The Nine-Fold Path, Part 2: Alignment Origins in Dungeons & Dragons
- Dungeoneers Guild Games
- Sep 20
- 22 min read
Updated: Oct 18
This essay offers a comprehensive exploration of alignment in Dungeons & Dragons. It examines what alignment is, its purpose in the game, its meaning, and how it shapes both characters and monsters on individual and social levels.
If you haven’t read it yet, you may want to start with The Nine-Fold Path, Part 1: Alignment in Dungeons & Dragons, which covers the principles and functions of alignment. This section, Part 2, explores its origins in fantasy literature and its evolution within the game.
By R. Nelson Bailey
Introduction
Alignment is a cornerstone of Dungeons & Dragons (D&D). Its concepts of player morality and ethics are integral to many aspects of the game, including character class, monster motivation, and the structure of D&D’s fantasy cosmology. However, the application of these concepts within the game is not always clear. Many heated arguments have exploded around the game table as each side debates its own interpretation of the rules.
Since first appearing in Dungeons & Dragons, alignment has been misunderstood, misapplied, and misrepresented. Players readily grasp the intent behind Good and Evil, but often struggle to understand Law and Chaos. [1] Others find the meanings of the individual alignments ambiguous [2] or simply fail to comprehend them. [3] Some claim the concept is outdated, [4] [5] simplistic, [6] [7] undefinable, [8] and not relevant to “real life.” [9] Whether these criticisms have any merit is irrelevant to this discussion. Highlighting them serves to illustrate the extent of confusion surrounding the nature of alignment. A better understanding of its concepts helps dispel many of these issues.
This article seeks to clarify the concept of alignment for both Dungeon Masters and players. Part 1 examines the purpose and function of alignment, outlining the principles of Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, and Neutrality, as well as the nine individual alignments. It also addresses common problems and misconceptions and provides practical guidance for players. Finally, Part 2 traces the origins of alignment in Dungeons & Dragons, from its beginnings in fantasy literature to its adoption and evolution within the game.
This article draws upon primary sources from the Original Dungeons & Dragons (OD&D), the “Basic” Dungeons & Dragons, and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) (1st and 2nd edition) games. However, the principles concerning alignment apply to all versions of Dungeons & Dragons, including all later versions (i.e., post-2nd edition).
A Note to the Reader: While many elements of Dungeons & Dragons reflect the “real world,” keep in mind that this is a game, not a reality simulator. Values expressed in alignments might superficially apply to many areas of life, but they do not stand as an allegory for our modern conditions. The present world is exceedingly vast and complex. Attempting to explain it through the lens of fantasy game values and motivations is simplistic and futile.
PART 2: ORIGINS OF ALIGNMENT IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
Anderson’s Entropy
The origins of alignment in Dungeons & Dragons come from heroic fantasy fiction. The author, Poul Anderson, created the concept. [10] Anderson was primarily known as a science fiction writer, authoring classic books such as Tau Zero, The Queen of Air and Darkness, The High Crusade, and the Dominic Flandry series. More importantly, he also wrote a handful of fantasy books that had a profound and lasting impact on D&D.
The concept of alignment first appeared in Anderson’s 1961 fantasy novel, Three Hearts and Three Lions. The story concerns one Holger Carlsen, a Danish resistance fighter in World War II. Carlsen is drawn into the realm of the ‘Middle World’ — a fantastic land based on Carolingian and Medieval European myths and tales. [11] Here, Holger is really a renowned paladin who must battle against the forces of Chaos. [12] In this world, civilization struggles against evil humans and the non-human creatures of Faerie.
Anderson also used similar themes in two other novels. In the 1970 novel, Operation Chaos, the forces of Law use magical powers to overcome Chaos in a modern-like parallel world. Anderson explains these magical forces in terms of modern science. Here, Law stands for civilization and modernity, while the proponents of Chaos are the literal servants of Satan bent on the destruction of society. Chaos and Law also appear, to a lesser extent, in Anderson’s A Midsummer Tempest (1974). The roles of the two opposing forces are reversed here, as the protagonist, Prince Rupert, assisted by the beings of Faerie, battles against the oppressive forces of Law in the English Civil War.
Undoubtedly, Anderson equated Law with goodness [13] and Chaos with evil. [14] Immanence lies at the heart of Chaos and the pagan Faerie world, the opposite of Christianity’s transcendence. [15] Law and Chaos battle each other for supremacy over the world. In Three Hearts and Three Lions, the civilized lands of Christianity contend with sorcerous pagan and naturalistic forces. [16] In Operation Chaos, utilitarian and rational science opposes satanic supernatural forces. A few opt to take no side in the struggle, preferring to remain neutral. [17] (Despite these books’ themes, Anderson was a self-professed agnostic, not a Christian. [18])
Beyond the morality of good and evil, for Anderson, Law and Chaos represent the philosophical struggle of life over entropy. [19] The goodness of Law signifies the flourishing of life against stagnation and death. [20] Conversely, Chaos stands for “creative order,” i.e., the disorder that consumes the old and builds the new. [21] The high entropy creation of Chaos always devolves into total randomness, which creates an oppressive static nothingness when left unchecked.
“The cosmos is growing ever more stagnant and disordered as its entropy expands towards the maximum. Static orderliness and random chaos are two sides of the same entropic coin, twin faces of Death.” — Against Time’s Arrow, Sandra Miesel
Moorcock’s Cosmic Balance
Michael Moorcock took Anderson’s idea of Law and Chaos and applied it to his own works. A prolific writer and editor, Moorcock helped reshape heroic fantasy as part of the 1960s New Wave of science-fiction writers. Law and Chaos feature prominently in his seminal Elric of Melniboné series. A sickly albino anti-hero with a soul-eating rune-sword, Stormbringer, Elric alternately works for and battles against the Lords of Chaos. Moorcock expanded the idea of alignment by including neutrality, defined its principles, and created gods who advocate for Law, Chaos, or Neutrality. The philosophy of alignment also appeared in many of Moorcock’s other novels in the Eternal Champion series, including The Fire Clown, Phoenix in Obsidian, and the books of the Corum series. His very successful books, especially the Elric series, popularized the concepts of Law and Chaos amongst fans of fantasy.
Law and Chaos, which are central to Moorcock’s multiverse, came from Three Hearts and Three Lions [22]. It was built on Anderson’s foundations by adding elements from John Milton [23] and Zoroastrianism. [24] Studying politics at the time of its development, Moorcock was interested in the themes and conflicts that lie between “Skepticism and Faith.” [25] These two philosophies represent “ways of interpreting and defining experience.” Law equates to reason [26] while Chaos equates to romance [27] and creativity. [28] Both contradictions are present in all intelligent beings. [29] Law and Chaos are opposing forces in an eternal conflict of ideologies. Each seeks to gain dominance over the inhabitants of different worlds of the multiverse. [30] When either side gains the upper hand, the Cosmic Balance that maintains the equilibrium of the multiverse shifts and distorts. [31] Paradoxically, both lead to entropy when one dominates. Too much of either is harmful. [32] Left unchecked by the opposite force, Law becomes “rigid orthodoxy and social sterility,” [33] while Chaos becomes “undisciplined and destructive creativity.” [34]
“Ultimately, Chaos brings a more profound stagnation than anything it despises in Law. It must forever seek more and more sensation, more and more empty marvels, until there is nothing left and it has forgotten what true invention is.” — The Queen of Swords, Michael Moorcock
Chaos is the free expenditure of creative energy, being both highly excessive and individual. It represents “everlasting disruption and anarchy.” [35] With Chaos, anything that one can imagine can be created. [36] Its representatives are illogical deceivers and arbitrary creators of impulsive beauty. [37] The Lords of Chaos (sometimes called “Entropy”), such as Arioch, Elric’s demon master, are deities who personify Chaos. They dwell on the plane of pure Chaos, Limbo (sometimes referred to as “Hell”).
The central ethos of Law is value-driven utilitarianism. Without its life-giving structure, nothing in the physical universe can exist. [38] The upholders of Law believe in the inherent freedom for mortals of the multiverse. [39] The immortal representatives of this ethos, the Lords of Law, seek to protect all that is good in the world. [40]
Neutrality stands for equilibrium between Law and Chaos. [41] This “Cosmic Balance” takes no sides in its eternal conflicts. [42] Equal parts of Law and Chaos comprise Neutrality. [43] While Law respects the authority of the Balance, Chaos does not. [44] Its leaders, the Grey Lords, reside over Neutrality and the Cosmic balance. [45] These gods sometimes align themselves with the cause of Law or Chaos when it suits their purpose. [46] As the series progresses, Elric grows tired of being a mere pawn in the struggles of Law and Chaos. He turns to the philosophy of Neutrality to escape the never-ending cycle of conflict between these two forces.
“Some stand apart, believing that a balance between the two is the proper state of things.” — “While the Gods Laugh,” Michael Moorcock
Moorcock has denied that his Law and Chaos system is analogous to good and evil. [47] He believes such notions are “simplistic.” [48] Instead, each person contains within them the paradox and contradiction of both Law and Chaos. [49] The constant push and pull of these two forces drives personal and universal experiences, for good or bad. However, Moorcock never shies away from depicting both sides in terms of morality. He typically depicts the servants of Chaos as bestial and cruel. He frequently describes Arioch [50] [51] and Chaos [52] itself as “evil.” Conversely, he says that Law and its Lords are “good” [53] and assist mortals in need. [54] Even Moorcock could not escape the attraction of good and evil morality in fantasy fiction.
The Literary Inspiration for Alignment
As far as one can tell, Poul Anderson never spoke about what inspired the creation of Law and Chaos. Holger Carlsen’s resistance against the Nazis in Three Hearts and Three Lions is a telling clue. That this closely parallels his battle against the forces of Faerie is probably not unintentional. Anderson views both as titanic struggles against satanic despotism that seeks to crush civilization. Both pit the unyielding forces of good against evil. At first glance, one might divine the influence of J.R.R. Tolkien here. Tolkien also believed that all aspects of life were part of the “cosmic conflict between the forces of good and evil.” [55] This theme permeates his works, like The Lord of the Rings. Anderson was familiar with and an admirer of the Professor’s works. [56] [57] However, while both used many of the same sources in their works, [58] Tolkien did not influence Anderson’s creation of Law and Chaos. Specifically, Three Hearts was in print before the publication of The Lord of the Rings. [59]
The works of H. P. Lovecraft may have also served as an inspiration for the alignment system. Anderson certainly knew about Lovecraft’s stories of eldritch evils and the Great Old Ones. [60] Lovecraft’s stories contain many references to chaos. One example is Nyarlathotep, also called the “crawling chaos.” [61] This entity serves as the “soul and messenger” [62] of Azathoth, the primal chaos at the center of the universe, i.e., “the void of Chaos.” [63] In Lovecraft’s work, chaos resembles the Greco-Roman mythological notion of a primordial, formless mass present at the dawn of creation. The Great Old Ones are “amoral, merciless, and indifferent” [64] to the concerns of humanity and its civilizations. Lovecraft unambiguously tells us they are malevolent and evil.
L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt’s The Land of Unreason (1942) bears a strong resemblance to Anderson’s Three Hearts and Three Lions. Its protagonist, an American named Fred Barber, lives in rural England during the Blitz. One night, he is transported by magic to the Land of Faerie, where the Fairy Folk mistake him for a changeling. The ruler of this realm, King Oberon, believes Barber is the man foretold to break a curse called the “shapings.” This enchantment causes unpredictable, chaotic events, making the very laws of Fairyland unstable.
The parallels with Anderson’s later novel are striking. Barber’s placement in World War II, followed by his magical entrance into Faerie, strongly foreshadows Holger Carlsen’s story in Three Hearts and Three Lions. Barber is eventually revealed to be Frederick Barbarossa, destined to free the land from evil. His quest pits him against monsters such as ogres and Rakshasas. As in Anderson’s work, fairies and elves cannot endure contact with iron, sunlight, or the Christian cross; they also recoil at the invocation of God’s name. The elf Angus — whose Scots accent is marked by frequent use of the word “mickle” — closely recalls Hugi the dwarf in Three Hearts and Three Lions.
With all of these connections, it is possible that The Land of Unreason helped shape Anderson’s conception of the cosmic struggle between Law and Chaos, which he would later formalize and which, in turn, influenced Dungeons & Dragons’ alignment system.
A. Merritt was another author who incorporated the concept of chaos into his novel, Dwellers in the Mirage (1932). Merritt was one of the most significant fantasy writers of the 1920s and 30s. His fantasy novel, The Moon Pool (1919), was particularly influential on Lovecraft. [65] The former novel features an intelligent god-like being called Khalk’ru, or the “kraken.” Merritt uses scientific terms to rationalize this monstrous evil. Representing Chaos, it is an enemy of life and goodness, as shown with this quote:
“What I had told him of the ritual of Khalk’ru was nothing but the second law of thermo-dynamics expressed in terms of anthropomorphism. Life was an intrusion upon Chaos, using that word to describe the unformed, primal state of the universe. An invasion. An accident. In time all energy would be changed to static heat, impotent to give birth to any life whatsoever. The dead universes would float lifelessly in the illimitable void. The void was eternal, life was not. Therefore, the void would absorb it. Suns, worlds, gods, men, and things animate, would return to the void. Go back to Chaos. Back to Nothingness. Back to Khalk’ru.” [66]
Much like Azathoth, Khalk’ru lives in a void of formless matter, a primordial chaos. This also echoes Anderson’s idea that life (Law) strives against disorder and death (Chaos). These two opposite polarities, Law and Chaos, battle each other in an eternal struggle. Humankind can take a side in this struggle. They can serve the principles of Law (order and civilization) or Chaos (disorder and selfishness).
While the concept of chaos dates back to the ancient Greeks, modern authors like Lovecraft and Merritt may have borrowed the idea from another source. For inspiration, they, along with authors such as Edgar Rice Burroughs, Clark Ashton Smith, Robert E. Howard, and Henry Kuttner, drew from the works of Madame Helena Blavatsky. [67] [68] A 19th-century occultist and the founder of theosophy, Blavatsky’s primary works were Isis Unveiled (1877) and The Secret Doctrine (1888). From these works, “weird tale” writers heavily borrowed names (e.g., Dzyan), places (e.g., Lemuria), and key concepts (e.g., cosmology, ancient races). She devotes considerable space in her books to explaining the mystical tenets of Chaos and its place in theosophy. Blavatsky views Chaos as the infinite, formless primordial well out of which all matter is created. Her writings frequently reference Law, expressed as spiritual, karmic, or philosophical principles that impose order upon matter.
Despite these obvious connections, nothing concrete exists showing that Blavatsky’s ideas were the distant progenitor of alignment. It may have been that Lovecraft or Merritt influenced Anderson’s use of chaos which then inspired alignment in Dungeons & Dragons. However, the links that lead back to her works are strongly compelling enough to make a case for it.
THE EVOLUTION OF ALIGNMENT IN D&D
The concept and origins of alignment did not appear fully formed in Dungeons & Dragons. Instead, it developed and expanded as the game grew in its early years. This period covers from the publication of Chainmail in 1972 to the release of the First Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Masters Guide in 1979.
The Three-Alignment System
Alignment first appeared in the proto-Dungeons & Dragons miniatures war-game, Chainmail, created by Gary Gygax and Jeff Perrin. [69] The inclusion of playing fantasy armies here was more of an afterthought than a deliberate attempt to create a new game. In the “Fantasy Supplement” section, the book provided rules for war-gaming with fantasy armies like those found in the works of “J.R.R. Tolkien, Robert E. Howard, and other fantasy writers.” [70] The work never explains how alignment functioned in the game. It divided creatures into three groups that represent a specific ethos: Law, Neutral, and Chaos. [71] The reader is told that, “It is impossible to draw a distinct line between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ fantastic figures. Three categories are listed below as a general guide for the wargamer designing orders of battle involving fantastic creatures.” [72] This ambiguous statement seems to suggest that one cannot easily categorize the moral bent of fantasy characters and creatures. While Chainmail never uses the word “alignment” to describe its Law-Neutrality-Chaos system, it hints at certain aspects of morality found in later editions. For instance, it describes dragons as “extremely evil” [73], and that the protection from evil spell keeps out “all evil fantastic creatures/men.” [74]
The original Dungeons & Dragons game, first published in 1974, carried over the three-alignment system from Chainmail. Like its predecessor, this boxed set of three booklets divides characters and monsters into three alignment categories. The book says that it is “necessary to determine what stance the character will take – Law, Neutrality, or Chaos,” then lists monsters by these divisions. [75] The OD&D booklets give players no guidance on what the three alignments mean in terms of the game. It does not explain the difference between Law and Chaos apart from a brief explanation of the behavior of Chaotic characters. [76] One rationale may have been that the authors believed players would be familiar with these concepts from Michael Moorcock’s Eternal Champion series of books. Thus, any explanation would be self-evident to the reader.
One might assume that Law and Chaos in early Dungeons & Dragons refers to something other than good and evil, much as Moorcock insisted. The OD&D books frequently equate Law and Chaos with Good and Evil, respectively, using these terms interchangeably. For example, it mentions Evil high priests (so-called “anti-clerics”); [77] [78] [79] [80] spells that function against evil opponents; [81] [82] explicitly evil gods; [83] [84] and text that overtly refers to Chaotic monsters as Evil or behaving that way. [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] Additionally, both Holmes (1977) [90] and Moldvay's [91] “Basic” D&D (1980) rulebooks describe Law as “good” and Chaos as “evil.” Gygax gave further credence to this point by stating that he always considered chaos and evil in OD&D as nearly synonymous. [92] Just as Anderson equated Law and Chaos in terms of the good-evil morality, so did D&D from its earliest inception.
The Five-Alignment System
It quickly became clear that morality was integral to the game and wholly unrelated to the concepts of Law and Chaos. The three alignments of Law, Chaos, and Neutrality failed to capture the full scope of alignment. Good and Evil were split from Lawful and Chaotic to form the five-alignment system. [93] In 1976, Gary Gygax explained how the alignment system functions, defining Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral, and clarifying how they relate to one another. [94] Combining these elements resulted in the five alignments of Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil, and (True) Neutrality. Although never formally implemented, Gygax makes it clear that OD&D effectively includes five alignments rather than three. [95] This system was present in the game’s latter days. For example, Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry (1976) includes many references to the five-alignment system. It describes creatures as “lawful (and good),” [96] “chaotic and evil,” [97] and “lawful and evil,” [98] to cite a few examples. Once officially introduced, the updated alignment system showed up in subsequent published works, such as the Holmes-edited Dungeons & Dragons rulebook [99] and the first-edition AD&D Monster Manual (1977).
The term “five-alignment system” is somewhat of a misnomer, as Gygax’s original outline contains all the variations present in the penultimate “nine-alignment system.” [100] This work observes that certain creatures, such as bronze and white dragons, tend toward Neutrality in their moral orientation along the Good–Evil axis more than others. Occasionally, individuals can be fully devoted to Chaotic (or Lawful) without the presence of Good or Evil. These creatures fall in the midpoints that lie between the Lawful-Chaotic or Good-Evil axes. In later terms, these yet-to-be-named alignments comprise the “Neutral alignments” of Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, Lawful Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral.
The Nine-Alignment System
The game preserved the five-alignment system as it transitioned to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons in 1977. While we know this updated game for its use of the nine-alignment system, it did not start that way. The first AD&D rulebook, the Monster Manual, uses the older system. This work did not include creatures of Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, Lawful Neutral, or Chaotic Neutral alignment. Instead, it contains references that only contextually fit with the incomplete five-alignment system, as noted above. Some examples include cloud giants who have “Neutral (Good or Evil)” alignments, [101] and list the su-monster as “Chaotic.” [102]
Sometime between the release of the Monster Manual in 1977 and the publication of the Players Handbook in 1978, a leap of insight allowed Gygax to connect all the pieces of alignment. The nine-alignment system, which remains in use today, first appeared in the latter work. Just as important, the rulebooks corrected past errors by detailing and explaining each alignment. Now, alignment had debuted in full in Dungeons & Dragons. Taken together, these influences reveal the Dungeons & Dragons alignment origins and explain how the system became a cornerstone of the game.
Works Referenced
AD&D Core & TSR Materials
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Masters Guide, Revised Second Edition. TSR, 1995.
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook, Revised Second Edition. TSR, 1995.
Grubb, Jeff. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Manual of the Planes. TSR, 1987.
Ward, James M., & Robert J. Kuntz. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Deities & Demigods. TSR, 1980.
Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Masters Guide. TSR, 1979.
Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook. TSR, 1978.
Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual. TSR, 1977.
Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual II. TSR, 1983.
Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Unearthed Arcana. TSR, 1985.
Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Oriental Adventures. TSR, 1985.
OD&D and Supplements
Gygax, Gary, & Dave Arneson. Dungeons & Dragons, Three Volume Set. Tactical Studies Rules, 1974. Includes Volume I: Men & Magic; Volume II: Monsters & Treasure; Volume III: The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures.
Gygax, Gary, & Rob Kuntz. Dungeons & Dragons, Supplement I: Greyhawk. TSR, 1976.
Arneson, Dave, & Tim Kask (ed.). Dungeons & Dragons, Supplement II: Blackmoor. TSR, 1975.
Gygax, Gary, & Brian Blume. Dungeons & Dragons, Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry. TSR, 1976.
Kuntz, Robert, & James Ward. Dungeons & Dragons, Supplement IV: Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes. TSR, 1976.
Gygax, Gary, Dave Arneson, & J. Eric Holmes (ed.). Dungeons & Dragons. TSR, 1977.
Gygax, Gary, Dave Arneson, & Tom Moldvay (ed.). Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rulebook. TSR, 1981.
Gygax, Gary, & Jeff Perren. Chainmail, 2nd ed. Guidon Games, 1972.
Articles in Dragon & Polyhedron
DesJardins, Robert B. “Alignment Theory: Defining Those Notorious Double Adjectives.” Polyhedron, no. 27, Dec. 1986.
Gygax, Gary. “From the Sorcerer’s Scroll: D&D Relationships, The Parts and the Whole.” Dragon, no. 14, May 1978.
Gygax, Gary. “From the Sorcerer’s Scroll: Evil: Law vs. Chaos.” Dragon, no. 28, Aug. 1979.
Gygax, Gary. “From the Sorcerer’s Scroll: Playing on the Other Planes of Existence.” Dragon, no. 32, Dec. 1979.
Gygax, Gary. “From the Sorcerer’s Scroll: Good Isn’t Stupid, Paladins & Rangers, and Female Dwarves Do Have Beards!” Dragon, no. 38, June 1980.
Holmes, J. Eric. “Basic D&D Points of View…” Dragon, no. 52, Aug. 1981.
Suttie, Paul. “For King and Country: An Alignment System Based on Cause and Effect.” Dragon, no. 101, Sept. 1985.
Gygax, Gary. “The Meaning of Law and Chaos in Dungeons & Dragons and Their Relationships to Good and Evil.” The Strategic Review, vol. 2, no. 1, Feb. 1976.
Fantasy & Mythological Sources
Anderson, Poul. “Awakening the Elves.” In Meditations on Middle-Earth, St. Martin’s Press, 2001.
Anderson, Poul. “Fantasy in the Age of Science.” In Fantasy. Tor, 1981.
Anderson, Poul. Operation Otherworld. SFBC, 1999.
Anderson, Poul. The Broken Sword. Ballantine, 1971.
Anderson, Poul. Three Hearts and Three Lions. Doubleday & Co., 1961.
Carter, Lin. “The Magic of Atlantis.” Introduction to Poseidonis. Ballantine Books, 1973.
Curry, Patrick. Defending Middle-Earth: Tolkien, Myth and Modernity. Floris Books, 1997.
De Camp, L. Sprague. H. P. Lovecraft: A Biography. Barnes & Noble, 1996.
De Camp, L. Sprague & Fletcher Pratt. The Land of Unreason. Ballantine, 1970.
Fannon, Sean Patrick. The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer’s Bible, 2nd ed. Obsidian Studios, 1999.
Guirand, Felix (ed.). New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology. Hamlyn Publishing Group, 1968.
Joshi, S. T., & David E. Schultz. An H. P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia. Hippocampus Press, 2001.
Lovecraft, H. P. At the Mountains of Madness. Arkham House, 1964.
Merritt, A. Dwellers in the Mirage. Paperback Library, 1960.
Miesel, Sandra. “Afterword: An Invitation to Elfland.” In Anderson, Poul. Fantasy. Tor, 1981.
Miesel, Sandra. Against Time’s Arrow: The High Crusade of Poul Anderson. Borgo Press, 1978.
Moorcock, Michael. Corum: The Coming Chaos. Eternal Champion, vol. 7. White Wolf, 1997.
Moorcock, Michael. Elric: Stealer of Souls. Ballantine, 2008.
Moorcock, Michael. Elric: The Sleeping Sorceress. Ballantine, 2008.
Moorcock, Michael. Elric: To Rescue Tanelorn. Ballantine, 2008.
Moorcock, Michael. The Eternal Champion. Eternal Champion, vol. 1. White Wolf, 1994.
Moorcock, Michael. The Road Between the Worlds. Eternal Champion, vol. 6. White Wolf, 1996.
Price, Robert M. “The Khut-N’hah Mythos.” Introduction to The Book of Iod. Chaosium, 1995.
Von Franz, Marie-Louise. Shadow and Evil in Fairy Tales, Rev. Ed. Shambhala, 1995.
Citations & Footnotes
[1] Gary Gygax, “From the Sorcerer’s Scroll: Evil: Law vs. Chaos” (Dragon, Issue 28, Aug. 1979), p. 11.
[2] J. Eric Holmes, “Basic D&D Points of View…” (Dragon, Issue 52, Aug. 1981), p. 16.
[3] Sean Patrick Fannon, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer’s Bible, Second Edition (Obsidian Studios, 1999), p. 210.
[4] Fannon, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer’s Bible, p. 210.
[5] Paul Suttie, “For King and Country: An Alignment System Based on Cause and Effect” (Dragon, Issue 101, Sept. 1985), p. 21.
[6] Fannon, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer’s Bible, p. 210.
[7] Suttie, “For King and Country,” p. 18.
[8] Suttie, “For King and Country,” p. 18.
[9] Suttie, “For King and Country,” p. 18.
[10] Anderson never used the word “alignment” to describe these principles.
[11] Poul Anderson, Three Hearts and Three Lions (Doubleday & Company, 1961), p. 25.
[12] The D&D paladin comes directly from this book.
[13] Anderson, Three Hearts and Three Lions, p. 34.
[14] Poul Anderson, Operation Otherworld (SFBC, 1999), p. 207.
[15] Poul Anderson, “Fantasy in the Age of Science” in Fantasy (Tor, 1981), p. 332.
[16] Anderson, Three Hearts and Three Lions, p. 34.
[17] Anderson, Three Hearts and Three Lions, p. 63.
[18] Sandra Miesel, Against Time’s Arrow: The High Crusade of Poul Anderson (Borgo Press, 1978), p. 11.
[19] Miesel, Against Time’s Arrow, p. 4.
[20] Miesel, Against Time’s Arrow, p. 7.
[21] Miesel, Against Time’s Arrow, p. 7.
[22] Michael Moorcock, The Eternal Champion, Eternal Champion, Volume 1 (White Wolf, 1994), p. vi.
[23] Moorcock, Eternal Champion, Volume 1, p. vi.
[24] Michael Moorcock, Elric: Stealer of Souls (Ballantine, 2008), p. 444.
[25] Michael Moorcock, The Road Between the Worlds, Eternal, Champion Volume 6 (White Wolf, 1996), p. vi.
[26] Moorcock, Elric: Stealer of Souls, p. 68.
[27] Moorcock, Elric: Stealer of Souls, p. 68.
[28] Moorcock, The Eternal Champion, p. vi.
[29] Moorcock, The Road Between the Worlds, p. vi.
[30] Moorcock, Elric: Stealer of Souls, p. 68.
[31] Moorcock, The Eternal Champion, p. viii.
[32] Michael Moorcock, Corum: The Coming Chaos, Eternal Champion, Volume 7 (White Wolf, 1997), p. 191.
[33] Moorcock, The Eternal Champion, p. vii.
[34] Moorcock, The Eternal Champion, p. vii.
[35] Moorcock, Elric: Stealer of Souls, p. 68.
[36] Moorcock, Elric: Stealer of Souls, p. 68.
[37] Moorcock, Corum: The Coming Chaos, p. 122.
[38] Moorcock, Elric: Stealer of Souls, p. 68.
[39] Moorcock, Corum: The Coming Chaos, p. 193.
[40] Moorcock, Corum: The Coming Chaos, p. 192.
[41] Moorcock, Corum: The Coming Chaos, p. 345.
[42] Moorcock, Elric: Stealer of Souls, p. 68.
[43] Moorcock, Corum: The Coming Chaos, p. 226.
[44] Moorcock, Corum: The Coming Chaos, p. 226.
[45] Michael Moorcock, Elric: To Rescue Tanelorn (Ballantine, 2008), p. 66.
[46] Moorcock, Elric: To Rescue Tanelorn, p. 66.
[47] Moorcock, The Eternal Champion, p. vi.
[48] Moorcock, The Eternal Champion, p. vi.
[49] Moorcock, The Road Between the Worlds, p. vi.
[50] Moorcock, Elric: Stealer of Souls, p. 55.
[51] Moorcock, Corum: The Coming Chaos, p. 136.
[52] Michael Moorcock, Elric: The Sleeping Sorceress (Ballantine, 2008), p. 88.
[53] Moorcock, Corum: The Coming Chaos, p. 397.
[54] Moorcock, Corum: The Coming Chaos, p. 192.
[55] Bradley J. Birzer, J.R.R. Tolkien’s Sanctifying Myth: Understanding Middle-earth (ISI Books, 2002), p. 45.
[56] Anderson, “Fantasy in the Age of Science,” p. 273.
[57] Poul Anderson, “Awakening the Elves” in Meditations on Middle-Earth (St. Martin's Press, 2001), p. 22.
[58] Anderson, “Awakening the Elves, p. 29.
[59] Three Hearts and Three Lions first appeared in serialized form in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, starting with the September 1953 issue.
[60] Anderson, “Fantasy in the Age of Science,” p. 275.
[61] H.P. Lovecraft, At the Mountains of Madness (Arkham House, 1964), p. 308.
[62] Lovecraft, At the Mountains of Madness, p. 308.
[63] Lovecraft, At the Mountains of Madness, p. 293.
[64] L. Sprague de Camp, H.P. Lovecraft: A Biography (Barnes & Noble, 1996), p. 333.
[65] S.T. Joshi and David E. Schultz, An H.P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia (Hippocampus Press, 2001), p. 167.
[66] A. Merritt, Dwellers in the Mirage (Paperback Library, 1960), p. 35.
[67] Lin Carter, “The Magic of Atlantis,” introduction to Poseidonis (Ballantine Books, 1973), pp. 3-5.
[68] Robert M. Price, “The Khut-N’hah Mythos,” introduction to The Book of Iod (Chaosium, 1995), pp. vii-ix.
[69] The term “alignment” comes from D&D's wargaming roots. Who is allied with whom in the “orders of battle.”
[70] Gary Gygax & Jeff Perren, Chainmail, Second Edition, (Guidon Games, 1972), p. 25.
[71] Gygax & Perren, Chainmail, p. 35.
[72] Gygax & Perren, Chainmail, p. 35.
[73] Gygax & Perren, Chainmail, p. 32.
[74] Gygax & Perren, Chainmail, p. 29.
[75] Gary Gygax & Dave Arneson. Dungeons & Dragons, Volume I: Men & Magic (Tactical Studies Rules, 1974), p. 9.
[76] Gary Gygax & Rob Kuntz. Dungeons & Dragons, Supplement I: Greyhawk (TSR Games, 1976), pp. 6-7.
[77] Gygax & Arneson, Volume I: Men & Magic, p. 15.
[78] Dave Arneson & Tim Kask (Editor), Dungeons & Dragons, Supplement II: Blackmoor (TSR Games, 1975), p. 24.
[79] Gygax & Arneson, Volume I: Men & Magic, p. 58.
[80] Gygax & Arneson, Volume I: Men & Magic, p. 34.
[81] Gygax & Arneson, Volume I: Men & Magic, p. 23.
[82] Gygax & Arneson, Volume I: Men & Magic, p. 24.
[83] Arneson & Kask, Supplement II: Blackmoor, p. 21.
[84] Robert Kuntz & James Ward. Dungeons & Dragons, Supplement IV: Gods, Demi-gods & Heroes (TSR Games, 1976). Numerous references found throughout.
[85] Gygax & Kuntz. Supplement I: Greyhawk, p. 34.
[86] Gygax & Kuntz. Supplement I: Greyhawk, p. 35.
[87] Gygax & Kuntz. Supplement I: Greyhawk, pp. 35-36.
[88] Gygax & Kuntz. Supplement I: Greyhawk, p. 38.
[89] Gygax & Kuntz. Supplement I: Greyhawk, pp. 6-7.
[90] Gary Gygax & Dave Arneson J. Eric Holmes (editor), Dungeons & Dragons (TSR, 1977), p. 8
[91] Gary Gygax & Dave Arneson; Tom Moldvay (editor), Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rulebook (TSR, 1981), p. B11.
[92] Gary Gygax, “The Meaning of Law and Chaos,” p. 3.
[93] The term “five-alignment system” is of recent origin and was never used in the original D&D or AD&D books, or by Gygax.
[94] Gygax, “The Meaning of Law and Chaos,” pp. 3-5.
[95] As detailed in The Strategic Review article, “The Meaning of Law and Chaos in Dungeons & Dragons and Their Relationships to Good and Evil.”
[96] Gary Gygax & Brian Blume, Dungeons & Dragons, Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry (TSR Games, 1976), p. 38.
[97] Gygax & Blume, Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry, p. 24.
[98] Gygax & Blume, Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry, p. 39.
[99] Gygax, Arneson, Holmes, Dungeons & Dragons, p. 8
[100] Gygax, “The Meaning of Law and Chaos,” p. 4.
[101] Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual (TSR, 1977), p. 44.
[102] Gary Gygax, Monster Manual, p. 93.
Comments