Alignments

[Clonus]

Re: Alignments

 

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

True- low fantasy does tend more towards realism' date=' .[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

I'd be surprised if someone else at some point hasn't suggested this' date=' 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). [/quote']

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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' date=' but that would be represented by limiting the power.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

Being good is not like being a mutant' date=' except possibly for critters made out of magic. You have a choice.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

At the very least' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

I like the idea of good and evil in fantasy games. But I prefer for the lines to be blurry' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Alignments

 

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.