Alignment was there from the start. As such, it has been an ever-present feature of the varied editions, right up there with Ability Scores and Classes. There is a 50+ year argument regarding the place and functionality of this quantified moral compass. These arguments can get weirdly ontological.
To get a better grasp of this most contentious of systems, let’s break down how alignment has been used in D&D and how it has changed throughout the editions.
1. Original D&D
OD&D uses single-axis alignment: characters are either Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic.
Men & Magic notes that you have to pick one of the three, and lists the alignment of various creatures, but never explains what those alignments mean. Perhaps Gygax assumed you’d already read your Poul Anderson. Still, the creature list gives you some hints, as all the nasty stuff lives in the Chaos column. Mechanically, Alignment only matters for Reincarnation, the Helm of Chaos (Law), Intelligent Swords, and a vague allusion to modifying reaction rolls.
The Greyhawk supplement begins our journey into a system with greater mechanical implications for alignment. The new Thief class and Paladin subclass are alignment locked to not lawful and lawful, respectively. Multiple items are introduced which directly play off alignment, including the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness, amongst others. Notably, these magical books show a reiteration of the Lawful-as-good/Chaotic-as-evil dichotomy which is implied throughout the earliest rules. The cracks begin to show with the introduction of the Mind Flayer in Eldritch Wizardry, which is “highly evil but otherwise lawful” – but that’s in ’76, which overlaps with the changes wrought in the next section.
The chaotic alignment does get a bit more explanation via Greyhawk: “a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain.”
2. The Strategic Review and Holmes Basic
Gary had second thoughts about the alignment system in 1976, and dropped this proto-two-axis alignment in Strategic Review #6 in the succinctly titled article “The Meaning of Law and Chaos in Dungeons and Dragons and their Relationship to Good and Evil.”
 |
| Seen on the exterior of the chart: The planes begin to take shape. |
A year later, this would be the alignment used for the AD&D Monster Manual and in the first version of Basic by Eric Holmes.
It’s an alignment chart in transition: found here are the classic Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Evil, and Chaotic Evil alignments, but Neutral is left as its own isolated fifth alignment.
In his article, Gygax goes on at length about the meaning of these alignments, but Holmes condenses it into a single paragraph, explaining that Lawful characters act according to a code, Chaotic characters act unpredictably, and Neutral characters care only about themselves. Chaotic is noted as “often, but not always, evil”, while Neutral may “steal from their companions or betray them”. Good and Evil are not explained, relying on the player to hopefully know the difference.
Though Holmes’s text doesn’t make it clear, Basic’s chart suggests that alignment is no longer a box into which one is placed, but rather something to be plotted along any of these axes. Gygax’s explanation and chart in Strategic Review is more explicit:
 |
| Also: Typewriter alignment |
Characters aren’t just pawns in the fight between law and chaos; they’re more nuanced, holding beliefs that could land anywhere on the chart. This has shades of the alignment-as-personality design that would be used in later editions, as we begin to drift from the Andersonian (Moorcockian?) forces that influenced OD&D.
But not too far. Holmes Basic introduces two items which will stick around for a while: alignment languages and the Know Alignment spell. The former is a bizarro bit of worldbuilding which implies that these alignments are still camps to which one may have allegiance and allies, since you can natively speak their special tongue. The latter provides a mechanical method to determine another character’s alignment, indicating that this chart isn’t just a tool for players and DMs: it’s a metaphysical reality that can be acted upon by those within the game world.
As a last note, Holmes Basic is the first to suggest punishing the player via XP loss for alignment changes.
3. 1st Edition AD&D
Gary had third thoughts about the alignment system, and in 1978 we get the two-axis, nine box chart that we know today. Well, sort of.
This is the first time we get individual write-ups for the combinations. The gradations between the axes remain, but these opposing systems are now sharply defined.
Lawful is explained as adherence to law, order, and regulation, rather than a vague code of behavior. Chaotic keeps its randomness identity, but now adds to concept of freedom and individualism. In the DMG, Law and Chaos are divided between the group and the individual. This focus on the individual is a significant recontextualization which will remain with the chaotic alignments from here on out.
Good and Evil are finally given an explanation: good characters seek the welfare of individuals and ‘the common weal’, whereas evil characters seek power over others and the imposition of ‘evilness’ and woe upon the world. The DMG offers a slightly more refined take on Good and Evil: the tenets of good are human rights, while evil “does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is the determinant.” This outlook on evil as being ‘not good’ in pursuit of some goal, rather than being evil in pursuit of evil itself, represents another reframing that will stick around.
The biggest change is the introduction of ‘True Neutral’, a category that would come to haunt the game for decades. Gone is the self-interested fence-sitter of Holmes Basic, replaced by something resembling the neutrality of balance present in OD&D. Except here, True Neutral characters not only balance the excesses of law and chaos, but also of good and evil. This is a difficult idea to parse; it’s not a stretch to imagine someone who seeks to keep the world from falling into either autocracy or anarchy, but the idea of someone doing evil acts to keep things from getting ‘too good’ doesn’t have an analogue in fiction or reality. If you occasionally perform an evil act to ‘maintain the status quo’, how does that not constitute evil itself? The PHB states that a “character can be basically good in its ‘true’ neutrality, or tend toward evil”, yet what kind of character does this create? One that mostly fights for the light side until they suddenly wreck the whole thing in pursuit of balance? It’s a bizarre concept, and it will barely survive into the modern era before its unceremonious end.
Otherwise, everything is here: alignment restrictions for classes, alignment languages, spells and magical items which interact with alignment (including the Know Alignment spell), intelligent swords with alignments, and so on. We’re even presented with the nearly-finalized Outer Planes, representing the physical manifestation of these warring beliefs.
 |
Technically introduced in Dragon #8: "The Concepts of Spatial, Temporal and |
Truly, this is the high-water mark of the mechanical application of alignment. From this point, you can watch the tide roll back.
4. B/X and BECMI
Starting with Moldvay’s Basic in 1981, and in all subsequent versions of Basic D&D, the experimental five-alignment system is abandoned in favor of a return to the single-axis alignment of OD&D. Unlike what’s provided in the little books of old, Moldvay gives us a fair accounting of what Law, Chaos, and Neutrality mean, all within a single page.
Lawful characters are scions of order, truth, and care for all living things. They obey rules and work within “fair and just” laws. They seek the benefit of the group, and they are directly tied to ‘Good’. Chaotic characters are beings of randomness, chance, and luck. They find lying to be just as useful as the truth, and they cater to their own selfish desires and whims. They seek the benefit of the individual, and they are directly tied to ‘Evil’. Chaos and individuality continue to blend closer as we go on, though here the lack of Good and Evil in the alignment chart blends this into a sort of selfish individualism.
Neutral characters retain the concept of balance between the two, but with an added dash of self-interest. They are interested in “personal survival”, and may choose goodness or evil “depending on the situation”. This version of neutrality is both things: the neutral character seeks to avoid upsetting “the balance” between the forces of law and chaos, while also being a fence-sitter who’ll act according to what keeps them alive.
Moldvay gives a short example of how each type would handle a particular situation, along with a piece of art which, to many players, explains these alignments perfectly.
Along with this, we’ve still got alignment languages, spells
which interact with alignment (including Know Alignment), and
intelligent swords with alignment. The alignment restrictions on class are entirely
absent, and aside from our old friend Helm of Chaos/Law Alignment
Changing, and the aforementioned swords, there are no magical items which work
with alignment.
5. 2nd Edition AD&D
In Zeb’s edition, both axes and all alignment combinations get a more in-depth write-up, along with an extended roleplay breakdown on how each of the nine alignments would act during and after a battle. As 2nd Edition was designed to be a glorified cleanup of AD&D, rather than an entirely new game, its treatment of alignment is not far astray from 1e. Still, there are a few notable changes.
Law remains the alignment of order and unity, but Chaos takes full bloom as an alignment of the individual. The randomness of prior editions is recast as a belief in the randomness of the universe, rather than a belief in the randomness of action; since the world itself is random, you can only look out for your own personal needs. That being said, the wildcard-type chaotic is still there, but now found only in the Chaotic Neutral, which is described as the alignment of “lunatics and madmen.” Interestingly, the word ‘freedom’ has been completely removed from the text.
Good and Evil are given the relativistic treatment in this edition. Good characters are still those that try to be “honest, charitable, and forthright,” but with the caveat that few people are good all the time, and that some cultures have different meanings of ‘good’. Evil has lost its goal of crafting a world of woe; evil is instead presented as the actions of those who disregard the tenets of ‘good’ in pursuit of their own goals – the “purpose is the determinant” view of evil alluded to in 1e is fully embraced. Further, 2e suggests that those imposing evil upon the world may not even recognize their actions as such, and those who do purposefully “seek to cause harm and destruction” are considered rare.
Finally, an attempt is made to differentiate the neutrality between law and chaos versus the neutrality between good and evil, wherein the former is explicitly the balancer between opposing forces, and the latter is just amoral. True Neutral is still the weirdo that balances everything, though the rarity of such characters is highlighted even more than it was in 1e.
Beyond these changes in perspective, the mechanical aspects are intact from 1e, including all the varied alignment impacts for class, spells, magical items, and the like. The exception to this is alignment languages, which were mercifully expunged from the game, never to return.
Of course, 2e also heralds the culmination of alignment as physical reality in the creation of the Planescape campaign setting. For that alone, I consider the many sins of the alignment system to be completely forgivable.
6. 3rd Edition D&D
Though this edition is noted as a major break from TSR era D&D, for obvious and correct reasons, it’s surprisingly traditional in its use of alignment. The edition could have chosen to go a new way, but instead retained the two-axis alignment system of AD&D, even while they dropped the ‘A’. All the mechanical bits found within 2e are present, even going further by tagging certain spells with alignment (and so affecting the Cleric’s spell list).
Of course, there are differences. The spell Know Alignment is gone, replaced by detection spells for each of the extremes of the axes. Class penalties still exist for changes of alignment, but XP penalties are no longer present. Whereas 2e encouraged you to not play evil alignments, 3e straight-up tells you they’re only for villains and monsters. The nine alignments are given unique titles, such as “Crusader” for Lawful Good and “Free Spirit” for Chaotic Neutral. Of particular note is that the alignment section no longer gets top billing as its own chapter or major heading; it’s just the first entry in the Description chapter, sitting alongside religion, age, height, personality, background, and so on. As expected, there’s also a few modifications within the description of the alignments themselves.
Lawful gets all its normal associations (honor, truth, order), but Chaotic is now completely reworked as the alignment of ‘freedom’, and explicitly states that the alignment is not random. This edition marks the final form for chaos, as throughout the editions we’ve moved from randomness, to freedom and randomness, to individualism, and now to strictly personal freedom without randomness.
Good continues to be, well, good. Evil, on the other hand, is now the alignment of “hurting, oppressing, and killing others.” Gone is the relativism of 2e; in its place is an objective view of evil, one which actively harms, whether this is done for personal gain or just love of the game. This aligns with 3e’s soft removal of evil as an available PC alignment.
Neutrality sees a massive change, solidifying the alignment as the fence-sitter previously only seen in Basic. ‘True Neutral’ is now just Neutral – which it will ever remain – and given the title “Undecided.” They don’t commit evil acts, but they don’t champion the cause of goodness. They follow the law, but they choose their own way when the situation calls for it. The center of the alignment chart has become, for all intents and purposes, the ‘opt out’ alignment. However, throwing a bone to tradition, the PHB does note that some characters “commit themselves philosophically to neutrality.” You can have your strange balance alignment if you really want it.
Overall, 3e’s alignment section is clear, descriptive, and informative within a tight 3 pages of text. It is generally considered one of the best explanations of alignment in any edition, and I think it earns that reputation.
If 1e was the zenith of mechanical and philosophical alignment, and 2e was that same system with the rough edges filed off, then 3e represents a minor evolution of its forebears. Things are different, ideas are reconsidered, the tide is rolling back, but it’s still alignment as Gary and Zeb would have understood it.
7. 4th Edition D&D
If the tide was rolling back before, 4e is the moment that the ocean disappeared.
This edition returns to a single-axis alignment, but with a twist. Instead of a Law – Chaos spectrum, or even a Good – Evil spectrum, it’s both:
Chaotic Evil – Evil – Unaligned – Good – Lawful Good
The end caps are exactly what you expect, while ‘Evil’ does double duty as Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil, and ‘Good’ does the same for Neutral Good and Chaotic Good. Unaligned is almost directly from 3e’s Neutral description, but provides an option to run it as amorality, similar to 2e’s description of the neutrality between good and evil.
This design was soundly reviled by the old guard, but seeing as it was my first alignment system, I find it quite clever and perfectly functional. It’s alignment stripped to the bone, keeping only the choicest bits that serve the roleplay, while removing philosophical overlap and jettisoning troublemaker alignments. You’re a good person, or you’re a knight in shining armor, or you do what you please; if you’re not any of those, then you’re an evil bad guy or a really evil bad guy. Done, go play.
The problem with this system isn’t that it’s different. The
problem is that it has no more meaning than choosing your age, height, and
languages. It’s a roleplay tool only; the rules are actually found under the
Roleplay section, within the Making Characters chapter – a subsection of a
subsection. Mechanically, it’s completely neutered. No items play off of
alignment (even though the text indicates that they might), no classes are
restricted by it, and no spells powers even allude to it.
Actually, that’s not true. There is one power that uses it, found in the Paladin’s Astral Weapon Paragon Path.
If you have no experience with this edition, that power stat block looks like nonsense. 4e really was a massive rules shift. I don’t know how I found the 4e to 5e to 2e pipeline; it’s a mystery.
Regardless, alignment as a mechanism died here. Not even the Hand and the Eye of Vecna have alignment rules, just a vague reference to their evil nature. When the most evil artifacts in D&D canon don’t have a way to actually be evil in the rules, your alignment system may as well be a political compass for all that it’s worth. But for some, that’s exactly what alignment is anyway, and so the system does what it was designed to do.
8. 5th Edition D&D
5e brought back the nine alignments, twelve magic items and one spell (Glyph of Warding) that meaningfully interact with alignment, and rules for intelligent items with alignment (with three examples).
That’s about it.
Beyond what was listed above, everything that was lost in 4e is still lost: no class restrictions, almost no spells, and half the magical items. Alignment is still buried in the text, this time under Character Details in the Personality and Background chapter, but now it comes after details like age and height. It has been condensed into less than a single page, simply listing the nine alignments and how those alignments are used within the ‘multiverse’.
The description of the alignments themselves are truncated from the lengthy explanation of prior editions, providing a single line of detail and some example creatures who exemplify the alignment. It’s direct, and it gets the job done. However, it provides no explanation of law vs chaos or good vs evil, and therefore each alignment is siloed into its own box.
Lawful good “can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society,” Neutral Good does “the best they can to help others according to their needs,” and Chaotic good acts “as their conscience directs.” What is the definition of ‘Good’ based on these descriptions? Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic evil creatures “take what they want” within limits, “do whatever they can get away with,” and “act with arbitrary violence,” respectively. So, what is ‘Evil’? The Law/Chaos axis appears obvious in these descriptions, but the Good/Evil axis is ill defined.
The Neutral alignment adopts the 3e version of the middle-ground vacillator, this time without the option to be the great balancing force. They also chose to keep the Unaligned category from 4e, but now use it for those who “lack the capacity for rational thought.” You must pick an alignment if you have the brains, but you’re always welcome to choose the null route via Neutrality.
In fairness to the edition, the few magic items which do utilize alignment do so in a classic way, either restricting their use to specific alignments or threatening to alter alignment through said use. Also, the DMG does a great job of showcasing the connection between alignment and the Outer Planes, even offering optional rules that utilize or even affect alignment. Even the new concept of Ideals uses the alignments to direct player choice.
Yet, aside from these examples, alignment is still relegated to a roleplay tool. It feels as though alignment is being given lip service in this edition, brought back to its original form solely because that’s how it’s supposed to look. It is a halfway measure for a ruleset that was easily removed in the prior edition and now needed to be shoehorned into the ‘return to form’ edition, resulting in a type of vestigial feature.
It’s not even consistent. Detect Evil and Good only detects creature types in 5e, yet the Candle of Invocation entry suggests that the spell can detect this item’s alignment. The Ring of Mind Shielding makes you immune to magic that can “know your alignment,” but the game provides no magic which can do that. You can almost see the space where they were going to make alignment far more important, but pulled out at the last minute. However, we know from the D&D Next playtest packets that, at least by the time they were seeking public input, this was never in the cards.
Ultimately, 5e’s implementation is the most minimal version of the AD&D alignment system, but also the most disappointing. It straddles the line between the mechanical objectivity of AD&D/3e and the roleplay-centric subjectivity of 4e, but in doing so lacks the advantages of either option.
As for 5.5e, the needle moves further toward 4e. Alignment has a better write up with a pretty alignment chart, and it even gets a section in the DMG. However, alignment has been removed from nearly all of the magic items, and alignment mechanics have been stripped from the Outer Planes. Even the Glyph of Warding has had its option for alignment trigger removed, leaving the edition with no magic items which utilize the system. What’s left is a roleplay guideline and little more; if it wasn’t for the planes, I don’t know if it would even be there at all.
9. Conclusion
Alignment has gone through many changes over the years, from the Poul Anderson inspired battle between Law and Chaos, into the metaphysical and mechanical nine-alignment system, and finally to the roleplay focused alignment-as-personality of the current day. The only thing it hasn’t done is stay the same, and what it will become in the inevitable 6e is an open question. However, it is almost assured that D&D will never return to the crunchier alignment system of the past; WotC’s aversion to absolutes suggests that alignment will wither as a concept until it vanishes altogether.
I was originally going to close this out by taking a look at the OSR’s use of alignment, but really there isn’t much to speak about. Most games either use the single-axis system of Basic, crib the two-axis system of AD&D, or just dispense with alignment entirely. I’m sure there’s some innovative ruleset out there that builds a better alignment mousetrap, but that’s beyond the scope of this post.
For me, 3e is the best implementation of alignment in any edition. The description in the text is concise but detailed, and it’s actively used for spells, magical items, and classes. For my own 2e hack, I’ll use much of what it brings to the table, with one exception: the selfish and morally difficult evil as described in 2e is far more interesting than the violent and murderous evil provided in 3e. This is more or less how I laid it out in the 2e Primer, and I’ll retain it.
No comments:
Post a Comment