Are drow inherently evil? And other D&D racial restrictions that have been loosened over the years

[Gilius Thunderhead]

The way Tolkien saw it re:Orcs (at least they way I understand it, not being a Tolkien scholar or anything), is that they were bestial creatures and thoroughly corrupted, but not evil in themselves. Their weak will and bestial nature make them susceptible to the will of the Dark Lord, much like with blaks and the Democratic party.

Regarding Drow and others, I think it's rather futile to look for a coherent metaphysical grounding in D&D, as unlike Tolkien's work on which it is based, it doesn't need to form a coherent whole or be reconciled with the author's Christian faith. Drows being depicted as evil makes sense in a world where Good vs Evil, Light vs Dark are locked in eternal struggle. But people identify with their characters and don't feel comfortable playing someone who is pure evil. They also feel titillated by the idea of playing an anti-hero. Dark Elves let some people have the fantasy of being superior, while rejecting the purity and solar nature of Tolkien's elves, for which they believe they're too complex. So there begins the process of justifying them, "updating" them for a modern audience who doesn't accept simplistic moral binaries (even though they accept them in a lot of other things).

 

[NecroLord]

The way Tolkien saw it re:Orcs (at least they way I understand it, not being a Tolkien scholar or anything), is that they were bestial creatures and thoroughly corrupted, but not evil in themselves. Their weak will and bestial nature make them susceptible to the will of the Dark Lord, much like with blaks and the Democratic party.

Regarding Drow and others, I think it's rather futile to look for a coherent metaphysical grounding in D&D, as unlike Tolkien's work on which it is based, it doesn't need to form a coherent whole or be reconciled with the author's Christian faith. Drows being depicted as evil makes sense in a world where Good vs Evil, Light vs Dark are locked in eternal struggle. But people identify with their characters and don't feel comfortable playing someone who is pure evil. They also feel titillated by the idea of playing an anti-hero. Dark Elves let some people have the fantasy of being superior, while rejecting the purity and solar nature of Tolkien's elves, for which they believe they're too complex. So there begins the process of justifying them, "updating" them for a modern audience who doesn't accept simplistic moral binaries (even though they accept them in a lot of other things).

Like a Boss.

 

[Silva]

The way Tolkien saw it re:Orcs (at least they way I understand it, not being a Tolkien scholar or anything), is that they were bestial creatures and thoroughly corrupted, but not evil in themselves. Their weak will and bestial nature make them susceptible to the will of the Dark Lord, much like with blaks and the Democratic party.

Tolkien orcs are based on a racist view towards non-european, non-christian peoples. Tolkien himself admitted on a letter that he made orcs based on mongoloids.

That said, I can't blame the guy for being a product of his era. But I can point out how nonsensic it is to discuss those concepts in any serious manner nowadays. The notion of "evil" is already laughable, what to say of races of sapient beings that are supposedly driven to do "evil" things rather than by biological necessities, self interest, emotions, etc.

But hey, who am I to dictate how people do their let's pretend. Have fun, faggots.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

The way Tolkien saw it re:Orcs (at least they way I understand it, not being a Tolkien scholar or anything), is that they were bestial creatures and thoroughly corrupted, but not evil in themselves. Their weak will and bestial nature make them susceptible to the will of the Dark Lord, much like with blaks and the Democratic party.

To Tolkien, everyone and everything that lives is really good and can never be evil. Even Sauron.

They would be Morgoth’s greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote ‘irredeemably bad’; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making – necessary to their actual existence – even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God’s and ultimately good.) But whether they could have ‘souls’ or ‘spirits’ seems a different question; and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible ‘delegation’, I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them. That God would ‘tolerate’ that, seems no worse theology than the toleration of the calculated dehumanizing of Men by tyrants that goes on today. There might be other ‘makings’ all the same which were more like puppets filled (only at a distance) with their maker’s mind and will, or ant-like operating under direction of a queen-centre.

Good and Evil are two points on the same spectrum. Every alignment system acknowledges this.

If you say that ultimately everything and everyone in creation is good, then you've simple shifted the spectrum so far into good that your classification for evil no longer has meaning. Everyone is innately good and merely acts or thinks evilly. Which, I guess is representative of certain philosophies, but of little use when determining alignment.

Is a character more or less likely to choose to act evilly? That's a question D&D wanted to answer, but Tolkien did not.

In reality, the "less good" is still more evil, and the good is still good. Whether or not you, I or Tolkien choose to acknowledge them as such.

 

[JamesDixon]

The way Tolkien saw it re:Orcs (at least they way I understand it, not being a Tolkien scholar or anything), is that they were bestial creatures and thoroughly corrupted, but not evil in themselves. Their weak will and bestial nature make them susceptible to the will of the Dark Lord, much like with blaks and the Democratic party.

Tolkien orcs are based on a racist view towards non-european, non-christian peoples. Tolkien himself admitted on a letter that he made orcs based on mongoloids.

That said, I can't blame the guy for being a product of his era. But I can point out how nonsensic it is to discuss those concepts in any serious manner nowadays. The notion of "evil" is already laughable, what to say of races of sapient beings that are supposedly driven to do "evil" things rather than by biological necessities, self interest, emotions, etc.

But hey, who am I to dictate how people do their let's pretend. Have fun, faggots.

The mind of a simplistic child is a beauty to behold. Evil in the context of AD&D is based around being selfish. Since you don't believe me let me quote AD&D where Evil and Good are used as an axis.

AD&D 1E PHB: Chaotic Evil: The major precepts of this alignment are freedom, randomness, and woe. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained. Life has no value. By promoting chaos and evil, those of this alignment hope to bring themselves to positions of power, glory, and prestige in a system ruled by individual caprice and their own whims.

Lawful Evil: Creatures of this alignment are great respecters of laws and strict order, but life, beauty, truth, freedom, and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned. By adhering to stringent discipline, those of lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.

Neutral Evil: The neutral evil creature views laws and chaos as unnecessary considerations, for pure evil is all-in-all. Either might be used, but both are disdained as foolish clutter useless in bringing maximum evilness to the world.

AD&D 1E DMG: Good and Evil: Basically stated, the tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of AD&D, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable. Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is the determinant.

AD&D 2E PHB: Good characters are just that. They try to be honest, charitable, and forthright. People are not perfect, however, so few are good all the time. There are always occasional failings and weaknesses. A good person, however, worries about his errors and normally tries to correct any damage done.

Remember, however, that goodness has no absolute values. Although many things are commonly accepted as good (helping those in need, protecting the weak) Different cultures impose their own interpretations on what is good and what is evil.

Evil is the antithesis of good and appears in many ways, some overt and others quite subtle. Only a few people of evil nature actively seek to cause harm or destruction. Most simply do not recognize that they that what they do is destructive or disruptive. People and things that obstruct the evil character's plans are mere hindrances that must be overcome. If someone is harmed in the process... well, that's too bad. Remember that evil, like good is interpreted differently in different societies.

Lawful Good: Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of the people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed. When people respect the laws and try to help one another, society as a whole prospers. Therefore, lawful good characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm. An honest and hardworking serf, a kindly and wise king, or a stern but forthright minister of justice are all examples of lawful good people.

Lawful Evil: These characters believe in using society and its laws to benefit themselves. Structure and organization elevate those who deserve to rule as well as provide a clearly defined hierarchy between master and servant. To this end, lawful evil characters support laws and societies that protect their own concerns. If someone is hurt or suffers because of a law that benefits lawful evil characters, too bad. Lawful evil characters obey laws out of fear of punishment. Because they may be forced to honor an unfavorable contract or oath they have made, lawful evil characters are usually very careful about giving their word. Once given, they break their word only if they can find a way to do it legally, within the laws of the society. An iron-fisted tyrant and a devious, greedy merchant are examples of lawful evil beings.

Neutral Good: These characters believe that a balance of forces is important, but that the concerns of law and chaos do not moderate the need for good. Since the universe is vast and contains many creatures striving for different goals, a determined pursuit of good will not upset the balance; it may even maintain it. If fostering good means supporting organized society, then that is what must be done. If good can only come about through the overthrow of existing social order, so be it. Social structure itself has no innate value to them. A baron who violates the orders of his king to destroy something he sees as evil is an example of a neutral good character.

Neutral Evil: Neutral evil characters are primarily concerned with themselves and their own advancement. They have no particular objection to working with others or, for that matter, going it on their own. Their only interest is in getting ahead. If there is a quick and easy way to gain a profit, whether it be legal, questionable, or obviously illegal, they take advantage of it. Although neutral evil characters do not have the every-man-for-himself attitude of chaotic characters, they have no qualms about betraying their friends and companions for personal gain. They typically base their allegiance on power and money, which makes them quite receptive to bribes. An unscrupulous mercenary, a common thief, and a double-crossing informer who betrays people to the authorities to protect and advance himself are typical examples of neutral evil characters.

Chaotic Good: Chaotic good characters are strong individualists marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence. They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they have little use for laws and regulations. They have no use for people who “try to push folk around and tell them what to do.” Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society. A brave frontiersman forever moving on as settlers follow in his wake is an example of a chaotic good character.

Chaotic Evil: These characters are the bane of all that is good and organized. Chaotic evil characters are motivated by the desire for personal gain and pleasure. They see absolutely nothing wrong with taking whatever they want by whatever means possible. Laws and governments are the tools of weaklings unable to fend for themselves. The strong have the right to take what they want, and the weak are there to be exploited. When chaotic evil characters band together, they are not motivated by a desire to cooperate, but rather to oppose powerful enemies. Such a group can be held together only by a strong leader capable of bullying his underlings into obedience. Since leadership is based on raw power, a leader is likely to be replaced at the first sign of weakness by anyone who can take his position away from him by any method. Bloodthirsty buccaneers and monsters of low Intelligence are fine examples of chaotic evil personalities.

In the context of AD&D, evil is based upon selfishness and not respecting the rights of others. As such, evil does exist in the world we inhabit. Jeffrey Dahmer was evil as were a great many other criminals.

 

[NecroLord]

W-wait,so you be sayin' dat those Balors and Pit Fiends are evil 'n shieet?
I always thought they were just misunderstood...

 

[Gilius Thunderhead]

The way Tolkien saw it re:Orcs (at least they way I understand it, not being a Tolkien scholar or anything), is that they were bestial creatures and thoroughly corrupted, but not evil in themselves. Their weak will and bestial nature make them susceptible to the will of the Dark Lord, much like with blaks and the Democratic party.

To Tolkien, everyone and everything that lives is really good and can never be evil. Even Sauron.

They would be Morgoth’s greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote ‘irredeemably bad’; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making – necessary to their actual existence – even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God’s and ultimately good.) But whether they could have ‘souls’ or ‘spirits’ seems a different question; and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible ‘delegation’, I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them. That God would ‘tolerate’ that, seems no worse theology than the toleration of the calculated dehumanizing of Men by tyrants that goes on today. There might be other ‘makings’ all the same which were more like puppets filled (only at a distance) with their maker’s mind and will, or ant-like operating under direction of a queen-centre.

Good and Evil are two points on the same spectrum. Every alignment system acknowledges this.

If you say that ultimately everything and everyone in creation is good, then you've simple shifted the spectrum so far into good that your classification for evil no longer has meaning. Everyone is innately good and merely acts or thinks evilly. Which, I guess is representative of certain philosophies, but of little use when determining alignment.

Is a character more or less likely to choose to act evilly? That's a question D&D wanted to answer, but Tolkien did not.

In reality, the "less good" is still more evil, and the good is still good. Whether or not you, I or Tolkien choose to acknowledge them as such.

That's why I warned against conflating Tolkien with a roleplaying system like D&D. I don't think one can talk of a spectrum of morality in Tolkien. In fact, he reminds us that the highest and most virtuous are particularly prone to perdition. Also, what I think he meant with his commentary on orcs above, is that orcs, despite their thoroughly corrupted nature, are still a part of God's creation and subject to God's grace as such. There is no equivalence between Good and Evil. Thus the distinction he makes between "bad" and "irredeemably bad", as the idea of an "irredeemably bad" creature would place it outside of God's domain. "Bad" is always limited in scope in comparison with "good".

The alignment system is a practical adaptation for people who don't want to start every game session with a theological debate. It gives everyone an idea of what a character should behave like and makes clear distinctions between characters, in order to bring variety. I don't think there's anything more to it.

 

[JamesDixon]

The alignment system is a practical adaptation for people who don't want to start every game session with a theological debate. It gives everyone an idea of what a character should behave like and makes clear distinctions between characters, in order to bring variety. I don't think there's anything more to it.

Except you ignoring that characters can change alignment through their actions in play. That also fits neatly within Tolkien's worldview.

This discussion is about the baseline of Drow being inherently evil. It says nothing that individuals can't change. However, to effect societal change requires the majority of society to shift away from their evil actions by performing neutral or good works or the use of a Wish spell.

Tolkien was a Catholic that firmly believed in Good Works means salvation.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

That's why I warned against conflating Tolkien with a roleplaying system like D&D. I don't think one can talk of a spectrum of morality in Tolkien. In fact, he reminds us that the highest and most virtuous are particularly prone to perdition. Also, what I think he meant with his commentary on orcs above, is that orcs, despite their thoroughly corrupted nature, are still a part of God's creation and subject to God's grace as such.

Yeah, and I think he was pussing out with this. His standard for irredeemable is ridiculous. If no one has the power to create except Iluvatar, and nothing Iluvatar created is irredeemably bad or evil, then no one can be evil. Which makes the word meaningless in the setting.

It's why I think that people should take his letters with a grain of salt. An author's finished works have received a lot more thought and planning that assorted scraps of notes put together in whatever apocrypha.

There is no equivalence between Good and Evil. Thus the distinction he makes between "bad" and "irredeemably bad", as the idea of an "irredeemably bad" creature would place it outside of God's domain. "Bad" is always limited in scope in comparison with "good".

Effectively the same as good and evil. Semantics. Call it "bad" or whatever, it is what it is.

The alignment system is a practical adaptation for people who don't want to start every game session with a theological debate. It gives everyone an idea of what a character should behave like and makes clear distinctions between characters, in order to bring variety. I don't think there's anything more to it.

There is a lot more to it.

D&D is a simulation. And as such, it needs trackable variables.

How do you decide what an evil deity is? Or a good one? How do you weigh the character of a player and decide whether or not he's worthy to wield a holy weapon or a sword of selection?

It's not about variety either. It's about good verses evil, and order vs chaos. Without moral differences, there can be no moral conflict. The alignment system was a way to quantify this, and to facilitate the creation of those conflicts. It was also a tool to help players play their chosen role and not just larp a murder hobo every time.

Maybe you could argue that the 9 alignment system is about variety vs the original system, but the alignment system itself is about more than that.

Edit: You are 100% right about the debate part though. Because that's what happens when you don't track variables and don't spell out rules for people. Even with the rules spelled out, there are people itt who openly announce they don't play by them because they're not "fun".

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Yeah, and I think he was pussing out with this. His standard for irredeemable is ridiculous. If no one has the power to create except Iluvatar, and nothing Iluvatar created is irredeemably bad or evil, then no one can be evil. Which makes the word meaningless in the setting.

Referring to orcs and such as irredeemably evil would imply they were incapable of being redeemed, something that Tolkien might have initially proposed but later rejected due to his Catholic faith. The possibility that can orc could be redeemed and cease being evil should not obscure the setting's reality that virtually every orc is evil during its life and dies without having been redeemed; it's merely an affirmation that free will exists, even for an orc.

 

[Alex]

Yeah, and I think he was pussing out with this. His standard for irredeemable is ridiculous. If no one has the power to create except Iluvatar, and nothing Iluvatar created is irredeemably bad or evil, then no one can be evil. Which makes the word meaningless in the setting.

Referring to orcs and such as irredeemably evil would imply they were incapable of being redeemed, something that Tolkien might have initially proposed but later rejected due to his Catholic faith. The possibility that can orc could be redeemed and cease being evil should not obscure the setting's reality that virtually every orc is evil during its life and dies without having been redeemed; it's merely an affirmation that free will exists, even for an orc.

This whole controversy is one of the reasons I prefer the idea that orcs are not natural creatures, but rather a mock up made by magic. If orcs are not really living beings, their will might be the same kind of will that demons have, and thus they are already beyond being saved, without the implication that they were created that way.

Edit: Plus, you get them to be a bit more alien than just another flavour of human, and you avoid someone getting the idea of making them into noble savages or something :scowls at blizzard:.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

This is Tolkien's final say on the matter:

To the unfriendly who, not knowing them well, declared that Morgoth must have bred the Orcs from such a stock the Eldar answered: "Doubtless Morgoth, since he can make no living thing, bred Orcs from various kinds of Men, but the Drúedain must have escaped his Shadow; for their laughter and the laughter of Orcs are as different as is the light of Aman from the darkness of Angband." But some thought, nonetheless, that there had been a remote kinship, which accounted for their special enmity. Orcs and Drûgs each regarded the other as renegades.

That does not mean it's true, as it may not be reliable.

I prefer his first, original origin: They're made of stone and are not living creatures.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

This whole controversy is one of the reasons I prefer the idea that orcs are not natural creatures, but rather a mock up made by magic. If orcs are not really living beings, their will might be the same kind of will that demons have, and thus they are already beyond being saved, without the implication that they were created that way.

Part of the horror of the orc is that it is a living being. And an almost human-looking one.

It replicates the horror of another person or group of people trying to kill you. Tribal conflict, war etc. But with the added terror of that person or persons wanting to eat you and grind your bones to dust for the fun of it.

From a writing perspective, they were a clear plot device: a force that would inevitably conflict with the heroes. One that could not be reasoned with, pleaded with, ignored or surrendered to.

Simply evil villains.

 

[NecroLord]

Who cares about orcs?
I see an orc I introduce him to my greatsword and cut his head off. Purge those pesky orcs.

 

[Gilius Thunderhead]

Except you ignoring that characters can change alignment through their actions in play. That also fits neatly within Tolkien's worldview.

This discussion is about the baseline of Drow being inherently evil. It says nothing that individuals can't change. However, to effect societal change requires the majority of society to shift away from their evil actions by performing neutral or good works or the use of a Wish spell.

Tolkien was a Catholic that firmly believed in Good Works means salvation.

I didn't bring up alignment changes as it didn't occur to me, but it's not relevant anyway. All it does is create an alignment system for events, to complement those of characters. The morality of certain actions must be defined beforehand, with little to no ambiguity, so that Good Boy points can be attributed or discounted based on them. From what I'm just reading (I'm not a tabletop guy, I just play videogames), acting out of character to an extent enough to change alignment is frowned upon and may incur a penalty. At least that was the original context, no? Educate me.

All this to say, morality in D&D is expedient to the purpose of the game, which is to create entertaining play. The interlocking symmetry of Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, etc. serves gameplay, it's not meant to be an affirmation of a philosophy. I guess Manicheism would be the most closely related belief system. I guess growing up playing D&D might turn you into a Manichaeist. We're already very far from Tolkien.

Effectively the same as good and evil. Semantics. Call it "bad" or whatever, it is what it is.

Bad=evil, for the purpose of my illustration. Zed Duke of Banville already explained what I was trying to.

 

[Silva]

Part of the horror of the orc is that it is a living being. And an almost human-looking one.

It replicates the horror of another person or group of people trying to kill you. Tribal conflict, war etc. But with the added terror of that person or persons wanting to eat you and grind your bones to dust for the fun of it.

So, western civilization then?

 

[JamesDixon]

I didn't bring up alignment changes as it didn't occur to me, but it's not relevant anyway.

They are completely relevant to the topic at hand. You made the claim that alignment in AD&D/D&D is completely alien to what Tolkien wrote. I pointed out that you were wrong.

All it does is create an alignment system for events, to complement those of characters. The morality of certain actions must be defined beforehand, with little to no ambiguity, so that Good Boy points can be attributed or discounted based on them.

I've already established what is good and evil. Good is selfless and evil is selfish. Good is for the protection of individual rights and evil doesn't even see individual rights.

From what I'm just reading (I'm not a tabletop guy, I just play videogames), acting out of character to an extent enough to change alignment is frowned upon and may incur a penalty. At least that was the original context, no? Educate me.

There are three different types of alignment changes. The first is a deliberate change where the player decides that he wants to play a different alignment with his current character. The second is the unconscious change when the player performs actions that are suited for another alignment. The final is the involuntary change where a player's alignment is changed through spells, magic items, and the like.

The following are specific to AD&D 2E and may be the same in prior editions. There can be no penalty or one. It's up to the DM and the player to decide upon. Changes to alignment early in the game to avoid party incompatibility has no penalty. If the character is an established higher level one then to gain the next level the amount of experience is doubled. Again, the DM can waive this as he so desires.

In the case of involuntary alignment change, the character does not earn experience at all until his former alignment is restored. This is why helms of opposite alignment and other involuntary alignment changes are curses. It costs a lot of money to have the item removed.

All this to say, morality in D&D is expedient to the purpose of the game, which is to create entertaining play. The interlocking symmetry of Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, etc. serves gameplay, it's not meant to be an affirmation of a philosophy. I guess Manicheism would be the most closely related belief system. I guess growing up playing D&D might turn you into a Manichaeist. We're already very far from Tolkien.

Except that it does have a philosophy to it in real terms. In fact, every world of D&D has the alignments baked in that defines what individual countries, societies, etc... are doing under the heading of a specific alignment and to define their philosophies. Thus, your assertation is a false one.

Tolkien was a Catholic. Gary was a protestant Christian. Both believed in good and evil, law and chaos, and the fact that you can be redeemed to change or you can slide into evil. This is why the rules of D&D/AD&D allow you to change your alignment through actual play. The character is moving through an arc that alters their personality and points of view. The entire point of the law and chaos/good and evil is to tell a heroic tale that can be to improve those around you or a an arc to go from evil to good by making amends. There are no gameplay mechanisms to enforce a player to play a character a certain way. It's not a straightjacket.

It's already been established that you know nothing about D&D/AD&D alignments as per the pen and paper. You can't sit here and make claims about something you are completely ignorant of. I, and others, are actively trying to educate you about what alignments are as per the rules themselves. If you don't like the rules then it's a you problem and you should probably find a better place to spend your time instead of wasting ours.

 

[Gilius Thunderhead]

They are completely relevant to the topic at hand. You made the claim that alignment in AD&D/D&D is completely alien to what Tolkien wrote. I pointed out that you were wrong.

Did I say they were completely alien? Let's check:

"That's why I warned against conflating Tolkien with a roleplaying system like D&D. " Post here.

I hope it's not too challenging from a reading comprehension standpoint. D&D is obviously derived from Tolkien, but its world serves a different purpose. The purpose of D&D is to provide interesting gameplay choices, hence why its departures from Tolkien canon are mostly derived from expediency. Elves are not ridiculously overpowered, normal humans can become wizards through study, etc.

My initial contention, which for some reason people have a hard time coping with, is that the expediency of gameplay and the players' expectations will inevitably inform the morality of the game world. People are titillated by Dark Elves because they're dark and edgy. The urge of players to identify with their characters slowly contributes to the dilution of rigid moral distinctions regarding them. People relate to edgy evil with a good side, not unmitigated evil. Some people are upset by this, while I'm asking what's the point? It's a game.

I've already established what is good and evil. Good is selfless and evil is selfish. Good is for the protection of individual rights and evil doesn't even see individual rights.

You're just making my point. Simplistic guidelines defined beforehand, so people can focus on playing the game instead of debating morality. It's not enough for a coherent worldview, as those definitions would be laughable in any real world context. You probably need to be American not to see it.

There are three different types of alignment changes. The first is a deliberate change where the player decides that he wants to play a different alignment with his current character. The second is the unconscious change when the player performs actions that are suited for another alignment. The final is the involuntary change where a player's alignment is changed through spells, magic items, and the like.

So, in other words:
1. failsafe mechanism to prevent players from being frustrated for the rest of game (and ruining the session).
2. giving the DM the option of penalizing players for acting out of character, which can be exercised or not. I can imagine some creative workarounds.
3. spicing up the gameplay.

Looks pretty fun, congratulations.

Except that it does have a philosophy to it in real terms. In fact, every world of D&D has the alignments baked in that defines what individual countries, societies, etc... are doing under the heading of a specific alignment and to define their philosophies. Thus, your assertation is a false one.

I guess a distinction is in order between a philosophy pertaining to the game world, which exists for this world and relates to the necessities of this world, insofar as gameplay is concerned, with no need for further consistency of any type, and whose main purpose is to provide coherence and depth to the game world; and a general philosophy of D&D, validating and expanding upon the concepts it created.

Regarding the former, I've got no objection. Knock yourself out, let the kobolds quote Aristotle and Kant.

As regarding the second, I'm skeptical. I've no doubt Gygax imbued it with his own personal belief system. But my point is always the same, it was meant to serve gameplay, and not the other way around. How could you even begin apply the alignment system to anything in real life? Believing in good and evil is different from positing a dualistic system where both stand in symmetrical opposition. This goes back to my original point, that Tolkien should not be conflated with D&D, which I only made because people were talking about a "spectrum of morality" in Tolkien, which is obviously wrong.

It's already been established that you know nothing about D&D/AD&D alignments as per the pen and paper. You can't sit here and make claims about something you are completely ignorant of. I, and others, are actively trying to educate you about what alignments are as per the rules themselves. If you don't like the rules then it's a you problem and you should probably find a better place to spend your time instead of wasting ours.

Thanks, I love being ignorant. It's the most blessed state there is. Truth be told, I probably wouldn't have posted if I'd noticed the thread was in the Gazebo, not General RPG discussion, so I apologize for wasting everyone's time. Too bad, I was having fun.

 

[Silva]

Relevant:

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2009/04/changing-meaning-of-alignment-in-od.html?m=1

The term "alignment" doesn't appear once in Chainmail or its fantasy supplement, but those rules do divide figures into the categories of "Law," "Neutral," and "Chaos" as "a general guide for the wargamer designing orders of battle involving fantastic creatures." These categories serve a primarily practical purpose in helping players of Chainmail to select units that could plausibly fight side by side. There's no explicit explanation of what the category names mean beyond the obvious fact that Law and Chaos are opposed, while Neutral beings might join other side, depending on circumstances. One could reasonably equate "Law" with goodness and "Chaos" with evil from context, but neither is stated outright in the text. They are just two "sides," no different perhaps than "Romans" and "Gauls" in an ancient world wargame.

OD&D is where alignment first enters the picture and it uses the same categories as Chainmail, again without any explanation of their meaning. The text states that "Before the game begins, it is not only necessary to select a role [i.e. a character class -JDM], but it is also necessary to determine what stance the character will take [italics mine] -- Law, Neutrality, or Chaos." The term "stance" is vague but, once again, seems to imply an allegiance rather than an ethical outlook or moral code.

So, Alignment came into existance as a means for picking unit sides in a wargame where the sides were Law vs Chaos that also meant Good vs Evil (duhh). And it grew from there to become more nonsensical each new edition, to the point it's very creator, Gary Gigax, couldn't decide on a sensible meaning that wasn't full of holes and dropped it altogether in subsequent games to avoid the headache.

You're welcome, fags.

 

[Silva]

Thanks, I love being ignorant.

You're not being ignorant, you're just trying to make sense of a concept that was nonsensic from the beginning, and is only "grokked" by delusional Gigax buttlickers like JamesDixon .

 

[GrainWetski]

The way Tolkien saw it re:Orcs (at least they way I understand it, not being a Tolkien scholar or anything), is that they were bestial creatures and thoroughly corrupted, but not evil in themselves. Their weak will and bestial nature make them susceptible to the will of the Dark Lord, much like with blaks and the Democratic party.

Tolkien orcs are based on a racist view towards non-european, non-christian peoples. Tolkien himself admitted on a letter that he made orcs based on mongoloids.

That said, I can't blame the guy for being a product of his era. But I can point out how nonsensic it is to discuss those concepts in any serious manner nowadays. The notion of "evil" is already laughable, what to say of races of sapient beings that are supposedly driven to do "evil" things rather than by biological necessities, self interest, emotions, etc.

But hey, who am I to dictate how people do their let's pretend. Have fun, faggots.

You're right, fellow anti-racist, niggers are just like orcs.

 

[Late Bloomer]

Tolkien orcs are based on a racist view towards non-european, non-christian peoples. Tolkien himself admitted on a letter that he made orcs based on mongoloids.

That said, I can't blame the guy for being a product of his era. But I can point out how nonsensic it is to discuss those concepts in any serious manner nowadays. The notion of "evil" is already laughable, what to say of races of sapient beings that are supposedly driven to do "evil" things rather than by biological necessities, self interest, emotions, etc.

But hey, who am I to dictate how people do their let's pretend. Have fun, faggots.

Sound familiar?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongrel_complex

 

[NecroLord]

The way Tolkien saw it re:Orcs (at least they way I understand it, not being a Tolkien scholar or anything), is that they were bestial creatures and thoroughly corrupted, but not evil in themselves. Their weak will and bestial nature make them susceptible to the will of the Dark Lord, much like with blaks and the Democratic party.

Tolkien orcs are based on a racist view towards non-european, non-christian peoples. Tolkien himself admitted on a letter that he made orcs based on mongoloids.

That said, I can't blame the guy for being a product of his era. But I can point out how nonsensic it is to discuss those concepts in any serious manner nowadays. The notion of "evil" is already laughable, what to say of races of sapient beings that are supposedly driven to do "evil" things rather than by biological necessities, self interest, emotions, etc.

But hey, who am I to dictate how people do their let's pretend. Have fun, faggots.

You're right, fellow anti-racist, niggers are just like orcs.

 

[JamesDixon]

I hope it's not too challenging from a reading comprehension standpoint.

It obviously is quite challenging since you ignore the actual written rules. Do you have anything intelligent to say about rules you know nothing about? No? Well go play with your barbies princess and let the adults talk.

 

[JamesDixon]

Thanks, I love being ignorant.

You're not being ignorant, you're just trying to make sense of a concept that was nonsensic from the beginning, and is only "grokked" by delusional Gigax buttlickers like JamesDixon .

Funny, but the only ones that are having trouble understanding plain English are retards like you. It's been repeatedly explained on what alignment is using the actual rules. Are you illiterate? Can't you understand plain English?