Moldvay Basic: Character Alignment

Moldvay Basic returned to a 3-prong alignment system, in keeping with OD&D, as opposed to the 5-prong alignment system introduced in The Strategic Review #6, and used in Holmes Basic.

A Pictorial Example of Alignment Behavior (pg B11).  Illustration by David S. LaForce.

Here is what Holmes had to say about character alignment:

This is the most difficult of the D&D concepts to get across. The new rules spend more space on alignments and do a much better job of explaining them, using practical examples. Alignment is Law, Chaos and Neutral. Good and Evil are not discussed as separate alignments at all, which I think makes better sense. The first Basic Set had one of those diagrams which said that blink dogs were lawful good and brass dragons were chaotic good. I never felt that this was particularly helpful. I am sure Gary Gygax has an idea in his mind of what chaotic good (or other “obscure” alignments, etc.) may be, but it certainly isn’t clear to me. Without meaning to be irreverent, I am also sure that Buddha knew what he meant by nirvana, but that doesn’t clarify it in my mind either. I think the new rules simplify the issue appropriately.

J. Eric Holmes, from Dragon #52

Character alignment was introduced in OD&D vol. 1 "Men & Magic", wherein characters were required to choose between "Law", "Chaos", or "Neutrality".  (Interestingly, there was no stated penalty for switching sides, except for OD&D Clerics above 7th level.)

OD&D was influenced by the writings of Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock in this regard.  Daniel Boggs, in "Champion of ZED (Zero Edition Dungeoneering)" similarly frames alignment in the context of an eternal struggle:

All intelligent beings are aligned with one of three sides involved in a timeless war...

Choosing character Alignment is therefore very important...not so much as a statement of personal philosophy or guide to behavior, but as a choice of which side you are on.  Chaotics and Lawfuls are at war.  It is a great struggle, begun ages ago with no end in sight.  Individuals aligned with either side may privately not be "Lawful" or "Chaotic" in their personal beliefs and/or behavior, but have chosen a side for any number of reasons - ideology, personal advancement, avoiding conflict with their neighbors, etc.

Zero Edition Dungeoneering (Tonisborg edition, 2021)

It should also be noted that The Keep on the Borderlands was packaged together with the Basic Set, in which the conflict between the Realm (the forces of Law and good) and the encroaching forces of Chaos serve as a backdrop to the adventure.

As divisions in alignment became more numerous in AD&D 1e, with a 9-prong system, they also became linked to an ethos of thinking, moreso than a cosmic struggle.  Abandoning alignment is difficult, however, since it is woven into the fabric of the game.

Character alignment is important when it comes to Reversed Clerical Spells (Expert Rulebook, pg X11), the Magic-User "Reincarnation" spell (pg X18), and Intelligent Swords (pg X46).  In OD&D and AD&D cosmology, it's also integral to the concept of the Outer Planes.

Alignment Languages:

Alignment languages in OD&D were "common languages spoken by each respectively."  Perhaps something akin to "camp Latin" by the forces of Law, or "the Black Speech of Mordor" by the forces of Chaos.

Holmes retained this idea in the Holmes Basic rulebook:

Lawful good, lawful evil, chaotic good, chaotic evil, and neutrality also have common languages spoken by each respectively. One can attempt to communicate through the common tongue, language particular to a creature class, or one of the divisional languages (lawful good, etc.). While not understanding the language, creatures who speak a divisional tongue will recognize a hostile one and attack

Holmes Basic, 1977

However, the notion of five different alignment languages implies the existence of five different "sides", which immediately complicates the original concept.

Although Moldvay returned to a 3-prong alignment system, alignment languages were not described as in OD&D or Holmes.  Rather:

Each alignment has a secret language of passwords, hand signals, and other body motions.  Player characters and intelligent monsters will always know their alignment languages.  They will also recognize when another alignment language is being spoken, but will not understand it.  Alignment languages are not written down, nor may they be learned unless a character changes alignment.  When this happens, the character forgets the old alignment language and starts using the new one immediately.

Moldvay Basic, 1981

Where did this idea of alignment languages as "secret" languages originate?  Here is how Gary Gygax described alignment languages in the AD&D 1e DMs Guide:

...alignment languages are the special set of signs, signals, gestures, and words which intelligent creatures use to inform other intelligent creatures of the same alignment of their fellowship and common ethos.

Gary Gygax, AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, 1979

Gygax based the plausibility of alignment languages on cryptolects, such as thieves' cant, and this idea certainly has merit.  However, thieves' cant is a learned form of communication, whereas it's unclear how alignment languages are learned (or forgotten).

If using alignment language as described in Moldvay Basic, additional context may be derived from the AD&D 1e DMs Guide:

Each alignment language is constructed to allow recognition of like-aligned creatures and to discuss the precepts of the alignment in detail. Otherwise, the tongue will permit only the most rudimentary communication with a vocabulary limited to a few score words. The speaker could inquire of the listener's state of health, ask about hunger, thirst, or degree of tiredness. A few other basic conditions and opinions could be expressed, but no more.

Alignment language is used to establish credentials only after initial communications have been established by other means. Only in the most desperate of situations would any creature utter something in the alignment tongue otherwise. It must also be noted that alignment does NOT necessarily empower a creature to actually speak or understand the alignment language which is general in the ethos. Thus, blink dogs are intelligent, lawful good creatures who have a language of their own. A lawful good human, dwarf, or brownie will be absolutely at a loss to communicate with blink dogs, however, except in the most limited of ways (non-aggression, non-fear, etc.) without knowledge of the creatures' language or some magical means. This is because blink dogs do not intellectually embrace the ethos of lawful good but are of that alignment instinctually; therefore, they do not speak the tongue used by lawful good. This is not true of gold dragons, let us say, or red dragons with respect to their alignment, who do speak their respective alignment languages. 

Gary Gygax, AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, 1979

It should also be noted that while "forgetting" an alignment language is immediate following a alignment change in AD&D, learning a new alignment language takes a one level transitional period.  (In simplifying the concept, Moldvay lost a degree of verisimilitude).

Another Interpretation:

In later years, Gygax had this to say about alignment languages:

An alignment language is primarily keyed to the religious subjects that would be discussed or read about by those of that persuasion. One might think of such a tongue as being similar to Latin for Roman Catholics or Hebrew for Jews. Ordinary members of the alignment will possibly not even understand what is meant when it is spoken, and those that are aware will probably not be sufficiently versed in it to respond in kind.

Q&A with Gary Gygax, ENWorld, 2007

Those of us running Moldvay Basic therefore have at least three options regarding alignment languages.  One can run them "by-the-book" (an AD&D 1e construct), regard alignment languages as common languages spoken among those of a particular alignment as in OD&D (and Holmes), or adopt Gygax's explanation, above.

I somewhat like Gygax's later interpretation, since one can then regard alignment languages as ancient, largely forgotten modes of communication, and sidestep the issue (for the most part).

Update, December 31, 2022:

In considering how to reconcile B/X with AD&D cosmology, it occurred to me that "alignment" might be regarded as part of a particular faith or world-view that is not necessarily shared by all sentient beings.

In other words, the gods of Law/Chaos might only represent a particular pantheon, and the alignments of other deities may simply indicate potential alliances.  This requires the existence of such a pantheon, such as the Melnibonean Mythos in Deities & Demigods.