As regular readers know, this campaign primarily uses the Moldvay Basic & Cook/Marsh Expert rules. As such it has generally used the single-axis three alignment system of Law, Neutrality and Chaos. Furthermore, I have already established that these are not just shorthand for behaviour but are vast cosmic forces battling for control of reality. The forces of Law and Chaos are inspired by the fiction of Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock, and went on to influence Warhammer Fantasy as well as D&D.
Daddy Rolled A One suggests that alignment should not be about individual behaviour and ethics but about which side you take in this cosmic struggle. Law and Chaos should be divorced from Good and Evil. This is somewhat at odds with Moldvay Basic where it says on page B11 that "Lawful behaviour is usually the same as behaviour that could be called "good"". Conversely it also says "Chaotic behaviour is usually the same as behaviour that could be called "evil". So how do I want to handle this?
This does bring me to various posts on this blog, particularly about the Heldannic Knights of the Iron Eagle Monastery and the theocracy in the Ylari city of Abbashan where there are NPCs who strongly believe in law and order yet are really thoroughly unpleasant to others (either subordinates or those outside their organisation). Here the Basic D&D alignment system might not seem to work, and the AD&D alignment system of Good and Evil being independent of Law and Chaos becomes very useful and I have described such NPCs as being Lawful but in terms of AD&D they are Lawful Evil. Conversely there are NPCs and creatures that could be considered chaotic good - the creatures that are almost openly stated in the rules as being Chaotic Good are the Djinn from the Rules Cyclopedia. In the Cook Expert set they are given Neutral alignment, but in the Rules Cyclopedia they are officially Chaotic, but with the descriptive caveat that "Djinn are basically good-hearted, in spite of their Chaotic alignment". I'm sure many DMs would treat other NPCs and monsters such as Pegasi, Storm Giants, Werebears and others that are Chaotic Good in AD&D the same way - benevolent but not necessarily bothered with rules and authority.
My way of resolving this? "Lawful behaviour is usually the same as behaviour that could be called "good"". Usually, not always. This gives me enough lee-way to argue that lawful creatures can occasionally be evil and chaotic creatures can occasionally be good. So where do they fit in the grand clash between the cosmic forces of Law and Chaos? Their alignment in terms of Law and Chaos still stands. The cosmic powers are not as worried about individual morality as some might think, as long as mortal beings are fighting for one side or the other (even if unwittingly). This goes back to the old definition of alignment - not about individual behaviour but allegience. What team are you on in this cosmic struggle?
This may result in strange and perhaps awkward team-mates. A cleric of the Church of Law fighting a cult of Chaos may well find help from a Heldannic Knight, but then be shocked when the knight executes prisoners without trial. Chaotic sylvan creatures such as satyrs might well love freedom and individuality and might be just as opposed to ugly and uncaring civilization imposing its order on their idyllic wilderness as the brutal and savage orcs, but that does not mean that the two groups get along with each other even though they are both fighting for the forces of Chaos.
In this campaign I don't envision cosmic forces of Good and Evil like in Tolkein's Middle Earth or AD&D. These are choices for individuals. However, I do envision that a lot of creatures that are on the side of Law will have benevolent tendencies and most creatures on the side of Chaos are malevolent. Chaotic good and lawful evil are relatively rare but not impossible. In fact when they do occur, I will typically say so in their stats or descriptions. If I just say that a creature is Lawful then it is reasonable to assume I am thinking of Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral. Similarly most creatures I say are Chaotic will be effectively Chaotic Evil unless I say so otherwise.
Just to really complicate things I could say that just because a creature is aligned to Law or Chaos does not necessarily mean their behaviour is that obvious. Chaotic creatures are capable of being logical, restrained and organised. Lawful creatures are capable of being impulsive, selfish and tempermental. The way I have envisioned Arvorians is that although they worship beings of utter Chaos and are therefore aligned to Chaos, their behaviour is closer to AD&D's idea of Neutral Evil - capable of organisation, rules and society where convenient, but devoid of compassion or empathy and relishing cruelty and power.
So what do the forces of Law and Chaos stand for? What do their most prominent champions believe in? Here I think I will revert back to the Moldvay Basic descriptions of Law, Chaos and Neutrality.
Law (or Lawful) is the belief that everything should follow an order and that obeying rules is the natural way of life. Lawful creatures will try to tell the truth, obey laws, and care about all living things. Lawful creatures always try to keep their promises. They will try to obey laws as long as those laws are fair and just.
Chaos (or Chaotic) is the opposite of Law. It is the belief that life is random, and that luck and chance rule the world. Everything happens by accident and nothing can be predicted. Laws are made to be broken as long as a person can get away with it. It is not important to keep promises and lying and telling the truth are both useful.
Neutrality (or Neutral) is the belief that the world is a balance between Law and Chaos. It is important that neither side get too much power and upset this balance. The individual is important but so is the group; the two sides must work together.
I am reminded that way back in the early days of this blog I wrote a post about unaligned creatures. Although I have not used that term for many years, I believe the idea that some creatures (druids, blue dragons, actaeons and the like) are deliberately neutral is entirely reasonable - such creatures will strive for balance and try to curb the excesses of both Law and Chaos. And there is also the notion that there are many creatures that are either uncaring about Law and Chaos or even simply not aware of Law and Chaos, particularly those of such low intelligence that they cannot make ethical decisions (animals, vermin and the like are effectively unaligned). I probably won’t try to reintroduce the term Unaligned when dealing with the alignment of monsters and NPCs on this blog: I reckon I will simply describe them all as Neutral. But there is a range of attitudes within neutrality that DMs should be aware of.