New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 214
  1. - Top - End - #151
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    You're kidding right? The entire alignment system assumes this case. .
    You are, quite simply, wrong.
    The alignments in Empire of the Petal Throne has a different take on alignment than D&D (any editions) does. And that's just for starters.
    In each edition of D&D, alignment has been handled a bit differently, to include the Original Game where the single axis model was Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic.

    Therefore, until you define what game and system you are referring to you, what you have to say is built on a foundation of swamp mud.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2022-10-20 at 06:40 PM.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  2. - Top - End - #152
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2022

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Nope, still C. You still fail to get that there are two different outcomes that can be enforced, in several different ways. The distinction is based on that.

    It isn't based on whether or not the method of enforcement influences how a player plays the game. Both versions are meant to influence the player, that's the point. Nobody's ever pretended there is no effect, that's a strawman you came up with.
    When you say "both versions", are you saying C and D? Or two versions of C? It's not clear from your response. My point is that D cannot happen without some outside agent telling the player "you are not playing your alignment correctly". D was stated as "the player changes how they play to conform with the alignment", in contrast to C: "The character changes alignment to match how the player is playing it". Right? You remember this. Two different directions. One the character changes alignment to match the play, and in the other the play changes to match the character's alignment. Just making sure you haven't drifted off or something and we're still talking about the same thing.

    Here's the problem. If the player thinks he's playing the character in accordance with it's chosen alignment (or doesn't care, or doesn't notice), the only way he's every going to have an "ah ha! I'm playing incorrectly" if if someone else tells him. He wouldn't be playing "incorrectly" if he both was aware of it *and* cared about it, right? It's pretty much the assumed case. So someone (could be another player, more likely the GM) tells the player "Hey. What you just did (or are planning to do) doesn't really match with your character's alignment". That may result in the player going "Oh yeah. I should do that differently", or it may result in the player going "I don't care", or "I don't agree". In any case though, the only way that results in a change in player behavior is if the player decides to change. And in many cases (again assuming this may be the way he wanted to play the character), the only thing that may possibly get him to change is if there is a threat of some kind. That "threat" is condition C.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    And what you fail to get is that the distinction between C and D is whether the game master is saying "you can do that, but here's the punishment if you do" versus "I can't allow you to do that". You fail to realize that in the case of constructed reality of the game, the game master can plain refuse the act of littering.
    No. That's what you keep claiming, but I completely disagree. The distinction between C and D is that D is what the player is told when they are playing incorrectly as viewed by someone other than that player. C is what happens to the player's character if they don't change how they play to comply with that "someone other than me" viewpoint. Always. Again. D would never come up if someone doesn't point it out. Otherwise, you'd have a player perfectly playing their character's alignment, with no confusion of conflict with anyone else's viewpoint, and "C" would never actually need to come up either. It can *only* come up if the player is not playing "correctly", and the player is only going to be aware of it if someone else tells him.

    I just don't understand why this is remotely in question. It's very basic human behavior stuff. If someone is doing something wrong, they either don't know or don't care that it's wrong. Only someone else telling them will change that behavior. And, again, if there's a disagreement, only if there is a punishment for failing to correct the wrong behavior will that behavior change. Hence why I keep saying that D is the rule (you must play within your alignment) and C is the enforcement of the rule (if you don't, the GM will change your character's alignment).

    And based on that, it's correct to state that the "rule" is something that is enforced. "Do this, or <consequence>". Now, obviously, if the player doesn't care about the consequence of an alignment change, then it doesn't matter. But then the player is playing his character how he wishes anyway. My entire point is about the cases where the player, for some reason, wants or needs a specific alignment (for the class, abilities, deity worship, doesn't want to be affected by alignment specific spells, whatever), and a change will cause some sort of harm to the character in some way. If that's not the case, then it doesn't matter, and it falls into "alignment is just a guide to playing, but there's no penalty for not following the rules". Again. I'm assuming that's not the case here (cause otherwise there's really nothing to discuss).

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    There are variations, a less strict form of D will work like C until some final warning is issued and a player loses control of their character completely, like under CODA Lord of the Rings. But AD&D does not work like that and no amount of complaining about how it influences or constrains player behaviour will prove that.
    You're excluding the middle there. It's not about "completely take over the character". if alignment changes have any in-game effects on the character (and they do), then that is the "threat". It may not be as absolute in D&D as in LoTR, but it's still a threat, with consequences. It's just a matter of degrees. Also, this is where I get confused by your position. You say something like this, which clearly indicates that you understand that "D" requires someone kind of "warning is issued" scenario, but then insist that these warnings, what? Don't constitute pressure by whomever is giving the warnings to play a specific way? Of course they do, or why bother telling the player that "continuing to do this may result in alignment shift".


    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Show me where, in the actual rule citations, it is suggested a game master ought to flatly disallow out-of-alignment actions.
    I don't have to, because that's not what I'm arguing. That's an actual strawman you have invented all on your own. I have *never* said that the GM can disallow out of alignment actions (you have brought this up, but I never have). All I am saying is that the threat of having an alignment shift occur if a player doesn't play within alignment will act as pressure for that player to play his character within the alignment requirements. Period. Again, how much this actually causes players to conform with the alignment definitions is dependent on how negative the alignment shift is to the character. But to the degree that there are any in-game mechanical effects, it's going to be something the player will want to avoid.

    Heck. 1e D&D actually imposed a level loss punishment for alignment shift as well. That's pretty darn "severe", right? So not as simple as "this was really your alignment all along, you just wrote the wrong one down" as you suggested.

    And, at the risk of repeating myself, this becomes a huge problem if//when there are disagreements on what any given action actually means in terms of alignment. And while we can debate all sorts of conditions (can Robin Hood be a paladin/lawful? Can a Chaotic Evil assassin/serial killer have friends he cares about enough to sacrifice for?), the very fact that we've been having these disagreements show that disagreements can and will occur. And if the GM's determination "wins" (which is typically the case, right?), then this, in conjunction with the previously established ability of the GM to enforce his opinion via alignment shift imposed on the player's character results in a case of the alignment system acting as an impediment to the player trying to just play his character the way he wants.

    As I've said repeatedly, the problem with actions potentially fitting into multiple alignment's depending on pretty much arbitrary subjective opinions causes problems. The limit of only being able to have "one" alignment on any axis also causes problems (what if my character is extremely chaotic in some cases, but very lawful in others?). All result in a limitation on players being able to play their character personalities and actions the way they think they should be played.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    You have also completely lost sight of what the point of the example was. Here we go again:
    I don't think I have at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Hypothetical game dialogue:

    Police: "Hey! Why are you littering?"

    Sally: "Littering? I'm sorry Sir, but I'm not littering."

    Police: "Yes you are. You clearly dropped an empty bag of snacks on the grass there. That is littering."

    Sally: "Dear God no, I'm a clean person, I would never litter. I simply gently put it down for a moment."

    Police: "Lady, you seem to be confused of what words mean. Leaving trash on the grass is not clean and what you did is the very definition of littering. Either pick up your trash and take it to the bin, or I'll have to fine you."

    Sally: "Your idea is entirely unreasonable. Go ahead, fine me then. I won't let a pig like you tell me how to act."


    ^ The above is an example following C. Under D, this doesn't happen.
    Er. No. This is both. That's what you keep missing. The police officer is employing "D" when he tells Sally that she has littered and littering is not legal. Your example further includes the threat of "C" if she does not comply (exactly what I said happens, and which you keep pretending doesn't, despite actually including exactly that in your example.

    It only becomes case C when Sally refuses to pick up the trash. But the threat of C is there the entire time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    What you get instead is:

    Sally: *throws an empty bag on the grass*

    Voice of God: "THIS IS LITTERING. YOU ARE A CLEAN PERSON, SALLY. PICK UP YOUR TRASH AND TAKE IT TO THE BIN."

    Sally: *obediently picks up their trash and does as told*
    Who is the "Voice of God" here? The GM? You do get that the police officer is the "GM" in my example (the person who tells the player that they have littered and littering is against the law, and they will be fined if they do it). Ask yourself: Why did Sally pick up the litter in this case, but not when the cop told her to do so? You aren't actually examining different cases, you're examining different reactions by the player being told that something they are doing is wrong and should be corrected.

    This is exactly the same as your first example if sally were instead to respond to the cop by apologizing and picking up the litter. You've just changed who tells her to behave differently, and then muddled things by having her also respond differently (with no inherent reason for her to have done that). Protip: When examining cases for differences/similarities, only change *one* thing between caseA and caseB. When you change more than one thing, we can't actually learn anything as far what may have lead to the changes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Or, for an example going into the reverse direction:

    Police: "Hey! Why are you littering?"

    Sally: "Dear God no, I'm a clean person, I would never litter."

    Police: "Oh, that's right, my apologies. You are a clean person, so it's not possible you have littered. You have simply gently put a down an empty bag of snacks for a moment. Carry on as you were and have a good day."
    That's not a reverse situation either (very strange muddled thinking going on here). That's the player telling the cop/god/GM that what they did didn't violate the alignment rules (didn't litter). Which is "different", but not "the reverse". There's no actual logical reverse condition to a rule->consequence condition. I mean, I guess we could speculate that God just tells Sally that she's a dirty person and punishes her for *not* littering or something, but that's odd too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    The actual problem you were harping on, and what I'm solving, is semantic confusion between players. We are confronting Sally on their concept of littering and cleanliness because there is a contradiction between what they say and how they act, and we have to decide which takes precedence for how other game objects react to her. The difference, again, is that under C, Sally has a choice: either bring her character closer to what other people agree is clean behaviour, or agree that her character is littering and pay the price. A savvy Sally who knows what words mean can even do this kind of thing deliberately; maybe their civil disobedience will net them points among some crowd, similar to how alignment change can occasionally be beneficial or intentional - something you've not considered during this discussion at all. Alignment change is not in itself a punishment - it has a punishment associated with it (presumed to represent divine disfavor) to prevent game abuse.

    Under D, Sally has no choice, or at least a very different choice. But whichever is in use, the point is to influence Sally. Giving people feedback when their personal opinions are no longer congruent with how the game and other people around the table use words is both normal and necessary for holding games with specific themes and settings. Other people are always the limit for what a person can do in a multiplayer game. Other people are always influencing and constraining how you play a game, and vice versa. You don't, and cannot, prove some unique problem with the alignment system just by chanting "but it influences how you play! It constrains how you play your character!". You don't, and cannot, prove some unique problem with the alignment system just by repeatedly asking "but what if there's conflict, what then?". Games are built around constraints, the rules are meant to influence how you play, and agreeing on model of conflict resolution is part of agreeing to play at all.
    And this is you just repeating the same wrong thing again. C and D are two parts of the same rule->consequence equation. In both, the player is told the rule they must follow and the consequences for not following it. C is the player refusing to comply with the rule and suffering the consequences. D is the player changing their behavior and avoiding the consequences. But the assumption here is that the player chose D in order to avoid those consequences. Otherwise, there would be no reason to warn them, or inform them, or whatever, when they are perceived to have violated the rule.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    You have to actually move past that and answer the question of "why is a player sitting down to play at all if they're so out-of-tune with their game master that they cannot agree to abide by their game master's rulings?". If you don't do that, your entire argument ends up begging the question.
    It's not always about being out of tune. The problem is that in many cases, for a player to be "in tune" with the GM, it requires really really dumbing down the way they play their character. At least, I find myself doing this anytime I play in an alignment system heavy(ish) game like D&D.



    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    I keep quoting the rules so that people would get that I've always understood this. It's a non-argument.
    It's not about what the rules physically say. It's how those rules affect player and GM actions and decisions. The rules aren't going to say something like "We want create a dynamic in which the GM's interpretation of how characters actions fall within alignment definitions have a significant impact on player choices with regards to their roleplaying options". Said no rule ever. But that is the effect of the alignment rules in games like D&D. The very fact that my attempt to play a paladin who realizes that direct force of arms wont work, and so chooses to use economic attrition as a means to defeat an evil Sheriff is simply not allowed because "the GM says so" is pretty much proof of my point.

    Or say I want to play Dexter. Clearly a chaotic evil serial killer, right (is it possible for a serial killer to not be CE?). Oh, but in this game, it's apparently not possible for him to actually have friends that he might care about and put himself at risk for (you know, like he actually does on the show). Or, another popular serial killer, Hannibal Lecter. Also CE, right (cause, serial killer). But that means there's simply no way he'd ever saw his own hand off instead of Clarice's (in the admittedly terrible first sequel film). Cause, anyone who's actions in their life so clearly make them both chaotic and evil could never possibly care about someone else that much.

    There are a host of character personality possibilities that are simply "impossible" because one must always be either "chaotic" or "lawful". You can't be both. Yet, most people, even if 99% of their behavior always goes in one direction, will not even just occasionally, but regularly take actions that are the exact opposite. Because these are not actually absolute personality traits. Most people are consistently chaotic in some ways, and consistently lawful in others (and that's ignoring the different scope points of law/chaos concepts in the first place). But the alignment system in D&D would count every single "off alignment" action as a ding against their alignment, when in reality it should not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    The point which you keep missing is that semantic confusion causes conflict all on its own and a game master is empowered to enforce a particular solution so the game can move on. You never move on to discussing merits of the particular solutions because you fail to acknowledge the distinction I'm making, instead opting to complain about traits shared by all solutions.
    If the GM thinks an action is out of alignment for a character, and the player disagrees, that's not a "semantic confusion". No one's confused about what words mean here. We disagree on application, is all. And that's a very different, and very subjective, animal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    If, for example, I want to play an existentialist character in AD&D, who doesn't believe in good or evil and argues for radical individual freedom, the proper alignment for that is Chaotic Neutral. Then I can go around smoking pipe, hitting on women and talking about how the only real problem is whether to kill myself now or later. If I want to play a character who believes in might makes right and acknowledges no-one who cannot stop them by personal power, the proper alignment is Chaotic Evil. Then I can go around palling with demons, killing people and taking their money. So what if, in-character, someone calls me evil? Those are just words some slave to the gods came up with.
    You are coming up with counters that clearly fit into a specific alignment though. I mean, that's like textbook cardboard cutout neutral there. The second is textbook chaotic evil. How about actually trying to come up with a character type that doesn't fit neatly into pre-defined categories. I've done several of them.

    Create Hannibal Lecter in D&D alignment terms. Then explain some of his actions in the films and books. You literally can't. I guess his player was getting a lot of warnings from the GM about him playing his character wrong or something. And bizarrely because he's at the "bad" end of both alignment axis (We tend to fall to chaos, and fall to evil), there's actually little harm for him doing so. Because no GM is going to take a serial killer character who decides that there's like 2 or 3 people in the world he wont kill but will actually protect at great cost to himself, and "punish" that character by making him become neutral or something. Cause "randomly kills people for fun" just doesn't allow for anything other than CE. Again. That's an inherent flaw in the system itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    A traditional paladin who acts like Robin Hood is unworkable, because stealing from the rich is an act against legitimate authority and thus against the Paladin code. This is independent from deciding whether Robin Hood is Lawful, because Paladins have stricter requirements than other Lawful Good characters. Furthermore, what you claim is "Lawful Stupid" is stupid only in stereotype land. There are versions of that plan that a Paladin could pull off just fine.
    Is it? Why? Why is fighting an economic attrition war somehow less "lawful good", than fighting by actually *gasp* killing people? With weapons even? I'm not kidding. Give me an ethical analysis of the two methods of fighting the Sheriff and explain why one is more lawful and good than the other.

    Are you actually making decisions based on a rational assessment of what law/chaos and good/evil are? Or are you just repeating stereotypes (Paladins would just never do *that*). Oh really? Why not? What measurement are you using here?

  3. - Top - End - #153
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Chaos and Evil being the 'bad' alignment is something I think is an interesting thing to unpack, since it is undeniably a thing in D&D (1st edition used law and chaos in place of good and evil on a narrative level, 4th edition eliminated the law/chaos axis but kept Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil specificly and the classic hero archetype class Paladin has been restricted to Lawful Good most editions) but I am not sure where it came from originally, as it seems to be a concept baked into fantasy on a fundamental level that good and evil, and law and chaos are two separate axis but Lawful Good is more good and Chaotic Evil is more evil.
    Last edited by Witty Username; 2022-10-20 at 11:12 PM.

  4. - Top - End - #154
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Witty Username View Post
    Chaos and Evil being the 'bad' alignment is something I think is an interesting thing to unpack, since it is undeniably a thing in D&D (1st edition used law and chaos in place of good and evil on a narrative level, 4th edition eliminated the law/chaos axis but kept Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil specificly and the classic hero archetype class Paladin has been restricted to Lawful Good most editions) but I am not sure where it came from originally, as it seems to be a concept baked into fantasy on a fundamental level that good and evil, and law and chaos are two separate axis but Lawful Good is more good and Chaotic Evil is more evil.
    Essentially every human society that has ever existed has been some degree of lawful. Chaos, and by extension people of chaotic alignment, as therefore opposed to society. This is true even when those people would clearly ping as 'good' as in the case of morally driven counterculture movements. Societies will therefore always find it easier to deal with Lawful Good champions than Chaotic Good ones. Similarly, society opposes Chaotic Evil individuals for being evil and for being chaotic, because both of those traits are in opposition to society. By contrast a Lawful Evil villain may actually seek to make society stronger, since if they are in control of that society this benefits them, and has to be opposed on ethical, not practical, grounds. This is the source of various 'made the trains run on time' aphorisms, whether or not actually true in any given case.
    Now publishing a webnovel travelogue.

    Resvier: a P6 homebrew setting

  5. - Top - End - #155
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Witty Username View Post
    Chaos and Evil being the 'bad' alignment is something I think is an interesting thing to unpack, since it is undeniably a thing in D&D (1st edition used law and chaos in place of good and evil on a narrative level, 4th edition eliminated the law/chaos axis but kept Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil specifically and the classic hero archetype class Paladin has been restricted to Lawful Good most editions) but I am not sure where it came from originally, as it seems to be a concept baked into fantasy on a fundamental level that good and evil, and law and chaos are two separate axis but Lawful Good is more good and Chaotic Evil is more evil.
    Evil being the 'bad' alignment makes sense if we are using the Moral axis (rather than the Celestial-Fiend allegiance axis). So I assume that is the axis in question.

    It is possible for any pair of axes to have some correlation. For example despite the Celestial-Field allegiance axis being independent from the Moral axis, many GMs will choose to have celestials be generally moral and fiends generally immoral. Likewise it is possible for a pair of axes to be perfectly orthagonal when there is no relationship between them.

    While TSR and WotC have argued/assumed that LG was more good, I struggle to find that to be true under any of the possible Law-Chaos axes.

    1) Lawful vs Anarchic (Obey legitimate authority vs disregard authority)
    Laws and social norms can vary in their moral character. There are plenty of examples of that IRL and even more examples when we brainstorm about fantasy worlds. Although obeying authority is a lower stage in Kohlberg's moral development model. With this axis I would conclude LG is only 'more good' until examined closer (with more moral development).
    2) Communalism/collectivism vs Individualism (Group needs over Individual needs vs Individual needs over Group needs)
    Different people disagree on the moral character of this axis. While this disagreement starts with cultural social norms in stage 3, this disagreement continues even into stage 6. If Vahnavoi is right that this is the axis TSR & WotC envision, then their assumption that 'LG is more good' is part of an ongoing debate.
    3) Orderly vs Chaotic
    Yeah, no. This one is completely orthagonal to the moral axis.

    Based on that analysis and relying on Vahnavoi's greater knowledge about TSR, I would assume that the author's occasional presumption that 'LG is more good' is rooted in their position in an ongoing debate about the needs of the individual and the needs of the group.

    Personally I just treat Law-Chaos (pick an axis) as completely independent from the moral axis.
    Sidenote: The stereotypical Paladin ends up as LG but it has a CG counterpart under each of the 3 Law-Chaos axes. What the counterpart looks like varies based on the axis chosen.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2022-10-21 at 12:14 AM.

  6. - Top - End - #156
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    1) Lawful vs Anarchic (Obey legitimate authority vs disregard authority)
    Laws and social norms can vary in their moral character. There are plenty of examples of that IRL and even more examples when we brainstorm about fantasy worlds. Although obeying authority is a lower stage in Kohlberg's moral development model. With this axis I would conclude LG is only 'more good' until examined closer (with more moral development).
    2) Communalism/collectivism vs Individualism (Group needs over Individual needs vs Individual needs over Group needs)
    Different people disagree on the moral character of this axis. While this disagreement starts with cultural social norms in stage 3, this disagreement continues even into stage 6. If Vahnavoi is right that this is the axis TSR & WotC envision, then their assumption that 'LG is more good' is part of an ongoing debate.
    3) Orderly vs Chaotic
    Yeah, no. This one is completely orthagonal to the moral axis.
    The original was closest to Civilization vs Natural Balance vs Destruction/Dissolution.
    IMO it wasn't so much an axis as a triangle of opposition.

    Adding a morality axis was a mistake in many ways.

  7. - Top - End - #157
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    IMO it wasn't so much an axis as a triangle of opposition.
    Nicely put.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Adding a morality axis was a mistake in many ways.
    You are awarded the understatement of the week prize.
    You may now be eligible for the Gygax Overthinking It fellowship at WMU.
    Spoiler: WMU
    Show
    WatsaMattaYou?
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  8. - Top - End - #158
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2022

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    You are, quite simply, wrong.
    The alignments in Empire of the Petal Throne has a different take on alignment than D&D (any editions) does. And that's just for starters.
    In each edition of D&D, alignment has been handled a bit differently, to include the Original Game where the single axis model was Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic.

    Therefore, until you define what game and system you are referring to you, what you have to say is built on a foundation of swamp mud.
    I've been very clear (although admittedly not in the last couple posts, since it was an ongoing back and forth with one poster), that I was specifically speaking of alignment systems in which the axis themselves are "overloaded".

    1. They use any given axis as a both a "side/faction" measurement *and* a personality measurement.

    2. The personality measurements themselves may additionally have multiple different "angles" (not sure what to even call this, sub axis, "forks"?).

    3. Alignment itself is used in the game system as a detectable trait of the character itself, and the system includes spells/abilities which interact with said alignment and may have class/skill/ability restrictions which may be tied to alignment as well. Basically, any system in which there is a "rule" which may cause alignment shift to occur for a character without the player actively seeking it to happen *and* where this alignment shift may be undesired (and, per above, will cause changes in said spells/ability interactions and/or class/skill/ability restrictions).

    Absent number 3, then it's just a guide to RP. No problem. If you have number 3, but have just 1, then not really a problem either (people choose a deity/side/faction/whatever, and are expected to act in ways that maintain high standard with them, and may lose that and/or suffer penalties if they don't). If all three are present (and in many systems, just 2 and 3 will do), you run into problems.

    This has been my stated position through this entire thread. So yes, there absolutely are game systems with alignment rules that don't match my critiques. But odds are they don't contain the combination of conditions that I'm criticizing

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    While TSR and WotC have argued/assumed that LG was more good, I struggle to find that to be true under any of the possible Law-Chaos axes.

    1) Lawful vs Anarchic (Obey legitimate authority vs disregard authority)
    Laws and social norms can vary in their moral character. There are plenty of examples of that IRL and even more examples when we brainstorm about fantasy worlds. Although obeying authority is a lower stage in Kohlberg's moral development model. With this axis I would conclude LG is only 'more good' until examined closer (with more moral development).
    2) Communalism/collectivism vs Individualism (Group needs over Individual needs vs Individual needs over Group needs)
    Different people disagree on the moral character of this axis. While this disagreement starts with cultural social norms in stage 3, this disagreement continues even into stage 6. If Vahnavoi is right that this is the axis TSR & WotC envision, then their assumption that 'LG is more good' is part of an ongoing debate.
    3) Orderly vs Chaotic

    Yeah. That's a good list, and more or less illustrates what I've been talking about with how problematic law/chaos is, especially if you try to firmly (and singularly) define it based on personality traits. It is entirely possible to have someone who absolutely disregards authority (legitimate or not), but will still fight to the death for the "good of the whole" (ie: not selfish). And then we add in the "do you do this by flipping a coin every time you choose to do something, or do you make exhaustive plans" (orderly/chaotic). I can easily come up with dozens of different character personality types, every single one of which is completely consistent and logical, and yet which would be strongly lawful in by some measures and strongly chaotic in others.

    The idea that you can *ever* simply label a character as lawful or chaotic within that system is nonsense. Hence my point about how disagreements are the real problem here. It's not really about "what is law" or "what is chaos", it's "which aspect of law/chaos is the GM going to decide is relevant in this particular situation?". And either we just happen to have a table full of players who basically share a brain with the GM, or there will be disagreements. Which, when we add in the alignment shift rules, means that players will either have to suffer with their character being re-labeled as something they didn't think was correct (with potential consequences as well) *or* they will have to adjust their play to avoid this (and perhaps not be happy about it).

    Or, and I've pointed this out several times now, they will avoid this quandary entirely by avoiding playing characters that cross those axis "forks/angles/sub-alignments". If they pick a character who respects authority, they will also act based on the effect on the whole rather than the individual, and will be very structured in how they do everything. Or, if they are chaotic, they will be the opposite on all three of those. No mixing and matching, because that could cause conflict and conflict could result in disagreement and unhappy play.

    Which, at the risk of repeating myself, means that it acts as a restriction on the breadth of roleplaying options that a player could have chosen. There are a host of possible character personality types that you could play, but cannot, not because they are illogical or "impossible" character types to imagine and play (consistently even, cause I've done it), but purely because you will run afoul of the alignment system itself. And yeah. I think that's a problem. It's why I don't tend to play D&D (or games with similar alignment systems) for anything other than short term, one shot(ish), scenarios/campaigns. I don't have any desire to build up character personalities, much less think hard about how to integrate them into a larger, persistent game world, with the equivalent of training wheels on the bike or arm floaties on my arms. It's just too restrictive and for no real benefit either.

  9. - Top - End - #159
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    Yeah. That's a good list, and more or less illustrates what I've been talking about with how problematic law/chaos is, especially if you try to firmly (and singularly) define it based on personality traits.
    If you conflate multiple alignment axes, then you are making a mistake. However assuming someone must make an unforced error is a fallacious position. As an trivial side effect, my post pointed out there are individual axes you can use that don't make the same unforced error you are presuming must be made.

    If a playgroup is using the Lawful/Anarchic axis, then your point is irrelevant. If my list illustrates your point, then your point might be a strawman.

  10. - Top - End - #160
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Post Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    You are, bluntly, wrong about where the game master's authority comes from, and consequently wrong about the distribution of labor between game master and player.

    The game master has final say because they are a game referee. The determination of alignment rests on them because it is used to decide how game objects behave in response to player actions. As far as the game process is concerned, the game master is correct, as directly stated by rules of the game. That you even bother to ask this question suggests you keep conflating game statements with player's subjective opinion. The game master's statement only
    This post is so long that despite I've read a good chunk of it, I have no idea if my position on it will change six times or not as I read it.

    EDIT:

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    So whether I worship a deity that falls within the chaotic range, if I'm a bard, and I fail to be sufficiently chaotic (as the GM sees it), I may lose my class abilities. What if my bard is my version of Robin Hood (in the example I gave), and the GM decides that my plans are too well thought out, my objectives too concrete, and I work too well with others, and that I'm not really "chaotic" anymore because of that. I need to create random poorly thought out plans, and intentionally ignore what the group decides in favor of myself, I guess?
    I have to agree with Vah, this example doesn't make any sense. This is an example of a GM strawman.

    Where does it say in any description of Chaotic Good that you can't have plans or listen to advice?

    Why would you have a character who plans and worships a god/goddess that hates planning?

    My thoughts on actions not matching alignment.

    I'm going to use an example that I am very familiar with, which is professional wrestling.

    Lets say you have a babyface wrestler, lets say his name is "Paladin Lightbringer".

    Now, one day, Paladin Lightbringer sneaks in a set of brass knuckles and uses them when the referee isn't looking, to use a match.

    The announcers are going to comment that this is strange? Is Paladin a different person? People on the internet are going to be speculating and arguing about what is going to happen next, and some will be changing how they feel about the concept of this Paladin character.

    At this point one of several things can happen.

    1. Redemption
    Lightbringer does some promo or some act during a match or something, where he seems to regret what he did, and he says his decision was not a good one. He then wins a similar or harder match without the brass knuckles.

    2. Justification
    Lightbringer states or implies that he had wrestled very recently before the match and had a bad shoulder, while his opponent had no such thing. It was a one time thing, and he's likely not going to do it again.

    3. Crutch
    After doing 1 or 2, Lightbringer loses matches without his brass knuckles and finds himself having to keep using them to win or he goes down the leaderboard. He's likely going to lose fans unless he's hilarious or good at promos, and none of the fans are going to think he's a Babyface.

    4. The Ends
    Lightbringer fuels with specifically people who insult whatever town the promotion is in and/or have their own sets of brass knuckles. Lightbringer is likely still viewed as a Babyface.

    5. Texas Streetfight
    Lightbringer now exclusively does matches where brass knuckles are fair game and hits people with chairs.

    As you can see, a lot of these outcomes result in Lightbringer either remaining a Babyface, becoming a Heel, or possibly becoming some kind of anti-hero.

    However, let's examine what happens if the "stated alignment" of Lightbringer doesn't change, but his behavior seems to.

    6. What?
    Lightbringer does all the things heels do and doesn't claim to be a heel. He even feuds with Faces and appears to seriously hurt them, while also giving up on half his friends while surrounding himself with "lackies".

    Even if he keeps claiming he's the hero and the announcers keep saying that, the fans will boo him (Unless he's funny or good at promos) and all the fans will agree he's a Heel.

    5. Cody Rhodes / Homelander
    Lightbringer has this long overly dramatic entrance where tons of music plays and he is raised up into the arena like he's the biggest thing sliced bread. He gives dramatic speeches that few people understand or like. Lightbringer keeps coming out dressed like he's a villain who has no idea he's not a hero, and he keeps feuding with heels. He's booed everywhere he goes, and when he throws gifts to the crowd, they throw them back at them. It terms of character arc, nothing happens. He has this one feud with this darker-skinned UK guy who insults Americans and Lightbringer comes out waving an American flag around, but it's really weird and young fans roll their eyes.

    Tons of the fans will keep thinking that something cool is happening, that Lightbringer is doing some 5D chess thing slow burn character act thing. If that's not really happening, lots of people will just be bored or annoyed. They will think that Lightbringer (The person playing him) is out of touch and lives in a bubble.

    If this was D&D, the person who played Lightbringer would quit the campaign and play at another table. If this was pro wrestling, he would quit and go work for another promotion.

    ----

    TLDR: If your character takes shortcuts, poisons people, steals, murders, insults peasants, fights good people, ect ect.... The other players and the GM are going to be very confused if you insist your character is still "Lawful Good".

    Also, maybe you want your character to be having an arc or "going somewhere" with their character, even if it takes a year IRL.

    One of my favorite wrestlers IRL came back from rehab (Alcohol), and it's really made his character very interesting and fun to watch.

    Palladium Alignment System

    I know this conversation has likely happened a million times, and I don't want to be converted or to argue, but I am curious about the specific people here right now.

    Specifically, do you think the Palladium Alignment system is better in how it spells out what is what, or do you think that is worse? Do you think this makes it easier for the players to predict the rulings of the GM? What about making it easier to assess if someone has changed alignments or not?

    I know that alignment is described a bit differently in each edition, but there is only one version Palladium Alignment. I doubt people are going to confuse one version with another.
    Last edited by Tevo77777; 2022-10-24 at 01:35 AM.
    If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
    -
    D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
    -
    Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?

  11. - Top - End - #161
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Tevo77777 View Post
    Palladium Alignment System

    Specifically, do you think the Palladium Alignment system is better in how it spells out what is what, or do you think that is worse? Do you think this makes it easier for the players to predict the rulings of the GM? What about making it easier to assess if someone has changed alignments or not?

    I know that alignment is described a bit differently in each edition, but there is only one version Palladium Alignment. I doubt people are going to confuse one version with another.
    Is this pretty much up to date? (circa 2007)
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  12. - Top - End - #162
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Post Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    The great, powerful, and utterly insane Kevin Siembieda... So the story goes.... Locked himself in a dungeon around the time between 2nd AD&D and 3.0 D&D.

    Out of the many many systems he's published, almost all of them have rules copy-pasted to each other. A book might be on it's 7th edition and it's 20th printing, and it will still be full of typos and out of order. If something existed after 1990, he's completely unaware of that new feature or mechanic in RPGs.

    TLDR: Kevin Siembieda hasn't changed much of anything since like 1990, especially the alignment charts.

    -
    EDIT: I ripped a few pages from the PDF book I use. I've heard nothing about any deviation from this over the years.

    Ignore anything about Honor, that's a problematic thing that was in one system.

    Link
    Last edited by Tevo77777; 2022-10-24 at 04:41 PM.
    If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
    -
    D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
    -
    Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?

  13. - Top - End - #163
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2017

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Palladium alignment feels like RPG MBTI. But then again, so does D&D alignment. It's popular because of its simplicity, but it breaks down if you try doing anything serious with it.

    Personally I'm a fan of more freeform prompts for what drives your character and what makes them stand out. But I can see the point of simple and broad handles for new players and simply for legacy. I do like how 5e is removing mechanical hooks and adding other personality hooks so that people who don't like alignment can easily excise it.

  14. - Top - End - #164
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Anymage View Post
    Palladium alignment feels like RPG MBTI. But then again, so does D&D alignment. It's popular because of its simplicity, but it breaks down if you try doing anything serious with it.

    Personally I'm a fan of more freeform prompts for what drives your character and what makes them stand out. But I can see the point of simple and broad handles for new players and simply for legacy. I do like how 5e is removing mechanical hooks and adding other personality hooks so that people who don't like alignment can easily excise it.
    I'm confused about your take, because I get completely different results every single time I take MBTI, but when it comes to the dos and don'ts of each section of the alignment chart... I as a person have never really changed.
    If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
    -
    D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
    -
    Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?

  15. - Top - End - #165
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Not a fan of Palladium Alignment

    They cover far too many things each
    The things associated together don't make any sense to be associated together
    The names don't match the things within them, by any moral philosophy
    They're far too specific, making it really only useful for straight-jacket alignment. Or unless the DM assigns pt values to them somehow and turns them into a descriptive 'scoring' system, in which care being very specific is also good.
    They strongly reflect the authors moral philosophy, which I strongly disagree with.

    Like most things done by Siembieda, he took something Gygax did which was already a mess (in this case for many of the same reasons I just listed above), and made the worst possible modifications to it., turning the mess up to 11. What's utterly amazing is how much we all loved playing his impossibly kludgy systems anyway. Gygax on steroids in a lot of ways, terrible rules systems, fun as heck to play in spite of them.

  16. - Top - End - #166
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Not a fan of Palladium Alignment

    They cover far too many things each
    The things associated together don't make any sense to be associated together
    The names don't match the things within them, by any moral philosophy
    They're far too specific, making it really only useful for straight-jacket alignment. Or unless the DM assigns pt values to them somehow and turns them into a descriptive 'scoring' system, in which care being very specific is also good.
    They strongly reflect the authors moral philosophy, which I strongly disagree with.

    Like most things done by Siembieda, he took something Gygax did which was already a mess (in this case for many of the same reasons I just listed above), and made the worst possible modifications to it., turning the mess up to 11. What's utterly amazing is how much we all loved playing his impossibly kludgy systems anyway. Gygax on steroids in a lot of ways, terrible rules systems, fun as heck to play in spite of them.
    >"Far too many things in them"
    >"Far too specific"

    Que? Legit confused by what you mean right now.

    I don't find the 11 commandments of the Principled character to be that confusing honestly. They also don't seem too specific.

    I mean not torturing people doesn't seem like too much of a demand.

    -

    One thing I like, is you can't have those people who have evil characters but insist they are "Chaotic Neutral". However, it's very obvious if someone is an "Anarchist" or evil.

    -

    Another thing I like, is it seems to be pretty obvious where Robin Hood would go. He has room to steal and not harm innocents over at Scrupulous.
    Last edited by Tevo77777; 2022-10-24 at 09:14 PM.
    If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
    -
    D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
    -
    Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?

  17. - Top - End - #167
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Tevo77777 View Post
    >"Far too many things in them"
    >"Far too specific"

    Que? Legit confused by what you mean right now.

    I don't find the 11 commandments of the Principled character to be that confusing honestly. They also don't seem too specific.

    I mean not torturing people doesn't seem like too much of a demand.
    I am not a big fan either.
    For a test how well those work, i just used a dozen characters i play from a system without alignment and checked where they would end up. And the answer was that none of the Paladium alignments really fit. Not the good ones, but neither the selfish or evil ones. I would always have to mix ad match.

    I mean you could take a Paladium alignment and play this. But it obviously does not work to take an existing concept and say "one of the´se six should be a good fit".

    Mainly the problem is that Paladium is more precise about what their alignment means, but they still fuse altruism, honesty, honor(able combat), conformity and trust in authority into some strange combination.

    One thing I like, is you can't have those people who have evil characters but insist they are "Chaotic Neutral". However, it's very obvious if someone is an "Anarchist" or evil.
    Never seen that. And i think that mostly happens in groups that forbid evil characters.

  18. - Top - End - #168
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    So this position doesn't cause any negative emotional reaction, as I understand this position.

    Assuming I have any ranks in (Listen), is part of what you are saying having to do with the issue of how characters who break the law in Palladium systems.... will not keep their word to a neutral person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    Never seen that. And i think that mostly happens in groups that forbid evil characters.
    I don't forbid evil characters, because they end up with some kind of fight with the other characters and then likewise end up dead, but in a dramatic way I find funny. Or they undermine their fellow players covertly and it's great as a mystery.

    However, I am totally not up for anymore "Half the party are war criminals and borderline political terrorists (And I mean like accelerationists)"
    If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
    -
    D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
    -
    Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?

  19. - Top - End - #169
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Tevo77777 View Post
    So this position doesn't cause any negative emotional reaction, as I understand this position.

    Assuming I have any ranks in (Listen), is part of what you are saying having to do with the issue of how characters who break the law in Palladium systems.... will not keep their word to a neutral person?
    I have not actually played any Palladium, i only have the alignment description and a list of rules for each out of the internet. Because it occasionally gets mentioned as a better alternative and that caught my interest.

    But for example, i have a character who always keeps their word and literally never lies. Is totally willing to kill unarmed foes, or sleeping ones or poison them. Upholds law and trusts authority, takes dirty money but usually helps those in need.

    I have another character who keeps their words but tends to otherwise lie regularly. Kills for pleasure but would not kill people in their sleep. Bends the law but generally prefers to work with authorities if it is not too much hassle, works well with groups but is not really into the "helping innocent" thing. Unless as a pretense to dish out violence in a pleasurably way and be even treated like a hero for it. Would never betray a friend, ally or family member, but is prone to cruel revenge if ever betrayed herself. (yes, this is one of my characters i would consider quite evil)

    I have another Character who literally lies constantly (as comes with living false identities), mistrusts authorities, would not kill anyone (not even armed foes) or hurt innocents, takes dirty money, usually helps those in need, would use torture (ok, more likely more reliable methods), constantly breaks the law


    And i could go on.


    I don't forbid evil characters, because they end up with some kind of fight with the other characters and then likewise end up dead, but in a dramatic way I find funny. Or they undermine their fellow players covertly and it's great as a mystery.
    The longest longest running D&D campaign i ever was part in had both good and evil character that lasted from start to finish. While there certainly player and character fluctuation, some were present all the way. And it worked. No infighting between those. Actually the whole campaign had only one instace of infighting and that was not along alignment lines. A group can easily find common goals that are not centered around some alignment description.
    That was in 3.5. And the only instance the mixed alignments in the party ever caused an issue was when some player wanted his LG character to multiclass into Paladin and couldn't because of the "don't associate with evil" clause in the CoC.

    But most players only rarely play evil character and "Evil as theme" groups tend to run out of steam quite soon. I think if you really want to play a character for a longer time, you must at least somewhat like the character and also the other characters in the group. If you as player despise of of them, it gets really hard to care for their continued success. So the best way to make evil characters work is to not go overboard with the Evilness and create someone multifaceted instead.
    Last edited by Satinavian; 2022-10-25 at 03:33 AM.

  20. - Top - End - #170
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    But most players only rarely play evil character and "Evil as theme" groups tend to run out of steam quite soon. I think if you really want to play a character for a longer time, you must at least somewhat like the character and also the other characters in the group. If you as player despise of of them, it gets really hard to care for their continued success. So the best way to make evil characters work is to not go overboard with the Evilness and create someone multifaceted instead.
    Certainly my experience as well. I can come up with a real bastard of a character easily enough, get enough into their headspace to make IC decisions, but after not long I'm going to get sick of it, because this is not a character I want to see succeed. And while players trying to succeed isn't essential to a TTRPG (Fiasco, for example), it's pretty much assumed for D&D or the like. And for that matter, if they're that bad I'm probably going to get sick of focusing on them at all, regardless of their luck.

    And being the neutral character along with them ... might be worse actually. Because "evil's helper" is both bad and kinda pathetic feeling. And I've heard the "you're manipulating them to your own ends" concept, but - are you really? And the other players are ok with that? Because if it's just them doing what they want but you say "just as keikaku" to everything, it feels more like being delusional than a mastermind.

    But since evil is a pretty broad category, it's possible to have a character who's not a ****bag, maybe even has a lot of good qualities, but some aspect is enough to put them in the evil category. And that'd probably work for me, depending how it was executed.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2022-10-25 at 05:21 AM.

  21. - Top - End - #171
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    I have not actually played any Palladium, i only have the alignment description and a list of rules for each out of the internet. Because it occasionally gets mentioned as a better alternative and that caught my interest.

    But for example, i have a character who always keeps their word and literally never lies. Is totally willing to kill unarmed foes, or sleeping ones or poison them. Upholds law and trusts authority, takes dirty money but usually helps those in need.
    Such a person would IRL be condemned as a war criminal or murderer, and either executed or put in front of a firing squad. If you go to time periods before the UN and conventions, then they're still labeled as an ununiformed combatant and executed. You go further back, and they run into the cultures of the Shogun Japan and Middle Ages Europe... They they would again... Be declared as dishonorable, unnoble people and executed. Romans and Chinese Empire.... Likely would be executed, but it depends on who is in power and if you killed the previous Emperor/Imperor and helped the new guy take power.

    You're literally describing someone who wouldn't be considered lawful in so many different cultures, going back possibly 2000 years. The character wouldn't fit any of these culture's definition of "Good" except the cultures you totally IRL would think as "Evil".

    Sure people might justify or agree with it, but it wouldn't match any public widely adopted definition of moral or lawful.

    -
    The second one is just the Palladium version of Neutral Evil, the last one would be shunned like 66-80% of the public in the modern Western World, and anyone who would consistently popular moral standards.

    It doesn't help that IRL torture doesn't work and there is mountains of evidence that you get better information by guessing, as information obtained under torture is so wrong and so misleading, it often gets friendly people killed.

    The fact that so many people testified that others were witches, under torture, is extremely good proof of how unhelpful torture is.

    So, logically, any person who tortures is not only... not good, but they're not even neutral...because torture doesn't work.... So it's remaining purpose is to hurt others.
    -
    I'm already on board that people really don't like alignments and think of them as "straightjackets" or whatever, so people thinking of something with lists of dos and don'ts, would obviously be this, but more so.

    At the same time, I feel like people are making up characters deliberately designed to break all alignment charts or specifically the ones being discussed.
    Last edited by Tevo77777; 2022-10-25 at 05:37 AM.
    If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
    -
    D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
    -
    Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?

  22. - Top - End - #172
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Batcathat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Tevo77777 View Post
    At the same time, I feel like people are making up characters deliberately designed to break all alignment charts or specifically the ones being discussed.
    Isn't the fact that an alignment chart can be broken kind of an argument against it in itself? Since that means that any character can't be accurately portrayed within that alignment system.

  23. - Top - End - #173
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Tevo77777 View Post
    Such a person would IRL be condemned as a war criminal or murderer, and either executed or put in front of a firing squad. If you go to time periods before the UN and conventions, then they're still labeled as an ununiformed combatant and executed. You go further back, and they run into the cultures of the Shogun Japan and Middle Ages Europe... They they would again... Be declared as dishonorable, unnoble people and executed. Romans and Chinese Empire.... Likely would be executed, but it depends on who is in power and if you killed the previous Emperor/Imperor and helped the new guy take power.

    You're literally describing someone who wouldn't be considered lawful in so many different cultures, going back possibly 2000 years. The character wouldn't fit any of these culture's definition of "Good" except the cultures you totally IRL would think as "Evil".

    Sure people might justify or agree with it, but it wouldn't match any public widely adopted definition of moral or lawful.
    That first person is mostly just a noncombatant. If the situation/conflicts still deteriorates to the point she would be forced/thinks she is justified to use deadly violence, she is not particularly picky about the methods. If a person really must die, then unarmed or sleeping does not matter anymore. Which is not surprising, considering as a member of usually not fighting social strata she is is not beholden to any code of honor about fighting. As for the poison, as it is her natural poison as some snake person, her people thinks that totally fine anyway.

    Aside from that, killing unarmed or sleeping enemy soldiers certainly does not fall under warcrime IRL. They would need to actually have surrendered, not just being caught unprepared. Palladium draws on some strange ideas of chivalry, not from modern rules of war.

    The second one is just the Palladium version of Neutral Evil, the last one would be shunned like 66-80% of the public in the modern Western World, and anyone who would consistently popular moral standards.
    Oh, i get that the second person would be evil in D&D. But in Palladium ? Let's go through the lists for the three evil alignments

    Aberrant says
    - Always keeps his word of honor (at least to those he deems worthy of it) -> yes
    - Lie and cheat to those not worthy of his respect -> No. Lies depend on necessity, not on worthyness
    - May or may not kill an unarmed foe -> yes.
    - Never kill an innocent, particularly a child, but may harm, harrassor kidnap -> wrong
    - Never torture for pleasure but may use it to extract information or intimidate -> wrong
    - Never kill for pleasure, always have a reason -> wrong
    - May or may not help someone in need -> right
    - Rarely attempt to work within the law -> wrong. Nothing is better to be the tyrants enforcer.
    - Break the law without hesitation -> wrong
    - Have no use of the law or bureaucracy but respects honor, self-discipline and the concept of laws and order -> mostly wrong
    - Works with others to attain his goals -> right
    - Usually takes dirty money although his twisted code f ethics might prevent him in some instances -> right
    - Never betray a friend, never -> right

    So 6 yes, 7 no. Not really convincing

    Diabolic says
    - rarely keeps his word and has no honor -> wrong
    - lie to and cheat anyone -> wrong
    - most certainly attacks and kills an unarmed foe -> right
    - hurt and kill an innocent without a second thought and for pleasure -> the for pleasure is right, "without a second thought" is wrong. The person is very careful to hide their unpleasantness.
    - use torture for pleasure and information, regularly -> actually no.
    - kill for sheer pleasure -> Yes
    - Be likely to help someone only on a whim -> right
    - Rarely attempt to work within the law -> wrong. Bending laws and loophole abuse is fine and a lot of choosing acceptable targets. But there is usually an attempt to work within the law.
    - Blatantly breaks the law and mocks authority -> utterly wrong .Works gladly and well with authorities. Especially authorities in violent conflicts or with bandit/deserter problems or who need people to "vanish".
    - Despises Honor, Authority and self discipline -> very wrong. Values both self-discipline and authority a lot. Further tries to display honorable behavior fitting their station and hide everything else.
    - Always takes "dirty" money, drugs, stolen goods etc as well as steal from others -> wrong
    - Betray a friend without hesitation -> wrong.
    - Associate mostly with other evil alignments -> diffucult to decide a not played in a system with alignment, but i would say wrong. That is why she tries to be discrete.

    That is 4 yes and 9 no ? Doesn't seem like a good fit at all. And that is even meant to be the alignment for bloodthirsty psychopaths like her.

    Miscreant ?

    - Not necesarily keep his word for anyone -> wrong
    - Lie and cheat indiscriminately -> true. There are secrets to be kept even from allies
    - Kill an unarmed foe as readily as he would a potential threat or competition -> true, but only in secret.
    - use or harm an innocent-> true
    - Use torture for extracting information or pleasure -> wrong
    - May kill for sheer pleasure -> true
    - Feel no compulsion to help someone without tangible reward -> wrong. Totally does that on occasion and on a whim.
    - Have no deference to the law but will work within the law if he must -> That is difficult. Actually prefers to work within the law but has no real deference. Ok, right.
    - Blatantly break the law for own goals and pleasure -> No.
    - Dislike and distrust authority and the law -> empathically no.
    - Work with others if it will help attain his personal goals -> yes
    - Betray a friend if it serves his needs -> no
    - Have no respect or concern for the lives or welfare of others -> true

    Makes 7 yes, 6 no. That is not really a good fit either.

    And i will get a couple of yes- results for the neutral and even the good alignments as well. Less of them, but not none.

    It doesn't help that IRL torture doesn't work and there is mountains of evidence that you get better information by guessing, as information obtained under torture is so wrong and so misleading, it often gets friendly people killed.
    The torture stuff was part of the third character. The on who would not kill. And i know the limitation of torture which is why i wrote "more likely more reliable methods" which basically means truth drugs and mind control. That person has no moral problem with torture, only an efficiency problem with it.


    At the same time, I feel like people are making up characters deliberately designed to break all alignment charts or specifically the ones being discussed.
    That is why i specifically use existing, played character from other systems (that don't have alignment). I wanted to avoid my own potential bias as well.
    Last edited by Satinavian; 2022-10-25 at 07:30 AM.

  24. - Top - End - #174
    Librarian in the Playground Moderator
     
    LibraryOgre's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Tevo77777 View Post
    Palladium Alignment System

    I know this conversation has likely happened a million times, and I don't want to be converted or to argue, but I am curious about the specific people here right now.

    Specifically, do you think the Palladium Alignment system is better in how it spells out what is what, or do you think that is worse? Do you think this makes it easier for the players to predict the rulings of the GM? What about making it easier to assess if someone has changed alignments or not?

    I know that alignment is described a bit differently in each edition, but there is only one version Palladium Alignment. I doubt people are going to confuse one version with another.
    The Palladium Alignment system is pretty much the D&D alignment system.

    Principled is LG
    Scrupulous is NG
    Unprincipled is CG
    Anarchist is CN, sometimes TN
    Aberrant is LE/LN
    Miscreant is NE
    Diabolic is CE

    If you took the Palladium alignment definitions, and slapped them into a D&D book as descriptions of those alignments? I don't think anyone except Palladium alumni would notice.
    The Cranky Gamer
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
    *Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
    *Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
    *The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
    Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
    There are almost 400,000 threads on this site. If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.

  25. - Top - End - #175
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hall View Post
    The Palladium Alignment system is pretty much the D&D alignment system.

    Principled is LG
    Scrupulous is NG
    Unprincipled is CG
    Anarchist is CN, sometimes TN
    Aberrant is LE/LN
    Miscreant is NE
    Diabolic is CE

    If you took the Palladium alignment definitions, and slapped them into a D&D book as descriptions of those alignments? I don't think anyone except Palladium alumni would notice.
    Unprinipled is not Robin Hood, as the books say, its Han Solo.... Before the end of Episode 4. While the list describes something like CG, the apprehension towards not wanting to be a hero seems between Good and Neutral. Selfish, Greedy, Personal Welfare first.

    Scrupulous is weird, because it allows for stealing, and thus Robin Hood.

    The rest is as you say.
    If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
    -
    D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
    -
    Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?

  26. - Top - End - #176
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2022

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Tevo77777 View Post
    I have to agree with Vah, this example doesn't make any sense. This is an example of a GM strawman.

    Where does it say in any description of Chaotic Good that you can't have plans or listen to advice?
    Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

    "Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

    It's a very very common interpretation of any character who has "chaotic" in their alignment, that they tend not to plan ahead, tend not to work well with others, tend not to follow other people's plans/advice, tend to go off and "do their own thing", etc.

    Xykon is an example of a chaotic character. He's not chaotic just because he likes to kill people in amusing way (that's the "evil" part of his alignment). He's chaotic because he randomly conducts a job interview in the middle of battle, and decides to head straight for the gate instead of waiting for his army, and he is only willing to discuss battle plans if there's pies with acid spitting beetles involved.

    What part of those personality traits make you think of someone who is a trusted responsible leader, who comes up with good solid battle plans, makes sure to follow those plans, takes other's input and acts on it even if it's not what he wants to do himself, etc? It's not a stretch to say that if he did that kind of stuff, a properly running GM *should* penalize him for not being chaotic enough.

    Again. The problem is the two axis thing. Those personality traits are present *and* the whole "opposing legitimate authority" stuff. When you lump those in, you are going to get conflicts. Or, more correctly, you end up forcing all characters who are "chaotic" to comply with all of the descriptors for "chaotic", which seriously restricts the range of characters you can actually roleplay.

    It's not a strawman to point out very simple, completely reasonable and playable, example character personalities that will read as exact opposite alignments depending purely on which parts of the character personality you choose to focus on. That's an actual flaw in the alignment system. And yes, most players avoid this by just not playing those kinds of characters so as to avoid the potential conflict. Er. Which is "restrictive", as I've said all along.

  27. - Top - End - #177
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    EDIT FROM THE FUTURE: "Chaotic Good, "Rebel":
    A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

    "Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit."

    Nowhere does this say they don't work well with others, nowhere does this say they aren't traditional. It literally says he is kind and good to others.

    It says nothing about doing things for no reason, it says they have a very strong moral compass, that is their reasoning.

    It says they are very responsible, quite the opposite of irresponsible.

    -

    It looks like you quoted a D20 SRD or 3rd edition, but completely twisted everything out of place and ignored the actual description of Chaotic Good.... which still matches Robin Hood perfectly.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

    "Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

    It's a very very common interpretation of any character who has "chaotic" in their alignment, that they tend not to plan ahead, tend not to work well with others, tend not to follow other people's plans/advice, tend to go off and "do their own thing", etc.

    Xykon is an example of a chaotic character. He's not chaotic just because he likes to kill people in amusing way (that's the "evil" part of his alignment). He's chaotic because he randomly conducts a job interview in the middle of battle, and decides to head straight for the gate instead of waiting for his army, and he is only willing to discuss battle plans if there's pies with acid spitting beetles involved.
    That's not inside the definition or the cultural expectations of any version of Chaotic besides Evil. CE is called the "Joker" alignment for a reason, it's just destruction and suffering for the sake of it. There is a reason why the alignment is commonly associated with serial killers and the insane.

    The link that first details how Robin Hood is Chaotic Good, details a lot of planning and working with others.

    Not listening or working with others is neither adaptability or flexibility.

    Literally screen-cap a description from a rulebook where any of this stuff your pushing is stated or even implied!

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    What part of those personality traits make you think of someone who is a trusted responsible leader, who comes up with good solid battle plans, makes sure to follow those plans, takes other's input and acts on it even if it's not what he wants to do himself, etc? It's not a stretch to say that if he did that kind of stuff, a properly running GM *should* penalize him for not being chaotic enough.
    This position is so out of nowhere, I'm starting to wonder if it is satire or something.

    I'm looking at the AD&D description of CG and CN, and CG sounds nothing like what you said, while CN just sounds like randomness over everything else.

    The later doesn't fit with what you said, and is just a product of Gygax being Lawful Neutral to the 11th degree.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    Again. The problem is the two axis thing. Those personality traits are present *and* the whole "opposing legitimate authority" stuff. When you lump those in, you are going to get conflicts. Or, more correctly, you end up forcing all characters who are "chaotic" to comply with all of the descriptors for "chaotic", which seriously restricts the range of characters you can actually roleplay.
    I am not seeing anything about planning or not working well with others in any of the Good alignments. Neither am I seeing anything about being very good at planning.

    Also, every single alignment is described completely separately from the others, with no section on what chaos or law mean or what good or evil mean. There are only descriptions of what each of the 9 specific alignments mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    It's not a strawman to point out very simple, completely reasonable and playable
    It is a strawman, because you've never quoted an image or even a D&D Reddit meme. Not only that, but everything you've said so far is contradicted by any book I've looked at, along with basically any person I've talked to.

    EDIT: You quoted a D20 SRD or D&D 3.0/3.5 and didn't make this clear, bad citation.

    You also twisted the source and ignored the rest of the SRD / D&D 3.0/3.5 that would set you straight.

    "Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
    Can include. Can include. Can. Can. Not must. Can.

    Again, it doesn't say you have to never plan anything and it says nothing about never working with people or never taking advice.

    Taking advice is not being told what to do. Being told what to do is something your parents or the police do to you. Your advisor is not telling you what to do, they are advising you.

    It is not against your freedom to take advice or ask it, nor is it against your freedom to plan.

    Also, it mentions the benefits to society, implying that some chaotic people want society to exist and benefit from things.

    "A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random.
    Even the "pure chaos" alignment is described as being possible to predict, implying he can plan things. It says nothing about not planning. Such not planning was implied in a previous edition.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    example character personalities that will read as exact opposite alignments depending purely on which parts of the character personality you choose to focus on. That's an actual flaw in the alignment system. And yes, most players avoid this by just not playing those kinds of characters so as to avoid the potential conflict. Er. Which is "restrictive", as I've said all along.
    That's never happened though. We've never had someone who was Lawful Good (Superman) and Chaotic Evil, in the exact same movie, tv show, comic book.... with no transition.

    When people assign different alignments to the same character, they're either using radically different version of the same character or they're not actually reading the alignment charts.

    There are at least three different Jokers, if not four or five, personality wise. A lot of them have different alignments, because they are radically different.
    Last edited by Tevo77777; 2022-10-26 at 12:30 AM.
    If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
    -
    D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
    -
    Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?

  28. - Top - End - #178
    Librarian in the Playground Moderator
     
    LibraryOgre's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Here's the thing about a chaotic's "resentment of being told what to do"... it doesn't necessarily apply if

    1) They respect the person who is telling them what to do. Robin Hood does what King Richard says because he respects King Richard. He doesn't do what Prince John says to do because he doesn't respect Prince John.*

    2) If it's what they want to do. A chaotic person doesn't* resent being told "Get out of the fire"... they're not going to say "Well, now I'm going to burn to death, just because you told me not to." They don't resent "Don't pee on the electric fence, you will get a horrible shock." That's someone looking out for them. And an orc horde doesn't resent being told to sack a village, because they want to sack the village, anyway. They might resent being told to stand guard instead of taking part in the pillaging... but that's because they don't want to.

    *necessarily resent. Some people are just pig-headed.
    The Cranky Gamer
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
    *Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
    *Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
    *The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
    Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
    There are almost 400,000 threads on this site. If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.

  29. - Top - End - #179
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2022

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Tevo7777. Not going to respond per line. Just going to point out that a lot of the deep dive alignment descriptions that various D&D editions have published over the years are exactly an attempt to avoid the inherent inconsistencies I'm speaking about. So we ascribe some aspects of the "chaotic" alignment to only those who are "chaotic *and* evil". Um... Why bother having two different axis then?

    And frankly, that still falls apart the moment we want to build a character that doesn't "align" with those descriptions either. Heck. Just consider Elan. How many times did he just randomly do things that caused serious problems for his party members (or even just drive Roy batty)? Let's also consider that Elan is a character in a scripted story, as is Roy, and as are all the other characters. It's easy to ensure that the random stuff Elan does just happens to work out for the story, because... it's a scripted story, so of course it does.

    In actual play? By real players. In a real game? Elan's antics would cause serious problems. And yes, his actions are random actions, and not a function of him being "evil" (cause he isn't). And yet, there they are. What would you think playing as a player in a game with an Elan character in it? You'd certainly assume he was chaotic and it would be entirely due to his personality and decision making fitting the sections I bolded above (which you claim is only present if one is chaotic evil). Which is it?

    And then let's consider Haley. He's also CG, and yet is decidedly *not* random about how she goes about doing things. We literally have two extremely different personality types, both with the same alignment. In her case, her chaotic alignment is purely because of her willingness to operate outside the law and has nothing at all to do with how she approaches decision making. Both are chaotic, but for completely different reasons. But could we also have Hayley be lawful? Why not? If Elan's chaos is due to his decision making process and not his disrespect for the law/rules (isn't he the one who insisted on leaving notes for shopkeepers he took stuff from in cliffport, and was waiting for the instrument shop keeper to come back because there was a sign posted telling him to?) then why shouldn't Haley be lawful on that measurement? Clearly in the case of Elan, we've decided that chaos is based on decision making and *not* following the law/rules, so Haley should be lawful (or at least neutral, right). Or, if we flip it around, why isn't Elan lawful and Haley chaotic? If we apply the things that make Haley chaotic to Elan, we would have to conclude he's lawful (he tends to follow laws and rules, almost to a silly degree).

    You could literally go either direction with either character, based entirely on which aspect of law/chaos we decide to focus on. And that's just allowing for both of them also being "good".

  30. - Top - End - #180
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Post Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    Tevo7777. Not going to respond per line. Just going to point out that a lot of the deep dive alignment descriptions that various D&D editions have published over the years are exactly an attempt to avoid the inherent inconsistencies I'm speaking about. So we ascribe some aspects of the "chaotic" alignment to only those who are "chaotic *and* evil". Um... Why bother having two different axis then?
    Because Chaotic doesn't mean "LOL random", being drunk, never sleeping, having memory loss, being my insane grandpa, intellectually disabled, being a child with an underdeveloped child brain, ADHD, ect ect or anything else that prevents a person from forming plans, concentrating for an hour, or behaving rationally.

    It also doesn't mean anti-social personality disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, or any other problem that keeps people from working with others.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    And frankly, that still falls apart the moment we want to build a character that doesn't "align" with those descriptions either. Heck. Just consider Elan. How many times did he just randomly do things that caused serious problems for his party members (or even just drive Roy batty)? Let's also consider that Elan is a character in a scripted story, as is Roy, and as are all the other characters. It's easy to ensure that the random stuff Elan does just happens to work out for the story, because... it's a scripted story, so of course it does.
    Elan has the intellect and attention span of a child. He's literally so dumb he thinks that stripping naked will make him invisible.

    He's also not a real character, not being played in a real D&D game, and he's in a comedy setting where mechanics are changed or added or removed based on what is funny.

    Despite this, the author admitted that Elan has Intelligence as a dump-stat.

    Also tons of stuff that happens in games actually fits the story, because the story is molded around whatever seemingly random stuff people do.

    EDIT: I just remembered that joke about how Elan got hit on the soft spot on his skull and wow... dark, Elan might actually have brain damage or something serious.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    In actual play? By real players. In a real game? Elan's antics would cause serious problems. And yes, his actions are random actions, and not a function of him being "evil" (cause he isn't). And yet, there they are. What would you think playing as a player in a game with an Elan character in it? You'd certainly assume he was chaotic and it would be entirely due to his personality and decision making fitting the sections I bolded above (which you claim is only present if one is chaotic evil). Which is it?
    I have literally played with players that ran their characters like Elan. They were literally young, stupid people playing even dumber characters.

    They couldn't remember any of the rules and they got banned for being really annoying, or they got their characters killed somehow.

    One player's character literally made hundreds upon hundreds of pounds of explosives and then didn't seriously think about putting it in wet storage. It went kaboom later, the whole base went up.

    Kid was a squeaker, and this was the third time he ****ed the whole party. (Granted, it was funny and somehow was useful to the plot)

    He was so dumb, he literally assumed that six people in an airport were trying to kill him and made this hyper insane mess that involved blowing up part of an airport and killing three security guards.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    And then let's consider Haley. He's also CG, and yet is decidedly *not* random about how she goes about doing things. We literally have two extremely different personality types, both with the same alignment.
    Because she's not an idiot, and she's not as dumb and short-sighted as a child. Are you ****ing me/trolling me right now? This is a weird take you've got.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    In her case, her chaotic alignment is purely because of her willingness to operate outside the law and has nothing at all to do with how she approaches decision making. Both are chaotic, but for completely different reasons. But could we also have Hayley be lawful? Why not? If Elan's chaos is due to his decision making process and not his disrespect for the law/rules (isn't he the one who insisted on leaving notes for shopkeepers he took stuff from in cliffport, and was waiting for the instrument shop keeper to come back because there was a sign posted telling him to?) then why shouldn't Haley be lawful on that measurement?
    She's chaotic because she literally was raised by a freedom fighter in a place where the law didn't exist. Her father then spent years raging against a tyrant, which is going to make her even more anti-state than before.

    Also, Elan did those things again, because he is basically a child.

    She also doesn't trust people, but hundreds of strips were devoted to how she just has trauma and personality flaws.

    Quote Originally Posted by gbaji View Post
    Clearly in the case of Elan, we've decided that chaos is based on decision making and *not* following the law/rules, so Haley should be lawful (or at least neutral, right). Or, if we flip it around, why isn't Elan lawful and Haley chaotic? If we apply the things that make Haley chaotic to Elan, we would have to conclude he's lawful (he tends to follow laws and rules, almost to a silly degree).

    You could literally go either direction with either character, based entirely on which aspect of law/chaos we decide to focus on. And that's just allowing for both of them also being "good".
    Elan is still an idiot. He likely could be Lawful if he wasn't so dumb.
    Last edited by Tevo77777; 2022-10-28 at 12:30 AM.
    If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
    -
    D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
    -
    Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •