|
Post by Daos on Oct 9, 2019 14:04:58 GMT -8
I realized recently that the last few pages of the Shooting the Breeze thread have been almost exclusively about D&D and tabletop in general, so maybe it deserved it's own thread. (Also, despite the D&D in the title, this thread is open to any and all tabletop discussion; I just liked the alliteration of 'D&D Discussion').
Starting off, did you guys hear about the new Twilight domain they are introducing? I am so far behind on domains; I only know the PHB ones (still trying to figure out what exactly a 'grave cleric' is, sounds ominous). But this one sounds interesting, especially the abilities to let people see in darkness with unlimited range, and even in magical darkness. No idea how it would fit into my own setting, though.
|
|
|
Post by GreyWolfVT on Oct 9, 2019 14:51:03 GMT -8
First I had heard of that Cleric "Twilight Domain" however i can see it fitting into Ravenloft very well.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Oct 10, 2019 10:35:08 GMT -8
I hadn't even thought of that, but yeah. It would also suit well a cleric of Gilean for Dragonlance or a cleric of Selune for Forgotten Realms.
|
|
|
Post by GreyWolfVT on Oct 10, 2019 16:42:20 GMT -8
Yeah those would work well in those as well. Might even work out in Mystara maybe with the Raven Queen.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Oct 14, 2019 11:31:52 GMT -8
Alignment: What are your thoughts? Alignment's always been a sticky issue in D&D. Nobody can seem to agree on it and nothing can be done to change it (fourth edition tried to change it, and it raised such a ruckus from fans that they brought it back to normal in fifth). It's one of the few throwbacks to Gygaxian times that has persisted to the present day, despite the fact that everyone argues about it constantly. (And it didn't help that Gygax had some weird thoughts about how it worked...especially the alignment languages.)
My own interpretations for the alignments in my games are basically as follows:
Lawful - Collectivist (The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few) Chaotic - Individualist (Those who would sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither) Good - Altruism (Do unto others as you would have done to you) Evil - Selfishness (All that matters is me)
|
|
Rax
Dicemaster
Posts: 2,263
|
Post by Rax on Oct 14, 2019 12:47:45 GMT -8
I don't recall ever encountering the problems with alignment I read about online. The descriptions in AD&D 1st ed were a bit esoteric, but from 2nd ed onwards I always felt they were pretty clear. IMO, they're both prescriptive and descriptive. I.e. a person fits into an alignment because they do the things that make them match the alignment and they do those things because they're the sort of person that willingly engages in such acts - it ends up being self-reinforcing. Given that they're also broadly written, most people will also fit easily enough into a single alignment unless you're going out of your way to be difficult. In which case, just play your character as you like and let the DM decide on your alignment.
As for your definitions, they work for me, but the older I get the more I feel it's most useful to engage with a game on its own premises. So, even if one personally disagrees with the D&D definition of 'good', it's a lot less trouble to just accept that in D&D, the definition of 'good' is different than you might expect and play the game using that definition than it is to get all worked up about it and declare the entire alignment system unusable (which I'm not saying you are, but I've read enough alignment debates to know that some do). Incidentally, I feel much the same about house rules.
|
|
|
Post by GreyWolfVT on Oct 14, 2019 13:26:42 GMT -8
Well could always keep it simple I think it was maybe OD&D or BD&D that had only the 3 basic alignments. There were no good evil so on so forth. While typing this up I actually checked both. I see very little issue with the 3 basics and never had an issue selecting one for a character. Sure in newer editions and even 1e to 2e it was a littler bit more to select from and a bit more "challenging" then again it also gave more variety for the characters personalities as well. But leaves a bit less of an issue of say having a PC that wants to kill all the other PC's if they get in their way. Then again it also leaves you questioning are all Lawful people really "good" or are all Chaotic people "evil"? I would say no that is inaccurate. However simplicity sometimes does make creation and selections easier and faster.
OD&D & Basic D&D
Law: (or Lawful) is the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life. Lawful creatures will try to tell the truth, obey laws, and care about all living things. Lawful characters always try to keep their promises. They will try to obey laws as long as such laws are fair and just. If a choice must be made between the benefit of a group or an individual, a Lawful character will usually choose the group. Sometimes individual freedoms must be given up for the good of the group. Lawful characters and monsters often act in predictable ways. Lawful behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called "good".
Neutrality: (or Neutral) is the belief that the world is a balance between Law and Chaos. It is important that neither side get too much power and upset this balance. The individual is important, but so is the group; the two sides must work together. A Neutral character is most interested in personal survival. Such characters believe in their own wits and abilities rather than luck. They tend to return the treatment they receive from others. Neutral characters will join a party if they think it is in their own best interest, but will not be overly helpful unless there is some sort of profit in it. Neutral behavior may be considered "good" or "evil" (or neither!), depending on the situation.
Chaos: (or Chaotic) is the opposite of Law. It is the belief that life is random, and that chance and luck rule the world. Everything happens by accident, and nothing can be predicted. Laws are made to be broken, as long as a person can get away with it. It is not important to keep promises, and lying and telling the truth are both useful. To a Chaotic creature, the individual is the most important of all things. Selfishness is the normal way of life, and the group is not important. Chaotics often act on sudden desires and whims. They cannot be trusted, and their behavior is hard to predict. They have a strong belief in the power of luck. Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called "evil".
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Oct 15, 2019 11:56:31 GMT -8
I've always had problems with alignment in my games. Probably because I like moral dilemmas so much. In the years I've DMed, I've run into the following problems:
* Players who don't understand what the alignments even mean (they think Neutral Good means 'neutral with good tendencies' or that Chaotic means 'act completely randomly for no reason' or that Evil means murdering everyone they see in broad daylight).
* Players who have a very strong sense of protagonist-centered morality (no matter what atrocities they commit, they keep insisting they are Good).
* Players who substitute their alignment for an actual personality.
* Players who slavishly adhere to their alignment regardless of circumstances.
I once tried to run an Evil campaign. It didn't last very long, because everyone kept trying to kill each other. I had one player who was really gung-ho about it. On the very first night the party camped in the wilderness, he sent me a note explaining that when it was his turn to take watch, he was going to slit everyone's throats while they slept. When I asked him why, he told me "because it's what my character would do; he's evil." Only when I explained to him that A) this would result in him being left alone in the wilderness with no help if any monsters attack him and B) the other players would be pissed and promptly use the new characters they roll up to murder his, did he finally relent on the idea.
That same player always throughout my campaigns would play selfish, random characters. But he kept insisting that actually, they were good guys. We would argue about this for hours, almost all of the time. He'd betray the party, he'd sellout allies for gold, he'd steal everything not nailed down, he'd demand money from the poor victims that he would 'save' from danger. But the whole time, he would twist his actions to make them sound heroic. Anyone can justify their actions if they try hard enough.
And that last example I gave above, about slaving adhering to one's alignment, might sound weird. But what I mean is, nobody would ever have actual moral dilemmas of any kind. In real life, good people constantly struggle with doing the right thing. If doing the right thing was easy, everyone would do it. But most players, if their characters are Good, don't even blink on stuff like that. I'll give an example. Let's say you have this Good character who is quite poor and their little sibling is dying and they cannot afford to pay for healing. They stumble upon a plot by a corrupt politician. The politician tells them that they will pay all of their medical bills, if they simply keep their mouth quiet about the plot.
In my experience, in the example above, the Good PC will not even think about taking the offer. They will immediately refuse and never lose a wink of sleep about it later. In real life, that would be a very tempting offer. And even if the Good PC did not take it, they would struggle with it; they would constantly wonder if they did the right thing or not, if their principals were worth the life of someone they cared about, etc. To me, this is the very heart of good roleplaying, but it would almost always be ignored because, "Well, my character is Good. That would be Evil. They can't do that."
Then one day I ran a short Dragon Age game. It was the only non-D&D game I ever participated in, and it has no alignment system or anything like that at all. And I was astounded by the difference that made. Dragon Age is a very 'grey morality' sort of game, so there were lots of moral dilemmas baked into the plot. And I noticed when my players were confronted with them, instead of asking themselves, "What would someone of my alignment do?" they were instead asking, "What would my character do?"
After that, I really came to realize my problems with the alignment system in D&D. But it's sort of baked in there, and cannot be easily removed (there are spells and magic items and such that rely heavily on it). So that's where my current system came from; where I keep alignment solely in the DM's realm. The player doesn't choose it, they play their character however they want, and I secretly chart it based on their actions. It's worked out really well, and all those problems I've had before have if not entirely, then mostly melted away.
|
|
Rax
Dicemaster
Posts: 2,263
|
Post by Rax on Oct 15, 2019 14:15:09 GMT -8
I suppose it could have something to do with how much experience a player has with other systems than D&D (of any particular stripe). I've played plenty of other systems and most don't use alignment at all, so characters in those games are always defined by their personality and goals instead of an alignment shorthand. When I play D&D, I therefore come up with a personality and goals first, and then check which alignment seems the best fit. That's what I put on the character sheet. At least that's how I do it most of the time. Sometimes I just decide I want to play a 'good' or 'evil' character and then I come up with a personality and goals that would fit that tag, but once the alignment is written down, I do try to stay within the bounds of the alignment as described in the rulebooks.
However, even in games without alignments there's no guarantee you won't get problematic characters. The "it's what my character would do" style is alive and well outside D&D as well. I've run into it in at least a couple of PbP games over the past few years, usually with players that insist that there's only one possible way their character would ever act in a given situation. Pointing out that real people often make decisions they might regard as less than ideal, and then spend a lot of time rationalizing such decisions, tends to get brushed off as interfering with a player's god-given right to have absolute control over their character.
Regarding moral dilemmas, I have mixed feelings towards those in RPGs. They can be fun on occasion or in a campaign that's explicitly stated to include such themes, but otherwise I prefer more lighthearted entertainment. That's especially true if I'm playing a kind-hearted character who believes the world can be made a better place by doing good. If, instead, everything is always a tradeoff and all victories are hollow to some degree, then I'm going to lose interest in fighting the good fight IC. Expect the character to be retired and replaced with "Bob the cynical mercenary" in short order.
|
|
|
Post by GreyWolfVT on Oct 15, 2019 14:46:26 GMT -8
Well regardless of alignment i always try to think what would my character do. I generally have a concept behind the character even if i don't have a page long backstory for them. Generally i try to pick the alignment that most fits my concept. But I may just be an oddity.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Oct 16, 2019 15:05:20 GMT -8
Same here. Which is why it threw me for such a loop when I kept encountering players over the years who do not do that at all. I had assumed it was the norm.
That's true. But it does seem like a problem I run into less frequently since I made the change to alignment. I used to have this problem almost all of the time before then. But it's possible that's just coincidence.
Yeah, I sort of learned the hard way in my previous Dragonlance game the problems with going too dark, too bleak. But at the same time, I do aim for some level of realism. Changing the world for the better is a good thing, and I do encourage it, but too often players tend to be short-sighted about it. If there's a kingdom ruled by an evil tyrant who slaughters his own people, taxes them to starvation, etc., then simply breaking into his palace and slaying him won't magically make everything better. It may solve that particular problem, but it will also cause others. Like, who takes over? What if the heir is equally bad, or bad in a different way? What if there is a succession crisis and a civil war erupts? I think it's important to think these things through. It's one thing if it's a one-shot or module, and the game is going to end before we see the consequences of the party's actions, but in a long term campaign that's another thing entirely.
An example. I once ran a game where the party were a group of freedom fighters that were living in an oppressive, evil dictatorship. They came across a band of slavers who were transporting slaves to a nearby town while out in the wilderness. They immediately attacked, with the best intentions of course, and slew all the slavers. They then freed the slaves and were like, "Well, good luck! Ta-ta!" And I was like..."Well, what happens to the slaves?" And the players were like, "What do you mean? They're free now. They can do whatever they want." And I'm like, "They are unarmed out in the middle of the wilderness, they have no supplies and no mounts. Even if none of that was true, where are they supposed to go? Back home, where they had been enslaved in the first place?"
The players then worked to find a more permanent solution, but only because I brought all of this up. They had been content to just move on and leave the former slaves to their own devices.
There's also the matter of systemic issues. In my Gontoria game, the setting is very rigid and full of classism and racism, and the whole point of the game is to work to build up influence and political power in the hopes of changing that. But Ezeze's plan to change things (I guess it's okay to talk about this since she ghosted six months ago, so spoilers aren't really an issue anymore) was to raise a massive army, march into the capital, take it, and then force the queen to change the laws so that everyone is equal. And this sort of ignores a lot of issues that would crop up if she succeeded at this. Like, how many people would riot over it. There would be revolutions and probably race/class wars. Because the racism and classism is not because of the queen, it's because of the people. It's systemic. You need to change the hearts and minds of the people, change the culture. Otherwise, it will just create a lot of tension and resentment if you brute force things. (Then again, she was a follower to the god of chaos, so maybe that was her ultimate goal after all, who knows?)
It reminds me of that awful D&D movie back in 2000. At the very end, the queen (Thora Birch; hey whatever happened to her? I had such a huge crush on her back in the day...) announces that from now on, the kingdom is a democracy. All the people are equal, regardless of circumstances of birth. And then the movie just ends, so we never see how that turns out. But I have to imagine it was a lot more difficult than her just making a decree. (I remember this really bothered me when I saw the film; I mean, a lot of stuff about that film bothered me...because it was so awful, but whatever.) The commoners were illiterate and dirt poor, but now they were supposed to vote in elections alongside the well read and very wealthy nobles (who were also all magic users, to boot, if I'm recalling correctly). Yeah, can't see how that would cause problems.
|
|
Rax
Dicemaster
Posts: 2,263
|
Post by Rax on Oct 20, 2019 14:06:51 GMT -8
Yeah, I sort of learned the hard way in my previous Dragonlance game the problems with going too dark, too bleak. But at the same time, I do aim for some level of realism. Changing the world for the better is a good thing, and I do encourage it, but too often players tend to be short-sighted about it. If there's a kingdom ruled by an evil tyrant who slaughters his own people, taxes them to starvation, etc., then simply breaking into his palace and slaying him won't magically make everything better. It may solve that particular problem, but it will also cause others. Like, who takes over? What if the heir is equally bad, or bad in a different way? What if there is a succession crisis and a civil war erupts? I think it's important to think these things through. It's one thing if it's a one-shot or module, and the game is going to end before we see the consequences of the party's actions, but in a long term campaign that's another thing entirely. An example. I once ran a game where the party were a group of freedom fighters that were living in an oppressive, evil dictatorship. They came across a band of slavers who were transporting slaves to a nearby town while out in the wilderness. They immediately attacked, with the best intentions of course, and slew all the slavers. They then freed the slaves and were like, "Well, good luck! Ta-ta!" And I was like..."Well, what happens to the slaves?" And the players were like, "What do you mean? They're free now. They can do whatever they want." And I'm like, "They are unarmed out in the middle of the wilderness, they have no supplies and no mounts. Even if none of that was true, where are they supposed to go? Back home, where they had been enslaved in the first place?" The players then worked to find a more permanent solution, but only because I brought all of this up. They had been content to just move on and leave the former slaves to their own devices. Oh, I fully support maintaining some sort of realism, but I think there's a fine line between realistic consequences and a DM making things almost impossibly difficult by making the players responsible for having a solution for everything.
For example, working off your evil kingdom example, clearly just killing the king won't make everything better over night. But while all of the possible problems you cite are certainly realistic, the choice to make them happen is yours as the DM. Why does there have to be a succession crisis or civil war? Why couldn't the heir or some coalition of powerful interests be decent and skilled enough to successfully step into the power vacuum now that the main obstacle - the king - is out of the way? I agree that players should think things through before trying to solve the kingdom's problems by regicide, but assuming they at least try to gain an understanding of the politics and power groups of the land, setting up alliances if needed, then the decision on how difficult it will be for things to turn out for the better once the king is dead is really up to the DM and not any objective measure of realism.
In the case of your slaver example, if I'd been a player in that game I might have countered with some questions of my own. For instance, since the party had just killed all the slavers, then all of the weapons, armour and supplies that belonged to the slavers would now be available for the slaves to use. While the hardware would be very unlikely to be enough to equip more than a fraction of the slaves, the amount of supplies should have been at least enough for the caravan to make it to their destination without losing too many slaves. Where did all that food and water go? The same goes for the mounts used by the guards. As for where they're supposed to go, "home" seems like the sensible reply unless it's blatantly obvious to the players that "home" isn't a safe haven.
Finally, the decision as to how competent the slaves are is also up to the DM. If they're peasants from your typical "medieval" D&D society, I would expect there to be a good number among them that are well versed in living off the land and able to use weapons and armour to protect themselves. As for who is to lead them and organize them, it's once again up to the DM whether you choose to make that a problem. It would be just as realistic for there to be a reasonably competent and respected leader (or group of potential leaders) among the slaves as it would be for them to be hopelessly disorganized, requiring the PCs to take charge to prevent just sitting down and waiting to die or be recaptured.
So, yes to "realism", but with a clear understanding that "realism" in a game isn't an objective measure and more a question of tone - which makes it all the more important that the DM and the players are on the same page regarding what constitutes realistic consequences and difficulties in a particular game.
|
|
FortunatePilgrim
Apprentice
I just walked in to see what condition my condition was in.
Posts: 48
|
Post by FortunatePilgrim on Oct 21, 2019 5:04:02 GMT -8
Part of the problem with Alignment is that, once upon a time, it was meant to describe your allegiance, not your morality. If you imagine D&D as emerging from tabletop war games, then there were the Armies of Chaos, and the Armies of Law, and the Armies of Good and the Armies of Neutrality. And you were "aligned" with one of these. That's why 1st Edition had Alignment Languages. So, if each Army had its own realm, that gives you the wacky cosmology. And then you take that, and you shoehorn into a mortality system, and then give D&D a strong focus on legacy, and you get the mess you have today.
Morality isn't simple. Defining what's 'good' (both microscopically and microscopically) is not simple. Where does the morality of an act reside? The intent? The act itself? The outcome? A combination of all of them? If I blow up a busload of kittens to save two busloads of kittens, is that Good or Evil? If I accidentally blow up a busload of kittens while trying to blow up a busload of rabid wombats, how about that? What if there are strict rules on blowing up buses? What if those rules were made by greedy plutocrats who owned bus lines? Would a Lawful Good person rather work with very organized jerks or civilly disobedient saints?
There's that old joke that if the number of lives Batman has saved is N, then the number of lives saved by the guy who killed his parents is N minus 2. Morailty is complicated. A whole pile of very smart people have spilled buckets of ink over the topic over the last three thousand years and we're no closer to working it out.
And it would be one thing if Alignment were purely a descriptor, but it's actually part of the laws of reality in the D&D world. Magic spells affect you differently. Not acting the same way you've always acted can cause you to actually forget things and take longer to get better at your chosen skillsets. So, as opposed to morals, it can be read as closer to "Doing what a given God tells you, no matter how you feel about it." Or even closer to "The entrance requirements for your chosen afterlife."
But pretty much all the afterlives seem to suck pretty bad. So that doesn't help.
Almost exclusively, I use Alignment as a descriptor of a given worldview. Are you, in general, more concerned about the advancement and welfare of yourself, or about the advancement welfare of others? Do you, in general, think that stuff works better when there are rules or that stuff works better when there's freedom? If you care one way or the other, then that's your Good/Evil and Law/Chaos and if you're unconcerned about either one, that's your Neutral. I've never accepted a person into a game with a 'Strong True Neutral' alignment (that nonsense where you feel you need to enforce the Balance yourself), as oppose to a 'Weak True Neutral' (doesn't care much one way or the other). Or even a Chaotic Neutral character modeled after that disastrous paragraph in in the 2e PHB (someone who's Chaotic Neutral doesn't have to be insane! According to their own system, they could just be a person who doesn't care what happens, as long as they get to do what they want).
It's a pickle. And so I tend to solve it by ignoring it as much as I can.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Oct 21, 2019 10:30:38 GMT -8
I agree, and that's basically what I meant. Too often, in my experience, players won't even bother looking into whether the heir is good or not. Won't even occur to them. They'll just assume 'killing the bad guy' solves everything. Violence is the best and often only solution to any and every problem. I get a lot of that stems from D&D being mostly a combat game to begin with, but it's still frustrating.
My memory is fuzzy, as this was over 10 years ago. But I think the slaves in question were born into slavery, and didn't know any other way of life. They had very little knowledge in how to survive.
Regardless, though, the source of my frustration is that none of this is stuff the party thought of beforehand. They just killed the bad guys and prepared to leave. Mission accomplished.
Good point. I've often found that the parts of D&D that make little to no sense today often are that way because they are legacy remnants from the old days, so that fits.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Oct 22, 2019 11:33:00 GMT -8
So, back in the Shooting the Breeze thread, before I made this branch-off thread, I spoke about getting the re-release of Tyranny of Dragons, which comes out today. I've been thinking that with only a couple of exceptions, every single module released for 5E so far has been for Forgotten Realms. I need more variety. So I've decided, that even though it's a lot more work for me, I'm going to convert Tyranny of Dragons into Dragonlance. It seems like a good fit, and there are no Dragonlance 5E modules anyway (and probably never will be, because for whatever reason WotC seems to hate it). I'm pretty excited about the idea, because while I've run numerous Dragonlance games in the past (including one on-going right now, Past Glory), they've all been 2E and set in the 4th Age. This will be the first 5E Dragonlance game I've run, and the first ever to be set in the 5th Age. That means a number of races and classes that have been closed off to me will now finally be available, like mystics, afflicted kender, dragonspawn and female draconians. I figure if I start work on converting it now, I can probably have it ready to go by the time Lost Mines of Phandelver wraps up. That's my goal, anyway. First, I need to read through the whole thing. It's pretty long; basically two modules put together (Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat), and brings PCs from level 1 to 15, which is the furthest I've ever taken a game before. Then I can start making changes, which is mostly switching locations, factions and other such elements.
|
|