Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6077625" data-attributes="member: 6680772">AlignmentI admit, if there's one thing I find unsatisfactory about Moldvay's Basic, it's alignment.  It seems like there were a number of good ideas there, but nothing you can point at to say "This is alignment."  Rereading it now doesn't provide me with further insight.  First there's the idea of the players being aligned with Great Forces.  This is hinted at.  The first line of the section is, "Three basic ways of life guide the acts of both player characters and monsters."  Ways of life hints at more than just personality, or even moral attitudes.  The alignments are given proper noun names - a character isn't just Lawful or Chaotic, their alignment is Law or Chaos.  There's also a hint that alignment is a game-world phenomenon: "Most Lawful characters will reveal their alignment if asked."  As well as the alignment languages.  But then it stops there.  To my frustration, alignment languages are not fully explained.  Why does a character forget them if he changes alignment?  Why do they use the new one immediately?Then there's the idea that Law and Chaos are just euphemism for Good and Evil.  Moldvay writes "Lawful behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called 'good'," "Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called 'evil'," and "Neutral behavior may be considered 'good' or 'evil' (or neither) depending on the situation.  In particular, Chaotic gets singled out: "When picking alignments, the characters should know that Chaotics cannot be trusted, even by other Chaotics.  A Chaotic character doesn't work well with other player characters."  As if to say, "Chaotic is not really for PCs..."  But this good-evil parallel is undercut almost immediately by such words as "usually" and the fact that neutral might be good or evil.  So the game also hints that you could have good Chaotic characters and evil Lawful characters (which had been in D&D since the early supplements, as well as Holmes.)So alignment doesn't say my character is good or evil.  So is it describing personality, morals, and attitude?  Is it less in-world fluff than just a role-playing aid?  A short-hand for communicating to other players what kind of character he or she is?  But this is undercut by alignment languages, as well as advice for DMs give players a punishment or penalty for not playing in line with the character's alignment.With our group, I guess we ended up ignoring alignment languages and just playing alignment as broad personality traits.  Our characters were basically good - I tended to go with Neutral because I didn't have to worry about "playing to alignment" so much.  My sister made Chaotic elves that were basically just whimsical.  The alignment section has <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_P61pW1ywLpk/S7RTDMefc7I/AAAAAAAABmE/N2bAqCSPEaA/s1600/alignment.jpg" target="_blank">this picture</a>, which seems to portray the alignments as Good, Evil, and Hipster.Holmes writes:Quickly rounding up character generation:Equipment - I'm not entirely sure if the Basic equipment list is good because it provides just the right amount of variety without being overwhelming, or if I only think that because it's the standard by which I've judged everything that comes after.  Two axes (Battle and Hand), three bows (Cross, Long, and Short), two daggers (Normal and Silver), three swords (Short, normal, and Two-handed), and rounded up by the Mace, Club, Pole Arm, Sling, Spear, and War Hammer.  Three kinds of armor, Chain, Leather, and Plate Mail, plus the Shield.  Clothing only is AC 9, Leather is AC 7, Chain is AC 5, and Plate Mail is AC 3.  Add the shield in between those, and you've got every number from 9 to 2, which is kinda elegant.  Variety without analysis paralysis.  Unfortunately, it wouldn't be until the Expert Set that equipment got much in the way of explanation.  The noble 10' pole is here, but I can't see any reference to what it's used for.Languages - a table is provided with 20 intelligent monsters from the Basic book.  Monsters only have a 20% chance of speaking Common, except for Dragons who will speak both Dragon and Common if they speak at all.  I feel this is something that's fallen to the wayside in later editions -- and not without reason.  But languages take on a whole new meaning when used in conjunction with Basic's reaction rolls.  Having someone speak the language of an encountered monster can mean the difference between pulling a masterful Yojimbo, or getting into a high-risk, low-reward fight.Inheritance - At the DM's option, each player can have a one-time heir to whom all their treasure and equipment (minus 10% for the taxman) will go to in the event of their character's death.  The heir has to be a new level 1 character."Hopeless characters" - Here defined as below average in every ability, or more than score in the 3-6 range.This chapter ends with an example of character creation, as a female player rolls up Morgan Ironwolf.  I have the feeling that this egalitarian approach is one reason why my sister took to D&D when we were kids, and years later introduced my 6 year old niece to the game.  Go Moldvay.</blockquote>

Verification