You believe a Paladins code is large and comprehensive enough to cover enough of a persons decisions to firmly plant into the category of lawful and I do not.
That said an act is ONLY lawful when it is being followed even if you disagree with it on a personal level, or it was not something you would do if there was no code or law as a way to conform to others expectations.
If there's a law against pedophilia, and you're not a pedophile, you don't suddenly become lawful because you don't molest children. One cultures defender could in another culture become instead a rebel.
People tend to gravitate towards codes and ideals that resonate with them on a personal level. If a code is too far from what they already resonate with, then chances are, they are unlikely to follow that code.
Most people have no desire to murder, **** or steal, not doing these things is normal for most people. So not doing them does not make a person lawful, even if it's the law.
So just because a person adopts a Paladin oath, does not make them inherently all that lawful, many are agreeing to edicts they would have followed anyway.
Following a code that tells you to do things you were already going to do or want to do anyway is not being lawful. So the less a code requires you to deviate from your own internal compass the less lawful it requires you to be.
If someone asked me to follow a code of, never beating the elderly, not selling drugs to children, not ******, not stealing cars, and many more things, I'd have no issue agreeing to follow that code. Heck I agree to follow it now. It does not suddenly make me lawful. I wouldn't do those things anyway.
What makes a person lawful is how often they're willing to put their own feelings aside to put the expectations of a code or society first, whether those feelings are for their own benefit or the benefit of others.
Following a code that rarely if every requires you put your own feelings aside does not make you lawful, because rarely are you actually making a lawful decision.
This is why one of the very first questions is about elders being upset with you and whether you conform to their desires, seek compromise or actively work against them.
Law is swollowing your pride and putting the elders first as they are the authority, neutral is seeking a compromise and chaos is telling them to eff off.
It's the putting another authority first before your desires that makes the act lawful. If you were already doing things the elders liked because you wanted to and it felt right naturally, you'd never have to make that sacrifice and it wouldn't be lawful.
The way you determine if a person is lawful or not, is how often they put their own desires aside to maintain order or conform and follow the rules.
My argument is most Paladins gravitate towards codes they agree with for the most part, so few of their actions result in a conflict of interest, and thus rarely for most paladins does an oath force a lawful decision.
Your version of law is like someone telling their cat to continue taking a nap and then bragging you trained your cat because it didn't stop napping.
That is not my version of the law. These oaths that the paladins take, THEY CHOSE to take them. Therefore they were not born into a world where they HAD to swear the oath. They chose it, therefore they, of their own free will, are choosing to obey the code they prescribe to. How is that not lawful? Paladins don't swear oaths because they agree with for the most part. Nobody swears an oath to uphold all 4 items if they only agree with 1 or 2 of them. To swear an oath and gain power from your deity, you are choosing to follow the oath you swear, each part of it, and again CHOOSE to follow them because you want to. If you do not want to uphold your oath, DON'T PLAY A PALADIN, or play an Oathbreaker. It's simple.
If a decision comes up that has nothing to do with your oath, you are free to do whatever you choose. If a decision comes up that directly has to do with your oath, your paladin SHOULD WANT to uphold your oath.
Yeo they should want to. Thus why it's not always a lawful decision. What makes a paladin's oath special is that they are willing to accept the edicts of a higher authority. Which is a lawful decision. Most do so, however, because they agree with often idiolize that authority. Which means that while most times they agree simply because it's a part of who they are, when tbe times come up when they don't, they will choose to trust in the authority over themselves and follow the code. Whenever they do that it's a lawful act.
Is why neutrality is so common over law and chaos. Both law and chaos are situational. Put someone in a society that fits their internal compass and they rarely need to act in a chaotic or lawful fashion so they make few lawful or chaotic acts as they have no need to change or compromise the self.
It's only when there is large amounts of conflict that a person's real law/chaos can be determined. Is why alignment is determined by actions. The lawful planes are for conformists, people that put authority above themselves overwhelmingly. Being truly lawful is not fun it's a sacrifice. You're putting an authority or calling above your own happiness. If you're not making that sacrifice you're not really being lawful.
I'm not saying there's no joy or happiness from being lawful, but it's more after the fact, it's a pat on the back for a job well done, for doing what you were supposed to despite how hard it was.
This is part of why alignment was removed from Paladin's. The codes are no longer as strict. The reason the original paladin code was so uncompromising everyone got into arguments about what conditions would allow people to break the code is because it was so strict almost no one could imagine living up to it, and everyone couldn't help but think of situations where they couldn't help but break it. Which meant if people were playing their paladin right, the paladin would constantly be having those same conflicts and in order to stay a paladin push those conflicts aside and stick to the code. The original code was supposed to be so uncompromising no one could imagine living up to it. It was supposed to be hard as hell, because if it wasn't there would be no reason for the lawful requirement. It was so strict that even during peaceful times you couldn't help but conflict with it on a regular basis.
A lawful person seeks to feel like they've sacrificed for a greater cause or took the hard road making their reward legitimate no matter who suffered to make it so. It's about sacrifice.
A chaotic person sees things in the immediate. They like instant results, it's not about sacrifice or thinking long term. A chaotic good person helps people because they enjoy it, the act gives them pleasure because they like seeing others happy.
A lawful good person helps someone, not because the act of helping a person makes them happy, but because knowing they sacrificed for another's happiness gives them a sense of accomplishment and self worth.
It's a subtle but important difference and is why a person can be but doesn't have to be lawful to follow a code, but they do need to be lawful to end up in the lawful planes upon death.
A person can follow a code for multiple reasons, but for this purpose we'll do extreme law and chaos.
Law: Because they seek to serve a higher ideal, to sacrifice so that they can gain a feeling of self worth and acomplishment. Lawful gods would seek such paladins because they uphold the lawful ideal of sacrifice and conformity.
Chaos: Because the code resonates with them on a personal level, these are all things they enjoy and believe in and want to share with the world. It's not a sacrifice it's who they are and they enjoy every minute of it. A chaotic god would seek such paladins because they fulfill the ideal of chaos, of living for the moment and doing what feels right.
The difference is this, a lawful paladin lives for the code, to sacrifice for the code.
A chaotic paladin is the code and embodies the code.
One is a servant which law seeks.
The other is an avatar which chaos desires.
Another way to look at it is.
Chaotic: This is what I believe in and if you don't like it too bad. I'm doing it anyway.
Lawful: I do as I do because the consequences are too great if I do not. I will sacrifice all if necessary.
@Yurei1453 sorry in advanced for my long-winded rambling, I have a feeling I'm going to get a bit ridiculous here:
Indeed, 5e does try very hard to suppress most numeric bonuses, and I appreciate and enjoy that; I personally find it a step up from previous editions. Still, a situational +1 is far from game breaking, and with the way advantage works, having advantage typically gives an average of +5 to a roll, so a +1 is a far cry from that. Even if they have advantage while flanking they're getting an average +6 with my system, which again won't break anything.
It is quite interesting, though also a bit dull, but the +1 to attacks while flanking doesn't do anything to break it and I have found that so far it has made my players much more creative in combat, since getting Advantage is still more desirable to them (particularly the rogue with Elven accuracy) than getting that +1. Per the whole point of Bounded Accuracy - as opposed to older versions - there's practically no enemy in 5E with an AC high enough that you literally can't hit it, even at level 1 with no special items. But that's also why there aren't a lot of raw numeric bonuses; you used to need that +20~ to hit because the enemies you were fighting had AC's upwards of 40. That's no longer the case, so the game caps the chance to hit at +11 (sans magic items or anything) because it doesn't want you to be able to hit strong enemies all the time no matter what.
Advantage greatly increases your chance (usually around 25%, depending on your to hit modifier and enemies AC, I don't want to get crazy into the math because it's a bit complicated) to hit an enemy, and that's why getting Advantage is the optimal tactic to score hits in combat, and thus my players now try to do things that'll grant them advantage instead of just ganging up on an enemy. For example the Druid in my party has Faerie Fire and had only used it once in about 10 sessions, since the melee fighters often just had advantage from flanking. Since changing the flanking rules a few sessions ago, the Druid has used Faerie Fire at least once per session.
As for the "Inspired Advantage":
I don't currently have a cap for it. I may make one, but I haven't been using the system long and so far none of my players have had more than 4 or 5 points at a time. I created a custom Feat here on DNDbeyond for them to keep track of them like charges, and my players have latched onto the idea pretty intensely and will ask to use them/remind each other they have them when seemingly difficult or important checks come up. I also will ask them, if they're doing something difficult and haven't mentioned it themselves, something along the lines of "do you want to juice this before you roll?" but I've only really had to do that a few times; again, they really seem to like the system and have been keeping it in mind.
It's definitely the kind of thing that would need to be balanced on a per-game basis, and I'm sure as my game goes on I will need to change it around some. In my game, I tend to make my players roll for a lot of things, so the points get spent. Also, since they only gain 1 point when they roll a max number on a die, they don't tend to get many of the points outside of combat since only d20s are typically rolled out of combat and Nat 20s are rare. In combat it's obviously much easier to get them (thus the "you can only get 1 point per round" rule) since they're rolling a lot more dice, and smaller dice. That said, as the game goes on they'll be rolling more and more dice (4th tier characters can end up rolling 10 or more die in a single turn) so they'll practically be guaranteed to get a point every turn; at that point I may switch up how getting them works, or maybe just increase how many points it costs to get advantage, but I may not have to change it at all because:
While I haven't introduced them yet (waiting til they level up to introduce the first one) I am also going to give them special character-specific powers that they can spend more of the points to use. So they'll have to balance between "do I want to save these points to have advantage on something, or spend them to use my OP ability." I plan to give them (at least) two abilities; a standard one and an "ultimate." The standard will probably take either 2 or 3 points and the Ult will take 4-6, or even more; waiting to get more data on how much they really do stockpile these points to decide how much they'll cost.
I was expecting the bookkeeping to be a bit dirty, and for me to have to keep track of a lot of it, but as I say my players have really taken to it. They're even more excited than normal to see those max-damage die rolls in combat now, and so far haven't seemed to forget to add the point whenever they do get a max roll. I know the whole system may seem OP, but they have thus far had advantage less than they used to when I used the standard Flanking rules. They definitely don't get enough points to juice every single attack roll. The melee fighters used to be able to have Advantage on virtually every attack when they went out of their way to flank, now they can only maintain that for a couple rounds if they rely on these points for Advantage. Since they can only get 1 point per round, if they have multiple attacks (which they all do, they're level 5 and the Rogue uses Two-Weapon fighting) they will burn through these points faster than they can get them if they use them for all attacks.
I find it's also made things more fun for my ranged players. Even before getting extra attacks at level 5, the melee characters would often flank and thus have a much higher chance to hit with their attack, and were landing a lot more of their attacks than the ranged were landing with their Cantrips and such; this system really evens the playing floor. Since half the party had advantage anyway, no one saw it as worth it to try and grant the spellcasters advantage in different ways, and thus they were seeing far less damage potential than the melee players.
On top of that, they really like saving them for outside of combat; being able to spend them on skill checks has brought a whole new level of fun to the game, really making them feel like badasses in those important moments. Even still, advantage definitely doesn't mean an auto-pass, and there have been several times they've spent a point to get advantage and still failed.
From a DM standpoint, the system allows me to throw more difficult situations and encounters at them than they would normally be able to handle, which is great fun and has increased the tension in a lot of scenarios. In particular, they can spend the points to get Advantage on Saving Throws, so I can throw some pretty mean enemies at them and they'll actually be able to survive.
One important thing for this is that, unlike the Lucky feat, they have to specify that they're spending a point for advantage before rolling; they can't roll and then spend a point to reroll. (I know Lucky isn't technically advantage, but still.)
I am aware that this steps on the toes of some abilities; in fact, one of my players is a Chaos Sorcerer - thus having Tides of Chaos - with the Lucky feat, but even he likes having this system; he can pick and choose when to use which, and it just adds to his characters ability to twist fate in his favor, and I allow him to use Inspired Advantage or Tides of Chaos along with Lucky. But that said, it's certainly a homebrew system that should only be used if your campaign is pretty difficult, otherwise it might make things a breeze.
Anyway, it'll still require a lot more testing and probably some tweaks, and in the future I may make a post on here to talk about it; I just wanted to bring it up right now because I'm pretty proud of it (I know it's mostly stolen ideas but still :P) and we've all been having a lot of fun with it.
Sorry for the novel.
PS: I play online as well, over Discord/Roll20 using DnDbeyond character sheets. No problems with it because of that.
@squigsthetruth its useless, let's just stop there. Even if you tell them exactly how the alignment system is not linear, they still will think it is because to them it makes no sense.
but for the record, you don't want to play with alignment, your call man. But i guess your tables must always be about PVP and how much of a jerk each players can be between themselves and your NPCs. for my part, i have the most detrimental group ever and alignment have started to show them what true heroes can be. because up until now all i have been getting at the table was evil chaotic jokers at the table. you know, one is a murder hobo who likes to create serial killers, the other likes to be the god of chaos incarnate. the other likes to be a vigilante like batman or the punisher. and one of them wanted to be a hero who just wanted to save the world. yeah good luck doing that. that's what happens when you let your players do whatever they want.
3 campaigns later, and yes it always ended up PVP between themselves and the story always took the closest exits because they didn't care. so yeah after 3 campaigns, they finally get to understand why they shouldn't be doing whatever they want. and start thinking of what others want. and now they understand the point of alignment.
but hey that's my experience. you don't like it... fine by me, but you have no rights to come barge here and tell us that we're stupid to not think like you do. and no, the reason it was removed is not because people thought like you do... it was really because it was a mechanical thing that didn't work. because mechanically there was only neutral who was good. and if you put the thing to the test and explain alignment... nobody will pick good or evil, they will always pick neutral because to them its what makes them do whatever they want.
again, alignment is for those who want role play experiences. if you want to mechanically have advantages with alignment then don't bother. there is none ! otherwise we all know everyone will end up neutral just because it dodges everything.
@jaysburn its one way of doing it, i don't like advantages much in many circumstances. it gives too much of an edge. but putting little +1 here and there, completely reverse what 5e was trying to do. 5e is not made to be a complex system. otherwise you have to do like 3e and give off another +1 bonus for anybody fighting on a table. start adding +1 here and there and you start looking at players starting to maximise their output by fetching all those +1 bonuses. hence why i didn't do it. because thats not how 5e works, thats how 3e worked ! i don't want my players to start maximising their output by seeking to get the most bangs for their bucks. that said, i did think of it too and i did want to use that at first. so i completely understand why you'd do it. and if it works for you and your group, then go for it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
All my games and the games I play in are rp heavy and we engage in combat rarely. Pvp pretty much never occurs in my games. We all have real characters with real backgrounds with real motivations, desires and goals.
Alignments aren't linear, you and I BOTH agree on that. The issue is that you and I disagree on what law and chaos mean and what makes an act lawful or chaotic and how it relates to a character.
Just because we disagree on the nitty gritty of alignment does not mean I just toss it completely, nor that it has no meaning in my game.
In fact the more we talk the more I realize exactly what law and chaos is and what separates them, and in doing so have an even better understanding of paladins of different gods of different alignments and how they function as champions of that god and alignment.
Lawful gods seek servants who will follow their lead. They want people who desire guidance and recognition for their sacrifices.
Chaotic gods seek allies that share their ideals and will champion their cause because they are of like mind.
Been a dm for almost 30 years and never had any of the problems your griping about or assuming my games have.
But you wanna take it personal alright fine. You sound like a dm that's a control freak, who instead of using alignment as a guide and tool to help rp instead use it a crutch to force your rule on you player base with an iron hand if they get out of line. You seem to lack the ability to work with players to help them make real characters, to encourage a real background, and make them really care about their character as a person with real motivations. If a player has that, than alignment only matters for the very purpose it has in game. To act as a judgment in the cosmic sense for which it was originally designed.
I largely agree with what you're saying. Honestly I first considered just abolishing Flanking, but it makes sense that there should be SOME benefit to it. However I found that Advantage is not only too big of a benefit, it's also too boring; it makes it so that Flanking is all any melee combatant tries to do.
People say that 5e's not about giving extra bonuses to keep things within the "bounded accuracy".... Except it does it all the time. Sure, there's only typically 3 things to add; your attack modifier, your proficiency bonus, and your magic weapon modifier. The "intent" is that your To Hit cannot exceed 14 (+5 Str/Dex, +6 Proficiency, +3 magic weapon)... except that multiple things can. With a Belt of Storm Giant Strength, for example, you bump that "max" 14 to hit up to 18 to hit, and at that point you are hardly ever going to miss virtually any enemy.
That said, that item is still just increasing the score of one of those 3 things that you add, so while that breaks the "bounded accuracy" it still adheres to those rules. But let's look at something else; Bless. Now you're adding an extra 4th element on top of those 3 things. Does that break the game? Apparently not.
I agree that putting in a bunch of extra bonuses is a big no-no. It's certainly something I wouldn't do 95% of the time.
For Flanking though, I like it. It's already obviously clear that you are able to exceed that +14 "max" hit roll, so an extra +1 is far from breaking anything - it's less than what Bless can give you - and remembering to apply it when you're Flanking is no more complicated than remembering to apply Advantage when you're flanking.
I can't think of anything else, besides Flanking, that I would attach an extra numerical bonus to as a houserule. I agree that it typically shouldn't be done.
As for Advantage, I like it as a principal, just not how easy Flanking makes it to get for Melee characters. It should be something players strive for, since it IS the main bonus in 5e, but it should require special abilities that grant it (see; Faerie Fire) or through creative RP.
I would never give Advantage or any kind of numerical bonus for attacking while standing on a table above someone. I WOULD give advantage if a player (likely a Rogue) went out of their way to get way above someone and Assassins Creed down on them; so long as they don't try to abuse this kind of thing, that is.
Having read up on it now, bounded accuracy also makes an assumption of no magic items whatsoever.
Which, frankly? Bothers the shit out of me. I understand what they were trying to do and for the most part even agree with it, but the underlying assumption in 5e that magic items are extremely rare and entirely optional does not even REMOTELY jive with the fact that for nine out of twelve classes, magic explodes from their ears. And two of the remaining classes can take subclass options that follow suit.
Seriously. PCs of every single class save Barbarian are either spellcasters by default or can become spellcasters, and all the always-spellcasters are bursting at the seams with magical shenanery. And yet the game wants me to buy that in a world where people eat, sleep, and breathe magic, magical stuff is super rare and almost impossible to find/make, and the rest of the world outside the PC party is a grim, gritty super low magic world of mundane darkness?
**** off with that ridiculous assumption.
Magic item shops exist in my worlds. People who can do enchanting exist. Magical gear is not Secret Treasure from Ages Past, it's a thing well-equipped adventurers who expect to do their job seek out. Because when the fundamental assumption for Bards, Clerics, Druids, some Fighters, (arguably) Monks, Paladins, some Rogues, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Wizards - and Artificers and Blood Hunters, to boot - is that each of these classes has significant, intrinsic, and unrestricted access to numerous different magical abilities over and above spellcasting?
You don't get to build a "low magic" world around them. if that requires nudging the CR on some encounters or adding an extra point of AC here and there to compensate for characters obtaining new and awesome gear, then that's just what a DM gon' hafta do.
My other issue is, magic items cannot both be optional, and required at the same time. For magic items to be optional, they need to nix creatures being completely immune to attacks from mundane weaponry. For magic items to be optional, then there should be mundane options that anyone would reasonably have to each encounter, as even having a magic user is technically just as optional.
5E does a great job of making magic items a rarity, what you dislike is the high fantasy high magic setting you love. because 3E gave you that. i give a ton of magic items in my world too, but none of them break bounded accuracy. because i like giving strong items with strong drawbacks. the fact certain classes are fully magical, doesn't mean they create any magical items. your setting is the way you want it. but if you were to be playing D&D in any other version outside of 3e... you'd realise how hard it was to create a magical item and how hard it was to actually get one. people wanted that back. because in 3e... sorry but +1 and +2 weapons were worth nothing to merchants in my world, because they were so common that merchant wouldn't even be wanting them for resell. practically everyone had a +1 weapon in the world. it was just ridiculous to think that some people didn't. in 3e, they made the mistake of making magical items something trivial to get. and the money skyrocketted, in the case of a career. an adventurer would gain upward of 350,000 gold pieces. that was ludicrous. while in 5e, the maximum counted is about 50,000 gold pieces. that 50,000 gold pieces is much more logical then the millionnaire edition 3rd edition gave us. the goal here was to make the world a bit more logical and a bit more realistic. considering a merchant is able to live about 6 months off a single gold piece, it was ridiculous to think an adventurer would do 300 in a single quest. pratically everyone would chose that profession instead. basically in 3e, the world didn't make sense. in 5e, the world does more, because its very hard for even adventurer to get money. and without money they don't get there as fast.
exemple: in 3e, my players arrived in my magical ware merchant. they say i want that and that. he said the price, they negociate a bit then get what they want... but in this world, in 5e, they arrive, ask the merchant if he has something to help boost their weapon or armor, he says i don't have it in store now but i could start enchanting your weapon. or you could check upon these items which i believe could help you. then they realise, the price are high even for them. so they negociate and even make a deal to get certain quest items with the merchant. if they do X and Y for him, he's willing to give them the enchantment for free and maybe add a little other piece. but that piece is not what they truly desire, it is not the best in slot for them, yet it give them a boost and they'd be happy to get that much.
another exemple of 3e bullshit... they arrive at the merchant, unloads their bag of holding full of weapons +1 and 50 armors +1 and they say how much ? the merchant says, i'll give you 50 gold for the lot... they cry because its all magical gears, why are you giving so low for it... the merchant would say, if i take all that crap and never sell it why would i pay for it ? feel happy that im giving you 50 gold for a bunch of magical common items.
the problem is that all other edition before 3e were supposed to have magical item be something the players desired... in 3e, it became like a video game, just go to the seller sell and buy the best in slot. and in the end, all players had a ring of protection +2, they all had their armor enchanted with +3 stats. they all had their weapon +5, flameburst, ice burst, vorpal. you know everything. in the end all players were just identical, because magical gear is best in slot. thats not to mention that monsters had to use such items otherwise they became too easy and you got things like a kraken being too easy for a bunch of level 9. they are not even close to level 20 and yet they already defeat end game bosses. so starting with the monsters and NPCs, you start giving them magical items too, which makes no sense for players to just not find such items if they kill the boss, which in turn made the magical items even more common. it was a loop that couldn't be broken.
back to 5e, if bounded accuracy was counting magical gears, like 3e did,m you'd fall int he very same loop where your monsters needs to be equipped as well if they want to follow and that leads to the very same notion of... magical gears is common in the world. which was a problem to begin with.
but hey, play your game the way you want... but for me, i am through with magical gear being just a trade show ! when i give an artifact to a player, he's willing to keep it, instead of just going to the first merchant he sees and say "i'll trade it for the best in slot gear for my character."
@ardenwolf Chris perkins created many common magical items of which are easily aquired by anyone. they also made healing potions a common item that is easy to craft and get. so they did create a few magical gears that the regular world can easily get.
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
The characters in The Godfather movies are clearly not “Lawful” but still followed a code. There are examples of clearly “Chaotic” characters who clearly followed personal codes of conduct from one of the most popular Intellectual Properties of the last century.
Having read up on it now, bounded accuracy also makes an assumption of no magic items whatsoever.
I agree (and also tend to have magic item shops, and a high fantasy setting), but if you want to preserve bounded accuracy, you could just remove the +1/2/3 from magical weapons, while still keeping their base effect. Numerical bonuses tend to be the least fun of bonuses anyway (IMO at least).
The characters in The Godfather movies are clearly not “Lawful” but still followed a code. There are examples of clearly “Chaotic” characters who clearly followed personal codes of conduct from one of the most popular Intellectual Properties of the last century.
All D&D devils are officially lawful, but still lie, cheat, steal, and murder. So the Godfather example doesn't quite work.
The fact that alignment is so subjective that it seems no two people can agree on how it works is a big argument in favor of just getting the f*** rid of the stupid obsolete thing.
Foxfireinferno the only reason people do not agree is the fact they dont want to be stuck. Meaning people keep thinking alignments "forces" them into certain behaviors. That assumption is completely false. That assumption leads them into believing that alignments are stricts and forbid them from doing what they want. Then there are those who take the book word for words...
All in all... If you want the thing gone. Be my guess... But im not cause it really helps me understand my players more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Seeing as I'm sure many players have had DMs tell them how to play their character, and what they're allowed to do based on the alignment rules, that could be part of it.
Then again, it doesn't help that there are many characters out there that fit certain classes while having alignments that were traditionally not allowed for their classes. The most glaring example would be rogues who used to be alignment restricted from being lawful. Well that artifact belongs in a museum and Indiana Jones would like to have a word with that restriction. Also, of the classes, rogue would be closest to Batman, who, while a vigilante certainly follows a strict code of behavior even when he knows breaking it would be the best for everybody.
Seeing as I'm sure many players have had DMs tell them how to play their character, and what they're allowed to do based on the alignment rules, that could be part of it.
Then again, it doesn't help that there are many characters out there that fit certain classes while having alignments that were traditionally not allowed for their classes. The most glaring example would be rogues who used to be alignment restricted from being lawful. Well that artifact belongs in a museum and Indiana Jones would like to have a word with that restriction. Also, of the classes, rogue would be closest to Batman, who, while a vigilante certainly follows a strict code of behavior even when he knows breaking it would be the best for everybody.
Batman would be a paladin.
Simply because of what he holds dear.
The mission is all that matters. Sacrificing everyone for the sake of the mission. There is no one more lawful good then batman. Hes a fanatical religious man that puts everything else aside just for the mission which to him is never ending ! Thats why he is getting clark so well. They are identical on that point. The only thing changing would be that clark wouldnt sacrifice others to get there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Batman is the night. He operates best from the shadows with stealth and surprise, sneak attack! He is LITERALLY trained as an assassin. I could see Shadow Monk, but not Paladin.
Ghost Rider is a classic example of a L/E Paladin with a few levels of Fiend Warlock. He can actually call his bike much like Find Mount/Greater Mount. He can Smite like a mofo. Paladin
Batman is the night. He operates best from the shadows with stealth and surprise, sneak attack! He is LITERALLY trained as an assassin. I could see Shadow Monk, but not Paladin.
Ghost Rider is a classic example of a L/E Paladin with a few levels of Fiend Warlock. He can actually call his bike much like Find Mount/Greater Mount. He can Smite like a mofo. Paladin
I agree with this. I don't see Batman as paladin whatsoever. I think the Ghost Rider example is actually really cool when seen as a lawful evil paladin with some warlock levels.
You believe a Paladins code is large and comprehensive enough to cover enough of a persons decisions to firmly plant into the category of lawful and I do not.
That said an act is ONLY lawful when it is being followed even if you disagree with it on a personal level, or it was not something you would do if there was no code or law as a way to conform to others expectations.
If there's a law against pedophilia, and you're not a pedophile, you don't suddenly become lawful because you don't molest children. One cultures defender could in another culture become instead a rebel.
People tend to gravitate towards codes and ideals that resonate with them on a personal level. If a code is too far from what they already resonate with, then chances are, they are unlikely to follow that code.
Most people have no desire to murder, **** or steal, not doing these things is normal for most people. So not doing them does not make a person lawful, even if it's the law.
So just because a person adopts a Paladin oath, does not make them inherently all that lawful, many are agreeing to edicts they would have followed anyway.
Following a code that tells you to do things you were already going to do or want to do anyway is not being lawful. So the less a code requires you to deviate from your own internal compass the less lawful it requires you to be.
If someone asked me to follow a code of, never beating the elderly, not selling drugs to children, not ******, not stealing cars, and many more things, I'd have no issue agreeing to follow that code. Heck I agree to follow it now. It does not suddenly make me lawful. I wouldn't do those things anyway.
What makes a person lawful is how often they're willing to put their own feelings aside to put the expectations of a code or society first, whether those feelings are for their own benefit or the benefit of others.
Following a code that rarely if every requires you put your own feelings aside does not make you lawful, because rarely are you actually making a lawful decision.
This is why one of the very first questions is about elders being upset with you and whether you conform to their desires, seek compromise or actively work against them.
Law is swollowing your pride and putting the elders first as they are the authority, neutral is seeking a compromise and chaos is telling them to eff off.
It's the putting another authority first before your desires that makes the act lawful. If you were already doing things the elders liked because you wanted to and it felt right naturally, you'd never have to make that sacrifice and it wouldn't be lawful.
The way you determine if a person is lawful or not, is how often they put their own desires aside to maintain order or conform and follow the rules.
My argument is most Paladins gravitate towards codes they agree with for the most part, so few of their actions result in a conflict of interest, and thus rarely for most paladins does an oath force a lawful decision.
Your version of law is like someone telling their cat to continue taking a nap and then bragging you trained your cat because it didn't stop napping.
That is not my version of the law. These oaths that the paladins take, THEY CHOSE to take them. Therefore they were not born into a world where they HAD to swear the oath. They chose it, therefore they, of their own free will, are choosing to obey the code they prescribe to. How is that not lawful? Paladins don't swear oaths because they agree with for the most part. Nobody swears an oath to uphold all 4 items if they only agree with 1 or 2 of them. To swear an oath and gain power from your deity, you are choosing to follow the oath you swear, each part of it, and again CHOOSE to follow them because you want to. If you do not want to uphold your oath, DON'T PLAY A PALADIN, or play an Oathbreaker. It's simple.
If a decision comes up that has nothing to do with your oath, you are free to do whatever you choose. If a decision comes up that directly has to do with your oath, your paladin SHOULD WANT to uphold your oath.
Published Subclasses
Yeo they should want to. Thus why it's not always a lawful decision. What makes a paladin's oath special is that they are willing to accept the edicts of a higher authority. Which is a lawful decision. Most do so, however, because they agree with often idiolize that authority. Which means that while most times they agree simply because it's a part of who they are, when tbe times come up when they don't, they will choose to trust in the authority over themselves and follow the code. Whenever they do that it's a lawful act.
Is why neutrality is so common over law and chaos. Both law and chaos are situational. Put someone in a society that fits their internal compass and they rarely need to act in a chaotic or lawful fashion so they make few lawful or chaotic acts as they have no need to change or compromise the self.
It's only when there is large amounts of conflict that a person's real law/chaos can be determined. Is why alignment is determined by actions. The lawful planes are for conformists, people that put authority above themselves overwhelmingly. Being truly lawful is not fun it's a sacrifice. You're putting an authority or calling above your own happiness. If you're not making that sacrifice you're not really being lawful.
I'm not saying there's no joy or happiness from being lawful, but it's more after the fact, it's a pat on the back for a job well done, for doing what you were supposed to despite how hard it was.
This is part of why alignment was removed from Paladin's. The codes are no longer as strict. The reason the original paladin code was so uncompromising everyone got into arguments about what conditions would allow people to break the code is because it was so strict almost no one could imagine living up to it, and everyone couldn't help but think of situations where they couldn't help but break it. Which meant if people were playing their paladin right, the paladin would constantly be having those same conflicts and in order to stay a paladin push those conflicts aside and stick to the code. The original code was supposed to be so uncompromising no one could imagine living up to it. It was supposed to be hard as hell, because if it wasn't there would be no reason for the lawful requirement. It was so strict that even during peaceful times you couldn't help but conflict with it on a regular basis.
A lawful person seeks to feel like they've sacrificed for a greater cause or took the hard road making their reward legitimate no matter who suffered to make it so. It's about sacrifice.
A chaotic person sees things in the immediate. They like instant results, it's not about sacrifice or thinking long term. A chaotic good person helps people because they enjoy it, the act gives them pleasure because they like seeing others happy.
A lawful good person helps someone, not because the act of helping a person makes them happy, but because knowing they sacrificed for another's happiness gives them a sense of accomplishment and self worth.
It's a subtle but important difference and is why a person can be but doesn't have to be lawful to follow a code, but they do need to be lawful to end up in the lawful planes upon death.
A person can follow a code for multiple reasons, but for this purpose we'll do extreme law and chaos.
Law: Because they seek to serve a higher ideal, to sacrifice so that they can gain a feeling of self worth and acomplishment. Lawful gods would seek such paladins because they uphold the lawful ideal of sacrifice and conformity.
Chaos: Because the code resonates with them on a personal level, these are all things they enjoy and believe in and want to share with the world. It's not a sacrifice it's who they are and they enjoy every minute of it. A chaotic god would seek such paladins because they fulfill the ideal of chaos, of living for the moment and doing what feels right.
The difference is this, a lawful paladin lives for the code, to sacrifice for the code.
A chaotic paladin is the code and embodies the code.
One is a servant which law seeks.
The other is an avatar which chaos desires.
Another way to look at it is.
Chaotic: This is what I believe in and if you don't like it too bad. I'm doing it anyway.
Lawful: I do as I do because the consequences are too great if I do not. I will sacrifice all if necessary.
@Yurei1453 sorry in advanced for my long-winded rambling, I have a feeling I'm going to get a bit ridiculous here:
Indeed, 5e does try very hard to suppress most numeric bonuses, and I appreciate and enjoy that; I personally find it a step up from previous editions. Still, a situational +1 is far from game breaking, and with the way advantage works, having advantage typically gives an average of +5 to a roll, so a +1 is a far cry from that. Even if they have advantage while flanking they're getting an average +6 with my system, which again won't break anything.
I do understand and respect the whole bounded accuracy thing, if you want to you can read up on it here: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Understanding_Bounded_Accuracy_(5e_Guideline)
It is quite interesting, though also a bit dull, but the +1 to attacks while flanking doesn't do anything to break it and I have found that so far it has made my players much more creative in combat, since getting Advantage is still more desirable to them (particularly the rogue with Elven accuracy) than getting that +1. Per the whole point of Bounded Accuracy - as opposed to older versions - there's practically no enemy in 5E with an AC high enough that you literally can't hit it, even at level 1 with no special items. But that's also why there aren't a lot of raw numeric bonuses; you used to need that +20~ to hit because the enemies you were fighting had AC's upwards of 40. That's no longer the case, so the game caps the chance to hit at +11 (sans magic items or anything) because it doesn't want you to be able to hit strong enemies all the time no matter what.
Advantage greatly increases your chance (usually around 25%, depending on your to hit modifier and enemies AC, I don't want to get crazy into the math because it's a bit complicated) to hit an enemy, and that's why getting Advantage is the optimal tactic to score hits in combat, and thus my players now try to do things that'll grant them advantage instead of just ganging up on an enemy.
For example the Druid in my party has Faerie Fire and had only used it once in about 10 sessions, since the melee fighters often just had advantage from flanking. Since changing the flanking rules a few sessions ago, the Druid has used Faerie Fire at least once per session.
As for the "Inspired Advantage":
I don't currently have a cap for it. I may make one, but I haven't been using the system long and so far none of my players have had more than 4 or 5 points at a time.
I created a custom Feat here on DNDbeyond for them to keep track of them like charges, and my players have latched onto the idea pretty intensely and will ask to use them/remind each other they have them when seemingly difficult or important checks come up. I also will ask them, if they're doing something difficult and haven't mentioned it themselves, something along the lines of "do you want to juice this before you roll?" but I've only really had to do that a few times; again, they really seem to like the system and have been keeping it in mind.
It's definitely the kind of thing that would need to be balanced on a per-game basis, and I'm sure as my game goes on I will need to change it around some. In my game, I tend to make my players roll for a lot of things, so the points get spent. Also, since they only gain 1 point when they roll a max number on a die, they don't tend to get many of the points outside of combat since only d20s are typically rolled out of combat and Nat 20s are rare. In combat it's obviously much easier to get them (thus the "you can only get 1 point per round" rule) since they're rolling a lot more dice, and smaller dice. That said, as the game goes on they'll be rolling more and more dice (4th tier characters can end up rolling 10 or more die in a single turn) so they'll practically be guaranteed to get a point every turn; at that point I may switch up how getting them works, or maybe just increase how many points it costs to get advantage, but I may not have to change it at all because:
While I haven't introduced them yet (waiting til they level up to introduce the first one) I am also going to give them special character-specific powers that they can spend more of the points to use. So they'll have to balance between "do I want to save these points to have advantage on something, or spend them to use my OP ability." I plan to give them (at least) two abilities; a standard one and an "ultimate." The standard will probably take either 2 or 3 points and the Ult will take 4-6, or even more; waiting to get more data on how much they really do stockpile these points to decide how much they'll cost.
I was expecting the bookkeeping to be a bit dirty, and for me to have to keep track of a lot of it, but as I say my players have really taken to it. They're even more excited than normal to see those max-damage die rolls in combat now, and so far haven't seemed to forget to add the point whenever they do get a max roll.
I know the whole system may seem OP, but they have thus far had advantage less than they used to when I used the standard Flanking rules. They definitely don't get enough points to juice every single attack roll. The melee fighters used to be able to have Advantage on virtually every attack when they went out of their way to flank, now they can only maintain that for a couple rounds if they rely on these points for Advantage.
Since they can only get 1 point per round, if they have multiple attacks (which they all do, they're level 5 and the Rogue uses Two-Weapon fighting) they will burn through these points faster than they can get them if they use them for all attacks.
I find it's also made things more fun for my ranged players. Even before getting extra attacks at level 5, the melee characters would often flank and thus have a much higher chance to hit with their attack, and were landing a lot more of their attacks than the ranged were landing with their Cantrips and such; this system really evens the playing floor. Since half the party had advantage anyway, no one saw it as worth it to try and grant the spellcasters advantage in different ways, and thus they were seeing far less damage potential than the melee players.
On top of that, they really like saving them for outside of combat; being able to spend them on skill checks has brought a whole new level of fun to the game, really making them feel like badasses in those important moments. Even still, advantage definitely doesn't mean an auto-pass, and there have been several times they've spent a point to get advantage and still failed.
From a DM standpoint, the system allows me to throw more difficult situations and encounters at them than they would normally be able to handle, which is great fun and has increased the tension in a lot of scenarios. In particular, they can spend the points to get Advantage on Saving Throws, so I can throw some pretty mean enemies at them and they'll actually be able to survive.
One important thing for this is that, unlike the Lucky feat, they have to specify that they're spending a point for advantage before rolling; they can't roll and then spend a point to reroll. (I know Lucky isn't technically advantage, but still.)
I am aware that this steps on the toes of some abilities; in fact, one of my players is a Chaos Sorcerer - thus having Tides of Chaos - with the Lucky feat, but even he likes having this system; he can pick and choose when to use which, and it just adds to his characters ability to twist fate in his favor, and I allow him to use Inspired Advantage or Tides of Chaos along with Lucky. But that said, it's certainly a homebrew system that should only be used if your campaign is pretty difficult, otherwise it might make things a breeze.
Anyway, it'll still require a lot more testing and probably some tweaks, and in the future I may make a post on here to talk about it; I just wanted to bring it up right now because I'm pretty proud of it (I know it's mostly stolen ideas but still :P) and we've all been having a lot of fun with it.
Sorry for the novel.
PS: I play online as well, over Discord/Roll20 using DnDbeyond character sheets. No problems with it because of that.
@squigsthetruth its useless, let's just stop there. Even if you tell them exactly how the alignment system is not linear, they still will think it is because to them it makes no sense.
but for the record, you don't want to play with alignment, your call man. But i guess your tables must always be about PVP and how much of a jerk each players can be between themselves and your NPCs. for my part, i have the most detrimental group ever and alignment have started to show them what true heroes can be. because up until now all i have been getting at the table was evil chaotic jokers at the table. you know, one is a murder hobo who likes to create serial killers, the other likes to be the god of chaos incarnate. the other likes to be a vigilante like batman or the punisher. and one of them wanted to be a hero who just wanted to save the world. yeah good luck doing that. that's what happens when you let your players do whatever they want.
3 campaigns later, and yes it always ended up PVP between themselves and the story always took the closest exits because they didn't care.
so yeah after 3 campaigns, they finally get to understand why they shouldn't be doing whatever they want. and start thinking of what others want. and now they understand the point of alignment.
but hey that's my experience. you don't like it... fine by me, but you have no rights to come barge here and tell us that we're stupid to not think like you do. and no, the reason it was removed is not because people thought like you do... it was really because it was a mechanical thing that didn't work. because mechanically there was only neutral who was good. and if you put the thing to the test and explain alignment... nobody will pick good or evil, they will always pick neutral because to them its what makes them do whatever they want.
again, alignment is for those who want role play experiences. if you want to mechanically have advantages with alignment then don't bother. there is none !
otherwise we all know everyone will end up neutral just because it dodges everything.
@jaysburn
its one way of doing it, i don't like advantages much in many circumstances. it gives too much of an edge.
but putting little +1 here and there, completely reverse what 5e was trying to do. 5e is not made to be a complex system. otherwise you have to do like 3e and give off another +1 bonus for anybody fighting on a table. start adding +1 here and there and you start looking at players starting to maximise their output by fetching all those +1 bonuses. hence why i didn't do it. because thats not how 5e works, thats how 3e worked ! i don't want my players to start maximising their output by seeking to get the most bangs for their bucks. that said, i did think of it too and i did want to use that at first. so i completely understand why you'd do it. and if it works for you and your group, then go for it.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
All my games and the games I play in are rp heavy and we engage in combat rarely. Pvp pretty much never occurs in my games. We all have real characters with real backgrounds with real motivations, desires and goals.
Alignments aren't linear, you and I BOTH agree on that. The issue is that you and I disagree on what law and chaos mean and what makes an act lawful or chaotic and how it relates to a character.
Just because we disagree on the nitty gritty of alignment does not mean I just toss it completely, nor that it has no meaning in my game.
In fact the more we talk the more I realize exactly what law and chaos is and what separates them, and in doing so have an even better understanding of paladins of different gods of different alignments and how they function as champions of that god and alignment.
Lawful gods seek servants who will follow their lead. They want people who desire guidance and recognition for their sacrifices.
Chaotic gods seek allies that share their ideals and will champion their cause because they are of like mind.
Been a dm for almost 30 years and never had any of the problems your griping about or assuming my games have.
But you wanna take it personal alright fine. You sound like a dm that's a control freak, who instead of using alignment as a guide and tool to help rp instead use it a crutch to force your rule on you player base with an iron hand if they get out of line. You seem to lack the ability to work with players to help them make real characters, to encourage a real background, and make them really care about their character as a person with real motivations. If a player has that, than alignment only matters for the very purpose it has in game. To act as a judgment in the cosmic sense for which it was originally designed.
@DnDPaladin
I largely agree with what you're saying. Honestly I first considered just abolishing Flanking, but it makes sense that there should be SOME benefit to it. However I found that Advantage is not only too big of a benefit, it's also too boring; it makes it so that Flanking is all any melee combatant tries to do.
People say that 5e's not about giving extra bonuses to keep things within the "bounded accuracy".... Except it does it all the time. Sure, there's only typically 3 things to add; your attack modifier, your proficiency bonus, and your magic weapon modifier. The "intent" is that your To Hit cannot exceed 14 (+5 Str/Dex, +6 Proficiency, +3 magic weapon)... except that multiple things can. With a Belt of Storm Giant Strength, for example, you bump that "max" 14 to hit up to 18 to hit, and at that point you are hardly ever going to miss virtually any enemy.
That said, that item is still just increasing the score of one of those 3 things that you add, so while that breaks the "bounded accuracy" it still adheres to those rules. But let's look at something else; Bless. Now you're adding an extra 4th element on top of those 3 things. Does that break the game? Apparently not.
I agree that putting in a bunch of extra bonuses is a big no-no. It's certainly something I wouldn't do 95% of the time.
For Flanking though, I like it. It's already obviously clear that you are able to exceed that +14 "max" hit roll, so an extra +1 is far from breaking anything - it's less than what Bless can give you - and remembering to apply it when you're Flanking is no more complicated than remembering to apply Advantage when you're flanking.
I can't think of anything else, besides Flanking, that I would attach an extra numerical bonus to as a houserule. I agree that it typically shouldn't be done.
As for Advantage, I like it as a principal, just not how easy Flanking makes it to get for Melee characters. It should be something players strive for, since it IS the main bonus in 5e, but it should require special abilities that grant it (see; Faerie Fire) or through creative RP.
I would never give Advantage or any kind of numerical bonus for attacking while standing on a table above someone. I WOULD give advantage if a player (likely a Rogue) went out of their way to get way above someone and Assassins Creed down on them; so long as they don't try to abuse this kind of thing, that is.
Having read up on it now, bounded accuracy also makes an assumption of no magic items whatsoever.
Which, frankly? Bothers the shit out of me. I understand what they were trying to do and for the most part even agree with it, but the underlying assumption in 5e that magic items are extremely rare and entirely optional does not even REMOTELY jive with the fact that for nine out of twelve classes, magic explodes from their ears. And two of the remaining classes can take subclass options that follow suit.
Seriously. PCs of every single class save Barbarian are either spellcasters by default or can become spellcasters, and all the always-spellcasters are bursting at the seams with magical shenanery. And yet the game wants me to buy that in a world where people eat, sleep, and breathe magic, magical stuff is super rare and almost impossible to find/make, and the rest of the world outside the PC party is a grim, gritty super low magic world of mundane darkness?
**** off with that ridiculous assumption.
Magic item shops exist in my worlds. People who can do enchanting exist. Magical gear is not Secret Treasure from Ages Past, it's a thing well-equipped adventurers who expect to do their job seek out. Because when the fundamental assumption for Bards, Clerics, Druids, some Fighters, (arguably) Monks, Paladins, some Rogues, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Wizards - and Artificers and Blood Hunters, to boot - is that each of these classes has significant, intrinsic, and unrestricted access to numerous different magical abilities over and above spellcasting?
You don't get to build a "low magic" world around them. if that requires nudging the CR on some encounters or adding an extra point of AC here and there to compensate for characters obtaining new and awesome gear, then that's just what a DM gon' hafta do.
Please do not contact or message me.
My other issue is, magic items cannot both be optional, and required at the same time. For magic items to be optional, they need to nix creatures being completely immune to attacks from mundane weaponry. For magic items to be optional, then there should be mundane options that anyone would reasonably have to each encounter, as even having a magic user is technically just as optional.
5E does a great job of making magic items a rarity, what you dislike is the high fantasy high magic setting you love. because 3E gave you that.
i give a ton of magic items in my world too, but none of them break bounded accuracy. because i like giving strong items with strong drawbacks.
the fact certain classes are fully magical, doesn't mean they create any magical items. your setting is the way you want it. but if you were to be playing D&D in any other version outside of 3e... you'd realise how hard it was to create a magical item and how hard it was to actually get one. people wanted that back. because in 3e... sorry but +1 and +2 weapons were worth nothing to merchants in my world, because they were so common that merchant wouldn't even be wanting them for resell. practically everyone had a +1 weapon in the world. it was just ridiculous to think that some people didn't. in 3e, they made the mistake of making magical items something trivial to get. and the money skyrocketted, in the case of a career. an adventurer would gain upward of 350,000 gold pieces. that was ludicrous. while in 5e, the maximum counted is about 50,000 gold pieces. that 50,000 gold pieces is much more logical then the millionnaire edition 3rd edition gave us. the goal here was to make the world a bit more logical and a bit more realistic. considering a merchant is able to live about 6 months off a single gold piece, it was ridiculous to think an adventurer would do 300 in a single quest. pratically everyone would chose that profession instead. basically in 3e, the world didn't make sense. in 5e, the world does more, because its very hard for even adventurer to get money. and without money they don't get there as fast.
exemple: in 3e, my players arrived in my magical ware merchant. they say i want that and that. he said the price, they negociate a bit then get what they want... but in this world, in 5e, they arrive, ask the merchant if he has something to help boost their weapon or armor, he says i don't have it in store now but i could start enchanting your weapon. or you could check upon these items which i believe could help you. then they realise, the price are high even for them. so they negociate and even make a deal to get certain quest items with the merchant. if they do X and Y for him, he's willing to give them the enchantment for free and maybe add a little other piece. but that piece is not what they truly desire, it is not the best in slot for them, yet it give them a boost and they'd be happy to get that much.
another exemple of 3e bullshit...
they arrive at the merchant, unloads their bag of holding full of weapons +1 and 50 armors +1 and they say how much ?
the merchant says, i'll give you 50 gold for the lot... they cry because its all magical gears, why are you giving so low for it... the merchant would say, if i take all that crap and never sell it why would i pay for it ? feel happy that im giving you 50 gold for a bunch of magical common items.
the problem is that all other edition before 3e were supposed to have magical item be something the players desired...
in 3e, it became like a video game, just go to the seller sell and buy the best in slot. and in the end, all players had a ring of protection +2, they all had their armor enchanted with +3 stats. they all had their weapon +5, flameburst, ice burst, vorpal. you know everything. in the end all players were just identical, because magical gear is best in slot. thats not to mention that monsters had to use such items otherwise they became too easy and you got things like a kraken being too easy for a bunch of level 9. they are not even close to level 20 and yet they already defeat end game bosses. so starting with the monsters and NPCs, you start giving them magical items too, which makes no sense for players to just not find such items if they kill the boss, which in turn made the magical items even more common. it was a loop that couldn't be broken.
back to 5e, if bounded accuracy was counting magical gears, like 3e did,m you'd fall int he very same loop where your monsters needs to be equipped as well if they want to follow and that leads to the very same notion of... magical gears is common in the world. which was a problem to begin with.
but hey, play your game the way you want... but for me, i am through with magical gear being just a trade show !
when i give an artifact to a player, he's willing to keep it, instead of just going to the first merchant he sees and say "i'll trade it for the best in slot gear for my character."
@ardenwolf
Chris perkins created many common magical items of which are easily aquired by anyone. they also made healing potions a common item that is easy to craft and get. so they did create a few magical gears that the regular world can easily get.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
The characters in The Godfather movies are clearly not “Lawful” but still followed a code. There are examples of clearly “Chaotic” characters who clearly followed personal codes of conduct from one of the most popular Intellectual Properties of the last century.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I agree (and also tend to have magic item shops, and a high fantasy setting), but if you want to preserve bounded accuracy, you could just remove the +1/2/3 from magical weapons, while still keeping their base effect. Numerical bonuses tend to be the least fun of bonuses anyway (IMO at least).
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
All D&D devils are officially lawful, but still lie, cheat, steal, and murder. So the Godfather example doesn't quite work.
Published Subclasses
The fact that alignment is so subjective that it seems no two people can agree on how it works is a big argument in favor of just getting the f*** rid of the stupid obsolete thing.
Foxfireinferno the only reason people do not agree is the fact they dont want to be stuck. Meaning people keep thinking alignments "forces" them into certain behaviors. That assumption is completely false. That assumption leads them into believing that alignments are stricts and forbid them from doing what they want. Then there are those who take the book word for words...
All in all... If you want the thing gone. Be my guess... But im not cause it really helps me understand my players more.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Seeing as I'm sure many players have had DMs tell them how to play their character, and what they're allowed to do based on the alignment rules, that could be part of it.
Then again, it doesn't help that there are many characters out there that fit certain classes while having alignments that were traditionally not allowed for their classes. The most glaring example would be rogues who used to be alignment restricted from being lawful. Well that artifact belongs in a museum and Indiana Jones would like to have a word with that restriction. Also, of the classes, rogue would be closest to Batman, who, while a vigilante certainly follows a strict code of behavior even when he knows breaking it would be the best for everybody.
Better explanation than I can give
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Batman would be a paladin.
Simply because of what he holds dear.
The mission is all that matters. Sacrificing everyone for the sake of the mission. There is no one more lawful good then batman. Hes a fanatical religious man that puts everything else aside just for the mission which to him is never ending ! Thats why he is getting clark so well. They are identical on that point. The only thing changing would be that clark wouldnt sacrifice others to get there.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Batman is the night. He operates best from the shadows with stealth and surprise, sneak attack! He is LITERALLY trained as an assassin. I could see Shadow Monk, but not Paladin.
Ghost Rider is a classic example of a L/E Paladin with a few levels of Fiend Warlock. He can actually call his bike much like Find Mount/Greater Mount. He can Smite like a mofo. Paladin
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I agree with this. I don't see Batman as paladin whatsoever. I think the Ghost Rider example is actually really cool when seen as a lawful evil paladin with some warlock levels.
Published Subclasses