Alignment - because we ...ing can't let it pass

Quantumboost · Post by **Quantumboost** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:35 pm

RobbyPants wrote:shadzar, I think you're forcing false limitations on the 3x3 system. You can, instead, picture that 3x3 grid as being overlayed on the 2D axis system of alignment. You can literally have a sliding scale and end up in a different position of each of the nine boxes.

Your limitation is that you're assuming the boxes have to be discrete but the two axis system is a sliding scale. This does not need to be the case. Lawful Good can encompass a lot of different alignments.

Really, the discreteness of the alignment system isn't due to how the alignments are laid out. It's due to the fact that detect evil, detect good, detect law, and detect chaos exist as they are now. If someone detects as good, their alignment (or subtype) falls in the Good "box[es]". If it detects as "not good", they fall into the "not-Good boxes". This is wholly independent of whether you write down someone's alignment as two points on two lines or a single point on a coordinate plane.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:39 pm

RobbyPants wrote:shadzar, I think you're forcing false limitations on the 3x3 system. You can, instead, picture that 3x3 grid as being overlayed on the 2D axis system of alignment. You can literally have a sliding scale and end up in a different position of each of the nine boxes.

Your limitation is that you're assuming the boxes have to be discrete but the two axis system is a sliding scale. This does not need to be the case. Lawful Good can encompass a lot of different alignments.

No the problem as I see it is the fact that people try to layer the two axis onto each other.

They reference the same thing, but are not the same thing.

Like you have 2 boxes, blue and yellow.

You can have any number of either. The number of blue boxes you have, has no effect on the number of yellow boxes you have. They are NOT inclusive in any way such as the defined and finite 9 alignments. There is no need to overlap the axis to even try to make a grid.

Say your axis were apples and oranges qualities.

What good would it do to make the grid for apple layered onto oranges.

The number you get of one doesn't affect the number you get of the other, and literally it is the same with both axis. They really have nothing to do with each other. No need to graph it out or make a grid, just because you can. The question is NOT can you do something, but should you? This is where the problem came form. People being taught the 9 alignments.

What is really so hard about disconnecting Law and Chaos, form Good and evil? Is it just that people have been taught the 9 alignments they cannot think outside of them?

Why do you (does anyone) NEED to connect the two outside of just being parts to make up alignment?

Just because most people think a halfling thief is the best combination for both of those, does it mean all halflings must be thieves and all thieves must be halflings?

There is no connection between the two axis, outside of them being two different parts of a bigger thing. Like batteries and a power cord for a radio. You don't have to have both to get it to run, you only need one or the other at any given time, unless you have rechargeable batteries that the cord will recharge them while in the radio. (Insert cell phone, laptop, etc into that)

Again, does Detect Evil care whether someone is lawful or chaotic? No? If not, then you don't need to bother with that axis.

It isn't:

Code: Select all

If &#40;Evil&#41;&#123;
X="chaotic";
&#125;

It is

Code: Select all

switch &#40;alignmentEG&#41;&#123;
case "evil"&#58; X=true;
&#125;

KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!

It applies to both the code and the alignment.

How often does both axis of an alignment come into play at the same time? I bet more things check one axis or the other more often than they check the 9 grid boxes. (with however many ticks you want within each box to move on the layered axis.)

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:06 pm

Quantumboost wrote:Really, the discreteness of the alignment system isn't due to how the alignments are laid out. It's due to the fact that detect evil, detect good, detect law, and detect chaos exist as they are now. If someone detects as good, their alignment (or subtype) falls in the Good "box[es]". If it detects as "not good", they fall into the "not-Good boxes". This is wholly independent of whether you write down someone's alignment as two points on two lines or a single point on a coordinate plane.

Yeah, I mentioned that a few posts back.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:15 pm

shadzar wrote:Why do you (does anyone) NEED to connect the two outside of just being parts to make up alignment?

My point earlier was they aren't connected, other than on that grid. It's entirely possible to view one axis independently of the other. Someone cast Detect Good? Look at the appropriate axis.

shadzar wrote:Just because most people think a halfling thief is the best combination for both of those, does it mean all halflings must be thieves and all thieves must be halflings?

When did anyone say anything to the effect of "anyone who is lawful must be good?" I'm not sure why you're bringing this up.

shadzar wrote:There is no connection between the two axis, outside of them being two different parts of a bigger thing. Like batteries and a power cord for a radio. You don't have to have both to get it to run, you only need one or the other at any given time, unless you have rechargeable batteries that the cord will recharge them while in the radio. (Insert cell phone, laptop, etc into that)

This. You answered it right there. The two are related in that they're both "alignment". Yes, you likely will only need to reference one half at any given time. Simply read the appropriate word in your alignment.

Sure, if I were programming a game, I'd break alignment into two variables and print them in the same label to display to the user. Basically, the only difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is: does alignment get printed in one label or two? It's obviously tracked as two variables.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:20 pm

Quantumboost wrote:It's due to the fact that detect evil, detect good, detect law, and detect chaos exist as they are now.

The detect spells are one of the most abused spells out there because they are often over simplified. Even in 3E they were not always what you generally assume them to be. Most average beings had faint auras at best. There is also the question of where one drew the line between N and (L/C/G/E) which could cover most as undetectable N.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:26 pm

RobbyPants wrote:Basically, the only difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is: does alignment get printed in one label or two? It's obviously tracked as two variables.

Ah!

Just if other people will view it as 2 parts rather than one whole at all times, then the problems can go away.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:27 pm

shadzar wrote:What is really so hard about disconnecting Law and Chaos, form Good and evil? Is it just that people have been taught the 9 alignments they cannot think outside of them?

Why do you (does anyone) NEED to connect the two outside of just being parts to make up alignment?

Because in the final analysis, the actions of a creature depends on the combination of the two axes. It has to do with an ordering of priorities. It is not a question of the 9 alignments being "boxes" but rather the nine alignments round a real value into an integer value.

(Now if you go all the way back to the original AD&D with the "alignment languages" then the system really gets into pigeon holes. Sometimes this mentality continued in later editions, but it's not really a part of the alignment system per se.)

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:36 pm

tzor wrote: (Now if you go all the way back to the original AD&D with the "alignment languages" then the system really gets into pigeon holes. Sometimes this mentality continued in later editions, but it's not really a part of the alignment system per se.)

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about those.

The alignment languages may have been the dumbest idea in gaming ever.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:22 am

RandomCasualty2 wrote:The alignment languages may have been the dumbest idea in gaming ever.

I might be misremembering, but weren't they effectively the languages of the natives of the alignment planes?

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:03 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
RandomCasualty2 wrote:The alignment languages may have been the dumbest idea in gaming ever.
I might be misremembering, but weren't they effectively the languages of the natives of the alignment planes?

IIRC, everyone, not just natives of alignment planes, spoke their alignment language.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:03 pm

Yup, languages were pretty dumb and kind of told you right away who someone else was be deductive reasoning. What would happen when you change alignments, you forget how to speak a language? No bluffing allowed with them around.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:19 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
RandomCasualty2 wrote:The alignment languages may have been the dumbest idea in gaming ever.
I might be misremembering, but weren't they effectively the languages of the natives of the alignment planes?

It’s important to remember that 1E AD&D didn’t really have a solid pantheon in the core rule books. As a result of this the nine alignments were sort of treated like the nine “denominations” in a variety of odd ways. Just like some denominations had special languages used just for their liturgical functions (Catholics who once used Latin) the idea of the alignment language being a common way to communicate among the same alignment “faith.”

The outer plains were not developed into that detail in core to include languages.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:23 pm

shadzar wrote:Yup, languages were pretty dumb and kind of told you right away who someone else was be deductive reasoning. What would happen when you change alignments, you forget how to speak a language? No bluffing allowed with them around.

Changing alignments was not a common occurance in 1E AD&D. It was probably easier to change your race.

I'm pretty sure you managed to keep the language; they were basically basic languages you got at character creation. I forget if there was a procedure in 1E for learning a new language.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:33 pm

tzor wrote:
shadzar wrote:Yup, languages were pretty dumb and kind of told you right away who someone else was be deductive reasoning. What would happen when you change alignments, you forget how to speak a language? No bluffing allowed with them around.
Changing alignments was not a common occurance in 1E AD&D. It was probably easier to change your race.

I'm pretty sure you managed to keep the language; they were basically basic languages you got at character creation. I forget if there was a procedure in 1E for learning a new language.

Did they just flat out say you couldn't change alignment back in 1E?

I started in 2E, and I remember there being massive XP penalties for doing so as well as DM advice for adjudicating exactly how this was handled. From what I remember, it was fairly vague, filled with grey areas.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:31 pm

RobbyPants wrote:
tzor wrote:
shadzar wrote:Yup, languages were pretty dumb and kind of told you right away who someone else was be deductive reasoning. What would happen when you change alignments, you forget how to speak a language? No bluffing allowed with them around.
Changing alignments was not a common occurance in 1E AD&D. It was probably easier to change your race.

I'm pretty sure you managed to keep the language; they were basically basic languages you got at character creation. I forget if there was a procedure in 1E for learning a new language.
Did they just flat out say you couldn't change alignment back in 1E?

I started in 2E, and I remember there being massive XP penalties for doing so as well as DM advice for adjudicating exactly how this was handled. From what I remember, it was fairly vague, filled with grey areas.

1E DMG pg 24 explains what ill happens when you change alignment. Including losing a level immediately and all things that come with that level, change in deity, etc.

Changing alignment also means you lose the ability to speak your former AL, and do NOT gain the one of your new alignment...so you are SOL until you regain that level and hopefully return to your previous alignment.

I just didn't want to dig the book out to look this stuff up.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:40 am

For even more wackiness, alignment languages were NOT a quick way to figure out if someone else was LG or whatever, because the PH/DMG made a point of noting that speaking alignment tongues except privately among people of that alignment was considered rude/gauche/verboten. They were almost like secret languages (similar to 1E druidic). So if you just walked up to a dude and said "Are you Lawful Good" in the LG alignment tongue, he'd either not understand (if he wasn't LG) or be pissed at you (if he was LG).

I'm with RC...stupidest idea ever. I'm not entirely sure WHAT the point of them was, except maybe a way for certain PCs to talk secretly, or for the Paladin to talk to Couatls when nobody in the party speaks Couatl.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:20 pm

Sadly not every player took to heart that alignment languages were a private thing, so yeah, it was easy to tell. Not to mention everyone in the games these days and many in the past think they need all the info form each players character sheet otherwise they cannot play. Its just a matter of things you don't need to know, but some think you must and it doesn't matter. So they DID just use AL openly Maybe that is part of the reason many people didn't understand the game back then or now, but it is a key thing that the players don't know everything about the game world, the other player characters, etc. That is part of the game to learn these things over time...when your character is more than just a system of stat blocks, or a playing piece as in chess or some such.

Pretty much the AL was a way for each PC to talk to their deity and others like them, since deity was close in 1E to the character. Each one had one, and it was for the deity you were adventuring. Like say the Lady of the Lake had sent Arthur after the Holy Grail. You weren't doing it for money and power and the xmas tree of items, but for your belief system and those of the same faith. Must closer to a medieval mindset was 1E in that matter where faith ruled the world, save for DragonLance where the gods had "left", etc.

It did have a purpose, and was a novel idea, just not something that went very far in planning and concept to note if it would be used that much. It could have been used far beyond the talk to creature X of this alignment since it was likely you could speak with anything having enough people in the party to cover all alignments.

Thieves cant went better than alignment languages, because it had a more purposed use that all could see and agree, but alignment languages just didn't fit. If it is your deity, then they should understand you in any language, that was the idea I took from it and reason I didn't use them.

Also I think it goes towards the early Christian concept with the fish-looking symbol. One person could make a curve on the ground and wait while talking, and if the other person knew the meaning, they could make another curve to make the fish design to say "Hey, I'm a Christian too!, so we can go somewhere and talk about it safe from persecution of whoever else."

D&D already had shady back room dealings and private meetings, so trying to add a whole language on top of the fish symbol just to identify others of "your kind" wasn't needed when you could just go to a back room and discuss it anyway.

That is the point I think they had, but not many agreed with it usefulness, and just dropped alignment languages like a bad habit.