# Rule of Three: 20/3/12



## GM Dave (Mar 20, 2012)

New Rule of Three up.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 03/20/2012)

I liked the discussion on minions and it is essentially how I am doing that sort of thing in PF.

Alignments - well there are threads already on that topic and it really doesn't do much for me unlike some of the other systems out in games like Dresden Files or Mouseguard.

Different Mechanics for classes - I'll wait and see to how this shapes up.  It is interesting that Fighter and Rogue are again being associated as are Cleric and Paladin.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 20, 2012)

from the article said:
			
		

> Since AC and attack bonuses aren't automatically scaling up (. . .)





Sounds like they've set this one in stone.


----------



## GreyICE (Mar 20, 2012)

So, minions are out as legit challenges, since anything 8 levels under you will have damage numbers from 8 levels ago (and will also involve rolling dice, slowing down combat).

The 'fighter makes many attacks, wizard casts one good spell' had me worried to.

They can't take away my 4e... Unless they kill insider...


----------



## gyor (Mar 20, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Sounds like they've set this one in stone.




 It makes sense, otherwise they just cancel each other out anyways.

 As for the Rogue and Fighter combat manevuers, that actually sounded freaking awesome. Customize multiple attacks with different manevours to build unique combos. 

 They also confirmed that the Paladin will be a spell casting class.


----------



## Tallifer (Mar 20, 2012)

I like what the Fifth Edition might do about minions and flattening the bonuses. I enjoyed the mechanical benefit of minions in the Fourth Edition, but they did strain belief at high levels: the monster could die with one blow, but it had a huge armour class.

I am nervous about most of things being said about fighters. Disarming, sundering, bull rushing, tripping and grappling are mundane everyday things any character can do with enough strength. I like to see some flashy and stunning tricks and combinations: basically many of the Fourth Edition powers were tricks that allowed the Fighter to do more than one thing with a single action. The Rule of Three here seems to be suggesting that the Fighter can do the three actions of hit, trip and push in one efficient action, but if it just means use your move and standard and minor action, that is three actions spent. The clerical Flamestrike takes one standard action. But i have no idea what the action economy will be in the Fifth Edition, which is why I am nervous but undecided.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 20, 2012)

They totally failed to understand the point of minions. One-shot kill standard monsters isn't the answer, because it still leaves all the math. Bah.


----------



## keterys (Mar 20, 2012)

But, if it has 8 hp and you do 1d6+7 damage, it's a minion.

Oh, and if you do half damage on miss (or save for half) then... I guess two misses kills it. And if you do 2d6+14 then... I guess a miss kills it.

And if there's a room full of them and that was an area attack. I... guess... everything just dies. Whee?


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 20, 2012)

Are they keeping "miss damage?"


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 20, 2012)

And as a bonus, if they win initiative, the DM gets to roll damage for each of them. And because they're built on standard monsters, they're likely to have more complex mechanics, which the DM will have to track. Not to mention that minions often had very minion-specific mechanics, like exploding on death.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 20, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Are they keeping "miss damage?"




If wizards can actually miss, you can be sure they'll get miss damage.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Mar 20, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> If wizards can actually miss, you can be sure they'll get miss damage.




It really depends on whether they revert to the old-style saving throw system.  If the targets make saving throws against a _fireball_, they'll probably take half damage on a save as before, and miss damage will no longer be relevant.

If they stick with the caster targeting his opponent's DC, then miss damage will still exist in some form.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 20, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> It really depends on whether they revert to the old-style saving throw system.  If the targets make saving throws against a _fireball_, they'll probably take half damage on a save as before, and miss damage will no longer be relevant.
> 
> If they stick with the caster targeting his opponent's DC, then miss damage will still exist in some form.




That's still miss damage. The whole Saving Throw/NAD thing is the same bloody math done in reverse for people who are easily distracted. The only possible difference is crits and fumbles.


----------



## Kynn (Mar 20, 2012)

This rule-of-three filled me with more "do not want" than the SA leak.


----------



## gyor (Mar 20, 2012)

A simple fix to "5e minions" would be to give  them a theme that does nothing but boost damage and have a rule that allows players to automatical deal average damage against monsters that are a certain level below them instead of rolling.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Mar 20, 2012)

Kynn said:


> This rule-of-three filled me with more "do not want" than the SA leak.




I was thinking the same thing. Can't XP you, though.

I'm not sure why I didn't like this Ro3... nothing really stands out as a big deal individually, but overall this one left me "Meh".

I still look forward to trying it, though.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Mar 20, 2012)

From the sound of it, the "5e minions" won't need a damage boost because they'll still be a threat to higher-level characters.  1d8+1 damage won't be devastating to a 10th level character, but if he's only got 40 HP he won't be shrugging it off either.

Of course, this requires them to get the math right.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 20, 2012)

gyor said:


> A simple fix to "5e minions" would be to give  them a theme that does nothing but boost damage and have a rule that allows players to automatical deal average damage against monsters that are a certain level below them instead of rolling.




That barely solves anything.

Minions are as specific a structure as a solo monster. They're not just easy-to-kill standard monsters, they're very specifically minions.

Compare a Cave Fisher Spawn and a Cave Fisher Angler (both in the MM3).


----------



## LightPhoenix (Mar 20, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Sounds like they've set this one in stone.




I wouldn't say that for sure.  That line (and everything in the question) is in reference to their "bounded accuracy system," which they specifically say they are "exploring."  This implies if it doesn't work, they'll change it.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 20, 2012)

LightPhoenix said:


> I wouldn't say that for sure.  That line (and everything in the question) is in reference to their "bounded accuracy system," which they specifically say they are "exploring."  This implies if it doesn't work, they'll change it.





In context, it reads more to me as if they are exploring that system because they've already made the decision that "Since AC and attack bonuses aren't automatically scaling up (. . .)"  They might go back and change some things but obviously, by now, they have to have made some decisions.  They also have to be careful not to go back in and tinker with foundational decisions lest it upset other features they have built on the same assumptions in other parts of the system.


----------



## Mengu (Mar 20, 2012)

The last one has me confused. So you have casters who can cast a handful of spells for the day, that are not complex, they do some damage to a few creatures, like fireball, and then they are done. And you have fighters who can charge a goblin, take away his spear, kill him with it, and throw the spear at the next two goblins making shish kebab... and they can do this all day long? I sure hope spells can do some interesting stuff too, other than blow 'em up.


----------



## dkyle (Mar 20, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> Disarming, sundering, bull rushing, tripping and grappling are mundane everyday things any character can do with enough strength.




Those don't sound mundane to me at all.  They sound like things that require significant training, above and beyond raw strength.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Mar 20, 2012)

Mengu said:


> The last one has me confused. So you have casters who can cast a handful of spells for the day, that are not complex, they do some damage to a few creatures, like fireball, and then they are done. And you have fighters who can charge a goblin, take away his spear, kill him with it, and throw the spear at the next two goblins making shish kebab... and they can do this all day long? I sure hope spells can do some interesting stuff too, other than blow 'em up.



Trust me, spells will do a lot of interesting stuff, including but definitely not limited to "blow em up." 

Fighters mixing-and-matching multiple attacks and combat maneuvers in a single round sounds awesome. I'm guessing that's the "4e-style powers" option for a more tactical fighter.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 20, 2012)

scaling damagage instead of to hit is possible. It is a linear increase in power, as scaling only to-hit.
Scaling both is problematic, as you increase your power quadratic. If you are facing tougher opponents, not only do you hit less hard, but also less often, which results in dragged out combats.

I could however see classes that increase in accuracy instead of damage. Or even both a bit. In a system that does not assume increasing AC, you can tinker with it.

As funny as it may sound: 4e´s increasing AC, what most of us always believed to be a goood idea, was the main problem of scailing combats up or down.


----------



## Minigiant (Mar 20, 2012)

1) No scaling attack and AC. Sounds like Minigiants and Molehills. Minigiant approves.

2) 9 alignments. meh.

3) Paladins get spells.

Martial classes either get martial maneuvers or multiple attacks.


----------



## gweinel (Mar 20, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Sounds like they've set this one in stone.




Yes, seems interesting. I was wondering what is the math behind it.


----------



## Fede (Mar 20, 2012)

I disliked this rule of 3:
Considering all we have seen so far, I do not think that fighter's and rogue's manouvers will be enough to "fill the gap" in difference of available options between martial and arcane classes. Admittedly, we do not know much so this is only my impression, nothing concrete.

For alignment, they talk about giving mechanical weight to it. One of the things that I really liked about 4E was the removal of (almost) all mechanical effects of alignment, and I see this as another step back in a direction that I do not like. Again, they are saying that there are options to remove it if the DM wants to, so we'll have to see.

What really worries me is the discussion about minions, because the solution proposed totally misses the point. It's not only about having monsters that die on one hit. That's only a part of it. The real core of the minion's concept is having monsters that are at the lowest complexity possible, so that the DM can use them to have encounters with a great number of enemies without slowing down the game.
That's why minions have fixed damage and abilities designed with their minion status in mind.
It's not enough to have a monster die in one hit because of the way damage scales  to have a minion, you have to design it from the start.


----------



## Hassassin (Mar 20, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Sounds like they've set this one in stone.




Within context, I read that as just saying enemies don't scale with your level: the orc has the same AC and to hit when _you_ are level 10.

I.e. not about what happens to your stats.


----------



## Hassassin (Mar 20, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> So, minions are out as legit challenges, since anything 8 levels under you will have damage numbers from 8 levels ago (and will also involve rolling dice, slowing down combat).




No, they are saying the opposite. They will design the math so that 8 levels lower 5e creatures will still be threats, just easy to deal with like 4e minions of about your level.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Mar 20, 2012)

This actually sounded good to me, especially the minion comment. Must be read with the fact that attack bonuses scale a lot slower so those lower level 'minions' can still hit. If worried about the rolling (or math?) then just use average damage for them...quite simple.

I loved 4E minions too. I used them a LOT, so I could cram a lot of creatures into a fight. However, the biggest problem was the fact they were called minions and it kind of wrecked the immersion when a player drops one and straight away goes, "These guys are minions". And they clearly are b/c other creatures, usually looking much the same lasted several hits.

If 5E works as sounded out in the article we can have a lot more creatures that drop with 1-3 hits, but you aren't sure which. The 2-3 often missing from 4E in our games.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 20, 2012)

Connorsrpg said:


> This actually sounded good to me, especially the minion comment. Must be read with the fact that attack bonuses scale a lot slower so those lower level 'minions' can still hit.



Minor nit-pick: it's the PCs' AC and other defenses that would be scaling more slowly so that lower-level monsters remain a threat for longer. If - when you're 20th level - a 1st-level orc could still hit you on a 16+ and deal 1d8+1 points of damage, four orcs attacking you can expect to deal around 5 points of damage per round. Even if you have 100 hit points and can kill four orcs per round, an army of 100 orcs will probably still get you in the end.


----------



## Mattachine (Mar 20, 2012)

As others have said, the minion mechanic is more about making an encounter easy for DMs to run than anything else. 

I had a negative vibe from each part of that Rule of Three:

1. Minions--keeping the one hit kill, but possibly not their other useful aspects
2. Alignment--suggesting that Unaligned goes away, keeping mechanical effects as a default--what happened to starting simple and adding to that?
3. Class Mechanics--multiple attacks for the fighter/rogue--cool, except for slowing down combats; didn't Mike Mearls design Iron Heroes and all that?


----------



## Hassassin (Mar 20, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> That's still miss damage. The whole Saving Throw/NAD thing is the same bloody math done in reverse for people who are easily distracted. The only possible difference is crits and fumbles.




There is a difference between attack rolls that depend on your skill (level in 4e) and saving throws that only depend on the target's skill (AD&D saves). 3e is sort of an amalgamation of the two in that (I think) the result is supposed to mostly depend on the target's skill, but in practice it works like an attack roll in reverse.

In any case, I think they should reduce unavoidable effects like "miss damage" in general. They just make combat more deterministic. Fighters can live without miss damage, so spellcasters can too.


----------



## Mattachine (Mar 20, 2012)

4e's rolls depend on attacker attack skill and defender's skill, just as in 3e; the difference is in who is making the roll.

I agree that miss damage is not needed--I think it was an outgrowth of two things: mitigating when a magic-user attack spell failed in AD&D and providing a game mechanical way of saying "You were in the blast of a fireball, so you are going to take some damage no matter what."

What to do? Remove miss damage in general, and make some effects inflict less damage but offer no save or require no attack roll. Both would speed play. Both would also remove/reduce design space.


----------



## Minigiant (Mar 20, 2012)

I'm already giving my "minions" evasion to everything now. Miss damage? Not in my game.

DDN Houserules begin today.


----------



## BobTheNob (Mar 20, 2012)

Minion rules...meh. Couldn't give a rats either way.

Now, what they mentioned about fighters and rogue...ooo baby,now that is what I wanted to hear. It's funny reading some previous posts were people were saying they didn't like the idea. Just goes to show how opinions can divide.


----------



## Iosue (Mar 20, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> 1. Minions--keeping the one hit kill, but possibly not their other useful aspects
> 2. Alignment--suggesting that Unaligned goes away, keeping mechanical effects as a default--what happened to starting simple and adding to that?



What other useful aspects to minions have that will not be present in the model suggested?

And isn't "unaligned" just another name for "neutral"?  I know that one could play the true neutral alignment as pro-active for balance, but in most games I've played and seen "neutral" just meant "unaligned".


----------



## Hassassin (Mar 20, 2012)

Iosue said:


> And isn't "unaligned" just another name for "neutral"?  I know that one could play the true neutral alignment as pro-active for balance, but in most games I've played and seen "neutral" just meant "unaligned".




Yeah, and if you want to highlight that you don't care about that balance nonsense you can be CN.


----------



## gweinel (Mar 20, 2012)

I am the only one who didn't like the minions as presented in 4e? 
I always had found em a bit artificial, a bit gamey. Although i can see the merit as concept, the way that this concept was materialised didn't appeal to me. The new approach - less gamey - seems better imho.


----------



## erleni (Mar 20, 2012)

gweinel said:


> I am the only one who didn't like the minions as presented in 4e?
> I always had found em a bit artificial, a bit gamey. Although i can see the merit as concept, the way that this concept was materialised didn't appeal to me. The new approach - less gamey - seems better imho.




I'm with you (and I'm a big fan of 4e). And honestly running a standard monster in 4e is not much more difficult than running a minion.


----------



## avin (Mar 20, 2012)

1. Minions have been used for a long time in my games, since before 4E. They may work like 4E or something else, don't care, I can change them on the fly.

2. Aligments must come back but must also be optional. I'm not a fan of spells such as Detect Evil...

3. Maneuvers probably being some of the at will stuff from 4E.


----------



## GreyICE (Mar 20, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> No, they are saying the opposite. They will design the math so that 8 levels lower 5e creatures will still be threats, just easy to deal with like 4e minions of about your level.




Lemme put it this way.  Minions are often built around swarm tactics.  They have math simplifiers like not rolling dice for damage, so you can use many of them.  They assume a basic harassment role based on their powers and abilities.

If 'minions' are made out of baseline monsters, then they lose a lot of that.  You have to roll dice for their damage, slowing the game down.  They don't have any nifty swarm tactics built in.  They're not a strategic challenge, they're just the same goblins you fought 5 levels ago but more of them.


----------



## Mattachine (Mar 20, 2012)

Iosue said:


> What other useful aspects to minions have that will not be present in the model suggested?
> 
> And isn't "unaligned" just another name for "neutral"?  I know that one could play the true neutral alignment as pro-active for balance, but in most games I've played and seen "neutral" just meant "unaligned".




Minions are also specifically designed to be easy to run, with simple attacks and effects. That is not necessarily true if simply using lower level monsters as minions. Also, minions often have traits that come into play when in groups, or when a leader is present. Of course, a DM can add these in at-will, but then again, a DM can simply create all the monsters, too. It's nice to have some things done "out of the box", and nice to have good examples to work from.

As far as the neutral alignment goes, it has too much baggage to count as Unaligned for me. It currently has three interpretations: Nature (druids, animals, elementals), Cosmic Balance (Mordenkainen, Lady of Pain), and Indifferent (unaligned, commoners, unintelligent creatures). Other alignments don't have that many large interpretations attached. I would at least put in Unaligned. 

Aside, [MENTION=6675228]Hassassin[/MENTION], CN is pretty specific in the 9 alignment system. It means you've chosen to, or were born to, actively cause/spread/embrace chaos. I want an alignment that means you didn't choose anything--Unaligned. I would like a 10-alignment system, where "Unaligned" exists separate from any notions of cosmic balance or nature.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 20, 2012)

gweinel said:


> I am the only one who didn't like the minions as presented in 4e?
> I always had found em a bit artificial, a bit gamey. Although i can see the merit as concept, the way that this concept was materialised didn't appeal to me. The new approach - less gamey - seems better imho.



You say "gamey", but minions were always more of a storytelling tool than anything else. The DM decides if this creature is gonna be one of those orcs mooks from LotR, which got killed by the droves, or if this creature is gonna be Lurtz, which gave Aragorn a run for his money.

Or maybe that Olympic torchbearer orc that Legolas couldn't kill, even though later he takes out a mumakil with just as many arrows.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Mar 20, 2012)

Not having explicit minion rules is good. Having damage scale more and having hit point totals create implicit minions is not as bad; I'd probably just boost the hit points to avoid this happening (or maybe even let it happen in some situations).

I have to agree that while I could do without alignment, it is inherently a part of D&D. If the mechanical aspects are clearly optional, that would be a plus.

The third part is the most interesting. That the fighter's turn would be characterized as more dynamic than a caster's or that he's using maneuvers is good. The important question is, do all characters have some competency in the basic maneuvers, and are the maneuvers limited in such a way as to make them spell-like? Still not sold until I see that these problems have been avoided.


----------



## Kaodi (Mar 20, 2012)

Maybe it is just me but it sounds a lot like they are expanding the system of multiple actions per round.



			
				Rule of Three said:
			
		

> As for how to give different classes different feels, that's all going to come down to how the systems work. For example, if you substitute maneuvers in for individual attacks, the fighter class plays more like a mix-and-match system combining maneuvers and multiple attacks; on my turn, I charge the orc, then use my next attack to disarm him, and my final attack to push him back away from the weapon he dropped. Spells, on the other hand, are likely to be focused more on big effects, so that the cleric is more likely to cast a single flame strike spell that consumes much of what she does for that round.




I mean, it seems like a weird way to word things if it is just the same system that was used in 3.X. It almost sounds like the fighters charge and manuevers are all individual actions, while the flame strike uses multiple actions.


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Mar 20, 2012)

Between this and the leak (if it's authentic), I am really, _really_ liking what we know so far about 5th edition.  My hope is rekindled that D&D will once again be able to recapture that classic feel that have been missing in recent editions, IMO.  

Good stuff.  I am excited.  More, please!


----------



## Someone (Mar 20, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> As others have said, the minion mechanic is more about making an encounter easy for DMs to run than anything else.
> 
> I had a negative vibe from each part of that Rule of Three:
> 
> ...




I sort of agree, but how they deal with it may save those aspects and make them actually good.

1- I appreciate the rules elegance  in making obsolete monsters virtual minions without adding another monster category and extra rules, but minions have the advantage of being much more DM friendly. However if they include a guideline on how to deal with monsters of much lower level than the party with advice about to average the damage they deal, not caring too much about their hit points and possibly giving them insteresting effects when they die then they'll function as 4e minions withoy bogging down unexperienced DMs' games.

2- Looks like they are reserving the actual alignment based effects for powerful supernatural creatures like demons and such so farmer Bob, who cheats on his wife and kicks puppies for fun, won't worry about appearing in a paladin's evil radar. This is a good compromise, IMO and means that you can pretty much ignore the alignment based rules.

3- I have doubts about this one. I keep having the feeling that if the fighter just dealt damage to the orc it'd be dead or close, instead of just lightly hurt, disarmed and slightly out of position. Also it's difficult that a relatively small pool of possible maneuvers that remain constant with level will compete with an ever expanding choice of spells of increasing power.


----------



## Hassassin (Mar 20, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> As far as the neutral alignment goes, it has too much baggage to count as Unaligned for me. It currently has three interpretations: Nature (druids, animals, elementals), Cosmic Balance (Mordenkainen, Lady of Pain), and Indifferent (unaligned, commoners, unintelligent creatures). Other alignments don't have that many large interpretations attached. I would at least put in Unaligned.
> 
> Aside, [MENTION=6675228]Hassassin[/MENTION], CN is pretty specific in the 9 alignment system. It means you've chosen to, or were born to, actively cause/spread/embrace chaos. I want an alignment that means you didn't choose anything--Unaligned. I would like a 10-alignment system, where "Unaligned" exists separate from any notions of cosmic balance or nature.




I merely meant that if you want a character actively against enforcing balance. TN would more typically apply to an unaligned character - it is even described as "undecided" in 3e: (My bold.)



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Neutral, "Undecided"*
> A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. *Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality.* Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
> 
> Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
> ...


----------



## gyor (Mar 20, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> I like what the Fifth Edition might do about minions and flattening the bonuses. I enjoyed the mechanical benefit of minions in the Fourth Edition, but they did strain belief at high levels: the monster could die with one blow, but it had a huge armour class.
> 
> I am nervous about most of things being said about fighters. Disarming, sundering, bull rushing, tripping and grappling are mundane everyday things any character can do with enough strength. I like to see some flashy and stunning tricks and combinations: basically many of the Fourth Edition powers were tricks that allowed the Fighter to do more than one thing with a single action. The Rule of Three here seems to be suggesting that the Fighter can do the three actions of hit, trip and push in one efficient action, but if it just means use your move and standard and minor action, that is three actions spent. The clerical Flamestrike takes one standard action. But i have no idea what the action economy will be in the Fifth Edition, which is why I am nervous but undecided.




 I don't know if there even is minor and move actions. That being said I believe the fighter just gets multiple attacks as he advances in level, I don't know how many he maxes out at. It appears when ever the fighter can make an attack he can use a combat manuever instead. I do assume that these manuevers still deal some damage if not as much.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 20, 2012)

Unsurprisingly, I'm very excited to hear that they're experimenting with a "bounded accuracy system"! It's the direction I've been hoping they'd go with DDN.

As to minions, I agree that this would change them away from their role in 4e, however it also removes the "baggage" that made some players reject the notion. It shouldn't be at all difficult for them to include a template for converting "minions" into real minions. The template would give them flat damage, 1 hp, and an immunity to miss damage. Even if the designers don't include such a template, I predict we'd see a home brewed version within the first week of DDN's release (if not sooner).

I'm not the biggest fan of alignment, but given that Rodney said that the mechanical elements should be easily removable, I don't see a problem either. Although I'll echo others in saying that I'd like to see Unaligned join the other 9 Alignments as a viable choice.

Regarding the fighter being able to perform all of those maneuvers in one turn, according to the SA leak the fighter did get a bonus standard action once per day (at 4th level, I think). Perhaps it's some version of that, rather than something the fighter can do every round. Admittedly, three standard actions every turn seems a bit excessive, but if the fighter can only do so once per day, or even once per encounter, it seems much more reasonable.


----------



## Mattachine (Mar 20, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> I merely meant that if you want a character actively against enforcing balance. TN would more typically apply to an unaligned character - it is even described as "undecided" in 3e: (My bold.)




I get that--and I would just prefer that Unaligned were split away from "cosmic balance". They are really, really different things, so why put them under the same alignment?


----------



## Hassassin (Mar 20, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> I get that--and I would just prefer that Unaligned were split away from "cosmic balance". They are really, really different things, so why put them under the same alignment?




So are personal code vs. rule of law. All the alignments group a number of loosely related views into one.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 20, 2012)

The removal of the 9 alignments was one of the biggest things I hated about 4e, so I'm glad they're back.  However I don't think that alignment should have anything to do with qualifying for base classes.  The answer to that question seems to imply it won't.


----------



## Mengu (Mar 20, 2012)

Rule of Three said:
			
		

> One of the things we're *exploring* in the game is what we refer to as a bounded accuracy system. Effectively, we're *looking into* whether or not we can strip out the assumption of accuracy and defense scaling by level, and let progression rest largely within the scaling damage, hit points, and capabilities of both characters and monsters.




With words like "exploring" and "looking into", how do people figure this mechanic is "set in stone"??? Do I fail at English?


----------



## DogBackward (Mar 20, 2012)

*Minions*
A lot of people seem to be complaining that one-hit kill normal monsters won't cover the "minion" role, because a big role of minions was reduced complexity. A lot of people seem to be forgetting that the roll of the _entire_ Next system is "reduced complexity". You're not gonna have every standard monster and his pet with seven different abilities and five different reactions. You won't have a level one orc with three different abilities to track. All monsters will have reduced complexity, which makes minions purely a matter of hit points. Like in the older systems, giving normal monsters special abilities will almost certainly be a matter of giving them class levels.

Also, someone mentioned that with flat math, 100 level 1 orcs could kill a level 20 character. I fail to see this as a bad thing: if I want to play a supers game, Evil Hat just came out with an awesome system, thanks. If one man is going up against 100 orcs... yes, he'll eventually die. Because that makes a hell of a lot more sense than him _not_ dying. The amazing and badass nature of that scenario comes from the fact that the guy's still alive after the _first bloody round_. You'll note that even in high fantasy, most "One man holds off an entire army" scenarios don't usually end well for the one man...

*Alignment*
You'll notice that they specifically call out that the mechanical effects of alignment will be reserved for the powerful aligned beings, not just your everyday evil shmuck. No, detect evil doesn't register Bill the Thief as evil, because he's not a demon or undead. No, Unholy Blight doesn't hurt Glenda the Good Witch, because she's not an angel or deva (as far as we know...)

*Multiple Attacks*
I don't think there need to be multiple attack rolls to get multiple effects on an attack. If they work the combat system right, you could be able to just add extra effects on a high enough roll. Or have the target make a save against an effect when you roll (opposed rolls don't slow down combat, you can both roll at the same time. it's actually really easy). And basic combat maneuvers not comparing to spells is okay by me, since they seem to be giving out less spells per day and not allowing stats to increase that amount. If I can push and shove people all day while still smacking them in the face, I don't really mind if a Wizard can dominate a combat round or two.


----------



## Grazzt (Mar 20, 2012)

Mengu said:


> With words like "exploring" and "looking into", how do people figure this mechanic is "set in stone"??? Do I fail at English?




Because of this part... "Since AC and attack bonuses aren't automatically scaling up..."


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 20, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> I'm already giving my "minions" evasion to everything now. Miss damage? Not in my game.
> 
> DDN Houserules begin today.




*OH FOR PETE'S SAKE!!!*

The game is still a YEAR AND A HALF AWAY AT LEAST!!!  You have NO IDEA what the rules actually are, let alone whether they match what you think they should be!

You've heard SNIPPETS of small, POSSIBLE rules within an ALPHA VERSION of the game.  You and I have _no idea_ whether there is damage on a miss... whether or not some monsters might have damage roll expressions AND an 'average' damage listing right after in parenthesis (to use as simple minion damage).  And none of us have seen any sort of Monster Manual entry to find out if MAYBE PERHAPS there will be several entries for 'orc', and _one_ of them them might have nothing more than a basic attack and THAT'S IT (thereby being as simple as a 4E 'minion' entry, just without the 'minion' keyword on it.)  So all this clamoring about not having "real minions" in the game is quite possibly pretty much negated.

This is why WE HAVE PLAYTESTS.

So that YOU can playtest the game, find out FOR YOURSELF what options or rules are in the game, and then MAKE SUGGESTIONS to have some things you think might be useful put into the game.  Rather than just get all huffy NOW and start throwing around ridiculous claims that WotC is now forcing you to houserule a game that doesn't even exist yet.  I mean come on!  Ugh!


----------



## Mattachine (Mar 20, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> So are personal code vs. rule of law. All the alignments group a number of loosely related views into one.




I guess that I don't consider "cosmic balance", "nature's way", and "not interested" as loosely related. The first two, sure, but not the third--making a choice to pursue or preserve balance is really different from not choosing anything at all, or not even being aware that choices exist.


----------



## KesselZero (Mar 20, 2012)

1. I'm torn on the minion issue; I think both sides make good points. But I think I lean towards the Ro3 concept here. I love minions, but they're very gamey, and players are always looking for them then calling them out. Plus I really support the stated design goal of flattening the math so lower-level monsters stay threatening for longer, and this is a logical consequence of that. Lastly, I think the feel and flavor of hitting level 6 and killing lots of the same orcs who troubled you at level 1 is much better than hitting level 6 and killing lots of orcs who have level 6 AC but 1 HP. You'll still have roughly the same chance of hitting each other, but your improved damage will put the hurt on them much quicker. My only concern is that they account for the lack of scaling damage, hopefully by flattening the HP curve somewhat as well (though that's just my personal preference).

2. I agree with the call for Unaligned to stay in as seperate from True Neutral, and I think what RT is saying is that alignment won't have mechanical effects for normal creatures (mean Farmer Bob, e.g., or evil orcs). It'll only have mechanical effects with creatures that are pure expressions of that alignment: angels, devils, divine avatars, etc. He says, "the execution of those mechanics should serve that goal, and really only apply when dealing with the powerful, elemental forces of alignments, not someone who just behaves a certain way." So no effect outside of RP guidance for normal creatures, and probably mechanical effects only at higher levels, too.

3. My reading of the fighter thing is actually that the 3e multiple attack bonus mechanic might be back. He specifically says "a mix-and-match system combining maneuvers and multiple attacks; on my turn, I charge the orc, then use my next attack to disarm him, and my final attack to push him back away from the weapon he dropped." So maybe we'll have something like the +11/+6/+1 BAB, and you can choose to make three attacks, three maneuvers, or some combo; plus, you could choose which bonuses to use for which choices based on how important you think it is to disarm rather than deal damage rather than trip.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Mar 20, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Sounds like they've set this one in stone.




I think the idea that attack bonuses and AC aren't going to automatically scale is set in stone. The exact rate is probably still up in the air. Since the details are the important thing here, it could go anywhere, for good or ill.

On minions, I don't see any reason why basic creatures, that will eventually become "minons" can't have a few helpful bits of text in their stat block and description. Put the average damage already calculated after the basic damage expression. List a "simple power" that can replace anything more complex--or be used as is, at the DM's discretion.  Some DMs might enjoy switching to average damage well before "kill in one normal hit" becomes likely.

Heck, when it comes to "exploding minons" and the like, simply have a power listed that causes them to explode (or whatever) if killed in one hit. That puts an interesting limitation on overly powerful attacks.


----------



## Mengu (Mar 20, 2012)

Grazzt said:


> Because of this part... "Since AC and attack bonuses aren't automatically scaling up..."




It's still within the scenario they are exploring. In that scenario, AC and attack bonuses don't automatically scale up.

Anyway, the approach is sensible, but there are some issues like how to make "easy" and "difficult" monsters, that they have to resolve. A level 10 iron golem that misses a level 5 fighter as often as a level 1 goblin, is not very impressive. Solutions can be found without scaling attack and defense bonuses, but they may feel gamey to some, and regardless, would need some testing. I don't think we can assume any of this is set in stone at the moment.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 20, 2012)

Minions
I like minions. I'm a fan of the "effectively 1 hp, but not REALLY 1 hp" compromise, in part because it does away with the awkward and weird "immune to half damage except for some fluff you might want to add about them grunting in pain that doesn't actually matter to the mechanics of the thing." Presuming that monsters have damage values that are viable for longer periods of time, and that it's easy to turn a dice roll into an average, I think that 5e minions will functionally replicate 4e minions while better preserving the reality and flow of the game. I like the idea I can send 100 orcs to challenge a level 20 character!

Alignments
Well, these things are iconic, and if the simplest D&D version also needs to be the most iconic, I suppose they need to be in there, along with some of the iconic items that vary with an alignment. Limiting many of the alignment effects to creatures that embody the alignment rather than just people who have the alignment makes a lot of sense, and is a good compromise that a lot of people have been using anyway.  Oh, and just swap out "True Neutral" with "Unaligned," and you have 4e's best contribution to the alignment system (a slight change in verbiage) right there. 

Fighter Attacks & Spells
I really like that this makes clear stuff like: "Fireball might do the equivalent damage to three attacks. Fighters get three attacks." I really like the feel of fighter combos, the whole 1-2-3-punch of them. I'm a little concerned they'll slow down play, but maybe with all the other streamlining options, it'll be fine (and they probably slow it down about as much as a wizard rolling for all the fireball attacks and damage, anyway). 

The article was a little vaguer on class mechanics being distinctive, but I think this line was solid:


			
				Rodney Thompson said:
			
		

> That's something the classes need to have because they are different; it's not a choice made simply so that they would be different.



So, in other words, fighter maneuvers and cleric spells aren't just the same effects, slightly adjusted (4e's powers method). The are different from the ground up, because the classes are different. And that's very encouraging.

Oh, and as for this:


			
				Grazzt said:
			
		

> Because of this part... "Since AC and attack bonuses aren't automatically scaling up..."



The context of the paragraph makes it crystal clear to me that Rodney was running, for the duration of that paragraph, with the *assumption* that this was true, since that allowed him to talk about what would happen if it were true. 

Perhaps instead of "Since" he might've said "as long as," but it's a whole lot of mountain-out-of-molehilling going on with that one word.


----------



## Minigiant (Mar 20, 2012)

[MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION]
I was not 100% serious.
It is too early to houserule... especially if we don't have the officially rules. There could be a "no damage on miss" and a "single hit point" modules. Or there might not be. When the playtest happens, I will try it out but I have been spoiled by 4E and its easiness. 

So there might be a day 2 after release homebrew post by me if it doesn't make it in. Or not. Who knows?


----------



## SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS (Mar 20, 2012)

Mengu said:


> It's still within the scenario they are exploring. In that scenario, AC and attack bonuses don't automatically scale up.
> 
> Anyway, the approach is sensible, but there are some issues like how to make "easy" and "difficult" monsters, that they have to resolve. A level 10 iron golem that misses a level 5 fighter as often as a level 1 goblin, is not very impressive. Solutions can be found without scaling attack and defense bonuses, but they may feel gamey to some, and regardless, would need some testing. I don't think we can assume any of this is set in stone at the moment.




I like it, a iron golen should have  a easy to dodge but very damaging if hit attack


----------



## Grazzt (Mar 20, 2012)

SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS said:


> I like it, a iron golen should have  a easy to dodge but very damaging if hit attack




Yep. Giants too (if you consider giants big, slow, lumbering monsters). Attack speed = slow, but if it connects...you're paste on the end of its club, to be scraped off at its leisure.


----------



## erf_beto (Mar 20, 2012)

Regarding minions and complexity, why are we assuming there's only going to be *one* type of orc in the MM? Why not have a statblock for a simple, will-be-a-minion-later, orc and a standard orc warrior, with 2 or 3 different attacks and tactics?
People who want a simpler game, with no minis, will probably only use just the first; but those who like tactical combat might prefer to mix and match. 
We *can* have simple and complex monsters.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Mar 20, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Alignments
> Well, these things are iconic, and if the simplest D&D version also needs to be the most iconic, I suppose they need to be in there, along with some of the iconic items that vary with an alignment. Limiting many of the alignment effects to creatures that embody the alignment rather than just people who have the alignment makes a lot of sense, and is a good compromise that a lot of people have been using anyway.  Oh, and just swap out "True Neutral" with "Unaligned," and you have 4e's best contribution to the alignment system (a slight change in verbiage) right there.




I believe this is the best compromise. You then have the alignment 'compass' only without the vagueness of neutrality:

Chaotic Good | Good | Lawful Good
Chaotic | Unaligned | Lawful
Chaotic Evil | Evil | Lawful Evil​


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 20, 2012)

Mengu said:


> It's still within the scenario they are exploring. In that scenario, AC and attack bonuses don't automatically scale up.
> 
> Anyway, the approach is sensible, but there are some issues like how to make "easy" and "difficult" monsters, that they have to resolve. A level 10 iron golem that misses a level 5 fighter as often as a level 1 goblin, is not very impressive. Solutions can be found without scaling attack and defense bonuses, but they may feel gamey to some, and regardless, would need some testing. I don't think we can assume any of this is set in stone at the moment.




It seems likely to me that your golem would probably seriously injure the fighter on a hit, but completely flatten the goblin. In other words, the level 5 fighter can survive a hit from a level 10 golem, but the golem's minimum damage will outright kill a level 1 goblin. That seems like a fairly good level of differentiation to me, and doesn't strike me as gamey at all (at least beyond the inherent gaminess of hp and levels).

Besides, RT said a bounded accuracy system. That implies that there can be variations in accuracy in attack and defense, just not wild variations. Difficult monsters, in addition to having high damage, might be on the high end of the accuracy/defense scale, while easy monsters are at the lower end. The difficult monster might hit you on a nat 6, rather than a nat 2. The fighter might hit the difficult monster on a nat 9, rather than only on a nat 20.

Something that I've learned from 4e, as well as a friend's homebrewed game where you can spend stat points for bonuses, is that a +1 or +2 makes a difference more often than you might think. There's a notable difference in durability between a character who is hit on a nat 10, and one who is hit on a nat 12. IME, small differences can make a distinct change at the gaming table, without making attack rolls either guaranteed or hopeless, but only when system accuracy is bound.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 20, 2012)

Klaus said:


> You say "gamey", but minions were always more of a storytelling tool than anything else. The DM decides if this creature is gonna be one of those orcs mooks from LotR, which got killed by the droves, or if this creature is gonna be Lurtz, which gave Aragorn a run for his money.
> 
> Or maybe that Olympic torchbearer orc that Legolas couldn't kill, even though later he takes out a mumakil with just as many arrows.




Thus the problem with minions. Leave the storytelling to the folks that want it. It doesn't need to permeate the mechanics. 

The idea of the basic attributes of something changing depending on who its standing next to does not fit with the rest of D&D.


----------



## Gryph (Mar 20, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> I get that--and I would just prefer that Unaligned were split away from "cosmic balance". They are really, really different things, so why put them under the same alignment?




I think it makes sense to have unaligned as an explicit alignment.

I've always followed the advice on alignment in the 1e DMG. Most humans and demi-humans (I included some humanoids) will not register on a Detect Alignment spell or the specialised versions. Only those characters who are dedicated to the alignments principles or dedicated followers of a god (or demon/devil) who embodies an alignment will be detectable. So a PC who acted generally neutral good but didn't actively promote the interests of the NG alignment would not show up to a Detect Good spell or ability. While Paladins with their forced dedication to the principles of lawful goodness do (in 1e).

I still think this makes the most sense for handling the in game mechanical aspects of alignment. So I think Unaligned as a way to mechanically represent the majority of characters who are not dedicated to an alignment will help promote that concept of alignment.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 20, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> I believe this is the best compromise. You then have the alignment 'compass' only without the vagueness of neutrality:
> 
> Chaotic Good | Good | Lawful Good
> Chaotic | Unaligned | Lawful
> Chaotic Evil | Evil | Lawful Evil​




I disagree. I think True Neutral definitely has a place in the alignment system. The figure who acts to maintain balance between other powers is a good example of this.

I see Unaligned as more of a way to opt out of the alignment system. More or less, "I choose to not dedicate myself to the cause of a moral philosophy". Traditionally, that fell under the purview of True Neutral, but I think TN serves better to represent keepers of the balance. 

Unaligned would be more like, "You crazy aligned guys do whatever you're gonna do, just leave me out of it". It's effectively self-interested, but not to the point of evil. An unaligned person isn't likely to screw someone else over to get what they want, but they also aren't going to run into a burning orphanage, or act to preserve the cosmic balance without a good reason to do so. They're unaligned.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 20, 2012)

The answer to question number one pretty much confirms what I was guessing at.  A couple weeks ago, I took the time to jot down some ideas on how to build a system where attack bonuses and defenses didn't go up per level.

I don't have it handy, but the idea would be that bonuses to hit and defense would still exist so you could make harder or easier monsters and to give the PCs some reason to take a feat or a class ability.  For instance, all fighters might get +1 to hit.  Making them immediately better at fighting than all other classes.  Particularly nasty monsters might have +3 or +4 to hit.

Of course, IMHO, for this to work correctly you need to decouple bonuses to hit from stats as well.

This allows you to, as the Ro3 says, use monsters who are level 1 who do 1d8 points of damage with a 50% chance to hit against level 8 PCs with 8d8 hitpoints and know that it would take 16 of them 1 round on average to take down 1 PC.  But likely the PCs have combat maneuvers to dodge one attack or parry one attack which will enable them to survive slightly longer with skill instead of AC bonuses.

This also allows you to differentiate between the classes.  Fighters are allowed to wear plate so they have an AC of 16(for example), meaning most monsters only hit them 25% of the time.  But Wizards get hit 55% of the time.


----------



## erf_beto (Mar 20, 2012)

Most people I played with ended up with Chaotic Good because of the lack of an explicit Unaligned... alignment. They want to be good (as all heroes are), or at least not evil (less problem with authorities), but not abide to the laws of some crazy tyrant overlord. And some players chose True Neutral because they thought it meant just that.


----------



## Hassassin (Mar 20, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Unaligned would be more like, "You crazy aligned guys do whatever you're gonna do, just leave me out of it". It's effectively self-interested, but not to the point of evil. An unaligned person isn't likely to screw someone else over to get what they want, but they also aren't going to run into a burning orphanage, or act to preserve the cosmic balance without a good reason to do so. They're unaligned.




Individualistic. Self-interested, but not to the point of evil. Sounds like Chaotic Neutral.


----------



## am181d (Mar 20, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> I disagree. I think True Neutral definitely has a place in the alignment system. The figure who acts to maintain balance between other powers is a good example of this.




Beh. I've never found this convincing. If you're actively interesting in balancing the system, that suggests your lawful (i.e. you're concerned with order). It's not contradictory for someone who's lawful to want to control but not eliminate chaos. In fact, that kind of weird logic is what make lawfulness lawfulness.

(If you find that unconvincing, consider that evil merchants don't want to kill good customers, they want to exploit their goodness.)

I don't think I've ever seen a character in a game that's come across as convincingly True Neutral. Every other character class, you can describe a personality that fits that alignment. With True Neutral, it always feels like you're just trying to emulate the description in the PHB.

Also, bears in previous editions were True Neutral, and they are NOT interested in maintaining a balance between good and evil.

For these reasons, I endorse replacing True Neutral with Unaligned. (Or, at minimum, changing it to True Neutral/Unaligned.)


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 20, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> I disagree. I think True Neutral definitely has a place in the alignment system. The figure who acts to maintain balance between other powers is a good example of this.




Mm. To me, this gets at the core disconnect within the alignment system: Is it about how you _behave_, or is it about what you _believe_?

If the former, then True Neutral and Unaligned are the same thing. You sometimes do good things and sometimes evil things, sometimes lawful and sometimes chaotic. You can have an elaborate philosophical justification for this, or not, but the result is the same either way.

If the latter, then there is a meaningful distinction between True Neutral and Unaligned, but it also implies a hard look at some of the ways in which alignment has traditionally been used. If you believe in the ideals of Good, but constantly fall short, you'd still qualify as Good. If you support a Lawful society, it doesn't matter if you yourself are an untrustworthy rogue. Myself, I like this approach, but it doesn't quite square with what we're used to.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Mar 20, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> If the latter, then there is a meaningful distinction between True Neutral and Unaligned, but it also implies a hard look at some of the ways in which alignment has traditionally been used. If you believe in the ideals of Good, but constantly fall short, you'd still qualify as Good. If you support a Lawful society, it doesn't matter if you yourself are an untrustworthy rogue. Myself, I like this approach, but it doesn't quite square with what we're used to.




This has been my preference, too, when using alignment. I've thought before that the alignment system could be more flexible if built this way, but that doing so would make it a bit too abstract for some fans that like it a little more cut and dried. Perhaps in 5E, with the emphasis on modular, they could move to the abstract approach necessary to make both readily useful within the rules:

"Alignment" is exactly what it says it is on the label--an alignment with some recognizable entity, group, power, philosophy, etc. that is strong enough to register in certain mechanics. However, what this means is defined in each alignment (or set of alignments) separately. Then you build a few separate sets for examples, and encourage these to change by campaign or preference.

You can have the 3x3 grid of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil. Or you can have the Basic Law, Neutral, Chaos. Or the 4E model of five slots on a scale. In each of these, what it means to be aligned with one is defined in that example. That is, "Lawful Good" is going to mean something fairly close to the same thing in the 3x3 and the 4E model, but not exactly. Then you also have campaign models where it is more or less strict, i.e. when the mechanics kick in.

However, with this one level of indirection, you can also have things such as society class alignments: Nobles, Merchants, Peasants, Clergy, Outlaws. Or you can align with pantheons or factions within pantheons. You could align on geographical, racial, or political issues. In each case, the mechanics would be somewhat different. _Detect peasant alignment_ doesn't quite have the right ring. 

With the right sets, you can even mix multiple sets. If the gods really care about deep questions of good and evil, law and chaos, but the earthly authorities do not--only about trouble, you might have one character aligned as Neutral Good Merchants -- and thus in heavy conflict with the Neutral Good Clergy character.

As far as I'm concerned, if alignments don't fuel interesting conflicts in the game, then they aren't much use. But the interesting conflicts that our group wants in a particular campaign are not necessarily the same as last campaign.


----------



## whydirt (Mar 20, 2012)

Again, I'm open to any and all alignment systems being included, but please don't make them part of the core game.  Bring them in as one of the modules so people can decide how much they want alignment to matter in their games.  Heck, you could even tailor alignment mechanics to each setting.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 20, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> Individualistic. Self-interested, but not to the point of evil. Sounds like Chaotic Neutral.




No, Chaotic Neutral is someone who follows a philosophy that upholds chaos (whether consciously or not). They don't respect authority figures, for one.

An unaligned character, on the other hand, doesn't care about chaos. They're perfectly willing to offer authority figures respect, under reasonable circumstances.




am181d said:


> Beh. I've never found this convincing. If you're actively interesting in balancing the system, that suggests your lawful (i.e. you're concerned with order). It's not contradictory for someone who's lawful to want to control but not eliminate chaos. In fact, that kind of weird logic is what make lawfulness lawfulness.
> 
> (If you find that unconvincing, consider that evil merchants don't want to kill good customers, they want to exploit their goodness.)
> 
> ...




I see Lawfulness as being dedicated to the cause of Order. As such, I don't think a Lawful character would seek to balance order and chaos, but rather stamp out chaos. He might be a realist, and understand that that's impossible, but that wouldn't stop him from trying any more than a good character would stop running into a burning orphanage simply because he realizes he can't save all of the children inside.

Admittedly, running a TN PC would be very difficult. It's more an NPC alignment. But there are NPCs suited to that alignment. I can't think of an example at the moment, but literature is rife with figures who only act to maintain balance between factions (usually good and evil). 

As for bears being TN in past editions, that has no bearing (pun intended) on DDN. Unaligned didn't exist at that time, so the concept of TN was bodged into the TN definition. People who maintain the balance, and people who just don't care. That doesn't mean that we can't introduce distinction, by making TN keepers of the balance, and unaligned those who don't care.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 20, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Heck, when it comes to "exploding minons" and the like, simply have a power listed that causes them to explode (or whatever) if killed in one hit. That puts an interesting limitation on overly powerful attacks.




I was thinking similarly with mob tactics. Give the basic goblin bonuses in a mob. When you meet three goblins at 1st level they don't gain much from their ability. When you meet 20 at 10th level their ability really kicks in.

And add leader abilities to the leaders, such that when they have few followers at low level they get very little use of their ability. But when they lead a tribe at higher levels their ability shines.



Fanaelialae said:


> Unaligned would be more like, "You crazy aligned guys do whatever you're gonna do, just leave me out of it".




Or unaligned could just as easily be, "I refuse to *align* myself with law or chaos, good or evil, I care naught but for the balance."


----------



## MatthewJHanson (Mar 20, 2012)

One concern, if the new minions are just lower level standard monsters, will the new solos just be higher level standards? There's even more that goes into a good solo than just having a lot of hit points.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 20, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Or unaligned could just as easily be, "I refuse to *align* myself with law or chaos, good or evil, I care naught but for the balance."




What if you want a character who says, "I refuse to *align* myself with law or chaos, good or evil, *or neutrality*, I care naught for these abstract philosophies"?

If you're aligning yourself with keeping the balance (neutrality) then you're still aligned. You're taking part in the neverending contest of philosophies, except that instead of trying to ensure that your side wins, you're trying to ensure that no side ever triumphs.

If you're unaligned, then you're choosing not to pick a side. You don't have any interest in participating in the contest, except perhaps in individual instances where you happen to have a personal stake in the matter.


----------



## gweinel (Mar 20, 2012)

Klaus said:


> You say "gamey", but minions were always more of a storytelling tool than anything else. The DM decides if this creature is gonna be one of those orcs mooks from LotR, which got killed by the droves, or if this creature is gonna be Lurtz, which gave Aragorn a run for his money.
> 
> Or maybe that Olympic torchbearer orc that Legolas couldn't kill, even though later he takes out a mumakil with just as many arrows.




One of the problems that i had with minions was that damn 1 hit point they had. You could see a lvl 27 titan minion with 1 hit point. That titan could die with one at will power that didn't even target him! Also the +30 to attack that this titan might had also didn't contribute to be a believable monster to me. 

I can see your point and that is the reason i only had minions at low levels. Yes, some orcs, goblins and skeletons could be so weak and die with one hit. But at higher levels i can hardly envisage 1hp creatures with absurb attack bonuses and defenses.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 20, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> What if you want a character who says, "I refuse to align myself with law or chaos, good or evil, or neutrality, I care naught for these abstract philosophies"?




It's honestly a subtle philosophical point: is the absence of allegiance to a morality an allegiance in and of itself? Is nothing a thing independent of its concept as not-a-thing? Can one be amoral without being immoral? Is "neutrality" a cosmological power in and of itself, or is it simply what exists when one does not choose one or the other? Can one choose to be neutral without also choosing to be unaligned?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ussCHoQttyQ&feature=related]Neutral Response - YouTube[/ame]

That's why they probably should be rolled together. Let individual players futz with whether "unaligned" means no alignment or means a refusal to be aligned or means simple neutrality. The term is strong enough to encompass all of those things and more. Alignments have never meant just one thing (lawful != "obeys the laws," except when it does)


----------



## avin (Mar 20, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Unaligned would be more like, "You crazy aligned guys do whatever you're gonna do, just leave me out of it". It's effectively self-interested, but not to the point of evil. An unaligned person isn't likely to screw someone else over to get what they want, but they also aren't going to run into a burning orphanage, or act to preserve the cosmic balance without a good reason to do so. They're unaligned.




As [MENTION=6675228]Hassassin[/MENTION] said, this sounds CN, not unaligned. I would compromise on unaligned and removed old notions of "true neutral" from the game, with maybe a sidebar explaining how TN could replace unaligned if wanted.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Mar 20, 2012)

gyor said:


> A simple fix to "5e minions" would be to give them a theme that does nothing but boost damage and have a rule that allows players to automatical deal average damage against monsters that are a certain level below them instead of rolling.




Or Houserule in 4E minions. 
Because 4E Minions are good because have good AC/save defense and a good attack bonus. 
This is why Minions didn't work in 3.5 (using weaker guys) because there is little way to keep make them level appropriate hit/defenses without too much treasure.

I will need to see how good they flatten the math though. 
The low hp wasn't the reason Minions were loved.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 20, 2012)

gweinel said:


> One of the problems that i had with minions was that damn 1 hit point they had. You could see a lvl 27 titan minion with 1 hit point. That titan could die with one at will power that didn't even target him! Also the +30 to attack that this titan might had also didn't contribute to be a believable monster to me.
> 
> I can see your point and that is the reason i only had minions at low levels. Yes, some orcs, goblins and skeletons could be so weak and die with one hit. But at higher levels i can hardly envisage 1hp creatures with absurb attack bonuses and defenses.



Sure, but by the time you're fighting Level 27 giant minions, you are probably something akin to Thor, bashing giants left and right with your hammer. Or John Carter, cutting down Warhoons by the dozen to protect Dejah Thoris.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 20, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> Mm. To me, this gets at the core disconnect within the alignment system: Is it about how you _behave_, or is it about what you _believe_?
> 
> If the former, then True Neutral and Unaligned are the same thing. You sometimes do good things and sometimes evil things, sometimes lawful and sometimes chaotic. You can have an elaborate philosophical justification for this, or not, but the result is the same either way.
> 
> If the latter, then there is a meaningful distinction between True Neutral and Unaligned, but it also implies a hard look at some of the ways in which alignment has traditionally been used. If you believe in the ideals of Good, but constantly fall short, you'd still qualify as Good. If you support a Lawful society, it doesn't matter if you yourself are an untrustworthy rogue. Myself, I like this approach, but it doesn't quite square with what we're used to.




Interesting distinction. I'd give you xp but I have to spread some around. I suppose I favor belief over behavior.

I think intent is quite important. If a paladin is tricked into triggering the apocalypse while trying to prevent it, that paladin is still good despite that his actions may result in profound evil. If a warlord who kills people for fun happens to kill an evil tyrant (making the lives of the tyrant's subjects inadvertently better) that doesn't make him good. 

That said, I do think behavior also plays a role. If an orc desperately wants to be good, but can't resist the urge to torture and kill every innocent halfling he meets, then he isn't good even if he serves at the local soup kitchen and helps little old ladies across the street. In all fairness though, that's a bit of an extreme case.

In general, I think belief is what alignment is about. It would be odd for your actions to be regularly in opposition to what you believe, and if they were I think you'd have to reexamine whether you really believe what you proclaim to believe.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 20, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's honestly a subtle philosophical point: is the absence of allegiance to a morality an allegiance in and of itself? Is nothing a thing independent of its concept as not-a-thing? Can one be amoral without being immoral? Is "neutrality" a cosmological power in and of itself, or is it simply what exists when one does not choose one or the other? Can one choose to be neutral without also choosing to be unaligned?
> 
> That's why they probably should be rolled together. Let individual players futz with whether "unaligned" means no alignment or means a refusal to be aligned or means simple neutrality. The term is strong enough to encompass all of those things and more. Alignments have never meant just one thing (lawful != "obeys the laws," except when it does)




I'm not advocating True Neutrality as the absence of a morality. I'm advocating True Neutrality as the philosophy that all of the other philosophies are important, and that it is therefore important to maintain balance between them.

Unaligned would then be your absence of a defining moral code. 

Someone who would neither run into a burning building to save orphaned children (good), nor ensure his inheritance by ushering his mother to an early grave (evil). Someone who neither considers individual laws very important (lawful), nor considers them shackles upon the true right that is freedom (chaos). Also someone who does not find the esoteric task of maintaining the balance between these philosophies to be appealing.

I'm also of the opinion that, aside from TN, Neutral serves no purpose in the set of alignments beyond needless symmetry. What I'd like to see is 10 alignment choices:

Unaligned

Lawful Good - Good - Chaotic Good

Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic

Lawful Evil - Evil - Chaotic Evil​
I think it might help to clarify alignments a bit.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 20, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> Mm. To me, this gets at the core disconnect within the alignment system: Is it about how you _behave_, or is it about what you _believe_?
> 
> If the former, then True Neutral and Unaligned are the same thing. You sometimes do good things and sometimes evil things, sometimes lawful and sometimes chaotic. You can have an elaborate philosophical justification for this, or not, but the result is the same either way.
> 
> If the latter, then there is a meaningful distinction between True Neutral and Unaligned, but it also implies a hard look at some of the ways in which alignment has traditionally been used. If you believe in the ideals of Good, but constantly fall short, you'd still qualify as Good. If you support a Lawful society, it doesn't matter if you yourself are an untrustworthy rogue. Myself, I like this approach, but it doesn't quite square with what we're used to.



It sucks, but I can't rep you at the moment either.

You make a great distinction and I think it should be highlighted in the game. I also think both sides should be part of the game.

The actions of the characters, PCs or NPCs, are expressions of their alignment. Their own personal justifications can be anything they choose: 
-They believe in following the law, they just have trouble doing so; 
-They believe deeply in accumulating power for themselves, but end up sharing it with those in need.

The justifications are important and material to be explored in the game. Plus, the actions taken change the creature's (or anything else's) alignment, if we're tracking it. The NPCs are scripted, so that's a little easier to deal with as a DM. The PC's actions are determined by the players. They come to terms with their own understanding of what their choices are, but the actions still have consequences and can shift how the world views them because of it (alignment shift).


----------



## Boarstorm (Mar 20, 2012)

I'm honestly surprised at the amount of sky-is-falling in the early pages of this thread.  The game Rodney describes sounds to me like exactly what I've always wanted to play.


----------



## Gadget (Mar 20, 2012)

Love it or hate it, ROT continues to be the best and most informative effort on Wotc's part to connect with the masses.  

I'm actually quite interested in the whole "bounded accuracy" thing.  I sounds like a good system at first blush.  Things like average damage and a note or two could help with the minion thing.  Alignments - blach.  I can't say I'm surprised, but I'm not thrilled by the return of what I consider to be D&D's earliest and most egregious example of the 'filling in the symmetry matrix' syndrome.  It does sound like they are limiting it more though.  I'll wait and see with the fighter manoeuvre thing.  I don't really want a return to 3e's multi-attack though.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Mar 20, 2012)

Good or Evil is what you are. Lawful or Chaotic is what you think the world is; Good or Evil. 

Unaligned is for plants and bugs.

Your ethics is what you think the moral of the world is. Lawful people think the world is basically good. Chaotic people thinks the world is evil at heart.  Lawful Evil thinks the world is good and easy taking advantage of. Chaotic Good thinks the world is evil and must he kept at armslength. Lawful Good thinks the world is good and must be protected. Chaotic Evil thinks the world is evil and must be dominated or destroyed.


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 20, 2012)

> Originally Posted by *from the article*
> _Since AC and attack bonuses aren't automatically scaling up (. . .)_






Mark CMG said:


> Sounds like they've set this one in stone.




I'm very intrigued to see how this works in the system and in play.  I'm seriously itching to look at it now.  I'm not sure if this is good or bad until I see how it plays out...how character progression works.

As an aside, this is a definite point towards the validity of that Something Awful Leak.  The leak is obviously based on a real, though likely very early, version of the rules (as the leak says also), though heavily coloured with personal bias, but it seems real nonetheless.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Mar 20, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> I'm very intrigued to see how this works in the system and in play.  I'm seriously itching to look at it now.  I'm not sure if this is good or bad until I see how it plays out...how character progression works.
> 
> As an aside, this is a definite point towards the validity of that Something Awful Leak.  The leak is obviously based on a real, though likely very early, version of the rules (as the leak says also), though heavily coloured with personal bias, but it seems real nonetheless.




I think it's safe to say a longsword will do 1d8 damage. We can assume Str adds to this. Anything above 10 adds 1. It seems level is also added. Now, if there is going to be any difference between first and sixth level (3 hits to 1) something else must be added. I'm thinking you get another weapon die per five levels. So a sixth level character will do 2d8+6 plus bonus. To this we add 1dX depending on class when you crit, according to the leak.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 20, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> I'm not advocating True Neutrality as the absence of a morality. I'm advocating True Neutrality as the philosophy that all of the other philosophies are important, and that it is therefore important to maintain balance between them.
> 
> Unaligned would then be your absence of a defining moral code.




Sure, I'm just pointing out that this distinction is very philosophically fuzzy. 



> Someone who would neither run into a burning building to save orphaned children (good), nor ensure his inheritance by ushering his mother to an early grave (evil). Someone who neither considers individual laws very important (lawful), nor considers them shackles upon the true right that is freedom (chaos). Also someone who does not find the esoteric task of maintaining the balance between these philosophies to be appealing.




All those sentences could be describing Neutral just as well as they could be describing Unaligned.

If I have a character who will not risk his life to save others, but also not do horrible things to other people, who does not believe the world is entirely logical, nor that it is entirely unpredictable, and doesn't care about balance...I could be either Neutral or Unaligned, and have the same belief system.


----------



## KesselZero (Mar 20, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Admittedly, running a TN PC would be very difficult. It's more an NPC alignment. But there are NPCs suited to that alignment. I can't think of an example at the moment, but literature is rife with figures who only act to maintain balance between factions (usually good and evil).




The example that springs to mind is the Checkered Knight from Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion stuff, a guy who occasionally pops in to maintain the balance between Law and Chaos (and symbolically wears black-and-white checkered armor). Moorcock's protagonists tend to fight for one or the other, and the Checkered Knight is always a mysterious NPC.

Given that Moorcock was an Appendix N influence, and IIRC the Checkered Knight appears in the Hawkmoon books that are specifically called out by Gygax, this may be a clue to the original intent of "neutral" in D&D, especially since Moorcock was the guy who popularized the law-chaos axis, using it exclusively in place of good and evil. Law and Chaos could both be "good" or "evil" depending on the situation and conflict at hand, which may also have influenced the nine-point grid of D&D-- the classic example of Lawful Evil being a fascist society in which individuality is brutally repressed but the trains run on time. In Moorcock this would just be an expression of Law, which hopefully some brave protagonist dedicated to Chaos would overthrow!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 20, 2012)

gyor said:


> As for the Rogue and Fighter combat manevuers, that actually sounded freaking awesome. Customize multiple attacks with different manevours to build unique combos.






Tallifer said:


> I am nervous about most of things being said about fighters. Disarming, sundering, bull rushing, tripping and grappling are mundane everyday things any character can do with enough strength. I like to see some flashy and stunning tricks and combinations: basically many of the Fourth Edition powers were tricks that allowed the Fighter to do more than one thing with a single action. The Rule of Three here seems to be suggesting that the Fighter can do the three actions of hit, trip and push in one efficient action, but if it just means use your move and standard and minor action, that is three actions spent.




What I would love to see is something like the 'Master of Arms' supplement from Second World Simulations, which came out early in 3e.

It essentially used combinations of base and secondary (or even tertiary) attacks to pull off some excellent manoeuvres - and it provided the maths to back them up and help you develop your own if you wanted to.

e.g. Axe Beheading (battleax, greataxe, waraxe). Sacrifice the first attack to increase your base critical rate to 18-20 with the axe (i.e. you take only your secondary attack).

e.g. Blinding Slash (slashing weapon). Two step combination, you first make a targeting attack against the victims normal AC which doesn't do any damage. if the targeting succeeds you then follow with another normal attack which blinds the target for 1d6 rounds if Fort save failed.

e.g. Double Spin (bladed polearm: glaive, guisarme, halberd). You spin the polearm high on the first blow and follow up low at the legs. You take a -2 to your first attack in the sequence but +3 to hit on the second attack in the sequence.

The whole book has got lots more examples - I think it would be a great way of providing a huge, flexible range of martial manoeuvres (it also includes cloak  fighting, three section staff fighting, immovable rod fighting and others!)

As you can tell... I'm a fan. 

Cheers


----------



## GM Dave (Mar 20, 2012)

DogBackward said:


> *Minions*
> ...
> 
> Also, someone mentioned that with flat math, 100 level 1 orcs could kill a level 20 character. I fail to see this as a bad thing: if I want to play a supers game, Evil Hat just came out with an awesome system, thanks. If one man is going up against 100 orcs... yes, he'll eventually die. Because that makes a hell of a lot more sense than him _not_ dying. The amazing and badass nature of that scenario comes from the fact that the guy's still alive after the _first bloody round_. You'll note that even in high fantasy, most "One man holds off an entire army" scenarios don't usually end well for the one man...




What do you mean one man holds off an entire scenarios don't end well.

Jet Li in Hero begs to differ... oh right ... that didn't end well.

Step along, nothing to see here.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 20, 2012)

AC and attack beeing no strict function of level is going back to ADnD

You may say: the fighter is gaining a better thac0. Yes, right... but you still find monsters with AC above 0 at high levels. His damage on the other hand does not go up so much. Instead he gets more attacks that hit more often. HP for monsters don´t go up that much. A troll just has 30-40 hp. A few solid hits will bring them down reasonably fast.
I didn´t do the math... but my guess is, that monster defenses on average may go up by 1/3 per level. Even with a bard, you notice an increase in accuracy with your measly thac0 -1/2 level.

So as I said: "attacks and defenses not automatically go up per level" could as well mean: some classes have increasing attack bonuses, but it may only go up at some occasions and it is not assumed in math, so it is a real increase.


----------



## GM Dave (Mar 20, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> What I would love to see is something like the 'Master of Arms' supplement from Second World Simulations, which came out early in 3e.
> 
> It essentially used combinations of base and secondary (or even tertiary) attacks to pull off some excellent manoeuvres - and it provided the maths to back them up and help you develop your own if you wanted to.
> 
> ...




The trouble with this and non-damaging attacks is that a person has to see more value in spending an attack that does no or less damage compared to simply smacking the creature.

Often the alternative that is more complicated needs to be a recognizably larger advantage or the person/player will select the easier option which is simply to hit the creature for strait damage. (this larger advantage when spotted then becomes often the focus of exploits though it is a 'reward' for the person that did not choose the simpler design mold).

This is a design problem where you can make adoption of the idea easier if you get damage and the extra rider.

The trouble of moving into a rider/proc system is that they add more complexity to each turn's resolution and can slow down play.  This is again a trade off on value of quick resolution (hit and hit it more) verses keeping track of the effects of an attack that slightly stunned an opponent so their attacks are weakened (doing less damage per hit as a result with the risk of forgetting the effect on the target).

I like the concept but it is a tricky design goal to achieve with many associated problems.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 20, 2012)

There are many pages in the book which go into the maths of the system well, which explains how there can be extra value in a system that effectively gives up one of your attacks for a greater payoff later. It's very sound, and one of the advantages which you get in this system is that a PC can learn some fun combat options which are both cinematic and useful (e.g. a staff/polearm attack that lets you attack two people flanking you at the same time)

Essentially D&Dn wants to cater for simple PCs (I whack him for 1d8+9 damage!) and complex PCs (I use my "stick a fork in him he's done" technique  - I attempt my first hit, great, now I make a second attack for half damage, got it, now I get etc etc). 

The question of slower play or not largely comes down to the complex PCs or not (and of course the competence of the players! I've known people with wizards whose turn was over in seconds, and people with 1e fighters who could dither for a minute!)

Cheers


----------



## gloomhound (Mar 20, 2012)

You know it occurs to me, that it's less useful trying to view D&DN through the lens of 4e or 3.5 for that matter. But as seen from the terra firma of AD&D you can just start to make it out off in the distance. ....or I just might be full of crap.


----------



## RHGreen (Mar 21, 2012)

Minion Rules

How about something like:


HP 20 (4)

Damage 2d8 (7)


This creature has 20hp, but when you are level 4, if you hit it, you get an insta-kill.

It causes 2d8 damage, but if you can't be bothered to roll it causes 7 damage.


I always prefered the idea that if a minion gets potentially damaged from any source (straight hit, misses or anything) it makes a death save like players do. On a 9 or less it dies, 10 or more and it struggles on. (Though I'd prefer 11 or higher to survive.)


----------



## keterys (Mar 21, 2012)

Well, I'd suggest 2d8 (9) for damage myself 

The instant kill at a certain level is interesting, though. What about non-hit damage? Ex: splash damage, half damage on save, aura, zone, cleave, _whatever_ that does... let's say 5 damage.


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 21, 2012)

I like what they're saying here. I feel good about what they're saying here.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 21, 2012)

avin said:


> As [MENTION=6675228]Hassassin[/MENTION] said, this sounds CN, not unaligned. I would compromise on unaligned and removed old notions of "true neutral" from the game, with maybe a sidebar explaining how TN could replace unaligned if wanted.




Only problem is, Hassassin is wrong.  CN is a conscious choice for one.  For another, CN also embodies irresponsibility and being fickle.  Neither of those things are present in the example.  CN is not simply, "I can do whatever I want, whenever I want, but, what I want to do is be a team player and be totally responsible all the time".  CN is a jerk.  He's the guy who falls asleep or wanders off during a watch.  He cannot be trusted.  Ever.  That's what irresponsible means.  Sure, he's not malicious.  He doesn't want to dominate you like a CE would.  But, OTOH, he's the guy who you would never, ever consider asking to watch your house for the weekend because you KNOW he'd have half a hundred of his "best friends" over to party and stick you with the mess and the $2000 noise compaint.



AnonGemini said:


> Minion Rules
> 
> How about something like:
> HP 20 (4)
> ...




Now that's not a bad idea.  Just keyword in the insta-kill effect.  Once you reach a certain threshold, the creature becomes a minion.  That threshold could be different for every creature if you wanted.  Nice.  Simple.  Elegant.


----------



## gyor (Mar 21, 2012)

Here is how I see alignment. 

Lawful Evil-Totalitarian Communism or Facism
Lawful Good- Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism
Choatic Evil- Violent Anarchany (as apposed to peaceful Anarchists)
Choatic Good- Moderate Liberatianism
Chaotic Neutral- Neo-Liberalism
Lawful Neutral- Technocracy
True Neutral-Non political
Neutral Good- Reform Liberalism
Neutral Evil- Normal Dictatorship, Authoritianism

 I tend to translate alignment into idealogies it just makes it easier to picture. I will say Chaotic Neutral was the one they had the hardest time with, it always drifted into murderious Chaotic evil, but Chaotic Neutral is not being psychotic butcher, but rather its the Alignment of the average street level Pot Dealer or A deregulating Banker whose drive for deregulation leads to the fincial crisis. The're Hedonists who don't care about society, but he lack the hate or personal cruelty to be chaotic evil.

 Chaotic Evil is the war torn country in Choas were mass murder is a way of life.

 Lawful Good, think Sweden or Norway.

 Neutral Good think Canada

 Chaotic Good think pre Regan 1970's America (modern America has drifted into Chaotic Neutral while).

 Divine examples Chaotic Good Sharess, Church likes to party, but still cares about the well being of others. Neutral Good Chauntea, goes with what benifits society most. Lawful Good Torm, society needs to be protected, both against killers, but against things like poverty as well.

 Just some thoughts on Alignment, not meant to be Political, just for illustrative purposes.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 21, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Sure, I'm just pointing out that this distinction is very philosophically fuzzy.




And what I'm saying is that from a practical standpoint, the two are more distinct than the one.

If you have just Neutrality, it might mean that the character is a keeper of the balance ([MENTION=6689976]KesselZero[/MENTION] 's Checkered Knight) or it might mean that the person is simply unaligned with any other philosophy. Saying that someone is Neutral means two very different things. If you're trying to stop a thieves guild that has overrun a town, the first guy will probably help you (in the interest of restoring balance) though he'll also try to prevent your victory from being complete, while the second guy is only likely to help you if you can make it worthwhile for him.

On the other hand, if you have Unaligned and Neutral as distinct from each other, those two become quite distinct. Bears would be unaligned, having no interest in preserving balance, but rather simply concerned with the simple things bears are concerned about. Druids, on the other hand would be Neutral, interested in preserving the balance. Two very distinct outlooks.



> All those sentences could be describing Neutral just as well as they could be describing Unaligned.




In early D&D, there were only Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. While there was a bit more to it, Lawful was effectively Good, while Chaotic was effectively Evil. Since I don't hear anyone suggesting we return to that 3 alignment system, I'm assuming that differentiation is a good thing.



> If I have a character who will not risk his life to save others, but also not do horrible things to other people, who does not believe the world is entirely logical, nor that it is entirely unpredictable, and doesn't care about balance...I could be either Neutral or Unaligned, and have the same belief system.




It's not about about being unwilling to risk his life to save others. It's about someone who requires more motivation than mere philosophy to risk his life. More precisely, someone unmotivated by philosophy. This is a mercenary adventurer type. Someone who isn't evil, but also won't risk his neck without compensation.

As far as I'm concerned, there's a pretty huge distinction between someone unmotivated by philosophy and someone motivated by the philosophy of preserving the balance. Just because you _can_ lump them both under the umbrella of Neutrality (just like you _could_ lump Good in with Lawful) doesn't mean you necessarily _should_.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 21, 2012)

None of the last 2 descriptions of Chaotic Neutral are what I fully see all of Chaotic Neutral as, and are generally coloured by a bias against the alignment.  It's many things, and a variety of personality types in much the same way other alignments also cover a variety of personalities.  Chaotic Neutral also isn't completely a single political political ideology, as there clearly can be chaotic neutral or any sort of alignment on both sides of the political spectrum.


----------



## whydirt (Mar 21, 2012)

Alignment seems like the poster child for being an optional modular mechanic. WotC is welcome to put the traditional 9-point system, OD&D's Law vs. Chaos, or d20 Modern's allegiances system in, but I see no reason why any of them should be baked into the core game.


----------



## n00bdragon (Mar 21, 2012)

As usual, most people missed the real zinger in today's column, notably the implication that paladins cast spells because that's what people expect them to do rather than as a way to differentiate them from other classes. Those of you who might remember the origins of the paladin class may note that it was in fact a different special kind of fighter given powers only for the fact that he is different. There is no fantasy lore anywhere to suggest that paladins have magic powers. D&D just made that stuff up out whole cloth because it's more fun that way.

Some of you may think I'm being particularly pedantic about these few sentences but this is all the insight we get into the design process, and from what I see the designers want to make a game that's more D&D than any edition of D&D ever was. It's become a ridiculous parody more than actual game.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 21, 2012)

n00bdragon said:


> There is no fantasy lore anywhere to suggest that paladins have magic powers.





In some versions of Arthurian Legend, Lancelot has healing powers that are seemingly divinely granted.


----------



## Kynn (Mar 21, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> I disagree. I think True Neutral definitely has a place in the alignment system. The figure who acts to maintain balance between other powers is a good example of this.




Why would such a figure be a particularly good moral archetype for a fantasy roleplaying game?

Do such entities exist in the related fantasy fiction? Is it fun to play? Does it open up a set of gaming options that might not otherwise exist?

If you ask me, the "maintain the balance" alignment isn't an alignment at all. It's either a character quirk or some kind of neurosis, but there's no need to hardcode either into an alignment system.


----------



## Iosue (Mar 21, 2012)

GM Dave said:


> What do you mean one man holds off an entire scenarios don't end well.
> 
> Jet Li in Hero begs to differ... oh right ... that didn't end well.
> 
> Step along, nothing to see here.




Jet Li in [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owYk4TOddYY]the One[/ame] on the other hand, _does_ beg to differ.


----------



## ggroy (Mar 21, 2012)

Kobold Avenger said:


> None of the last 2 descriptions of Chaotic Neutral are what I fully see all of Chaotic Neutral as, and are generally coloured by a bias against the alignment.  It's many things, and a variety of personality types in much the same way other alignments also cover a variety of personalities.  Chaotic Neutral also isn't completely a single political political ideology, as there clearly can be chaotic neutral or any sort of alignment on both sides of the political spectrum.




I thought Chaotic Neutral was somebody like Beavis & Butthead.


----------



## Hassassin (Mar 21, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Only problem is, Hassassin is wrong.  CN is a conscious choice for one.  For another, CN also embodies irresponsibility and being fickle.  Neither of those things are present in the example.  CN is not simply, "I can do whatever I want, whenever I want, but, what I want to do is be a team player and be totally responsible all the time".  CN is a jerk.  He's the guy who falls asleep or wanders off during a watch.  He cannot be trusted.  Ever.  That's what irresponsible means.  Sure, he's not malicious.  He doesn't want to dominate you like a CE would.  But, OTOH, he's the guy who you would never, ever consider asking to watch your house for the weekend because you KNOW he'd have half a hundred of his "best friends" over to party and stick you with the mess and the $2000 noise compaint.




That's not what my definition of CN says. Unpredictable? Yes. Unreliable? Not necessarily. Jerk? Definitely orthogonal to alignment.

Anyway, each alignment is a large pool of different outlooks. Somewhere between the "extremes" of TN and CN there is that guy who is individualistic, somewhat unpredictable, still a good buddy, but who doesn't really care about strangers. Whether you say he's TN or CN is a judgement call.

(Ps. Most of my CE guys don't want to dominate anyone. More like make sure there's no one who can dominate them.)


----------



## Mattachine (Mar 21, 2012)

One of the most iconic D&D characters, perhaps THE iconic D&D wizard, Mordenkainen, was True Neutral--as seeker of balance, of cosmic order. Definitely not "unaligned".

I consider one of the original D&D characters as least as iconic (if not more so) than a character from a 1950's or 1960's fantasy novel I never read.


----------



## erleni (Mar 21, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> One of the most iconic D&D characters, perhaps THE iconic D&D wizard, Mordenkainen, was True Neutral--as seeker of balance, of cosmic order. Definitely not "unaligned".
> 
> I consider one of the original D&D characters as least as iconic (if not more so) than a character from a 1950's or 1960's fantasy novel I never read.




The God Gilean in Dragonlance is another example.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 21, 2012)

Kynn said:


> Why would such a figure be a particularly good moral archetype for a fantasy roleplaying game?
> 
> Do such entities exist in the related fantasy fiction? Is it fun to play? Does it open up a set of gaming options that might not otherwise exist?




Yes, keepers of balance do exist in fantasy fiction. Several posters in this thread have mentioned examples. As to whether it's fun to play, I'd say that it's more commonly an NPC alignment, but the same applies to Chaotic Evil IMO.

It most definitely opens up a set of gaming options that wouldn't otherwise exist. If you want to preserve the balance, you aren't good or evil, lawful or chaotic. You'll ally yourself with any side that's become the underdog, in order to restore balance. That's most certainly different than what a differently aligned party/character would do.



> If you ask me, the "maintain the balance" alignment isn't an alignment at all. It's either a character quirk or some kind of neurosis, but there's no need to hardcode either into an alignment system.




If you ask me, the concept of alignment probably arose from the struggle between Law and Chaos seen in books like Zelazny's Amber series and Moorcock's Elric series. In those books, certain individuals are _aligned_ with one philosophy or the other, and struggle against opposing aligned individuals. Their struggles are part of a greater cosmic struggle.

In that type of setting (which D&D, with it's Great Wheel of philosophies as existent planes, arguably is) it's not a quirk or neurosis to seek balance between the two. Without those opposing forces, the universe as we know it ceases to exist. Wanting to preserve the known universe doesn't make one crazy, it makes one a hero. However, this is a very peculiar hero in that he's just as likely to ally himself with demons as with angels, dependent on which side is losing.

In all fairness, this is the most legitimate critique, IMO. However, this definition of Neutrality has been part of the game for a long time now. If they're bringing back alignment for the sake of tradition, then there's certainly an argument to be made for the tradition of preserving the balance. 

All I'm saying is that there's very little in common between someone dedicated to Neutrality in the sense of maintaining a balance, and someone who chooses not to participate in the "alignment wars". The first is driven by a strong sense of philosophical purpose. You're not likely to bribe him into betraying his ideals. The second is more like a mercenary. There will be some things they're unwilling to stoop to, but beyond that they probably have a price. In a sense, the latter is driven more by practicality than purpose.

Removing preserver of the balance from the alignment mix certainly is an option, however.

Explain to me this. Assuming we want to preserve the keeper of the balance concept, what harm is there in making the distinction?


----------



## erf_beto (Mar 21, 2012)

Seems to me most debates about Alignment revolve around the fact people have different ideas on *how much* aligned is a character. Some think anyone with an alignment hopes to be a Paragon or Champion of that alignment, while others mean their actions just steers in the direction that alignment's cause. This is clearer when it comes to True Neutral. 
Perhaps we need to quantify alignment - something I'd rather not do.


----------



## Balesir (Mar 21, 2012)

TN guy: "Ah, so you don't espouse the specific philosophies of law, of chaos, of evil or of good? Then you must be a Champion of the Balance! Welcome to our fellowship!"

Unaligned guy: "I'm a do- what, now? No, I'm not - p__s off!"

I agree with keeping Unaligned - as a 10th option, I think. For me, the "True Neutral" guy is, in modern world parlance, the guy pushing the political correctness agenda ("all alignments are uniquely valuable in their own way"), whil the Unaligned guy thinks PC is a steaming heap of... baloney (while not really caring what philosophy others espouse, as long as they don't harm him, personally).


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 21, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> One of the most iconic D&D characters, perhaps THE iconic D&D wizard, Mordenkainen, was True Neutral--as seeker of balance, of cosmic *order*. Definitely not "unaligned".




This sounds more like Lawful Neutral. Maybe even Lawful Evil if he's willing to do horrible things when good gets too powerful.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 21, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> This sounds more like Lawful Neutral. Maybe even Lawful Evil if he's willing to do horrible things when good gets too powerful.




That runs counter to how True Neutrality has traditionally been defined:



			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> NEUTRALITY: Absolute, or true, neutrol creatures view everything which exists as an integral, necessary port or function of the entire cosmos. Each thing exists as a part of the whole, one as a check or balance to the other, with life necessary for death, happiness for suffering, good for evil, order for chaos, and vice versa. Nothing must ever become predominant or out of balance. Within this noturalistic ethos, humankind serves a role also, just as all other creatures do. They may be more or less important, but the neutral does not concern himself or herself with these considerations
> except where it is positively determined that the balance is threatened. Absolute neutrality is in the central or fulcrum position quite logically, as the neutral sees all other alignments as parts of a necessary whole. This alignment is the narrowest in scope.






			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> True Neutral: The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law - of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be.


----------



## Andor (Mar 21, 2012)

I liked pretty much everything I read in that article. 

Alignment (if it exists as a cosmological force) should have mechanical implementation, but not ones that pops up much in day to day life (unless, maybe, you are a Paladin.)

I like where they are going with the maneuver system. It's kind of like taking 4es martial powers/book of 9 swords maneuvers and deconstructing them.

So you'ld have a list of potential manuevers which you can build into your action for that round. At level 1 you only get one maneuver so you can hit someone or disarm them, but not both in one round. 

At higher levels, rather than iterative attacks you can build more maneuver components into an action. Possibly with categories like 'damage, maneuver, status' to limit how much hurt or how many 'nad shots can be inflicted in one round, possibly not. So your high level fighter doesn't need to spend a round setting-up a full attack so he can hit twice and swiff three times, instead he leaps on to the dragon's back, stabs in the base of the wing, smacks it in the eye and hacks at it once for good measure. (hinder flight speed, inflict blindness, damage)

It does sound like your primary defense at higher levels is hit point inflation, which I don't really have a problem with, but does turn some people off.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 21, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> That runs counter to how True Neutrality has traditionally been defined:




It has traditionally been defined in an absurd way.

Balance is just a very specific form of order that orders chaos by controlling how much of it there is. That's just lawful without being entirely boring.


----------



## keterys (Mar 21, 2012)

A million+ posts over the years, including a healthy number in this forum already, about how people don't understand alignment beg for alignment to be an optional module that folks can customize for their game.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 21, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> It has traditionally been defined in an absurd way.
> 
> Balance is just a very specific form of order that orders chaos by controlling how much of it there is. That's just lawful without being entirely boring.




I disagree. Lawfulness is about bringing everything, to quote the 1e PHB, "to predictability and regulation". Striking a balance between order and chaos does not achieve such a goal, because chaos is inherently unpredictable and unregulated. Hence, the distinction.


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 21, 2012)

This Rule of Three definitely inspired optimism on my part.  I can't say if the mechanics will end up being what I want or not, but the direction and mindset they are taking seems to be exactly what's needed.  For the most part, I think they are asking the right questions, and trying out some mechanics to see if they result in the effects they are looking for.  Effects that support the idea of making a universally accepted D&D game (at least as much as possible).

Keep at it Monte and Company.  I think you're on the right path.


----------



## Andor (Mar 21, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> It has traditionally been defined in an absurd way.
> 
> Balance is just a very specific form of order that orders chaos by controlling how much of it there is. That's just lawful without being entirely boring.




Balance is just a very specific form of chaos that permits some order by controlling how much of it there is. That's just chaotic without being entirely boring.

- Fixed it for you.

More to the point Lawful Neutral, or pure law is not originally based on any sort of human perspective. It's not _alles in ordnung_ it's Moorcocks Law, perfect, crystalline, still, lifeless. Chaos is not freedom or libertarianism, it is a seething froth of change and formlessness, not dead perhaps but nothing we would enjoy as a life.

True Neutrality in the old school sense is is recognition that humanity cannot survive in the crystalline stillness of Pure Law nor in the shapeless morass of Pure Chaos. It is not a self-limiting from of government, it is self-preservation in the face of forces which would destroy the universe if one became ascendant.

Now those literary roots have been somewhat lost in recent editions but this is not mere human law vs lawlessness we are talking about in the grand cosmological sense. For example in Madeline L'Engles "A wrinkle in time" the world that had fallen to darkness was one possessed by law but not reduced to stillness because it was Lawful Evil and wanted something to rule. That's why you had streetfulls of kids all bouncing their balls in perfect synchronicity.

That is the kind of "Law" Mordenkainen opposes, not lawn watering regulations.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 21, 2012)

That view only works if you keep to a Law/Chaos axis. Lawful Good under that structure is basically impossible without also being insane.


----------



## MacMathan (Mar 21, 2012)

Most of this one left me feeling less excited about 5e. It really does seem to be a regression to old style rules for the sake of bringing back players who started in the 80s. Fetishization/Nostalgia of old systems/experiences really  seems set drag 5e back in terms of design.

RPG game design has advanced, things like minions are great story telling tools they make large cinematic fights easy to DM and easier to DM should remain a number 1 priority it was one of the best things gained from 3e to 4e. Look around at the rest of the RPG market.

Alignments really? Resurrect dead sacred cow much? The concept led to more philosophical wanking off debates than any other subsystem I know of. On top of that it was still not very useful as a means to define your character especially when compared to other games which did it better. 

Mechanical effects of alignment and loss of unaligned would really be a negative for me in 5e, I don;t want to have to opt out of it I want it to be in some expansion far away from the core.

Gah must walk away from 5e press releases....


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 21, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> That view only works if you keep to a Law/Chaos axis. Lawful Good under that structure is basically impossible without also being insane.




Hardly. Lawful Good is law tempered by good (or good tempered by law). It's regulation for the betterment of all.

Lawful Neutral, on the other hand, is the idea that regulation is itself the highest ideal. That order brings about the "greatest good" (that is *not* "good" in the same sense as the alignment).



			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> Lawful Good: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.






			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> lawful Neutral: Those of this alignment view regulation as all-important, taking a middle road betwixt evil and good. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world -and the whole of the universe - is considered by lawful neutral creatures to have its sole hope rest upon law and order. Evil or good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation.




No insanity necessary.


----------



## Andor (Mar 21, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> That view only works if you keep to a Law/Chaos axis. Lawful Good under that structure is basically impossible without also being insane.




Well there was no good/evil in the original Moorcok law/chaos wars. 

In D&D terms it's a mish-mash of disparate systems. But again if "A wrinkle in time" has a world that fell to lawful evil, then a lawful good world might look very similar, except they are happy about all bouncing their balls in perfect unison. They have no choice about it after all. Mordenkainen would mutter something about Orwell under his breath and fireball you for being annoying. 

Alternatively you can think of them as being x vs y axis. Y alone is just up and down with nothing to stand on. X alone is just back and forth with no heavens above or hell below. Put them together and you have a world. 

At any rate you see why alignment has _ALWAYS_ been one of the most contentious things in D&D. Especially when you start debating good and evil. 

I do think 5e needs to include it for the sake of D&Dness, but making it easy to remove is a very good idea. Personally I like d20 moderns allegience system much better.


----------



## Hassassin (Mar 21, 2012)

Andor said:


> More to the point Lawful Neutral, or pure law is not originally based on any sort of human perspective. It's not _alles in ordnung_ it's Moorcocks Law, perfect, crystalline, still, lifeless. Chaos is not freedom or libertarianism, it is a seething froth of change and formlessness, not dead perhaps but nothing we would enjoy as a life.




Are you assuming all LN characters are perfectly lawful and all CN characters are perfectly chaotic? Of course all characters are neutral in that case. However, the usual definitions allow a character to be only somewhat lawful and still LN.


----------



## Andor (Mar 21, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> Are you assuming all LN characters are perfectly lawful and all CN characters are perfectly chaotic? Of course all characters are neutral in that case. However, the usual definitions allow a character to be only somewhat lawful and still LN.




I thought we were discussing the cosmological alignments, and why someone might choose to be True Neutral. Not humans and how they rate on the alignment chart.

But yes, most humans will be neutral in the unaligned sense, rather than Aligned. Of Aligned humans True Neutrals may or may not be in the majority based on the campign world history. 

It is a two-axis system, not a neat set of nine boxes with no overlapping traits. And some aspects have never been well defined. For example a highlander or viking styled character with no conception of or respect for central authority but a strong sense of personal honor and an unbreakable word. Is he Lawful, Chaotic or Neutral? The answer changes with every edition and who you ask.  

For the majority of people the world would be a better place if the 'balance' was shifted a bit towards law and goodness. Of course Star Wars episodes I-III showed a world were that balance had been towards LG for thousands of years and unviversal forces were acting to bring things back into a balanced alignment through the power of whiny kids and bad writing. So there is usually a come uppance to the desireable imbalance, and that's what Mordenkainen types try to prevent in the first place.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 21, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> That's not what my definition of CN says. Unpredictable? Yes. Unreliable? Not necessarily. Jerk? Definitely orthogonal to alignment.
> 
> Anyway, each alignment is a large pool of different outlooks. Somewhere between the "extremes" of TN and CN there is that guy who is individualistic, somewhat unpredictable, still a good buddy, but who doesn't really care about strangers. Whether you say he's TN or CN is a judgement call.




Alignment is a sticky subject.  However, in most D&D sources they are simply described as:

Good: Preventing harm/pain/suffering to others
Evil: Increasing harm/pain/suffering to others
Law: Order, organization, honor, loyalty
Chaos: Disorder, individuality, free will, randomness

Neutral is not getting involved in one axis or another.  Not favoring one side.

CN is therefore the guy who personally couldn't be bothered to either harm or help anyone.  People are in need?  Sure, but how is that his problem?  He sure isn't going to go out of his way to subjugate people, murder them, or likely steal from them if he's aware it'll cause them a lot of harm.  But he's not going to go out of his way to find out if it harms people.  Also, groups and loyalty are the kind of things other people do.  The friends you are with today might be your enemies tomorrow.  They'll likely leave you the next time you get to an inn, so might as well do it to them first.

Most CN people are kind of jerks, actually.  Particularly because most D&D games revolve around an adventuring group of 4-6 PCs who need to work together in order to accomplish a goal.  The key to that sentence is work together.  Given that Chaos is described as the opposite or working together and following rules, it often encourages players to be jerks.

Obviously there will be some people who are CN bordering on TN who see the benefit of sticking with the group and furthering the groups goals.  But would you trust the guy who actively seeks out the opposite of loyalty?

I find too many people use CN as an excuse to play "whatever I want to play".  Each of the alignments should be a guide to play a certain way with as many "restrictions" as allowances.  Unfortunately, the only logical restriction on CN is "don't be a team player, don't do what other people tell you to do".  Which always goes over well in a group.

p.s. I obviously mean restrictions as in things you should THINK about not doing, not a straightjacket.  Then again, if you can ignore ALL of the restrictions...why have alignments at all?


Hassassin said:


> (Ps. Most of my CE guys don't want to dominate anyone. More like make sure there's no one who can dominate them.)



I like to think of CE as fiercely independent and MEAN/CRUEL.  Get in their way, they'll likely kill you...or at least hurt you badly.  Even if it isn't immediately and is instead in your room later when no one knows it's them.

Which is in contrast to:
CN: independent and out for himself
and
CG: independent but out for your well being.  He just doesn't want to have dinner with you after saving your life or accept the key to the city.


----------



## Hassassin (Mar 21, 2012)

Andor said:


> I thought we were discussing the cosmological alignments, and why someone might choose to be True Neutral. Not humans and how they rate on the alignment chart.




Apparently, by now we are. However, the side-thread started from whether the nine alignments require a tenth - unaligned - to describe the range of typical individuals.


----------



## Andor (Mar 21, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> Apparently, by now we are. However, the side-thread started from whether the nine alignments require a tenth - unaligned - to describe the range of typical individuals.




Agreed. He even says as much in the Rule of 3 article. Neutral has always been two alignments in one hat, the passive neutral unaligned and the active True Neutral. One is a lack of commitment to the forces of alighment, the other is a committed opposition to all of them, or possibly support of all of them. 

At any rate it's a flawed system, generates hours of worthwhile argument, needs to be included for the sake of divine bovines, might cause another new generation of gamers to study philosophy and ethics to bolster their arguments at the table, and will promptly be ignored or replaced at thousands of tables.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 22, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> CN is therefore the guy who personally couldn't be bothered to either harm or help anyone.  People are in need?  Sure, but how is that his problem?  He sure isn't going to go out of his way to subjugate people, murder them, or likely steal from them if he's aware it'll cause them a lot of harm.  But he's not going to go out of his way to find out if it harms people.  Also, groups and loyalty are the kind of things other people do.  The friends you are with today might be your enemies tomorrow.  They'll likely leave you the next time you get to an inn, so might as well do it to them first.
> 
> Most CN people are kind of jerks, actually.  Particularly because most D&D games revolve around an adventuring group of 4-6 PCs who need to work together in order to accomplish a goal.  The key to that sentence is work together.  Given that Chaos is described as the opposite or working together and following rules, it often encourages players to be jerks.
> 
> ...



That's not all of CN.  And CN, LN and Evil people can and do have friends.  For CN, friendship is all about "what does that other person mean to me?  Do I care about them or not?"  While for evil people it's all about "how well can I use this person for my purposes?"  Though other alignments also think the same way on some points about how they can use people to certain extents.  Not having friends is more a mark of certain character flaws and or having low charisma or other low mental ability scores as opposed to anything to do with alignment.

CN is also not about being a jerk either.  Anybody can be a jerk, especially LG people.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 22, 2012)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> CN is also not about being a jerk either. Anybody can be a jerk, especially LG people.




Well, LG would be jerkish in a slightly different way.  LG wouldn't let you get away with stuff and would likely tell the authorities if you didn't do it yourself.

The CN guy doesn't care what you do, but, he also doesn't give a rat's petoot what you think either.  Like I said, he's the guy that would crash a party, throw up in the punch bowl and pick a fight with someone, just because, and possibly not in that order.  

The bottom line is, you can never actually trust the CN character because he's solely in it for himself.  He won't go out of his way to hurt you, true, but, he's also not going to lift a finger to help you either unless there's something in it for him.  He's unreliable and very, very much not a team player.

Which brings us back to why would you ever go into dangerous situations with this guy?  He's going to get you killed.

The problem I have with the Neutral=Balance thing is how do you actually play a character that way?  If the rest of the party is good aligned (not a terribly unusual thing), is he going to find ways to sabotage you to preserve "balance"?   Just how balanced do things have to be?  If the good aligned group overthrows the evil tyrant, and then institutes a golden age of peace and prosperity, does the Neutral character then have to work against them?

And, if he doesn't.  If balance is somehow a long term, sort of Long Calendar thing, then why not just call it unaligned and be done with it?


----------



## Mattachine (Mar 22, 2012)

Characters don't have to be exemplars of an alignment to have that alignment. Let's not fall into the "everyone is a paladin of his alignment" fallacy.

A LE character can have friends and a even a true love--and still be a ruthless dictator that kills perceived enemies without remorse (and perhaps with a little glee).

A CN character can care deeply for her children and a pet cause, but otherwise is an unpredictable, unreliable person. 


In any case, we are getting the 9-alignment system back. At least there is the suggestion that alignment-based effects will be more limited than in 3e (or perhaps even more limited than in 1e).


----------



## Mattachine (Mar 22, 2012)

Hussar said:


> The problem I have with the Neutral=Balance thing is how do you actually play a character that way?  If the rest of the party is good aligned (not a terribly unusual thing), is he going to find ways to sabotage you to preserve "balance"?   Just how balanced do things have to be?  If the good aligned group overthrows the evil tyrant, and then institutes a golden age of peace and prosperity, does the Neutral character then have to work against them?
> 
> And, if he doesn't.  If balance is somehow a long term, sort of Long Calendar thing, then why not just call it unaligned and be done with it?




In the long AD&D campaign I ran, there was a TN druid. I was running the game in an evil-dominate Greyhawk, wherein the Great Kingdom and its allies ruled the east with cruel tyranny, the Slave Lords ruled the central coast, humanoid armies and Iuz controlled the North, and the West was besieged by an allegiance of giants. In this world, the druid allied himself with the forces of good for two reasons: the evil nations tended to destroy forests and despoil other natural places AND the forces of evil were heavily in control. As the campaign moved forward, some of the evil nations fell apart (a couple times due to actions of the PCs). The druid adventured with the party much less, and finally, not at all. He felt that Good had had enough of his help. 

That does make for a tough PC to play, and the TN character doesn't work well in many campaigns.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 22, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Well, LG would be jerkish in a slightly different way.  LG wouldn't let you get away with stuff and would likely tell the authorities if you didn't do it yourself.
> 
> The CN guy doesn't care what you do, but, he also doesn't give a rat's petoot what you think either.  Like I said, he's the guy that would crash a party, throw up in the punch bowl and pick a fight with someone, just because, and possibly not in that order.
> 
> ...




There are some alignments, in particular CN and CE but also LN, TN, and NE, that aren't well suited to PCs. Some tend to be poor team players, while others are simply likelier than not to have priorities that don't align well with the party's (which tends to lead to conflict). 

That isn't to say that it's impossible to play such characters in a party, but it is more difficult, and as a result such alignments are likely to see more use by NPCs than PCs.

EDIT: Moreover, in a multiverse where alignments are manifest (in the form of aligned planes and the beings that inhabit them) rather than mere philosophy, it makes sense to have those who believe that balance between those forces must be maintained. Having the Prime overrun by CE demons would be nightmarish but a world overrun by LG angels, where you effectively have no freedom to even choose to be evil, is almost as bad. Hence watchdogs who make certain no aligned group ever gains an unreasonable advantage over the others.

It certainly is possible to remove TN as a preserver of the balance, but then we remove D&D from some of its oldest roots. Those stemming from writers like Moorcock and Zelazny, and the Great Wheel itself. It's feasible, but the implications should definitely considered, as alignment seems to be being kept for the sake of tradition, but removing the preserver of balance means throwing out an aspect of that tradition.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 22, 2012)

True Fanaelialae, but, while I'm a HUGE fan of Moorcock, the whole Eternal Champion and balance thing was mostly his schtick.  I'm not really sure that we have to keep this tradition when most of fantasy doesn't.  You don't see it in writers like Robert Jordan or Steven Erikson.  And there are a whole slew of golden age fantasy writers that certainly didn't include the concept either.

The Neutral Balancer makes perfect sense in a Moorcock universe.  But, Moorcock's universe ignored morality by and large.  Most of those devoted to balance were outright evil.  This view works fine if you want to have a Moorcock style 'verse, but, I'm not sure if D&D is the right place for that at its base.  At least, not anymore, if it ever really was.  Moorcock's politics in his writing are particularly suited to having a Neutral Balance alignment, but, I don't think most settings actually follow those tendencies.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 22, 2012)

Hussar said:


> True Fanaelialae, but, while I'm a HUGE fan of Moorcock, the whole Eternal Champion and balance thing was mostly his schtick.  I'm not really sure that we have to keep this tradition when most of fantasy doesn't.  You don't see it in writers like Robert Jordan or Steven Erikson.  And there are a whole slew of golden age fantasy writers that certainly didn't include the concept either.
> 
> The Neutral Balancer makes perfect sense in a Moorcock universe.  But, Moorcock's universe ignored morality by and large.  Most of those devoted to balance were outright evil.  This view works fine if you want to have a Moorcock style 'verse, but, I'm not sure if D&D is the right place for that at its base.  At least, not anymore, if it ever really was.  Moorcock's politics in his writing are particularly suited to having a Neutral Balance alignment, but, I don't think most settings actually follow those tendencies.




I'm unfamiliar with Erikson, so I can't comment on his work, but I definitely think you see this in Jordan's Wheel of Time. It's just that there, instead of Moorcock's Law vs. Chaos, you have Good vs. Evil. The purportedly cyclical struggle between the The Dark One and The Dragon, Champion of the Light.

There's even definitely something to be said about balance in Jordan's world. Should the Dark One be victorious, the wheel of time would be broken and the world would end. But allowing the Children of the Light to take over wouldn't be much better.


That said, I can see where you're coming from. There's definitely fantasy (such as Greg Keyes' Waterborn) where there is no cosmic struggle between philosophies. However, if we are to distance D&D from the fiction that the alignment system is based on, I'd much rather see the alignment system replaced (maybe with something more resembling what the Palladium system has). 

IMO, the 9-point system simply carries too much baggage from what it's based upon, coloring everything else it touches (and inviting a myriad of disagreements). Even if we replace the traditional meaning of TN (balance) with the meaning of Unaligned, there are still a number of alignments unlikely to see much use by players. LN, for example. How often does anyone have a character whose goal is order above all things? I think it's much more likely that you'd see someone who's either doing so for the good of others (LG) or out for themselves (LE). LN is really a very abstract sort of ideal.

I think that the alignment system makes reasonable sense when viewed through the lens of a cosmic struggle of ideologies. Assuming that they keep beings that are essentially embodied alignments (demons, angels, inevitables) I think it makes sense to have an alignment for those who try to maintain a balance between such ideologies. Because regardless of whether they have good intentions, being ruled by a bunch of fanatics is definitely not a good thing.

What I'm saying is that I think if you remove Moorcock from alignment, a lot of other things in D&D (such as the Great Wheel) begin to fall apart as well. In fact, those aspects are so entrenched in D&D tradition, I'm don't even know how you'd do it while still maintaining that tradition. It's one thing to effectively do a complete reworking (as in 4e), but the Great Wheel is based upon Good vs. Evil (angels vs. demons) as well as Law vs. Chaos (devils vs. demons).


----------



## Andor (Mar 22, 2012)

The current trend in gaming seems to be not so much the old law vs chaos or even good vs evil but more about the "normal" vs alien corruption.

In Eberron this was present more than once with the dream world invaders and the abberrant forces of Khyber.

In Dark Sun it's the central conflict except that the corrupting forces of defiler magic won long ago.

In 5 rings the corruption of the shadowlands is an ever present threat.

Zombies, 'nuff said.

Call of Cuthulu. Aboleths, Illithids.

Half of gaming is a long litany of a xenophobes nightmare fuel.

While it would be really interesting to try to set up a game world where the primary axis of conflict would be Xenophobes - Normals - Xenophiles it's not exactly the traditional D&D alignment system. In fact depending on how you set up the aliens it can be perpendicular to both law/chaos and good/evil.


----------



## Andor (Mar 22, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> LN, for example. How often does anyone have a character whose goal is order above all things? I think it's much more likely that you'd see someone who's either doing so for the good of others (LG) or out for themselves (LE). LN is really a very abstract sort of ideal.




Here in the West that's true, but in Asian cultures order is often considered the highest goal. In China and Japan orderliness and constancy were often much more highly valued than good vs evil or kindness vs cruelty. Mind you this sort of mindset is usually something that emerges after some nasty civil wars or rival warlord periods. Stability seems much more valuable than mere niceness after a thing like that.


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 22, 2012)

Andor said:


> The current trend in gaming seems to be not so much the old law vs chaos or even good vs evil but more about the "normal" vs alien corruption.




Hardly a new trend. It was part of Runequest - everything vs Chaos -  from the 1970s; and a theme in Mystara - Law, Neutral, Chaos vs Entropy - in the 1980s. And that's just the most obvious examples from that time.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 22, 2012)

> LN, for example. How often does anyone have a character whose goal is order above all things? I think it's much more likely that you'd see someone who's either doing so for the good of others (LG) or out for themselves (LE). LN is really a very abstract sort of ideal.




My most recent character was someone I described as LN. It's not that she thought it was for everyone's good (though she did think that), it was more that she saw the world as a fundamentally ordered place, and saw that the best way to accomplish things was to work through order that had been established. She wasn't particularly altruistic about it -- which is why I didn't describe her as LG. She's certainly capable of doing awful things to people (imprisonment, torture, death, magical coercion) in the name of upholding that ideal.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 22, 2012)

The idea of a cosmic struggle between Order and Chaos is not unique to Moorcock by any means. Some other examples:

The Chronicles of Amber, by Roger Zelazny
The Saga of Recluce, by L.E. Modesitt
Babylon 5, TV show produced by J. Michael Straczynski
The Traveler in Black, by John Brunner (not a lot of people have read this, which is a crying shame because it's freakin' awesome)
The (real-world) Zoroastrian religion
I am of course leaving out all the books based on D&D settings.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 22, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> The idea of a cosmic struggle between Order and Chaos is not unique to Moorcock by any means. Some other examples:
> 
> The Chronicles of Amber, by Roger Zelazny
> The Saga of Recluce, by L.E. Modesitt
> ...



In "Three Hearts & Three Lions", the central conflict is also between Order and Chaos, the devout Empire of mankind vs. the capricious Faerie.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 22, 2012)

Honestly, I don't really see LN as that hard of an alignment.  The character that's about upholding the status quo, regardless of any moral issues, epitomizes LN.  The extreme conservative on one hand and the "hanging judge" on the other.  As a PC, I'm not too worried about this character - he's got pretty strong convictions and, while he might be abrasive as heck, he's reliable and a team player.

As far as the Law vs Chaos thing, I can see what you're talking about.  It certainly works on a macro level, although, I think you can argue that Bab 5 is far more about Law vs Chaos than maintaining balance between the two.  The Bab 5 project isn't about balancing anything, it's about trying to achieve order - peace in our time.  But, again, the problem isn't on the macro level, but on the individual character level.  While you might frame the conflict that way, the individual players are almost never balanced - they work for one side or the other.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 22, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> there are still a number of alignments unlikely to see much use by players. LN, for example. How often does anyone have a character whose goal is order above all things? I think it's much more likely that you'd see someone who's either doing so for the good of others (LG) or out for themselves (LE). LN is really a very abstract sort of ideal.





Hussar said:


> Honestly, I don't really see LN as that hard of an alignment.  The character that's about upholding the status quo, regardless of any moral issues, epitomizes LN.  The extreme conservative on one hand and the "hanging judge" on the other.  As a PC, I'm not too worried about this character - he's got pretty strong convictions and, while he might be abrasive as heck, he's reliable and a team player.



Just adding to what Hussar said, I see LN as a popular choice for players wanting to play civilised/socially well-adjusted PCs - especially clerics - but who don't want to get caught up in their GM's idiosyncratic conception of good vs evil. So it's a way of sending a signal "My PC is part of the established social order, and now I want to leave the alignment system alone."


----------



## D'karr (Mar 22, 2012)

I want them to bring alignment back with a vengeance...

Why?   So we can spend pages, upon pages, upon pages arguing that CN does not mean what you think it means.  

Yes, it does.  No, it doesn't.

'Cause we really need a heck of a lot more of that.

-


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 23, 2012)

Kobold Avenger said:


> That's not all of CN.  And CN, LN and Evil people can and do have friends.



Yeah, they can and do have friends, but they are the vast exception rather than the rule.

If alignment is a spectrum from Lawful(I like groups, I hate being alone, I think people working together with rules helps the world) to Neutral(I don't care if I'm in a group or not, I think it doesn't matter if you are alone or with a group) to....Chaotic(I hate groups, I want to be alone, I think people working together is a bad idea and fails, only individuals working by themselves succeed).

People tend to mistake Chaotic for Neutral.  As long as Neutral is the middle ground between extremes, Chaotic has to mean something that isn't "I can do what I want".

Evil people can, of course, have friends.  CE, not so much.  Given that it's the Law/Chaos axis that determines your methodology in terms of working as a group.


Kobold Avenger said:


> Not having friends is more a mark of certain character flaws and or having low charisma or other low mental ability scores as opposed to anything to do with alignment.



It's not just that.  As people have pointed out, not everyone is a paramour of their alignment.  Not all CN people have 0 friends.  But most of them have very few friends.  And almost none of them are good friends.  They are loners by nature.  Sometimes that means they tolerate being in small groups with a loose organization.

But they have problems with rules and authority(they aren't just ambivalent towards them, that's Neutral).  So they hate being told to do anything by other people.  Obviously, not all of them being paramours of their alignment, some tolerate authority and rules(like let's split the treasure evenly, your watch is 2 hours then wake the next person up, please don't run ahead of the rest of the party, etc).  However, their alignment predisposes them to break rules just because they are rules.  After all, that increases Chaos.  You can't be too predictable, that's orderly.

I'd go as far as to say that CN being anarchists at heart that one that WAS a paragon of his alignment would instead do things like randomly determine their actions in combat, randomly determine which side to help out each time there is a combat, and even randomly decide whether they will be adventuring with the party each day.  They would actively tear down governments simply because they don't like the idea of anyone being in charge of anyone.  They would flaunt laws not for any reason other than they have to act contrary to the rules.

Most people who play CN are actually playing TN.  They work much better with other people.


Kobold Avenger said:


> CN is also not about being a jerk either.  Anybody can be a jerk, especially LG people.



I think that in an adventuring party, working together tends to be praised more than breaking rules and looking out for yourself.  So, although anyone can be a jerk as a personality trait, simply following your alignment correctly as CN ends up being a jerk.

The problem is that the paramour of CN is so horrendously jerky, that each person who plays CN is determining how BIG of a jerk they want to be.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 23, 2012)

A couple of thoughts:

- Any single alignment can encompass a variety of interpretations.
- Chaotic Neutral is not only someone who does what he wants, regardless of someone else's opinions, it's someone who actually *dislikes* organization and even civilization. Like Conan, who had a pretty low opinion on the so-called civilizations of Hyboria. This trait mellowed a bit when he became a king himself, and saw the benefits of culture, art and knowledge.
- Lawful Neutral is someone who despises "randomness". Things must be by-the-book. Contingencies must be put in place. Laws should be clear and obeyed, to "level the playing field" of life.


----------



## Tallifer (Mar 23, 2012)

Hussar said:


> True Fanaelialae, but, while I'm a HUGE fan of Moorcock, the whole Eternal Champion and balance thing was mostly his schtick.  I'm not really sure that we have to keep this tradition when most of fantasy doesn't.  You don't see it in writers like Robert Jordan or Steven Erikson.  And there are a whole slew of golden age fantasy writers that certainly didn't include the concept either.
> 
> The Neutral Balancer makes perfect sense in a Moorcock universe.  But, Moorcock's universe ignored morality by and large.  Most of those devoted to balance were outright evil.  This view works fine if you want to have a Moorcock style 'verse, but, I'm not sure if D&D is the right place for that at its base.  At least, not anymore, if it ever really was.  Moorcock's politics in his writing are particularly suited to having a Neutral Balance alignment, but, I don't think most settings actually follow those tendencies.




I thought that part of the story of Dragonlance was that the god of good went too far and tried to make the world all lawful and good, but the balance was so far disrupted that Evil was able to destroy everything and take over. (Please someone who knows about this correct me or elucidate more.)


----------



## Yora (Mar 23, 2012)

Klaus said:


> A couple of thoughts:
> 
> - Any single alignment can encompass a variety of interpretations.
> - Chaotic Neutral is not only someone who does what he wants, regardless of someone else's opinions, it's someone who actually *dislikes* organization and even civilization. Like Conan, who had a pretty low opinion on the so-called civilizations of Hyboria. This trait mellowed a bit when he became a king himself, and saw the benefits of culture, art and knowledge.
> - Lawful Neutral is someone who despises "randomness". Things must be by-the-book. Contingencies must be put in place. Laws should be clear and obeyed, to "level the playing field" of life.



Which I agree with. The problem is that the people who write official D&D books can't agree on this. Or agree on anything when it comes to alignment.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 23, 2012)

Yora said:


> Which I agree with. The problem is that the people who write official D&D books can't agree on this. Or agree on anything when it comes to alignment.



It is popular to have Batman and Superman be of different alignments (Batman is cool, Superman is "goody-two-shoes"), but I see them both as being Lawful Good. They both have a high moral standard and fight to defend the innocent. Both work with law enforcement, even when it is out to get them. They leave criminals to be tried by the justice system, instead of taking matters into their own hands. Batman is the ultimate planner, with contingencies for pretty much everything. Neither one kills, ever. And Batman never, ever uses a gun, which marks his strict personal code.

This just goes to show that alignments are broader than most people give them credit for.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 23, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> I thought that part of the story of Dragonlance was that the god of good went too far and tried to make the world all lawful and good, but the balance was so far disrupted that Evil was able to destroy everything and take over. (Please someone who knows about this correct me or elucidate more.)



During the height of the empire of Istar, the Kingpriest (the highest-ranking cleric of Good) began a campaign to rid Krynn of Evil. At first he sent his forces after ogres, goblins and other evil creatures. Then his concept of "evil" began to expand to encompass all that was "not Good". There was a point where he sanctioned the use of mind-reading magic to scan the populace for evil thoughts, equating thoughts with actions.

At a certain point, the Kingpriest raised his voice to the heavens, demanding that the gods of Good bestow upon him the power to eradicate Evil, since they did so with the humble-born knight Huma and he (the Kingpriest) was a much nobler being. For trying to command the gods, the Kingpriest received a comet that hit Istar and caused the Cataclysm.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 23, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> If alignment is a spectrum from Lawful(*I like groups, I hate being alone*, I think people working together with rules helps the world) to Neutral(I don't care if I'm in a group or not, I think it doesn't matter if you are alone or with a group) to....Chaotic(*I hate groups, I want to be alone*, I think people working together is a bad idea and fails, only individuals working by themselves succeed).




Since when did we replace the Law/Chaos axis with the Extrovert/Introvert axis?


----------



## GM Dave (Mar 23, 2012)

All this talk on what is or is not X alignment but not a single word on how this can be used to actually move an adventure, reward a player, make a better story.

This is my problem with alignment talk is that it is all 'blah' or stuff for players to 'justify' their actions instead of motivate a story or response to a situation.

A faith attribute would be more motivating as then players would have a measure of how much they were connected to the tenants of their god and would be more specific.

A goal mechanic would at least be something that would get players making choices and committing to actions.

Currently, alignment is like pudding dropped on the floor.  It makes an interesting pattern on the floor but after that it just lies there and begins to stink after a while.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 23, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> Since when did we replace the Law/Chaos axis with the Extrovert/Introvert axis?



MBTI alignment. Now, there's a thought. 

"Die, perceiver!"

"Wait, I'm casting _protection from judgement_."

"Grog rage! Grog smash puny thinker scum!"

"Oh yeah? I'm going to smite feeler!"

"I use _detect intuitive_. Do I sense any?"


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 23, 2012)

The problem is that many people seem to interpret CN as being CE with low mental ability scores.  Sure CN people dislike organization and a lot of things about society in general, and that often puts them ahead of themselves over others, but they also put people they like above the rest of society.  

One thing that many forget mention about chaotic characters is they tend to be motivated by their emotions and instincts more than any other alignments would be.  Though one can argue that instincts are neutral on the L/C axis, emotions is the stuff of chaos.  There's a reason why some LN paragon beings are sort of like automatons, and that the Gods of things like Love or Vengeance tend to be chaotic over lawful.

In fact most people are neutral on the G/E axis, anyone who's more individualistic than others is chaotic.  Out of all those chaotic people only a small minority is either good or evil.

As for CN vs. CE, well Catwoman is a Chaotic Neutral character, she's certainly a super-criminal and is almost always out for herself.  But she does care about people like Holly Robinson or Batman, not so much about any of the later's associates though.

Jayne Cobb from Firefly is an example of a Chaotic Evil character, with a low intelligence score.  He isn't an outright psychopath like how many CE people could be, or a paragon of the CE alignment, but he's certainly selfish to a detriment and needed to be put in line at least once with force and intimidation.


----------



## jsaving (Mar 23, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> Since when did we replace the Law/Chaos axis with the Extrovert/Introvert axis?



Well said.

Chaotic characters don't like taking orders and see societal organization as a surefire way to prevent people from reaching their potentials, no matter how well-intentioned the law-givers may be.  Some may genuinely perceive this kind of thinking as misanthropic, because government programs and the like are so obviously beneficial to society at large that only a misanthrope could oppose them.  But there's a Lawful value judgment behind that verdict.

It's a bit akin to saying lawful characters will tend to be extroverts because they understand how important it is for people to work together.  Is there any evidence at all that social gregariousness carries with it a desire to follow orders, impose regulations, and be predictable in all things?  I very much doubt it.  And if these things don't follow, then it similarly doesn't follow that chaotics who place a high value on their personal autonomy will necessarily dislike social interactions.  

I'd also disagree with the notion that chaotics "can't work well in teams," and would instead say they can't work well in certain _types_ of teams.  If drafted into a group whose predesignated authority figure can compel action, sure, the chaotic character isn't likely to be especially happy about his participation.  But if forming a voluntary association to, say, kick a despot out of Sherwood Forest, chaotics can not only "have each other's backs" but can actually carry out the tactical decisions of a Robin Hood even while distrusting authority.  The key is that they follow Robin not because they "respect his office" enough to obey his orders, but because they see enough merit in him personally to accept his requests.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 23, 2012)

Meh, they follow Robin because they have no choice.  Follow Robin or be hanged.  Most of them were outlaws.  If Robin failed, they would turn on him in a moment.  Why?  Because they're Chaotic and have no loyalty beyond what can be bought.  They no more have Robin's back than a bunch of sharks.

Sure, they work well as skirmishers and ambushers.  But, in an open fight, the Merry Men get slaughtered by the well disciplined knights.  Again, no choice in the matter.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 23, 2012)

Kobold Avenger said:


> One thing that many forget mention about chaotic characters is they tend to be motivated by their emotions and instincts more than any other alignments would be.  Though one can argue that instincts are neutral on the L/C axis, emotions is the stuff of chaos.  There's a reason why some LN paragon beings are sort of like automatons, and that the Gods of things like Love or Vengeance tend to be chaotic over lawful.




Oh! So now in addition to the Extrovert/Introvert axis, we've got Thinking/Feeling. This really is becoming the MBTI alignment system*. Shall we bring in the other two? Clearly, the Lawful character's focus on an abstract code of conduct bespeaks an Intuitive preference, while the Chaotic's preference for situational morality is more Sensible. And the disciplined Lawful character is Judicial versus the laid-back Chaotic's Perceptive.

All lawful characters are thus ENTJ and all chaotic characters are ISFP. Those are the only two personality types that exist in D&D. If you play your character any other way, you're doing it wrong.

[SIZE=-2]*In real life, of course, the MBTI system is bogus and non-predictive; it tries to cram the wide variety of human personality into a handful of overly prescriptive boxes, and the results are extremely unreliable. People often get very different results depending on which version of the test they take and when they take it. So, really, it's a perfect match for D&D alignment.[/SIZE]


----------



## Klaus (Mar 23, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Meh, they follow Robin because they have no choice.  Follow Robin or be hanged.  Most of them were outlaws.  If Robin failed, they would turn on him in a moment.  Why?  Because they're Chaotic and have no loyalty beyond what can be bought.  They no more have Robin's back than a bunch of sharks.
> 
> Sure, they work well as skirmishers and ambushers.  But, in an open fight, the Merry Men get slaughtered by the well disciplined knights.  Again, no choice in the matter.



That really depends on the interpretation of the Merry Men of Sherwood.

In most versions, they are peasants from the neighbooring area that are fleeing from the forces of the Sheriff of Nottingham, since they were unable to pay their taxes and got evicted (or would otherwise hang). Hardly "sharks".

As peasants bearing the burden of heavy-handed rule, they're pretty self-suficient folk with a natural suspicion of authority figures. All marks them as Chaotic. Along comes a charismatic leader who wants to fight the unjust rulers until the rightful king returns (something between LG and NG). So it is quite possible that the Merry Men were Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good, under the leadership of a Neutral Good Robin Hood.


----------



## jsaving (Mar 23, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Meh, they follow Robin because they have no choice.  Follow Robin or be hanged.  Most of them were outlaws.  If Robin failed, they would turn on him in a moment.  Why?  Because they're Chaotic and have no loyalty beyond what can be bought.



I would put a somewhat different interpretation on the matter.  If Robin's leadership proved poor, they would turn on him in a moment.  Why?  Because they're Chaotic and have no loyalty beyond what has been earned.    

Where does this idea come from that chaotics will gladly accept leadership as long as a sufficient sum of gold is placed in front of them first?  I don't find 'mercenary' in any of my books as synonymous with chaotic, any more than I can find 'introvert' or 'unthinking'.  Sure, a lawful individual's *perception* of chaotics might be misanthropes who keep putting themselves ahead of the greater purpose we could achieve with proper societal structure and leadership.  But as the much-lamented SRD reminds, chaotics of all stripes think freedom best enables people to reach their potentials.  One need not agree with this precept -- and I have many friends from both "sides of the aisle" who don't -- to see that it is neither irrational nor mercenary.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 23, 2012)

jsaving said:


> I would put a somewhat different interpretation on the matter.  If Robin's leadership proved poor, they would turn on him in a moment.  Why?  Because they're Chaotic and have no loyalty beyond what has been earned.
> 
> Where does this idea come from that chaotics will gladly accept leadership as long as a sufficient sum of gold is placed in front of them first?  I don't find 'mercenary' in any of my books as synonymous with chaotic, any more than I can find 'introvert' or 'unthinking'.  Sure, a lawful individual's *perception* of chaotics might be misanthropes who keep putting themselves ahead of the greater purpose we could achieve with proper societal structure and leadership.  But as the much-lamented SRD reminds, chaotics of all stripes think freedom best enables people to reach their potentials.  One need not agree with this precept -- and I have many friends from both "sides of the aisle" who don't -- to see that it is neither irrational nor mercenary.



Yeah, Robin definitely had to prove himself before the Merry Men followed him. Usually, this was accomplished by defeating Little John, whom everyone looks up to.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Mar 23, 2012)

Just because he mentioned alignment in the article, why does this have to be an alignment thread?  Aren't those already done to death four editions ago?


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 23, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Just because he mentioned alignment in the article, why does this have to be an alignment thread?  Aren't those already done to death four editions ago?




Alignment will always be contentious any time any rules are associated with it. With an unknown number of rules associated with it, that POTENTIAL issue is enough to ignite the old conflicts.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 23, 2012)

Klaus said:


> Yeah, Robin definitely had to prove himself before the Merry Men followed him. Usually, this was accomplished by defeating Little John, whom everyone looks up to.




Sounds like orcs.


----------



## Kynn (Mar 23, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Just because he mentioned alignment in the article, why does this have to be an alignment thread?  Aren't those already done to death four editions ago?




But 5e is the edition that will unite all the alignment arguments of the last four editions!


----------



## Andor (Mar 23, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Just because he mentioned alignment in the article, why does this have to be an alignment thread?  Aren't those already done to death four editions ago?




Tradition? Alignment arguments are a sacred cow after all. 



Hussar said:


> Meh, they follow Robin because they have no choice.  Follow Robin or be hanged.  Most of them were outlaws.  If Robin failed, they would turn on him in a moment.  Why?  Because they're Chaotic and have no loyalty beyond what can be bought.  They no more have Robin's back than a bunch of sharks.




I'm pretty sure that would be Chaotic Neutral or CE. CG would not turn on a good man in a second, becuase that wouldn't be good. 2 axis system, not one. 



Hussar said:


> Sure, they work well as skirmishers and ambushers.  But, in an open fight, the Merry Men get slaughtered by the well disciplined knights.  Again, no choice in the matter.




Are these the same sort of well disciplined heavy knights that managed to lose the battle of Crecy because they disobeyed the orders of their king, attacked their own mercenary crossbowman and then charged in a massively disorganized fashion up a muddy field covered with the corpses of their own mercenaries until they were cut down by unarmoured peasant archers on an open field? Those Knights?


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Mar 23, 2012)

Andor said:


> Are these the same sort of well disciplined heavy knights that managed to lose the battle of Crecy because they disobeyed the orders of their king, attacked their own mercenary crossbowman and then charged in a massively disorganized fashion up a muddy field covered with the corpses of their own mercenaries until they were cut down by unarmoured peasant archers on an open field? Those Knights?




Lightly armored yeoman archers that had trained in that ability from their teens, and at that particular battle were the pick of the bunch, from a rather hard-bitten and experienced pool.  Let's not overstate things, when the point stands well enough on the facts.


----------



## Andor (Mar 24, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Lightly armored yeoman archers that had trained in that ability from their teens, and at that particular battle were the pick of the bunch, from a rather hard-bitten and experienced pool.  Let's not overstate things, when the point stands well enough on the facts.




Admittedly comparing an English yeoman to a French peasant is a bit like comparing an english mastiff to a pomeranian, however the point remains that a Knights dominance of the open field lies in his horse and heavy arms and not in discipline. 

There are a lot of superlatives I could lay on the medieval knight, but disciplined is not one of the first to come to mind. If you want discipline look at Swiss pikemen or any of the good mass formation armies really.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 24, 2012)

jsaving said:


> I would put a somewhat different interpretation on the matter.  If Robin's leadership proved poor, they would turn on him in a moment.  Why?  Because they're Chaotic and have no loyalty beyond what has been earned.
> 
> Where does this idea come from that chaotics will gladly accept leadership as long as a sufficient sum of gold is placed in front of them first?  I don't find 'mercenary' in any of my books as synonymous with chaotic, any more than I can find 'introvert' or 'unthinking'.  Sure, a lawful individual's *perception* of chaotics might be misanthropes who keep putting themselves ahead of the greater purpose we could achieve with proper societal structure and leadership.  But as the much-lamented SRD reminds, chaotics of all stripes think freedom best enables people to reach their potentials.  One need not agree with this precept -- and I have many friends from both "sides of the aisle" who don't -- to see that it is neither irrational nor mercenary.




Ahh, oops, I used the word "bought" in there.  I didn't mean literally bought with cash, although that's certainly one possibility.  However, I was thinking more bought as in, "I'll follow this guy because he's winning and by following him, I'll win too... Oh, he's not winning anymore. ... I'm out of here."

In other words, any concept of following is based on selfishness and self-interest.  As soon as that self-interest is no longer being served, the chaotic will turn on his leader.  Robin never had a problem because he never failed.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 24, 2012)

Hussar said:


> In other words, any concept of following is based on selfishness and self-interest.  As soon as that self-interest is no longer being served, the chaotic will turn on his leader.  Robin never had a problem because he never failed.




How you weigh your own interests relative to other people's is pretty much at the core of the Good/Evil axis. Good = you make sacrifices to help others, Evil = you hurt others for your own benefit, Neutral = you do neither. If you abandon or turn on your leader as soon as you're no longer personally benefiting from that leadership, that's either Neutral (abandon) or Evil (turn on).

Chaotic is... well, meaningless, as this thread should make perfectly clear. Nobody can agree on what it means because the given definitions are contradictory and incoherent.

Also, Robin Hood's loyal men rescuing him from prison is a common theme in the legends.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 24, 2012)

Removing a leader that is proven to be innefective is neither Good nor Evil, Lawful nor Chaotic.

In a Lawful structure, an innefective leader is evaluated, and voted off/impeached.
In a Chaotic structure, the leader is removed with little regard for due process.
In a Good society, the leader is treated fairly, and isn't over-punished for his errors.
In an Evil society, the leader is cut down harshly, perhaps even tortured as a sort of public "revenge" on his failure.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 25, 2012)

Klaus - I'd say the difference would be on timing as well.  Lawfuls would likely have a system in place (impeached is a good example) where leaders would be removed after due process.  Chaotics wouldn't bother - they just remove the leader by either deposing him (coup, ostracizing him from the group) or possibly more direct means depending on their good/evil bent.  

Yes, they might rescue their leader if they think that that leader is still key to their own benefit.  Robin gets rescued because he's still of value to the Merry Men.  Otherwise, he gets left to rot in jail while another leader gets picked.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 25, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Yes, they might rescue their leader if they think that that leader is still key to their own benefit.  Robin gets rescued because he's still of value to the Merry Men.  Otherwise, he gets left to rot in jail while another leader gets picked.




You're really, really reaching here. The Merry Men repeatedly risked their necks to save Robin Hood after he got himself into trouble (usually because he was showing off). The idea that they did so out of cold self-interest is ridiculous.

This is why I want traditional alignment gone or at least massively overhauled. You start with the proposition that the Merry Men were Chaotic Good, apply your definition of "Chaotic," and proceed to an insane conclusion that flies in the face of the whole Robin Hood legend. Redefine them as Neutral Good, or Lawful Good, or pretty much any alignment you like, and the same thing will happen, because each alignment carries a ton of baggage and is miles away from anything resembling a coherent human personality.

I'm cool with the idea of alignment as a kind of cosmic football jersey. If you play for Helm's team, you wear the shiny gold jersey with "Lawful Good" on the back. The only way you lose that jersey is if you cheese off Helm and he kicks you off the team. Helm being Helm, he's probably got some pretty clear rules for you to follow if you don't want to get kicked off. That's all fine. It's not about following your alignment, it's about doing what Helm says. If you sold your soul to Asmodeus and got the "Lawful Evil" jersey as a result, staying on the team is the easiest thing in the world--it's getting off that's a problem!

But as soon as the concept of alignment-appropriate behavior creeps in, you end up with Lawful Stupid paladins and Chaotic Psycho rogues and all the rest of it, not to mention arguments like this one.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 25, 2012)

Oh hey, Dausuul, you'll get no disagreement from me.  I think alignment should get dropped off the pier.

But, to be fair, I'm going more from the pop-culture version of Robin Hood than from the "original" stories (scare quotes because there are a number of different versions of the original stories).  The Merry Men aren't so much interested in helping Robin because he's on the side of right and good, but because they really don't have a lot of choice and he keeps winning.

If Robin actually started losing, I think you'd see a very different story.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 25, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> I want traditional alignment gone or at least massively overhauled.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> each alignment carries a ton of baggage and is miles away from anything resembling a coherent human personality.



And just to add to this very true statement - the fact that there is no real-world theory of moral philosophy (either normative or descriptive) that even approximates to D&D alignment is a further reason for dropping it as a waste of everyone's time and mental energy.



			
				Dausuul;5861042I said:
			
		

> I'm cool with the idea of alignment as a kind of cosmic football jersey.



This is how I see 4e and pre-AD&D alignment. There is no pretence that the LG/G/U/E/CE schema in 4e, or the L/N/C schema in OD&D and B/X, is a universally applicable schema of moral classification. It is obviously related to a particular cosmological struggle understood to be inherent in the game setting (gods vs primordials in 4e, order vs chaos in the pre-AD&D game).

It is the 9-aligment schema, with its pretense to universal applicability as a system of moral description and evaluation, twithout reference to any particular cosmological conflict, that causes endless alignment disputes about the alignments of Robin Hood, Batman, Abraham Lincoln etc. Whereas the question in fact shouldn't make any sense, given that none of these personages is located in the D&D cosmology.


----------



## am181d (Mar 25, 2012)

Almost all alignment disputes evaporate if you accept the fact that lots of different personalities and behaviors (some mutually contradictory) can fall under the banner of a single alignment.

A lawful neutral samurai who follows a rigid code may find himself at odds with a militia of law neutral town guards if they disagree about whether he should surrender his katana.

A neutral good cleric may disagree with a neutral good ranger about whether an evil spirit should be bound into an ancient tree at the heart of a woodland shrine.?

You can't both argue that the alignment system isn't complex enough and then insist on interpreting it in the least complex manner possible. As long as alignments are broad categories and not a sort of choose-your-own-adventure sub-system for role-playing, then I really don't see what the problem is.


----------



## jreyst (Mar 25, 2012)

Link and verbiage removed.

Real-world political issues are not appropriate for this site.  No politics, no religion, please.

And, we are a family-friendly site.  We ask you to not directly link to things that are NSFW

Any question, please take it to e-mail or PM with a moderator.  Thanks.

~Umbran


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 25, 2012)

am181d said:


> Almost all alignment disputes evaporate if you accept the fact that lots of different personalities and behaviors (some mutually contradictory) can fall under the banner of a single alignment.
> 
> A lawful neutral samurai who follows a rigid code may find himself at odds with a militia of law neutral town guards if they disagree about whether he should surrender his katana.
> 
> ...




There comes a point where, interpreted broadly enough, any alignment can be justified to do almost anything. IMO, that's the point where alignment has clearly outlived its usefulness. 

Sure the LN samurai might refuse to surrender his sword. The CN almost certainly will refuse too (defiance of authority). You can use similar justifications with the good/evil versions, and neutrals certainly aren't prohibited from taking lawful or chaotic actions, so there's your justification there.

After a bit of thought, I've come to the conclusion that I'd rather see alignment used as a DM's tool, than one for players. 

Alignment is a useful shorthand for how a group of creatures might behave, and since it's up to the DM to interpret, you can't really have a "wrong" interpretation. That's in contrast to disagreements I've seen come up between players and DMs as to whether certain actions were in keeping with someone's alignment. Those rarely end well.

Alignment could also be useful as a campaign descriptor. We abandoned alignment a while back, but the DM will still sometimes say before a campaign, "This campaign is a good campaign" or "This is an evil campaign" or even "The events of this campaign are totally up to your characters to decide, but try to get along". That way, we know to create characters whose personalities accommodate the style of the campaign. A goody-goody doesn't really belong in a campaign where all of the PCs are flesh eating zombies, after all.

In general, what I think I'm getting at is that I find alignment too limited to serve as any kind of true guide for role playing. I prefer a good personality any day. Who cares whether the devious and sneaky ninja who is thoroughly devoted to his lord is lawful (because he's devoted to his lord) or chaotic (because he's an assassin who defies the laws of the land)? I'd rather know that he's an assassin willing to go to any lengths for his lord. One sentence of personality tells me more than CN or LE ever could.

Alignments as cosmic jerseys are a different matter, but one that doesn't seem all that popular based on my reading of this thread. Which strikes me as a bit odd, seeing as that was clearly the root of the alignment concept.


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 26, 2012)

am181d said:


> Almost all alignment disputes evaporate if you accept the fact that lots of different personalities and behaviors (some mutually contradictory) can fall under the banner of a single alignment.
> 
> A lawful neutral samurai who follows a rigid code may find himself at odds with a militia of law neutral town guards if they disagree about whether he should surrender his katana.
> 
> ...




If you want to have alignment, then I'd assume you want it to mean something. If you're then going to *have* to explain on a casse-by-case basis what different people of the same alignment would do in a particular situation, then I see no reason not to cut out the middle step. Just, explain how people react to a particular situation, and leave alignment out of it.


----------



## Yora (Mar 26, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Alignments as cosmic jerseys are a different matter, but one that doesn't seem all that popular based on my reading of this thread. Which strikes me as a bit odd, seeing as that was clearly the root of the alignment concept.



Which worked in the 70s, but not in the 2000s. Today we have a much different approach to fiction than 40 years ago. Good vs. Evil worked in a cold war world, but is just stupid in the 21st century. With black and white thinking, you can't get anyone to take you serious anymore.


----------



## GreyICE (Mar 26, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Are they keeping "miss damage?"




It's been in every edition of D&D.  I doubt it's leaving now.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 26, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> It's been in every edition of D&D.  I doubt it's leaving now.





Aside from being on the edge of a fireball and taking half damage, and the like, could you detail the various miss effects you believe carried over from "every edition of D&D" forward?


----------



## GreyICE (Mar 26, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Aside from being on the edge of a fireball and taking half damage, and the like, could you detail the various miss effects you believe carried over from "every edition of D&D" forward?




Actually whenever a fireball missed you it did half damage.  Most area spells did similar.  Disintegrate did auto damage if you made the save.  Many higher level spells did damage no matter what.  

So you're complaining about something that has always been there.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 26, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> Actually whenever a fireball missed you it did half damage.  Most area spells did similar.





Right, my point.  You're on the edge, able to grab some cover, etc. was always the rationale for that save for half.




GreyICE said:


> Disintegrate did auto damage if you made the save.  Many higher level spells did damage no matter what.
> 
> So you're complaining about something that has always been there.





Not as such.  Now, how many miss effects are only possible in a modern version of the game?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 26, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Right, my point.  You're on the edge, able to grab some cover, etc. was always the rationale for that save for half.




For those of us who have used minis since BD&D, nothing in the rules said you had to be "on the edge" to take half damage, IIRC. You could be dead-center of the fireball and still get your save. So, making your save _could_ be rationalized as you say or others could be used. The same rationalizations are used when you are missed by a 4E fireball.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 27, 2012)

Klaus said:


> At a certain point, the Kingpriest raised his voice to the heavens, demanding that the gods of Good bestow upon him the power to eradicate Evil, since they did so with the humble-born knight Huma and he (the Kingpriest) was a much nobler being. For trying to command the gods, the Kingpriest received a comet that hit Istar and caused the Cataclysm.



And somehow this mass murder consequence upon the actions of one particular individual is meant to be Good.

The inanity of D&D's alignment system knows no limits  . . .


----------



## pemerton (Mar 27, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Right, my point.  You're on the edge, able to grab some cover, etc. was always the rationale for that save for half.



The DMG offers a number of possible rationales for taking half damage, including modifying the magic itself (if an MU saves), being protected by the gods (if a Cleric saves), toughing it out (if a fighter saves), etc. It is only 3E, by codifying the save as a Reflex save, that makes dodging/grabbing cover etc the canonical explanation for a successful save vs fireball and the like.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 27, 2012)

pemerton said:


> The DMG offers a number of possible rationales for taking half damage, including modifying the magic itself (if an MU saves), being protected by the gods (if a Cleric saves), toughing it out (if a fighter saves), etc. It is only 3E, by codifying the save as a Reflex save, that makes dodging/grabbing cover etc the canonical explanation for a successful save vs fireball and the like.





I'd imagine that codified rationale stems from what we (many early players) always did, or understood it to be, prior to 3.XE and as far back as I can recall.  This is how everyone I know thought of it as far as I can remember right back to the earliest days, so it no surprise to me that it finally became the "official" rationale at one point.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 27, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> I'd imagine that codified rationale stems from what we (many early players) always did, or understood it to be, prior to 3.XE and as far back as I can recall.  This is how everyone I know thought of it as far as I can remember right back to the earliest days, so it no surprise to me that it finally became the "official" rationale at one point.



While I always assumed that that was what a thief or monk was doing, I tended just to follow the DMG suggestions for what was going on with the other classes.


----------

