RPGnet Columns
10-06-2005, 12:23 AM
Post originally by Ian Sokoliwski at 2005-10-05 23:23:41
Converted from Phorums BB System
So, this is only tangentially on topic for the latest column, but it got me thinking about old-school AD&D tropes.
I don't recall if this is in 3.0/3.5 or not, but the idea of each separate alignment always seemed kinda silly to me (where did they learn it? And, when they switch alignments, does that mean they forget the old language as well?)
Somewhere along the line, however, I came across the idea that alignment languages were more dialects than separate languages, perhaps along the same lines as different classes in societies having different dialects (mostly terms specific to those classes for example).
I doubt this is any big revelation to anybody (for all I know, it is in the PG and DMG as far back as 1st edition - I don't have the books in front of me), but it makes me happy. Well, more or less :)
Anyway. Due to the (fantasy) nature of AD&D gaming worlds, I've been happiest with the idea of not really bothering with different languages for most cultures and races (at least ones that interact with each other on a fairly regular basis - _Dragon_ is still a separate language, no matter how any PC tries to convince me otherwise), but are instead variations of Alignment languages or other dialects like that. Too much language conflict can create more conflict than is necessarily good for the campaign. Unless that is the point of the campaign...
Oh, and I really like that idea of old manuscripts (from the earlier comment) being readable by 'modern' readers, but littered with 'Simpsons references', stuff the modern reader wouldn't necessarily understand. I think that idea is much more suited to the whole 'alignment dialect' concept than 'alignment languages'.
Converted from Phorums BB System
So, this is only tangentially on topic for the latest column, but it got me thinking about old-school AD&D tropes.
I don't recall if this is in 3.0/3.5 or not, but the idea of each separate alignment always seemed kinda silly to me (where did they learn it? And, when they switch alignments, does that mean they forget the old language as well?)
Somewhere along the line, however, I came across the idea that alignment languages were more dialects than separate languages, perhaps along the same lines as different classes in societies having different dialects (mostly terms specific to those classes for example).
I doubt this is any big revelation to anybody (for all I know, it is in the PG and DMG as far back as 1st edition - I don't have the books in front of me), but it makes me happy. Well, more or less :)
Anyway. Due to the (fantasy) nature of AD&D gaming worlds, I've been happiest with the idea of not really bothering with different languages for most cultures and races (at least ones that interact with each other on a fairly regular basis - _Dragon_ is still a separate language, no matter how any PC tries to convince me otherwise), but are instead variations of Alignment languages or other dialects like that. Too much language conflict can create more conflict than is necessarily good for the campaign. Unless that is the point of the campaign...
Oh, and I really like that idea of old manuscripts (from the earlier comment) being readable by 'modern' readers, but littered with 'Simpsons references', stuff the modern reader wouldn't necessarily understand. I think that idea is much more suited to the whole 'alignment dialect' concept than 'alignment languages'.