Top 10 changes will 5E D&D have to implement to satisfy you?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Actually, I can understand why they'd keep alignment in the game.

That's one of the textbook examples of a concept that's bad for gameplay but great for marketing. I wouldn't keep it in, personally, because you'd have to start the weaning somewhere but the fact that various nerds out there who don't play D&D will gleefully have a discussion about whether Darth Maul was Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil is enormously helpful for the product.

[Winnah]

No. It is not. Star Wars morality is possibly even more idiotic then D&D morality. Even the expanded universe can't reconcile its flaws.

Imposing jaundiced behavioral constraints in a game where your character is expected to exert a measure control over the story is far more a hinderance than a help. It becomes intolerable when it is used as an excuse to penalise players for not acting within character, especially as 'acting within character' and 'acting within alignment' are not the same thing.

But whatever. If it is like 2e alignment, expect people to complain when they have to pay double XP to level for acting Chaotic when their character gets drunk. If it is like 3e, then break out the morality metal every time you want to stab an angel or demon. If it is like 4e, then it is essentially a waste of space on the character sheet.

[FatR]

Actually, I can understand why they'd keep alignment in the game.

That's one of the textbook examples of a concept that's bad for gameplay but great for marketing. I wouldn't keep it in, personally, because you'd have to start the weaning somewhere but the fact that various nerds out there who don't play D&D will gleefully have a discussion about whether Darth Maul was Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil is enormously helpful for the product.

This.

And to be honest, I find alignment perfectly useful as a typecasting/character role crutch for NPCS. When serving as the same for PCs? Here problems begin, particularly when alignment is tied to gameplay penalties. And it really becomes bullshit when tied to the cosmology.

[TheFlatline]

But Paladins should totally be LG with a super-code. Fuck all that post-modern noise about objectivity and fairness in alignments: Paladins are the personification of Lawful Goodness. All their powers should represent that selfless dedication to protecting the innocent and righting wrongs. Batman, ye olde ideal knight.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA Wait, you're calling Batman a paladin? The dark vigilante who operates outside of the rule of law?

The problem with your definition of Paladin is that picking a character class picks your character as well. Paladins are boring as fuck, which is why we rarely see them in roleplaying games. You can have a complicated, shades of grey party with lots of interaction, and then there's the fucking paladin, who is cartoony in how good they *always* are.

Paladins as devoted zealots make for a much more interesting class option. You *can* have the LG classic paladin that way and still keep the trope, but you can also have some real... interesting shit. Like the Paladin of Helm who doesn't stop the band of orcs, but follows in their wake, showing up after raids to heal people, or the paladin of war who is a master manipulator and engineers entire wars to satisfy his god.

[TheFlatline]

Actually, I can understand why they'd keep alignment in the game.

That's one of the textbook examples of a concept that's bad for gameplay but great for marketing. I wouldn't keep it in, personally, because you'd have to start the weaning somewhere but the fact that various nerds out there who don't play D&D will gleefully have a discussion about whether Darth Maul was Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil is enormously helpful for the product.

This.

And to be honest, I find alignment perfectly useful as a typecasting/character role crutch for NPCS. When serving as the same for PCs? Here problems begin, particularly when alignment is tied to gameplay penalties. And it really becomes bullshit when tied to the cosmology.

Alignment is almost okay for a very rough starting outlook for a PC, if you can even define what the alignment axis means.

But generally yeah, the alignment axis has almost made it into mainstream (or at least internet memes). Ditching it would be a bad thing from a marketing standpoint.

[BearsAreBrown]

The simple solution is to keep the alignment axis in the text while removing it from the game.

[hogarth]

And to be honest, I find alignment perfectly useful as a typecasting/character role crutch for NPCS. When serving as the same for PCs? Here problems begin, particularly when alignment is tied to gameplay penalties. And it really becomes bullshit when tied to the cosmology.

Right. They could replace "Lawful Good" with "Libra" and "Chaotic Evil" with "Scorpio" and get something just as use(ful/less).

[ishy]

Right. They could replace "Lawful Good" with "Libra" and "Chaotic Evil" with "Scorpio" and get something just as use(ful/less).

Bull, I have an idea what lawful good or chaotic evil means (sure mine won't be exactly the same as someone elses) but I've never even heard of libra because I've never played street fighter (that is the one that scorpio is in right?).

But anyway, chaotic and lawful are stupid. But Evil / Good isn't that weird to have in the game imo.

[Chamomile]

Um...Libra and Scorpio are zodiac signs.

[Blicero]

Honestly, I think an alignment system based on MtG's colors (which many people have suggested on this forum) would be a smart and sensible decision. Each color has a semicoherent ethos, it has a set list of powers that relate to said ethos, and it has built-in rivalries and alliances with other colors. But no color is unambiguously "good" or "evil" or wotever.

[Lago PARANOIA]

But the kind of sperglords who play and discuss D&D -- such as ourselves -- love categorizing shit. Even if the categories don't make any fucking sense. Hell, I'd say especially so.

If I was designing a game I would change the Lawful - Neutral - Chaos axis to Societal / Tribal / Familial but with punchier names. That'd do a much better job at describing the morals and outlook of a character than Law - Neutral - Chaos, even if it would still cause arguments at the table such as debating whether a Societal Evil person is actually less evil than a Familial Good person. But whatever.

[No Big Deal]

Honestly, I think an alignment system based on MtG's colors (which many people have suggested on this forum) would be a smart and sensible decision. Each color has a semicoherent ethos, it has a set list of powers that relate to said ethos, and it has built-in rivalries and alliances with other colors. But no color is unambiguously "good" or "evil" or wotever.

I play a lot of magic, and this sounds like a pretty good idea. If you wanted each color not be good or evil you'd have to stray a little from the source material, though. White has very few canonical villains, and black has very few heroes. I'd probably have a white aligned crusader (in the historical, not gaming sense) organization.

Your point on game mechanics is solid, though I'm not sure how much I want alignment to benefit character. If its not well balanced you risk having characters be "Red" or "Green" because its stronger, rather than because its what fits their character. Not sure if that's really a problem though. If you make it just cosmetic on the other hand, you risk people calling you on"meaningless fluff."[/url]

[Lokathor]

The annoying part is that the names of the five colors and their use as a group have even been copywritten and also trademarked by WotC, so folks can't run off and jot down a "use this to replace the alignment system in your game" document and hand it out without potentially getting WotC after you because of trademark infringement, even if you write it all from scratch to avoid copyrights.

[MGuy]

I don't like alignment as it is right now but I would like some kind of behavioral rules that would inspire a given player to play their characters in a consistent fashion. I find, all too often, that many players tend to not be very consistent with their character's flaws and traits. Alignments and most other behavioral restraints don't work very well (as far as I've seen) so I'm hoping that something similar to the Vices and Virtues of WW would do the job but I'm very sure that they are going to keep alignment in in some fashion.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I play a lot of magic, and this sounds like a pretty good idea. If you wanted each color not be good or evil you'd have to stray a little from the source material, though. White has very few canonical villains, and black has very few heroes. I'd probably have a white aligned crusader (in the historical, not gaming sense) organization.

White villains: the Order of Heliud from the plane of Regatha, and Konda of Eiganjo from the plane of Kamigawa

Black heroes: Toshiro Umezawa from the plane of Kamigawa and Sorin Markov (although the latter is Black/White in the latest version)

[Blicero]

Honestly, I think an alignment system based on MtG's colors (which many people have suggested on this forum) would be a smart and sensible decision. Each color has a semicoherent ethos, it has a set list of powers that relate to said ethos, and it has built-in rivalries and alliances with other colors. But no color is unambiguously "good" or "evil" or wotever.

I play a lot of magic, and this sounds like a pretty good idea. If you wanted each color not be good or evil you'd have to stray a little from the source material, though. White has very few canonical villains, and black has very few heroes. I'd probably have a white aligned crusader (in the historical, not gaming sense) organization.

Your point on game mechanics is solid, though I'm not sure how much I want alignment to benefit character. If its not well balanced you risk having characters be "Red" or "Green" because its stronger, rather than because its what fits their character. Not sure if that's really a problem though. If you make it just cosmetic on the other hand, you risk people calling you on"meaningless fluff."[/url]

I almost wonder if it might be a decent idea to crib and modify Burning Wheel's Artha system.

You'd get something like fate points or whatever for acting in a way consistent with your alignment. The fate points don't even have to be dissociated mechanics. For example, you could have your setting have five moons, one for each of the colors. Doing stuff that your color digs would imbue you with some of the moon's power. Etc.

And I'd take it for granted that the colors' abilities would have to be fairly balanced.



I did not know, though, that WotC had copyrighted the colors. That is really kind of dickish.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I did not know, though, that WotC had copyrighted the colors. That is really kind of dickish.

I would think that they would have trademarked them instead...

[tussock]

But Paladins should totally be LG with a super-code. Fuck all that post-modern noise about objectivity and fairness in alignments: Paladins are the personification of Lawful Goodness. All their powers should represent that selfless dedication to protecting the innocent and righting wrongs. Batman, ye olde ideal knight.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA Wait, you're calling Batman a paladin? The dark vigilante who operates outside of the rule of law?

What's that got to do with it? Go read your 3e PHB again. Lawful has fuck all to do with obeying the intricacies of the legal system; it's about respect for tradition, social position, and various other one-true-wayisms. Plus honesty. Paladins in particular are all over vengeance, it's in their code.

Lawful folk respect the President more than anyone, Chaotic folk might respect this President (but maybe respect some other random dude far more). Batman sends the crazy people to the asylum by putting them in front of judges, works with the Mayor and Police Chief. He's old money, Lawful. Freely gives of himself to help the needy and protect the innocent, Good.

LG: Batman. That's how that works.

The problem with your definition of Paladin is that picking a character class picks your character as well. Paladins are boring as fuck, which is why we rarely see them in roleplaying games. You can have a complicated, shades of grey party with lots of interaction, and then there's the fucking paladin, who is cartoony in how good they *always* are.

Bullshit. You're doing it wrong. There's none of that in the Paladin's code or the LG alignment. Try reading the fucking manual.

Paladins as devoted zealots make for a much more interesting class option. You *can* have the LG classic paladin that way and still keep the trope, but you can also have some real... interesting shit. Like the Paladin of Helm who doesn't stop the band of orcs, but follows in their wake, showing up after raids to heal people, or the paladin of war who is a master manipulator and engineers entire wars to satisfy his god.

Again, RTFM. Paladins don't have to fight when they can't win, they're not suicidal, it's not Lawful Stupid. The Helmite can follow a massive Evil army and aid it's victims just fine (though he'd be better to pass before it and get everyone to avoid them if he felt he could). Your war-god Dwarf Paladin can go to war with the growing power of the Goblin nation just fine, on account of all their constant Evil acts toward the innocent. It's not that hard, eh.

[Midnight_v]

...I don't agree with Tussock. Just my 2 cents.

Moving on, there are a huge number of ttrg's in existance. . . Which one has the best system for governing personality type?
I remember gurps having like "Abberant", "Selfish" etc, can't rember if it was any good.
I do agree that on of the main dumbounding thing is how they try to tie the great wheel to maximized alignment states, having monsters that exemplify each stat.

Since we KNOW they're going to keep alignment, I'd like them to do a better job spelling out what it means to be Lawful X, and Chaotic X, in a way that actually makes them different things.

Giant Frogging, I can live with, because it's SOMETHING, but I want them to either take it out or make it make sense.

If move/keep the paladin in some stupid fucking "Not tied to gods, but tied to good"
Then the tough questions need to be answered hard right there in the book.

Do paladins kill baby kobolds? Yes/No.

Paladin detects that the king (and parties current patron) is evil (you're in his courtroom) What exactly is he required to do.

The Rogue in the party is snarky/mercenary cool evil, so fucking basically so he can say "I"m on team evil" in the same shitty way paladins get to say "I"m on team good" ...
So captain america, and deadpool can never be on the same team.
Needs to stop.
"Gotcha" at all needs to stop... but I've talked to many paladin players when the Crusader came out and you know I've found that they enjoy playing "gotcha" on some shitty selfish level.
So... I guess the fall has to go in some way, but "Detect Evil" has to go, so no one can just go "HE's EVIL: Lets start the killing".

Edit: Paladin. Paladin should require group approval, I find that it's often the other way around.
So much so that... having "Knight"/"Crusader" be the base class and paladin be prc only is almost strictly better in every sense.

[shadzar]

1. get rid of WotC and all employees of WotC associated with it

2. return to AD&D second edition and actually try to fix problems with it, that ARE problems, and better explain things (players dont need to know the monsters AC)

3. get rid of any skill system. releplaying not roll-plating. sorry if you cant come up with an idea, but there doesnt need to be a universal rule for everything for everyone to play by. if you cannot play the game, then there are other options of entertainment for you. skill-challenges... ha-fucking-ha

4. bring back the DM. player empowerment has bastardized the game so that the DM is just the banker in Monopoly. players get to choose form characters that can fit in the world the DM designs, and have the right to use those characters in a manner they see fit. if the DM isnt working for you, and you cannot communicate to the DM as a group or even individual what you like.. then nothing will fix your game, you jsut dont work with this DM. trust the ones that make a good game and stop trying to fight them.

5. get rid of WotC

6. magic healing can only be done by people with innate magic, not mundane non-magical people. pfft healing surges ha-fucking-ha

7. fighters simply pick something up and hit things with it. no extensive groups of lists needed, just grab your base stats, and a chair or gnome and start beating the shit out of things.

8. money has a purpose. the game doesnt tell you what you can do with it, but offers lots of thing you can do with it, and you get enough to do stuff with it. it is up to you and your group/DM to decide how to spend money. it isnt a function of levels that you get money, but buying hookers, and booze if you so choose needs to be i the basic games. dont try to create a universal game economy or minimum loot per level (WBL) crap

9. goblins are everywhere. sure they may not present a level appropriate fight, but a more real feel has a populace world with its races spread throughout. just because your character sheet may say level 10, doesnt mean the character or an in world goblin knows anything of this, and may challenge you even though it will not pose much of a threat.

10. if it can be a monster it can be a PC. they should be designed the same way so they work together in the same world. a dragonborn PC and dragonborn monster has no reason to have two different set of creation rules. so any intelligent enough to function as a PC monster, should be able to be used as a PC.

11. alignment returns and properly explained. good isnt always what the PCs are, and they arent always fighting evil. teach people how the two axis work, and get rid of the concept of 9 finite alignments. NEVER mix the axis except for shorthand notation. law and chaos has nothing to do with good and evil save for they are each components that make the millions of possible combinations and permutations of morality.

"Lawful Good" doesnt exist, one is "lawful, good" or "lawful AND good" but there is no such thing as "lawful good". learn English and grammar and use it properly in explaining the game.

[Winnah]

Oh good. Alignment debate. Let's jumpstart the FUN of the new edition.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA Wait, you're calling Batman a paladin? The dark vigilante who operates outside of the rule of law?

What's that got to do with it? Go read your 3e PHB again. Lawful has fuck all to do with obeying the intricacies of the legal system; it's about respect for tradition, social position, and various other one-true-wayisms. Plus honesty. Paladins in particular are all over vengeance, it's in their code.

Lawful folk respect the President more than anyone, Chaotic folk might respect this President (but maybe respect some other random dude far more). Batman sends the crazy people to the asylum by putting them in front of judges, works with the Mayor and Police Chief. He's old money, Lawful. Freely gives of himself to help the needy and protect the innocent, Good.

LG: Batman. That's how that works.

Wrong.

Batman is not honest. Secret identity. His entire life is an elaborate lie.

Batman does not respect established tradition and authority. He is a vigilante, as such he undermines expected cultural norms. Normal people do not spend their time plotting in a guano filled cavern.

Batman is not motivated by a need to protect the innocent. He experienced trauma as a child which drives a pathological desire to inflict that same trauma on others. He's Dexter without the snuff. A crazy guy running around in his underwear and a cape, trapped in a nightmare of his own creation since as a child he watched his parents gunned down in front of him.

Chaotic Neutral. Chaotic Evil when he kicks people for enjoying ice cream.

[Juton]

If Batman was chaotic neutral or chaotic evil he would have iced Joker deliberately. That might happen off to the side but in the main continuity he shows a lot of restraint in not killing him. A chaotic character would look at Joker, come to the conclusion that he'd just get out and kill some more, then end him. Knowing Joker's history, Batman not killing him is a stronger argument that he is lawful neutral, he holds his code above the lives of others.

Another key part of the Batman mythos is that Gotham city is supposed to be corrupt as fuck, at least in the beginning, so he is acting lawful in alignment when he fights that corruption.

[Lago PARANOIA]

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that alignment hurts the individual games, helps the product.

[souran]

Oh good. Alignment debate. Let's jumpstart the FUN of the new edition.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA Wait, you're calling Batman a paladin? The dark vigilante who operates outside of the rule of law?

What's that got to do with it? Go read your 3e PHB again. Lawful has fuck all to do with obeying the intricacies of the legal system; it's about respect for tradition, social position, and various other one-true-wayisms. Plus honesty. Paladins in particular are all over vengeance, it's in their code.

Lawful folk respect the President more than anyone, Chaotic folk might respect this President (but maybe respect some other random dude far more). Batman sends the crazy people to the asylum by putting them in front of judges, works with the Mayor and Police Chief. He's old money, Lawful. Freely gives of himself to help the needy and protect the innocent, Good.

LG: Batman. That's how that works.

Wrong.

Batman is not honest. Secret identity. His entire life is an elaborate lie.

Batman does not respect established tradition and authority. He is a vigilante, as such he undermines expected cultural norms. Normal people do not spend their time plotting in a guano filled cavern.

Batman is not motivated by a need to protect the innocent. He experienced trauma as a child which drives a pathological desire to inflict that same trauma on others. He's Dexter without the snuff. A crazy guy running around in his underwear and a cape, trapped in a nightmare of his own creation since as a child he watched his parents gunned down in front of him.

Chaotic Neutral. Chaotic Evil when he kicks people for enjoying ice cream.

This is the real problem with alignment. Batman could be chaotic good or lawful good. You can find further evidence to support each position by limiting yourself to golden age/silver age/pre modern/new 52.

Really, alignment cannot be interupted by ACTIONS, which is sad because thats the way the rulebooks try to portray it.

Alignment is substantially more important as a persons internal moral compass and philosophy. A lawful good ruler and a chaotic evil ruler could both come up with reaons why they have to decimate their population. The good rulers reaons would include justifcations of how many more are saved or how many would be further harmed. The evil ruler might just be because he wants to but in the end they EACH can do the action without violating their alignment.

[Winnah]

Helps which product? Batman comics?

I fail to see any connection between a shitty, but well known D&D mechanic and a measurable improvement to the success of a brand. Iconic or not, alignment is either a hinderance or a redundant feature.

Justifying its inclusion in a new system to provide an ill defined framework for fanboy arguments does not appeal to me. But I guess it is better than hanging on to bad mechanics purely for the sake of sentiment.