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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saurdaux" data-source="post: 4232066" data-attributes="member: 58389">As far as evil gods in the DMG but not the PHB, I'm kind of on the fence about it. From the player perspective it's moderately inconvenient, in that you have to look in another book to make any kind of evilly religious character, but at least it's in a core book which will be available at the table anyway whether the player personally owns it or not. From the DM's perspective it makes it a bit easier to circumvent the sort of party that doesn't accomplish anything because their axiomatically inclined to fight each other. Is that a worthwhile trade-off? About as much as restricting magic items to the DMG was. At the heart of it, both intended to prevent potential game-breakers for tempting players without keeping them too far out of reach.While I reserve final judgment until the book is in my hand, the preliminary look at the new alignment system strikes me as being no better than the previous version. I tend to have a preconception of how I want my characters to behave and what their motivations are. Pinning that into one of the nine alignments wasn't always easy to do and five alignments probably won't be better for that. Sure, I could decide not to use alignment, but what fun is that? Besides that, alignment is fairly hard-wired into clerics, who I can't help but enjoy playing. Having an unusual enjoyment for playing clerics, I figured out that cleric domains are much more specific. I would use the expedient of comparing character-appropriate domains against the alignment of a corresponding deity to arrive at a good fit alignment. Now, I'm not really sure what, if anything, they're doing with the Domain system in this edition, but I'd like to see it adapted as an alternate alignment system, perhaps for PHB2. Not only could you recreate the old alignments that way, but you could also mix and match any shade of gray you like. It leads to more possibilities and is only as complicated as you choose to make it. You could create anything from a simple Captain Marvel/Shazam (Good) to a complicated Batman (Law, Chaos, Protection, Trickery, Knowledge, Etc.) or to use D&D-appropriate examples, a standard trickster bard type (Trickery) to a fervent activist druid (Earth, Plant, Animal, Protection). It also allows for succinctly describing a character who doesn't much care for good, evil, law, or chaos, without using the flavorless (at best) or misleading (at worst) "Neutral" or "Unaligned" categories.Deities would be largely unaffected, as they work their portfolio of domains anyway. It would make angels a bit more sensible too, as each could embody a specific domain. Since multiple deities can have the same domain, you end up with the same type of angel working for different gods.Now, I'm not going to say this is a perfect solution or one that Wizards is likely to put on bookshelves, but it'll be on my pleasantly short list of houserules for this edition either way.</blockquote>

Verification