D&D came to us by way of wargames, meaning that it was based exclusively out of arbitrary dice and numbers that were designed to represent the effectiveness of mass combat between hundreds upon hundreds of rank-and-file medieval troops. Gary Gygax decided to make a little dungeon-crawl type of game called Dungeons and Dragons, and is widely credited with inventing the genre of dungeon crawling (even though more than a few other dungeon crawl games -- most of inferior quality -- existed at that point).

My personal opinion regarding the Dungeons and Dragons phenomenon is that it's just too arbitrary to simulate even a fantasy environment. I was very pleased when I discovered the existence of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, which filled in all the blanks and turned a dungeon-crawling game into an actual roleplaying game!

Sadly, however, AD&D was still based off of Chainmail, and took the same "advantage" of the arbitrary dice rolls. However, for all of its perceived failings, there is one thing I feel that AD&D got right: alignment.

In AD&D, there are three "ethos" -- Good, Neutrality, and Evil -- and three "morals" -- Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic.

Good essentially means that you will do everything to promote life. Neutrality means that you will do everything to ensure that the world remains balanced. Evil means that you will do everything to promote your own life, at the expense of all others'.

Lawful means that you will perform your ethos by the strict application of order. Neutral means you will perform your ethos in a completely natural way, doing whatever you perceive is necessary to do so. Chaotic means you will do everything in your power to ensure you have unlimited freedom to perform your ethos.

In combination, these nine alignments describe a huge variety of the population -- everything from the evil dictator (who is Lawful Evil -- he uses law to further his own ends) to the revolutionary (who is Chaotic Good -- he undermines law in order to save his country and people).

But in AD&D, these alignments are not absolutes. A Lawful person knows that sometimes it is necessary to break the law. A Chaotic person knows that sometimes it is ideal to obey the law. If there is so much cross-pollination between these alignments, it becomes difficult to accurately define them.

---

The Haven Seed has twenty-five alignments. To start with, what Advanced Dungeons and Dragons calls "morals", Haven calls "ethics" -- your ability to respect the laws of a society has little to do with your morality (your personal code of justice, right, and wrong), and much more to do with your ethics (defined almost precisely as your respect of society's ability to determine justice, right, and wrong). Likewise, the "ethos" of AD&D corresponds directly to your "morals" in Haven.

Why so many more alignments? Well, in fact, there are only two new morals and two new ethics. In combination, these turn a 3 × 3 computation into a 5 × 5 computation -- hence, twenty-five. These define the difference between absolute and flexible morals and ethics.

There are five ethos, or moralities, which determine the degree to which you choose selflessness or selfishness:

Good
The firm belief that every life is entirely necessary to the grand scheme of the world, and that the betterment of life comes only from sharing wealth (wealth may be material or immaterial). When death is necessary (such as for food or for protection), it must be accomplished in an expedient way, avoiding pain and fear; though the victim must be put to death, it should not have to suffer unduly during the process. Material wealth is something to be avoided unless it is fairly given to everyone, as anyone can survive with meager possessions.

Benevolence (corresponds to AD&D's "Good")
The belief that life is something that must be preserved, without being so foolish as to allow things which are considered horrible to continue to live. The betterment of life is believed to come from helping others with wealth (material or immaterial), but time must also be taken for one's own pleasure. Material wealth is a boon but is far from needed.

Worldliness (corresponds to AD&D's "Neutrality")
The belief that life must achieve a perfect balance. Death is a necessary part of survival, for without it you will not have food, or land in which to obtain food. The betterment of life is not just through helping others, but in helping oneself, and the balance between these should be maintained. Material wealth is desired, as it eliminates necessity, and having more than needed right away is good too, because it brings satisfaction, but one should never want for nothing, as this would disrupt the delicate balance of life.

Malevolence (corresponds to AD&D's "Evil")
The belief that one's own life is most important, and the lives of others are of secondary importance to one's own. Helping people should not be done unless doing so will improve one's own situation in some way or it would prevent a complete waste of life. The betterment of life is through one's own prosperity, with some minor gratification for helping those in desperate need (though this help is presumably to acquire a reward or indenture of free service). Material wealth is one factor in this prosperity, as more possessions are always a good thing.

Evil
The firm belief that only one's own life matters, and that other creatures must survive on their own strengths, lest they meet the unfortunate result of death. Helping others is something to be avoided, as helping others will take away one's resources and possibly allow others to take advantage of the momentary weakness. Betterment comes only from one's own pleasure and wealth, and if others stand in the way of these gains, then they are threats and must be dealt with. If one happens to lose to his or her opponents, then so be it -- the opponents are superior and the universe is functioning as it should. And if the opponents are foolish enough to grant mercy, then revenge is entirely fair.


There are also five behaviours, or ethics, which determine how you function in a society:

Strictness
The firm belief that inflexible order -- laws which apply equally to all people, regardless of status, creed, or other aspects -- is necessary to ensure the complete fulfillment of one's morals, even if those laws inadvertently interfere with the morals (in which case the rule applies until it is revised). A lack of law or exceptions to the law allow people with different morals to take advantage, and this is something that must not be allowed to happen.

Orderliness (corresponds to AD&D's "Lawful")
The belief in the word of law when it serves to fulfill one's morals. When the word of law interferes with those morals, it must be ignored, changed, or an exception made to meet that circumstance.

Neutrality (corresponds to AD&D's "Neutral")
The belief that some structure in a society is necessary, but encouraging freedom and placing faith in one's own ability to uphold his or her morals.

Waywardness (corresponds to AD&D's "Chaotic")
The belief that laws restrict the application of morality, and that only the slimmest number of laws must be present to ensure that only the most common situations have invariable responses.

Anarchy
The firm belief that laws must never exist, and that all people must act entirely on their moral convictions in any situation. Those people who violate morals should be dealt with as swiftly and as efficiently as possible, by whatever means one's own morals determine to be right.


In my opinion, Canada is a society whose operating principle is Orderly Benevolence -- Lawful Good, in AD&D's terms. I would say that the United States features Orderly Worldliness instead, with tendencies towards Benevolence. Canada's courts are intended to assure people of their right to security of person, wealth, and happiness, even if it undermines the value of law to do so, but the existence of the courts and the long judicial process ensure that justice is served to those who are legally determined to deserve it.

The United States' courts, on the other hand, are intended more to ensure that justice is served, such that people do not have as many socialist-like rights as they do in Canada -- in particular, in some U.S. states the death sentence is entirely possible (whereas in Canada, no one can be capitally sentenced).

This is just my world perception, of course, and is definitely just an opinion. I am sure there are many exceptions, as generalisations are of course generalisations.


The only problem I see with my alignment system is that there is no such thing as "Firm Belief" in the middlemost ethos and behaviours. Strictness is "firm belief" in order, while "Orderliness" is a more relaxed "belief" in order -- which is to say that Strictness believes order is absolute, while Orderliness believes order is ideal but can be wrong sometimes. But there is only one form of compromising behaviour, "Neutrality", which is a relaxed "belief" that both law and chaos are necessary for the ultimate society to function, not a "firm belief" that these must be in perfect balance at all times.

I suppose an argument could be made that Neutrality or Worldliness, by the very nature of being compromises between the two ethical and moral extremes respectively, cannot be "firm beliefs" because a firm belief is not a compromise.