Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dartvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!dartvax!tomj
From: tomj@dartvax.UUCP (Thomas Johnston)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Re: Alignment
Message-ID: <3042@dartvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-May-85 15:22:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.3042
Posted: Wed May  8 15:22:30 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 11-May-85 08:38:28 EDT
References: <1139@cbosgd.UUCP>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 56

> 
> GOOD - Believes that each individual's right to life is sacred.  Obviously
>        there will be variation in the definition of "individual" in each 
>        GOOD character's mind.  (Use common sense here - the 47,373 microbes 
>        you killed upon taking a deep breath are not "individuals").
> 
> EVIL - Asigns no special meaning to "life", and will indiscriminately take
>        the life of another without remorse.  If asked to philosophize, an
>        EVIL character will perhaps indicate that creatures must justify
>        their existance.
> 
> NEUTRAL - Balanced between each of the two opposing forces.  This is generally
>        not hard to imagine, although it is often difficult to balance in the
>        long run (true-neutrals often evidence an alignment drift over a long
>        period of playing, even though they won't admit it.)
> 
> 	David Bryant   AT&T Bell Laboratories   Columbus, OH   (614) 860-4516
> 	(cbosgd!djb)
> 

	One source of this confusion is the difference in alignment 
definitions in the various books.  Compare the definitions of evil in the
Player's Handbook with those in the Dungeon Master's Guide for example.
As an exercise, where does one place Niccolo Machiavelli in each system?
 
	The system also breaks down when it is applied to poison and
restrictions on its use, particularly when conjoined with the lawfully
aligned.  The Fascists were certainly lawful, yet they used extreme
methods to kill their enemies (including poison)...
 
	D & D was originally designed with a polarized scheme of alignments
suitable for use in a military campaign of Good (Law) vs. Evil (Chaos)
similar to Supper's Ready or perhaps LOTR.  For a campaign organized around
this concept, it doesn't do too badly, but it breaks down when put into
a more complicated sociological system.
 
	Gygax once claimed that the majority of men were Good, and under
proper leadership Lawful (perhaps I have that reversed.  The statement was
made in an early Dragon, I believe between #10 & #30).  This is clear
evidence that the system cannot work in a well-developed world in which
character's beliefs encompass such themes as nationalism [You claim that
nationalism did not exist early on?  Nationalism has three components:
belief in a common descent, a piece of territory, and a common attitude
towards the future.  Look at the Hebrews coming out of Egypt.  They were
nationalistic], ethnocentrism, etc.
 
	The best approach, given sufficient time & interest, would be to
junk the system, and begin again.  "Your background is French.  You have
this cultural heritage; your society has these basic beliefs and conflicts.
You have 110 gold pieces..."
 
Thomas Johnston
Dartmouth College	usnet: {linus,decvax,cornell,astrovax}!dartvax!tomj
Hinman Box 2921		arpa:  tomj%dartmouth@csnet-relay
Hanover NH  03755	csnet: tomj@dartmouth
603.643.1414