Quote from: mcbobbo;761989Just to cherry pick a few points:

... and stuff them with straw for the most part.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761989Bad DMs are bad DMs, with or without alignment.  Table conflict might be more frequent around something as fuzzy as the motivation behind behavior, but it doesn't HAVE to result in antisocial antics.  People choose to do that for non-game reasons,  like being a dick in the first place.

What the fuck does having a disagreement about a nebulous concept have to do with being anti-social.  I don't know what kind of psychos you play with, but I and we at the many tables I've gamed at have managed to work out our differences at the table quite amicably.  I haven't been in a fist fight at a gaming table since, well, ever.  Though there were some thrown dice a couple times over 30 years ago when our various groups average age was about 13.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761989Traveller could be improved by an alignment system.  Doesn't seem like rocket science.  Does it HAVE to have one?  Of course not.  But it would add depth,  so could be a benefit.

I'm eternally grateful that Marc Miller was smart enough not to put some wonky ass alignment system in Traveller when he wrote it.  The saddest thing about this whole conversation is seeing you shackle yourself to cardboard caricatures thinking it adds depth.  Like alignment for the sake of nostalgia, I'm cool with it.  Hell, just plain like it or think it's a fun wonky game mechanic, I'm cool too.  But I call BULLSHIT on it adding depth to any character.

One of the coolest things about Traveller is breathing real life into a three line stat block with the only limits being the setting.  Lack of rules in that area actually sets you free to create more depth (though of course some won't, but alignment isn't going to help them either).

Quote from: mcbobbo;761989I reassert that when something as wide as 'anything you want to put' is too restrictive to put on a sheet, you're not arguing against alignment any more.  You're arguing against being held to your own decisions.

I never said I had a problem noting things on the sheet, I did say I reject the idea you HAVE to.  And I'm very clearly arguing against alignment despite your attempts to suggest otherwise.  Nothing I've said even remotely suggests that people aren't being held accountable to playing their persona.  It does suggest that we don't need hand-holding or being shackled to goofy ideas to  do it.

Quote from: mcbobbo;761998Advising against a player writing information about their character on their sheet

There are a million more words I could write on my sheet that say more about my character as an actual person than one of none broad boxes.

Does writing neutral good say more than writing down violently antislavery? Alignment tells me pretty much nothing about the character.

Quote from: Bill;761970I have observed that the majority of players ignore their alignment and play something close to Neutral Evil. While rationalizing it to be their stated alignment.

This has tended to be a uniquely D&D/dungeon crawl thing in my experience (though not a majority as you suggest).  I seldom see similar behavior in other games.  I honestly think it's part of the D&D fun for some people because the same player won't do it in any other game.  I have often played with this guy who is a pleasant married father of 4 who plays interesting deep characters in other games, but when it comes to D&D he almost always plays an utter sociopath.  One of my best and longest known friends tends to run odd, off-the-wall, character concepts in other games, but come D&D they somehow become less quirky/funny and more serial killer socipathic quirky.  Though these two are still the minority, they have certainly impacted my perceptions.

Quote from: Bill;762024I like how Paladium had 'Selfish' instead of 'Evil'

Unless my memory is bad. Been many years since I played paladium.

Principled (good)
Scrupulous (good)
Unprincipled (selfish)
Anarchist (selfish)
Miscreant (evil)
Diabolic (evil)
Aberrant (evil)

Quote from: Opaopajr;762003If alignment being subject to the GM's judgment (as per everything about any setting) sets you off, lord help you if you play In Nomine. When we can have angels burning bibles and stealing, and demons giving away sex and candy for a song, you'd all be at a loss to know which way is up. Pro tip: ask the GM, it's their setting.

Fun that you should bring up In Nomine, since I've played a bit of it.  Last time I played it I was playing a Malakim of Eli, on loan to Marc (GMs call), ordered to work with, and not slay, members of a shady organization (that seemed to do more good than bad) run by what turned out to be vampires (WoD style ones).  It was a very fine line to walk while playing a Malakim, but was a lot of fun and there were very few interpretation disagreements.  People moving caused the game to end prematurely but it was fun for the half dozen or so sessions we played (out of 12-15 sessions planned).  It was also fun developing a personality for what is stereo-typically a near mindless fanatical killing machine.

I had (and have) no issue being subject to the GMs judgement because it's pretty clear what all those things mean in the game In Nomine.  It's not the GMs judgement I have an issue with, it's inherently inconsistent, vague, and utterly subjective behavior rules.  In Nomine certainly has some wiggle room in lots of places, but there is a significant qualitative difference between "wiggle room" and "wide open to interpretation."

Quote from: mcbobbo;761998Advising against a player writing information about their character on their sheet is like advising a DM against taking notes.

If the character has its own personality there can be no harm in recording it.

Edit - actually I want to bump that analogy up a bit.  Not putting behavior on the sheet is like a DM developing monster stats on the fly.

No one here has advised against writing player information about their character.  There has been some advise against using nine specific phrases.  You keep trying to pad the issue with straw.

And the issue is requiring it, not voluntarily doing it, or using something else.

Quote from: Brander;762052No one here has advised against writing player information about their character.  There has been some advise against using nine specific phrases.  You keep trying to pad the issue with straw.

And the issue is requiring it, not voluntarily doing it, or using something else.

You're not using that term right.  I am not inventing your positions out of whole cloth.

You don't want to be consistent.   So be it.  No badwrongfun here.  Enjoy your game.

Quote from: Omega;762020Palladiums games had one of the better alignment systems. More realistic in a sense.

I am surprised WOTC didnt go back to the Law/Neutral/Chaos setup.

Quote from: Bill;762024I like how Paladium had 'Selfish' instead of 'Evil'

Unless my memory is bad. Been many years since I played paladium.

Quote from: Omega;762045Principled (good)
Scrupulous (good)
Unprincipled (selfish)
Anarchist (selfish)
Miscreant (evil)
Diabolic (evil)
Aberrant (evil)

My problem with Palladium's alignment system is that, while a LOT better than the 9 or 3 in D&D*, it's still a caricature.  Nonetheless, one benefit is that I can see almost any of those working together for the same cause, though obviously disagreeing on the tactics employed.  And this is shown with the Coalition in Rifts, which while obviously intended as an evil institution, still has principled, scrupulous, and unprincipled members.  Unfortunately the biggest problem I have with Palladium is I mostly hate the basic system they build on for their games and I loathe "MegaDamage(T)".

*except as allegiances.

Quote from: mcbobbo;762056You're not using that term right.  I am not inventing your positions out of whole cloth.

You don't want to be consistent.   So be it.  No badwrongfun here.  Enjoy your game.

Regardless of any disagreement with specific phrases, I do agree with your sentiment.  I see no badwrongfun either.  Enjoy your game as well.

Quote from: Omega;762045Principled (good)
Scrupulous (good)
Unprincipled (selfish)
Anarchist (selfish)
Miscreant (evil)
Diabolic (evil)
Aberrant (evil)

My bad. I though selfish replaced evil. oops.

Quote from: Brander;762040This has tended to be a uniquely D&D/dungeon crawl thing in my experience (though not a majority as you suggest).  I seldom see similar behavior in other games.  I honestly think it's part of the D&D fun for some people because the same player won't do it in any other game.  I have often played with this guy who is a pleasant married father of 4 who plays interesting deep characters in other games, but when it comes to D&D he almost always plays an utter sociopath.  One of my best and longest known friends tends to run odd, off-the-wall, character concepts in other games, but come D&D they somehow become less quirky/funny and more serial killer socipathic quirky.  Though these two are still the minority, they have certainly impacted my perceptions.

I don't think I have noticed anyone doing that; people seem to play similar types of characters regardless of the game used. But players are a very diverse bunch.

Nobilis has a kick-ass alignment system. The alignments are Heaven, Hell, Light, Dark, Wild, Serpent or Make Your Own. It's good because no alignment is called good or bad. In fact they are all quite ambigous in that regard. They also have three very short precepts each that make them both approachable and open for interpretation.

You can read them here: http://nobilis.wikia.com/wiki/Affiliations

In fact, Wizards used a very similar setups for the precepts of the gods in the 4e PHB.

Quote from: Bill;761598Dung Beetle Paladin is crafting a Holy Ball of Dung to fight evil.

That's one weird Reincarnation table you're rolling on, bub...

Quote from: Brander;762047Fun that you should bring up In Nomine, since I've played a bit of it.  Last time I played it I was playing a Malakim of Eli, on loan to Marc (GMs call), ordered to work with, and not slay, members of a shady organization (that seemed to do more good than bad) run by what turned out to be vampires (WoD style ones).  It was a very fine line to walk while playing a Malakim, but was a lot of fun and there were very few interpretation disagreements.  People moving caused the game to end prematurely but it was fun for the half dozen or so sessions we played (out of 12-15 sessions planned).  It was also fun developing a personality for what is stereo-typically a near mindless fanatical killing machine.

I had (and have) no issue being subject to the GMs judgement because it's pretty clear what all those things mean in the game In Nomine.  It's not the GMs judgement I have an issue with, it's inherently inconsistent, vague, and utterly subjective behavior rules.  In Nomine certainly has some wiggle room in lots of places, but there is a significant qualitative difference between "wiggle room" and "wide open to interpretation."

Malakim have personalities. Their resonance is to virtue, violence is just how they prefer to register their disapproval. Malakim of Eli are some of the freest of their choir, but their affiliation with their absent superior brings them much social grief. But outside of breaking your core oaths you had a rather lax "alignment" upon your PC, if you don't mind my saying.

IN's moral boundaries are only as clear as the explicit directives given, and built in PC restrictions, are. (GMs are welcome to toy with the metaphysical landscape before play. You can even play the game in reverse! Bad being good, and good being bad.) Again, GM interpretation of setting and interpretation of breach of Superior & choir/band restriction is roughly like alignment behind the screen.

The advantage is since IN deals with this material routinely, it has to be talked about openly earlier. D&D can be started with a lot of assumptions without really doing the Table Talk. That common lack of communication really leaves open where the line resides, and where I think the problem is.

Quote from: Opaopajr;762170Malakim have personalities. Their resonance is to virtue, violence is just how they prefer to register their disapproval. Malakim of Eli are some of the freest of their choir, but their affiliation with their absent superior brings them much social grief. But outside of breaking your core oaths you had a rather lax "alignment" upon your PC, if you don't mind my saying.

Malakim do indeed have personalities, some prefer guns, others knives, then there are the ones who prefer bombs or grenades, and let us not forget those who like to feel the kill barehanded...  But seriously, no argument with anything you are saying.

Eli was pretty much the only option if I wanted to play a Malakim, per the GM.  I think he was over stereotyping to say that, but I had no actual complaints.  I wanted to try to bring character to that stereotype.  The fine line I meant more when he found out he was working with/for vampires.  Them being WoD types made it fuzzy as to whether they were redeemable (at least for that game).

Quote from: Opaopajr;762170IN's moral boundaries are only as clear as the explicit directives given, and built in PC restrictions, are. (GMs are welcome to toy with the metaphysical landscape before play. You can even play the game in reverse! Bad being good, and good being bad.) Again, GM interpretation of setting and interpretation of breach of Superior & choir/band restriction is roughly like alignment behind the screen.

Then I'll say I found it a lot clearer as written.  And it's baked into the setting even more than most D&D to me (except perhaps Planescape, not sure on that) and it still feels a lot more like an allegiance than an actual guide to behavior.  A part of being a servitor of Eli and a Malakim to me was that it was his job to prune and cull the flock to allow it to flourish as well as to cut out the diseased parts in (forgive me) creative ways that didn't dull or darken the minds of the flock.  And to be blunt (and intentionally somewhat stereotypical), to kill in as new and creative ways as possible.

You would probably have some quibbles with that GMs interpretation of things, but I felt that I had some freedom in how the character behaved as long as the end result was in tune with Eli (and Marc).  DnD alignment to me has usually appeared (in play and writing) to be more concerned with behavior than results.

Quote from: Opaopajr;762170The advantage is since IN deals with this material routinely, it has to be talked about openly earlier. D&D can be started with a lot of assumptions without really doing the Table Talk. That common lack of communication really leaves open where the line resides, and where I think the problem is.

I think you are correct here.  Some of what seems implicit in DnD is explicit to In Nomine.  Like you seem to suggest, when people's implicit views don't match you may not find out until the game is well underway.