Aasimar, Tieflings, Alignment Rewards and Un-Restricting RP

[BiglySmalls]

In light of the most recent update that forces Aasimar and Tieflings into either good or evil alignment, it's made me think that the rewards for these characters both seem unnecessarily complicated and RP restrictive.

Two of the most common tropes I can think of in stories are Villain Redemption's and Fallen Heroes. Enforcing a policy of one way or the other prevents these characters, ones that in my mind at least are the most ripe for being encouraged down these paths by the RP of others, from having more interesting and unique RP that might involve or result in Alignment change.

I think a better alternative would be to make both Aasimar and Tiefling major rewards and have starting as their alignment opposites (Evil for Aasimar and Good for Tiefling) require an application. From here an Aasimar and Tiefling could start as either neutral or their typical alignments and be allowed to change as their RP might dictate with the oversight and permission of DMs as it is with everyone else. This way we don't have to deal with the complicated policy of tracking who started as a neutral alignment, who starts as good/evil, whether they are from before or after the update, etc.

Additionally this would sort of bring it into line with the policy on Good monster that requires either 40+ RPR or an application, if you really want to bring it into line you can have the RPR bypass work the same way for Aasimar and Tieflings.

I'm sure there are other reasons to do so, and maybe even a better way of handling it than I proposed here, but at the end of the day the priority should fun and interesting RP.

[Hazard]

The change is actually less restrictive. Previously, you weren't allowed a good tiefling or evil aasimar, only neutral. Now you're allowed a good tiefling or evil aasimar, and tiefling have been lowered from major to greater.

I think the point was to have more typical alignments be more common, and the opposite alignments as a start be less common.

[BiglySmalls]

The change is actually less restrictive. Previously, you weren't allowed a good tiefling or evil aasimar, only neutral. Now you're allowed a good tiefling or evil aasimar, and tiefling have been lowered from major to greater.

I think the point was to have more typical alignments be more common, and the opposite alignments as a start be less common.

I'm not stating that the recent change is more restrictive than it was, merely that I believe it could both be improved and simplified. The big issue I see is there being individuals who may be held back from engaging in interesting and dramatic character changing RP because they are hard-alignment restricted unlike something like a class alignment restriction which, while tough to work around, is still TECHNICALLY possible to do by dropping the class.

[The GrumpyCat]

We did consider simply doing that - adding an application. But we'd encounter issues of bitterness for those we rejected, and also frankly it'd be more work for us - which (and I know this sounds awful but you should see the list of things we have to deal with) we really don't need.

This outcome I like because it allows for outlayers, but it also really encourages the more steryotypical of their type. Most of the tieflings you are likely to meet WILL be evil and most Aasimar good. Others exist, but they're the outlayers. And gating itat neutral is useful because 'neutral' can often be passed off as good/evil. In short - (and I say this as someone who is probably absolutly guilty of this in the past!) If you do want to play an 'Good' tiefling, you can no longer just make them 'neutral' and kick the odd kitten every second tuesday.

With all this being said I'm absolutly not against changing it in the future. If we start seeing a lot of very poorly rped evil aasimar, or good tieflings, we may well do just that! But I'd like to see how this settles in for now before we consider any other changes. As has been said about the feedback forum in general - please give changes at least a little time to get going before passing judgement.

[perseid]

The main reason I don't like lensing either around the policy for good monsters is that in PnP neither was restricted by alignment in 3rd edition. They were acknowledged as having trends but there was plenty of room for exceptions as the mechanics didn't impose an alignment requirement unlike some other racial templates.

[Amateur Hour]

At the end of the day, a NWN persistent world is not tabletop.

If we want to create the feel of any particular setting, most player characters need to fit (or at least pass as fitting) within the expectations of what's typical the setting, because there aren't thousands of unspecified Peter the Peasant, Elrohir the Elf, or Dorn the Dwarf NPCs to balance player character being strange and unusual. Maintaining the setting in a persistent world requires a degree of control on RP, necessarily.

I'm generally in favor of making characters that don't fit alignment expectations more difficult to make than those who do; in my ideal world - and I know this is utterly impossible levels of workload, so I'm not seriously suggesting it - I think evil characters from surface races that heavily swing good per lore (elves, dwarves, gnomes) should require an application like good monsters require an application.