Piracy And Other Malfeasance

[payn]

How can alignment be more open than without it?

Well, for starters you had good and evil options. Everyone wasnt "a hero".

And first level characters haven't been average joes since 1974.

Na, 3E with its NPCs made just like PCs for sure felt like average Joes until upper levels where fantasy justice league belongs, IMO, of course.

 

[GrimCo]

And 2ed lv 1 characters were fairly squishy bunch. No HP max on first level, min 16 con for bonus hp (and that caped at +2 for everyone who wasn't fighter), so your average Thief had like 3-4 hp, Wizard 2-3 hp.

 

[Reynard]

Well, for starters you had good and evil options. Everyone wasnt "a hero".

I just mean that without alignment, there are unlimited options, not 9.

Na, 3E with its NPCs made just like PCs for sure felt like average Joes until upper levels where fantasy justice league belongs, IMO, of course.

I guess that depends on your definition of "average joe." The PC classes were certainly better than the NPC classes.

And 2ed lv 1 characters were fairly squishy bunch. No HP max on first level, min 16 con for bonus hp (and that caped at +2 for everyone who wasn't fighter), so your average Thief had like 3-4 hp, Wizard 2-3 hp.

Hit points aren't the only way to measure that. First level PCs always had more capabilities than "average joes" even in 1E.

ETA: Now that i think about it, regular NPCs in 5E are significantly tougher than most 1st level characters.

 

[payn]

And 2ed lv 1 characters were fairly squishy bunch. No HP max on first level, min 16 con for bonus hp (and that caped at +2 for everyone who wasn't fighter), so your average Thief had like 3-4 hp, Wizard 2-3 hp.

I am not asking for paper PCs that can be killed by house cats. Im talking mroe the idea that NPCs have levels like the PCs and are common throughout the setting and game. Obviously, the higher the level the less amount of folks in the world exist at those levels.
I assumed BA was an attempt to keep this idea alive in that bands of ordinary people could kill a dragon if their backs are to a wall so to speak. I know many folks absolutely hate this idea though too. Leveling to high level should be an achievement that grants exceptionalism, it should have arrived already at the start merely because the PC exists. YMMV.

 

[payn]

I just mean that without alignment, there are unlimited options, not 9.

Are there tho? Seems like hero is the only option for many folks.

 

[Reynard]

Are there tho? Seems like hero is the only option for many folks.

For the people that is true for, it was still true even with 9 alignments. "No evil and no CN" was the most common houserule in the world, I think.

 

[payn]

For the people that is true for, it was still true even with 9 alignments. "No evil and no CN" was the most common houserule in the world, I think.

Well, I think you need to dig much deeper to understand that. Folks have funny ideas about good and evil and what it means to be them.
Good for example, is often viewed as a part time job. You can do whatever as long as you do the good thing when it matters and in an amount that weighs more than the bad you do. Evil, on the other hand, is viewed as a full time zero breaks gig. You must kick every puppy and take all candy from all babies or you are not evil.

In this dynamic, good folks are allowed breathing room to act as, well, normal people. Evil is a caricaturized idea in which you have to be an asshat all the time. Naturally, that is going to lead to a lot of dysfunctional group play in an RPG. So, GMs start to ban evil to avoid this obnoxious behavior. Then, players react by taking the next best thing which is CN. Followed by more GM banning. Now, you are lead to this new approach where folks take obviously characters of moral ambiguity and work their mental gymnastics to be a good guy who uses evil for good. Like the assassin that only kills bad guys. You cant just be a nuanced evil guy that produces good outcomes, oh no, the person is good because they are, well, they just have to be to fit the no evil only heroes assumption.

I don't see this present in other RPGs, its largely a D&D thing. So, is it chicken and egg? Did alignment permanently disfigure D&D? Or has D&D from the onset been a game intended for good with a capital G guys to conquer evil with a capital E villains?

 

[Reynard]

Well, I think you need to dig much deeper to understand that. Folks have funny ideas about good and evil and what it means to be them.
Good for example, is often viewed as a part time job. You can do whatever as long as you do the good thing when it matters and in an amount that weighs more than the bad you do. Evil, on the other hand, is viewed as a full time zero breaks gig. You must kick every puppy and take all candy from all babies or you are not evil.

In this dynamic, good folks are allowed breathing room to act as, well, normal people. Evil is a caricaturized idea in which you have to be an asshat all the time. Naturally, that is going to lead to a lot of dysfunctional group play in an RPG. So, GMs start to ban evil to avoid this obnoxious behavior. Then, players react by taking the next best thing which is CN. Followed by more GM banning. Now, you are lead to this new approach where folks take obviously characters of moral ambiguity and work their mental gymnastics to be a good guy who uses evil for good. Like the assassin that only kills bad guys. You cant just be a nuanced evil guy that produces good outcomes, oh no, the person is good because they are, well, they just have to be to fit the no evil only heroes assumption.

I don't see this present in other RPGs, its largely a D&D thing. So, is it chicken and egg? Did alignment permanently disfigure D&D? Or has D&D from the onset been a game intended for good with a capital G guys to conquer evil with a capital E villains?

Alignments were -- and should have remained -- factions. Turning them into personalities was a huge error.

 

[billd91]

Alignments were -- and should have remained -- factions. Turning them into personalities was a huge error.

Honestly, how long were they factions without also implying behavior? They are guiding behavior already by 1977-78 with the Holmes Basic.

Edit: I can definitely push the date back to at least February 1976 with the alignment article in Strategic Review.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well the 5e PH does say on page 45 that "ADVENTURERS ARE EXTRAORDINARY PEOPLE, driven by a thirst for excitement into a life that others would never dare lead. They are heroes, compelled to explore the dark places of the world and take on the challenges that lesser women and men can't stand against."

Pretty much from 2e on the PH has framed the party as heroes.

4e from the cover: "Player’s Handbook - Arcane, Divine, and Martial Heroes" page 4: "You take on the role of a legendary hero—a skilled fighter, a courageous cleric, a deadly rogue, or a spell-hurling wizard."

3.5 PH page 4: "D&D is a game of your imagination in which you participate in thrilling adventures and dangerous quests by taking on the role of a hero"

2e PH: "First, the AD&D game is a game of heroic fantasy."
Also "The warrior group encompasses the character classes of heroes who make their way in the world primarily by skill at arms: fighters, paladins, and rangers."

And even "The profession of thief is not honorable, yet it is not entirely dishonorable, either. Many famous folk heroes have been more than a little larcenous—Reynard the Fox, Robin Goodfellow, and Ali Baba are but a few. At his best, the thief is a romantic hero fired by noble purpose but a little wanting in strength of character."

In the 1e PH if you search for the word hero you get that as the class title of a 4th level fighter and a few references to heroism potions. 1e generally talks about adventurers for its framing.

No one is arguing the marketing didn't go hero in 2e and pretty much stay there. But there has been a through line before then officially and simultaneously in derived works that tells a different story. The present opinion of the official game doesn't need to define the narrative.