I like alignment to be more than a 1-2 letter note; so I came up with this idea:
If a Good PC wants to really stick it to Evil-doers, he can learn holy powers the same way that any character learns regular powers. Holy powers are nothing more than regular powers with the Holy keyword. Powers with the Holy keyword work better against Evil foes (+2 attack), but not so well against Unaligned foes (-2 attack) and poorly against Good foes (-6 attack). Now, this keyword is balanced on the assumption that PCs will fight roughly even numbers of Evil and non-Evil foes. In a campaign where PCs fight Evil foes exclusively, holy powers become no-brainer choices.
(For my purposes, Evil = E/CE and Good = G/LG.)
TS
I like alignment to be more than a 1-2 letter note; so I came up with this idea:
If a Good PC wants to really stick it to Evil-doers, he can learn holy powers the same way that any character learns regular powers. Holy powers are nothing more than regular powers with the Holy keyword. Powers with the Holy keyword work better against Evil foes (+2 attack), but not so well against Unaligned foes (-2 attack) and poorly against Good foes (-6 attack). Now, this keyword is balanced on the assumption that PCs will fight roughly even numbers of Evil and non-Evil foes. In a campaign where PCs fight Evil foes exclusively, holy powers become no-brainer choices.
(For my purposes, Evil = E/CE and Good = G/LG.)
TS
Not a bad idea actually. If your players always play neutral greedy this is a pretty good addition since it encourages players to choose good aligned characters.
Glad you think so! I'm specifically trying to avoid the complaint about the powers previous editions, that they encouraged players to play TN PCs.
TS
This is VERY useful for a wizard or other Controller. Suddenly you can fireball your own team in reasonable safety. This normally takes a paragon path (War Wizard of Cormyr) to get.
The idea behind 4E alignments is that you should never punish anyone for taking a certain alignment. It should never be mechanically better to be good than it is to be neutral. But in this system, you are punished for being evil. This might not be so bad (few PCs are evil), but if you start giving monsters the same power directed towards good, you are in trouble.
Despite this, I think the idea has credit. I would make it a feat (which you can then hand out for free if you like, or have as a benefit for being a member of some organization or somesuch), and just have it reduce the friendly fire effect. Something like this:
Holy Strike
Prerequisite: Good or Lawful Good alignment.
Benefit: You take a -5 attack penalty against creatures who are Good or Lawful Good.
I actually see very little reason for an evil version of this - evil creatures rarely seek to directly confront the good, rather they want to dominate the innocent and the good interfere.
I like alignment to be more than a 1-2 letter note; so I came up with this idea:
If a Good PC wants to really stick it to Evil-doers, he can learn holy powers the same way that any character learns regular powers. Holy powers are nothing more than regular powers with the Holy keyword. Powers with the Holy keyword work better against Evil foes (+2 attack), but not so well against Unaligned foes (-2 attack) and poorly against Good foes (-6 attack). Now, this keyword is balanced on the assumption that PCs will fight roughly even numbers of Evil and non-Evil foes. In a campaign where PCs fight Evil foes exclusively, holy powers become no-brainer choices.
(For my purposes, Evil = E/CE and Good = G/LG.)
TS
Personally Alignment has always been a bad idea, it always becomes too much of a pigeon hole affair with the DM saying 'that seems a bit nasty for NG or LG character' when the setting is world of violence.
Would the Romans be considered Evil for slaughtering whole civilisations...by D&D standards it would probably be a yes but in reality the Roman people 'thought' they were bringing civilisation to savages so the soldiers were acting for the good of Rome and the 'savage nations'.
Likewise the 1200's crusader holy knights believed they were bringing rightous beliefs to the non-believers, evil? Often what they did would be determined as evil but their beliefs said they were good.
I guess if your roleplayers play greedy(supposed good) priests then you may require this mechanic, I prefer the player to play the ethos of the god they follow and if they seem to be getting a bit greedy I'll remind them that their gods ethos doesn't include Greed.
As a final note even giving a player a mechanic that enhances attacks vs evil and prenalizes attacks vs good usually become pretty wasted as 90% or more of the enemies of a party are evil so the player always gets the bonus and never suffers the penalty. 3rd edition Paladin Smite is a good example( I struggle to remember when the Smite couldn't effect an enemy).
I take exception to the title. Alignment never had a groove. It is a sacred cow that should have been slaughtered in second edition.
This is VERY useful for a wizard or other Controller. Suddenly you can fireball your own team in reasonable safety. This normally takes a paragon path (War Wizard of Cormyr) to get.
That's a good point; I hadn't thought of that.
Here is a different idea:
Smite Evil [Heroic]
Prerequisite: Good alignment
Benefit: You gain the Smite Evil power.
Smite Evil Feat Power
You channel universal righteous fury to scour wickedness from the world.
Daily
Free Action Personal
Special: You must be Good to use this power.
Effect: The next attack power you use this turn deals radiant damage. Additionally, if the target is Evil, that power deals an extra 1 damage per tier.
Special: You must take the Smite Evil feat to use this power.
Righteous Wrath [Paragon]
Prerequisite: Good alignment
Benefit: Add “Additionally, that power gains a +2 bonus to hit Evil targets.” to the Effect entry of Smite Evil.
No Rest for the Wicked [Epic]
Prerequisite: Good alignment
Benefit: Add “Additionally, if the target is Evil, that power inflicts a -2 penalty to defenses until the end of your next turn. If that power already inflicts a penalty to defenses, it inflicts an additional -2 penalty.” to the Effect entry of Smite Evil.
There is no Smite Good because:
1. It would discourage players from playing Good PCs.
2. Evil PCs have other advantages available to them.
3. Evil PCs fight non-good foes more often than Good ones, so very few villains would opt for Smite Good anyway.
Personally Alignment has always been a bad idea, it always becomes too much of a pigeon hole affair with the DM saying 'that seems a bit nasty for NG or LG character' when the setting is world of violence.
Would the Romans be considered Evil for slaughtering whole civilisations...by D&D standards it would probably be a yes but in reality the Roman people 'thought' they were bringing civilisation to savages so the soldiers were acting for the good of Rome and the 'savage nations'.
Likewise the 1200's crusader holy knights believed they were bringing rightous beliefs to the non-believers, evil? Often what they did would be determined as evil but their beliefs said they were good.
I guess if your roleplayers play greedy(supposed good) priests then you may require this mechanic, I prefer the player to play the ethos of the god they follow and if they seem to be getting a bit greedy I'll remind them that their gods ethos doesn't include Greed.
As a final note even giving a player a mechanic that enhances attacks vs evil and prenalizes attacks vs good usually become pretty wasted as 90% or more of the enemies of a party are evil so the player always gets the bonus and never suffers the penalty. 3rd edition Paladin Smite is a good example( I struggle to remember when the Smite couldn't effect an enemy).
From my perspective I think your sort of missing the point. I can agree with you that trying to define whether the Romans were good or evil is a big pain in the butt and probably not worth doing.
Nonetheless I think 'good' characters should have access to some very sweet powers. Essentially its a carrot from the DM to encourage some of his players to take good characters. For the DM having at least some good characters is often a real bonus because they are easily motivated to continue with the adventure risking life and limb.
If we look at the APs, including the ones in Dungeon and continuing along with the ones done for Pathfinder, I think one will quickly note that every one of them runs significantly smoother if some notable percentage of the party is some form of good. Ultimately the DMs baited adventure hooks are much harder to pull off with an all neutral party - if the DM needs to justify 'whats in it for me?' for every adventure or quest it closes a lot of doors. Neutral PCs are generally motivated either by something in their characters back story or by some kind of reward. Thats fine but its not always that easy to motivate your players with just this to work with. When you add 'defending the oppressed and downtrodden' and 'save the hamlet/town/city/world' the DMs job gets a lot easier.
I found this fairly significantly in 3.5 when it dawned on my players that good PCs were generally more powerful the neutral ones. Essentially there were very few feats and options that a good PC could not take but there were quite a few really neat ones that had a restriction of 'must be good'. My players were not really trying to make my life difficult but things just ran smoother when teh party composition slowly shifted from being mostly neutral players to being mostly good players. There were still a fair number of 'anti-hero's' in the party but they could easily have a motivation of 'I follow that Paladin guy around because, so far, its been making me loads of gold.' Meanwhile the Paladin players motivation is 'We must save the children from the evil tentacle monsters!'
Importantly, in this example, I don't have to come up with some hard to swallow reward scenario where the Children will have some kind of reward to offer the PCs for saving them. They might not even be aware that they are in danger. So long as my good PCs believe that the children are in danger they will take steps to protect them.
This can be especially important when the levels are getting up there. There comes a point when the players are so powerful and so rich that it stops being reasonable that the NPCs could have enough to reward the PCs. Your average city might not have a 1/2 million GP lying around with which to entice the PCs. Plus its actually, usually more fun for the DM and teh PCs if they get that 1/2 GP in magic items they found in the adventure as opposed to in reward money.
Thus I rather like powers and feats only open to good characters since it makes my job easier. I generally feel that if you have to use a DM hammer to beat on your players for 'failing to be good' then you have a different problem thats not really addressed by these types of powers.
I'm pretty much willing to let my players define for themselves what 'good' means since pretty much any definition of 'good' they come up with for their character will nearly certainly fulfill my needs for them to bite the hook because their hero's and thats what hero's do.
That's a good point, Jeremy. My biggest motivation for this Smite Evil power is that D&D is a fantasy game, not the real world, so being the good guy should just make you more bad@ssed. But the issue of PC motivation is important too.
One of my players in my new Dying Earth campaign chose Smite Evil, so we'll see how it goes!
TS
That's a good point, Jeremy. My biggest motivation for this Smite Evil power is that D&D is a fantasy game, not the real world, so being the good guy should just make you more bad@ssed. But the issue of PC motivation is important too.
One of my players in my new Dying Earth campaign chose Smite Evil, so we'll see how it goes!
TS
The motivation for Good players is the result of doing good things, the PC's are hailed as heroes, the local populous develope an affinity for the PC's and would risk their lives for the PC's. Doors open that would previously be closed. Magic items could be gifted or commisioned by the local lord to gain the loyalty of the players.
If the PC's are Neutral, money grasping then they would be treated as such, they are mercenaries pure and simple.In the campaigns that I've run previously i've used the basis of Good things happen to Good people. These things are the carrots for Good Characters, you shouldn't need empowered game mechanics for this.
The motivation for Good players is the result of doing good things, the PC's are hailed as heroes, the local populous develope an affinity for the PC's and would risk their lives for the PC's. Doors open that would previously be closed. Magic items could be gifted or commisioned by the local lord to gain the loyalty of the players.
If the PC's are Neutral, money grasping then they would be treated as such, they are mercenaries pure and simple.
In the campaigns that I've run previously i've used the basis of Good things happen to Good people. These things are the carrots for Good Characters, you shouldn't need empowered game mechanics for this.
I can see how this would work in many campaigns. It'd not really fly very well in mine as mine is generally a bit darker then this. One might admire hero's and do gooders but usually that does not translate into all that much otherwise.
Sort of like how I can admire people that dedicate their lives to helping the poor in the third world - but its not actually a way to get a mansion in a swanky part of L.A. Being greedy and loving money is how one really goes about getting a swanky pad in L.A. and my campaign world tends to reflect that sort of thing. Hence I need something else to give to good players. In my game that works well in the mechanics and Good being Bad Ass works thematically as in a dark world a Champion of Good stands out.
From my perspective I think your sort of missing the point. I can agree with you that trying to define whether the Romans were good or evil is a big pain in the butt and probably not worth doing.Nonetheless I think 'good' characters should have access to some very sweet powers. Essentially its a carrot from the DM to encourage some of his players to take good characters. For the DM having at least some good characters is often a real bonus because they are easily motivated to continue with the adventure risking life and limb.
If we look at the APs, including the ones in Dungeon and continuing along with the ones done for Pathfinder, I think one will quickly note that...
Excellent post, Jeremy. I completely agree. I think adventure hooks are a DM's worst job. Even most pregenerated adventures are weak in the motivation department, IMO. Every bit of help a DM can get is worth it. Besides, I think the PCs *should* be heroic and at least somewhat virtuous. Playing mercenaries may be fun but both the DM and the players have to twist themselves in knots to explain the proper motivation to save the world much less some poor peasant girl.
Besides, I think alignment has always gotten a bad rap. I happen to really like it and am disappointed that apparently it's so unpopular that the powers that be seek to minimize it or phase it out completely. I know this issue has been discussed to death in past threads but I think alignment is less of a prison (constraining a PCs actions) and more of a ladder (to advance a PCs actions).
I can see how this would work in many campaigns. It'd not really fly very well in mine as mine is generally a bit darker then this. One might admire hero's and do gooders but usually that does not translate into all that much otherwise.
Sort of like how I can admire people that dedicate their lives to helping the poor in the third world - but its not actually a way to get a mansion in a swanky part of L.A. Being greedy and loving money is how one really goes about getting a swanky pad in L.A. and my campaign world tends to reflect that sort of thing. Hence I need something else to give to good players. In my game that works well in the mechanics and Good being Bad Ass works thematically as in a dark world a Champion of Good stands out.
See that's were my campaigns work differently. Hero characters who get a good reputation develope loyalty from the common man and when the common peasants are called to fight they willingly go. As for your mansion analogy that's not how it works at all. The good character doesn't just get given a mansion he usually gets offered the opportunity to deal with a local problem and gets offered an old broken down mansion if he's shown his worth so he can look after the local peasants around the mansion(knights).
My PC's if they are good characters more often than not 'spread the wealth' to the little people regardless.I prefer to reward my players within the campaign environment rather than penalize them for not being grasping or tempt them with more damaging powers for attacking evil things.
In your third world country analogy the local people helping the poor would find that the local people would happily serve them for reasonable pay, rather than be given food etc for nothing. Or a teacher being offered help to build a school for the local people, again this is the thing that happens in the real world but it's a good incentive for a good character.
Ultimately the Good player will make a much larger mark in the campaign world and its people whilst the mercenary player makes little impact except on himself.
See that's were my campaigns work differently. Hero characters who get a good reputation develope loyalty from the common man and when the common peasants are called to fight they willingly go. As for your mansion analogy that's not how it works at all. The good character doesn't just get given a mansion he usually gets offered the opportunity to deal with a local problem and gets offered an old broken down mansion if he's shown his worth so he can look after the local peasants around the mansion(knights).
My PC's if they are good characters more often than not 'spread the wealth' to the little people regardless.
I prefer to reward my players within the campaign environment rather than penalize them for not being grasping or tempt them with more damaging powers for attacking evil things.
In your third world country analogy the local people helping the poor would find that the local people would happily serve them for reasonable pay, rather than be given food etc for nothing. Or a teacher being offered help to build a school for the local people, again this is the thing that happens in the real world but it's a good incentive for a good character.
Ultimately the Good player will make a much larger mark in the campaign world and its people whilst the mercenary player makes little impact except on himself.
While I can see how having the conman man love you and be willing to die for you can be useful it strikes me as something thats of very situational utility. A great many adventures see the PCs essentially change locations after a certain number of levels. In fact one of my concerns with this method is that we are back to having the DMs players tie his hands, which is the whole point of desiring that players choose good over unaligned. If the players invest time, resources and effort into making location X their base with lots of friends and allies there and if their reward for all of this is to have these friends and allies then it stands to reason that the players will be very loath to leave the local. This same issue comes up to one degree or another if the players are allied to the local king who makes them magic items for their good deeds as well. In all cases in giving them these kinds of rewards you've set up a situation were they are punished if they sail off to the Isle of Dread or get nothing if they become crusaders against the Abyss.
I'm even skeptical that mercenary types don't impact the world ultimately - I mean if they take their gains and invest in something (like a trade consortium) then that something impacts the world - what they don't get is to be loved far and wide by the common man but that may or may not be much of a reward depending on the player in question. Especially if the players have already played in a campaign that featured this. Mechanical boosts are usually liked in every campaign - being a saint for the common people is more of a character concept - which again moves to tying players hands - they get rewards for being good - but its for being certain types of good. The low charisma insulting character that is never the less good is not really the kind of person who has masses of people who want to work for him - there will be those that see behind the flaws to the hero below the crude demeanor but its a special person that does so. The Clint Eastwood strong silent type is very good but rewards from the masses are neither sought out or wanted. The good fanatic certainly gets rewarded for his behavior in terms of help from the common mn but earns the enemies as well - not least from the masses of unaligned who rightfully realize that this guy is actually a danger to them and their freedoms since he'd force the society into teetotaler mode if he could.
I think we are both viewing the campaign world as a dynamic place but I'm of the opinion that the campaign world will tend to react to whatever the players are and want to be. Some archtypes of good are the kinds of people who can make use of helpful commoners while others are not. one of the last things I want to do as a DM is tell my players what kind of good they should be - I'm just happy that my job has been made easier when they take any kind of good - how they want to make their good character interesting and special is something I'll leave up to them but in my experience its often not the kind of Good that the common people are willing to die for.
Ultimately the fact that a mechanical incentive is clean and free of the campaign world itself (except on the highest level - presumably the Goods or Philosophies of good are the ultimate source of the bad ass mechanical power in the first place) is one of its benefits. Its an option that rewards the players for creating characters that bite plot hooks without having to make sure that the campaign itself is one that rewards the players if the players head off to the Underdark or the Abyss. Nor does it step in and pick and choose among the archtypes of good making some of them the correct choices while other types wrong choices - the world just is...its a pond and teh players actions ripple through it. Those actions might result in commoners helping the PCs or not depending on their actions. Though I get the impression that what one gets out of these actions is probably less in my world then in yours.