This process could very easily get messy very quickly. There are a plethora of heretical movements throughout the nearly two thousand year history of Christianity. Enumerating them all not only would be an arduous task, but I believe it would also be unnecessarily complex and rigid. If one doesn't mind a bit of oversimplification, it is possible, however, to boil down all heresies into one of two categories.
Law vs. Chaos
When Christ's divinity is overemphasized, created matter and its role in salvation is de-emphasized, denied or even seen as evil. Some historic examples include:
- Monophysitism — the belief that Christ's humanity was absorbed into the divinity of Christ, much like a sugar cube dissolves in water. Thus, the role of humanity and human nature in salvation is minimal.
- Sabellianism — the belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different modes of one God instead of three distinct persons. This denies personhood within the Godhead, therefore within the image and likeness of God in human beings. Our individual personhood, therefore, plays no role in salvation.
- Gnosticism — the belief that the creator God (often called the Demiurge) is actually the devil. Thus all created matter is evil and salvation can only happen through knowledge of the true God.
- Donatism — the belief that lapsed Christians (those who had sacrificed to the statue of the emperor during the persecutions of Diocletian and thus set free) could not be received back into the Church through repentance. Further, any sacrament performed by clergy who were not "pure" was not valid.
- Nestorianism — the belief that Christ's divinity and Christ's humanity are two separate persons, where the divinity came only into contact with the humanity (in some variations, this contact happens at the baptism of Christ). An interesting consequence of this is compartmentalization. It is possible to justify two entirely different sets of behavior depending on circumstance. As long as one set is in contact God, all the others are saved, regardless of how heinous they may be.
- Arianism — the belief that there was a time when the Son was not. In other words, Christ is part of creation and only united to God in will, not being. Thus, aligning oneself through will (and thus, those in power who represent God's will) is the only means of salvation.
Good vs. Evil
Rather, I think a more useful understanding of Good vs. Evil is the value one places on the individual person. Good sees every individual as valuable, no matter who they are. Evil sees either no value in individuals or places the collective above the individual.
Neutrality
In terms of Good vs. Evil, as I've proposed it, one might argue that Neutrality represents placing value on certain individuals — as in nationalism, for example. This, however, means that it would be possible to make the uncomfortable argument that Nazi Germany was a Lawful Neutral country.
The way around this would be to define neutrality in terms of positive action — the willingness to act to protect/save a certain type of individual persons but not others. When this positive action proactively seeks to destroy or oppress other types of individual persons, then this dips into the Evil category.
Conclusion
Lawful Good (orthodox Christianity)What I find interesting about this is the depth it adds to the traditional demi-human/human dynamics. Elves, being Chaotic Good, would make for mysterious and potentially dangerous allies. Whereas they would place a high value on someone's soul, they would place little value on their body. In addition, they would see no problem with meddling with demonic forces if they thought it would help save one of those souls (and demonstrates the path eventually taken by Dark Elves).
Lawful Neutral
Lawful Evil
Neutral (Apathy)
Chaotic Evil
Chaotic Neutral
Chaotic Good
In contrast, Dwarves, being Lawful Good, would be much more stalwart (and Christian!) allies and their relationship with Elves would be justifiably shaky, at best.
11 comments:
Hi Dave --
This set a gear churning for me: What if the good/evil axis is Christ and the law/chaos axis is Caesar?
Or Church and Empire, both broadly defined. Sometimes they align. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes we serve both, sometimes one or the other, and sometimes neither.
Here's a gear for you: what does the iconodule/iconoclast controversy tell us about law and chaos in your system?
As always, well though out and thought provoking. One item confuses me a bit, though:
Evil sees either no value in individuals or places the collective above the individual.
Does this put self-sacrifice (or the deliberate sacrifice of a few) for the sake of many into the evil category?
On the surface, it would seem contradictory--if one individual is valuable, are not more individuals (the collective) even more valuable?
Or am I completely missing the point? Is it that individuals are not potatoes, so 1 is just as valuable as 100? Given the approach to alignment you describe, are you saying that, in the context of Christian theology, a character's actions have no meaning outside his relationship with Christ?
I clamored for this and it doesn't disappoint ... the idea of Albigensian Elves in particular!
On the Nazis: I believe they were evil not because they loved their country, but because they valued other countries and peoples at nil in order to further their own cause. It is possible to be chauvinistic but to draw the line at cruelty, unprovoked aggression, and subjugation. This in fact is my conception of "neutral" vis-a-vis good and evil - not universally benevolent, nor nihilistic, but holding to a certain functional natural-law morality.
Nonetheless, it's true that the Nazis drew many "Neutral" people into their plans by cynically convincing them that Germans faced an immediate threat from the Jews, Poles (yes, Poles), Reds and so on.
Protestant doctrine is interesting also, to me it doesn't quite fit the scheme. It takes power and responsibility from the Church and puts these things on the individual. As Ursula K. LeGuin noted with regard to anarchism, this is "Chaotic" in the matter of social structure, but actually makes more demands on the individual to behave "Lawfully."
bombasticus,
The only problem I have with the Christ/Caesar model is that the Church never stopped supporting the Empire even when being persecuted. Read St. Justin the Martyr's letter to Emperor Marcus Arelius — he explains that the faithful always pray for those in civil authority (a practice that continues to this day).
Iconoclasm makes two assumptions. 1) It questions the value of matter — mere paint and wood is not worthy of depicting Christ and his saints. 2) It calls into question the Incarnation of Christ — if God became tangible, why can't we paint pictures of Him? Thus, Iconoclasm falls under Chaos because it overemphasizes Christ's divinity.
Erin,
I should have been a bit clearer. What I mean is that seeing people as disposable cogs in a machine is evil. When individuality gets trumped by the collective through coercion, that is evil. Willingly sacrificing others is evil. Self-sacrifice normally operates from seeing value in others — so much so that they are worthy of your sacrifice. Therefore it normally falls into the good category. I would argue that an exception to this would be suicide attacks, where there is a blatant disregard of the value of the individual.
Given the approach to alignment you describe, are you saying that, in the context of Christian theology, a character's actions have no meaning outside his relationship with Christ?
All actions are made in context of our relationship with Christ. Everything we do either leads us toward Him or away from Him. These actions will reflect what we believe and our beliefs will shape our actions.
All actions are made in context of our relationship with Christ. Everything we do either leads us toward Him or away from Him. These actions will reflect what we believe and our beliefs will shape our actions.
I think you just blew my mind. I had been talking only in terms of a given RPG campaign, but your response to my question is the most succinct wisdom on faith I've read. I need to think about it for a bit. Thanks.
Roger,
Thanks for the kind words.
Protestant doctrine is interesting also, to me it doesn't quite fit the scheme. It takes power and responsibility from the Church and puts these things on the individual.
This depends upon which flavor of Protestants we are talking about, but in the sense that they deny the Holy Spirit the ability to work through flawed human beings (the Church Hierarchy) they are much like the Donatists (and therefore Lawful in this scheme).
As Ursula K. LeGuin noted with regard to anarchism, this is "Chaotic" in the matter of social structure, but actually makes more demands on the individual to behave "Lawfully."
This is exactly why I have never been satisfied with the traditional D&D conception of Law vs. Chaos.
Erin,
For what its worth, the first time I came to that conclusion, it blew my mind too.
@FrDave
Alignment and Categorization:
I throw it out the window. I didn't care for the Wild Chaos opposing Lawful Order vibe of D&D's ethos, so pow, gone.
Your system salvages the alignment component almost totally, however. Great job!
But, Alignment Tongues?!?! What can you do with those? Excuse me, Sir. Do you speak Arianism?
Monophysitism:
Or that Christ only appeared to be human, IIRC. He never had any humanity to begin with. This sect is still around.
Sabellianism:
This one is actually humorous if you imagine it Final Fantasy End Boss Style.(Or maybe Power Rangers).
Nestorianism:
The implications are disturbing, actually. Definitely a code that no one would forget, though...
Donatism:
Recipe for disaster in the real world, but a God with a One-Strike rule in a game would certainly be memorable.(And probably greatly feared.)
Gnosticism:
There appears to be some evidence of variance in this one lately, but the 'classic' Gnostics fit your view better.
Arianism:
Some things never go outta style.
'Nazi Germany was a Lawful Neutral country':
Don't forget the qualifying phrase 'with Evil Tendencies' with this one, I'd say.
Holy Spirit and Protestants:
Its mentioned a lot in Southern Baptism, in the context of individual believers AND the Church being infused by it and motivated to do something or other...
'All actions are made in context of our relationship with Christ. Everything we do either leads us toward Him or away from Him. These actions will reflect what we believe and our beliefs will shape our actions.':
Heard this one a lot when religious friends(the aforementioned Southern Baptists mostly) were discussing morality.
In the context of D&D, this brings the image of Jesus plotting an Aligment Graph to my mind.
Most excellent post!
@velaran
The alignment tongues never struck me as making much sense, regardless. However, now that you have me thinking . . . I can see a case for two alignment tongues. Lawful could the equivalent of Greek — the lingua franca of civilization, as it were. I realize that this sounds like Common, but there could be a differentiation between the two — something like the difference between Greek/Latin or Classical Greek/Koine Greek. Chaotic could represent the lingua franca (as such) for those outside of civilization. The folks who got accused of being monophysites generally stuck together in ethnic groups (i.e. the Copts). On the other side of the Med, the classic barbarian was a German. Thus, Chaotic could be a catch-all for these ethnic/outsider groups.
@FrDave:
That taps into the thread of notions like Cultural Essentialism and the Pale of Civilization! That can fit well in the context of your D&D(LL) game(That is an excellent addition to the 'flavor', I'd say.) This is definitely distinct from most ruminations on the subject. I've never seen any remotely convincing reason to use the Tongues before. As alignment change is gradual, you could learn the new Tongue as you go along, but what about the former Tongue? Is it inert, or simply 'forgotten', as per tradition, in D&D?
Post a Comment