TS' Book of Heroic Might: Alignment as it is Meant to Be

[Mercutio01]

Who said they can't have disagreements just because they're both Good aligned? It's an awfully simplistic world where all Good aligned religions/cultures/races are monolithically aligned with each other all the time. That's why I gave each of my Good-aligned powers an effect on Good aligned foes, because Good does fight itself sometimes.

I think the point is why should the powers have different effects on Good creatures?

Also - alignment has not always been as huge a thing as it was turned into in 3E. In fact, good and evil had nothing to do with alignment. 2E brought in the other axis and its use of CN and CE was vastly different from 3E's.

Personally, I'm quite happy to kill a sacred cow once in awhile and was excited to hear that alignment had been kneecapped. Alas, I was hoping it would have been gutted and tossed on the scrap pile rather than kept around like a three-legged dog. I too think adding mechanical restraints for alignment back into the game is a step backwards.

 

[bardolph]

Who said they can't have disagreements just because they're both Good aligned? It's an awfully simplistic world where all Good aligned religions/cultures/races are monolithically aligned with each other all the time. That's why I gave each of my Good-aligned powers an effect on Good aligned foes, because Good does fight itself sometimes.

But why the tiered effects? 4e already has powers that distinguish friend from foe. Isn't that enough?

 

[JBeatnik]

I found your book enlightening. Though I have am at odds with two characters currently. One plays evil characters, or neutral leaning evil characters b/c he doesn't want to have any moral contraints on killing or whatnot. Generally he's Unaligned, with a few character flaws (selfishness) that he acts on once in awhile.

That's not the problem.

The problem is his brother, who plays Noble, Almost-paladins that have retarded abnormal honor codes. He picked up the Dragonborn, and read the text that they where honorable, and now he wont attack unarmed enemies, yells out for enemies to fight him honorably (wont EVER try stealth or sneaking around) and basically is a menace to the entire party.

I give him 2 more sessions before I kill him as a DM, or the party does. If he wants to be abnormally honorable, he can be the abnormal martyr for his cause.

 

[bardolph]

I say let the party kill him. Better not to get involved as the DM. Besides, "retarded abnormal honor codes" can be a real hoot to play. As a DM, I'd be tempted to REWARD that kind of behavior, because it's so damn heroic.

 

[Zinovia]

I did not read all of your book, but I liked the descriptions of the alignments. I think that some of the actual powers are unbalanced. I expect some of my players will choose to be good and some will be unaligned (evil isn't an option for PC's in this particular campaign). Why should a heal do so much more just because you are healing another good character? Surge + Wis + Cha for good, 1/2 surge for unaligned, and 1 hp for Evil? That's quite a big range. Likewise I think any spell that grants an extra d6 of damage vs unaligned foes is powerful since most everything is unaligned. Perhaps that one corresponds to an existing cleric power though.

I think alignment is too constraining in a lot of ways. I am very glad that the mechanical effects of it have been removed from the game. That way, if I choose to excise the remnants of the alignment system from my game, it's easy to do. I played Rolemaster for over 10 years, and didn't use alignment. Most characters wound up acting in what we called "Chaotic Greedy" fashion. They defended their allies, but often acted out of self-interest. I'm going to see what the players want before deciding how to treat alignment in my upcoming game.

Still, yours is an interesting guide for people who would like alignment to have more of an impact on their games. Just watch the powers and keep them in line with stuff in the core books.

 

[bardolph]

Ah yes... "Chaotic Greedy" is my favorite alignment

 

[Maximillian]

I've never seen the need to codify behavior based on arbitrary definitions of "right" and "wrong." Even in a world where only one tool using, symbolically communicating animal exists, no universal definition of a "good" way to live can be reached. Throw in Dwarves, Elves, and Orcs, or Dragons, Vampires, and Dryads who all have families or friends to protect, and livelihoods to worry over, and I can't imagine monolithic "good" making the least bit of sense.

I like that you've offered up the possibility that "good" nations can disagree and even come to blows, but I see the behaviors and mores of varying cultures as being a vast number of sliding scales, thoroughly unquantifiable. The "Enemy or Ally" axis is the only definition a cleric or a paladin needs, and even that can change over time.

Additionally, I feel it's worth pointing out that 4e doesn't grant situational powers that only work on certain enemies without reason. Sneak attack affects everyone, undead can be dazed and constructs can be poisoned. I don't feel there's any compelling reason to stick players with powers that only work when the DM labels a monster as "evil."

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Also - alignment has not always been as huge a thing as it was turned into in 3E. In fact, good and evil had nothing to do with alignment. 2E brought in the other axis and its use of CN and CE was vastly different from 3E's.

I started playing in 2e, but I have heard about the days of yore when there was only Law and Chaos.

Personally, I'm quite happy to kill a sacred cow once in awhile and was excited to hear that alignment had been kneecapped. Alas, I was hoping it would have been gutted and tossed on the scrap pile rather than kept around like a three-legged dog. I too think adding mechanical restraints for alignment back into the game is a step backwards.

I agree with you about keeping alignment around as a pathetic three-legged dog. I'd love to ask a 4e designer, 'if alignment has no impact on the game whatsoever why'd you waste page space to describe it?' 4e alignment is a completely metagame non-issue; it doesn't even help role play. I mean really, DMs and players don't need five blurbs about G/LG/U/E/CE in order for PCs and NPCs to call their enemies evil and their friends good guys. That's one of the oldest and most basic ways to fight someone; just call them the bad guy!

The problem is his brother, who plays Noble, Almost-paladins that have retarded abnormal honor codes. He picked up the Dragonborn, and read the text that they where honorable, and now he wont attack unarmed enemies, yells out for enemies to fight him honorably (wont EVER try stealth or sneaking around) and basically is a menace to the entire party.

Thanks for taking the time to give my work a read!

Ooh, that's a bad situation. I advise against leaving it to your players to resolve; most likely that'll just lead to bad blood. Have you taken the dragonborn player aside and said 'look dude, your character is acting retarded and if he doesn't find a reason to smarten up soon, he's going to die by friend or by foe.'?

I did not read all of your book, but I liked the descriptions of the alignments. I think that some of the actual powers are unbalanced. I expect some of my players will choose to be good and some will be unaligned (evil isn't an option for PC's in this particular campaign). Why should a heal do so much more just because you are healing another good character? Surge + Wis + Cha for good, 1/2 surge for unaligned, and 1 hp for Evil? That's quite a big range. Likewise I think any spell that grants an extra d6 of damage vs unaligned foes is powerful since most everything is unaligned. Perhaps that one corresponds to an existing cleric power though.

Thanks for your support. As to balancing powers, I tried not to create too big of a range with their effects across the alignments, but it was hard to do with the powers that only healed or only did damage. There shouldn't be any powers that deal extra damage dice to Unaligned foes (or any particular alignment), so that must be a typo. Do you remember which power that was?

In response to all those who ask me 'why are alignment mechanics so important?' I offer this. In real life, there is no alignment. As an agnostic/atheist/non-believer/whatever, I realize that morality is subjective. Sure, most people will agree that extreme actions like killing another human for sport is evil but that doesn't really mean that it is evil. In the real world anyone can call themselves a hero or a good guy, but again it's purely subjective. I live in a real world that is solid through and through, so when I play an rpg I want there to be something different about it. When I play a hero or one of my players does, I want there to be a higher power backing him/her up when they claim the title of 'holy' or 'hero' or 'good guy'. I want that Good guy character to actually have to earn that designation through a broad and easily acceptable range of Good actions. And I want the Good designation to come with some kind of recognition and benefits, because in real life there are none. I like morality to mean something more than "I'm king of the hill!" and "meanie, meanie, you're a weanie!"

 

[Nur-ab-sal]

In response to all those who ask me 'why are alignment mechanics so important?' I offer this. In real life, there is no alignment. As an agnostic/atheist/non-believer/whatever, I realize that morality is subjective. Sure, most people will agree that extreme actions like killing another human for sport is evil but that doesn't really mean that it is evil. In the real world anyone can call themselves a hero or a good guy, but again it's purely subjective. I live in a real world that is solid through and through, so when I play an rpg I want there to be something different about it. When I play a hero or one of my players does, I want there to be a higher power backing him/her up when they claim the title of 'holy' or 'hero' or 'good guy'. I want that Good guy character to actually have to earn that designation through a broad and easily acceptable range of Good actions. And I want the Good designation to come with some kind of recognition and benefits, because in real life there are none.

Because it's and it will always be and no amount of pretending will make it make sense, ever. You may call it escapism but all you are doing is validating the social construction of morality as it exists in reality, which is ignorant at best and downright dangerous and damaging at worst. (And any definition of "good" that includes allowance for killing of any kind is of the latter type.)

I realize this isn't the place for this and it doesn't matter, but it bothers me when seemingly intelligent people state truth and then proceed to act in complete contradiction to that truth because despite saying it they refuse to accept the full implications of it.

 

[bardolph]

I agree with you about keeping alignment around as a pathetic three-legged dog. I'd love to ask a 4e designer, 'if alignment has no impact on the game whatsoever why'd you waste page space to describe it?' 4e alignment is a completely metagame non-issue; it doesn't even help role play. I mean really, DMs and players don't need five blurbs about G/LG/U/E/CE in order for PCs and NPCs to call their enemies evil and their friends good guys. That's one of the oldest and most basic ways to fight someone; just call them the bad guy!

As "flavor text," alignments offer a good starting point for roleplaying, just like the flavor text that goes along with races or classes. There actually is a mechanic for alignments in 4e; it's just a helluva lot less intrusive. You must be a certain alignment in order to be a cleric or paladin of certain gods. I'm totally fine with that. I'm also OK with some artifacts being keyed off of alignment.

In my mind, it does make sense for GODS to have alignments (sometimes). It just breaks down when you impose that same structure onto more "human" matters.

As to balancing powers, I tried not to create too big of a range with their effects across the alignments, but it was hard to do with the powers that only healed or only did damage. There shouldn't be any powers that deal extra damage dice to Unaligned foes (or any particular alignment), so that must be a typo. Do you remember which power that was?

Another consequence of having such powers is that it gimps the character when the party doesn't "play along" and all take the same alignment as he does, and it overpowers the character when the party does play along. Neither situation is desirable, but having these mechanics encourages players to game the system.

In response to all those who ask me 'why are alignment mechanics so important?' I offer this. In real life, there is no alignment. As an agnostic/atheist/non-believer/whatever, I realize that morality is subjective. Sure, most people will agree that extreme actions like killing another human for sport is evil but that doesn't really mean that it is evil. In the real world anyone can call themselves a hero or a good guy, but again it's purely subjective. I live in a real world that is solid through and through, so when I play an rpg I want there to be something different about it. When I play a hero or one of my players does, I want there to be a higher power backing him/her up when they claim the title of 'holy' or 'hero' or 'good guy'. I want that Good guy character to actually have to earn that designation through a broad and easily acceptable range of Good actions. And I want the Good designation to come with some kind of recognition and benefits, because in real life there are none. I like morality to mean something more than "I'm king of the hill!" and "meanie, meanie, you're a weanie!"

I agree with this sentiment; however, alignment mechanics are generally a very poor solution to this issue. If you want to personify morality, put a face on it and call it a god. These gods can be as heavy-handed as you wish.