PDA

View Full Version : Things that bug you about D&D (or whatever)



Serpentine
2009-10-16, 01:14 AM
What annoys you in these games? I'm not really talking about things like "MONKS SUCK" or "PSIONICS IS DUMB" or "4TH/3RD/2ND EDITION TOTALLY RUINED THIS THING THEY GOT RIGHT IN 3RD/2ND/1ST EDITION", though I suppose you can include thos if you want. You can talk about any gaming system, though mine are just D&D.

My main ones are thusly:

1. Unicorns and (quetzal)couatls. These are meant to be two of the most lovely, beautiful, glorious creatures in (fantasy) existence, and such images are in abundance on the internet, thusly:
http://yousseftobah.com/Images/unicorn.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_e9teQ_A8KgE/SFBOczMkneI/AAAAAAAAAcA/JTyRMO7PlvA/s400/unicorn_racist.jpg
http://unicorns.wizardio.com/images/unicorn.jpg
http://franchisessentials.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/unicorn.jpg
http://images.paraorkut.com/img/pics/glitters/u/unicorn_-9839.jpg
http://www.redicecreations.com/winterwonderland/quetzalcoatl1.jpg
http://racionalistas.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/quetzalcoatl.jpg
http://www.staten-illustration.com/images/Pieces/Quetzalcoatl/Quetzalcoatl_web900.jpg
http://www.nightstoneunlimited.com/NSU-DM-Arts/AncientOnesAztecs-Quetzalcoatl.jpg
http://images.elfwood.com/art/d/r/dragongoddess/quetzalcoatl03b.jpg


Yet the best efforts of Wizards of the Coast artists can be described as "paltry" at best, witness:
http://www.kaluta.com/pages/games/dnd/couatl10.jpg
http://premium1.uploadit.org/Thrakkorzog/quiz/Couatl.JPG
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG286_WEB.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/dx20061215_creatureinc_unicorn.jpg
Unfortunately I can't find many of them, but basically the Couatls are always washed-out or goofy-looking, and the unicorns are generally just dull. First thing I did when I had access to 4th edition materials was look for these two. I was disappointed.

2. Chaos is less "Good" than Law. There were a few suspicions in 3.5 - the default Paladin is only Lawful, the two best Good dragons are both Lawful and the best Evil dragon is Chaotic, a creature in a Dragon magazine that fed on Goodness caused its victim to become more and more Chaotic as well as Evil, and so on. Then it was just catastrophically confirmed in 4th edition when it was declared that it was impossible for Good people to be Chaotic, and for Evil people to be Lawful. On the behalf of all revolutionaries, progressives, humanitarians, humanists, human rights campaigners, freedom fighters, Robin Hood types, hippies, fairies, anarchists, good-natured crazies and well-meaning anti-authoritarians (not to mention tyrants, serial killers, corrupt officials, Nazis, sadistic soldiers, greedy industrialists, warmongerers, and every-day nasty busy-bodies), I am deeply offended.

3. Good is prettier and generally better than Evil. I know that part of D&D is meant to be "the good guys always win", but when the Evil in the world is sorely outmatched by the Good, it sorta makes one's own hero seem a bit redundant. Seen in: the nagas, in which the only attractive one is the Good Guardian; dragons, where the two toughest dragons are both Good; the d20SRD finds more Good creatures of CR 20 or above than Evil; the toughest core giant is Good; every single Good creature is stunningly beautiful, while the vast majority of Evil creatures are hideous.

...it gets to me :smalltongue:

Tyndmyr
2009-10-16, 01:25 AM
Good and evil being so cliched.

I swear, why does every old caster become a lich bent on world domination?

Also...the predominance of D20. It's not actually a bad system, and I frequently play and enjoy it, but I do wish that other systems got some play by players as well...D10 roll and keep is the one I mechanically like most, and I've seen quite a few systems that are pretty interesting and have one or two nice points.

The love of Dragons in every frigging fantasy product ever. See also, chicks in chainmail bikinis, or, for those products really desperate to sell despite a complete lack of content....chicks in chainmail bikinis WITH dragons.

Eldariel
2009-10-16, 01:32 AM
Good and evil being so cliched.

I think this is a result of them including Good and Evil in D&D. I much prefer the 3-point Alignment axis of Law-Neutrality-Chaos. No damn real-world baggage in my games, TYVM.

Tempest Fennac
2009-10-16, 01:33 AM
Listed alinments annoy me the most, excluding the animal Int rules (as far as I'm concerned, listing races as "usually/often Whatever" akes them look 1-dimentional while coming across as unrealistic (especially when you have racism which inspires whole races to get attack bonuses vs. some creatures is classed as a Good trait somehow*).


*Dwarves (LG) get bonuses vs. Goblins, Giants and Orcs, Gnomes (NG) get bonuses vs. Kobolds and Goblins and Lupins (LG/LN) get attack bonuses vs. Werewolves. While the latter doesn't sound as bad due to Werewolves always ending up as CE if normal alignment rules are followed, their fluff in issue 325 of Dragon Magazine also states that they go out to slaughter all the Lycanthropes they can find arounf the Full Moon. No exceptions were listed either. :smalleek:

karnokoto
2009-10-16, 01:35 AM
See also, chicks in chainmail bikinis, or, for those products really desperate to sell despite a complete lack of content....chicks in chainmail bikinis WITH dragons.

You just touched on two of my favourite things ever :(
Although I'm a much bigger fan of the platekini over the chainkini.
I'm not sure what it protects (maybe our virgin eyes) but it looks great:smalltongue:

To be honest, all of the tiny nitpicky rules bug me. Also, players who abuse these little nitpicky rules. In short, munchkins and powergamers.
Actually I suppose what really bugs me is munchkins and powergamers in groups of players who are not munchkins/powergamers.

Also, tieflings as a base race. I dunno, just never sat well with me. Dont get me wrong, I love em, 4e is great...but I can't see it working out.

Darkameoba
2009-10-16, 01:50 AM
ranged weapons sucking ass in 3.5 (im sure i just got every optimizer out there pissed) i mean, a level one fighter with a bow cant even come close to hoping to match the damage output of a level 1 fighter with a great sword, long sword, hell a freaking spoon.

jseah
2009-10-16, 01:51 AM
I swear, why does every old caster become a lich bent on world domination?
Because in 3.5, when you get old enough and powerful enough, you realize exactly how much power magic gives you.

It's no surprise that lots of them get corrupted and try to build Tippy-verse. =P

Simba
2009-10-16, 02:01 AM
Also...the predominance of D20. It's not actually a bad system, and I frequently play and enjoy it, but I do wish that other systems got some play by players as well...D10 roll and keep is the one I mechanically like most, and I've seen quite a few systems that are pretty interesting and have one or two nice points.

I am currently working on an adaption of the storyteller/Storytelling system to a fantasy setting. It uses a number of d10s instead of one d20, making luck a smaller factor compared to skill. AND there is no good/evil at all.

FoE
2009-10-16, 02:21 AM
One thing that bugged me was that at some point it was decided that vampires primarily drained life energy instead of blood. What's the point of their fangs, then?

I don't mind using energy drain as a weapon, but don't take away my blood-drinking vampires, you bastards.

Simba
2009-10-16, 02:31 AM
My complaints:

- feats are vastly different in the power of their effects
- most feats don't scale with level, losing their appeal over time
- classes are not at the same level of ability / power. There is only a small window where they are more or less on the same level
- too much confusing, contradictory rulings spread over several books
- especially at low levels luck is more important than skill. Ok, that might actually be true in RL as well.

oxybe
2009-10-16, 03:30 AM
1- alignment as a whole, but especially mechanical alignment. i mean seriously... an vague and ill-defined system what's interpretation can wildly vary between group members having a direct mechanical effect on specific elements of gameplay? yuck. i don't mind if a particular setting or homebrew puts a focus on the good/evil or law/chaos thing but i always found a solid line or two of description to be worth much more then "Always LE" or "Usually CN"

they killed most of it off in 4th, i'll be waiting and salivating for those delicious sacred hamburgers come 5th.

2- skill points in a level based game. i'll grab a post of mine from the WotC page several months ago and just copy paste:

because D&D is not a skill-based game. skills are part of the package, but not it's entirety. a long list of separate non-associated skills in a game where they are a feature will dilute it's purpose, especially the distribution method is limited.

i'll use 3rd ed D&D as an example for this, but it applies to any game where your skills are a limited resource. the 2+int skill points classes in a game with 36 individual skills, some like "knowledge" is actually 8 individual skills with one main header while perform/craft/profession are just placeholder for other skills. that 2+int will get somewhere between 46 and 92 points probably, or 4 skills by level 20. it sounds like a lot of points, but it's really maxing out less then a tenth of the possible individual skills. or you can split them up between a fifth of them but you'll be weak in those skills and if you need to do a task that should normally only be difficult for a character of your level it might prove itself too great...

D&D & other such games, since you have a very finite number of skills points to use, it's usually best to max out 2-3 skills and have another 3-4 with a few points in it... usually enough to score the minimum required for a task or to get some synergy bonuses.

in games like GURPS, which offer a more free-form leveling, you don't have a "limit" other then the amount of XP you gain and it's much easier to be trained in a large variety of skills

while it's very possible to min-max a skill in GURPS (i'll admit, i've done it), you will almost always have a some XP in storage to allocate and it's usually in your interest to spread them out as if you really need that one skill a bit higher. i find this not nearly as debilitating then D&D where you almost have to plan a level or two in advance if you want to spread them out, or just pick X skills and max them, where X = int+class skill points.

what 4th ed did is, IMO, a good thing: condense the skill list into similar groupings and let the players pick X (where X is determined from their class). this allows for characters who are much more skilled as each skill has a subset of things it covers. with 3 levels of training (untrained, trained, focused) possible which is modified by the stat mod, 1/2 level and items/situation, it does allow for variety between characters. it just doesn't bother with minute and individual details and leaves that to the player & gm.

in 4th ed if you want your rogue to be a pickpocket that can't crack safes grab "thievery", ignore the training bonus and tell that to the group & GM. done.

the tl;dr version: lots of non-associated skills in a non-skill system + few and limited skill points = characters who can't do much IMO. 4th ed, IMO, handles skills right as far as D&D and level-based games are concerned.

note that the original post was done before i owned DMG 2 and the rest of the books that contained more information on backgrounds. with information on creating backgrounds that add new skills to your list, languages to those known, new abilities to your existing skills and other neat stuff, a little talk between player & dm can go a long way in expanding your character's abilities.

3- feats are iffy. it's in my opinion that they should allow you to expand the possibilities of your class and race choices by modifying existing abilities, instead of just giving bonuses. stuff that causes your ray of frost to do a square of hindering terrain, your fighter's cleave to hit an extra enemy, ect... not just "+X hit and/or damage".

a few generic ones would be nice, but if they are too nice, then they become standard and the more "option enhancing" ones are ignored for pure number crunching. i would like generic feats to open new uses for skills, for example.
---------------------------------------------------------
most other stuff, like changes to the race or class lineup i don't care about. this happens at every edition change. i've been using Fighters as barbarians before i even heard of kits in 2nd ed so reskinning a class or race is natural at this point.

really if i'm going to create my own world or use an existing one i'll have my own list of allowed races... the books just save me trouble of writing them up (though i'll probably allow a "nonstandard for my world" race if the player can help me fit it in the world). same with classes, though i'm very much for reskinning classes and abilities to fit with character concepts.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-16, 04:12 AM
(1) Alignment.
(2) The concept of psionics as "it's not magic, honestly!"
(3) Double swords and spiked chains.
(4) Alignment.
(5) The christmas tree effect.
(6) Being able to kill a dragon at level 1.
(7) NPC classes.
(8) Alignment.

arguskos
2009-10-16, 04:15 AM
And yet again, I find myself on the short end of alignment. I liked alignment. :smallfrown:

Anyways! My main gripe about 3.5 is probably the unending love of draconic everything. Ugh. They got THREE DAMN BOOKS TO THEMSELVES!! You know how many celestials got? One, and that's assuming BoED was all about celestials (it wasn't). What about giants? Constructs? Oozes? A whole set of interesting topics were totally glossed over in favor of the gigantic thunder lizards of fanwank. :yuk: I could not be more angry about that if I tried.

Disclaimer: I like dragons fine... as the top of the food chain. Not as player options. Somethings aren't meant to be had.

Comet
2009-10-16, 04:20 AM
Yeah, alignments get to me too. Especially when they're so very universal and cosmic. I wouldn't mind there being several philosophical groups within the game world that associated themselves with certain 'alignments' and such.
But the fact that the whole world revolves around these absolute markers just feels silly.

Another thing. The character sheet in every version of D&D since the 3th one. They're just so... uninteresting. Neutral. Full of nothing but numbers and statistics.
They look like tax forms! I feel offput by D&D 3/4 just because the character sheets are so very boring. And it's such a pain to teach new players how to fill them.

Tengu_temp
2009-10-16, 04:44 AM
Then it was just catastrophically confirmed in 4th edition when it was declared that it was impossible for Good people to be Chaotic, and for Evil people to be Lawful. On the behalf of all revolutionaries, progressives, humanitarians, humanists, human rights campaigners, freedom fighters, Robin Hood types, hippies, fairies, anarchists, good-natured crazies and well-meaning anti-authoritarians (not to mention tyrants, serial killers, corrupt officials, Nazis, sadistic soldiers, greedy industrialists, warmongerers, and every-day nasty busy-bodies), I am deeply offended.


Sorry, I'm CG in real life and I never recall giving you the rights to speak on my behalf. 4e has a different alignment system than AD&D and 3.x, with wider fields the various alignments cover - 3.5 CG is 4e Good, or Neutral if the character is much more chaotic than good. In fact, I find the idea that if the alignment system does not cover your character's personality, then you can't play it, to be more than a bit silly. Are you offended that the very first edition only has the law/chaos axis, therefore making it impossible to play good and evil characters, too?

What bugs me about DND? Relics of the past that should be long gone in a modern game. This includes the alignment system I just talked about (which makes it quite ironic, possibly), random elements during character creation and advancement (rolling for stats? Rolling for HP? No, thanks!), the idea that only casters can do other stuff in combat than move, auto-attack, use items and maybe perform the one shtick they're built for, HP being directly proportional to your level, over-dependance on magic items as opposed to the character's actual abilities, and the creators having no idea about game balance, even though their game is too unrealistic to be simulationist and not caring about players roleplaying and taking initiative enough to be narrativist. 4e fixed some of those, but not all, and it has its own issues.

Serpentine
2009-10-16, 04:59 AM
4e has a different alignment system than AD&D and 3.x, with wider fields the various alignments cover - 3.5 CG is 4e Good, or Neutral if the character is much more chaotic than good. In fact, I find the idea that if the alignment system does not cover your character's personality, then you can't play it, to be more than a bit silly. Are you offended that the very first edition only has the law/chaos axis, therefore making it impossible to play good and evil characters, too?Seriously? You're going to have a go at me for that?
I fail to see how merging Chaos with Neutral is giving alignment "wider fields". It seems entirely counter-intuitive to me. And it does offend me, because it implies that anyone who doesn't believe in the almighty natural right of rulers to rule and the dominion of authority must be less interested in the wellbeing of others than those who do. There is absolutely no reason I can think of other than real-world biases to declare that all that is Good cannot be Chaotic, and all that is Lawful cannot be Evil.
And no, I'm not offended by the 1st ed thingy. First of all, because I didn't know about it until now, but secondly, because it's relatively fair. It's just alignment on one axis, not two. And it keeps the less debated one.

And yet again, I find myself on the short end of alignment. I liked alignment. :smallfrown:I like alignment too, although in my games it's generally more just a roleplaying tool, with mechanical stuff like spells that work against a particular alignment mostly just working against creatures that epitomise that alignment, usually by being that subtype.

arguskos
2009-10-16, 05:12 AM
I like alignment too, although in my games it's generally more just a roleplaying tool, with mechanical stuff like spells that work against a particular alignment mostly just working against creatures that epitomise that alignment, usually by being that subtype.
I merely liked alignment as a descriptive tool for the universe. It was never meant to be a straitjacket, but a way to help describe your character in a way the universe understood, so that SHOULD the blackguard try and attack you on a moral basis, there's more than harsh language comin' your way: he's concentrating his personal evils into a form that harms you.

At least, that's how I learned it from 2e and Planescape in specific. :smallamused: Glad to know a few folks still like it other than me.

Zombimode
2009-10-16, 05:14 AM
Seriously? You're going to have a go at me for that?
I fail to see how merging Chaos with Neutral is giving alignment "wider fields". It seems entirely counter-intuitive to me. And it does offend me, because it implies that anyone who doesn't believe in the almighty natural right of rulers to rule and the dominion of authority must be less interested in the wellbeing of others than those who do. There is absolutely no reason I can think of other than real-world biases to declare that all that is Good cannot be Chaotic, and all that is Lawful cannot be Evil.

Hm, it may be the case here, that you mistaken the 4e "lawfull" as something that refers to actual laws or traditions. Its been a while since I read the aligment section in the 4e PHB, but iirc "good" means "acting moraly" and "lawfull good" means "acting moraly and altruistic". Under this definition you dont need a "chaotic" (which is pretty hard to define anyway) prefix for those types you listed in your first post.


On topic:
One of my issues with D&D is a certain but prominent player atitude that WBL guidlines are more then part of the CR mechanic, in so far that their characters have a right on those "shinies" regradless what they actually do in the campaign.

Serpentine
2009-10-16, 05:17 AM
Arguskos: Eggzachiary! And I think it makes sense, in the context of fantasy storytelling - Good vs. Evil is a major part of almost every fantasy novel and story in existance. Why shouldn't it play a part in a game that's designed to replicate that experience? That said, I also think it's perfectly valid for what exactly the alignments mean to change for every game - if the DM's god and the creator of the game universe, then that means he gets to determine Right and Wrong within that universe.

@^ It doesn't really say that altruism is a lawful attribute, does it? I would place altruism very firmly within the domain of Good. In fact, if altruism isn't a defining characteristic of Good, I don't know what is...

Tengu_temp
2009-10-16, 05:20 AM
There is absolutely no reason I can think of other than real-world biases to declare that all that is Good cannot be Chaotic, and all that is Lawful cannot be Evil.

I think you're reading way too much into it. The alignment system got simplified because of the countless debates about 3.5 alignment - just what exactly makes one chaotic, or lawful? What is the difference between NG and CG? 4e simplified it all to:

If you're a knight in shining armor, or something similar, you're LG.
If you're a do-gooder who doesn't care that much about honor and hierarchy, you're G.
If you like evil and destruction for the heck of it, you're CE.
If you're evil, but evil in itself is not a reward for you, you're E.
If you don't fit any of these, you're N.

I fail to see how this implies you can't play Robin Hood-like characters. Although I'd rather if they went even further, reducing number of alignments to Good, Neutral and Evil, or just all-out and remove the alignment system entirely.

arguskos
2009-10-16, 05:21 AM
Eggzachiary! And I think it makes sense, in the context of fantasy storytelling - Good vs. Evil is a major part of almost every fantasy novel and story in existance. Why shouldn't it play a part in a game that's designed to replicate that experience? That said, I also think it's perfectly valid for what exactly the alignments mean to change for every game - if the DM's god and the creator of the game universe, then that means he gets to determine Right and Wrong within that universe.
Precisely! HOWEVER!! The DM must always be clear and up front with his/her group. No fair changing what LG means from campaign to campaign and not tellin' folks. :smallwink:

Happily, I don't change what they mean, just the world they inhabit, meaning responses to them change. A Neutral Good ranger in one world is a hero, beloved by all for their selfless protection. In another, they're a nuisance, restricting freedom in the name of protection. In yet a third, they're a scourge and a blight, stopping those harmless slavering beasties from living their lives. All depends, and the NG never changed, just the world.

Makes sense to me at least.

It is only fair for me to say that attitudes like Tengu's are fine though, and totally understandable. I somehow doubt he'd be happy at my table though. :smallwink:

Serpentine
2009-10-16, 05:22 AM
When did I say it means you can't play Robin Hood type characters? It just implies to me that said Robin Hoods are not as Good as said knights in shining armour. And that list you gave does nothing to dispel my conviction that it is narrowing, not expanding, options. I would by far prefer to not have an alignment at all than have that one.

Tempest Fennac
2009-10-16, 05:24 AM
I'd say the 9 alignments in pre-4th Editions would have been perfectly fine if they were a bit clearer (I see Good as being about actively helping others, Neutral as being about only helping yourself and people close to you, Evil as being concerned with harming other people for fun or personal gain, Chaos as being about prefering to do things your way while not caring much about social norms and values, Neutral (on the L/C axis) as being about going with whatever works at the time as far as freedom/conformity goes with Law being about conforming to how things are).

Tengu_temp
2009-10-16, 05:28 AM
When did I say it means you can't play Robin Hood type characters? It just implies to me that said Robin Hoods are not as Good as said knights in shining armour. And that list you gave does nothing to dispel my conviction that it is narrowing, not expanding, options. I would by far prefer to not have an alignment at all than have that one.

How does 4e imply that LG is more good than (N)G in a way that 3.x doesn't? As for options, I don't see how any alignment system gives you them - you create a character, and then pick the alignment that matches its beliefs best. No meaningful options there, no matter if there are 3, 5, 9 or 27 alignments to choose from.

Chrono22
2009-10-16, 05:40 AM
Classes. Levels. Armor Class. Caster levels. Spell save difficulty class. Armor class. Base attack bonus. Critical confirms. Queer terminology.

Katana_Geldar
2009-10-16, 05:43 AM
Happily, I don't change what they mean, just the world they inhabit, meaning responses to them change. A Neutral Good ranger in one world is a hero, beloved by all for their selfless protection. In another, they're a nuisance, restricting freedom in the name of protection. In yet a third, they're a scourge and a blight, stopping those harmless slavering beasties from living their lives. All depends, and the NG never changed, just the world.

Reminds me of an argument I had with the unaligned rogue at my last game, where me, LG, was willing to let an NPC kill himself rather than let him live and go insane by the mind-altering curse that had affected both of us.

Serpentine
2009-10-16, 06:03 AM
How does 4e imply that LG is more good than (N)G in a way that 3.x doesn't?It is the change from 3.5 to 4e that has the implications. Taken on its own, the 4e alignment system does not, but then it also simply makes absolutely no sense to me. However, that they decided that, in the change from 3.5 to 4, Chaos is less Good and Law is more Good, as indicated by the elimination of even the possibility of a Chaotic character being also Good and an Evil character being Lawful, as well as various bits and pieces along the way (some of which are mentioned in the first post), confirms that the assumption in the creation of 3.5 was that Law is more Good than Chaos. In my opinion, they are exactly as much polar opposites, with exactly as much range in outlooks and philosophies, as Good and Evil. The change in 4e indicates that the creators disagree, and see the Good-Evil/Chaos-Law chart as being rather wonky and ill-balanced. (I'm tempted to give a pictorial demonstration now...).

warmachine
2009-10-16, 06:07 AM
That HP is low at first level, that oddity 1st level characters getting 4x skill points, NPC classes suck, even at their own job, and that 1st level PCs just plain suck when this could be fixed by making 3rd level the default starting level. Eliminating the 4x skill points and making NPC classes comparable would restore rules elegance.

Things like rules elegance bug me, OK?

Katana_Geldar
2009-10-16, 06:12 AM
It is the change from 3.5 to 4e that has the implications. Taken on its own, the 4e alignment system does not, but then it also simply makes absolutely no sense to me. However, that they decided that, in the change from 3.5 to 4, Chaos is less Good and Law is more Good, as indicated by the elimination of even the possibility of a Chaotic character being also Good and an Evil character being Lawful, as well as various bits and pieces along the way (some of which are mentioned in the first post), confirms that the assumption in the creation of 3.5 was that Law is more Good than Chaos. In my opinion, they are exactly as much polar opposites, with exactly as much range in outlooks and philosophies, as Good and Evil. The change in 4e indicates that the creators disagree, and see the Good-Evil/Chaos-Law chart as being rather wonky and ill-balanced. (I'm tempted to give a pictorial demonstration now...).

I see it as a streamlining, though I guess it could be a little more defined than it is.

What I liked about it is it takes away the whole Chaotic Neutral munchkin thing.

Serpentine
2009-10-16, 06:14 AM
What I liked about it is it takes away the whole Chaotic Neutral munchkin thing.That's never really come up in any of my games. I expect my players to think about why they chose their alignment, what it means about to them, and what it indicates about the way they'll normally act and react to things.

Katana_Geldar
2009-10-16, 06:21 AM
Yes, but not everyone does not think their PC is not an extension of themselves.

I put way too many negatives in that sentence, didn't I? :smallannoyed:

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-16, 06:26 AM
Dragon fetishes.
Crystal fetishes (in psionics)
The massive fumbling of alignment (which could have been a good idea if managed with any degree of competency)

In that light...

I would by far prefer to not have an alignment at all than have that one.

QFT. And I agree with most of her/his other points on alignment.

Amphetryon
2009-10-16, 06:38 AM
Yes, but not everyone does not think their PC is not an extension of themselves.

I put way too many negatives in that sentence, didn't I? :smallannoyed:

I do not think that you did not.

Kvetching list:
D&D: 4,378 varieties of Elf.... and Dwarf.... and Human. :smallyuk:

Palladium: SDC/MDC, where if you didn't bring MDC to the table, you needn't show up. Thrice-opposed attack rolls.

hamishspence
2009-10-16, 06:47 AM
When did I say it means you can't play Robin Hood type characters? It just implies to me that said Robin Hoods are not as Good as said knights in shining armour.

Which, from the point of view of many philsophers, is exactly right- robbing the rich is morally wrong.

Robbing robbers, on the other hand, is a bit more justifiable (if "the rich" got that way via, basically, legalized robbery)

the Giving to the poor might (for some) mitigate the wrong done in committing robbery. Especially if they were the victims of legalized robbery, themselves.

But the robbery itself, is still seen as wrongdoing, without a better justification than "Noone deserved to be that rich"

Vizzerdrix
2009-10-16, 07:25 AM
Classes. I hate classes. I can't stand the thought of every fighter since the dawn of time having the same skills as the next. I hate it. I want to make a person, not a class. I want a wizard who learned to use a warhammer instead of the same weapons as every other wizard. I want a barbarian that can take preform without cross classing his ranks. Heck, I want a thief that can rage or a sorc that learns how to turn undead.

I dislike fluffies. Players who are allowed to do whatever they want "for flavor". Being allowed to run up a giant, cut his throat, use his hair to swing around to his back and ride the body to the ground "because it's cool" robs from every player who spent time and invested the resources looking for the rules, skills and feat to do the same thing. Getting to hide in the open, or under a dead enemy, when everyone else is struggling to get into the PrC that lets them do just that. Fluffies get to do all the heroic stuff, without putting the effort of learning the mechanics to actually DO it.

GFPCs/BFDMs, BFPCs/GFDMs, . I hate being "That Guy", but this has ruined every damn game I've seen it in. If both want to play, that's fine. Ive seen that work great, but when one DMs and one plays.....

Tempest Fennac
2009-10-16, 07:27 AM
Regarding the issues with the classes having the same skills, have you ever asked your DM about letting you trade class skills, weapon proficiencies or abilities? I'd be fine with letting you do that if I was DMing for you.

Vizzerdrix
2009-10-16, 07:31 AM
I have. Most times I just use the Generic classes out of UA. But I dislike asking for special treatment like that, as I know too many strict DMs who feel differently than I do. And it's not just skills, class systems just feel cookie cutter to me. :smallfrown:

Tempest Fennac
2009-10-16, 07:39 AM
I look at it this way regarding the "special treatment" comment; nothing's stopping other players from asking for similar changes and it's not as is a lot of the examples you gave would really hinder the game at all, so you may as well try asking in case it works out in your favour. :smallsmile:

Dixieboy
2009-10-16, 07:47 AM
I swear, why does every old caster become a lich bent on world domination?


Because they can.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-16, 08:02 AM
Heck, I want a thief that can rage or a sorc that learns how to turn undead.

Multiclassing and elimination of class-based fluff FTW...

But yeah, in light of complaints like this, the sheer overwhelming popularity (pushes out other systems) of D&D is sort of a flaw.

Dhavaer
2009-10-16, 08:27 AM
When did I say it means you can't play Robin Hood type characters? It just implies to me that said Robin Hoods are not as Good as said knights in shining armour. And that list you gave does nothing to dispel my conviction that it is narrowing, not expanding, options. I would by far prefer to not have an alignment at all than have that one.

The alignment descriptions in 4e always gave me the opposite impression, that Lawful Good is less good than Good. The quick blurb in particular (Lawful Good: Civilisation and Order) comes off as more LN than LG.

SoD
2009-10-16, 08:33 AM
But the robbery itself, is still seen as wrongdoing, without a better justification than "Noone deserved to be that rich"

"Noone deserved to be that rich when their neibourgh's that poor"

hiryuu
2009-10-16, 08:37 AM
Also, tieflings as a base race. I dunno, just never sat well with me. Dont get me wrong, I love em, 4e is great...but I can't see it working out.

Get this woman some Planescape STAT!

hamishspence
2009-10-16, 08:41 AM
But what counts as a neighbour? People who live near you? People who live in the same country as you? People who live on the same planet as you?

There is also the problem of the assumption that the wealth was made "at the expense of others"

and that "the existence of poor people means the right to be rich, does not exist"

JellyPooga
2009-10-16, 09:03 AM
1) HP. This is my biggest bugbear in D&D. The fact that HP are at once an abstract measure of combat readiness and simultaneously a measure of your state of health bugs me. If you're injured, you're injured and you should be taking penalties for it (it's not easy to fight when your sword arm is bleeding like a stuck pig). If someone 'hitting' you in melee combat represents a certain back-and-forth and not neccesarily you getting physically injured (but rather just tired, off-balance or whatever), then why does ranged combat assume one arrow per attack? Why, when you hit with a poisoned attack, is that always you physically hitting your opponent when it's not always the case when you haven't got a poisoned weapon? Why can a mid-high level Fighter survive terminal velocity or swimming naked in molten lava?

Just no. The world, no matter how much magic is in it, simply doesn't work that way.

2)Alignment. I know this has already been discussed in this thread, but it's my second biggest nit-pick. I don't like alignment, to put it simply. Sure, people tend to act in certain ways, but how does that equate with conforming to a empirical, quantifiable measure that has actual physical effects? So I'm an altruistic person that gives money to the poor on a regular basis and will help an old lady across the street...why does that mean that a particular spell (let's say...Unholy Word) reacts in one way to me, but completely differently to the sadistic murderer standing next to me? If I turn around and stab the old lady I'm helping across the street, in complete disregard for my past actions, thereby changing my "goodness level", what exactly has changed in my being? Nothing. The way you act is the way you act, nothing more! You can't detect an "evil" person any more than you could detect a person that's had grapefruit for breakfast! Yes, there's evidence for having grapefruit for breakfast, but tomorrow I might have porridge and all that grapefruity evidence will be irrelevant.

I'm starting to rant now so I'll stop on that subject...

3)Classes and Levels. It might be easy, it might be popular, but it just doesn't make sense. Let's take a Fighter. A level 1 Fighter is literally half the warrior that a level 2 Fighter is. Accounting only for the class itself, he's got (up to) half the HP, half the BAB and half the feats. What gives? All the level 2 guy has over the level 1 guy is that he's killed a couple more goblins and found a bit more treasure, but his comparitive combat prowess is more than just noticable.

4)Feat. Why do I need a feat to do certain things? Things that come to mind are: Underfoot Combat, Quick Draw, Metamagic and Cleave. There's hundreds of feats out there and a good portion of them allow you to do things that you should be able to do anyway. Fling Ally? Why of earth can I not throw my buddy (assuming I have the size and strength to do so) without taking this feat?

MickJay
2009-10-16, 10:05 AM
I can't help noticing that most people here are bugged by things that make D&D what D&D is, maybe change the system altogether, or adapt some other system to work with D&D fluff? There are dozens upon dozens of systems which allow to avoid problems with class rigidity, alignment, the way HP is supposed to work and all the other stuff. Hybrids/homebrewing ftw. :smalltongue:

valadil
2009-10-16, 10:11 AM
D&D Deities. I have thus far in my GMing career failed to engage religious characters. I'm planning a 4e game now so I read through the campaign setting's gods, looking for anything I could use to my advantage. Nothing. They're all boring and contrived. There's no sublety to any of them. The closest I got was Kelemvor, but even that's practically trope.

JellyPooga
2009-10-16, 10:19 AM
D&D Deities. I have thus far in my GMing career failed to engage religious characters. I'm planning a 4e game now so I read through the campaign setting's gods, looking for anything I could use to my advantage. Nothing. They're all boring and contrived. There's no sublety to any of them. The closest I got was Kelemvor, but even that's practically trope.

I've always quite liked the deities from the Forgotten Realms myself. Sure, they're pretty stereotyped, but that's the point of gods...they are what you expect them to be because their very being is comprised of what people believe.

oxybe
2009-10-16, 10:26 AM
I can't help noticing that most people here are bugged by things that make D&D what D&D is, maybe change the system altogether, or adapt some other system to work with D&D fluff? There are dozens upon dozens of systems which allow to avoid problems with class rigidity, alignment, the way HP is supposed to work and all the other stuff. Hybrids/homebrewing ftw. :smalltongue:

Please get your D&D out of my D&D. :smallbiggrin:

what makes D&D to one person will be different from the next. D&D is so many things at once that it's almost impossible to have a universal list of "This is D&D"

Morty
2009-10-16, 10:28 AM
Hm.

1) Designated enemies. It really speaks for itself. I hate how some races are there to be evil and killed and every piece of description they get is how evil they are and should be killed. It doesn't make much difference whether or not the game in question uses some sort of "alignment" system.

2) "Cinematic" mechanics and shoehorning narrative devices into the game. I avoid any system that has rules for "cool" and "awesome" things as well as those who explain anything with "well, that's how it worked in [instert book or movie here] like a plague. When I play an RPG, I want an RPG, not a cheap action movie or a console game. Riddle of Steel gets a pass because of its brutally realistic combat system and the fact that its cinematic mechanics are really more similiar to heroic myths than modern media, which is slightly more bearable.

3) Generally, adding anything, be it in rules or flavor for the sake of some vaguely defined and highly subjective "cool/awesome factor" grates on my nerves.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-16, 10:39 AM
Please get your D&D out of my D&D. :smallbiggrin:

what makes D&D to one person will be different from the next. D&D is so many things at once that it's almost impossible to have a universal list of "This is D&D"

Ia. D&D isn't a very universal standard. In my D&D, surviving a 9000-foot drop is perfectly reasonable. Not so for many D&Ds. Et cetera.

MickJay
2009-10-16, 10:39 AM
Please get your D&D out of my D&D. :smallbiggrin:

what makes D&D to one person will be different from the next. D&D is so many things at once that it's almost impossible to have a universal list of "This is D&D"

Agreed, but you have to admit, if someone says "alignment", anyone who heard of roleplaying thinks "D&D" :smallbiggrin: Classes, well, they feature in most RPGs, under different names, but D&D is (in)famous for rigidity and lack of balance when it comes to classes, and that's pretty much at the very core of D&D, as it stems straight from the wargaming D&D was initially based on and it's still there (at least was up to 3.5e).

Alignment was also designed simply to make a division between "bad guys who can be killed freely because they're bad guys" and rest of the world, all the later re-fluffing and adding on was in response to the apparent excessive simplicity of this design. Right now there are patches on the patches on the original thing, but again, if this eclectism and contradictions are the problem for some, why not pick a different system? 4e was designed specifically to deal with some of the problems inherent in the earlier editions, but if you don't like 4e either, go and adapt another system to work with the fluff, it's not that difficult. :smallwink:

Zeta Kai
2009-10-16, 10:47 AM
Alignment sucks a lot.
Alignment threads suck even more, if that's possible.
Grappling sucks, even if you know how to do it.
The CR "system" suck categorically.
Save-or-Suck sucks.
Save-or-Die sucks at sucking.
Elves suck in the woods.
Dwarves suck in caves.
Orcs suck when Tolkien isn't writting them.
Halflings suck no matter who writes them.
Tieflings without Aasimars suck.
Dragons suck, but would suck less if they were featured less.
Munchkins suck, & will do anything to suck more.
Killer DMs suck.
The popularity of D&D compared to better systems sucks.
DMPCs tend to suck.
Feats suck, but they don't have to.
Levels kinda suck, but they can be okay.
Linear Fighters suck slowly & gradually.
Quadratic Wizards suck at an exponential rate.
Rules Lawyers suck.
Vancian casting sucks so bad, it's not funny.
1st Edition sucked, but in an old-school way.
2nd Edition sucked, from THAC0 on down.
3rd Edition sucks, but you could choose how it did so.
4th Edition sucks, because it's different.
Pathfinder sucks, because it's not different enough.
oWoD sucked in many different ways.
nWoD sucks in one unified way.
GURPS sucks, but is really accurate about it.
Shadowrun sucks about half the time.
Edition threads suck the worst.
Noobs suck.
Grognards suck.
Sen-Zar sucks.
Synnibar sucks.
FATAL sucks at everything except rape-sim. And even then, it sucks.
Sucking sucks.
Everything about tabletop gaming sucks.

But I love it anyway. I guess I suck. :smallredface:

Gametime
2009-10-16, 11:02 AM
At the risk of sounding like an idiot, I'm going to have to come out in favor of the "Chaos = less good" framework. The key issue is that Chaos, as represented in 3.5, isn't accurate. Robin Hood isn't Chaotic Good - he would probably have been Neutral Good, or just Good in 4e terminology.

Breaking the law doesn't make you chaotic. Believing that laws as a whole are wrong makes you chaotic. Robin Hood broke the law because the king was unjust - his laws were illegitimate. That sort of worldview isn't even incompatible with a Lawful Good alignment.

What characterizes lawfulness is an adherence to a credo, and thus what characterizes a chaotic person is the rejection of such adherence. This is usually incompatible with being good, because being good usually involves some kind of moral code.

The problem with the 3.5 alignment schema is that it equated lawfulness with adherence to the literal law of whatever community you happened to be in. That's just silly, and I think they realized that in 4th.

Random832
2009-10-16, 11:09 AM
Breaking the law doesn't make you chaotic. Believing that laws as a whole are wrong makes you chaotic. Robin Hood broke the law because the king was unjust - his laws were illegitimate. That sort of worldview isn't even incompatible with a Lawful Good alignment.

What characterizes lawfulness is an adherence to a credo, and thus what characterizes a chaotic person is the rejection of such adherence. This is usually incompatible with being good, because being good usually involves some kind of moral code.

But not necessarily a code that dictates your actions specifically from moment to moment.

Chaotic Good is "the ends justify the means" [with those 'ends' being good ones of course]. It is a rejection of the categorical imperative.

A chaotic character would not adopt any specific rule (like "never kill", "never tell lies" etc). A lawful character would do so and would follow them even when faced with a situation where it puts their goals in danger. This may sound like I am saying that lawful characters are "stupid", but also consider the fact that lawful (even evil) characters are more trustworthy in terms of keeping their word [and thus, with a reputation for being so, more able to make deals]

hamishspence
2009-10-16, 11:13 AM
according to BoED, Champions of Ruin, Exemplars of Evil etc- it depends on the means.

No matter how "good" your end, if the means you are consistantly resorting to are evil, you will be dropping to Evil alignment quite fast.

One of the more common forms of LE is this form- the "witch hunter" type who thinks that, to protect people, it's ok to murder, torture, etc.

A Good character has a rule- try not to do evil- especially not routine evil and evil of very serious nature. They do not need to be Lawful to be focused on following that rule.

Random832
2009-10-16, 11:18 AM
A Good character has a rule- try not to do evil- especially not routine evil and evil of very serious nature. They do not need to be Lawful to be focused on following that rule.

Right, but a personal code that goes beyond the simple standards of what is or is not universally considered Evil is a mark of a Lawful character.

For example, you mentioned "murder". However, something that is considered 'murder' by the laws of some society (capital punishment* for a serious crime, as executed** by a non-state actor) may not be so in the metaphysical sense for the purposes of D&D. And vice versa - if the witch hunter you mentioned has official approval of the state, their murders certainly won't be called that in a legal sense.

*taking for granted that - regardless of what one's position in the real world may be - this is generally considered acceptable in the quasi-medieval context of D&D, and that therefore good societies can execute murderers and still remain good
**no pun intended

Paulus
2009-10-16, 01:20 PM
Let me see... what bugs me about D&D...

1) If you want to play melee you can't just pick up a character and run with them. That's poor design.
2) If you want to play a divine caster you are assumed to be a healer.
3) If you dare to try and make sure your character is effective or won't-die-at-the-drop-of-a-hat (because they will, oh yes, they will.) so you can have more fun, a thousand voices parrot the wizard's supremacy. (?)
4) A thousand voices being justified in parroting the Wizard's supremacy.
5) The wizard's supremacy. Which a thousand voices parrot.
6) Magic trumping all other things. All other things. No exceptions.
7) No really, there are none. Even gods. Who ever has the most magic, wins.
8) Seriously. Magic. How is it even remotely fair?
9) Alignment NOT being thoroughly and irrevocably defined, leading to so much oft misinformed debate.
10) ???
11) Profit.
12) The nailing down of Dragons by color and it having direct influence on alignment. My favorite color is blue. I would love to be a blue dragon. I think blue dragon's look stupid. I think their alignment is stupid. I think they should be able to breathe fire if they want to. meh.
13) Ranged melee, and close quarters melee not being equal. Even among melee classes there is inequality and imbalance? Sad.
14) You know, magic ranged and melee attacks are equally powerful...
15) Bahamut I hate you magic.
16) The system for making me hate magic, magic should be that awesome. But it should also cause draw backs. Instead the only limiting factor to most magic uses is their hit dice.
17) Too many complex systems which you have to learn in order to play well. Arcane, Divine, Psionics, Maneuvers, etc.
18) Tome of Battle, for literally looking at every single melee class before it and spitting in their faces.
19) Invocations can only be chosen by two classes. Just two.
20) I want to play a Dragon. No not a Dragon wannabe, or hybrid, or remade dragon man monster thing, a Dragon. Why is it so hard for me to play a dragon?
21) Editions. And incomplete ones at that. If you are going to release new rule books and additions in editions, hammer out ALL of the problems weeeeelll in advance. They should have learned from their past mistakes, yet they did not, and instead the all mighty dollar seems to be at the wheel.
22) ...this list. Because it ever so painfully chips away at a game I have barely gotten to enjoy, and yet still i find the flaws and mistakes and problems, carried over, still so very very glaring.

Suppose that is all. I could think of more, but this is enough of a downer.

Sliver
2009-10-16, 01:22 PM
Alignment sucks a lot.
Alignment threads suck even more, if that's possible
Grappling sucks.
Elves suck in the woods.
Dwarves suck in caves.
Orcs suck when Tolkien isn't writting them.
Halflings suck no matter who writes them.
Tieflings without Aasimars suck.
Dragons suck, but would suck less if they were featured less.
Munchkins suck.
Killer DMs suck.
The popularity of D&D compared to better systems sucks.
DMPCs tend to suck.
Feats suck, but they don't have to.
Levels kinda suck, but they can be okay.
Linear Fighters suck.
Quadratic Wizards suck.
Rules Lawyers suck.
Vancian casting sucks so bad, it's not funny.
1st Edition sucked, but in an old-school way.
2nd Edition sucked, from THAC0 on down.
3rd Edition sucks, but you could choose how it did so.
4th Edition sucks, because it's different.
Pathfinder sucks, because it's not different enough.
oWoD sucked in many different ways.
nWoD sucks in one unified way.
GURPS sucks, but is really accurate about it.
Shadowrun sucks about half the time.
Edition threads suck the worst.
Noobs suck.
Grognards suck.
Sen-Zar sucks.
Synnibar sucks.
FATAL sucks at everything except rape-sim. And even then, it sucks.
Sucking sucks.
Everything about tabletop gaming sucks.

But I love it anyway. :smallredface:

Can you make a song out of it?

valadil
2009-10-16, 01:47 PM
I've always quite liked the deities from the Forgotten Realms myself. Sure, they're pretty stereotyped, but that's the point of gods...they are what you expect them to be because their very being is comprised of what people believe.

I get that they're supposed to be stereotyped. It makes sense. I just don't think they give you enough to work with. I'd like more mythology to the gods if I'm going to incorporate them into the game as anything beyond a parent figure.

I should point out that I'm basing this on 4th ed. 3e had a lot better campaign material for FR, even though it wasn't the default setting at the time.

Zombimode
2009-10-16, 01:56 PM
Chaotic Good is "the ends justify the means" [with those 'ends' being good ones of course]. It is a rejection of the categorical imperative.


See, statements like this perfectly ilustrate, why D&D aligments are a complete mess.
Imagine a warlord. His greatest wish, the goal he dedicates his whole life, is the peace of the world. A noble goal. To reach that goal, he eliminates all oposition. He starts a huge war, commits genocid and mass puppy kickin. Lets say in the end he succeded.
An example the thinking that the end justify the means.
Would you call him CG? A mass murderer? Probably not.

The aligment concepts are so ill defined, its more often then not possible for an interpretation of a given act/person to classify it in many of the aligments. This ilustrates how bad they are in describing a character.

RandomLunatic
2009-10-16, 03:55 PM
Alignment sucks a lot.
Alignment threads suck even more, if that's possible
Grappling sucks.
Elves suck in the woods.
Dwarves suck in caves.
Orcs suck when Tolkien isn't writting them.
Halflings suck no matter who writes them.
Tieflings without Aasimars suck.
Dragons suck, but would suck less if they were featured less.
Munchkins suck.
Killer DMs suck.
The popularity of D&D compared to better systems sucks.
DMPCs tend to suck.
Feats suck, but they don't have to.
Levels kinda suck, but they can be okay.
Linear Fighters suck.
Quadratic Wizards suck.
Rules Lawyers suck.
Vancian casting sucks so bad, it's not funny.
1st Edition sucked, but in an old-school way.
2nd Edition sucked, from THAC0 on down.
3rd Edition sucks, but you could choose how it did so.
4th Edition sucks, because it's different.
Pathfinder sucks, because it's not different enough.
oWoD sucked in many different ways.
nWoD sucks in one unified way.
GURPS sucks, but is really accurate about it.
Shadowrun sucks about half the time.
Edition threads suck the worst.
Noobs suck.
Grognards suck.
Sen-Zar sucks.
Synnibar sucks.
FATAL sucks at everything except rape-sim. And even then, it sucks.
Sucking sucks.
Everything about tabletop gaming sucks.

But I love it anyway. :smallredface:

Excessively negative people suck.:smallwink:

I hate Save-or-Die/Lose/Suck. Whoo, I am outta the game temperarily because I rolled a Natural 1. Fun!

I hate how you need a feat for pretty much everything you want to try that is not "Stand And Shoot Arrow", "Stand And Swing sword", or "Stand And Cast Spell".

I hate how easy it is to negate entire classes (Undead+Rogue=:smallfrown:)

Faleldir
2009-10-16, 04:11 PM
It bugs me that we constantly argue about alignments when the alignment system was designed to simplify moral decisions. A Good character can be a jerk, but true Evil is objective and no amount of debate will change that. Look, it says Good right there on your character sheet! Both the RAW and RAI suggest a Red vs. Blue mentality to justify the fact that every PC who wants XP is a xenophobic kleptomaniac vigilante. No, it's not realistic, because it's not real!

sadi
2009-10-16, 04:25 PM
The fact that the game is play tested about 10% of what it should be. Specifically diplomacy, and in general roll playing. I'll skip over the dead horse named alignment instead of beating it some more. And the whole CR system, most monsters are either significantly weaker, or on the rare occasion much harder than what they're given.

Zaq
2009-10-16, 04:27 PM
Speaking about 3.5

I hate how easy it is to become useless. You fail one saving throw, or you make too drastic of a wrong choice in feat selection, or your buddy decides that playing a top-tier class would be totally sweet, and suddenly you really can't do what you want to do. These examples all work on different levels, of course, but it's true. This isn't so much about balance... that's another issue. Balance is a problem, but it's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about feeling useless. Sometimes it's the fault of the dice, sometimes it's your fault because you can't see the future, sometimes it's the fault of another player, whatever. Feeling useless sucks.

Oh, and I hate dragons. Seriously. We have way too many dragons. As I explained it once, imagine a big dog humping someone's leg in a very intense and passionate manner. The dog is the WotC design team. The leg is the concept of dragons. And what you should clean up afterward (but instead choose to publish) is Races of the Dragon, Draconomicon, and Dragon Magic. Not to mention the setting-specific dragon books.

Also, elves. Just elves.

subject42
2009-10-16, 04:29 PM
Let me see... what bugs me about D&D...
19) Invocations can only be chosen by two classes. Just two.


Other than warlock, what's the other class?


And as far as what bugs me about D&D? Epic Alchemist's fire does 2d6 damage. A 1st level druid with good strength can do more average damage than the mightiest alchemist this world has ever seen.

Paulus
2009-10-16, 04:31 PM
Other than warlock, what's the other class?


And as far as what bugs me about D&D? Epic Alchemist's fire does 2d6 damage. A 1st level druid with good strength can do more average damage than the mightiest alchemist this world has ever seen.

Dragonfire Adept.

arguskos
2009-10-16, 04:32 PM
Other than warlock, what's the other class?
Dragonfire Adepts (also called the "I wanna play a dwagon" class). :smallannoyed:

EDIT: Ninja'd, but with less vitriol.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-16, 06:27 PM
Imagine a warlord. His greatest wish, the goal he dedicates his whole life, is the peace of the world. A noble goal. To reach that goal, he eliminates all oposition. He starts a huge war, commits genocid and mass puppy kickin. Lets say in the end he succeded.
An example the thinking that the end justify the means.
Would you call him CG? A mass murderer? Probably not.
No, he's Lawful Evil (if he wants to impose Absolute Peace under his rule) or Neutral Evil (if he just wants to kill everyone who disagrees with him).

Evil is obvious:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
A mass murderer does not respect life; only Evil people kill easily.

Lawful vs. Neutral requires more information:

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
. . .
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
One could make the argument for CE, but since the hypothetical warlord sounds like he really wants (eventual) Peace rather than just kill everyone he can't boss around. Personally, I'm leaning towards LE.

Alignment isn't confusing if you read the text. Honest.