Uniting the Editions, Part 2 Up!

[trancejeremy]

Lawful good originated as part of the nine point alignment system, which is AD&D, not O- or Basic D&D. (Did any of the supplements introduce it before AD&D?) Back in the late 70s, there were disputes as to whether it was good or bad for the game to adopt the 9-point system.

This may seem a mere quibble, but it does tend to reinforce the suggestion that pinning down the core of D&D isn't utterly trivial.

It actually appeared for the first time in the Feb 1976 issue of The Strategic Review (the forerunner to The Dragon, and later reprinted in the Best of the Dragon vol 1).

Basically he drew a two axis diagram, one with good-evil, the other with law and chaos, and mapped out various creatures and such.

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment
is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is
the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral

He also pointed out there was not a lot of absolutes but a lot of gradations between the extremes

Personally I think they should have stuck with the L/C/N system, since I agree with Moorcock that the extremes of either Law or Chaos are what leads to evil

 

[pemerton]

Personally I think they should have stuck with the L/C/N system, since I agree with Moorcock that the extremes of either Law or Chaos are what leads to evil

I was struck by this passage in the article:

There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt.​

This is a highly controversial claim in the philosophy of law. One major contribution of Lon Fuller's work, for example, is to produce serious arguments that the claim is false. Part of my issues with alignment is that it rests upon assumptions about value concepts and the relationships between them that are hotly contested. And I think the 9-point systems is particularly egregious in this respect.

For that slightly different reason, I therefore share you preference for single-spectrum alignment (either the Basic D&D version, or the 4e version which I think is pretty similar).

 

[pauljathome]

People seem to be getting confused by what Monte means when he says that the "core of the game" looks "a lot like OD&D." He's not trying to say something that all of us seem blissfully unaware of.

What labels a game as Dungeons & Dragons, even to someone who's never played it?

- D&D is medieval fantasy roleplaying.
- Rolling a d20 for combat resolution.
- The four iconic classes: fighter, magic-user, cleric and thief.
- The Tolkien races: human, elf, dwarf, and halfling.
- The 6 attributes: strength, intelligence, wisdom, dexterity, constitution, charisma. The 3-18 scale has also ALWAYS been in the game.
- Alignment (someone who's never played knows what "lawful good" means).
- XP and levels.
- Armor Class and hit points.
- Magic loot.
- Saving Throws.
.

This is precisely what I disagree with.

I'm currently running a Pathfinder campaign using only slightly houseruled Pathfinder rules set in Golaron using Pathfinder adventures as my base.

We long since dropped XP although the characters DO have levels.

No alignment for PCs.

Golaron isn't medieval fantasy, especially where we're playing (Varisia)

None of the characters are an iconic class.

The attributes range from 8 to 20.

One character rolls a D100 instead of a D20 since the player wants to. I'm good enough at math that I can convert instantly in my head so thats not an issue. This one, I admit, is bizarre.

We do have hit points, levels, saving throws.

So, either we're not playing D&D (which is rather surprising to me), or D&D does NOT mean that list above.

 

[Kynn]

That said, I bet characters built strictly off the core won't be quite as fragile as their actual old-school counterparts. They're probably a bit more fragile than their 4e counterparts, but lethality probably should be set somewhere in the middle as a default - with BECMI (1st level characters with 1-11 hp, dead at 0 hp and lots of save or die mechanics) at one end of the spectrum and 4e (1st level characters with 20+ hp, death saves, and no "save or die" mechanics) at the other.

Just a quibble -- lethality isn't a measure of how many hit points you have but of what you might encounter that might deplete them. 4e characters are about as likely statistically to die from the same average number of hits as any other edition, it's just the hits in you take in 4e are also scaled to bigger. The big reduction is in arbitrary "swingyness" -- the chance that a lucky random roll on a single damage die could mean the permanent end to your character's adventuring career.

 

[Kynn]

This is precisely what I disagree with.

I'm currently running a Pathfinder campaign using only slightly houseruled Pathfinder rules set in Golaron using Pathfinder adventures as my base.

We long since dropped XP although the characters DO have levels.

No alignment for PCs.

Golaron isn't medieval fantasy, especially where we're playing (Varisia)

None of the characters are an iconic class.

The attributes range from 8 to 20.

One character rolls a D100 instead of a D20 since the player wants to. I'm good enough at math that I can convert instantly in my head so thats not an issue. This one, I admit, is bizarre.

We do have hit points, levels, saving throws.

So, either we're not playing D&D (which is rather surprising to me), or D&D does NOT mean that list above.

Would you consider that you are playing a version of D&D that differs from "core D&D" in ways X, Y, and Z (which you enumerate above)?

Monte's attempt, as most people see it, is not to set a measure from which we say "this is exactly what D&D is and is not," so the two choices you give above are not really the point. The point is to establish the core baseline of "D&D" from which we can all run off and happily diverge but still be speaking the same lingua franca.

 

[The Shadow]

I was struck by this passage in the article:

There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt.​

This is a highly controversial claim in the philosophy of law. One major contribution of Lon Fuller's work, for example, is to produce serious arguments that the claim is false.

Okay, first off, one doesn't have to engage in hifalutin' philosophy to know that D&D alignment doesn't reflect any real-world moral or ethical system.

But second, is it seriously claimed that there cannot be any such thing as an unjust law? If anyone does make that claim, I have a hard time seeing it as a contribution to anything but tyranny; I really hope I'm misunderstanding your statement.

To quote St. Thomas Aquinas (the poster-boy for Lawful Good philosophers): "An unjust law is no law at all but an act of violence."

 

[JohnSnow]

4e characters are about as likely statistically to die from the same average number of hits as any other edition, it's just the hits in you take in 4e are also scaled to bigger.

But Kynn, that's just flat not true. Let's take a common low-level D&D encounter - 1st-level characters vs. kobolds or goblins.

In 4e, a 1st-level kobold or goblin (not even a minion) does 1d6 +5 (average 8.5 hp) on a hit. At MOST, he inflicts 11 hp. Our PC wizard with an 8-10 constitution has 18-20 hit points. He has to be hit at least twice. Statistically, he can be hit twice and still be in positive hit point territory.

By contrast, his counterpart in earlier editions faced kobolds or goblins who still wield short swords or short bows that do 1-6 hp of damage (avg. 3.5, max 6). Assuming the same (low) constitution score, the early edition wizard has 3 (8 or 9 con) or 4 hit points (10 con). Which means, on average, he's dropped to 0 hp in one shot.

Swinginess makes it worse - our lucky 3e goblin critical strikes for 12 hp (enough damage to drop a 14 con fighter), whereas his 4e counterpart only achieves max damage: 11 hp.

The point is, in the older editions, an average 1st level wizard could be easily dropped (one shot) by a rank and file 1st-level goblin who hits him once. The combat didn't have to get particularly "swingy" - it just had to be average or routine. In 4e, his counterpart simply can't be dropped that easily.

In BECMI, it was worse. Our intrepid 1st level magic-user might have had as little as 1 hp, and is unlikely to have had more than 4. And if he drops to 0 hp, he's not dying, he's DEAD.

That's a fairly large lethality difference.

 

[JohnSnow]

Lawful good originated as part of the nine point alignment system, which is AD&D, not O- or Basic D&D. (Did any of the supplements introduce it before AD&D?) Back in the late 70s, there were disputes as to whether it was good or bad for the game to adopt the 9-point system.

This may seem a mere quibble, but it does tend to reinforce the suggestion that pinning down the core of D&D isn't utterly trivial.

That's why I said the cornerstone of D&D was "alignment" and not "the nine alignment system." But I stand by the assertion that D&D should have alignment.

 

[JohnSnow]

This is precisely what I disagree with.

I'm currently running a Pathfinder campaign using only slightly houseruled Pathfinder rules set in Golaron using Pathfinder adventures as my base.

We long since dropped XP although the characters DO have levels.

No alignment for PCs.

Golaron isn't medieval fantasy, especially where we're playing (Varisia)

None of the characters are an iconic class.

The attributes range from 8 to 20.

One character rolls a D100 instead of a D20 since the player wants to. I'm good enough at math that I can convert instantly in my head so thats not an issue. This one, I admit, is bizarre.

We do have hit points, levels, saving throws.

So, either we're not playing D&D (which is rather surprising to me), or D&D does NOT mean that list above.

Well, my first point is to joke that you're actually NOT playing D&D - you're playing Pathfinder. But I consider Pathfinder to be part of the "big tent of D&D," the same way I include Castles & Crusades.

Whatever your character's scores are, their attributes are still fundamentally on the 3-18 framework ("average" is set around the statistical median of 3d6 (10.5), which used to be broadened to encompass 9-12, but since 3e has been just 10-11). Similarly, the iconic classes don't have to all be in play at your table to be part of the game.

Not medieval fantasy? If you're just claiming it's "not medieval fantasy" because it's not a stereotypical Tolkien-esque world, then you misunderstand what i mean by the term. "Medieval fantasy" means that the game is set in a world where people wear armor and fight with melee weapons, and firearm use is rare. It's encapsulated in the middle ages, but encompasses roughly f real world development from the days of ancient greece up until almost the American Revolution. So, your setting deviates from that how?

(Addendum: Even if you have some odd touches, I would say that so long as the PCs still use predominantly ancient weapons, little bits of anachronistic technology have a long history with D&D - I still have my copy of Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.)

 

[pemerton]

is it seriously claimed that there cannot be any such thing as an unjust law?

Well, you yourself quote Aquinas to that effect - that a purported law which is unjust is in fact not what it purports to be.

Dworkin also seems to deny the possibility of unjust laws in his recent Justice for Hedgehogs.

But Fuller makes a weaker claim - namely, that the general tendency of formally adequate law is to serve good rather than bad ends.

one doesn't have to engage in hifalutin' philosophy to know that D&D alignment doesn't reflect any real-world moral or ethical system.

Sure. But that's not my point. My point is that it is arguably incoherent.

To elaborate: honour, as a value, is largely dead in the contemporary world. It is something, though, that is central to much of the fiction that D&D is meant to resemble (chivalric knights, duelling swashbucklers, honest yeoman etc). It therefore makes sense that the game might present a value system that is at odds with that of most moderns.

My objection to 9-point alignment is not that it departs from contemporay morality. It is that it rests upon a conceptual assumption - that order and goodness are independent - which is highly controversial. And not just in hifalutin circles - the contemporary obsession by the World Bank and other agencies with bringing the rule of law and "good governance" to every land is driven by a belief that order and goodness are not independent.

An analogy. D&D does not apply real world physics; for example, matter can be created and destroyed. But it does not require us to imagine plane triangles on Euclidian surfaces whose angles sum to other than 180 degrees. It is conceptually coherent, or at least coherent enough, in this respect.

This is why I prefer single-spectrum alignment - this requires me to adopt an imaginary rather than a real-world value scale, but does not require me to imagine that two concepts are independent when there are powerful arguments that they are not.