Alignment

The Philosophy of Alignment
Alignment in da White Box is Law, Chaos and Neutral. That's it. One of the differences I noted when reading through Blue Book Basic is that the author, Eric Holmes, adds good and evil to the alignment mix allowing for Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, etc. Alignment has been somewhat debated from the beginning and remains open to interpretation. I don't know that Mr. Gygax or Arneson ever stated what they had in mind for alignment, but like several of the more ambiguous elements of the White Box, referees and players have applied their inventiveness to the concept of alignment in the game. Having read a couple literary pieces in which the idea of law versus chaos is directly discussed, my thought immediately turn to those.  Poul Anderson discusses Law and Chaos at odds in his novel Three Hearts and Three Lions. As I recall Law represents the order of things and the scientific, somewhat predictable world as humans experience it. Chaos is the realm of elves and other fantastic creatures and in the novel threatens to push back and overwhelm the world of Law. The Elric series of books by Micahel Moorcock makes frequent mention of the struggle between the forces of Law and Chaos. Elric, as a practitioner of magic, is firmly in the Chaos camp, sometimes calling on his patron deity of Chaos to aide him.  Elric, being Elric and a being of Chaos, is not above asisting the forces of Law and calling on them for aid at times. Both authors link the magical arts with Chaos. Both authors, Moorcock more than Anderson, suggest Chaos and Law are opposed, but somewhat interdependent. Law is constancy, Chaos change. Law is conformity, Chaos is wild and rebellious. Both can be seen as forces at play in our own real world as well as the fantastic worlds found only in our imaginations. In the White Box, certain races of creatures are described as being "aligned" with Law or Chaos or remain Neutral. Some, like humans seemingly get to choose. White Box rules do not answer the question, "Is Law good and Chaos evil?" rather the player is left to define this themselves. A referee can run the campaign with exactly the interpretation that Law = Good and Chaos = Evil, and many have...I have played in some that do. It is also possible to leave good and evil up to the individual regardless of alignment with Law or Chaos. I think this is what Dr. Holmes was getting at by adding those dimensions to the alignment rules of Basic. Personally, I don't think it is necessary or desirable and therefore I prefer just Law, Neutral and Chaos as alignments. The reason is the nature of "alignment" in the game. Does alignment determine moral behavior in a given situation or does it signify which team one plays for? I like to think more philosophical about Law and Chaos and not equate them with good or evil moral behavior. As I play it, promoting Law upholds the established order, Chaos rebels against the established order and is opposed to any order, old or new. Alignment has been much discussed around the hobby and seems to be one of the subjects on which it is hard to find agreement. I suppose the uncertainty and openness for interpretation is one of the things I like about Alignment and especially as it's presented in the White Box.