Eberron-as corny as I think?

[JohnSnow]

Oh, and John Snow, *I* don't like commonplace resurrection, which I think should have a major impact on society. My views on this matter can be found on page 20 of Sharn: City of Towers, where I say that even those who can use it rarely will (if you want the full line of reasoning, check the reference! ). It's essentially going to come down to the style of game you run. I prefer mystery and noir, where the threat of death is a very serious thing, and where when your partner gets killed, he's gone. But if you run a combat-heavy game where PC death happens every adventure, you may want to take a less restrictive approach. So the Sharn reference is MY opinion on the matter... but your mileage may vary.

Firstly Keith, let me add my birthday congrats to all the rest.

You and I have had this discussion before on the WotC boards. We mostly agree on tone and stories.

And strangely enough, I really like Eberron in spite of my personal preference for lower-magic settings, and my dislike of some of the D&Disms that you carried to logical consequences. To my mind, you've addressed most of them in the best way possible by some of the things you've done with the setting (and rules...more on that below). Some of the "D&Disms" I dislike...

1. Commonplace (good word, thanks Keith!) resurrection.

2. Activist deities who leave no room for corrupt religious figures or "faith-based" religion.

3. Overabundance of adventurers in general, and high-level ones in particular.

4. Peasants with the money to buy all the magical trinkets they want.

5. Reliable, predictable low-level magic that ought to be widely utilized, but just isn't.

6. Creature alignment so predictable you could set your watch by it.

In Eberron, you've addressed ALL of those. That's just cool and I would give you props for that alone. I like that at the same time you've introduced a lot of things to keep the setting from losing its sense of wonder.

I normally fix those inconsistencies by altering point 5 and making magic unreliable or unpredictable. Which addresses most of the lower points.

I like that adventurer-types are rare in the setting. I like that high-level adventurers are even rarer than adventurers. I like that resurrection is rare and therefore death is a serious consequence. And I love things like manifest zones, dragonmarks, warforged, and even airships and artificers.

Personally, in my own campaign, I'd have resurrections require the party to complete some form of quest. The deceased PCs player gets to play an interim role relevant to the quest - a priest of some deity or another, for example. One quest idea: go to Dolurrh via a manifest zone/conjunction and bring the deceased back. Very Hercules in hell...

The mechanic issue I like is the addition of action points so that PCs can "push" themselves. One question I had for other Eberron DMs...if I was in favor of "slower advancement," would you say I could give the PCs more action points per level? Say up the AP allotment based on how much slower the advancement rate is so that the PCs still have the same number of APs per encounter?

Most of my tweaks are in the form of importing some of the cool mechanics from Iron Heroes into bog standard D&D.

And while I'm not always fond of high-magic, I couldn't help but chortle over the following conversation in some Eberron short story I saw...

Newbie airship sailor: "That's strange. It smells like something's burning."
Veteran airship sailor: "How long have you been on this ship kid? We're powered by a bloody FIRE ELEMENTAL. It always smells like something's burning!"
Newbie: "No. I mean...I know that, but this is something else..."

It went on from there...but the veteran sailor's response made me laugh out loud. Lines like that make me WANT fire-elemental powered airships in my campaign!

 

[genshou]

1. Commonplace (good word, thanks Keith!) resurrection.

Since when was resurrection "commonplace"? In order to find a 9th-level Cleric you must travel to a large town at the smallest, and only 1/6 of those towns will even have a Cleric of sufficient level (1d6+3 for highest-level Cleric). Then you have to take into account that this 9th-level Cleric is the only 9th-level Cleric in that town and all surrounding smaller communities (and possibly the only one even among nearby large towns), which means you've likely got quite the queue of reservations to be placed at the end of. Also, raising the dead costs a lot of money, and some priests even require you to go on a quest before they'll put you on the queue at all (others will bypass the queue if you go on a quest, especially if adventurers have been scarce lately). Just because the high-level PCs have access to resurrective magic, that doesn't make it common. Remember that the PCs represent a very small subset of the population. At high levels they're just about unique in the campaign world. (See below)

3. Overabundance of adventurers in general, and high-level ones in particular.

I hope you won't mind if I ask where you get this perception? There are no rules in standard D&D about how many adventurers there are, and in fact from what it looks like they're quite rare, especially as a ratio to ordinary folk. High-level (12+) PC-classed characters represent a very select and very small subset of the population. I've estimated high-level folk to be approx. 0.0025% of the world's population by running several statistical analyses of the DMG's random community generation rules. I'd hardly call that "overabundance".

4. Peasants with the money to buy all the magical trinkets they want.

Right, 5d4 gp is a lot of money to buy magical trinkets. Sorry, but... where did you get that idea again?

5. Reliable, predictable low-level magic that ought to be widely utilized, but just isn't.

The reason it isn't is because less than 1% of the population are magic users, and nearly all of the magic users are low-level. That's a lot of demand for little supply.

6. Creature alignment so predictable you could set your watch by it.

I assume you're referring to Outsiders, beings from other planes whose very essences are drawn from the powers of the planes they call home? An Outsider being true to their alignment is no more ridiculous than a water elemental being made out of... water. And outside of there, alignments can fluctuate quite a bit among most creatures (besides nonsentient life forms, which are Neutral because they don't have a sense of morality).

Really, people just need to be properly educated on the facts of D&D to battle all these common misconceptions. Eberron goes a long way toward thwarting my goals, because it makes people think these things were a bigger problem in the standard rules than they actually were in the first place. But I don't really think Keith intended that when he wrote the setting the way he did.

--
Sincerely yours,
genshou
Battling false perceptions about standard D&D since 2001

 

[Hellcow]

I assume you're referring to Outsiders, beings from other planes whose very essences are drawn from the powers of the planes they call home?

Actually, I doubt he is. Outsiders are one of the few creatures who I hold to standard alignments in Eberron, for the precise reasons you state: powerful outsiders are embodiments of ideals. They ARE philosophy as much as anything else. Yes, an angel can fall, but it's a far different thing than a human.

I am willing to hold to predictable alignments in two major cases: Outsiders, who essentially embody ideas; and creatures whose alignments are imposed by an outside force, such as a lycanthrope who is forced to an evil alignment because of the curse. However, while in Eberron lycanthropy changes alignment, even there it's unpredictable - tied to the strain of lycanthropy as opposed to the creature, so you can find a good werewolf or an evil werebear.

What I believe he is refering to is as much as anything, the "usuals". By the MM:
Harpies: Usually chaotic evil
Hobgoblins: Usually lawful evil
Medusas: Usually lawful evil
Minotaurs: Usually chaotic evil
Ogres: Usually chaotic evil
Red Dragons: Always chaotic evil
... and so on, and so on. Essentially, "monsters" are usually evil. But most of these creatures are intelligent beings. Hobgoblins are just as intelligent as humans. Medusas are MORE intelligent that humans. And even with the dumb ogre, why should stupidity make them evil? Essentially, for intelligent creatures, Eberron tries to make culture more important that race. There are evil orcs who worship the Dragon Below. There are good orcs who guard the passes of the Labyrinth. They have the same level of diversity of alignment that you would expect to find in other mortal races - like humans.

So no, there's a solid reason for outsiders to have predictable alignments, and I generally hold to those even in Eberron - though as the kalashtar and radiant idols show, it's always possible to fall from grace. It's the MORTALS whose alignment is usually hard to predict.

 

[Elephant]

Doesn't stop me from being AWESOMELY RIGHT!

Seriously, it highlights my whole problem with the warforged. Ignoring the need to have them as PC-playable race, and ignoring weird "accidents" that any PC would whine if it happened to them, they make no sense, since, using simple RAW, you can have much better warmachines for the same price.

What's the price of a single warforged?

I'm guessing the price ratio between iron golems and 'forged is somewhere in the 1:1000 range. Sure, a single IG can smack down a battalion of 1000 'forged (especially if they're not customized with golem destruction in mind), but which one is going to be quicker and more efficient vs. 1000 human or elven soldiers? Which one can control more territory?

 

[Stone Dog]

The alignment thing isn't limited to outsiders. Dragons are listed as "always" critters so you can pretty much know that if it isn't all glittery and shiney it is an evil creature. Sphinxes are also victims of alignment profiling. Even though orcs are merely "often" chaotic evil the way they are protrayed in most settings and novels you might as well say "always."

Eberron makes a point to blur the lines even further so that guessing something's alignment based on its species isn't very useful. That sort of thing is profiling and profiling is wrong.

As to the overabundance of adventurers, this is mostly in a contrast to Forgotten Realms where Adventurer is actually a social class that countries have laws to deal with.

 

[Stone Dog]

What's the price of a single warforged?

Somewhere between 1,200 GP and 1,500 GP as discussed yesterday upthread. I'd range it from 800-2,000 depending on model, personally.

 

[genshou]

Actually, I doubt he is. Outsiders are one of the few creatures who I hold to standard alignments in Eberron, for the precise reasons you state: powerful outsiders are embodiments of ideals. They ARE philosophy as much as anything else. Yes, an angel can fall, but it's a far different thing than a human.
[...]
... and so on, and so on. Essentially, "monsters" are usually evil. But most of these creatures are intelligent beings. Hobgoblins are just as intelligent as humans. Medusas are MORE intelligent that humans. And even with the dumb ogre, why should stupidity make them evil? Essentially, for intelligent creatures, Eberron tries to make culture more important that race. There are evil orcs who worship the Dragon Below. There are good orcs who guard the passes of the Labyrinth. They have the same level of diversity of alignment that you would expect to find in other mortal races - like humans.

Right, I was speaking of standard D&D of course and not Eberron, but you keep the "Always" creatures that way of course. I just think that if the creatures have

alignment so predictable you could set your watch by it

that must mean an "always" alignment. My 3.0 Monster Manual has this to say about "usually" alignments:

The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of the creatures' origin. For example, most elves inherited their chaotic good alignment from their creator, the deity Corellon Larethian.

So, let's take orcs as an example. I love to talk about orc alignment. Over 50% of orcs are chaotic evil, due to orc society and the nature of their usual religion. Now, does that mean that in a chaotic evil orc village, the ratio between evil and nonevil orcs is the same as it is when applied to the whole race? Probably not. I've had villages of neutral and even good orcs in my game, just to throw the players a bit and make them think about what it really means to go around and wantonly kill orcs. Now, in Eberron would you say that for these races the "over 50%" still applies to the races as a whole, or have you gone even further and made them truly culturally broad as an entire race?

 

[Hellcow]

This is a popular and common misconception about the Realms. If you look at the continental population vs. the number of spellcasters, FR isn't far off from standard D&D.

Actually, I never thought it was. My point is that *standard D&D* is far higher than I would like. By the DMG demographics table, the standard metropolis will include an 17th or 18th level cleric (along with a few more in the 15th level range), along with a 16th level wizard and sorcerer. Even in a small city, you've got a good chance at 5th-level arcane and 6th-level divine spells. Again, with Eberron the point is more magewrights and adepts, more 1st-4th level magic... but considerably less 5th-level and above.

I want to stress here that I'm not against FR. I do not consider Eberron in any way an improvement over FR. The ways in which Eberron differs - fewer high-level allies, distant gods, and so on - are not better than FR's approach. Among other things, I LIKE having Trojan War style campaigns where the gods walk the earth. But the point is, FR already DOES that. Eberron is an alternative, an option for exploring something that isn't as traditional.

So, Eberron has fewer high-level casters than FR or standard D&D. It's intentional, and it's a fact. That doesn't mean having high-level NPCs destroys a game - but it has a different flavor, and Eberron is trying something different. Finding someone who can cast a seventh level spell is a significant challenge. Though again, that's finding an ALLY who can do it... the Lords of Dust have no shortage of high-level casters!

And really, with the population of Aber-Toril, why is anyone surprised there are a dozen epic-level characters running about?

Again, different approach. With the "Players-are-the-heroes-of-the-age" approach of Eberron, it's not a question of numbers. As I've stated before, I do not believe that NPCs have the same inherent right or ability to gain experience and advance as PCs do. It's the same principle as KOTR II - "Do you think EVERYONE can become incredibly powerful just by killing things?" In my opinion - and ONLY my opinion - the typical village blacksmith will not become a better blacksmith by killing a few goblins. Likewise, many NPCs simply have a glass ceiling; 3rd level (or even 1st level!) may simply be as good as they're going to get. Perhaps they just aren't dedicated enough. Perhaps they don't have the inherent talent. But this is why most veterans of the Last War ARE still first or second level, like 99% of the population... because most people don't gain XP as PCs do. The ability to use the XP/advancement system described in the Player's Handbook is something I reserve for PCs, just like action points. NPCs advance when and if I want them to, as best befits the story.

This may VERY well be cheesy. But it's how I roll (dice). Essentially, when I'm running a game, it's a move. The PCs are the main characters. They may run into big, cool villains. But they don't running into a stormtrooper who's three levels higher than his buddies because he was on that mission where they killed all the jawas and the others weren't. He's a background character, and background characters often get screwed.

Back to the original point, I have no problem with their being epic level characters in FR. But that doesn't mean that population would determine whether there should be any epic level characters in Eberron. Epic level characters are legends, and the goal in Eberron is to say that it's up to the PCs to fill this role (not, mind you, counting the various epic level villains out there).

 

[Hellcow]

Now, in Eberron would you say that for these races the "over 50%" still applies to the races as a whole, or have you gone even further and made them truly culturally broad as an entire race?

The latter, definitely. That's the point. As you said, the "usually" alignment is based on culture and religion. In Eberron, monstrous cultures are every bit as diverse as those of humans. Looking to orcs, you have the balancing Gatekeeper-Dragon Below traditions of the Shadow Marches, which span the full spectrum of alignments; the noble Ghaashkala of the Demon Wastes; the more aggressive Jhorash'tar of the Mror Holds; and whatever else you may add to the setting. There's no inherent "Orcs are usually evil"; it's all about culture, and there are many different cultures. Ditto for medusas, minotaurs, and even red dragons!

The dragon is another "always" point. Again, the only creatures I hold to "always" are creatures whose alignment is dictated by a metaphysical nature (outsiders) or overriding magical force (lycanthropes). You could argue that a dragon is in some ways an iconic entity like an outsider, but the dragons of Eberron are not. They are intelligent creatures whose alignments are shaped by culture and tradition, just like humans. Within a culture, dragons often share an alignment - but this can lead to the noble blue Storm Guardians of Adar. So when you see a red dragon you can't just say "Red means evil"... you need to know his background.

 

[genshou]

[Stuff snipped for brevity]

I heartily agree with everything you said, except the part where you said it may be cheesy. That's not cheesy at all. It's sensible.

We may have different ways we like to go about it, but we're both really after the same thing in campaign design.

I may still not want to pick up a copy of the campaign setting and play a game in it, but now that I've gotten a chance to have some intelligent conversation with you I feel a lot better about some of the issues I had with it.