Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 02, 2021, 01:47:13 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on June 02, 2021, 01:44:05 PM
On a tangential note, anyone else think 6E will follow PF2E's lead by replacing 'Paladin' with the more generic, less 'problematic' Champion or the like, and making it clearer that it's their own conviction, rightness, and Special Snowflakery that gives them their powers? 

The existence of the blackguard makes it clear that paladins don't have a lock on 'divinely-empowered warrior'. Hell, look at BECMI's Avenger option.

PF2 was a move out from under D&D's shadow. Whether it was a good idea or not, well, we'll just have to see.

There was also "A plethora of paladins in Dragon #106, with 7 new holy warriors for 1e. They're intended flesh out the alignments between the paladin and the anti-paladin, except they have far more unfortunate names:

Myrikhan
Garath
Lyan
Paramander
Fantra
Illrigger
Arrikhan

QuoteBut the point is that getting rid of alignment is part of getting rid of the style of play that is meant to invoke Myth. Because of an enmity to the moral values of western myth.

The alignment in D&D is loose hodgepodge of few more fantasy than mythical concepts (sans maybe Heaven vs Hell concept, but even that is sort of diminished by Blood War and things like that), and it fits western culture about as well as rhinoceros hoves fits Greta Garbo's gloves.

QuoteOn a tangential note, anyone else think 6E will follow PF2E's lead by replacing 'Paladin' with the more generic, less 'problematic' Champion or the like, and making it clearer that it's their own conviction, rightness, and Special Snowflakery that gives them their powers? 

As long as Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are equal cosmological forces, perpetually in clash but also in balance, all four necessary for reality to continue... as long I'm all for - other forces than LG having their chosen champions as well.

Quote5e even removes the illiteracy restriction from past editions (which didn't make much sense anyway since the Norse invented runes).

Off-topic - well if I remember correctly Norse probably gained concept of alphabet from Southerners - Etruscans are main suspects - and Etruscans just like all Western Eurasia and North Africa used alphabet derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs and then spread in more modern form by Phoenicians if I had not mistaken something.

Now I'd also say while all rage powers points to berserker I think the most vital inspiration here is Conan, who was Welsh

QuoteFor that matter, the druid's name is nonsensical since they aren't Celtic and are not particularly associated with trees (druid literally means "of the tree"). Why not call them, idk, animists or shamans or something? You can still keep the name "druid" specifically for tree-worshipers.

Druids were one of priestly professions of Brythonic and Goedelic pagan religions. They were not tree-worshippers (though name means "tree-knower" in Proto-Celtic) per se (though there were sacred trees in Celtic religion - but just like holy oaks of Donnar or Perkun it was not tree for sake of tree.

Calling them animistist and shamans would also be weird - as D&D druids do not commune with spirit, do not practice trances (shaman btw is Ewenki terms so it can also be seen as culture-specific).

QuoteGods don't have to follow any moral code, BECAUSE THEY'RE GODS.

That's not that obvious, and especially in mainstream D&D settings were alignments are more primordial cosmic powers than Gods, I'm not sure it would work.
If NG God shift to NE - well he gonna be booted to NE plane, probably by plane itself authomatically.

Quote from: oggsmash on June 02, 2021, 04:06:56 PM
   This is just dumb.    If you want an atheist to do magic....make a wizard.   The framework of a paladin is obviously built on ideas of warriors in literature empowered by god (I can think of a couple of Christian and Muslim warriors inspiring this idea)as much as martial skill and training.  I could live with an evil paladin (call it blackguard or what not), but the ideas around the paladin are pretty black and white.
   Which I guess it is important to remember rule 0, you get to have fun and disregard screwed up "new Canon" or RAW if you want to.

The term "paladin" derives from the root of "palace" and came from the peers of Charlemagne's court. Obviously, Charlemagne's paladins were all Christian, but they weren't particularly religious. Maugris aka Malagigi was an enchanter who was a paladin. The English definition I read is:

Quote1: a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince)
2: a leading champion of a cause

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paladin

Quote from: jhkim on June 02, 2021, 03:17:29 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 02, 2021, 01:55:01 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 02, 2021, 01:47:40 AM
But the point is that getting rid of alignment is part of getting rid of the style of play that is meant to invoke Myth. Because of an enmity to the moral values of western myth.

It's an attempt to make sure that it's as hard as possible for games with 5e to ever be run that way.

I'd be more inclined to believe the older games were meant to evoke myth and not be off-brand Lord of the Rings simulators if "Demigod" and "God" were default PC races. "Sapient Animal" and "Nature Spirits" would also be a solid addition if you were trying to actually evoke myth.

I agree with Chris24601 here. But strictly speaking, Pundit's claim is that rather than races, it is lacking *alignment* is part of getting rid of evoking Myth.

Well, that's a silly argument. A morally black-and-white setting doesn't require alignments, just a clear statement of what actions are black and which are white.

If you've already established that warbands of orcs are razing villages and taking the survivors as slaves does adding "Alignment: usually Chaotic Evil" to their statblock add anything at all to the campaign?

Beowulf, The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, Willow, Star Wars, etc. all managed to establish Black and White morality without the need to slap alignment stats on things.

What makes the WotC stuff toxic to western values isn't the lack of alignment entries, it's excusing the evil actions and choices of various sapient beings as justified "because white/human supremacy."

At this point I'm probably better off using Spheres of Power/Might to create characters. I don't need classes to represent arbitrarily chosen "archetypes." I like having the option to invent my own.

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 02, 2021, 04:13:54 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 02, 2021, 03:17:29 PM
But strictly speaking, Pundit's claim is that rather than races, it is lacking *alignment* is part of getting rid of evoking Myth.

However, it's notably that Pundit has his own mythic game - Lords of Olympus - that doesn't have any parallel to alignment. Each character just has a "personality" section, and no systemic categories of their morality or such. Other myth-inspired games like Runequest, Ars Magica, and others don't use alignment as well.

In Lords of Olympus case, you're playing gods. Gods don't have to follow any moral code, BECAUSE THEY'RE GODS.

Yeah, it's not like there are good gods versus evil gods or anything like that in myth. 

In myth, humans also have free will - and will vary in the moral codes they follow, just like Greek gods. It's possible to classify heroes into good heroes and evil heroes, but it's just as possible to group gods into good gods and evil gods.

As far as I have seen, no one who plays non-alignment games like RuneQuest, Ars Magica, and others ever says "This isn't mythic because it doesn't have alignment."

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 02, 2021, 04:00:35 PM
So it's not "people will want to play a tiefling", but rather "if they play a tiefling no one will fear or hate them or care about how they behave, and the local bakery is run by a wacky beholder and people cheer every time friendly kobolds come to frolic in their fields; and yes sure followers of that one religion have done more terrorist attacks than any other major religion combined but we're not allowed to judge or even say that, because the real enemy is INTOLERANCE".

Alignment doesn't have as much to do with race relations and religions as you're suggesting. There are places in D&D settings where elves are feared or hated by humans, and that's with a CG base. Likewise elves and dwarfs have longstanding bad relations in D&D, and they are both good. The religion of Pholtus (Greyhawk) was a LN religion, but most outside of it were quick to denounce its intolerance and harsh measures.

Quote from: jhkim on June 02, 2021, 05:01:26 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on June 02, 2021, 04:06:56 PM
   This is just dumb.    If you want an atheist to do magic....make a wizard.   The framework of a paladin is obviously built on ideas of warriors in literature empowered by god (I can think of a couple of Christian and Muslim warriors inspiring this idea)as much as martial skill and training.  I could live with an evil paladin (call it blackguard or what not), but the ideas around the paladin are pretty black and white.
   Which I guess it is important to remember rule 0, you get to have fun and disregard screwed up "new Canon" or RAW if you want to.

The term "paladin" derives from the root of "palace" and came from the peers of Charlemagne's court. Obviously, Charlemagne's paladins were all Christian, but they weren't particularly religious. Maugris aka Malagigi was an enchanter who was a paladin. The English definition I read is:

Quote1: a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince)
2: a leading champion of a cause

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paladin

As Charlemagne was responsible for spreading Christianity through Europe, "weren't particularly religious" seems like a stretch.

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 02, 2021, 04:08:44 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 02, 2021, 01:55:01 PM


So, no, I don't see allowing players to run part-celestials, part-demons, part-vampires, beastmen of various varieties, nature spirits or talking animals as particularly deleterious to being able to evoke actual mythology.

So you're being deliberately obtuse, right?

Because the PRODUCT of this change has NOT been to make D&D sessions more Mythlike. It has been to make them more like a Tumblr fanart page.
It has NOT been to make D&D settings more like accurate depictions of myth. It has been to force all acceptable settings regardless of their nature to look like the culture of Seattle or Portland in 2021.
It has not made demi-humans more epic. It's made them as just weird skin-color versions of 21st century hipster humans.

No, I'm not being obtuse. I just refuse to conflate "nonhuman races are allowed as player options", "alignment statblocks make things more mythical", and "Woke values are infecting the presentation of values in D&D."

Because they're NOT actually the same issue at all.

If characters must have alignments to be mythic, then I guess WEG Star Wars, Rolemaster and a host of other games  all utterly fail at presenting mythical situations.

Which is clearly incorrect.

Ergo, the statement "removing alignment makes things less mythical" is false.

Likewise, If allowing Protagonists to be things other than humans, elves, dwarves or hobbits makes them less mythic, then you need to explain why Gilgamesh (Enkidu was a beastman), various Greek/Norse/Egyptian myths (Chiron is a centaur, lots of main characters are demigods or even Gods), all things Arthur related (Merlin was a cambion) plus more modern stories like John Carter of Mars or Narnia with its sapient animals or The Dark Crystal (movie not Netflix abomination) where no humans exist at all do not qualify as mythic fantasy.

Discworld with its troll and werewolf and golem and orangutan protagonists is clearly a Wokist plot to rob the fantasy genre of its mythical elements.

Hell, even Tolkien deviates from folklore with his benevolent elves and dwarves taller than a man's knees and devoid of magic.

Except none of those things is Woke garbage so the statement that allowing these things makes D&D Woke garbage is also false.

The only thing that makes D&D Woke garbage in and of itself are the story and plot elements that reinforce Wole ideology; saying evil actions are justified because "racism/white/human supremacy", of treating moral failings as virtues and what thr West traditionally comsiders virtues to be sins.

Your conflating "things I don't like" with "woke" just muddies the waters and makes it easier for them to squirm away.

The issue isn't removing the alignment block... if you don't need an alignment block for Darth Vader and the Stormtroopers then you don't need one for Strahd and his minions either. The issue is the Woke redefining the concept of evil.

The issue isn't non-Tolkien races... plenty of myths and legends and fantasy stories feature entirely different species... the issue is that the Woke excuse and justify the evil actions of various creatures because [insert woke victim status here].

Quote from: Shasarak on June 02, 2021, 05:46:06 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 02, 2021, 05:01:26 PM
The term "paladin" derives from the root of "palace" and came from the peers of Charlemagne's court. Obviously, Charlemagne's paladins were all Christian, but they weren't particularly religious. Maugris aka Malagigi was an enchanter who was a paladin. The English definition I read is:

Quote1: a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince)
2: a leading champion of a cause

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paladin

As Charlemagne was responsible for spreading Christianity through Europe, "weren't particularly religious" seems like a stretch.

I'm not talking about their personal conviction. There's a difference between:

(1) a knight who is personally committed to Christian values and devotion to chivalry
(2) someone who is chosen by God and has holy powers, like a saint or holy man

I haven't read that much of the stories, but in what I've read, Charlemagne's paladins are regarded as #1. As I noted from the dictionary definition, the term "paladin" has come to mean knight for a cause rather than a more religious Christian meaning like "saint".

Quote from: jhkim on June 02, 2021, 05:20:52 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 02, 2021, 04:13:54 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 02, 2021, 03:17:29 PM
But strictly speaking, Pundit's claim is that rather than races, it is lacking *alignment* is part of getting rid of evoking Myth.

However, it's notably that Pundit has his own mythic game - Lords of Olympus - that doesn't have any parallel to alignment. Each character just has a "personality" section, and no systemic categories of their morality or such. Other myth-inspired games like Runequest, Ars Magica, and others don't use alignment as well.

In Lords of Olympus case, you're playing gods. Gods don't have to follow any moral code, BECAUSE THEY'RE GODS.

Yeah, it's not like there are good gods versus evil gods or anything like that in myth. 

In myth, humans also have free will - and will vary in the moral codes they follow, just like Greek gods. It's possible to classify heroes into good heroes and evil heroes, but it's just as possible to group gods into good gods and evil gods.

As far as I have seen, no one who plays non-alignment games like RuneQuest, Ars Magica, and others ever says "This isn't mythic because it doesn't have alignment."

Heroes by definition are the good guys. Flawed, perhaps, but they're the opposite of villains.

Evil gods are a rhetorical tool rather than objects of worship. Competing religions would accuse each of blood libel and worshiping demons. Cultures that did engage in human sacrifice devised elaborate justifications for doing so, a far cry from being knowingly and happily evil.

Whether gods can even be evil depends on how you define "god." I know of no religion that has evil gods, at least not ones distinct from demons (hence "demonization"). Nobody ever deliberately worshiped demons; at best they exploited the flaws of demons for their own benefit.

Also, morals aren't consistent across civilizations, so the gods of ancient religions come across as bloodthirsty psychopaths now.

Long story short: D&D is not founded on any serious study of theology or comparative religion.

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 02, 2021, 04:00:35 PM

Quote from: TJS on June 02, 2021, 02:09:08 AM
Ok so now the problem is that if we don't have alignment people will want to play Orcs and shit like that?

People wanted to play Orcs and shit like that way back in 2nd edition.  Drizzt Do'urden was created when 1st edition was still a going concern.

People have always wanted to be special snowflakes.

This has nothing to do with alignment.  It's about the idea that the fans are always right.

No,  it's not really about that at all. I don't know where you got that from.

It's about the fact that the settings will be such where there's no objective good or evil. Its an encouragement of all monsters basically acting like 21st century people.

So it's not "people will want to play a tiefling", but rather "if they play a tiefling no one will fear or hate them or care about how they behave, and the local bakery is run by a wacky beholder and people cheer every time friendly kobolds come to frolic in their fields; and yes sure followers of that one religion have done more terrorist attacks than any other major religion combined but we're not allowed to judge or even say that, because the real enemy is INTOLERANCE".

The irony is you could do that without taking a giant shit all over the game.

Instead of a beholder, have a spectator run the bakery. He was summoned by accident and can't leave for another 88 years, so fuck it, he's a mainstay now.

Friendly kobolds? Well, maybe not friendly, but less obnoxious ones who are the result of a multi-year breeding program by a silver dragon to try and work out their issues. They're lawful neutral and very standoffish, but the town trades with them regularly.

This is all worldbuilding but the point for the Tumblrinas isn't to worldbuild; it's to cripple the setting so that nobody wants to play.

Quote from: jhkim on June 02, 2021, 07:25:56 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on June 02, 2021, 05:46:06 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 02, 2021, 05:01:26 PM
The term "paladin" derives from the root of "palace" and came from the peers of Charlemagne's court. Obviously, Charlemagne's paladins were all Christian, but they weren't particularly religious. Maugris aka Malagigi was an enchanter who was a paladin. The English definition I read is:

Quote1: a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince)
2: a leading champion of a cause

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paladin

As Charlemagne was responsible for spreading Christianity through Europe, "weren't particularly religious" seems like a stretch.

I'm not talking about their personal conviction. There's a difference between:

(1) a knight who is personally committed to Christian values and devotion to chivalry
(2) someone who is chosen by God and has holy powers, like a saint or holy man

I haven't read that much of the stories, but in what I've read, Charlemagne's paladins are regarded as #1. As I noted from the dictionary definition, the term "paladin" has come to mean knight for a cause rather than a more religious Christian meaning like "saint".

Are you trying to suggest that Charlemagne's real life paladins are not RPG accurate?

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 02, 2021, 05:46:24 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 02, 2021, 04:08:44 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 02, 2021, 01:55:01 PM


So, no, I don't see allowing players to run part-celestials, part-demons, part-vampires, beastmen of various varieties, nature spirits or talking animals as particularly deleterious to being able to evoke actual mythology.

So you're being deliberately obtuse, right?

Because the PRODUCT of this change has NOT been to make D&D sessions more Mythlike. It has been to make them more like a Tumblr fanart page.
It has NOT been to make D&D settings more like accurate depictions of myth. It has been to force all acceptable settings regardless of their nature to look like the culture of Seattle or Portland in 2021.
It has not made demi-humans more epic. It's made them as just weird skin-color versions of 21st century hipster humans.

No, I'm not being obtuse. I just refuse to conflate "nonhuman races are allowed as player options", "alignment statblocks make things more mythical", and "Woke values are infecting the presentation of values in D&D."

Because they're NOT actually the same issue at all.

If characters must have alignments to be mythic, then I guess WEG Star Wars, Rolemaster and a host of other games  all utterly fail at presenting mythical situations.

WEG Star Wars leaned pretty heavily into Dark Side (Evil) and Light Side (Good) mechanics. Even for non-Force users.

Quote from: Shasarak on June 02, 2021, 08:51:13 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 02, 2021, 07:25:56 PM
I'm not talking about their personal conviction. There's a difference between:

(1) a knight who is personally committed to Christian values and devotion to chivalry
(2) someone who is chosen by God and has holy powers, like a saint or holy man

I haven't read that much of the stories, but in what I've read, Charlemagne's paladins are regarded as #1. As I noted from the dictionary definition, the term "paladin" has come to mean knight for a cause rather than a more religious Christian meaning like "saint".

Are you trying to suggest that Charlemagne's real life paladins are not RPG accurate?

Heh. Nice!

Obviously French and Italian myth got it wrong.