So these are two house rules I've implemented at my table (to good results so far). Curious if anyone has thoughts or criticisms.
#1: Alignments are only Good (helps others at harm to self), Neutral (helps self but won't harm others), and Evil (harms others to help self). The whole Lawful/Chaotic axis is kind of fuzzy and enables a lot of silly characters like the stuck-up paladin or oh-so-random rogue. The main purpose of alignment, in the end, is to give both me and the players a sense of what quests and plot hooks their characters might or might not be interested in, and what they might or might not be willing to do.
#2: Death saving throws are made secretly, even from me. Until you attempt to heal or stabilize your companion, no one but their player knows if they're alive or dead. This raises the realism of fights, forces some tough tactical choices, and makes 5e just a bit more lethal. (Most notably, it's more common to have single deaths; otherwise, deaths often happen only in TPKs.) Plus, it's super intense!
So these are two house rules I've implemented at my table (to good results so far). Curious if anyone has thoughts or criticisms.
#1: Alignments are only Good (helps others at harm to self), Neutral (helps self but won't harm others), and Evil (harms others to help self). The whole Lawful/Chaotic axis is kind of fuzzy and enables a lot of silly characters like the stuck-up paladin or oh-so-random rogue. The main purpose of alignment, in the end, is to give both me and the players a sense of what quests and plot hooks their characters might or might not be interested in, and what they might or might not be willing to do.
#2: Death saving throws are made secretly, even from me. Until you attempt to heal or stabilize your companion, no one but their player knows if they're alive or dead. This raises the realism of fights, forces some tough tactical choices, and makes 5e just a bit more lethal. (Most notably, it's more common to have single deaths; otherwise, deaths often happen only in TPKs.) Plus, it's super intense!
Rule #1 i don't completely understand. Rule #2 only works if you have trustworthy players. if you do then the rule is a good one.
So these are two house rules I've implemented at my table (to good results so far). Curious if anyone has thoughts or criticisms.
#1: Alignments are only Good (helps others at harm to self), Neutral (helps self but won't harm others), and Evil (harms others to help self). The whole Lawful/Chaotic axis is kind of fuzzy and enables a lot of silly characters like the stuck-up paladin or oh-so-random rogue. The main purpose of alignment, in the end, is to give both me and the players a sense of what quests and plot hooks their characters might or might not be interested in, and what they might or might not be willing to do.
#2: Death saving throws are made secretly, even from me. Until you attempt to heal or stabilize your companion, no one but their player knows if they're alive or dead. This raises the realism of fights, forces some tough tactical choices, and makes 5e just a bit more lethal. (Most notably, it's more common to have single deaths; otherwise, deaths often happen only in TPKs.) Plus, it's super intense!
I have honestly found the G/E axis of alignment to be way less important than L/C. Of course, back in the day there was only that axis (G/E was added later) so that’s what I was used to using almost 30 years ago.
I have honestly found the G/E axis of alignment to be way less important than L/C. Of course, back in the day there was only that axis (G/E was added later) so that’s what I was used to using almost 30 years ago.
My first D&D experience was with the Red Box set, so I feel you. Although in the alignment descriptions back then, Lawful = Good and Chaotic = Evil. I was tempted to use those names, but I felt like it would be confusing for my players who started with modern D&D (and all the tropes and memes that came with that).
I have honestly found the G/E axis of alignment to be way less important than L/C. Of course, back in the day there was only that axis (G/E was added later) so that’s what I was used to using almost 30 years ago.
My first D&D experience was with the Red Box set, so I feel you. Although in the alignment descriptions back then, Lawful = Good and Chaotic = Evil. I was tempted to use those names, but I felt like it would be confusing for my players who started with modern D&D (and all the tropes and memes that came with that).
No, Lawful=/=Good and Chaotic=/=Evil. That was never the case. Back then, D&D was not a struggle of Good vs Evil, it was literally a struggle of Law and Order vs Chaos and Conflict. Good and evil were considered irrelevant.
#1: Alignments is going to be a tastes thing for me. One way is that its how the characters are perceived by another person. The characters might think they are doing good, but the commoner down the street considers them evil. When I dm I'm more loose on the Good to Evil spectrum, and usually I have it as a guide of Selfless to Selfish similar to yours. This is still simplified, and I prefer using Lawful to Chaotic more as a way to measure a characters consistency (still a simplification with Chaos = inconsistent and Law = consistent).
#2: Takes trusting your players which is easier for tighter knit groups. Although, I usually link a lore reason as to why a character (or important bosses/npcs) is able to make death saves to set them apart from commoners.
#1 - alignments don't really mean anything other than maybe an in-game trigger (say something only happens to good characters). its all how the player plays their character. 'don't be a j****ss at a table where everyone is working together" would be a better rule.
#2 - i don't like it. you can pretty much tell if your buddy is bleeding out or if he's stabilized when it comes to hack/slash injuries - sure there's sometimes internal injuries you can't see but now in your in 'if' territory (and in those cases you wouldn't be able to stabilize with a medicine kit anyway - so if you want this rule you'd really have to flush it out with a lot more 'ifs' and make it way more complicated - imo). plus, faced with permanent death for lower characters who can't afford or don't have access to a real rez, many players will fudge the role.
If you have players trustworthy enough for #2 then you have players trustworthy enough to not metagame even if they do know how many death saving throws were passed or failed.
I have honestly found the G/E axis of alignment to be way less important than L/C. Of course, back in the day there was only that axis (G/E was added later) so that’s what I was used to using almost 30 years ago.
My first D&D experience was with the Red Box set, so I feel you. Although in the alignment descriptions back then, Lawful = Good and Chaotic = Evil. I was tempted to use those names, but I felt like it would be confusing for my players who started with modern D&D (and all the tropes and memes that came with that).
No, Lawful=/=Good and Chaotic=/=Evil. That was never the case. Back then, D&D was not a struggle of Good vs Evil, it was literally a struggle of Law and Order vs Chaos and Conflict. Good and evil were considered irrelevant.
I find it hard to even have a discussion about alignment unless everyone has read three heart and three lions.
Thanks for your thoughts! Yeah, I'm very lucky to have a group of honest players...I wouldn't use Rule #2 if I were playing with a bunch of random hobbyists. All my players are my friends outside of D&D, and the only guy who I suspected might fudge his rolls was one of the first to lose a character. It's less about avoiding metagaming and more about raising the tension and stakes in close combats.
As for alignments...yeah, it's tricky because everyone has a different idea of what they objectively mean. That's a lot of why I wanted to simplify it in the first place! That and I decided I had seen my last "I do a silly dance in the throne room, haha I'm chaotic" character... :-) Honestly though, I've run a few games recently where I never ask for alignments, it's just the "don't be a j****ss at the table" rule...which might be even better. It's all dependent on trust, and I'm lucky to have trustworthy players.
I mean I have no opinion on the alignment rule, since everyone has a different outlook on how that works. I guess my only qualm would be if you were running stuff involving the planes because they need that 9 alignments.
I don't really understand what the DM, aka the all knowing, would also be excluded from knowing the outcome of Death Saves. Unless you as the DM also don't know PC health, abilities, spells, etc. This just seems odd for the person who is supposed to somewhat know all to be blocked from this. I like the idea of other PCs not knowing, but like others said above, it relies a lot on trust.
#1: I don't really understand it, if your player having fun with it, just go with it.
#2: Someone suggest either the DM roll the death saving so that the party member never know is the roll success or fail. Another way is the player roll behind the screen while the DM watch it, but the player can't tell it to the party.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So these are two house rules I've implemented at my table (to good results so far). Curious if anyone has thoughts or criticisms.
#1: Alignments are only Good (helps others at harm to self), Neutral (helps self but won't harm others), and Evil (harms others to help self). The whole Lawful/Chaotic axis is kind of fuzzy and enables a lot of silly characters like the stuck-up paladin or oh-so-random rogue. The main purpose of alignment, in the end, is to give both me and the players a sense of what quests and plot hooks their characters might or might not be interested in, and what they might or might not be willing to do.
#2: Death saving throws are made secretly, even from me. Until you attempt to heal or stabilize your companion, no one but their player knows if they're alive or dead. This raises the realism of fights, forces some tough tactical choices, and makes 5e just a bit more lethal. (Most notably, it's more common to have single deaths; otherwise, deaths often happen only in TPKs.) Plus, it's super intense!
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Rule #1 i don't completely understand.
Rule #2 only works if you have trustworthy players. if you do then the rule is a good one.
There is no dawn after eternal night.
Homebrew: Magic items, Subclasses
I have honestly found the G/E axis of alignment to be way less important than L/C. Of course, back in the day there was only that axis (G/E was added later) so that’s what I was used to using almost 30 years ago.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My first D&D experience was with the Red Box set, so I feel you. Although in the alignment descriptions back then, Lawful = Good and Chaotic = Evil. I was tempted to use those names, but I felt like it would be confusing for my players who started with modern D&D (and all the tropes and memes that came with that).
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
No, Lawful=/=Good and Chaotic=/=Evil. That was never the case. Back then, D&D was not a struggle of Good vs Evil, it was literally a struggle of Law and Order vs Chaos and Conflict. Good and evil were considered irrelevant.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
#1: Alignments is going to be a tastes thing for me. One way is that its how the characters are perceived by another person. The characters might think they are doing good, but the commoner down the street considers them evil. When I dm I'm more loose on the Good to Evil spectrum, and usually I have it as a guide of Selfless to Selfish similar to yours. This is still simplified, and I prefer using Lawful to Chaotic more as a way to measure a characters consistency (still a simplification with Chaos = inconsistent and Law = consistent).
#2: Takes trusting your players which is easier for tighter knit groups. Although, I usually link a lore reason as to why a character (or important bosses/npcs) is able to make death saves to set them apart from commoners.
#1 - alignments don't really mean anything other than maybe an in-game trigger (say something only happens to good characters). its all how the player plays their character. 'don't be a j****ss at a table where everyone is working together" would be a better rule.
#2 - i don't like it. you can pretty much tell if your buddy is bleeding out or if he's stabilized when it comes to hack/slash injuries - sure there's sometimes internal injuries you can't see but now in your in 'if' territory (and in those cases you wouldn't be able to stabilize with a medicine kit anyway - so if you want this rule you'd really have to flush it out with a lot more 'ifs' and make it way more complicated - imo). plus, faced with permanent death for lower characters who can't afford or don't have access to a real rez, many players will fudge the role.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
If you have players trustworthy enough for #2 then you have players trustworthy enough to not metagame even if they do know how many death saving throws were passed or failed.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I find it hard to even have a discussion about alignment unless everyone has read three heart and three lions.
Thanks for your thoughts! Yeah, I'm very lucky to have a group of honest players...I wouldn't use Rule #2 if I were playing with a bunch of random hobbyists. All my players are my friends outside of D&D, and the only guy who I suspected might fudge his rolls was one of the first to lose a character. It's less about avoiding metagaming and more about raising the tension and stakes in close combats.
As for alignments...yeah, it's tricky because everyone has a different idea of what they objectively mean. That's a lot of why I wanted to simplify it in the first place! That and I decided I had seen my last "I do a silly dance in the throne room, haha I'm chaotic" character... :-) Honestly though, I've run a few games recently where I never ask for alignments, it's just the "don't be a j****ss at the table" rule...which might be even better. It's all dependent on trust, and I'm lucky to have trustworthy players.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I mean I have no opinion on the alignment rule, since everyone has a different outlook on how that works. I guess my only qualm would be if you were running stuff involving the planes because they need that 9 alignments.
I don't really understand what the DM, aka the all knowing, would also be excluded from knowing the outcome of Death Saves. Unless you as the DM also don't know PC health, abilities, spells, etc. This just seems odd for the person who is supposed to somewhat know all to be blocked from this. I like the idea of other PCs not knowing, but like others said above, it relies a lot on trust.
#1: I don't really understand it, if your player having fun with it, just go with it.
#2: Someone suggest either the DM roll the death saving so that the party member never know is the roll success or fail. Another way is the player roll behind the screen while the DM watch it, but the player can't tell it to the party.