Alignment grid is good, debate me.
Alignment grid is good, debate me.
Actually, Illithid's do have canonical origins, and at least one Good one was presented in The Book of Exalted Deeds. Though it's not clear in Eberron outside of them being a product of the Daelkyr, their Spelljammer origins appear to be canonical for most other settings, including Forgotten Realms if the new Baldur's Gate game is any indication.
In Spelljammers, they're humans from the distant future who turned their backs on physicality in favor of direct mental stimulation. They modified themselves extensively to better satisfy their obsession with mental and emotional stimulation, turning their bodies into nothing more than tools to execute their own hedonism and debauchery. The flesh is just a vessel to them. They feed on brains mostly for the stimulation of the experiences they consume through the process; they essentially gain the experiences of their victims memories, thoughts, and dreams vicariously. In essence, they're binge-watching the lives of their prey. They created a vast empire that spanned many worlds and dominated their era, but fell prey to a combination of ennui, an evolutionary dead-end, and a massive slave rebellion via the Gith. In order to prevent those events from happening, they travelled back in time to change their own fate. This is why Aboleths don't know of their origins despite hailing from the previous universe; their civilization hasn't developed yet.
Tl; dr: Basically, they're what humans will eventually evolve into.
Asha Records
Fuyuki - Winter Cleaning
My Shameful Fics and the Wiki to go with them. Oh, and some fossil I found.
[16:43] <Twelveseal> Phallus in wonderland sounds like some bad loli-rape KC fanfic
[16:43] <@Sei> THAT'S what i wanna see
I like alignments as fluff, but honestly they could have taken any other form of character expression and I wouldn't miss them.Originally Posted by Ratman
shit BL says
Once and always and nevermore.
Basic's and 4E's alignment grids are good, indeed.
I think the idea of integrating "cosmic morality" into the game system has merit, but I find the alignment grid super backwards because it's so categorical.
I like it when the system gives you tools to put into numbers the slippery slope of corruption (or the hard climb to redemption), such as the Law-Chaos-Balance system of later Stormbringer editions, the Rationality-Irrationality system of Aquelarre (Spanish game), or even stuff like Humanity (Vampire the Masquerade)
don't quote me on this
I do love corruption.
He never sleeps. He never dies.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
I know you do. Have you ever played with any of the several variant Ravenloft corruption rules? If so, how did that work for you?
don't quote me on this
Aquelarre! I've read about it years ago in a gaming magazine, been curious about it since. You've played it, then?
And I don't know. My experience is that if you try to put morality in numbers, you end up with any combination of players gaming the system (which removes all of its dramatic impact), oversimplification of complex issues, cognitive dissonance between what the writers may have expected and what the players or the GM actually expect, players limiting themselves to the text instead of coming up with actual personalities (which admittedly is more of a limitation on their parts than anything, but such systems don't usually help with that), and simply the game (either during or after the session) being bogged down by debates.
I do think a game like Vampire needed that sliding scale of corruption, but I think the actual execution left something to be desired.
I did play Aquelarre, it's super funny, but it's definitely tailored to a particular public (either Spaniards, or fans of Spanish medieval folklore)
It has a low fantasy/picaresque feel. The system is kinda Chaosium-like.
As for the second part, no roleplaying system can survive contact with "gamer" types.
Lots of systems can be good on paper, but in real life, I've found that the kind of game you get is 99% determined by who you play with.
don't quote me on this
People still do all of that with normal alignment. I still like alignment though because it gives people some default roles to take.
He never sleeps. He never dies.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
Yeah, but I don't like normal alignment! :-) I like 4E's alignment because it's simpler and looser (and has no mechanical effect whatsoever), so it doesn't restrict personalities nearly as much, and Basic's alignment because it basically has zero to do with a character's personality and is just meant to reflect a Civilisation vs. Chaos model cribbed right from Moorcock.
Alignments having a mechanical effect leads to powergaming, true, but that's an unavoidable facet of anything that has a mechanical effect- munchkins will abuse it to squeeze every tiny +1 bonus they can. The same applies to race, deity, lineage (in PF), background (in 5e, thankfully one of the least powergamey editions), class... Powergamers gonna powergame, and since they don't actually care about the fluff they shouldn't be relevant to the discussion thereof.
Rest of your post, that's really more down to each group's interpretation of the system rather than the system itself. Alignment was never a "hard and fast" set of morality rules even back when you could lose your powers by hopping a notch left or right on the axis, it is and has always been just a guideline for behaviour (Paladins and a couple other classes got a few more concrete rules to follow, but those are a subset of the class, not the alignment). Could D&D's alignment grid have been written better? Sure, although its iconic nature even to people who have never played it makes a rewrite unlikely. Should it be removed from the game entirely? No. It plays a role in all roleplay, however misaligned it may be with the common perception of the system. The best roleplayers use it so aubconsciously that they don't really need it; the worst can rely on it to get through until they can get a better grasp of how their character plays out. And honestly, it's not like VtM's Paths or Exalted's Virtues are any less subject to misinterpretation or flanderization.
Last edited by Deathhappens; May 23rd, 2020 at 11:55 PM.
shit BL says
Once and always and nevermore.
The other side of that coin is how there's no functional difference between paladin and warlock in 5e except one guy has a lightsaber and other guy has a laser gun. You can be a paladin of Asmodeus descended from him that brings him infants to eat and the game will call you a paladin. Similarly, you can have YHWH as your patron and fulfill the given requirements of being a warlock. It doesn't help that the game forgoes giving either a morality system, and forces the GM to do so in its stead.
Archetypes exist for a reason. You don't want to smear away too many of those dividing lines.
Personally, I like that, since that makes it easier for me to use my own vision of the setting instead of relying on (or coming into conflict with) the writers' assumptions.
- - - Updated - - -
What makes you think I was talking about munchkins trying to squeeze out as many bonuses as they can? I was talking about gaming the system - as in, treating the system *like a game*. As in, "since I know more or less exactly what actions will make me lose Humanity, as long as I avoid those, I can keep my score high". And sure, part of the GM's job in Vampire is to create situations where it's not that easy for the players to avoid those actions, but the damage has already been done: they're thinking of their characters' (supposedly) inevitable erosion of conscience and empathy as a *score*.
Agreed, I absolutely hate what they did to the Paladin in 5e. There's no point in even calling it by that name anymore- The Pladins were a chivalrous order but 5e's Paladin can be Batman, the Punisher, or a druid with a sword just as easily.
- - - Updated - - -
In my experience such systems rely heavily on DM/ST fiat, so whether your players follow the letter of the rule is moot if you decide they're taking an alignment/morality hit for their actions... but if your players are doing that, chances are they don't want to deal with that in the first place, so why force them to do it? If they don't want to RP the existential crisis of being a monster, then either get them to stop playing VtM, or accomodate them and just drop the system entirely.
Last edited by Deathhappens; May 24th, 2020 at 12:05 AM.
shit BL says
Once and always and nevermore.
The Paladins were knights sworn to Emperor Charlemagne who defended the Frankish Empire (and, by extension, all of Christendom) from foreign forces, mostly Saracens.
Oh, wait, you were talking about AD&D Paladins. Then they were basically Galahad: The Class, much like D&D's dwarves are basically Gimli: The Race.
For a less glib answer, if the core concept of a Paladin is "holy warrior sworn to a deity" (and personally I've never been fond of turning that concept into its own class), then the class must necessarily be more versatile, because a holy warrior of Myrkul would necessarily be very different from a holy warrior of Kelemvor, for instance.
And that would be the "cognitive dissonance from what the writers expected" and "bogging the game down with debates" parts I mentioned before. :-) Because really, if I as the GM already have to worry about setting the scene, and the plot, and all the NPCs, the last thing I want is to have to worry about whether a PC commited a "minor selfish act", or what the heck would even constitute a "minor selfish act" in the first place, and if the table says you only need to make a Conscience check for theft at Humanity 7, any player would be well within their right to complain if I asked their Humanity *6* character for a Conscience check for hotwiring a car and taking off.In my experience such systems rely heavily on DM/ST fiat, so whether your players follow the letter of the rule is moot if you decide they're taking an alignment/morality hit for their actions...
ETA: (For that matter, *I* enforced a somewhat loose guideline of "If your PC is repeatedly being asked to make Conscience checks for the same type of actions, that tells me they're not really sorry, so you're just losing Humanity, no roll", but I don't recall seeing that in the actual book.)*
And that's not even getting into the metaphysics of the whole thing! Violence, sadism, murder, sure, I can see how those things would feed the Beast either directly or indirectly, but why the heck would it grow stronger from you accidentally hurting someone? Conversely, why is it that the vampire who's constantly imposing their will upon others via Dominate or Presence can still be rather humane? Or how is it that the vampire who's constantly turning themselves into animals not becoming less human from that?
* ETA 2: Though, to be fair, it might have been there and I just never saw it thanks to the terrible layout of those books.
Last edited by SpoonyViking; May 24th, 2020 at 02:30 PM.
The implementation of the higher levels of Humanity was terrible, but it was great at stopping murderhobo tendencies and just for that I consider it a successful mechanic.
At least until they came up with Paths of Enlightenment *shakes fist*
Never had much love for the classic DnD paladin, in hands of certain players and DMs it became a tool of rules-sanctioned dickery all too often.
Last edited by aldeayeah; May 24th, 2020 at 12:52 PM.
don't quote me on this
In short "a chivalrous order".
Admittedly I generally DM much more fast and loose than I prefer others DM as a player, but I really can't see why that's a problem. You reach a consensus on how seriously the group takes these things before the game starts. After it does, it's rule 0 all the way. So if I'm STing and Barry keeps draining people just short of killing them, I warn him once out of game. The second time I narrate a piece of his Humanity burning up in the thirst of the Beast, straight up, no shop talk. Conversely, if I see him shielding a human during a shootout I might give him a point back, unasked and regardless of the requirements (which frankly I don't remember, haven't touched VtM in years).Oh, wait, you were talking about AD&D Paladins. Then they were basically Galahad: The Class, much like D&D's dwarves are basically Gimli: The Race.
For a less glib answer, if the core concept of a Paladin is "holy warrior sworn to a deity" (and personally I've never been fond of turning that concept into its own class), then the class must necessarily be more versatile, because a holy warrior of Myrkul would necessarily be very different from a holy warrior of Kelemvor, for instance.
And that would be the "cognitive dissonance from what the writers expected" and "bogging the game down with debates" parts I mentioned before. :-) Because really, if I as the GM already have to worry about setting the scene, and the plot, and all the NPCs, the last thing I want is to have to worry about whether a PC commited a "minor selfish act", or what the heck would even constitute a "minor selfish act" in the first place, and if the table says you only need to make a Conscience check for theft at Humanity 7, any player would be well within their right to complain if I asked their Humanity *6* character for a Conscience check for hotwiring a car and taking off.
ETA: (For that matter, *I* enforced a somewhat loose guideline of "If your PC is repeatedly being asked to make Conscience checks for the same type of actions, that tells me they're not really sorry, so you're just losing Humanity, no roll", but I don't recall seeing that in the actual book.)*
And that's not even getting into the metaphysics of the whole thing! Violence, sadism, murder, sure, I can see how those things would feed the Beast either directly or indirectly, but why the heck would it grow stronger from you accidentally hurting someone? Conversely, why is it that the vampire who's constantly imposing their will upon others via Dominate or Presence can still be rather humane? Or how is it that the vampire who's constantly turning themselves into animals not becoming less human from that?
* ETA 2: Though, to be fair, it might have been there and I just never saw it thanks to the terrible layout of those books.
- - - Updated - - -
For the DM, morality "rules" only exist to give everyone a common framework to work with. They're a starting point, not the destination.
Last edited by Deathhappens; May 24th, 2020 at 03:09 PM.
shit BL says
Once and always and nevermore.
"But what's wrong with my PC draining people? He still has to eat, and he's not killing anyone!"
HE HAS THE OPTION TO STARVE TO DEATH LIKE THE UNGODLY ABOMINATION HE IS
YOU'RE BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD
now shut up and let me fire up this sick post punk Spotify playlist "Music to cut your veins to"
^ the game writers, probably
don't quote me on this
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote