Too much Evil?
So my starting party of 4 PCs ended up with 2 evil characters (+1 neutral and 1 lawful) – fun, but… then I looked at the probability distribution of Evil alignments among playbooks and while 50% evil is unlikely, it does seem to skew towards Evil/Chaotic and away from Good/Lawful. The reason for this is that the Cleric + Fighter are balanced across all alignments but both the Thief and MU skew towards Chaos/Evil. Hence the overall bias.
The reason I ask is that, especially for AD&D, Gary + much material seemed to present the players as the “good guys” (in general) eg see his Roleplaying Mastery book. The current slant in Freebooters seems contrary to that.
My random thoughts – could we at least balance things out by making Fighters + Clerics more likely to be Law/Good than is standard at present? I can also see a case for adding a Lawful (perhaps only 1 in 12) and even Neutral for MUs…what do you think?
sure, or just don’t use alignment
sure, or just don’t use alignment
Fictionally, I like the idea of MU’s who are Lawful – they HAVE to follow the rules in their tomes, and this leaks out into their personal lives – they aren’t flexible, they hate change (at least change that isn’t meticulously documented), etc etc. And certainly Neutral – they are only interested in discovering the “truth”, regardless of whom it hurts or helps.
Fictionally, I like the idea of MU’s who are Lawful – they HAVE to follow the rules in their tomes, and this leaks out into their personal lives – they aren’t flexible, they hate change (at least change that isn’t meticulously documented), etc etc. And certainly Neutral – they are only interested in discovering the “truth”, regardless of whom it hurts or helps.
Personally, I think it sucks to tie playstyle requirements to character classes. It may be ‘interesting’ for the DM, but what matters most is if the players are having fun playing the character they want to play.
Basically, prescriptive alignment blows.
Personally, I think it sucks to tie playstyle requirements to character classes. It may be ‘interesting’ for the DM, but what matters most is if the players are having fun playing the character they want to play.
Basically, prescriptive alignment blows.
Well, the alignments in FontF and DW in general give you incentives to play in a specific way. You don’t have to play that way, but if you do you get XP. It’s not prescriptive. It’s incentive.
Well, the alignments in FontF and DW in general give you incentives to play in a specific way. You don’t have to play that way, but if you do you get XP. It’s not prescriptive. It’s incentive.
Rob, I had never noticed the alignment imbalance before, so thanks for pointing that out. Certainly you can tweak class alignments to your taste without negatively impacting the game in any way.
FotF as written is predicated on the idea that players will be ready and willing to roll with whatever random results the dice deliver, since my home group (not just me as GM) really enjoys that style of play. Obviously not every group enjoys that, but I think the basic mechanics can be tweaked easily enough to accommodate other play styles. Allowing free class and alignment choice would be one easy way to do that.
Rob, I had never noticed the alignment imbalance before, so thanks for pointing that out. Certainly you can tweak class alignments to your taste without negatively impacting the game in any way.
FotF as written is predicated on the idea that players will be ready and willing to roll with whatever random results the dice deliver, since my home group (not just me as GM) really enjoys that style of play. Obviously not every group enjoys that, but I think the basic mechanics can be tweaked easily enough to accommodate other play styles. Allowing free class and alignment choice would be one easy way to do that.
Also, I should add that I’m listening to all of the comments here and will be taking reported experiences into account when I eventually get around to putting together a FotF 2.0.
Also, I should add that I’m listening to all of the comments here and will be taking reported experiences into account when I eventually get around to putting together a FotF 2.0.
I treat rolls of evil as chaotic unless I really trust a player.
I treat rolls of evil as chaotic unless I really trust a player.
Jason Lutes thanks. This might also be something to consider in a more dramatic way for the kid-friendly version…it may be best to veer away from evil altogether for that?
Jason Lutes thanks. This might also be something to consider in a more dramatic way for the kid-friendly version…it may be best to veer away from evil altogether for that?
Ian Wyckoff I am happy enough with the random approach, it is very OSR and pushes our play into unexpected places. The rules do say you can choose rather than roll. I’m also happy with things like wizards tending to chaos/evil as it is very swords and sorcery but as I said maybe this should be a trend rather than an absolute so Law+Neutral IMO should be possible alignments for them.
Ian Wyckoff I am happy enough with the random approach, it is very OSR and pushes our play into unexpected places. The rules do say you can choose rather than roll. I’m also happy with things like wizards tending to chaos/evil as it is very swords and sorcery but as I said maybe this should be a trend rather than an absolute so Law+Neutral IMO should be possible alignments for them.
Rob Brennan Many DMs and game designers are happy enough with alignment. Do the players enjoy it, or is it something they put up with to get to the parts they enjoy?
I think my point is that prescriptive alignment, or ‘coerced’ alignment, or whatever you want to call it when the game mechanics punish/reward certain play personalities and goals, violates the separation of powers in which the players have the right to control their own decisions and playstyle, in contrast to the DMs overwhelming power to control everything else.
Randomized, prescriptive alignments change the game from one of self-determination, to a theater exercise. Did you act out the character you were randomly given well enough? Then you get a cookie!
Rob Brennan Many DMs and game designers are happy enough with alignment. Do the players enjoy it, or is it something they put up with to get to the parts they enjoy?
I think my point is that prescriptive alignment, or ‘coerced’ alignment, or whatever you want to call it when the game mechanics punish/reward certain play personalities and goals, violates the separation of powers in which the players have the right to control their own decisions and playstyle, in contrast to the DMs overwhelming power to control everything else.
Randomized, prescriptive alignments change the game from one of self-determination, to a theater exercise. Did you act out the character you were randomly given well enough? Then you get a cookie!
Ian Wyckoff My response to your post is to say that a) being “forced” to play something a player is not used to playing can lead to a lot of fun and b) if the player is directly uncomfortable they should be able to play whatever alignment they want. As Rob Brennan says, rules say you can choose rather than roll.
Ian Wyckoff My response to your post is to say that a) being “forced” to play something a player is not used to playing can lead to a lot of fun and b) if the player is directly uncomfortable they should be able to play whatever alignment they want. As Rob Brennan says, rules say you can choose rather than roll.