1 May, 2009
Today’s Tabbloid
PERSONAL NEWS FOR riorio2@rogue-games.net
ROGUE FEED
Anderson on Alignment
APR 30, 2009 09:01P.M.
Thanks to Chris Tichenor for pointing out this superb quote from Poul
Anderson’s Three Hearts and Three Lions on the subject of alignment:
Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between
primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly.
Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual
conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were
the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were
so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and
evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also
stood for Law. Ranged against them were almost the whole
Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie,
Trollheim, and the Giants—an actual creation of Chaos. Wars
among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the
Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all
men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only
Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle
Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and
extend their own shadowy dominion.
That’s pretty much OD&D-style alignment in a nutshell, or at least how I
read the admittedly vague text on the subject.
ROGUE FEED
The Changing Meaning of
“Alignment” in OD&D;
APR 30, 2009 03:30P.M.
The term “alignment” doesn’t appear once in Chainmail or its fantasy
supplement, but those rules do divide figures into the categories of
“Law,” “Neutral,” and “Chaos” as “a general guide for the wargamer
designing orders of battle involving fantastic creatures.” These categories
serve a primarily practical purpose in helping players of Chainmail to
select units that could plausibly fight side by side. There’s no explicit
explanation of what the category names mean beyond the obvious fact
that Law and Chaos are opposed, while Neutral beings might join other
side, depending on circumstances. One could reasonably equate “Law”
1
with goodness and “Chaos” with evil from context, but neither is stated
outright in the text. They are just two “sides,” no different perhaps than
“Romans” and “Gauls” in an ancient world wargame.
OD&D is where alignment first enters the picture and it uses the same
categories as Chainmail, again without any explanation of their meaning.
The text states that “Before the game begins, it is not only necessary to
select a role [i.e. a character class -JDM], but it is also necessary to
determine what stance the character will take [italics mine] — Law,
Neutrality, or Chaos.” The term “stance” is vague but, once again, seems
to imply an allegiance rather than an ethical outlook or moral code. At
the same time, among the prominent members of Chaos listed are “Evil
High Priests,” suggesting a connection between Chaos and evil. Also of
note is that there are no spells in the three little brown books (or their
supplements) that allow the detection or knowledge of alignment. (And,
in a shift from Chainmail, elves go from being Neutral with tendencies
toward Law to full-fledged members of Law)
The Holmes-edited Dungeons & Dragons speaks at greater length about
alignment. The text reads:
Characters may be lawful (good or evil), neutral or chaotic
(good or evil). Lawful characters always act according to a
highly regulated code of behavior, whether for good or evil.
Chaotic characters ore quite unpredictable and con not be
depended upon to do anything except the unexpected - they
are often, but not always, evil. Neutral characters. such as all
thieves, are motivated by self interest and may steal from
their companions or betray them if it is in their own best
interest. Players may choose any alignment they wont and
need not reveal it to others. Note that the code of lawful good
characters insures that they would tell everyone that they are
lawful. There are some magical items that can be used only by
one alignment of characters. If the Dungeon Master feels that
a character has begun to behave in a manner inconsistent
with his declared alignment he may rule that he or she has
changed alignment and penalize the character with a loss of
experience points. An example of such behavior would be a
“good” character who kills or tortures a prisoner.
Here we see not only greater definition of alignment, with practical and
mechanical examples, but also a shift away from the “us vs. them”
approach of Chainmail and OD&D and into something that prescribes
and proscribes behavior. Holmes also introduces the know alignment
spell.
Of course, predating Holmes was an article in the February 1976 issue of
The Strategic Review by Gary Gygax. Entitled “The Meaning of Law and
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR riorio2@rogue-games.net 1 May, 2009

Chaos in Dungeons & Dragons and Their Relationships to Good and This issue contains posts from between
Evil,” it’s a very odd piece. I posted the chart that accompanies it in an Apr 30, 2009 07:04a.m. and May 01, 2009 03:04a.m..
earlier entry. The article basically argues that alignment is much Visit the Rogues on the Web:
misunderstood in OD&D and that it needs to be clarified by adding the http://www.rogue-games.net
categories of “Good” and “Evil” so that there are now five alignments
rather than just three. Gygax goes on to note that “While they [i.e. Law
and Chaos — JDM] are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good
nor evil in their definitions.” He also notes that, in settings that
emphasize the showdown between Law and Chaos, Chaotic Good and
Chaotic Evil creatures ultimately both serve the same end, namely
anarchy and lawlessness and would, to some degree, cooperate to
prevent the ascendancy of Law. Of course, he goes on to say that,
“Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those
creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against
any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy)
alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end.”

The Strategic Review article also marks a shift in its imputation of an

ethical/moral dimension to alignment. Indeed, one of the purposes of
the article is to delineate the characteristics of Law, Chaos, Good, and
Evil so that a referee might track a character’s behavior on a chart to
determine how closely he hews to his stated alignment, with
repercussions should he stray too far. To this, Gygax adds, “Alignment
does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such
actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing
them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can
change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to
balance things.” I distinctly recall playing in games where players took
this to heart in a very literal way, doing equal and opposite things to
ensure they “remained Neutral.”

Despite this, some questions remain murky. Gygax says that “law and
chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of
order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but
must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of
creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this author
to some extent.” [italics mine — JDM] That’s quite a bombshell, if you
ask me, and one that adds several new wrinkles to attempts to grapple
with the meaning of alignment in OD&D, the most important of which
being that, at least in 1976, Gary felt the game required that it be seen
through some lens that the players and referee brought to it on questions
of good and evil. I can’t help but find that remarkable, assuming I am
reading him correctly.

(Also interesting is the idea that “The player-character who continually

follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its
definition must eventually move off the chart
(Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated,” but
that’s probably a topic for another post.)