Alignment in TSR-East

Work continues apace on my TSR-East rules, or me once more trying to make a set of OA type rules that I want to play. The TSR-East rules are meant to compliment my Treasures, Serpents, and Ruins house rules for BX/BECMI style play.

Today I realized I hadn't put in any suggestions for alignment in my player facing rules. So I added this:

Alignment

Lawful characters seek to uphold the ideals of civilization, humanity, culture, and conformity. They treat others as befits their station. Extremists actively try to exert their beliefs on others.

Neutral characters have no strong tendency towards Law or Chaos, and are primarily self-motivated. They may be swayed to one side or the other for brief periods. Extremists try to actively uphold the balance between Law and Chaos.

Chaotic characters value freedom and individuality above all else. They treat others as means to their ends. Extremists actively seek to overthrow society.

Maximizing Profits

Just had a random idea that would make a (potentially friendship ending) interesting game idea. Probably it would be a better idea for a D&D movie.

Chaotic (and or Evil depending on your alignment system of choice) party enters dungeon.

Facing of monsters, avoiding of traps, solving of puzzles ensues (preþy standard so far).

As the party, loaded down with treasure heads to the surface again, characters start trying to bump each other off (some making it look like accidents, others blatantly backstabbing their companions). Sorta like the Joker's bank heist at the beginning of The Dark Knight.

Only one PC makes it out, with most of the treasure. (Bag of holding required to make this work.)

If a movie, the ironic twist at the end would need to be the lone survivor, bruised and bloody, encounters a lone kobold who slays the PC and takes the loot.

Like I say above, it might not play well for a regular group. Maybe as a convention game, it could work.

Mentzer Basic Cover to Cover: Character Alignment

We have a short section, about a page, giving us a bit more detail about alignments in the game, and how they relate to group adventures (since this a sub-heading of the "Playing in a Group" section of the book).

We first up get a reminder of what alignment means, that there are three in the game, and that each has a secret language which includes body language as well as spoken words.  Your alignment is YOUR business as a player - there is no reason to tell other players what your character's alignment is, but the DM must know.  This is because the DM is supposed to police alignment related play, and either suggest a change or offer up some punishment to get the player to actually play their alignment right.

I've never been a fan of alignment punishments, unless it's somehow an important part of the class (like the Paladin/Avenger and Druid high level options in BECMI, or some AD&D classes).  Even then, I'm more likely to suggest different avenues of play if a player suggests doing something I feel is against their alignment, but allowing them to do it anyway if they insist (and believe it isn't contradictory).  In other words, I don't like alignment as a straight-jacket.  It's more like guidelines.  Yes, like the Pirate's Code in the PotC movies.  I have occasionally suggested an alignment switch (without penalty) if a player was playing their PC in a way that seemed contradictory to their written alignment.

Anyway, back to the book.

Law - people who believe in law & order, the benefit to the greatest number, keeping your word, etc.  They believe that the universe follows an Order.  I do like the note that it doesn't necessarily mean always following the law (as in political laws) if that law seems unjust.

Chaos - people who believe in selfish interests and what you can get away with, chance and luck, and the individual over society.  They believe that the universe is random.  As such, they act on impulse or on whims, and usually can't be trusted.

Neutrality - people who see life as somewhere between Law and Chaos, where too much of one or the other is not good.  They believe that the universe is Balanced.  It then notes that personal survival is of utmost importance to them, which I have always found a bit hard to square away with Frank's definition of Chaotic behavior.  I've come to believe that it means (as described later) that when the chips are down, they are more likely to act Chaotically than Lawfully. 

My character in Vaults of Ur, Thidrek the Sleestak, is actually a pretty good poster child for this sort of Neutral behavior.  He tends to support the group, but if things get too dangerous, he's not afraid to save his own skin, even if that means abandoning companions.  As he's gotten higher in level, he finds himself less at risk, so tends to act more heroically.  But he still keeps a few potions stored away that could help him escape danger if he has to.

Anyway, I think a re-write to make greed the ultimate drive for Neutrals would fit the treasure scavenging/monster battling/exploring the unknown nature of the game better.  Lawfuls are in it to benefit everyone in the group.  Chaotics are in it to benefit themselves.  Neutrals are in it to get rich.  Just a thought.

And again, back to the book.

Next, Frank gives us an example of how characters of each alignment might react to an overwhelming combat encounter.  Lawful characters will protect the group, possibly sacrificing themselves so that the others can escape.  Neutrals will risk their lives up to a point, but if they find themselves in serious danger will abandon the group.  Chaotics will do as they please, and the party be damned.

Finally, we get some information on alignment languages.  Every creature able to speak has an alignment, and knows their alignment language.  They are never written down.  If a character changes alignment, they automatically know the new one and forget the old one.  Realism can take a flying leap on this one. 

I go through phases with regards to alignment tongues.  In some sense, I like them, having some way to communicate with monsters without having to have a party of linguists.  On the other hand, they are inherently unrealistic, and can cause players to lose suspension of disbelief. 

Anyway, I think the gem of this section is the final note from Frank.  Acting your alignment does NOT mean you need to make stupid choices.  Your intelligence determines that.  In other words, have fun and use your alignment as a tool to enhance your character's personality, rather than as stipulations or restrictions on how you play.  Or at least that's how I interpret that passage.

Sprechen sie Neutral? Pt. 2

Got a few comments with last night's post.  One suggesting my proposed system become more complex, another basically wondering why I'd ever change the RAW on alignment languages, the final one sorta suggesting the same thing as Noisms' idea which spawned my own.

Thanks for the comments, though.  Even though I'm not looking to make this more complex than I feel is necessary, I appreciate suggestions for improvements, and hope that they make YOUR game better for YOU.  For those that like alignment languages as written, great!  They are one of the sticky issues for many gamers, and if they don't bother you, that's one less thing to worry about (if you also like Demi-Human level limits, race-as-class, weapons vs. armor charts, psionics, etc. why are you even on the internet discussing D&D?  I thought it was for us cranky old coots who always want to bitch and moan and tinker... :D ).

Anyway, my point tonight is to restate my idea in simpler terms.

"Alignment languages" in my game will CEASE to be alignment languages as commonly understood.  They will be dead languages within the campaign world: the cultures that spawned the languages have disappeared, and the successor cultures may speak a language based on them, but they are still different languages.  People use them for various purposes (religious, mercantile, academic, etc.).  Most educated people (and all adventurers) know one or more of them, but rarely use them in everyday life. 

The only link to alignment will be that your starting choice of alignment determines which of the languages your character knows.  Just like how Demi-Humans gain bonus languages for racial purposes in Old School D&D, these will be just a bonus language characters get.  The fact that others of the same alignment will share it makes it useful for the role of RAW alignment language, but as I said, it's not exclusive. 

For example, let's say I've set up Latin as the language Lawfuls start with, Ancient Greek as the language Neutrals start with, and Ancient Egyptian as the language Chaotics start with.  Bob rolls up Gargamel, a Neutral Magic-User with a 17 Int, entitling him to two bonus languages.  He gets French (Common, everyone has it) and Ancient Greek (for being Neutral).  He wants to speak to dragons, so he takes Dragon as a bonus.  He then decides that communicating with any humanoids he charms would be useful, so he decides that for his second bonus language he will learn Ancient Egyptian.

Now, anyone trying to test Gargamel's alignment will know he's not Lawful, but won't be sure if he's Neutral or Chaotic (if they're using the dead languages as a shibboleth). 

Other than that, the languages are just that - dead languages.  Sometimes things will be written or spoken in them, and PCs that know that language will benefit.  Those that don't will need to rely on translators, magic, or thieves (in the case of written text). 

Other than the artificiality of determining which of these languages a PC knows based on alignment, they're just normal languages.

Now, one thing I forgot to mention last night.  Third Edition D&D already had something similar to this.  Instead of alignment languages, they had the planar languages.  Auran, Terran, Ignan, and Aquan were for Elemental Planar dwellers, while Celestial was the language of all Good outsiders, and evil outsiders were split between Infernal (LE) and Abyssal (CE).  Don't remember which (what?) NE outsiders spoke.

Anyone could learn Celestial, even if you were the most Chaotic and most Evil of people.  Nothing stopped you.  Characters in 3E didn't get one of these languages automatically, though, so that's a point of departure.  Basically, though, my idea will work something like the 3E planar languages, except they're not the languages of beings from other realms.

Also, for those playing AD&D or other systems with more complex alignment, a simpler solution than coming up with nine dead languages would be simply to have five (or six if you want one for LNC Neutral and GNE Neutral).  Lawful, Chaotic, Good, Evil and Neutral each get a language keyed to them.  PCs get to choose one, depending on their alignment.  If a DM is feeling generous, they can get both.

Hopefully this explains my idea a bit better.  If you like it, or at least find some kernel worth modifying for your own games, I'm happy.  If you like the rules as written and don't think it needs tinkering with, that's fine.  I've used the rules as written (in Mentzer's Basic Set anyway) for years and never had a problem with it.  This system, to me at least, seems to offer more oomph for no real great increase in complexity, so I'm gonna at least give it a try and see how it plays.

Sprechen sie Neutral?

Alignment languages?  Yeah.  Let's talk about them.  A few days ago, Noisms was talking about making them the secret codes/handshakes of Illuminati style secret societies as a way to justify them and use them to add conflict to a setting.  I've got another take, although sorta similar.

So Gygax likens alignment languages to ecclesiastical Latin, but then tries to limit their usefulness to just checking to see if the monsters are really on your side or not, and maybe getting them to help out against some monster of another alignment.

I think in my games from now on, I'll keep the "ecclesiastical Latin" idea and ditch the rest.  Alignment languages will be specific dead languages in the campaign world.  They're not secret.  They're not exclusive.  They're not even really designed to be used as a secret code language or shibboleth.  But whatever alignment you choose determines which of the three (luckily for me, I run Classic D&D with Law-Neutrality-Chaos only) your PC knows, in addition to Common and any demi-human languages. 

Characters with high Int scores can choose to learn one of the other Alignment languages (or both if their Int is high enough).  This means you can't necessarily trust someone just because they happen to speak Ancient Gardelish and so do you (not that you should implicitly trust someone of your own alignment anyway, even if you're both Lawful).  It also gives a reason why adventuring parties might actually WANT a range of alignments in the party.  Jerrash the Wildling may be able to translate those inscriptions written on the black pit's rim in Albondish, while Stoutheart Aleena can read the holy scrolls written in Zebrionic, and Torgo the Uncommitted can negotiate with the centaurs.

Paladin, yes, that's a Paladin

We'll be playing our next session of Brian's Pathfinder game next Sunday.  At the end of the last session, there were a few questions by the other players about how I was playing my Paladin. 

Specifically, when we were given our offer of employment by the sage, in a brothel, the sage mentioned that he had paid for the room for the night, and any of us that wished could stay.  My PC was the only one who did.  Of course, while he was enjoying himself, he also used the opportunity to gather information from the lovely ladies there.

What can I say, I'm modeling his personality on Elwood Blues and Johnny Cash, and he's a Paladin of Myrlund, who is a fantasy Cowboy.  It seemed to be an action perfectly in character, and Brian agreed with my logic. 

Now, this is not a post to get into the inherent morality or ethicality of prostitution.  What it is a post about is to show that one can be a Paladin without being a stick-in-the-mud, or an overzealous moron.  The last thing I want to do in a game is play Lawful Stupid and ruin everyone else's fun by forcing them to play along to some overly restrictive moral code.

Anyway, here's a good post I found today about how Paladins should really be played, found via the Hitting Dirtside blog.

Blending Alignment and Treasure Hunting

Building off of my last post, and Jaap de Goede's comment on it, I started thinking back to my earlier breakdown of Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic as the conflict between civilization and the forces that would destroy it.

Hunting for treasure is not in and of itself anti-heroic. 

XP for treasure is a simple way to include "story" awards in D&D.  Too much treasure kicking around the campaign can be a problem for certain styles of game.

Alignment can be problematic, but the simpler version of Classic D&D works for me.

Taking all of the above together, let's combine my ideas on alignment with the Dave Arneson houserule that you only gain XP for 'frittering away treasure on hookers and blow.'

• Lawful characters, being concerned with advancing Civilization, only gain XP for donating their treasure to some agent of Order and Civilization.  This could be their liege lord, the Thieves' Guild, a temple or church, the Tower of Magery, a museum, local charities, and the like.
• Neutral characters, being concerned with their own interests first, only gain XP for wasting their treasure on some hobby, or their own pleasure (the standard Arneson rule, in other words).
• Chaotic characters, being concerned with halting and reversing Civilization, only gain XP for destroying or hiding treasure in some way.  And it has to be gone in a way that it's not likely to come back soon.  Sinking a treasure ship before raiding the hold, dumping coins down bottomless pits, crushing gems to powder, melting down jewelry, using alchemy to turn gold into lead, or feeding it to a powerful dragon all count.  Simply burying it in the woods pirate style to dig up later doesn't.

Johnny Cash Alignment Poster

CORRECTED VERSION!!!

Fixed the Lawful Evil quote, and remembered to add a little digital signature for when this gets out into the wider web.  :D

Enjoy, everyone!

WWJCD? (Not what you think)

Everything I need to know about 9-point Alignment systems I learned from Johnny Cash.

What do you mean, I lose my Paladin abilities?

I find it very, very easy to be true
I find myself alone when each day is through
Yes, I'll admit that I'm a fool for you
Because you're mine, I walk the line

Lawful Good

_____________________________________

Ah, I'd love to wear a rainbow every day,
And tell the world that everything's OK,
But I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back,
'Till things are brighter, I'm the Man In Black.

Neutral Good

_____________________________________________

And he said: "Son, this world is rough
And if a man's gonna make it, he's gotta be tough
And I know I wouldn't be there to help you along.
So I give ya that name and I said goodbye
I knew you'd have to get tough or die
And it's the name that helped to make you strong."

Chaotic Good

_________________________________________________

A crazy screaming lynch mob waited in the streets of Austin
But he put me in the jail house and he threw the key away

Lawful Neutral

_________________________________________________

Well, I ain't never done nothin' to nobody
I ain't never got nothin' from nobody, no time
And until I get something from somebody, sometime
I don't intend to do nothin' for nobody, no time

Neutral

_________________________________________________

I met her accidentally in St. Paul, Minnesota
And it tore me up every time I heard her drawl, Southern drawl
Then I heard my dream was back downstream Cavortin' in Davenport
And I followed you, Big River, when you called

Chaotic Neutral

____________________________________________________

Now, I never considered myself a thief
GM wouldn't miss just one little piece
Especially if I strung it out over several years.

Lawful Evil

____________________________________________________

First time I shot her I shot her in the side
Hard to watch her suffer
But with the second shot she died
Delia's gone, one more round Delia's gone

Neutral Evil

___________________________________________________

Well I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

Chaotic Evil

___________________________________________________

Alright, I'm thinking about photoshopping up one of those 'motivational poster' deals with pics of the Man in Black and the quotes above.  But if anyone's got any better lyrics from Mr. Cash to highlight an alignment, I'm open to suggestions.

Yes, the Wilderness is dangerous, but not everywhere is wilderness

Alexis has got me thinking.  Probably not as deeply or as meaningfully as he'd like (he's got rather high standards, and I'm too busy with earning both incomes in my two income family to hold myself to such high standards in my leisure activities), but he did get me thinking.

So D&D (OD&D, Classic D&D, AD&D), as you all know, comes with both Dungeon and Wilderness Random Encounter tables.

Now, those Wilderness Encounter tables include chances to meet everything from a few wild deer to ancient red dragons as you wander from place to place.  And as Alexis points out, by using them as written, how could a merchant caravan ever get from one city to another without being pillaged by 6-60 orcs, a small troupe of frost giants, or a wing of griffons?

But let's take a look at what the charts really are.  They're tables for things you might meet in the wilderness, not just while taking a stroll through Farmer Maggot's cornfield.

In the Dominion system in Frank Mentzer's Companion Set, he divides up areas into Civilized, Borderland, and Wilderness.  I get a feeling (just a feeling, I've got nothing to back this up quote-wise) that he may have gotten this from Gary (Keep on the Borderland being the artifact that makes me think this).

If this was the intention of the game's creators, we can assume that any game setting should have areas on the world map that are 'wilderness' and areas that are not.

If we divide up any map into Civilized, Borderland, and Wilderness areas [mapping to the alignments of Law--Neutrality--Chaos, interestingly] we'd have Civilized areas where you're likely not going to run into anything besides human-types and normal animals.  Merchants, pilgrims, soldiers, wandering minstrels, peasants, etc.  Very similar to town/city encounter charts.

In Borderlands, things are getting a bit more wild.  There will be more monsters, demi-humans, and giant animals encountered, but still plenty of human-types.  And most likely there won't be many overpoweringly difficult monsters.

In the Wilderness--the true wilderness--anything goes.  Human-types will become scarce, and those that do appear will most likely be other adventuring types or 'monster' humans like bandits, brigands, pirates, etc.

But what about those merchants that need to travel through the Wilds to get from Port Gunthar to Oxcross?  Well, that's what roads are for.  Or charted rivers.  Or established sea lanes.  A well-patrolled and maintained road would count as at worst Borderland, and may be considered Civilized all along its length.

The benefits?  Well, first, you've got a bit of verisimilitude in that unlike early CRPGs, your characters aren't the only non-monsters outside of towns.  There's also both in-game and meta-game reasons why monsters aren't eating every commoner who tries to go on a little trip.

Second, it provides players with a way to judge their risk/reward, similar to dungeon levels.

Third, it makes decision points on the map.  Do we take the long King's Road to Oxcross, or try to save two day's travel by cutting through the Haunted Woods?

Fourth, it reinforces the feeling of Law vs. Chaos as trying to tame the wilderness/wreck civilization, rather than just pseudonyms for good and evil.

Alignment in Flying Swordsmen RPG

I'd been thinking about dropping alignment in my kung fu RPG. It's in Dragon Fist because it was in AD&D, but I don't think it's necessary, and could even hinder the setting/style of wuxia.

Al's post on alignment at Beyond the Black Gate got me thinking about this.

Wuxia is about people who basically hold the same beliefs as the rest of the people in their nation (truth, respect, honor, virtue, etc.) but add individuality to the mix, while the population as a whole believes in conformity.

Using the AD&D double-axis, nine point alignment scheme seems counterintuitive. Even a simple system like D&D's Law-Neutrality-Chaos feels wrong (and a modified individual/group axis seems pointless). Basically, xia are supposed to be the good guys, but they don't need to act like typical good guys. They're outside of society, but fight for it. So basically, anyone who knows the xia mindset would end up CG (as I've seen so many AD&D characters end up anyway).

So I'm gonna ditch alignment. I'll definitely have a section in the book--the introductory chapter--where I'll discuss the themes and tropes of wuxia, and how I think they can be emulated in an RPG. But no pidgeon-holing people into alignments (even if the alignment system is meant to only be a guide to roleplaying) that might stiffle creative play.

As with S&S, wuxia benefits from having complex characters who are defined by their individual codes of conduct/honor/morality than being fit into some cookie-cutter game system.

Monster Alignments

I've been taking a closer look at monster alignments recently. I've finally come to some definitions of Law, Neutrality and Chaos that I like and completely avoid the whole Law=Good/Chaos=Evil problem while still keeping them very antagonistic.

Basically, Law supports order, civilization, and the advance of humanity. Chaos acts to undermine the above. Neutrality is a lack of concerted effort either for or against, and instead is focused on the best interest of the self or the small group (family, guild, etc.).

Now, Mentzer lists Elves, for example, as Neutral. I'm really digging on this. Of course, PC Elves will be whatever alignment the player wants, as it should be. But the elves of the wider campaign are mostly in it for themselves, their clan, etc. It allows elves to be both like Tolkien's elves (aloof but generally opposed to evil threatening them) and Anderson's elves (actively opposed to humanity, but also to evil), and maybe several other types as well.

BITD NPC Elves were always seen as potential allies, or at least non-opponents by me and my friends. But with a better defined sense of what that Neutral alignment can mean, I'm looking forward to having elves be opponents from time to time without resorting to gothy Drow or the watered down Dark Elves of the Hollow World.

Just a few other alignment related oddities--Living Crystal Statues are Lawful, yet the very Chaotic Bargle uses them as decoys in his dungeon. How would impersonating a rogue magician in order to keep him alive be in the best interests of advancing culture and humanity? It's something to think about and gives a nice bit of depth to those Bargle-decoys beyond the 'well, he created them so he commands them' line of thought. What if there's something about Bargle's plans that will prevent some doom, even though he's being a rat-bastard about his methods and his motives are far from pure?

Living Rock Statues, being Chaotic on the other hand, have some beef against civilization, and likely chafe at being commanded to protect or guard things that would lead to the betterment of man (similar to efreet chafing at just about any command).

Finally, Lizard Men are also Neutral. How often are they played as simply another violent humanoid race out to get the adventurers at all costs? Maybe it's because of the 12 morale. But Neutral aligned Lizard Men should be able to be allied with and bargained with as often as they just try to eat you. And a group of Lizard Men on your side can be a good thing, especially in low level adventures!

Nice food for thought.

Obligatory Alignment Related Post

Probably not as incendiary as it should be...I'd likely get a few more readers if it were! Oh well, here goes anyway!

My reading over the last few years has been mainly focused on catching up on some of the Appendix N stuff that I'd never read before. I've been reading R.E. Howard (barbarism vs. civilization), Poul Anderson (Order vs. Chaos), some Lovecraft (way out there Chaos), and most recently some Moorcock (Law vs. Chaos) and Zelazny's Amber Chronicles (Pattern/Unicorn/Order vs. Logrus/Serpent/Chaos).

The reading has really been making me happy with my decision not to import the 9-point alignment system from AD&D into my Classic house rules. Law, Neutrality and Chaos are enough.

The way I'm seeing them now, Law is not so much being 'good' as it is being on the general side of progress, stability, and civilization. You stand up for what's good for humanity in general.

Chaos, then, is the opposite of that. They're on the general side of disorder, change, and anti-civilization (kinda hard to put into words--not necessarily anarchy or barbarism, although it could be--more like anti-intellectualism, lowest common denominator stuff). They want to drag humanity down to the level of most humanoids, or lower.

Neutrality isn't some BS "we must balance the forces" schtick (although I suppose it could be if you wanted your character to think that way). Neutrals are more concerned with themselves and their immediate family/community, not with the greater good or greater bad of society.

Your alignment has little to do with your personality, and more to do with what choices you make about who and what to fight against or support. Take the fight to the monsters to protect a village or town, you're being Lawful. Wait until the monsters come knocking, then kick their butts, you're being Neutral. Invite the monsters in to loot, as long as they give you a cut, you're being Chaotic.