PDA

View Full Version : What alignment are you when it comes to RPG rules?



Evoker
2020-06-20, 12:14 AM
Title says it all, really. When playing/GMing, what's your stance on the rules, as expressed by the pithy combination of L/N/C and G/N/E?

I'd like to think I'm Lawful Good: enforcing all the rules in the way they were intended to be understood in order to create the funnest game for everyone, but I might trend too much in the direction of Lawful Neutral: enforcing the rules as they were written without concern for anything else.

Assuming that good/evil translate to group fun vs personal fun at the expense of the rest of the group, and lawful/chaotic is the spectrum of how tightly the rules are enforced, how about the rest of the playground? What's your ideal, and your actual, allingment as it respects to RPG rules?

ImNotTrevor
2020-06-20, 12:27 AM
Neutral Good, probably?

I'm here for the players to have fun. The rules are important but fundamentally serve a purpose: to generate a fun, engaging experience. So I'll follow and use them just fine. But if the rules are actively preventing fun or aren't accomplishing something meaningful, then I don't engage them, or will bend them into a more reasonable shape.

I prefer systems that give me that flex room naturally over ones I have to break across my shoulders to get to where I want it.

FaerieGodfather
2020-06-20, 04:51 AM
Neutral Goodish... I am all about the players having fun, and I'll bend over backwards to help them have fun... I'll put their fun above both the rules and my own fun... but if I start tripping over the rules and I start getting frustrated, well, I've got a real short fuse and it doesn't take much to make me flip the table.

It's why my current Spelljammer group is on hiatus-- between difficulty with the AD&D rules (after twenty years) and difficulty with the roll20 character sheets, the game came grinding to a halt a couple of weeks ago, and I'm not going to run it again until I'm reasonably assured it isn't going to happen again.

I'm doing some very bad things to the lovely Old School Essentials to make this happen.

Vahnavoi
2020-06-20, 04:52 AM
Chaotic Neutral - the rules exist to define a space of possible moves for the players, it's up to each and every player to choose those moves they find meaningfull. Everyone is absolutely responsible for their own choices and fun. If they find a situation unbearable, they can always kill themselves (https://existentialcomics.com/comic/23) ... errr, their characters. :smalltongue:

Eldan
2020-06-20, 04:54 AM
Screw the rules, I write my own rules. Chaotic Good, I suppose? By now, I have binders and google docs full of third edition house rules that are considerably longer than the core books.

King of Nowhere
2020-06-20, 05:48 AM
chaotic good. we are all at the table to have fun, the rules define the playing space. if the rules go against fun, if they forbid a good character concept, if they have unfun interactions, if they make no sense in context, they are promptly ignored/houseruled away.
if there is an interesting character concept someone would like to play that does not fit well with the main classes, i'd rather houserule/homebrew something appropriate than looking for an obscure combination that would achieve roughly the same effect.

Keltest
2020-06-20, 07:38 AM
Neutral Good. Everybody is supposed to have fun, and the rules exist to help make it run smoothly and without interruption. Most of the time they do that, but when they dont, ignore them and dont look back.

Kaptin Keen
2020-06-20, 08:55 AM
Alignments are nonsense. I'm going to simply claim that the term has no real application, not even in game.

To answer the question, I'm strictly utalitarian, using the rules I have a use for, discarding the rest. I don't extensively house rule, I just excise parts of games, paring them down to just the stuff I like. Then I fill any holes with fluff, which is what I'm good at.

If an attempt was made to reduce me to an alignment, it would be some sort of chaotic-lawful neutral-good mishmash.

Zarrgon
2020-06-20, 02:48 PM
Chaotic Evil.

I play the game I want and the way I want to have my own personal fun.

I manipulate the players to have fun in the game, or do anything else i want, for me. Sure they get a benefit from that, but it's not like I care.

Quertus
2020-06-20, 06:53 PM
Lawful Neutral.

These are the rules. It's your job to find a way to have fun within the framework of the rules, so that everyone can enjoy a shared game.

But… if you can't have fun with these rules, then why not?

If it's just because you're being dumb (ie, you want to stick the chess pieces up your nose without understanding their intended purpose), then I'll move to Lawful Evil.

If it's a legitimate issue, I'll move to Chaotic Good - at least long enough to rewrite the rules / build house rules, before switching back to Lawful Neutral.

Fiery Diamond
2020-06-20, 06:56 PM
Chaotic Good.

Rules are subservient to the fun of the table. The rules exist to serve the game; they are there to provide framework, not to be kowtowed to. Nothing is subservient to the rules.

Esprit15
2020-06-20, 07:17 PM
Neutral Good with a Lawful bent. The rules are the rules, but there are plenty of areas that are vague or unclear, and some of the rules are just badly written. At the end of the day, what makes for the best or most interesting story is the best rule.

Pex
2020-06-20, 07:49 PM
Lawful Neutral. I cannot help myself. The rules must be obeyed. I will remind everyone of the rules when it helps the party and when it hurts the party. So far the DMs have been appreciative of it. Players too, but I know I can go too far. Every once in a while I just let it go. The player is in his or her moment. This usually involves using a bonus action to do something that's not a bonus action or doing multiple Use An Object. As long as it's not two leveled spells I'll keep quiet.

When it comes to skill use I often speak up to say there doesn't have to be a roll when the DM is trying to think of one. It depends on the thing. Sometimes something does require a roll in my opinion, but when it doesn't . . . This doesn't always work and there's a roll which of course is different depending on who is DM, but I digress with a sigh.

Xervous
2020-06-20, 08:18 PM
Lawful neutral, the rules are structure and should be delivered by an impartial arbitrator if that's the system you're dealing with. It is generally my case that when I am running or playing an RPG the degree of rules weight (rules light or rules heavy) is in fact in line with what the players desire. We signed up for this and that's what we're using. Consistency is essential to allow for player buy in.

On the plot? Chaotic Good. What do the players want? I'll maybe give it to them on a whim, construct hoops of their own imagination (stay puft marshmallowmen!) or imply just heavily enough they can't reach it but are free to Try Jumping anyways. What do I want? It Shall Happen. Or it might happen. Or it's getting thrown out because the players said that's not their favorite flavor of RPG-Os. If it makes the group happy in the long run, great, goal more than methods here.

ExLibrisMortis
2020-06-20, 08:20 PM
I'm with Quertus on this one, a big LN.

A role-playing game is the intersection of playing a character and playing a game. It's not one or the other, it's both. And while you can lean into one or the other, the best RPGaming is about the interplay between roleplaying and rules, using the mechanics to evoke a particular character, or coming up with a convincing narrative for a mechanical combo. Without fairly strict rules, the fluff-crunch correspondence becomes too "loose", trivial almost, and that makes it less interesting, less challenging, less fulfilling to find a good match. And what should a game be if not interesting, challenging, and fulfulling?

To be clear: You can totally modify the rules, as long as you stick to them once they're set.
To be clear some more: The definition above is why I'm LN in the context of this thread. It's not a denunciation of those who fail to follow the One True Proper Way to Game.

Nifft
2020-06-20, 10:22 PM
Lawful Good.

It's my opinion that rules can and should be written in order to enhance the fun of the players; once written, the rules must be applied fairly and uniformly.

HouseRules
2020-06-20, 11:09 PM
Chaotic Neutral, but people perceive me as Lawful Good.

Public Relation and Public's perception of alignment does not match true alignment.

yellowrocket
2020-06-21, 08:30 AM
As a player, i tend to true neutral. The games Ive played in are so frequently house ruled both from the start and on a whim that any lawful bent has to be reined in to stay on the neutral side of selfish fun.

As a dm I'm lawful neutral. But my players kniw and understand the framework they will be working in. They know that their abilities will always work as defined and they kniw they wont get a sudden shift in rulings. They also know I won't screw them over, but the encounter will be run within the rules. Bad guys taking enough losses and leaving or not focus firing quite the way they should on battle 3 between short rests has happened.

The rules are the natural laws of the world I create. The players are free to write what ever story they want in that world, but even the NPCs of my world follow the same rules.

D&D_Fan
2020-06-21, 08:57 AM
Chaotic good.

I do what I do so everyone has fun, but I am not against bending the rules, introducing stuff from other games and other things. I might throw in something from goodman games or esper genesis stuff.

For homebrew I mostly go for stuff that was at least made by the official D&D creators, or gold dragon stuff on Dmsguild. I feel they have more experience with writing.

My writing style is realistic to a point until it is something like Hitchhiker's Guide but turned up to 11, and really just weird.

Xapi
2020-06-21, 12:02 PM
Chaotic Good.

The rules are there to make the game fun. The players know the rules as much as they want to, but I kind like them not knowing them more than me, so I can fudge them in favor of the plot/fun.

I have also overtly fudged rolls (you can't do it covertly on Roll20!) to favor them, especially to avoid killing a party member on the first one or two rounds of combat.

patchyman
2020-06-21, 09:51 PM
Screw the rules, I write my own rules. Chaotic Good, I suppose? By now, I have binders and google docs full of third edition house rules that are considerably longer than the core books.

Pshaw! That sounds waaaay too Neutral Good to me. I consider my playstyle to be Chaotic Good, so I don’t have binders full of rules, just principles. 😀

Rynael
2020-06-21, 10:27 PM
CG in theory, LG by nature, NG in practice. I believe in the rule of fun and try to uphold that belief, but I have a strong grasp of RAW and mediocre improvisational skills, so it all evens out.

SunderedWorldDM
2020-06-21, 10:39 PM
Chaotic Evil.

I play the game I want and the way I want to have my own personal fun.

I manipulate the players to have fun in the game, or do anything else i want, for me. Sure they get a benefit from that, but it's not like I care.
...really? It's not blue, so...

Mastikator
2020-06-22, 05:43 AM
I think enforcing rules as intended comes down to the intentions of the rules, intentions that align with my values will be upheld, intentions that conflict with my values will be thrown out. My only limitation is that going against the rules has to be consistent and fair, it needs to be done in a case-law-esq way.

Neutral good when designing a setting and preparing a session.
Lawful neutral when DMing.
Neutral good when playing.

Quertus
2020-06-22, 08:19 AM
I suppose it falls to me to explain the value of Evil.

No game is worse than one where everyone is miserable, sacrificing their own fun for what they mistakenly believe everyone else will enjoy. Only you know what you enjoy; it's hubris to believe you know what's best for everyone else, and foolishness to believe that others actually *can* magically read your mind and look out for your best interests.

Everyone needs to be responsible for their own fun - defining it, creating it, and defending it. If you can communicate it to others, and they can and will help, so much the better, but that is not the default expected state, and it's just folly to make your fun continent upon the whims of the ignorant masses who are nerfing Monks, running "low-magic" or "core only, for balance", or running OP DMPCs (or anything else that the stereotypical Playgrounder would chafe / boggle at), or consider the above fine because they don't know any better, and believe that they could possibly succeed at engineering your fun without significant percussive maintenance with a clue-by-four (EDIT: a metaphoric one, of course!).

Just like it would be quite the culture shock if their fun were left in your hands :smallwink:

Nifft
2020-06-22, 09:02 AM
Chaotic Evil.

I play the game I want and the way I want to have my own personal fun.

I manipulate the players to have fun in the game, or do anything else i want, for me. Sure they get a benefit from that, but it's not like I care.
That sounds Neutral.

Evil would be things like gaslighting your players, or bankrupting them by demanding real-life compensation in order to give them a chance at rolling for treasure (gatcha-style), and otherwise doing harm to them for your own profit or pleasure.



I suppose it falls to me to explain the value of Evil.

No game is worse than one where everyone is miserable, sacrificing their own fun for what they mistakenly believe everyone else will enjoy. Only you know what you enjoy; it's hubris to believe you know what's best for everyone else, and foolishness to believe that others actually *can* magically read your mind and look out for your best interests.

Everyone needs to be responsible for their own fun - defining it, creating it, and defending it. If you can communicate it to others, and they can and will help, so much the better, but that is not the default expected state, and it's just folly to make your fun continent upon the whims of the ignorant masses who are nerfing Monks, running "low-magic" or "core only, for balance", or running OP DMPCs (or anything else that the stereotypical Playgrounder would chafe / boggle at), or consider the above fine because they don't know any better, and believe that they could possibly succeed at engineering your fun without significant percussive maintenance with a clue-by-four.

Just like it would be quite the culture shock if their fun were left in your hands :smallwink:

Evil isn't about thinking of yourself first, Evil is about harming others for your own profit or pleasure.

The bold bit looks like you're advocating violence against fellow posters.

Jay R
2020-06-22, 09:13 AM
Neutral good when designing a setting and preparing a session.
Lawful neutral when DMing.
Neutral good when playing.

I think that this is a crucial distinction. One doesn't approach all aspects the same way.

I can't make this fit the D&D alignment system, because nothing in the real world does. Besides, as countless internet arguments demonstrate, we don't agree on what that system means. So I'll just describe what I do in straightforward English.



When I design a scenario, I'm firmly on the players' side. I'm trying to produce encounters that they have every legitimate chance to win (and that poor play and bad decisions can still lose).

Similarly, when I teach statistics or algebra, or when I design a test, I'm firmly on the students' side. I want them to learn the material, get the questions right, and all make As. I'm trying to create test questions that they have every legitimate chance to answer correctly (and that if they haven't learned the material, they will still get wrong).

But when I am grading the test, I'm a fair and neutral judge of the answers they have written. And when running the scenario, I'm a fair and neutral judge of the PCs' actions.

[Just to avoid the red herring, I am also judging the test or the scenario. I've been known to throw out a test question, or change an encounter, if it's clear that it didn't match the level I was aiming for. But I won't do it because the students didn't learn the material, and for the same reason, I won't do it just because the players made poor decisions.]



As a player, it is clear that my approach to the rules is not the determining factor. So I try to understand the DM's approach.

There is a legal maxim: Any lawyer knows the law. A good lawyer knows the exceptions. A great lawyer knows the judge.

Similarly, any roleplayer knows the rules. A good roleplayer knows the splatbooks. A great roleplayer knows the DM.

Altheus
2020-06-22, 10:48 AM
Chaotic neutral, rules are great until they don't do what I want and I abandon them.

malloc
2020-06-22, 11:38 AM
Lawful consistent. I don't care if we play to the letter of the law. I can do that. I don't care if we are fast and loose. I can do that, too. Just as long as whatever we decide is applied consistently, universally, and fairly.

Quertus
2020-06-22, 12:38 PM
Evil isn't about thinking of yourself first, Evil is about harming others for your own profit or pleasure.

The bold bit looks like you're advocating violence against fellow posters.

I meant a metaphoric, verbal clue-by-four, but I can see the lack of clarity. I'll edit the post.

As to alignment…



Assuming that good/evil translate to group fun vs personal fun at the expense of the rest of the group, and lawful/chaotic is the spectrum of how tightly the rules are enforced, how about the rest of the playground? What's your ideal, and your actual, allingment as it respects to RPG rules?

I was going by the OP's definitions. I think "that's what I find fun", as a parallel to "my guy", would qualify as "OP evil", no?

Cluedrew
2020-06-22, 06:33 PM
Assuming that good/evil translate to group fun vs personal fun at the expense of the rest of the group, and lawful/chaotic is the spectrum of how tightly the rules are enforced, how about the rest of the playground?The problem with these give yourself alignment things is a third of the chart never gets used. Who is going to call themselves evil? Who would say "Yeah if I was murdered in an action movie it would be seen as a victory."?


Chaotic Evil.

I play the game I want and the way I want to have my own personal fun.

I manipulate the players to have fun in the game, or do anything else i want, for me. Sure they get a benefit from that, but it's not like I care.And then this happens. I hope they do.

For me personally, Lawful Good. Definitely lawful and I try for good at least. I have done freeform but for any system that actually has rules I would like those rules to take as much of the load off of me as it can. Which means I don't want rules that I have to overrule (or ask for an overruling) very often. This has a bunch of other effects as well but none that effect alignment.

Or you could say my role-playing alignment is medium-narrative (from heavy-tactical to light-narrative).

el minster
2020-06-22, 08:21 PM
Chaotic good, a revolutionary!

Corvus
2020-06-22, 08:26 PM
When DMing I'm Neutral Good with Chaotic tendencies. My whole aim is to tell a fun story for the players and for them to have fun. I'm very much a freeform DM, with barely any prep work. I make up the plot on the fly, reacting to what the players are doing. As for rules, there has to be some, but a lot of the time I see them more as guidelines, and are happy to modify or make up new ones to facilitate the story. As long as the players are having fun, that is the main aim.

As a player, I'm still Neutral Good, but with more lawful tendencies (even if most characters I play are CG). Once again the aim is to have fun with the other players, which means I tend to play oddball characters who could break the system but don't. If I'm playing a spell caster, for example, I will intentionally dial back their inherent broken OPness so that it doesn't overshadow other characters and even act as more a support role (For example, one of my favourite characters was a half-orc barbarian/druid who was dumb as a brick, didn't take wild spell and spent most of his time in animal form.) I don't rules lawyer and follow the rules as laid out by the DM - I will point out rules of course, but won't argue with their judgement on them.

magwaaf
2020-06-25, 02:47 PM
Chaotic f'n neutral to the core!

Quertus
2020-06-25, 03:12 PM
The problem with these give yourself alignment things is a third of the chart never gets used. Who is going to call themselves evil? Who would say "Yeah if I was murdered in an action movie it would be seen as a victory."?

I assume you mean, "other than me". :smallwink:

How many people roleplay for the fun of themselves, rather than the fun of the group? Most of them.

Most people have no concept of what's fun for the group, outside whatever Pavlovian training they've gotten from past experiences. Let's face it: there's a reason "read the GM's mind" is spoken derisively, and the GM is just *one* of the players at the table - you can't expect most players to successfully read *everyone's* mind, now can you?

I mean, I metagame like a dolphin, *and* I explicitly bring up concerns I have, and I *still* don't see everything. And there's *very* few of the many players I've played with who could possibly live in the union of the sets "successfully read what I would consider fun" and "OP not evil".

So, either Playgrounders are highly atypical for the gaming community (which, fair to say, they are), or they are not fully self-aware in this regard.

Keltest
2020-06-25, 09:31 PM
I assume you mean, "other than me". :smallwink:

How many people roleplay for the fun of themselves, rather than the fun of the group? Most of them.

Most people have no concept of what's fun for the group, outside whatever Pavlovian training they've gotten from past experiences. Let's face it: there's a reason "read the GM's mind" is spoken derisively, and the GM is just *one* of the players at the table - you can't expect most players to successfully read *everyone's* mind, now can you?

I mean, I metagame like a dolphin, *and* I explicitly bring up concerns I have, and I *still* don't see everything. And there's *very* few of the many players I've played with who could possibly live in the union of the sets "successfully read what I would consider fun" and "OP not evil".

So, either Playgrounders are highly atypical for the gaming community (which, fair to say, they are), or they are not fully self-aware in this regard.

I think its fair to say that a lot of people genuinely want everybody at the table to be having fun. Whether they are actually capable of furthering that goal, or successful at their attempts, is a separate issue.

SirBellias
2020-06-26, 12:52 AM
Chaotic Good while DMing, Lawful Neutral-Evil while playing.

I do whatever seems most interesting for the group while DMing, and usually that involves inventing things wholesale (though occasionally I do look up a rule for something I don't remember and use it because it's silly).

I do not argue rules with the DM while playing (unless they're very wrong about something while trying to follow the book), and play characters that I'll enjoy. Whether that puts me at Neutral or Evil depends on whether the players like my character (they usually do as long as the DM doesn't give them a perfect set up and reason to murder their characters). So probably lawful neutral on this side, then.

Cluedrew
2020-06-26, 06:55 AM
To Quertus: I do believe the group that would call themselves evil is a lot smaller than the group that actually is evil. Probably isn't a direct subset either. I don't want to go too deep with it but even if you are evil you then have to realize that and admit it out loud or be good/neutral with a poor opinion of yourself.

To Keltest: Yeah here I think we are talking more about intent than results? Good/evil is pretty hard to measure even in the limited context of applying rules at the table.

Democratus
2020-06-26, 08:33 AM
Anyone making their own house rules would be Lawful.

After all, rather than just do what you want - you are actually creating rules.

oxybe
2020-06-27, 02:10 AM
Rules are there for a reason.

Play rules as written, but when a rule comes in the way of ease of play/fun, make a ruling for now and look over the rule later.

If I feel the rule needs changing, look over it until i understand why it's there and it's purpose and if i feel it still needs changing, then change the rule with the knowledge on how it'll change the game.

same with adding rules that weren't there in the first place.

martixy
2020-06-27, 08:35 AM
True neutral. With good/lawful leanings.

1. I definitely wanna have fun myself. I'm not just there to indulge the whims of the players. Although often if the group is having fun, I'm having fun as well. Therefore neutral with good leanings.
2. I like sticking to some rules. Not necessarily the book rules, mind you. But I do enjoy a complex ruleset, for the complex interactions it can provide, and of course the consistency it can bring. And I am not above changing rules I don't like (or at least rules whose effects on the game I don't like). I have some game design aspirations in that sense. Or delusions (you can check my signature and decide for yourself). But at the same time... There's this idea of "rule of cool" floating in the community (mostly seen it parroted over on reddit, now that I think about it). Maybe it has some more nuanced meaning, but I've usually seen it in the context of creating slapstick moments. Which is something I positively hate in a game (in comedy too). Therefore neutral with lawful leanings.

martixy
2020-06-27, 09:05 AM
That sounds Neutral.

Evil would be things like gaslighting your players, or bankrupting them by demanding real-life compensation in order to give them a chance at rolling for treasure (gatcha-style), and otherwise doing harm to them for your own profit or pleasure.

{scrubbed}


Evil isn't about thinking of yourself first, Evil is about harming others for your own profit or pleasure.

The bold bit looks like you're advocating violence against fellow posters.

No, no, no...
You're thinking of percussive maintenance with a two-by-four. That's when you whack them over the head with a... well, a two-by-four.

Percussive maintenance with a clue-by-four is when you whack them over the head with so many clues and hooks, they can't possibly miss the plot. At least four in each instance of course.

SunderedWorldDM
2020-06-27, 09:56 AM
Anyone making their own house rules would be Lawful.

After all, rather than just do what you want - you are actually creating rules.
Oh, buddy... you haven't met my house rules.:smallamused:

Nifft
2020-06-27, 10:05 AM
I think its fair to say that a lot of people genuinely want everybody at the table to be having fun. Whether they are actually capable of furthering that goal, or successful at their attempts, is a separate issue.
Agree. Mutual entertainment is a goal I also value.


Anyone making their own house rules would be Lawful.

After all, rather than just do what you want - you are actually creating rules.
You could always make rules and then ignore your own rules.

That probably wouldn't be strictly Lawful, even though you did make rules.


Why are you going outside of the game all of a sudden? Because the thread is about player behavior, not in-game behavior. That's the topic:


Title says it all, really. When playing/GMing, what's your stance on the rules, as expressed by the pithy combination of L/N/C and G/N/E?


{scrub the post, scrub the quote}{scrubbed}

Peelee
2020-06-27, 10:11 AM
The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Re-opened.

martixy
2020-06-27, 11:11 AM
{Scrubbed}

Let me be more direct.

Linking malice directed towards other people, with the tenuous connection of using the game as a vehicle goes outside of the scope of this thread and the original question. Even when discussing "evil"(in the context of this particular thread).

Let me put it like this:
"Evil" that can get your table to fall apart is what we want to talk about.
"Evil" that can actually land you in IRL jail is out of scope here.

Quertus
2020-06-29, 06:56 AM
I don't want to go too deep with it but even if you are evil you then have to realize that and admit it out loud or be good/neutral with a poor opinion of yourself.


Let me put it like this:
"Evil" that can get your table to fall apart is what we want to talk about.

"Good", in this context, is the same as good, in the contest of food, where you make lots of horrific food that nobody eats, because you thought it was what people wanted. (I say this having done exactly that - and having seen exactly that be done - many times).

"Evil", in this context, is, in the context of food, making what you know is good, because you like it. If not everybody shares your tastes, that's their problem - they can bring their own food.

IME, this thread's definition of "good" is much more likely to (be implemented poorly and) "get your table to fall apart".

That is, under Evil, it is simultaneously a) much more *obvious* what each person wants, facilitating any conversations about gaming desires with examples, should people desire to corroborate on fun, and b) it's guaranteed that at least one person (yourself) will be facilitating your fun. Good fails both of those metrics.

Cluedrew
2020-06-29, 07:09 AM
To Quertus: Going back to the original post, look for the word "expense":

Assuming that good/evil translate to group fun vs personal fun at the expense of the rest of the group, and lawful/chaotic is the spectrum of how tightly the rules are enforced,That sounds like actually evil to me. On a practical level the difference between neutral and evil often comes down to how many people you are willing to get hurt along the way. And here it is explicitly at the expense of others. Now there is a neutral variant which is more "have fun, don't hurt anybody and hope they have fun" but here we are missing the "don't hurt anybody" bit.

Any really there are probably 1000s of ways to implement the idea of "make sure everyone has fun" any yes there are probably 100s (if not a smaller 1000s) of ways that don't work. If you are trying to help and you are not being helpful do something else, being a good person takes work.

martixy
2020-06-29, 11:52 AM
"Good", in this context, is the same as good, in the contest of food, where you make lots of horrific food that nobody eats, because you thought it was what people wanted. (I say this having done exactly that - and having seen exactly that be done - many times).

"Evil", in this context, is, in the context of food, making what you know is good, because you like it. If not everybody shares your tastes, that's their problem - they can bring their own food.

IME, this thread's definition of "good" is much more likely to (be implemented poorly and) "get your table to fall apart".

That is, under Evil, it is simultaneously a) much more *obvious* what each person wants, facilitating any conversations about gaming desires with examples, should people desire to corroborate on fun, and b) it's guaranteed that at least one person (yourself) will be facilitating your fun. Good fails both of those metrics.

Tasty metaphor. I agree, generally, but such incompatibilities do tend to cause a lot of both overt and hidden problems on the table in the long run.

TBH I'm not (and can't be) sure what everyone considers "good" in this thread, but it does strike me as a bit too loose and gung-ho. Hence why I agree with you on the value of "evil".

But I wanna give a definition of "good": A person who is there to make the rules serve the most players(this includes the DM), and is even willing to compromise on his own fun if that means the rest have a better time for it. I for one, would not be willing, so that puts me on neutral. Neither would I go with "my way or the high way", but being a bit selfish is perfectly understandable after a string of bad experiences, and most of us have been there.

Keltest
2020-06-29, 11:58 AM
So, based on the OP, i believe the good/evil axis was intended to map to how you have fun, while the law/chaos axis maps how closely you hold to the books.

Good wants everybody to have fun, and wont knowingly have fun at the expense of other players. Neutral only cares about their own fun, but is not willing to antagonize anybody, while evil really doesnt care how anybody else feels as long as theyre enjoying themselves.

Quertus
2020-07-01, 08:36 AM
To Quertus: Going back to the original post, look for the word "expense":
That sounds like actually evil to me. On a practical level the difference between neutral and evil often comes down to how many people you are willing to get hurt along the way.

I'm glad you worded it that way - it took me 3 tries to find Waldo :smallwink:

Maybe good "tries" to help others, but "stupid good" is often explicitly at the expense of (the fun of) others (and one's self).

So… good is evil?

IME, most gaming groups are terrible at communication. They act with hubris and unfounded assumptions, and make things that are terrible without thinking about it.

Evil, at least, is actually trying to do good - is actually trying to make something of verifiable value.

*And* evil is much more likely to result in productive communication, to move towards collaborative gaming: I'm trying to defend *my* fun, but, to do that, I need (or would benefit from) your help.

Good doesn't have such fail-safes, such inherent modes of improvement built in.


Tasty metaphor. I agree, generally, but such incompatibilities do tend to cause a lot of both overt and hidden problems on the table in the long run.

That… is complicated. Such differences… need not be incompatibilities; they can instead result in a full-course meal. Whether that's better than just eating appetizers or just eating desert is a matter of opinion; I, personally, can appreciate both.


So, based on the OP, i believe the good/evil axis was intended to map to how you have fun, while the law/chaos axis maps how closely you hold to the books.

Good wants everybody to have fun, and wont knowingly have fun at the expense of other players. Neutral only cares about their own fun, but is not willing to antagonize anybody, while evil really doesnt care how anybody else feels as long as theyre enjoying themselves.

I'm not sure that your explanation matches "how you have fun".

And, still playing evil's advocate, note how personal growth / improvement is inherent in Evil (getting kicked out isn't conducive to having fun), whereas good has no such incentives built in (and I've seen lots of idiotic good, in games and other areas of life, making things worse in the name of misperception, that keep harming things in part because they not only lack such incentives to improve, but because "belief that they've done good" actively incentives them to keep their blinders on).

Wizard_Lizard
2020-07-01, 07:00 PM
Depends on who I am dming for.
Mostly Chaotic good because my players like playing fast and loose with the rules, and often try to do things not nescessarily covered by the rules.
Probably without extremely chaotic players I'm neutral good.

Psyren
2020-07-02, 08:33 PM
Neutral Good. I'm fine with rules until they get in the way.

Cluedrew
2020-07-03, 06:09 PM
So… good is evil?By definition no. I mean there are several arguments about how things aren't clear cut you can make:
Good/evil intentions can have evil/good results. Even ignoring delusion and such things.
Whether something is good or evil can depend on context. Rain that triggers a flood as opposed to rain that ends a drought.
It can also depend on degree. It is all right to want things but if you are being greedy that is bad.
But once you have figured out which side of the line something falls on (if you can at all) good is good and evil is bad. And the fact the word good is used in both situations (moral and quality) kind of says how basic the concept is.


*And* evil is much more likely to result in productive communication, to move towards collaborative gaming: I'm trying to defend *my* fun, but, to do that, I need (or would benefit from) your help.OK and a good person who realizes communication helps wouldn't use it why?

Quertus
2020-07-03, 09:43 PM
OK and a good person who realizes communication helps wouldn't use it why?

This might say more about me than about the concept, but…

Give an example of how good, busy doing what they think others would want, would actually have a *productive* conversation. Good is more "(help me) do this thing (that my hubris says is best)", which is no better than what they were already doing.

EGplay
2020-07-04, 06:30 AM
Good is more "(help me) do this thing (that my hubris says is best)", which is no better than what they were already doing.
Yeah, that's not Good yet (possibly more Lawful even).
Good has the conversation to find out what is 'best' regardless of how it affects them personally, Evil has it to rationalize what is 'best' according to how it affects them personally.

Quertus
2020-07-04, 07:32 AM
Yeah, that's not Good yet (possibly more Lawful even).
Good has the conversation to find out what is 'best' regardless of how it affects them personally, Evil has it to rationalize what is 'best' according to how it affects them personally.

Yeah, no, in practice, good doesn't do that. It *could*, but, in the many, *many* groups I've gamed with, good has *never* successfully had that conversation. *Thought* they've had that conversation? Maybe. But *never* actually had that conversation.

Or I might just be too senile to remember it :smallredface:

But, off hand, I can't remember *ever* seeing such a conversation. But I do remember *many* conversations where good learned to make poison for the group because they had a dumb version of an attempt at that conversation and, in their hubris, believed (incorrectly) that they'd had that conversation, and understood what others wanted.

And many more groups where good never even tried, and just believed that they knew best, because "of course everyone loves kale".

EDIT: and, no, that's absolutely *not* "OP Lawful", which is simply "do you follow the rules".

(IME, "OP Evil" - "this is what *I* care about, and I will create and defend it" is a working, teamwork-enabled strategy. "I do this for the good of others"? Not so much. YMMV.)

Cluedrew
2020-07-04, 08:05 AM
Give an example of how good, busy doing what they think others would want, would actually have a *productive* conversation."Is there anything anyone emphatically does not want in the campaign?"

"Do we have a healer yet? Do we need one?"

"What do people want on the meat pizza?" "Aren't you a vegetarian?" "We are ordering two pizzas."


Good is more "(help me) do this thing (that my hubris says is best)", which is no better than what they were already doing.Remember, the groups that claim to be good, think they are good and actually are good aren't the same. And even if you are good you aren't going to get it right every time. Being a good person is really hard.

EGplay
2020-07-04, 08:20 AM
Cluedrew has the right of it. Groups that haven't successfully had that conversation aren't Good yet, despite intentions.

Bear in mind, this comes from someone who only considers deviations from Neutral worthy of an alignment description if they are actually character flaws.

Quertus
2020-07-04, 09:50 AM
Cluedrew has the right of it. Groups that haven't successfully had that conversation aren't Good yet, despite intentions.

Then, by your definition, I've never gamed with a good group.


"Is there anything anyone emphatically does not want in the campaign?"

That's beforehand, not during.


"Do we have a healer yet? Do we need one?"

Same.


"What do people want on the meat pizza?" "Aren't you a vegetarian?" "We are ordering two pizzas."

Same?

OK, *maybe* I've seen people smart enough to be (your definition of) functional good with regards to food.

Thing is, "good" doesn't lend itself to *improvement* *mid-game*. And your statements - as alien as they are to my gaming experience (and as incomplete as they are towards actually making a game fun) - don't counter my assertion.


Remember, the groups that claim to be good, think they are good and actually are good aren't the same. And even if you are good you aren't going to get it right every time. Being a good person is really hard.

… OK, fine. I have tried to run periodic SaMoLo sessions in some of my games. There technically *are* ways for good to be proactive and learn and improve mid-game.

But, as you say, it's hard. It's not inherent in goodness to improve the quality of the game. Unlike evil.

Keltest
2020-07-04, 09:58 AM
… OK, fine. I have tried to run periodic SaMoLo sessions in some of my games. There technically *are* ways for good to be proactive and learn and improve mid-game.

But, as you say, it's hard. It's not inherent in goodness to improve the quality of the game. Unlike evil.

Only if you assume that "evil" players are A: willing to cooperate and compromise (which they are definitionally not) and B: are outspoken in a way that good players are not. Furthermore, you have to assume that "good" players are incapable of having open and honest dialogue whenever they see problems, and are unwilling to proactively pursue better options if theyre available.

Evoker
2020-07-04, 10:01 AM
But, as you say, it's hard. It's not inherent in goodness to improve the quality of the game. Unlike evil.

I didn't want to get involved in this discussion, but I have to question this. Someone who brings pun-pun to the table and kills all the other players is inherently improving the quality of the game? Because that definitely falls into "Have as much fun as I can, at the expense of the rest of the parties fun" if that person's fun is "be as powerful as possible and show it off to everyone else".

Unless your point is that any evil player who's "too evil" would be kicked from the table, and that would improve the quality of the game.

Cluedrew
2020-07-04, 10:30 AM
That's beforehand, not during. […] Thing is, "good" doesn't lend itself to *improvement* *mid-game*. And your statements - as alien as they are to my gaming experience (and as incomplete as they are towards actually making a game fun) - don't counter my assertion.The best example is a moment where we were doing a scene transition and the first reaction that came to mind for my character I discarded and picked a second one. Both were pretty in character and I don't think anyone else noticed. But I did this to shift attention from my PC to another PC as my PC had been the focus of the last scene and this PC hadn't gotten much attention at all. And I believe this scene ended up being the end of the first session.

Once thing get going it is usually a bit more fluid.


But, as you say, it's hard. It's not inherent in goodness to improve the quality of the game. Unlike evil.… Why not and why?

I mean good people want to have fun to, even ignoring look after yourself than look after others they are a person so everyone includes them.

Consider the following, you know nothing about 3 possible players/GMs except that their attuites towards gaming are as follows:
I go out of my way to make sure everyone has fun.
I make sure I have fun and that I don't get in the way of anyone else's fun.
I will enjoy the game even if I have to make someone else cry to do it.
Please (to anybody) rank these three people by how much you would like them in your group.

Quertus
2020-07-04, 10:48 AM
Only if you assume that "evil" players are A: willing to cooperate and compromise (which they are definitionally not) and B: are outspoken in a way that good players are not. Furthermore, you have to assume that "good" players are incapable of having open and honest dialogue whenever they see problems, and are unwilling to proactively pursue better options if theyre available.

A) blatantly wrong. There is nothing in the OP's definition of evil (or *any* same definition of evil I've ever heard, for that matter - see current thread on "can evil cooperate" for more details than "uh, yeah") that makes evil unable to cooperate.

B) you've clearly missed, like, the entirely my conversation to say that. Lemme try again:

Good is encouraged to wear blinders and believe that they have done good, no matter how much sewage they're dumping in the game.

Evil is encouraged to punch anything wrecking their fun in the face.

Yeah, evil inherently proactively makes the game better; good does not.

C) that's the thing - "good" is psychologically encouraged to wear blinders and believe that they're doing good. They're not encouraged to "see problems" the way that evil is. And it's pure hubris for good to believe that they know what other people find fun - especially compared to how much more reasonable it is to expect someone to know what *they* find fun.

D) "unwilling to proactively pursue better options if theyre available"? Hmmm… seems like a trick question. Good's problem is usually in recognizing the potential for and searching for better options, than in actually choosing them… but, when they're presented, midi humans IME still *don't* choose them, which is just *one* of the reasons why I consider 90+% of humanity to be evil.

I mean, I intentionally joined every gaming group I could, played every system I could, to learn everything I could about role-playing. At my peak, I was in 6 games a week. I read articles about gaming & human psychology. I participate in discussions on the best site I've found (shameless plug for the Playground). I run SaMoLo sessions for my games. Trying to learn is hard work.

Defending what you enjoy is much easier. Which is why, IME, it's much more successful at producing good games compared to most people half-hearted efforts at being "good".


Unless your point is that any evil player who's "too evil" would be kicked from the table, and that would improve the quality of the game.

Bingo!

Evil has an active, selfish interest in the game continuing / not getting kicked from the table. And the other evil players have an active interest in converting or kicking anyone whose fun endangers or prevents their own fun.

Evil encourages open, effective communication to defend one's fun. "Dude, stop stepping on my toes! That's not fun!"

Good sucks it up and bears it for the fun of the group.

Keltest
2020-07-04, 10:53 AM
A) blatantly wrong. There is nothing in the OP's definition of evil (or *any* same definition of evil I've ever heard, for that matter - see current thread on "can evil cooperate" for more details than "uh, yeah") that makes evil unable to cooperate.

B) you've clearly missed, like, the entirely my conversation to say that. Lemme try again:

Good is encouraged to wear blinders and believe that they have done good, no matter how much sewage they're dumping in the game.

Evil is encouraged to punch anything wrecking their fun in the face.

Yeah, evil inherently proactively makes the game better; good does not.

C) that's the thing - "good" is psychologically encouraged to wear blinders and believe that they're doing good. They're not encouraged to "see problems" the way that evil is. And it's pure hubris for good to believe that they know what other people find fun - especially compared to how much more reasonable it is to expect someone to know what *they* find fun.

D) "unwilling to proactively pursue better options if theyre available"? Hmmm… seems like a trick question. Good's problem is usually in recognizing the potential for and searching for better options, than in actually choosing them… but, when they're presented, midi humans IME still *don't* choose them, which is just *one* of the reasons why I consider 90+% of humanity to be evil.

I mean, I intentionally joined every gaming group I could, played every system I could, to learn everything I could about role-playing. At my peak, I was in 6 games a week. I read articles about gaming & human psychology. I participate in discussions on the best site I've found (shameless plug for the Playground). I run SaMoLo sessions for my games. Trying to learn is hard work.

Defending what you enjoy is much easier. Which is why, IME, it's much more successful at producing good games compared to most people half-hearted efforts at being "good".



Bingo!

Evil has an active, selfish interest in the game continuing / not getting kicked from the table. And the other evil players have an active interest in converting or kicking anyone whose fun endangers or prevents their own fun.

Evil encourages open, effective communication to defend one's fun. "Dude, stop stepping on my toes! That's not fun!"

Good sucks it up and bears it for the fun of the group.

Evil can "compromise" when they happen to want the same thing, or when they stand to gain more than they lose. But even in the other thread, as soon as the goals stop being the same, the compromise collapses. If two people want something mutually exclusive, they simply cant reach a resolution that leaves both of them satisfied.

Likewise, you seem to be assuming things about good that simply arent true. They dont have "blinders" of any sort. There is nothing inherent to good that prevents them from understanding the impact they have on the game and the playing environment. And even if evil is somehow magically more capable of seeing what makes the game fun for the other players, the fact that they dont care in the first place means they wont instigate change.

Quertus
2020-07-04, 11:16 AM
The best example is a moment where we were doing a scene transition and the first reaction that came to mind for my character I discarded and picked a second one. Both were pretty in character and I don't think anyone else noticed. But I did this to shift attention from my PC to another PC as my PC had been the focus of the last scene and this PC hadn't gotten much attention at all. And I believe this scene ended up being the end of the first session.

Once thing get going it is usually a bit more fluid.

Active spotlight sharing? Touché. I was stuck on "style", and didn't think of that.

OK, yes, I've seen (and done) that kind of good. I'm not sure how much it… improves the game long-term *unless it's noticed* (consciously or subconsciously) by others, compared to evil's "dude, I hate spiders - stop summoning spiders", though. I… suspect that you're right, that people will tend to follow established patterns of behavior, and "choosing differently" to establish that pattern (of spotlight sharing) will set the tempo of the game.

Choosing X instead of Y? That's just a tool, with no inherent morality. A great tool, especially for improving fun, but a tool nonetheless.

For example, one could just as readily "choose differently" to (accidentally or intentionally) make the game *less* fun. And establishing that poor pattern would then be just one more barrier to fun.


… Why not and why?

Already answered.

Evil defends its fun, which means it is Incentivized to take action when others threaten its fun. "Dude, stop stepping on my toes! It's not fun!". Smarter evil can even work together to *engineer* fun ("can I get you to…” or "wouldn't it be fun if…").

Good has no such incentives. It is Incentivized not to question its past decisions, to believe that everything it has done was "good", because human egos are fragile. Doing things "for the group" leads to the hubris of balancing one's fun with the fun of others, which require the hubris of believing that they know what others find fun.


I mean good people want to have fun to, even ignoring look after yourself than look after others they are a person so everyone includes them.

Consider the following, you know nothing about 3 possible players/GMs except that their attuites towards gaming are as follows:
I go out of my way to make sure everyone has fun.
I make sure I have fun and that I don't get in the way of anyone else's fun.
I will enjoy the game even if I have to make someone else cry to do it.
Please (to anybody) rank these three people by how much you would like them in your group.

#3 is stupid evil, #1 is stupid hubris good. I'll take #2, who knows the value of both good and evil, and kick the other two? (OK, actually, I'll try to train the other two with a clue-by-four, because I have a strange faith in humanity, despite its flaws and rampant stupidity, ignorance, hubris, and general cluelessness, but that's just me)

Quertus
2020-07-04, 11:31 AM
Likewise, you seem to be assuming things about good that simply arent true. They dont have "blinders" of any sort.

That's just human nature. Humans are inherently Incentivized to believe that they are "good". That their "goods deeds" were "good".


There is nothing inherent to good that prevents them from understanding the impact they have on the game and the playing environment.

That's just hubris (on the part of the individual who believes that they know best, that they know what others are thinking and feeling, and why) to believe that's true.


And even if evil is somehow magically more capable of seeing what makes the game fun for the other players,

Nope. Don't see, don't even have to inherently care. Only that a person can see what is fun *for them*.

So, let's start over. The basis of my stance is simple: a person can much more readily see what is (would be and was) fun *for them* than they can read minds and understand what is (would be and was) fun for *everyone else*.

Thus, all things being equal, an individual is inherently much better positioned and equipped to comprehend their own fun, to be the engineer&advocate for their own fun, than anyone else / than for anyone else's fun.


the fact that they dont care in the first place means they wont instigate change.

… they care about what they find fun. Thus, they are Incentivized to instigate change *for their fun*.

If the whole group is *exclusively evil*, if anyone isn't having fun, they'll try to fix that. And, if they need your help to fix that, you'll know.

If the whole group is good, they can easily decide that the status quo is better than anything they can think of, no matter how miserable they or anyone / everyone else is.

Keltest
2020-07-04, 11:42 AM
That's just human nature. Humans are inherently Incentivized to believe that they are "good". That their "goods deeds" were "good".



That's just hubris (on the part of the individual who believes that they know best, that they know what others are thinking and feeling, and why) to believe that's true.



Nope. Don't see, don't even have to inherently care. Only that a person can see what is fun *for them*.

So, let's start over. The basis of my stance is simple: a person can much more readily see what is (would be and was) fun *for them* than they can read minds and understand what is (would be and was) fun for *everyone else*.

Thus, all things being equal, an individual is inherently much better positioned and equipped to comprehend their own fun, to be the engineer&advocate for their own fun, than anyone else / than for anyone else's fun.



… they care about what they find fun. Thus, they are Incentivized to instigate change *for their fun*.

If the whole group is *exclusively evil*, if anyone isn't having fun, they'll try to fix that. And, if they need your help to fix that, you'll know.

If the whole group is good, they can easily decide that the status quo is better than anything they can think of, no matter how miserable they or anyone / everyone else is.

Your argument appears to be "good is dumb and incapable of communication" which is... baseless seems to be the kindest way to put it here. Yeah, individuals are best equipped to know about their own fun, but caring about other people too doesnt mean you suddenly are incapable of asserting yourself if you can do so without hurting anybody else. Heck, even in your own example, your result has nothing to do with the party being good, theyre apparently just horribly unimaginative. If nobody is having fun, and they all recognize this and want to change it... Why cant they think of something thats more fun? Why is the status quo acceptable to them in any way? If nothing better does exist, then why is evil somehow advantaged in this situation?

Cluedrew
2020-07-04, 11:51 AM
That's just human nature. Humans are inherently Incentivized to believe that they are "good". That their "goods deeds" were "good".That's called hypocrisy and its not good. Actually reading it again it might be delusion. Neither of them are good.

Point is any thing an evil person might do incidentally that creates good a good person will do purposefully to create good.

And I am not talking about people who say they are good or like to think they are good. I am talking about the people who actually are. It is the measuring stick to use, the statement "Evil is more good than good is." is trivially false.

Now "traditionally" good behaviours may not be as good as society like to think they are, same with traditionally evil behaviours but that is a different issue. And a good person who looks after everyone will look after themselves as they are a person too. For everything else I agree with Keltest and if this doesn't get the point across I'm going to have to do some serious pondering on what is going on. Anyone else remember the tier 1 debate?

Quertus
2020-07-04, 03:24 PM
Your argument appears to be "good is dumb and incapable of communication" which is... baseless seems to be the kindest way to put it here. Yeah, individuals are best equipped to know about their own fun, but caring about other people too doesnt mean you suddenly are incapable of asserting yourself if you can do so without hurting anybody else. Heck, even in your own example, your result has nothing to do with the party being good, theyre apparently just horribly unimaginative. If nobody is having fun, and they all recognize this and want to change it... Why cant they think of something thats more fun? Why is the status quo acceptable to them in any way? If nothing better does exist, then why is evil somehow advantaged in this situation?


That's called hypocrisy and its not good. Actually reading it again it might be delusion. Neither of them are good.

Point is any thing an evil person might do incidentally that creates good a good person will do purposefully to create good.

And I am not talking about people who say they are good or like to think they are good. I am talking about the people who actually are. It is the measuring stick to use, the statement "Evil is more good than good is." is trivially false.

Now "traditionally" good behaviours may not be as good as society like to think they are, same with traditionally evil behaviours but that is a different issue. And a good person who looks after everyone will look after themselves as they are a person too. For everything else I agree with Keltest and if this doesn't get the point across I'm going to have to do some serious pondering on what is going on. Anyone else remember the tier 1 debate?

Lol. Yes, there is every chance we are using our words differently.

I am not using "good" and "evil" in the traditional sense (which might even violate forum policy for all my reading comprehension knows), but as I read them to be defined in the OP.

"Good" seems defined as trying to optimize the fun of the group; "evil" seems defined as trying to optimize the fun of the self.

Good is not moral. Good is not imperceptive.

Evil is not malicious. Evil is not omniscient.

Thinking that one is able to know what others want and need better than they do is hubris. Sometimes justified hubris - I've seen it (like when I convinced a young girl to try ice cream) - but IME generally should be pretty obviously bad.

Working together to make the game, running a session 0? Usually, you aren't talking about *other people*, you are talking about what *you* like and hate, you are engineering and defending *your* fun - which, from the OP, is "OP evil".

Let's set of this helps clear things up?

Cluedrew
2020-07-04, 03:48 PM
OK let me frame this in the most "table-top" focused way:

A good person wants to increase/maintain in the group's fun.
The group's fun is the total fun had across all members of the group.
The good person is a member of the group.
Hence, increasing the fun of the good person will increase the group's fun.
Therefore, a good person will try to increase their own fun.

Does that make sense?

Quertus
2020-07-04, 08:13 PM
OK let me frame this in the most "table-top" focused way:

A good person wants to increase/maintain in the group's fun.
The group's fun is the total fun had across all members of the group.
The good person is a member of the group.
Hence, increasing the fun of the good person will increase the group's fun.
Therefore, a good person will try to increase their own fun.

Does that make sense?

Yes, but…

… if you put "caring about your fun" in both "caring about the group's fun" and "caring about your fun", then… it kinda remove any meaning from the labels.

That's why I was so carefully putting all "your fun" as separate from "group fun".

If you instead try to draw the line at "at the expense of others", you have this strange problem of where to put improving one person's fun (not yours) at the expense of someone else. And saying that you have a fear of spiders - or anything else that decreases anyone elses fun - gets catheterized as "evil". Or, rather, whether saying you have a fear of spiders is good or evil suddenly depends on whether that harms anyone else's fun.

So, I think my division of "self" vs "other" is a much cleaner interpretation of the text of the OP.

-----

EDIT: so, imagine one is trying to define two (or three) buckets, or a spectrum. Call the buckets or ends "red" and "green".

If "green" is "fun of others" and red is "fun of self", it's pretty easy to put things in buckets.

If green is "group fun" and red is "harms others", not so much.

So, sort these examples to see what I mean:

X is more fun for me (hurts no-one)

X is more fun for me (but hurts Bob's fun)

X is more fun for Bob (hurts no-one)

X is more fun for Bob (but hurts my fun)

X is more fun for Bob (but hurts Carl's fun)

X is more fun for everyone.

X is more fun for everyone else (doesn't hurt me)

X is more fun for everyone else (does hurt me)

"Dude, don't summon spiders - Bob is afraid of spiders"

"I propose we stop tracking ammo in WH40K."

"I hate 3e's magic item creation system - let's replace it with the one from 2e."

"It would be fun to play a Cleric of the city of Waterdeep."

"We should be able to invoke 'fade to black'."

"It would be better for spotlight sharing later if I had my character do X instead of Y now."

Which system is easier to sort? Which system requires more white box omniscience to perform that sorting? Which system has more things that span multiple buckets? Which system has more items which don't fit in any bucket?

EGplay
2020-07-05, 04:45 AM
Yes, but…

… if you put "caring about your fun" in both "caring about the group's fun" and "caring about your fun", then… it kinda remove any meaning from the labels.

That's why I was so carefully putting all "your fun" as separate from "group fun".

If you instead try to draw the line at "at the expense of others", you have this strange problem of where to put improving one person's fun (not yours) at the expense of someone else. And saying that you have a fear of spiders - or anything else that decreases anyone elses fun - gets catheterized as "evil". Or, rather, whether saying you have a fear of spiders is good or evil suddenly depends on whether that harms anyone else's fun.

So, I think my division of "self" vs "other" is a much cleaner interpretation of the text of the OP.
It's not, because looking out for the self agnostic of the other is Neutral, not Evil. For Evil, the 'at the expense of the other' is at least partly the point.
In your example, asserting a fear of spiders would be Neutral. Evil would claim said fear because it harms anyone else's fun, Good would find alternative fun if it knows or notices this fear in another.

And there's nothing wrong with Neutral, Neutral is sane. Just as Evil is harmful, and Good difficult (with diminishing returns).
By that I mean that Good only becomes sustainable with enough participants able to lend it a force multiplier, causing everyone to be helped more by others than that helping others themselves costs them.

Quertus
2020-07-05, 05:25 AM
It's not, because looking out for the self agnostic of the other is Neutral, not Evil. For Evil, the 'at the expense of the other' is at least partly the point.
In your example, asserting a fear of spiders would be Neutral. Evil would claim said fear because it harms anyone else's fun, Good would find alternative fun if it knows or notices this fear in another.

And there's nothing wrong with Neutral, Neutral is sane. Just as Evil is harmful, and Good difficult (with diminishing returns).
By that I mean that Good only becomes sustainable with enough participants able to lend it a force multiplier, causing everyone to be helped more by others than that helping others themselves costs them.

The problem with these definitions is, nearly *any* action has the potential to harmful. Summon spiders? Bob has arachnophobia. Cast fireball? Carl has pyrophobia. And stinky Pete has ablutophobia, so make sure you handle certain things by passing notes to the GM. Of course, that'll set off Ed's paranoia, but what can you do?

Defining red and green based on harm requires omniscience just to know which bucket to put an action into. How could you know when you choose to play a Cleric of Bast that it would remind Dave of his crazy cat lady ex and her daughter with ailurophobia, or what effect - if any - that will have on everyone's enjoyment of the game?

And, if Green is allowed to stick up for its own fun, how much is it allowed to reduce the fun of others before it becomes red instead? Consider, "dude, stop hogging the spotlight" - is that red, yellow, or green?

EGplay
2020-07-05, 06:02 AM
The problem with these definitions is, nearly *any* action has the potential to harmful. Summon spiders? Bob has arachnophobia. Cast fireball? Carl has pyrophobia. And stinky Pete has ablutophobia, so make sure you handle certain things by passing notes to the GM. Of course, that'll set off Ed's paranoia, but what can you do?

Defining red and green based on harm requires omniscience just to know which bucket to put an action into. How could you know when you choose to play a Cleric of Bast that it would remind Dave of his crazy cat lady ex and her daughter with ailurophobia, or what effect - if any - that will have on everyone's enjoyment of the game?

And, if Green is allowed to stick up for its own fun, how much is it allowed to reduce the fun of others before it becomes red instead? Consider, "dude, stop hogging the spotlight" - is that red, yellow, or green?
That... Doesn't address the point I was making.

Do you take pains avoiding causing said harm, at your own cost? Good. Do you cause said harm because it harms another? Evil. Everything in between is sane aka Neutral.

As to the how, without being omniscient or a mind reader? Communication and people skills.

Conradine
2020-07-05, 06:16 AM
I try to be Neutral Good with Lawful tendencies, or a very flexible Lawful Good. I like games who follow rules, I like to make clear what rules we are following from the beginning and I try to follow the spirit of the rules over the letter, but my priority is that everybody has a good time. ^ ^

Except the paladin.
If a paladin is at my table I suddendly become Lawful Evil.

Cluedrew
2020-07-05, 07:35 AM
So, I think my division of "self" vs "other" is a much cleaner interpretation of the text of the OP.Definitely cleaner but that doesn't mean it is more useful. If good means the table-top version of suicidal than probably everyone who could be described that way have left the hobby. In fact I would go so far as to say "wants to have fun" as a universal amongst people who play table-top games because otherwise why would they play it?

Quertus
2020-07-05, 08:45 AM
Definitely cleaner but that doesn't mean it is more useful. If good means the table-top version of suicidal than probably everyone who could be described that way have left the hobby. In fact I would go so far as to say "wants to have fun" as a universal amongst people who play table-top games because otherwise why would they play it?

Why eat food if you don't enjoy it? Yet "where do we eat" can have people who loudly defend their preferences, and those who are more like "eh, the group likes eating here, it's fine".

So I'd have to say that the extent to which one draws upon green or red is highly variable between individuals, and is therefore a meaningful distinction to make.

ImNotTrevor
2020-07-05, 08:52 AM
Holy crap, why do you guys have to make this hard?
In the context of this thread:

Good = Group Enjoyment is top priority

Evil = Personal Enjoyment is top priority

Neutral = seeks a balance between the two, or is situationally either.

-

Lawful = rules-strict

Chaotic = rules-loose

Neutral = somewhere between, or situationally either.

Quertus
2020-07-05, 10:43 AM
Holy crap, why do you guys have to make this hard?
In the context of this thread:

Good = Group Enjoyment is top priority

Evil = Personal Enjoyment is top priority

Neutral = seeks a balance between the two, or is situationally either.

-

Lawful = rules-strict

Chaotic = rules-loose

Neutral = somewhere between, or situationally either.

Hmmm… it's not the question, it's the response?

"It's not fun that my pieces are stuck behind my other pieces in Chess."

Lawful: "That's the rules - find a way to have fun within the rules."

Chaos: "You're right - the game world be more fun if we threw away that rule, and allowed pieces to move through each other."

"Grod's Law - we should remove the 'perils of the warp' in WH40K"

Evil: "it's fun for me if…(we do/don't do that)", followed by…?

Good: "", followed by ?

Yeah, I'm still not 100% sure how you think this looks in practice.

Telok
2020-07-05, 04:34 PM
Spleen, because the production and excretion of bile is a good and healthy thing.

I think this is probably another case of d&d alignment being so simplistic, vague, and hung on words that have so much cultural baggage attached, that the alignment system takes another prat fall when ot encounters reality.

My approach to rule sets (not just gaming rules, my full time job is understanding and enacting sets of rules) is to check that they are understandable, useable, and reliably produce reasonable results. Preferably without weird outliers (things break if you reverse or fail to notice an unwritten assumption of use), things that make me and others go *scrubbed* (space games "Who thought that was a good idea? Nuclear-thermal rockets and/or antimatter on tramp space freighters in civilian areas that cost less than the down payment on a house loan?"), or complete blank spots where I have to finish building the rule set (only applies to paid services, freeware is caveat emptor).

How it translates to gaming... I want to have fun playing/running it. I want my friends to jave fum playing/running it. There should be no point at which the entire table pauses in stunned silence at some rule hidden in an unexpected place, or a result of the rules, and we all call bulls* on it. We should not have to write, or rewrite from scratch, major portions an entire subsystem or book section.

As a player I'm occasionally willing to put up with boring or weak subsystems as long as they don't come up too often. I'm more willing if I can use them for farce or humor. I'm happy if the DM wants to house rule them and I'll help as much as I can.

As a DM I'm unwilling to pay for bad or unfinished work. I'll tolerate failure at some edge cases and purposeful rules abuse, but not repeated failures (including engaged & active players becoming bored during that part of the game) of basic sections when used in a by the book manner. With free products I'm willing to tolerate more rough edges or minor things getting missed as long as core system function remains solid. I'm willing to make new rules to patch holes and discussing them with the players is required. Any rule set where I have to create or rewrite a whole set of rules for common occurrances goes in the trash.

FabulousFizban
2020-07-05, 05:36 PM
Does God do it because it is good? Or is it good because God does it?

ImNotTrevor
2020-07-05, 05:51 PM
Hmmm… it's not the question, it's the response?

"It's not fun that my pieces are stuck behind my other pieces in Chess."

Lawful: "That's the rules - find a way to have fun within the rules."

Chaos: "You're right - the game world be more fun if we threw away that rule, and allowed pieces to move through each other."

"Grod's Law - we should remove the 'perils of the warp' in WH40K"

Evil: "it's fun for me if…(we do/don't do that)", followed by…?

Good: "", followed by ?

Yeah, I'm still not 100% sure how you think this looks in practice.

The Evil/Good spectrum is about motivation and internal priorities less so than behavior.

If you genuinely don't care if anyone else at the table is having fun, and your personal enjoyment is your only priority, everyone else at the table can go hang, and you're unwilling to endure unpleasantness or budge on your particulars for the sake of group enjoyment, that's the Evil spectrum.

If you are willing to make sacrifices about your particular preferences or endure uncomfortable situations to preserve the enjoyment of the other players, that's the Good spectrum.

Since the question is self-defining based on internal priorities, and not externally applied based on observed behaviors, the question of "but how do they act" isn't really the contention. It's "what motivates their actions."

If we HAVE to get an idea of a behavior, here you go:

Scenario: A player feels uncomfortable with a topic that has been coming up in the game. (Something outside established expectations)

Evil alignment: If this DM is enjoying this aspect, they'll just tell the player to either put up with it or leave, or otherwise justify its continuation as not really being an issue. Ie, the player's enjoyment is the player's problem.

Good alignment: If the DM is enjoying this aspect, he has a conversation with the player and any other relevant players to figure out something that works, even if it means cutting back on that thing they enjoy. Ie, this player's enjoyment is, in some part, the DM's problem.

The Law/Chaos divide is about how highly the rules are valued.

If the rules are just the means to an end for you, and can be swapped or changed if they don't match up with what you want, then you lean Chaotic.

If the rules are a central consideration and should be modified as little as possible, and fudged on the spot even less, then you lean lawful.


Since all of this is, fundamentally, a self-assessment rather than outsiders prescribing your alignment to you, the proper focus is on the internal factors.

Nifft
2020-07-09, 01:26 PM
Honestly, looking at these attempts to re-define good as "not good" and evil as "not evil", I find it disruptive to the thread.

D&D has had somewhat consistent definitions of both good and evil, and you can probably find other definitions in other RPGs. I'd like it if anyone who wants to re-define the words could quote some RPG rules text as the basis for that definition. That also keeps us clear from real-life politics.

Here's an example, from the 3.5e SRD:


Good Vs. Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.


By this metric, being an Evil DM would require hurting or oppressing others, probably your players.

LE might be gaslighting your players.

CE might be bullying your players.

BTW, I've seen both IRL.

Evil isn't smart.

ImNotTrevor
2020-07-10, 03:49 PM
Honestly, looking at these attempts to re-define good as "not good" and evil as "not evil", I find it disruptive to the thread.

D&D has had somewhat consistent definitions of both good and evil, and you can probably find other definitions in other RPGs. I'd like it if anyone who wants to re-define the words could quote some RPG rules text as the basis for that definition. That also keeps us clear from real-life politics.

Here's an example, from the 3.5e SRD:


By this metric, being an Evil DM would require hurting or oppressing others, probably your players.

LE might be gaslighting your players.

CE might be bullying your players.

BTW, I've seen both IRL.

Evil isn't smart.

I think the entire point of the OP is to have "good" and "evil" be defined differently since people wouldn't really want to describe themselves as "evil" if it meant "cruel" but might be more into it if it meant "prioritizes own enjoyment."

The entire point of the discussion is to create a new 2-axis system and just apply familiar D&D termage to it, especially since Lawful and Chaotic kinda make sense already. So redefining Good/Evil for this new context is kosher, since we're trying to be thematic to the discussion, not accurate to official WotC or IRL usage.

Cluedrew
2020-07-11, 07:18 PM
Why eat food if you don't enjoy it? Yet "where do we eat" can have people who loudly defend their preferences, and those who are more like "eh, the group likes eating here, it's fine".I forgot to post my reply to this: There is one critical difference between eating and role-playing: One does not die after 3 weeks without a game.

That being said if you want to use your red/green system I am red and green, I care about both. And if increasing the group's fun would mean I am not having fun any more, I hold out to the end of the sitting then quit.


Honestly, looking at these attempts to re-define good as "not good" and evil as "not evil", I find it disruptive to the thread.If it had been clear they were using those words to mean different things from the start it might not have been, but yes figuring all this out was quite a road bump.

ImNotTrevor
2020-07-11, 11:53 PM
If it had been clear they were using those words to mean different things from the start it might not have been, but yes figuring all this out was quite a road bump.

But... it was. The OP literally frames out how they're using them.



Assuming that good/evil translate to group fun vs personal fun at the expense of the rest of the group, and lawful/chaotic is the spectrum of how tightly the rules are enforced...

Am I the only one who read the OP? I feel like I'm going crazy.

Good/Evil = Group Fun/Personal Fun
Law/Chaos = Rules Strict / Rules Loose

It says so right there.