Bards, paladins, rangers and battle spells

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by kgauck

> Extreme alignments are all the alignments that have no "neutral"
> element, that is, the LG, CG, LE, and CE alignments.

* That`s always from the point of view. For an NG character CG
* or LG isn`t an extreme alignment, but LN, CN, LE, NE or CE is... ;)

# That`s pretty much exactly where I was coming from. Extreme
# alignments are those that are most in opposition to each other - pretty
# much any lawful and any chaotic, any good and any evil, etc.

We should distingush between in-character and out-of-character analysis
here. One analyis observes that the alignment chart typically has a middle
and an edge, another analysis takes a position on the chart and then notices
that some positions are nearer to it than others. These are different forms
of analysis for different purposes. When we`re discussing role-play, the
subjective analysis is the better one. When we`re discussing game
mechanics, the objective analysys is the better one.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

Exactly my point! "Extreme alignments" is a game mechanics term, reffering to the alignments that recide on the far edges of the law-vs-chaos axis and the good-vs-evil axis. These are LE, CE, CG and LG.

Furtermore, I really liked what has been told (see previous posts) concerning the application of excisting themes or spells in battle. "Scare the horses" and "Line of Force" rock!

[geeman]

I remember reading way back in the day some stuff about how the Law-Chaos
dichotomy of the alignment system could in some ways disturb the Good-Evil
aspect of alignments. That is, a character who was lawful good could not
necessarily be as good as a character who was neutral good because his
lawfulness in many ways pulled him away from goodness. A very lawful
character, for instance, would be willing to make the occasional sacrifice
of an individual lawbreaker (or accused lawbreaker) for the sake of
upholding the law (in a legal sense) itself. Legality and honor are highly
important to a lawful good person, where a neutral good person would always
look for the absolute good regardless of whether that good had a chaotic
influence or a lawful one.

In such an interpretation (which I believe was 1e--though I`d have to look
it up if anyone really wants a reference) there is no alignment that is
more extreme than any other. A character might be "more lawful" than
another but the nature of alignment itself isn`t such that the alignments
themselves exist on extremes.

In Monte Cook`s _Book of Hallowed Might_ he has a brief section about
assigning a numerical value to the alignments of characters. The all exist
on a scale from 1-9 or so with various numbers representing how much the
character embraces that alignment. A character who was L3G9, for instance,
might refuse to harm any living thing as part of his "G9" and genuinely
respect all authority figures as part of his L3. However, to be L4 or
better the character would have to be willing to see one person killed or
injured if it helps a large number of people. That starts contradicting
the G9 aspect of the character, making for a moral quandary that is not
resolvable within the scope of the G9 part of his alignment.

As an interesting extension on such a system, one could make those numbers
a "point value" rather than a simple assessment and dole them out as a
reward during play. That way characters would have to "level up" into
particular goodness/evil or law/chaotic in the same way they gain
powers. Since those aspects of alignment in D&D have in many ways actual
material effects that might make some sense, particularly in a campaign in
which alignment was to play a major part.

In effect, I think this is a much more realistic (if I can use that word
without drawing too many smirks) way of treating alignment since it
addresses some issues that many people seem to overlook or purposefully
ignore--that the perpendicular aspects of alignment are in contradiction to
one another. They do not contradict as directly as the ones that exist on
the same line, but they are influences.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

Originally posted by geeman:
In Monte Cook`s _Book of Hallowed Might_ he has a brief section about
assigning a numerical value to the alignments of characters. The all exist
on a scale from 1-9 or so with various numbers representing how much the
character embraces that alignment. A character who was L3G9, for instance,
might refuse to harm any living thing as part of his "G9" and genuinely
respect all authority figures as part of his L3. However, to be L4 or
better the character would have to be willing to see one person killed or
injured if it helps a large number of people. That starts contradicting
the G9 aspect of the character, making for a moral quandary that is not
resolvable within the scope of the G9 part of his alignment.

I really liked the Book of Hallowed Might - and that element is one of those variant rules I want to incorporate in some form. The main downside is that it adds a bit to the bookkeeping side, the upside is that it is a way to mechanically award role-playing, beyond simply giving XP. The system also reminds me a bit of Humanity or the other paths in Vampire.

Beyond that, though, there's a couple of feats - Accolade and Adoubement, that I'd consider highly appropriate for Birthright campaigns.

Overall, top-notch D&D content which I think'd be appropriate for most campaigns.

[geeman]

At 03:04 AM 6/12/2003 +0200, Mark Aurel wrote:

>I really liked the Book of Hallowed Might - and that element is one of
>those variant rules I want to incorporate in some form. The main downside
>is that it adds a bit to the bookkeeping side, the upside is that it is a
>way to mechanically award role-playing, beyond simply giving XP. The
>system also reminds me a bit of Humanity or the other paths in Vampire.
>
>Beyond that, though, there`s a couple of feats - Accolade and Adoubement,
>that I`d consider highly appropriate for Birthright campaigns.
>
>Overall, top-notch D&D content which I think`d be appropriate for most
>campaigns.

Yeah, it`s got some very interesting stuff in it. Particularly as to
neutral good and chaotic good paladins, the feats (as you mention) and some
of the stuff regarding new spells. The alignment section is intriguing and
makes me wonder about how it might be incorporated into a
game. Personally, I don`t like the alignment system much all by itself. I
prefer a system of allegiances rather than alignment as it is more
versatile. One could, however, extend the "point value" or "numerical
rating" system of the alignment system proposed by MC into an allegiance
system. One could be Evil(4), Ghoere(3) and Lawful(2).

Those numbers might represent the overall attitude of the character as
determined by the player, but I`m starting to like the idea that one has a
certain amount of points based on character level and they are distributed
by the player after some discussion with the DM. After accomplishing a
mission in support of a particular organization a character might level up
and point a point into his allegiance to that organization should the
player and the DM think it warranted. Those numbers might also effect
things like Diplomacy actions or other effects normally reserved for the
reputation score. At least, that`s the kind of direction I`m thinking this
stuff my go in my homebrew.

As you note it does create something of a bookkeeping issue. In general, I
don`t much worry about that kind of thing when it comes to the "non-play"
periods of the game. That is, character generation and after the
adventuring portion of play when one doles out rewards. Anything that
causes play to slow is a problem, but if it occurs during the bookends of
play then the bookkeeping isn`t such an issue.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 7:00 PM


> A character who was lawful good could not necessarily be as good
> as a character who was neutral good because his lawfulness in many
> ways pulled him away from goodness.

The Star Trek RPG recomended these kinds of moral conflicts as one of the
central recuring themes of a good Trek campaign Any time you can posit
competing goods you can give meat and drink to good role-players. I see
Haelyn as a particularly ethically concerned sect (Wisdom based, law, the
possibility of LE and CG priests) and have tried to pose such dilemas to the
Haelynites in the group. Talinie as I have it is divided by various
interpretations of Haelyn, some of which hinge on questions of law and good.
The NIT is a NG temple, AFAIC compared to the more southern temples, which
are LG or LN.

> In Monte Cook`s _Book of Hallowed Might_ he has a brief section about
> assigning a numerical value to the alignments of characters. [...]
> As an interesting extension on such a system, one could make those numbers
> a "point value" rather than a simple assessment and dole them out as a
> reward during play.

I keep track of these along with the seven chivalrous traits and two
enviromental traits I track as part of my overall reputation system. When
characters meet strangers, I roll to see if they are recognized, and then at
the very least they are known by their leading trait, and possibly by
several traits. Character who are, say, lawful good are almost never both
in sufficient qualities so as to be recognized for both their lawfulness and
their goodness. The lawful qualities, honesty, faith, and duty generally
shine, or the good ones do, compassion, humility, and grace. The only
exception is a priest of Haelyn. The Anuirian knight IMC is LG, but he`s a
good 4, law 7 by Monte`s system.

If one is going to invest in a reputation system, Monte`s numbered alignment
is worth a read.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[odintsaq]

All alingments except CG are extreme (perhaps sometimes NG isn't extreme)
Odin([_]

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> I keep track of these along with the seven chivalrous traits and two
> enviromental traits I track as part of my overall reputation system.

Are you by any chance playing Pendragon? =)

(Wonderful game system for everyday life, especially for regents of small
domains, or in Anuirean and Rjurik lands, but probably not a very good fit
for BR magic.)


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:16 AM


> > I keep track of these along with the seven chivalrous traits and two
> > enviromental traits I track as part of my overall reputation system.
>
> Are you by any chance playing Pendragon? =)

Nope. Never really looked at it. Star Trek had a reputation system based
on getting points for archetypal actions. Rokugan did that for d20. Then
the Dragon offered such a system for playing chivalrous characters. So, I
added a system like that which included a rating for stewardship of the land
and protection of the land. Stewardship means you use the land according to
Erik`s teachings, Protection means you protect the land from those who would
abuse the land. A close match between the reputation of the PC and the
NPC`s values can improve NPC attitude. Considerable distance is a penalty
to attitude.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, I honestly disagree with the idea of placing alignment points. I f you do, then place them in a 1 to 9 scale of:

1 to 3 are Chaotic
4 to 6 are Neutral
7 to 9 are Lawful

and:

1 to 3 are Evil
4 to 6 are Neutral
7 to 9 are Good

or something like that. Alignments represent tendencies, not tennets! If you have paladin or other tennet bound characters (ie, samurai) in your campaign, make them follow them, or let them taste the consequences! Role-playing and its rewards cannot be ruled by mechanics. A Lawful Good character can allow a foe a fair fight, or bind and teleport the same foe to justice before being slain by the character's comrades!

Anyway, the whole alignment discussion has been introduced by my mistake, and I suggest we leave it and talk more about the original subject of the thread.

If anyone agrees, well... he/she knows what to do.

[RaspK_FOG]

Change "tennet" to "tenet"... Sorry!