Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 9737229" data-attributes="member: 7635">Please keep in mind this inquiry came from Steampunkette's idea that preserving should be precipitously weaker than defiling with no tradeoff other than "it's the right thing to do". Which is a noble sentiment, but its horrendous GAME balance because a choice that is between a bad choice and a good choice (not in alignment, but in quality) is no choice at all. Further commentary on this seemed to lend itself to "well, it's Dark Sun, of COURSE the morally right choice should be harder, weaker, and more difficult to make", which is ultimately me putting two and two together and asking "if Dark Sun puts (morally) good characters so far on the back-foot compared to amoral or evil ones, what is the incentive to play one?"Most D&D settings put the forces of evil and good on relatively equal footing. Ravenloft puts good in a weaker position to evil but punishes using evil options. Dark Sun puts good in a weak position but doesn't offset it in any way. Not only is Dark Sun more brutal and harsher to survive in but picking morally good choices forces you to do it with one hand tied behind your back. Which is why, outside the warm-fuzzys you have in tummy as you die, would you ever pick the weaker options? Now if Defiling offers a trade (for example, a quicker path to power but at the cost of corruption) then preserving being the slower, safer option becomes viable. But if defiling is superior in every way except you are a bad person to use it, it's not balanced. You are balancing a mechanical benefit (increased power) with a role-play restriction (you're a bad person) which places the onus on the DM to balance (the DM must chase defilers out of every town and village, even if that sabotages the current adventure). Ultimately, I'd prefer a system that places a mechanical benefit and hindrance on both styles of play, so that there is no mechanical incentive to "play bastards". That way, players who want to play heroes don't feel they are gimping themselves compared to playing villains. Good is already on the back-foot in Athas, there is no reason to incentivize evil characters further.</blockquote>

Verification