{AD&D2e} What the fuck was wrong with the writers

[Mistborn]

So between the Planescape thing and the Mongrelman entry in the MM I seriously want to know how the people who wrote AD&D made their Alignment /Moral system so hideous.

Mongrelmen are basically harmless and LN but are shunned by team good because they are ugly. Are you a paladin? Want to join the the faction that spends most of the time feeding the hungry and operates Sigil's only sanitarium and basically do most of the actual government services? Nope their CE. The Randroids that believe they're entitled to take what ever the can get their hands on by fair means of foul on the other hand are CG.

Seriously what the fuck

[CapnTthePirateG]

I think it started with an attempt to use Moorcock's Law/Chaos system, and than good and evil got shoehorned in. But don't quote me.

Also the balance between good and evil needed to be a thing despite that being the worst philosophy ever.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Real moral philosophers had better things to work on professionally? I hear TSR was a pretty messed-up place.

[name_here]

I think they were trying to get having a balance between good and evil make any sense at all, and then they fucked the hell up.

[ishy]

Has any version of D&D ever had an alignment writeup that made sense / was not horrible?

[fbmf]

No.

Game On,
fbmf

[Red_Rob]

Yes.

In OD&D there were only 3 alignments, Law, Neutral and Chaos. Alignment didn't have any bearing on your personality, it merely denoted which side in the great cosmic struggle you were aligned with. Law was good and Chaos was bad, and that was pretty much that.

And as soon as they tried to make it more complicated than that it fell apart.

[fectin]

Because morality is complicated, and part of the appeal of games is that they model simpler systems. You skip debates about whether ugliness is really a fair determinant of punchability in D&D the same way you skip arguments about whether you should shoot people for wearing a different primary color in FPS games.

Also, and this is key, D&D is and always has been a game about hitting dudes in the face and taking their stuff. There are almost no moral systems where that's anything other than evil.

I happen to enjoy more complex social dynamics in my games; I also play Logistics & Dragons voluntarily. Neither of those traits really matches up well with the broader playerbase, and that's okay.

I like D&D a lot, but it's built from the ground up to be a game, not a philosophical simulator.

[wotmaniac]

I like D&D a lot, but it's built from the ground up to be a game, not a philosophical simulator.

... and the more people understand this, the fewer, completely pointless, hate-ons there will be flying from out of ivory towers.



(sorry -- I'm in a bit of a mood today)

[Username17]

Sure it's a game, but it's a role playing game. That means that you get roles. And you fucking play those roles. Roles require motivation.

That's what all that shit: alignment, nature, demeanor, faction, virtue, values, passion, vices - is all about. It's about giving characters motivation so that they can be roles that you can play. An incredibly shitty set of alignments is bad for the game. It's bad because it makes playing roles more difficult than it needs to be.

-Username17

[Voss]

Bollocks. Alignment isn't motivation, especially in early D&D. Its a fucking hat. Motivation was 'go out, kill stuff and take their shit.' Everything beyond that developed slowly over time. Partially in reaction to things outside D&D.



@Red Rob- that was functionally stupid as well. Considering the writers they were cribbing from, Law as good (with no drawbacks) and Chaos as evil (with no redeeming value) makes NO sense.

I like D&D a lot, but it's built from the ground up to be a game, not a philosophical simulator.

... and the more people understand this, the fewer, completely pointless, hate-ons there will be flying from out of ivory towers.



(sorry -- I'm in a bit of a mood today)

Che. You're perfectly justified. There has been a lot of ivory tower bullshit lately, most of pretending that the last 25 years of game development (and social change in general) existed before it happened, and everyone involved in anything was a fucking moron by not being informed by a limited set of standards from the future.

[OgreBattle]

The 9 Alignments has recently been spreading as a meme in China, a friend of mine was talking to me the other day about how entertaining it was to fill in those 9 alignments with themes, like "Japanese animators". Hideaki Anno is Chaotic Evil, Hayao Miyazaki is Lawful Good.

[Username17]

Bollocks. Alignment isn't motivation, especially in early D&D. Its a fucking hat. Motivation was 'go out, kill stuff and take their shit.' Everything beyond that developed slowly over time. Partially in reaction to things outside D&D.

God damn you're an idiot. Let's go back to the Gygax, shall we?

Alignment describes the broad ethos of thinking, reasoning creatures
...
Note that alignment does not necessarily dictate religious persuasion
....
The overall behavior of the character (or creature) is delineated by alignment

The major precepets of this alignment
...
creatures of this alignment view
...
Creatures of this alignment are great respecters of

Blah blah blah. Alignment has always been about what a character's views and opinions were. You know, their motivations for doing shit.

We only talk about them as arbitrary colored hats in a war for no reason because alignments were incredibly shitty at doing their actual job! They were written on your character sheet, and they were supposed to encapsulate your character's views about things, but they were incredibly and unfortunately useless.

The fact that no one could ever figure out whether being "Lawful" meant that you were unwilling to compromise your personal code, meant that you were in favor of greater levels of organization, meant that you followed actual man-made laws, meant that you saw the universe as inherently mathematical, or something else entirely wasn't because writing "Lawful" on your character sheet was never supposed to define your character's beliefs for purposes of providing motivation for role playing. It was because Law was incredibly poorly and contradictorily defined. You're a fucking retarded hipster who is claiming that because something was shitty, that it was supposed to be shitty. Just fucking man up about it: Alignment wasn't ironic, it was badly done.

-Username17

[K]

Games also have not gotten a lot of development.

I mean, people still pine for the old 1e/2e days where random things happened and people died brutally for wanting things. People are emulating MMOs in their RPGs even though MMOs are both deeply limited and allow for complicated math systems that would be distasteful for human players. No one has created a satisfying social game even though RPGs have needed one since their inception.

I mean, people who design RPGs make the combat mini-game first, then add things on afterwords. That's not even something that people question even though the adventure design really should be the first mechanic that shapes everything else.

So there is no surprise for me when bad mechanics happen to good games in the past or the present. I expect everyone who could have made RPGs really interesting went into the computer programming field because people actually paid them decent money.

[wotmaniac]

No, Frank -- it's a filter for rationalizing your motivations.

[Korgan0]

No, Frank -- it's a filter for rationalizing your motivations.

That just doesn't make any sense.

[wotmaniac]

No, Frank -- it's a filter for rationalizing your motivations.

That just doesn't make any sense.

well, it's well past time for me to pass-out (which means that a) my brain is already in shut-down mode, and b) I'm not up for spitting out 600 words further fleshing it out) .... maybe somebody else can figure it out and then restate it more eloquently.

[Saxony]

Mistborn, I think you're reading too much into this.

DnD (none of the editions) is not some magnum opus of philosophy. It's just one game, made by some people. They didn't put as much thought into it as you have.

Doesn't mean it couldn't or should not have been done better, but... I guess my entire point is basically "It is just a game". 2nd edition is a really old one, with not much production value or ambition.

When someone tries to make a blockbuster version of DnD to reach more than 10 million fans.... alright, let's bring out the magnifying glass and see what the authors'/artists' intent was.

[Kaelik]

No, Frank -- it's a filter for rationalizing your motivations.

That just doesn't make any sense.

well, it's well past time for me to pass-out (which means that a) my brain is already in shut-down mode, and b) I'm not up for spitting out 600 words further fleshing it out) .... maybe somebody else can figure it out and then restate it more eloquently.

No wot, you were very clear last time that when you say something that doesn't make any sense because you are bad at communicating it is really just us trolling you and you made perfect sense.

[Just another user]

So between the Planescape thing and the Mongrelman entry in the MM I seriously want to know how the people who wrote AD&D made their Alignment /Moral system so hideous.

Mongrelmen are basically harmless and LN but are shunned by team good because they are ugly. [...]Seriously what the fuck

well, I don't know about the other thing but I think that make sense. You must remember that this is dungeons & dragons, judge other people form how they look is not just a prejudice, it is a survival trait, because in D&D 9 times out of 10 ugly is evil. and the people that tend to give a fair chance to things like trolls, or ogres, or goblins end up dead while the one that distrust ugly things have a better chance to survive. Evolution in action.

Beside, and be honest, if you did see something like the mongrelmen picture in that entry, what would be your first reaction?
-"howdy, neighbour. Would you like to come in for a spot of tea?"

or

-"Aaaaaah!!! Kill it with fire!!!"

[Hicks]

Neither, I choose Diplomacy: "Would you like my protection and join my katamari of minions?"

Na-naaaaa-na-na-na-na-naaa-naaa-naa Katamari Dip'macy!

[Username17]

Since we're talking about the OP again: the Mongrelmen were actually there to address some of the issues with D&D being racist and shitty. It was ham handed and the moral was pretty basic - but it was there. The moral of the story isn't like the moral of an 80s children's cartoon, it is the moral of an 80s children's cartoon. Specifically, it's the moral from the end of the He-Man episode "Evil-Lyn's Plot":

In today's story you saw how the Widgets were fooled by Evil-Lyn's disguise; they learned that bad things can be made to look good, and why we should always be careful and question everything that doesn't seem right. But it works both ways, and that's why the saying 'You can't judge a book by its cover' is so important. What it means is that appearances can be deceiving and you shouldn't judge books or people by the way they look, it's what's inside that really counts.

So while it's totally fair to make fun of the Mongrelmen writeup for being written for 8 year olds, it beats the fuck out of "Drow are Evil so they are Black", which is the basic state of the hobby that they were trying to clean up.

-Username17

[Ancient History]

It was also part of the weird D&D fantasy genetics getting out of control. Half-elves, half-orcs, orogs, ogrillions, dwelfs, half-giants, muls...and that's before we get into the half'n'half elven subrace bullshit.

[Libertad]

Actually, Voss is right. The Original 1974 D&D didn't really have descriptions of Alignment beyond a "Team Jersey" thing in the books. Nothing about motivations or Good and Evil, but "what side are Dwarves on?" AD&D came 4 years later. Most we get in the Greyhawk supplement is "Chaotics are selfish bastards."

Men & Magic, p 9:
"Character Alignment, Including Various Monsters and Creatures: 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, Netrality[sic], or Chaos."

[This is followed by a table showing which creatures can be of which alignments. Elves and dwarves can be either Lawful or Neutral, for example, and orcs can be either Neutral or Chaotic. There are other scattered notes about clerics needing to choose either Law or Chaos before becoming Patriarchs, and the effects of a couple spells like Quest (but, notably, not Detect Evil or Protection from Evil, which have no reference to alignment.) Magic & Treasures talks about damage from picking up a magic item of a different alignment. Underworld & Wilderness Adventures breaks down some wilderness encounters by alignment type, but otherwise the above paragraph is all the explanation given. OD&D alignment originally had nothing to do with behavior or morality, but was more like factions in a cosmic battle.]

Supplement I (Greyhawk), pp 6-7:
"Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that -- chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederates in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place. While there is no rule to apply to groups of chaotic players operating in concert, referees are urged to formulate some rules against continuing co-operation as fits their particular situation, but consideration for concerted actions against chaotic players by lawful ones should be given."

[Greyhawk starts us down the road of interpreting alignment as a behavior guideline. However, Chaotic alignment sounds more like the True Neutral of later editions, and there's still a hint of alignment mainly determining reaction of monsters to other alignments.]

[Just another user]

Actually, Voss is right. The Original 1974 D&D didn't really have descriptions of Alignment beyond a "Team Jersey" thing in the books. Nothing about motivations or Good and Evil, but "what side are Dwarves on?" AD&D came 4 years later. Most we get in the Greyhawk supplement is "Chaotics are selfish bastards."

IIRC at the time there were things like alignemt languages, so two chaotic creatures shared a language just because they were chaotic.