In 20 years of playing D&D across 4 editions I've never, ever been in a game where alignment was ever referenced by any player or the DM or had any obvious effect on someone's RP. Ever once. It might inform peoples' choices during character creation but it could be completely removed and have zero effect on the system.
You're lucky!
My table used to get into arguments about things like why it's not chaotic good to torture an attempted assassins to death and why the other player characters would object to such action.
That sounds awful.
+4
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
A character may have up to three allegiances, listed in order from most important to least important. These allegiances are indications of what the character values in life, and may encompass people, organizations, or ideals. A character may have no allegiances (being either a free spirit or a lone wolf) or may change allegiances as he or she goes through life. Also, just because the character fits into a certain category of people doesn't mean the character has to have that category as an allegiance.
If the character acts in a way that is detrimental to his or her allegiance, the GM may choose to strip the character of that allegiance (and all its benefits) and assign an allegiance more suitable to those actions.
Pledging Allegiance
A hero's allegiance can take the form of loyalty to a person, to an organization, to a belief system, to a nation, or to an ethical or moral philosophy. In general, a character can discard an allegiance at any time, but may only gain a new allegiance after attaining a new level.
Having an allegiance implies having sufficient intelligence and wisdom to make a moral or ethical choice. As a result, a character must have Intelligence and Wisdom scores of 3 or higher in order to select allegiances.
Allegiances include, but are not limited to, the following examples:
-- Person or Group: This includes a leader or superior, a family, a group of linked individuals (such as a band of adventurers or a cell of secret agents), or a discrete unit within a larger organization (such as members of the character's squad or platoon, or individuals whose safety the character is responsible for).
- Organization: This may be a company or corporation, a gathering of like-minded individuals, a fraternal brotherhood, a secret society, a branch of the armed forces, a local, state, or national government, a university, an employer, or an otherwise established authority.
-- Nation: This may or may not be the nation that the hero currently resides in. It may be where the individual was born, or where the hero resides after emigrating to a new home.
-- Belief System: This is usually a particular faith or religion, but can also be a specific philosophy or school of thought. Belief systems could also include political beliefs or philosophical outlooks.
-- Ethical Philosophy: This describes how one feels about order, as represented by law and chaos. An individual with a lawful outlook tends to tell the truth, keep his or her word, respect authority, and honor tradition, and he or she expects others to do likewise. An individual with a chaotic outlook tends to follow his or her instincts and whims, favor new ideas and experiences, and behave in a subjective and open manner in dealings with others.
-- Moral Philosophy: This describes one's attitude toward others, as represented by good and evil. An individual with a good allegiance tends to protect innocent life. This belief implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of other creatures. An evil allegiance shows a willingness to hurt, oppress, and kill others, and to debase or destroy innocent life.
Allegiances and Influence
An allegiance can create an empathic bond with others of the same allegiance. With the GM's permission, the character gains a +2 circumstance bonus on Charisma-based skill checks when dealing with someone of the same allegiance-as long as the character has had some interaction with the other character to discover the connections and bring the bonus into play.
0
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
Anyway, WotC has announced they're changing how stats work for races to reflect pretty much what folks in this thread have indicated they'd like to see, so clearly they agree that the current implementation is dumb.
And let me tell ya, some fans are livid about it.
Oh yea? Is it the 4e argument where if you remove the bonuses it isn't d&d anymore?
In 20 years of playing D&D across 4 editions I've never, ever been in a game where alignment was ever referenced by any player or the DM or had any obvious effect on someone's RP. Ever once. It might inform peoples' choices during character creation but it could be completely removed and have zero effect on the system.
I've mostly seen it used to cap things off. Like after a few sessions of character development that changed the outlook of a character, the player took an eraser and went "so yeah, after all that stuff that happened I'm pretty sure [character name] has taken a significant dip towards Lawful" and altering his Neutral to Lawful Neutral. Or DMs changing players' alignments after contiguous sessions of incongruous roleplay. Alignment, far as I've seen used, it's a shorthand to express what you're already doing, not as a constraint of "oh, I can't RP this way, my alignment says X".
So yeah, it's not, like, terribly useful. It's just a thing that is there. Removing it wouldn't actually affect much of anything.
Yes, Lawful Good characters should be attempting to bring their enemies to trial rather than killing them outright.
But Chaotic Good characters shouldn't. For them it would likely come down to their fundamental beliefs on reform and capital punishment, I guess.
To be honest every D&D game I've played in or run has 99% of the time assumed enemies fight to the death and that PCs kill them (I guess this could be circumvented if enemies fled more often). I'm curious what the hypothetical Chaotic Good or Neutral Good alternatives might be for handling defeated villains.
Yeah, likewise.
I mean, also, on some level D&D is a pulp fantasy game, and I would say that it is more or less a genre trope of classic pulp fantasy that capital punishment is justified and good for a variety of crimes. And like, if we want to pretend that this is based on actual history, there are plenty of cultures of that vague 500 year time period that would also have held that belief.
Yes, Lawful Good characters should be attempting to bring their enemies to trial rather than killing them outright.
But Chaotic Good characters shouldn't. For them it would likely come down to their fundamental beliefs on reform and capital punishment, I guess.
To be honest every D&D game I've played in or run has 99% of the time assumed enemies fight to the death and that PCs kill them (I guess this could be circumvented if enemies fled more often). I'm curious what the hypothetical Chaotic Good or Neutral Good alternatives might be for handling defeated villains.
Wait, really? Most games I've played have had players basically try to talk everyone down first if they seemed sentient. And ever since 5E said that you can just smack people nonlethally without penalties, everyone defaults to nonlethal unless they're fighting, like, Mind Flayers or other similar level of absolute psychopath.
Anyway, WotC has announced they're changing how stats work for races to reflect pretty much what folks in this thread have indicated they'd like to see, so clearly they agree that the current implementation is dumb.
And let me tell ya, some fans are livid about it.
Oh yea? Is it the 4e argument where if you remove the bonuses it isn't d&d anymore?
"If they remove racial ability scores, what's to stop them from removing racial ability features!?! And then removing class ability features!?!?!?"
"This change is combating my immersion into the game and disrupting the realism & verisimilitude of the game."
"Actually, D&D can be a force for good for showing how racism works and why that's bad. By establishing that different races are different, we can showcase diversity and acceptance."
Those are the primary arguments I have read, and I have attempted to respond to them on another D&D forum I visit, but I eventually had to pull away because I would have been banned if I continued in that discussion.
So if we want a shorthand for character personalities, but not with the problems of law/chaos and good/evil, what could we use instead?
Systemic/Specific and Selfless/Selfish, respectively, is what I usually go with.
Let's say a character sees a beggar on a street corner:
Systemic/Selfless would see that there's a problem with the city, that such suffering can exist, would work to change that even if it cost them their title, or safety, etc, but would leave that person begging, as the bigger problem is what needs addressing.
Specific/Selfless would give that individual food, then go on their way, helping that one beggar, but no others because they didn't fall into the character's awareness, and whatever inequality was the root problem wouldn't necessarily ever get addressed.
Systemic/Selfish: Would see a city where you can accumulate wealth and power by taking advantage of others and would then try to gain wealth and power by taking advantage of others, en mass
Specific/Selfish: Would wait by the beggar to see where the rich people of the city keep their coin purses then pickpocket them.
Yes, Lawful Good characters should be attempting to bring their enemies to trial rather than killing them outright.
But Chaotic Good characters shouldn't. For them it would likely come down to their fundamental beliefs on reform and capital punishment, I guess.
To be honest every D&D game I've played in or run has 99% of the time assumed enemies fight to the death and that PCs kill them (I guess this could be circumvented if enemies fled more often). I'm curious what the hypothetical Chaotic Good or Neutral Good alternatives might be for handling defeated villains.
Yeah, likewise.
I mean, also, on some level D&D is a pulp fantasy game, and I would say that it is more or less a genre trope of classic pulp fantasy that capital punishment is justified and good for a variety of crimes. And like, if we want to pretend that this is based on actual history, there are plenty of cultures of that vague 500 year time period that would also have held that belief.
I think I've just realized that "Alignment: always evil" didn't just mean "it's okay to kill these guys" but also "you don't have to worry about what you're going to do with these guys if you don't kill them".
I'm imagining now a Lawful Good party rolling up to the gates of a major city with a caravan of wagons and hired mercenaries to deliver a bound young green dragon, forty-one kobolds, twelve lizardfolk, three ogres, and a nothic to trial.
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Yes, Lawful Good characters should be attempting to bring their enemies to trial rather than killing them outright.
But Chaotic Good characters shouldn't. For them it would likely come down to their fundamental beliefs on reform and capital punishment, I guess.
To be honest every D&D game I've played in or run has 99% of the time assumed enemies fight to the death and that PCs kill them (I guess this could be circumvented if enemies fled more often). I'm curious what the hypothetical Chaotic Good or Neutral Good alternatives might be for handling defeated villains.
Yeah, likewise.
I mean, also, on some level D&D is a pulp fantasy game, and I would say that it is more or less a genre trope of classic pulp fantasy that capital punishment is justified and good for a variety of crimes. And like, if we want to pretend that this is based on actual history, there are plenty of cultures of that vague 500 year time period that would also have held that belief.
I think I've just realized that "Alignment: always evil" didn't just mean "it's okay to kill these guys" but also "you don't have to worry about what you're going to do with these guys if you don't kill them".
I'm imagining now a Lawful Good party rolling up to the gates of a major city with a caravan of wagons and hired mercenaries to deliver a bound young green dragon, forty-one kobolds, twelve lizardfolk, three ogres, and a nothic to trial.
"What was their crime?"
"They're evil."
"They're evil?"
"They were doing evil things."
"What were they doing that was evil?"
"They attacked us."
"They attacked you?"
"Yes. We approached them and they attacked us."
"You approached them, armed and armored to the teeth, yelled 'prepare to die, fiends!' and they attacked you?"
"Yes."
"Good enough for me. Prepare the dragon-sized noose."
Anyway, WotC has announced they're changing how stats work for races to reflect pretty much what folks in this thread have indicated they'd like to see, so clearly they agree that the current implementation is dumb.
And let me tell ya, some fans are livid about it.
Oh yea? Is it the 4e argument where if you remove the bonuses it isn't d&d anymore?
"If they remove racial ability scores, what's to stop them from removing racial ability features!?! And then removing class ability features!?!?!?"
"This change is combating my immersion into the game and disrupting the realism & verisimilitude of the game."
"Actually, D&D can be a force for good for showing how racism works and why that's bad. By establishing that different races are different, we can showcase diversity and acceptance."
Those are the primary arguments I have read, and I have attempted to respond to them on another D&D forum I visit, but I eventually had to pull away because I would have been banned if I continued in that discussion.
I think what I like most about this argument is that it has fuck all to do with anything because this does not become suddenly less true because Half-Orcs are no longer inherently stronger than Humans, or whatever. I also dare this person to show me one campaign where racism was dealt with in a meaningful way and it required racial ability differences to do it, because I call fuckin' bullshit on the second half of that sentence.
Yes, Lawful Good characters should be attempting to bring their enemies to trial rather than killing them outright.
But Chaotic Good characters shouldn't. For them it would likely come down to their fundamental beliefs on reform and capital punishment, I guess.
To be honest every D&D game I've played in or run has 99% of the time assumed enemies fight to the death and that PCs kill them (I guess this could be circumvented if enemies fled more often). I'm curious what the hypothetical Chaotic Good or Neutral Good alternatives might be for handling defeated villains.
Wait, really? Most games I've played have had players basically try to talk everyone down first if they seemed sentient. And ever since 5E said that you can just smack people nonlethally without penalties, everyone defaults to nonlethal unless they're fighting, like, Mind Flayers or other similar level of absolute psychopath.
Wow, that has not been my experience at all. I think part of it is so far I've been in groups that value combat over roleplaying.
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
edited June 2020
My feelings:
- I think lots of people in general have a visceral response one way or another to rules and authority that has almost nothing to do with the intent or quality of the rules and authority. Some people just like to go along to get along even when that means following monstrous orders; other people bristle at being told what to do even when it's something self-evidently pro-social like wearing a fucking face mask. Some people enjoy the company and society of others and are well-suited to civic life, to having a role in a community, and other people are loners or iconoclasts or downright misanthropes.
- Those inclinations, those tendencies, are independent of a person's capacity for moral or empathetic judgment, so I think they're a useful illustration of the differences between lawful/neutral/chaotic in the vast majority of cases (with the understanding that in D&D's fantasy world you can also be so into Law and Chaos as abstract concepts that you make them your religion and make every decision based on whether it furthers those things above all others, but that extreme applies to a relatively small number of people).
- "Alignment is not a straitjacket" has been in the game for decades. It's not intended to dictate behavior but describe a character's inclinations. Lawful Good doesn't mean "always follows the laws like a robot," it means you try to follow the law and do the most good possible and when the two are in conflict you have a tough choice to make. And if you're Lawful Good in a place with evil laws, well, you're going to have a crisis of conscience pretty frequently, but I don't think that's bad or unrealistic. It seems to me like it's a real state of being that real people actually go through.
- Shorty mentioned Lawful Good as a personal code and adman asked how that could be different from neutral or chaotic good. That seems...pretty easy to me? If we understand Lawful as someone's kind of natural communitarian leanings, as a reluctance to just go it alone, that kind of Lawful Good character would have serious misgivings about, for instance, vigilantism, whereas the neutral good character is just like "dude the law isn't punishing this bad person but I trust my own moral judgment so I will." The Lawful Good-as-a-code guy might end up going along with the decision due to the specific circumstnaces but they're gonna suck their teeth and be kinda unhappy about doing something drastic without the tacit permission or imprimatur of the community behind them.
- A person can just have a kind of visceral, consttitutional dislike of other people or the company of their fellows but not be a mean or immoral person and I would characterize them as chaotic good. A hermit who has no use for civil society or its rules but will aid a traveler in distress without any clear benefit to the hermit seems almost archetypally chaotic good to me. I think we all know people who get really mad - maybe even irrationally so - about taking "orders" from someone distant and abstract, or from authority, but will do the right thing if you frame it in personal, one-to-one terms ("come on dude, wear the mask, I've got a sick grandma at home").
Yes, Lawful Good characters should be attempting to bring their enemies to trial rather than killing them outright.
But Chaotic Good characters shouldn't. For them it would likely come down to their fundamental beliefs on reform and capital punishment, I guess.
To be honest every D&D game I've played in or run has 99% of the time assumed enemies fight to the death and that PCs kill them (I guess this could be circumvented if enemies fled more often). I'm curious what the hypothetical Chaotic Good or Neutral Good alternatives might be for handling defeated villains.
Yeah, likewise.
I mean, also, on some level D&D is a pulp fantasy game, and I would say that it is more or less a genre trope of classic pulp fantasy that capital punishment is justified and good for a variety of crimes. And like, if we want to pretend that this is based on actual history, there are plenty of cultures of that vague 500 year time period that would also have held that belief.
I think I've just realized that "Alignment: always evil" didn't just mean "it's okay to kill these guys" but also "you don't have to worry about what you're going to do with these guys if you don't kill them".
I'm imagining now a Lawful Good party rolling up to the gates of a major city with a caravan of wagons and hired mercenaries to deliver a bound young green dragon, forty-one kobolds, twelve lizardfolk, three ogres, and a nothic to trial.
"What was their crime?"
"They're evil."
"They're evil?"
"They were doing evil things."
"What were they doing that was evil?"
"They attacked us."
"They attacked you?"
"Yes. We approached them and they attacked us."
"You approached them, armed and armored to the teeth, yelled 'prepare to die, fiends!' and they attacked you?"
"Yes."
"Good enough for me. Prepare the dragon-sized noose."
I am kinda having fun imagining the logistics of this.
So the young green dragon has been getting his sycophantic kobold followers, enslaved lizardfolk and ogre minions, and a mysterious nothic ally to raid settlements and caravans for treasure and people to eat. The party was tasked to take care of the threat by the nearby city, assuming that this band of vigilantes would slay all these monsters.
Weeks later, the Lawful Good party returns to the city with their caravan of arrested suspects who had attacked them on sight, despite the party requesting that the suspects peacefully turn themselves in. Now the city has to figure out how to securely detain and feed a large, poison breathing dragon, two ogres, a nothic with dangerous gaze abilities, and dozens of other suspects. Evidence has to be collected, witnesses found, defense attorneys have to be assigned to the dragon and other creatures, trials have to be held, you've gotta figure out if it's even the right young green dragon or if some of the arrested kobolds stayed home while others went on the raids, etc.
Going by the laws of the Clovis Concord detailed in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount (laws which do not include capital punishment even for murder), let's say the young green dragon stands accused of:
- theft in the amount of 85,000 gp
- 15 counts of slave ownership
- failure to pay taxes
- 10 counts of damage to private property
- 5 counts of assault with intent to kill
- 22 counts of murder
If judged guilty on all counts, the young green dragon faces:
- 200,170 gp in fines
- repossession of wealth equal to unpaid taxes to the Clovis Concord
- 222 years, 195 days imprisonment
Even assuming that this young green dragon is six years old, the beginning point of its age category, by the time its sentence is over it will be 228 years old and in the adult category. At this point the now adult green dragon will possess lair actions while in his prison lair (summoning grasping roots, thorny bushes, fog that inflicts a short term charm affect). In addition, the region within a mile around the prison lair will spawn thicket mazes, and the adult green dragon will be able to see and hear through the eyes and ears of rodents and birds.
So if the Clovis Concord is really serious about applying the law equally to a captured dragon, they'll need to construct a special prison in anticipation of the abilities their prisoner will eventually develop. Then they'll need to pay to keep the dragon fed for over two centuries. Even if the dragon doesn't escape on its own ans isn't broken out by dragon-worshiping cultists or whatever during that entire time, what happens when the now adult green dragon's sentence is up and by law is free to go? Is it going to be a reformed Lawful Good adult green dragon, is it going to relish the newfound freedom to exercise the power it has gained as its grown to immediately go on a rampage, is it going to go off somewhere and amass an army to raze the countryside while it searches for its captors' descendants to systematically slaughter them?
Realistically, I imagine that dragon is going to be mysteriously assassinated in its prison before it reaches the adult age category.
Yes, Lawful Good characters should be attempting to bring their enemies to trial rather than killing them outright.
But Chaotic Good characters shouldn't. For them it would likely come down to their fundamental beliefs on reform and capital punishment, I guess.
To be honest every D&D game I've played in or run has 99% of the time assumed enemies fight to the death and that PCs kill them (I guess this could be circumvented if enemies fled more often). I'm curious what the hypothetical Chaotic Good or Neutral Good alternatives might be for handling defeated villains.
Yeah, likewise.
I mean, also, on some level D&D is a pulp fantasy game, and I would say that it is more or less a genre trope of classic pulp fantasy that capital punishment is justified and good for a variety of crimes. And like, if we want to pretend that this is based on actual history, there are plenty of cultures of that vague 500 year time period that would also have held that belief.
I think I've just realized that "Alignment: always evil" didn't just mean "it's okay to kill these guys" but also "you don't have to worry about what you're going to do with these guys if you don't kill them".
I'm imagining now a Lawful Good party rolling up to the gates of a major city with a caravan of wagons and hired mercenaries to deliver a bound young green dragon, forty-one kobolds, twelve lizardfolk, three ogres, and a nothic to trial.
"What was their crime?"
"They're evil."
"They're evil?"
"They were doing evil things."
"What were they doing that was evil?"
"They attacked us."
"They attacked you?"
"Yes. We approached them and they attacked us."
"You approached them, armed and armored to the teeth, yelled 'prepare to die, fiends!' and they attacked you?"
"Yes."
"Good enough for me. Prepare the dragon-sized noose."
I am kinda having fun imagining the logistics of this.
So the young green dragon has been getting his sycophantic kobold followers, enslaved lizardfolk and ogre minions, and a mysterious nothic ally to raid settlements and caravans for treasure and people to eat. The party was tasked to take care of the threat by the nearby city, assuming that this band of vigilantes would slay all these monsters.
Weeks later, the Lawful Good party returns to the city with their caravan of arrested suspects who had attacked them on sight, despite the party requesting that the suspects peacefully turn themselves in. Now the city has to figure out how to securely detain and feed a large, poison breathing dragon, two ogres, a nothic with dangerous gaze abilities, and dozens of other suspects. Evidence has to be collected, witnesses found, defense attorneys have to be assigned to the dragon and other creatures, trials have to be held, you've gotta figure out if it's even the right young green dragon or if some of the arrested kobolds stayed home while others went on the raids, etc.
Going by the laws of the Clovis Concord detailed in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount (laws which do not include capital punishment even for murder), let's say the young green dragon stands accused of:
- theft in the amount of 85,000 gp
- 15 counts of slave ownership
- failure to pay taxes
- 10 counts of damage to private property
- 5 counts of assault with intent to kill
- 22 counts of murder
If judged guilty on all counts, the young green dragon faces:
- 200,170 gp in fines
- repossession of wealth equal to unpaid taxes to the Clovis Concord
- 222 years, 195 days imprisonment
Even assuming that this young green dragon is six years old, the beginning point of its age category, by the time its sentence is over it will be 228 years old and in the adult category. At this point the now adult green dragon will possess lair actions while in his prison lair (summoning grasping roots, thorny bushes, fog that inflicts a short term charm affect). In addition, the region within a mile around the prison lair will spawn thicket mazes, and the adult green dragon will be able to see and hear through the eyes and ears of rodents and birds.
So if the Clovis Concord is really serious about applying the law equally to a captured dragon, they'll need to construct a special prison in anticipation of the abilities their prisoner will eventually develop. Then they'll need to pay to keep the dragon fed for over two centuries. Even if the dragon doesn't escape on its own ans isn't broken out by dragon-worshiping cultists or whatever during that entire time, what happens when the now adult green dragon's sentence is up and by law is free to go? Is it going to be a reformed Lawful Good adult green dragon, is it going to relish the newfound freedom to exercise the power it has gained as its grown to immediately go on a rampage, is it going to go off somewhere and amass an army to raze the countryside while it searches for its captors' descendants to systematically slaughter them?
Realistically, I imagine that dragon is going to be mysteriously assassinated in its prison before it reaches the adult age category.
Ssssooooo apparently in the icewind dale adventure wizards is releasing (this is probably a big spoiler for the module)
I hear that there is a boss encounter where the monster has boss phases, and turns from an old ice crone, into a sexy young ice lady, and then into a floating ice womb as you beat her up, I guess representing... the crone getting stripped down to her most essential elements? *collar tugging*
Yes, Lawful Good characters should be attempting to bring their enemies to trial rather than killing them outright.
But Chaotic Good characters shouldn't. For them it would likely come down to their fundamental beliefs on reform and capital punishment, I guess.
To be honest every D&D game I've played in or run has 99% of the time assumed enemies fight to the death and that PCs kill them (I guess this could be circumvented if enemies fled more often). I'm curious what the hypothetical Chaotic Good or Neutral Good alternatives might be for handling defeated villains.
Yeah, likewise.
I mean, also, on some level D&D is a pulp fantasy game, and I would say that it is more or less a genre trope of classic pulp fantasy that capital punishment is justified and good for a variety of crimes. And like, if we want to pretend that this is based on actual history, there are plenty of cultures of that vague 500 year time period that would also have held that belief.
I think I've just realized that "Alignment: always evil" didn't just mean "it's okay to kill these guys" but also "you don't have to worry about what you're going to do with these guys if you don't kill them".
I'm imagining now a Lawful Good party rolling up to the gates of a major city with a caravan of wagons and hired mercenaries to deliver a bound young green dragon, forty-one kobolds, twelve lizardfolk, three ogres, and a nothic to trial.
"What was their crime?"
"They're evil."
"They're evil?"
"They were doing evil things."
"What were they doing that was evil?"
"They attacked us."
"They attacked you?"
"Yes. We approached them and they attacked us."
"You approached them, armed and armored to the teeth, yelled 'prepare to die, fiends!' and they attacked you?"
"Yes."
"Good enough for me. Prepare the dragon-sized noose."
I am kinda having fun imagining the logistics of this.
So the young green dragon has been getting his sycophantic kobold followers, enslaved lizardfolk and ogre minions, and a mysterious nothic ally to raid settlements and caravans for treasure and people to eat. The party was tasked to take care of the threat by the nearby city, assuming that this band of vigilantes would slay all these monsters.
Weeks later, the Lawful Good party returns to the city with their caravan of arrested suspects who had attacked them on sight, despite the party requesting that the suspects peacefully turn themselves in. Now the city has to figure out how to securely detain and feed a large, poison breathing dragon, two ogres, a nothic with dangerous gaze abilities, and dozens of other suspects. Evidence has to be collected, witnesses found, defense attorneys have to be assigned to the dragon and other creatures, trials have to be held, you've gotta figure out if it's even the right young green dragon or if some of the arrested kobolds stayed home while others went on the raids, etc.
Going by the laws of the Clovis Concord detailed in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount (laws which do not include capital punishment even for murder), let's say the young green dragon stands accused of:
- theft in the amount of 85,000 gp
- 15 counts of slave ownership
- failure to pay taxes
- 10 counts of damage to private property
- 5 counts of assault with intent to kill
- 22 counts of murder
If judged guilty on all counts, the young green dragon faces:
- 200,170 gp in fines
- repossession of wealth equal to unpaid taxes to the Clovis Concord
- 222 years, 195 days imprisonment
Even assuming that this young green dragon is six years old, the beginning point of its age category, by the time its sentence is over it will be 228 years old and in the adult category. At this point the now adult green dragon will possess lair actions while in his prison lair (summoning grasping roots, thorny bushes, fog that inflicts a short term charm affect). In addition, the region within a mile around the prison lair will spawn thicket mazes, and the adult green dragon will be able to see and hear through the eyes and ears of rodents and birds.
So if the Clovis Concord is really serious about applying the law equally to a captured dragon, they'll need to construct a special prison in anticipation of the abilities their prisoner will eventually develop. Then they'll need to pay to keep the dragon fed for over two centuries. Even if the dragon doesn't escape on its own ans isn't broken out by dragon-worshiping cultists or whatever during that entire time, what happens when the now adult green dragon's sentence is up and by law is free to go? Is it going to be a reformed Lawful Good adult green dragon, is it going to relish the newfound freedom to exercise the power it has gained as its grown to immediately go on a rampage, is it going to go off somewhere and amass an army to raze the countryside while it searches for its captors' descendants to systematically slaughter them?
Realistically, I imagine that dragon is going to be mysteriously assassinated in its prison before it reaches the adult age category.
This is great. Thank you for this.
Thanks!
Thinking more about it, considering that metallic and chromatic dragons both are very proud creatures that covet treasure, being imprisoned by "lesser beings" and denied the ability to amass treasure would be an overwhelming source of shame that could drive a dragon mad.
Frankly, considering how much money and space keeping a single dragon imprisoned and fed would require (not to mention the martial and magical power needed to stop an escape attempt), I can't imagine it happens often at all, even in a place like the Clovis Concord where there is no such thing as capital punishment.
Maybe metallic dragons take this responsibility? Maybe they are apprehending and maintaining prisons for evil dragons somewhere?
Alignment systems, like classes, are good when specifically tailored for and descriptive of the setting the game wants to evoke.
Similar to their classes, equipment and monsters D&D alignment does not do this because D&D is an ur game whose two design tenants are Being D&D and Being Everything We Promise.
+2
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
Yes, Lawful Good characters should be attempting to bring their enemies to trial rather than killing them outright.
But Chaotic Good characters shouldn't. For them it would likely come down to their fundamental beliefs on reform and capital punishment, I guess.
To be honest every D&D game I've played in or run has 99% of the time assumed enemies fight to the death and that PCs kill them (I guess this could be circumvented if enemies fled more often). I'm curious what the hypothetical Chaotic Good or Neutral Good alternatives might be for handling defeated villains.
Yeah, likewise.
I mean, also, on some level D&D is a pulp fantasy game, and I would say that it is more or less a genre trope of classic pulp fantasy that capital punishment is justified and good for a variety of crimes. And like, if we want to pretend that this is based on actual history, there are plenty of cultures of that vague 500 year time period that would also have held that belief.
I think I've just realized that "Alignment: always evil" didn't just mean "it's okay to kill these guys" but also "you don't have to worry about what you're going to do with these guys if you don't kill them".
I'm imagining now a Lawful Good party rolling up to the gates of a major city with a caravan of wagons and hired mercenaries to deliver a bound young green dragon, forty-one kobolds, twelve lizardfolk, three ogres, and a nothic to trial.
"What was their crime?"
"They're evil."
"They're evil?"
"They were doing evil things."
"What were they doing that was evil?"
"They attacked us."
"They attacked you?"
"Yes. We approached them and they attacked us."
"You approached them, armed and armored to the teeth, yelled 'prepare to die, fiends!' and they attacked you?"
"Yes."
"Good enough for me. Prepare the dragon-sized noose."
I am kinda having fun imagining the logistics of this.
So the young green dragon has been getting his sycophantic kobold followers, enslaved lizardfolk and ogre minions, and a mysterious nothic ally to raid settlements and caravans for treasure and people to eat. The party was tasked to take care of the threat by the nearby city, assuming that this band of vigilantes would slay all these monsters.
Weeks later, the Lawful Good party returns to the city with their caravan of arrested suspects who had attacked them on sight, despite the party requesting that the suspects peacefully turn themselves in. Now the city has to figure out how to securely detain and feed a large, poison breathing dragon, two ogres, a nothic with dangerous gaze abilities, and dozens of other suspects. Evidence has to be collected, witnesses found, defense attorneys have to be assigned to the dragon and other creatures, trials have to be held, you've gotta figure out if it's even the right young green dragon or if some of the arrested kobolds stayed home while others went on the raids, etc.
Going by the laws of the Clovis Concord detailed in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount (laws which do not include capital punishment even for murder), let's say the young green dragon stands accused of:
- theft in the amount of 85,000 gp
- 15 counts of slave ownership
- failure to pay taxes
- 10 counts of damage to private property
- 5 counts of assault with intent to kill
- 22 counts of murder
If judged guilty on all counts, the young green dragon faces:
- 200,170 gp in fines
- repossession of wealth equal to unpaid taxes to the Clovis Concord
- 222 years, 195 days imprisonment
Even assuming that this young green dragon is six years old, the beginning point of its age category, by the time its sentence is over it will be 228 years old and in the adult category. At this point the now adult green dragon will possess lair actions while in his prison lair (summoning grasping roots, thorny bushes, fog that inflicts a short term charm affect). In addition, the region within a mile around the prison lair will spawn thicket mazes, and the adult green dragon will be able to see and hear through the eyes and ears of rodents and birds.
So if the Clovis Concord is really serious about applying the law equally to a captured dragon, they'll need to construct a special prison in anticipation of the abilities their prisoner will eventually develop. Then they'll need to pay to keep the dragon fed for over two centuries. Even if the dragon doesn't escape on its own ans isn't broken out by dragon-worshiping cultists or whatever during that entire time, what happens when the now adult green dragon's sentence is up and by law is free to go? Is it going to be a reformed Lawful Good adult green dragon, is it going to relish the newfound freedom to exercise the power it has gained as its grown to immediately go on a rampage, is it going to go off somewhere and amass an army to raze the countryside while it searches for its captors' descendants to systematically slaughter them?
Realistically, I imagine that dragon is going to be mysteriously assassinated in its prison before it reaches the adult age category.
This is great. Thank you for this.
Thanks!
Thinking more about it, considering that metallic and chromatic dragons both are very proud creatures that covet treasure, being imprisoned by "lesser beings" and denied the ability to amass treasure would be an overwhelming source of shame that could drive a dragon mad.
Frankly, considering how much money and space keeping a single dragon imprisoned and fed would require (not to mention the martial and magical power needed to stop an escape attempt), I can't imagine it happens often at all, even in a place like the Clovis Concord where there is no such thing as capital punishment.
Maybe metallic dragons take this responsibility? Maybe they are apprehending and maintaining prisons for evil dragons somewhere?
I wonder if you would have to Extradite dragons to the reigning dragons of the region? Would the even recognize mortal governments as valid authority? If you imprison a Dragon is there the expectation that your town gets burned down by other ones as an example?
the idea of a captive green dragon under a city for hundreds of years making lair effects happen and seeing through the eyes of the city vermin seems like an awesome plot hook actually
transforming the city streets gradually and subtly into an overgrown maze, plants just keep infesting buildings and crawling up the walls and no one can figure out why
BahamutZERO on
+16
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
the idea of a captive green dragon under a city for hundreds of years making lair effects happen and seeing through the eyes of the city vermin seems like an awesome plot hook actually
transforming the city streets gradually and subtly into an overgrown maze, plants just keep infesting buildings and crawling up the walls and no one can figure out why
Be even more insidious and have the plant growth and stuff be beneficial, a real hanging gardens of babylon sort of situation, so the town draws in richer and richer people, merchants, and things like that, and the dragon is able to grow their wealth and power, and maybe even have the city become an ally of the dragon who send out and finance adventurers against other dragons.
Everyone who had captured the dragon had been slowly killed off and the memory of this dragon gradually forgotten, the dragon could have left ages ago, but it was too much a good thing now to stay.
#pipeCocky Stride, Musky odoursPope of Chili TownRegistered Userregular
I guess I'm weird in that I really like the alignment system
It can't be all things for all people, but it's flexible and simple enough to work for the vast majority of players and characters and if you don't like it you're welcome to ditch it and still play the game.
I don't use alignment as handcuffs, I use it as a writing prompt. It's loose, it's malleable, it's changeable but it's a good guiding light.
Some people play it like "My character is Lawful Neutral, so he would approach this situation like this". That is valid. It helps people who are not so great at roleplay to build and get into character. Especially if they want to create a character who is completely different from the player themselves.
I don't know like... if you don't like the alignment system I think it's totally fine for you not to use it. As a player and as a GM. If a player came to my group and said they didn't use alignment, I would be 100% ok with it as long as they didn't murder other PCs. Every dang page in the DMG has the phrase "If these rules don't work for you, do it your own way!".
of all the editions of D&D 2nd is the absolute last one I would ever want to play again. hmm, probably something like
1) 4th ed
2) Rules Cyclopedia (basic + expert + companion + master + immortal )
3) 1st ed
4) original D&D
5) 5th ed
.
.
(lots more empty space)
.
.
6) 3.5 ed
7) 3rd ed
8) 2nd ed
9) 2.5 ed
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
+2
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
of all the editions of D&D 2nd is the absolute last one I would ever want to play again. hmm, probably something like 1a) Gamma World
1) 4th ed
2) Rules Cyclopedia (basic + expert + companion + master + immortal )
3) 1st ed
4) original D&D
5) 5th ed
.
.
(lots more empty space)
.
.
6) 3.5 ed
7) 3rd ed
8) 2nd ed
9) 2.5 ed
of all the editions of D&D 2nd is the absolute last one I would ever want to play again. hmm, probably something like
1) 4th ed
2) Rules Cyclopedia (basic + expert + companion + master + immortal )
3) 1st ed
4) original D&D
5) 5th ed
.
.
(lots more empty space)
.
.
6) 3.5 ed
7) 3rd ed
8) 2nd ed
9) 2.5 ed
Same for me, but move 5e up to the top. Really it'd just be 5th, 4th, then the Rules Cyclopedia (isn't that old D&D though? I'm not super familiar, but I've had the book for years before I ever even played and I love it)
Also, posting this here and in the Critical Failures thread, but I'm once again asking y'all to do my homework for me and give me some ideas for a one-shot game to run this Friday! I was wanting to do something besides the usual "DM tries their damnedest to murder the fuck out of the party" thing we normally do for one-shots, and I was also thinking of switching from FR to Eberron for this game. Maybe like a murder mystery sort of thing set on a speeding lightning rail train car that is going a loooooooong distance? If they're too fast, I could instead set it on an airship. But either way, I want the players to be trapped and forced to investigate (maybe not forced, but otherwise they'll just have a nice journey ignoring the murder and then disembark once they arrive lol)
+1
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Also, posting this here and in the Critical Failures thread, but I'm once again asking y'all to do my homework for me and give me some ideas for a one-shot game to run this Friday! I was wanting to do something besides the usual "DM tries their damnedest to murder the fuck out of the party" thing we normally do for one-shots, and I was also thinking of switching from FR to Eberron for this game. Maybe like a murder mystery sort of thing set on a speeding lightning rail train car that is going a loooooooong distance? If they're too fast, I could instead set it on an airship. But either way, I want the players to be trapped and forced to investigate (maybe not forced, but otherwise they'll just have a nice journey ignoring the murder and then disembark once they arrive lol)
Murder on the Orient Express immediately jumps to mind: everyone is the murderer. You could drop a bunch of red herrings that make it seem like various magical monsters were involved, but the actual cause of each is an ability of one of the passengers.
So I glanced at a Starfinder book today. I knew it was Paizo's take on a sci-fi RPG, but I didn't realize that it still features the planes. Seeing a Djinn packing a laser pistol and wearing sci-fi armor is kinda wild.
So I glanced at a Starfinder book today. I knew it was Paizo's take on a sci-fi RPG, but I didn't realize that it still features the planes. Seeing a Djinn packing a laser pistol and wearing sci-fi armor is kinda wild.
Starfinder takes place in the same universe as Pathfinder, just in the far, far, future (without the main planet from Pathfinder present and mass amnesia over a period of history to allow for continuity differences). It's fun to see their interpretation of the settings far, far future and how they turn very minor details into major setpieces.
If you saw the Djinn, you may have also seen one of my favorite bits: there's a colony inside the sun.
EVERYONE forgot it. Those that DO somehow remember steadfastly refuse to talk about that time period, saying, in essence, "You know what you did"
+3
Options
DepressperadoI just wanted to see you laughingin the pizza rainRegistered Userregular
yeah, I love The Gap
it's not even like, oh civilization collapsed so we have lost records because of the dark ages
it's like, 300 years worth of time, I think. Even written and otherwise recorded records from the time are either missing, incorrect, or outright lies.
EVERYONE forgot it. Those that DO somehow remember steadfastly refuse to talk about that time period, saying, in essence, "You know what you did"
I love that it's not just that people forgot. It's all records are gone.. Flash drives? Paper records? Stone tablet etchings? Nothing. It's both a fantastic plot hook, mystery, and solution to a problem all in one, and it turns a setting trope upside down. Instead of a fantasy setting with tens of thousands of years of history, it's a sci-fi setting with just 300.
I wish I liked the rules of Starfinder a bit more but I love the setting.
Some players want to treat D&D like GTA or something, where NPCs are largely just bystanders to shoot or run over for fun, while others want to pretend every NPC is a real person with real feelings.
I remember a comic from an old print issue of Dragon magazine where one character wanted to tie-up an orc and take him to the nearest settlement for a trial. The other party members protested having to deal with escorting the orc all the way to civilization. Once they reach the gates of a settlement the character who wanted to turn the orc over to the authorities for a trial explained his intentions to a guard. The guard incredulously replies "A trial?! For an orc?!"
I guess my point is should Good player characters be non-lethally subduing humanoids, escorting them to a settlement, and submitting them to the authorities for a trial? Do they need to prepare for such possibilities by bringing along transportation and supplies to keep the prisoners fed? What if the authorities would likely be biased? Does the party just leave the unconscious antagonists alone and go on their way? What if said antagonists wake up only to resume their evil ways and attack others who can't defend themselves?
Oh my god you've taken the Alignment discussion and added the Monster Races discussion. Everyone run. Save yourselves.
I've just got this mental image of Hexmage priming a grenade and hurling it into the middle of the conversation
(in all seriousness, i love these sorts of discussions and think they're valuable. but i had to share the mental image)
Posts
That sounds awful.
Oh yea? Is it the 4e argument where if you remove the bonuses it isn't d&d anymore?
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
I've mostly seen it used to cap things off. Like after a few sessions of character development that changed the outlook of a character, the player took an eraser and went "so yeah, after all that stuff that happened I'm pretty sure [character name] has taken a significant dip towards Lawful" and altering his Neutral to Lawful Neutral. Or DMs changing players' alignments after contiguous sessions of incongruous roleplay. Alignment, far as I've seen used, it's a shorthand to express what you're already doing, not as a constraint of "oh, I can't RP this way, my alignment says X".
So yeah, it's not, like, terribly useful. It's just a thing that is there. Removing it wouldn't actually affect much of anything.
Yeah, likewise.
I mean, also, on some level D&D is a pulp fantasy game, and I would say that it is more or less a genre trope of classic pulp fantasy that capital punishment is justified and good for a variety of crimes. And like, if we want to pretend that this is based on actual history, there are plenty of cultures of that vague 500 year time period that would also have held that belief.
Wait, really? Most games I've played have had players basically try to talk everyone down first if they seemed sentient. And ever since 5E said that you can just smack people nonlethally without penalties, everyone defaults to nonlethal unless they're fighting, like, Mind Flayers or other similar level of absolute psychopath.
"If they remove racial ability scores, what's to stop them from removing racial ability features!?! And then removing class ability features!?!?!?"
"This change is combating my immersion into the game and disrupting the realism & verisimilitude of the game."
"Actually, D&D can be a force for good for showing how racism works and why that's bad. By establishing that different races are different, we can showcase diversity and acceptance."
Those are the primary arguments I have read, and I have attempted to respond to them on another D&D forum I visit, but I eventually had to pull away because I would have been banned if I continued in that discussion.
Systemic/Specific and Selfless/Selfish, respectively, is what I usually go with.
Let's say a character sees a beggar on a street corner:
Systemic/Selfless would see that there's a problem with the city, that such suffering can exist, would work to change that even if it cost them their title, or safety, etc, but would leave that person begging, as the bigger problem is what needs addressing.
Specific/Selfless would give that individual food, then go on their way, helping that one beggar, but no others because they didn't fall into the character's awareness, and whatever inequality was the root problem wouldn't necessarily ever get addressed.
Systemic/Selfish: Would see a city where you can accumulate wealth and power by taking advantage of others and would then try to gain wealth and power by taking advantage of others, en mass
Specific/Selfish: Would wait by the beggar to see where the rich people of the city keep their coin purses then pickpocket them.
I think I've just realized that "Alignment: always evil" didn't just mean "it's okay to kill these guys" but also "you don't have to worry about what you're going to do with these guys if you don't kill them".
I'm imagining now a Lawful Good party rolling up to the gates of a major city with a caravan of wagons and hired mercenaries to deliver a bound young green dragon, forty-one kobolds, twelve lizardfolk, three ogres, and a nothic to trial.
"What was their crime?"
"They're evil."
"They're evil?"
"They were doing evil things."
"What were they doing that was evil?"
"They attacked us."
"They attacked you?"
"Yes. We approached them and they attacked us."
"You approached them, armed and armored to the teeth, yelled 'prepare to die, fiends!' and they attacked you?"
"Yes."
"Good enough for me. Prepare the dragon-sized noose."
I think what I like most about this argument is that it has fuck all to do with anything because this does not become suddenly less true because Half-Orcs are no longer inherently stronger than Humans, or whatever. I also dare this person to show me one campaign where racism was dealt with in a meaningful way and it required racial ability differences to do it, because I call fuckin' bullshit on the second half of that sentence.
Wow, that has not been my experience at all. I think part of it is so far I've been in groups that value combat over roleplaying.
- I think lots of people in general have a visceral response one way or another to rules and authority that has almost nothing to do with the intent or quality of the rules and authority. Some people just like to go along to get along even when that means following monstrous orders; other people bristle at being told what to do even when it's something self-evidently pro-social like wearing a fucking face mask. Some people enjoy the company and society of others and are well-suited to civic life, to having a role in a community, and other people are loners or iconoclasts or downright misanthropes.
- Those inclinations, those tendencies, are independent of a person's capacity for moral or empathetic judgment, so I think they're a useful illustration of the differences between lawful/neutral/chaotic in the vast majority of cases (with the understanding that in D&D's fantasy world you can also be so into Law and Chaos as abstract concepts that you make them your religion and make every decision based on whether it furthers those things above all others, but that extreme applies to a relatively small number of people).
- "Alignment is not a straitjacket" has been in the game for decades. It's not intended to dictate behavior but describe a character's inclinations. Lawful Good doesn't mean "always follows the laws like a robot," it means you try to follow the law and do the most good possible and when the two are in conflict you have a tough choice to make. And if you're Lawful Good in a place with evil laws, well, you're going to have a crisis of conscience pretty frequently, but I don't think that's bad or unrealistic. It seems to me like it's a real state of being that real people actually go through.
- Shorty mentioned Lawful Good as a personal code and adman asked how that could be different from neutral or chaotic good. That seems...pretty easy to me? If we understand Lawful as someone's kind of natural communitarian leanings, as a reluctance to just go it alone, that kind of Lawful Good character would have serious misgivings about, for instance, vigilantism, whereas the neutral good character is just like "dude the law isn't punishing this bad person but I trust my own moral judgment so I will." The Lawful Good-as-a-code guy might end up going along with the decision due to the specific circumstnaces but they're gonna suck their teeth and be kinda unhappy about doing something drastic without the tacit permission or imprimatur of the community behind them.
- A person can just have a kind of visceral, consttitutional dislike of other people or the company of their fellows but not be a mean or immoral person and I would characterize them as chaotic good. A hermit who has no use for civil society or its rules but will aid a traveler in distress without any clear benefit to the hermit seems almost archetypally chaotic good to me. I think we all know people who get really mad - maybe even irrationally so - about taking "orders" from someone distant and abstract, or from authority, but will do the right thing if you frame it in personal, one-to-one terms ("come on dude, wear the mask, I've got a sick grandma at home").
That the next edition of D&D may move away from starting racial bonuses/penalties all-together.
Which, okay? There are people who still play 3.5 & earlier editions, they haven't just vanished into the ether.
Those poor souls. What sins have they committed that they think they deserve that initiative system?
I am kinda having fun imagining the logistics of this.
So the young green dragon has been getting his sycophantic kobold followers, enslaved lizardfolk and ogre minions, and a mysterious nothic ally to raid settlements and caravans for treasure and people to eat. The party was tasked to take care of the threat by the nearby city, assuming that this band of vigilantes would slay all these monsters.
Weeks later, the Lawful Good party returns to the city with their caravan of arrested suspects who had attacked them on sight, despite the party requesting that the suspects peacefully turn themselves in. Now the city has to figure out how to securely detain and feed a large, poison breathing dragon, two ogres, a nothic with dangerous gaze abilities, and dozens of other suspects. Evidence has to be collected, witnesses found, defense attorneys have to be assigned to the dragon and other creatures, trials have to be held, you've gotta figure out if it's even the right young green dragon or if some of the arrested kobolds stayed home while others went on the raids, etc.
Going by the laws of the Clovis Concord detailed in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount (laws which do not include capital punishment even for murder), let's say the young green dragon stands accused of:
- theft in the amount of 85,000 gp
- 15 counts of slave ownership
- failure to pay taxes
- 10 counts of damage to private property
- 5 counts of assault with intent to kill
- 22 counts of murder
If judged guilty on all counts, the young green dragon faces:
- 200,170 gp in fines
- repossession of wealth equal to unpaid taxes to the Clovis Concord
- 222 years, 195 days imprisonment
Even assuming that this young green dragon is six years old, the beginning point of its age category, by the time its sentence is over it will be 228 years old and in the adult category. At this point the now adult green dragon will possess lair actions while in his prison lair (summoning grasping roots, thorny bushes, fog that inflicts a short term charm affect). In addition, the region within a mile around the prison lair will spawn thicket mazes, and the adult green dragon will be able to see and hear through the eyes and ears of rodents and birds.
So if the Clovis Concord is really serious about applying the law equally to a captured dragon, they'll need to construct a special prison in anticipation of the abilities their prisoner will eventually develop. Then they'll need to pay to keep the dragon fed for over two centuries. Even if the dragon doesn't escape on its own ans isn't broken out by dragon-worshiping cultists or whatever during that entire time, what happens when the now adult green dragon's sentence is up and by law is free to go? Is it going to be a reformed Lawful Good adult green dragon, is it going to relish the newfound freedom to exercise the power it has gained as its grown to immediately go on a rampage, is it going to go off somewhere and amass an army to raze the countryside while it searches for its captors' descendants to systematically slaughter them?
Realistically, I imagine that dragon is going to be mysteriously assassinated in its prison before it reaches the adult age category.
a terrible crime indeed
This is great. Thank you for this.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Thanks!
Thinking more about it, considering that metallic and chromatic dragons both are very proud creatures that covet treasure, being imprisoned by "lesser beings" and denied the ability to amass treasure would be an overwhelming source of shame that could drive a dragon mad.
Frankly, considering how much money and space keeping a single dragon imprisoned and fed would require (not to mention the martial and magical power needed to stop an escape attempt), I can't imagine it happens often at all, even in a place like the Clovis Concord where there is no such thing as capital punishment.
Maybe metallic dragons take this responsibility? Maybe they are apprehending and maintaining prisons for evil dragons somewhere?
Similar to their classes, equipment and monsters D&D alignment does not do this because D&D is an ur game whose two design tenants are Being D&D and Being Everything We Promise.
I wonder if you would have to Extradite dragons to the reigning dragons of the region? Would the even recognize mortal governments as valid authority? If you imprison a Dragon is there the expectation that your town gets burned down by other ones as an example?
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
transforming the city streets gradually and subtly into an overgrown maze, plants just keep infesting buildings and crawling up the walls and no one can figure out why
Be even more insidious and have the plant growth and stuff be beneficial, a real hanging gardens of babylon sort of situation, so the town draws in richer and richer people, merchants, and things like that, and the dragon is able to grow their wealth and power, and maybe even have the city become an ally of the dragon who send out and finance adventurers against other dragons.
Everyone who had captured the dragon had been slowly killed off and the memory of this dragon gradually forgotten, the dragon could have left ages ago, but it was too much a good thing now to stay.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
It can't be all things for all people, but it's flexible and simple enough to work for the vast majority of players and characters and if you don't like it you're welcome to ditch it and still play the game.
I don't use alignment as handcuffs, I use it as a writing prompt. It's loose, it's malleable, it's changeable but it's a good guiding light.
Some people play it like "My character is Lawful Neutral, so he would approach this situation like this". That is valid. It helps people who are not so great at roleplay to build and get into character. Especially if they want to create a character who is completely different from the player themselves.
I don't know like... if you don't like the alignment system I think it's totally fine for you not to use it. As a player and as a GM. If a player came to my group and said they didn't use alignment, I would be 100% ok with it as long as they didn't murder other PCs. Every dang page in the DMG has the phrase "If these rules don't work for you, do it your own way!".
Need some stuff designed or printed? I can help with that.
of all the editions of D&D 2nd is the absolute last one I would ever want to play again. hmm, probably something like
1) 4th ed
2) Rules Cyclopedia (basic + expert + companion + master + immortal )
3) 1st ed
4) original D&D
5) 5th ed
.
.
(lots more empty space)
.
.
6) 3.5 ed
7) 3rd ed
8) 2nd ed
9) 2.5 ed
Fixed that for you.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Same for me, but move 5e up to the top. Really it'd just be 5th, 4th, then the Rules Cyclopedia (isn't that old D&D though? I'm not super familiar, but I've had the book for years before I ever even played and I love it)
Murder on the Orient Express immediately jumps to mind: everyone is the murderer. You could drop a bunch of red herrings that make it seem like various magical monsters were involved, but the actual cause of each is an ability of one of the passengers.
Starfinder takes place in the same universe as Pathfinder, just in the far, far, future (without the main planet from Pathfinder present and mass amnesia over a period of history to allow for continuity differences). It's fun to see their interpretation of the settings far, far future and how they turn very minor details into major setpieces.
If you saw the Djinn, you may have also seen one of my favorite bits: there's a colony inside the sun.
EVERYONE forgot it. Those that DO somehow remember steadfastly refuse to talk about that time period, saying, in essence, "You know what you did"
it's not even like, oh civilization collapsed so we have lost records because of the dark ages
it's like, 300 years worth of time, I think. Even written and otherwise recorded records from the time are either missing, incorrect, or outright lies.
but yeah, nobody likes to talk about The Gap.
I love that it's not just that people forgot. It's all records are gone.. Flash drives? Paper records? Stone tablet etchings? Nothing. It's both a fantastic plot hook, mystery, and solution to a problem all in one, and it turns a setting trope upside down. Instead of a fantasy setting with tens of thousands of years of history, it's a sci-fi setting with just 300.
I wish I liked the rules of Starfinder a bit more but I love the setting.
I've just got this mental image of Hexmage priming a grenade and hurling it into the middle of the conversation
(in all seriousness, i love these sorts of discussions and think they're valuable. but i had to share the mental image)
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891