Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5747800" data-attributes="member: 92511">I agree. Given the whole elements are both "naughty and nice" thing. As per Stormonu's XP suggestion, again reading my mind!, I was initially thinking of breaking it down into 4 deities, to allow for 'Good/Neutral/Evil/and one Extremist (either good or evil)" per element. Easy enough for me to do, just figured it would take too long to type up/present...so I went with the shorter "one male/one female" x4.But then the "optional use of alignment" rule starts becoming a lot more...or less "optional". I am starting to see why/how Alignment came about as a necessary attribute in the first place.You are presenting a Class (a full quarter of your base PC options) that derives their power from...a "higher power." To say "All gods are ultimately Neutral" and clerics may be of any moral/ethical disposition to serve any one of them would be the simplest answer (that I see, anyway). But it just lacks flavor.Of course, I am one of those who never minded alignments and use the whole "good v. evil" and "law v. chaos" thing extensively in my games.I liked (and still insist) my Druids be True Neutral, my Paladins be Lawful Good or Lawful Evil, my Barbarians "Chaotic" etc. It just, to me, lends so much flavor inherent to the archetypes and, thus, immersion and world as a whole.We could, I imagine, allow for the 9-point Alignment as an option for alignment use in play...but then, it seems, we veer away from the possibility of not using alignment at all.Then again, with things like Detect good/evil, Protection from good/evil, etc. it seems some form of alignment is necessary to play...and DMs/group can choose to ignore/not use them at their respective tables...but that Alignment should be presented as a necessary rule/attribute in PC creation.What do people think about Alignment? (just the facts/personal preferences, please, no need to get into an Alignment debate/tangent)I agree. I loved my B/X D&D cleric. She was my 2nd PC every made. But from the Basic books, and even in the Expert, I suppose to avoid any "religious" connotations and zealotous backlash, didn't really make use of hardly any mention of "gods" or "worship" or clerics as "religious" folk at all (other than comparing them to the Knights Templar). Simply that they gained their powers/spells from their devout "faith and beliefs".It would seem, in a fantasy world, you need a set of choices for the cleric PC to begin to create/formulate that set of beliefs.Anyway, I'm gonna rework/re-describe the fire deities...and possibly break them all up into 4 per element...and see if you guys like that better.Or, should I ditch the "elemental" connection all together and just make 4 for each alignment: Good/Neutral/Evil/Extremist (2 "Ultimate Good", 2 "Ultimate Evil")...but, again, then this is moving Alignment to front and center for clerics (and/or any PC who wantst o have a spiritual/religious slant to their character). Think I'll keep the elemental framework for now (it's just so neatly a 4-block. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I thought scale was considered an intermediate between leather and chain! I'll put that back in. Probably. How would we do that though, if we're just going to have 1 shield that a character can use? Or do I use the 4 I listed a while back: buckler, medium wood, medium metal, tower and ascribe +1 to +4 added to one's AC? Or buckler, small, medium, large/tower...with the stipulation that Halflings can only use bucklers or small, Dwarves up to medium, and Elves and Humans any?So many questions and things to think about to make things "simple". hahaha.</blockquote>

Verification