Heinsoo on Alignment & Rebranding

[scott2978]

Wow! That's interesting. I've rarely met any group which uses Alignment Languages and I've been puzzling over its implementation in my own game. I understand the value of having Alignment Languages by creatures who share an Alignment, but the "language" is lost when alignment shifts and another Alignment Language is gained. I know this is really tightly tied into the Alignment system as a whole, so I'm thinking it gets deeply into the answer of "What is a language?"

Quite coincidentally, I was reading the book "Cheers, Gary" (a collection of ENWorld forum posts by Gary Gygax published in book form - you can read them yourself here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?22566-Q-amp-A-with-Gary-Gygax-Part-I) tonight and found this question asked of Gary Gygax about this exact subject (pp78). Here's his answer:

"As for alignment languages, as I worked up the mindsets for the none it seemed to me that each such groups would have developed their own patoise as a recognition means, more or less like secret societies have signs and signals to ID their fellows.

Never did I envisage characters announcing their moral-ethical (or lack thereof) beliefs and convictions. Rather, the alignment languages were meant to be the means by which one might discover a like-natured individual. Similarly, conveyance of information or general conversation was not contemplated using such "language".

All typos and gramatical errors are by the original author

Scott

 

[scott2978]

Unaligned means just that: you are not aligned. Not some sort of Swiss bank, mediation type of stuff. You just don't play that game. You may have your own personal ethics, but you just don't align with the cosmic forces; you're an average joe just trying to live your life. IMO, it is what neutral should have been. You're not concerned with some sort of cosmic balance between good/evil or law/chaos.

How is alignment a game balance tool? I mean, sure, in 1e paladins were saddled with a lot of alignment restrictions in order to balance out being a fighter++. But I think we can agree that that particular form of balance is a design best left in the past.

Furthermore, I would say D&D needs less emphasis on alignment, not more. That is what 4e did, it was not nearly as tied into the system as in previous editions. Sure, demons, paladins, undead, angels could be affected or detected by certain spells/powers, but it is very limited beyond this. To me, I have always played D&D in spite of its hokey alignment system, not because of it. So I find it less of 'feel like D&D' than many others. Sure, In epic fantasy you have various good vs evil themes, not to mention beings that tend to embody them, but that does not call for forcing everyone into a 9 tier alignment system. To me, Pathfinder, despite some good adventure material, was a warmed over 3.75, a system that I grew tired of before Pathfinder even came out.

Hmm so it seems that having an alignment that is essentially "none" would only work in a game system where your alignment doesn't really mean much, like 4e's is "about as meaningful as your eye color". That also means that you could never use it in the standard 3x3 alignment grid either. Either you'd be immune to Evil and Good descriptors, which would be ultra-munchkin, or you'd be effected by both, and few would want to play it.

Everyone's descriptions of "unaligned" sound a lot to me like Chaotic Neutral. That's just my opinion, of course.

Alignment is a game balance tool in many ways. Picture the Evil and Good descriptors and how they limit who can use them and who is affected by them. Also, same goes for magic items of Good/Evil and Holy/Unholy. Plus there are the alignment restrictions of the classes besides paladin: neutral druids, lawful monks, chaotic barbarians, etc. A whole lot of magic, the most powerful factor in the game, is based on alignments. Using those alignments helps place restrictions on what can be done, when, by whom and against whom. Remove all those things and the whole system begins to break down, or at least you constantly have to invent new rationale for things.

Scott

 

[pemerton]

The 1e/2e/3e alignment system took as its starting point the notion that things shouldn't be as simple as "Team Good" and "Team Evil." LG and CG characters differed significantly in important respects ranging from honorable behavior to the proper size and scope of government, and could easily find common ground with like-minded members of Team Evil to advance those principles even to the point of battling other members of Team Good.

I've never seen a published D&D adventure or gameworld in which elves and bugbears align against gobliins and dwarves. What is an example of L/C trumpting over G/E?

I liked the refocusing of demons & devils, but didn't like that it came at the expense of the Blood War

The Blood War gets half-a-page on p 89 of the 4e MoP (released Dec 2008). And figures in later supplements too.

 

[Hussar]

I do think Jester Canuck hits it on the head though. If older elements really matter to you then it doesn't really matter how good the new stuff is. The criteria for judgement simply doesn't allow you to eject the old stuff in favor of the new.

 

[howandwhy99]

Quite coincidentally, I was reading the book "Cheers, Gary" (a collection of ENWorld forum posts by Gary Gygax published in book form - you can read them yourself here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?22566-Q-amp-A-with-Gary-Gygax-Part-I) tonight and found this question asked of Gary Gygax about this exact subject (pp78).

I know the book well. It's an interesting read with a mix of insight, humor, and sometimes doubt on my part. Not that anything in the book is deceptive, only that it's difficult to understand at times. And I know I can't remember that well to five years ago much less, what? I guess thirty? But Gary certainly demonstrates a good memory. Plus some amazing stories.

Here's his answer:

"As for alignment languages, as I worked up the mindsets for the none it seemed to me that each such groups would have developed their own patoise as a recognition means, more or less like secret societies have signs and signals to ID their fellows.

Never did I envisage characters announcing their moral-ethical (or lack thereof) beliefs and convictions. Rather, the alignment languages were meant to be the means by which one might discover a like-natured individual. Similarly, conveyance of information or general conversation was not contemplated using such "language".

All typos and gramatical errors are by the original author

Scott

That's my thinking too. Alignment as a system is defined by the behavior of the game element and vice versa. If it's lawful, then all the behaviors in the game under lawful make up the current lawful alignment. As a means of communicating to other game elements, not necessarily a sentient (i.e. Intelligent) act at all, the Alignment behaviors become a language of communication. As Gary says, it allows recognition by others on a non-verbal level, signs and signals: the behavior, which enables like-minded groups to find each other. This isn't "announcing their moral-ethical (or lack thereof) beliefs and convictions" in a verbal language. Anyone can pretend anything there with little effort at all. Telling isn't doing. Verbal languages are designed for fast "conveyance of information or general conversation" as Gary says. They are mountains to scale by poets to convey much of anything else.

To get closer to game mechanics, think of the microbiological world. Micro-organisms manage to work together in way we can't yet wrap our heads around to create these unthinkably complex multi-cellular organisms like ourselves. They "speak a language" to each other via behaviors to work in concert together, attack another, or largely go their own way. Game mechanics can be designed similarly to communicate, interact according to the rules, based upon their internal design. Act together, act apart, act against.

The Players can use game elements under their control to behave any manner they wish, but its going to be covered by the rules one way or another. Just like they can use the spoken character languages to convey or request information in a more commonly understand method from sentient-like designed game elements. The latter here allows for much of the standard Alignment system to be discovered and mastered by cleric players, and others of course, by talking with other "people": NPCs. The Alignment language categorizes the behaviors they might use to engage with them and, depending on the alignment of the game element, learn the result. The mechanics are there to facilitate mastering that game play. Just as using a hammer to smash a box in the game uses To Hit rolls and Damage rolls to Hit Point totals for combats.

 

[pemerton]

Alignment as a system is defined by the behavior of the game element and vice versa. If it's lawful, then all the behaviors in the game under lawful make up the current lawful alignment. As a means of communicating to other game elements, not necessarily a sentient (i.e. Intelligent) act at all, the Alignment behaviors become a language of communication. As Gary says, it allows recognition by others on a non-verbal level, signs and signals

In the Gygax quote, he talks about a "patois". Various parts of the rulebooks also talk about "speaking" alignment languages (eg in the MM, we are told of beholders that they "speak their own language as well as that tongue known to lawful evil creatures"). I think it's pretty clear that alignment lanugage is significantly, perhaps even predominantly, verbal.

 

[howandwhy99]

In the Gygax quote, he talks about a "patois". Various parts of the rulebooks also talk about "speaking" alignment languages (eg in the MM, we are told of beholders that they "speak their own language as well as that tongue known to lawful evil creatures"). I think it's pretty clear that alignment lanugage is significantly, perhaps even predominantly, verbal.

Feel free to play it however you want. As I first posted I've been pondering over this one myself, so it ultimately makes sense for my game. The "Our allies share a language" and "So do our enemies" is very useful, but it has not made sense for me when Alignment shifts. Or how high level Assassins can learn Alignment languages of Alignments they don't follow. What's going on with loss or gain of the "tongue" at the moment that happens? What you quoted is part of my attempts to resolve that.

 

[Jester David]

Unaligned means just that: you are not aligned. Not some sort of Swiss bank, mediation type of stuff. You just don't play that game. You may have your own personal ethics, but you just don't align with the cosmic forces; you're an average joe just trying to live your life. IMO, it is what neutral should have been. You're not concerned with some sort of cosmic balance between good/evil or law/chaos.

I agree that Unaligned and Neutral are very different philosophies and there really is room for both.

I tend to view Unaligned as not having strong feelings one way or the other or not having the conviction to act: anyone can be "good" when things are going well and there's no stress, but when there's danger and problems people will reveal their true nature. The pig farmer might think of himself as "good" and a decent person, but when the orcs attack he might opt to run and hide rather than help someone escape.