Saturday, August 2, 2025

AD&D: Obscure Alignment Rules

Alignment is a touchy subject in the realm of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. It has evolved quite a bit over the last 50 years, from the three-alignment rule of Original D&D, to the five-alignment rule of later Original D&D and Holmes Basic era, to the nine-alignment model of AD&D and D&D 3E. It was also derailed by the strange alignment line of D&D 4E and then restored somewhat as an ambiguous add-on in D&D 5E. In fact, the game could be played without alignment, except when it comes to alignment requirements or magic item interactions which require a certain alignment or damage those of opposite alignment. In the end, alignment is nothing more than a tool that the DM uses to enforce certain behaviors in the game and reigns in the otherwise destructive behavior of most immature players.

Alignment came about as a way of limiting certain sub-classes that emerged after the creation of the game. Originally, there were only three alignments - Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. Since Chaotics were seen to be the "bad guys" who oppose the civilized races, this meant that there were really only two choices for most players in an Original D&D game. By the time the supplements were released, alignment came to be used as a requirement for becoming a member of the new sub-classes like Paladin, Druid, Assassin, or Monk. The alignment system was a line with two points, one at each end, representing Law and Chaos, and one in the middle representing Neutrality.

The Holmes Basic re-write of the original rules seemed to take the original alignments and add in another depth to the structure. Now, if you were Lawful, you could side with good or evil, and if you were Chaotic, you could be good or evil. Neutrals, however, only remained neutral. This is viewed as the "X" alignment model, with Lawful Good and Chaotic Good at the top endpoints of the "X," Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil at the bottom endpoints, and Neutral where these two lines cross. Why did we need this addition? I think it became obvious that some characters could not be easily defined by simple Law vs. Chaos. The addition of morality to this issue is what most people now contend is the problem with alignment systems. How do you define good vs. evil? Everyone has their own views and opinions, and frankly I don't want to spark a debate on the matter.

Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert D&D returned to the simple Law-Neutrality-Chaos alignment system, and one can use this and it still works. But in 1977, Gygax was in the process of creating Advanced D&D, and the MONSTER MANUAL seems to have been written from the view of it being a reference for BOTH Original D&D and Advanced D&D. The alignments used in that book are mostly of the 5-alignment system seen in Holmes Basic, with a few exceptions showcasing the new 9-alignment model of more modern games.

When the PLAYERS HANDBOOK was released in 1978, the nine-alignment system model was finally defined. However, there were subtle nuances in the game that might be missed and seemingly contradicted the rules depending on when the books were written or read. I myself came into D&D through the 1981 Moldvay Basic Set, and then later learned AD&D in 1983, not even aware of Original D&D or the fact that these were two completely different game systems at this point. It was obvious to my mind that AD&D grew out of Basic D&D (which is mostly true), but the printing dates were somewhat confusing (as were the references to the "previous" version of the game in the Cook Expert Set). 

Some of the strange rules regarding alignment were in the fine print and foot notes of the various tables for character generation. The fact that alignment is almost inextricably linked into the AD&D game is very apparent when one begins to make a new character. First off, alignment plays a huge part in the selection of any of the sub-classes. One could play any of the basic classes and never bat an eye at alignment (with the exception of the cleric's alignment matching their deity's, and the fact that a thief was never LG or CG). Sub-classes were notoriously difficult to apply for anyway, so most of the classes one ended up playing were base classes, or demi-human multiclassed characters. The assassin is the exception to this rule, with very low requirements for becoming that class, and only an alignment restriction to keep most players from using this class in home campaigns.

So what are these hidden rules? Well, most apply to sub-classes as I suggest, but one in particular recently cropped up while I was creating new characters for a solo-play campaign. Since I was using ONLY the rules in the PHB, DMG, and MM, I went over everything with a fine-toothed comb and noticed a peculiar restriction on page 13 of the PHB. On Character Race Table I there is a footnote to the alignment code of the Cleric being (A)* which normally would mean "any alignment", but in this case it reads, "a cleric cannot be true neutral unless of the druid subclass." Huh, I do remember seeing this long ago, but I have ignored it for many years. This rule makes no sense for any Neutral deity that has nothing to do with nature. In particular, I refer the gentle reader to the WORLD OF GREYHAWK boxed set in which many of the iconic Greyhawk deities are listed as being of Neutral alignment - Beory, Boccob, Istus, Geshtai, Joramy, Obad-hai, Xan Yae, Xerbo, and Zuoken. Of these, Beory, Geshtai, Joramy, Obad-hai, and Xerbo most likely have druidic followers, but Boccob is a god of knowledge and arcane magic who has no ties to the natural world. Istus is a goddess of fate and destiny, having little to do with nature. Xan Yae and Zuoken are monk or thief deities who have nothing to do with animals and plants. Many NPCs of the Greyhawk Campaign are said to worship Boccob, including Riggby the Cleric of Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure fame. So, it seems that this rule was even ignored by the author of D&D himself. (Not to mention the fact that Gary states in the Guide to the World of Greyhawk the following: "In general, the greater gods are too far removed from the world to have much to do with humanity, and while they are worshiped, few people hold them as patrons.")

In any case, that is the ONLY instance of such a rule affecting Cleric alignment being stated in the PHB or DMG. The only other place one finds an alignment restriction on Clerics is in the Deities & Demigods Cyclopedia, page 6, under the definition of WORSHIPER'S ALIGN. Here it clearly states, "This refers to the general alignment of those who worship, adore or propitiate the deity. This does not necessarily apply to the alignment of the deity's clerics, which must be identical with their patron's." This book was the last released (1980) and is thus the final word on clerical alignments.

Even the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE (published 1979) refused to pin the cleric's alignment restriction under the general heading of Alignment, and instead tucks away its ruling on clerics and alignment on page 38 under the unassuming subheading of Day-to-Day Acquisition of Cleric Spells: "Each cleric must have his or her own deity, so when a new player opts to become a cleric (including a druid), you must inform them as to which deities exist in your campaign milieu and allow the individual to select which one of them he or she will serve. This will not necessarily establish the alignment of the cleric, so at the same time the cleric player character should also state his or her ethos (not necessarily to the other players)." It seems that alignment was not so strict in Gary's own campaign, but he made a big deal of graphing each character's alignment and tracking the changes in behavior to penalize them when it was obvious that they no longer followed what they wrote down. He may have stated the ruling this way to account for some deities who allow clerics of more than one alignment, or who straddled the lines between two alignments. For example, there are plenty of lesser gods and demigods who list three alignments in their listing, chief among these being Erythnul: CE(N), Pholtus: LG(N), St. Cuthbert: LG(N), and Iuz: CE(N). Although this is not clearly defined in the rules, I take this to mean that there can be clerics of either alignment of these deities. Some deities are listed as N(G) or N(L) and I take that to mean that there are druids of these gods and normal clerics with a non-Neutral alignment.

On a side note, if Gary did not mean for there to be any clerics of the Greater Gods, then Beory, Boccob, Istus, Nerull, Pelor, Rao, Ulaa, Wee Jas, and even Tharizdun would have no followers. And according to later material, worship of these beings worldwide or plane-wide is what made them Greater Gods to begin with. So it makes little or no sense for the Greater Gods not to have many clerics.

So, what about the Druid subclass then? They are True Neutral, and it should follow then that they can only worship True Neutral gods, but Beory is a Greater Goddess and thus has few clerics. Seems that most would then worship Obad-hai as the druidic ideal, or perhaps Phyton if of the Suel culture. There are plenty of seasonal gods, but most are not purely Neutral in alignment. Some that would be a dead-ringer for druidic worship, like Phaulkon, CG god of Air, Winds, and Clouds, are of extreme alignments and are not Neutral in any way. I believe that the footnote in the PLAYERS HANDBOOK is an archaic rule that has been ignored by many over the years and generally forgotten.

I find it strange that sub-classes all have alignment restrictions. It seems that there is little else to keep people playing the base classes unless they disagree with alignment restrictions. The most strict are the LG requirement of paladins (well, that and the requirement of 17+ in Charisma) and True Neutral for druids (which is harder to play than most people assume). Rangers only have to be of Good alignment which allows leeway between Law and Chaos. The same applies to Assassins who can only be Evil, but can run the gamut between Law and Chaos. Illusionists are the ONLY subclass without an alignment restriction, but they need ridiculously high Intelligence and Dexterity to qualify. There are alignment restrictions for some of the base classes as well including Thief (any alignment except LG or CG), and Monk (any Lawful alignment). Bards (if allowed in the campaign) are limited to remaining some flavor of Neutral, but that means they get 5 choices and still get all the powers and spells of a druid at higher levels (and are able to use metal weapons and armor as well).

So what happens if you change alignment? In the grand scheme of the game, it makes little difference if your LG character suddenly decides to be NG instead, but it should have some repercussions in the grand scheme of the campaign. Remember, the outer planes (and thus, your chosen afterlife) is tied to alignment. A shift of one degree has little effect on what happens to your character's soul, but a second shift could mean condemnation or redemption. In a world where life is cheap and death lurks around every corner, it would concern almost every individual as to what happens to you when you die. Look at the religious obsession of those folks living in the Middle Ages, when war, plague, famine, and other disasters (natural or man-made) meant that life expectancy was not long. They strove to remain on the straight and narrow to ensure they did not end up frying in the pits of Hell, but were instead rewarded in Paradise. Even the warlike Vikings tried to live up to their warrior ideals in order to make it into Valhalla. So, although alignment might not have a powerful effect in the game, it would be very important to most of these fictional characters.

In order to keep the players on track with their chosen class (and alignment), certain restrictions had to be put in place to enforce proper behavior at the table. Hence, you could only continue to be a paladin if you behaved in a manner according to your vows (Lawful) and benevolent faith (Good). If you no longer wanted to behave correctly, or ignored your vows and obligations to your fellow men, then you would no longer receive the blessings of the gods and would fall from grace to be a fighter from then on. Interestingly, the rules do not say that he cannot then advance in experience as a fighter - the ex-paladin simply has none of the powers of his former class. It also does not say if his experience points are converted downward to be those of a fighter. After all, a fallen paladin with 140,000+ experience points at 7th level, would actually become an 8th level fighter, thus gaining an extra 1d10 + Con bonus in hit points. However, I think one has to use the Alignment Change rules in the DMG along with this rule to make it work.

Changing Alignment is listed on page 25 of the DMG, and it warns that changing of alignment is a serious matter. For clerics and druids, it is very serious, as changing alignment might mean a change of deity or loss of druidic powers. The last sentence of 2nd paragraph is most curious: "Change of alignment will have an adverse effect on any class of character if he or she is above the 2nd level." I take this to mean that new characters have a grace period to lock down their alignment. Sometimes it's not easy to decide how to play a character until the game begins. A decision made during character creation may suddenly seem like a bad idea once you start adventuring and "finding your character's voice." Of course, your class choice in some cases is tied to this alignment, so you really should do some research before agreeing to play a role that you are uncomfortable in. The penalties for alignment change thus do not really apply until one is 2nd level or higher.

Again, stability of the character is key here. Sometimes players are in a strange mood when they begin a session and their character is made to do some hilarious or "out of character" things that can bog the game down or create bizarre conditions when interacting with NPCs or monsters. Since the game should be fun for all, and Gary seemed to have been a fan of verisimilitude, characters should not act silly or insane in most instances.

So what are the consequences of alignment change? Well, it depends on whether or not the character intentionally changes alignment or is forced to do so through magical means. It is stressed here that radical alignment change is only the result of magical means or insanity. Normally, alignment change takes place in gradual steps and is considered voluntary. Radical alignment change is usually involuntary and the character usually wants to return to their former alignment. Thus the first is a permanent change with a penalty; the latter is a temporary change with a temporary penalty.

Upon changing alignment, the character loses a level of experience, dropping experience points to take them to the very beginning of the next lower level. This is worse than being energy drained by a wight or wraith, since in that case the character only loses enough XP to drop to the middle of the next lowest level. If the alignment change is involuntary, then the character can regain the lost level upon returning to the former alignment as soon as possible, and after making atonement through a cleric of the same alignment (and sacrificing treasure equal to 10,000 g.p. per level of the character - depending on the generosity of the DM - or performing a quest). The alignment must be restored before the atonement can take place.

Characters who voluntarily change alignment (or drift into a new one) can only change it one place, and the level loss is permanent. They also must suffer a severe disability when using their alignment tongue until they regain their former level of experience. A True Neutral character must become one of the Neutral alignments on the outer wheel of the alignment graph first. A character will suffer level loss and other penalties each time they change alignment. Gary recommends that this penalty NOT be explained to the characters at the start - he wants to let them know the ramifications of the change only AFTER it has occurred. This shock value hopefully keeps those who "seek to use alignment as a means of furthering their own interests by conveniently swapping one for another when they deem the time is ripe" from being fickle, and penalizes those who do.

Now you understand why this penalty only kicks in at 2nd level and above. Alignment change effectively resets a 2nd level character to the beginning of 1st level. If this occurs to a paladin or druid, then they simply stop being their former class and begin again as a 1st level fighter or cleric. It also prevents the nastiness inherent in level loss; namely the loss of adventurer status if reduced to 0-level (such as can occur if surviving a strike by a wight or wraith).

Alignment comes into play for most other classes when they attempt to use magic items with alignments that differ from their own, or encounter magical spells or effects that have different effects based on the caster's own alignment. For instance, when using aligned weapons opposing your own (or touching certain tomes or aligned items of a diametrically opposed alignment), the result is usually damage or subversion. Characters of a particular alignment can affect those of an opposing alignment with certain spells (like holy word or repulsion). It is really unclear whether protection from evil affects mortal creatures of the Prime Material Plane, or if it only really affects extraplanar creatures who are intrinsically of the same alignment as their outer planar home. Paladins and clerics are very tied to alignment, so I assume that such spells would affect them, but a common person deemed to be good or evil might not be affected. Again, alignment is an unclear indicator in this case. The detect evil spell (or paladin ability) seems to indicate that evil alignment is detected, but also states that there must be evil "emanations" to detect. A demon would decidedly detect as evil, as would an evil-aligned artifact, but a common person with bad intentions? This is not clearly explained in the rules, and has caused much confusion over the years.

The DMG tries to clear this up on page 60. Here it states that only a know alignment spell can definitively determine the alignment of a character or creature. It must be great evil or good to be detected with a detect evil/good spell. Characters who are strongly aligned, do not stray from their faith (alignment), and are relatively high-level (at least 8th) might radiate evil or good if intent upon appropriate actions. Powerful creatures of an extra-planar nature always emanate their evil or good. Aligned undead (not unaligned or "Neutral" undead) radiate evil, since it is this negative force that animates them. In any case, no emanations are detectable without magical means to do so.

Magic items of an aligned nature will naturally detect as evil or good, but neutral ones will not. Holy water detects as good, while unholy water detects as evil. The same can be said for sites or items consecrated or desecrated to be used by those alignments. But normal items will never radiate evil, even if their use is considered evil (poison, for example).

Alignment has many uses in an AD&D game. Ignoring it means changing whole sections of the rules, including character classes, monsters, the cosmology of deities and outer planes, and how certain magic items and spells work. The subtle nuances that alignment brings to the game are interesting and usable if the players and DM can simply understand why it exists and how to use it properly. Don't think of it as a straight-jacket, but rather a guideline for how to play the game in the manner the rules were intended.

AD&D: Obscure Alignment Rules

Alignment is a touchy subject in the realm of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. It has evolved quite a bit over the last 50 years, from the t...