Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The D&D thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Master Aquatosic View Post
    Can't forget this, either!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
      Certainly more useful than defining Lawful as “you follow local laws, or divine law, or a personal code, except when you decide they’re unjust,” Chaotic as “you don’t necessarily act at random, but you don’t feel beholden to the law,” and Neutral as “You mostly follow the law, except when it’s inconvenient,” which is barely even an exaggeration of how most games with the 9-alignment system treat it. At least it actually measures something tangible, namely orientation on the authoritarian/libertarian axis of the political compass.


      No, I would imagine most characters wouldn’t have a defined opinion on the matter, and if pressed would likely give some wish-washy “well, states can be bad if they abuse their power, but I also don’t believe in total anarchy” non-answer. Which I would argue makes them ideologically Neutral with respect to law/chaos. I’d also argue that’s pretty true to reality, at least in the Western world.
      This is all certainly true, but my solution is to just sort of ignore the whole Law/Chaos thing.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Morty View Post

        This is all certainly true, but my solution is to just sort of ignore the whole Law/Chaos thing.

        But then there's nothing separating Demons from Devils, and the Blood War might finally end... and nobody in the upper planes wants that to happen!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Morty View Post
          This is all certainly true, but my solution is to just sort of ignore the whole Law/Chaos thing.
          Oh, sure. That’s also a valid solution. My proposal is for a way to fix the 9-alignment system, which kind of presupposes a desire to keep the 9-alignment system around in the first place.

          I do appreciate that you engaged with my proposal, though, even if you’re not really its intended audience.

          Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post
          But then there's nothing separating Demons from Devils, and the Blood War might finally end... and nobody in the upper planes wants that to happen!
          Devils and demons have plenty to fight about without needing a system to catalogue their ideologies into one of 9 neat little boxes. I enjoy the 9-alignment system (when the two axies represent clear, meaningful spectra, anyway) but D&D absolutely doesn’t need it to function.
          Last edited by Charlaquin; 08-07-2019, 06:57 PM.


          Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

          Comment


          • I've always had it that Lawfuls think laws are important and necessary and chaotics think laws are useless or downright harmful.
            Met with an unjust law a lawful good wont follow it but will still think that there should be a law, a better law, to replace it.


            Currently running: Scion 2nd Edition. Les Légendes Currently playing: Being a dad for a 2year old daughter and a newborn son.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Maitrecorbo View Post
              I've always had it that Lawfuls think laws are important and necessary and chaotics think laws are useless or downright harmful.
              Met with an unjust law a lawful good wont follow it but will still think that there should be a law, a better law, to replace it.
              Yeah, that’s my read as well. Authoritarian/anarchist is one logical consequence, but so is the “the universe is ordered and purposeful” and “the universe has no intrinsic meaning, so stop ascribing it one” dichotomy embodied by the pre-FW Fraternity of Order and the Bleak Cabal in Planescape. Putting law and chaos in terms of government does make sense... but I think putting it solely in those terms limits the alignment.

              And of course, even though we have nine alignments, the entire freaking this a spectrum anyhow.


              Freelancer (He/His Pronouns): CofD - Dark Eras 2, Kith and Kin, Mummy 2e, Oak Ash and Thorn; Scion - Mysteries of the World

              CofD booklists: Beast I Changeling | Demon | Deviant (TBA) | Geist l Hunter l Mage | Mummy | Promethean | Vampire | Werewolf (WIP)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Maitrecorbo View Post
                I've always had it that Lawfuls think laws are important and necessary and chaotics think laws are useless or downright harmful.
                Met with an unjust law a lawful good wont follow it but will still think that there should be a law, a better law, to replace it.
                I very much agree.

                Originally posted by Second Chances View Post
                Yeah, that’s my read as well. Authoritarian/anarchist is one logical consequence, but so is the “the universe is ordered and purposeful” and “the universe has no intrinsic meaning, so stop ascribing it one” dichotomy embodied by the pre-FW Fraternity of Order and the Bleak Cabal in Planescape.
                I mean, those look to me like philosophical underpinnings to the same fundamental positions.

                Originally posted by Second Chances View Post
                Putting law and chaos in terms of government does make sense... but I think putting it solely in those terms limits the alignment.
                I mostly think the political compass is a highly grokkable way to frame the dichotomy. If a character comes at it from a philosophical or religious standpoint, doesn’t it kinda come down to the same thing?

                Originally posted by Second Chances View Post
                And of course, even though we have nine alignments, the entire freaking this a spectrum anyhow.
                Very true.


                Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

                Comment


                • Oh, I agree they are part of the same philosophy. But I think some people would miss that. And there are people who blur the line, thinking that the universe is a big random mass with no purpose, but laws and rules are still important (that’s me actually). Now, I think that I personally fall in the neutral spectrum ethically, so that makes sense.

                  I guess what I’m saying is that I’d like to see the law-chaos spectrum be explicitly called out as a combination of political/philosophical/metaphysical beliefs. They are all actually the same thing, but that helps ensure the breadth of their reach is adequately covered.


                  Freelancer (He/His Pronouns): CofD - Dark Eras 2, Kith and Kin, Mummy 2e, Oak Ash and Thorn; Scion - Mysteries of the World

                  CofD booklists: Beast I Changeling | Demon | Deviant (TBA) | Geist l Hunter l Mage | Mummy | Promethean | Vampire | Werewolf (WIP)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Second Chances View Post
                    Oh, I agree they are part of the same philosophy. But I think some people would miss that. And there are people who blur the line, thinking that the universe is a big random mass with no purpose, but laws and rules are still important (that’s me actually). Now, I think that I personally fall in the neutral spectrum ethically, so that makes sense.

                    I guess what I’m saying is that I’d like to see the law-chaos spectrum be explicitly called out as a combination of political/philosophical/metaphysical beliefs. They are all actually the same thing, but that helps ensure the breadth of their reach is adequately covered.
                    It’s probably relevant to note that I prefer to keep the gods distant in my D&D, so the political is generally going to have a more direct, noticeable impact on characters’ lives than the philosophical.


                    Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

                    Comment


                    • Can anybody explain what the issue is with resurrection spells being banned from most campaigns? I've heard that it saps the drama out of characters dying, but I personally disagree.

                      For one, Raise Dead, the weakest resurrection spell that brings you back to life with about 1 HP doesn't become available until level 9. If you start off as brand new 1st level characters, you won't be able to shrug off death for quite a few sessions.

                      Secondly, as I mentioned, it brings you back to life with only a sliver of health. So it's not something you can whip out in the middle of combat, anyways.

                      "Oh, one of our party went down. Let me restore them to 1 HP while we're still fighting this giant fucking dragon. Oh, and since I'm the only one who decided to play a healer class, we just have to pray to the gods the dragon doesn't target them until I have a chance to restore their missing health!"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post
                        Can anybody explain what the issue is with resurrection spells being banned from most campaigns? I've heard that it saps the drama out of characters dying, but I personally disagree.

                        For one, Raise Dead, the weakest resurrection spell that brings you back to life with about 1 HP doesn't become available until level 9. If you start off as brand new 1st level characters, you won't be able to shrug off death for quite a few sessions.

                        Secondly, as I mentioned, it brings you back to life with only a sliver of health. So it's not something you can whip out in the middle of combat, anyways.

                        "Oh, one of our party went down. Let me restore them to 1 HP while we're still fighting this giant fucking dragon. Oh, and since I'm the only one who decided to play a healer class, we just have to pray to the gods the dragon doesn't target them until I have a chance to restore their missing health!"
                        Resurrection being too easy is up there with unrealistic gold economics in the list of things a lot of DMs seem to think are problems that no player has ever complained about. A lot of us DMs get so caught up in the implications that things like resurrection or decimalized currency have on our precious settings that we forget that it’s supposed to be a game too. Leave a DM to their own devices long enough and they’ll worldbuild the fun right out of D&D.


                        Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post
                          Can anybody explain what the issue is with resurrection spells being banned from most campaigns? I've heard that it saps the drama out of characters dying, but I personally disagree.
                          Some people say that with easy character resurrection players don't take things seriously. "Oh, I'll do this dumb thing and if I die who cares, I'll just get resurrected." Basically they worry that some players treat it like respawning in certain video games. I've never seen that actually happen though.

                          Personally I don't mind resurrection. I've found that when a player gets really invested into their character and then has that character suddenly die, a lot of time that player's interest in the game takes a massive nosedive. It's not fun for a player who has spent months (or even years) planning out cool things for a character (not to mention if they've engaged in bluebooking or other off-the-table-top actions for their character) and it's also not fun for me since my goal is for the players to have fun.

                          So I include resurrection in most games unless there's a powerful thematic reason for it not to be included. However, I don't want players to think of it as a "get out of jail free" card or a green light to do whatever bone headed stuff they want without worry about consequences ("Who cares if I die, I'll just get a rez!") So I tend to include hooks into resurrection - it's not a flaw or a penalty exactly, but there's usually an in-game price that needs to be paid (and not simply a monetary one). For example, maybe the character owes a favor to the cleric who rezzed them, or owes a favor to that deity. Maybe the character had a meeting in the afterlife and the events of that meeting start to play a role (for good or ill) in the rest of the campaign. It's enough that players prefer not to die, but if they do die it's not the end of the world (or the campaign).

                          Comment


                          • This is the first time I've hard of resurrection being banned from "most" campaigns. Is there any source on this at all?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Morty View Post
                              This is the first time I've hard of resurrection being banned from "most" campaigns. Is there any source on this at all?
                              I don’t think it is banned from all that many campaigns, let alone most, but I can certainly see how one might get that impression from the way many DMs talk about resurrection online. Like, myself included, I’ve certainly participated in conversations about if access to resurrection should be restricted and how. But a lot of that stuff is just shop talk. When it comes down to it, most of us don’t use half the house rules we spend hours discussing online.
                              Last edited by Charlaquin; 08-08-2019, 02:38 PM.


                              Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Morty View Post
                                This is the first time I've hard of resurrection being banned from "most" campaigns. Is there any source on this at all?

                                Probably not most globally, but most I've become familiar with over the years. The ability to revive the dead either becomes super difficult to perform magic (so, NPC plot device, basically). Or the spell itself just outright doesn't exist.

                                Back when I was playing Neverwinter Nights, there was an RP server I was involved in that left the spell's use up to the individual deities. Some gods allowed their priests to bring back the dead, while others forbid the use of such magic.

                                Unfortunately, for whatever reason... every temple in the city worshiped a god that forbid the raising of the dead! So if you wanted to bring somebody back, you either had to do it yourself, or go scouring the countryside for some kind of heretical cult.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X