Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9725632" data-attributes="member: 7026594"><p>That is basically the origin of alignment in 1974 OD&D. You get a list of creature types under each alignment (Law, Neutrality, Chaos) on page 9 of Men & Magic, which describes alignment as a "stance". Interestly, some creatures appear in multiple columns, like Orcs under both Neutrality and Chaos. Page 12 notes that creatures can be recruited into service "if they are of the same basic alignment as the player-character", and page 12 of The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures tells us that the DM should factor it in as a modification to Reaction Rolls.</p><p></p><p>Of course we also know that at least as early as 1975 we were seeing "alignment as faction/side" being supplanted or at least supplemented by "alignment as ethos/morality", with the prominent example of the new Paladin class requiring adherence to a particular moral and ethical stance and behavior. His "deeds" are described as needing to be Lawful; not merely him being on Team Lawful.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, remember that TSR also did things like telling us in OD&D and AD&D that Dwarf, Elf, and Gnome Clerics exist, but only as NPCs (see Supplement I: Greyhawk page 7 and PH page 14).</p><p></p><p>I do have an aesthetic preference for PCs and NPCs functioning by the same broad "rules/laws" in-universe. In theory a PC should be able to learn to do the same kinds of things a similar NPC can do, and vice versa. Though after extensive experience with having NPCs either use the same mechanics or different, more simplified mechanics <em>within the rules framework</em>, I tend to prefer the latter, finding it much more playable and less work for the GM.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mannahnin, post: 9725632, member: 7026594"] That is basically the origin of alignment in 1974 OD&D. You get a list of creature types under each alignment (Law, Neutrality, Chaos) on page 9 of Men & Magic, which describes alignment as a "stance". Interestly, some creatures appear in multiple columns, like Orcs under both Neutrality and Chaos. Page 12 notes that creatures can be recruited into service "if they are of the same basic alignment as the player-character", and page 12 of The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures tells us that the DM should factor it in as a modification to Reaction Rolls. Of course we also know that at least as early as 1975 we were seeing "alignment as faction/side" being supplanted or at least supplemented by "alignment as ethos/morality", with the prominent example of the new Paladin class requiring adherence to a particular moral and ethical stance and behavior. His "deeds" are described as needing to be Lawful; not merely him being on Team Lawful. Well, remember that TSR also did things like telling us in OD&D and AD&D that Dwarf, Elf, and Gnome Clerics exist, but only as NPCs (see Supplement I: Greyhawk page 7 and PH page 14). I do have an aesthetic preference for PCs and NPCs functioning by the same broad "rules/laws" in-universe. In theory a PC should be able to learn to do the same kinds of things a similar NPC can do, and vice versa. Though after extensive experience with having NPCs either use the same mechanics or different, more simplified mechanics [I]within the rules framework[/I], I tend to prefer the latter, finding it much more playable and less work for the GM. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism
Top