D&D 4E Fluff that plays bad (and how to fix it in 4e)

[Rakin]

I think alignment should be thrown out all together, your actions should govern what your character is like not what's written on your paper.

 

[jasin]

I think alignment should be thrown out all together, your actions should govern what your character is like not what's written on your paper.

It's already like that.

Your actions govern what your character is like.

What your character is like governs what is written on your paper.

What is written on your paper governs whether how you are affected by stuff like holy smite, dictum, smite evil, magic circle against chaos...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It's already like that.

Your actions govern what your character is like.

What your character is like governs what is written on your paper.

What is written on your paper governs whether how you are affected by stuff like holy smite, dictum, smite evil, magic circle against chaos...

The issue of course, being that when you're thinking your law breaking yet disciplined and utterly loyal to his master ninja is lawful X gets his with an Order's Wrath, and your DM says otherwise, because "lawbreakers are chaotic" or whatever.

Alignment is VERY subjective and you'll rarely find 2 people agreeing. Note the numerous threads on what alignment various characters are in fiction/real life. When you cant peg someone easily, adjuticating whether they are screwed/buffed by a certain spell is bound to lead to conflicts.

I think the designers are aware of this. While they said alignment will remain (sigh), its mechanical issues are apparently vanishing. At least a fluff only alignment is easier to utterly ignore.

 

[jasin]

The issue of course, being that when you're thinking your law breaking yet disciplined and utterly loyal to his master ninja is lawful X gets his with an Order's Wrath, and your DM says otherwise, because "lawbreakers are chaotic" or whatever.

Alignment is VERY subjective and you'll rarely find 2 people agreeing.

True, but so is charm, divination and (in games like GURPS) things like bloodlust, lechery, honour...

I don't think that "it's subjective and requires active adjudication" is an immediate death sentence, if the mechanic offers something useful to the game.

Alignment offers things like "for the wicked, the water from the holy spring will burn like fire" and "only creatures of the Dark can hear the Dark Speech".

When you cant peg someone easily, adjuticating whether they are screwed/buffed by a certain spell is bound to lead to conflicts.

FWIW, my solution has always been to trust the creator. If someone's straddling the line, they pick one side, and get affected accordingly. If someone's obviously over on one side... well, they're obviously over on one side.

I think the designers are aware of this. While they said alignment will remain (sigh), its mechanical issues are apparently vanishing.

That seem weird. What would be the point?

It seems to me that keeping the label but dropping the mechanical effects means you keep the baggage without keeping the cool effects like "the holy fire won't harm those of pure heart".

 

[hong]

That seem weird. What would be the point?

It seems to me that keeping the label but dropping the mechanical effects means you keep the baggage without keeping the cool effects like "the holy fire won't harm those of pure heart".

Change management. In 5E, they'll be able to say "alignment doesn't even do anything, so we might as well drop it completely".

Which I wouldn't mind, really.

 

[Drammattex]

Tolkein, Vance, Moorcock.

Great men with great ideas, I'm not disputing that, and I've loved the game for 25 years.

But do we stop at 1974 and say "D&D: this is what it is, was, and forever shall be?"

Since then, fantasy has got Jordan, Rowling, and Martin, just to name a few. Their influence on the next generation of gamers (the 4e generation of gamers?) is going to be HUGE.

As fantasy becomes bigger and medieval fantasy becomes more and more popular (I'm looking at you, George R.R. Martin), we might broaden our perspectives on the fluff a little, incorporating what's new and different.

As a side note, I really like the Eberron concept because it breaks the fluff mold that existed previously. Same with Dark Sun. And Planescape, for that matter.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

If there's a 4E Oriental Adventures, this is right at the top of my wish list. I'd want the monk class broken down into several different paths (probably with talent trees replacing PrCs) that range from "ordinary guy who can kick your ass" to "guy who races across the top of bamboo trees and then kicks your ass."

Hey, I'd be fine with it in the PHB, even.

If it was good enough to be in my 1st edition PHB as a rogue sub-class, it's good enough for 4e.

But that's a whole nother can of worms.

Brad

 

[blargney the second]

I was just reading through the Description chapter of the PHB, and this one stook out at me:

Elves are usually CG.
Wizards are usually LN.
Elf favoured class... you know the rest.
-blarg