Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The D&D thread

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

  • Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post
    The difference is that a Neutral Good character is able to recognize the negative consequences of taking the law into their own hands and makes an impartial judgement depending on the situation. While a Chaotic Good character simply doesn't care about the consequences and goes straight for the option that they think is the quickest path to justice. It's the difference between acting rationally and acting on impulse.
    I see. Personally, I prefer to assume that characters are rational actors, regardless of their alignment. Different characters will have different values, and therefore come to different rational conclusions about the best course of actions. But, I suppose if you prefer to define Chaotic as acting on impulse with no regard to consequences, that is a workable definition, if not one I would personally care for. Thank you for elaborating.

    Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post
    The Neutral Good response would be contributing aid to the wounded parties affected by the criminal's actions. They can't take back what the bad guy did, but they can at least try to ease the suffering of those they hurt. And if they should encounter a situation in which the villain can be tried again or taken out of the picture entirely, they might decide capitalize on it.
    Wait, then what's the difference between that and what a Lawful Good character would do in that situation? See, this is why I don't like defining Law and Chaos by their obedience or disobedience of law. Any way you try to divide that up, Neutral is going to overlap with one side or the other.

    Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post
    Actually, half way through writing that, I think I came up with the answer. Neutral characters act in accordance to what their conscience dictates when the opportunity to do so presents itself. They don't walk into a town and immediately start questioning the populace about any problems they might be having. But if they happen to overhear something, they'd probably lend a hand if it was within their power to do so.
    So by contrast, Lawful characters do go looking for trouble they can solve?

    Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post
    Neutral characters are the middle ground who deal with situations as they come to them. They have a code of morality, be it good, bad or somewhere in between, but they don't try to actively force others to assimilate to it. Hence the term "neutrality."
    So by contrast, Chaotic characters do try to actively force others to break the law?


    Onyx Path Forum Moderator

    My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
      The intended end result was a return to the throne of King Richard once he returned from the crusades.
      That's historical Robin Hood. I said traditional media, which wipes its ass with history the way D&D does with morality. 'Robs from the rich. Gives to the poor.'

      Eh, if that's how you run alignment, more power to you. I prefer not to tell players what their characters think and feel.
      Way to be dismissive. It's all in the books. It's not how I run alignment, it's how alignment works, and it isn't too hard to understand within the context of D&D. In addition you don't have to tell players what their characters think and feel beyond describing a situation. They did that themselves when they wrote an alignment on their character page, it's a big old 'THIS IS HOW MY CHARACTER VIEWS THINGS' label, not a Code of Enforced Action, those are separate, like with the paladin. They may choose to act counter their alignment, that's just agency, but their character's outlook is still whatever alignment they put on their sheet.

      I mean, you know Vampire the Requiem. Do all vampires act all the time as if they're at Humanity 0, ravening draugr controlled entirely by their Beasts?
      Last edited by nofather; 02-13-2018, 07:02 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post
        I think the alignment system is important when you consider there's a different afterlife for each one. There's a realm for Good, Evil and Neutral, as well as being a realm of Lawful, Chaotic and Neutral. That's at least 9 different places your soul can go to after you die. The alignment system makes it easier for the players and the DM to figure out what ultimate fate awaits your character should the worst come to pass.
        Yes, and that is what I use it for. But a character's alignment doesn't have to dictate their actions for it to work this way. In fact, it should do just the opposite; how you behave should determine what afterlife you end up in, not the other way around.

        Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post
        As for it being a sacred cow, I actually prefer the alignment system, because it provides context for how my character would react to a situation. I prefer having a guideline for my character's course of action, rather than leaving it up to the player's choice. Speaking from personal experience, it is very difficult to separate real life motivations from in game motivations without some kind of mechanics system in place. And removing that mechanic would eventually lead to the characters becoming stale and repetitive as they all start to play the same way after a while.

        There have been times in other games (that don't use this mechanic) where I have wanted to role play a character of a certain alignment, whether that be good or evil, and yet I come across a situation where I know what option my character would have gone with. But my real life personality feels compelled to side with the other option. Thus, I reluctantly break character and project my own morality onto them. It breaks the sense of immersion when I have no idea what the reason for my character's actions are. They're just a blank slate that I project my own mind into, and that's boring. At that point, it stops being a role playing game, and turns into a power fantasy.
        That's fine, but that should be your decision as a player. If you want to let your alignment determine your character's actions, knock yourself out. I, as a DM, am not going to tell Johnny he's not allowed to use poison because he wrote LG on his character sheet and therefore that's not something his character would do. It's Johnny's character, Johnny gets to decide what his character would do. Those decisions are also going to have consequences, potentially including a visit from an angel of his God telling him if he uses poison again he's going to lose his holy smiting powers. Because alignment should be determined by action, not action by alignment.


        Onyx Path Forum Moderator

        My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by nofather View Post
          That's historical Robin Hood. I said traditional media, which wipes its ass with history the way D&D does with morality.
          The Disney movie where he was a fox, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, the 2010 one with Russel Crowe, The Adventures of Robin Hood with Eroll Flynn, even Robin Hood: Men in Tights all feature Robin as loyal to Richard the Lion Hearted and intending to restore his rightful claim to the throne when he returns from the crusades. King Richard is nearly as central to the pop culture concept of Robin Hood's story as Maid Marian or the Sheriff of Naughtingham.

          Originally posted by nofather View Post
          Way to be dismissive. It's all in the books. It's not how I run alignment, it's how alignment works, and there's no telling players what their characters think and feel beyond describing a situation. They did that themselves when they wrote an alignment on their character page. They may choose to act counter their alignment, that's just agency, but their character's outlook is still whatever alignment they put on their sheet.
          Being dismissive was not my intent. I've said many times now that I'm well aware the way I run alignment is contrary to what's in the books, and that I dislike the way it's presented in the books. If you like running it the way it is in the books, that's perfectly fine. Enjoy.


          Onyx Path Forum Moderator

          My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
            Being dismissive was not my intent. I've said many times now that I'm well aware the way I run alignment is contrary to what's in the books, and that I dislike the way it's presented in the books. If you like running it the way it is in the books, that's perfectly fine. Enjoy.
            There's many reasons I play Chronicles, D&D's handling of morality is a big one, the game's had a huge influence but as editions go by I find it less and less interesting with less and less interesting ideas to it, with 4e just standing out as a nice tactical game. I apologize, I didn't read all the way to the beginning and butted in when it didn't seem like you got certain alignments and Nyrufa's example wasn't clear, as opposed to just running them differently.
            Last edited by nofather; 02-13-2018, 07:41 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post


              Wait, then what's the difference between that and what a Lawful Good character would do in that situation? See, this is why I don't like defining Law and Chaos by their obedience or disobedience of law. Any way you try to divide that up, Neutral is going to overlap with one side or the other.


              So by contrast, Lawful characters do go looking for trouble they can solve?


              So by contrast, Chaotic characters do try to actively force others to break the law?

              As I said before, the Neutral spectrum is the middle ground. Those who follow it have a sense of morality, but they don't feel a compulsive drive towards one extreme or the other. Lawful is all about morality within a strict code of conduct, where as Chaos is about morality without restraint. Neutral embraces neither chaos, nor order, and instead tries to achieve a balance between the two.


              However, I will point out that earlier editions of the alignment system mentioned how doing this was difficult, because the majority of people tend to side with one extreme over the other. Neutral adventurers were actually the rarest type in the D&D universe because seeking a balance was not something that one could easily commit to. True Neutral characters being one example, as they were almost compelled to side with the underdog in any situation, in order to make sure that neither side of a conflict grew too powerful. They could be your ally one minute and then just when you're about to completely wipe out the enemy faction, they suddenly turn against you in hopes that the enemy will survive and maybe even recover from the blow you dealt them.


              Kind of, yes. When I think of the term Lawful, the most popular image that comes to my mind is somebody who works within the system of government and strives to impose order upon society. Paladins, for example, are usually considered to be knights who have a duty to defend their lands from evil. So they go on patrols looking for anything that seems out of place and then dealing with the situation accordingly. Neutral characters might deal with a situation that is close at hand, but they wouldn't feel especially compelled to trek half way across the kingdom because they heard some tribe of bandits were causing trouble.

              Same for Chaos forcing others to adhere to their morality. Like I said, they do not care about what other people think of their actions. They are going to do what they want, when they want, and anybody who tries to stop them becomes an enemy too, regardless if they fall within the same alignment spectrum. A Chaotic Good and Lawful Good character might both fight for the side of righteousness, but in the Chaotic's eyes, the Lawful hero might be construed as lazy and ineffectual when they discover that their brand of justice doesn't work as often as the Chaotic would have wished.

              Last edited by Nyrufa; 02-13-2018, 08:44 PM.

              Comment


              • I'm going to keep this thread positive and refrain from speaking my mind about alignment. I'm currently preparing to run a 4e game someday... though I'm not sure if it'll happen, due to some personal drama in the group.

                If I do run it, my biggest challenges will be enemy design, skill challenges and rituals. Most of the enemies I envision would be custom, so I'd need to design them. I figure I'd reskin and pilfer powers from established monsters. Skill challenges are apparently pretty bad as the DMG envisions them, so I'd need to find some errata or houserules. Likewise for rituals.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                  No, this is Lawful Neutral. Lawful Good believes that Law is necessary for the Good of society, but is capable of recognizing that not all Law is Good, and that unjust laws should not be upheld.
                  (Just a quick jump in, as I was scanning through the recent conversation -- this part here struck me as particularly "off", especially given the context of things). That *isn't* LG, but rather a (facet for-some-but-not-all) LN characters. LG characters *don't* support laws (ethics) that aren't *also* moral (Good, though LG in this context, just like with other facets, can vary to a degree from culture-to-culture -- similar to your/others' later references to seeing how Robin Hood is CG from one POV but legitimately LG from another). 3.X was more clear on that (I'm citing the LG aspect from there for it) than 5E, the latter being a little "flatter" about alignment and less nuanced as a by-product of attempting to simplify and streamline the overall system (though it's already starting to expand again... but that's par for the course with DnD...). A LN character is the one who can be either a supporter of (G)oodness, bend more towards (E)vil/darker intent, hold abstract ethical concerns over moralistic ones (Neutral), or alternately not overly question moral considerations at all but follow the socio-cultural norms they are indoctrinated into (LN at its flattest). All of those listed are equally valid as LN, simultaneously, particularly in pre-5/4 editions of the game. (All of the alignments are more nuanced/variable than many superficially perceive them to be; that's where much of the confusion in conversations like these have stemmed from over the decades.) However, what you described as being LG in your comment would apply only to a LG character who was overly simplistic in their views of ethics/morals (a LG character who had, for example, a low INT or -- even more likely -- a low WIS, or possibly both). Otherwise, your comment is very squarely about a LN character.

                  >jumping back out<


                  I have been around here for waaaayyyy too fucking long...

                  Comment


                  • I’m still eternally mad that we’re several years into 5e and there’s still only two settings with official support, and even those barely. Why bother sitting on the rights to these settings? Say whatever you will about 4e, but it supported four settings with a ton of stuff.

                    I also still don’t get why they have the DM’s Guild but aren’t spitting out a bunch of mini-supplements and articles.


                    Call me Regina or Lex.

                    Female pronouns for me, please.

                    Comment


                    • Apparently it's to combat bloat.

                      Plus they lack Onyx Path and Pathfinder's methods of constant supply, print on demand and subscription based services. So if they're going to put out books they have to guarantee they're going to sell enough to make it worth it.

                      Always found bloat an interesting dilemma. First edition of the various Chronicles gamelines didn't have that many supplements, not as much as something like 3.*, but still managed to get some convoluted, contrary and repetitive stuff. Dungeons and Dragons does have the mostly-unique benefit of not needing to really put new books out there to remind people that they still exist.
                      Last edited by nofather; 02-16-2018, 11:31 PM.

                      Comment


                      • By the way, I'm curious about something regarding 5th edition. I've been wanting to get into the game, but the nearest book store that carries anything is like 15 miles from my location.

                        What are the playable races in the core handbook? As in, I don't have to pick up expanded material books such as monster manuals, or volo's guide or stuff like that?

                        I assume the obvious ones like Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Half Orc, Half Elf... But what about Yuanti's and stuff?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post
                          By the way, I'm curious about something regarding 5th edition. I've been wanting to get into the game, but the nearest book store that carries anything is like 15 miles from my location.

                          What are the playable races in the core handbook? As in, I don't have to pick up expanded material books such as monster manuals, or volo's guide or stuff like that?

                          I assume the obvious ones like Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Half Orc, Half Elf... But what about Yuanti's and stuff?
                          PHB has the expected core - human, elf, dwarf, half-elf, half-orc, halfling, and gnome - plus it grandfathers in the dragonborn and tiefling from 4e. Do a google search for “5e subraces list” and it’ll give you a Reddit post of where to find all the official published races.


                          Call me Regina or Lex.

                          Female pronouns for me, please.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by atamajakki View Post

                            PHB has the expected core - human, elf, dwarf, half-elf, half-orc, halfling, and gnome - plus it grandfathers in the dragonborn and tiefling from 4e. Do a google search for “5e subraces list” and it’ll give you a Reddit post of where to find all the official published races.

                            Yeah, I tried that and one of the first results was D&D Beyond, where they listed Bugbears, Yuan-ti Purebloods, Orcs, Tritons, Arakocra, Firbolgs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Goliaths, Kenku, Genasi, Aasimar, Tabaxi, Lizardfolk, Kobold and Tortles as officially playable races.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post


                              Yeah, I tried that and one of the first results was D&D Beyond, where they listed Bugbears, Yuan-ti Purebloods, Orcs, Tritons, Arakocra, Firbolgs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Goliaths, Kenku, Genasi, Aasimar, Tabaxi, Lizardfolk, Kobold and Tortles as officially playable races.
                              Those are all in supplements.


                              Call me Regina or Lex.

                              Female pronouns for me, please.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by atamajakki View Post

                                Those are all in supplements.


                                Aww, well thanks for answering my question, then.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X