The conversion process continues apace, but with several breaks for what I like to call "reality checks." I'm stuck on which alignment system to use. Given the Basic three-alignment system does not seem to work logically in the system, I need to come up with some other method. At first I thought that simply changing from one axis (Lawful - Chaotic) to the other (Good - Evil) would solve the problem, but then adding in the sub-classes to the mix makes me realize that this is perhaps not enough. Moving to a 5-alignment system (LG, LE, N, CG, CE) also seems to not make much sense, although curiously this seemed to be the system the Monster Manual used. Ever wonder why there are so few monsters not of these five alignments? The nine-alignment system has been in place since 1st edition and has not changed since that time. This may be the method to use since it has seen the least amount of modification (although there are numerous people who have balked at the definitions of this system).
Curiously, I looked up Assassins last week and realized that they were originally conceived of as having a Neutral alignment, and were not necessarily allowable as player characters (required DM permission), although the same could be said of all the non-standard classes in OD&D. Given the rationale in the description I could see this as a possibility, however the game is entrenched in Good vs. Evil, black vs. white, and killing for profit is very much an evil thing in my book. Use of deadly poisons is also an arguably evil thing. I believe that the Assassin may have been the antithesis of the Paladin as originally conceived.
So let's look at the Paladin class. The only real requirements of being a paladin are a high Charisma (17 or 18 score) and having to be and remain Lawful in alignment (later Lawful Good). Since Lawful = Good in the old system, this is rather redundant and a poor requirement given that there are only 3 choices and one (Chaotic) is typically avoided for player characters. So all the characters in D&D are typically Lawful or Neutral. Having a requirement like this is ridiculous since you probably would select that alignment half the time anyway. Moving to the 5-alignment system, there is still only one additional choice, so the limiting requirement is not such a limitation after all. The Paladin gets a lot of useful abilities for these requirements. Now, the high Charisma is not so easy to downplay, but I can remember lots of paladins running around in our early campaigns, and I can guarantee that most of them were NOT rolled using 3d6 (or even 4d6).
Assuming that Paladins are used, LG would be the alignment restriction to keep. Using Druids limits them to Neutral in alignment. Assassins would be required to be the same alignment as thieves, but lean heavily towards Evil alignments. I would not keep an Assassin from being Neutral, but such a character would have to prove themselves to be more of a bounty hunter with a bring 'em back alive motto, or someone sent for religious or political reasons to take out only evil dictators or threats to civilization. Such a character could be considered Neutral, but never Good by any means. In fact, it's interesting to note that except for the use of poison, such a character is essentially a Paladin sent to take out what their superiors tell them to. The difference is that the assassin wants to be paid, but the paladin donates his loot to some other charitable organization and cannot retain large amounts of wealth. Given that D&D is all about the rewards (treasure especially), an Assassin makes more sense in a traditional dungeon than a paladin. This is probably the reason why the "novelist" approach to gaming came into being, to give those goody-two-shoes a reason to be in an adventuring party when they make much better mission-appointed temple agents and patriarch guards.
The Ranger class can either be considered to be Lawful (Good) in nature or Neutral if using the old system, although I tend to see them as more CG or NG in the 9-alignment system seeing as they are tutored by druids and elves. Their selfless nature, endangering themselves for the good of others, seems much more in line with a good alignment, but their not-so-direct methods of attacking from the shadows and using ranged weapons tends to keep them from a traditional and military (lawful) style of fighting, much like the elves. They make better scouts and agents than leaders. I could see rangers as being Neutral in the old system, but that seems counter-intuitive to me since the alignment requirement seems to dictate the actions of the Ranger. So I suppose that the Good alignment component remains.
In the end we get to the 1st edition paradigm for the classes, and as much as I hate to admit it, the 1st edition rules work better in so many ways. However, I am still a fan of the Basic version of combat. In my first games, we would mix the two systems together to make the whole thing work and it seemed like it did for a long time. It wasn't until I started trying to piece together the rules for combat from the Dungeon Master's Guide that all the confusion started. Is the added complexity good? It seems to be, but at some point adding more to the game takes away from the enjoyment as the later versions proved. You can only seem to have fun so long as you keep it as a game - the more of a hobby you make it the more involved you get and seek answers in-game to questions that never really can be resolved with the roll of a die.
I'm going to keep trying to resolve the differences, but I still feel like the evolution of the game into 1st edition and beyond is a natural course of such things and that in the end we should end up simply picking bits and pieces from each edition that work the best. Accepting limitations once everyone has been given all the options is very difficult unless the DM can somehow explain why choosing these things is not necessarily better. Some people just want to be the most powerful thing on two legs and will lord over everyone else to get it. Thankfully I am not one of those people and neither are the people I currently play with.
No comments:
Post a Comment