Results 91 to 120 of 328
Thread: I Love Alignments
-
2022-11-20, 01:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
-
2022-11-20, 01:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: I Love Alignments
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2022-11-20, 01:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Re: I Love Alignments
Tanarii you just asserted you know a conversation between me and my GM better than I do. Are you sure you want to try to correct me about an event I witnessed and you did not?
No. In the contexts I am talking about the GM did not "tell me I was roleplaying wrong" and did not "tell me my morals were wrong".
I suggest you take a step back and start to assume I am not you and my GM is not you.
Better?
My GM made a ruling for something as it would apply to the current campaign. I might have ruled differently when running a different campaign. Nobody claimed anyone was "roleplaying wrong"*. Nobody claimed "my morals were wrong"**.
* In fact the assumption is your roleplaying of your character is axiomatically identical to your roleplaying of your character. It can't be wrong.
** No claims about IRL were made at all.
I am not you. Your problems are not uncommon. However they are not universal. Stop assuming I have them and you will have an easier time understanding my experiences and my use case.Last edited by OldTrees1; 2022-11-20 at 01:38 PM.
-
2022-11-20, 01:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Location
- In a castle under the sea
- Gender
Re: I Love Alignments
Spoiler: A wordy foundation for my alignment argument
And that's not even getting into the Batman authors who accidentally make Batman a fascist without changing anything in an alignment-chart sort of way. The difference between Frank Miller's batman and Alan Moore's Batman isn't one of kind, but of degree.
(A note to forum moderators: I am not discussing fascism, I am discussing Batman, and also morality. I am trying very hard to discuss a political subject apolitically. Please do not scrub this post.)
Not to start an argument about the intersection of politics, comic books, and morality, but in my opinion, Frank Miller focuses so hard on the law-and-order part of Batman to the exclusion of his moral compass that he writes what could easily be a Chaotic Good character as being Lawful Evil instead. And critically, this isn't just a matter of how he writes Batman himself! In "The Dark Knight Returns," Batman isn't framed as someone who combats corrupt authorities, but as someone who fights chaotic street crime, fighting those the police can't.
The act of beating up criminals has been transformed from Chaotic (an unlawful action against unjust authority) to Lawful (protecting law and order) by framing alone. And while part of why I perceive Miller's Batman as Lawful Evil is because he takes actions incompatible with my ethical beliefs, part of it is from how those beliefs are framed. I could see someone like Al Ewing writing a comic where Batman beats up crime lords, creates his own gang, and ultimately beats up a symbol of Justice and the American Way in such a way that Batman comes off as Chaotic Good, because he is doing it specifically to protect the powerless from immoral institutions.
Spoiler: Tangent about the Mutant Gang
But in Frank Miller's words: "To [Batman] it wasn't just criminals he was fighting any more, it was moral decay"—personified not as greedy businessmen or selfish politicians, but as street crime. In particular, the Mutant Gang, whose character designs evoke Cyclops of the X-Men, a group of mutants who have been used to represent various marginalized groups over the decades, which I assume Frank Miller is aware of because he has several functional sense organs. Also, Frank Miller said he patterned the Mutant Gang leader's speech after Mr. T's, which...yikes. The Mutant Gang is written as a symbol of everything wrong with Gotham, and it couldn't be a more obvious symbol for marginalized/counterculture groups without just putting queer people of color in it.
TL;DR: The Mutant Gang is framed as a symbol of the things Batman is fighting, and as allegorical for the sorts of things bigots hate. The fact that Batman is framed as fighting the Mutant Gang to combat the moral degeneracy they represent is a big part of what makes him read as Evil to me; if he was instead doing it to defend the powerless, he'd read as a Good character (in a world written by someone with a warped idea of what Evil looks like).
For more on the Batman side of things, Sophie from Mars covers TDKR in their video about interpreting superheroes as monsters. Note that Sophie is way more willing than I to deduct political beliefs from an author's body of work. Please take political arguments over there so we don't call down the Wrath of Mod.
I'm going to leave Batman behind now, to turn that example into a broader point about alignment. And also explaining what that word I keep using means. "Framing," in a cinematic context, refers to how a scene in a movie is shot, separate from the elements within the frame. This (much shorter) video by Dan Olson is a good example; it analyzes a scene in Rent not by the events being depicted, but by how the director has chosen to depict them, and the meaning this creates. I use this term more broadly, to cover how mediums other than film do the same thing; I've seen other people who know what they're talking about do the same thing, but I'm not 100% sure if this is accurate.
TL;DR: Framing is how a story is told, and how this influences our interpretation of the story's events.
Alright, now I'm getting to my point about alignment.
Alignment is consistently described as something either innate to the character, or innate to the sort of actions they take, but it isn't. It's contextual, it depends on framing. When Batman beats up criminals (to oppose corrupt institutions which threaten the weak), he's Chaotic Good. When Batman beats up criminals (to clean up the city and oppose "moral decay"), he's Lawful Evil. The actions don't change, and the character doesn't necessarily change—all that needs to change is the context and how Batman is framed.
The D&D rulebooks even encourage this, to some extent, in different terms. The designers know that paladins trying to enforce moral purity, druids focused on protecting nature, and rogues stealing stuff leads to unwanted intraparty conflict. So the books encourage players to frame going along with what the party's doing (looting dungeons, slaying dragons, etc) in ways that align those actions with their different alignments. The paladin frames working with a Zhentarim necromancer as "working towards the greater good," the druid frames random side quests as gathering strength to defend nature better in the future, the rogue frames not stealing the party's magic items and retiring in the Fantasy Bahamas as working towards some bigger future score.
But look at the way I described that; the D&D rulebooks need to encourage players to frame their actions in specific ways to prevent morally opposed characters from causing problems. And yeah, to some extent that's inevitable whenever players create characters without aligning their motivations in session 0, but the alignment system just provides a new axis for that kind of conflict.
Alignment doesn't have to be an obstacle. It can be very useful in the right context, or with the right framing. For D&D's alignment system, it works best when Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are both explicit forces within the world, and significant forces within the narrative. Planescape: Torment does a lot with this, for instance; the Dragonlance novels do more boring stuff with it. But regardless of how interesting I find your campaign's use of Good and Evil, alignment works fine if it represents picking a side in a campaign-defining conflict rather than just trying to find a stereotype your character fits into.
Off the top of my head: The armies of Evil are attacking the peaceful kingdoms, who are split along Law/Chaos lines; the PCs need to unite them. The Lawful Good paladin is aligned with the forces of Good, specifically with the Lawful faction. The Chaotic Neutral rogue hates those Law *******s, and cares more about the well-being of his loved ones more than the war. The (Neutral) Evil Overlord has successfully united the Lawful orcs and Chaotic goblins under a single banner to crush the Good kingdoms once and for all.
Other alignment systems exist. Star Wars RPGs often have a basic light side/dark side alignment track, and the good ones let careless players can slip to the Dark Side the way Luke almost did. Some World of Darkness splats (read: monster types) come with mechanics that are kinda like alignment scores, symbolizing the core conflict of that splat and turning it into something the rest of the mechanics can interface with.
And Avatar Legends gives each playbook (kinda like a character class) its own "alignment" track, a conflict between two different drives within them, which interacts with the playbook's other mechanics in unique ways. It makes each playbook feel unique, and focuses on the core conflicts driving these characters, and highlights Avatar's theme of balance through ways that are kinda tangential to this discussion.
Anyways, if I had to summarize my points in one sentence, it would be: Alignments can be good when they do something for the narrative, but in D&D it's really easy for them to not do anything. One size does not fit all.
(I do think that Good vs. Evil is a pretty weaksauce alignment system, though.)
-
2022-11-20, 01:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
-
2022-11-20, 02:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
Re: I Love Alignments
Arneson.
Spoiler: from some posts Arneson madeOriginally Posted by tidbits from a few of his notesSpoiler: sourcehttp://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/Archive_OLD/rpg2.html
Originally Posted by moretidbits
FWIW
No, they are not. In a campaign based RPG, D&D, PCs are not static. I can see the point you are making if the game is a one shot, though, or a different RPG system.
They grow, and they become 'who they become' over the course of their adventures. They make choices and decisions which have in world consequences.
They change in a variety of ways, and they make a variety of decisions. What the DM is advising the player of is trends and (when a trend continues into a standard behavior, a change). Your mischaracterization of this remains, as you are treating it like a digital on off switch (which is where the item impact is a different case, as I clearly spelled out) whereas how to do it well revolves around alignment being a result of player choices in a continuum over the course of various encounters and sessions. (As but one example of similar character growth/change, see Gale in the Hunger Games trilogy; you can argue that he undergoes an alignment change from beginning to end, or, that a latent sentiment of his was not revealed until the stress of the story arc evoked it).
One or both of those are a huge issue to many people.
But I think that we may be talking past each other, perhaps due to our own experiences.Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2022-11-21 at 08:41 AM.
Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Worksa. 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.
Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society
-
2022-11-20, 03:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Re: I Love Alignments
Thank you.
Part of my reaction was because those statements are big deals. I appreciate your understanding and empathy.
You are right that it would be a huge deal if statements like "you are roleplaying wrong" or "your morals are wrong" were thrown around. In my use case when my GM describes my, previously LE, character's alignment as LN, they are not telling me either of those statements. It is just another ruling (so no downside to me) and includes that detail of my character as part of the description of this shared world (the utility).
I could compare part of this to a virtuous paladin vs a paladin that is trying to be virtuous. If you want to play a virtuous paladin, being virtuous is part of the chosen characterization just like a left handed buccaneer is left handed. In contrast a paladin that is trying to be virtuous is not necessarily virtuous. The player probably cares about how well the paladin achieves that goal, but the player expects it to be the outcome of the roleplaying & circumstances rather than a forgone conclusion. If the GM does not describe the paladin as virtuous, that would be telling the 1st player that they are "roleplayingwrongdifferently than the player intended" but would be telling the 2nd player that the character is currently struggling and failing at their goal. Even pointing out the former is not as harsh as you frame it, it still is a more uncomfortable situation than the latter. In the latter case the statement is not harsh, but did the player want the GM's involvement? (Maybe, maybe not, it depends on the player/character/context).
There can still be a concern of a GM & player disagreeing could send the message of "your morals are wrong". I don't hear those messages because I don't consider a GM making a ruling in game says anything about IRL and my GM does not consider a GM making a ruling in game says anything about IRL. This is not an automatic given when it comes to alignment, but it is true for my use case.
Ultimately your concerns are very important but not universally applicable. There are contexts where the GM making a ruling on a character's alignment is just another ruling. In those cases, if you desire the detail to be included in the shared world, it can be useful to grant the GM control over ruling about the detail's specifics as it interfaces with the shared world so the detail can enter the shared world.
As always: Just because I can find a harmless useful use of DM described alignment for some of my characters in some campaigns, does not mean it is a generally good fit. I suggest defaulting to not using alignment or only using it in the player's head. However I also default to trusting the player to know better than me if/how they want to use alignment with their character (including trusting the player if they want DM described alignment for this character).Last edited by OldTrees1; 2022-11-20 at 04:00 PM.
-
2022-11-20, 04:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
A paladin is just a character with a code that gives him superpowers. No alignment needed for it whatsoever. Paladins exist in many systems without alignment and sometimes they are explicitely called that.
Priests without gods is different. They only fit in some settings. But if they fit, you can make them without alignment. You can even make Chaos-priests spefically if you have some comcept of Chaos. Warhammer in every variation does it for example.
Devils, Modrons, Eladrins... don't really need it either. Many many systems without alignment give you angels, devils and demons just fine and/or have their own additional groups of strongly behavioral focussed beings from other planes. You don't need alignment for those.
Which leaves the Great Wheel. A cosmology built around alignment. Sure, if you really really like it and want to use it, it is better to keep alignment. But cosmologies are a dime a dozen and the Great Wheel is not more than justr a setting element. I think i only ever have been once at a table where the Great Wheel existed (but still did not really matter). Keeping alignment because of the Great Wheel is a bit like keeping Shadow magic because of Shar.
Alignment doesn't tell me anything about party cohesion The times i played with alignment, it didn't influence/predict which characters worked well with which others at all.Last edited by Satinavian; 2022-11-20 at 04:09 PM.
-
2022-11-20, 04:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Switzerland
- Gender
Re: I Love Alignments
Well, one could also play Planescape, which is a moderately popular setting and all about the Great Wheel.
Resident Vancian Apologist
-
2022-11-20, 04:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Location
- In a castle under the sea
- Gender
Re: I Love Alignments
Philosophy enthusiast here: That word does not mean what you think it means. You're describing deontology (in opposition to consequentialism). Deontologists argue that right and wrong are determined by a set of arbitrary rules, consequentialists believe that the consequences of an action are what determine its morality.
The issue of subjective and objective morality is entirely separate. Moral objectivism is the belief that moral statements can be as true as mathematical theorems, or at least as scientific theories (when it's not the even more ridiculous belief that Ayn Rand was right about something). Moral subjectivism is the belief that moral statements cannot be definitively proven true or false.
Objectivity and deontology seem connected, but they're not the same, any more than all Good characters are Lawful Good. For instance, utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical framework, believing that the morality of any action should be judged based on the net utility of its consequences. It is also an objective ethical framework, believing that utility can (at least in principle) be determined objectively. By contrast, I would argue that the justice system in most countries is a form of subjective deontology.
Spoiler: Explanation
Obviously, right and wrong are determined by the laws of a given jurisdiction rather than any consequences (except when consequences are referenced by those laws, e.g. the distinction between murder and attempted murder). But for all crimes, at least some of the elements that constitute the crime are subjective.
For instance, one element of negligence is a causal connection between the negligence and the harm done. This can be either causation in fact or proximate cause, the latter of which covers cases where there is no direct causality connecting the two, but the “[c]onnection between the act and the injury is strong enough to justify imposing liability”. The risk also has to have been foreseeable for proximate cause to be determined; it needs to be something a "reasonable person" would anticipate and guard against.
Now, there are specific legal guidelines on what qualities the legal "reasonable person" has or doesn't have. But at the end of the day, the Reasonable Person Standard boils down to the judge and jury deciding how this legal construct would act—an ultimately subjective judgement. And I think that's a good thing! If a law is 100% objective, it will inevitably convict people who shouldn't be culpable and open loopholes for people who should.
1, obviously.
In fairness, I'm pretty sure that's what alignments were originally intended as. Paladins are on the Good Team, orcs are on the Evil Team, that's why they fight.
Over time, the designers realized that this sort of structure was good for the type of wargame excuse plot it was initially designed for and not much else, so alignment was loosened up. So in the modern day, you have an alignment system which had a specific purpose, being retrofitted into a role that actually matters to the game (but which it doesn't do a great job at because it was designed for something else).
At least, that's my understanding of what happened.
You're wrong. For a D&D-specific example, there's every justification for a paladin not to be an a-hole to necromancers/thieves/other characters who do evil deeds. For a philosophical example, "the greater good" is a convenient shorthand for mixed-bag situations which genuinely do more good than harm.
As I was introduced to it, it was originally a framework used to analyze how people react differently to fundamentally similar moral situations. People are empirically* more willing to pull a lever to run over one person instead of five, than they are to push one guy onto the tracks to stop the trolley before it hits five. The moral calculus is theoretically the same, but people's moral intuition treats them differently.
*By asking people, not by staging trolley problems and watching what happens
It's also shorthand for morally comparable situations, whether it's bombing thousands to stop a war or killing a alien who can't control his superpowers before he destroys New York. It makes sense that such a term would refer to the Platonic ideal of that kind of situation, and that the Platonic ideal for any moral quandary is going to be boring.
Yeah, the trolley problem sucks as a philosophical argument. But it's useful for other things.
I disagree. The Great Wheel is based on alignment, yes, but it works as a series of planes without needing that framework. It's not like (for instance) the Law planes have any consistent unifying features—or, for that matter, like a plane defined by Law needs to be embedded in a specifically Gygaxian alignment chart to make sense.
I agree that alignment is embedded in the structural tissue of D&D, but it's embedded in the way whale pelvises are embedded in their musculoskeletal system, not the way human pelvises are. It's present, it's been present since the hobby/clade began, but it could theoretically be removed with a bit of effort. And it's a lot easier to remove the alignment system from D&D (just come up with a brief explanation of the mindset behind each plane—Baator is tyranny, the Abyss is destructive hedonism, Mechanicus is absolute order, etc) than it would be to...rework whale ontogeny to cause certain bones to never be developed or something? This analogy is flawed, but I think it gets the point across.
Fall damage is not explicitly framed as a description of a character's moral fiber. Alignment is. You can't give a DM the power to declare whether a character is literally Good or Evil (or in between) and then say "Oh, that's not judging the character".
D&D is marketed as letting you play your own fantasy epic—your own Lord of the Rings, or Earthsea Cycle, or His Dark Materials. Lots of players want to play fantasy heroes, not just fantasy dudes with swords. Other players want to play edgy dark fantasy assassins, not fantasy dudes with knives. Alignment is meant to define a character's morality, and morality is often an important component of fantasy characters.
-
2022-11-20, 05:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Re: I Love Alignments
Fellow philosophy enthusiast here. You are both correct. They were describing Moral Objectivism using Deontology as sufficient but not necessary example, they could have easily used Virtue Ethics, Consequentialism, or Error Theory* instead. Their point was the moral statements have a truth value independent of the speaker (although not independent of any morally relevant facts i.e. intent/action/consequences). Just like the statement "the sky is a tree" is false regardless of who says it.
Solid post. Interesting justice system tangent. Oddly intent and consequences show up a lot in the justice system despite the deontological bend. For some accusations Malicious intent needs to be proved.
*Summary: All moral statements** are false.
**Although not necessarily meta-statements GodelLast edited by OldTrees1; 2022-11-20 at 05:30 PM.
-
2022-11-20, 11:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
This is one of those things like it is with me and folks telling me I'm collaborative storytelling. No matter that I tell people that I and my players know we aren't doing it, they can't comprehend what I describe any other way, so they can't comprehend why I think it's an important distinction and the use that distinction brings to my table.
I can't tell you what is happening at your table in regards to how you and the DM are perceiving the interaction on alignment. But I cannot contextualize it as anything but DM judgement and telling the player they are Doing Something Wrong*(TM) and alignment will adjust if they continue. And I'm automatically adding the caveat: player isn't bothered by that, in this case.
*wrong as in character behavior does not match current alignment. Not wrong as in a personal player failing. Although it can and is easily be taken that way.
As I say, you tell me my contextualization is wrong, and you're the one in the know ... but it does mean that I cannot comprehend any use case or perceived benefit you see in the interaction / process.
------------
Shifting topic slightly and/or providing an example of something where I think it is a possible use case for DM judgements on Alignment and telling the player they are Doing Something Wrong(TM), one thing Alignment is often used for is basically something like "Don't be a Jerk": No Evil Characters.
In that case, IMO the DM should call out in advance it's in their judgement, and be specific beyond "Evil".
Using 5e as an example:
"Please don't have your character regularly and frequently behave like any of the three Evil alignment's associated behaviors, in my (the DMs) judgement."Last edited by Tanarii; 2022-11-20 at 11:30 PM.
-
2022-11-20, 11:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
-
2022-11-20, 11:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
I've always interpreted "Don't be a Jerk" to have nothing to do with niceness, but rather with being disruptive.
The evil alignments associated behavior in the 5e PHB are things some number (but obviously not all) players won't want in their party, or a DM might find disruptive to the game. And it's the pattern of regular and frequent character behavior that matters here, not what's written down on the character sheet. That's why calling it out instead of an alignment is IMO important.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.
(Not that WotC official play excludes only NE and CE. But I also think they make a mistake calling out the alignment instead of the associated behavior.)
-
2022-11-20, 11:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
-
2022-11-20, 11:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
Re: I Love Alignments
It's so much cleaner if you describe alignments like:
Beloved by Tyr. Beloved by Asmodeus. Hated by Selune. Hated by Orcus.
If you say 'what your character did counts as evil' and the player thinks 'actually that was a reasonable thing to do in that situation' then it can read to the player as the DM calling the player evil as a person, even if the DM didn't mean that. It shouldn't have to read that way, but some people will read it that way.
If the DM says 'Asmodeus approves of your character, and you gain a faint aura of his esteem', it adds an extra layer of separation that can be helpful. It also avoids philosophical debates - you can argue about whether what you did was good or evil, but its a lot harder to argue about 'this NPC smiled upon the act'. And if you don't agree with that NPC, you can go try to punch them.
-
2022-11-20, 11:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: I Love Alignments
The original world building idea that ties these pieces together is the notion that the alignments are an in universe attempt to describe a series of nine political alignments built around a common ethos: Lawful Neutral is the common belief structure of all the kingdoms sworn to the Edicts of Modron, Lawful Good the inter-religious principles represented on the Commandments of Celestia, Chaotic Evil those groups who swear the Abyssal Pact. A Lawful Neutral man knows he is LN, knows the moral precepts the LN churches preach in common, knows the common laws among all LN nations, and in a war between CG elves and LE cultists, hopes the cultists win.
Non est salvatori salvator,
neque defensori dominus,
nec pater nec mater,
nihil supernum.
-
2022-11-21, 12:02 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
So can be writing down (something) Neutral and then frequently / regularly acting like these particular descriptions of Evil alignments. This method handles both.
Alignment with descriptions of associate behavior isn't needed for that though. Any descriptions of character behavior that would be disruptive if done regularly, for that particular campaign / table, will suffice.
But if alignment is desired as a roleplaying tool but the DM or players want to rule out "evil characters", IMO it's better to call out in advance it will based on specific behaviors rather than just leaving it as "No Evil characters". I think that's really part of my point.
Sounds kinda like 13th age Icons.Last edited by Tanarii; 2022-11-21 at 12:06 AM.
-
2022-11-21, 12:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
-
2022-11-21, 12:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
Last edited by Tanarii; 2022-11-21 at 12:08 AM.
-
2022-11-21, 12:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
-
2022-11-21, 12:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
Re: I Love Alignments
Dunno! But if I'm running anything that for some reason has to have alignment (because of spell interactions, setting stuff, etc), I tend to run it that way. People do whatever they do, powerful forces personified-as-entities with the ability to perceive things relevant to their interests may form opinions about those things, and because of their nature as anchors for those things that do interact with alignments, their opinions determine how those particular spells or effects interact with the person. 'Detect Evil' is actually just 'Detect Enemies of the Faith'
Which also means it can be a plot point that if the inheritor of one of the divinities who are considered to hold power over good turns out to be a total jerk, 'good' itself can become terrible. Because in the end its just some powerful entity saying 'I approve'.Last edited by NichG; 2022-11-21 at 12:31 AM.
-
2022-11-21, 01:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Re: I Love Alignments
*salute*
Originally Posted by TanariiOriginally Posted by Tanarii
That is a good example possible use case. This one always struck me as odd. For me, I would prefer to use "Don't be a Jerk" (and be specific about what is disruptive) rather than "No Evil Characters" (and be specific beyond "Evil"). However it seems to work well enough for the groups / organizations that use it.
I think your addition of "and be specific beyond 'Evil' " improves that use case.Last edited by OldTrees1; 2022-11-21 at 01:22 AM.
-
2022-11-21, 01:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Location
- Perth, West Australia
- Gender
Re: I Love Alignments
I'd just like to point out that I checked through the whole thread to see whether this image had been posted in here before I went and found a link to it.
I could claim it is very relevant to the discussion, but that would just allow this awful dandelion of a thread to blow its spores all over the nice clean lawn of my psyche, like all alignment threads do.
-
2022-11-21, 01:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
Speaking of alignments. I wonder if there's a magical item known as the Ring Of The Nine Alignment that exists in D&D games?
It's time to get my Magikarp on!
-
2022-11-21, 02:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Gender
Re: I Love Alignments
That alignment chart really screwed up on the Chaotic Evil one by using that example instead of Crazy Steve from All Star Batman and Robin, who is a Batman written by Frank Miller who kidnaps his robin while he is age 12, forces him to live alone in the Batcave eating rats and bats, then goes around laughing crazily about how he loves being Batman while poisoning criminals, or setting them on fire, or attacks police officers, and is basically a sociopathic jerk going around brutalizing people, who if he had the green lantern claims he would want to rule the world, destroy unspecified enemies and exile superman from Earth. yeah, there is a reason why people don't like that series.
-
2022-11-21, 03:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
Never had a group that did this.
Most evil characters are not disruptive, most disruptive characters are not evil. While a higher percentage of evil characters are disruptive than non evil characters that is still a horrible tool to rein in disruptive behavior.
Also it basically makes it a table rule "if you play a character in a certain way, even if not disruptive at all, it becones an NPC", which is prone to make more problems than anything else.
I mean, look at the descriptions :
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. -> limits of code of tradition and order usually means playing nice with your in-group.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. -> only doing what one can get away with means sticking to stuff the group tolerates (or doesn't notice)
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. -> which can be played totally fine in the various violent conflicts the typical game is about without ever falling over some nonacceptable target.
Don't say "No evil allowed", when you actually want to say "no backstabbing, no PvP, no stealing from other party members, no sexual violence, no killing the questgivers etc."
-
2022-11-21, 06:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
I think that's debatable. I mean, if you play a Call of Cthulhu character in a certain way, they're going to become an NPC. Not instantaneously, but it's possible to lose one's mind awfully fast in that system.
If certain kinds of supernatural forces exist in a given setting, it is entirely reasonable to say that trying to run wild with them is outside the bounds of PC behavior.
Don't say "No evil allowed", when you actually want to say "no backstabbing, no PvP, no stealing from other party members, no sexual violence, no killing the questgivers etc."
Now, this does lead to the narrative division between what might be called 'cartoon evil' and 'real evil' which is well illustrated by stories like the animated Harley Quinn series, in which there's a rather bizarre but very real dividing line maintained between characters - like the titular Harley - who do evil stuff and even wrack up a sizeable body count but it's, 'all in the game' and only impacts supers, villains, and various thugs, cops, and other willing participants in this comic logic world, and characters who willingly murder actual innocent people just trying to live out their lives. In Wuxia this is often elevated to the level of practically a divine commandment, wherein the 'martial world' or whatever it happens to be called takes place in a completely separate zone from everyday life and involving normal people in the affairs of cultivators or martial artists or whatever is flatly never allowed to happen. However, this sort of thing is very difficult to enforce in tabletop.
-
2022-11-21, 06:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Gender
Re: I Love Alignments
Thats not a morality issue, thats a player investment in the setting issue.
if players don't care, alignment is just one more rule that they don't care about, like laws or the value of other peoples lives. the solution is not to play with uninterested yahoos more concerned with murderhobo antics than engaging with the setting. harping on some abstract moral ruleset and haranguing people to follow it is at best a bandaid on that problem, because its just a blunt stick when a setting should be interesting enough that someone forgets the fantasy of being in an open world with no consequences to allow themselves to be drawn into a role they want to play out more than whatever thrill they could get from killing at random.
and if they want a low budget open world no consequences simulator, they can find a GM that allows it as long as its not my game.
-
2022-11-21, 07:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: I Love Alignments
OK, that opens again the question of how extreme one must be to not count as neutral. Something the rules and alignment descriptions alone do not really answer. I am usually operating under the assumption of grabbing 10 random persons on the street will result in getting 3 evil and 3 good ones.