Metagame role of PoL compared to alignment

[tomBitonti]

I know. That's part of my point.

This is not the case in canonical PoL, as set out in W&M, which discusses the role of the different points of light as safehavens for all members of PC races. (Thus the importance of the removal of inherent enmity between races.)

The need to protect all these safehavens is what (on my analysis) gives the PCs a motivation to adventure together despite their diverse origins.

In the canonical descriptoin of PoL this is not the case.

Ah ... I have not read the background to that detail.

But, I stand by my point. (Which means I don't buy the canonical POL assumptions.) I can't buy into disparate communities cooperating for very long -- unless there is a strong tie between them that forces them to develop in parallel. Then they aren't really isolated. This would be the case if there were citadels connected by high capacity teleport networks which were run by a very strong organization.

Hmm, there is another take on POL, which is that the points are like the nearly isolated points on fractal boundaries. In the Medelbrot set the points are connected to the main body, but arbitrarily far away. But then this is not so much POL, but just a frontier, so no dice.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

DND is not typically a game of temporary PC alliances. It's typically a game of permanent PC alliances.

Sure. But the setting is about more than the PCs.

 

[Voss]

Sure. But the setting is about more than the PCs.

Oddly enough, the impression that I keep getting from the marketing and the blogs is that it isn't. All gods have to be adventuring deities, towns are safe zones, don't bother fleshing out the setting beyond the areas the PCs will reach, and so on and so forth. We still haven't seen jack on anything that isn't combat, which also makes me sad.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Very intersting observations. I want my W&M, too.

Ah ... I have not read the background to that detail.

But, I stand by my point. (Which means I don't buy the canonical POL assumptions.) I can't buy into disparate communities cooperating for very long.

Competition usually arises if groups have to compete over resources. Two adjacent towns compete, because they need the surrounding land to grow crops, the forests to get wood or mines to get metals.

If you increase the distance between the cities, things are different. Suddenly, they don't have to share/compete on certain matters. Perhaps one has something the other doesn't, and vice versa, so there is some need for trade.

In the PoL, there is distance between the communities.
Roaming monsters in the wild in-between even expands this distance, making travel even more difficult. A neighbour not too far away means a chance to trade, and a chance to join forces if one of the treats tries to attack one of the settlements. Or it could provide a safe haven if your own settlement falls. It's better to be friendly to each other in case you need the others, especially if you know that any covergence of the darkness between the settlements can't be stand against alone.

There is naturally still some room for conflict bewteen PoLs. If there is some resource they both need, this will lead to tension, possible even to out-right war. But the tension might mostly greet those that can be identified of coming from the rivaling PoL. Other travellers are still welcome, because they still offer trade and show there are some other PoLs out.

 

[pemerton]

<snip objections to PoL>

Voss, I'm not unsympathetic to some of your comments. But to me they almost read like reasons to play an RPG other than D&D (perhaps Runequest or HeroWars/Quest).

 

[The Little Raven]

Sure. But the setting is about more than the PCs.

But the game really is supposed to be all about the PCs. A setting is useless without them.

 

[pemerton]

You're arguing from a corner case. Demons and Devils had alignment proscribed for them first, and their personalities derived later. This is the reverse of how alignment is intended to work, and so represents a less reliable case for the dismissal of the rule wholesale.

I'm not trying to be too swift, but hasn't a defence of alignment's role in D&D painted itself into a corner once it's describing lower planar creatures, and their troubled interaction with the alignment system, as corner cases?

The only less corner case I could think of would be a Paladin.

#All this said, I didn't think alignment was ever truly meant to form alliances.

Here we just disagree. I've mentioned (in general terms) the sources from which I'm drawing my notion of alignment upthread.

 

[pemerton]

Sure. But the setting is about more than the PCs.

Are, but that's where the 4e designers disagree.

The setting is not a literary creation. It's a contribution to a game. Everything in 4e (to judge both from what they assert in W&M, and the examples they give to back those assertions up) is being redesigned to make sure that it supports the game.

Of course, within the gameworld everything is not about the PCs (so, for example, diviniation spells won't necessarily identify the PCs as the centre of the universe). But designing the gameworld is not something that happens in the gameworld, it is a metagame process. And from the metagame persepctive the PCs are the centre of the universe because the players (of which the GM is one, but only one) are the one's who are rocking up on a Sunday afternoon looking to have fun.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Oddly enough, the impression that I keep getting from the marketing and the blogs is that it isn't. All gods have to be adventuring deities, towns are safe zones, don't bother fleshing out the setting beyond the areas the PCs will reach, and so on and so forth. We still haven't seen jack on anything that isn't combat, which also makes me sad.

This is not what they have said in Worlds and Monsters.

Look, I know that the game is supposed to be geared towards the PCs, but it has to be a larger framework in which the PCs find themselves.

 

[KarinsDad]

Obviously we disagree. I think the world is very cleverly thought out - the only other D&D world I know that goes to anything like this much trouble to integrate world and classic D&D gameplay with someting better than alignment is Arcane Unearthed (Eberron might also, but I don't know it well enough and how far it really goes in ditching alignment). But I think PoL is cleverer.

You keep using words like clever for this.

It is not especially clever at all. There have been a lot of points of light campaigns and for simplicity purposes, ones where the good races get along.

Points of Light is a very old RPG concept. Many of the original mid 70s to early 80s campaign settings were PoL. Sure, 4E appears to be putting a heavy "all races kumbuya" spin on it, but that is not really very clever. It is a metagaming concept that flies in the face of plausibility.

Now I agree with you that in Runequest or The Dying Earth that would be boring. But in (what I am calling) classic D&D it is a plus. Strange towns are places where you go to rest. Adventures happen out in the darkness (unless you actually look for trouble in the safe places: W&M sidebar p 20).

Why can't strange (or even non-strange) towns be a place for adventure?

As for Elven perception, I assume they are talking or signalling to their friends. What do we do about corner cases (eg a Doppelganger or Wererat has infiltrated the party)? We handle it when it arises - they probably get the Elf benefit (they see the signals or hear the whisper) but don't get the Bard benefit (because they see what their foes are being roused to).

I find alll of this nearly as mechanically straightforward as alignment, and a lot better within the context of the gameworld.

Actually, until it is given a rationale, it's not straightforward at all. In other words, a new rule just because it is a new rule. Crunch with no fluff. And, not necessarily intuitive crunch. For example, does the Elf give the bonus if he is unconscious? Until the specifics are actually explained, it is merely a new rule with no "better" about it than any other old or new rule.

I think we need all of the data before we can support this particular rule as a good rule.

Other travellers are still welcome, because they still offer trade and show there are some other PoLs out.

Why? Humans do not act that way in the real world. Why would they in a PoL world? Are they not really supposed to be human with human motivations?

Rome attacked and conquered the Barbarians. Ditto for most (not all, but most) ancient real world civilizations. They had city states. They cooperated mostly with their own city states and warred on neighboring city states.

Trade comes with enlightenment and safety. A safe and secure community is willing to trade and cooperate. A threatened community would be more apt to shoot first and ask questions later.

A PoL world is not a safe world. Trade should be minimal. Foreigners should be distrusted (especially Tieflings). The 4E PoL is not a clever concept. On the contrary, it's illogical. People trust when they are given a reason to trust. So far, nothing that has been written on the new 4E PoL setting indicates a reason for trust (at least based on what has been written here and in other threads that I have read).


Seriously, this is no different than 1E through 3E economic systems. They were terrible because those designers didn't know anything about real world economics.