As others have stated the Law-Chaos axis works.  Either was a humanist matter of order vs. freedom, or a metaphysical one where law represents the ordered universe upheld by the gods and chaos the roiling black sea of creation into which the world always threatens to slip if not upheld by right custom and right ritual.   

I think good and evil can work too if you are prepared to modify your definitions.  For non-moralistic religions concepts of good are closely tied to-and often indistinct from-honor and face.  Bloody and excessive revenge is 'good' because it upholds your honor, the honor of your tribe*, and restores the honor of whomever you are avenging.  The fact the you killed innocent people is irrelevant because 1) no one is innocent in a blood feud and 2) the preservation of the lives, rights, and property of persons outside your tribe is not considered a worthwhile end.

Therefore, a viking, hoplite, samurai, etc is good so long as he is acting within the honor system of his society.  Acts of murder, rape, theft, and treachery** would not be evil because there are times all would be acceptable, even encouraged, within his honor system.  Instead an evil character would be one who debases himself through cowardice, fails in his oaths, and doesn't avenge insults. 

This requires embracing a very different moral structure, and would probably work better for NPCs than PCs (though I find that true of alignment in general).  If you have multiple cultures operating in the campaign you run into the issue of purely subjective morality, which is different from how D&D views the universe and renders alignment somewhat meaningless.  However, with a closed setting, Dark Age Germanic and Slavic cultures only I think you would have enough consistence of what represented proper and improper conduct to arrive at something like a definition of good and evil.   

*Tribe in the broadest sense.  Whatever the in-group is, culture, family, religion.
**With the understanding that while all cultures considered these grave transgressions, the definitions of the crimes are more narrow than modern understanding and often only apply to the in-group.   

Quote from: tenbones on February 03, 2022, 12:28:52 PM
If you're going fully Medieval - the *presumption* of certainty is what drives conflict. Alignment is not relative, but rather humans are willing to justify the WORST behaviors on the presumption of their righteousness (much like players do with Alignment in D&D anyhow) while committing the atrocities we all know and have read about in history, all in God's name.

That sounds very much like Gygaxian Lawful Good. I think Alignment as team allegiance works fine in a quasi-Christian setup, with LG Paladins massacring baby orcs. I wouldn't use Good v Evil Alignment in a pagan morality setting. Law/Order vs Chaos/Change, maybe. I like Greg Stafford's take in Glorantha with Lawful Orlanthi & Heortling barbarians vs Chaotic* Lunar Empire civilised Roman types.

*More that they see Chaos as a tool. And Civilisation = Change, inherently more Chaotic than the orderly stasis of traditionalist tribal societies.

Quote from: Dark Train on February 03, 2022, 12:31:26 PM
Therefore, a viking, hoplite, samurai, etc is good so long as he is acting within the honor system of his society.  Acts of murder, rape, theft, and treachery** would not be evil because there are times all would be acceptable, even encouraged, within his honor system.  Instead an evil character would be one who debases himself through cowardice, fails in his oaths, and doesn't avenge insults. 

It is amazing the power of Shame. It is the first way a child is conditioned as it is non-verbal. The means by which culture is propagated. Being "shameless" was not well thought of but happened in cities were cultures mixed.

So, doing things that were not "shameful" to the majority of your culture verses doing things that are.

Quote from: Greentongue on February 03, 2022, 06:51:50 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on February 03, 2022, 03:38:33 AM
... I would suggest civilized vs barbarian as one axis.  Assuming a 2-axis system like D&D's is wanted, several possibilities suggest themselves, scientific vs mystical, personal freedom vs social order, and ...  okay, I guess I only have 2.

I'm assuming you are equating personal freedom vs social order to barbarian vs civilized?
Seems to me, following traditions is social order. So maybe Order vs Chaos?

No, actually, they're two different things.  I was just saying that if he wants two different axes, that would be a possibility.  Order vs Chaos evokes the work of Moorcock and Modessit, which is more of a philosophical difference between sophisticated, civilized groups.  I like the civilized vs barbarian idea best for Shark's setting, with civilized being the lingering effects of the old Roman Empire or the coming Renaissance and barbarian being the cultures that were outside of the Roman Empire and forces working for disillusion of social cohesion within it.

Quote from: Dark Train on February 03, 2022, 12:31:26 PM
As others have stated the Law-Chaos axis works.  Either was a humanist matter of order vs. freedom, or a metaphysical one where law represents the ordered universe upheld by the gods and chaos the roiling black sea of creation into which the world always threatens to slip if not upheld by right custom and right ritual.   

I think good and evil can work too if you are prepared to modify your definitions.  For non-moralistic religions concepts of good are closely tied to-and often indistinct from-honor and face.  Bloody and excessive revenge is 'good' because it upholds your honor, the honor of your tribe*, and restores the honor of whomever you are avenging.  The fact the you killed innocent people is irrelevant because 1) no one is innocent in a blood feud and 2) the preservation of the lives, rights, and property of persons outside your tribe is not considered a worthwhile end.

Therefore, a viking, hoplite, samurai, etc is good so long as he is acting within the honor system of his society.  Acts of murder, rape, theft, and treachery** would not be evil because there are times all would be acceptable, even encouraged, within his honor system.  Instead an evil character would be one who debases himself through cowardice, fails in his oaths, and doesn't avenge insults. 

This requires embracing a very different moral structure, and would probably work better for NPCs than PCs (though I find that true of alignment in general).  If you have multiple cultures operating in the campaign you run into the issue of purely subjective morality, which is different from how D&D views the universe and renders alignment somewhat meaningless.  However, with a closed setting, Dark Age Germanic and Slavic cultures only I think you would have enough consistence of what represented proper and improper conduct to arrive at something like a definition of good and evil.   

*Tribe in the broadest sense.  Whatever the in-group is, culture, family, religion.
**With the understanding that while all cultures considered these grave transgressions, the definitions of the crimes are more narrow than modern understanding and often only apply to the in-group.   

Good ideas, but I think new words are needed.  Calling the behavior you describe "good" is going to make things difficult for our modern sensibilities.

Quote from: SHARK on February 02, 2022, 11:05:14 PM
Greetings!

Overall, I like the traditional alignment system in old school D&D.

However, when the campaign world is firmly rooted in an ancient/dark ages medieval milieu--there are some huge problems that arise.

I've always felt the overall tenor and feel of D&D was more ancient than medieval. With rare exceptions, that's how all my campaign worlds have been rooted. I've never encountered any problems with alignment, let alone "huge problems."

QuoteThe Pre-Christian, Pagan world was a brutal and harsh place, soaked in blood and fire.

Eh. History gets exaggerated. Tell me, was some of this blood spilled by weapon? How did those weapons get made? You would think the craftsmen were too busy getting murdered to finish the weapons. Obviously there had to be a great deal of cooperation and benevolence. The greater the atrocities, the greater the tools, the greater the cooperation. At the very least, it's an economic reality. Even absent the sanctity of life, people had to mostly let each other live. Even among chimps, it's not necessarily the strongest, most brutal chimp that rises to the top, because he could be taken out by lesser chimps ganging up.

QuoteHow does an alignment system survive in such an environment?

I use specifically the alignment definitions from the 1E DMG as I find them most clear. And I can talk about 3 ways it has of dealing with this sort of environment.

First is, no one says there has to be Lawful Good. Nothing has ever said alignments can, should, or would likely be evenly distributed.

Second, take a close look at the 1E loyalty rules. Lawfuls and Goods have a substantial advantage over chaotics and evils when it comes to loyalty. Remember the chimps. Grouping up, or even just the threat of the potential to group up, is enough to reign in brutality.

Third, it has dials.

Good is defined as respect for three enumerated "human" rights. Human in scary quotes because obviously there's the question of whether these rights extend to elves and dwarves and so forth. It's left to the DM exactly where the line is drawn. Personally, I draw the line according to the freedom to choose good from evil. In real world creation myths, humans are given that freedom. For fictional races in a fantasy world, the ability to essentially choose your alignment is not a given. BtB, all playable PC races may be of any alignment. And so that's where I draw the line. If it's a playable PC race, it's considered human for the purposes of alignment ethic.

Going in the opposite direction, narrowing the population for whom this applies, you could conceivably exclude a class of persons. For one, perhaps only the highest, most enlightened of humans have tasted the fruit of knowledge of good and evil in the world mythos. Or perhaps pursuant to the second of the Good alignment tenets, "relative freedom"--in harsher times, population was much smaller. Maybe only about 3 person in 1000 living today would have made it. If a 4th person in 1000 is only able to survive in the capacity of bonded servitude, you could have that class while still retaining "relative" freedom.

Another dial tied to relative freedom can be found in things similar to Blackstone's ratio--that it's better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent be punished. Ben Franklin had the ratio at 100 to 1. Abraham haggled God down from 50 virtuous men down to 10 to spare Sodom and Gomorrah. So the exact ratio varies and is subject to negotiation. It's never absolute because there is always the potential for human error in judgement. If justice demanded an absolute here, it would be the same as no justice at all. I would have to think the proper ratio would have to be relative to the world. The greater the means, be it magical or technological, the greater the capacity to discover evidence as well as manufacture evidence. And so higher standards are both necessary and sufficient.

Quote from: Greentongue on February 03, 2022, 01:53:25 PM

Quote from: Dark Train on February 03, 2022, 12:31:26 PM
Therefore, a viking, hoplite, samurai, etc is good so long as he is acting within the honor system of his society.  Acts of murder, rape, theft, and treachery** would not be evil because there are times all would be acceptable, even encouraged, within his honor system.  Instead an evil character would be one who debases himself through cowardice, fails in his oaths, and doesn't avenge insults. 

It is amazing the power of Shame. It is the first way a child is conditioned as it is non-verbal. The means by which culture is propagated. Being "shameless" was not well thought of but happened in cities were cultures mixed.

So, doing things that were not "shameful" to the majority of your culture verses doing things that are.

You know, most people try to use positive emotions to condition their children first, and those can be largely non-verbal too. But, you do you.

In 5e I'd say murdering viking raiders are lawful good because they "can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society".

JK, but really, it depends on how you define good and evil. Pagan morality is not like ours.

It varies form edition to edition. In 1e I think good is respecting human rights.

3e version is not bad:

---
Good Vs. Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.

Law Vs. Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, and a lack of adaptability.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

People who are neutral with respect to law and chaos have a normal respect for authority and feel neither a compulsion to obey nor to rebel. They are honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral.
---

So, no one is "good" if no one is willing to make sacrifices to help others. However, despite self-sacrifice being closer to Christianity than paganism, I think every society must have a few benevolent people for evolution reasons, etc.

But no one can be lawful good if tradition/authority says you must hurt others.

In a world where you can talk to the gods and get straight answers from them, Good and Evil are just names for the teams of the gods. If you worship/follow/act for a god on Team Good then you're Good (lawful good if you take a hardline orthodox approach, chaotic good if you're a maverick, neutral good for most). Just because you're on Team Good doesn't mean your actions are morally good any more than someone playing for the Washington Wizards is a spellslinging wizard or a student at Hogwarts.

I use the alignment system, but it is mainly for the NPC's

For PC's it's more of a guideline unless the class itself revolves around the alignment concept like the Paladin did in the old editions.

Most of my players tend to play in the NG,CG to CN range of play styles and the only time their Alignment comes up is if they get cursed and become evil, like the time my son had his CG Fighter put on a helm of alignment change and became LE

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 03, 2022, 03:56:54 PM
You know, most people try to use positive emotions to condition their children first, and those can be largely non-verbal too. But, you do you.

Yes, you walk in on someone going to the bathroom and your mother will hug you.
Backing down to someone insulting you and your family will make your father proud.
I guess I see your point ...

I kind of dodge the question these days, concerned mostly with alignment in terms of does this sword deal extra damage to you or banish you, and make it be a function of your planar origin and affiliation. I simply hardly sweat any other contextual applications of such outside of Star Wars or Ravenloft and then only for the darkside mechanic.

So basically it goes natives of upper planes are good, material plane neutral, and lower planes evil. Yes a demon can do a good deed it's still evil, yes a human can go a good deed, it's still neutral unless and until it (in old 3e terms) takes on the fiendish or celestial template as it were or solidly urinate upon an affiliation such as in the case of the classic paladin.

Outside of this I disregard cast out and will not touch alignment.

Quote from: SHARK on February 02, 2022, 11:05:14 PM
The Pre-Christian, Pagan world was a brutal and harsh place, soaked in blood and fire.

As was the Christian world. The English King Aethlered had all the Danes in his kingdom massacred - in other words, genocide.

William the Conqueror was known as William the Bastard because he was born out of wedlock to his father, and a tanner's daughter he'd taken a fancy to. When William was laying siege to a castle they hung furs and leather on the walls to taunt him. When he took the castle, he found the people who'd laid out the furs and had their hands cut off.

Robert of Bellême, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury, at one point retook a town which had rebelled against him for his cruelty, and the people having taken refuge in the church, had it barred up and burned down with the people in it.

Christian or not, they were all murderous treacherous swine by modern standards. Whether you wish to reproduce this in your campaign world is down to your personal taste. For me as a player, I'll go with what the group wants; for me as a GM, I am indifferent, but your actions will have consequences. People who act honourably and decently may be treated honourably and decently themselves, when at their enemies' mercy, and will find it easier to get recruits to their cause, whatever it might be. Murderous treacherous scum will get no mercy and will need lots of coin to get even temporary friends.

As for alignment, I like this relabelling of it. Read it in full, but I've reproduced the final labelling.

http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html

• Righteous (Lawful Good) - Conformity/Tradition and Benevolence
  
• Humane (Neutral Good) - Benevolence and Universalism
  
• Transcendent (Chaotic Good) - Universalism and Self-Direction
  
• Autonomous (Chaotic Neutral) - Self-Direction and Stimulation
  
• Sybaritic (Chaotic Evil) - Hedonism
  
• Ambitious (Neutral Evil) - Achievement and Power
  
• Ascendent (Lawful Evil) - Power and Security
  
• Orthodox (Lawful Neutral) - Security and Conformity/Tradition
  
• Pragmatic (True Neutral) - (any values)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on February 04, 2022, 12:33:22 AM

Quote from: SHARK on February 02, 2022, 11:05:14 PM
The Pre-Christian, Pagan world was a brutal and harsh place, soaked in blood and fire.

As was the Christian world. The English King Aethlered had all the Danes in his kingdom massacred - in other words, genocide.

William the Conqueror was known as William the Bastard because he was born out of wedlock to his father, and a tanner's daughter he'd taken a fancy to. When William was laying siege to a castle they hung furs and leather on the walls to taunt him. When he took the castle, he found the people who'd laid out the furs and had their hands cut off.

Robert of Bellême, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury, at one point retook a town which had rebelled against him for his cruelty, and the people having taken refuge in the church, had it barred up and burned down with the people in it.

Christian or not, they were all murderous treacherous swine by modern standards. Whether you wish to reproduce this in your campaign world is down to your personal taste. For me as a player, I'll go with what the group wants; for me as a GM, I am indifferent, but your actions will have consequences. People who act honourably and decently may be treated honourably and decently themselves, when at their enemies' mercy, and will find it easier to get recruits to their cause, whatever it might be. Murderous treacherous scum will get no mercy and will need lots of coin to get even temporary friends.

As for alignment, I like this relabelling of it. Read it in full, but I've reproduced the final labelling.

http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html

• Righteous (Lawful Good) - Conformity/Tradition and Benevolence
  
• Humane (Neutral Good) - Benevolence and Universalism
  
• Transcendent (Chaotic Good) - Universalism and Self-Direction
  
• Autonomous (Chaotic Neutral) - Self-Direction and Stimulation
  
• Sybaritic (Chaotic Evil) - Hedonism
  
• Ambitious (Neutral Evil) - Achievement and Power
  
• Ascendent (Lawful Evil) - Power and Security
  
• Orthodox (Lawful Neutral) - Security and Conformity/Tradition
  
• Pragmatic (True Neutral) - (any values)

Greetings!

Excellent, Kyle! I love the historical insights. Yes, so many were treacherous, murderous bastards!

That alignment relabeling is pretty neat, too.

I know the traditional in-game alignment system is an idealized simplification, of course.

I can't help but chew on the historical implications and hypothetical applications in-game, though. Most of the time, I keep alignment somewhat vertically abstract, and very loose horizontally speaking. My campaigns generally are more Ancient/Dark Ages in theme, so I tend to strive for a more historical feel, however imperfect. Verisimilitude and all that good stuff.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

If you want a historical feel, then you don't need alignments at all - you need social status and relationships, whether formalised in rules or not.

The alignments would only be useful in that they shape how the person tries to increase their social status, and who they do it with. The "good" person defaults to looking for the "win-win" solution, the "evil" person seeks to win by causing a loss to others, and so on. The example I always think of is Better Call Saul - in the beginning, he seeks to improve his social status by legitimate means, and only turns to illegitimate means when those fail. Over time, he ignores any possibility of doing things in the legit way, and goes straight for the crim way.

I know of an MMA gym owner who wanted $10k to renovate his kitchen. That was about 5 memberships for his place, all he had to do was push sales for a couple of weeks and he'd have it easily. Instead, he went and bought a pound of ice and was done by the cops and gets to spend some years in prison. He didn't even try the honest way, he just went straight for the dodgy way.

This is one way to look at a basic split between D&D's "good" (will never do harm), "neutral" (will do harm if doing good fails) and "evil" (will always do harm). So alignment could be used as a guide for roleplaying, without making it rigid - it's not like Saul rapes his girlfriend when she rejects him, he's evil but has limits.

But you could get similar results with the NPC personality charts in the AD&D1e DMG.