Discussing D&D (3) – Alignments are not choices

You may hide the colors of your soul from others, but not from yourself
- Alignments are not a choice -

I see many a discussion surrounding alingments in D&D, specially on how they are confusing and hard to understand. I imagine that the origin of such confusion derives from the way that people face alignment in D&D, which is in the same way as we face how people act in the real world.

In our world, people are not born 'evil' or 'chaotic' or 'neutral' - unless, maybe, in extreme situations conditioned by genetical or sociological problems. The way we act comes from our experiences with the world, how we were raised, how much happiness or suffering we endure during our life. Therefore, in our world, the way someone is comes from how that person experiences life and the choices she makes.

Alignments would be conected to the colors of the soul
and the energies of the body

However, would that be the same way in D&D? To comprehend better, maybe we should try going back to the origins of D&D, its inspirations on fantastical litterature, like for example the works of Tolkien. In The Lord of the Rings, 'Good' and 'Evil' are opposing forces, and people seem to have those attributes inside their very soul.

And we see a similar thing happening also in D&D with, for example, the planes of 'Law', 'Chaos', 'Good', 'Evil', where alignments are just as real as the air we breath. Therefore, we may conclude that, in D&D, alignments are Cosmic Energies, components of the very fabric of the multiverse.

And it happens so that even innanimate objects, which in no way could have beliefs or creeds, may also have something similar to 'tendencies'. For example, there are items which were used for evil acts and that become 'evil' magic items; and the same may happen with an object used for great and good deeds. By the same token, a place that witnessed many evil doings - like, for example, an execution chamber - may have an 'evil aura' surrounding it. This only reinforces my assertion that tendencies are elements that compose the universe in D&D, and, by logic, they also compose the characters too.

And, because I see tendencies as cosmic energies, that's why I think I never had any problem with them in D&D. To me, tendencies are not a matter of choice - you are born with them. Like in the real world, where we cannot chose to be born ugly or beautiful, rich or poor, with a masculine or feminine sex, liking X, Y or Z. That is why changing alignments is so traumatic, hard and, most of the times, impossible for a character. They represent the cosmic energies that flow inside you - lawful, evil, good, chaotic. Only in extreme cases (like great suffereing, extreme effort, magic or divine intervention) one would be able to change alignments - in the same way that, in our world, we cannot just change, by our own free will, our biological sex.

Alignments in the world of D&D compose the fabric
of the universe and the spirit of a character

So, that is my opinion regarding alignments. They are ingrainned with the character and is not just a body of beliefs or creeds that he has. But, what about you? What do you think about thsi post? What are your opinions regarding all of that? In another post, I intend on talking about the alignment chart and what I think about each type.

Until then,

Valete!

Images links: 1, 2, 3

If you liked this post, you may help me improve by sharing it in your social networks. Also, if you are curious, give it a look at my others works and consider becoming my patreon.

Discussing D&D (2) – Understanding and dealing with Hit Points

- Hit Points: how to deal with them in games? -

(Summary TL;DR)

. When D&D appeared, there were no concrete definition of what Hit Points were – except in the vague notion that it represents how much damage one could receive before dieing. However, with the constant discussion, already in AD&D there was the definition – still used in new editions of D&D – that Hit Points meant not only toughness, but also 'luck', 'skill', 'magic' and any other capacity to evade damage.

. Hit Points have a subtle distinction between those earned by Character Classes and Monster Levels. Those earned by Classes normally mean what was said above, as 'luck', 'skill' and 'magic'; while a monster's Hit Points meant their size, toughness and fortitude.

. To deal with problems regarding Hit points (like the classic 'one dagger to the neck means only 1d4 damage1), the players must discuss about how they will deal with it, in a more realistically way or more fantastical.

><><

As I discussed previously, when I talked about THAC0 and AC, there are many doubts regarding the coherence (or lack of it) in D&D's combat system. However, many times those doubts happen because of a lack of knowledge regarding the 'theory', or I could say the logic behind the game rules. In this post, I will talk about another such polemic topic in D&D's combat: the Hit Points.

At the beginning, with the first iterations of D&D (during the times when its rules were still joined together with those of Chainmail), Hit Points were described as simply 'how much damage a monster or character may suffer before dieing'. There were no further elaboration of what could Hit Points mean in a more concrete way in the game world. After more books were being published, around AD&D there was already a very clear definition:

"Each character has a varying number of hit points,' just as monsters do.

These hit points represent how much damage (actual 01: potential) the

character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit

points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained.

The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands

for skill, luck, and/or magical factors."

(taken from AD&D 1 st edition, pg 34)

So, Hit Points (HP) start to represent something that could be said as 'heroic points', expressing the capacity of a character to ignore, withstand, escape and survive damage. But, it is important to notice that this conception refers specially to those Hit Points conferred by Character Classes. In regards to monsters, many times the hit points represent its giant size and capacity to sustain damage. Therefore, a warrior with 50 Hp and a Giant with 50 Hp have different ways to interpret how they take the damage they receive.

For the warrior, that would mean that he evades, block, dodges, or maybe by magic and luck the damage is nullified. For the giant, his great size and constitution would have absorbed the damage taken through scratches and wounds. Looking things by that point of view, we have the same word – Hit Points – covering two different subjects: the hit points for monsters (resistance, toughness, size) and for character classes (luck, skill, magic) that, although they have the same mechanical weight, they have different narrative aspects. And one could say that a Giant who has levels as a warrior would have 'both' kinds of HP – hit point and heroic point.

With those things said, this takes us to a big question: how to deal with those 'heroic points' that characters have? Because, if a killer is able, let's suppose, to hold a 50 hp warrior with a knife by his throat, there is nothing impeding the warrior's player to say: 'a dagger causes only 1d4, and I have 50 hp. I can take that damage and hit the assassin back'. Or, in another situation, watching a band of robbers running away down a cliff, the same player could say: 'I will jump the cliff, take at most 30 damage, and will be able to intercede the running robbers'.

One HP is enough HP

There is no one answer on how to deal with such situations. On my case, I propose two possibilities: the first is to use 'common reality sense'. Hit points are just an abstraction, specially connected with combat. When out of combat, the common sense should prevail. A dagger to the neck kills; jumping off a cliff either kills or severely hurts. The second possibility is to accept the fantastical reality and say that the characters are supernatural. In the same way that Goku, in the anime Dragon Ball, is able to withstand cosmic blows with his 'ki', the player characters are able to do so because of magic or luck. So, a dagger to the neck would not kill.

In both situations, it's important that all players discuss about what kind of game they want, what kind of REALITY inside the game they want. For example, in my Old School games I normally opt for the second option and I accept the player character's as magical and awesome creatures. If there is a need to see if a particular attack was lethal or not (like a dagger to the neck), I roll a saving throw; but usually I just accept that the characters are heroic beings with 'cthulhian' fortitude and supernatural biology. And, particularly, I love the epic idea of the warrior intercepting the robbers by jumping off the cliff.

Well, what do you people think about this question? How do you deal with Hit Points in your games? Comment and add to the discussion.

Until then,

Valete!

><><

Post Scriptum:

Don't forget seeing the Aftermath, what the readers discussed and said about Hit Points

If you liked this post, you may help me improve by sharing it in your social networks. Also, if you are curious, give it a look at my others works and consider becoming my patreon.

Discussing D&D (1) – AD&D and understanding THAC0 and AC

A warrior surrounded by enemies, untouched
- Understanding THAC0 and AC -

(Summary TL;DR)

. Combat in AD&D was an abstraction, not the simulation of reality. One round represented 1 minute in the game world, while in most modern games, one round last around 5 to 10 seconds.

. A character's action was not the only action he would do in one round, but only the focus of its attention. In a round, a character would do many actions that would go without saying.

. THAC0 was an amalgamation of a character's skill, technique, luck, positioning, strength, reach, stamina, and all other qualities necessaries that would make a person able to deliver damage dealing blows.

. AC was the capacity of resisting the force of an impact, foresee the enemy's moves, the extension of how much the armor was covering the character's body, how tough was the material, how hard was it to hit the target (in terms of size, speed and mobility) and how thick was the armor's covering layer.

!As always, remember to comment and tell what you though about the subject!

><><

I wish to discuss in this post about something that I find much necessary, at least for those who still play Old School rpgs or read about them. I heard many a time – and I believe that many of you might have heard something similar – about how 'unreal' or 'incoherent' combat is in D&D, specially with old school D&D (like 1 st edition and AD&D). I heard things like: 'how can a human warrior fight against a gigantic colossus without the creature just kicking him away?'; 'what about those hit points? As long as you have 1 hit point, you are fine, even if you lost 100 of them'; 'how the heck does having high armor makes you harder to hit?'. Many answer such remarks saying that 'D&D is a heroic game', using that as an excuse.

And, even so, when we face old editions – like AD&D – we see things that even D&D gamers find hard to believe. For example, there were no targeted attacks in AD&D (unless you were using optional rules found elsewhere the Dungeon Master Guide). Another example would be with the bonus of Dexterity in AC was not lost if you were using heavy armor, even full plate. Such things seem to put AD&D's combat in a very conflicting position with reality.

Here is the point: combat in AD&D, although it might seem at first glance unrealistic, it truly is not. I would even dare to say that AD&D is more realistic than 3 rd edition D&D and even Gurps (gasp! I know, I might be overstating just a little bit here, eh?). But hold on a minute, allow me to elaborate that argument by discussing about the two main aspects of combat in D&D – Attack (THAC0, in AD&D) and Armor Class (AC).

But before talking about those two, the first thing to notice is how much it takes a Round in AD&D to complete, a detail many times forgotten. In most contemporary rpgs, a round takes about 5 to 10 seconds to complete. In Gurps, it's just 1 second; in d20 D&D, it's 6 seconds. But, in old AD&D, it took 1 MINUTE. Yes, 1 minute; or 60 seconds; or 60 times longer than GURPS, 10 times longer than d20 D&D.

With that said, we clarify an important aspect of AD&D – it tries not to emulate the reality of every single blow and action a character does during a round, but, in fact, it's an abstraction of a combat situation. When during combat you declare your intention, this does not mean that your character will do ONLY what you said, but that it will FOCUS on what you said. So, if you say that your character will drink a potion, your character will have to take it off from its bag, look around, wait for an opportunity, take off the lid, drink it, all of that while evading, parrying and dodging attacks.

Based on that idea, we can finally understand what THAC0 meant in AD&D. It was everything concerning the capacity of a character to deal a damaging blow in one opponent: its size, strength, skill, technique, positioning and stamina. Because of that, a Troll with THAC0 13 (+7 attack) would be as capable in combat as a warrior of level 7. Its ferocity, size and brutality were counted on its THAC0. When you would make an attack roll using your THAC0, that did not mean you were delivering ONE single blow, but, in fact, that you were engaging in direct combat with many maneuvers, feints, blows and, in case of a hit, the damage would represent the sum of all those strikes that connected and all the damage the warrior was able to inflict. It's for that reason that AD&D did not have rules for targeted attacks – the attack roll meant the best attack that you could have made during your turn.

A Leviathan AC does not mean that it's hard to hit...
but that it is hard to hurt!

In the same way of THAC0, AC was not only the type of armor you wore, but also how thick was a monster's hide, how hard it was to be struck (because of size, speed, mobility), how much did it cover its body and other factors like those. Everything that could make it hard for a blow to cause real damage to a creature was part of its AC. That is the reasoning behind the base 10 of AC – it depicts a person trying to evade and not be hurt, a creature blocking and enduring damage. That's why a whale had AC 4 in AD&D (16 in ascending rules) – not because it was hard to hit it, but because its sheer size and thickness made it very hard to cause real damage do the creature. Meanwhile, the Will-o-wisp had AC -8 (28), because it was very agile, tiny and its body was

made of electricity and light.

The macabre Will-o-wisps from AD&D
- The Balls of Steel - 

I hope that with this post I have clarified – both for players new and old – this point of debate around the 'incoherence' of D&D's combat. It might not be as realistic as GURPS, but it is interesting to know the logic behind its rules. I still find that system of combat one of the best ever created – but that is a matter of personal opinion. I intend to talk about other subjects regarding D&D combat in future posts, like Hit Points and Saving Throws.

Until then,

Valete!

If you liked this post, you may help me improve by sharing it in your social networks. Also, if you are curious, give it a look at my others works and consider becoming my patreon.