D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[Desdichado]

That's kind of what worries me about the alignment section of 5E that talks of how orcs follow the alignment of their god as if they were hard-wired to be like that. It seems too dogmatic about the alignment of creatures that just about goes beyond essentialism. I find the moral implications of such an implied setting to be disturbing.

I don't, because in the real world there's no such thing as orcs and orcs are not meant to stand in metaphorically for any real world population or anything like that, i.e., there isn't a moral dimension to that implied setting that is translatable into morals in the real world anyway.

That said, just because I don't find it disturbing doesn't mean that I like it, because I don't. I think the notion of orcs being, by essential nature, nothing but cannon fodder for the "heroes" is incredibly uninteresting. I like the notion that orcs are humanoid (as per their creature type) and humanoids at least, if not necessary every other monster type, is capable of sufficient moral independence to be more than an alignment caricature.

Their culture might well be violent and evil, and the same could be said for many real-life cultures anyway (my hobgoblin empire is a cross, in most respects, of Imperial Rome with Nazi Germany with more feral beasts of burden, like increased size hyenas as mounts for cataphracts, etc.) But to say that all individual hobgoblins must be lawful evil because of hardwired alignment standards imparted by their god just isn't a very interesting concept to me to explore further.

Then again, and this is a conversation for another thread, I don't really have much use for alignment anyway at the best of times. Once you get rid of alignment, a lot of blatant and latent D&Disms start to stand out. Too many of them are based around alignment to make any sense in a game that doesn't really use it.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm not the biggest fan of saying that demons hate devils, because of the game mechanics of alignment, and I could see that being setting-neutral. My opposition, however, would be with the assertion that an imposed meta-event called the "Blood War" could be in anyway setting neutral regardless of it predating Planescape.

Bear in mind that my use of "setting-neutral" is with regards to published campaigns. I was saying that it debuted in Second Edition products that had the generic "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Second Edition" logo, rather than any particular campaign logo.

Perhaps the better term would be "published setting-neutral"?

 

[tom.zunder]

Ragnarok?

 

[I'm A Banana]

But telling me that a given creature hates another creature because their respective groups (which they now ALL belong to - kinda like saying all undead must have the same goals) are locked in an eternal war that also draws in every single other creature with the same type is a bridge too far for me. It's dictating too much of the setting. I want all that stuff contained in its own setting, same as it is done for every other setting.

...

That's an awful lot of setting specific material there for a pretty generic critter. Where's my dog faced humanoid that runs around murdering unsuspecting badgers? Again, I realise I'm in the minority here and the group has spoken - they want more specific monster lore. I just prefer a more generic approach and let the DM decide how and why a critter behaves the way it does.

I agree that "default assumptions" become problematic, but I wouldn't say the solution is a more generic approach.

See, rather than the Great Wheel Is The One True Cosmology, I would prefer a solution that is arguably more PS-y in its nature:

There is an infinity of True Cosmologies.

The Great Wheel is an example, but so is, I dunno, Eberron's Orrey, or the World Axis. Mutually exclusive, the rules shouldn't assume any one, and use them all as they see fit.

So you don't have to choose between Gerneric Bland Kobold Stat Block and Kobolds Are Dragon-Worshiping Lizard-Creatures, without an option for Kobolds Are Dog-Headed Rat-Tailed Varmints. Rather, you have Kobolds Are Dragon-Worshiping Lizard-Creatures and you also have Kobolds Are Dog-Headed Rat-Tailed Varmints and which one you have depends on what you actually need for the particular entry you're writing. If you're just whacking some heads in a dark cave, they can be varmints, and if you're trying for a bigger dragon-based plotline, they can be dragon-cultists, and heck, in one game they might even be both depending on their "subrace."

 

[DMZ2112]

I've always been of three minds about fluff:

1) D&D stands more or less alone on the market as a major RPG without a single unified setting,

2) D&D is old enough to be its own genre, and

3) Something creative has to go into the books to make them appealing.

I happen to fall into the camp of folks who kind of like how D&D has developed, although I do mourn a lot of what went out with the bathwater of D&D4. It could easily have gone another way, and I tend to chalk that up to dumb luck. There are things about the core mythology and ethnology of the game that I don't care for; some of these things I ignore, and others I include despite myself because they're the way things are "supposed to be."

I understand my viewpoint.
I understand the viewpoint of someone who dislikes a majority of D&D's fluff and has a lot of work to do.

I don't understand the viewpoint that no fluff would be preferable to any fluff.
I don't understand the viewpoint that having fluff is purposeless because its all the same if you decide to ignore what makes it different.

I think, fundamentally, what I understand the least, is the viewpoint that one's own creativity is the only creativity with any value. The creative elements of D&D are there to inspire you, not hold you back. Take advantage.

 

[pemerton]

Thanks; I'll follow up on the link later today when I have a bit more time. I'm actually fairly curious.

Posts like this reiterate to me that--in spite of my general dislike for things like the OSR, for instance, or a lot of the ingrained D&Disms that are rife throughout D&D, at the end of the day, my RPing style is really quite traditional after all. I'm deeply suspicious of truly narrative approaches, with mechanics that impact character development of, say, the narrative of the game itself.

<snip>

Although I have a very strong preference for playing this way, I'm quite curious about how other approaches work, what they do, and how it turns out, of course.

I tend to think of myself as pretty trad also, if only because I developed my GMing style GMing the original Orienatal Adventures and Rolemaster (in the post you replied to I referred to my regular RM game, but that was an error - these days it is a regular 4e game). But it may be that I'm really not trad. Any feedback on that question will be cheerfully accepted.

To me, there isn't any point in them being different. Their differences (as well as the differences between both and "daemons", demodands, and every other kind of fiend--as well as non-fiends but might as well be critters like efreet, oni or slaad) are purely mechanical and impact more what resistances they have rather than what the "story" of them in-game is. For my money, any type of "hell" plane could be peopled by any variety of fiend living and working side-by-side, as much as they work together at all, anyway.

I think it's better to note that hobgoblins and orcs are conceptually exactly the same thing (even moreso than gnolls) so I don't see the point in having both of them present in any one setting.

In the two long RM campaigns I ran prior to my current 4e game - one Greyhawk, the other OA - I converted a lot of D&D creatures to RM stats.

But I folded hobgoblins into orcs, for the reason you give, and also used only a single "hell" (called The Pale, following RM terminology), also for the same sorts of reasons you have given.

In 4e I am using the default cosmology, and so orcs and hobgoblins are different, as are demons and devils, but one thing I like about 4e is that it gives these differences a mythic historical logic that makes sense even if you ignore alignment (which I generally do).

one thing I wouldn't call Planescape is mythic, even though I love the setting. It gives answers to things that traditionally go unanswered like details of the afterlife and so forth. I could see a more mythic, less alignment-focused, multiverse setting being great in its own right.

This is why I like 4e's default cosmology. I think it is more mythic, less alignment-focused.

 

[Remathilis]

I think one issue that comes up a lot is this absurd notion that if a monster has flavor text NOTHING can EVER change that text. It immutable. You have to hand in your DM card. Therefore, we get these notions like:

* Multiple story origins need to be provided to account for said monster in dozens of campaign settings.
* The fluff has to be so generic that it never is contradicted by any other source, even the DM.
* Any fluff that comes from a campaign setting published after 1986 is impure and must be discarded to keep the One True Vision of the monster.

Doesn't anyone ever use the phrase, "Well, the book may say that, but in my world..." anymore?

I like that D&D has a "default" assumption. When I was young and getting used to the game, default assumptions gave me a good idea how to use the monster. I wasn't given a buffet table and told to make a meal that works, nor was I given unflavored dish and told to add my own spices. When I got comfortable, I made my own changes. When I liked something, I kept it, when I didn't I changed it.

I like the fluff on kobolds worshiping dragons or seeking a lost deity; it sparked my imagination. It still won't stop me from using them as cannibalistic psychopaths in my next game. Likewise, I see things like the Jackelware's connection to Grazzt or the Blood War or such as great default assumptions for when I don't have the time or inclination to assign a backstory to every monster in the manual, but when I do, I have 0 problem changing it and saying "In my game..."

Though I never cease to be amused by the sheer number of D&D players that hate D&D's default assumptions.

 

[Desdichado]

Doesn't anyone ever use the phrase, "Well, the book may say that, but in my world..." anymore?

When the motto of D&D was "Tools, not rules" back in 2000 or so, I was amused and vaguely disheartened that it even needed to be said in the first place.

Though I never cease to be amused by the sheer number of D&D players that hate D&D's default assumptions.

There's a lot of reasons people play D&D, and not all of them are because it's their favorite game. It's certainly not mine, even though it's (by far) the one I play the most.

That said, my recommended system for my setting is a customized Microlite20 these days.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Doesn't anyone ever use the phrase, "Well, the book may say that, but in my world..." anymore?

Sure, but no one would trot it out as evidence that what the book says doesn't matter unless they were completely ignorant of default effects, or being a little disingenuous in imagining that default effects didn't apply because D&D players are somehow uniquely immune to it.

All the "Rule Zero" in the world doesn't change the effort required to disabuse someone of the things that they read and assumed were The True Way.

 

[Remathilis]

Sure, but no one would trot it out as evidence that what the book says doesn't matter unless they were completely ignorant of default effects, or being a little disingenuous in imagining that default effects didn't apply because D&D players are somehow uniquely immune to it.

All the "Rule Zero" in the world doesn't change the effort required to disabuse someone of the things that they read and assumed were The True Way.

I guess if you rule that all elves are 3' tall, have white beards, live in the arctic regions and have proficiency in making toys, you're going to have some confused players. That said, I fail to see how adding 3-5 more printed alternatives will fix anything.

DM: You enter the room and see a small, scaled humanoid; a kobold!
Player 1: Kobolds! They love traps. Everyone watch out for pits and triplines.
Player 2: Eh, I thought they worshiped dragons and raised wyrmlings. Be wary of dragon breath ambushes!
Player 3: Really? I thought they were homicidal manics that charge into combat in swarms! Fall back lest you get mobbed!
DM: Actually guys, none of those things are true. In my game...

Net effect is the same, save now the PCs have to guess which variant of cannon you are using if you even do use it.