D&D 4E The Blood War in 4E?

[pemerton]

I daresay that most players new to gaming who might pick up D&D4e would be more familiar with Lord of the Rings by way of the films than the Greek creation myths and European faerie myths.

Agreed, though (following Tokien) I'd be prepared to put LoTR under the general heading of faerie myths.

Also, the idea of evil fighting itself is prevalent in many popular movies.

<snip>

There were still plenty of possibilities in my campaigns for players to discover and explore evil and good and neutrality and law and have exciting adventures. Even if alignment is clunky at times, it was interesting for them to be able to interact with creatures who represented abstract concepts. There is a rich tradition in literature for heroes to meet and interact with such entities: A Christmas Carol, The Faerie Queene, The Chronicles of Narnia, the Eternal Champion series, the Lovecraft mythos, and others.

I agree with the above. It's just that what you're exploring when you watch those movies, or read those books, or (IMO) engage in that sort of play is some other author's opinion of the nature of good and evil.

What I am praising about the 4e changes is that they make room for the players to author their own account of the nature of good and evil during the course of play. I think this is a rewarding way to play an RPG, and I think 4e will make room for it in a way that D&D hasn't hitherto (again, with Eberron as a possible exception).

The way that 4e is set up, however, seems to indicate that a lot more backstory will have to be digested.

Maybe. I still think that it is an advantage to have that backstory draw on fairly well-known tropes (elves and faeries, ancient desert empires, infernal pacts, etc) then the largely original elements of Planescape. Obviously that's just my opinoin.

 

[pemerton]

Indeed, one of my favorite aspects of the alignment system is that it ADDS complexity to otherwise irrelevant philosophy.

<snip>

The thing is, I see this in 2e and 3e, too. I see it in all the PS material, I see it in the absolute alignments, and I see it as *especially* interesting with those absolute alignments. Because you know the hobgoblin is Evil. But you aren't. You worship the same god, have some of the same goals...exploring that difference, determining why you aren't evil, but he is...and dedicating yourself to the things that make you different from him.

This happened all the time in 2e and 3e for me, and will likely continue to happen in 4e, but it didn't need to open up the alignments to achieve that. Not that I think it's bad to have a broader 'unaligned' category, just that absolute alignments do give these questions a cosmological weight that they would lack in a world without tangible Evil and Good and Law and Chaos.

KM, thanks for the reply.

Needless to say, we have a real disagreement here about the contribution of alignment to gameplay. I won't bang on about it, but just try to reiterate what my problem is in light of your comments.

For me, D&D's alignment system detracts from philosophical complexity, because instead of leaving the problem of living a moral life as one for the player to resolve (through the way they roleplay their character, and the way the other playes and GM at the table respond to that) it becomes a problem that the game designers have already tried to answer (by defining Good and Evil in ch 6 of the PHB), which answer the GM has to apply from time to time (by responding to the player's casting of a Detect Alignment spell on him or herself).

I also see the alignment as taking all the sting out of the Hobgoblin cleric encounter, because I (as a player) already know that I am not Evil like the Hobgoblin (I have LN written on my character sheet, after all). So there is no moral or thematic question to answer in play, just a combat to roleplay out.

With alignment and the nature of evil already spelled out in play, the best one can get, therefore, is to play a game in which one gets to exlore the implications of the game designers' ideas of good and evil. But to be honest, if I want to do that sort of thing I'll read a book - and probably a book that is better written than most D&D material (which can be interesting, but is rarely great literature).

The question of motive might already be 'known' (in a broad sense), but the cause (or, at least, the STATED cause) of many wars is known, and that doesn't preclude secondary desires, hidden causes, and the actual consequences of the war. The Players already know, the Characters either know or discover it quickly, but that knowledge isn't doing anything to save the village caught in the path of the war unless the PC's DO something.

I don't disagree with this - the Blood War can generate plots, and doesn't particularly get in the way of them. My problem is that it doesn't generate thematic development in play, because it already resolves the thematic question of the nature of evil.

I'm not saying that 4e mandates the sort of "thematic developmen" play I am advocating here - as I noted earlier, I suspect the primary motivation for changes to the mechanical framework for handling moral choices is a purely gamist one. But I think it opens the door to play that D&D (via alignment rules) has hitherto got in the way of.

 

[Wolfspider]

What I am praising about the 4e changes is that they make room for the players to author their own account of the nature of good and evil during the course of play. I think this is a rewarding way to play an RPG, and I think 4e will make room for it in a way that D&D hasn't hitherto (again, with Eberron as a possible exception).

I don't really see how other editions of D&D have prevented player authorship in the manner you describe. Maybe I don't really understand what you mean. Could you elaborate?

 

[Wolfspider]

With alignment and the nature of evil already spelled out in play, the best one can get, therefore, is to play a game in which one gets to exlore the implications of the game designers' ideas of good and evil. But to be honest, if I want to do that sort of thing I'll read a book - and probably a book that is better written than most D&D material (which can be interesting, but is rarely great literature).

Won't players of D&D4e be playing out the game designers ideas of good and evil as well? After all, the designers have decided what demons and devils are and where they live and what their relationship with each other is. They have also decided to make fey more morally grey as well. It seems to me that we will be playing in their sandbox just as we have in all previous editions, unless, of course, a DM decides to make changes, a possibility which is not new to 4e either.

 

[Wolfspider]

I don't disagree with this - the Blood War can generate plots, and doesn't particularly get in the way of them. My problem is that it doesn't generate thematic development in play, because it already resolves the thematic question of the nature of evil.

Nope, I definitely don't know what you're talking about here.

EDIT: I read your response to Kamakaze Midget, and I think I understand your point better.

However, I still disagree.

I don't think that a party is going to see a demon destroying a town and immediately start some deep philosophical discussion about whether they should destroy the demon or not with the screams of the innocent in the background. I just don't think D&D is that kind of game.

I don't think removal of alignment is going to stop characters from killing orcs and dragons and demons and such. I don't think it is going to add much moral complexity to the game, either.

 

[Dausuul]

Won't players of D&D4e be playing out the game designers ideas of good and evil as well? After all, the designers have decided what demons and devils are and where they live and what their relationship with each other is. They have also decided to make fey more morally grey as well. It seems to me that we will be playing in their sandbox just as we have in all previous editions, unless, of course, a DM decides to make changes, a possibility which is not new to 4e either.

But demons and devils are no longer the avatars of Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil, just as angels are no longer the avatars of Good. They simply are what they are. Demons are horrific engines of fury and destruction, devils are scheming masterminds trying to escape their planar prison. It's up to the DM and the players to decide how much metaphysical significance, if any, to give them. Maybe they're agents of grand philosophical principles, as in 3E. Maybe they're just powerful planar beings, each with its own slant on the universe. Or maybe there's something else going on. The system does not attempt to dictate which.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Nope, I definitely don't know what you're talking about here.

EDIT: I read your response to Kamakaze Midget, and I think I understand your point better.

However, I still disagree.

I don't think that a party is going to see a demon destroying a town and immediately start some deep philosophical discussion about whether they should destroy the demon or not with the screams of the innocent in the background. I just don't think D&D is that kind of game.

Maybe the "problem" is that pemerton seems to speak less about demons and devils in specific but more to the issues of alignment/morals in general, as it applies to "normal" parts of life.

Replace the demon destroying a town with something less absolute.
Maybe a band of orcs that have captured a few children and are demanding some money from he villagers. Is there anything to justify their actions? What could have driven them to do it? With the standard D&D alignment, you don't have to ask yourself this. They are usually evil, and a Paladin can even easily verify if they're evil and deserve a violent treatment.

Or assume the PCs having to make a few tough choices - abandoning some people, maybe even sacrificing someone (not ritually, just effectively) to save someone else or stop/delay the BBEG. With the aligment system, to figure out if what you did was morally right or not you can just cast Detect Good or Evil on yourself and check if everything is okay. And even if you don't, you still have your alignment, and if someone with an Unholy Blight or Holy Word targets you, you'll still find out.

A side effect of this is also the "yet another alignment debate" thing we often encounter in the General RPG board. People actually have different ideas on good & evil or law & chaos (the latter often seems even more difficult). But this leads to people discussing on a game-term using real-world examples. You risk getting into discussions detracting from the game, possible leading to hurt feelings at the table. If alignment is not also a game term, but just a short-hand reference, it's a lot easier to agree to disagree - you don't have to make a final judgement on whether a Paladin can use his powers or a Holy Word spell affects a PC or not.

 

[pemerton]

I don't really see how other editions of D&D have prevented player authorship in the manner you describe.

<snip and jump>

Won't players of D&D4e be playing out the game designers ideas of good and evil as well? After all, the designers have decided what demons and devils are and where they live and what their relationship with each other is. They have also decided to make fey more morally grey as well. It seems to me that we will be playing in their sandbox just as we have in all previous editions, unless, of course, a DM decides to make changes, a possibility which is not new to 4e either.

<snip and jump>

I don't think that a party is going to see a demon destroying a town and immediately start some deep philosophical discussion about whether they should destroy the demon or not with the screams of the innocent in the background. I just don't think D&D is that kind of game.

I don't think removal of alignment is going to stop characters from killing orcs and dragons and demons and such. I don't think it is going to add much moral complexity to the game, either.

Just focussing on the first sentence of each of your last two paragraphs: (1) What if the town is a town of Hobgoblins who otherwise would invade one of the PoL?; (2) What if one of the characters is (a) a Half-orc or (b) a Dragonborn or (c) a Warlock with a nasty pact (are there Abyssal pacts, or only Diabolic? - anyway, I think a Devil counts as an instace of "demons and such)? Earlier editions of D&D don't really support player authorship in these situations - they get in the way by labelling the Warlock as Evil (and thus already telling us s/he is beyond the pale) or by already telling the players not to ally their PCs with the town-destroying Demon (because Paladins who work with Evil creatures automatically lose their powers, and because many GMs frown on any Good PCs who would do such a thing).

Maybe your experience is different. I can only speak from what I have encountered in playing and in reading about other's play experiences - and this is that, in D&D, when a moral question arises the alignment rules, and all the other world elements constructed around it (including the Blood War, to allude back to the thread topic) are there trying to give a predetermined answer. And whenever the answer is predetermined, the players are not authoring.

Now I agree that for many players D&D is not the kind of game I am talking about, or at least has not been in the past. Will abolishing alignment (and its consequent plot elements, like the Blood War) introduce more moral complexity? Not necessarily - as I've said twice now, it will mainly facilitate gamist play by no longer nerfing players for their character build choices when unforeseen alignment conflicts emerge during play. But it makes room for more interesting thematically developmental play, by getting rid of those world elements which try to fix the answers to those questions in advance. And maybe, with the barriers removed, more players will find themselves wanting and able to engage in this sort of play.

To head off on a slight tangent, I think that there is a reason that D&D has kept its alignment system when so few other games - even mechanically quite derivative fantasy RPGs - have not. It's because classic D&D play involves two aspects: (i) killing and looting (like Conan, and basically amoral and wicked); and at least since 2nd edition AD&D (ii), the frequent assertion that the PCs are heroes (like Arthurian knights, who don't really kill and loot).

Alignment was meant to resolve this tension, by justifying as Good the killing and looting of sentient beings. But to do this it had to posit those beings as Evil. And this in turn meant that the game had to offer a ready-made answer to the sorts of moral questions one might expect to arise and hope to resolve during play.

As I've argued in the "Metagame role of PoL" thread, I think that the PoL setting is a clever attempt to reconcile (i) and (ii) above without alignment. In this thread I've tried to give some reasons why I think it also better allows for the sort of thematic exploratory play I am trying to describe.

There are many other fantasy RPGs that allow for that sort of play, of course (eg The Dying Earth, or HeroQuest, or even RQ or RM played in a certain way). But in my experience they tend to move away from both (i) and (ii) above, heading instead in the direction of (sometimes cynical) social/political play. PoL (if it works as its designers hope, and have plausibly articulated in W&M) won't do this.

 

[pemerton]

But demons and devils are no longer the avatars of Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil, just as angels are no longer the avatars of Good. They simply are what they are.

<snip>

Maybe they're just powerful planar beings, each with its own slant on the universe. Or maybe there's something else going on. The system does not attempt to dictate which.

More importantly from my point of view, the system no longer attempts to dictate how one should respond to them. This is left for the players to decide.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe the "problem" is that pemerton seems to speak less about demons and devils in specific but more to the issues of alignment/morals in general, as it applies to "normal" parts of life.

<snip illustrations that I think are good>

I also did have the Blood War in mind - it triggered my original post.

Various defenders of the Blood War as a game elements (KM being the first, I think) said that it plays a role of illustrating the nature of evil.

My original point was simply that while this might be a sound defence of a literary device, it fails as a defence of a game element for an RPG, because it concedes that the game attempts to predetermine the very sorts of things (like the nature of evil) that one would be trying to work out through the very act of playing the RPG.

EDIT: I don't count reading sourcebooks as playing an RPG. That is a purely literary experience.