D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[Neonchameleon]

Fair point! I had been overlooking this bit of setting because I've never used the rule (it is complex and fiddly and kind of absurd), but as the setting was originally written, that certainly is a way to at least determine how "far" you are from a given plane, and a map of those might certainly produce a ring, and that sensate would be able to establish that her map isn't accurate as far as her magic trident is concerned.

Which does certainly favor the Great Wheel (with the kind-of-minor caveat that a PC who changes the structure of the planes also changes what bonus their weapon has...?).

To less favor the Great Wheel and to give more credence to the idea of the Center of All, I would gladly propose eliminating that rule. Would there be any case (aside from "Keep everything the same") for keeping it, I wonder? It always seemed to me to be one of those rules like "Drow equipment vanishes in sunlight" that was kind of designed around a paranoia of PC's getting their hands on treasure, but since I never used it, I might be missing some other benefit of it.

Without it, would there be any other mechanical, in-setting reason to favor that map over some other? We might get rid of those, too. I prefer my PS more subjective than that!

I'm not sure how many other rules there are establishing the primacy of The Great Wheel - but Planescape would IMO be better served by removing all of them. Or possibly reworking the Faction War so it no longer changed the nature of the Lady of Pain from one of benign neglect - instead it involved a reality quake so that the Great Wheel itself was replaced by The World Tree or The World Axis or whatever else you like. So yes, there is something you can verify - but it can and has verifiably been changed. So whatever the new hierarchy that emerges is only currently the prime understanding.

In fact the more I think about it the more I think that that would make an excellent start for a Planescape Planeswalking campaign. A reality quake that destroys the primacy of the Great Wheel (which is presented as dominant in the books) and now no one knows the structures or even where the river Oceanus now leads.

 

[Alzrius]

Following this issue too far will break board rules.

I don't see why that'd be so. I'm not aware of any "no philosophy" rule on EN World.

But some things are clear. It's clear that moral belief is subjective. So are beliefs about the nature of the physical world. It's also clear that truths about the physical world are objective. And the mainstream view in English-language philosophy is that moral truths are similarly objective.

I'm always skeptical when one person ascribes a "mainstream view" to a group at large; that said, I'm not in much of a position to refute it either, so I'll say that if that's the mainstream view of English-language philosophy in general, then I find myself disagreeing with it strongly.

This is largely because while we can say that what we experience of the natural world is limited (via empericism, expert testimony, and logical deduction) to a set of beliefs, the reason we can purport that there is an objective physical world beyond our beliefs is that we have some degree of evidence for that, insofar as certain beliefs will not be born out by (what we understand as) interactions with the physical world, regardless of how dearly we hold them. One can truly believe that they can fly, but all evidence suggests that when a human jumps off of something, they'll fall (assisted-flying devices notwithstanding).

By contrast, there are no "moral truths" by which a person's moral beliefs can be applied against, and so even the circumstantial evidence that we have regarding the "perceived world" versus the "real world" is inapplicable in this regard. (Notwithstanding Descartes-level denial that what we experience of the physical world is at all credible in any way, and so we can ascribe parity to physical and moral truths e.g. we're all living in the Matrix.)

 

[Doug McCrae]

Dear WotC,
If you ever produce a 6th edtion, sell two versions of the core books. The first one should be the 5e PH and MM, with full art and tons of references to old lore. The second should just be pages and pages of stat blocks; no art, no desriptive text, no proper nouns, nothing but pure game rules devoid of fluff or explanation. Call it "developer edition" and sell it to DMs who want absolutely no D&D in their D&D.

It's the HERO-isation of D&D!

Which brings me back to my concern. I remember the 4e Monster Manual; the bland, boring stat blocks mile after mile with nothing more than a picture or a few sentences to explain what a monster is, does, and is used. I remember that book elicited no wonder, no sense of "how do I fit this in my game". They sat there like piles of numbers waiting to be placed on a treadmill of XP for PCs. Ironic, considering how 4e was the most "setting heavy" version of D&D ever produced, that their monster manual is the more boring one ever printed.

This, and your quote above, seem like they could have been from a 3e-era discussion. 3e was frequently criticised for being flavour-light, for valuing crunch over fluff.

To me, your second version of 6th edition is rather appealing. Compared to other rpgs D&D has mostly had terrible flavour text in my view, the exceptions being a few snippets from 1e, Birthright, Dark Sun, Eberron, and 4e. Its strength has always been its rules, going all the way back to OD&D. Which, incidentally, presented monsters only as stat blocks. The only flavour text was the creature's name.

 

[Imaro]

This is confused.

Goodness is a value. People ought to be concerned with it. Some are, some aren't. Those who are, and who live up to their ideals (per Gygax, "life, relative freedom and the prospect of happiness": DMG p 23), are good. Perhaps those who don't think about goodness, but who nevertheless realise it in their lives are also good (this is less clear in the alignment rules as written, but I don't see why their can't be room for naive heroes).

The d20srd frames the requirements of goodness very similarly: "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." Within the rough-and-ready approach of D&D's alignment system, there is no important difference between talking about rights to life, liberty and happiness and talking about life and dignity that are owed respect by others.

Evil is not a value. It is a description of a certain sort of person (and of that person's motivational framework), one for whom "purpose is the determinant" (DMG p 23). That is, the evil are those who disregard moral requirements and who are prepared to do anything to get what they want. The d20srd elaborates evil in similar terms: "Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient." It also notes that "Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." That is, some evil people actively enjoy or even advocate the disregard of the rights of others.

I think you're definitions are confused... Again you seem to be using a very narrow (arguably incorrect unless we are speaking to jargon within the field of philosophy as opposed to common meanings) definition for the word value. The definition of value is...

1. the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

and...

2. a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life

It seems like, for the purposes of your argument you keep trying to separate "behaviors" from morality/values but in the common definitions of these words they define morality and values and make no specific mention of "goodness"...

Those who are LN and CN are not good - they do not honour others' rights to life, freedom and hapiness - but they are not evil either. That is, for them purpose is not the sole determinant, but nor do they fully honour the rights of others and grant them the respect that they are due.

LN people are of "the view . . . that law and order give purpose and meaning to everything" (Gygax, DMG p 23). They "view regulation as all-important . . . becaue the utimate harmony of the world . . . is considered . . . to have its sole hope rest upon law and order" (Gygax, PHB p 33). That is to say, LN people are rules fetishists. They disregard the rights of others, and fail to pay them due respect, because they will sacrifice those interests if necessary to establish and maintain order.

So far you haven't shown me where they are specifically called out as non-values, in fact this seems to fit the definition of value I posted above...

This is a moral failing - it is treating a means, which has at best instrumental value, as if it were an end in itself. Contrast the LG, who "follow [the] precepts [of law and order] to improve the common weal" (PHB p 33) and who believe that "order and law are absolutely necessary to assure . . . the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest" (DMG p 23).

No it is not a moral "failing" it is a morality that is not concerned with good or evil...

CN people, by contrast, prioritise "randomness and disorder" (PHB p 33) and regard "absolute freedom as necessary" regardless of "[w]hether the individual exercising such freedom choose to do good or evil" (DMG p 24). This is a moral failing - it is prioritising freedom from the will of others above the duties owed to them (in virtue of their rights and their entitlement to respect). Contrast the CG, whose "respect for individualism is . . . great" (PHB p 23) but who take this view because they regard "freedom as the only means by which each creature can achieve true satisfaction and happiness" because "each individual is capable of achieving self-realization and propserity through himself, herself or itself" (DMG p 23).


Law and chaos have value, in this framework, as means to the end of human wellbeing (and the wellbeing of other sentient creatures). Those who fetishise them - the LN and the CN - are morally flawed. Those who turn law and chaos to their own selfish purposes, without caring about the moral duties that they owe others, are evil. They are more morally flawed. The LE, for instance, "consider order as the means by which each group is properly placed in the cosmos . . . strongest first, weakest last" (DMG p 23) and "by adhering to stingent discipline . . . hope to impose their yoke upon the world" (PHB p 33). For the LE "life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like [ie things of value] are held as valueless, or at least scorned" (PHB p 33) because "[g]ood is seen as an excuse to promote the mediocrity of the whole and suppress the better and more capable" (DMG p 23). In other words, rather than using law and order as as a means of promoting welfare, the LE person uses it simply as a means of pursuing his/her own desires within a hierarchy of power.

The CE, contrasting with both the LG and the LE, aspire "to positions of power, glory, and prestig in a system ruled by individual caprice and thir own whims" (PHB p 33). For the CE, "law and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained" (PHB p 33) because "law and order tends to promote not individuals but groups, and groups suppress individual volition and success" (DMG p 24). The CE person "holds that individual freedom and choice is important, and that other individuals and their freedoms are unimportant if they cannot be held . . . through . . . strength and merit" (DMG p 24) - in other words, they do not accept that indviduals are under a duty of forbearance to others on the basis of those others' rights. They live life as if the world were the Hobbesian state of nature, the war of all against all.

The NE are intermediate between the LE and CE. Like LE and CE they pursue their own desires, but they have no strong view about whether order and hierarchy is a pro or a con for that end. Such a person "holds that seeking to promote weal for all actually brings woe to the truly deserving [because] [n]atural fores which are meant to cull out the weak and stupid are artificaly suppressed by the so-called good, and the fittest are wrongfully held back" (DMG p 23). The NE person "views law and chaos as uncessary considerations" because "[e]ither might be used" (PHB p 33). Indeed,"whatever means are expedient can be used by the powerful to gain and maintain their dominance, without concern for anything" (DMG 23).

How are these moral failings? Again you're choosing your own definition of moral here... in fact your whole argument seems to be based around the acceptance of your very narrow definition of morals/values and morality centered around "goodness" which the actual common definitions don't necessarily support as the only view.

All you've shown here is that the morality and values of say a LN character vs. a NG character are different, what you haven't shown is that Law and Chaos aren't values in and of themselves... That's the point I think you are trying to make that only good is a value and only good can be defined as morality... but looking at the actual definitions of the words morality/value/moral shows that's not true.

I'm not suggesting this scheme is perfect. In particular, characterising law and chaos is notoriously difficult - are mystics who believe in individual self-realisation via self-discipline chaotic or lawful? are advocates of the rule of law as a necessary condition for individual freedom within a community chaotic or lawful? Etc. Also, the conception of goodness at its core is very anachronistic relative to the D&D setting, given that it is an enlightenment moral outlook being projected onto a pre-enlightenment fantasy world. So in play, it is likely to break down, as paladins who are played in the spirit of knights and crusaders find themselves losing their powers for failing to honour the human rights of apostates and the infidel.

And even if the fantasy world is more modernist/S&S, the system is still likely to break down in play, because it characterises someone like Conan as non-good (he doesn't generally respect human rights and is probably best labelled as CN), and hence tells the player of a Conan-esque hero that s/he is not really heroic at all!

No it doesn't tell the player that a Conan-esque hero is not heroic, because heroic also means...

exhibiting or marked by courage and daring, which definitely defines Conan. all it says is that for the values that constitute "good" in D&D, Conan is not a fit... and I think most people who've read the stories would agree.

But as a set of labels for a range of outlooks, based on a broad-brush-strokes conception of what goodness is and happy to play anachronistic fantasy (eg Forgotten Realms), it is workable if a given table can reach agreement on what law and chaos are.

But when you try and treat it as a framework of competing values - try to treat evil not as the absence of good but as a competing value in its own right that is a "valid" life choice (to paraphrase @Kamikaze Midget from upthread); and treat law and chaos not as techniques for pursuing ends, which are prone to fetishisation, but as legitimate ends in themselves; then the system breaks down.

Really because the SRD states that Neutral Evil follow evil as an ideal... how is that possible if it is a moral failing as opposed to a value or set of values in and of itself?

The Great Wheel, especially in its Planescape form, tends to engage in this cosmological reading of alignment.

They don't exhibit "morality". They exhibit indifference to the demands of morality. That's why they're not good.

But that is not what the alignment system is. That's not how Gygax or the d20srd present it. The evil don't have an alternative value system - they are amoral, rejecting the claims of morality to constrain legitimate behaviour. "Purpose is the determinant". They do what is convenient. They don't have alternative standards - they eschew standards.

Wrong, this is how you are defining morality and nothing you've actually shown me from the books supports your particular vies of values, morals or morality.

So would a devotion to the eating of mud. But the number of human beings in the history of the world who have devoted themselves to the eating of mud, and who have not been suffering from mental illness of some sort, is vanishingly small.

Likewise the number of people who have thought it a good thing for lives to be ruined and destroyed.

Funny there was a point in time where many people believed good was constituted in an eye for an eye vengeance... And yet the concept of "good" has changed and been re-defined for many over time.

Hence, evil as defined in D&D is not a meaningful candidate to be a moral framework in the sense you describe.

Again I feel you are wrong it's clearly stated in the 3.5 SRD that evil can be followed as an ideal, and it has it's own set of defining values and morality when we aren't sticking to your very narrow definition of those words.

But in any event, neither Gygax nor the d20srd present alignment as a categorisation of moral outlooks. They present it as a normative framework: the good honour the duties owed to others, adapting means of law and chaos depending on their views about the nature and consequences of social order; and the LN, CN and evil disregard those duties (the evil more seriously than the LN and CN). That is not an alternative but valid life choice; it is evil.

I'm sorry but I remain unconvinced this is anything but your specific interpretation...

Changing a concept of goodness is not changing goodness.

It is in certain rpg's (Planescape, Mage, Unknown Armies, etc.)

My concept of atoms is not the same as that of Democritus. My concept of the elements is not the same as that of Aristotle. But the nature of atoms and of the elements has not changed since Ancient Greece and now. It's just that they were confused, to greater or less extents, about the nature of the physical world.

I am discussing a roleplaying game with dragons, elves and goblins... it has numerous things that have no correlation in the real world and I already stated I don't consider "Because the real world" in any way a valid argument.

And a new world without certain forces doesn't change the nature of goodness, either, and in your own passage you have to use scare quotes to try and suggest otherwise! Elric believes that the powers of law and chaos are inimical to the wellbeing of the world, and so he reconstitutes the world free of those powers. That is not changing the nature of goodness. That is bringing the world into greater conformity with the demands of goodness.

I used quotes because what is considered "good" by Elric changes throughout the stories... and is never actually codified. No, you're assuming what is "good" in the Elric stories and also assuming that the elimination of Chaos and Law actually does bring about the most "good" in the world (this ignores the fact that he has to destroy the world in order for it to be re-made) but the stories never answer the question of what good is or whether it is or isn't achieved by his final act.

I don't understand this.

I mean, let's look at a concrete instance of moral reform - the enfranchisement of women. What would it mean to say "the point isn't to answer the question of whether that reform is good or evil but to let those observing it, enacting and expriencing it decide within their own moral framework"? In calling it a reform we're already judging it to be good! (That's what the word reform means - an improvement in things.)

It says for some it would be viewed as good for others it would be viewed as a bad thing... in play, remember we are speaking to roleplaying games not real life (though you keep bringing real life issues into the discussion), the individual players would decide if this was good or evil.

Just to get away from real world issue and use a more related example... can you objectively determine whether the creation of Droaam (a monster nation) in Eberron is a reform or not?

 

[Imaro]

Ok, doing a bit of background reading. I totally misremember these stories. It's been so long since I read them. I remember liking the Corum stories and some of the other stuff quite a lot more. But, yeah, that was decades ago and my fuzzy memory is failing me badly.

Yeah I think the fact that my first exposure to them as a kid was in the 90's and the first one I picked up were the Elric Omnibuses... (Reprints by White Wolf I believe) may have had a big influence on why Elric became my favorite, especially since these were my first exposure to S&S fiction. I'd probably rank Corum as my second (and it's pretty close to my first) favorite of the Eternal Champions I have read.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Nah. No need to re-invent the wheel. WotC has a story; if you don't want to use it feel free to make your own. For that group who feels having the MM tell them kobolds look and act like dragons ruins there experience, there would be a version that removes all description of them and allows them to create a variant of the beastie that is more tentative, more mythological, and more geared to plot hooks and psychology while continuing to use the same game rules as everyone else.

Its the best of both worlds: pre-fab and build your own.

You seem to think that WotC has a story. It doesn't. It has dozens. For some unknown reason they've chosen to prioritise what is IMO the worst of their official settings - the Forgotten Realms. The land of Elminster and Drizzt Do'Urden. And you are quite literally saying "If you don't like what's forced down your throat as the default setting you get diddly squat in the way of fluff."

What you are proposing isn't the best of both worlds. It's "My way or the highway." The best of all worlds would be multiple monstrous manuals; one for the Realms, one for Greyhawk, one for Mystara, one for Eberron, one for Athas, one for the Nentir Vale, and then one stripped of fluff. And with PDFs rather than dead trees you could probably do this.

What I'm proposing as the single point of use is something for everyone and no one getting it all. Because there are alternative readings explicitly in the descriptions.

 

[Remathilis]

It's the HERO-isation of D&D!

This, and your quote above, seem like they could have been from a 3e-era discussion. 3e was frequently criticised for being flavour-light, for valuing crunch over fluff.

To me, your second version of 6th edition is rather appealing. Compared to other rpgs D&D has mostly had terrible flavour text in my view, the exceptions being a few snippets from 1e, Birthright, Dark Sun, Eberron, and 4e. Its strength has always been its rules, going all the way back to OD&D. Which, incidentally, presented monsters only as stat blocks. The only flavour text was the creature's name.

Yeah, the 3e Monster Manual (looking back on it) was pretty rough too. For some odd reason through, I was able to pull more out of it than out of 4e's; perhaps it all came down to presentation or whatever. So the 5e MM has been a wonderful tool for me using monsters that otherwise would have sat in disuse due to a clever hook to another monster, an interesting origin, or an idea I can retro-fit. Sure, you can use them as just stat blocks if you want, but I don't want to come up with clever origins for 300+ monsters; giving me canned ideas to use-or-reject is ideal. For the DIY DM though, a single volume of 100% crunch would be a good idea. (I'd buy one just as a at-table reference).

I think the 5e Monster Manual is not the worst compromise in the world here. It's explicitly stated that the narrative fluff may vary with the campaign or setting (using the example of Dragonlance minotaurs, it is strongly implied that D&D's publishers will follow this philosophy as well), and then goes whole hog on story material, getting very specific and "setting"-y, providing strong story hooks for many of the creatures therein.

Personally, I intend to ignore 95% of that fluff, but 5e's MM seems happy to let me do that (the fluff doesn't strongly impact the mechanics of the creature at all), and I think 5e's MM is stronger for providing that fluff, even if I personally am not going to get a lot of mileage out of it.

I might've rather they went more blended than trying an "oil & water" approach, but their approach works pretty nice, and it leaves room for DMs to implement more story-based mechanics for their critters if they want.

It was the best compromise they could have; I get a story and mechanics, you get just the mechanics (and you make your own story) and both of us are happy.

The only people not happy are the ones who didn't think the story belonged in the first place, and that is where I draw my line in the sand.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I think I've got a general idea, yes.

Cool. That gives me closure. That was the whole point of my foray into this thread.

I have limited interest in RPG debates. I just like to understand what other people like and why, and I try to give likewise in return.

For me, the setting that taught me how to GM was Oriental Adventures (mid-80s version).

PS didn't teach me to GM and I couldn't tell you what did. It was no setting, at least. In general, I don't care much for settings other than for cannibalizing them.

But some things are clear. It's clear that moral belief is subjective. So are beliefs about the nature of the physical world. It's also clear that truths about the physical world are objective. And the mainstream view in English-language philosophy is that moral truths are similarly objective.

Giving an account of moral reform that fits within a non-objectivist account of moral truth is not trivial. The basic difficulty is that, if moral truth is subjective, then moral reform seems really to be simply a reshaping of things in accordance with one's desires. And it is hard, then, to articulate how such activity counts as reform rather than wish fulfillment or self-aggrandisement. Why are others obliged to conform to my desires?

Ah, ok. Fair enough. I tend to view all moral reform through that lens, so I was having problems seeing what the problem was.

Why are others obliged to conform my desires? Well, they aren't! Conflict!

I think, utimately, this is why philosophers like Nietzsche and Foucault substitue aesthetics, and self-cultivation, for morality and moral reform. I'm not saying they're right (nor that they're wrong). But I am saying that their views are not without motivation.

I tend to lean towards the existentialists when to comes to moralistic thought. I have to really strain myself to see it differently. Objective morals just don't make sense to me.

But then again, I have always struggled with Good and Evil as concepts.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yeah, the 3e Monster Manual (looking back on it) was pretty rough too. For some odd reason through, I was able to pull more out of it than out of 4e's; perhaps it all came down to presentation or whatever.

4e had two fluff related issues:
1: A lot of people seem to think that you can separate crunch from fluff. 4e's statblocks tell me how monsters behave - whereas 2e's statblocks are something you can mostly blank and 3e's something I want to blank.
2: It was designed in reference format rather than bedside reading format. The idea is that you can look up the monster at the table and get the big points the PCs will need easily.

So the 5e MM has been a wonderful tool for me using monsters that otherwise would have sat in disuse due to a clever hook to another monster, an interesting origin, or an idea I can retro-fit.

Sounds like 4e for me. Tastes differ.

It was the best compromise they could have; I get a story and mechanics, you get just the mechanics (and you make your own story) and both of us are happy.

The only people not happy are the ones who didn't think the story belonged in the first place, and that is where I draw my line in the sand.

And everyone who doesn't want the 5e implied setting. You're confusing people who don't like the fluff with those who don't want any fluff and saying that 5e's fluff is the only way. I might think that the 2e Monstrous Manual is the single most overrated D&D book I have ever read. But that doesn't mean I want to deny 2e folks their approach to monsters. In the right setting. Which would be the wrong side of your line.

 

[Remathilis]

You seem to think that WotC has a story. It doesn't. It has dozens. For some unknown reason they've chosen to prioritise what is IMO the worst of their official settings - the Forgotten Realms. The land of Elminster and Drizzt Do'Urden. And you are quite literally saying "If you don't like what's forced down your throat as the default setting you get diddly squat in the way of fluff."

What you are proposing isn't the best of both worlds. It's "My way or the highway." The best of all worlds would be multiple monstrous manuals; one for the Realms, one for Greyhawk, one for Mystara, one for Eberron, one for Athas, one for the Nentir Vale, and then one stripped of fluff. And with PDFs rather than dead trees you could probably do this.

What I'm proposing as the single point of use is something for everyone and no one getting it all. Because there are alternative readings explicitly in the descriptions.

WotC DOES have a story. It always has. Its a vague story, but its a story. Its a story of chromatic dragons, Vancian (or neo-Vancian) magic, of elves and gnomes and dragonborn. Its a story where Mordenkainen and Tenser gave their names to spells, or Ehlonna and Boccob to magic items. Its a game that doesn't feel quite right without the Hand and Eye of Vecna (a story if there ever was one) isn't in the DMG. (Its been there, five editions strong). Its a story that pulled the Vampire section from Ravenloft, the Death Knight section from Krynn, the Blights section from the Asharadon AP, Demi-liches from Oerth, the Giths from Spelljammer and the Drow from the Realms and because that was what people think of. It gave us a huge swath of demon lords and archdevils because they've been the villains of campaigns for decades now. And you know what? It did it without ruining Dark Sun, Eberron, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, or any other setting because I can choose to allow those setting's unique flavors to override the default core.

D&D is a beautiful, chaotic mess of tropes, cliches, plastic monster toys, and its own blend of unique crap that has been brewed for over 40 years. Why do we want to separate back into its base elements with dozens of versions of the same core books, or worse sterilize it into just cold, unfeeling stat blocks that can accommodate every possible permeation? Do we really want WotC to write-and-rewrite the same monsters? To have a half-dozen variants of kobolds?

You're not providing a common point, you're proposing chopping D&D up into dozens of tinier D&Ds, each its own walled garden, and then selling a sterilized "core" that is broad and generic enough to accommodate Sword & Sorcery, High Fantasy, Gothic Horror, Fantasy Space, Oriental and Arabian adventures, and Planar Dystopia. No thanks. I'll take my blended option.