Elves versus Gnomes!

[Spatzimaus]

No, this isn't a "which is better?" thread. I need some feedback.

I've been working on a ruleset modification that ties into a campaign world I'm putting the finishing touches on, but I ran into a really tough decision. You see, in this world/rules, there are no Wizards. Psions and Psychic Warriors, however, DO exist, and there's no universal social stigma against Psions or Sorcerers. As an attempt to increase the importance of the Law/Chaos distinction (everyone seems to focus on the Good/Evil one much more), I'm tying these magics to that.

Currently, Psionics (Mind Magic) is the magic of Law (and can't be taken by Chaotic people), while Arcane (Sorcery or Blood Magic) is the magic of Chaos (and can't be taken by Lawful people).

So, since I don't want to have both races have the same favored class, Elves' new Favored Class is Sorcerer, while for Gnomes it's Psion. Which leads to the big question: should this be switched around?

For example, the raw damage and illusions that Sorcery excels in seems to be a more natural fit to Gnomes, while the divinations and flexibility Psionics gives would seem to fit Elves better. On the other hand, Sorcery uses CHA as its main stat, which I'd rather see on Elves than Gnomes. (Beautiful gnomes and strong elves?)
The free-spell thing Gnomes get integrates better with Sorcery. The free-weapon thing Elves get integrates better with Psionics (one Armor Proficiency and you're set to fight!).
Elves are usually listed as Chaotic, but they seem to have a heirarchical society based on honor (I'd say that's Lawful), while Gnomes tend to be more prankster (Chaotic).
Arcane Archers are Elvish, and they need Arcane magic (Sorcery). Likewise, Bards use Arcane magic, and Elvish Bards seem a lot more likely than Gnomish.
Psionics seems more flexible than Sorcery, which would imply Chaos, but it's mental instead of instinctive, which implies Law. Sorcery has more raw damage, which implies Chaos, but it's a more rigid spellcasting system than Psionics, which would imply Law.

So, the question(s):
1> Currently Psionics is Lawful and Sorcery Chaotic; should it be the other way around?
2> Currently Gnomes are Lawful and Elves Chaotic; should it be the other way around?
(There's also
3> Currently Gnomes are Psions and Elves Sorcerers; should it be the other way?
but the question is redundant: if your answers on 1 and 2 were the same the answer to 3 is YES, otherwise NO. If you use any two of the questions as your baseline, the third is determined this way)

If anyone can think of good reasons for any of these that I haven't listed above, please post them, it'll help.

 

[apoptosis]

Your post was beginning to sound like the scicilian from the Princess Bride movie

Do the Gnomes encounter the mind flayers, that could be good reason to make them Psionic....

But overall i See the Elves to be more lawful (with more noble hierarchy and such) and more like psionic

while i would consider the Gnomes more chaotic and blood magic to be closer asscociated with the earth (and Gnomes).

Make Bardic magic stem from more an empathic focus and it aligns better with mind magic (and elves).

I would develop the society and then decide which fits law/chaos better than to start with mechanics, makes a better fit IMHO.

I am biased in my answers though. Elves in my world disdain both wizardry and sorcery and prefer mind magic (they are called Elven Mages not psions) which unlike the other two forms of magic comes from completely from the Elven Mind and not other sourcers (wizary=law/chaos, sorcery=outerplans...just my campaign definitions). Magecraft takes so long to learn cuz it has no outside source and elves longevity makes it easier for them to master than shorter lived races (which also fits your law/chaos idea...law being a long term pursuit and chaos being the short term gain).

The Illithid were Elven Mages that wanted more/quicker power and succumbed to sorcery and pacts with Cthuluian like being from teh outer-outer plains.

The Drow were Elven mages who in desperation in the war with the illithid succumed to darker demonic sorceries (making the drow more of good guys turning evil in a machiavellan sense)

The reason i mentioned these last couple points is to try and give ideas (as bad as my cheesey ideas were) to link history/culture to the magics that you are trying to define instead of doing it based off the stats and mechanics.

Hopfefully this was helpful and not mindless ramblings.

Apoptosis

 

[Zirnike]

Speaking from the point of view of a Chaotic Neutral Blue pyrokineticist, I don't see psionics to be particularly lawful.

I see magic and psionics the same way I see swordplay: It's not good, evil, chaotic, or lawful. Use is more important than pigeonholes.

Codes of honor are not necessarily Lawful... Take the GURPS Pirate's code: Always help your buddy, always avenge a slight, etc. That is not lawful, it's Chaotic.

Now, I know you're not looking as much at good vs evil, but... Which race would be looked at as more good in your world? That one should be Chaotic, as lawfulness as an overwhelming trait is more strongly linked to lawful behavior (see: Any dictatorship as an example. Chaotics aren't organized enough to do evil on a mass basis).

 

[vermicious knid]

I would switch both the favored classes and the alignments, giving you lawful psionic elves and chaotic arcane gnomes. I would think that is a better fit for the setting you describe. Chaotic elves are a peculiarity of D&D that should be ignored IMHO. I believe in earlier editions elves were cast in the role of fey tricksters, but that role has been taken over by the gnomes.

As far as key casting stats go, just switch sorcerors from charisma to intelligence. This is the hosue rules forum after all.

 

[apoptosis]

actually codes are by nature lawful.

If he were to always help his buddy then that would be a lawful act. If he sometimes helped his buddy it would be more chaotic (giving that is the extent of his code and it is not more complicated)....

But i agree that in some systems magic, psionics could be just a tool. But one advantage to giving it lawful/chaotic descriptions is to increase the feel and flavor. This is not to say that if they are not given such descriptors that they necessarily have less flavor, but giving them limitation and characterizations can definitely givem them a little more substance.

Apop

 

[Zirnike]

Codes aren't by any means specifically lawful.

Sigh...

Look, a chaotic character doesn't necessarily have a specific code he adheres to. He doesn't consult it before attacking the marauding tax collector. But if you ask him if he lives by a code, you'll get a positive response. Let's take Chaotic Neutral:

"What code do you live by?"
"I oppose those who enforce their will upon others. I feel that anyone trying to make their own personal morality into a requirement for all needs to be opposed"

Is that a code? Of course. Is that a lawful behavior? Hell, no. It's chaotic.

You're confusing Chaotic with 'not-consistant'. This is wrong. A chaotic character will consistantly oppose, for example, dictatorships. This does NOT mean that he is a lawful character. It means he is consistantly Chaotic.

As soon as I see 'hey, magic is lawful!' I tend to make a character that opposes that, i.e. a chaotic mage. Stereotypes suck.

(your friendly neighborhood Discordian engineer (yes, I'm serious (well, within reason (but I definatly like parenthetical referances (don't I?)))) now returns your thread to your regularly scheduled topic)

 

[Spatzimaus]

Apoptosis (and I can't believe I actually know what that means) pretty much hit what I'm aiming for. This is a "feel" sort of thing based on the setting. Here's what I'm going for:

I think of "Law" and "Chaos" as more of an indicator of your thinking style. Left-brain versus Right-brain sort of thing; Law being more of a calculating, rigid thinking, and Chaos being more of an instinctive, creative thing.
The problem was, in the core rules, there's almost no difference between Lawful and Chaotic players. Everyone worries about the Good/Evil split, and all sorts of magic items are based around this split (Sunblade!). Class abilities, too; a Paladin doesn't have a protection from Chaos ability or Smite Chaos, it's all anti-Evil. And CG players group with LG players all the time, when they'd never group with a CE. So, I'm trying to make more of a distinction between Law and Chaos, shifting a few things (like some of the Paladin abilities) to that axis.
Good does not imply Chaos, any more than Evil implies Law. The two are entirely separate issues.

Vermicious: I'd prefer not to switch from CHA to INT, since in general that'd increase the power of the class (INT has more other uses). It also has to do with dump stats and how I reworked saves: Fortitude is modified by both STR and CON, Reflex by DEX and INT, Will by WIS and CHA.
(Exact formula: Fort = (STR bonus + CON bonus)/2, round up, and so on. No more all-DEX rogues or all-WIS Clerics being effectively immune to one type of save.)

From a style point, though, your idea has a lot going for it. Say that Gnomes are Sorcerers, using INT (which gives them a decent Reflex save from stats and decent Will from class), but that'd also mean that Bards use INT, which takes a bit more balancing based on their skill list.
I'm with you on the "make Elves Lawful" thing. And also note that my concept was to make Sorcerers be "Not Lawful", so you could still have NG Elves taking the class, just not LG ones. Ditto for the other side.

One other option I thought up: Let Dwarves be the Lawful Psionic types with Psychic Warrior as their Favored, Gnomes the Chaotic Sorcerer types, and have Elves be in between with Druid or Ranger as Favored Class.

 

[apoptosis]

actually chaos by definition is lack of consistency (with the exception of being consistenly inconsistent). and codes are synonyms for laws.

But i think we see and define chaos and law somewhat differently.

I see what your argument is and could come up with similar analogies you gave but showed the opposite, but that would hijack this thread from what he really wanted.

But stereotyping D&D races, i think is more in tune with this thread

With no stereotypes or generalities though then everything is pretty bland.

Barbarian, well really acts no different than a mage or a fighter.

Elves act no differently than dwarves.

Halfling are just small humans.

Demons are just scaly humans with cool powers .

Generalities are what makes breaking a stereotype in any way interesting.

The scholarly Orc is something more interesting when Orcs are generally brutish and uncivilized.

If an entire party are stereotype breakers, it also makes for a somewhat dull party.

Generalities give flavor and feel...

Impressed that you know what it means. Calling myself programmed cell death is much harder to write and makes me look like a some strange psycho boy

Apop

 

[apoptosis]

You could make Bards still use CHA and sorcerers use INT.

I wouldnt worry so much about the mechanic of it. Wont make much of a dent in balance overall unless you happen to have some real muchkiney players and even then doubt it will have too much effect (run on sentence from hell).

I like your ideas.

I like Gnomes/Elves....But Dwarves/elves could be just as interesting dichotemy.

(If you had wizards you could make dwarves wizards and make them neutral to respect to law and chaos...but that might be destroying your worldview..which i like.. which might be counterproductive).


Will your psionics be MAD (multiple attribute dependent). Without mucking with mechanics too much, you could make all psionics wisdom based and wisdom=law, intelligence=chaos... or wisdom=law and charsima=chaos....just throwing out ideas see if any float...

 

[Spatzimaus]

Impressed that you know what it means. Calling myself programmed cell death is much harder to write and makes me look like a some strange psycho boy

Apop

I worked in an Immunology lab for a while. The experiments I was working on involved turning apoptosis off in mice (knocked the gene out) and watching them accumulate immune cells until their lymph nodes basically exploded. (Your tax dollars at work!)

The reason I don't want to have Bards and Sorcerers use different stats is that I've been trying to perfect a Synergy rule for magic, where classes of a given magic type (Arcane/Divine/Natural/Psionic) combine. That is, a Bard 2/Sorcerer 2 would add spells per day, combine spells known, and have caster level 4 for all of those spells. On the down side, you'd only get the "Bonus Spells" counted once.
But, you can't combine Sorcerer and Druid, since they're different magic types.

If the two classes used different stats, the Bonus Spell thing could get complex. On the other hand, having INT be the prime stat for Bards isn't so bad; they'll still want CHA for the Perform checks, and they'll get more use out of their great skill list.

(I've also removed healing spells from Bards and given them a few other things to compensate, like every 3 levels giving them a couple martial weapon proficiencies or a level of Armored Caster that reduces Arcane Failure by 10%)

The Psionics in this campaign is pretty much straight out of the PsiHB, except that I've changed the skill list slightly; every Psion and Psychic Warrior has Craft and Profession as a class skill, just like EVERY PHB class already had.
Besides, making Psionics use WIS makes it just like Clerics and Druids. Now, INT=law and CHA=chaos, or vice versa...

The reasons I removed Wizards were: I didn't like a class that only needed INT, I expanded the Cleric Domain rules (instead of swapping for heal/inflict spells, you swap for one of your Domain spells of the appropriate level, no metamagic allowed), and I added Psions. Between all of this there just wasn't a niche for them. I also didn't like how the Wizard's spell selection was dependent on the economics of the campaign.