Chris Goodwin

A few Powers already can carry Advantages that they act based on EGO rather than some other Characteristics, such as STR or BODY. Giving such an Advantage to Regeneration seems reasonable to me.
 
Plus, Regeneration isn't on the Adjustment Power list but it acts like one in most ways. I don't see anything immediately abusive in applying standard Adjustment Power Advantages to it, such as altering which Characteristic it applies to, multiple Characteristics, etc. (Maybe there is, but I don't see it at the moment.)
 
Dean Shomshak

When the rules get in the way of the fun, change the rules.  The easiest approach feels like either allowing Continuous on Healing (the reduced re-use time cost will still keep the recovery rate down).
 
Alternatively, what about a "time delay" limitation on Power Defense? It doesn't take Extra Time to activate, just Extra Time to reduce the Adjustment taken. That relies on the attack applying against Power Defense, though.
 
If it were my game, I'd look for a way to keep the cost down, even if it's handwavy, as I don't think this would come up all that often.  If these effects could be avoided entirely with 25 points of power defense, recovering faster should cost less than the 25 point cost of full immunity.

Valid observations, but as I mentioned earlier in reference to the Greyhawk world, trained and armed militias seem to be common. Implicitly, freeholders make up a significantly larger part of the population than in most of medieval Europe. In fact, the realm of Perrenland appears to be entirely freeholders, divided into clans whose leaders elect a Voortman as the chief executive of the country.
 
It's possible that the many dangers of the Flanaess, both mundane and supernatural, have persuaded most of its inhabitants that cooperation in defense and an armed populace are essential to survival. More oppressive regimes, notably the Great Kingdom and its satellites, don't include mention of militias, placing more emphasis on standing armies including many mercenaries (which in some cases might just be another way of saying "professional soldiers").

I prefer having structure, and with it, accountability.  My favorite setup is Drew Hayes' Super Powereds.  
--virtually all characters are mutants;  there are isolated gadgeteers, but that's it.  No radioactive spider bites or weird mystical artifacts.
--supers went public relatively late...after WW II.  They may have existed before, but that's when they came out as people with extraordinary abilities
--there is no vigilantism.  If you're a super and want to fight other supers while acting in a public safety capacity, you must be licensed...and that's made difficult.
--if you mess up too much or too often...you can lose that license;  if it's wanton or reckless, you can be arrested. 
--if you engage in super-powered combat, outside of self-defense or proper defense of another, you have committed a serious crime.
 
In general, powers have a theme...density control, energy absorption/re-release, advanced mind (usually TK and telepathy together).  There'll be variations, there can be secondary aspects;  in some cases, the power characterization can be really broad...but that's very rare.  What you don't get is a teleporter with laser eye blasts.  MOST of the time, the power scale is high-ish but still fairly reasonable;  the points to implement tend to run high, because the defenses for Heroes are generally much better.  Bad guys DO try to kill...and Heroes are expected to try NOT to kill, unless the threat is severe enough to warrant it.  And, as noted, there is oversight with the authority to strip the license to act...and they do so at times.
 
The setup also largely eliminates most limitations, altho OIAID is fairly common.  Not many foci other than armor and sometimes real weapons.  If there's an incredibly massive power that has a whole bunch of limitations?  It's on a major villain and it's a plot device, most of the time.  

Something my group always has in their minds.  When we were teenagers and they wanted poison on all their weapons all the time.  I said that if that was good, then all their opponents would do so.
 
If they didn't, only the most evil ones would and they could assume that anyone who did was an enemy.
 
That truce has lasted almost four decades.

You would have to specify which Blast you're targeting.  See 6e1 p. 135 for more information.

You would have to specify which Blast you're targeting.  See 6e1 p. 135 for more information.

I remember Blazing Away! The description noted that, while it was not effective at hitting targets, it counted as an extremely violent action for, IIRC, +4d6 to a PRE attack.

I didn't remember this thread, though

I think Delayed Effect would probably suit your needs better than Trigger. 

I may have mentioned here and there a Star Wars Hero game... I've now been running it for a couple of months.  I've written up a document for it, which contains rules info and session write-ups, here. 

Personally, I agree that the prominence of nonhumans could and should be raised in this world. I always disliked that the population figures in the "gazeteers" for Greyhawk invariably quote numbers for humans first, even in the lands ruled by other races. Often the populations of "demihumans" are just noted as "few," "some," or "many." One trick I suggest, for lands which do list sizeable numbers of demihumans, is to reverse the population numbers for them and for humans, so the nonhumans are clearly the majority.
 
However, in going back over the descriptions of regions of the Flanaess not listed as "countries," I find that quite a few hill chains and forests are noted as being heavily populated by various demihumans, in several cases being virtual independent realms, e.g. the Gnomes of the Kron Hills, the Elves of Gamboge Forest, and the Dwarves of the Glorioles. These peoples are not isolationist, but trade with and sometimes cooperate in defense with the lands neighboring them. It would be easy to establish formal rulership for them as true nations.
 
As for Greyhawk, I have to dispute your characterization of the city as "THE trade hub." It does benefit greatly from trade, but its location isn't comparable to Constantinople's.   The city's position on the Selintan River gives it access to shipping between the Nyr Dyv and Woolly Bay, and from the bay to the wider seas to the south; but much of the land surrounding it is hills or forest, not friendly to overland travel. And the lands to the south on Woolly Bay are not rich, and inhospitable to outright perilous. For trade access to the Nyr Dyv, the Nesser, Artonsamay, and Velverdyva Rivers are at least as important as the Selintan.

That is the slight wierdness of what I am doing.  I want to aim for the tropes of Greyhawk without seeking to replicate D&D, so magic schools and levels of ability/spells etc but not necessarily vancian magic.

Good news!  According to his Twitter, which I don't have a link for right this second, he's gone into remission!
 
Edit to add:  https://mobile.twitter.com/nyrath/status/1509944269796171782
 

LL yes people can change. Those that do however are in the extreme minority. I too, have seen change, but for each one that has changed I know 50 or more that not only will not change, refuse to even contemplate that they might be in error and that there is a need for change. There is still a lot of work to do, both north and south of the border. Today up here any government that today suggested restarting the residential school system would be metaphorically be hauled out of parliament, tarred and feathered and sent south. Their party turfed on the next election and out of power for a verrry long time. Yet not five years past a member of our senate (in Canada an appointive body) stated the the Residential School system had some positive aspects. Idiots can be found everywhere. 

Good point LL, but have you ever tried discussing native Americans with a hater. It is like talking to a wall, except that with a wall the worst that's coming back at you is an echo, with a hater depending on your arguments strength or your debating skills you may get a fist. I have on more than on occasion (once they pulled a knife). {sometimes I am a slow learner, but even now if I hear such crap I cannot help but call them out} The Xenoveres did not change until nearly destroyed, you see changing cultural mores is very hard. If generation A teaches B to hate, and B teaches C and C to D ect. ect. ect. it is to be expected that generation X (enovores) will hate. It takes a long time to change a cultural "truism" to find and dig out the last pockets of that behavior nearly impossible. One just has to have observed Florida for the past two years. It takes a lot of work to change a cultural truism, it can be done but there is great risk of recidivism. The bombing of a church, the kneeling on a neck these are evil acts BUT it does not make the race from which the perpetrators came from evil just the evildoers. 

I disagree, completely.  Evil requires a choice made under free will.  Facehuggers are depicted as mindless killing machines; by definition they can't be evil.  Let me emphasize this part: they are depicted as extremely dangerous to the point of being an existential threat to humanity, and so killing them is a matter of self defense.  But they aren't evil.
 
Kobold babies, on the other hand, presumably are completely dependent on their parents and incapable of doing anything at all much less anything evil.  I have to confess I haven't seen much in the way of depictions of kobold babies, but I think that was the assumption of the initial question posed to Gygax.
 
 
Any framework in which the wholesale slaughter of kobold babies can be labeled "lawful good" is not, in any way, shape, or form, about good vs. evil.  It's about choosing the right label to put on your armor. 
 
Or, to make my point a different way and more directly: if "team good" allows the slaughter of kobold babies, then it is not good by any stretch of the imagination.  It is effectively a sports team, nothing more.

I disagree, completely.  Evil requires a choice made under free will.  Facehuggers are depicted as mindless killing machines; by definition they can't be evil.  Let me emphasize this part: they are depicted as extremely dangerous to the point of being an existential threat to humanity, and so killing them is a matter of self defense.  But they aren't evil.
 
Kobold babies, on the other hand, presumably are completely dependent on their parents and incapable of doing anything at all much less anything evil.  I have to confess I haven't seen much in the way of depictions of kobold babies, but I think that was the assumption of the initial question posed to Gygax.
 
 
Any framework in which the wholesale slaughter of kobold babies can be labeled "lawful good" is not, in any way, shape, or form, about good vs. evil.  It's about choosing the right label to put on your armor. 
 
Or, to make my point a different way and more directly: if "team good" allows the slaughter of kobold babies, then it is not good by any stretch of the imagination.  It is effectively a sports team, nothing more.

It's unfortunate, Chris, that LotR has been "spoilered" so much, and so often imitated... badly. There's a lot going on below the surface that Tolkien's imitators don't get, to the extent that I'd argue LotR deconstructs the genre it so much inspired. But that is another discussion, for another place.
 
For here, I'll simply note that I don't recall any point where Tolkien's heroes jingoistically cheer that yay, they're going to kill a bunch o' bad guys! There is courage and tragic resolve, but pity turns out to be just as important. Maybe more so.
 
Dean Shomshak

To expand on what our friend Chris has given us as a theoretical example:
 
If a party of monks came across a Kobold baby freezing to death in the woods and, rather than slaughter it, their order commanded them to shelter, educate, and  raise it as of their own-  and they are, for rhe sake of this discussion, a "good" order, is the end result an evil kobold adult?
 
 

Additionally: if adult kobolds don't have a choice, then they can't be evil.  Again, they can be horribly destructive or an existential threat, but without free will they cannot be evil.  Attempting to define them thus is engaging in the "sports team morality" I mentioned.

I disagree, completely.  Evil requires a choice made under free will.  Facehuggers are depicted as mindless killing machines; by definition they can't be evil.  Let me emphasize this part: they are depicted as extremely dangerous to the point of being an existential threat to humanity, and so killing them is a matter of self defense.  But they aren't evil.
 
Kobold babies, on the other hand, presumably are completely dependent on their parents and incapable of doing anything at all much less anything evil.  I have to confess I haven't seen much in the way of depictions of kobold babies, but I think that was the assumption of the initial question posed to Gygax.
 
 
Any framework in which the wholesale slaughter of kobold babies can be labeled "lawful good" is not, in any way, shape, or form, about good vs. evil.  It's about choosing the right label to put on your armor. 
 
Or, to make my point a different way and more directly: if "team good" allows the slaughter of kobold babies, then it is not good by any stretch of the imagination.  It is effectively a sports team, nothing more.

As I stated earlier, I no longer use good/evil races. I use inimical. Species that simply cannot tolerate another, I recently read a book (I cannot remember its title, a sequel to one written in the 20 th. century) in which a change caused by humans had wiped out the physics of the old world and substituted magic and mythical creatures. The author had postulated that centaurs and humans hated each other because of pheromones (human) which drove the centaurs into a blind berserk rage that could only be slaked by killing the offending originator. 
     I do not use evil races but evil acts instead. With that the phrase the "only good ----- is a dead -----" doesn't occur and players that wipe out an entire village adult, child and infant alike will probably face consequences.

The D&D Alignments are a legacy of when "role-playing games" revolved around improving your character's abilities by killing things and taking their stuff. Very black and white goals and motivations. The hobby has evolved greatly since then, and IMO it's a step backward to make play try to conform too closely to those early precedents.
 
I've recently been rereading the original Guide to the World of Greyhawk from the old boxed set (still one of my favorite game supplements). The world itself appears much more realistically shaded in grey (pun intended) in terms of its societies and geopolitics, than adherence to Alignments would explain or make one believe.

"The races tend to act evil because evil gods made them to be that way" has been good enough for D&D for decades. It's good enough for an action/adventure game about characters becoming more powerful by killing monsters and taking their stuff. But:
 
1) Just because D&D does something, doesn't mean everyone else, or indeed anyone else, should do Fantasy that way. Or even Fantasy gaming.
 
2) I am no longer one of the young adult males who were D&D's original target audience. I am a late-middle-aged, effete pseudo-intellectual. I overthink. So even when I play D&D, I toss the metaphysics and do it my own way. But that would be very long to explain and likely of limited interest to anyone else.
 
Suffice to say that if Tolkien can build a Fantasy world on the theological and moral frameworks of Catholicism, I can do it on Enlightenment humanism. I have no trouble finding a sufficient supply of villains the PCs feel happy to battle and kill. I am quite happy with the result, and my players seem to be, too.
 
Dean Shomshak

I disagree almost with the premise of the thread, from a philosophical standpoint. I don't think it's possible to create a race to be evil, because evil requires a conscious choice made with free will. Acts are evil; we generally only consider a person evil if they know the things they do are evil but they refuse to stop doing them.  
 
What's an evil act?  Those are defined almost universally, by every culture on Earth.  Murder, kidnapping, rape, lying in court in order to harm someone else.  Killing in self defense is not evil, nor is killing the enemy in war, but acts of war against civilians are evil.  
 
Speaking of war, here's a point: almost every culture, probably throughout human history, has, when war is imminent, attempted through propaganda to define the enemy as evil.  They're evil because they're against us, even though their people are very nearly the same as ours.  Farmers, peasants, laborers, craftspeople, the religious... their people want a steady job, a roof over their heads, three meals a day for themselves and their families.  That's what our people want, too. 
 
A man-eating lion can't be evil. It can be "broken", as lions almost never eat humans. Even if the lion chooses to eat man over other meat, it can't be evil by definition, because it's not sapient. Note: that doesn't mean it's not dangerous, or that it shouldn't be destroyed; it's just that lions are not creatures of conscious morality.  
 
You can't create a race to be evil.  You can create a race to be violent, destructive, pestilent, dangerous, but if you do that it's you who are evil, not the beings you created.  Just the same as if you'd created a killbot swarm or a deadly virus.  
 
Without free will, they're robots, they're an extension of their creator's will, but they're not evil.  They can't be.