Piracy And Other Malfeasance

Reynard said:

Wow. I had forgotten how punishing the alignment changes were.

Click to expand...

It's worse than that. This is the edition where acting outside of your expected role could effectively double to quintuple the effort/adventuring of gaining levels. This happened through the training rules*. Since most of your XP came from GP acquisition, you tended to have approximately as much gp as xp. If the DM determined that your thief character had poorly followed their alignment, done such un-thief-like actions as boldly fighting or failing to show self-interest in acquiring treasure, or failing to pull their weight*, you could end up with a poor performance rating. That means you would need 4 weeks and 6000 gp to level up to level 2, but would only have a little less than 1250 gp to spend. The character would then have to adventure** for another 4,750+ gp (which otherwise would provide 4,750+ more xp to devote towards levels 3 and up), all without gaining new xp.
*if used, of course
**see contradiction with previous clause
***or work in servitude, exactly what you want to do with your PC when 1 game week was also supposed to equal 1 week IRL.

Suffice to say, this is one of the reasons I'm particularly nonplussed at the value of 'playing Rules As Written' (or claims that one did, BitD) with regards to 1E.

Per AD&D DMG, p.86:

GAINING EXPERIENCE LEVELS Experience points are merely an indicator of the character's progress towards greater proficiency in his or her chosen profession. UPWARD PROGRESS IS NEVER AUTOMATIC. Just because Nell Nimblefingers, Rogue of the Thieves' guild has managed to acquire 1,251 experience points does NOT mean that she suddenly becomes Nell Nimblefingers the Footpad. The gaining of sufficient experience points is necessary to indicate that a character is eligible to gain a level of experience, but the actual award is a matter for you, the DM, to decide.

Consider the natural functions of each class of character. Consider also the professed alignment of each character. Briefly assess the performance of each character after an adventure. Did he or she perform basically in the character of his or her class? Were his or her actions in keeping with his or her professed alignment? Mentally classify the overall performance as:

E - Excellent, few deviations from norm = 1
S- Superior, deviations minimal but noted =2
F - Foir performance, more norm than deviations =3
P- Poor showing with aberrant behavior =4

Clerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang bock from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating.

Award experience points normally. When each character is given his or her total, also give them an alphabetic rating - E, S, F, or P. When a character's total experience points indicate eligibility for an advancement in level, use the alphabetic assessment to assign equal weight to the behavior of the character during each separate adventure - regardless of how many or how few experience points were gained in each. The resulting total is then divided by the number of entries (adventures) to come up with some number from 1 to 4. This number indicates the number of WEEKS the character must spend in study and/or training before he or she actually gains the benefits of the new level. Be certain that all decimals are retained, as each .145 equals a game day.

Not only must game time be spent by the character desiring advancement, but treasure will have to be spent as well. The amount of gold pieces, or the equivalent in value in gems, jewelry, magic items, etc., is found by using the following simple formula:
LEVEL OF THE TRAINEE CHARACTER X 1,500 = WEEKLY COST DURING STUDY/TRAINING.
The level of the aspiring character should be computed at current (not to be gained) level
...
[asides related to independent study for ratings below 2, for Name Level and above, and for Bards]
...
ONCE A CHARACTER HAS POINTS WHICH ARE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM NUMBER NECESSARY TO MOVE UPWARDS IN EXPERIENCE LEVEL, NO FURTHER EXPERIENCE POINTS CAN BE GAINED UNTIL THE CHARACTER ACTUALLY GAINS THE NEW LEVEL

Click to expand...

Core 1e also had a level loss for every character that switches alignment, not just ones with special alignment issues.

From the 1e DMG


The 1e alignment mechanics were fairly punitive.

I just checked the 2e DMG and it has different, but still punitive alignment change mechanics.

"The instant a character voluntarily changes alignment, the experience point cost to gain the next level (or levels in the case of multi-class characters) is doubled. To determine the number of experience points needed to gain the next level (and only the next level), double the number of experience points listed on the appropriate Experience Levels table."

"If an alignment change is involuntary, the doubled experience penalty is not enforced. Instead, the character earns no experience whatever until his former alignment is regained. This assumes, of course, that the character wants to regain his former alignment.
If the character decides that the new alignment isn’t so bad after all, he begins earning experience again, but the doubling penalty goes into effect. The player does not have to announce this decision. If the DM feels the character has resigned himself to the situation, that is sufficient."

Reynard said:

Wow. I had forgotten how punishing the alignment changes were.

Click to expand...

It was one of the things that was, bluntly, singularly stupid. It largely precluded anyone who had a complex set of motivations, since they could be all over that table. At least later you could just plop them in the middle and move on.

Voadam said:

I just checked the 2e DMG and it has different, but still punitive alignment change mechanics.

"The instant a character voluntarily changes alignment, the experience point cost to gain the next level (or levels in the case of multi-class characters) is doubled. To determine the number of experience points needed to gain the next level (and only the next level), double the number of experience points listed on the appropriate Experience Levels table."

"If an alignment change is involuntary, the doubled experience penalty is not enforced. Instead, the character earns no experience whatever until his former alignment is regained. This assumes, of course, that the character wants to regain his former alignment.
If the character decides that the new alignment isn’t so bad after all, he begins earning experience again, but the doubling penalty goes into effect. The player does not have to announce this decision. If the DM feels the character has resigned himself to the situation, that is sufficient."

Click to expand...

The bolded in theory wouldn't work even with a forced alignment change, as in theory the (forced) change leaves the person happy with their "new outlook on life" so why would they want to change again?

In practice, however, IME most forced alignment changes don't stick over the long term.

For my part, if a typical character* changes alignment over the long term as a natural outgrowth of how it's been roleplayed and-or influenced I don't care; I just let it happen. But if a character changes alignment in order to game the system (that's a Holy Avenger? Hell, I just became the Goodest Goodie to ever walk this Good world!) then out comes the smackdown hammer; and the rules back me to the hilt.

* - Clerics and Paladins being the exceptions, that being the drawback tied to the divine benefits they get.

Lanefan said:

The bolded in theory wouldn't work even with a forced alignment change, as in theory the (forced) change leaves the person happy with their "new outlook on life" so why would they want to change again?

In practice, however, IME most forced alignment changes don't stick over the long term.

For my part, if a typical character* changes alignment over the long term as a natural outgrowth of how it's been roleplayed and-or influenced I don't care; I just let it happen. But if a character changes alignment in order to game the system (that's a Holy Avenger? Hell, I just became the Goodest Goodie to ever walk this Good world!) then out comes the smackdown hammer; and the rules back me to the hilt.

* - Clerics and Paladins being the exceptions, that being the drawback tied to the divine benefits they get.

Click to expand...

Has there ever been a holy avenger that does not require being an actual paladin to gain its benefits?

Gaming the system by changing alignment to match a magic item's requirements seems very corner case for minor benefits.

The closest I can think of would be in 3e going lawful monk to non lawful in order to multiclass into barbarian, or vice versa to go the other way. Not even really a power move, just the way things have to go to get that kind of a multiclass match up in 3e from the RAW class alignment rules.

Voadam said:

Has there ever been a holy avenger that does not require being an actual paladin to gain its benefits?

Gaming the system by changing alignment to match a magic item's requirements seems very corner case for minor benefits.

The closest I can think of would be in 3e going lawful monk to non lawful in order to multiclass into barbarian, or vice versa to go the other way. Not even really a power move, just the way things have to go to get that kind of a multiclass match up in 3e from the RAW class alignment rules.

Click to expand...

It used to be something of a deal for intelligent, aligned weapons, but otherwise was uncommon and even that became less of an issue over time.

Voadam said:

Has there ever been a holy avenger that does not require being an actual paladin to gain its benefits?

Gaming the system by changing alignment to match a magic item's requirements seems very corner case for minor benefits.

The closest I can think of would be in 3e going lawful monk to non lawful in order to multiclass into barbarian, or vice versa to go the other way. Not even really a power move, just the way things have to go to get that kind of a multiclass match up in 3e from the RAW class alignment rules.

Click to expand...

I remember in DDO the 3E MMO magic times would drop and some with hilarious rarity. Like a Lawful Neutral halfling only vorpal sword that could be wielded at level 6 because of all the requirements. So, when items such as these dropped, folks would roll up the exactly needed PC lol.

payn said:

I remember in DDO the 3E MMO magic times would drop and some with hilarious rarity. Like a Lawful Neutral halfling only vorpal sword that could be wielded at level 6 because of all the requirements. So, when items such as these dropped, folks would roll up the exactly needed PC lol.

Click to expand...

I can see that. "We're doing White Plume Mountain? I think I will make a fighter who is a Poseidon worshiper who is double specialized in tridents."

I somewhat alluded to this earlier, but I think one of the "issues" with D&D alignment is that it is based upon tangible in-game-world factors that the characters interact with, yet those factors may not always mesh with how contemporary culture categorizes morality.

That I believe an action to be good/evil may not necessarily correspond to what a particular D&D plane, magic spell, or magic item views as good/evil.

I don't feel that I need 50 shades of personality tests (as someone mentioned upthread) to categorize a character, but a little more guidance than two letters on a sheet is (for me) better for covering a wider range of characters and archetypes found throughout literature (or history).

I think D&D alignment might be a good starting point to get a broad idea of where a character might generally fall. However, I prefer how other ttrpgs handle morality and personality.

I'll use GURPS as an example because that's a game I'm most familiar with. For someone like the pirates mentioned upthread, there may be mental "disadvantages" such as "sense of duty: [insert nation]" or "Bloodlust (when fighting the Spanish)" or "Code of Honor (Pirate's)."

For a hypothetical character including my three hypothetical examples, what that would mean is that Captain Examplo of the H.S.S. Murder Hobo feels a sense of duty toward the nation for which he sails. As such, even if he's normally a bloodthirsty marauder of the high seas, he tends to lawfully and faithfully serve the needs of his nation (and is posdiblyeven inclined to be generous and helpful toward citizens of said nation). In contrast, Captain Exemplo is especially vicious and cruel when boarding a Spanish galleon. Yet, in either case, he does abide by a loose code of honor that compels him to ensure that loot is divided up fairly among his crew. (In away from books and forget exactly what the pirate code covers).

Is Captain Exemplo evil? Maybe he is. His victims certainly think so, and I imagine he has a rather nefarious reputation in Spain, but perhaps he is also known as a cordial and heroic individual among the Dutch -as well as a firm but fair captain among his crew.

To me, that paints a better picture of who the character is and what their interactions with others will be.

I feel that D&D 4th Edition's Artifacts and Legendary Items did a pretty good job of this too. The descriptions of the items would include what sort of behaviors and actions taken by the wielder would make the item either happy or unhappy.

I also feel that D&D 4E's descriptions of the good in the PHB did a good job of describing the general ballpark of what a god(des)'s area of interests were, while also leaving enough wiggle room to fill in more detail within a character.

For example, is Erathis (deity of civilization and cities) a representative of good or evil? That depends. Civilized advancement and law can be good, but bureaucracy bending law to favor the few or a sprawling city encroaching upon a rain forest might also be evil. I find that type of dichotomy & conflict to be interesting and a great source of inspiration for writing a story -especially an interactive adventure story in which there are several paths to how a party might solve a problem. I can imagine two paladins of Erathis adventuring in the same party, to protect the city from a rampaging and ravenous horde of gnolls, but also coming to blows in the end -as they disagree on the post-crisis path forward.

TLDR: A bunch of thoughts about how more nuance than two letters can be better for adventure. I think the two letters is an okatly starting point, but a little extra detail helps a particular character feel more like an actual person. Also, musing about examples of how non-D&D games might do, as well as how other D&D editions have covered morality.