Alignment Languages: Take 2

-
Writing a bit again for the Mythlands of Erce, I am contemplating alignment languages again. I wrote on this topic a while back and I am still a fan of them. 
For one because I like the idea of alignment having tangible impact on the game world in a world of "alignment as [cosmic] faction".
Secondly, because having a multitude languages are mostly just a sucky obstacle to problem solving in D&D - Having a few pervasive languages that chart well to the broadest possible enemy/ally lines in the setting is a big positive.
Thirdly because it's D&D and I am somewhat committed to making sense of the various D&Disms in my game world.

I find myself wanting to re-work it from "granted by divine inspiration" model I previously went with due to it failing a critical litmus test: Anyone walking up to the [secretly chaotic] cleric in the Keep on the Borderlands and speaking Lawful to him would instantly know he is a fake.

SO... Something a bit more nuanced is needed that maintains a lot of characteristics of the first take. Here is take 2, written for a world of 3-fold alignment:

---------------------------------------------------

Alignment languages are: Celestial/Lawful, Fey/Neutral, Black Speech/Chaotic. They are primordial languages, the antediluvian vibrations of the cosmos itself.

A character can learn alignment languages like any other with the following qualifications:

Common is a crude derivative of Lawful/Celestial. Everybody in lawful communities learn Lawful, because:

  • A/ It is relatively easy to learn if you speak common (or any other human language. all which are also ultimately derived from the lawful tongue).
  • B/ The language has magical properties. Learning Lawful is widely believed to shape one's character in a lawful direction (DM's call how true that is).

The second is also one reason why alignment language is rarely spoken. It unfailingly resonates much stronger when spoken than common language and speaking it casually or carelessly is considered crass at best and at worst blasphemous. 
Not to mention that speaking, or hearing, it for more than a minute or two will give most speakers a searing headache due to the forceful magical timbre of it. 
Besides this many believe that its magical resonance may create unintended consequences. As a result, most people learn only a limited standard vocabulary of phrases that is known to be relatively safe to speak. 

Lawful sounds to a Chaotic as vile as Gandalf's black speech recitation did to the elves who covered their ears. And vice versa. It is defiling oneself to a certain extent to do so (imagine Gollum having to speak Elven). And the world itself will respond to such blasphemies in one form or another. The clouds do not grow dark when orcs chant "one ring to rule them all" in black speech. But when Gandalf blasphemes all Rivendell with it, it has a different impact.

Chaotic/The Black Speech is the language of demons and monsters and is obviously forbidden in any lawful realm due to the widespread belief that the magical properties of the language means that learning Chaotic has an inherently corrupting influence (DM's call how true that is). 
Not to mention that it would be a torturous experience for a lawful creature or character to actually learn the language due to its unpleasant and forceful timbre to lawful people. 
and that's not even considering the unintended consequences that keep lawful people from speaking Lawful more than rarely. How much more so for Chaotic? Why would any lawful person go through that? Demonstrating knowledge of Chaotic is in itself incriminating. 
Derivates like Orcish and Goblin, while distasteful languages, may be useful to learn and have none of the same corrupting influence.
Orcs and goblins etc all learn Chaotic for similar reasons that Lawfuls learn Lawful.

Learning Fey/Neutral is not easy as it is never written down and only taught to elf-friends, rangers and druids. All fey creatures, including elves, speak it. Both elven and the secret language of druids are closely derived from it. Whilst not seen as quite as corrupting a language to learn as Chaotic, speaking Fey/Neutral nevertheless raises disconcerting questions concerning the trustworthiness of such a person.

A few other tidbits:

  • Clerics learn lawful thoroughly and do not get headaches from speaking or hearing it. To most people, their mastery of Lawful also speaks highly of their character in general.
  • All spells are cast using alignment language.
  • Wizards know all three alignment languages because the arcane tongue is an amalgam of all three alignment languages. BAM.
  • Due to the metaphysical nature of alignment languages, characters who dive into the deep end of an alignment without having learned the language (ie. a highly chaotic human raised in human lands) may find themselves spontaneously becoming autodidact in the language of their dedicated alignment, manifesting in spontaneous utterances, poetic inspiration, curses and battle cries and such until they realise they understand the speech of others using that language.
  • Thieves Cant is an odd mixture of low-key Chaotic and Lawful.
  • Alignment language is also used for mundane basic purposes such as identification (calling out Lawbearers on the road, ), prayers ("godspeed"), customs (sacred hospitality of the host), rituals (marriage) and proverbs. This is because even such  'normal' invocations do have some power and are, effectively, very mild spells/prayers that anyone can cast. 

Comments

  1. Batman5 January 2020 at 00:03

    This is amazing. Thanks for your very informative post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. eLarson1 December 2020 at 02:07

    Reading through this, I was assuming that the language of wizardry would be an offshoot of Chaotic, then BAM: an admixture of all three. I think I like it better than my assumption since some order must be brought to the wild possibility lurking in Chaos.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Top 6 most viewed posts in the last 12 months

The Difficult-to-Believe Case of Zak Smith's Innocence

-
I honestly did not imagine myself to be writing a piece like this on this blog. But I feel morally obligated to do so, given that I previously wrote a piece based on the firm assumption of his guilt . Yesterday,  Jeff Rients shared a link to an article based on an upcoming research paper  by Dr. Clio Weisman. I'd encourage anyone who has, or has had, some interest in the OSR community and/or held some sort of opinion on the case of Zak Smith, to read it after reading this one. tl;dr - The article is about the utterly bizarre lying, harassing and slandering behaviour that has somehow become prevalent in certain sectors of the Rennaisance-Formerly-Known-as-OSR. And Zak Smith sat at the heart of it, as its principal recipient. Dr. Weisman thus chose him as her case study.  Long story short, Dr. Weisman lays out a meticulous and researched case that shows Smith to be targeted by OSR trolls for many years with a series of slanderous harassment campaigns, and also to be th...
Read more

The 3 Mile Hex - The Natural Unit for Exploration

-
Image
There will be interludes between the AD&D Appraisal series, to keep my own writing motivation going. I was going to do a 3-mile hex post outlining the virtues of it, but turns out Silverarm did that already and stole all my points  (even down to the "Outdoor Survival also uses 3 miles") and added more points I wasn't aware of myself. So go read that excellent piece and come back here. What I instead want to talk about is how the 3 mile hex is a very close fit to our natural sense of distance and visualisation and how the that makes the 3-mile hex the perfect blend between immersion and usable game artifact and how to actually bring that into your game.  Minaria hexmap. Scale: 1 hex = 50 miles. Not what we're going for here. A while back, Noisms contemplated the difficulty of creating a sense of wonder in journeys . The difficulty with journeys in RPGs is the scale of it. It becomes too big, and thus too abstract, to visualize, to immerse oneself into.  I tried, un...
Read more

In Praise of "Black Box" D&D

-
Image
when it comes to non-Advanced D&D, The internet, and in particular the OSR blogosphere, has deserved praise galore for the B/X sets for D&D. And whilst not quite as enthusiastic, the Mentzer editions for those Basic and Expert sets also get plenty of praise for its art and way of introducing the game. The Holmes set also has its fair of passionate fans. And of course the original brown booklets themselves. Of newer releases, the Rules Cyclopedia also has a large following of fans. One release that hardly ever gets a mention is the 1991 'black box', by Timothy B. Brown and Troy Denning. Actually, the Rules Cyclopedia was published as a sort of companion to this set. Together  they represents the fifth and final edition of non-advanced D&D. "The New Easy to Master Dungeons & Dragons Game" also labelled "Classic Dungeons & Dragons" It's short, 64 page booklet, so much the same as its predecessors, comes with a simple dungeon m...
Read more

Addendum: Why "Roll under" Ability checks really are the best of checks

-
Image
My recent meditations on roll under ability checks and rant against the D20 unified mechanic has generated a bit of commentary and further clarified my own thinking on the matter. This post is an addendum to my  Using Ability Checks in B/X  article, seeking to further explicate why the "Roll Under" ability check truly is the best of ability checks. Earlier today, during my delvings into the blogosphere, I came across this box from  Quarrel & Fable , a Fighting Fantasy spinoff: First thing that struck me was how similar it was to my proposed resolution for Ability Checks . And secondly, it combined those thoughts with my memories of the old Fighting Fantasy  [FF] gamebooks and set my mind spinning into that cross section and how much I always liked the elegant simplicity of the FF mechanic. The best part about doing a post involving Fighting Fantasy is the chance to showcase some of the brilliant art in the gamebooks Now, I've given reasons already in prev...
Read more

How Difficulty Class and the D20 engine ruined roleplaying

-
Image
It seemed revolutionary at the time. 3e came out and made a unified mechanic. Roll 1d20 against a target number to see if you succeed. In combat, AC is the target number. For everything else, it's a Difficulty Class [DC]. That's it.  Some of those DCs are calculated as a function of level, opposing ability score etc. But what we also got from this system was a way of ad hoc determining the difficulty of something and then simply saying "roll against that target number to succeed".  In its core form, this is wonderfully simple and intuitive. All you need to internalise is the size of the numbers on a d20 in relation to overall difficulty and then you can resolve basically anything with it. The part about size of numbers has proven to be a bit of an achilles heel for d20 over the years, but that is a different point I will address further below. No, the real point here is that there's an unintended side effect to DCs as a unified mechanic. There are other downsides ...
Read more

The Fighter Across All Editions of TSR D&D

-
Image
Ok, it's time to get back to elf-games. And why not look at the class that is simultaneously the most beloved and under-appreciated class in the history of D&D? I was going to include assessments of WotC fighters too, but honestly, they end up being so different, and embedded into different systems, that it's like comparing apples and oranges. I would still like to look at the 3e fighter, as that has at least a little continuity with TSR D&D but I think that's for a different post on why feats aren't so bad after all and have a place in all versions of D&D... Moving ON , let's dig in: OD&D : Fighting-Men, as they are called. They get d6 hit die like everyone else, but they start at HD 1+1 and gain more HD as they level than clerics or magic-users (at level 10, the fighter has 10+1, cleric 7+2 and and magic-user 7). They have no armor or weapon restrictions. For weapons, this only matters in regards to which weapons are typically magical (swords, figh...
Read more