The Campaign Builder's Guild

These sorts of problems are why I think games should leave the assigning of Good/Evil (or lack of either) to the DM and not the rules.

I've been busy today, and lost track of this site and this thread.
Wow.
Lots of thinking and icon-challenging going on.  I always appreciate that.

Polycarp, I don't think it was too soon to post that, and I believe it has a lot of truth to it.  And many threads (Combat vs Everything and others come to mind) have also been created on this site out of the ideal that combat is not everything, which is one of the underlying themes not mentioned in that post specifically, but that is really at the heart of it.  The author trashes the concept of experience points, but what was really being taken to task was the game's reliance on a system that only allows growth through killing.  I personally don't damn Gygaz for that. When he wrote his and Dave Arneson's game, as was previously mentioned, it was as a Tactical Wargame supplement.  It was fun and it led to better things and better games.  I had a hell of a time playing D&D, until the needs of my game changed.  

I agree with Polycarp again that D&D itself is the most visible target because it is the biggest and oldest, and has wielded the most influence.  I'm not going to worry about the influence of Tunnells and Trolls, But when looking at the whole of the RPG universe, more of us have played D&D than any other system by far.  It has touched far many more of us than any other system, influenced many more of us as well.  It has more influence, for better or for worse.  So I feel 'spreading the blame' as an attempt to defend D&D is invalid.
And it is not that other games have or have not been better at focusing on more than combat, though many have tried to reward other skills and actions and thus have been better to the author.  I think what is at the crux of this is that despite more evolutions and versions than other games, despite the largest audience and largest influence, the latest version of D&D is still a combat heavy game mainly created for combat resolution.

And to move briefly to the 'evil race' issue, this is one of thing things that changed for me as I got older.  The Orcash of my world were created as one of the Oggrillite races created by Anthraxus in his rebellion of against the other PLanars, and they were trained to be savage and the culture that was originally created for them was very harsh and formed harsh specimens.  They were created to be that group of 'Evil' races.  
But I very consiously decided that there would be an underlying theme of 'Free Will over Racial characteristics' in Celtricia, and it is part of the racial issues that the Orcash and Gartier and Ograk are often good and noble in my world, though some are evil, just as some people are.  There is still prejudice on both sides, but just because I enjoyed Tolkien to the point of tears and played countless hours of 'orcs are evil'-type D&D when I was younger does not mean that I can't move past it personally when I created my setting.

I don't blame Gygax; the man made a fun game, and for the times, it was great.  So I don't condone bashing the man.  But I also think that the points in that post are very valid.  So I won't trash him for creating something ground-breaking in his time, but I look at the present and especially the future with a less forgiving eye.  I like giving my sages experience in Basic Scholar or historical knowledge when that figure stuff out; combat does not have to be everything.

Quote from: NomadicI personally have never seen any real reason to even have alignments. The only reason they exist is for the good vs evil style game with defining lines for each side.

They also exist for mechanical purposes, so the Paladin can get anti-evil abilities and demons can smite righteous heroes.  Unfortunately the system causes more problems than it solves.

I can't scan the drow and orcs peeves without commenting! And, yeah, they tend to be presented as flat. Most "evil" cultures - designated so in terms of cultural values and perception of how the world works - tend to fall flat unless there is a good, comprehensible reason for the people in that culture to have come to embrace that set of values and hold that perception of what life really all boils down to. If so, then the society which the culture develops can reasonably reflect those values and beliefs in terms of how they go about their practical day to day activities and interactions with other cultures and the societies developed from them. I busted my brain hard in working out how that could actually arise from the non-evil elves and orcs in Panisadore - and I at least believe that I succeeded in doing so. The Druewenh and Pahrorkh essentially came to constitute each other's self-fulfilling prophecies - The Druewenh as leaders of the Fehladurh really were trying to enslave the 'orkh race - and the Pahr' faction saw this as the elves revealing their "true colors" - they saw the world as one in which deceit and power were used to control others for personal benefit to the others detriment - and considered this to be the factual norm to which they had been naively blind until the world got colder and darker and push came to shove and they saw what elves are really like. They then reacted in kind, thus proving the assertions of the Druewenh by which they had sought to justify their actions. This means that an "evil" culture inherently believes that the rest of the world's cultures are really the same way, they're just not honest about it with themselves or others until the chips are down and they are forced to reveal their true selves - and then the "evil" society developed from this cultural perspective acts in a manner reasonably (logically) consistent with that belief. Both Druewenh and Pahrorkh are therefore in agreement with each other that they both in fact represent the true members of their respective races - the Fehladurh and Khurorkh merely being the sham faces of their respective races - the Pahrorkh justify hatred of the Fehladurh on the grounds that they are really just Druewenh in disguise and the Druewenh perceive the Khurorkh in the same manner relative to the Pahrorkh. N.B. - all the preceding is with regard to cultures and societies - and says little regarding the individuals of which they're made. Rarely will individuals label their own cultural beliefs (as outlined above) as "evil" - they're just being realistic about the world. Individuals will simply make choices and take actions in their encounters/interactions with others that make sense to them in the context of those beliefs. Witness the "strange fruit" hanging from the trees of the deep south during the last century and decide whether southern culture and society is "evil." So, yes, the drow and the (grey) orcs in Panisadore are evil races pretty much as described (on the surface of things at any rate) in the MM, but I like to think that I have worked out a way in which they could exist as such without the rational absurdities needed to portray the collectives of hundreds of thousands of people who are all (as distinct individuals) consciously dedicated to promoting and explicitly pursuing the objectives that are defined by openly declared moral "values and principals of evil."

and as always, Have Fun, Play Well.

Quote from: Polycarp!

Quote from: NomadicI personally have never seen any real reason to even have alignments. The only reason they exist is for the good vs evil style game with defining lines for each side.

They also exist for mechanical purposes, so the Paladin can get anti-evil abilities and demons can smite righteous heroes.  Unfortunately the system causes more problems than it solves.

That is part of what I meant by good vs evil style game. Each side gets special things they can use against the other. Anyhow, overall its a bit silly and it personally comes across to me as feeling about as dynamic (plotwise) as a cardboard cutout.

Quote from: Nomadic

Quote from: Polycarp!They also exist for mechanical purposes, so the Paladin can get anti-evil abilities and demons can smite righteous heroes.  Unfortunately the system causes more problems than it solves.

That is part of what I meant by good vs evil style game. Each side gets special things they can use against the other. Anyhow, overall its a bit silly and it personally comes across to me as feeling about as dynamic (plotwise) as a cardboard cutout.

Plus you can have the mechanics without tying them in to real-world moral terms.  Just rename Good and Evil.

I don't really mind alignment systems as long as they are flexible enough... They are only really bad when they get in the way of character concepts and gameplay. Actually, what I hate the most is alignment detection. Alignment should be a skeleton you can build a personality and morality up around, not a "physical" trait.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw

Quote from: Nomadic

Quote from: Polycarp!They also exist for mechanical purposes, so the Paladin can get anti-evil abilities and demons can smite righteous heroes.  Unfortunately the system causes more problems than it solves.

That is part of what I meant by good vs evil style game. Each side gets special things they can use against the other. Anyhow, overall its a bit silly and it personally comes across to me as feeling about as dynamic (plotwise) as a cardboard cutout.

Plus you can have the mechanics without tying them in to real-world moral terms.  Just rename Good and Evil.

It goes back to the kind of game you want to play.  I think it's sometimes fun, especially in shorter term games, to place PCs in a black-and-white world, and worry a little less.
But simple alignment has a very difficult time keeping up with more complex, long-term games.  You just have to be wary of trying to remove it from a game that has been written with alignment powers as part of the balance.

Kvetch # 57.
What the hell is the average human lifespan in a world that exists with Cure Disease, etc?  Why can't game designers make the spells that would definitely, really exist if there was magic?
Anyone else got a 'potency' spell in their world?  Of course they would exist, I mean, Testosterone is so stupid and singleminded that we can't go 6 minutes without seeing an 'ED' commercial...or do I have the only Potency spell in the universe?  
(Not to mention the 'illusion/mentalist' variations)
And I cannot be the only one to have conception reducing spells for both genders...I mean, like the firstr thing that a civilization would come up with after the second oldest profession...

Quote from: LordVreegIt goes back to the kind of game you want to play.  I think it's sometimes fun, especially in shorter term games, to place PCs in a black-and-white world, and worry a little less.

This. I can't see a reason to boggle players with morale decisions on a Platonic level when they barely grasp the basic rules of the game. K.I.S.S. and all that. ;)

Quote from: LordVreegBut simple alignment has a very difficult time keeping up with more complex, long-term games.  You just have to be wary of trying to remove it from a game that has been written with alignment powers as part of the balance.

Depends. If alignment has mechanical issues like in 3E I fully agree with you. However, if you take an approach like 4E where alignment has pretty much no influence on mechanics (aside from one paragon path) it's much less of a problem.

Quote from: LordVreegKvetch # 57.
What the hell is the average human lifespan in a world that exists with Cure Disease, etc?  Why can't game designers make the spells that would definitely, really exist if there was magic?
Anyone else got a 'potency' spell in their world?  Of course they would exist, I mean, Testosterone is so stupid and singleminded that we can't go 6 minutes without seeing an 'ED' commercial...or do I have the only Potency spell in the universe?  
(Not to mention the 'illusion/mentalist' variations)
And I cannot be the only one to have conception reducing spells for both genders...I mean, like the firstr thing that a civilization would come up with after the second oldest profession...

This "problem" only happens when magic is a badly defined blackbox that is used as an all powerful solution to all problems. Read, exactly how magic works in DnD, especially 3E. If magic had its own strict rules by which it had to abide, there'd be no problem with this.

For example, one idea I had was making magic an "interface" to the superstring theory. A caster could basically only influence the physical and subatomic properties of an object or a creature, with a few dimension messing stuff thrown in. Shapechanging, telepathy, mind control, creatio ex nihilo were all out. You couldn't just make someone stronger - but had to affect the tools or items the guy was handling. You couldn't just make some fly, but manipulate the effect gravity and inertia have on him. And so on.

My goal was to remove the "use magic to add to a mundane skill" sillyness that was introduced into DnD magic by reducing magic to a strict science.

Vreeg, i think that in many cases such spells are somewhat presumed to exist, but aren't written down anywhere, because in games like d&d, and even in more serious games, PC wizards or what have you are simply very rarely going to even consider such spells. There is a lot of magic going on behind the scenes as well (in a med to high magic world)

Quote from: Crippled CrowVreeg, i think that in many cases such spells are somewhat presumed to exist, but aren't written down anywhere, because in games like d&d, and even in more serious games, PC wizards or what have you are simply very rarely going to even consider such spells. There is a lot of magic going on behind the scenes as well (in a med to high magic world)

Ah, you mean You presume they exist.
I guess I could see this.  And I suppose even in a low magic world.
I play a roleplaying game with Heavy social interaction.  I have had PCs marry, create families, get accused of fathering children twice, seduce NPC's, send poetry, and receive flowers.
(in between battling the Firehazer and Zyjmanese tribes...)
Maybe I am just guilty of assuming that I am less of an iconoclast in my GMing than I am.  But it obvious to me when others must presume something that I am way in the minority to need it in my game.
*sigh*


[blockquote=Ra-tiel][blockquote=LordVreeg]But simple alignment has a very difficult time keeping up with more complex, long-term games. You just have to be wary of trying to remove it from a game that has been written with alignment powers as part of the balance.[/blockquote]

Depends. If alignment has mechanical issues like in 3E I fully agree with you. However, if you take an approach like 4E where alignment has pretty much no influence on mechanics (aside from one paragon path) it's much less of a problem.[/blockquote]which sentence are you responding to with this?  I ask because your response has totally different meanings depending on which sentece you are responding to.  Help me.

Hehe, true, it all depends on the gaming group. Mine, for one, is much too immature to be able to look seriously upon such spells. And honestly, i think some people would be kinda annoyed if it took up space in their brand new rulebook. I can see your point that it would make a lot of sense for them to be there, but sadly, only the minority will miss them.

Quote from: LordVreeg[blockquote=Ra-tiel][blockquote=LordVreeg]But simple alignment has a very difficult time keeping up with more complex, long-term games. You just have to be wary of trying to remove it from a game that has been written with alignment powers as part of the balance.[/blockquote]

Depends. If alignment has mechanical issues like in 3E I fully agree with you. However, if you take an approach like 4E where alignment has pretty much no influence on mechanics (aside from one paragon path) it's much less of a problem.[/blockquote]which sentence are you responding to with this?  I ask because your response has totally different meanings depending on which sentece you are responding to.  Help me.

Apparently my cognitive functions are messed up pretty badly, because reading my answer now it makes absolutely no sense to me. :huh:

What I wanted to say is that, in agreement with your first sentence, simple "black & white" alignments tend to not mesh well with long running campaigns that sport difficult moral decisions. Then, going on to your second sentence (and that was to which my "depends" related), I tried to say that removing alignment has less effect on a 4E campaign than it has on a 3E campaign, primarily because 4E (almost) lacks any mechanical elements that are dependent on alignment.

I hope I cleared that mess of a reply a bit up. :D :P

I really don't mind the duality feud aspect, what I mind is having definitions of Good and Evil written down or in any way implied.

[blockquote LV]And I cannot be the only one to have conception reducing spells for both genders...I mean, like the firstr thing that a civilization would come up with after the second oldest profession...[/blockquote]

That and STDs is why I have always seen a link between any healer's church/order whatever and any prostitution (organized as guild or not) in any setting I've run. Where you find the latter you will always find at least a small detachment of the former somewhere close by. This is actually somewhat explicit in the Order of The Ladies Hand including the church of Melanar Bloodmoon among its affiliated churches right alongside Benaedrass. (And the more, um, imaginative can certainly think of other reasons why they might want a skilled healer next door when they visit the Red Lantern District.)