Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
The Blood War in 4E?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4009111" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Yes and no.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, yes and no.</p><p></p><p>The interaction beteween Paladin status and alignment is the most prominent example of what you describe, I think (in principal it could be a problem for Monks, Bards and Barbarians also, but I haven't seen very many alignment threads dedicated to the crisis of the individualist Monk who lost her powers).</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think of Saruman as the potential counter-example here - a game in which players have the choice of how their PC's respond to adversity, and whether they make trade-offs that involve taking power from dark sources (like Sauron) is to me a potentially interesting one. Saruman's motives were self-serving, but not entirely so.</p><p></p><p>Alignment rules are the main obstacle to this sort of game in D&D, because once the character becomes Evil the game leaves no room for the belief by the individidual ingame that s/he is nevertheless acting in the right (or at least a reasonable way), and it also tells the player that his/her PC has crossed the line into wrong and unreasonable.</p><p></p><p>This is probably also true of Star Wars, because the Dark Side of the Force is pretty self-explanatorily wicked - but even there it's not quite as blatant as being labelled Evil.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I hope not. Maybe my hopes are misguided. By the way, this has nothing to do with relativism. Most moral philosophers and ordinary people in the real world deny moral relativism. But obviously they lack the "moral detection" capacity that 3E D&D has (eg, and without running afoul of the "no politics" rule, when a mass murdere performs Know Alignment on himself he doesn't get a result of Evil, does he?).</p><p></p><p>My issue here isn't absolutism vs relativism, it's simulationism vs gamism & narrativism - ie it's a game design issue, not a meta-ethics issue.</p><p></p><p>Mechanical alignment gets in the way of gamist play (because it unexpectedly, and from the point of view of the player's own priorities it pointlessly, leaps up and nerfs the Paladin or Cleric or whomever from time to time) and it gets in the way of narrativist play, in which the players (including the GM as one of the players) want to answer the questions - including, perhaps, ones about the truth or falsity of relativism - in the course of their own play. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Right. This is true also of most of us in the real world, at least within certain paramaters. (It's just that we disagree about it from time to time.) The question is, looking at it from the point of view of the players, does the system tell them what their PCs know to be Good and Evil (as it does at present) or do they get to judge what their PCs know to be Good and Evil (including judging this about their PCs' own conduct). I am arguing that the Blood War, and alignment more generally (which I agree with you is an underpinning rationale for the Blood War) are an obstacle to the latter alternative.</p><p></p><p>With respect, your way of putting it in the quote immediately above fails to distinguish the (imaginary) perspective of the PCs from the (very real) persepctive of the players, and thus fails to raise the very question of narrative control (who has it, the game designers or the players of the game?) that I am addressing.</p><p></p><p></p><p>What I'm advocating is that the question of whether this is a mark of Evil be left as one for the players to resolve in play. An example - some social theorists and political philosophers believe in the notion of "democratic peace" - that democracies don't wage aggressive war. Players interested in this idea could well play a game in which nation A invades nation B. Part of what would be on the table, then, is whether nation A is really a democracy or not (was its invasion defensive, for example, rather than aggressive?). This could make for an interesting modern-day or super-hero game, with espionage, commando, political/social roleplay, etc. Having rules in-game (perhaps a bit like the old Traveller law levels) which gave a mechanical answer to the question of whether or not nation A was a democracy wouldn't help that game, they'd hinder it.</p><p></p><p>Likewise I have no objection to all the plot elements you are describing. But they are most interesting when the system does not tell me how, as a player, I should interpret and respond to them.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe - but to me they are very much the same thing. The number of changes in 4e which (to me) seem to have the fairly obvious intent of shifting narrative control from the system (and the GM) to the players seem to be to be non-coincidental. 3E started the process by focussing on the mechanics. 4e is continuing the process by focussing particularly on system elements linked to the gameworld. Thus, per-encounter powers remove the GM's control on ability use, as even though the GM still retains control over the passage of time s/he cannot use this to completely control power recharging. Dropping alignment has the effects on the distribution of narrative control we have just been talking about. The sidebar on p 20 of W&M explains how the points of light in the PoL setting can be sources of adversity rather than safety, but only when the players toggle this on (by breaking laws or customs, or choosing to involve themselves in internal conflicts).</p><p></p><p>Or compare GR's defence of current differences between Demons and Devils, above - this is the sort of difference that only the GM can know and exploit, because it exists deep in the backstory of any plot. Whereas the 4e design team are introducing a difference which is knowable and exploitable by players, because they can visually distinguish a Demon from a Devil, and then adapt their combat tactics accordingly (as - at least we are told - Demons and Devils will fight differently).</p><p></p><p>Severing ties with early editions is a necessary part of transforming the game system. I think the 4e designers have as their main goal the support of gamist play (they know which side their bread is buttered on). But for me a pleasing (and perhaps not unintended side effect) is the increasing support of a certain type of narrativist play. It'll be more comic book than Graham Greene, but that's OK for amateur Sunday-afternoon authors.</p><p></p><p></p><p>For me, the legacy issues are system issues, not plot issues. I get the same vibe from reading what the designers are writing.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't at all quibble with your defence of the Blood War in these terms. That's why I referred to it in my earlier posts. My objection to the Blood War is not a plot-based or literary one. I don't think it's silly as a literary, metaphorical device (again, it's not Graham Greene, but what RPG writing is?). It is a gameplay one.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4009111, member: 42582"] Yes and no. Again, yes and no. The interaction beteween Paladin status and alignment is the most prominent example of what you describe, I think (in principal it could be a problem for Monks, Bards and Barbarians also, but I haven't seen very many alignment threads dedicated to the crisis of the individualist Monk who lost her powers). I think of Saruman as the potential counter-example here - a game in which players have the choice of how their PC's respond to adversity, and whether they make trade-offs that involve taking power from dark sources (like Sauron) is to me a potentially interesting one. Saruman's motives were self-serving, but not entirely so. Alignment rules are the main obstacle to this sort of game in D&D, because once the character becomes Evil the game leaves no room for the belief by the individidual ingame that s/he is nevertheless acting in the right (or at least a reasonable way), and it also tells the player that his/her PC has crossed the line into wrong and unreasonable. This is probably also true of Star Wars, because the Dark Side of the Force is pretty self-explanatorily wicked - but even there it's not quite as blatant as being labelled Evil. I hope not. Maybe my hopes are misguided. By the way, this has nothing to do with relativism. Most moral philosophers and ordinary people in the real world deny moral relativism. But obviously they lack the "moral detection" capacity that 3E D&D has (eg, and without running afoul of the "no politics" rule, when a mass murdere performs Know Alignment on himself he doesn't get a result of Evil, does he?). My issue here isn't absolutism vs relativism, it's simulationism vs gamism & narrativism - ie it's a game design issue, not a meta-ethics issue. Mechanical alignment gets in the way of gamist play (because it unexpectedly, and from the point of view of the player's own priorities it pointlessly, leaps up and nerfs the Paladin or Cleric or whomever from time to time) and it gets in the way of narrativist play, in which the players (including the GM as one of the players) want to answer the questions - including, perhaps, ones about the truth or falsity of relativism - in the course of their own play. Right. This is true also of most of us in the real world, at least within certain paramaters. (It's just that we disagree about it from time to time.) The question is, looking at it from the point of view of the players, does the system tell them what their PCs know to be Good and Evil (as it does at present) or do they get to judge what their PCs know to be Good and Evil (including judging this about their PCs' own conduct). I am arguing that the Blood War, and alignment more generally (which I agree with you is an underpinning rationale for the Blood War) are an obstacle to the latter alternative. With respect, your way of putting it in the quote immediately above fails to distinguish the (imaginary) perspective of the PCs from the (very real) persepctive of the players, and thus fails to raise the very question of narrative control (who has it, the game designers or the players of the game?) that I am addressing. What I'm advocating is that the question of whether this is a mark of Evil be left as one for the players to resolve in play. An example - some social theorists and political philosophers believe in the notion of "democratic peace" - that democracies don't wage aggressive war. Players interested in this idea could well play a game in which nation A invades nation B. Part of what would be on the table, then, is whether nation A is really a democracy or not (was its invasion defensive, for example, rather than aggressive?). This could make for an interesting modern-day or super-hero game, with espionage, commando, political/social roleplay, etc. Having rules in-game (perhaps a bit like the old Traveller law levels) which gave a mechanical answer to the question of whether or not nation A was a democracy wouldn't help that game, they'd hinder it. Likewise I have no objection to all the plot elements you are describing. But they are most interesting when the system does not tell me how, as a player, I should interpret and respond to them. Maybe - but to me they are very much the same thing. The number of changes in 4e which (to me) seem to have the fairly obvious intent of shifting narrative control from the system (and the GM) to the players seem to be to be non-coincidental. 3E started the process by focussing on the mechanics. 4e is continuing the process by focussing particularly on system elements linked to the gameworld. Thus, per-encounter powers remove the GM's control on ability use, as even though the GM still retains control over the passage of time s/he cannot use this to completely control power recharging. Dropping alignment has the effects on the distribution of narrative control we have just been talking about. The sidebar on p 20 of W&M explains how the points of light in the PoL setting can be sources of adversity rather than safety, but only when the players toggle this on (by breaking laws or customs, or choosing to involve themselves in internal conflicts). Or compare GR's defence of current differences between Demons and Devils, above - this is the sort of difference that only the GM can know and exploit, because it exists deep in the backstory of any plot. Whereas the 4e design team are introducing a difference which is knowable and exploitable by players, because they can visually distinguish a Demon from a Devil, and then adapt their combat tactics accordingly (as - at least we are told - Demons and Devils will fight differently). Severing ties with early editions is a necessary part of transforming the game system. I think the 4e designers have as their main goal the support of gamist play (they know which side their bread is buttered on). But for me a pleasing (and perhaps not unintended side effect) is the increasing support of a certain type of narrativist play. It'll be more comic book than Graham Greene, but that's OK for amateur Sunday-afternoon authors. For me, the legacy issues are system issues, not plot issues. I get the same vibe from reading what the designers are writing. I don't at all quibble with your defence of the Blood War in these terms. That's why I referred to it in my earlier posts. My objection to the Blood War is not a plot-based or literary one. I don't think it's silly as a literary, metaphorical device (again, it's not Graham Greene, but what RPG writing is?). It is a gameplay one. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
The Blood War in 4E?
Top