system to right such problems rather than resorting to more rebellious and lawless methods.
1st Edition is sort of vague, in that it mentions law and order being used to promote safety and happiness for the majority of people, and that everyone deserves to benefit from things society creates. It mentions truth as the ultimate good, followed closely by life and beauty. I find this odd, because there are times when lying might be necessary to prevent violence and panic (and little white lies, like telling a doubting, down-trodden kid that Santa's real). Life is understandable, although this would not go well with the whole "holy warrior" angle: what about the lives of evil folk? And beauty is an odd thing to include, as it is mostly an aesthetic standard instead of a moral one.
1E LG is sort of authoritarian, in that it mentions that certain freedoms must be gotten away with, although it doesn't mention what these freedoms are. Of course, my mind jumps to extreme examples, like guys dumping toxic waste on their own property (which then affects the property of others), although I do not know if the developers had this in mind.
2nd Edition is basically utilitarianism, in that programs and goals which help reduce misery and promote wellness on the largest scales are an ultimate good. In order to do this, it requires that people be in the same boat to strive for this, and emphasizes a common regard for the rules of the society which strives to do this. It strives for maximum standards of living balanced by the least amount of harm done.
This raises questions, like if a Lawful Good character will permit short-term harm for long-term prosperity for the majority, or when the line is crossed in regards to "too much harm." But it provides an interesting and admirable ideal, which in itself can do a lot of good if implemented properly (remember, many of history's greatest heroes had high ideals). It kind of reminds me of the Nordic Model of Scandinavian social democracy, a system well-known for producing a happy, healthy, and educated populace while still maintaining civil liberties for all.
This explanation is the most well thought out in my opinion.
3rd Edition is brief and not well explained. It mentions that Lawful Good characters act as a good person is expected to act. When you've got Neutral Good and Chaotic Good people, this just doesn't hold water; the Archon is just as Good as the Eladrin, who is just as Good as the Guardinal.
We go back to the "truth" thing, which is probably where the "do not lie" part of the Paladin's Code comes from. Its other descriptors can be logically applied to other alignments: helps those in need (Good in general), speaks out against injustice (Chaotic Good), and hates to see the guilty go unpunished (Lawful Neutral).
We are left with nothing unique at all about this description in comparison to the other alignments, at all. This is my least favorite description.
4th Edition is interesting, in that it's the most leader-driven of the descriptions. It puts important emphasis on rulers being wise and just to benefit the group, and that obeying the laws and edicts of such leaders helps promote harmony for all. It mentions that leaders who abuse their power or declare certain people non-entities must be removed, making it distinct from the "obey rules for the sake of it" Lawful Neutral guy, and the tyrannical "some people deserve to be oppressed" Lawful Evil. It does leave the question of how Lawful Good views the monstrous races, such as Orcs. Couldn't one argue that such people are declared non-entities by civilized lands?
What I'm getting from 4E LG is that of a system with a omnipresent government, yet one controlled by checks and balances, with the power spread out so that leaders corrupted by power can be brought in line by the others.
2nd and 4th are the most specific, and lay out their ideologies in more concise terms. Even if we can't imagine people who are this way all the time, we can get a clear picture of the mind of a person driven by these ideals and how they'd react in moral situations.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2012, 01:25:05 AM by Libertad »
Logged
My product and storefront links.
Libertad's List of Links
Offline Libertad
Epic Member
****
Posts: 3459
Walk the Path of Explosions with me!
Respect: +102
View Profile
My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #14: December 17, 2012, 06:42:53 PM »
Edition Comparisons: True Neutral
Quote
1st Edition: The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets
of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law
- of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for
things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even
then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were
meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does
not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as
human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be.
2nd Edition: True neutral characters believe in the ultimate balance of forces, and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil. Since the majority of people in the world make judgments, true neutral characters are extremely rare. True neutrals do their best to avoid siding with the forces of either good or evil, law or chaos. It is their duty to see that all of these forces remain in balanced contention. True neutral characters sometimes find themselves forced into rather peculiar alliances. To a great extent, they are compelled to side with the underdog in any given situation, sometimes even changing sides as the previous loser becomes the winner. A true neutral druid might join the local barony to put down a tribe of evil gnolls, only to drop out or switch sides when the gnolls were brought to the brink of destruction. He would seek to prevent either side from becoming too powerful. Clearly, there are very few true neutral characters in the world.
3rd Edition: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.
4th Edition: Just let me go about my business.
If you’re unaligned, you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others.
A few unaligned people, and most unaligned deities, aren’t undecided about alignment. Rather, they’ve chosen not to choose, either because they see the benefits of both good and evil or because they see themselves as above the concerns of morality. The Raven Queen and her devotees fall into the latter camp, believing that moral choices are irrelevant to their mission since death comes to all creatures regardless of alignment.
1st Edition is some kind of karmic activist. Far from the stereotypical apathy of Neutrality, True Neutral characters work to ensure that the forces of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos do not gain an upper hand in the cosmic struggles. They also have a reverence for "nature," and believe that sapient creatures such as humankind are a threat to this state. I believe that this is meant as a tie-in to the Druids, who in this Edition could only be True Neutral.
2nd Edition is much like the first, minus the nature reverence. They take things a step further and refuse to view actions and people in moral terms (good, evil, etc). They also go beyond working against cosmic forces, and usually side with the underdog in all conflicts to ensure as universal balance of power as possible. This... does not make for a good alignment to have for the typical adventuring party.
3rd Edition takes a unique turn by splitting the alignment into two definitions. The first refers to somebody who does not have strong commitments or ideals to any of the four cosmic forces. The second is that of one who views Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil as dangerous, destructive forces, with Neutrality being the most reasoned and proper moral pathway.
I personally like 3rd Edition, as it is more suitable to adventuring parties, and is flexible as it gives a common alignment to the people who are unswayed by the extremes of Law and Chaos, Good and Evil.
4th Edition (known as Unaligned here) is similar to the former description of 3rd Edition alignment, except that it generally refers to people who wish to attend to their own affairs instead of meddling about. It also defines people who view themselves as beyond morality.
I disagree with the last part of 4th Edition's definition: people to place themselves beyond morality (in real life and fiction) generally come off as callous, cold individuals who use this mind-set as a rationalization or excuse for selfishness and mean-spirited actions. Other than that it's a fine description.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2012, 01:25:20 AM by Libertad »
Logged
My product and storefront links.
Libertad's List of Links
Offline Libertad
Epic Member
****
Posts: 3459
Walk the Path of Explosions with me!
Respect: +102
View Profile
My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #15: December 20, 2012, 12:47:03 AM »
Edition Comparisons: Chaotic Evil
Quote
1st Edition: The major precepts of this alignment are freedom,
randomness, and woe. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are
disdained. life has no value. By promoting chaos and evil, those of this
alignment hope to bring themselves to positions of power, glory, and
prestige in a system ruled by individual caprice and their own whims.
2nd Edition: These characters are the bane of all that is good and organized. Chaotic evil characters are motivated by the desire for personal gain and pleasure. They see absolutely nothing wrong with taking whatever they want by whatever means possible.
Laws and governments are the tools of weaklings unable to fend for themselves. The strong have the right to take what they want, and the weak are there to be exploited. When chaotic evil characters band together, they are not motivated by a desire to
cooperate, but rather to oppose powerful enemies. Such a group can be held together only by a strong leader capable of bullying his underlings into obedience. Since leadership is based on raw power, a leader is likely to be replaced at the first sign of weakness by
anyone who can take his position away from him by any method. Bloodthirsty buccaneers and monsters of low Intelligence are fine examples of chaotic evil personalities.
3rd Edition: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.
Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
4th Edition: I don’t care what I have to do to get what I want.
Chaotic evil characters have a complete disregard for others. Each believes he or she is the only being that matters and kills, steals, and betrays others to gain power. Their word is meaningless and their actions destructive. Their worldviews can be so warped that they destroy anything and anyone that doesn’t directly contribute to their interests.
By the standards of good and lawful good people, chaotic evil is as abhorrent as evil, perhaps even more so. Chaotic evil monsters such as demons and orcs are at least as much of a threat to civilization and general well-being as evil monsters are. An evil creature and a chaotic evil creature are both opposed to good, but they don’t have much respect for each other either and rarely cooperate toward common goals.
1st Edition is brief in comparison to the others, but it gets the point across well enough. They care not for others but themselves, and seek to destroy society by eliminating precepts of safety and security so that they can gain power. One part I find peculiar is the "freedom, randomness, and woe," indicating that there's little rhyme or reason to the actions of a Chaotic Evil individual. From the description, the unfettered selfishness does have a form of reason (personal power and freedom at the expense of others), albeit one hard to predict by others. There is talk of dedication to some twisted ideals, in regards to the spread of chaos and evil, indicating that the alignment may be motivated more than just sociopathic selfishness.
2nd Edition is very similar to the above, except with strong themes of Social Darwinism. A Chaotic Evil individual views the world solely in terms of individual strength and skill. Relying upon others, be it through government protection or dedication to a superior, to be signs of a worthless individual. It's slightly different than 1st in that there is a sort of "code" to the alignment as described before. Low Intelligence monsters are given as good examples of Chaotic Evil behavior, paving the way for the stereotype of it being an "irrational" form of Evil.
3rd Edition portrays the alignment in similar terms to the above, except the wording use makes Chaotic Evil come off as, well, just plain incompetent. Haphazard plans, poor organization, hot-tempered, unpredictable. It rules out brilliant forms of "Chaotic Evil," such as Hannibal Lecter, who could remain cool under pressure and enact well thought out schemes, yet still be utterly selfish and uncaring of others. It's definitely a step backwards in comparison to earlier examples.
4th Edition is pretty much a throwback to 1st Edition, of an individual dedicated to eliminating people and obstacles in the name of personal empowerment. It also brings up the "avatar of destruction" angle, as a force dedicated primarily to spreading misery and entropy (like the active spreading of chaos and evil).
I really like the 2nd Edition description. It fits in perfectly with most of the iconic Chaotic Evil villains in D&D, and frames the alignment in terms beyond "mindless destruction" through a doctrine of "survival of the fittest." It allows for a great variety of characters, from the mastermind serial killer to the insane cultist hoping to achieve ultimate power through communion with Lovecraftian horrors.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2012, 01:26:05 AM by Libertad »
Logged
My product and storefront links.
Libertad's List of Links
Offline FlaminCows
Hero Member
***
Posts: 600
Push that button. Doo eeet.
Respect: +520
View Profile
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #16: December 20, 2012, 01:01:49 AM »
+1
It might be a good idea to add the alignment descriptions in the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness. They aren't as widely read, but their are still considered an authority and they expand on the definitions of good and evil.
Logged
Offline awaken_D_M_golem
Epic Member
****
Posts: 7053
(un-) Amazingly Unproductive
Respect: +68
View Profile
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #17: December 20, 2012, 07:28:00 PM »
The subtle (or not) differences of the Planes, are probably not
what you're going for with alignments, instead of planes
that have alignments, or the alignment of a specific plane.
2e CN is a dirt cheap but Mean, understanding of Mental Illness.
Of course the game isn't really delving into all that.
Still Pandemonium as the dumping point of almost all the insane :pout
iirc - Joan Of Arc was a full on hallucinator = LG champion of battle jesse.
hmm ... the 4th level of Pandemonium was closed off bubbles
where ultra dangerous stuff and monsters got dumped.
Logged
avatar#3 , gravitational lensing edition ... I'm way on the other side of the universe but look like pretty rings
Offline Libertad
Epic Member
****
Posts: 3459
Walk the Path of Explosions with me!
Respect: +102
View Profile
My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #18: December 20, 2012, 09:05:02 PM »
Quote from: FlaminCows on December 20, 2012, 01:01:49 AM
It might be a good idea to add the alignment descriptions in the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness. They aren't as widely read, but their are still considered an authority and they expand on the definitions of good and evil.
Perhaps, but how long are the descriptions? If I can't easily copy-paste it, I'll hold off until I'm done, as I could do another comparison instead of manually typing a long entry.
Logged
My product and storefront links.
Libertad's List of Links
Offline FlaminCows
Hero Member
***
Posts: 600
Push that button. Doo eeet.
Respect: +520
View Profile
Re: D&D Alignment Throughout the Ages
« Reply #19: December 21, 2012, 02:47:38 AM »
+1
That's fine. I'll do it for you, here you go.
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
« Last Edit: December 26, 2012, 05:06:44 PM by FlaminCows »
Logged
Print
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up
