Alignment makes perfect sense

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

To do so in full would be a project of...proportions that I am unwilling to invest in a board post.

 

However, in short, that's not what Nietzsche's about. There is nothing in Nietzsche's work that requires you to be "cruel" or "greedy," or even "proud" or "aggressive." Furthermore, Nietzsche isn't arguing that you should use people in the sense that people tend to envision the term. It's more about self-actualization than achieving domination over others. In fact, it's not "more about" it. That's entirely it.

 

While I don't necessarily subscribe to Nietzsche's moral framework (if you can fairly call it that), I do recognize this as an incredibly simplistic and inaccurate representation of his words. Which isn't a huge deal. It's just a quick article about alignments and D&D. I just tend to get irked by this kind of simplification, much like people tend to misquote/misrepresent by saying he said "God is dead." The reality is much more complicated than that, and in fact has an entirely different conclusion.

 

Also, there's a complete jump in the definition he's using where we go from the "Judeo-Christian" definition of "evil" to "evil" is "self-interested," and yet the terms are used interchangeably while being completely different definitions.

Ah, thanks.

 

I saw no such switch, only several switches in perspective.

[dmjalund]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

One difference between Alignment and Psychological Complications is in most forms of D&D, Alignment has a bunch of Gods, plus a "heaven" on their side.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

I always figured Alignment was a sort of a way to help a player define the character; a precusor to the vastly superior Psychological Complications in HERO.

 

Careful there...

 

The problem I have with "alignment" and locking it down onto a character is it seems to presume a character will have the same emotional response to every situation. Which makes one emotionless or emotionally monotone. And people aren't.

 

I guess this fails to include all the excellently roleplayed characters over the years that had an Alignment.

 

I don't think anyone ever claimed the 3x3 alignment system was a good one. It's only useful for wargame-level moral interactions' date=' if that[/quote']

 

Of course. Mm hm. Totally correct.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

One difference between Alignment and Psychological Complications is in most forms of D&D' date=' Alignment has a bunch of Gods, plus a "heaven" on their side.[/quote']

 

Even in D&D, there were many, many gods with pretty lax alignment restrictions on their followers. Some had followers that were "any good", or "non-lawful", or "merchants", or something similar.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

Yeah the 3x3 Alignments are a "good enough" approximation of someone' "moral compass" but it was rarely used / played / enforced correctly or consistently, mostly because, again, our own beliefs about good and evil are not always the same.

 

Similarly, Psychological Limitations are much more flexible, but it is a lot easier to omit something that maybe should be listed on the character sheet if you really get down to the details of someone's belief system.

 

There is no 'perfect system' for getting such abstract concepts onto a character sheet with any real accuracy or depth without it going beyond the scope of the game.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

Yeah the 3x3 Alignments are a "good enough" approximation of someone' "moral compass" but it was rarely used / played / enforced correctly or consistently' date=' mostly because, again, our own beliefs about good and evil are not always the same.[/quote']

 

Unless the DM hammers out what is Evil, Good, Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral, etc, in their campaign.

[Old Man]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

...and even then it depends on whether there are any troublemaker players in the group who disagree.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

...and even then it depends on whether there are any troublemaker players in the group who disagree.

Why are there still troublemaker players in the group?

[Old Man]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

Well, I misspoke. I should have said "unless there are players with closely held value systems that differ from that which the GM has laid out". I think I've seen... discussions... of this nature in every game system I've ever played, including Hero, though of course it's not as prone to this sort of conflict as other systems.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

Well' date=' I misspoke. I should have said "unless there are players with closely held value systems that differ from that which the GM has laid out". I think I've seen... discussions... of this nature in every game system I've ever played, including Hero, though of course it's not as prone to this sort of conflict as other systems.[/quote']

 

Four words: "He's not THAT Overconfident!"

 

Empirically, I have no stats, but I find it hard to believe Hero is any less prone to arguments of this nature. They are more focused, since they deal with a specific issue rather than broad-based Alignments. But characters tend to have more than one Psych limit, and you only get one Alignment. I think differences in the number of arguments will correlate much more to the gaming group/participants than to the game system.

 

That said, there will be exceptions. For example, that player who takes exception to any constraints on his character's choices, so constantly chafes under any Alignment, may recognize this issue and choose to take no Psych Limits in a Hero game, thereby avoiding the issue.

[Lucius]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

There's also the fact that Psych Complications can be chosen by the player. In fact, like Powers, they can be designed by the player.

 

An alignment, in keeping with the D&D philosophy of "you get options, but you don't get to create anything original" is picked from a menu.

 

The latter situation, to extend the "menu" metaphor, is more likely to result in broccoli left on the plate because the diner (player) didn't want the broccoli; they just wanted the pork chops. Or to the diner who got the steak and asparagus swiping the broccoli off someone's plate because they wanted both steak and broccoli and couldn't get both. Hero's solution - a buffet or ala-carte style selection of restrictions you want for your character, including "I'll just have coffee, thanks" (i.e. no Psych Lims at all) - strikes me as a much better situation.

 

But of course, it won't eliminate all problems. Was this made with real crab? I said I wanted this steak well done! What do you mean, you don't have asparagus?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary reports an alignment violation on the 3rd level, paladin backstabbing cleric, called in by the magic-user

[Clonus]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

There's also the fact that Psych Complications can be chosen by the player. In fact' date=' like Powers, they can be [i']designed[/i] by the player.

 

An alignment, in keeping with the D&D philosophy of "you get options, but you don't get to create anything original" is picked from a menu.

 

It's only an issue if you want to play some kind of cleric. And if you want to play a Fantasy Hero cleric who has magic powers then that is also going to come with a package of things you have to conform to please your particular power source. At least in my game.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

An alignment, in keeping with the D&D philosophy of "you get options, but you don't get to create anything original"

 

Yay, D&D bashing that also happens to ignore all the original characters made with even with the Alignment system in place.

[Lucius]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

Yay' date=' D&D bashing that also happens to ignore all the original characters made with even with the Alignment system in place.[/quote']

 

I'm not ignoring anything but you. Unless and until you say something helpful or useful.

 

And I'm sure there have been original alignments created and used in D&D, I've even seen such discussed in places like Dragon magazine long ago.

But that's pretty clearly "house rules." Rules as Written give you a menu of nine options for alignment.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

What alignment would a palindromedary be?

[Clonus]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

I'm not ignoring anything but you. Unless and until you say something helpful or useful.

 

And I'm sure there have been original alignments created and used in D&D, I've even seen such discussed in places like Dragon magazine long ago.

But that's pretty clearly "house rules." Rules as Written give you a menu of nine options for alignment.

 

But then again the Champions universe gives you three options. Hero, villain or mercenary.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

I'm not ignoring anything but you. Unless and until you say something helpful or useful.

 

And I'm sure there have been original alignments created and used in D&D, I've even seen such discussed in places like Dragon magazine long ago.

But that's pretty clearly "house rules." Rules as Written give you a menu of nine options for alignment.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

What alignment would a palindromedary be?

 

I didn't mention original alignments, I mentioned original characters. Two characters with, say, Lawful Good, can be radically different. Hell, we haven't even factored in race yet: I can see two racial groups with distinct interpretations of what it means to be Lawful Neutral...and extraplanar beings are a whole other story.

 

There seems to be a rash of minor system elitism in this thread that takes the form of the opinion that just because a system has a free (doesn't cost anything) Trait that every character has in some form, they will not be original.

 

(Interestingly enough, d20 Modern took Alignment and turned it into Allegiance, which can include things other than Law/Chaos/Neutrality/Good/Evil. I like this option too).

[Old Man]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

Yay' date=' D&D bashing that also happens to ignore all the original characters made with even with the Alignment system in place.[/quote']

 

Yes, it's possible to make original and interesting characters while sticking to the alignment system, but that system is more of a hindrance than anything else. Many character personalities fit into one of the boxes on the alignment diagram, but many others don't. Fortunately, the alignment system wasn't so ingrained into the system that you really had to stick to it unless the GM was forcing you to. Standard operating procedure for years was to define all characters as chaotic neutral just so they couldn't get railroaded into doing something obviously stupid just because of what was entered in the alignment blank on the sheet.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

but that system is more of a hindrance than anything else.

 

For some, sure. Others (a lot of people) just breeze on by.

 

There are some times when reading RPG boards doesn't help (Paladin Alignment threads, anyone? ).

 

Many character personalities fit into one of the boxes on the alignment diagram' date=' but many others don't. [/quote']

 

Well...True Neutral / Neutral covers a lot . In addition, "tendencies" have somewhat crept into D&D based games / supplements and related materials over the years (i.e., Lawful Neutral with Good tendencies), so that also presents alternate options for those that need their Alignment further specified on paper.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

Yes' date=' it's possible to make original and interesting characters while sticking to the alignment system, but that system is more of a hindrance than anything else. Many character personalities fit into one of the boxes on the alignment diagram, but many others don't. Fortunately, the alignment system wasn't so ingrained into the system that you really had to stick to it unless the GM was forcing you to. Standard operating procedure for years was to define all characters as chaotic neutral just so they couldn't get railroaded into doing something obviously stupid just because of what was entered in the alignment blank on the sheet.[/quote']

 

Many of those characters would then go on to follow a standardized routine in everything they did, to which other players were prone to respond "How Chaotic of you". eg. "As always, my character awakens at dawn, prays for 15 minutes, eats a modest breakfast of grains and cereals, washes and is ready to travel in an hour." "How very Chaotic of him".

 

For some' date=' sure. Others (a [i']lot[/i] of people) just breeze on by.

 

And we've certainly had threads on this board where people complain of the number or types of disadvantages/complications their characters had to take and/or how the players and/or GM do not interpret them the same way. These arguments aren't limited to D&D or an alignment system. And how many fantasy hero games feature powers that only work in accordance with the principals of the deity, just another substitute for alignment. [because of course mythological deities were always very consistent in their actions, making it easy to see a consistent philosophy...]

 

Well...True Neutral / Neutral covers a lot . In addition' date=' "tendencies" have somewhat crept into D&D based games / supplements and related materials over the years (i.e., Lawful Neutral with Good tendencies), so that also presents alternate options for those that need their Alignment further specified on paper.[/quote']

 

This depends on how Neutral was viewed. Many games viewed it as "the balance". If Evil is in ascendancy, Neutral pushed the other way. If Good was in ascendancy, Neutral pushed the other way. One of the best discussions was a sidebar in a Ravenloft scenario which discussed the fact that the druids in this land seemed a lot more "Good" than "Neutral", noting that, with Evil in power, Good actions would be the approach taken in an effort to restore the Balance prized by Neutrality.

 

Let's not forget D&D started with three, not nine, alignments (Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic), moved to 5 (LG, CG, N, LE, CE) and eventually 9, with tendencies later dropped in (the outer planes having, as I recall, three strengths of each component on the spectrum, so each axis was 9 demarcations wide and some LG characters were more L, and/or more G, than others). The biggest issue was really getting everyone to agree on an interpretation for the game world, much like Hero arguments are avoided if the player and GM discuss the impact of items on the character sheet, rather than just assuming the other will see it as they do.

[GoldenAge]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

I think all characters should have to take the Birkman Test: http://www.birkman.com/

 

The Birkman Method® personality test accurately measures productive behaviors, stress behaviors, underlying needs, motivations and organizational orientation.

 

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

Yay' date=' D&D bashing that also happens to ignore all the original characters made with even with the Alignment system in place.[/quote']

 

Oh I loved D&D when I played it. It was the original RPG, and I still have fond memories. Certainly you have to give them credit for even having an Alignment system at all. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be improved upon, and personally I think the HERO system is an improvement. If someone were to run a D&D campaign I would be happy to play, but if I am starting my own campaign it is going to be a HERO game.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

But that doesn't mean it couldn't be improved upon

 

A discussion about a system improving is one I welcome (though, replacing one system with another doesn't improve the initial system: it just kind of leaves it there...).

 

The notion that an original character can't be made in conjunction with the Alignment system is one I don't.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

This depends on how Neutral was viewed. Many games viewed it as "the balance". If Evil is in ascendancy' date=' Neutral pushed the other way. If Good was in ascendancy, Neutral pushed the other way. One of the best discussions was a sidebar in a Ravenloft scenario which discussed the fact that the druids in this land seemed a lot more "Good" than "Neutral", noting that, with Evil in power, Good actions would be the approach taken in an effort to restore the Balance prized by Neutrality.[/quote']

 

I've always asserted that a group of beings with the Neutral Alignment would tolerate Good neighbors more than Evil neighbors: at least the Good neighbors will reciprocate that tolerance back (certainly most of the time), whereas the Evil neighbors will try to cheat, steal from, harass, dominate, rape, murder, etc, their Neutral neighbors.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

A discussion about a system improving is one I welcome (though' date=' replacing one system with another doesn't improve the initial system: it just kind of leaves it there...).[/quote']

 

True, but that is somewhat semantic. Is the DVD an improvement over a VCR tape or a replacement? Both really.

 

The notion that an original character can't be made in conjunction with the Alignment system is one I don't.

 

Absolutely. And I have had some D&D characters that were great (and some HERO characters that were sadly flat). However, I think the HERO system of Complications generally does a better job of leading players to define their characters, hence my belief that the HERO Complications are an improvement to the Alignment system; you will just have to forgive my earlier hyperbole.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

Absolutely. And I have had some D&D characters that were great (and some HERO characters that were sadly flat). However' date=' I think the HERO system of Complications generally does a better job of leading players to define their characters, hence my belief that the HERO Complications are an improvement to the Alignment system; you will just have to forgive my earlier hyperbole.[/quote']

 

Eh. I appreciate that Complications, like Alignments, are given an official "slot" on a character sheet to show they exist...but if you were going to roleplay your character a certain way anyhow, they're mostly redundant.