Alignments, part 2: the problem

The history of how the origin of alignments can be traced to fantasy armies suggested for a wargame can be found in Part 1 of this series on OD&D alignments. 

In this second part, we will look at the issues the created by alignment system as written in the 1974 version of the game.

Factions and morals: the alignments of OD&D

When Dungeons & Dragons was first published in 1974, the factions suggested by Chainmail's Fantasy Supplement carried over but took on additional meaning, blending military allegiance with moral and metaphysical elements. OD&D changed the framework of Chainmail's fantasy alignments in two ways:

Firstly, it expanded both the number and the scope of the fantastic factions, turning Neutrality into a fully-fledged faction and giving each of the three groupings its own divisional language:

Law, Chaos and Neutrality also have common languages spoken by each respectively (M&M, p. 12).

At first glance, the inclusion of divisional languages suggests a quasi-military or ideological aspect to alignment. The choice by the authors to even use the word "alignment" — a term commonly used in geopolitical or military contexts which means a position of agreement or alliance — seems to indicate that they were talking about military alliances rather than moral stances.

The problem with this notion is that alignments in OD&D, unlike those in Chainmail, definitely have a moral component. Being aligned to Law in OD&D doesn't just mean that you are part of the armies of Law: it also means that you are a "good" being.  The inclusion of the moral element may have been influenced by Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign (see The First Fantasy Campaign in Sources) — in Arneson's games, players could choose to be part of "Team Good" or "Team Evil". The notion could just as likely come from a couple fantasy novels mentioned in Chainmail, especially Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions and Michael Moorcock's Elric series, both of which describe a struggle between the forces of Law and the forces of Chaos (there's an intresting article about Law and Chaos in Three Hearts and Three Lions at Delta's D&D Hotspot).

The two changes mentioned above (reinforcing the factional aspect of alignments while also introducing an intrinsic moral element to them) have strong implications for both player characters and monsters: 

For players, the first consequence is that, during character creation, you must choose one of the three big factions to be a part of (and be fluent in its divisional language).

Before the game begins it is not only necessary to select a role, but it is also necessary to determine what stance the character will take — Law, Neutrality, or Chaos (M&M, p. 9).

In terms of game mechanics, this is especially consequential for Clerics. If they are aligned with Chaos, they become Anti-Clerics, loosing the power to turn undead and having the effects of many of their spells reversed.

The initial choice of alignment is not final, though, as there are are hints that player characters, including Clerics, can choose to change their alignment during play. For example:

Clerics of 7th level and greater are either “Law” or “Chaos,” and there is a sharp distinction between them. If a Patriarch receiving the above benefits* changes sides, all the benefits will immediately be removed! (M&M, p. 7).

* the benefits referred to in this passage are a fortress built with help from "above" (sic) and faithful soldiers who are fanatically loyal and serve at no cost. 

If alignments have to do with factional allegiance, they should ideally be mutable, fluid, and subject to personal choices. The possibility of freely changing alignment during play is cool, but because of the dual nature of OD&D alignments, it also raises many questions, such as:

• Is changing alignments only the result of a deliberate choice to "change sides" (alignment as faction) or can it be the result of your character's behaviour (alignment as morality)?

• If you change alignment, do you immediately learn your new alignment's divisional language? If so, how does that happen? (Duolingo?) Also, do you forget your previous divisional language when you learn the new one?

These questions beg to be house ruled, and can even be solved via in-game fiction (divisional languages are magical, or something like that). The most difficult issues with OD&D alignments, however, come from interactions with monsters, as we will see below.

Monsters, animals and NPCs: everyone has an alignment?

In most cases, the alignments of OD&D monsters serve as an indication to their attitude towards the player characters, often depending on the player characters' own alignment. For instance:

Monsters can be lured into service if they are of the same basic alignment as the player-character, or they can be Charmed and thus ordered to serve (M&M, p. 12). 

If a monster's alignment is Chaos, for example, it is assumed to be both evil and a member of the Chaos faction, as well as fluent in the language of Chaos (assuming it can speak). Seems easy, right? Unfortunately, this simple framework creates many internal inconsistencies:

In some cases, the alignment of a monster is clearly tied to its allegiance to a faction, especially in the case of humans (brigands, evil high priests...) and humanoids (goblins, gnolls...). On the other hand, the alignment of certain creatures (intelligent or otherwise) seems to have nothing to do with factions, relating instead to traits that define their behaviour. The gargoyle is one such example:

(Gargoyles) generally attack with no provocation regardless of the fact that they may be attacking other Chaotic creatures (M&T, p. 14).

Some fantastic animals, such as pegasi and unicorns, react negatively to all but Lawful characters. It seems strange that these creatures (magical, yes, but still animals) would care about military factions, lawful or not. What does the Law alignment mean to them, then? Do they perceive the inner, metaphysical nature of player characters? 

Likewise, does the Chaos alignment of the bull-like gorgon mean that it fights for the armies of Chaos or that it's simply a hostile, aggressive creature? Does its alignment mean it could be lured into service by an Anti-Cleric that adheres to Chaos? It's hard to say. 

In any case, nowhere is the ambiguity of OD&D's alignment system more apparent than in the case of Neutral creatures, which can be two radically different things:

1. Members of the Neutrality faction: Neutrality is an active faction in the game — it even has its own divisional language! Therefore, at least some of the creatures that are classified as Neutral must be loyal to "Team Neutrality". This is likely the case of monsters such as dryads and pixies, but not certainly.  

2. Unaligned creatures: Despite the existence of "Team Neutrality", most creatures that are classified as Neutral, particularly mundane animals, wouldn't even be aware of the struggle between OD&D's alignments. An ant, for example, be it giant or normal-sized, does not serve a grand metaphysical purpose—it just exists. There's no reason to think a neutral-aligned ant would react any differently to neutral, lawful or chaotic player characters.

The result is that Neutrality is either an absence of alignment or an active alignment itself, on a case-by-case basis. Could a neutral player character choose to either side with the dryads of "Team Neutrality" or to be "unaligned" like an ant? The game doesn't make a distinction that would really allow this choice.

Some magical effects and items in the game imply that alignments are moral stances with objective, supernatural weight, deeply woven into a creature’s nature. One would think that magic swords that interact with alignments would perceive a dryad differently from an ant, for example, but the game as written seems to indicate otherwise.

Possible solutions?

The limitations and contradictions of OD&D's alignment system are obvious, but simply doing away with alignments would be unsatisfactory: faction play is fun, and the armies of Law, Neutrality and Chaos are the main factions of OD&D. As for the moral and metaphysical aspect of alignments, many spells and magical effects presume their existence, so that simply removing them partially breaks the game's magic system.

It's difficult to house rule OD&D's alignment system in a satisfactory manner, but it can be done.

For my take on the problem, see Part 3 (coming soon). This will be followed by Part 4 (coming soon), the final post in this series, where a proposed tweak of the alignement system will be applied to each monster in OD&D.