Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In the Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) fantasy role-playing game, alignment is a categorization of the ethical (Law/Chaos axis) and moral (Good/Evil axis) perspective of people, creatures, and societies.

The earliest edition of D&D allowed players to choose among three alignments when creating a character: Lawful, implying honor and respect for society's rules; Chaotic, implying rebelliousness and individualism; and Neutral, being the middle ground between the two extremes. The D&D Basic Set retained the system of three alignments, keeping it through the D&D Rules Cyclopedia.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) introduced a second axis of Good, implying altruism and respect for life; Evil, implying the absence of altruism and no respect for life; and Neutral, the middle ground between the two extremes.

The two axes allowed for nine alignments in combination.[1][2]

The nine alignments can be shown in a grid, as follows:

Lawful Good Neutral Good Chaotic Good
Lawful Neutral (True) Neutral Chaotic Neutral
Lawful Evil Neutral Evil Chaotic Evil

This schema of nine alignments was used throughout the two editions of AD&D, as well as the successor game, the third edition of D&D. The fourth edition of D&D, released in 2008, reduced the number of alignments to five: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, and Chaotic Evil. The fifth edition of D&D, released in 2014, returned to the previous schema of nine alignments.

History[edit]

D&D creator Gary Gygax credited the inspiration for the alignment system to the fantasy stories of Michael Moorcock[3] and Poul Anderson.[citation needed] The game's alignment system from the original 1974 boxed set initially featured only Law, Neutrality and Chaos.[citation needed] Law generally equated to good and heroism, and Chaos implied anarchy and evil; however, the good and evil parallels were not strongly defined. Dwarves were Lawful and elves Chaotic, while humans could be any of the three alignments.[citation needed]

The 1977 printing of the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set added the Good/Evil alignment axis to the existing Law/Chaos axis. Characters and creatures could be Lawful and Evil at the same time (such as a tyrant), or Chaotic but Good (such as Robin Hood).[4] Nine alignment combinations became possible in all. For example, Lawful Good (LG) or Neutral Evil (NE) are two possible alignments, with the Law/Chaos component given first and the Good/Evil component last. A character or creature considered Neutral on both axes is referred to as True Neutral or simply Neutral.

While this two-axis system would continue in AD&D, the 1981 revision of Basic Set D&D went back to the earlier one-dimensional Law/Chaos alignment system.[citation needed]

Under the 2nd edition of AD&D rules, a character who performed too many actions outside of his alignment could find its alignment changed, and penalized by subtracting from experience, making it harder to reach the next level.[citation needed] The 3rd edition of D&D removed this restriction.[citation needed][clarification needed]

In the 3rd edition of D&D, a character's alignment could be restricted by what character class the character may take.[citation needed] For example, a Lawful character cannot become a bard or a barbarian, a druid must be Neutral in at least one aspect, and only Lawful Good characters can be paladins. Certain weapons (such as a Holy weapon) or spells (such as detect evil) affect creatures differently depending on alignment.[citation needed]

A rule removed from recent editions of the game was alignment languages, wherein people of the same alignment could communicate through insinuations and intimations that only make sense to those of like mind, from having a common adherence to a standard of ethics and morality.[citation needed]

The 4th edition of D&D simplified the alignment system by eliminating the Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, and Lawful Evil alignments.[5] The remaining alignments were:

  • Lawful Good: Civilization and order.
  • Good: Freedom and kindness.
  • Unaligned: Having no alignment; not taking a stand.
  • Evil: Tyranny and hatred.
  • Chaotic Evil: Entropy and destruction.

The 5th edition of D&D uses the nine alignment system from the 1st though 3rd editions.

Function[edit]

Richard Bartle's Designing Virtual Worlds noted that alignment is a way to categorize players' characters, along with gender, race (or what would be called sub-species in taxonomic rank), character class, and sometimes nationality. Alignment was designed to help define role-playing, a character's alignment being seen as its outlook on life. A player decides how a character should behave in assigning an alignment, and should then play the character in accordance with that alignment.[6]

Notable character class restrictions in some editions of the game included the Paladin, who had to be Lawful Good; the Druid, who had to be Neutral Neutral, or True Neutral; the Ranger, who had to be Chaotic or Neutral Good; and the Thief, who could not be Lawful. Alignment is important for Clerics as well. D&D's gods are "strongly aligned", and their clerics must follow a similar alignment.[1]

Alignments can change. If a Lawful Neutral character consistently performs good acts, when neutral or evil actions were possible, its alignment will shift to Lawful Good. In games, the referee (or Dungeon Master) decides when alignment violations occur, as it is subjective.[6]

Characters acting as a party should have compatible alignments. Lawful Good characters are compatible with Lawful Evil characters if they have a common goal, but the addition of a Chaotic Evil character may tear the party apart. The authors of Dungeon Master For Dummies have found that a party of good or neutral characters works better: the impetus for adventures is easier, group dynamics are smoother, and it allows the "heroic aspects of 'D&D' [to] shine through".[7]

Axes[edit]

Law vs. Chaos[edit]

The law versus chaos axis in D&D predates good versus evil in the game rules.[citation needed] In esoteric Greyhawk setting lore, too, the precepts of law and chaos predate good and evil in the world's prehistory.

Originally the Law/Chaos axis was defined as the distinction between "the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life", as opposed to "the belief that life is random, and that chance and luck rule the world".[8] According to the early rulebook, Lawful characters were driven to protect the interest of the group above the interest of the individual and would strive to be honest and to obey just and fair laws. Chaotic creatures and individuals embraced the individual above the group and viewed laws and honesty as unimportant. At that time, the rulebook specified that "Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called 'evil'".[8] Neutral creatures and characters believed in the importance of both group and individual, and felt that law and chaos were both important. They believed in maintaining the balance between law and chaos and were motivated by self-interest.[citation needed]

The third edition D&D rules define "Law" and "Chaos" as follows:[9]

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to follow rules nor a compulsion to rebel. They are honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others if it suits him/her.

It is more common in the game for creatures to be Neutral with regard to Law/Chaos than Good/Evil. However, certain extraplanar creatures, such as the numerous and powerful Modrons, are always Lawful. Conversely, Slaadi are Chaotic, representing beings of chaos.[citation needed] Dwarven societies are usually Lawful, while Elven societies are most often Chaotic.[citation needed]

Good vs. Evil[edit]

The conflict of good versus evil is a common motif in D&D and other fantasy fiction. Although player characters can adventure for personal gain rather than from altruistic motives, it is generally assumed that the player characters will be opposed to evil and will tend to fight evil creatures.

The third edition D&D rules define "Good" and "Evil" as follows:[9]

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

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.

Within the game, Paladins, altruistic heroes, and creatures such as angels are considered Good-aligned.[citation needed] Villains and violent criminals are considered Evil, as are inherently evil creatures such as demons and most undead.[citation needed] Animals are considered Neutral even when they attack innocents, because they act on natural instinct and lack the intelligence to make moral decisions.[citation needed]

Alignments[edit]

While the perception of and choice of alignment has shifted over the years in the D&D game milieu, there have been as many as nine alignments possible for people, creatures, deities, and extraplanar realms.

Lawful Good[edit]

A Lawful Good character typically acts with compassion, and always with honor and a sense of duty. A Lawful Good nation would consist of a well-organized government that works for the benefit of its citizens. Lawful Good characters include righteous knights, paladins, and most dwarves. Lawful Good creatures include the noble golden dragons.[citation needed]

Lawful Good characters, especially paladins, may sometimes find themselves faced with the dilemma of whether to obey law or good when the two conflict: for example, in upholding a sworn oath when it would lead innocents to come to harm; or where legal injunctions conflict, such as between their religious law and the law of the local ruler.[citation needed]

In the Complete Scoundrel sourcebook for D&D 3.5, Batman, Dick Tracy and Indiana Jones are cited as examples of Lawful Good characters.[10]

Neutral Good[edit]

"Neutral Good" redirects here. For the term in economics, see Neutral good.

A Neutral Good character is guided by his conscience and typically acts altruistically, without regard for or against Lawful precepts such as rules or tradition.[citation needed] A Neutral Good character has no problems with co-operating with lawful officials, but does not feel beholden to them. In the event that doing the right thing requires the bending or breaking of rules, they do not suffer the same inner conflict that a Lawful Good character would.[citation needed]

Examples of Neutral Good characters include Zorro and Spider-Man.[10]

Chaotic Good[edit]

A Chaotic Good character favors change for a greater good, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom, not only for oneself, but for others as well.[citation needed] Chaotic Good characters always intend to do the right thing, but their methods are generally disorganized and often out of sync with the rest of society. They may create conflict in a team if they feel they are being pushed around, and often view extensive organization and planning as pointless, preferring to improvise.[citation needed]

Robin Hood, Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica, and Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly are examples of Chaotic Good individuals.[10]

Lawful Neutral[edit]

A Lawful Neutral character typically believes strongly in Lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules, and tradition, and often follows a personal code.[citation needed] A Lawful Neutral society would typically enforce strict laws to maintain social order, and place a high value on traditions and historical precedent. Examples of Lawful Neutral characters might include a soldier who always follows orders, a judge or enforcer that adheres mercilessly to the word of the law, and a disciplined monk.[citation needed]

Characters of this alignment are neutral with regard to good and evil. This does not mean that Lawful Neutral characters are amoral or immoral, or do not have a moral compass, but simply that their moral considerations come a distant second to what their code, tradition, or law dictates. They typically have a strong ethical code, but it is primarily guided by their system of belief, not by a commitment to good or evil.[citation needed]

James Bond, Odysseus, and Sanjuro from Yojimbo are listed in Complete Scoundrel as examples of Lawful Neutral.[10]

Neutral[edit]

A Neutral character (a.k.a. True Neutral or Neutral Neutral) is Neutral on both axes, and tends not to feel strongly towards any alignment.[citation needed] A farmer whose primary overriding concern is to feed his family is of this alignment. Most animals, lacking the capacity for moral judgment, are of this alignment, since they are guided by instinct rather than conscious decision. Many roguish characters who play all sides to suit themselves are also of this alignment (such as a weapons merchant with no qualms selling his wares for profit to both sides in a war).[citation needed]

Some Neutral characters, rather than feeling undecided, are committed to a balance between the alignments.[citation needed] They may see good, evil, law, and chaos as simply prejudices and dangerous extremes. Mordenkainen is one such character who takes this concept to the extreme, dedicating himself to a detached philosophy of neutrality to ensure that no one alignment or power takes control of the Flanaess.[citation needed]

Druids frequently follow this True Neutral dedication to balance, and under Advanced Dungeons & Dragons rules, were required to be this alignment. In an example given in the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook, a typical druid might fight against a band of marauding gnolls, only to switch sides to save the gnolls' clan from being totally exterminated.[11]

Lara Croft, Lucy Westenra from Dracula and Han Solo in his early Star Wars appearance are neutral.[10]

Chaotic Neutral[edit]

A Chaotic Neutral character is an individualist who follows his or her own heart, and generally shirks rules and traditions.[citation needed] Although Chaotic Neutral characters promote the ideals of freedom, it is their own freedom that comes first; good and evil come second to their need to be free. Chaotic Neutrals are free-spirited and do not enjoy the unnecessary suffering of others. A Chaotic Neutral character does not have to be an aimless wanderer; it may have a specific goal in mind, but its methods of achieving that goal are often disorganized, unorthodox, or entirely unpredictable.[citation needed] If a Chaotic Neutral joins a team, it is because that team's goals happen to coincide with its own at the moment, but it invariably resents taking orders and can be very selfish in its pursuit of personal goals.

A subset of Chaotic Neutral is: "strongly Chaotic Neutral", describing a character who behaves chaotically to the point of appearing insane. Characters of this type may regularly change their appearance and attitudes for the sake of change, and intentionally disrupt organizations for the sole reason of disrupting a lawful institution.[citation needed] This includes the Xaositects from the Planescape setting, and Hennet from the third edition Player's Handbook. In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Chaotic Neutral was mistakenly assumed to refer to this subset.

Captain Jack Sparrow, Al Swearengen from the TV series Deadwood, and Snake Plissken from Escape from New York are Chaotic Neutral characters according to Complete Scoundrel (3.5e).[10]

Lawful Evil[edit]

A Lawful Evil character sees a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit, and shows a combination of desirable and undesirable traits; while it usually obeys its superiors and keeps its word, it cares nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals and is not averse to twisting rules in its favor.[citation needed] Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct, and loyal soldiers who enjoy the act of killing.[citation needed]

Like Lawful Good Paladins, Lawful Evil characters may sometimes find themselves faced with the dilemma of whether to obey law or evil when the two conflict. However, their issues with Law versus Evil are more concerned with "Will I get caught?" versus "How does this benefit me?".[citation needed]

Boba Fett of Star Wars, and X-Men's Magneto are cited examples of Lawful Evil characters in Complete Scoundrel (3.5e).[10]

Neutral Evil[edit]

A Neutral Evil character is typically selfish and has no qualms about turning on its allies-of-the-moment, and usually makes allies primarily to further its own goals.[citation needed] A Neutral Evil has no compunctions about harming others to get what it wants, but neither will it go out of its way to cause carnage or mayhem when it sees no direct benefit for itself. Such a character abides by laws for only as long as it is convenient. A villain of this alignment can be more dangerous than either Lawful or Chaotic Evil characters, since he or she is neither bound by any sort of honor or tradition nor disorganized and pointlessly violent.[citation needed]

Another valid interpretation of Neutral Evil holds up evil as an ideal, doing evil for evil's sake and trying to spread its influence.[12]

Examples are an assassin who has little regard for formal laws but does not needlessly kill, a henchman who plots behind his or her superior's back, or a mercenary who switches sides if made a better offer. An example of the second type of Neutral Evil would be a masked killer who strikes only for the sake of causing fear and distrust in the community.[citation needed]

Complete Scoundrel cites X-Men's Mystique, and Sawyer of the early seasons of Lost as Neutral Evil characters.[10]

Chaotic Evil[edit]

A Chaotic Evil character tends to have no respect for rules, other people's lives, or anything but its own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel.[citation needed] It sets a high value on personal freedom, but does not have any regard for the lives or freedom of other people. Chaotic Evil characters do not work well in groups, as they resent being given orders, and usually behave themselves only out of fear of punishment.[citation needed]

It is not compulsory for Chaotic Evil characters to be constantly performing sadistic acts just for the sake of being evil, or constantly disobeying orders just for the sake of causing chaos. They do, however, enjoy the suffering of others, and view honor and self-discipline as weaknesses.[citation needed] Serial killers and monsters of limited intelligence are typically Chaotic Evil.[citation needed]

According to the Complete Scoundrel sourcebook, Carl Denham from King Kong and Riddick from Pitch Black are Chaotic Evil.[10]

Effect[edit]

Gary Gygax's ideas have greatly influenced video game design.[citation needed] MMORPGs such as Ultima Online and EverQuest have good and evil races which actively oppose each other.[13]

The D&D alignment system is occasionally referenced as a system of moral classification in other contexts. For example, Salon.com television critic Heather Havrislesky, reviewing the HBO television series True Blood, analyzed the program's characters in terms of D&D alignments (for example, identifying protagonist Sookie Stackhouse as chaotic good, and her vampire boyfriend Bill Compton as lawful neutral).[14]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Livingstone, Ian (1982). Dicing with Dragons. Routledge. p. 79. ISBN 0-7100-9466-3. 
  2. ^ Fine, Gary Alan (2002). Shared Fantasy. University of Chicago Press. p. 17. ISBN 0-226-24944-1. 
  3. ^ Gygax, Gary. "Gary Gygax (Interview)". TheOneRing.net. Archived from the original on 9 October 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-07. 
  4. ^ Pulsipher, Lewis (Oct–Nov 1981). "An Introduction to Dungeons & Dragons, Part V". White Dwarf (analysis/overview) (Games Workshop) (27): 14. 
  5. ^ Cogburn, Jon (2012). "3: Beyond Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil?". In Jon Cogburn, Mark Silcox. Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy: Raiding the Temple of Wisdom. Open Court Publishing. pp. 29–31. ISBN 978-0-8126-9796-4. 
  6. ^ a b Bartle, Richard (2003). Designing Virtual Worlds. New Riders. pp. 257–260. ISBN 0-13-101816-7. 
  7. ^ Slavicsek, Bill; Baker, Rich; Grubb, Jeff (2006). Dungeon Master For Dummies. For Dummies. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-471-78330-5. 
  8. ^ a b Gygax, Gary; al.], Dave Arneson ; edited by Tom Moldvay ; illustrations by Jeff Dee ... [et (1981). Dungeons & dragons : fantasy adventure game : basic rulebook (4th ed. ed.). Lake Geneva, WI: TSR Hobbies. ISBN 0-935696-48-2. 
  9. ^ a b Williams], [player's handbook D & D design team, Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, Skip (2003). Dungeons & Dragons player's handbook. (Special edition. ed.). Renton, WA: Wizards of the Coast. ISBN 978-0-7869-2886-6. 
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i McArtor, Mike; Scheider, F Westley (2007). Complete Scoundrel. Renton, WA: Wizards of the Coast. pp. 8–9. ISBN 978-0-7869-4152-0. 
  11. ^ Cook, David "Zeb" (1989). Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition Player's Handbook. Random House, Inc. p. 47. ISBN 0-88038-716-5. 
  12. ^ Cook, Monte. Tweet, Jonathan. Williams, Skip Et. Al Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook (Wizards of the Coast, 2000)
  13. ^ Perron, Bernard (2008). The Video Game Theory Reader 2. Taylor & Francis. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-415-96282-7. 
  14. ^ Havrilesky, Heather (June 14, 2009). "I Like to Watch". Salon.com. Archived from the original on 17 June 2009. Retrieved June 14, 2009. 

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]