Does it? That'd seem more incidental than anything else. How often will those be significant or relevant enough to inform their actions?
Depends how well written they are. Honestly, there's no strong reason to tie it to the bond/flaw/etc system, just a couple sentences of descriptive text is a lot more useful than an alignment and the trait system encourages having a couple sentences of descriptive text.
Easier to use two words and know that they are puppy kickers.
Better to use 4ish sentences and actually give them personality, ideals, bonds, and flaws.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Does it? That'd seem more incidental than anything else. How often will those be significant or relevant enough to inform their actions?
Depends how well written they are. Honestly, there's no strong reason to tie it to the bond/flaw/etc system, just a couple sentences of descriptive text is a lot more useful than an alignment and the trait system encourages having a couple sentences of descriptive text.
Easier to use two words and know that they are puppy kickers.
Even "puppy kickers" (two words) is more useful as a description than anything from the 3x3 alignment chart...
Easier to use two words and know that they are puppy kickers.
Calling a monster 'evil' is lazy. It's important to describe how they're evil so the PCs have proper motivation and sense of achievement. What evil deeds have they done? What evil deeds are they planning to do? If you can't answer those questions you don't have any real business attacking the hobgoblins in the first place, and if you can you don't really need to know their alignment.
Easier to use two words and know that they are puppy kickers.
Calling a monster 'evil' is lazy. It's important to describe how they're evil so the PCs have proper motivation and sense of achievement. What evil deeds have they done? What evil deeds are they planning to do? If you can't answer those questions you don't have any real business attacking the hobgoblins in the first place, and if you can you don't really need to know their alignment.
Who said anything about attacking the hobgoblins?
It's the hobgoblins doing the attacking.
If you're a GM and you NEED to prep in your notes all of your 100 bad guys life goals and aspirations then you could possibly re-think your prep. I don't need to write down anything about how the opposition is going to act because it's my campaign. The Players will constantly mess with my plans so writing down "bad guy 32 wants to eat the left foot of children and is fond of bad guy 89." isn't helping anything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Easier to use two words and know that they are puppy kickers.
Calling a monster 'evil' is lazy. It's important to describe how they're evil so the PCs have proper motivation and sense of achievement. What evil deeds have they done? What evil deeds are they planning to do? If you can't answer those questions you don't have any real business attacking the hobgoblins in the first place, and if you can you don't really need to know their alignment.
While I agree with the first part of this post, it's your last statement that sums up most of my confusion with people's objections to the alignment system. First of all, I have a personal objection to the idea of "knowing" the hobgoblins' alignment; the GM decides their alignment. But the big question I have is: what's so wrong with saying that the hobgoblins, because of the evil deeds they've done and are planning to do, are evil? Why is there such strenuous objection to calling good people good and evil people evil?
Again, I want to stress my agreement with the importance of the details. I just don't understand why people will get through all the details but then refuse to commit to "and therefore, they're evil" or "and therefore, they're good."
Why? Monsters should be doing whatever they're doing for a coherent reason.
Because you said the party needs a reason to attack the hobgoblins. I didn't say anything about the party attacking the hobgoblins. The party isn't attacking the hobgoblins.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
While I agree with the first part of this post, it's your last statement that sums up most of my confusion with people's objections to the alignment system. First of all, I have a personal objection to the idea of "knowing" the hobgoblins' alignment; the GM decides their alignment. But the big question I have is: what's so wrong with saying that the hobgoblins, because of the evil deeds they've done and are planning to do, are evil?
Nothing. It's just useless. By the time you've detailed your monsters enough so you even know why they're doing what they're doing, adding alignment is redundant.
Why? Monsters should be doing whatever they're doing for a coherent reason.
Because you said the party needs a reason to attack the hobgoblins. I didn't say anything about the party attacking the hobgoblins. The party isn't attacking the hobgoblins.
If the hobgoblins are attacking the party, they should have a reason.
While I agree with the first part of this post, it's your last statement that sums up most of my confusion with people's objections to the alignment system. First of all, I have a personal objection to the idea of "knowing" the hobgoblins' alignment; the GM decides their alignment. But the big question I have is: what's so wrong with saying that the hobgoblins, because of the evil deeds they've done and are planning to do, are evil?
Nothing. It's just useless. By the time you've detailed your monsters enough so you even know why they're doing what they're doing, adding alignment is redundant.
Why? Monsters should be doing whatever they're doing for a coherent reason.
Because you said the party needs a reason to attack the hobgoblins. I didn't say anything about the party attacking the hobgoblins. The party isn't attacking the hobgoblins.
If the hobgoblins are attacking the party, they should have a reason.
I'm the GM and I said so. You wanna know why, catch one.
Notes: Reminder: All users are expected to be respectful of one another
Better to use 4ish sentences and actually give them personality, ideals, bonds, and flaws.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Even "puppy kickers" (two words) is more useful as a description than anything from the 3x3 alignment chart...
Calling a monster 'evil' is lazy. It's important to describe how they're evil so the PCs have proper motivation and sense of achievement. What evil deeds have they done? What evil deeds are they planning to do? If you can't answer those questions you don't have any real business attacking the hobgoblins in the first place, and if you can you don't really need to know their alignment.
Who said anything about attacking the hobgoblins?
It's the hobgoblins doing the attacking.
If you're a GM and you NEED to prep in your notes all of your 100 bad guys life goals and aspirations then you could possibly re-think your prep. I don't need to write down anything about how the opposition is going to act because it's my campaign. The Players will constantly mess with my plans so writing down "bad guy 32 wants to eat the left foot of children and is fond of bad guy 89." isn't helping anything.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Why? Monsters should be doing whatever they're doing for a coherent reason.
While I agree with the first part of this post, it's your last statement that sums up most of my confusion with people's objections to the alignment system. First of all, I have a personal objection to the idea of "knowing" the hobgoblins' alignment; the GM decides their alignment. But the big question I have is: what's so wrong with saying that the hobgoblins, because of the evil deeds they've done and are planning to do, are evil? Why is there such strenuous objection to calling good people good and evil people evil?
Again, I want to stress my agreement with the importance of the details. I just don't understand why people will get through all the details but then refuse to commit to "and therefore, they're evil" or "and therefore, they're good."
Because you said the party needs a reason to attack the hobgoblins. I didn't say anything about the party attacking the hobgoblins. The party isn't attacking the hobgoblins.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Nothing. It's just useless. By the time you've detailed your monsters enough so you even know why they're doing what they're doing, adding alignment is redundant.
If the hobgoblins are attacking the party, they should have a reason.
I'm the GM and I said so. You wanna know why, catch one.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Oh, there's no requirement that the PCs know why it's happening, but as a DM you should have a sense of why.