The General D&D thread

Well, soon I'll be graduating from college, and after that I probably won't be able to play much anymore...It's difficult enough to schedule a day everyone can be there now. I'm sure it's even more difficult outside of a college setting.

and what about CHA based spellcasting? magic comes from teh pretteh?

Force of personality.

The way I always saw it, magic was drawn from willpower alone, and channeled through different means. wizards squeeze the power out through fundamental mastery, Sorcerers through natural ability, bards through craftyness, clerics and paladin's through zeal. it all came from a universal source inside them, they just channel it in different ways.

I also think of all magic as being fundamentally the same—it all uses the same rules system, after all. To me, "magic" is a sort of energy field that permeates the multiverse (and in fact may be an emanation of the multiverse). INT-based spellcasters, as you said, cast spells through careful practice. CHA-based spellcasters do it through sheer force of will.

WIS-based spellcasters do it through personal attunement to said energy. In most settings, this connection is "set up" by an intervening deity who channels its own power through the spellcaster. Druids and non-theist or polytheist clerics, though, find their own connection through meditation or introspection.

so you could say that divine casters simply draw that power from an unknown source. even if their are no gods, there's the unifying will of civilization, or the noble spirit? maybe their really is no explainable reason, and you can make that a plot point in the future?

This is kind of how 4e Cavaliers work, they don't need to worship a god.

Re: alignment, Law and Chaos don't work if you try to define them that way. At all. The classic example is Batman — is he lawful or chaotic? He has his own strict code of conduct (no guns, no killing) but he completely ignores the laws of his society (vigilantism is illegal). It just doesn't work. Here's how I define D&D alignments. It has nothing to do with the official definitions (because they're broken), but I think it captures the spirit of things, at least. (Sidenote: Batman is Chaotic Good by my definitions.)

Law vs. Chaos is the many vs. the few, the group vs. the individual. Being lawful means considering groups more important than the individuals who make them up; they're willing to sacrifice a few for the sake of the many. Being chaotic means considering individuals more important than the groups they're part of; they're willing to defy the masses for the sake of a single person.

Good vs. Evil is yourself vs. everyone else, selfishness vs. altruism. Being good means considering others more important than yourself; they're willing to sacrifice themselves to benefit others. Being evil means considering yourself more important than others; they're willing to harm others to benefit themselves.

• Lawful Good: Fights for the benefit of a country, religon, or other large group, even if they're not a part of it.
• Chaotic Good: Fights for the benefit of specific people, even if they don't get anything out of it.
• Lawful Evil: Fights for the benefit of their own country, religion, etc, without thought for anyone outside that group.
• Chaotic Evil: Fights for the benefit of themselves, individually, personally, without thought for anyone else.

On the subject of action-vs-intent, I'm firmly on the side of intent. If you're intending to help others, then you're good, no matter how badly you screw it up and make things worse. However, that cuts both ways — if someone claiming to do something for the good of others is actually doing it for selfish reasons (revenge, power, whatever) then he's evil, even if it does actually help others.

That said, for the purposes of things like Smite Evil, Blasphemy, and other mechanical effects that rely on alignment, I tend to restrict those to alignment subtypes. Smite Evil won't do extra damage to a petty thief (evil though he may be), but it will to a demon.

edited 22nd Feb '11 8:01:23 AM by NativeJovian

The world is run on belief.

The wizard believes that his rituals and ingredients grant him the power to cast fireballs, and it is so.

The priest believes that his god has bestowed upon him the power to heal, and it is so.

The sorcerer believes his soul hums with magic, and it is so.

The barbarian believes the mightiest foe can be felled with his axe, and it is so.

We must make sure they never learn this, young supplicant. If they realised the power they hold, the world would shatter and darkness would swallow the sun. And because we believe it, it is so.

- Seerlord Azathis, leader of the Shadow Conclave

(OK, so there's quite a bit of Mage The Ascension in there. Call it cross-pollination.)

edited 22nd Feb '11 2:29:47 PM by CountDorku

naw, thats how I always saw it working too. it makes for quite a unifying force behind everything.

as far as alignments. I think alignment's should either be looked at as:

In the end, Alignments shouldn't make you lose sleep at night. It's simply a general world-view, and nothing more.

Re: alignment, Law and Chaos don't work if you try to define them that way. At all. The classic example is Batman — is he lawful or chaotic? He has his own strict code of conduct (no guns, no killing) but he completely ignores the laws of his society (vigilantism is illegal). It just doesn't work. Here's how I define D&D alignments. It has nothing to do with the official definitions (because they're broken), but I think it captures the spirit of things, at least. (Sidenote: Batman is Chaotic Good by my definitions.)

Batman would be Lawful Good by mine- as he does follow a set of rules. Just not EVERY set of rules.

Being Lawful means respecting social structures and other people's rules (hence LAWful). It means working within the system. A character can behave in a consistent way but still be Chaotic because s/he doesn't play by societal norms.

edited 23rd Feb '11 6:42:36 AM by Filby

I disagree with that stance in general- people get too hung up on the fact that "lawful" has thw word "law" in it, in my opinion- but that doesn't matter here:

Filby, note that the previous poster said "in my system". If you check said system. which was posted a few posts back, you'll note that it specifically calls out the fact that in this system it's following a consistent, personal code, rather than the rules of society at large.

But back on the more geenral case: my LG Cavalier (Pathfinder game) is currently in the process of possibly overthrowing the rightful ruler of a small nation, and has already broken quite a lot of laws- stopped some taxes being paid (they were rather excessive) and attacked a guard post; but she's still Lawful. In her case, the Law is "Noblesse Oblige", the the local Nobles don't look terribly Obliging.

So she's gonna nobble them.

edited 23rd Feb '11 6:54:46 AM by MorkaisChosen

Side note, but who are your favorite classic D&D villains? For me, it has to be the demon lord Dagon. He's a revered oracle figure among demonkind, is suggested to be the oldest of all demon lords, and manipulating DEMOGORGON to achieve his goals. Makes me think he has a Xanatos Gambit in the works that we haven't seen yet.

Mine's Demogorgon himself. Most powerful demon lord, check. Batshit insane, check. Cultured, check. Fuck yeah demonic schizophrenia FTW. >>

I'm actually planning a campaign in which the forces of several demon lords start a huge Evil Versus Evil Enemy Civil War to take up the throne of a dead god (Asmodeus).

I'll acknowledge a bit of a soft spot for Acererak and Strahd.

the Lord of Blades is the coolest religious nut slash freedom fighter you will ever have the misfortune of facing.

edited 23rd Feb '11 12:39:41 PM by Dynamod

We have villains we don't make up?

@Cygan: Demon Lords And Arch Devils, the Lord of Blades, the Lady Of Pain, many, many others. <<

I see.

Any Dragons?

Strahd Von Zarovich, Asmodeus, Orcus... and Warduke.

The Lady of Pain totally isn't a villain. She's more like a force of nature.

How true.

@Cygan: Ashardalon and Cyan Bloodbane. There are more, but those are the only ones I can think of.

Speaking of Ashardalon, he's another of my favorite villains. An ancient red dragon with a bound balor in place of his damaged heart, what's not to love?

If you want to consider evil deities, Tiamat herself could count as a dragon.

edited 24th Feb '11 3:07:46 PM by ZealotVedas

So, I am considering making huge retools to the Goblins, making them a Fantasy Counterpart Culture to the three Celtic peoples. Is this worth its own thread?

No idea. I guess it would be fine, if you don't mind people talking about other things at the same time.

I still got my 2E Arms and Equipment Guide somewhere... Best supplement, in my opinion. I liked the concise descriptions for each entry and the artwork, although little more than pen and ink, was really nice.

I credit that supplement to wanting to outfit a dirt-poor Fighter in Quilted armor just for the lulz factor.

Villain I forgot to mention: Kyuss, AKA the Worm that Walks.

Hmm...

Okay. So, for my D&D campaign, I'm introducing elements from Eberron.

So, uh... I'm looking for interesting things to do with golems.

Anybody got any stories to share about these?