A Different Emphasis on Alignment [Archive] - Wizards Community

A Different Emphasis on Alignment [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
CryoSilver
10-03-06, 12:55 AM I am toying with the idea of starting a campaign that emphasizes the Law/Chaos axis of the alignment wheel over the Good/Evil.

Has anyone done this before? It seems that most of the officially published material places far more emphasis on the Good and Evil dichotomy, so there isn't a WoTC Law/Chaos emphasized sourcebook that I know of.

My campaign world, Iliga (http://www.geocities.com/absolutecryogenic/dnd/dnd.html), is a post-apocalyptic world where keeping order is generally going to matter more than preserving rights and the greater good. Chaos would be the enemy because it would be a destabilizing force in a world that is depending on a very tenuous order just to continue limping along the long path to recovery.

You see this emphasis in some of the classes I designed for the setting: while they are nominally good, they serve the Light, an ambiguously good being that is more concerned with bringing order to the world. Hence it might be concievable to see good and evil working together in the interest of Law, while temporarily setting aside their own differences.

Anyone have any suggestions or comments on how to run this game?

Oh, and just a side-note: I don't use Slaad or Formians; I think they're kind of stupid (giant frogs and anthropomorphic ants representing the pinnacle of chaos and law? Puh-leaze) Therefore, I'm accepting suggestions on replacements.
Comfort_in_Insanity
10-03-06, 01:04 AM Inevitables might be a commonplace generic good guy (If you're world is in such a chaos/law conflict, it is conceivable that mechanus sent some your way)
CharlieRock
10-03-06, 01:46 AM The hordes of Chaos. Reminds me a little of Warhammer. :)
Tarvok
10-03-06, 08:55 PM I am toying with the idea of starting a campaign that emphasizes the Law/Chaos axis of the alignment wheel over the Good/Evil.

Has anyone done this before? It seems that most of the officially published material places far more emphasis on the Good and Evil dichotomy, so there isn't a WoTC Law/Chaos emphasized sourcebook that I know of.

There is. It's called Planescape.
ArcTan
10-04-06, 03:06 AM Yeah, IIRC Planescape tells us that Chaos and Law were the two initial forces that clashed to produce the Multiverse, with Good and Evil arising as impurities in the initial dichotomy sometime afterwards. It's one of the big surprises they have for us.
CharlieRock
10-04-06, 07:32 AM pre-1st ed. D&D was devoid entirely of G/E. The sourcebooks from it (GreyHawk or Blackmoor) would need stats updated, but might work.
ArcTan
10-04-06, 08:16 AM pre-1st ed. D&D was devoid entirely of G/E. The sourcebooks from it (GreyHawk or Blackmoor) would need stats updated, but might work.

...Greyhawk is still the core D&D 3.5 setting, with details available in the Greyhawk Living Gazetteer.

However, since you weren't aware of the lack of G/E in OD&D, you may not be aware of the immense rules differences between OD&D and D&D 3.5. They're different in many, many, *many* more ways than alignment -- in fact, you could argue they're two completely different systems with nothing more inherently in common than D&D 3.5 and GURPS. (At least, d20 System games like d20 Modern, True 20, Iron Heroes and so on have *way* more in common with D&D 3.5 than OD&D has.)

Mechanical stuff from OD&D is impossible to port to D&D 3.5 without rewriting it from the ground up (which, generally, is what was done, in stages, to classic monsters like the lowly Orc, Rust Monster and Ogre Mage when they were brought over to new editions -- the fact that this was done poorly and without much attention to detail in some cases is why the Rust Monster and Ogre Mage are poorly balanced, difficult-to-use monsters in D&D 3.5, hence Mike Mearls' Monster Makeover series).

As for flavor stuff... there's barely any flavor in OD&D. The "setting", such as it is, was a vague sketchy outline back then, and this includes the description of the Law and Chaos alignments. Basically if you were to try to import the flavor of OD&D's alignment system to D&D 3.5 you'd be rewriting everything from the ground up, again. Gods, most of whom didn't exist in OD&D, would have to be carefully split into Law and Chaos, with many formerly Chaotic Good gods now going to the side of Law and Lawful Evil gods going to the side of Chaos, because the point of OD&D's Law/Chaos split was that what we think of as "Good" is usually Lawful and what we think of as "Evil" is usually Chaotic, with the caveat that *both* sides are equally capable of good and evil in their pursuit of their ideals.

You could do it, and I think it'd be interesting, but it'd be a lot of work and require basically throwing out the Great Wheel as we know it, as well as most of what we think of as D&D "morality" as we know it. (The OD&D Paladin can and should be an objectively evil character in the right circumstances, for instance.)
CharlieRock
10-04-06, 08:21 AM Yeah, I got articles of "Converting to AD&D" ... and some for "Converting to 3rd edition" (from AD&D) . I like making my own worlds sometimes, or "twisting" one like I am often doing to Hyboria (why waste a good full color map?).It would be a time killer ,though.
Moniker
10-04-06, 11:22 AM We adopted the Planescape approach as well. Good and evil are very objective. For instance, in my game cannibalism amongst the Pictish tribes is considered to be very, very normal and accepted. An Aradain man would see this as an evil act. However, the Picts feel that all of the god's gifts are not to be wasted, even the earthly vessel that a spirit inhabits. So, they consume the bodies of the dead in reverence; in a sense, so that the spirit of their foe doesn't come back to inhabit the corpse.

I've always found that the law/chaos axiom is easier to arbitrate, than what is considered to be good or evil. Thus, we've modified all Protection-based spells (law, chaos, evil, good) to merely Protection from Harmful Intentions.
RobbyPants
10-04-06, 02:14 PM I did this once in conjunction with an Asian campaign setting. The Samurai were sort of like "paladins of law" (I did away with paladins all together in that game).
Salla
10-04-06, 02:17 PM Asian style games that I've seen tend to go this way, since Honor (aka Lawful) vs Dishonor (Chaotic) becomes a larger emphasis than Good vs Evil. The Lawful Evil character is, for whatever reason, considered 'better' than the Chaotic Good character.
RobbyPants
10-04-06, 02:27 PM Asian style games that I've seen tend to go this way, since Honor (aka Lawful) vs Dishonor (Chaotic) becomes a larger emphasis than Good vs Evil. The Lawful Evil character is, for whatever reason, considered 'better' than the Chaotic Good character.
That was my line of thinking.

As for the chaotic good guy, he could be seen as a rebal and a liability, who might harm the group as a whole...
Salla
10-04-06, 03:10 PM That was my line of thinking.

As for the chaotic good guy, he could be seen as a rebal and a liability, who might harm the group as a whole...

Yeah, I know ... I've discovered that me and Pseudo-Feudal Japan settings don't get along, since I just can't percieve of honor as being THAT important.
The_Jester
10-05-06, 11:55 PM I am toying with the idea of starting a campaign that emphasizes the Law/Chaos axis of the alignment wheel over the Good/Evil.

Has anyone done this before? It seems that most of the officially published material places far more emphasis on the Good and Evil dichotomy, so there isn't a WoTC Law/Chaos emphasized sourcebook that I know of.

My campaign world, Iliga (http://www.geocities.com/absolutecryogenic/dnd/dnd.html), is a post-apocalyptic world where keeping order is generally going to matter more than preserving rights and the greater good. Chaos would be the enemy because it would be a destabilizing force in a world that is depending on a very tenuous order just to continue limping along the long path to recovery.

You see this emphasis in some of the classes I designed for the setting: while they are nominally good, they serve the Light, an ambiguously good being that is more concerned with bringing order to the world. Hence it might be concievable to see good and evil working together in the interest of Law, while temporarily setting aside their own differences.

Anyone have any suggestions or comments on how to run this game?

Oh, and just a side-note: I don't use Slaad or Formians; I think they're kind of stupid (giant frogs and anthropomorphic ants representing the pinnacle of chaos and law? Puh-leaze) Therefore, I'm accepting suggestions on replacements.
Another good example of law and order versus chaos and anarchy would be Babylon 5. The central tenants of the two big races (Vorlons and the Shadows) can be loosely described as law and chaos respectively.
The Vorlons believe that order, discipline and obedience while the Shadows believe strength comes from war and struggle and evolution. One asks the question “who are you?” which forces a person to identify and redefine themselves and is the source of all introspection and personal growth. The other asks “what do you want?” which dives desire, selfishness and greed.

I always really liked that the central tenant of the show, the main conflict, wasn’t a bland good versus evil, especially when one race so fit the evil template, but chaos against order with both having their good sides. And bad.

Just something else to fuel the ideas.
CryoSilver
10-06-06, 11:56 AM Babylon 5; there's a show I haven't heard of in a while.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
CryoSilver 10-03-06, 12:55 AM	I am toying with the idea of starting a campaign that emphasizes the Law/Chaos axis of the alignment wheel over the Good/Evil. Has anyone done this before? It seems that most of the officially published material places far more emphasis on the Good and Evil dichotomy, so there isn't a WoTC Law/Chaos emphasized sourcebook that I know of. My campaign world, Iliga (http://www.geocities.com/absolutecryogenic/dnd/dnd.html), is a post-apocalyptic world where keeping order is generally going to matter more than preserving rights and the greater good. Chaos would be the enemy because it would be a destabilizing force in a world that is depending on a very tenuous order just to continue limping along the long path to recovery. You see this emphasis in some of the classes I designed for the setting: while they are nominally good, they serve the Light, an ambiguously good being that is more concerned with bringing order to the world. Hence it might be concievable to see good and evil working together in the interest of Law, while temporarily setting aside their own differences. Anyone have any suggestions or comments on how to run this game? Oh, and just a side-note: I don't use Slaad or Formians; I think they're kind of stupid (giant frogs and anthropomorphic ants representing the pinnacle of chaos and law? Puh-leaze) Therefore, I'm accepting suggestions on replacements.
Comfort_in_Insanity 10-03-06, 01:04 AM	Inevitables might be a commonplace generic good guy (If you're world is in such a chaos/law conflict, it is conceivable that mechanus sent some your way)
CharlieRock 10-03-06, 01:46 AM	The hordes of Chaos. Reminds me a little of Warhammer. :)
Tarvok 10-03-06, 08:55 PM	I am toying with the idea of starting a campaign that emphasizes the Law/Chaos axis of the alignment wheel over the Good/Evil. Has anyone done this before? It seems that most of the officially published material places far more emphasis on the Good and Evil dichotomy, so there isn't a WoTC Law/Chaos emphasized sourcebook that I know of. There is. It's called Planescape.
ArcTan 10-04-06, 03:06 AM	Yeah, IIRC Planescape tells us that Chaos and Law were the two initial forces that clashed to produce the Multiverse, with Good and Evil arising as impurities in the initial dichotomy sometime afterwards. It's one of the big surprises they have for us.
CharlieRock 10-04-06, 07:32 AM	pre-1st ed. D&D was devoid entirely of G/E. The sourcebooks from it (GreyHawk or Blackmoor) would need stats updated, but might work.
ArcTan 10-04-06, 08:16 AM	pre-1st ed. D&D was devoid entirely of G/E. The sourcebooks from it (GreyHawk or Blackmoor) would need stats updated, but might work. ...Greyhawk is still the core D&D 3.5 setting, with details available in the Greyhawk Living Gazetteer. However, since you weren't aware of the lack of G/E in OD&D, you may not be aware of the immense rules differences between OD&D and D&D 3.5. They're different in many, many, many more ways than alignment -- in fact, you could argue they're two completely different systems with nothing more inherently in common than D&D 3.5 and GURPS. (At least, d20 System games like d20 Modern, True 20, Iron Heroes and so on have way more in common with D&D 3.5 than OD&D has.) Mechanical stuff from OD&D is impossible to port to D&D 3.5 without rewriting it from the ground up (which, generally, is what was done, in stages, to classic monsters like the lowly Orc, Rust Monster and Ogre Mage when they were brought over to new editions -- the fact that this was done poorly and without much attention to detail in some cases is why the Rust Monster and Ogre Mage are poorly balanced, difficult-to-use monsters in D&D 3.5, hence Mike Mearls' Monster Makeover series). As for flavor stuff... there's barely any flavor in OD&D. The "setting", such as it is, was a vague sketchy outline back then, and this includes the description of the Law and Chaos alignments. Basically if you were to try to import the flavor of OD&D's alignment system to D&D 3.5 you'd be rewriting everything from the ground up, again. Gods, most of whom didn't exist in OD&D, would have to be carefully split into Law and Chaos, with many formerly Chaotic Good gods now going to the side of Law and Lawful Evil gods going to the side of Chaos, because the point of OD&D's Law/Chaos split was that what we think of as "Good" is usually Lawful and what we think of as "Evil" is usually Chaotic, with the caveat that both sides are equally capable of good and evil in their pursuit of their ideals. You could do it, and I think it'd be interesting, but it'd be a lot of work and require basically throwing out the Great Wheel as we know it, as well as most of what we think of as D&D "morality" as we know it. (The OD&D Paladin can and should be an objectively evil character in the right circumstances, for instance.)
CharlieRock 10-04-06, 08:21 AM	Yeah, I got articles of "Converting to AD&D" ... and some for "Converting to 3rd edition" (from AD&D) . I like making my own worlds sometimes, or "twisting" one like I am often doing to Hyboria (why waste a good full color map?).It would be a time killer ,though.
Moniker 10-04-06, 11:22 AM	We adopted the Planescape approach as well. Good and evil are very objective. For instance, in my game cannibalism amongst the Pictish tribes is considered to be very, very normal and accepted. An Aradain man would see this as an evil act. However, the Picts feel that all of the god's gifts are not to be wasted, even the earthly vessel that a spirit inhabits. So, they consume the bodies of the dead in reverence; in a sense, so that the spirit of their foe doesn't come back to inhabit the corpse. I've always found that the law/chaos axiom is easier to arbitrate, than what is considered to be good or evil. Thus, we've modified all Protection-based spells (law, chaos, evil, good) to merely Protection from Harmful Intentions.
RobbyPants 10-04-06, 02:14 PM	I did this once in conjunction with an Asian campaign setting. The Samurai were sort of like "paladins of law" (I did away with paladins all together in that game).
Salla 10-04-06, 02:17 PM	Asian style games that I've seen tend to go this way, since Honor (aka Lawful) vs Dishonor (Chaotic) becomes a larger emphasis than Good vs Evil. The Lawful Evil character is, for whatever reason, considered 'better' than the Chaotic Good character.
RobbyPants 10-04-06, 02:27 PM	Asian style games that I've seen tend to go this way, since Honor (aka Lawful) vs Dishonor (Chaotic) becomes a larger emphasis than Good vs Evil. The Lawful Evil character is, for whatever reason, considered 'better' than the Chaotic Good character. That was my line of thinking. As for the chaotic good guy, he could be seen as a rebal and a liability, who might harm the group as a whole...
Salla 10-04-06, 03:10 PM	That was my line of thinking. As for the chaotic good guy, he could be seen as a rebal and a liability, who might harm the group as a whole... Yeah, I know ... I've discovered that me and Pseudo-Feudal Japan settings don't get along, since I just can't percieve of honor as being THAT important.
The_Jester 10-05-06, 11:55 PM	I am toying with the idea of starting a campaign that emphasizes the Law/Chaos axis of the alignment wheel over the Good/Evil. Has anyone done this before? It seems that most of the officially published material places far more emphasis on the Good and Evil dichotomy, so there isn't a WoTC Law/Chaos emphasized sourcebook that I know of. My campaign world, Iliga (http://www.geocities.com/absolutecryogenic/dnd/dnd.html), is a post-apocalyptic world where keeping order is generally going to matter more than preserving rights and the greater good. Chaos would be the enemy because it would be a destabilizing force in a world that is depending on a very tenuous order just to continue limping along the long path to recovery. You see this emphasis in some of the classes I designed for the setting: while they are nominally good, they serve the Light, an ambiguously good being that is more concerned with bringing order to the world. Hence it might be concievable to see good and evil working together in the interest of Law, while temporarily setting aside their own differences. Anyone have any suggestions or comments on how to run this game? Oh, and just a side-note: I don't use Slaad or Formians; I think they're kind of stupid (giant frogs and anthropomorphic ants representing the pinnacle of chaos and law? Puh-leaze) Therefore, I'm accepting suggestions on replacements. Another good example of law and order versus chaos and anarchy would be Babylon 5. The central tenants of the two big races (Vorlons and the Shadows) can be loosely described as law and chaos respectively. The Vorlons believe that order, discipline and obedience while the Shadows believe strength comes from war and struggle and evolution. One asks the question “who are you?” which forces a person to identify and redefine themselves and is the source of all introspection and personal growth. The other asks “what do you want?” which dives desire, selfishness and greed. I always really liked that the central tenant of the show, the main conflict, wasn’t a bland good versus evil, especially when one race so fit the evil template, but chaos against order with both having their good sides. And bad. Just something else to fuel the ideas.
CryoSilver 10-06-06, 11:56 AM	Babylon 5; there's a show I haven't heard of in a while.