Quote from: Skarg;1031891"Let me tell you about my exciting character - he's 1/8 elf 1/4 half-orc 1/8 halfing 1/8 dragonborn-tiefling-devil 1/8 half-dragon 1/8 brownie 1/8 bugmoose-centaur were-jaguarundi Fetishist/Unicorn-Rider!"

You should have had the fractions add up to more than one

I think that this kind of thing happens from snowflake inflation. Lot's of people want special character, someone who stands out from the rest of the fictional world. That makes sense, not many players want to play the average peasant.

Being a high elven wizard is pretty special, but after a while it doesn't seem so special anymore. It's just another common adventurer type. So, maybe a half elf and half orc. Or a faerie orc, or what ever. More special, more different, more unique until we get into the realm of silliness.

This isn't necessarily a problem with settings, though I think that some settings can encourage this attitude. If a setting has special snowflake NPC's all over the place. If you walk down the street and see elves, orcs, and ogres on average street corner and the local village elder is a 15th level wizard and the local priest is a 12th level cleric, then players are going to want some kind of added feature to make their own characters seem cool and unique in a world overflowing with specialness.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1031725The opposite of balance is hegemony. A True Neutral character will tend to help the opposite of whichever side seems to be gaining the upper hand in order to maintain balance, so the antithesis would be someone who tries to help whichever side appears to be winning in order to end the ancient struggle.

No, it's not. The opposite of balance is disbalance, pure and simple.
Hegemony is a strongly hierarchical order. It's one of the manifestations of disbalance, but "total chaos" is the other. It's the "horseshoe theory" in action;).

Quote from: RandyB;1031781No, I understand quite well what Entropy means. And on the Gygaxian "Law-Chaos" alignment axis, Chaos does not equal Entropy.

Given that entropy is defined as "lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder", I strongly doubt that. Unless you mean Gygax was making up new meanings of words, not just crafting neologisms.

QuoteEven so, if "Imbalance = Entropy" is a stumbling block for you, I'll drop it. You're welcome.

It is, but the whole idea that neutrality is a form of extremism still doesn't make sense. Both Order and Chaos are the extremes between "a balance between Chaos and Law".

QuoteNevertheless, there is a diametric opposite to balance, and that opposite is imbalance, which puts Balance at one extreme end of an alignment axis, and Imbalance at the other. True Neutrals are extremists.

So Imbalance=Chaos and/or Law, when taken to extremes (as well as Good and/or Evil).
True Neutrals aren't extremists. They're just people who know that too much Law is stiffling, and too much chaos is dangerous.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1031820I really hate the whole "menagerie of freaks" party that's become so common. My ideal party is two humans and two demihumans, not cat-person, turtle-person, dragon-person, and devil-person.

Well, I actually include demihumans in the "menagerie of freaks". But I agree with the general feeling:D!

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1031820I really hate the whole "menagerie of freaks" party that's become so common. My ideal party is two humans and two demihumans, not cat-person, turtle-person, dragon-person, and devil-person.

This one gets on my nerves too.  It starts feeling like Myth Adventures.  Like the whole world is the Bazaar of Deva as drawn by Phil Foglio (how's that for a deep cut).  In anything resembling a realistic world that would result in pitchforks and torches, non-stop.

In my setting only Dwarves, Elves and Aarakocra are welcomed into human communities.  Dwarves are considered as more or less brothers of men and generally pass without notice, while Elves tend to invoke awe and a lot of curious gawping. Aarakocra are considered funny and non-threatening, and most works as entertainers of some sort.

Anything else?  Pitchforks and torches.  All day, every day.  You walk into town with any combination of fur, fangs, claws or horns, and you are being asked to leave in the least polite way possible.

I offered to drop "entropy" from the conversation. You declined. So be it.

Quote from: AsenRG;1031917Given that entropy is defined as "lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder", I strongly doubt that.

In real world physics, your definition is correct, as it describes a physical phenomenon identified by taking the Laws of Thermodynamics to their logical conclusion. And I have known this for several decades. I am also able to distinguish between this and the following...

Quote from: AsenRG;1031917Unless you mean Gygax was making up new meanings of words, not just crafting neologisms.

He did. As Gygax defined the Law-Chaos axis in his moral and ethical alignment schema, starting in the 1e AD&D Player's Handbook, he used Chaos to refer to an ethical concept unrelated to entropy. Since that book was published in 1978, and all editions of D&D derived from it (2e, 3.x, PF, 5e) have retained a definition of Chaos-as-an-alignment derived from Gygax's work, you are obviously too short for this ride.

Quote from: AsenRG;1031917It is, but the whole idea that neutrality is a form of extremism still doesn't make sense. Both Order and Chaos are the extremes between "a balance between Chaos and Law".

True Neutrals on the 2-dimenstional Law-Chaos/Good-Evil grid are extremists on the Balance-Imbalance axis, where Balance is their chief value and Imbalance their antithetical value.

Oh, OK. I'll throw you a bone. True Neutrals who value balance are not extremists on that third axis. The extremes of that third axis are imbalance and stasis, where balance is a dynamic state that only exists across space and time - and planes, if you want to go there. So at any given point in space and time, balance cannot and will not be found or established. Cosmically, balance is then potentially self-sustaining, needing no champions to establish or maintain it.

As an aside, I note that you are using Law-Chaos as a single alignment axis. In that alignment schema, I prefer definitions of Chaos that are synonymous with Entropy. That makes for an existential conflict. And existential conflicts eliminate a lot of the moral pseudo-quandaries that bad DMs like to throw at players.

Quote from: AsenRG;1031917Well, I actually include demihumans in the "menagerie of freaks". But I agree with the general feeling:D!

My preferences of late are definitely in the "all-human PC party" direction, with demihumans as less "near human" and more "alien but not inimical".

Quote from: Franky;1031893Rocks Fall.  It dies.

Oh NOOOOOOoooooooOOOooo!!!

Quote from: Sergeant Brother;1031898You should have had the fractions add up to more than one

Ew, I had almost forgotten talking to a player who did that, and didn't understand fractions, or percentages... or genetics.

Quote from: Sergeant Brother;1031898I think that this kind of thing happens from snowflake inflation. Lot's of people want special character, someone who stands out from the rest of the fictional world. That makes sense, not many players want to play the average peasant.

Being a high elven wizard is pretty special, but after a while it doesn't seem so special anymore. It's just another common adventurer type. So, maybe a half elf and half orc. Or a faerie orc, or what ever. More special, more different, more unique until we get into the realm of silliness.

This isn't necessarily a problem with settings, though I think that some settings can encourage this attitude. If a setting has special snowflake NPC's all over the place. If you walk down the street and see elves, orcs, and ogres on average street corner and the local village elder is a 15th level wizard and the local priest is a 12th level cleric, then players are going to want some kind of added feature to make their own characters seem cool and unique in a world overflowing with specialness.

Yeah, I think you're pretty much right about that. Also what Steven Mitchell wrote above about wanting racial benefits. And hey, they should just get all the good powers they want from every race they find and list on their pedegree, right? Same with lycanthropy, vampirism, lichcraft - it's all just a shopping list of cool powers, right?

Goes great with agreements that the party should all get along and work together and be on a railroad course to save the world...

Quote from: RandyB;1032015I offered to drop "entropy" from the conversation. You declined. So be it. ...

Uh oh!

Quote from: AsenRG;1031917True Neutrals aren't extremists. They're just people who know that too much Law is stiffling, and too much chaos is dangerous.

  This is why I don't have any problems myself with the 'balance' principle as applied to Law and Chaos, although I'm also fine with a "Law is generally 'good', Chaos is generally 'evil'" approach in a monaxial system. It's when you try to state "Good is objectively Good, Evil is objectively Evil ... but both are equally valid and fundamental principles of the cosmos" that my suspension of disbelief goes ka-blooey.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1032020This is why I don't have any problems myself with the 'balance' principle as applied to Law and Chaos, although I'm also fine with a "Law is generally 'good', Chaos is generally 'evil'" approach in a monaxial system. It's when you try to state "Good is objectively Good, Evil is objectively Evil ... but both are equally valid and fundamental principles of the cosmos" that my suspension of disbelief goes ka-blooey.

Agreed. Particularly when you move past cartoon-level ethics (where heat and cold are opposites) into the genuine article where evil is more properly defined as the absence of good instead of its opposite (as in a proper understanding of physics heat is motion at the atomic level and cold is not atomic movement in the opposite direction but the absence/reduction of atomic movement). Theologically, the Christian interpretation of Hell isn't something opposed to God, its the complete absence of God's presence.

Any theology that argues that you have to encourage a certain level of murder, rape and slavery in the world and that those seeking to wipe those things out need to be opposed is either evil, a lunatic and/or a complete hypocrite. The hypocrisy specifically is that they have declared that allowing moral evils to exist is actually their highest good... and since that is a good end it must also be kept from getting too strong relative to the evil of allowing good or evil to grow too strong.

Neutral only makes sense on the So-called ethical axis of Law(stasis)/Chaos(entropy) where too much of one or the other can be a bad thing (and it can further be argued that the normal mortal range of the law/chaos spectrum all falls within the Neutral range compared to Cosmic level divide of Stasis vs. Entropy... even your typical Chaos-Lord wants to rule more than the eternal darkness of a post-protonic decay universe... nor does your typical Champion of Order dream of all Creation frozen forever in unchanging stasis).

Honestly, I think Palladium got it right with its 'no neutrals' (in relation to good/evil) with its Good/Selfish/Evil spectrum. The Selfish character would be perfectly happy in a world without murder/rape/slavery; but they aren't going to go out of their way to end such practices unless it directly affects them and/or might be okay with committing a few evil acts to get what they want if they don't see any better way (while evil characters take pleasure in engaging in those acts against others).

Good/Selfish/Evil and Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic are a lot clearer and sensible to my mind. Instead of True Neutral you'd have Selfish Neutral... someone willing to perform the occasional evil act to preserve the balance between order and chaos... Chaotic Selfish which will engage in evil acts if it keeps the most people free of Order's iron grip (basically your terrorist/freedom fighter who justifies some attacks on civilian targets for the greater good of bringing down a tyrant)... and Lawful Selfish which will use whatever means is most practical to ensure order; the carrot when possible, the stick when not.

This also keeps good and evil in context with regard to ethical neutrality as well. Neutral Good won't cross any moral lines in keeping the balance while Neutral Evil keeps the balance by any means necessary and without remorse.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1031666Magic.

Stupid players.

Humanity bring on top of the racial food chain. When the only advantage seems to be a ability to breed like rabbits and a drive to succeed. Apparently in too many fantasy rpgs non-humans have no drive to succeed. Then again previous editions of D&d tried to hard to emulate Tolkien imo. Dwarves have too low a birth rate and are dying out. The FR elves leave the mainland to hide out in Evermeet. At least give them a special racial ability which explains why they out perform every other race. Alignment not because I hate it so much that too many players run Lawful Good as Awfully Stupid with DMs sharing equal blame. Just waiting for the Paladin player to fall. Don't get me started on "I can't play class XYZ unless I play Chaotic Neutral" types. DMs trying to put in modern morality into D&D. "sorry you can't kill the orc because um, er Geneva Convention on prisoners".

For me it's technology creep. We go from standard medieval type weaponry, like crossbows ans siege engines. Next thing you know, there are guns and you have gadgeteers running around with flimsily disguised near-20th century tech. And don't get me started on "crashed alien ships with laser guns lying around to pick up."

Quote from: sureshot;1032070Humanity bring on top of the racial food chain. When the only advantage seems to be a ability to breed like rabbits and a drive to succeed. Apparently in too many fantasy rpgs non-humans have no drive to succeed. Then again previous editions of D&d tried to hard to emulate Tolkien imo. Dwarves have too low a birth rate and are dying out. The FR elves leave the mainland to hide out in Evermeet. At least give them a special racial ability which explains why they out perform every other race.

I solved that one with a fairly simple solution in my campaign setting; humans get the benefits of information density.

All the nigh-immortal races (elves and elemental avatars in this case) have a finite quantity of souls to go around. Once they hit their population limit, no new offspring are born until one dies and their overall numbers are so low they just don't have the society capacity for specialization much beyond iron-age technology.

While the Beastmen (a whole catch-all of once magitech engineered former slave species like minotaurs, crocodin and wolfen who broke free of man's control a couple of societal collapses back) can theoretically outbreed humans because they reach maturity in about two years, they are still largely ruled by their animal instincts when it comes to population patterns (i.e. herds/packs more akin to tribes that break up into smaller groups past a certain point) and so never achieve reach the critical level of societal specialization that comes with larger population centers. They also only live about 60 years.

Humans (and dwarves, who are just a subspecies of humans adapted by long ago magics to life as subterranean miners), by contrast, not only live longer (thanks to advances by past civilizations cancer and genetic defects were wiped out so, barring accident, famine, toxins/disease or homicide, the typical lifespan is just over a century) but also have no limits to their population size like the immortals (via limited numbers possible) or Beastmen (via lack of large group cohesion) do. This allows them to do things like specialize in trades which in turn leads to technological advancements (they literally invented arcane magic and created the various Beastmen species from common animals for just two examples) that the other species just can't pull off.

They're also hubris personified so their entire history (and thus the history of the world) is one of great empires rising, often reaching pinnacles beyond any empire before them, only for them to collapse in on themselves... with each fall greater than the last. The current setting is about 200 years after the worst one yet... a magical catastrophe simply called the Cataclysm so severe and with such lasting consequence (creating all manner of hideous mutations among other problems) that the planet's population density is still less than one sapient per square mile on average (the city of 15,000 in the campaign region is considered the greatest metropolis for a thousand miles and the relatively small populated zone around it is surrounded by countless miles of ruin-filled and monster haunted wilderness with the next closest point of civilization weeks away when travel is good) and the only reason they're not back in the stone age is because of bits of technological know-how they were able to hold onto and because good steel is so ridiculously available with little effort from the ruins of the past civilization (just beneath the surface of the many hills that the ancestors said once scraped the sky).

I love these threads.

One person's pet peeve is another's must have.

It's quite interesting, especially seeing numerous similar pet peeves appear to be D&D mainstays.

Trying to rationalize D&Disms.  Dungeons, magic, the huge number of different creatures occupying exactly the same ecological niche, none of it makes any sense. Trying to force it to make sense takes away the fun.

I don't mind games that treat some of these with realism and rationality. "Dungeons" that are designed as actual structures with sensible ecosystems for example. But don't expect those games to lend themselves to the wild and wooly style of D&D.

I actually play a lot less D&D than used to because i got so sick of trying to rationalize D&Disms and realized I would rather play games that make more sense.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1032083I love these threads.

One person's pet peeve is another's must have.

It's quite interesting, especially seeing numerous similar pet peeves appear to be D&D mainstays.

Yeah it's particularly interesting to me since I'm knocking together a setting for my first time GMing. It's basically a mishmash of the Old World from WFRP, the Lands of Legend from Dragon Warriors and RE Howard's Hyboria. All of these settings use historical, real world cultural pastiche to describe different regions. I hadn't thought about creating anything super original or detailed because I want to get into the meat of setting creation (i.e frontier town and some nearby 'sites of interest'), and in the interest of not spending too much time on things that likely won't come up in play I'll probably stick with what I've got.
But it was interesting to me that many of the classic settings that I enjoy reading about and playing in are pet peeves for some. I think because most of the gamers here are fairly experienced there is a sense of 'been there, done that' with historical pastiche. I doubt it would prevent many here from playing in a well run WFRP campaign, however.

The Hyborian Age is awesome for a RPG for the same reason Tony Bath chose it for his wargames campaign; you can have any human culture from "cavemen" to the High Middle Ages, and everything in between.  Saxon Huscarles fighting Egyptian Chariots?  NO PROBLEM!  And in RPG terms you can have anything from grimy city adventures to desolate wastelands to pseudo-Arthurian chivalry to demon-haunted temples.