Alignments

[Clonus]

Putting my response somewhere more appropriate.

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1614261&postcount=219



So you suggest we build the Power Barbarian Rage with "Can Only Be Used By Alignment SuchandSuch (-?)". Nope, that does not work, because that is either no limitation (if you are of that alignment then it does not limit you in any way), or it is a limitation so limiting you will never be able to use that power. Technically, that power should cost 0 points. HERO does not tell you what you are allowed to buy. We don't *want* classes in this game.

If you want rules on how you build characters, go to the page that explains on Campaign and Setting and make something up, all the tools are there. It has nothing to do with the rules itself.

Yes, you're right that it's a campaign-world specific issue but it's still a FAQ that I think should be dealt with in some kind of Ultimate Fantasy Hero source book somewhat thusly:

One hero approach that has already been used repeatedly would be to treat Chaos as a special effect, not a limitation or a disadvantage. Thus a D&D Barbarian would have Rage and Chaos would be the campaign universes mandatory special effect for Rage. That would mean that Detect Chaos would pick up any Barbarian with that power, people who have the Psych Lim "Intolerant of Chaos" would dislike them and the GM might suggest or mandate that anyone with the Rage power also take, say a Susceptibility to Order artifacts.

At the same time, however, there is no inherent problem with the idea that a power could be bought with the limitation "Only as long as you haven't angered your god" so there's no real reason why they couldn't be bought with the -1/4 "Only as long as you haven't angered your Abstract Metaphysical Concept". Some versions of alignment have them actually as the Team Jerseys of the gods, so they'd be the same thing.

This of course would mean that people who have no powers (including no magic weapons) would not generally Detect as aligned even if they are in fact followers of Evil or Law or Darkness or whatever alignments you have. I have no problem with that.

(Then again it's possible simply spending time in a Temple of Chaos or under a Chaotic spell would cause you to detect as Chaotic for days afterward if you had no Lawful powers and vice versa. It rubs off, you know.)

[Curufea]

Or for alignments, you could apply a blanket -10 environmental modifier to any roll for the player to actually be able to roleplay.
:)

On the flip side though, this gives bonuses to generalisations and any racism modifiers used in play.

[Blue Jogger]

I think alignment has its place. In a world that is very morally and ethically gray, it might be worthwhile to add an artificial demarcation of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos. Then, one can call oneself Good and declare some war on all Evil and Terrible things. And one could call oneself Lawful by claiming to follow some external ethic structure or Chaotic by claiming that one was doing so to be an individual, just like everyone else whose Chaotic...

Umm, well, there's nothing wrong with alignments, as a general concept. :o

[Clonus]

Sometimes I find myself wondering whether it's that people think Hero System can't handle a world such as Witch World, or Elric, or for that matter Ars Magica or whether they just think no such world could ever be worth playing in.

[Doc Democracy]

Alignments have a bad rep. However, I do not think that the Hero System should be excluded from using them.

I dont think that referring back to the drawn out arguments that have dogged D&D need get brought into this thread.

I guess the true Hero response to such a question is:

What do you want alignments to represent in your game world?

I can see where you would use them - detect evil/good are obvious spells in a fantasy world and you could easily get into all kinds of existential arguments about what is evil and what is good.

Gods provide decent archetypes and if the alignments are presented as affiliation to particular deities in the game world then you get all kinds of possibilities in game play.


Doc

[lapsedgamer]

The war between Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, Chaos and Law, or Heaven and Hell, is the fundamental building block of most fantasy stories. How else can you keep a scorecard? I think Hero does this with Psych Limits, Hunted or Watched, and sometimes Succeptibilities and Vulnerabilities. If you wanted to go whole hog, you could easily mock up some package deals. Actually, that could be interesting.

[Captain Obvious]

In Hero, an alignment is like a political party. You choose the one that best fits your views of the world, and when it stops fitting, you go somewhere else. The best way to use the concept, IMO, is to use general descriptions of what Law and Chaos, etc, mean, and rather than shoehorn the PCs into one of the categories, let their actions speak for themselves.

[Doc Democracy]

In Hero, an alignment is like a political party. You choose the one that best fits your views of the world, and when it stops fitting, you go somewhere else. The best way to use the concept, IMO, is to use general descriptions of what Law and Chaos, etc, mean, and rather than shoehorn the PCs into one of the categories, let their actions speak for themselves.

In most systems, alignment is like a political party in that you reflect what you do. It is just that in fantasy worlds that political alignment can have impacts on what you do and what can affect you.

In our world there is no way to say which political party a person follows simply by observing them.

In a fantasy world Protection from Tories 10' radius would, if you were a Tory prevent you from going within 10' of the caster or affecting him with your nasty, greed inducing powers. :)

So it needs to be in the system somehow.

Personally I would go with Distinctive Feature - it is a simple disad that each person could choose if they wished. If they were not a good person there would be a certain amount of spells they would not be able to acquire/be affected by, if they were good then there would be a certain number of spells that they would be able to acquire/be affected by.

It would mean that their actions would be limited but that they would have a choice in that. The GM could decide whether they were abiding by that disadvantage and if they were not could take action the same way if someone was not paying attention to their "Code against killing"


Stephen

[Markdoc]

My friend Fitz had an interesting idea which I rather liked. That was that most people and most things didn't have an alignment but that there were powers of Darkness and Light, Chaos and Order who could and did interfere. In this setting, having an alignment was something you actively chose. By choosing for example "Lawful Good" or "Neutral Evil" you were explicitly aligning yourself with a specific set of powerful divinities. That had some advantages - as long as those divinities noticed you and liked your activities, they might lend a little help: some divine power, the assistance of another allied Hero or creature, even some divine intervention if you were important enough, recruitment into their heaven if you die taking one for the team, etc. However, by choosing an alignment you also marked yourself out as a player in the game - and people with the right magic or powers could tell that: so it brought you some serious negatives as well. The divinities in question might expect a bit of grovelling, they might expect you to help other aligned heroes or to carry out some quest and you have a big invisible sign on your forehead saying "Stab me!" that some players on the opposing teams can see. It also means that certain places or items could be dedicated to a certain alignment also.

That to me sounds like an interesting setting - and a decent use for alignment.

cheers, Mark

[mallet]

You could just treat alignments as a "Special Effect" applied to the whole character. Just like powers can have "fire" or "ice" or "acid" as a special effect.

Then all the builds in the campaign (monsters, weapons, armor, etc...) that might apply to alignment can be have Susceptibilities or Vulnerabilities to these "special effects".

Sword does x2 STUN vs Evil characters.
x1/2 BOD from Neutral attacks.

The rules already exist for doing more and less damage from attacks/Defenses based on special effects. If Alignment is important enough in your campaign then just make it a special effect of the character.

[mayapuppies]

My friend Fitz had an interesting idea which I rather liked. That was that most people and most things didn't have an alignment but that there were powers of Darkness and Light, Chaos and Order who could and did interfere. In this setting, having an alignment was something you actively chose. By choosing for example "Lawful Good" or "Neutral Evil" you were explicitly aligning yourself with a specific set of powerful divinities. That had some advantages - as long as those divinities noticed you and liked your activities, they might lend a little help: some divine power, the assistance of another allied Hero or creature, even some divine intervention if you were important enough, recruitment into their heaven if you die taking one for the team, etc. However, by choosing an alignment you also marked yourself out as a player in the game - and people with the right magic or powers could tell that: so it brought you some serious negatives as well. The divinities in question might expect a bit of grovelling, they might expect you to help other aligned heroes or to carry out some quest and you have a big invisible sign on your forehead saying "Stab me!" that some players on the opposing teams can see. It also means that certain places or items could be dedicated to a certain alignment also.

That to me sounds like an interesting setting - and a decent use for alignment.

cheers, Mark
This is the route that D&D4e is going actually. heh

[Killer Shrike]

Alignment (http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/alignmentConsiderationNotes.aspx)

[Captain Obvious]

In most systems, alignment is like a political party in that you reflect what you do. It is just that in fantasy worlds that political alignment can have impacts on what you do and what can affect you.


Well, that is one interpretation, although many RPGs have an interpretation more like police state, where one incorrect action can land a character in hot water with the establishment, and casually changing from one to another is not allowed.

As far as whether a "Protection from" alignment spell works on a person, I'd say it would be best to account for motivations. If A is attacking B because B is an extortionist who has threatened A's family, then B's use of Protection from Good would affect A. If the same person A is after B because B stole A's girlfriend away, Protection from Good would not apply. In Hero, very few people are all good or all evil, so these broad-brush alignment systems don't apply quite so well.

[Captain Obvious]

My friend Fitz had an interesting idea which I rather liked. That was that most people and most things didn't have an alignment but that there were powers of Darkness and Light, Chaos and Order who could and did interfere. In this setting, having an alignment was something you actively chose. By choosing for example "Lawful Good" or "Neutral Evil" you were explicitly aligning yourself with a specific set of powerful divinities. That had some advantages - as long as those divinities noticed you and liked your activities, they might lend a little help: some divine power, the assistance of another allied Hero or creature, even some divine intervention if you were important enough, recruitment into their heaven if you die taking one for the team, etc. However, by choosing an alignment you also marked yourself out as a player in the game - and people with the right magic or powers could tell that: so it brought you some serious negatives as well. The divinities in question might expect a bit of grovelling, they might expect you to help other aligned heroes or to carry out some quest and you have a big invisible sign on your forehead saying "Stab me!" that some players on the opposing teams can see. It also means that certain places or items could be dedicated to a certain alignment also.

That to me sounds like an interesting setting - and a decent use for alignment.

cheers, Mark

This would work well in Hero, too, IMO (probably where you guys were using it anyway, eh?). The people aren't capital G Good or capital E Evil, but they are making a conscious decision to ally themselves with supernatural powers that are.

[Clonus]

In Hero, very few people are all good or all evil, so these broad-brush alignment systems don't apply quite so well.

Alignment has nothing to do with being paragons of perfection. Was Elric perfectly evil or good or even chaotic? No. Was he aligned? Yes. You'll note that I didn't discuss psych lims at all in my opening post. With what I was suggesting there was no particular reason why you could not be a generally nice person with Evil powers who would therefore detect as Evil, or even a really nice person who spent a while under an Evil spell or in an Evil temple and therefore detects as Evil until the stench wears off.

Well, that is one interpretation, although many RPGs have an interpretation more like police state, where one incorrect action can land a character in hot water with the establishment, and casually changing from one to another is not allowed.
.

Of course, all of those RPGs have been out of print for the last twenty-odd years. And of course two of them were the Marvel Roleplaying Game and the DC Heroes Roleplaying game both of which dealt with subject matter that quite a lot of Hero System gamers play in.

(Of course in real comic books turning evil makes you more powerful and sexier but less able to play well with others.)

[Doc Democracy]

As far as whether a "Protection from" alignment spell works on a person, I'd say it would be best to account for motivations. If A is attacking B because B is an extortionist who has threatened A's family, then B's use of Protection from Good would affect A. If the same person A is after B because B stole A's girlfriend away, Protection from Good would not apply.

This kind of application has the potential for some mega arguments round the gaming table.

Once you have to decide who is or is not evil based on actions and motivations then you are as well getting rid of stuff like Detect Evil. Too much aggro.

In Hero, very few people are all good or all evil, so these broad-brush alignment systems don't apply quite so well.

In any game few people are all good or all evil it's just the way they are drawn...

:)

I always had a problem with people who thought that stuff written down on character sheets that restricted the actions of the character limited roleplaying opportunities (most often heard in my experience playing Pendragon). To me it maximised the roleplaying opportunity because I (the player) had to work out why the character wanted to be greedy or cowardly or callous in particular situations where I would not have.

I always thought of alignment as a mechanical thing with hints to roleplay style whereas so many people seemed to simply think of it as an excuse to play stereotypes...or an excuse for anti-social behaviour.


Doc

[Curufea]

I'm going with Nietzsche on this one. It's all subjective. "protection from evil" is as perceived by the caster. This means if a child cast it, they wouldn't be punished for their misdeeds by a loving parent.

[Egyptoid]

Why does this person want alignments in the game ?
What does that word mean inside fantasy hero ?
Why arent psych disads enough?
Shouldnt every player just have one or two psych disads,
or possibly an enraged that defines how they look at life ?


It's all subjective. "protection from evil" is as perceived by the caster
nope, there are absolutes. thanks anyways, please try again.

[ghost-angel]

nope, there are absolutes. thanks anyways, please try again.

There is nothing gained from the absolute truth.

---

On topic:

I would go with Killer Shrike's suggestion of a Distinctive Feature. The detection conditions could be completely magical/supernatural or so.

If someone casts a "Smite Good" spell on their war-hammer the next person with a DF: X-Good that is hit gets squooshed.

I've used this to some pretty interesting game effect - granted it was not a Fantasy game, it was a High Powered game and the character has the DF: Evil. The tricky part was that she was, in fact, one of the Heros - she just had either a very broken moral compass or morals that no one really understood. The jury is still out on that one (and the campaign ended a year ago).

[Curufea]

nope, there are absolutes. thanks anyways, please try again.

Ah yes - I forgot about that - in the D&D universe they are absolutes. There is gods and planes of the things as well.
I don't know how that filters down to sentient beings though - if person A does something to person B that is Good for A and Evil for B - I guess it gets classed as Neutral. As in animals attacking humans for food reasons.

[sbarron]

If I were to ever do alignments, I might do it as something the GM exclusively tracked. I'd let the PCs tell me where they started, but I'd track them over time to see if they actually acted in their proscribed manner. If they didn't, I'd change them to something else after a while. I think D&D used to have a chart for tracking alignment, didn't they? Something like that.

However, I'd never tell the player that his character was acting out of alignment. So, after a while, maybe the good character starts being detected as evil, or maybe his "good only" powers stop being effective. I can almost bet he'd still "think" he was good, despite all his actions to the contrary.

The idea that there are absolutes doesn't work for me. A destitute father steals bread from his noble landlord to feed his kids. To the kids, the dad is clearly good, because he's providing them with life. To the landlord, the dirty peasant is clearly evil, and lazy to boot, because stealing is wrong.

300 years ago, Tribe A attacked Tribe B and takes their land. Tribe B is forced to take land from Tribe C. Is Tribe B evil for not nobly taking their beating and dying out? In this example, Tribe A could be called the root of "evil," but what is Tribe B? Tribe C certainly thinks Tribe B is evil.

300 years later, when Tribe B comes back and takes the land back from Tribe A, are the roles reversed? No one in Tribe A ever attacked anyone in Tribe B. No one in Tribe B ever lived on their "ancesteral" lands that they feel are theirs. Is Tribe B "justified?" Are they evil for killing to take back what was once their tribe's?

Pol Pot was directly responsible for the death of a million people. Ok, that's evil. Suppose later in life he regretted his killing, becomes a buddist monk, and keeps a vow to never hurt another living thing. 5 years after his vow, does he still radiate evil?

Is killing kobald children a "good" act? :D

This stuff is all to murky for me to quantify "alignment" in a game. So I generally tend to avoid it. :confused:

[Clonus]

Why does this person want alignments in the game ?
What does that word mean inside fantasy hero ?
Why arent psych disads enough?

.

Psych disads can easily be irrelevant. Take Inuyasha. Inuyasha has two alignments, "Celestial" and "Demonic". There is no psych lim that defines either of these alignments, although it's possible to lose celestial powers by failing to keep oneself "pure" (but thats a product of actions not beliefs. Eat meat, touch corpses or bodily fluids without purifying oneself afterward, or indulge lust and gluttony and it doesn't matter how benevolent you are because it isn't about whether you are "good". It's about whether you are "pure".) Demonic people tend to be nasty customers, but some of them are individuals of considerable benevolence...which will not get them through that saintly barrier on that mountain. If they try it, they'll fry.

[Lucius]

Sometimes I find myself wondering whether it's that people think Hero System can't handle a world such as Witch World, or Elric, or for that matter Ars Magica or whether they just think no such world could ever be worth playing in.

What does that have to do with Alignment?



Okay, I'm kidding. But more seriously, when you say "alignment" something like Witch World is emphatically NOT what I think of, nor would I ever use the word "alignment" in describing that world. I have only a passing familiarity with the Elric stories, and no first hand knowledge of Ars Magica so I can't comment.

So when you say "a world such as Witch World," etc. I think there's a fundamental miscommunication going on - if that's what YOU think is meant by the word "alignment" then I suspect the word simply does not mean to you the same things it means to the rest of us.

Lucius Alexander

Aligning a palindromedary

[Curufea]

What does that have to do with Alignment?



Okay, I'm kidding. But more seriously, when you say "alignment" something like Witch World is emphatically NOT what I think of, nor would I ever use the word "alignment" in describing that world. I have only a passing familiarity with the Elric stories, and no first hand knowledge of Ars Magica so I can't comment.

So when you say "a world such as Witch World," etc. I think there's a fundamental miscommunication going on - if that's what YOU think is meant by the word "alignment" then I suspect the word simply does not mean to you the same things it means to the rest of us.

Lucius Alexander

Aligning a palindromedary

I'm assuming he's mentioning Elric because Elric worships a god of chaos. Elric himself is of course more complex than "alignment-chaotic" and is frequently law abiding.

[Clonus]

What does that have to do with Alignment?



Okay, I'm kidding. But more seriously, when you say "alignment" something like Witch World is emphatically NOT what I think of,

What word would you use to describe the division between the Light and the Dark in Witch World and people's affiliation with the respective sides?

[Doc Democracy]

So when you say "a world such as Witch World," etc. I think there's a fundamental miscommunication going on - if that's what YOU think is meant by the word "alignment" then I suspect the word simply does not mean to you the same things it means to the rest of us.

You might be right but count me out of 'the rest of us'.

What do you mean when you say alignment?


Doc

[Markdoc]

Is killing kobald children a "good" act? :D

When confronted with that question my "good" Ranger said "Think of me as Nature's way of balancing their population growth." :D

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

I'm assuming he's mentioning Elric because Elric worships a god of chaos. Elric himself is of course more complex than "alignment-chaotic" and is frequently law abiding.

Yep. Although Elric formally serves the Gods of Chaos, he has no problem handling both "good-aligned" and "evil-aligned" artifacts, and actually spends much of his life actually trying to thwart the plans of his evil patrons. That doesn't stop him casually murdering people when he's in a bad mood. (Note: this refers to "Classic Elric" not the newer, emo "Elric-Lite" from his recent revival.) His alignment, if he had any, was Lawful-Chaotic Goodevil.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

What word would you use to describe the division between the Light and the Dark in Witch World and people's affiliation with the respective sides?

I'd call it exactly what you did - affiliation. It's like in my current game: the Lord laments "When I came here, I drove the pirates away. I run a fair town, where merchants can trade in freedom, and mothers are not scared to let their children play in the streets. The peasants pay their taxes cheerfully because they are not too heavy and we no longer have tax-farmers roaming the roads with their spiky clubs and branding irons. Everyone is happy! But, nooooo, cast one tiny, inoffensive necromantic spell and suddenly I'm some kind of "dark lord" and people are lining up to stick a sword in me." :D

cheers, Mark

[Chris Goodwin]

Some source material has Law and Chaos (or Good and Evil, or all of them) as fundamental forces of the universe. Being good doesn't just mean you're good in a philosophical sense; it means that you've chosen, either consciously or not, to "align" yourself with the fundamental force of Good.

Old school *D&D didn't really give you that much guidance; it didn't say "You can create a world in which these are not just philosophical concepts but fundamental forces." It did take for granted that players of D&D would be familiar with the literature that went into it -- Moorcock and Vance and Howard and Lovecraft and Tolkien -- and would recognize where the tropes came from and why and how (or not) to use them.

Hmmm, I feel another thread coming on.

[Clonus]

I'd call it exactly what you did - affiliation.

How is affiliation different from alignment? Is it just the name you object to?

[Doc Democracy]

How is affiliation different from alignment? Is it just the name you object to?

To my mind it is not the name but the historical association.

Growing up there were lots of people who would 'lock' you into your chosen alignment and forbid you from doing things because that was 'against your alignment'. I'm not sure that was the fault of the rules any more than any of the other horrors I experienced as a naive young gamer.

To me they mean exactly the same and in my game that's what you would find. If you affiliate (or align) yourself with fundamental forces then you get benefits and drawbacks from that. If you do not align yourself then you get none of the bonuses and none of the drawbacks. In some places that makes you an object of suspicion and to others opportunity.

You align yourself with 'Good' then you 'detect as Good' and can use those objects restricted for use by scions of Good. etc etc

The problem, I think, on these boards with alignment draw from the same poor experiences that I knew when I was younger playing 'the other game'.


Doc

[sbarron]

How is affiliation different from alignment? Is it just the name you object to?I think affiliation is different than alignment. Affiliation, to me, is like joining a political party. You weigh your options, then chose which group either most agrees with your views or will provide you with the most tangible benefits.

Alignment is more a question of who the character is...his world view. Alignment itself has nothing to do with the outside world, and everything to do with the characters feelings and what the character believes about reality.

A lawful good character would probably affiliate herself with a lawful good church. But she could be affiliated with a chaotic evil one, if she thought she could do the most good there. Heck, and she could probably even be affiliated with both...especially if there were no alignment test requirements, and no gods administering the admissions process. But she couldn't just as easily switch her alignment to chaotic evil, or act in a chaotic evil way, then switch back to lawful good again. That would be totally out-of-character.

Granted, these are my take on these terms with all the RPG baggage I carry around. I'm not talking about the actual definitions of the words. Just how I would use them in a gaming context.

[Doc Democracy]

In a real life social context that sounds fine. My problem comes in practical game mechanics. When do you decide if someone detects as good/evil/lawful/chaotic or can use artifacts keyed to those alignments?

If it is all subjective to the person then anyone who thinks they are good is good (and detects as so) even if they regularly do evil things? Easy way to get the evil person in is to hypnotise them to believe they are good regardless of their actions or intents.

As I said - more game practicalities than anything else.

Doc

[sbarron]

When do you decide if someone detects as good/evil/lawful/chaotic or can use artifacts keyed to those alignments?The GM has to decide. But this determination is also largely subjective, because its the GMs opinion on the matter. I might think it is a "good" thing to have my character kill the tyranical sheriff of Norfolk. But the GM might see my actions as vigilante, and therefore evil. Maybe allowing everyone access to their own "alignment" chart wouldn't be such a bad thing, afterall. At least then the PCs would know if they and their GM disagreed on the definition of "good" and "evil."

Clearly, the genre and setting matter, too. If my character is "Dirty Harry" Callahan, I can do a great deal of harm to people and still be "good" in my story. If my character is Sir Lancelot, though, the standard for "goodness" is much, much higher.

Are their any games that reward players for acting in accordance with their character's alignment? Other than continued access to their gods spells, I mean? I think Riddle of Steel had something like this, but rather than broad alignment, there were specific goals the PCs were trying to accomplish. When they were working towards those goals, they got extra dice, or something? Anyone?

[Lucius]

I'd call it exactly what you did - affiliation. It's like in my current game: the Lord laments "When I came here, I drove the pirates away. I run a fair town, where merchants can trade in freedom, and mothers are not scared to let their children play in the streets. The peasants pay their taxes cheerfully because they are not too heavy and we no longer have tax-farmers roaming the roads with their spiky clubs and branding irons. Everyone is happy! But, nooooo, cast one tiny, inoffensive necromantic spell and suddenly I'm some kind of "dark lord" and people are lining up to stick a sword in me." :D

cheers, Mark

REPPED!

The Necromantic Dark Lord has my vote! Nothing wrong with offering a tax break to citizens who will their bodies to scientific research as long as they don't make it mandatory. I vote “NO” on the proposition “Should the Necromancer have a sword stuck in him?” Sticking swords in people is what the Pirates were all about and we all remember the last time THEY were in power!

You might be right but count me out of 'the rest of us'.

Doc

Are you sure you mean the same thing that Clonus does?

It's quite possible, now that I think of it, that every one of us means something different by “alignment” and in that case, the statement “the word simply does not mean to you the same things it means to the rest of us” does not imply “The rest of us agree with me” - it just means “The rest of us don't agree with you.”

How is affiliation different from alignment? Is it just the name you object to?

As far as I know, no one is “objecting” to anything. I'm certainly not objecting to the word “alignment.” I'm just pointing out that if you use it I'm likely to think it means the same thing that I mean by it, and that leads to communication problems if you mean something different.



What do you mean when you say alignment?

Doc

I was a Religious Studies major. I took a lot of courses in the Religious Studies and Philosophy departments. I had a lot of discussions, in and out of class, about morality and ethics, and I don't remember the word “alignment” being used very often.

As far as I know (I could be wrong, I often am) the first time the word “alignment” was used with a moral meaning was when it was used in D&D. I don't believe Moorcock used the word for example and I'm pretty sure Norton didn't as I'm an Andre Norton fan since childhood.

So when you use the word “alignment” in a context like this, I am likely to think it means exactly what I've known it to mean before, that you are using the word in the only way I've ever known it to be used in anything like this context – to mean the D&D double axis of Good -Evil / Law-Chaos, pretty much as I remember it from when I played D&D. Complete with paladins and inherently aligned creatures and magic items and the Outer Planes and the rest of that baggage.

Thus my confusion when a thread has a title “How To Build: Alignments” and Clonus posts

Sometimes I find myself wondering whether it's that people think Hero System can't handle a world such as Witch World, or Elric, or for that matter Ars Magica or whether they just think no such world could ever be worth playing in.

Because to me it's a non-sequitur. If you want to ask “How to Build: A World such as Witch World, or Elric, or Ars Magica” then I would think you would ask that question; if you ask “How to Build: Alignments” I think the question is “How do you create something like the game mechanics of Alignment in D&D?” I don't think I'm the only one who would think that way either. So I'm trying to answer the post I just quoted by pointing out that it's not necessarily “ a world such as Witch World, or Elric, or for that matter Ars Magica” that “people think Hero System can't handle” or “ think no such world could ever be worth playing in.” I think, Clonus, that you are simply seeing people react to what we think you're saying, rather than what you mean to say.

Now that I (hopefully) understand better the meaning of the thread title How to Build: Alignments, I can give this answer:

That depends entirely on what the word “alignment” means and what you want it to do in the game. Without that information, no sensible answer can be given. Once we know “What” then we can begin to answer “How.” And the question of “Is it worth playing in?”

Lucius Alexander

The opinions expressed in the post do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Palindromedary Enterprises, it's employees, ownership, management, or palindromedaries. Palindromedary Enterprises is not affiliated (nor aligned) with the Prosperity, Justice, and Necromancy Party.

[Doc Democracy]

Are you sure you mean the same thing that Clonus does?

It's quite possible, now that I think of it, that every one of us means something different by “alignment” and in that case, the statement “the word simply does not mean to you the same things it means to the rest of us” does not imply “The rest of us agree with me” - it just means “The rest of us don't agree with you.”

I'll bey I dont mean the same as Clonus. I'll bet it does actually mean something slightly different to many people and that anyone thinking of having an alignment system in their game needs to define exactly what they mean by that - it is a very Hero System approach. :)

I was a Religious Studies major. I took a lot of courses in the Religious Studies and Philosophy departments. I had a lot of discussions, in and out of class, about morality and ethics, and I don't remember the word “alignment” being used very often.

As far as I know (I could be wrong, I often am) the first time the word “alignment” was used with a moral meaning was when it was used in D&D. I don't believe Moorcock used the word for example and I'm pretty sure Norton didn't as I'm an Andre Norton fan since childhood.

The start of this brings real world ethics into it. That is going to cause problems simply because ethics causes problems in the real world. Alignment as we speak of it is a game mechanic that allows a simulation of absolutes that we cannot prove to exist in the real world. They can prove they exist in fantasy realities and affiliation or alignment with such forces may result in very different effects from magic spells.

I would agree with you that I dont think that I have read of alignment outside of RPGs and that D&D is the grand-daddy of alignment systems. However, the play of that system has varied wildly from group to group ever since the first edition...


Doc

[Doc Democracy]

The GM has to decide. But this determination is also largely subjective, because its the GMs opinion on the matter. I might think it is a "good" thing to have my character kill the tyranical sheriff of Norfolk. But the GM might see my actions as vigilante, and therefore evil. Maybe allowing everyone access to their own "alignment" chart wouldn't be such a bad thing, afterall. At least then the PCs would know if they and their GM disagreed on the definition of "good" and "evil."

And how do they resolve that - simply accept that the GM is right to call them evil. To me, unless the relationship between the players and GM is very good and mature, this will lead to too many arguments, especially when someone is borderline good/evil.

Clearly, the genre and setting matter, too. If my character is "Dirty Harry" Callahan, I can do a great deal of harm to people and still be "good" in my story. If my character is Sir Lancelot, though, the standard for "goodness" is much, much higher.

I think it is most appropriate for fantasy settings where such things as good and evil will have concrete effects in magic etc than more modern settings when it is more a matter of how you appear in the press. I would not be in favour of alignment in a Dirty Harry RPG.

Are their any games that reward players for acting in accordance with their character's alignment? Other than continued access to their gods spells, I mean? I think Riddle of Steel had something like this, but rather than broad alignment, there were specific goals the PCs were trying to accomplish. When they were working towards those goals, they got extra dice, or something? Anyone?

Pendragon. There are sets of virtues that all characters strive towards that provide them with social bonuses.


Doc

[Markdoc]

How is affiliation different from alignment? Is it just the name you object to?

No, because in the Witch world books, the various factions are just that: factions. In D&D alignment physically marks you: people can identify your alignment like it was bloodtype, no matter what you're thinking or doing at the time, you develop an allergy to certain aligned items and other function differently in your hands, it specifically defines even your choice of careers. In the Andre Norton series referred to, many people see the witchborn as "evil" - and although they might be physically marked (like, for example, Kerovan) they can be good, evil, or - like most people, a mixture of the two. People can (and do) switch factions: they don't suffer functional problems - they have to watch out for former associates who feel betrayed.

In the example given above, the Paladin who thought he could do more good associated with a Chaotic Evil church couldn't even walk into the building without taking a hit on his powers, no matter how noble his intentions. To me, that's alignment: it's a physical aspect of the world, not just a worldview. I've never bothered to build it into my game, but I don't see it as especially illogical. It's just a GM decision that the game universe operates that way.

The Elric books, the same. Elric is not "Lawful evil" - he's arrogant, self-centred and impulsive, and his actions are motivated primary by revenge, love, lust and hatred rather than "I fight for good" - even if he actually does try to do good when he can. This is a setting (actually THE setting) where law and chaos are actual manifest forces, but still, none of the major characters behave as though they had an alignment and would be chastised if they strayed from it. When Elric did "good things" he might anger his Chaotic patrons, but he didn't lose his magic, he didn't start "detecting" any differently and he could still use his evil artifact sword just fine.

So my objection is really more that the two things are quite different "Alignment" in the D&D context has a specific meaning that I don't really see in any fantasy fiction that I've read: like D&D magic, it's become its own thing.

cheers, Mark

[Clonus]

No, because in the Witch world books, the various factions are just that: factions.

No they aren't. Dark and Light are kinds of magic that collect in puddles in certain parts of the world. The first thing a magician of the Light does when they meet another magician of the Light is cast a spell creating a glowing pattern in the air, because only someone of the Light can use Light spells and someone of the Light can never cast a spell producing darkness. In the published collection of Witch World derivative works, one of the authors wanted to bring her vampire with a heart of gold across into Witch World, and Andre Norton said "Sure, but he can't keep his susceptibility to sunshine because in Witch World the Light can never hurt good people."

The Elric books, the same. Elric is not "Lawful evil" -

Of course not. He's Chaotic.


he's arrogant, self-centred and impulsive, and his actions are motivated primary by revenge, love, lust and hatred rather than "I fight for good" - even if he actually does try to do good when he can. This is a setting (actually THE setting) where law and chaos are actual manifest forces, but still, none of the major characters behave as though they had an alignment and would be chastised if they strayed from it.

None of my D&D characters ever behaved as though they had an alignment and would be chastised if they strayed from it either. And that included my Lawful Good paladin.


When Elric did "good things" he might anger his Chaotic patrons, but he didn't lose his magic, he didn't start "detecting" any differently and he could still use his evil artifact sword just fine.

Chaotic, not evil.

[Egyptoid]

so alignment in your way of thinking is an aura, not a thought process.

in my way of thinking, I would say:

Brakkenor is a disorganized and selfish brute,
therefore society labels hims "chaotic evil"

but again, what value does this system add to Fantasy Hero ?
does it matter to the players, the characters, the gods, the GM, or who exactly ?

do players get rewarded for playing their alignments?
is party unity an issue?

[Clonus]

so alignment in your way of thinking is an aura, not a thought process.

in my way of thinking, I would say:

Brakkenor is a disorganized and selfish brute,
therefore society labels hims "chaotic evil"

but again, what value does this system add to Fantasy Hero ?


Fantasy is filled with bipolar universes and there's also the occasion tripolar or multipolar world as well. D&D didn't make up the Law versus Chaos concept out of whole cloth. They got it from Three Hearts and Three Lions where it has significant real effects. You can invoke the power of God to drive back the power of Chaos (magic) and in a game situation that calls for game mechanics. Even before Poul Anderson bipolarity was at the heart of Christian mythology. Do you have God's power, or are your powers those of the Devil? When you step on holy ground is your true form revealed?

[Markdoc]

No they aren't. Dark and Light are kinds of magic that collect in puddles in certain parts of the world. The first thing a magician of the Light does when they meet another magician of the Light is cast a spell creating a glowing pattern in the air, because only someone of the Light can use Light spells and someone of the Light can never cast a spell producing darkness. In the published collection of Witch World derivative works, one of the authors wanted to bring her vampire with a heart of gold across into Witch World, and Andre Norton said "Sure, but he can't keep his susceptibility to sunshine because in Witch World the Light can never hurt good people."

You may be right: it's more than 30 years since I read the books. I don't recall anything that you mention above, but I've only read a half dozen of the series. I do seem to recall that while dark magic was corrupting, witches could be both malicious and still use "good magic" (in other words, it's not an alignment thing as I understand alignment in D&D). In Hallack, "light magicians" were often persecuted by otherwise "good" people simply on suspicion, and on the other side of the ocean Falconer's Eyre and Estcarp fight even though they are both "of the light" because they disagree over the role of women. Even the "good witches" of Estcarp try to kill Jaelithe simply because she has retained her magic after losing her virginity. As I recall it, there's a disconnect between magic and behaviour.

None of my D&D characters ever behaved as though they had an alignment and would be chastised if they strayed from it either. And that included my Lawful Good paladin.

That's a bit odd - the rules suggest that he should be chastised for straying. Specifically, a Paladin loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act and even unwittingly committing an evil act (or doing it while mind controlled, according to the rules) can lead to the loss of power until an atonement spell is used to restore them. Earlier versions of D&D were even more drastic, with the GM encouraged to track behaviour against alignment with loss of powers, and even loss of levels a consequence of "acting out of alignment".

Chaotic, not evil.
Chaotic and evil are the same thing, in the Elric-verse. There are no "good" chaotic powers and no "evil" lawful powers - there was a simple law=good - chaos=evil axis in the Elric stories, rather like the axis now adopted for 4E D&D. Elric himself would certainly be "evil" using the traditional D&D scale: he kills friends and innocents, sacrifices an entire city for revenge, summons demons and wields a sword that is unambiguously evil. He's shunned and hated ... and yet he works mostly for the cause of law, and often puts himself in danger for altruistic reasons or to protect societies or companions, which would suggest he's actually lawful good. He simply doesn't fit on the D&D alignment grid. You could very easily play in the Elric universe without using alignment (in the D&D sense) for player characters at all - although if you wanted you could also use an alignment system.

cheers, Mark

[Clonus]

[QUOTE]
That's a bit odd - the rules suggest that he should be chastised for straying. Specifically, a Paladin and even unwittingly committing an evil act (or doing it while mind controlled, according to the rules) can lead to the loss of power until an atonement spell is used to restore them.

Yes, but why act like you're worried about it?



Chaotic and evil are the same thing, in the Elric-verse. There are no "good" chaotic powers and no "evil" lawful powers - there was a simple law=good - chaos=evil axis in the Elric stories, rather like the axis now adopted for 4E D&D. Elric himself would certainly be "evil" using the traditional D&D scale: he kills friends and innocents, sacrifices an entire city for revenge, summons demons and wields a sword that is unambiguously evil. He's shunned and hated ... and yet he works mostly for the cause of law, and often puts himself in danger for altruistic reasons or to protect societies or companions, which would suggest he's actually lawful good. He simply doesn't fit on the D&D alignment grid.

He starts out Chaotic and ends up Neutral.


You could very easily play in the Elric universe without using alignment (in the D&D sense) for player characters at all -

I'm not sure what the D&D sense is. It is true that there's no Detect Chaos or Protection from Chaos spells in Elric so in that sense it's different.

[Markdoc]

Yes, but why act like you're worried about it?

Because you have to watch very carefully what you do: even an inadvertent act can - according to the rules - strip you of most of your power and suddenly (for example) render you unable to hold your holy sword, or enter certain buildings. In that regard, D&D alignment is different from the morality system in fantasies like the eternal champion series, where quite often evil means are used to good ends. Elric's one example, Erekose (who commits genocide on his own species) is another. Slaughtering babies by the million doesn't cause Erekose to lose any of his powers, and his holy sword works just fine for sticking children with. A D&D cleric or Paladin, however who slaughters even one innocent baby - no matter how good the cause - is likely to face serious physical/mental changes. And there are magic items which just touching can change your alignment and strip you of your powers - and if you can ever get rid of it you still have to atone and give up XP.

That's why I regard D&D alignment as something different from personal attitude: it really is much more like physically aligning yourself with a specific supernatural force than joining a political party or choosing a philosophy.

He starts out Chaotic and ends up Neutral.


Matter of opinion, I guess, which is what makes any discussion of alignment tricky. To me he starts out leaning Lawful, ends definately lawful (he's talking with the Gods of Law after all, they are actively helping him and he is actively helping them, and in the end he dies for their cause) and in between his behaviour is definately a mixture of chaotic and lawful. Elric's world, to me, is a perfect example of one where a D&D style alignment matrix for characters doesn't make much sense: there's an axis of supernatural powers, but it is not matched by a philosophical axis of behaviour.

I'm not sure what the D&D sense is. It is true that there's no Detect Chaos or Protection from Chaos spells in Elric so in that sense it's different.

See above: the distinguishing feature of D&D alignment for me is the way it ties philosophy/behaviour together with physical aspects like the detect spells you mention above. Another good example is protection from alignment X spells. These not only give alignment specific bonuses, but prevent physical movement across the ward. In the Elricverse magical barriers exist, but they block all supernatural creatures. There's no evidence of an aligned spell - or an alignment specific item for that matter - in the series: Stormbringer and Mournblade are definitely evil, but anyone can touch them without physical damage.

cheers, Mark

[Captain Obvious]

Chaotic and evil are the same thing, in the Elric-verse. There are no "good" chaotic powers and no "evil" lawful powers - there was a simple law=good - chaos=evil axis in the Elric stories, rather like the axis now adopted for 4E D&D.

Not quite. In the Elric universe, Chaos is the source of all beauty as well as pain, and Law can be extremely Procrustean in its applications. One of the stories has a world where Law has totally conquered Chaos, and it's a totally flat, gray, drab world.

[Markdoc]

Not quite. In the Elric universe, Chaos is the source of all beauty as well as pain, and Law can be extremely Procrustean in its applications. One of the stories has a world where Law has totally conquered Chaos, and it's a totally flat, gray, drab world.

Yeah, I know, I was simplifying a bit: but only a bit. Although we are told that a total victory by law would be as dreadful as a total victory by chaos, and that a balance is necessary, the Lords of Law are uniformly, polite, and helpful - even when they try to manipulate Elric, they helpfully admit it up front. The chaotic powers are uniformly untrustworthy, violent and cruel. So theory aside, there's a strong correlation between law and what we would consider good and the reverse with Chaos. This is the same in the Corum stories: the law venerating Vadhagh and their human allies are just, peaceful and cultured. The chaos worshipping Mabden are cruel, treacherous and primitive.

cheers, Mark

[Blue Jogger]

To my mind it is not the name but the historical association.

Growing up there were lots of people who would 'lock' you into your chosen alignment and forbid you from doing things because that was 'against your alignment'. I'm not sure that was the fault of the rules any more than any of the other horrors I experienced as a naive young gamer.

I have lots of stories where that happened. But I did turn it around in one game. One player insisted on trying to steal my mage's spellbooks and my character being basically good did not punish his "good nature" attempts to get rich quick. However, he did cross the line and attempt to kill the mage rather than steal from him.

One web spell stopped the thief cold. The GM reminded us that there was an active volcano nearby. "Wait, you're GOOD. You CAN'T leave me to die out here." The thief whined.

I took a very deliberate look at my character sheet and broke character, "What's my alignment again? Oh yes, Chaotic Good."

(In character) "There's a fairly good chance that you will escape long before the lava comes down the mountain. And if not... Que sara sara."

My mage managed to catch up with the rest of the party. Knowing what transpired out of game but trying to play in character, "What happened to the thief?", the fighter asked.

"Oh, he got TIED UP dealing with some sticky problems." The GM ruled the party could figure what happened, which I didn't mind and rescued the thief.

That was the running gag for several campaigns, I would just give a wicked smile and say, "Hmm... What's my alignment again?"

But after that point, we never had a serious alignment related problem again.

[sbarron]

I have lots of stories where that happened. But I did turn it around in one game. One player insisted on trying to steal my mage's spellbooks and my character being basically good did not punish his "good nature" attempts to get rich quick. However, he did cross the line and attempt to kill the mage rather than steal from him.Repeated attempts to steal from you and then an attempt on your life is just way over the line.

A) I can't believe the party was ok with the thief's behavior.
B) What was the thief's alignment that allowed him to act like a jackass?
C) You should have used lightning bolt instead of web.

Being good doesn't mean you have to be a pollyanna. If someone tries to kill you, you can kill them without remorse and it will have no impact on your alignment. At least in my games...

"Chaotic good characters are strong indivualists marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence. They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they have little use for laws and regulations. They have no use for people who "try to push folk around and tell them what to do." Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society. A brave frontiersman forever moving on as settlers follow in his wake is an example of a chaotic good character."

[John-Walton]

Being good doesn't mean you have to be a pollyanna. If someone tries to kill you, you can kill them without remorse and it will have no impact on your alignment. At least in my games...

but still, what is the value of an alignment system in Fantasy Hero ?
it seems to be an artifact of D&D style thinking, prejudicial to old payers,
and probably confusing to new ones.

does it help the players role-play ?
does it help the GM award exp. pts ?
does it define clans and factions?

even if you answer yes to the above questions or others,
IMHO the Disads on the sheets do a better job of defining things.

[Clonus]

does it help the players role-play ?
does it help the GM award exp. pts ?
does it define clans and factions?


None of the above. What it does is define the supernatural forces at play in the world in question and how they will interact with characters. Not every fantasy world is polar. In fact not being polar is a defining characteristic of low fantasy. But there are plenty of worlds where Darkness battles Light, or Order clashes with Chaos, or Holy blasts Unholy.

[Curufea]

Very interesting idea. It makes me think that high fantasy is more akin to the superhero genre than I first thought.

However, there are high fantasy settings where supernatural moral forces aren't a factor of the plot and not even mentioned in the background.
And there are high fantasy settings where the gods are less polarised - but tend to be more hands on/manipulative. Greek myth being an example of that.

[Clonus]

Very interesting idea. It makes me think that high fantasy is more akin to the superhero genre than I first thought.

However, there are high fantasy settings where supernatural moral forces aren't a factor of the plot and not even mentioned in the background.
And there are high fantasy settings where the gods are less polarised - but tend to be more hands on/manipulative. Greek myth being an example of that.

I didn't mean to suggest that supernatural polarity is a necessary component of high fantasy. It isn't. But low fantasy almost never has it.

[Curufea]

True- low fantasy does tend more towards realism, and so drifts away from stereotypes, generalisations and simplifications in that way. Although it might be possible to do low fantasy with that kind of simple, clear cut "you good, you bad, me kill bad" - I don't know if anyone would bother.
High fantasy tends to be about epic events, where you don't bother looking at the consequences of actions. Low fantasy is much more about being part of the world, rather than changing it. In low fantasy - it matters if you kill the tyrant king, who while he tortured peasants and imprisoned them without trial, was really good for the economy because of his skills. The PCs have to live in the kingdom after that.

[Clonus]

True- low fantasy does tend more towards realism, .

That's one approach. Another of course is to have a black and grey world where utter supernatural evil exists, but there is no good.

[Mordax]

My present campaign has ended up with alignments of a sort, and I'm pretty happy with them despite loathing D&D's system since the olden days.

Relatively benign powers require that their priests follow certain rules. The priests don't have to believe in these rules, actions are what count. This is bought as a Social Lim / Distinctive Features at the low end because if someone knows a person is a priest, they have some idea of how that person must behave to get at their powers. If a person has a 'minor' fall from grace, they can get back in with the offended god by simple ritual purification. (Actual crimes take more, if atonement is possible at all.)

This doesn't detect magically because it's not really about a magical quality that resides in the person. It also has nothing to do with an 'absolute good' - it's just their god keeping an eye on someone who is wearing their company uniform, and is supposed to be actively supporting their agenda. Several 'good' gods disagree about what's appropriate behavior, and it's possible to fall out of favor with one and keep the others. (The god of healing, for instance, doesn't allow killing even in self defense. The sun god is fine with killing in self defense, and encourages proactively killing where demon cultists are involved.)

The party's NPC priestess sincerely agrees with the precepts of the healing goddess, (no violence, heal the sick), and grudgingly abides by the precepts of the wind goddess, (no booze or other fun), purely to get the magic. She loses the wind goddess' favor during virtually every trip back to town, and has to do a brief ritual cleansing before each trip out.

'Hostile' powers like demons actually do have a magically detectable effect on those who call on them: they deal BOECV Transform damage to their human 'allies,' to represent them eating souls one virtue at a time. For instance, a sample sword empowered by a demon of wrath devours a wielder's mercy, leaving them with a permanent Berserk disadvantage over time. As soon as someone starts down that road, paladin smites hit them as though they had horns, and it's hard to shake it off.

People who don't call on divine powers can behave in any way they choose: they're not representing the gods, so they're not judged as anything but 'human' until the next life.

Anyway, seems to be working. :)

[Captain Obvious]

My present campaign has ended up with alignments of a sort, and I'm pretty happy with them despite loathing D&D's system since the olden days.

Relatively benign powers require that their priests follow certain rules. The priests don't have to believe in these rules, actions are what count. This is bought as a Social Lim / Distinctive Features at the low end because if someone knows a person is a priest, they have some idea of how that person must behave to get at their powers. If a person has a 'minor' fall from grace, they can get back in with the offended god by simple ritual purification. (Actual crimes take more, if atonement is possible at all.)

This doesn't detect magically because it's not really about a magical quality that resides in the person. It also has nothing to do with an 'absolute good' - it's just their god keeping an eye on someone who is wearing their company uniform, and is supposed to be actively supporting their agenda. Several 'good' gods disagree about what's appropriate behavior, and it's possible to fall out of favor with one and keep the others. (The god of healing, for instance, doesn't allow killing even in self defense. The sun god is fine with killing in self defense, and encourages proactively killing where demon cultists are involved.)

The party's NPC priestess sincerely agrees with the precepts of the healing goddess, (no violence, heal the sick), and grudgingly abides by the precepts of the wind goddess, (no booze or other fun), purely to get the magic. She loses the wind goddess' favor during virtually every trip back to town, and has to do a brief ritual cleansing before each trip out.

'Hostile' powers like demons actually do have a magically detectable effect on those who call on them: they deal BOECV Transform damage to their human 'allies,' to represent them eating souls one virtue at a time. For instance, a sample sword empowered by a demon of wrath devours a wielder's mercy, leaving them with a permanent Berserk disadvantage over time. As soon as someone starts down that road, paladin smites hit them as though they had horns, and it's hard to shake it off.

People who don't call on divine powers can behave in any way they choose: they're not representing the gods, so they're not judged as anything but 'human' until the next life.

Anyway, seems to be working. :)

This looks like a pretty good system. I think the problem with the concept of "alignment" is the vagueness and arbitrariness of the D&D and AD&D systems.

[Mordax]

This looks like a pretty good system. I think the problem with the concept of "alignment" is the vagueness and arbitrariness of the D&D and AD&D systems.
Thanks. :)

I agree about that being the issue with D&D alignments: all this time, and even the core rulebooks are obviously confused about what they mean. If the authors don't even know, I'm not sure what the rest of us are supposed to do with it. :)

[Chris-M]

I'd be surprised if someone else at some point hasn't suggested this, but if it's appropriate to the campaign setting, you could accomplish much of what Alignment accomplishes in terms of power functionality (e.g. Detect Evil, Protection from Chaos, etc.) by some combination of Distinctive Features and Physical Limitation (just redefine it as an, er, Spiritual Limitation or some such). Apply appropriate Psych/Social Lim as necessary, and viola!

I haven't designed anything along these lines myself, but it seems that you could put together something workable from the above.

[Clonus]

I'd be surprised if someone else at some point hasn't suggested this, but if it's appropriate to the campaign setting, you could accomplish much of what Alignment accomplishes in terms of power functionality (e.g. Detect Evil, Protection from Chaos, etc.) by some combination of Distinctive Features and Physical Limitation (just redefine it as an, er, Spiritual Limitation or some such).

Being "orderly" or "chaotic" isn't a net disadvantage. Sure, it gives you enemies but it also gives you allies and tools. That's why I prefer to represent it as a special effect.

[Chris-M]

Being "orderly" or "chaotic" isn't a net disadvantage. Sure, it gives you enemies but it also gives you allies and tools. That's why I prefer to represent it as a special effect.

I think the special effect approach is worthy as well, but I see the approach I mentioned as being similar to things done in the supplements for things like, say, mutants. Sure, being a mutant can have some perks and get you some allies, but it also means that there are people gunning for you that you don't even know about (yet), and they can detect you and target you with specific powers and so forth (which it has in common with your approach). I think either approach could work just fine.

To really make it D&D-like, you'd of course want to combine either one with some sort of conduct-proscribing Psych Lim(s), and then you'd have something that, I think, does for you what D&D's Alignment system does (which I think is appropriate for some sorts of campaigns and not for others -- personally, I'm happy to leave Alignments behind when I play non-D&D fantasy, but to each his or her own).

[Clonus]

To really make it D&D-like, you'd of course want to combine either one with some sort of conduct-proscribing Psych Lim(s), and then you'd have something that, I think, does for you what D&D's Alignment system does .

Any time this century D&D's alignments have been descriptive not proscriptive. Certain specially empowered classes have powers that stop working if you stray, but that would be represented by limiting the power.

[Chris-M]

Any time this century D&D's alignments have been descriptive not proscriptive. Certain specially empowered classes have powers that stop working if you stray, but that would be represented by limiting the power.

That's a very good point, although Alignment is supposed to be a guiding factor in how one plays one's character, right? [1] Which is the same thing certain kinds of Limitations are supposed to do.

[1] I say that knowing full well that that simple statement alone has been the start of flamewars dating back to the days of DND-L, which of course is not my reason for saying it here, but I only mean that if one chooses to view Alignment as something that should define in part how a character acts, one can achieve this in Hero through the use of Psych or Social Lims to a fair extent.

[Doc Democracy]

How to do it in Hero depends on what the GM wants it to affect in his game - a major distinction from D&D style implementation.

If the GM wants it simply as a marker then it is only distinctive features.

If the GM wants it to restrict actions, encourage others AND be a marker then it is a package with a number of things - several disad types, several potential powers and/or perks.

It is customisable, like all aspects of Hero games. I dont think that there can be one way to implement it in Hero and the very fact that people argue about what the D&D implementation is, shows that it is impossible to precisely map a Hero implementation of a D&D style as you will not get agreement on what is being modelled, never mind how that modelling is done.


Doc

[Clonus]

How to do it in Hero depends on what the GM wants it to affect in his game - a major distinction from D&D style implementation.

If the GM wants it simply as a marker then it is only distinctive features.



The problem with getting it as a distinctive feature is that you aren't tied to it.

[Doc Democracy]

The problem with getting it as a distinctive feature is that you aren't tied to it.

What do you mean by tied to it?

If you detect as good/evil/chaos/law then you can be considered tied to it. That's what people identify you as...

If you want alignment to mean more than that, then you build it in...that's the beauty of Hero. My take on alignments will be directly reflected in the mechanics of my game. Your take might differ but that would be explicit in the build in your game. In D&D everyone's take relied on the same mechanic.

No need for alignment arguments in Hero. :)


Doc

[Clonus]

What do you mean by tied to it?

If you detect as good/evil/chaos/law then you can be considered tied to it. That's what people identify you as...


Being good is not like being a mutant, except possibly for critters made out of magic. You have a choice.

[Doc Democracy]

Being good is not like being a mutant, except possibly for critters made out of magic. You have a choice.

In your interpretation of alignment, distinctive looks is not appropriatet then.

In mine, if someone chooses to align themselves with the powers of good (or one of its alternatives) then they might as well be a mutant as they will detect as good (regardless of their actions) unless the forces of good reject their membership (probably because of their actions!). :)


Doc

[Clonus]

In your interpretation of alignment, distinctive looks is not appropriatet then.

In mine, if someone chooses to align themselves with the powers of good (or one of its alternatives) then they might as well be a mutant as they will detect as good (regardless of their actions) unless the forces of good reject their membership (probably because of their actions!). :)


Doc

The problem is what if that happens? Does the disadvantage just disappear?

[phookz]

The problem is what if that happens? Does the disadvantage just disappear?

Doc their XP for poor roleplaying. Maybe give them a new disadvantage for the alignment they are actually playing (no new points, just shift them around). Not that different from D&D really.

Personally, I never liked alignments. While they do tend to 'tidy up' the universe, making everything easy to classify in nine buckets, I find them highly artificial.

[Doc Democracy]

The problem is what if that happens? Does the disadvantage just disappear?

Like Phooks said, that is like everything else in the disad section.

You may have a DNPC who gets killed, or a psych that you no longer keep to. That is all down to the roleplay side of things and a discussion with the player on how they want it to go down.

If they no longer have an affiliation with good then maybe they'd prefer an affiliation with evil. Maybe they do not want any affiliation and instead end up with a watched by Good forces or even hunted by them (steal an artefact from the temple - no good person would do that!). :)

Nothing is insurmountable and using this kind of alignment with supernatural forces can add to the meta game.

As I said. There is no need to argue about alignment in Hero - every GM can address it exactly how they want in their game and the mechanics will change to reflect each referee's vision of alignment.


Doc

[Mordax]

The best thing to do for this kind of thing is, like a lot of people have mentioned, think about it in the context of your own world rather than attempting a universal port of D&D to HERO.

What does 'good' or 'evil' mean? Forgetting about Elric and LOTR and especially WotC, and just worrying about your specific campaign world.

Some options include:

Good and evil involve karmic energy of some kind.

There's some sort of actual, detectable energy involved in a person's thoughts and/or deeds.

This is the D&D answer, or even more famously, the Star Wars one: doing 'morality-related' acts rubs off on the person doing them, for good or ill. Changing your actions switches the charge around, but the more you've swung one way or the other, the harder it is to get back. You know, build up enough eviltrons (or body thetans :) ) in your aura, and, well, you're doomed.

There's nothing wrong with this, if you give it more thought than D&D did. At the very least, have some hard and fast answers about what happens when someone kills a kobold child. In this kind of universe, that question is not subjective: alignment is as quantifiable as motion or heat, and can have grave consequences for players, so it's important to be consistent in application.

(I'd probably want to score this with points, personally. Like Neverwinter Nights or something. More slide toward an alignment, the likelier a person would get restrictive Psych Lims toward a given behavior because they have 'goodness' or 'evilness' cancer. :) I would also probably limit this to one axis to avoid it becoming crazy complicated.)

'Good' and 'evil' are about cosmic entities keeping score.

Basically, it's all about Santa's naughty list: people who do good are rewarded, people who do bad are punished. I use this one for my current campaign, as described earlier in the thread.

Morality of this type should be tied to a code or philosophy. It's not 'objective absolute good,' it's 'some powerful entity's idea of good.' It should push a particular agenda, or maybe more than one for more complex systems.

Whether or not it's detectable depends on the sort of power that does the deciding, and how they like to handle it: judgment that won't happen until the afterlife is probably not detectable with a simple spell, turning someone into a spider for bragging...probably is. ;)

It also matters if the god(s) can tell what a person's thinking, if they're capricious or fallible. A world run by the medieval Christian god is different than something run by the Greek pantheon, and so on. Lots of room to play with this notion.


'Good' and 'evil' are just words.

The default answer for a gritty campaign - nobody's watching, or if they are, all they're holding in their mighty hands is popcorn.

Just let people take their Psych or Social Lims, depending on if they're sincere or just faking it well.


In any case, the important thing is to understand what you mean by good and evil well enough that you could clearly articulate it to a player if they asked, and to consistently enforce it even when they don't. If you can't do that, you can't exactly model it with points.

(That's my big problem with D&D: there's enough discussion that it seems like everybody should be able to agree what "Chaotic Evil" means, but in practice, it's just too fuzzy, and people end up shouting at each other. Also, the same nine pigeonhole system is supposed to cover all campaigns ever, when it's only really applicable to some.)

[phookz]

At the very least, have some hard and fast answers about what happens when someone kills a kobold child. In this kind of universe, that question is not subjective: alignment is as quantifiable as motion or heat, and can have grave consequences for players, so it's important to be consistent in application.

It's funny you mention Kobold children; I was going to bring that up in my post as well.

I was playing in a D&D 3.0 campaign with one of the published modules (can't remember the name now, but it was a low level 1-3 range one). In the dungeon was an entire kobold tribe - we killed the warriors and were down to the children and their caretakers. I was playing a paladin, so I was, of course, Lawful Good. We had a real ethical dilemma on our hands with what to do with the kobold children. Sure, they were evil, and we knew that they would grow up to be evil kobold adults. But they're still children, and it just didn't feel right to kill them for being born kobolds.

Personally, I like ethical dilemmas in a game. It is one of the great things about roleplaying; you get to play through the ethical dilemmas without anyone really getting hurt. They give an opportunity for exposition on the human experience, and I find that intruiging.

In the end, we let the children live, and warned them that should they cross us, or raid other humans, they would face the sword. It felt like the right thing to do, our stance was that there was a chance they could be redeemed and not walk the path of evil.

I like the idea of good and evil in fantasy games. But I prefer for the lines to be blurry, and that generally good and evil are concepts. Of course, there's nothing wrong with having the occasional artifact or being that is so evil it sends a chill down your spine when you encounter it, but I like that clear delineation to be the exception rather than the rule. For me, I prefer folk to be folk, and you can't always tell who the good guys and the bad guys are. Heck, I don't even think just being evil is enough to qualify someone as a bad guy. Actions speak louder than detect alignment spells, IMHO.

[Doc Democracy]

I like the idea of good and evil in fantasy games. But I prefer for the lines to be blurry, and that generally good and evil are concepts. Of course, there's nothing wrong with having the occasional artifact or being that is so evil it sends a chill down your spine when you encounter it, but I like that clear delineation to be the exception rather than the rule. For me, I prefer folk to be folk, and you can't always tell who the good guys and the bad guys are. Heck, I don't even think just being evil is enough to qualify someone as a bad guy. Actions speak louder than detect alignment spells, IMHO.

And this is an argument about what alignment is your preferred form in your game.

I'm not sure what I think. I think that Hero allows for a better style of Paladin who can operate under a strict code of conduct that does not require a strict alignment. certain actions under the code of conduct might be interpreted as good or evil but as long as the actions were within the code then the paladinhood would be intact.

Doc

[Mordax]

I was playing in a D&D 3.0 campaign with one of the published modules (can't remember the name now, but it was a low level 1-3 range one). In the dungeon was an entire kobold tribe - we killed the warriors and were down to the children and their caretakers. I was playing a paladin, so I was, of course, Lawful Good. We had a real ethical dilemma on our hands with what to do with the kobold children. Sure, they were evil, and we knew that they would grow up to be evil kobold adults. But they're still children, and it just didn't feel right to kill them for being born kobolds.

Personally, I like ethical dilemmas in a game. It is one of the great things about roleplaying; you get to play through the ethical dilemmas without anyone really getting hurt. They give an opportunity for exposition on the human experience, and I find that intruiging.
Yeah. The fantasy genre often explores moral dilemmas in literature - it's nice to be able to keep that in game, too.

That's why I'm doing it the way I am now - a person's feelings and what the gods require don't always match, but it's a player's choice whether or not this has an in-game impact. Don't call on, poke or otherwise deal with godlike powers, and they don't even notice you. :)