Ampersand: Wizards and Worlds

[Jhaelen]

I think that the majority of DMs ban Evil characters not because the game is "Default Good". I think the majority ban evil characters because players use "I'm Eeeevil!" as an excuse to be an ass at the table.

Just like many DMs don't like Chaotic Neutral for that very reason.

The main culprit is the use of alignment as an excuse for party backstabbing and plot derailment.

And that's not limited to CN/EVil. Everyone here, I'm sure, has ran into one guy who plays Lawful Stupid, much to the detriment of everyone else at the table.

QFT!

And that's why D&D would be better off if there were no alignments at all. Really, why didn't they just get rid of them in 4E?

 

[Khairn]

And to me it's not.

If one character wants to spend a Real-time hour peeping in other's windows and running away from the party, that's an hour of MY time wasted. If the character wants to stab random people in town and set houses on fire, and get the entire party hauled into jail, that's a waste of my time because he's being an ass. If a character wants to make fart noisees while everyone else is trying to stealthfully infiltrate some place, that's a waste of my time trying to play the game. If a character wants to stand up in the middle of a ball and urinate on the Duke's shoes, getting us thrown out, that's a waste of my time to get us in in the first place. If the character wants to run several rooms ahead to alert the monsters and drag them back to us, that's a waste of my time. Bringing in a mime with the hiccups to a Call of Cthulu game is a waste of my time of the game's atmosphere.

I've had too many games fall apart because one person's "Character" had no reason to stay with the group.

"Because I'm in character" is no excuse for ruining the fun of the other people at the table. And if that's the individual being "in character", then my character is going to kick them out of the damn party at sword-point and go on without them, or slit their throat in their sleep.

I understand Lanefan's comments about the goal of the game being everyone having fun. But as Rechan says, once an individuals "fun" impacts another player's or the GM's enjoyment of the game, then that individual has to change his ways.

Which is one of the reasons why I make it perfectly clear to all my players that working together is a "rule" of the game. I can understand the fun in playing an evil'ish (or self-centered) character and do allow them in my games. But I explain to the player in advance that if his actions begin to derail the adventure, cause strife in the party or force me to act as peacemaker too often, then something BAD will be happening to him real soon.

 

[avin]

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD vs evil... heh... I have a theory: Wotc is aiming D&D at kids. All the cartoonish art, the heroism, focus on miniatures.

Mature people still play this game, dudes, leave Wow lore (it's crappy, and this comes from somebody playing before AQ) and trow some bones at mature players... or at least get inspired by DK initial area, without the "redemption"...

 

[evilbob]

Thing is, most people play good guys.

Really? I don't have that experience at all, although I certainly can't say I know for certain. The vast majority of PCs I have seen are neutral or neutral-ish characters (LN, N, CN, or Un). Sure, the good PCs have outnumbered the evil, but the neutral outnumber both put together.

All the same, I actually started this thread to talk more about the possibilities of reskinning summoning to fit a necromancer role, since the whole issue with necromancers - that I am aware of, anyway - is that balancing "summonable creatures" was something the designers did NOT get a handle on initially. The whole "evil PCs" thing is a sidebar.

 

[Rechan]

All the same, I actually started this thread to talk more about the possibilities of reskinning summoning to fit a necromancer role, since the whole issue with necromancers - that I am aware of, anyway - is that balancing "summonable creatures" was something the designers did NOT get a handle on initially. The whole "evil PCs" thing is a sidebar.

Take a look at the Shaman.

Reskin the Spirit Companion as a bound ghost, or some other incorporeal undead.

The Shaman works many powers through the spirit companion, so the necromancer can be reskinned as using necromatic energy to boost and power his bound spirit. Or, the encounter powers that work through the spirit are the Necromancer breaching the ghost's will, allowing him to tap into its real powers.

 

[evilbob]

Take a look at the Shaman.

Reskin the Spirit Companion as a bound ghost, or some other incorporeal undead.

And that's a good idea - the Shaman and the Ranger (and maybe the Druid?) all already have "companions" - so to speak - that can be reskinned, and that's cool. What the summoner has, though, is simple daily powers that create a creature for that battle only. That seems a little closer to what I imagine the necromancer will be: someone who raises a temporary army of multiple creatures to command for about 5 minutes. (You know, Diablo II-like.) This is in addition to the non-attacking creatures that are simple servants (like in Open Grave). But who knows - maybe the long-term "companion" will make it as well.

What is interesting to me is how the devs took Flaming Sphere (the far and away best level 1 wizard daily) and reskinned -it- to be a summoned creature with only a couple changes: they dropped the auto-damage and in turn it sustains itself. That's an interesting balance scheme, and it seems like an... interesting direction (and it also settles - in my opinion, anyway - on Flaming Sphere being the baseline power for a wizard daily). I'm guessing we may also see wizard at-will powers that are just straight up better than what we already have...

 

[Rechan]

I'm guessing we may also see wizard at-will powers that are just straight up better than what we already have...

Last month Mearls made a bit of a splash when he said that the PHB Wizard at-wills weren't "controller enough". Case in point being Scorching Burst. This is why the Invoker/Druid at-wills were "better" compared to Scorching Burst.

So yes, I fully expect down the line that the At-Wills simply are better.

 

[Jhaelen]

Really? I don't have that experience at all, although I certainly can't say I know for certain. The vast majority of PCs I have seen are neutral or neutral-ish characters (LN, N, CN, or Un). Sure, the good PCs have outnumbered the evil, but the neutral outnumber both put together.

Exactly. And the reason is that players generally feel limited by alignment choices. Choosing a neutral alignment gives you the most freedom. Hence NN, or in 4E unaligned, is the most popular choice.

Which leads me back to my opinion about alignments:

Just get rid of alignments already - at least for pcs.

They maybe somewhat useful as a a shorthand to get a very rough idea how an npc might behave in certain situations but that's about it.

 

[evilbob]

Just get rid of alignments already - at least for pcs.

That's fair enough, and certainly not a bad idea, especially since 4.0 usually ignores them in its mechanics.

I'm not sure you could really do it practically, just because there are still one or two very rare mechanics that rely on this (like evil artifacts), and many people still self-identify their characters with an alignment anyway. But it's a good idea.

 

[Nymrohd]

Btw I am pretty certain we will get a Necromancer with the shadow source. I mean check the ultimate for the Darklord, that is serious necromantic mojo.