Sell me on Eberron

[Doug McCrae]

A Red Dragon is as likely to be CE as LG as CG as N.

I don't think this is true. Can you give a quote to back it up?

On page 8 the ECS says "Alignments are blurred, so that it's possible to encounter an evil silver dragon or a good vampire." Note 'possible', not 'as likely'. This is of course the exact same as standard D&D.

 

[Plane Sailing]

On the book thing...

I think Races of Eberron is a must-have.

Mileage may vary here - I hated Races of Eberron because in attempting to expand changelings, warforged and kalashtar I think they changed the emphasis from that which exists in the basic book - and not in a good way.

Some people like the book, perhaps even the majority of people, I don't know but it *does* introduce changes to ethos in a way that doesn't match the inspiration I received from the ECS write-ups. Simple e.g.s - I like the idea of warforged 'built to spec' as a fighter or rogue model or whatever, rather than the 'tabula rasa' that has to be trained for a particular purpose. The book also includes a number of options for the already strong warforged that make them even stronger. Another e.g. is that a meta-view of Dal Quor 'politics' is given which I find boring and unmysterious compared to the way things are set out in the ECS.

Cheers

 

[Merkuri]

That's actually part of standard 3E D&D.

It is, but not to the same level. Assumed alignments are a lot grayer in Eberron for the most part.

The way they put forth alignment in the Eberron Campaign Setting, it's perfectly acceptable for a good party to do jobs for an evil patron, even if they know he's evil. Alignment just has a different "feel" in Eberron, and one I will probably push into my non-Eberron campaigns.

A Red Dragon is as likely to be CE as LG as CG as N.

I don't think this is true. Can you give a quote to back it up?

Page 304 of the ECS, in the Iconic Monsters section: "Dragons come in all alignments; it is as common to encounter a good red dragon as it is an evil gold dragon." There are also a lot of NPC dragons that go counter to their alignment as given in the SRD.

 

[hong]

I've never really felt that alignment in Eberron was that different to alignment anywhere else. Okay, some monsters might move from "always X" to "often X" or something, but that's about it.

Page 304 of the ECS, in the Iconic Monsters section: "Dragons come in all alignments; it is as common to encounter a good red dragon as it is an evil gold dragon."

That's not quite the same thing as "it's as common to encounter a good red dragon as an evil red dragon". In fact, even in standard D&D it's as common to encounter a good red dragon as an evil gold dragon! (ie: [almost] never)

 

[Merkuri]

That's not quite the same thing as "it's as common to encounter a good red dragon as an evil red dragon". In fact, even in standard D&D it's as common to encounter a good red dragon as an evil red dragon! (ie: [almost] never)

I realized that as I posted it, but I really feel that the way dragons are designed in Eberron is that they are aloof from humanoid affairs and could go any way in alignment. If I have time later I'll see if I can pull up the aligments for all of the dragon NPCs in the ECS.

In any case, dragons in my Eberron campaign aren't color coded for your convenience.

 

[Klaus]

Mileage may vary here - I hated Races of Eberron because in attempting to expand changelings, warforged and kalashtar I think they changed the emphasis from that which exists in the basic book - and not in a good way.

Some people like the book, perhaps even the majority of people, I don't know but it *does* introduce changes to ethos in a way that doesn't match the inspiration I received from the ECS write-ups. Simple e.g.s - I like the idea of warforged 'built to spec' as a fighter or rogue model or whatever, rather than the 'tabula rasa' that has to be trained for a particular purpose. The book also includes a number of options for the already strong warforged that make them even stronger. Another e.g. is that a meta-view of Dal Quor 'politics' is given which I find boring and unmysterious compared to the way things are set out in the ECS.

Cheers

I liked a lot of Races of Eberron. The warforged chapter was so-so (I too like the built-to-spec approach, but I settled on a midway between the two), but the changeling and shifter chapters weren't up to par (I disliked the three tendencies of changelings and the shifter chapter was repetitive). But the kalashtar chapter sold me on the race (plus it was written by Keith Baker).

I liked a lot of the feats, though, and all of the racial substitution levels. The Atavist, Moonspeaker and Spellcarved Soldier are great classes.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I liked a lot of the feats, though, and all of the racial substitution levels. The Atavist, Moonspeaker and Spellcarved Soldier are great classes.

I turned the atavist into feat chains, which worked more to my liking.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I've never really felt that alignment in Eberron was that different to alignment anywhere else. Okay, some monsters might move from "always X" to "often X" or something, but that's about it.

I just figure it as lowering the percentage for what "always" and "often" and such mean, but since I've rarely been bound by such anyway, it doesn't change things for me.


I think the softening is actually the other way though. When a monster is listed as "CE", it might just mean "Neutral with chaotic evil tendencies" or something. I think most of this would be better handled by not making them CE to start with, but oh well.


And the last part, that alignment is not as restrictive. A LG guy can do something evil if he thinks it's for the right reasons without an automatic alignment shift.

For all of this though, I think the changes are actually from 3e, and predate Eberron. Eberron is built around the 3e game more, and so the changes get called out more, but it's not really (for me) that Eberron is that much different than pre-3e, but that 3e's change is noted more strongly there.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I liked a lot of Races of Eberron. The warforged chapter was so-so (I too like the built-to-spec approach, but I settled on a midway between the two),

I also like a mid-way point, Warforged are constructed with their end-path in mind, but still somewhat adaptable. I liked the Warforged chapter though, since it addressed the post-war Warforged in a style I liked.

but the changeling and shifter chapters weren't up to par (I disliked the three tendencies of changelings and the shifter chapter was repetitive).

Changelings chapter was good, but I disliked that they made the three tendencies seem like absolutes. I can see some DM's thinking a player has to choose which of the three they are, rather than them being simple tendencies among changeling society as a whole.

The Shifter chapter was fun, but nothing really new.

I would say though, that the difference there is that there was SOOOO little about changelings in the core book that any development of them was bound to clash with some concepts of them developed by folks.

 

[Merkuri]

Here's another piece of information that suggests dragons can (and often do) come in any alignment. It came from this dragonshard article, the second bullet item in the "National Character" section:

In Eberron, alignment and draconic color are not automatically linked.