Practical, Intellectual, Natural, Supernatural

Previously, I posted about a weird alignment idea based on a compass rose in an xkcd map, involving two axes:

• Practical vs. Intellectual
• Focus on Real Life vs. Focus on the Web, which I recharacterized as Real World vs. Dream World

I decided that a better way to explain the second axis would be Natural vs. Supernatural, and then came up with the following crude graphic resembling the alignment chart from Holmes Basic or the PHB.

The PINS Alignment System

You may notice that I’ve included example creatures, professions, and areas of interest.

• Supernatural Intellectual is the domain of Mysticism spirits, and rakshashas.
• Natural Intellectual is the domain of both Philosophy (more intellectual than natural) and Science (more natural than intellectual,) as well as titans.
• Natural Practical is the domain of Art and Craft and various craftspeople like smiths.
• Supernatural Practical is the domain of Thaumaturgy (practically-oriented magic) and Theurgy (divine magic and worship,) as well as djinni and godlings.

Priests are supernatural, but straddle the line between Intellectual and Practical. Sages are intellectual, but straddle the line between Natural and Supernatural. These are both ranges, with some priests and sages falling more on one side, others falling more on the opposite side.

Dwarves are frequently portrayed in D&D as materialistic and unmagical, so I’ve placed them here straddling the line between Intellectual and Practical, but on the Natural side, in contrast to priests. Obviously, in your own campaign, you could characterize dwarves differently, and could find places for any other monsters and races desired.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Weird Alignment Ideas II

I know that I never wrote a post with the title "Weird Alignment Ideas I", but I sort of did write a post like that, exploring alternatives or add-ons to the Law/Chaos, Good/Evil approach we all know.

This time, I was going down a different rabbit hole. I've been looking at well-known maps about fantasy map tropes (The Map of Clichéa and The Only Fantasy World Map You'll Ever Need) to, well, create a list of fantasy map tropes in hopes of creating maps that truly subvert or avoid the stuff we've all seen before. And I asked on Twitter if anyone remembered any similar maps.

A friend reminded me that xkcd had done two maps that sort of fit that bill: Online Communities and Online Communities 2. These are less useful for my specific needs, but while examining the first one more closely, I discovered (rediscovered?) the map's compass rose and realized the countries are arranged according to a scheme that's vaguely reminiscent of an alignment chart, at least in the late-stage sense of alignment as a guide to an individual's behavior:

• Practical vs. Intellectual
• Focus on Real Life vs. Focus on Web

And I thought: could that actually be used as a basis for behavior types in a fantasy world?

Practical vs. Intellectual is easy. Real Life vs. Web seems irrelevant at first, unless we imagine some shared dream world, perhaps the astral plane, that wizards and others focus on instead of real life concerns. Perhaps the mythic underworld itself is some aspect of this.

Orcish Alignment

People sometimes complain that it’s unrealistic to limit orcs to Lawful Evil, because it demonizes them as monsters instead of people. Where did that come from?

I don’t mean “Where did the complaint come from?” I mean “Why are orcs Lawful Evil?”

In Men & Magic, the alignment chart (page 9) has orcs in the Chaos column… and the Neutrality column. This is pretty much the only discussion of their alignment in the three original booklets, although the discussion of hirelings in Underworld & Wilderness Adventures mentions that Chaotic characters might wish to hire orcs – more a commentary on the preferences of Chaotic characters than on the alignment of orcs.

In the AD&D Monster Manual, orcs are now Lawful Evil. Not only have they lost some flexibility, they’ve switched from Chaos to Law.

I could complain about the switch from the threefold to the five- or nine-fold alignment systems, or from alignment as allegiance to alignment as moral philosophy, but I have already done so. I’m more curious here as to why Gygax felt the need to switch, and why the switch had to include orcs becoming Lawful instead of Chaotic. Was it just because there weren’t enough Lawful Evil monsters under the new system?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Lawful Stupid

I've been asked to do a sample dungeon illustrating how dungeon shorthand works, and I really should do a follow-up anyways... But there are also a couple posts on other blogs I would like to respond to, including the great "setting vs. rules" debate. But I'll start today with a topic raised on Tenkar's Tavern today: using alignment in actual play. Or rather, I'm going to focus more on his example of all the difficulties in enforcing alignment with a group of people who disagree on what the alignments mean (when it's convenient for them...)

Specifically, I'm  going to call out the use of the term "Lawful Stupid", a phrase I loathe. All the examples I've seen of so-called Lawful Stupid behavior involve players who clearly know what their choices are, and the consequences.  And yet, they chose the action that didn't net them the biggest treasure haul or eliminated the threat! The fact that some people consider that "stupid" might be worth commentary. But more importantly, it makes it clear that the Lawful concept comes from a different cultural context, one where people worried about what others thought of them as much as they worried about material gain or personal survival. Sometimes, even more so.

But I'm not just harping about "kids these days". The thing about altruism and honor and other such concepts is that they assume people are actually going to react positively to noble sacrifices or restraining one's bloodlust and greed out of honor. But the way most GMs run the game, even the GMs who see Lawful Good in a positive light, is to assume that only wealth and personal survival matter. There's no chance that a Lawful character showing mercy, nobility or virtue is going to impress anyone.

There really ought to be a Virtuous Acts table, used whenever a Lawful character does something noble that would otherwise screw themselves over. Say, a 2d6 reaction roll, with these standard results:

Very Bad: Enemies take advantage of the fool's weakness.
Bad: No affect, other than what you'd expect.
Neutral: Enemies are rattled by the display of nobility and take a penalty on hostile actions.
Good: Enemies are impressed and show mercy or nobility themselves.
Very Good: Enemies are so impressed that they immediately cease hostilities.

... The idea being that the paladin who says, "I'll hold the bridge alone against these goblin hordes. Get everyone to safety!" now stands a chance of surviving, simply because the goblins will be awed. Any third-party non-combatants would join the Lawful character on a Good result, allowing for possible slave revolts triggered by a lone warrior's staunch defiance of the evil overlords.

There would, of course, be a similar table for Vile Acts, performed by Chaotics, which would strike fear into the hearts of enemies. Neutral characters would not roll on a table, unless they performed a Virtuous Act in front of a pure Lawful character or a Vile Act in front of a pure Chaotic (I'm thinking only supernaturals and clerics count as "pure"; most monsters and ordinary people with alignments wouldn't count.)

Pure Lawfuls are more impressed by Virtuous Acts performed by Lawfuls, and pure Chaotics are less moved: double the result for pure Lawful opponents, halve it for pure Chaotics.

The Problem With Paladins

... Is that many players don't want to play paladins. They just want the powers.

This is the conclusion I've come  to after reading many, many discussions about paladins. Whether you think of paladins as the flower of knighthood, as I do, or the servant and epitome of some god on earth, as many modern fantasy games do, the point of the paladin class is not the powers. It's the the paladin's code, the restrictions on behavior. I've written before about what I think the paladin's code should be, so I won't go into that. The point I'm focusing on here is that there has to be a code, and it really shouldn't be one the player creates. If you want to make up your own code, pick a class like Fighter that has no code and add your own code. If you want powers that come from some god, pick a spell caster class and say your powers come from some god, although even there, there should be some expectation of being judged by your god.

And you shall be judged. None of this "I'll do whatever I want, then retcon my actions as being in line with my code." That's bullshit. If you want to do something like that, play another class and say, "I have a code," but don't say what it is. Make it up as you go along. The point of a class that has strict behavior standards is to challenge yourself to see if you can meet those standards. And the point of taking a moral code is to have your moral code challenged. Saying "I want to be a paladin" is you challenging the GM to test your morality. You're saying "this is what I want my personal story to be about.

And don't get me started about the "Lawful Good, not Lawful Stupid" argument. Critics who bring up the Lawful Stupid charge always provide examples where what's expedient is in direct conflict with most strict moral codes. What's expedient is often not what's good, maybe not even what's Lawful. Again, there are already classes to play if you want to base all your decisions on expediency. Choosing the paladin means choosing to not always do what's in your personal self-interest. You have to choose, sometimes, and know that if you do what is expedient instead of what is right, you may lose your righteous powers,. If you don't want the GM to ever, ever take away or reduce your powers, then the paladin is not for you. Move along.

Rules Are Meant to Be Broken

Dyson Logos had an idea on G+ about an RPG rulebook that demands to be rewritten. Not just house-ruled, and not just rewritten on the setting or game world level, but rewritten on the deep underlying structural level.

Risk Legacy had mechanics where you changed the game (permanently) after a game was over based on what happened during the game. You wrote on cards, the board, changed things with stickers, and so on.

I also just picked up "We Didn't Playtest This: Legacies" which combines that mechanic with what is essentially a variant of FLUXX.

Now I need an RPG that does it.

Sure, ALL RPGs actually have this (the game changes as play progresses), but I want one where you actually go in and paste over certain rules and material, add level titles to the classes, name factions, and so on... all directly in the core rule book and all in reaction to what happened during games and in published adventures.

Because FUCK game collectors, let's teach them to write in their books!

There was a little bit of talk about spells and monsters getting rewritten, but that’s pretty trivial. And level titles could be changed during play (“From now on, all Lords shall be called ‘Caesar’,”) but that’s not really game-changing.
But class abilities? That would push the envelope. It is also the best thing to tweak if you want to force people to write in the rulebook, because you can include some powers that aren’t accessible, or limit spell effects more than gamers are used to, and challenge them to change these things in the game world.
For a “D&D-in-flux” game, I would approach it this way:

Class Core

Hit dice, chance of hitting, class prerequisite, and some kind of base saving throw.

• Fighters use direct physical action and tools,
• Thieves use craftiness and finesse,
• Magicians use spells,
• Clerics use faith.

Social Status

Political Power and Repute varies by class.

• Fighters have political power and can found baronies, collect taxes.
• Thieves are Outlaws and have Ill Repute.
• Magicians have Ill Repute only.
• Clerics have Good Repute and can found an order, but not collect taxes.

Game play can change this. Thieves or Magicians create an organization (guilds,) Clerics may challenge the political power of Fighters and share taxes, or there could be a revolution, overthrowing the Fighters.

Magic

There are four categories of magical power: Mundane (no magic,) Prayer-Based, Spell-Based, and Innate. Prayer requires a reaction roll and can be fickle. Spells always work, but must be learned and prepped to cast. No cast has Innate to start, but these can be used at will.

• Fighters are Mundane only.
• Thieves are Mundane at low level, Spell-based at high level (but can’t prep their own spells.
• Magicians are Spell-based.
• Clerics are Prayer-based for healing, dispelling, and turning undead, Spell-based for divination and protection.

Furthermore, only 1st and 2nd level spells are common at the start, 3rd through 6th must be discovered, 7th through 9th can’t be prepped to cast (must discover and use a scroll.)
Through play, class powers can be expanded or added. Prayer can be added or expanded by pacts with supernaturals. Each magical act (like healing, for clerics) is a separate bargain. If FIghters gain prayer as a class-wide power, they are called Paladins.
Spells are added or expanded through recovering lost lore, and must be done one spell level at a time, expanding one effect at a time:

1. How to use spells of one type (like divination, for clerics.)
2. How to learn individual spells/prep scrolls.
3. How to prep and cast.
4. Add a second type (like protection, for clerics.)
5. Expand to all but one type.
6. Expand to all types.

You can’t add Step 1 for 2nd level spells to a class until you have at least Step 1 or higher for 1st level spells. Achieving at least Step 5 for 6th level spells means that class has the ability to make magic items.
Innate powers are added by wishes. Adding one innate power reduces either Prayer-based or Spell-based power in some way by one step.

Pacts, Wishes, Lore

When making either a pact or a wish, a Neutral reaction means the power is only granted to the individual asking, and only if the petitioner agrees to completing a quest first (for a pact.) A Good reaction will allow any memberr of the petitioneer’s class to gain the power as well after some formm of ordination, vow, or quest. A Very Good reaction means all members of the class receive the power immediately, no strings attached
Lore, in contrast, can be kept secret after research, restricting it to one person, or shared with a group strictly sworn to keep it secret. Every time the secret is shared, there is a chance someone shares it outside the group, and every time a spell is used, there’s a chance that word spreads and others duplicate it, making it common knowledge; make a reaction roll, and on a Bad reaction, a rival group acquires the secret, and on a Very Bad reaction, it becomes common knowledge.

Alignment (Optional)

If using Alignment, those who aren’t Neutral who make pacts or wishes will only gain powers for those of their class and alignment, so Chaotic Fighters and Lawful Fighters may wind up with different powers. Also, the world starts with Law and Chaos in balance; if the balance shifts, the winning side gains a Prayer-based power: dispel Prayer-based magic from the other side on a reaction roll of Bad or better. The dominant alignment has Good Repute, the suppressed alignment has Ill Repute; these override the normal Repute for the class in general.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Ferreting Out Heavenly/Hellish Infiltrators

Here’s my take on this week’s Topic Tuesday selection: you’ve got a follower. henchman, or hireling who acts a bit mysterious and you suspect might secretly be an angel or demon in disguise. Is there a way to figure this out?

First, the set-up: When you acquire the follower, the GM as usual determines loyalty in secret. Those with fanatic loyalty are definitely not secret supernatural emissaries, because fanatics would tell you. (I’m tempted to say even the +1 and +2 morale followers aren't emissaries, but I’ll let that pass.) For those who are less than fanatic boosters of your cause, the GM determines whether they act mysterious or ordinary, and rolls for alignment (I’d use a d6, 1 = Chaotic, 6 = Lawful, everything else is neutral.) Mysterious, non-neutral followers get 2d6-7 secret bonus levels of cleric ability: those with at least 1 secret level were sent by Heaven or Hell to join you for some unknown purpose. Half of your mysterious, non-neutral followers will just be creepy but ordinary.

So, you have a mysterious follower. Detect Evil might help, but might give a false positive. What you could do, though, is consult a sage or study religious/occult texts for clues identifying supernatural emissaries. Things like “infernal emissaries don’t cast a shadow by the light of a blessed candle.”

But even this information should not be fool-proof. The emissary might be clever enough to hide the telltale signs. The GM should use the lower of your Intelligence or Wisdom (or just Wisdom, if you consulted a sage … and the sage is accurate.) If this score is higher than the emissary’s Wisdom, or both Wisdom and Intelligence for infernal emissaries (they’re liars!) then you can automatically spot the signs when you look for them. Otherwise, you spot the signs on a 5+ on 1d6.

Written with StackEdit.

Personality or Loyalty?

Recent discussions about alignment in a couple different locations brought up examples of some of the same ol' problems we always see in such discussions: lack of agreement, concerns over the ambiguity of some definitions, monolithic treatment of monster personalities. Now, I've gone on record before about how many different ways there are to interpret alignment, and I still say you are free to pick the one that works for you. However, I'm coming to the conclusion that alignment as alleigance to a side in the cosmic battle is in conflict with alignment as a personality guideline, and many of the problems with alignment come from trying to do both at the same time.

Let's start first with the obvious: animals vs. people. Animals that have an innate alignment can't possibly be making a philosophical choice to side with one faction or another. Either their alignment just reflects a behavioral tendency (which kind of undermines the whole cosmic battle theme, plus it means they can be trained to behave differently,) or it reflects a taint: they have been chosen by Chaos or Evil to play some role. Either way, this is at odds with people choosing an alignment out of religious belief, and it doesn't fit with tracking the alignment drift of player characters or rewarding good alignnment roleplaying.

Beyond that, you have conflicts when you try to interpret Law as both the pro-god/pro-civilizatiion faction and the regimented, orderly personality, and Chaos as anti-Law as well as disorderly and rebellious personality. Should the forces of chaos form organized groups to oppose Law? Should people who support creativity and freedom of expression be part of an open rebellion against the armies of the righteous? Just what is a Chaotic personality? Many people are unclear as to what Law/Chaos mean  and call it a meaninglessly vague alignment axis; I'd say that this is because Law/Chaos work better as factions, with no presuppositions about personality, than they do as behavioral guidelines. Conversely, Good/Evil work better as opposed personalities or behaviors; if Evil is a faction, we wind up with dastardly comic-book villains who openly call themselves "evil" while twirling their moustachios.

You can use Law = supports the group and Chaos = rebels against restraints as a shortcut behavioral guideline for the nameless masses of the opposed armies, but any character the players interact with on more than the fight/flee level should have a really personality, not linked in any way to those stereotypes. Chaotic forces may be anal-retentive task masters, calmly organized gentility, free-spirited hippies, selfish thugs, mocking rebels, or many other personality types, some of which may also be common among the forces of Law.

Personality vs. Alignment

A little something to think about, sparked by a conversation about separating alignment from personality. Assume you are using alignment as philosophical position and political alliance, as I do, but for the sake of this discussion, we'll go with the ninefold alignment system. So, under this scheme, personality -- whether you are cruel or kind, scheming, selfish, hateful, or whatever -- has nothing to do with alignment.

Can a good person be Lawful Evil?

That is, can someone be a kind, helpful person, willing to live and let live, but throw in his lot with people who believe in a strict hierarchy of dominance, crushing resistance, torturing enemies in the name of the state? Because that person believes that kind of ideal state would be the best, even though he doesn't have the stomach for that kind of behavior himself?

Alignment Languages

Nope, not a post about alignment languages as usually conceived by haters of alignment language. Your typical alignment language hater thinks of alignment as (maybe) OK, but alignment languages are a horrible, nonsensical addition, tacked on to ruin an otherwise reasonable system.

But what if you start with alignment languages, instead of alignment behaviors?

What if characters and creatures learn the jargon first, then become allies of others who use the same jargon, and later expand your theoretical allegiance to beings you've never even met, but you know they bandy about the same buzzwords?

Troll Questions: Alignment Languages

Another post on the top ten troll questions.

(8). Do you use alignment languages?

Sure, why not? But for all the fuss that people make about alignment languages, I'd really like to know how often the topic even comes up. I think that, back when we played AD&D by the book (for the sections of the book we used,) someone tried to use an alignment language once or twice. And that's AD&D, with its greater variety of alignments.

I wonder how many people who object to alignment languages or even to the Common Tongue also object to the occasional speaking animal. Myth, legend, and literature has talking animals of various kinds, either as a freak of nature, a small group of freaks, or the normal course of events. Heroes can understand the language of birds or snakes or trees, in some stories. If you can accept a talking cat, why can't you accept a goblin who speaks the language of Chaos? It's actually a little more believable than talking cats, isn't it?

The existence of alignment language just indicates that the default setting of D&D exists on the edge of fairy tales.

Zorro vs. the Grey Mouser II

I'm writing a post that's considerably longer than I thought it would be, so in the meantime, I thought I'd re-visit the question of whether I wrote a post about Zorro vs. the Grey Mouser. Certainly, I've never written a post that focused exclusively on them, or one that was literally about the two fighting each other. But I did write some optional thief rules that mentioned Zorro and the Grey Mouser as examples, contrasting them.

And the important thing to me, which maybe I should separate from that post for further discussion, is that the Mouser is Chaotic or neutral at best, just as you'd expect from a thief, but I consider Zorro to be Lawful. In a five- or nine-alignment system, the Mouser is CG, Zorro is LG or NG leaning towards Law. That's definitely not the way others see it...

How could I say such a thing? As hinted at in the thief post, I do not see Law as being about the legal system. It's about a strong sense of the way things ought to be, distinct from individual desires. Cosmic order + strong moral system. If the legal system of a community is, itself, Lawful or neutral, a Lawful character will uphold it. If it becomes corrupted (Chaotic,) then the Lawful character will oppose it. And if the Lawful character doesn't have a legal or military means to challenge that corruption, the next option is banditry or guerrilla warfare.

Zorro flouts the government because the government isn't Lawful. In fact, it goes beyond that; the man who would become Zorro is traveling with the replacement governor, who has heard of the corruption and plans to reform the government. He is assassinated, since the corrupt people in power fear exactly that. Zorro pretends to be the new governor -- thus, in theory, having legal authority to make the changes -- but takes up the (second) secret identity of Zorro to challenge the corrupt in what he believes the best way possible: he pulls a Robin Hood, stealing from the rich to give to the poor, rescuing the falsely accused, and basically causing trouble, in hopes of inspiring the people to revolt.

Part of the reason he doesn't just kill the corrupt leaders is because his dying cousin, the replacement governor, made him swear an oath not to kill anyone. In my favorite movie version, Zorro has a confidant: a priest. It is when the priest is killed by the main villain during a revolt that Zorro decides to reveal his identity and break his vow. So, it takes a *lot* to make Zorro go against the moral code.

The Mouser, of course, is a basically decent guy, but pretty self-interested. He takes up a life of crime because he wants to eat well. He doesn't take it up regularly because he's not a member of the Thieves' Guild. Mostly, he just rents himself out for various jobs, some of which are sketchy. He's definitely not playing according to some external rules of morality.

Effects of Dropping Alignment from the Game

Just saw a big debate (in the middle of a completely different debate) about whether it's easy to remove alignment from D&D and whether that will change the game dramatically.

My answers are "yes" and "maybe".

Let's look at how alignment interacts mechanically with the rest of the game.

First, you have the common interpretation of alignment as personality, which is expressed in two game mechanics: a simple bonus or penalty on reaction rolls when negotiating with characters of matched or mismatched alignments, and an xp bonus or penalty for acting in accord or discord with one's declare alignment. The reaction modifier isn't explicit in OD&D, but it shows up in later editions and in the Judges Guild Ready Ref sheets; it's pretty simple to add or remove, or replace with a set of modifiers based solely on real actions instead of abstract alignment. The xp modifier isn't mentioned in OD&D at all, but it becomes an informal rule in some of the basic line; in AD&D, there's a way too fiddly method for tracking alignment change and modifying experience accordingly. Dropping just these rules doesn't affect the game much, really, especially in OD&D.

Second, you have the spell system. Cleric spells that cause harm are actually forbidden for Lawful clerics (or Good clerics, in later editions;) and, some argue, the healing spells are forbidden for Chaotic clerics, or at least this is one possible interpretation in OD&D. As a consequence, OD&D played according to the 3LBBs makes a sharp distinction between Lawful clerics, who can't cause magical harm and who have healing powers, and magic-users, who have several ways to cause damage, sometimes lots of it. Removing this alignment rule in OD&D thus changes the game significantly, making clerics just another spell caster... but if you are using the Greyhawk supplement or AD&D, this sharp distinction goes away, anyways, because of spells like Spiritual Hammer and Flame Strike; dropping alignment restrictions for clerics doesn't cause much change in AD&D.

Conversely, there are a few spells in OD&D, more in AD&D, which specifically mention alignment. There's a good argument that Protection from Evil and Detect Evil in OD&D really have nothing to do with alignment at all, at least under some interpretations. In later editions, especially AD&D, there's a stricter adherence to alignment, so dropping alignment would require removing or re-writing several AD&D spells, perhaps rolling it back to the OD&D interpretations.

Finally, you have magic swords and a few other items, particularly artifacts, which have an intrinsic alignment.  This system works about the same across all TSR editions (not sure about WotC editions,) but it's very light-weight, involving only potential damage and possible denial or reduction of the item's powers. This is notable in that it doesn't require the interpretation of alignment as behavior or personality to make it work. Even so, I get the feeling that many GMs keep alignment as personality, but ditch the alignment rules for magic items, thus keeping the more complicated, annoying aspects of alignment.

So, in summary: dropping all aspects of alignment from OD&D won't matter too much, but you lose the interesting optional behaviors of magic weapons and kind of make clerics less distinct as a class. Ditching alignment for a later version, particularly AD&D, makes the game look more like OD&D (and saves a lot of bookkeeping in AD&D.) It only becomes complicated if you decide to rewrite spells linked to alignment, instead of simply dropping them.

Alignment Tongue

I've seen a couple blog posts and forum threads lately about alignment languages. Some people are doing some interesting things to personalize the concept for their campaigns; others are just arguing whether or not the basic concept makes sense.

I'm going to avoid the latter, but wanted to present the general way I interpret them in my campaigns. My alignment tongues are not really languages, which explains why I specifically call them "tongues", to distinguish them. Instead, they're more like a style of speech, somewhat similar to what in linguistics is known as a register. I do add a slight spin on the concept in that there are certain seemingly ordinary words (in the Common Tongue) that receive unusual emphasis or intonation for an alignment tongue; a modern example would be the way some writers capitalize words like The One, The Way, The Light, The Truth, etc. Sometimes, you even hear someone report how when a particular person spoke, they could "hear the capitalization" in the way that person added stress or inserted pauses before certain important words.

It's not just vocabulary and speech style, however, but also sincerity. Your average person probably knows what the major hot button issues and jargon terms are for any given alignment, but if they tried to pass themselves off as a member of that alignment, their lack of sincere belief in the goals of Law or Chaos will give them away eventually. If you can get someone to talk about religious or moral matters, you will eventually recognize whether or not they are the same alignment. You can never be sure of their alignment if they aren't the same alignment, however; if they use a code word from another alignment, they might be trying to fake it, or it might be a coincidence, and if they don't use the same alignment tongue as you, maybe it's just because they don't trust you. All an alignment tongue guarantees (sort of) is whether someone trying to convince you that they share your beliefs is actually sincere or not.

I said "sort of", because of the assassin issue: assassins can speak other alignment tongues. This makes sense in the context of registers; they basically have the ability to fake sincerity. The assassin is a trained actor, in contrast to non-assassins, which is also why non-assassins can't learn alignment tongues as if they were foreign languages. Registers also explain why a character who changes alignment suddenly "forgets" one alignment tongue and "learns" another. It's not a matter of learning or forgetting anything, but a change in how the character feels; they just can't say "I am a servant of the Light" anymore and really mean it.

Other than convincing comrades in the Cause that you're one of them, there's not much else you can do with an alignment tongue. You can't provide directions to travelers or ask for details about an artifact. One thing you can do, however, is indicate that you sincerely believe that what you are saying is important to the Cause. I think I'd go as far as to allow secret communication between the co-aligned on how someone or something relates to the Cause; other witnesses recognize that you're talking about the local duke, for example, but they don't catch on that you're suggesting the duke is an enemy of Chaos and ought to be "taken care of".

Since I use the simple Law/Chaos alignment system and consider "neutral" to be unaligned, I wouldn't allow a "Neutral Tongue". That would just be the Common Tongue without any secret emphasis on words.

Pathos vs. Ethos

On Dragonsfoot, I mentioned an old idea I had twenty-plus years ago for a third alignment axis: Pathos/Ethos. If Good/Evil is how you value the lives of others, and Law/Chaos is how you value the group/community, Pathos/Ethos is what drives you to act on those values.

Pathos is strong emotion -- despair, vengeance, anger, outrage -- that drives you to make the decisions you do, the decisions that brought you into the fold of Lawful Good or whatever alignment you chose. Ethos is calm consideration and steadfast character traits that cause you to behave in accord with your alignment. A Lawful Good character on the Pathos end needs to fight for social order and the common good, while one on the Ethos end is simply Lawful Good by nature, or has rationally chosen Lawful Good. Characters devoted to Pathos struggle with their alignment decisions; those devoted to Ethos are calm in their conviction.

Two characters can both be Good, but diverge on the Pathos/Ethos scale. Compare Angel, the vampire with a soul, versus (older) Superman. Angel is maybe Neutral Good (Pathos); I don't recall him taking a strong stance on the individual versus group issue, but he definitely struggles to protect the innocent, mostly out of guilt and repentance, sometimes out of vengeance, but more and more, as the series went on. out of a sense of connection to those close to him and a genuine concern for the world. Superman, on the other hand, is Lawful Good (Ethos). He's just naturally that good and moral. He can have strong attachments to people, but his attachment to "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" is unwavering.

Ethos is not necessarily Good. Consider some kind of witch hunter or inquisitor, determined to protect the civil order and the church at all costs. Nor is Ethos necessarily Lawful, despite the implications of a moral code. An anarcho-terrorist might be Chaotic Evil (Ethos), willing to kill anyone who stands in the way of total liberation. What Ethos does for both of these is tame their evil, to a certain extent; they don't kill out of love of death and mayhem (that would be Pathos,) but because of strong principles. Either of these extremes would save the lives of those they considered innocents, or of their friends so long as they haven't "crossed the line" and aided or abetted their enemies.

I never really developed this idea, and never used it in play; I didn't feel it was all that useful, and these days I'm happy sticking with a single-axis alignment scheme. Pathos/Ethos wouldn't work well by itself; I think it would have to be used in conjunction with one or both of the other two axes to actually work.

Ways to Run Alignment

Yeah, there's an alignment war on a couple forums. But I'm not going to deal with that directly in this post, or even tell you the proper way to play; I'm going to just list the ways of running alignment, just to show that, not only is there more than one way, there's more than two.

• Scorecard: Good guys wear white hats, bad guys wear black hats. Kill people who are the opposite alignment, while causing as little harm to members of your own alignment as possible.
• Factions: Do what you want, but if you make a promise to Team Law or Team Chaos, remember not to piss them off.
• Taint: Do what you want, but whether you agree with it or not, you're touched by Law or Chaos, and there may be consequences.
• Tendency: Up to now, you've more or less acted in a Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil way, and monsters in general behave like they're said to behave, but there can certainly be exceptions.
• Track: Like a Tendency, but someone's keeping books on you, and debts must be paid.
• Compulsion: You can't do that, it goes against your alignment.

Officially, AD&D 1e describes a Track style, but I don't think anyone followed the official rules on that. I suspect Gygax ran alignment more like a loose Track or Tendency, from the quotes I've seen. OD&D was vague, but leaned more towards the first three. I'll play Scorecard in a computer game like Nethack, but prefer more a cross between Factions and Taint.

Amoral Alignment

Everyone's talking about alignment again. Michael Curtis, Michael Shorten (Chgowiz), pulcherius of Dice of Doom. I've already talked about it extensively, but I'll add my own quick thoughts to the current mix.

• To me, "neutral" isn't an alignment, it's the lack of one.
• I prefer a two-alignment Law/Chaos system to Good/Evil or a two-axis system, because...
• I don't interpret Law and Chaos as personality descriptions or moral guidelines, but as factions in cosmic conflict.
• Aligned people and monsters have a supernatural "taint" (which can be detected) and minor powers granted by this taint, which more powerful alignment leaders can take away at their (dis)pleasure.

Thus, servants of Law can kill people, even Lawful ones, and can spread anarchy, and may or may not get punished for their actions. Servants of Chaos and Law can travel together and aid one another; the powers that be don't care about stuff like that, only whether their servants are helping or hindering their cause.

Protection from Evil, in this interpretation, isn't protection from an alignment, but from evil intent.

I have a swords & sorcery setting with unique alignment rules on the backburner that I'm calling "Malignment" for now, unless I come up with a better name. It has two opposed alignments, locked in a cosmic struggle, but the alignments aren't Good/Evil or Law/Chaos, but Legend/Dream. It's a very Michael Moorcock/Elric-flavored setting. I'm proud of it.