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.

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 02, 2021, 01:47:40 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 01, 2021, 01:14:26 PM


Basically, the existence of non-humans/"monster" races in significant numbers in a setting has zero to do with whether there's objective good and evil in the setting.

Sure, people could still probably get away with Gonzo-style settings where weirdo races for players and societies alike are commonplace. Though I imagine the Woke Grifters would let out a litany of other things that are offensive about actual Gonzo rather than their own Diversity Hipsterism Woke Settings.

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.

Halflings, good-aligned elves (vs. the monster manual entries they'd be if you were trying to actually trying to evoke actual mythology) and dwarves that are taller than a man's knees just evoke someone whose only exposure to actual myth and legend is second hand by way of Tolkien or D&D.

I'd wager in actual myths and legends you'd find more characters with demonic ancestry (ex. Nephilim, Merlin and various cambions), beastmen (Enkidu, Chiron) or even part vampires (Baltic folklore where Dhampirs were reputed to be monster hunters with special powers) as protagonists (or protagonist adjacent) far more often than you'll ever find an elf or dwarf protagonist and halflings are literally just renamed hobbits with no connection to any mythology beyond emulating Tolkien.

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.

Well there is myth and then there is myth.  Are we talking a solid appreciation for a mythic tradition with some deep dive into particulars?  Or are we talking watered-down Joseph Campbell as learned second-hand via a sophomoric (in both meanings of the word) survey in a lit class?  Because the latter is what I usually get from this crowd--a mile wide and 1 millimeter deep.

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? 

Paladin at least doesn't have the gender-defining foulness of Sorcerer.

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? 

What about renaming the barbarian class because it derives from an ancient Roman slur for foreigners?

But seriously, the barbarian class' name doesn't make sense. What's barbaric about them? They're Norse berserkers and that's it. 5e even removes the illiteracy restriction from past editions (which didn't make much sense anyway since the Norse invented runes).

For 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.

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

It depends on which mythology you're trying to evoke. The presentation varies wildly.

D&D isn't particularly very evocative of mythology. It has various monsters and stuff taken from mythology, but it doesn't try to evoke the same moods, themes, etc from that mythology. Nor does it try to do an original and creative take on the subject.

Take the Minotaur, for example. It's based on the Greek Minotaur, but aside from superficial similarities it has nothing in common with the myth's themes (divine punishment, revenge, etc) or tries to do a particularly creative original take. The 5e Minotaurs are cultists of Baphomet who use black magic to turn themselves into monsters and they like axes and mazes for no apparent reason.

Admittedly, the original myth of the Minotaur doesn't give a lot of material to work with. Minos pisses off Poseidon, Poseidon makes his wife birth a half-bull monster, Minos keeps the monster imprisoned in a labyrinth, when Minos' son dies in Athens Minos demands a tithe of sacrifices to the Minotaur, Theseus kills the Minotaur and steals Minos' daughter, and in some variations Minos has a one-sided infatuation with Theseus because Greek heroes and villains were like that.

It was only after I read Courtney Campbell's blog, the Mazes & Minotaurs RPG, Masters & Minions: Maze of the Minotaur, etc that I started coming up with interesting ideas inspired by the myth, what little we know of Minoan culture, etc. Campbell's blog post on minotaur ecology had tons of ideas for settings. Mazes & Minotaurs had tons of ideas for minotaur variants like two heads, breathing fire, psychic powers, grotesque mutations, etc. Masters & Minions turned minotaurs into weird bee-like things...

Anyway, the idea I came up with was to treat Minotaurism as a curse linked to a fantasy counterpart culture of the Minoans. The curse has two effects, which may come gradually: the victim becomes trapped in their own personal labyrinth demiplane linked to their personality, and they turn into hybrid bull monsters. Otherwise the minotaurs are wildly variable and the GM can customize however they like.

A PC minotaur trying to break the curse before they lose themselves forever is a valid option. As is someone who goes around trying to rescue the minotaurs from the curse and restore lost Crete.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 02, 2021, 02:10:59 PM
Well there is myth and then there is myth.  Are we talking a solid appreciation for a mythic tradition with some deep dive into particulars?  Or are we talking watered-down Joseph Campbell as learned second-hand via a sophomoric (in both meanings of the word) survey in a lit class?  Because the latter is what I usually get from this crowd--a mile wide and 1 millimeter deep.

Agreed.

However, many myths don't provide a lot material to work with. Unless you want a one-note monster without much else to it (which, quite frankly, a number of mythological monsters ultimately are), you have to invent new material at some point. That material can be inspired by the myth, or the writer can make up random shit. I personally prefer to use an analysis of the myth as a starting point.

But, you know, that sort of thing is difficult for a lot of people. It's much easier to just mindlessly iterate on the self-referential D&D slop.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 02, 2021, 02:10:59 PM
Well there is myth and then there is myth.  Are we talking a solid appreciation for a mythic tradition with some deep dive into particulars?  Or are we talking watered-down Joseph Campbell as learned second-hand via a sophomoric (in both meanings of the word) survey in a lit class?  Because the latter is what I usually get from this crowd--a mile wide and 1 millimeter deep.

Well, in my own case, I consider my game's Player and GM sections on heroic virtues (and the recommendation that your PC should embody at least one and the ways a GM can reinforce, test and reward heroic virtues) and one called "greater than the sum of their parts" (about building your adventuring party around belonging to a family, tribe, noble house, religious order or rebel alliance instead of random misfits) to be far more important to creating characters than my race or class sections even though neither of those have any mechanics to them.

Basically, I don't think requiring PCs to be random humans, elves and dwarves makes them a better vehicle for exploring myth and western values than a family of outcast Malfeans whose players have decided that their motivations are the virtues of temperance, diligence and loyalty (to each other and their faith) would be.

A halfling is not more virtuous and a better exemplar of western cultures than a centaur simply by dint of being a halfling. It's how the setting values virtues that matters.

In my case, the GM section on virtues covers how to use the virtues of compassion, courage, diligence, justice, loyalty, hope, temperance and wisdom as draws for adventure hooks, as visible examples PCs can come across in the world, as tests of character and as rewards for staying true to a virtue despite it being tested.

The setting also reinforces the notion of supernatural evils by making Diabolismc Necromancy and all the supernatural creatures associated with them unavailable to PCs by default (GMs may do as they wish if their own setting has different moral rules) and the GM section discussing the ways these paths darken and enslave the will to entities that desire only the ruin of Creation (and have no free will in their destructive natures at all which is why they are unsuited to being PCs).

Those matter a hell of a lot more than whether or not someone is playing a lizardman or an elf.

Also note that I say all of the above this as someone who pretty much exclusively plays humans (and the occasional half-elf) regardless of setting. But I make the distinction between what I prefer and enjoy and what options aren't detrimental to the Superversive themes of my setting. Somebody wanting to play a centaur or a talking giant eagle (both of which have come up in playtest) isn't anything I would play, but neither is it something that undermines heroic virtues and PCs as champions who protect the common folk from the many dangers of the world.

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.

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.

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".

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? 

Given that 5e already makes it explicit that both Paladins AND CLERICS can be Atheists, it's a distinct possibility. If it doesn't happen its just because of pressure to keep the legacy name, as much as the SJWs hate the very idea of a paladin of the faith.

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 02, 2021, 04:01:49 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? 

Given that 5e already makes it explicit that both Paladins AND CLERICS can be Atheists, it's a distinct possibility. If it doesn't happen its just because of pressure to keep the legacy name, as much as the SJWs hate the very idea of a paladin of the faith.

   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.

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.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 02, 2021, 02:40:17 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? 

What about renaming the barbarian class because it derives from an ancient Roman slur for foreigners?

But seriously, the barbarian class' name doesn't make sense. What's barbaric about them? They're Norse berserkers and that's it. 5e even removes the illiteracy restriction from past editions (which didn't make much sense anyway since the Norse invented runes).

For 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.

Well, I think the barbarian can be made to represent more than just norse berserkers, but in fact you have a very good point here: if the Barbarian was meant to be a viking, then in fact the Barbarian SHOULD be literate and the Druid should NOT be literate, as the Celts had no written language.

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.

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.

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.

Historically and speaking from the point of view of occultism, no wizards are atheists either, even if they're often of an unorthodox religion.

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 02, 2021, 04:15:19 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.

Historically and speaking from the point of view of occultism, no wizards are atheists either, even if they're often of an unorthodox religion.

   True, but at least you have a niche that is right there for D&D if you want a spell caster who is not beholden to some god.  Making an atheist Cleric, if it were in my campaign would be a situation involving masterful role playing, because the Cleric will have ZERO powers or spells, and is likely to look like an asshole with his mace and Fedora attempting to compel others to follow his ways.