What alignment are you when it comes to RPG rules?

[Keltest]

… 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]

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]

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:

1. I go out of my way to make sure everyone has fun.
2. I make sure I have fun and that I don't get in the way of anyone else's fun.
3. 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]

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]

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]

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:

1. I go out of my way to make sure everyone has fun.
2. I make sure I have fun and that I don't get in the way of anyone else's fun.
3. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Does God do it because it is good? Or is it good because God does it?

[ImNotTrevor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.