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 coming! 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: 4012978" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>KM, another interesting reply. I'll try not to be too lengthy in my response.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is an interesting notion. It fits with my impression of Moorcockian Law and Chaos, but I've rarely seen it put forward in relation to Good and Evil.</p><p></p><p>Given that the PHB suggests that Evil is not a viable PC alignment (by implication, in the ch 6 alignment descriptions), do you think you're expounding orthodox D&D here, or an idealised version of D&D alignment?</p><p></p><p>For me, there is also the difficulty that I tend to find "Evil isn't worse than Good" self-contradictory - or at least highly problematic. But this in part purely terminological. I guess my feeling is that D&D simultaneously wants Evil to carry its ordinary language connotations, but also to bear a technical meaning in which it can be true that "Evil isn't worse than Good".</p><p>Because if the latter is really the case, then it doesn't follow that it's always right to oppose Evil - but this is a basic premise of most D&D play.</p><p></p><p>So again I want to know whether you think you're being orthodox here. Or perhaps I've misunderstood you.</p><p></p><p></p><p>In my own experience this is notoriously vague - hence the alignment threads that proliferate. But I'll readily grant it to you for the sake of argument.</p><p></p><p></p><p>OK. But what is the reason for finding Good desirable, if "Evil is no worse than Good"? Is it just a matter of taste? But Paladins are not simply "morals snobs" - they're righteous! But this seems to entail that Evil is worse than Good - not just from Good's point of view, but absolutely.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I get the impression here that the envisaged trade-off is between wealth (or prudence more generally) and morality.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I must admit I don't fully follow this. What is motivating the PC's moral choice? Presumably, the desire to be Good. But how can someone motivated by that desire ever do Evil? What is the cost of choosing Good actions? By definition, I would have thought it can't be an increase in Evil.</p><p></p><p>If your notion of doing Evil to achieve Good is to make sense, then we must have a deontological definition of Evil but a consequentialist definition of Good, mustn't we? - which I also find hard to make sense of.</p><p></p><p>If the PC is instead debating whether s/he should be Good or prudent (selfish), I don't see any shade of grey. Such a PC is already an amoralist, and so Evil by definition.</p><p></p><p>Of course, if it is not the PC who is debating, but the player - should I play an Evil character, or a Good-intentioned one who is weak of will and so succumbs to the lures of wealth - it's a different matter. To this extent alignment probably can fit with a type of narrativist play, but I don't know that D&D alignment gets played in that fashion very often. And what is really making that sort of play interesting is the players' notion of Goodness, not the game's (although, on the premise that the game has not collapsed, the ingame notion of Good presumably corresponds to the players' at least to a passable degree).</p><p></p><p></p><p>True, but the player may well be affected, together with his or her fellow players. And this is what narrativist play aims at, isn't it?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree that D&D has not left the question open in the past. (I'd add that I don't want it to be a matter for the GM, but for the playing group as a whole.) But 4e is going in a very different direction from past editions (except 3E, which I see in retrospect as a type of transitional state). And I guess I don't agree that heroic play depends upon metaphysical description within the gameworld. I think it depends much more upon the game actually evoking situations with resonate with the sense of heroism that the players of the game share.</p><p></p><p>Your ideas I've quoted above, about using alingment to frame a certain sort of PC choice, are interesting and suggestive, but as I've said I have trouble following all of them, and in any event I'm not sure they fit with typical D&D play.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But a lot of those elements don't settle any thematic issue in advance. In fact (like the history of Glorantha in HeroQuest) they set up premises for play. So I see them as quite consistent with dedication to my goal. But in fact you're right, WoTC are not dedicated to my narrativist goal. They're dedicated to a gamist goal. But the way they're realising that goal is very consistent with the desiderata of my narrativist goal. (See Chris Sims' posts in the Healing thread, for example, and my own analysis of PoL in the "Metagame function of PoL thread".)</p><p></p><p>And now I get to expound my Unified Theory of 4e! In summary, every change from the previous editions (including making Demons and Devils more immediately recognisable to the players, and having that feed into the tactics the players need to use for their PCs to win) either:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">*consolidates those aspects of 3E which empower the players over the GM (like character build and action resolution mechanics);</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">*further redistributes narrative control to the players, for example:</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">*the monster changes just described (because PCs can recognise the monster and take account of its known and distinctive tactics);</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">*rebalancing magic items and encounter build rules (to make players less vulnerable to accidentally unbalanced GMing);</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">*Second Wind and APs;</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">*per-encounter abilities (which mean that players are no longer hostage to the GM's decisions about the overall passage of time in the gameworld);</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">*the PoL assumption that PoLs are safehavens until the players choose to trigger adversity (see sidebar, p 20, W&M);</p></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">*transfers narrative control from the designers to the players and GM together (removal of mechanical metaphysics of alignment);</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">*undoes imbalances of narrative controls between players (PoL eliminates a lot of campaign backstory, putting different players on an even footing in that respect).</p><p></p><p>These changes all facilitate gamist play, by stopping the GM and the game designers getting in the way of the players' pursuit of system excellence. But they also facilitate narrativist play, by making adversity in the game, and its resolution, something much more shared between players and GM in a potentially co-operative fashion, than something almost entirely under the GM's control (as was the case in AD&D to a significant extent).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4012978, member: 42582"] KM, another interesting reply. I'll try not to be too lengthy in my response. This is an interesting notion. It fits with my impression of Moorcockian Law and Chaos, but I've rarely seen it put forward in relation to Good and Evil. Given that the PHB suggests that Evil is not a viable PC alignment (by implication, in the ch 6 alignment descriptions), do you think you're expounding orthodox D&D here, or an idealised version of D&D alignment? For me, there is also the difficulty that I tend to find "Evil isn't worse than Good" self-contradictory - or at least highly problematic. But this in part purely terminological. I guess my feeling is that D&D simultaneously wants Evil to carry its ordinary language connotations, but also to bear a technical meaning in which it can be true that "Evil isn't worse than Good". Because if the latter is really the case, then it doesn't follow that it's always right to oppose Evil - but this is a basic premise of most D&D play. So again I want to know whether you think you're being orthodox here. Or perhaps I've misunderstood you. In my own experience this is notoriously vague - hence the alignment threads that proliferate. But I'll readily grant it to you for the sake of argument. OK. But what is the reason for finding Good desirable, if "Evil is no worse than Good"? Is it just a matter of taste? But Paladins are not simply "morals snobs" - they're righteous! But this seems to entail that Evil is worse than Good - not just from Good's point of view, but absolutely. I get the impression here that the envisaged trade-off is between wealth (or prudence more generally) and morality. I must admit I don't fully follow this. What is motivating the PC's moral choice? Presumably, the desire to be Good. But how can someone motivated by that desire ever do Evil? What is the cost of choosing Good actions? By definition, I would have thought it can't be an increase in Evil. If your notion of doing Evil to achieve Good is to make sense, then we must have a deontological definition of Evil but a consequentialist definition of Good, mustn't we? - which I also find hard to make sense of. If the PC is instead debating whether s/he should be Good or prudent (selfish), I don't see any shade of grey. Such a PC is already an amoralist, and so Evil by definition. Of course, if it is not the PC who is debating, but the player - should I play an Evil character, or a Good-intentioned one who is weak of will and so succumbs to the lures of wealth - it's a different matter. To this extent alignment probably can fit with a type of narrativist play, but I don't know that D&D alignment gets played in that fashion very often. And what is really making that sort of play interesting is the players' notion of Goodness, not the game's (although, on the premise that the game has not collapsed, the ingame notion of Good presumably corresponds to the players' at least to a passable degree). True, but the player may well be affected, together with his or her fellow players. And this is what narrativist play aims at, isn't it? I agree that D&D has not left the question open in the past. (I'd add that I don't want it to be a matter for the GM, but for the playing group as a whole.) But 4e is going in a very different direction from past editions (except 3E, which I see in retrospect as a type of transitional state). And I guess I don't agree that heroic play depends upon metaphysical description within the gameworld. I think it depends much more upon the game actually evoking situations with resonate with the sense of heroism that the players of the game share. Your ideas I've quoted above, about using alingment to frame a certain sort of PC choice, are interesting and suggestive, but as I've said I have trouble following all of them, and in any event I'm not sure they fit with typical D&D play. But a lot of those elements don't settle any thematic issue in advance. In fact (like the history of Glorantha in HeroQuest) they set up premises for play. So I see them as quite consistent with dedication to my goal. But in fact you're right, WoTC are not dedicated to my narrativist goal. They're dedicated to a gamist goal. But the way they're realising that goal is very consistent with the desiderata of my narrativist goal. (See Chris Sims' posts in the Healing thread, for example, and my own analysis of PoL in the "Metagame function of PoL thread".) And now I get to expound my Unified Theory of 4e! In summary, every change from the previous editions (including making Demons and Devils more immediately recognisable to the players, and having that feed into the tactics the players need to use for their PCs to win) either: [indent]*consolidates those aspects of 3E which empower the players over the GM (like character build and action resolution mechanics); *further redistributes narrative control to the players, for example: [indent]*the monster changes just described (because PCs can recognise the monster and take account of its known and distinctive tactics); *rebalancing magic items and encounter build rules (to make players less vulnerable to accidentally unbalanced GMing); *Second Wind and APs; *per-encounter abilities (which mean that players are no longer hostage to the GM's decisions about the overall passage of time in the gameworld); *the PoL assumption that PoLs are safehavens until the players choose to trigger adversity (see sidebar, p 20, W&M);[/indent] *transfers narrative control from the designers to the players and GM together (removal of mechanical metaphysics of alignment); *undoes imbalances of narrative controls between players (PoL eliminates a lot of campaign backstory, putting different players on an even footing in that respect).[/indent] These changes all facilitate gamist play, by stopping the GM and the game designers getting in the way of the players' pursuit of system excellence. But they also facilitate narrativist play, by making adversity in the game, and its resolution, something much more shared between players and GM in a potentially co-operative fashion, than something almost entirely under the GM's control (as was the case in AD&D to a significant extent). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
The Blood War in 4E?
Top