AD&D Players Handbook part 58: Appendix II - Bards & Appendix III - Character Alignment Graph

APPENDIX II: BARDS

Bards have appeared in D&D before this (in an article from The Strategic Review #6 by a Doug Schwegman), as a standard character class.  They were a sort of combination fighter/magic-user/thief, with some charm and lore abilities on top of that.  The AD&D version of the bard fits that description as well, but it's there that the similarities end.  I'm not sure why Gary changed the class so much, but there's a telling line right at the start: "As this character class subsumes the functions of two other classes, fighters and thieves, and tops them off with magical abilities, it is often not allowed by Dungeon Masters".  It's likely that Gary objected to the combination of powers granted by this class, and instead of the fairly streamlined class from the article, we got the much less friendly version seen here.

To qualify, a character must be human or half-elf, and have the following minimum scores: Str 15, Dex 15, Con 10, Int 12, Wis 15 and Cha 15.  Good luck rolling those scores legitimately (although there are certain legit methods we'll see in the Dungeon Masters Guide that could produce such a character without too much difficulty).  The OD&D bard needed "above average" scores in Strength, Intelligence and Charisma, and the class was open to elves, dwarves and hobbits.

Now we come to the biggest difference: the AD&D bard doesn't begin as a bard.  Instead, they must start as a Fighter.  Somewhere between 5th and 8th level they must change class, becoming a 1st-level Thief.  Again, somewhere between 5th and 9th level, the character must change class again, into a druid.  Once they're progressing as a druid, they are considered bards, and gain the requisite abilities.  It's a hell of a process, and it results in a more powerful character than the OD&D version.  For starters, they get full thief abilities for their thief level, rather than the half-level abilities of the OD&D bard.  They also end up with a shitload of hit points: 1d10 per fighter level, with 1d6 per druid level on top of that.  I have to wonder what Gary was thinking.  (Oh yeah, they also get all the druid abilities as they advance in that class too.)

The switch from magic-user spells in OD&D to druid spells in AD&D is an odd one.  It fits well with the explicitly celtic, druidic nature of the class as it is at this point, but it clashes somewhat with the minstrel/trickster that the class would become.

As a bard gains druid levels, they progress through the various "bardic colleges": Fochlucan, Mac-Fuirmidh, Doss, Canaith, Cli, Anstruth, Ollamh and finally Magna-Alumnae.  None of these are really explained, except to say that bards won't associate with those from a lesser college until they reach Magna-Alumnae and become teachers of a sort.  These colleges were all present in OD&D, except for Magna Alumnae.  I'm not sure what their purpose is, except perhaps to limit the number of bards getting about in the same adventuring party.

As for the bardic abilities they get on top of the rest, they are as follows.  They can inspire their allies with some poetry, granting a bonus to attack, damage and morale.  They can negate song-based attacks like those from harpies, and soothe and quiet shriekers.  They can use their music to fascinate and charm monsters.  Finally, they have a large knowledge of legends and lore, and can use it to identify certain magic items.

All told, it seems like a really strong class, perhaps over-powered, but I'd love to see one in actual play.  The mechanical weirdness of the whole thing seems a bit off, though, and to me suggests a lot of the regrettable future developments that Gary will come up with in Unearthed Arcana.  I wish he'd just stuck with the class from The Strategic Review, to be honest.

As for the Ultimate Sandbox campaign, the differences between the two present a problem.  Normally I might just shrug my shoulders and ignore differences between editions, but this is a significant one.  The notable difference is that the AD&D bard seems much more exclusive than the one in OD&D, racially and statistically.  It also seems to tie more specifically to the Druids, as they cast the same spells and have the same powers.  So I wonder if the original bards were Druidic at all?  Perhaps they came about as an organisation (albeit a short-lived one) inspired by the Druidic Bards, an imitation rather than the real thing?  Joining that organisation was not so hard, far less so than becoming a bard in the ultra-secretive Druidic sect.  The alternative is to have an off-shoot Druidic sect that had less stringent requirements, but I think I prefer the former.

APPENDIX III: CHARACTER ALIGNMENT GRAPH

This is the graph as it appears in the PHB.

 There's no text accompanying this chart, so its intended purpose isn't entirely clear.  It's probably meant for charting the alignments of the various players in the campaign, in case they drift out of their current alignment.  I don't see much other use for it, though I like the four descriptors for paragons of the four most extreme alignments.  Some similar charts have appeared in OD&D, and those featured a lot of the various monsters scattered around as examples.

AD&D Players Handbook part 20: Alignment

With this chapter we see the introduction to D&D of the nine-point alignment system.  In OD&D, there were simply three alignment: Law, Neutrality, and Chaos.  Gary altered this in The Strategic Review #6, adding Good and Evil to the mix to give five possible alignments: Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Neutral, Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil.  This system was carried into the first D&D Basic Set.

In AD&D there are nine alignments, with the addition of Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral.  It's not made clear what purpose alignment serves in the game, but the nine alignments are each given a brief description.  This is more than can be said of previous editions, where the space given to each alignment was perfunctory at best.

Let's take a look at each alignment in turn:

Chaotic Evil: Values freedom, randomness and woe.  (Really?  Who values woe?) Disdains law, order, kindness, and places no value on life.  Seeks power in a system ruled by caprice and their own whims.

Chaotic Good: Values freedom, the welfare of others, and individuality.  Specific mention is made here of characters "promoting the gods of chaotic good", as though that's what they're expected to do.  Later on Gary states that the descriptions are generalisations, and this is one that I'm glad to lump in that category.

Chaotic Neutral: Places randomness and disorder above good and evil.  Again, the way this is described make the character sound like a crusader for a cause.

Lawful Evil: Respects law and order, but place little value on life, beauty, truth, and freedom.  Seeks to use discipline to impose their yoke on the world.

Lawful Good: Strictly upholds law and order for the common good.  Believes that certain freedoms must be sacrificed to bring order.  Values truth the most, and also life and beauty.

Lawful Neutral: Views regulation as all-important.  Believes universal harmony depends on law and order.

Neutral Evil: Dedicated to - and I quote - "maximum evilness".

Neutral Good: Believes in a balance between regulation and freedom to bring about beneficial conditions for all.  Curiously, it's said that they value intelligent creatures more than unintelligent ones.

True Neutral: Views all alignments as part of a natural system, and believes that this balance should not be upset by unnatural forces, including the interference of intelligent creatures.

So, looking at the above, just what is alignment?  Simply going by the name, it should be the side you are aligned with.  This implies that Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are fundamental forces of the universe, and at war with each other.  This is backed up by the descriptions, as several of them describe characters advancing the agenda of their particular alignment.

It's also clear, however, that alignment describes a character's morality, ethics and general behaviour.  Lawful good characters act a certain way, chaotic goods act in a different way, and chaotic evils act even more differently still.  The behaviours given here are said to be generalisations, and yet those generalisations must come from somewhere.  For the most part NPCs will behave much as their alignment dictates, as described here in the PHB.  There will be outliers, and PCs are likely to be among them, but they are just that: outliers.

So alignment in AD&D is both your behaviour, and the side of the cosmic conflict you fall on.  This raises a question, though: does behaviour dictate alignment, or is it the other way around?  I would be inclined to go with the former.  No creature (except for certain magical types, like demons and such) is born evil, good, chaotic or lawful.  (I would say that any infant is by this logic neutral, which cuts the whole "paladins killing orc babies" dilemma off at the knees right there.)  They will, however, be greatly influenced by their cultural upbringing (and genetics as well, I suppose), and if you're a baby orc surrounded by chaotic evil relatives, it's a good chance you'll grow up to be chaotic evil as well.  The chance for good is there, of course, but it's a slim one.

So the way a character behaves and thinks determines the side of the conflict they're on, and this may have a more profound effect on their inner selves than you would think.  After all, there are magical effects that work based on the target's alignment.  It's a palpable thing that can be detected.  There are even languages intrinsic to each alignment, and the inability to speak languages of differing alignments.  Whatever your alignment is, it connects you to something greater than yourself.  I wonder if this could perhaps be tied to the article Gary wrote in The Dragon #8, where he posits the idea that certain creatures are connected to the Outer Planes, and that each creature type has its own sub-plane.  Mostly this idea was put forth as a way of explaining the immunities of various creatures, but it could work to explain alignment as well.  It seems probable to me that every being has an intrinsic connection the the plane most connected with their alignment as well, forged in the developmental stages of their upbringing.

The question must also be asked: are all characters crusaders for their particular alignment?  Of course the answer is no.  Most characters will serve their cause unknowingly, furthering it through their own actions and goals in spite of their ignorance.  Paladins and clerics are different, as are druids, and there will certainly be others who serve their cause knowingly.  But I feel like most people in the standard D&D world go about their business with little thought for Good, Evil, Law and Chaos.

Changing Alignment: It's said that involuntary change is possible, but voluntary change is very difficult.  If the ideas I've brought up above are at all true, this makes perfect sense.  I seems as though True Neutral characters have an easier time of changing alignment than anyone else, and this also makes sense: by their nature, they would have no connection to any of the Outer Planes.

Gary says that "evil alignment can be varied along the like axis", and I'm not entirely sure what this means.  Later on "axial change within evil or good" is implied to be easier than other kinds of change, and I wonder about this.  Does this mean that it's easier to alter alignment between good and evil?  Or easier to change between law and chaos?  Am I stupid, or is this poorly worded?  (A glance at the DMG tells me that this will all be cleared up in time, though perhaps said clearing up has little to do with the way things are worded here.)

Regardless, voluntarily changing alignment requires sacrifices, appropriate acts, and possibly a quest.  It's also next-to-impossible to change back to an alignment you have already forsaken (presumably said forces will be reluctant to take the character back into their good graces).

On Alignment Changes From OD&D to Holmes Basic

Alignment undergoes a big shift from OD&D into the Holmes Basic Set and AD&D. Originally it was a simple three-way system of Law-Neutrality-Chaos, but by Holmes the concepts of Good and Evil have entered into the mix, creating a system with five alignments (Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Neutral, Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil). I've tracked these changes below:

Chaotic to Lawful Evil
Bandit
Gargoyle
Fire Giant
Goblin
Hell Hound
Hobgoblin
Kobold
Wererat
Werewolf
Manticore
Minotaur
Mummy
Shadow
Spectre
Vampire
Wight
Wraith

Chaotic to Chaotic Evil
Bandit
Bugbear
Chimera
Doppleganger
White Dragon
Black Dragon
Red Dragon
Ghoul
Hill Giant
Harpy
Weretiger
Ogre
Orc
Troll

Chaotic to Neutral Evil
Displacer Beast

Chaotic to Chaotic Good
Wereboar

Neutral to Chaotic Good
Pixie

Lawful to Lawful Good
Blink Dog
Dwarf
Pegasus
Unicorn

Lawful to Chaotic Good
Brass Dragon
Elf
Storm Giant
Gnome
Werebear

Note that the above list is probably not precise, with a few accidental omissions here and there. But it gives a pretty good indicator of how alignment changed between OD&D and Holmes (as well as AD&D, which more or less uses the same system for monsters as Holmes).

The alignments previously known as Law and Chaos seem to have mostly split down the lines of good and evil. There are a lot of once-Chaotic monsters that have become Lawful Evil, and quite a few once-Lawful monsters that are now Chaotic Good.

It makes me wonder about the nature of the grand cosmic struggle between Law and Chaos. Though it seems that on a conceptual level those are the two sides vying for dominance, on a practical level it comes down to a struggle between boring old Good and Evil. The good monsters sided with Law, and the evil monsters with Chaos.

What's evident from this is that alignment models a completely different thing in OD&D than it does in later AD&D versions of the game. The Law-Neutrality-Chaos system of OD&D is what I like to call Universal Alignment. These are the only conceptual forces that matter in the grand scheme of reality. Growth vs. entropy, live vs. death, law vs. chaos, order vs. disorder, however you want it to actually play out. The later system models what I call Personal Alignment, which is much more predicated on the internal nature of the individual.

So why the shift? Something happened to fracture the two sides, something that I'm probably going to connect to the rise of various new churches and deities. When the campaign begins, it will be full of churches to Odin and various real world mythologies from Supplement IV. These are powers that are either fading in potency, or not particularly interested in the dealings of mortals. By the time the AD&D era rolls around I will have introduced churches to St. Cuthbert and Pholtus, as those two were the first two such churches introduced in Gary's campaign. And there will also be Demon Lords and Arch-Devils, and the many other staple D&D gods, all more active on the Prime Material Plane than the 'elder gods'. So new gods rise to power and prominence, and the Law vs. Chaos war gets muddied by different ideologies, which makes Personal Alignment (at least on my Oerth) become more important than Universal Alignment.

As for some of the more anomalous results above:

The Displacer Beast above was said in Holmes to be Neutral with Evil tendencies. There's no actual Neutral Evil alignment in these rules, but I threw it in for completeness.

The wereboar is an interesting anomaly, as the only case where Chaos was not equated to Evil. They're Neutral in AD&D, so that's no help. I guess it's just a weird rules thing, but I like having those strange discrepancies. Why did they fight for Chaos, then become Good? Were they enslaved, and then broke free? Or were they utterly loyal to the tenets of Chaos, despite their goodness?

On Alignment in my Campaign

I've been thinking lately about how alignment will work in my campaign. Alignment has been a problematic concept in D&D for as long as I've been gaming, and I feel the need to codify just exactly what it is and what it represents.

I think a part of the problem is that it models several different concepts that are only tangentially related. On the one hand, it tells you which side you are on in the grand cosmic struggle for the fate of all reality - in other words, who you are aligned with. On the other, it gives you guidelines and boundaries that define a character's behaviour. It's a nebulous concept, and yet it's also concrete due to the fact that it can be detected by magic. I'm big into finding rationalisations and explanations for this kind of stuff, even if those explanations are pure nonsense. So long as it all makes sense in my own head, that's good enough for me.

So I put my head to the problem, and came up with a solution inspired by an article that Gary wrote in The Dragon #8. This article lays out a lot of stuff about the Outer Planes, and particularly focuses on their relationship to monsters and magic weapons. The article theorises that magic weapons extend into the planes, and from there it comes to the conclusion that if there are magic weapons designed to work better against a specific type of creature, then every type of creature must have its own pocket dimension, in which rests a part of its existence. It's heady stuff, and really hard to condense and explain, but it's definitely worth a read.

The idea that every creature type has a pocket dimension got me thinking that there could be a plane for each alignment. I don't even need to create new ones, because that's the very idea behind D&D's planar cosmology to begin with: each of the Outer Planes is keyed to a certain alignment already. My conclusion is very simple. A being's soul resides not completely in its own body, but partially in the Outer Plane that corresponds to his alignment. They are born with no alignment to speak of, and their behaviours as they grow up determine where their soul resides. The soul is not beholden to that plane, though, and a change in behaviour can shift it around - unless magic comes into play. Certain magic items (such as a helm of alignment change) can lock the character's soul to a plane, as can deals with the Devil and other such things.

So that's my reconciliation of the disparate elements of alignment. We have the behavioural aspects determining where the soul resides, and the very fact that the soul has a concrete location gives detection spells and the like something to lock on to. Again, it's more esoteric thinking that will probably have no bearing on my campaign, but it helps me to sleep at night.

Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry part 3

Just a quick one today, as I'm typing this with no copy of the book in my grasp. The next section of Eldritch Wizardry is the ever-present alignment chart, which gives an alignment to each of the new monsters in the book.

This all maps out pretty well, but there's one entry that really highlights how differently Gygax is looking at alignment here as compared to the very early days - the Mind Flayer. In OD&D it would almost certainly have been Chaotic. Here, it's listed as Lawful, but with tendencies for Evil. This ties in nicely with the ideas Gary wrote about in the Strategic Review, which introduced the Good-Evil axis.

Now, if early D&D was built on a foundation of the eternal struggle between Law vs. Chaos, this indicates a really fundamental shift in the structure of the campaign setting. Instead of two monolithic universal forces battling it out, there are smaller groups with more varied agendas, and a much more complex ideological playing field. So, at about this time I'll start introducing a bit more moral ambiguity, and steering away from purely evil monsters, as well as introducing more factions and religious sects.

The question remains - what caused this splintering? I'll probably tie it to the rise (or rebirth maybe) of the Gods as individual powers. Something has happened that caused the gods themselves to fracture alliances. My mind keeps going back to the original Greyhawk campaign, and the time that Robilar released the Nine demigods from their prison.

Next: I'll try to tackle Supplement III's byzantine new initiative system.