Comments on: Alignment and Languages for D&D

By: Alignment and Experience for D&D | Robertson Games

Alignment and Experience for D&D | Robertson Games — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 02:15:18 +0000

[...] previously written about Alignment and Languages for D&D, and this suggestion is based on that system. All characters in the game world are either Lawful, [...]

By: Alex Schröder

Alex Schröder — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:02:00 +0000

I’ve heard Lawful Alignment Language = Latin equivalent before and like it very much. I had not heard of Neutrals = Rogues before and like it as well. The Black Tongue has an awesome name.

By: Chgowiz

Chgowiz — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 01:27:16 +0000

I could see why you’d say that. For right now, alignment is less important in terms of things. It might come into play, it might not. I’m not emphasizing it right now.

By: Stuart Robertson

Stuart Robertson — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:09:46 +0000

I think if you’re going to use the simple alignment system of Basic D&D it works better for games with more simplistic White Hat / Black Hat morality. If you want something with more complexity, like the Law + “Evil” examples you gave then I think AD&D system – or even not using alignments altogether might be more appropriate.

If I were going to run my D&D campaign more like “A Fistful of Dollars” with lots of corrupt town officials, then I’d be more inclined to use something a bit more detailed than the system in Basic D&D.

By: Chgowiz

Chgowiz — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:58:15 +0000

That’s very true, and for the most part, Chaotics are probably going to be “evil” as we typically define it. It makes sense though that there could be a perfectly civilized part of the world that believes in human sacrifices, slavery, exploitation of the weak and all sorts of other “evil” that most “good” people would frown against. When it comes to religion and dogma, there’s been just as much “evil” done in the name of lawful religions as any. Chaotic people might not believe in law, civilization or honesty, but they might have an inkling to help a brother out, especially if that person helped them in the past.

But like most other stuff in campaigns, it’s individual tastes and yea, 90% of my players are Neutral, which is OK with me. I have enough plot hooks to keep them busy without alignment driving it.

By: Stuart Robertson

Stuart Robertson — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:47:45 +0000

Thanks! I think it depends on whether you want to have Chaotic include “good guys” or not. In this system I’d put anyone favouring “anarchy/complete freedom of rules/Rule of Strongest” in the Neutral category unless they were also somehow malevolent, in which case they’d be Chaotic.

By: Chgowiz

Chgowiz — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:10:48 +0000

That’s an interesting take on alignment languages and I might have to snatch that, especially for the lawful and chaos. I might have neutral take one or the other, if they don’t quality for Thieve’s Cant.

I play a L/N/C alignment, but lawful can be evil and chaotic people can be for good. It basically comes down to whom is for “society/civilization/rule of law” for Lawful, “anarchy/complete freedom of rules/Rule of Strongest” for Chaos and Neutrals are about balance, for themselves and I’ll not lean strongly one way or the other.