Quote from: RPGPundit on June 01, 2021, 08:32:55 AM

Quote from: TJS on May 31, 2021, 12:21:00 AM
I honestly couldn't give a flying fuck about Alignment.

A Demon is still a demon.

If the Orcs are carrying kidnapped children to put in the cooking pot to eat later no one's going to stop and debate alignment.

Except the same situation that leads them to abolish alignment is what leads them to fill their fantasy settings with half-demons and half-vampires and undead and goblinoids that just act like normal 21st century people, where every fantasy city is a diverse tolerant hipster society. Killing a demon suddenly becomes a questionable Hate Crime.

Precisely. It's the insertion of 21st century mores and concepts into a quasi-medieval setting that turns the game dysfunctional and disjointed.

Should you emulate EVERYTHING about those times? No. I borrow from the SCA on that one -- limit your realism for the sake of fun. But remember that heroes NEED villains to battle. Give them some, for crying out loud.

(This ties into a thought I've had about SJWs -- they're desperate to find a worthy battle, but in a lot of cases they're unwilling to face a serious opponent. So they spend a lot of time 'punching down' and avoiding real conflicts.)

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 01, 2021, 08:26:07 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 01, 2021, 07:48:33 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 31, 2021, 07:29:22 PM
Yeah, I'd put Set more under Chaotic Neutral overall. Ra is probably Lawful Good, Horus is Neutral Good (lawful leanings, but a couple of his stories have him being a bit on the chaotic side in dealing with his uncle... I'm thinking of the semen salad dressing specifically; there's no way a Lawful entity came up with that stunt).

Hathor on the other hand is a split personality LG/CE depending on whether she's in goddess of motherhood or the wrath of Ra who was slaughtering humanity and drinking their blood and was so horrific that even Ra didn't dare face her directly so he invented beer, died it red so it looked like blood and got her drunk on it until she mellowed out and became good natured Hathor again.

The Egyptians have some fairly wacky hijinx in their mythology.

Real cultures don't think in terms of D&D alignment. Trying to map real life culture's deities to D&D alignments is an exercise in futility.

For example, the Greek gods are psychopathic rapists who destroy cities out of jealousy and spite. D&D labels them all "good", except Hades who gets labeled "evil" because death is scary and evil... despite in myth Hades being the only god who didn't torment mortals.

Screw the alignment mechanic! It's an absurd mechanic made by autists that flies in the face of real ethics and mythology.

If nothing else, then WotC removing alignment will hopefully end all these pointless arguments about what mythological or pop culture figure fits into which alignment.

Oh, I don't use Alignment in my own games at all (I use a variant of the Allegiances system)

Everyone knows Alignment in the real world is ridiculous... you just need to look at the "Batman of Every Alignment" chart to know this is the case. That doesn't mean it's not fun to try and slot non-game things into anyway, just for the laughs.

Everyone also knows that about the Greek Gods too (there's also a pretty good argument that all the philandering was actually a political attempt at religious syncretism in a culture that didn't have an actual word for rape and considered women, and a good percentage of men, to be basically livestock)... but you joylessly bring it up anyway.

Why do I feel that RPGs are more a joyless crusade for you and not something you actually enjoy?

If you can't have fun with ridiculous mechanics then what's even the point of RPGs?

Right now I'm more of a world builder. I'm currently world building a system-agnostic fantasy setting that could be suitable for roleplaying, wargaming, video gaming, etc.

I can't help but be frustrated at how... fractured and incoherent the D&D "lore" is, even within a single setting. Like, the demons and devils don't have any kind of coherent art direction. There's no artistic motif unique to either to make them readily distinguishable from one another. For comparison, the chaos daemons in Warhammer have more coherent motifs.

The slaad, by contrast, do have a coherent art direction (frog people) but this makes little sense in regard to them being personifications of chaos. Wouldn't it make more sense for slaad to look like a unique patchwork of various bodyparts like the mongrelmen/mongrelfolk?

But I digress. This isn't the right thread for that.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 01, 2021, 11:25:10 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 01, 2021, 08:26:07 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 01, 2021, 07:48:33 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 31, 2021, 07:29:22 PM
Yeah, I'd put Set more under Chaotic Neutral overall. Ra is probably Lawful Good, Horus is Neutral Good (lawful leanings, but a couple of his stories have him being a bit on the chaotic side in dealing with his uncle... I'm thinking of the semen salad dressing specifically; there's no way a Lawful entity came up with that stunt).

Hathor on the other hand is a split personality LG/CE depending on whether she's in goddess of motherhood or the wrath of Ra who was slaughtering humanity and drinking their blood and was so horrific that even Ra didn't dare face her directly so he invented beer, died it red so it looked like blood and got her drunk on it until she mellowed out and became good natured Hathor again.

The Egyptians have some fairly wacky hijinx in their mythology.

Real cultures don't think in terms of D&D alignment. Trying to map real life culture's deities to D&D alignments is an exercise in futility.

For example, the Greek gods are psychopathic rapists who destroy cities out of jealousy and spite. D&D labels them all "good", except Hades who gets labeled "evil" because death is scary and evil... despite in myth Hades being the only god who didn't torment mortals.

Screw the alignment mechanic! It's an absurd mechanic made by autists that flies in the face of real ethics and mythology.

If nothing else, then WotC removing alignment will hopefully end all these pointless arguments about what mythological or pop culture figure fits into which alignment.

Oh, I don't use Alignment in my own games at all (I use a variant of the Allegiances system)

Everyone knows Alignment in the real world is ridiculous... you just need to look at the "Batman of Every Alignment" chart to know this is the case. That doesn't mean it's not fun to try and slot non-game things into anyway, just for the laughs.

Everyone also knows that about the Greek Gods too (there's also a pretty good argument that all the philandering was actually a political attempt at religious syncretism in a culture that didn't have an actual word for rape and considered women, and a good percentage of men, to be basically livestock)... but you joylessly bring it up anyway.

Why do I feel that RPGs are more a joyless crusade for you and not something you actually enjoy?

If you can't have fun with ridiculous mechanics then what's even the point of RPGs?

Right now I'm more of a world builder. I'm currently world building a system-agnostic fantasy setting that could be suitable for roleplaying, wargaming, video gaming, etc.

I can't help but be frustrated at how... fractured and incoherent the D&D "lore" is, even within a single setting. Like, the demons and devils don't have any kind of coherent art direction. There's no artistic motif unique to either to make them readily distinguishable from one another. For comparison, the chaos daemons in Warhammer have more coherent motifs.

The slaad, by contrast, do have a coherent art direction (frog people) but this makes little sense in regard to them being personifications of chaos. Wouldn't it make more sense for slaad to look like a unique patchwork of various bodyparts like the mongrelmen/mongrelfolk?

But I digress. This isn't the right thread for that.

God forbid we talk about actual gaming in the gaming forum. Yeah, I guess we have to go back to calling people Maoists and SJWs and pretending that's about gaming rather than a culture argument thinly veiled in gaming as an excuse to vent about politics and culture.

For me, I'd much rather talk about your world building ideas.

Quote from: Mistwell on June 01, 2021, 11:39:36 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 01, 2021, 11:25:10 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 01, 2021, 08:26:07 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 01, 2021, 07:48:33 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 31, 2021, 07:29:22 PM
Yeah, I'd put Set more under Chaotic Neutral overall. Ra is probably Lawful Good, Horus is Neutral Good (lawful leanings, but a couple of his stories have him being a bit on the chaotic side in dealing with his uncle... I'm thinking of the semen salad dressing specifically; there's no way a Lawful entity came up with that stunt).

Hathor on the other hand is a split personality LG/CE depending on whether she's in goddess of motherhood or the wrath of Ra who was slaughtering humanity and drinking their blood and was so horrific that even Ra didn't dare face her directly so he invented beer, died it red so it looked like blood and got her drunk on it until she mellowed out and became good natured Hathor again.

The Egyptians have some fairly wacky hijinx in their mythology.

Real cultures don't think in terms of D&D alignment. Trying to map real life culture's deities to D&D alignments is an exercise in futility.

For example, the Greek gods are psychopathic rapists who destroy cities out of jealousy and spite. D&D labels them all "good", except Hades who gets labeled "evil" because death is scary and evil... despite in myth Hades being the only god who didn't torment mortals.

Screw the alignment mechanic! It's an absurd mechanic made by autists that flies in the face of real ethics and mythology.

If nothing else, then WotC removing alignment will hopefully end all these pointless arguments about what mythological or pop culture figure fits into which alignment.

Oh, I don't use Alignment in my own games at all (I use a variant of the Allegiances system)

Everyone knows Alignment in the real world is ridiculous... you just need to look at the "Batman of Every Alignment" chart to know this is the case. That doesn't mean it's not fun to try and slot non-game things into anyway, just for the laughs.

Everyone also knows that about the Greek Gods too (there's also a pretty good argument that all the philandering was actually a political attempt at religious syncretism in a culture that didn't have an actual word for rape and considered women, and a good percentage of men, to be basically livestock)... but you joylessly bring it up anyway.

Why do I feel that RPGs are more a joyless crusade for you and not something you actually enjoy?

If you can't have fun with ridiculous mechanics then what's even the point of RPGs?

Right now I'm more of a world builder. I'm currently world building a system-agnostic fantasy setting that could be suitable for roleplaying, wargaming, video gaming, etc.

I can't help but be frustrated at how... fractured and incoherent the D&D "lore" is, even within a single setting. Like, the demons and devils don't have any kind of coherent art direction. There's no artistic motif unique to either to make them readily distinguishable from one another. For comparison, the chaos daemons in Warhammer have more coherent motifs.

The slaad, by contrast, do have a coherent art direction (frog people) but this makes little sense in regard to them being personifications of chaos. Wouldn't it make more sense for slaad to look like a unique patchwork of various bodyparts like the mongrelmen/mongrelfolk?

But I digress. This isn't the right thread for that.

God forbid we talk about actual gaming in the gaming forum. Yeah, I guess we have to go back to calling people Maoists and SJWs and pretending that's about gaming rather than a culture argument thinly veiled in gaming as an excuse to vent about politics and culture.

For me, I'd much rather talk about your world building ideas.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

The basic premise of my setting is that there are a multitude of fantasy planets connected by a stargate network. Some of these planets host cultures resembling pastiches of historical Earth cultures or mythic/fairytale creatures. One planet might be a huge desert ruled by pharaohs, another a tidally locked world whose twilight and dark side is ruled by slavic vampire lords, another an immense primeval forest ruled by forest gods and woodland fairies, etc.

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 01, 2021, 08:32:55 AMExcept the same situation that leads them to abolish alignment is what leads them to fill their fantasy settings with half-demons and half-vampires and undead and goblinoids that just act like normal 21st century people, where every fantasy city is a diverse tolerant hipster society. Killing a demon suddenly becomes a questionable Hate Crime.

It works for settings like Planescape and Spelljammer and even Rifts.

But those days are long past and all these new "diverse" settings are just agenda platforms now. It allows them to infiltrate, co-opt, control and contaminate more and more.

Combine this with the Moral Guardian Bleeding Hearts who want to scrub everything nice and save and clean and you have our current state of nearly everything.

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 01, 2021, 08:32:55 AM

Quote from: TJS on May 31, 2021, 12:21:00 AM
I honestly couldn't give a flying fuck about Alignment.

A Demon is still a demon.

If the Orcs are carrying kidnapped children to put in the cooking pot to eat later no one's going to stop and debate alignment.

Except the same situation that leads them to abolish alignment is what leads them to fill their fantasy settings with half-demons and half-vampires and undead and goblinoids that just act like normal 21st century people, where every fantasy city is a diverse tolerant hipster society. Killing a demon suddenly becomes a questionable Hate Crime.

Well, as mentioned, I don't use Alignment in my own system and there are people of part demonic ancestry (they're more common than elves or orcs actually due to setting's backstory), but that doesn't mean there's not irredeemable evil beings in the setting any more than the Dhampirs of Slavic folklore (who have special powers that allow them to identify and slay vampires) means vampires aren't irredeemable monsters.

To the contrary, the Malfeans (those with demonic ancestry) are the most dedicated hunters of demons and the diabolists who summon them in the setting precisely because their ancestry is the direct result of the demons' evils that they once visisted upon the entire race of Men during the Demon Empire. They are also the most dedicated to The Source (God in the setting) and what they call The Promise (that if they stay true to The Source and reject the demonic side of their ancestry, one day they will sent a redeemer).

Demons (and undead, who are basically their spiritual cousins) are universally irredeemably evil; seeking only to tear down Creation and the mortals so beloved by The Source out of pure spite (they already lost the war so it's literally just trying to wreck as much as they can to make others suffer). Throughout development of the setting I had to completely rework entire sections precisely because that element suggested some demons might possibly redeemable.

Beyond demons and undead though, I do prefer a bit more nuance. The orcs are evil because their society is a bunch of might makes right assholes bent on conquering and enslaving their neighbors. You're as justified killing them if you find them in human lands as if you came across an active terrorist cell operating in the United States... because they're in the human lands for pretty much the same reason. Maybe if you meet an orc merchant at a bar in a border trade town you might be able to have a conversation and do business with them... but it doesn't negate that their government and the soldiers loyal to it are villains who need to be stopped by any means necessary.

The elven kingdom is also a bunch of caste-based religious fascists who believe they're superior to all other races (and think nothing of holding wild hunts with hapless mortals in the role of the hunted... basically all the horror stories involving the Fae in myth and legend belong to elven kingdoms). They are absolutely unrepentant villains and playable elves are universally exiles from the lower castes who fled the oppression of their society.

There's also a whole boatload of inhuman man-eating beasts that wouldn't qualify as evil in the moral sense (they lack the sapience to make such moral choices), but are nonetheless active perils to human life such that putting them down is a moral good (i.e. a chimera isn't evil, but it eats a quarter of its body weight in flesh daily and finds human flesh especially tasty, but even just making off with a village's livestock could doom the inhabitants to starvation).

But my setting is also very much a Thundarr the Barbarian post apocalyptic gonzo high-fantasy world full of sapient beastmen, mutants and the like with schizotech ranging from medieval all the way to 19th century steam engines and magitech zeppelins. The atmosphere is very much in the vein of the Wild West rather than any sort of Medieval (realistic or otherwise).

The few big trading towns adventurers are likely to flock to ARE fairly cosmopolitan because they're at the crossroads of trade for the often mono-species villages that sprung up among the survivors of the Cataclysm two centuries prior and just like real world trading centers in history, tend to be more "live and let live" than other places (which doesn't mean they put up with demons or undead or armed orc companies... just that if you're a Malfean or beastman you'll just be watched suspiciously and allowed to do business if you don't cause trouble instead of automatically impaled on a spear by the town gate just for not being a member of the dominant species in the community).

Basically, the existence of non-humans/"monster" races in significant numbers in a setting has zero to do with whether there's objective good and evil in the setting.

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 01, 2021, 01:14:26 PM
Well, as mentioned, I don't use Alignment in my own system and there are people of part demonic ancestry (they're more common than elves or orcs actually due to setting's backstory), but that doesn't mean there's not irredeemable evil beings in the setting any more than the Dhampirs of Slavic folklore (who have special powers that allow them to identify and slay vampires) means vampires aren't irredeemable monsters.

To the contrary, the Malfeans (those with demonic ancestry) are the most dedicated hunters of demons and the diabolists who summon them in the setting precisely because their ancestry is the direct result of the demons' evils that they once visisted upon the entire race of Men during the Demon Empire. They are also the most dedicated to The Source (God in the setting) and what they call The Promise (that if they stay true to The Source and reject the demonic side of their ancestry, one day they will sent a redeemer).

Demons (and undead, who are basically their spiritual cousins) are universally irredeemably evil; seeking only to tear down Creation and the mortals so beloved by The Source out of pure spite (they already lost the war so it's literally just trying to wreck as much as they can to make others suffer). Throughout development of the setting I had to completely rework entire sections precisely because that element suggested some demons might possibly redeemable.

Beyond demons and undead though, I do prefer a bit more nuance. The orcs are evil because their society is a bunch of might makes right assholes bent on conquering and enslaving their neighbors. You're as justified killing them if you find them in human lands as if you came across an active terrorist cell operating in the United States... because they're in the human lands for pretty much the same reason. Maybe if you meet an orc merchant at a bar in a border trade town you might be able to have a conversation and do business with them... but it doesn't negate that their government and the soldiers loyal to it are villains who need to be stopped by any means necessary.

The elven kingdom is also a bunch of caste-based religious fascists who believe they're superior to all other races (and think nothing of holding wild hunts with hapless mortals in the role of the hunted... basically all the horror stories involving the Fae in myth and legend belong to elven kingdoms). They are absolutely unrepentant villains and playable elves are universally exiles from the lower castes who fled the oppression of their society.

There's also a whole boatload of inhuman man-eating beasts that wouldn't qualify as evil in the moral sense (they lack the sapience to make such moral choices), but are nonetheless active perils to human life such that putting them down is a moral good (i.e. a chimera isn't evil, but it eats a quarter of its body weight in flesh daily and finds human flesh especially tasty, but even just making off with a village's livestock could doom the inhabitants to starvation).

But my setting is also very much a Thundarr the Barbarian post apocalyptic gonzo high-fantasy world full of sapient beastmen, mutants and the like with schizotech ranging from medieval all the way to 19th century steam engines and magitech zeppelins. The atmosphere is very much in the vein of the Wild West rather than any sort of Medieval (realistic or otherwise).

The few big trading towns adventurers are likely to flock to ARE fairly cosmopolitan because they're at the crossroads of trade for the often mono-species villages that sprung up among the survivors of the Cataclysm two centuries prior and just like real world trading centers in history, tend to be more "live and let live" than other places (which doesn't mean they put up with demons or undead or armed orc companies... just that if you're a Malfean or beastman you'll just be watched suspiciously and allowed to do business if you don't cause trouble instead of automatically impaled on a spear by the town gate just for not being a member of the dominant species in the community).

Basically, the existence of non-humans/"monster" races in significant numbers in a setting has zero to do with whether there's objective good and evil in the setting.

That's a cool setting,  but I think you're missing his point.  The issue isn't the  number of monster races in the setting; it's the number in the party. By making the monsters in the setting morally gray, you're just opening the door to all the special snowflakes who want their character to be as quirky and unique as they are (barf!).

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 01, 2021, 02:39:29 PM
That's a cool setting,  but I think you're missing his point.  The issue isn't the  number of monster races in the setting; it's the number in the party. By making the monsters in the setting morally gray, you're just opening the door to all the special snowflakes who want their character to be as quirky and unique as they are (barf!).

And where you see a negative in people being able to play whatever they want, I see it as, at worse, a neutral element. How many humans feature in The Dark Crystal again? How about in the main adventuring party of the Wizard of Oz? The Hobbit had how many humans in the main party?

Just because you prefer adventuring parties to look like a clone of the Fellowship of the Ring doesn't mean every fantasy setting has to have that as its baseline.

Also, the monsters in my setting are hardly morally gray. There's a difference between "being able to choose" and "morally grey." Every single human, elf, dwarf and hobbit in The Lord of the Rings was free to choose good or evil, but that doesn't make The Lord of the Rings a morally gray setting.

No one says "Indiana Jones is a morally grey setting because humans can be both heroes and villains." Why must non-humans always be one or the other? and why must the good ones the players have to choose from always be those featured in Tolkien?

If every setting looks just like Lord of the Rings, just play Lord of the Rings and be done with it. There's lots of lore, places to explore and adventures to be had. I shouldn't have to copy/paste those assumptions just to have a valid fantasy world. In my own world in order of importance and relevance to the setting backstory its Humans, Beastmen, Malfeans, Eldritch, Mutants, then Dwarves, Elves, Fetches, Golems and Gnomes in that order.

If not for my desire to include all the fantasy staples I could have left off elves and gnomes entirely (Eldritch have options that would get close) and dwarves almost got merged into humans (which halflings DID) until I actually found an interesting niche for them that wasn't just stout human with an accent (as magitech cyborgs whose body parts wear out at different rates and get replaced with artifice).

Basically, its NOT "elf" or "orc" that determines what should be a playable race in a setting... its the SETTING that determines what is or isn't common to the setting and, frankly, if you're running a sandbox it shouldn't matter how common a PC race is as long as the inhabitants of the setting treat it appropriately to the setting lore.

Likewise, I think sapient villains are much more interesting if they actually have reasons for their villainy. Villains who do bad things simply "For the Evuls" or because they "born evil" is immersion breaking for me.

The orcish empire of my setting are villains because their culture is centered around a might makes right system of morality that says that everyone weaker then you should bow to you and that its morally right to enslave everyone weaker than themselves who refuses to do so. They're also physically stronger, faster and have keener senses than humans and are every bit as intelligent in my setting. In D&D they'd definitely be labeled as evil on the whole, but the label doesn't make them "more evil" than their already described actions as ruthless conquerors who loot, kill, rape and enslave all those weaker than themselves (and feel justified in doing so) makes them.

The fact that some orcs or elves in my setting CAN choose to not be villains and instead be "defectors from decadence" actually makes the villainous ones even more so in my opinion because they're CHOOSING evil and villainy, not just a puppet programmed for evil actions by whatever created them.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 01, 2021, 11:51:59 AM

Quote from: Mistwell on June 01, 2021, 11:39:36 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 01, 2021, 11:25:10 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 01, 2021, 08:26:07 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 01, 2021, 07:48:33 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 31, 2021, 07:29:22 PM
Yeah, I'd put Set more under Chaotic Neutral overall. Ra is probably Lawful Good, Horus is Neutral Good (lawful leanings, but a couple of his stories have him being a bit on the chaotic side in dealing with his uncle... I'm thinking of the semen salad dressing specifically; there's no way a Lawful entity came up with that stunt).

Hathor on the other hand is a split personality LG/CE depending on whether she's in goddess of motherhood or the wrath of Ra who was slaughtering humanity and drinking their blood and was so horrific that even Ra didn't dare face her directly so he invented beer, died it red so it looked like blood and got her drunk on it until she mellowed out and became good natured Hathor again.

The Egyptians have some fairly wacky hijinx in their mythology.

Real cultures don't think in terms of D&D alignment. Trying to map real life culture's deities to D&D alignments is an exercise in futility.

For example, the Greek gods are psychopathic rapists who destroy cities out of jealousy and spite. D&D labels them all "good", except Hades who gets labeled "evil" because death is scary and evil... despite in myth Hades being the only god who didn't torment mortals.

Screw the alignment mechanic! It's an absurd mechanic made by autists that flies in the face of real ethics and mythology.

If nothing else, then WotC removing alignment will hopefully end all these pointless arguments about what mythological or pop culture figure fits into which alignment.

Oh, I don't use Alignment in my own games at all (I use a variant of the Allegiances system)

Everyone knows Alignment in the real world is ridiculous... you just need to look at the "Batman of Every Alignment" chart to know this is the case. That doesn't mean it's not fun to try and slot non-game things into anyway, just for the laughs.

Everyone also knows that about the Greek Gods too (there's also a pretty good argument that all the philandering was actually a political attempt at religious syncretism in a culture that didn't have an actual word for rape and considered women, and a good percentage of men, to be basically livestock)... but you joylessly bring it up anyway.

Why do I feel that RPGs are more a joyless crusade for you and not something you actually enjoy?

If you can't have fun with ridiculous mechanics then what's even the point of RPGs?

Right now I'm more of a world builder. I'm currently world building a system-agnostic fantasy setting that could be suitable for roleplaying, wargaming, video gaming, etc.

I can't help but be frustrated at how... fractured and incoherent the D&D "lore" is, even within a single setting. Like, the demons and devils don't have any kind of coherent art direction. There's no artistic motif unique to either to make them readily distinguishable from one another. For comparison, the chaos daemons in Warhammer have more coherent motifs.

The slaad, by contrast, do have a coherent art direction (frog people) but this makes little sense in regard to them being personifications of chaos. Wouldn't it make more sense for slaad to look like a unique patchwork of various bodyparts like the mongrelmen/mongrelfolk?

But I digress. This isn't the right thread for that.

God forbid we talk about actual gaming in the gaming forum. Yeah, I guess we have to go back to calling people Maoists and SJWs and pretending that's about gaming rather than a culture argument thinly veiled in gaming as an excuse to vent about politics and culture.

For me, I'd much rather talk about your world building ideas.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

The basic premise of my setting is that there are a multitude of fantasy planets connected by a stargate network. Some of these planets host cultures resembling pastiches of historical Earth cultures or mythic/fairytale creatures. One planet might be a huge desert ruled by pharaohs, another a tidally locked world whose twilight and dark side is ruled by slavic vampire lords, another an immense primeval forest ruled by forest gods and woodland fairies, etc.

That sounds fantastic!

Quote from: Mistwell on June 01, 2021, 06:25:57 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 01, 2021, 11:51:59 AM
The basic premise of my setting is that there are a multitude of fantasy planets connected by a stargate network. Some of these planets host cultures resembling pastiches of historical Earth cultures or mythic/fairytale creatures. One planet might be a huge desert ruled by pharaohs, another a tidally locked world whose twilight and dark side is ruled by slavic vampire lords, another an immense primeval forest ruled by forest gods and woodland fairies, etc.

That sounds fantastic!

Thank you. I'm surprised this concept isn't done already since it seems like something very easy to think up. It's basically just a mashup of Stargate SG-1 with Planescape. Age of Sigmar does something along these lines but not exactly with its platonic realms.

The benefit of using many planets is that you're not limited by the geography of a single planet. I always found it unbelievable how fantasy planets typically will loosely replicate the geography of Earth and then pack in tons of fantasy races. I never thought the logistics really made much sense. In real life, countless ethnic groups have been wiped from existence or subsumed into others. But in fantasy worlds we're expected to believe that a multitude of different sapient species at each other's throats have been able to maintain stable populations for countless millennia.

With a setting that spans countless planets, you have much more freedom to tinker with cultural development.

Quote from: Wrath of God on May 31, 2021, 06:20:34 PM

QuoteEven in your Ancient Egyptian you have Chaotic Evil Apep and Lawful Evil Set.

The theories about Lawfulness of Set are vastly over-exaggerated.
Kinslaying is not lawful act

Kinslaying is not a good act.

Set wanted to rule over creation not destroy it and fights off Apep to protect it.

Quote

QuoteI am sure with a few seconds of duckduckgoing I could find an example of Lawful Good (probably Osiris), Lawful Neutral (probably Thoth) and Chaotic Good (probably Isis)

Maybe Bast could be somehow pushed into Chaotic Box, but you're hands would be... oh so scratched.

The secret is using a laser pointer into the Chaotic Box.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 01, 2021, 11:25:10 AM
I can't help but be frustrated at how... fractured and incoherent the D&D "lore" is, even within a single setting. Like, the demons and devils don't have any kind of coherent art direction. There's no artistic motif unique to either to make them readily distinguishable from one another. For comparison, the chaos daemons in Warhammer have more coherent motifs.

The slaad, by contrast, do have a coherent art direction (frog people) but this makes little sense in regard to them being personifications of chaos. Wouldn't it make more sense for slaad to look like a unique patchwork of various bodyparts like the mongrelmen/mongrelfolk?

But I digress. This isn't the right thread for that.

The real important thing that DnD needs is for Devils and Demons to have a coherent art direction.

That would fix all the problems.

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 01, 2021, 01:14:26 PM


Basically, the existence of non-humans/"monster" races in significant numbers in a setting has zero to do with whether there's objective good and evil in the setting.

Sure, people could still probably get away with Gonzo-style settings where weirdo races for players and societies alike are commonplace. Though I imagine the Woke Grifters would let out a litany of other things that are offensive about actual Gonzo rather than their own Diversity Hipsterism Woke Settings.

But the point is that getting rid of alignment is part of getting rid of the style of play that is meant to invoke Myth. Because of an enmity to the moral values of western myth.

It's an attempt to make sure that it's as hard as possible for games with 5e to ever be run that way.

Ok so now the problem is that if we don't have alignment people will want to play Orcs and shit like that?

People wanted to play Orcs and shit like that way back in 2nd edition.  Drizzt Do'urden was created when 1st edition was still a going concern.

People have always wanted to be special snowflakes.

This has nothing to do with alignment.  It's about the idea that the fans are always right.

On a tangential note, anyone else think 6E will follow PF2E's lead by replacing 'Paladin' with the more generic, less 'problematic' Champion or the like, and making it clearer that it's their own conviction, rightness, and Special Snowflakery that gives them their powers?