Thursday, April 15, 2021

Alignment Tracking

I sometimes think I must be the only gamer who doesn't have a problem with alignment in Dungeons & Dragons. Though my personal preference these days is the simple three-way system of OD&D, I'm equally fine with Holmes's five-way version and the very well known presentation from AD&D, with its nine alignments. For me, the only "wrong" alignment system in D&D is a non-existent one. I consider alignment in some form to be one of the distinguishing features of the game, like character classes or Vancian magic. Get rid of alignment and it's not really D&D anymore, at least not for me.

That's why I'm equal parts intrigued and repulsed by attempts to improve alignment by better tying it to game mechanics. I fully understand the impulse. Many critics of alignment feel that it's useless, a wargaming atavism with no purpose in the game. Associating alignment with some kind of mechanism is, I think, an effort to answer these criticisms and I can appreciate that. At the same time, I enjoy reading optional and alternative rules as intellectual exercises, even though I rarely make use of them myself.

Last week, one of the players in my Empire of the Petal Throne campaign asked me if I remembered an alignment tracking chart from an AD&D product from the 1980s. His question immediately reminded me of the existence of such a thing, though it took me a couple of minutes racking my brain to answer his question correctly. As it turns out, 1987's Dragonlance Adventures includes such a chart, which I've reproduced above. 

As written, it's an odd thing. For one, it only tracks a character's moral alignment, which is to say, the good-neutrality-evil axis. At start of play, a character's alignment is deemed to be at the midpoint of his chosen moral alignment. I'm not wholly sure why the chart has no interest in the so-called ethical alignment axis of law-neutrality-chaos. I presume it might have something to do with the unique cosmology of Krynn, but it's not directly spelled out in the book. 

If, in the opinion of the Dungeon Master, a character's actions deviate from his stated moral alignment, it moves one to three steps closer toward the opposite end of the chart. With enough deviations, the character enters the gray "transition" area, which signals that he is in danger of changing his alignment. While in the transition area, there are various game mechanical penalties levied against the character, such as lowered combat statistics and a chance of spell failure. Certain classes, like clerics, suffer further penalties.

Dragonlance Adventures is actually a fascinating AD&D book, one of several setting-specific rulebooks that appeared just prior to the publication of Second Edition. My impression is that these books, each in their own way, was a test run for various ideas and concepts that were being considered for inclusion in 2e. For example, Dragonlance Adventures introduced "spheres" of clerical spells, with each god's clerics having access to only some of them, in an effort to distinguish them from one another. This idea would become a big part of 2e's priest class, one the edition's biggest divergences from its predecessor. 

It's worth noting that First Edition already included something akin to this. Page 24 of the Dungeon Masters Guide includes a section of "graphing alignment," in which Gygax states that "It is of importance to keep track of player character behavior with respect to their professed alignment." Likewise, there are penalties for deviating from one's alignment, though they're not as clear cut as those described in Dragonlance Adventures. Still, I feel confident that alignment tracking is likely an idea considered for Second Edition and given a trial in this book. That it never appeared in 2e suggests it probably wasn't well received or that it had failed to serve its intended purposely, namely to make alignment more mechanically significant in AD&D.

27 comments:

  1. I think the inroduction of the Good and Evil axis actually opened a can of worms, and made things less nuanced. I prefer the three axis alignment too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't have a problem with alignment per se, although I do have some reservations about character overtly identifying with an alignment. It's easy for me to believe that characters would behave in accord with the tenets of some alignment, but less easy to believe that they'd consciously label themselves "lawful good" or "chaotic evil." (For one thing, "evil" is generally a word one uses only to describe others.) I have less trouble with overt self-labeling in a three-value system, probably because there's good fictional precedent for it. It's also easier for me to imagine people consciously supporting order or being opposed to it.
    As you may guess, I am also not a fan of alignment languages.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the idea of alignment languages, but I find it difficult to wrap my head around what they'd actually be like, especially if knowledge of them is supposed to be limited only to those who possess a particular alignment.

      Delete
    2. The evil people probably don't think that "evil" is a good name for what they are, but in AD&D at least, alignment is not subjective and morals are not relative. A lawful evil person is on Hell's team, whether he knows it or not, even if he would describe himself as a realist, or someone who appreciates strength rather than a malefactor.

      Delete
    3. I agree that the idea of all people labeling themselves according to their "metaphysical politics" (or metaphysical football team) may be a bit strange or silly, though not that silly for most people in a fantasy setting.
      I too have a harder time justifying alignment languages, but when I read the Elric books and came to the point where Moorcock says that High Melnibonean is the language of the Lords of Chaos I thought "Ah, that's what alignment languages are!"
      Black Speech in Tolkien can be looked at in the same way, I think.

      Delete
    4. Yes, that's the problem for me as well: what are these languages, and how did they come to be? It seems they would have to be instilled by some abstract power of Law or what have you, which is perhaps believable in a three-value system but (to me, at least) risible in a nine-value system.

      Delete
    5. I can certainly accept the idea that there are languages associated with one alignment or another, like High Melnibonéan or the Black Speech, but would one lose knowledge of them if one changed alignment? That's the harder part for me, though, as John notes, it's not necessarily an insurmountable problem.

      Delete
    6. Alignment languages: specific words, phrases, creeds, professions, dogma, incantations, etc., that *anyone* can understand, hear, and write - but due to the power of the planes permeating the prime material, only able to be *spoken* by those aligned with those deities or viewpoints.

      Unless you're an assassin.

      Delete
    7. Maybe you could allow a person who changed alignment to learn the tongue of the new alignment as they progress along that path instead of instantaneously. They could still theoretically speak the old tongue but that would be an act in opposition to their new alignment (i.e convert to Law from chaos speaks the tongue of chaos in a pinch, and feels ill as the old taint of chaos wells up within him... Or something).

      Delete
  3. Talking about alignment languages coming and going out of a character's mind, another thing I often think is that it might fundamentally be, or works as, Jargon.
    As long as you are immersed in a context and a mindset, you get all the references and double-entendres, once you are out it become meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a fascinating take on alignment languages, and it maps disturbingly well to the current real world, where extremists who spend most of their time in social-media echo chambers easily understand one another while sounding like loons to outsiders and use "dog whistles" to signal their "alignment" when interacting with a broader audience.

      Delete
  4. I really like the idea of alignments and I really don't like D&D without them.

    I have two approaches about the alignement languages, depending on the setting.
    1) In my more esothericall settings the alignement languages are mystical and supernatural forms of communication that the adherants of a position in the multiversal battle between Law and Chaos learn, but not in the 'bookish' way. It's more like a revelation: If you choose to fight in the battle of cosmos, you will experience a lot of dreams and sudden realizations. In this kind of games I have 'two steps' of alignements. It's the three-way system, but you can be Lawfull and you can be 'Sacred Lawfull' (or Cursed Chaotic). This steps represent the bond you made with the multiversal forces. Normal people (Lawfull or Chaotic) may learn the alignement languages, but only in the basic form. Superior forms of mystical communication are forbidden for them.
    2) In my more mundane games, the 'alignement languages' are two supernatual languages, like the language of magic, that were invented by civilizations of the past (or maybe revealed by the gods). Lawfull it's an eternal and 'perfect' language that never changes (even when talking it there is no accents, there is only 'one' way of speak the lawfull language). Chaotic, in the other hand, it's a very direct and very understandable language, making it perfect for communicate simple things with strangers. These languages are not very practicall for common use, arduous to learn and it's inherent magic prevents that anyone who is not in the right state of mind (a.k.a: the alignement of the PC) to simply understand them. In this games you don't begin with this languages, but you can learn them if you have the right alignement. The spell Read Magic allows the wizard to read this languages, but Lawfull it's maddeningly slow to read and Chaotic causes psychical (and even physicall) damage in the caster.

    I know that my interpretations are somewhat strange, but they work in table and really adds another layer to the alignement game.

    ReplyDelete
  5. RE: Dragonlance, the Good/Evil alignment axis was essentially the equivalent to the Law/Chaos axis in OD&D/BX... the only axis. Law and Chaos existed, but everything was in terms of Cosmic Good versus Cosmic Evil... the gods were the "Gods of Good," the "Gods of Neutrality," and the "Gods of Evil." It never got to a Moorcockian level of "cosmic," but all the myths and legends of racial origins and cultural divisions in Dragonlance, everything essentially came down to Good versus Evil (Law and Chaos existed, but on the cosmic level, they were not even really "player.") So it was more Old School than most AD&D, alignment-wise.

    RE: Alignment Tracking, this attained its most magnificent/insane form in Hackmaster 4E, naturally, where the whole concept was taken to 11 and then fed a mix of steroids and LSD. The Alignment Tracker in HM4E was a giant circle divided into many, many, many... OK, an unholy number of sections and sub-sections. You started out pretty much in the center of your alignment on the Law/Chaos versus Good/Evil track, then every single action that might be assigned an alignment shift -- for Law or Chaos, Good or Evil -- was assigned points. The system included all manner of bonuses and penalties, and was strongly tied into the Honor System, which was incredibly robust in HM4E. It was part of what made HM4E great, while at the same time being a turnoff for some. But it ensured that you knew exactly where you stood with your alignment, and thus with your Honor and your Gawds. A thing of beauty and terror, truly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hackmaster was both awesome and monstrous at once. I both celebrate and pity anyone able to play it as written.

      I was going to say the same thing as James (Mishler) regarding Dragonlance, but he summed it up well.

      It’s interesting how the comments start to ramp up when the subject of alignment is broached, even in an innocuous manner. I keep ignoring alignment in my game and keep hating that I’m doing so but not enough that I’m willing to bend the universe to its cosmic weirdness. It’s an ongoing struggle for many.

      Delete
  6. Going to have to disagree on the basic premise. D&D is better of without alignment at all IMO and IME, and I utterly despise systems that attempt to tie it to mechanics. Would much rather see it fade away altogether. If absolutely necessary replace it with some kind of "relationship" system where the PCs establish and maintain (or lose) ties to whatever the Powers That Be in a the setting are, with most of the benefits or drawbacks involved being social/roleplay ones rather than mechanical. 13th Age's Icon relationships is a fair example, although still more crunchy than I care for. Pendragon's Virtue/Vice system is also interesting as a more nuanced way to portray the effects of moral and ethical choices a PC makes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Piety system in Fantasy Wargaming works similarly. Your Piety Band affects your ability to solicit intercession, while your Bravery, Selfishness, Lust, etc., affect your ability to act piously. And in the default Christian setting, if your Piety Band falls to -2 you’re going to have the Devil pay you a visit!

      Delete
  7. In my experience, 90% of players use the alignment 'Chaotic Me' for their characters. I treat those classes without a required alignment (everyone but the paladin) as Neutral characters at first, who they worship can be any alignment. As clerics advance, they need to avoid doing things out of alignment of their deity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What do you think of the Alignment system in EPT? Do you use it in the House of Worms campaign? It both seems already weaker than D&D’s system, since only humans really fall under its purview, and not confluent with later presentations of Tékumel: even if Good/Evil get replaced with Stability/Change, doesn’t lineage/clan trump religious affinity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not much of a system, truth be told. There are a few spells that make reference to it, but otherwise it's more a "philosophical" concept than anything more concrete.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the reply. I was thinking more of the prohibition on Good and Evil characters hanging out together. That doesn’t seem to hang well with the setting: are Karakán and Vimúlha allegiants separated into different Legions?

      Delete
    3. Oh, that! No, I don't use it, although all of the PCs in the campaign worship Change gods, so it's not an issue. In the more developed setting of later Tékumel publications, no such prohibition exists anyway and I tend to play it more like that.

      Delete
  9. I'm a bit of two minds about alignment. I like using alignment as a roleplaying guide of sorts and think that it's really useful for that, but at the same time I'm a little unsure about it having mechanical effects. I feel like that area where alignment-as-guide and alignment-as-mechanic meet is a strange mix of the two that doesn't really work. Something about spells like Detect Evil just doesn't quite sit right.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I like alignment as a shorthand way of addressing personality.

    I don't allow the spell Know Alignment. Detect Evil is for supernatural evil only.

    And I have no alignment languages, mostly because there's no real equivalent in fiction. Again, where did this idea come from?

    ReplyDelete
  11. It totally sidesteps all issues of morality and ethics, but there’s something innovative to me about how Lamentations of the Flame Princess handles Law/Neutrality/Chaos: as more like your fate. 99.99% of people are Neutral. But if you’re Lawful, like it or not, you are the (unwitting?) agent of a (divine?) force trying to bring the world to a predestined conclusion. If you’re Chaotic, evil & madness follows you everywhere, even if you don’t mean it to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sounds like Moorcock's fiction, with less nuance about Chaos not being automatically evil or even harmful. I assume Neutral is apathy about both Law and Chaos rather than Moorcock's Balance, whose adherents struggle to keep both extremes in check so that the multiverse can continue to exist in a recognizable form?

      Delete
    2. Yes, very much like that! Except in-universe Neutrals aren’t aware of this; the struggle between Law and Chaos is an invisible occult war, not overt like in Moorcock.

      Delete
  12. I've been experimenting with making alignment something that your character MAY choose AFTER level 1. I want to tie "joining an alignment" into some kind of interaction with the game world, that forever changes the character, and at least implies they've "taken a stance on some cosmic issue" (and by extension, the player has signaled they care about such). Either purposeful (like swearing allegiance to a particular deity) or reactionary. But I definitely want it to be a decision that a character can make after they've been seasoned a little.

    ReplyDelete