PS: If anyone can point me to discussions of others who have looked at Japanese alignments, I would be very grateful!Not Japanese specifically, but a Wuxia based 3rd party book has an "Honorable" and "Dishonorable" alignment that replace Good and Evil. From Dragon Tiger Ox: <quotes snipped>
Thanks for the reference, and the quotes that make it look highly desirable! I've been trying to skip 3rd-party products, but it looks good, based on your quotes. Not, mind you, based on the ad for Dragon Tiger Ox. That is full of all the classes & other character-building material the book has, which don't interest me as much. Not yet, anyway -- we really are a long way from Minkai, still! LOL
It was created by a famous philosopher scientist genious named Gygax ...Actually, it was another dude named Jack Vance. Gygax also copied the Vancian Magic System for D&D, and we still use it in Pathfinder.
Thank you! I've heard references to "Vancian Magic," but didn't know what the term referred to. Ummm, I wasn't quite sure... Do sorcerers still use Vancian magic, just a subsystem?
EtA: I adore the magic system in Ars Magica, precisely for the non-Vancian part. Just giving a nod.
|
It was created by a famous philosopher scientist genious named Gygax ...Actually, it was another dude named Jack Vance. Gygax also copied the Vancian Magic System for D&D, and we still use it in Pathfinder.
Actually...no. We were talking Alignment, which Vance had nothing to do with, not magic (which he had everything to do with).
Thank you! I've heard references to "Vancian Magic," but didn't know what the term referred to. Ummm, I wasn't quite sure... Do sorcerers still use Vancian magic, just a subsystem?
EtA: I adore the magic system in Ars Magica, precisely for the non-Vancian part. Just giving a nod.
Sorcerers are kinda pseudo-Vancian rather than Vancian in the classic sense.
Thanks for the reference, and the quotes that make it look highly desirable! I've been trying to skip 3rd-party products, but it looks good, based on your quotes. Not, mind you, based on the ad for Dragon Tiger Ox. That is full of all the classes & other character-building material the book has, which don't interest me as much. Not yet, anyway -- we really are a long way from Minkai, still! LOLPS: If anyone can point me to discussions of others who have looked at Japanese alignments, I would be very grateful!Not Japanese specifically, but a Wuxia based 3rd party book has an "Honorable" and "Dishonorable" alignment that replace Good and Evil. From Dragon Tiger Ox: <quotes snipped>
The mechanical stuff is really good too, but it's the setting that takes the cake.
And the Bad Dubbing rules. Love the Bad Dubbing rules.
I'll answer the above post on Alignment when I have more time.
They get to be wandering philosopher-spirits seeing the planes as a whole.Well, that's good... But WHAT nicer things?
I've got a PC who breathlessly wants to know...
That's nice indeed. Hmmm, my half-orc blaster sorceress as a wandering philosopher-spirit... hmmm. She's going to have to change a whole lot in-game! LOL
Good and evil alignments have been replaced with “honorable” and “dishonorable.” They are functionally the same (detect dishonor detects dishonorable characters for example), but the criteria is different. A character who conducts himself honorably by the wuxia code (see below) is considered honorable. A character who disregards the code is dishonorable. A character who is neutral is shifting from one to another. A blatant infraction will drop a character one step. Most non-wuxia are neutral on this axis of morality.
• You will not kill unless it is required.
• Fight in self defense whenever able.
• Show respect in defeat and humility in victory.
• Help those less fortunate than you.
• Your body is the temple for your spirit and should not be desecrated or polluted.
• Show respect to your peers, your elders, and your betters.
• Respect nature and art.
• Live modestly and give more than you take.
• A wuxia must test his skill and his limits every chance he gets.There is room for differing interpretations of this code, but those who seek to follow it are rewarded more so than those who do not. This is not as much a “one size fits all” code of morality, but rather a series of tenets that uplift those who seek it.
A dishonorable alignment does not not always mean a character would be considered “evil” in another setting. Alignments deal more with ignorance versus enlightenment, especially regarding this code of dignity. Those who are unaware of the code or who conduct themselves in an unbecoming way could be dishonorable. A wild child martial artist could be a dishonorable chaotic character and still have a heart of gold. However, if he seeks enlightenment by taming his actions, he may eventually become more cultured and gain the honorable enlightenment. On the other hand, an honorable character would almost always be good.
Despite the caution, this looks like a fabulous definition of "good," just fabulous, and I intend to extrapolate a def for "evil." Thank you so much! (I'm bowing under the weight of arguments that Detect Good has to still work, so replacing it altogether with Detect Honorable isn't viable. Any more.) But not killing, being respectful & humble, helping those less fortunate, not desecrating or polluting your body, giving more than you take -- it all sounds very much like a Biblical definition of good! (As opposed to the more modern definition encoded in the game.)
I don't understand how the "wild child martial artist" could "have a heart of gold" and violate this code. Be chaotic, yes. Follow ninjo rather than giri, yes. Well, they might get carried away in combat and kill, I suppose. They could be disrespectful. All that's saying is that they're not going to detect as "good" or "evil." I'm looking at saying that lots of souls that detect as "good" here are neutral there!
The only things I'd have to ignore would be the lines about fighting in self-defense when able & testing skill or limits. Failure to do so should still have RP consequences, and I understand Jade Regent will provide an "Honor" subsystem for measuring such things. But it's hard for me to believe that those precepts constitute being "good."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They don't constitute good. The whole idea is that good and evil are gone. They are replaced by Honor and Dishonor.
Honor does not mean good.
Dishonor does not mean evil.
For example, by this system Robin hood would be Chaotic Dishonorable. He does not follow the Wuxia code. He kills, and certainly does not respect his "betters". He would be described as Chaotic Good by many.
You could also have a character easily described as Lawful Evil fall into Lawful Honorable. Gerald Tarrant of the Coldfire Trilogy is a good example. He is an amoral pseudo-vampire that feeds on bad emotions. He does not kill unless it is needed (even when feeding, he usually takes only just enough to live). He takes good care of himself, is unfailingly polite, and is prone to acts of seeming kindness in helping out random people he takes a liking to. If you read the books he is undoubtedly evil to the core (when he deems killing necessary he is NOT nice about it, and assigns no particularly value to human life besides that killing is "inelegant"), but he is quite Honorable.
The "wild child martial artist" could be brash, rude, and a drunkard, but still very good at heart. this is not at all contradictory IRL, why would it be in the game?
So now I've talked myself into a corner -- or actually, let you all back me into one. I've accepted having three columns, for Good, Neutral, & Evil, even though the size of the good & evil ones is a lot smaller, and the neutral one a lot bigger, than in the Inner Sea.
But I still want five rows:
Element ~ Alignment
Heaven ~~ Neutral
Wind ~~~ Yang giri (lawful)
Fire ~~~~ Yang ninjo (chaotic)
Water ~~~ Yin ninjo (chaotic)
Earth ~~~ Yin giri (lawful)
What now????
EtA for clarity: Does "Good/giri" have to be packed into Heaven without distinction as Yin or Yang? Are there ways to sort the two out within Heaven -- and the other outer planes -- without changing cosmology? How do I fit 15 slots of characters into 9 planes?
They don't constitute good. The whole idea is that good and evil are gone. They are replaced by Honor and Dishonor.
Honor does not mean good.
Dishonor does not mean evil.
For example, by this system Robin hood would be Chaotic Dishonorable. He does not follow the Wuxia code. He kills, and certainly does not respect his "betters". He would be described as Chaotic Good by many.
You could also have a character easily described as Lawful Evil fall into Lawful Honorable. Gerald Tarrant of the Coldfire Trilogy is a good example. He is an amoral pseudo-vampire that feeds on bad emotions. He does not kill unless it is needed (even when feeding, he usually takes only just enough to live). He takes good care of himself, is unfailingly polite, and is prone to acts of seeming kindness in helping out random people he takes a liking to. If you read the books he is undoubtedly evil to the core (when he deems killing necessary he is NOT nice about it, and assigns no particularly value to human life besides that killing is "inelegant"), but he is quite Honorable.
The "wild child martial artist" could be brash, rude, and a drunkard, but still very good at heart. this is not at all contradictory IRL, why would it be in the game?
I agree that what you're describing fits the culture better. It's the answer to my initial query, in point of fact. It's just that I'd (now) rather have Wuxia reflected in Good/Evil as detected by the traditional spells than have it replace Good/Evil.
On the other hand, the heart of the Robin Hood legend is that he helps those less fortunate than himself and lives modestly & gives more than he takes (errr, for himself). And lives in harmony with the forest, so presumably respects nature. All of this is honorable or good, whatever word one wants to use.
I have to admit, he definitely would be different if this Robin Hood was humble in victory. Hmmm. I don't think he could pull that off and still be recognizable! LOL! Still, I'd give him an overall aura of Good, even if we're translating the aura as "rippana"
Yes, if she were from the Inner Sea region, she might well scry as good; drunkenness and disrespect wouldn't especially move her alignment there. I want the gods to be different in different parts of the world.
If you are able to accept for a minute that spells & items & abilities keyed to good or evil have to be able to still function in Tian Xia, does what I've said make sense?
Do eastern philosophies even have the concept of chaotic good?That's part of what I'm wondering!
But I think so... At least, I can think of someone being honorless but generous. Certainly, it's possible for someone to be utterly, scrupulously honorable, but to use honor as an excuse for selfishness.
I want to fix my answer in light of my explorations since making it.
But I think so... At least, I can think of someone being chaotically moved by internal feeling but still generous. Certainly, it's possible for someone to scrupulously fulfill every obligation, but to use those obligations as an excuse for selfishness. If I have the right words, it would mean living by ninjo & being rippana on the one hand vs. giri & fumeiyona on the other.
|
It was created by a famous philosopher scientist genious named Gygax ...Actually, it was another dude named Jack Vance. Gygax also copied the Vancian Magic System for D&D, and we still use it in Pathfinder.Actually...no. We were talking Alignment, which Vance had nothing to do with, not magic (which he had everything to do with).
Sorcerers are kinda pseudo-Vancian rather than Vancian in the classic sense.Thank you! I've heard references to "Vancian Magic," but didn't know what the term referred to. Ummm, I wasn't quite sure... Do sorcerers still use Vancian magic, just a subsystem?
EtA: I adore the magic system in Ars Magica, precisely for the non-Vancian part. Just giving a nod.
The concept of axes of Good/Evil and Law/Chaos, as used by D&D, also come from Vance's works. This is what I was actually referring to, and the magic system was just an expansion to illustrate how much Gygax actually incorporated rather than invented. I.E. I was rebutting that the real-world philosopher responsible for the alignment grid was Gygax and submitting that more accurately, it was Vance.
I'm honestly not sure what we're talking about any more. Are we taking about the system as presented in the book I quoted from, or how you're trying to change it into a new system based off one? I'm not sure which position you're tackling this from.
For Tarrant specifically, he lives modestly, in a manner of speaking. He COULD feasibly set himself up as an actual god, lording over his subjects and feeding on their fear in a wide scale to use the magic in that setting to give himself enormous power. He prefers to live in his small corner of the world, and take a small tribute every now and then to sate his hunger. it's all about perspective, really (and there's the evil part, that justification).
I recommend the books.
I'm honestly not sure what we're talking about any more. Are we taking about the system as presented in the book I quoted from, or how you're trying to change it into a new system based off one? I'm not sure which position you're tackling this from.
For Tarrant specifically, he lives modestly, in a manner of speaking. He COULD feasibly set himself up as an actual god, lording over his subjects and feeding on their fear in a wide scale to use the magic in that setting to give himself enormous power. He prefers to live in his small corner of the world, and take a small tribute every now and then to sate his hunger. it's all about perspective, really (and there's the evil part, that justification).
I recommend the books.
Dragon Tiger Ox is definitely on my wishlist; you did a great sales job! Fiction, sorry; I've sadly stopped reading fiction.
Let me approach my response to your suggestion differently. I definitely must have a law/chaos (giri/ninjo) axis; if I splice that into yin/yang, well, that's extra. You suggest, persuasively, an honorable/dishonorable axis. Tien clerics & wizards can cast "Protection from Dishonorable," and mighty fighters can wield Honorable Weapons. Great. Fits the flavor I want really well.
Now, what about good/evil? Is it gone from the Tien universe? Does a Detect Evil spell just fizzle? Does a Holy Weapon transported to Tian Xia deal any extra damage to any tien creatures ever?
It sounds like I have four choices:
- Ignore honorable/dishonorable altogether;
- Combine honorable & good in some way, along with dishonorable & evil;
- Use three axes, specifying all creatures encountered in the new one (honorable/dishonorable), adjusting law/chaos, and keeping good/evil;
- Ignore good/evil in Tian Xia.
What do you recommend?
I recommend option 4. The point of the system was to make "Good" and "Evil" obsolete concepts,replacing them with more fluid definitions. It avoids the whole problem of the Paladin casting Detect Evil and then going to Smite town. Now they cast Detect Dishonorable, and all they know is whether the person follows the way of Wuxia or not.
So good/evil is just GONE. There are no Holy weapons, Detect Evil isn't a spell that was ever invented. Demons are Chaotic Dishnorable, Devils might be Lawful Honorable, or Dishonorable.
Of the other options, option 2 seems the best. Combine Good/Honorable and Evil/Dishonorable so you have no shades of gray. The downside to this is it basically pigeonholes all heroes into the Honorable or Neutral alignments, since not following the way of Wuxia is now connotated with being a bad person.
Basically, that option takes Good and Evil ad much more rigidly defines them. Good is following the Wuxia code, Evil is eschewing it. This removes all alignment nuance, but makes it VERY easy to tell when your actions are out of line for the setting, which is good info to have on hand, and take a lot of subjectivity out of the game. Basically, every character now has their own less rigid version of the Paladin's Code to follow.
|
|
It was created by a famous philosopher scientist genious named Gygax ...Actually, it was another dude named Jack Vance. Gygax also copied the Vancian Magic System for D&D, and we still use it in Pathfinder.
As has already been said, I was referring to the alignment system, which Gygax created for AD&D, not the Jack Vance inspired magic system
|
|
The concept of axes of Good/Evil and Law/Chaos, as used by D&D, also come from Vance's works. This is what I was actually referring to, and the magic system was just an expansion to illustrate how much Gygax actually incorporated rather than invented. I.E. I was rebutting that the real-world philosopher responsible for the alignment grid was Gygax and submitting that more accurately, it was Vance.It was created by a famous philosopher scientist genious named Gygax ...Actually, it was another dude named Jack Vance. Gygax also copied the Vancian Magic System for D&D, and we still use it in Pathfinder.Actually...no. We were talking Alignment, which Vance had nothing to do with, not magic (which he had everything to do with).
Sorcerers are kinda pseudo-Vancian rather than Vancian in the classic sense.Thank you! I've heard references to "Vancian Magic," but didn't know what the term referred to. Ummm, I wasn't quite sure... Do sorcerers still use Vancian magic, just a subsystem?
EtA: I adore the magic system in Ars Magica, precisely for the non-Vancian part. Just giving a nod.
The concepts of Law vs Chaos was more from Michael Morcock's Elric books.
Although good vs. evil as concepts are certainly part of books from Vance, Howard, Tolkien, and many others, the idea of codifying the nine alignments as an AD&D game mechanic was very much an invention of Gygax, inspired of course by concepts from all those great books of which Gygax was a huge fan
I'm hoping that some of the people who've been weighing in here on the side of keeping abilities linked to good or evil intact will weigh in again on this! For easy comparison...
There is room for differing interpretations of this code, but those who seek to follow it are rewarded more so than those who do not. This is not as much a “one size fits all” code of morality, but rather a series of tenets that uplift those who seek it.
- You will not kill unless it is required.
- Fight in self defense whenever able.
- Show respect in defeat and humility in victory.
- Help those less fortunate than you.
- Your body is the temple for your spirit and should not be desecrated or polluted.
- Show respect to your peers, your elders, and your betters.
- Respect nature and art.
- Live modestly and give more than you take.
- A wuxia must test his skill and his limits every chance he gets.
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 may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Looking at them side by side, do you see the Wuxia code as actually different or simply more complete than Pathfinder good? With a slightly different flavor, perhaps?
I notice that conduct like respecting nature (or art!), much less refraining from polluting one's body, just doesn't show up in Pathfinder as "good" at all -- Wuxia definitely demands more of one.
I'm sure that a lot of Inner Sea characters would not interpret "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" as actually showing respect, although many would. OTOH, the PF good is undeniably broader here and incredibly American at that -- someone following Wuxia has no need to respect those socially beneath them!
I would argue, however, now that I've looked at them side by side, that PF good is largely reflected in the Wuxia code, even though the reverse is not true. PF's "make personal sacrifices to help others" is arguably the same as "help those less fortunate than you," although Wuxia comes back at this again with "give more than you take." (I personally love the Wuxia language!)
And the PF definition certainly includes "you will not kill unless it is required;" in fact, this is the dominant part of being "good."
So what do people here think? (Especially you, Sundakan!) Is following Wuxia simply a harder form of being good? Or is it different?
Honestly, for me, the Wuxia code reads a lot like a paladin code. You could even use it as a generic paladin code with a little modification, if you desired, from what I see. And part of the reason I think this is, is because both represent a relatively restrictive code of conduct for characters, while the good alignment description is designed more to encompass a wider set of behaviors and allows a greater variety of behaviors within its strictures.
OK, Sundakan, with the above exercise for context, I'm turning to your post. And thank you so much for mulling this over with me!
I recommend option 4. The point of the system was to make "Good" and "Evil" obsolete concepts,replacing them with more fluid definitions. It avoids the whole problem of the Paladin casting Detect Evil and then going to Smite town. Now they cast Detect Dishonorable, and all they know is whether the person follows the way of Wuxia or not.
I'm thinking that if I go with this, it's still the case that Minkaian paladins cast Detect Chaotic before they go to smite-town. In Minkai, Lawful/Chaotic is the over-arching alignment. The other axis isn't just fluff, exactly, but significantly less important. (And yes, the first time a CG PC from Avistan offends a Minkaian paladin, they're going to be really, really surprised! ;) Why, it will strike home to them that they're not in Avistan any more -- which is the point of this whole exercise.)
OTOH, it seems reasonable that paladins from the remains of Imperial Lung Wa might instead cast Detect Dishonorable & get Smite Dishonorable. Both worship Lawful/Honorable deities and follow a Lawful/Honorable code of conduct, but emphasize different sides of that in their childhood up-bringing, youthful training, and adult discipline. And are no-doubt quite fond of telling a paladin from the other culture that "you do it wrong!" :) Both of them, however, must get Smite as an ability; they're really not paladins otherwise.
So good/evil is just GONE. There are no Holy weapons, Detect Evil isn't a spell that was ever invented. Demons are Chaotic Dishnorable, Devils might be Lawful Honorable, or Dishonorable.
I have no problem with this on the face of it. But then I start thinking about the implications...
First of all, I'm running Jade Regent, which takes a party from Varisia to Minkai. I don't have a paladin, and I don't think anyone's likely to run out and spend money on a Holy enchantment. But I do have two Varisian PCs who spontaneously cast divine magic (a hunter & an oracle). If I simply vitiate good/evil in Minkai, I have to either keep a gimlet eye on their spell selection here in Avistan and outright ban certain choices, or replace relevant spells that have become useless once we get there. If I replace spells based on good/evil with the equivalent ones based on honorable/dishonorable, have I actually kept the two concepts separate?
Secondly, there's the cosmology issues you touch on. If some devils are lawful honorable and others lawful dishonorable, are there separate outer planes to contain them? Which of them does Asmodeus rule over? Or is there a simmering civil war in Hell? What about Heaven -- are there archons who dispute another archon's right to be there? If one is the essence of GOOD while the other is the essence of HONORABLE... Would they, could they, inhabit the same plane? It doesn't seem likely to me!
There was a time, back when I started this thread, that I'd have probably leaped at this. But now... I'm thinking things through more, and looking hard at redefining Tien "good" by the Wuxia code.
Of the other options, option 2 seems the best. Combine Good/Honorable and Evil/Dishonorable so you have no shades of gray. The downside to this is it basically pigeonholes all heroes into the Honorable or Neutral alignments, since not following the way of Wuxia is now connotated with being a bad person.
Basically, that option takes Good and Evil ad much more rigidly defines them. Good is following the Wuxia code, Evil is eschewing it. This removes all alignment nuance, but makes it VERY easy to tell when your actions are out of line for the setting, which is good info to have on hand, and take a lot of subjectivity out of the game. Basically, every character now has their own less rigid version of the Paladin's Code to follow.
Well, I hope that now you can understand what I was working towards when I first responded to your post on Wuxia: Option 2. I'm not sure it has the effects you predict -- for instance, not being good or at least neutral in the Inner Sea is seen as being a bad person! To me, it would hopefully confuse the "Asmodeus's-home" out of my Varisian PCs, in that they might think they're exhibiting "good" behavior, and it's not getting recognized as such in Minkai because they drink too much and (accidentally, possibly) insult people. Plus, spells that they expect to work one way might have a slightly different effect than intended -- but would still function.
Even for a game fully set in Tian Xia, with Tien PCs, I think that using the Wuxia code for "good" is a whole lot more complex and nuanced than the simple code for "good" set forth in Core (see my post above). It could be a lot of fun to try to maintain a Wuxia definition of good in a slippery world. But I don't know that insisting on terms like "honorable" instead of "good" would add all that much to the game.
Certainly, adapting the cosmology really is soooo much simpler... Different deities have different standards for "good" but can inhabit the same plane together. The mind-bending part for some people is realizing that the same deity can have different standards for good in different cultures, but I have no problem with it. I simply recognize that Desna, for instance, would use the language that's at hand when talking to people on different continents, urging them onward to perfecting their souls. And if one archon of Desna is shocked by the disregard that another shows for essential aspects of GOOD, well, they both have had the chance to see the fullness of being that is a deity. In short, Desna's GOODNESS is so much greater than mortal good -- whether Inner Sea (Pathfinder) Good or Wuxia Good -- that both archons have a new standard to achieve. And of course, this would apply to Asmodeus's devils in Hell, as well, and inhabitants of all the planes that aren't neutral with respect to good & evil.
So have I made my case for redefining good & evil but keeping spells & abilities intact, or is there something essential that I'm missing?
Honestly, for me, the Wuxia code reads a lot like a paladin code. You could even use it as a generic paladin code with a little modification, if you desired, from what I see. And part of the reason I think this is, is because both represent a relatively restrictive code of conduct for characters, while the good alignment description is designed more to encompass a wider set of behaviors and allows a greater variety of behaviors within its strictures.
Yes, you'd get a whole lot more neutral characters with this "good." I don't have a problem with Tian Xia as a setting having a whole lot of good/evil neutrals, while everyone focuses on law/chaos. It's my impression of Minkai, anyway. But I take your point that it would be more frustrating for players trying to play morally-good Tien characters. Especially if they couldn't come back to the Inner Sea!
|
|
As has already been said, I was referring to the alignment system, which Gygax created for AD&D, not the Jack Vance inspired magic systemIt was created by a famous philosopher scientist genious named Gygax ...Actually, it was another dude named Jack Vance. Gygax also copied the Vancian Magic System for D&D, and we still use it in Pathfinder.
And as I said (and was apparently misunderstood), I was saying Gygax did not come up with the alignment axes that D&D uses; he incorporated those concepts of Good vs Evil and Law vs Chaos from the same non-Gygaxian source from which he took the magic system.
Could Cayden Cailean have a following in Tian Xia if "good" is defined by the Wuxia code?
I mean, I know he doesn't. Maybe that's why?
|
|
You will have enormous trouble and a huge work replacing Good-Evil with Wuxia in Tian Xia because the setting has been designed for the former. Doubly so in Jade Regent which has the PCs travel in several parts of the world. It would make little sense for their abilities to suddenly change because they enter the lands of a different culture
I think the simple way to get what you want is to underline that Lawful vs Chaos is far more important to the local cultures than Good vs Evil. Maybe with local Paladins having Detect and Smite Chaos rather than Evil. Not that even that will need you to recast all Oni as CE when many are officially LE
You will have enormous trouble and a huge work replacing Good-Evil with Wuxia in Tian Xia because the setting has been designed for the former. Doubly so in Jade Regent which has the PCs travel in several parts of the world. It would make little sense for their abilities to suddenly change because they enter the lands of a different culture
I think the simple way to get what you want is to underline that Lawful vs Chaos is far more important to the local cultures than Good vs Evil. Maybe with local Paladins having Detect and Smite Chaos rather than Evil. Not that even that will need you to recast all Oni as CE when many are officially LE
Hmmmm, noted. Recasting a few villains would be simpler than rewriting everyone...
And as I said (and was apparently misunderstood), I was saying Gygax did not come up with the alignment axes that D&D uses; he incorporated those concepts of Good vs Evil and Law vs Chaos from the same non-Gygaxian source from which he took the magic system.As has already been said, I was referring to the alignment system, which Gygax created for AD&D, not the Jack Vance inspired magic systemIt was created by a famous philosopher scientist genious named Gygax ...Actually, it was another dude named Jack Vance. Gygax also copied the Vancian Magic System for D&D, and we still use it in Pathfinder.
only part that seems similar to Vance's books is when casters forget spells and need to memorize them again and again, I don't remember nothing about alignment, or any developed magical system
The original alignment system of Law vs. Chaos was derived from the works of Michael Moorcock. The Good vs. Evil axis was added later.
TL;DR;
Here is the idea of the Chinese afterlife from 2nd ed:
Like all Chinese mythology, the concept of the afterlife is mixture of Buddhist, Taoist, and Confucian thought. Basically, the ancient Chinese believed that after death, a person’s soul goes to the first of ten supernatural law courts. Here, the judge investigates the person’s deeds during his past life and passes judgment on what is to come.
Depending on the nature of their morality, the souls of the virtuous met one of three fates. They could be sent back the earth to be reincarnated immediately. In cases where the individual’s morality was subject to question, he might be incarnated in an animal’s body as a minor punishment. The souls of the very honorable might be sent to the K’un-lun Mountain, dwelling place of the Immortals, or to the Land of Extreme Felicity in the West. Both paradises were lands of eternal delight which only the most virtuous souls could hope to attain.
The souls judged to be wicked passed through nine more courts of law. In the first eight of these courts, the soul is judged for crimes against the jurisdiction of that particular court. For instance, in the second court, the individual might be found guilty of being a dishonest intermediary or an ignorant doctor. In the third, he might be judged a backbiter or forger, and in the fourth a miser, cheat, or blasphemer. As the individual receives his judgment, he is passed to one of two bells attached to each court, where he receives a punishment appropriate to the crime. For instance, a miser might be compelled to swallow molten gold, a liar might have his tongue cut out, a murderer might be cut into pieces, etc.
After receiving the appropriate punishment in each court, the soul reaches the house of Lady Meng, just inside the exit to this terrible after-world. Here, the Lady Meng serves them the Broth of Oblivion, which robs the souls of memory of their former lives and their ordeal in the afterlife. After drinking the broth, the souls pass through the exit and climb onto the Wheel of Transmigration and are cast back to earth to be reincarnated in a new body.
The planes were just where the gods resided, and did not have much to do with alignment as far as mortals were concerned.
I know the Maztikan setting had a different version of the afterlife, and the Pharonic had yet another. The Norse had another. Each affected the way the planes were mapped out.
In generic D&D, the planes are defined as a great wheel with alignments fading into one another along the edge and strengthening with distance from the center (i.e. Neutral). This made 16 aligned planes, and 1 Neutral lane. The other systems did not use all of these, and instead had other ways of visualizing. The Greeks had great rivers connecting everything. The Norse had the great tree serving the same purpose. The Egyptians had a boat riding a river in the sky between the various places.
If you read in the Planescape material, you will find all of these ideas represented, and more. [For example, the infinite staircase, and the city of portals.]
/cevah