Bah..stupid Ebberon.

[Paranitis]

I won't even bother dealing with this setting..mostly because I don't like the idea of alignment not mattering much.

When you are in Forgotten Realms and you see a bunch of goblins or kobolds coming through the area you think they are going to kill you..and they tend to do that 99% of the time!

But in Eberron you see a bunch of goblins or kobolds and you can't think anything of them because they may or may not do anything at all.

From the beginning it seems there is no conflict at all..alignment is a big part of conflict!

Good battles Evil!

You can't have nobody with an alignment because then there is no reason for laws because nobody would do anything at all to break the laws.

There would be no reason for weapons because there is nobody threatening you.

I hate Eberron!

[asurademon]

It's much more realistic when in a roleplaying game a person doesn't automatically know good from evil, or if someone is dangerous just because of their race. In real life good and evil aren't so clear, and debatably only a human concept with no objective existance. It sounds to me like this new world allows for a lot more moral conflict, because from what you are saying I get the impression people have to rely much more on their own judgment, rather than simply some ability to sense good or evil, or judgment by the person's race, as to what's good and what's not, and what is or isn't a threat. What if you end up misjudging someone as good or evil when they really aren't what they seem? The threat of that certainly is very real, and while that threat was was in D&D with the right spells it was much easier to tell who was a threat and who wasn't, making it harder for evil people to be manipulative and seem like something other than they are (and evil that doesn't seem like evil can be very scary).
Is there no racism is Eberon (I haven't read much about it so I don't know)? Because really if there is I can imagine humans would be very racist towards certain beings such as kobolds (and vice versa) and the two could very well simply assume the other is hostile regardless of the reality and attack each other just because of that. Unless this is a world free of prejudice as well I can imagine there would still be a lot of strife due to just that, just like in real life.

[Paranitis]

Well..what I am talking about isn't just about pure alignment..in D&D it isn't that people see kobolds or goblins as evil just because they are there..they see kobolds and goblins of evil because they tend to attack stuff and kill stuff.

This setting just kinda throws everyone with a clean slate where everything is peaceful..I would think if they had a history or something that there would automatically be some kinds of hate/racism towards certain people, because in reality that's what happens here. One people needs more space so they invade someone elses space..then that 2nd people hates the first people and there is conflict.

It's kinda boring if you have no clue who or what to not like.

And coming from another setting (from an out of character view) you come into this setting and are immediately paranoid about who to trust..because you really shouldn't trust anyone..but you should trust everyone..it is just some kind of game based on paranoia and nothing else.

[Aegis]

Just because alignment doens't play as heavy a role as in other settings, doezsn't mean that a horde of Kobols won't invoke a similar, if not the same, reaction from a bunch of PC's.

[Xandax]

One has to remember that one of the biggest problems with alignments is that it is personal and in the eye of the beholder (not that beholder). Gnolls proberly view adventures/PCs as evil, because they attack, pillage, maim Gnolls and their homes. Thus they are permitted to attack on sight.

I think it is much better that one actually has to base his actions upon what is happening, instead of a percived notion.
And as Aegis says - Kobolds that attack everything would still be "fair game" - now there would however be a reason to hunt them.


I've always found alignment to be a confusing element in gameplay of D&D games and one of the topics most open for debate.

Everything that can be done with alignment in system, can be done without it - withouth removing any elements of D&D.
It just adds some more possiblities to the players, which I can see many roleplaying consequences of.

[Paranitis]

But they can't evoke fear from PCs because there is no sense of good or evil..so people must just stand around in confusion that something is happening.

I read a preview or review or something on it and they say something to the effect of "one day you will be fighting a beholder who is killing a whole town and then the next day you will find a beholder somewhere else that is helping a little girl get her kitty out of a tree"..and while that MAY happen in D&D/FR..Beholders I believe are "always" something evil..and by "always" it means I believe 95%..so it COULD happen but it very rare.

But in Eberron it is a toss up..50% of the time a goblin will kill you, and 50% of the time the goblin will give you a petticure.

The stupid system just has built-in paranoia for no freaking reason!

One has to remember that one of the biggest problems with alignments is that it is personal and in the eye of the beholder (not that beholder). Gnolls proberly view adventures/PCs as evil, because they attack, pillage, maim Gnolls and their homes. Thus they are permitted to attack on sight.

I think it is much better that one actually has to base his actions upon what is happening, instead of a percived notion.
And as Aegis says - Kobolds that attack everything would still be "fair game" -now there would however be a reason to hunt them.

I've always found alignment to be a confusing element in gameplay of D&D games and one of the topics most open for debate.

Everything that can be done with alignment in system, can be done without it - withouth removing any elements of D&D.
It just adds some more possiblities to the players.

Actually this is not the case. Evil isn't completely in the eye of the beholder (yeah yeah, whatever)..if people (or kobolds/gnolls/kittens) are rampaging/pillaging/murdering people of a village, that is an evil act. If people form a hunting party to kill kobolds/gnolls/kitten for revenge then it is a neutral act IF they are going specifically for the survivors..if they just decide from then on to slaughter any kobold/gnoll/kitten they come across from then on..that is an evil act.

Murder is evil..blind vengeance is also evil.

If you are in the town guard and are ordered to kill someone then you may be evil or neutral (or even good in the case against some guy that is raping kittens in town square)..but that is a lawful act because you are following a higher authority (gods don't count since they don't directly tell you to do it..unless the DM says so) than yourself.

Alignment cannot be done without in a game like this because then the world would be filled with chaos.

Does the average goblin kill passersby? Or do they help people? If they kill people then they are EVIL..if they help people then they are GOOD.

Maybe GOOD and EVIL mean the opposite to other people, but it is still the same concept..one is right (GOOD) and one is wrong (EVIL).

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Paranitis

But they can't evoke fear from PCs because there is no sense of good or evil..so people must just stand around in confusion that something is happening.
<snip>

Fear has nothing to do with alignment and evil vs. good.
You can fear something even if you don't know how it will react.
You can fear something in normal D&D that is "aligned good" as well as evil. Especially if you roleplay not knowing the alignment and a large armour clad warrior comes up to your puney rogue for instance

Alignment has been a kind of "fail save" (Oh a Goblin. We can kill it because it is evil) where people didn't have to judge actions compared to the inheritant alignment. This is amongst other why I don't like alignments.


Also the fact that you yourself states:

Does the average goblin kill passersby? Or do they help people? If they kill people then they are EVIL..if they help people then they are GOOD.

This is excatly what it is like without alignment. You have to jugde the actions instead of some fictive stat you shouldn't really know about in the first place.

[Paranitis]

Well yeah..I tend to smack the players of paladins who use "detect evil" as free-passage for killing evil without context.

I am just saying..certain races/monsters tend to act certain ways..they go with what works for them. I would hate to have a fantasy game where you have no feeling whether or not something is bad until they do something. I am not saying people should just kill things because they think they are evil either..but that's besides the point.

Let's say something else then for an example.

Goblins for years have had a thing for killing innocents, raiding, pillaging..and so on. This tale gets told throughout the world. A lone goblin comes to your town gates..you can't just look at him and seriously think he is okay to have in your town. You might tell him to go away..or you may go out and kill him for what you think he might do once he comes inside.

You never witnessed this goblin trying to save a group of baby bears from drowning, but you have it fresh in your memory about what his "people" are capable of doing.

In D&D/FR if you are part of a group that is known for evil acts towards your people you start out as "guilty until proven innocent".

Now if you were in a part of the world where there was a tribe of goblins nearby that constantly helped your town and then a lone goblin showed up you would let him in. But if you were to go outside the border of your lands to some other town and you pass by a group of goblins your guard would be down because the group by YOUR town is peaceful, but these ones murder you for being human, or elf, or whatever.

I say it is better to have a template (alignment) that shows how a creature tends to be..such as evil or whatever. And then at the DM's choice, make a peaceful group here or there if he wants to. Because like I said..in D&D "always" means like 95%. So a goblin most likely is evil so you have to take precautious. In Eberron, everything is 50/50 so you just stand around waiting for something to do something bad or not.

Oh..as far as racism goes. It is more racist to be paranoid of others for not understanding them rather then knowing that 95% of them actually DO tend to be bad.

[Xandax]

Nobody is saying you can't kill the Goblin on sight - in the example you use.
Goblins have been raiding the village - thus the villagers are weary of Goblins, but not because of their alignment - but because of their actions.
The goblins might be peaceful now, but the village dosen't know this, so they act based on their belief that they are still in danger.

Everything you know from ordinary D&D is still in effect, if you roleplay. It is just the fail-safe switch of alignment has been removed.
It in my oppinion promotes more roleplaying instead of simply "I'll kill this monster because it is evil"-powergaming style.
Now people/adventures (should) have a "reason" for killing the Goblins, for instance, that they have heard from the village that Goblins used to raid them often and kill, pillage and maim at will.

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by Paranitis

In Eberron, everything is 50/50 so you just stand around waiting for something to do something bad or not.

IF that problem arises, then I'd begin to question the DM's abilities... But, that's just me...

[Magrus]

Just based on what was said here it seems as though that would be created to remove the common actions based on a racist sterotype. I.E. general action upon sighting said goblin is to attack as generally they are evil. Changing that to removing the general "goblins are evil and to be killed" stereotype wouldn't be to create confusion, but more to enhance the roleplaying aspect of every encounter with them. It seems like a good idea to me. If EVERYONE who was playing a good or neutral character, ALWAYS was aggressive towards "evil" species, no matter whom it was of those species, it destroys a large number of possible avenues in adding said species to the game. If your constant reaction to seeing an ogre was to kill it, and the DM wanted it to be peaceful and hand you a map to find a key to some treasure, and you burned it beyond recognition for being an ogre, you lose said key (melted) and destroy chances of even knowing about the treasure, ruining the whole purpose of this ogre to exist. Seems like an attempt to make players think more, and interact more with everything they encounter. Confusion in that situation seems more like a lack of creativity to me.