"The more laws and commands there are, The more thieves and robbers there will be." - Tao Te Ching.
I was reading about the history of philosophy and had a brief thought on alignment that I wanted to share.
As you know, in OD&D the "cosmic conflict" is framed as Law vs. Chaos, which is really about Good and Evil.
AD&D makes things more complex by introducing nine alignments in two axis: Good-Evil and Law-Chaos (see below).
Still, the "Good vs. Evil" axis seems more relevant than the Law vs. Chaos one; the difference between, say, Saintly and Beatific or between Devilish and Demonic (which would be nearly synonyms in some dictionaries...) is not as significant as the difference between Saintly and Devilish or Beatific and Demonic.
In addition, rangers must always be good, and paladins not only must be Lawful Good but also cannot associate with non-Good people, although they can freely associate with non-lawful.
You could see Lawful Good as the "best" alignment, in the sense of "summum bonum", while Chaotic Evil are obviously the bad guys.
Orcs, for example, were portrayed as chaotic, lawful, neutral, and evil during the TSR era—but never good. notice that OD&D orcs are chaotic or neutral, but AD&D orcs are lawful evil, despite being the same creatures.
Another example I like is CE gnolls being led by LE flinds, which are very similar creatures.
But Lawful Good versus Chaotic Evil, or Heaven versus Hell, is a simplistic conflict; we can clearly see who is in the right. Maybe if we could see angels and demons, we wouldn’t need philosophy—we would just side with the angels.
Once you start looking into the history of philosophy (and religion—although this post is NOT a comment on real-world religions, but on D&D), you begin to notice a certain pattern.
We have a concept of "Good" and certain laws that are meant to help us achieve that good; this is Lawful Good. Over time, the laws—perhaps because they are simpler, easier, or more explicit than Good itself—start to become more important than Good. In other words, the letter of the law becomes more important than the spirit of the law. So Lawful Good begins to slide toward Lawful Neutral or even Lawful Evil.
Then a new doctrine or figure appears. In a way, it is Lawful Good because it offers a better path (a better law) to achieve Good. It denounces the current regime as Lawful Neutral or Evil, and is often considered Chaotic or Evil by the existing doctrine, as it appears to defy the letter of the law.
The current status quo is often denounced as a perversion of the old ideals, and the new doctrine is at times revolutionary and at times reactionary, going "back to the source", back to the TRUE Law, which is Good.
If the new doctrine succeeds, a new and improved Lawful Good becomes the norm—but it is always at risk of sliding back toward Neutral or Evil, as pure Good is elusive for mere mortals.
This seems especially evident in Taoism, Christianity (particularly in its critique of Phariseeism), Protestantism, and Buddhism, but it’s also present in other philosophies. For example, Confucianism is very heavy on obedience and ritual, but Confucius also emphasizes sincerity in performing such rituals.
I have a feeling that every revolution is also started like this: "the letter of law is now a tool of evil, it must be discarded entirely in favor of good, no matter the chaos we cause in the process".
This is not to say that the battle of Good versus Evil is uninteresting; but this cycle of LG becoming LE and then being corrected by an idea that looks CG until it becomes the new LG seems especially relevant in the history of philosophy and religion, and also in D&D.
In addition, the theme of “adherence to laws originally meant to protect good, but which have grown stale and now protect evil” is a common one in fiction as well; from Antigone to Les Miserables and Game of Thrones.
Of course, there are many other compelling alignment conflicts to explore in D&D: a Lawful Good society growing lax in its adherence to law and falling prey to evil and chaos; two LG factions clashing over fundamentally different interpretations of "good"; or a neutral or good-aligned character living in—or even ruling—a chaotic or evil society. But I’ll save those for another post.
Additional reading:
Hey, interesting post. I can see fictionally how this can be useful. As you mentioned, having two LG factions clash can provide an interesting conflict.
ReplyDeleteAre there any other ways in which you find alignment practical?
Thank you! Well, I'm not sure I find them practical; sometimes I use them to see how a creature reacts to an offer, threat, enquiry, etc. I sometimes think alignment could be replaced by a word such as "hungry", "aggressive", "curious", and so on.
DeleteI think what many are missing are missing is that Anderson, and those who followed, didn't pluck the Law vs Chaos theme out of thin air. It is deeply embedded in indo-european myth.
ReplyDeleteNordic mythology for example, is a textbook example of law vs. Chaos, with little good or evil mixed in.
The Aesir slew the Jotnar Ymir and created an ordered (lawful) universe from his body. Then they built fences around the places they wanted to keep Chaos out of (gard literally meant fence. Utgard, the home of the jotnar, is literally 'outside the fence', ie Chaos).
And humanity is aligned to Law, and the Aesir, because without an orderly universe, and the human equivalent (society), survival would be really really tough. Law is what makes it possible for humanity to propitiate the gods and expect good harvests, somewhat predictable seasons and game, etc. In the human realm, law is literally what puts a roof over your head - In a lawful commune where people come together and collaborate in exchange for mutual services, you can have
"I will make metal tools if you guys will take care of my other needs" guy,
and
"I will build houses if you guys will take care of my other needs" guy
and
"I will farm the field if you guys will take care of my other needs" guy.
None of that happens without Law. It's divine pattern exemplified in human society. Outside the gard, in the wilds, Chaos reigns and while the Jotnar, the living spirits of primal natural forces, are not evil per se, they are largely amoral and care little for humanity. Survival at their mercy is far less likely than under the benign patronage of the Aesir (who are themselves, hardly paragons of virtue. It's not an ethical framework).
This is the theological setup, which you can find in various guises in most indo-european mythologies, that predated the advent of Christianity where morality and virtue begin to take precedence over custom and accomplishment. In D&D terms, how Lawful became Lawful Good.
Interesting points indeed! I would say the of "virtue" is different in such mythologies, in the vein of Pendragon, for example (e.g., courage above self-sacrifice).
DeleteIn not sure Christianity adds morality and virtue; at the very least it was hinted in the old testament, and certainly some virtues seem to be common in many religions.
Buddhism, for example, emphasizes virtues like compassion, mindfulness, and detachment, over the ritualistic and caste-based aspects of traditional Hindu law.
I was mostly looking at Christianity's displacement of the indo-european religions of antiquity. And I do think Christianity (I am not considering old testament here, as that was not the displacing religion) added a moral and interior element that was less present in most indo-european religion - that is, your divine relationship was in large parts defined by your piety and moral purity moreso than your deeds and ritual supplication (aka divine relationship maintenance).
DeleteThere are certainly parallels in Asian religion, for example the early Buddhist critiques of Vedic caste and conceptions of karma. "Karma" meaning 'action', was understood in early vedic theory quite literally - i.e correctly performing various ritualistic actions would lead to certain outcomes, such as good rebirth. The Buddha's proposition that "karma is intention" flipped the tables on that by adding an unavoidable moral and interior element to actions and their outcomes.
The absence of moral component, or at least the very soft role it plays in indo-european myth is, I think, well exemplified in how Aesir and humanity alike relate to the Jotnar vs how Christianity relates to demons.
DeleteConsorting with demons is, in Christianity, essentially evil in an a priori way. Corruption is unavoidable.
Meanwhile, although consorting with Jotnar was, by and large, considered unwise and the relationship is for the most part a hostile one, the aesir still intermarried with Jotnar, and had various escapades, dealings and trials with Jotnar that would be wholly unacceptable in a Christian context when it comes to dealing with demons. And this is, I think rooted in the difference between how these religions related to the Other. In indo-european myth, it is mainly antagonistically, but both antagonism and absence of same in their dealings has a pragmatic character that permits a more muddled picture. And this is also reflected in the mortal world where we see that certain local jotnar are sometimes appeased with offerings and ritual in various places.
Similar patterns can be observed in greek myth as well, where the Olympians by and large keep the world of mankind safe from the titans and their sibling races (gigantes, hecatoncheires, typhon, and so on). And, as with the jotnar, the relationship is ambiguous as some of the titans seem to be wholly uninvolved in the titanomachy and then there's Prometheus who throws a spanner in the works of those who like a neatly sectioned cosmology, basically a "what if Loki was ambiguously benign?" figure (his main role, to my mind, being to mess with the relationship between olympians and mankind).
Meanwhile, such dealings are rendered impossible in Christian theology, not only because demons are innately evil and harmful and thus will never be worth dealing with, but also because the very act of consorting with them risks corrupting one's inner goodness, a theme absent in indo-european myth.
Some awesome insights on Indo-European religion there!
DeleteI’ll add some caveats, mostly because I find the discussion interesting; I’m not necessarily disagreeing.
First, when you say Christianity “displaced” Indo-European religion, you point to one important aspect: my post is mainly talking about religions/philosophies growing from previous philosophies. I.e., there is no direct link between IE religions and Christianity, unlike my examples (Judaism–Christianity, Catholicism–Protestantism, Hinduism–Buddhism).
If Odinism etc. had “evolved” into other forms, how would it look? I’m probably not as knowledgeable as you about the subject, but IIRC it actually happened a bit—with Thor and then Balder being worshiped over Odin eventually, and human sacrifice becoming less popular.
What about ancient Greek and Roman religion? They might have morphed into philosophy (Plato, Stoicism, etc.) that eventually valued virtue over ritual.
About dealing with demons and Christian theology, I agree, and I must add (for gaming and historical motives) there have been medieval Christianized mages and alchemists that tried to contact spirits, angels (or demons, according to detractors), etc. Of course their beliefs would often be considered heretical (Gnosticism, Enochian magic, etc.), but then again so were many protestant beliefs. And of course, exorcism involves communicating and controlling demons, although not contacting or bargaining AFAIK.
Finally, since you mentioned Anderson, I must add that in Three Hearts and Three Lions, Law is quite clearly identified with Christianity; maybe a bit less so in The Broken Sword, but you can still see it. So in a way it is Law vs. Chaos from a Christian perspective (although of course The Broken Sword mixes it with Norse religion).
Fascinating subject!