Yora wrote:

Now looking at some of the very old sources, I feel like returning to my original stance that alignment really is just a poorly conceived idea that was never actually developed into something coherent. It's a neat idea, but it was never really explained what it is supposed to be, and what role it is supposed to fill. Allowing GMs to get a general idea about a creatures or NPCs role and behavior at a single glance seems to be the only thing it ever really did well. And there are good argument to not use it for that purpose either and instead go through the trouble of actually writing two short sentences on this instead.

Somewhere I read that the first versions of alignment were intentionally meant to be very open and undefined, and GMs supposed to fill it with meaning for their own campaign. Law and Chaos were only one example for a cosmic strugle, that could be worked into a world. As I actually did with my version of Natural Order and Primordial Chaos. Or you have the Light Side and Dark Side in Star Wars, the Open Palm and Closed Fist in Jade Empire, and to some extend Paragon and Renegade in Mass Effect.

I think that's a decent approach, but it's not the case that this was Gygaxs master plan all along and he merely got misinterpreted. Alignment was adressed in Strategic Review #2 back in 1975, pretty much immediately after Dungeons & Dragons first appeared, and even back then it seems to have been something that had lots of people very confused, so it needed to be elaborated. People thought Law means good and Chaos means evil, so Gygax explained that lawful characters could also be evil, and chaotic characters also be good, somewhat reafirming the notion that alignment was meant as teams. I didn't take notes on this when I was reading around, but the two-paramter-alignments like CG and LE were made part of the game very early on, throwing the whole notion of teams into the wind, and it never really came back as far as I know.
AD&D 1st Edition seems to be commonly accepted as the final version of Gygaxs game, and there there are no hints of it at all. In fact, the whole straightjacket accusation doesn't seem far fetched when you look at the presentation there. It always says "a charcter views", "creatures believe", "things are scorned", and so on. It doesn't say that the terms are blanket terms that cover certain related ideas, but it says what characters of an alignment think and do. And there's also the notion of "Neutrality" instead of "being unaligned", with the weird concept of keeping Good from defeating Evil, because of... reasons. Presumedly.

I guess all I can really say is to look at Law and Chaos and use it as a starting point to develop your own alignment system for your campaign. If you think it adds something to the game. Statements in the rulebooks like "You must chose an alignment for your character as part of his creation" seems just straight out wrong to me.

Maezar wrote:

Yora, I really like what you're writing here.

That's always nice to hear. I usually feel like some outside kid who randomly rambles about something he only half-understands, to people who are much more knowledgable about the subject, while not actually having a clear idea what point he wants to make.
Which I often do, but it's always nice to hear that sometimes someone takes something useful away from it.

Don't ever feel like an outsider or that you some how lack "knowledge".  Fresh blood and new ideas are what the boards are all about!
 

Amazing. A discussion on RPG alignment where no one presents the baby orc dilemma or invokes the ghost of Hitler. This is why I love this board.  
 
My .02 is that Neutrality is a big tent that houses all but the most extraordinary of people and PCs.  The vast majority of people (and PCs) fall into Neutral on the Good-Evil scale.  Essentially selfish and risk-adverse, people tend to avoid conflict, take the path of least resistance, and "go with the flow" due to fear of consequences.
 
For most people, Law and Chaos is simply one's place on the spectrum of Civilization and Barbarism dictated by their home culture.

Grimmshade wrote:

I pretty much go with what's in the book, except I add leanings towards Law or Chaos to Neutral. After reading Brock's post, I'm thinking that this isn't really needed. I agree that most people tend toward's Neutral. 
I do like alignment as a roleplaying tool.

Interesting.  I think the last time we talk about alignment is at character creation.  I don't use it in convention games. Nothing against the concept I just don't find it that helpful or interesting.
 

Nice breakdown!

I go a little more with the barbarism vs civilization than strict law and chaos, and humane vs inhumane with good and evil.