Alignment alternatives

[Mistmaster]

I thinks that Ravenloft needs more light and balance not more darkness and hazards, to be enjoyable.

[Five]

I agree with the focus on the light. Though because survival horror is also a thing with us I can't make it too easy for the group. Heh

[kourkenko]

I almost never use the old system for alignment because it's too restricting in a mechanic term (coming from the first edition as the infamous, and for good reasons, Tac0) and some players never look past it. Being a lawfull good paladin don't mean he's lawfull dumb and it's kind of a problem with some. It's why i keep a track of their actions rather than told them to follow the strict (and too old imo) rule. They can choose, if THEY want being lawfull, neutral or chaotic but i let the second part being decided by their actions if they WANT. They can do whatever they want, they must assume the choices made later in the campaign. For the dark powers check, i use their morality, for example disturbing graves is an act of ultimate darkness but what about a priest that must watch for buried undead ? It follow he's faith tenant ? Of course he must have good reasons to make this action but if he have them he shouldn't do a check imo.

I also agree that light should be more prevalent but not in a big way. PC are heroes in ravenloft and must be the central point of light, they must be the ones whose actions decide if the darkness prevail or not. It's how gothic work, little peoples fight an old and powerful darkness in an hopeless battle and the downfall of this darkness is coming from its flaws.
Bringing powerful good NPCs will bring the same problems the forgotten realms had before the cataclysm leading to the fifth edition, why the PC should act when powerful NPCs can take actions in so little time it make the PC irrelevant ?

It's an almost invisible line that should not be ignored because at one time when you launch at them a story with a big bad guy, some players can just throw back at you "why this npc don't move ? I'm not a servant !" This can lead to some loss of motivations and destroy a campaign if not adressed fast. I saw this several times.
It's just my two cents of course but just don't ignore this simple fact. Ed Greenwood adressed it himself several times in convention and stream vids. and did it again for the fifth edition with Mystra's death (again... for a third time...). It tanked the interest of players in the FR setting.

Just my opinion of course.

[Alastor]

It is a little tangential to this thread as a whole, but as for the reason why powerful NPCs don't intervene, I would give them some even larger problem to deal with occupying their full attention. (Perhaps later, after they die/retire/turn to evil it will become the PCs' problem).

As for the nine traditional alignments, I like them - they are just vague enough that you can fit them to whatever your real world moral beliefs may be. I do also like that the Power Checks system gives an objective metric though, to prevent as many arguments between the DM and players about exactly what constitutes good and evil. If we disagree with the moral reasoning, we can always say, "Hey, that's just the Dark Powers' opinion, not the truth."

You could also use allegiances from d20 Modern if you like that better than traditional alignment. If you go that route, it might helpful to have characters use "Self" as a fourth allegiance, just to insert into the order to show which causes the character would place above his or her personal well being and which are more casual. It would probably also make sense in Ravenloft to shield allegiances from detection by magic but to let other spells interact with them, just as the standard game does with good and evil.

[Mistmaster]

I will reply with the same words Elminster used "Because it would create more problems that it would solve" If powerfull good NPC's act directly they might won; but it would be a costly victory which will create a power vacuum; Other menaces will jump in and they might end the powerfull good NPC together with theyr evil opponents; So you will end worse then before. I have introduced powefull good NPCs in Ravenloft, the Coldhands are undead heroes who need to face hate and distrust from the very people they seek to protect; Archibald Everlast is probably the single most powerfull spellcaster in the Mist, but he is a teacher, not a warrior, and he believes that there is hope even for the Darklords; He cold hand several threats with a well planned attack, but such an attack wuld be against his principle. Good NPC value balance and ponderates theyr moves; they also do not act personally because the Big Bads keep an eye on them, while they underestimate low level characters; this is a key reason because Good powerful NPCs delegates. Plus they are often i role of responsabilities, and they can't simply leave it suddently to go adventuring. So, responsability, opportunity and balance are the reason which usually keep good NPCs out of the play; Or, they arealready acting, and the PCs play a pivotal role in theyr masterplan against evil force. But this is my hopinion. I like my Ravenloft more balanced out.

[ewancummins]

RE hit points, armor, guns, etc:

VIEW CONTENT:

Hit points are an abstraction in every edition.
They represent a diminishing capacity to avoid death or disabling injury. Skill, luck, grit, reserves of energy, supernatural favor, etc. Thus a hit in combat may not represent any actual physical damage.

I'd consider carefully before making guns vastly better at reducing hp than are swords.

Reducing the AC of armor may make more sense. But I'd keep in mind that real historical armor was made bulletproof, meaning guns were fired at it at various ranges and that its ability to resist penetration was noted with the dent as a proof mark . High quality plate armor ought to be able to do that in D&D. But it would be expensive. In Early Modern Europe equipping large forces in plate armor able to resist guns became prohibitively expensive before firearms technology overtook personal protection. Guns likewise beat out bows and crossbows not so much because they were any deadlier but because they were easier to learn how to use than a bow and require less strength, and while less accurate than a crossbow at least as effective and powerful.

D&D often makes guns really expensive. Once they become ordinary, workaday, technology they ought to be relatively less expensive ( I wouldn't say more so than crossbows). I'm making a lot of generalizations here.

But I do think guns should have high damage dice, to offset the low rate of fire.