Eberron...is it worth picking -up?

[Glyfair]

All good points. Believe me, I'm about ->| |<- far from pulling alignment completely out of the Eberron game, but it is so entrenched that it may cause problems. For the most part, we almost entirely ignore it since it is so gray in the world.

I don't agree that it's that gray, but I agree it's grayer than what people are used to seeing.

As written, the only real alignment change is that you can rarely assume an alignment based on appearance. A red dragon is quite possibly lawful good. A storm giant might be lawful evil.

However, if you read a lot of what Keith writes, you might get a more grey interpretation. He definitely seems to favor alignment that's not as black and white as many play. Just look at the various discussions of the lawful good Silver Flame lycanthrope purge.

 

[Deadguy]

Could you amplify that last point, Glyfair? I an not sure I understand what you are saying.

 

[WayneLigon]

I'm getting ready to start my first Eberron campaign. A couple people looked at the campaign book and said 'Why haven't we been doing this all along?' and 'this has been out for how long?!'.

 

[Glyfair]

Could you amplify that last point, Glyfair? I an not sure I understand what you are saying.

It could be because I missed a key "not"

However, there is a lot of discussion about how a Lawful Good religion like the Silver Flame could be responsible for an event like the lycanthrope purge. They didn't just try to kill all the werewolves and wererats, they went after the werebears as well (and lycanthropes are another thing in Eberron that tends to stick to their traditional alignment). There is also a lot of discussion about how paladins could be involved.

As a side note, remember that alignment was something that had to be in Eberron. The setting contest was for a D&D setting and alignment is hardwired into D&D. Removing it is a big headache.

 

[Anti-Sean]

However, there is a lot of discussion about how a Lawful Good religion like the Silver Flame could be responsible for an event like the lycanthrope purge.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the fact that there's a lot of discussion about it, since it involves not just alignment, but Lawful Good, one of the most-often argued about alignments of them all. It seems pretty straightforward to me, but I've always been been pretty easy with alignments, seeing them as descriptive rather than proscriptive.

They didn't just try to kill all the werewolves and wererats, they went after the werebears as well (and lycanthropes are another thing in Eberron that tends to stick to their traditional alignment). There is also a lot of discussion about how paladins could be involved.

According to Lycanthropes and the Purge, alignments are inherited from the particular strain of lycanthropy (i.e. descendants of/those infected by an evil werebear or a good werewolf will share their alignment, rather than the default listed in the MM. That having been said, IIRC the majority of lycanthropes will most likely match their default alignment.

I love the fact that the CotSF was caught up in a purge that painted lycanthropy as a curse and a menace to the people of Khorvaire - it was far from perfect, and is a much more accurate reflection of how something like that should play itself out than I've seen in past iterations of the game, and helps to bring the setting that much more to life to me.

 

[Nightfall]

Sean,

LG is the most argued? I thought CN was. I mean it's certainly the one DMs groan about a good bit...

 

[Glyfair]

LG is the most argued? I thought CN was. I mean it's certainly the one DMs groan about a good bit...

LG causes the most arguable issues. I suspect a lot because players are chaotic by nature in play and hate having to bow to any authority but themselves.

Chaotic Neutral gets groaned about because DMs are tired of seeing players take it just to justify doing whatever they please.

 

[Anti-Sean]

Sean,

LG is the most argued?

I'm not sure - that's why I said it was "one of the most-often argued about". CN, OTOH, is, IMHO, the other main contender for that dubious honor, IYKWIM, AITYD.

HTH HAND!

--acronym junkie Spikey

 

[Shazman]

I was hoping they might talk more about Demon cults/devil cults in relation to their D&D counterparts. But eh.

I'm not saying it's worse than Magic of Eberron. It isn't by a long shot. I just thought there could have been more fluff to it. Maybe a PoV from a dead person.

No offense, Nightfall, but I think you are enamored with Orcus to an unhealthy degree. But then again, some people are obsessed with Drizzt. Anyways, good natured jabs aside, I think Eberron is awesome. If they just had a place wiht some good Orinetal influence for ninjas to come from instead of a half-elven house of spies and actors, it would be nearly perfect.

 

[Vocenoctum]

As written, the only real alignment change is that you can rarely assume an alignment based on appearance. A red dragon is quite possibly lawful good. A storm giant might be lawful evil.

Dragons are the biggest example in Eberron for a change really. Demons, Devils, Celestials seem to hold to book alignment.

In core D&D, "Always" means exceptions are rare, "Usually" means 50+% and "Often" means 30-40%. For my tastes in Eberron, I'd just change the percentages a bit, even then mainly for "Always", making it 70% would still allow a lot.

My biggest problems with it;
1) I'd rather the "shades of gray" means that there are more neutrals that do things that might seem "evil" or "good", rather than having evil commited by Evil.
1b) The current trend seems to be that "Evil" isn't always evil, I'd rather keep Evil evil, and let neutrals be evil too.
2) Too many of the examples hold to the default alignments in spite of seemingly different mannerisms.