[1st Edition AD&D] Alignment . . .languages?!

[Ravens_cry]

OK, this one is for the greybeards, even the ones without beards.
I was reading a copy of the Players Handbook for the first edition of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons and I saw something that blew my mind. OK,I saw a lot of things that did that, but this more so. Apparently, everyone can speak a language that corresponds to their alignment. If their alignment shifts, they can no longer speak or understand that language.
Wait . . .what?
A lot of stuff in there I can see an ancestry in classic fantasy. After all, the whole idea was to play the kind of worlds the books presented. I've read quite a bit and I read TV Tropes quite a lot, so I like to think I have a certain familiarity with the tropes of fantasy. But I have never come across anything quite like this. Just where did this come from? Why was this rule added? What did it add to the game? Did you as players use this rule? I know AD&D was eccentric, but this is just one big "what."

[LibraryOgre]

Truthfully, that's one that's never quite made sense to me, either. In theory, they were solely for the discussion of moral and ethical concepts... someone who did not share your alignment would not be able to understand these, so they became kind of a "test' for alignment (making it a LOT easier for Paladins to employ only those who were LG or assassins), but, quite frankly, they never made any sense to me.

[The Big Dice]

It wasn't just AD&D that had them. Those colourful boxes by Frank Mentzer had Alignment Languages too. It was all a bit more homespun and haphazard back then, and most people either forgot them or ignored them.

[hamlet]

Most folks ignore them in the end.

Though if you do think about them, they do make a kind of sense, credulity straining as it is.

Think of it not in terms of a full on language more as an expression of common reference points based on coincidental points of view. I.e., two Lawful Good characters will view the world similarly and share a certain moral frame of reference, and so can communicate some limited ideas referentially that might pass by unknown to an evil listener.

Think "Darmok and Gelad at Tenagra" kind of thing.

[Calmar]

That rule doesn't make much sense in a 'realistic' world, but it might be really cool in some more surreal setting.

[nedz]

I never saw them used.

But I suppose you could think of them like 'political language'.
I always thought that they were silly.

[Ravens_cry]

Most folks ignore them in the end.

Though if you do think about them, they do make a kind of sense, credulity straining as it is.

Think of it not in terms of a full on language more as an expression of common reference points based on coincidental points of view. I.e., two Lawful Good characters will view the world similarly and share a certain moral frame of reference, and so can communicate some limited ideas referentially that might pass by unknown to an evil listener.

Think "Darmok and Gelad at Tenagra" kind of thing.

Yes, I can see that, Evil Cannot Comprehend Good and tropes of that nature. But that is not how it is presented. It is presented as a full on language, with nouns and verbs and syntex. It is almost like the Black Speech from Lord of the Rings, but good beings like Gandalf could learn and speak that.
Heh, speaking of TV Tropes, the language of Darmok is like what happens when you read too much TV Tropes, your brain starts thinking in terms of the tropes and their titles. Incidentally, it is one of my favourite Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes.
Excuse me, Cacofonix and His Lyre, the Water Fell.

[Amphetryon]

Puppy Sunshine Blanket Spring Rain? [/CG]

Thunder Destruction Brimstone Hellfire! [/CE]

yeah, never really made sense.

[Comet]

They don't make any sense if you think about them for longer than five seconds, for sure.

I found them lots of fun, though. We started with the Red Box basic D&D, which had those Alignment languages too.

They really create a very distinct "us versus them" feel. Like you belong to some sort of secret cult and the other guys (be they good or evil, depending on campaign) are the opposing cult that you really can't understand no matter how much you try.

And when the players try to talk to an NPC with their Alignment language and you describe said NPC as looking slightly puzzled and reaching out for his sword, the players instantly know that stuff is about to go down.

[Kurald Galain]

I... think... that you could pick up other languages for your character, including other-alignment languages. So your chaotic rogue could learn to speak Lawful, or something.

Doesn't make it any less silly, though. The closest I can imagine is either legalese (for lawful) or thieves' cant (for chaotic).

[Mr.Bookworm]

This is not coming from the most informed person, but wasn't it just Law and Chaos back in 1E?

I could see, say, the most common alignment by far being Neutral, with only mortal paragons or monsters like demons having an alignment of Law or Chaos. If you're that dedicated to an alignment's ideals, I can easily see knowing the secret special language (Druidic, anyone?).

...That still doesn't make sense though, because there would be a Neutral alignment language. Which makes no sense on multiple levels. Unless you count Neutral as the absence of alignment, thus no language.

[/WILDLY UNINFORMED IDEAS]

EDIT: I mean, was the Chaos language Abyssal and the Law language Celestial or something? That would make a certain amount of sense.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Feh, Alignment Languages were just a version of Black Speech - languages that were tied to a particular axis of the morality spectrum. It just so happens that what was cool in Tolkien gets a bit silly when applied more broadly

[Comet]

This is not coming from the most informed person, but wasn't it just Law and Chaos back in 1E?

Yeah, with Law being pretty much equal to Good and Chaos being equal to Evil. As I said, a really effective setup for all kinds of conflict.

[Siosilvar]

I... think... that you could pick up other languages for your character, including other-alignment languages. So your chaotic rogue could learn to speak Lawful, or something.

Doesn't make it any less silly, though. The closest I can imagine is either legalese (for lawful) or thieves' cant (for chaotic).

Only Assassins can pick up alignment languages (and druidic) without being that alignment, IIRC.

This is not coming from the most informed person, but wasn't it just Law and Chaos back in 1E?

I could see, say, the most common alignment by far being Neutral, with only mortal paragons or monsters like demons having an alignment of Law or Chaos. If you're that dedicated to an alignment's ideals, I can easily see knowing the secret special language (Druidic, anyone?).

...That still doesn't make sense though, because there would be a Neutral alignment language. Which makes no sense on multiple levels. Unless you count Neutral as the absence of alignment, thus no language.

[/WILDLY UNINFORMED IDEAS]

AD&D had all nine alignments. D&D, on the other hand, had lawful/neutral/chaotic only.

And yes, there was a Neutral language, technically. And Neutral Good was completely incomprehensible to anyone speaking Chaotic Good. Don't think about it too hard.

[Mr.Bookworm]

And yes, there was a Neutral language, technically. And Neutral Good was completely incomprehensible to anyone speaking Chaotic Good. Don't think about it too hard.

Bwuuuuh?

Wellllllll. *thinks*

I guess it could maybe make sense if you think about it in terms of 3.5 D&D languages, where you have LE devils and CE demons and LG archons and CG eladrins speaking different languages (and I'm sure the planes of Neutrality have their own language which is escaping me right now).

...But that still doesn't make sense, because I'm taking a wild guess and saying that Abyssal and such were also around back then in addition to the alignment languages.

Gah.

[Siosilvar]

Bwuuuuh?

Wellllllll. *thinks*

I guess it could maybe make sense if you think about it in terms of 3.5 D&D languages, where you have LE devils and CE demons and LG archons and CG eladrins speaking different languages (and I'm sure the planes of Neutrality have their own language which is escaping me right now).

...But that still doesn't make sense, because I'm taking a wild guess and saying that Abyssal and such were also around back then in addition to the alignment languages.

Gah.

Let me check my PHB for the "list of languages typically used".

Dwarvish, Halfling, Lizardman, Elvish, Hobgoblin, Ogrish, Goblin, Kobold, Orcish.

And almost every creature in the Monster Manual speaks its own language and usually one other. No languages mentioned for demons and devils, though I'd assume the alignment languages are the Abyssal/Infernal/Celestial of today.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I guess it could maybe make sense if you think about it in terms of 3.5 D&D languages, where you have LE devils and CE demons and LG archons and CG eladrins speaking different languages (and I'm sure the planes of Neutrality have their own language which is escaping me right now).

Nitpick: There's only one good language in 3e, Celestial, so the archons and eladrins speak the same thing.

And no, there weren't Abyssal and Infernal back then, just the alignment languages. If you think of the alignment languages as people just speaking Infernal, Abyssal, Slaad, etc. it does make a bit more sense.

[Eldan]

Bah, Celestial. I just re-introduced Eladrin and Elysian, with Celestial being the language of Celestia. Similar with Infernal, Fiendish and Abyssal. There's also Slaad and Modronic (not Moronic!).

[Coidzor]

There's also Slaad and Modronic (not Moronic!).

Not Machine Code? Or Mechanical?

[Eldan]

Mechanic was considered for the language of Mechanus, yes, but I dropped it in the end. Mainly because my players spontaneously adopted Modronic because they thought it was funny.

[hamlet]

1) I didn't say my explanation was good, merely that it was how it was explained to me and that it made some sort of sense within the framework of the game assumptions. Yes, if you think of the alignment tounges as "Infernal, Abbyssal, Celestial, etc." it makes even just a little more sense. Though only a little.

Best not think on it too hard.

2) AD&D 1ed (i.e., Gary's Greyhawk Version of D&D with the demon idol on the PHB and the efreet on the DMG) had all nine alignments from LG to CE. These were new at the time and a lot of people didn't like them because original woodgrain/whitebox D&D had only three alignments - Law, Neutral, Chaos and Law was NOT implicitly "Good" and Chaos was NOT implicitely "Evil" - based almost word for word on Moorcock's system of morality. Good and evil really didn't factor in as the concept was more about high cosmic forces at war. In the end, the best explanation I've heard for original D&D's alignment system was to ask and honestly answer the question below:

"If the end of the world arrives, where do you stand? With the forces of order and law trying vainly to hold the fabric of the universe together and preserve creation? With Cthulhu and his slathering horde of cosmic horrors bent on its unmaking? Or do you simply stand back and enjoy the show?"

By the time BECMI started rolling out and D&D was becoming slightly more kid friendly, Law and Chaos started to be equated with Good and Evil respectively.

[Caliphbubba]

I never saw them used. Really the only non-racial languages I ever saw used much were Druidic and Theives Cant, with a splash of Slyvan now and again.

[Matthew]

This is not coming from the most informed person, but wasn't it just Law and Chaos back in 1E?

No. There are two separate lines of games running off from the 1974 OD&D game, "Classic" and AD&D. The AD&D game has most of the ideas you will be familiar with from D20/3e, the nine point alignment system being one of them. It was first introduced in Strategic Review (the seven issue precursor to Dragon) for OD&D. The "Classic" line made little use of the various expansions for OD&D, though. Classic is better known as the "Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortal" rule sets, eventually amalgamated into the Rules Cyclopedia. Here is a quick visual line-up of the books in question:

Original (1974-1977)

Spoiler

Show

Classic (1977-2000)

Spoiler

Show

Advanced (1977-2000)

Spoiler

Show

[edit] Bloody Photobucket/Preview button! Ignore this post until later!

As for alignment languages, I cannot say I ever used them, but I have heard they have some sort of precedent. Maybe Moorcock?

[The Big Dice]

No. There are two separate lines of games running off from the 1974 OD&D game, "Classic" and AD&D.

D20 is specifically a continuation of AD&D. Hence 3rd edition. "Classic" D&D went through at least five editions, including the wite box 0 or OD&D version, the blue cover "Holmes" edition, the red Tom Moldvay edition which expanded into the Expert Rules and is known as B/X edition. Then came Frank Mentzer and the many colourful boxes, known as BECMI. And finally was Aaron Allston and the Rules Cyclopedia.

Personally, I think the Rules Cyclopedia edition of D&D is the best version of the game yet published, but obviously WotC disagree...

[bokodasu]

We used it. It's just one of those things you can't think too much about. Go team law! Go team chaos! Woooo!

[Matthew]

D20 is specifically a continuation of AD&D. Hence 3rd edition. "Classic" D&D went through at least five editions, including the wite box 0 or OD&D version, the blue cover "Holmes" edition, the red Tom Moldvay edition which expanded into the Expert Rules and is known as B/X edition. Then came Frank Mentzer and the many colourful boxes, known as BECMI. And finally was Aaron Allston and the Rules Cyclopedia.

Personally, I think the Rules Cyclopedia edition of D&D is the best version of the game yet published, but obviously WotC disagree...

Whilst D20/3e presents itself as a continuation of the AD&D line with the moniker "3rd" it actually uses as much "Classic" material as it does "Advanced". The Original and Holmes editions of D&D are actually quite different from the "Classic" line that emerged later, about as different as Advanced is to them. A lot of the confusion has to do with the fact that the "Classic" line was folded into AD&D in the mid nineties when Mystara was made an AD&D game setting.

In any case, what you actually have are two separate lines built off the original game, though for legal reasons [i.e. IP ownership] AD&D was presented as a different game to OD&D. If you look at the supplements (Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry, Gods Demi-Gods & Heroes, Swords & Spells) though, it is evident that OD&D + Supplements = AD&D. Holmes is a slightly different kettle of fish, as it is an edition of OD&D with additional "pointers" introduced afterwards by Gygax that make it seem to be an introduction to AD&D.

[MickJay]

As for alignment languages, I cannot say I ever used them, but I have heard they have some sort of precedent. Maybe Moorcock?

Yes, it's Moorcock, there's some reference to Melnibonian language being a version of the language of chaos. Mind you, while it made sense in D&D, with the introduction of nine alignments and a massive change to the cosmology, alignment languages stopped making any sense. It seems like they were just mechanically transferred into the newer edition without giving the whole concept more thought.

Incidentally, the whole "chaos=evil" and "law=good" doesn't really hold for Moorcock's writings. The only "good" side is Balance, since a total victory of either Law or Chaos would lead to a total destruction of everything. Moorcock's heroes fight against both, supporting the one that is weaker at the time. I think it might be a reflection of Moorcock's political views: too much of conservatism or too much of liberalism would be, in the long run, harmful to the society. It seems to me that this view of Chaos and Law was considered too "unfriendly" for the purposes of d&d (what with there being to universally acceptable "evil" targets to slay ), and the more useful, from gaming perspective, 9 alignment were introduced.

[Matthew]

Yes, it's Moorcock, there's some reference to Melnibonian language being a version of the language of chaos. Mind you, while it made sense in D&D, with the introduction of nine alignments and a massive change to the cosmology, alignment languages stopped making any sense. It seems like they were just mechanically transferred into the newer edition without giving the whole concept more thought.

Incidentally, the whole "chaos=evil" and "law=good" doesn't really hold for Moorcock's writings. The only "good" side is Balance, since a total victory of either Law or Chaos would lead to a total destruction of everything. Moorcock's heroes fight against both, supporting the one that is weaker at the time. I think it might be a reflection of Moorcock's political views: too much of conservatism or too much of liberalism would be, in the long run, harmful to the society. It seems to me that this view of Chaos and Law was considered too "unfriendly" for the purposes of d&d (what with there being to universally acceptable "evil" targets to slay ), and the more useful, from gaming perspective, 9 alignment were introduced.

Right. From what I understand, Moorcock apparently admitted to borrowing the law/chaos thing from somewhere else (Anderson maybe, or Vance, I forget), the original I have heard would more closely fit the D&D version, and Gygax was familiar with both.

[MickJay]

That would be Anderson, Three hearts and three lions, from which D&D also borrowed trolls and much of the paladin fluff.

[Matthew]

That would be Anderson, Three hearts and three lions, from which D&D also borrowed trolls and much of the paladin fluff.

That would be it, then. One of these days I will get round to reading some Anderson.