Alignment Issues

[Lightning91]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Another difference between alignments and the psychological disadvantages is that Hero does have a mechanism to roll to act contrary to a disadvantage... (i.e. Storm overcoming her claustrophobia in the X-Men). If you violate alignment.... well then you are charged with being a bad "role-player" or worse a bad "roll-player":eek: (in addition to any class alignment violation penalties).

[arcady]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Alignments could also be built using Dependence, addiction, with incompetance as the penalty.

 

Fail to follow the alignment, and you suffer skill roll penalties from 'divine disfavor' until you can manage to 'shake' the alignment by adopting a new one.

 

Social disad is another good way to go - fail to follow the line and your peers will reject you.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

I wrote an eight page essay on the alignment system. I think I have it around here somewhere.

 

If ound it, but I'm having trouble getting the damn thing to save so I can post it. Here's a snippet to give you an idea of what it's about:

 

Baseline Behavior

 

One of the first steps in understanding how these things interact is realizing that they only start making real sense when we put them together. To do that we need to look closely at their view of the world and the actions they are LIKELY to take in a given situation, not at a few select specific actions that could put them in a bad light. Someone who is good is capable of killing their neighbor in a jealous fit of rage; someone who is evil is capable of donating money to charity. Neutral people are the hardest to understand because they’re the least predictable, but we can count on them to follow their focus, as opposed to their drive.

 

When we say “Lawful Good” we aren’t talking about everyone being a Paladin, or never getting angry, or being devoutly religious. We’re talking about normal people, who work normal jobs and follow the law. They file their taxes, they try not to cut you off on the sidewalk, they always give you the correct change and feel guilt and remorse when they do something wrong. These are their baseline behaviors, the everyday pattern the individual will follow left to their own devices, but they aren’t guarantees of anything. An alignment isn’t a restrictive collar, it’s a snap shot of how you’ll react in any given situation. We only stand up and take notice when someone deliberately and willingly steps out of bounds, and we take special notice when that reaction is truly severe (two or more steps away from their alignment).

 

Once I get it to save I'll post the remainder of the article, and hopefully it'll be of use to you.

[Kristopher]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

I wrote an eight page essay on the alignment system. I think I have it around here somewhere.

 

If ound it, but I'm having trouble getting the damn thing to save so I can post it. Here's a snippet to give you an idea of what it's about:

 

Once I get it to save I'll post the remainder of the article, and hopefully it'll be of use to you.

 

If alignment was, in print and in play, more often approached and used with that level of nuance and thoughtfulness, I wouldn't view it with the disdain and contempt that I do.

[Gunrunner]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

I didn't read this whole thread, but another idea you could use is an aggregate scale to determine alignment. Take the total number of character points spent on "good" disadvantages and subtract the number of character points spent in "evil" disadvantages. The number you get will determine your character's "alignment" according to a self-made scale. You could also expand this to a "chaos" and "law" scale.

 

Here's an example of a good/evil character point scale you could use:

 

+5 to -5 would be "neutral"

 

+6 to +15 would be "respectable"

+16 to +25 would be "benevolent"

+26 to +35 would be "good"

+36 to +45 would be "saintly"

+46 and up would be "angelic"

 

Similarly,

 

-6 to -15 - "corrupt"

-16 to -25 - "malevolent"

-26 to -35 - "evil"

-36 to -45 - "wicked"

-46 and lower - "diabolic"

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

If alignment was' date=' in print and in play, more often approached and used with that level of nuance and thoughtfulness, I wouldn't view it with the disdain and contempt that I do.[/quote']

 

Thanks, Kristopher. I appreciate the compliment. Maybe I'll refine it & pitch it to HERO as My First DH Article.

[Robyn]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Fail to follow the alignment' date=' and you suffer skill roll penalties from 'divine disfavor' until you can manage to 'shake' the alignment by adopting a new one.[/quote']

 

Hrm . . . interesting.

 

To borrow from a recent idea, Good and Evil not as Forces of Nature but Deities; compliance with one's alignment is measured by the approval (or disapproval) of one's patron in the pantheon.

 

The downside of this is that, depending on the group's philosophy regarding the roleplaying of NPC's, it may rely on the GM alone to ask "What would Thor do?"

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

One could posit the argument that the difference between a Deity and a Force of Nature is semantic; in other words - you say "to-may-toe" and I say "to-mah-toe."

 

Behold, my Deity of Goodness dissaproves!

 

Dude, there is no 'deity' here - it's the Way the Universe Works. It's a fundamental law.

 

The things that make it all interesting - and what Sublime Reality is based on for my campaign - is that these questions are open, not closed. Sure, there's evidence that Deities exist, but is it really evidence of the divine, or is it just another type of magic? Is magic really a scientifically quantifiable force, or is it simply the lending of the power of some unnamed force? Some divine force, or an otherworldly force?

 

For me and my style, these things are far more interesting unanswered and giving people opportunities for RP, than going with some predetermined "this is how it is" concept and forcing it on the PCs. That's really what the whole article is about (in part, at least).

[Robyn]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

One could posit the argument that the difference between a Deity and a Force of Nature is semantic; in other words - you say "to-may-toe" and I say "to-mah-toe."

 

Behold, my Deity of Goodness dissaproves!

 

Dude, there is no 'deity' here - it's the Way the Universe Works. It's a fundamental law.

 

The things that make it all interesting - and what Sublime Reality is based on for my campaign

 

That's your campaign. Please note that I was responding to arcady's post, which wasn't presented specifically for your campaign. In fact, his post (just) preceeds your mention of the article you wrote, so it's very unlikely he was even thinking of that when he posted.

 

Gravity, like several other laws of physics, could be a Force of Nature.

 

Gods, again borrowing from my idea, are not "impersonal, aloof" beings but quite human.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

What are you arguing here? I'm just carrying on the topic and basing my thoughts out of my framework. I'm responding to YOUR post. I'm allowed to do that.

 

So I'm not obligated to respond to "your idea" or anyone else's idea - you seem offended that I carried the conversation in a different direction. Hey! I can do that, too!

[Robyn]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

I'm responding to YOUR post. I'm allowed to do that.

 

So I'm not obligated to respond to "your idea" or anyone else's idea

 

I must confess that your logic here is quite beyond me. You go from "responding to THIS post" to "so there is no obligation to respond to any particular idea". You can't simultaneously be responding to a post, and (because you can respond to that post) NOT responding to the ideas raised in it. Well, you can, but it's misleading and irrelevant. As an argument, it would be a straw man. Since you seemed to be correcting me, not arguing:

 

Dude, there is no 'deity' here - it's the Way the Universe Works. It's a fundamental law.

 

I simply pointed out that, "here" (where my post was set in), "Deity" was quite different from "Force of Nature". It's not your "here".

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Neither correcting, nor arguing - I offered two differing viewpoints that would exist in a sublime reality, dig? You took it all and went kind of sideways with it, you know, but that's you.

 

Straw man? I was drawing an example of how things work in a sublime reality. That may have been unclear, that happens. But it was not intended as being argumentative, it was meant to be illustrative.

 

Perhaps I should have included quotations?

[Robyn]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

I was drawing an example of how things work in a sublime reality. That may have been unclear, that happens. But it was not intended as being argumentative, it was meant to be illustrative.

 

Perhaps I should have included quotations?

 

Adjusted the sequence slightly, perhaps. Looking back on it I can see that your declaration of "Behold, my Deity of Goodness disapproves!" could have been meant as a preceding indication that you were shifting to your campaign, but if that was the case it wasn't very clear to me; until you started the paragraph about your campaign, it looked like you were placing your statements in the context of the previous post, and that's where a matter-of-fact statement such as "there is no deity; it isn't this, it's that" (paraphrased) seemed a bit too strong

[David Johnston]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Which really doesn't change my point at all.

 

If that is true, then I did not understand your point. Are you saying that people's reasons for doing what they do should not matter?

[Kristopher]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

If that is true' date=' then I did not understand your point. Are you saying that people's reasons for doing what they do should not matter?[/quote']

 

No, I'm not saying that, and there's nothing in what I wrote that you could get that out of.

 

I'm saying that there aren't supernatural forces of good and evil and law and chaos , and that real people aren't "Lawful good" or "chaotic evil" or whatever, and that games and fiction that assert otherwise ring utterly hollow and reflect a naive understanding of human nature.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

A couple of thoughts of mine:

 

The main thing that always bugged me about B&D's alignment system was the Law-Chaos axis. They could never be quite clear and consistant on what it meant. Everyone knows the terms "good" and "evil" - even if only superficially. But what do "lawful" and "chaotic" have to do with it?

 

They try to claim that they have to do with attitude toward societal structure: that Lawful people like the idea of a well-ordered society with laws and traditions and social mores observed, while Chaotic people don't like such organization and prefer things to be handled more informally. And yet...

Monks are required to be Lawful because their powers rely on "self-discipline" and "mental concentration" even though they often live away from societies with their laws and structure. While Barbarians can't be lawful because they use a technique of berserk rage in combat, even if they live in a close-knit society with a rich heritage of law and tradition and custom (barbaric though it may seem to others). The powers that be behind that other game system can't seem to decide whether Law/Chaos is a social attitude/constuct or a personality trait or a tactical ability. I go berserk in combat, therefore I must be opposed to formalized legal systems? I studied martial arts for years, therefore I must prefer a strictly ordered society? It just don't add up.

 

--- Completely different thought about alignment ---

 

Some time ago, I posted a request for "alignment" words, which I (we) could use mostly to describe NPCs and monsters. All I wanted was a fairly simple nomenclature to designate in as few words as possible, an NPC/monster's likely attitude toward the PCs or other "good guys"/protagonists. I am still looking for such a nomenclature. I sort-of have part of one now.

 

For example, "animal"-type monsters are fairly easy to describe in this way: They fall into only a few possible categories:

 

Docile and passive and will most likely run away if threatened - like small birds

Passive but will fight back if threatened - like cows or other large herbivores

Fiercely territorial, stay away and they won't chase you, unless hungry

Always hungry, want to eat you and will chase you down actively

 

So you could call these: Passive, Defensive, Predatory, Vicious

 

Of course, more intelligent creatures will have more complex attitudes, which may require multiple words to designate. Such as "Devious Opportunistic" "Honest Opportunistic" "Hostile Reasonable" "Hateful" "Greedy" "Corrupt" etc.

 

Some monsters may be evil, but will deal honorably with you, while others will actively seek to inflict as much harm as they can. Some will be helpful or even friendly until they get an opportunity to kill you. Some won't kill you, they just want your soul. Many want your possessions, but some will kill you to get them and some won't. etc.

 

I am hoping to pare it down to about a dozen terms or so.

[Lucius]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

A couple of thoughts of mine:

 

The main thing that always bugged me about B&D's alignment system was the Law-Chaos axis. They could never be quite clear and consistant on what it meant. Everyone knows the terms "good" and "evil" - even if only superficially. But what do "lawful" and "chaotic" have to do with it?.

 

My reaction to this was - say what??!

 

To me, lawful and chaotic are a lot easier to get a grip on than good and evil. Good and evil often seem far more subjective and subject to disagreement. Sure, everyone knows what they mean - that's the problem. Everyone has their own ideas, but they're not necessarily the next guy's ideas.

 

 

They try to claim that they have to do with attitude toward societal structure: that Lawful people like the idea of a well-ordered society with laws and traditions and social mores observed, while Chaotic people don't like such organization and prefer things to be handled more informally. And yet...

Monks are required to be Lawful because their powers rely on "self-discipline" and "mental concentration" even though they often live away from societies with their laws and structure. While Barbarians can't be lawful because they use a technique of berserk rage in combat, even if they live in a close-knit society with a rich heritage of law and tradition and custom (barbaric though it may seem to others). The powers that be behind that other game system can't seem to decide whether Law/Chaos is a social attitude/constuct or a personality trait or a tactical ability. I go berserk in combat, therefore I must be opposed to formalized legal systems? I studied martial arts for years, therefore I must prefer a strictly ordered society? It just don't add up.

 

 

Well, basically, you're right. I really DOESN'T add up. What I mean is, good and evil don't add up any better - in fact, worse.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Subtracting down with a palindromedary

[Robyn]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

I'm saying that there aren't supernatural forces of good and evil and law and chaos ' date=' and that real people aren't "Lawful good" or "chaotic evil" or whatever, and that games and fiction that assert otherwise ring utterly hollow and reflect a naive understanding of human nature.[/quote']

 

Games and fiction asserting that real people can be "Lawful good" or "chaotic evil" or whatever? I've seen games that do this, but not fiction. Fiction usually concerns itself with its own non-real world, where humans are often unlike real people in some or many ways (so why object to one more?), and sometimes there aren't even humans.

 

There is also fiction that includes "non-humans" who are essentially just humans in funny suits, but that's another matter

[David Johnston]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Games and fiction asserting that real people can be "Lawful good" or "chaotic evil" or whatever? I've seen games that do this' date=' but not fiction. [/quote']

 

For a start, you can consider comic books. Both Marvel and DC have Law and Chaos as distinct sides although in DC they are usually at war and in Marvel they are usually cooperative with each other. At the same time however, you be a good guy or bad and still be affiliated with either side, and both sides also have warring heavens and hells.

 

Most novels that have such an axis go the simple route though, with a single axis of light and darkness, law and chaos or whatever. And of course most D&D groups do the same thing, treating one axis as important and the other as just a detail.

[Robyn]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

For a start' date=' you can consider comic books. Both Marvel and DC have Law and Chaos as distinct sides although in DC they are usually at war and in Marvel they are usually cooperative with each other. At the same time however, you be a good guy or bad and still be affiliated with either side, and both sides also have warring heavens and hells.[/quote']

 

Umm . . . again, this is a part of the fictional universe. Only games (specifically, roleplaying games), to my knowledge, have made assertions about real people (usually in the context of providing some foundation for their rules about how people are treated in the game).

 

For instance, a game that was diceless because "everyone cheats at dice" would be making a broad (and disputable) assertion about people in the real world. A game that said "everyone in this world/setting cheats at dice" would be difficult to argue with (and impossible using people in the real world as proof).

[Lucius]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

For a start, you can consider comic books. Both Marvel and DC have Law and Chaos as distinct sides although in DC they are usually at war and in Marvel they are usually cooperative with each other. At the same time however, you be a good guy or bad and still be affiliated with either side, and both sides also have warring heavens and hells.

 

Most novels that have such an axis go the simple route though, with a single axis of light and darkness, law and chaos or whatever. And of course most D&D groups do the same thing, treating one axis as important and the other as just a detail.

 

Interesting. Did they start doing that under the influence of D&D? How long ago do these references start cropping up in comics?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Checking the palindromedary's front-end alignment. And the other front-end alignment.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

My reaction to this was - say what??!

 

To me, lawful and chaotic are a lot easier to get a grip on than good and evil. Good and evil often seem far more subjective and subject to disagreement. Sure, everyone knows what they mean - that's the problem. Everyone has their own ideas, but they're not necessarily the next guy's ideas.

 

Well, basically, you're right. I really DOESN'T add up. What I mean is, good and evil don't add up any better - in fact, worse.

Huh? Was it not clear that I was talking about the D&D game concept of alignment? Sure anybody with a functioning brain can come up with reasonable definitions of "good" "evil" "lawful" and "chaotic". My statement was and is that the *game element* of the law-chaos axis in D&D is poorly defined and they dance around it in very contrived ways to try to hide the fact that it doesn't add up.

 

Good and evil are fairly simple concepts in both the real world and most RPGs (and source material):

 

Helping people is good. Hurting people is evil.

 

But lawfulness and chaoticness are not concepts that we usually deal with or care about much in the real world (and off-hand, I can't think of any source material that does either). I have no idea what David Johnston is talking about in Marvel/DC. I don't recall ever seeing those words used or otherwise delineated in a way that corresponds to the D&D system. I suppose one possible way to define them is by the obedience to actual societal laws, but that isn't quite what D&D seems to mean. If I drive over the speed limit, am I being "chaotic"? If I don't, am I being "lawful"? I suppose lawyers might care about such distictions, but most real-world issues are about good and evil much more than "law" and "chaos" (as D&D-esque terms).

[Kristopher]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Huh? Was it not clear that I was talking about the D&D game concept of alignment? Sure anybody with a functioning brain can come up with reasonable definitions of "good" "evil" "lawful" and "chaotic". My statement was and is that the *game element* of the law-chaos axis in D&D is poorly defined and they dance around it in very contrived ways to try to hide the fact that it doesn't add up.

 

Good and evil are fairly simple concepts in both the real world and most RPGs (and source material):

 

Helping people is good. Hurting people is evil.

 

But lawfulness and chaoticness are not concepts that we usually deal with or care about much in the real world (and off-hand, I can't think of any source material that does either). I have no idea what David Johnston is talking about in Marvel/DC. I don't recall ever seeing those words used or otherwise delineated in a way that corresponds to the D&D system. I suppose one possible way to define them is by the obedience to actual societal laws, but that isn't quite what D&D seems to mean. If I drive over the speed limit, am I being "chaotic"? If I don't, am I being "lawful"? I suppose lawyers might care about such distictions, but most real-world issues are about good and evil much more than "law" and "chaos" (as D&D-esque terms).

 

Was it you who pointed out that the D&D writers can't seem to decide if Lawful vs Chaotic is about the character's internal processes or about his views regarding social order?

[Shike019]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

But lawfulness and chaoticness are not concepts that we usually deal with or care about much in the real world (and off-hand' date=' I can't think of any source material that does either). I have no idea what David Johnston is talking about in Marvel/DC. I don't recall ever seeing those words used or otherwise delineated in a way that corresponds to the D&D system. I suppose one possible way to define them is by the obedience to actual societal laws, but that isn't quite what D&D seems to mean. If I drive over the speed limit, am I being "chaotic"? If I don't, am I being "lawful"? I suppose lawyers might care about such distictions, but most real-world issues are about good and evil much more than "law" and "chaos" (as D&D-esque terms).[/quote']

 

It seems to me that people are still using comics as a major basis of source material when in fantasy there are very different sources.

 

IF I remember correctly (second hand knowledge) Norse Mythology deals more with Law/Chaos instead of Good/Evil.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

It seems to me that people are still using comics as a major basis of source material when in fantasy there are very different sources.

 

IF I remember correctly (second hand knowledge) Norse Mythology deals more with Law/Chaos instead of Good/Evil.

And I have no problem with that (either Norse Mythology, or comic books, in fact, I quite enjoy both), but my question is, what the heck do "law" and "chaos" mean in those contexts? I have seen occasions where these words (or similar ones) were simply substitutes for "good" and "evil." Do they mean something else in the comic books refered to? I don't know of any such law/chaos war in DC. Nor do I know of any conflict between law and chaos in Norse mythology. In both of those cases, AFAIK, the conflict is between good and evil, just like it is in real life for at least ten thousand years.