The Changes With Which I Don't Agree

As I was working on another post outlining some of my thoughts for playing the new races, I rediscovered the one thing that upset me the first time I read through the races section of the PHB.

They changed the Elf gods!!

Corellon Larethian has historically been credited as the "Creator of the Elves." In 4E, he is merely the "patron of the fey." Did he get demoted? Absolutely! Why? I'm not sure, but the part of me that's actually an elf is outraged!

Corellon was not only associated with music, magic and the arts (as he is currently described in 4E), but also with warfare when the need to protect arose. He defeated Gruumsh in battle in the beginning of the world, before he created the elves. This battle was the underlying reason elves hate orcs. Corellon also cast out Lolth after her betrayal during the aforementioned battle. This was the underlying reason Corellon despises Lolth and her followers.

Sehanine Moonbow is one of the lesser-known Elf gods, but she suddenly appears in the regular pantheon, but not as we all knew her. Before, she was a goddess of death and dreams, now she's the goddess of trickery and illusions. In Races of the Wild, Sehanine is described as sending a "dying elf a vision of the next world to give him hope and strength during his passage." The 4E PHB describes her as sending "shadows to cloak lovers' trysts." She just sounds so tawdry, so much less noble.

Races of the Wild also states that Sehanine was Corellon's consort. 4E says she has "close ties" with him. I can overlook this little change, but it sure sounds like they are "just friends" now. Maybe she didn't want to be in a relationship with someone who got demoted from "Creator of the Elves." Or maybe he didn't agree with her new career choice. Either way, they must have had one heck of a falling out to go on as "just friends."

Now, I'm pretty forgiving in the changes they made if 4E. But to change the defined roles of the gods in the pantheon? To take away their mythology, their history? That's just change for the sake of change without any real growth or development.

Things You Should Never, Ever Do

This post actually comes from a relatively weird place. You see, my good friend Vanir was scoping out Living Dice and linked me to a story where they were discussing the creepiest or most disgusting gamers that people have ever come across in their travels. After reading a few of these I was shocked... I thought that gamers like this were overblown stereotypes, misconceptions concocted by those that don't understand our ways.

I was appalled to behold the tale of Jack. This single story has eroded my faith in our subculture's ability to conduct itself.

Please allow me to lay a few things out for you all.

We aren't the largest site on the Internet, however there is a somewhat increased chance that the Jack's of the world might be reading this site so there are a few things that I have to say.

1. Wear deodorant - They tell you this in the GenCon Book every year, and its not a funny joke. If you don't shower every day of the convention, at least have the decency to fall on top of some SpeedStick or spray yourself with some Axe before you leave the hotel in teh morning.
   
   GenCon is a very magical place, however it does not prevent you from sweating if you are normally susceptible to perspiration. Magic like that cannot be contained by the RCA Dome.
   
   
2. I can't believe I have to spell this out, but don't crap yourself around others. Now, I've been known to bust some stink occasionally, but if you know there's a greater than 70% chance that The Real Deal will occur, go to the can.
   
   And I promise you this: if I am at the gaming table with you at GenCon and you crap your pants and don't have a medical reason to do so, I'm going to punch you in the throat. Adult human beings should not need to have this explained to them.
   
   
3. Don't be annoying. This is a general rule, but applies to the rest of the areas of nuance that I don't have the bandwidth to elaborate upon here: Just because you think its ok doesn't mean that it is.
   
   Jack's story had me really taking stock of my annoying habits, thankfully I don't believe that I or any of my campaign-mates have flaws as grandiose as ol' Jack. A little introspection can't hurt though... try and rank the top three things that you do that might offend sensibilities, and do the rest of society a favor and work on these things a little bit.
   
   I'll even start for you: aside from the aforementioned relieving of gas, I sometimes make large scale crude and/or offensive jokes during our gaming session. Most of our group doesn't mind these things, but I'm aware of it to know when enough is enough (most of the time). Acknowledging it is the first step to eliminating it, so I suggest some stock-taking occur for the better good.
   
   For the record: that includes answering nature's call in front of other humans with reckless abandon.

I hope I don't have to revisit this topic.

There are many other rules that dictate common social graces that nerds need to examine, but I hope we don't have to start a regular feature here about what not to do when around other members of the human race.

If you want a little continued reading on the matter, visit the forum I linked above and read all about the worst of the worst. If you recognize yourself in any of those stories, change your freaking behavior!

On Fit and Finish...

Today, my lovely wife Stupid Ranger and I set out into the cold weather to do some Christmas shopping. We ended up as we often do: at Borders.

While she was agonizing over the sale tables, I ventured into the roleplaying section to peruse the new offerings from my favorite publishers and while I was looking at all of the bindings and titles I began to think about what draws me to certain supplements.

I work in the manufacturing industry and there is a concept called "fit and finish" that is used to describe the final touches that are put on the product before it is considered complete. As I looked at those bindings, idly selecting one or two to pull of the shelf and flip through I found that some very superficial things made me actually pick up certain books and look through them.

Things like fonts, cover art, and titles are what initially drew me to some titles. I grabbed a few books and found that their layout or typeface was so appalling that I couldn't stand to read more than a paragraph at a time, which placed those into the "right out" category. I believe that is why so many roleplaying resources are moving online: you can choose how you want to receive the content, many times controlling the superficial things that help you drive down into the content.

On the car ride home, I was thinking about what good gaming opportunities I may have missed or dismissed purely on these criteria. Essentially, in my opinion usability matters. If the "fit and finish" is off and I can't get past reading a single paragraph, or I can't read the chart easily from arms length I very likely won't buy the book, and often times I have found that I marginalize anything in that same given series purely due to the manner in which the information is presented.

Am I alone here?

Why I Hate Alignment

If I had to pick one concept in D&D that has always driven me completely insane, I would have to pick alignment. How many times have you had a discussion with another player about something his or her character did and whether or not they played their alignment correctly?

Chaotic Retarded

The rules for alignment are JUST vague enough to be confusing, and are frequently the subject of some very... shall we say.... liberal interpretation. Here are some of the doozies I've heard over the years:

• Lawful -- Always obeys laws, no matter what.


• Lawful Neutral -- The ONLY thing this person ever cares about is laws. Always.


• True Neutral -- Can't decide what to do because they're always on the fence. Actions that require a decision must always be taken at random by a roll of the dice. Frequently switches sides in the middle of a battle.


• Chaotic Neutral -- Always does the first thing that pops into their heads. Always chosen by the guy in the group who doesn't want to be labelled as "evil" but never wants his alignment questioned.


• Chaotic Evil -- Enjoys killing everything. On sight. Always murderous.


• Lawful Evil -- Always obeys laws, but has to find loopholes to still do evil.

And these aren't just from one poor misguided gaming group I was in during college. I still hear these things from time to time, and it's a wonder I have any hair left.

Never Always

See the common thread between every stupid thing said above? Every last one of them has the word "always" in it. Nobody always or never does something. People are much more complex than that, and under the right circumstances, you can see people do some pretty unexpected things.

The problem with alignment is that it's a label. And the problem with labels is that one can be stuck on something complex and people will only see the label. Even if the label is pretty accurate, most people will never ever be able to see beyond what is printed on it.

Let's take a guy who would be, by most definitions, a good guy. He goes to church every weekend, loves the wife and kids, gives back to the community, and goes the speed limit. But he steals money from his workplace and kicks his dog too. Is he Good? Evil? Chaotic? I'd say he's got some of each in him. ALL people do, to a certain extent. But what label do you slap on him? You can't slap "Good" on him, he's a thief. You can't slap "Evil" on him, he's good most of the time.

I'm expecting emails from some of the rules lawyers out there saying "He's OBVIOUSLY Neutral!" or "He's Neutral Good with Evil Tendencies!" or something like that. But you're missing the point -- why are we working so hard to classify something that defies classification? Emotion is notorious for being wildly irrational, and human behavior is largely based in emotion. I submit that it doesn't matter one bit what Official Alignment someone is -- they are who they are. And no two word description can accurately portray that.

This Dial Goes Up To Eleven

Another problem with labelling something with an alignment is that in not seeing past the label, they also exaggerate what it means. So if someone is "good" they hug puppies, shit candy canes, and are Dedicated to the Eradication of Evil. On the other hand, Evil people rob the elderly blind for fun and always have at least two people killed before 11am. I'm exaggerating, of course, but raise your hand if you've ever been in a party where somebody does something slightly morally questionable and another party member immediately drew their blade and tried to kill them on the spot BECAUSE OMG THEY ARE EVIL!!!!!

That's a lot of hands.

OMG But What About Classes And Other Things That Are Alignment-Specific??!!?

I think those rules are silly!

I can understand the spirit behind wanting paladins to be Lawful Good or they lose their paladinhood. But paladins are holy warriors, and it really ought to be up to their chosen deity whether or not they're doing what they ought to. Especially in groups with.... interesting ideas on alignment, if the paladin doesn't see a "keep off the grass" sign, they could wind up a fighter in fancy armor in short order.

Monks have the same problem, and if they're not always "lawful" they lose their monk status. If the Lawful part that needs preserved is all about discipline, then if someone doesn't obey laws or does "something chaotic", how does that mean they don't train every day? Now, I understand the monk's powers in D&D are supposed to be supernatural abilities. That's fine. But I've been in martial arts every bit as long as I've played D&D and I mean to tell you there are some seriously chaotic martial artists out there. And last time I checked, they all still train and none of them lost the ability to do Flurry of Blows.

A Helm of Alignment Change? Start acting more evil. DUH.

The Heart of The Matter

I was once in a campaign where I was playing a monk, and something happened in battle where the DM thought I was being "chaotic". I think I jumped over a short party member, accidentally knocking him over in the process. And I got warned that if it ever happened again, I would be stripped of my monk status. I thought that was completely ridiculous, and we got into a big argument over it.

And it was after that when I realized why I really hate alignment. It is really vague, open to interpretation, and regarded with incredible importance for some unknown reason. It's the D&D equivalent of talking about religion or politics at your in-laws during Thanksgiving dinner, and somebody's going to get their panties in a wad.

Sure, I think all of the things I said above are true. But so does everybody else who has an opinion about alignment. It has a tendency to bring out the worst in D&D players. And for something that can be so easily overcome by good roleplaying, I see no reason why we should trouble ourselves further with it.

But then, the problem really isn't about alignment, is it? As always, talk to your friends at the table, and try to reach a reasonable consensus. Once you have, stick with it. It's the Lawful Good thing to do!