I know some readers (Hi, Johnn!) who simply zone out when the word “Alignment” is mentioned, but bear with me. There’s good reason why it’s downplayed in the newest editions, decoupled from racial profiles and game mechanics, but this is alignment as you’ve never seen it before, with a whole different purpose.

Every fractal image is the result of simple mathematical rules applied recursively, over and over again, and frequently reveal emergent properties of both order and chaos. There are some real-world applications that can’t be ignored – like the formula in which, if you enter N digits of pi, it spits the N digits of pi that follow them, or the proof that orbital predictions have a limited period of validity. All of which begs the question, is there any such thing as either of them, really, or just simplicity and complexity too great for us to fully understand? I don’t know the answer to that one…
Photo by George Cuda from Freerange Stock

This is the second of my time-out posts in between the Trade In Fantasy series, which will resume next week, if all goes according to plan.

I made the time-out logo from two images in combination: The relaxing man photo is by Frauke Riether and the clock face (which was used as inspiration for the text rendering) Image was provided by OpenClipart-Vectors, both sourced from Pixabay.

Yesterday, I happened to pull out a T-shirt with the Chaos logo, and I can never help thinking about the disparate interpretations that I have seen of wearing it. The most common thought is that I’m saying that I welcome chaos and anarchy by wearing it, but there are a small minority who get it right – a defiant challenge, “I can cope with your chaos, bring it on”, a wholly different sentiment.

Then, too, I can’t help but think about Elric of Melnibone – I’ve never read the books by Michael Moorcock, but have read others by him that I enjoyed, and have read a comic adaption of part of the Elric saga.

That saga, if my understanding is correct, is noteworthy for the fact that everyone in it is a villain, but some are worse than others. Elric, at least, has a conscience. To a certain extent, that disputes the very concept of heroes vs villains, arguing that all morality is relative. Not a philosophy that I personally hold with, but maybe that’s a lingering afterimage of being raised a catholic.

Law Vs Chaos

The other element that comes readily to mind whenever Elric gets mentioned is the primal conflict between Order and Chaos. I’ve always gotten good mileage in my RPGs by making this the focus of the campaign; subtle differences in definition permit distinctions from one campaign to another to manifest in stark and readily comprehensible manner.

Early editions of D&D defined Chaos as the primacy of luck as a disruptive influence to the rigid plans of Order. The most common version in my games paints both extremes as undesirable – the unpredictability of anarchy vs the goosestepping jackboot on the throat of the individual. Most people are more comfortable somewhere in the middle.

Good Vs Evil

This marks this axis of a typical alignment chart as significantly different from the “Good Vs Evil” axis, where there is a far broader spread of opinions. “Good” is often translated as “altruism” – putting the common welfare above personal gain, which is only acceptable if it enables greater service in the public arena.

“Evil” is the opposite – putting yourself and your personal welfare and interests ahead of those of others, even to the point of tolerating harm or inconvenience to yourself if it harms / inconveniences your enemies and rivals more.

I’ve always considered “Evil” to represent systematic self-indulgence – even if the acts in which you are indulging are examples of generosity, these are motivated not by caring about the recipients, but about feeling good about yourself.

Communities Of Extremes

Any of these can be the foundation of a sense of community, and can give rise to political structures of richness and realistic complexity.

“Good” communities provide social safety nets and focus on the worst-off in the community, imposing a minimum standard for their treatment. “Evil” communities describe the world as dog-eat-dog and view society itself as being comprised of individuals, all with desires and ambitions; unfortunately, not everyone is suited to life in such a world, and the “socialism” of “good” is soft-hearted pandering to those unfortunates. Rather than a safety net, they would prefer to subsidize channels out of the most extreme circumstances, rather than dependence on government handouts.

Viewed in this way, the very labels “Good” and “Evil” become biased propaganda favoring one alignment over the other. This axis isn’t about morality at all, contrary to those labels; it’s about what behavior is considered more socially beneficial.

“Order” and “Law” place rules as sacrosanct, demanding that individuals conform to the restrictions placed upon them by those rules. The “Chaos” that opposes this perspective is less about anarchy but about personal liberty; the rules of society are to be as minimal as possible, and often rely on the principle of “enlightened self-interest” to build coalitions that can achieve greater things than are possible to the individual through collective effort.

A potential third axis: Responsibility

A potential third axis rarely gets mentioned, even though it can be tremendously clarifying to the philosophy by which an individual lives and the decisions that he consequently makes: Responsibility vs Irresponsibility.

Were this to be implemented, it would expand the familiar 9-fold alignment system to 27, a huge increase in specificity.

Interpretation is not always quite so straightforward, though. For some combinations, you may have to leave them as “undefined” until a particular ethical standpoint, ethos, or philosophy commends itself as representative of a particular combination.

A Living Standard

But, to be fair, all alignments should be so treated. What one generation means by “Good” can be entirely different in definition or manifestation than what their elders meant by the term. Societies, and social definitions, should evolve over time or risk losing relevance.

In fact, it’s quite common for definitions to be uncodified, but nevertheless iron-clad; the common definition is one that emerges from collective behavior, and what society deems acceptable, what it deems tolerable – and what it declares to be neither. A figure who does nothing wrong, who can – from at least one reasonable perspective – be described as doing ‘good’, can nevertheless be polarizing.

Fourth Axis

If a fourth axis can be divined, the typical alignment map can be repurposed to a classification of personal philosophy. That doesn’t define that philosophy; the classification is often subjective and not strictly mechanical.

Altruism, Structure, and Responsibility – what’s missing from this picture? One thing immediately came to mind when I posed that question: Self-confidence. Ultimately, the difference between occupying a position of leadership vs being a follower, can come down to nothing more.

5th and 6th Axes?

And I think there is something to be said for mapping INT and WIS relative to the common average on an alignment chart, too.

Three Charts

Put all these together and you get a trio of “personality” charts, based on the old “alignment” system:

This is the familiar old one, but with the biased language replaced with something more neutral. The 9 resulting alignments are:
     Altruistic, Rigid-Rules
     Somewhat Altruistic, Rigid-Rules
     Self-interested, Rigid-Rules

     Altruistic, Rules with Circumstantial Exceptions
     Somewhat Altruistic, Rules with Circumstantial Exceptions
     Self-interested, Rules with Circumstantial Exceptions

     Altruistic, Independence from others
     Somewhat Altruistic, Independence from others
     Self-interested, Independence from others

Here, we have the second pair of axes that I have suggested. There are another 9 combinations:
     Extremely Self-Confident Risk-taker, Accepts Responsibility
     Somewhat Self-Confident, Accepts Responsibility
     Timid, Accepts Responsibility

     Extremely Self-Confident Risk-taker, Limits Self-Responsibility
     Somewhat Self-Confident, Limits Self-Responsibility
     Timid, Limits Self-Responsibility

     Extremely Self-Confident Risk-taker, Takes no Responsibility
     Somewhat Self-Confident, Takes no Responsibility
     Timid, Takes no Responsibility

This shows Intelligence and Wisdom mapped onto another alignment chart, with ‘average’ in the center. As usual, there are 9 combinations of traits that result:
     Wise, Intellectual
     Optimistic, Intellectual
     Naive, Intellectual

     Wise, Sometimes overrides Intellect
     Optimistic, Sometimes overrides Intellect
     Naive, Sometimes overrides Intellect

     Wise, Operates by Instinct / Emotion
     Optimistic, Operates by Instinct / Emotion
     Naive, Operates by Instinct / Emotion

Hmm, as expected, some of those seem mutually contradictory. “Wise, Sometimes overrides Intellect” for example – perhaps someone who knows it won’t work nine times in ten, but is always ready to give someone a second chance in hopes of beating the odds? Other answers are also possible – “Wise with blind spots”, for example.

And then there’s “Wise, Operates by Instinct / Emotion”. I guess that could describe someone with a very high emotional quotient (EQ), who instinctively grasps what another person or being is feeling because of their circumstances, and does something with that knowledge (just what is determined by the other traits – it could be anything from “takes advantage of them” to “does what they can to help” – even if it seems to fly in the face of ‘common sense’).

Bent Borders

It was all the way back in 1981 that discussions with my gaming mentor of the time led me to create a variation on the standard alignment chart. The difference looks very pretty:

…but there’s a lot of very deep thought in back of it.

The design gives equality to the extremists of every perspective, for one thing. ‘Traditional’ thought at the time was that the polar extremes tended to pull at a character in the middle, who was torn between those extremes; Neutrality with respect to either axis was an ‘unnatural state’ that required constant maintenance, or it was all too easy to shift to one side of the debate and centrally, becoming a weak adherent to that perspective:

I disagreed with that interpretation, which seemed designed to foster control over a PC through alignment deviations, feeling that a centrist or moderate perspective was an equally-viable choice; it meant that on some issues, the character would support one extreme perspective over the other, but as a general rule, they would seek to moderate those extremes seeking practical solutions that neither extreme would endorse, but both could accept.

(I used to do a lot with decisions and actions and vector analysis of the resulting alignment drift. In my campaign of the time, it generally didn’t matter how far you drifted with a single act, being on the active lookout for a balancing opportunity was enough to keep your alignment ‘in flux’, i.e. no penalties. A temporary position could even be more extreme / more intense than your usual level. Obviously, there were thresholds, but as a rule, it was a lot more forgiving).

Anyway, back to the alignment diagram: It also gives equal area at the neutrality interface, for obvious reasons. The more neutral you are, the less variation you can expect to see – a character that was very weakly Lawful Good was not much different from one who was very weakly Chaotic Evil. To be sure, they would find themselves on opposite sides of many issues, but without a lot of intensity.

The illustration above shows this; one character may be a ‘white hat’ and the other a ‘black hat’, but they will agree with each other more often than not, or be able to reach a compromise.

That, by the way, is why all the alignment charts above tend to ‘fade to gray’ toward the center – there’s a hint or bias but nothing more than that.

The third consequence is a little harder to explain. Take a look at the middle position of one of the more extreme philosophies. There’s a lot of scope to move along that ‘axis’ from near-total neutrality to extreme perspective, but there’s comparatively little room for deviation away to the sides of the core philosophy. You actually get a little more latitude at the extremes:

Here’s a closeup of the Lawful Evil “Axis” and four characters – A, B, C, and D – positioned exactly on it. If they each commit the exact same act, producing the exact same alignment ‘shift’ (however temporary under my rules), C and D are absolutely fine, B is right on the edge, and A is clearly in the danger zone for an alignment breach.

C & D have no need to worry; their extremism gives them more latitude. B should be looking for a Lawful Evil act to perform to keep themselves out of the danger zone; what he can’t afford is a shift towards neutrality. Getting himself out of trouble will shift him to a more extreme position, closer to C’s starting position, but he can afford to wait a little while for the ‘right’ opportunity to come along. A doesn’t have that luxury – he has to either do something Chaotic Evil, something Neutral Evil, or something extremely Lawful Evil. The first two do not need to be so extreme, even a moderate act will pull A back into his alignment.

Of course, these days, the whole concept of ‘alignment infractions’ is history, and its a change that I agree with. But this is still relevant, because it describes the tolerance amongst like-minded individuals for ‘deviant acts’.

The final consequence is another of those slightly-tricky ones, again relating to extremist positions and perspectives. The diagram above overlays both maps (using hatching so that you can see both at the same time) and circles the parts where alignments actually change categorization as a result of the difference in boundary shape. I’ve highlighted the Lawful Good – Lawful Neutral examples as typical.

If you had a character whose alignment mapped to a position within one of those two highlighted zones, the traditional ‘map’ would list you as Lawful Good, while the revised one lists you as Lawful Neutral. Or this might be the Responsibility/Self-confidence chart, or the INT/WIS chart; that doesn’t matter.

This is a consequence of self-reinforcing trends within society; despite the position taken initially on the subject, it would be foolish to think that society at large, and the cultural approval within it, has no impact on behavior. If you incline even a little toward Lawful Good, there will be social pressure to shift in that direction, especially at the fringes. You need an active Lawful Neutral sub-culture to escape this effect – but one of the things already posited was that there would be such subcultures.

This diagram also shows another change, one that I have elected not to preserve – the intrusion into true neutrality of a bias in a given direction (highlighted with a red arrow). Philosophically, I felt that True Neutral could not happen any way other than deliberate choice, except as a temporary alignment. Even a slight bias one way or the other would grow, unless actively resisted.

Using “Ex-alignment” as a characterization resource

Okay, now we’re getting to the nub of it. As stated earlier, any given personal philosophy or set of personality traits can be located on the three ‘maps’; that’s old hat. What’s potentially a lot more useful is going in the other direction – defining the traits exhibited by a character using the maps and merging them to compound a set of opinions and philosophies that the character considers ‘right’.

Start by picking the axes that are most important for the character to have a position on, for plot reasons. There will usually be two or three that are most definitive of the role that the character is to occupy. You can then consider the remaining axes or axis, one at a time, to decide how it relates to the character.

That, in itself, is a useful tool for fleshing out important NPCs – but it gets even better. Consider the diagram below:

If we accept that the extreme positions – 1 and 7 – are only achievable through deliberate choice, and that left to their own devices, people will evolve one of the other positions, then there are four ways of using this system and the diagram above caters for all four.

Method 1: 4 Axes x 2, d4 & d12

1. Roll d4 and use the yellow numbers to find the corresponding axis.
2. Roll d12 and use the red numbers to find where on the axis the character’s personality is located. 1’s and 12’s get special handling, below.
3. On a 1 or a 12, roll the d12 a second time. On a result of 1-4, the character is true neutral, otherwise they are as was originally shown – an extremist of a different kind.
4. Repeat for the second set of axes.
5. Note where the character falls on the INT/WIS map, if known, or repeat the rolling process if not.
6. Interpret the results.

Disadvantage: aside from the 1/12 special cases, these are a flat roll. You can alter that situation using Method 2, below.

Method 2: 4 Axes x 2, d4, d6 & d8

1. Roll d4 and use the yellow numbers to find the corresponding axis.
2. Roll d6+d8-1 and use the red numbers to find where on the axis the character’s personality is located. Results of 1’s and 12’s get special handling, below. A result of 6 on the d6 also gets special handling.
3. On a result of 6 on the d6, reroll it.
4. On a 1 or a 12, roll the d12 a second time. On a result of 1-4, the character is true neutral, otherwise they are as was originally shown – an extremist of a different kind.
5. Repeat for the second set of axes.
6. Note where the character falls on the INT/WIS map, if known, or repeat the rolling process if not.
7. Interpret the results.

Disadvantage: a lot more fiddly than method 1, but it does at least generate a bell curve. Unfortunately, the peak of that bell curve is right in the middle, i.e. Neutral. NOT recommended, included for completeness.

Method 3: 8 Axes x 2, d8

1. Roll d8 and use the blue numbers to find the corresponding axis.
2. Roll d8 and use the green numbers to find where on the axis the character’s personality is located. Reroll 8’s.
3. Repeat for the second set of axes.
4. Note where the character falls on the INT/WIS map, if known, or repeat the rolling process if not.
5. Interpret the results.

Disadvantage: It’s another flat roll.

Method 4 (Recommended): 8 Axes x 2, d8, 2d4

1. Roll d8 and use the blue numbers to find the corresponding axis.
2. Roll 2d4-1 and use the green numbers to find where on the axis the character’s personality is located.
3. Repeat for the second set of axes.
4. Note where the character falls on the INT/WIS map, if known, or repeat the rolling process if not.
5. Interpret the results.

Disadvantage: Hmm – bell curve, check. Peak of curve is mid-intensity, check. Therefore extremes are more rare, check. Easy to use, check. You can see why this is the recommended approach.

Don’t misunderstand – a directed choice is always going to be preferable, and there may well be factors that lead you in a given direction on other axes.

For example, any character who has actively joined a military will find themselves shifting toward a Lawful position – it’s called “discipline”. Other traits may be undesirable, and prone to influence as a consequence; other axes will dictate how the character operates, and whether or not that then leads to a code-of-conduct transgression and an ‘attitude adjustment’. Or perhaps it doesn’t, and the character is finding that they don’t fully fit the military mold, after all.

The results are just a starting point, but they aren’t a fully-random starting point, even when using the die roll technique. Everything has to be put into context of the character’s circumstances, including things like profession, rank, and so on.

Speaking of which…

The Curse Of Noble Birth

Nobility, as in the birthright / social status, not the laudable attribute that they are supposed to possess, (or the lack thereof) can complicate everything.

Characters of Noble Birth are subject to a wholly different set of expectations and a far less stringent set of restrictions. It’s far easier for them to move into the “selfish” / “self-indulgent” parts of the map than it is for a serf.

This is a critical part of the context that was mentioned earlier.

Nobles in fantasy gaming tend to be a mixture of the medieval, the post-medieval constitutional monarchies, and the constructs and ideals of fairy tales and myths & legends, such as Robin Hood. There’s very little consistency and even less realism involved – in most cases, there will always be exceptions 9especially in games run by anyone with a professional relationship to History).

All of which is fine – your games are your own to run as you see fit – but it does mean that you need to take the resulting freedoms and restrictions into account when generating characters of any given social class when that matters. If you haven’t figured out what the social structure is going to be like, this can leave you well and truly up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

So, if social standing is going to matter in your game, think it through carefully before generating NPC#1.

Genres outside of Fantasy

One of the really cool things about this process is that it is completely systemless, applicable to any genre or rules-set. Traveler, superheroes & villains, Call Of Cthulhu, Pulp, D&D / Pathfinder, Time Travel – you name it, this system works.

Let’s end with a few examples

I’ll be using the recommended technique, for all of these.

Example #1

This is a semi-directed example – a personality trait that came to mind while writing the article that sounded so good that it had to be included. “Gives liberally to charity and thinks that makes them virtuous despite their arrogance, greed, domineering, and ambition.”

A common variation is people who think that an hour of repentance on Sundays gives them free license the rest of the week. The hippocracy involved gets my goat, regularly.

This is the sort of characterization that works well for an office worker, manager, business owner, or politician.

• Axis One: Altruism: There is clearly some level of altruism involved, but the rest of the characterization makes it clear that this altruism is a self-indulgence aimed at easing a conscience. That puts the character close to but not at the narcissistic extreme – maybe intensity 5 or 6.
• Axis Two: Independence: Could go either way, so roll:
  1. The d8, but we only have a choice of 2: Rule of Law or Independence. I get a 7, so Independence it is.
  2. The 2d4-1, I get a 3, so mildly independent, obeys most laws and rules but expects others to do as they do and get away with anything not explicitly forbidden.
  3. Combining this with the earlier result places the character right on the independent fringe of the self-interested camp, straddling what used to be “Chaotic Evil” and “Neutral Evil”, and intensity 6, so just short of fanatical.
• Axis Three: Responsibility: My first instinct was to place the character in the ‘indulgence’ sector, but I’m not so sure of that on second thoughts; much of the ‘indulgence’ is removed from consideration by the first map result.
• Axis Four: Self-confidence: The arrogance mentioned and described puts the character somewhere in the self-confidence zone, and pretty intensely at that. Let’s see what the dice tell us:
  1. d8, but some results will be considered invalid: however, I roll a 6 which is the “Indulgent Self-confidence” vector, down and left of center.
  2. 2d4-1; also a six. So not a fanatic, but very strong in both self-confidence and self-indulgence. That fits.
• Axis Five & Axis Six: Intellect & Wisdom – these are not stated, though the types of role contemplated for the NPC professionally tend to push the first one higher, possibly even at the expense of the second. I’ll take that on-board, and roll:
  1. d8: I roll a 2, which puts us out into the “Intellectual but with Poor Judgment” category.
  2. 2d4-1: I roll 4, which doesn’t quite seem intellectual enough. So I’ll add one to the Intellect and subtract 1 from the Wisdom, shifting the character to a more extreme position in the designated personality zone.
• Resulting Profile: The image below depicts these three personality maps and the impact of the various manipulations described above. The character is an arrogant and domineering disciplinarian who is both greedy and ambitious, but gets away with it with public displays of altruism and virtue. They are the worst kind of holier-than-thou, putting those of better moral fiber down if they don’t match their public examples of virtue. The character treats laws as rules to be broken if you can get away with it, but is careful to respect those laws that could land them in hot water. They will look to blame others for any failures and pass the buck as much as possible. The character is smart enough to succeed in most professions, but is perpetually being undone by poor judgment, especially underestimating others. Full of petty officiousness, this is someone the PCs will grow to love to hate as they penetrate the public mask and see what they are really like, and that won’t be easy to get rid of.

Example #2: Completely Random Character

The PCs see someone working on the docks and approach them to ask for directions. The GM tossed this individual into the scene because it didn’t seem right for the docks to be completely empty, but has no idea what they might be like.

• Axes 1 and 2: Roll d8, result 3. Roll 2d4-1, result 4. Mildly self-indulgent, neither altruistic not self-centered.
• Axes 3 and 4: Roll d8, result 8. Roll 2d4-1, result 6. Highly self-confident, highly responsible.
• Axes 5 and 6: Roll d8, result 4. Roll 2d4-1, result 1. Fairly average intellectually, and slightly prone to errors of judgment.
• Resulting Profile: A quick question will be answered to the best of the character’s knowledge, but anything more and they will expect some sort of compensation for their time. May hint at being willing to serve as guide or escort for a fee. Will deliver to the best of their ability on any agreements or promises, no matter what obstacles will stand in their way. Probably a little overconfident in his abilities. I don’t get the sense of any great enthusiasm, more ‘weary traveler through life’.

Example #3: A Villain

I’ll round this out with an example of trying for an interesting set of character traits to make a villain more memorable. The GM knows virtually nothing else, just that his adventure plan needs the PCs to have a side-quest of minor importance to delay them for a little while.

• Axes 1 and 2: Roll d8, result 2. Roll 2d4-1, result 5. The character breaks laws if it’s in his interest and he thinks he can get away with it. His motives for action are more altruistic than not, at least from his point of view.
• Axes 3 and 4: Roll d8, result 4. Roll 2d4-1, result 4. The character is cautious but not timid, and only gives in to self-indulgence occasionally, even though this goes against his nature.
• Axes 5 and 6: Roll d8, result 8. Roll 2d4-1, result 7. The character is both wise and intellectually-gifted, both at the most extreme level. He has reason to be arrogant but isn’t.
• Resulting Profile: The character is reacting to a situation in which extremes on both sides are harmful to the public in general. He thinks – probably correctly – that he could do a better job of running things, but right now that’s not an option. He will move cautiously but not neglect any real opportunities. The character is a schemer and plotter, and manipulative as hell.
• Further Context: the “current” situation needs better definition. My first thought is that there’s a band of ruthless bandits out there and the local authorities have used them as an excuse to impose harsh discipline on the townspeople.
• The Villain’s plan: Whenever you get a hint that someone is a plotter and schemer, you need to come up with a plan for them to achieve their goals, and probably a backup plan if something goes wrong. So, let’s start with the main plan: the Villain considers the bandits to be illiterate oafs, possibly correctly. He has sent a messenger out to be captured, with both cash (to attract the bandit’s interest) and manufactured evidence that the local sherrif has secretly been supporting the bandits so that he gets to put the town under his iron thumb. He needs a third party to uncover this ‘evidence’ and bring about the downfall of the sherrif, creating a power vacuum into which he can then step. He has taken his time with the manufacture of this evidence, and it is flawless. It contains an insinuation that the bandits are holding onto it for blackmail purposes, and that they demanded something they could use for that purpose before they accepted his offer of ‘a little banditry on the side’.
• Backup Plan: Should the documents be found to be forgeries, he has also manufactured evidence that they have contact with a ‘forger’, who is the chief supporter of the corrupt and weak mayor of the town, who lacks the self-discipline or confidence to oppose the sherrif. Without this backing, the mayor will easily fall victim to the sherrif, enabling the villain to persuade the PCs to take down the sherrif for his act of insurrection. He notes that this is most likely to occur should he be underestimating the bandits.
• Backup Plan #2: All this could come unstuck if, in fact, the Sherrif really is in cahoots with the bandits, because the Sherrif will realize that the ‘evidence’ is both a forgery and proof that someone is moving against him. The secondary evidence that the mayor’s chief supporter is also a forger will put the two authorities in the local government at each other’s throats, and he can then persuade the PCs to intervene to get rid of both of them for him.

This looks like the following character map:

Resources

This wouldn’t be Campaign Mastery if I created a tool and then didn’t give it to readers!

To conclude, I want to point out again how quickly the example characters came together, and how they can fit just about any genre. The office manager – cyberpunk? Modern-day superhero? Call of Cthulhu? And, of course, Sci-Fi and Fantasy.

The dock worker would be equally at home in a starport as on the banks of the Thames or the Mersey, or on a pier in ancient Greece, or anything in between.

The villain, at first glance, is more fantasy / medieval than anything else, but that’s because I was thinking in that direction when I wrote them up; it wouldn’t take much tinkering to get him and his plans fit for the far future, or the modern day. Crime, criminals, and those who pursue them are not going to go out of style anytime soon.