My position?

It's a group level thing, not a designer level thing. As a GM, I'm with Bill - I think acts make the hero. As a designer, it's my job to give lots of choices to the group. They can make their own heroes if that's what they want. If they don't, they can make something else.

In my thirty years of experience running games, I had one group generally opt for not being heroes, though sometimes individuals would choose a more selfish path. The game system? AD&D.

-clash

I can see how some sort of alignment system might help make a character more obviously heroic in the mind of the player, but saying that they can't play a hero simply because there isn't an alignment system is a bit like complaining that they can't get milk from the corner shop because no one will give them a lift.

I don't think that my players have ever had trouble playing "heroic" if that's the feel of the campaign, and if that's their thing.  To me that's much more of a setting issue than a rules issue, though occasionally I suppose a game could totally botch a heroic emulation of genre.  I can't think of any right now that do.

RPGPundit

Quote from: flyingmice;265587My position?

It's a group level thing, not a designer level thing. As a GM, I'm with Bill - I think acts make the hero. As a designer, it's my job to give lots of choices to the group. They can make their own heroes if that's what they want. If they don't, they can make something else.

In my thirty years of experience running games, I had one group generally opt for not being heroes, though sometimes individuals would choose a more selfish path. The game system? AD&D.

-clash

Agreed Clash. It just really struck me as odd and Saida is a pleasant person to have a disagreement with but I was wondering if her view was somehow the inside track. To me, it is most definitely something that should be handled by the group. That is not to say the design cannot facilitate this but I do not believe it is necessary. The setting would have more to do with it in my opinion and then you get into some pretty dismal settings where heroism is impossible. Improbable, maybe, but impossible would seem grim and, well, boring and to an extent, still very difficult to do from a designer's POV. I mean, when the PCs decide to be heroic, what? An Agent pops up and looks that nonsense down? I am not sure how you could take heroism out of a game.

Well, anyway, I see her point (we have chatted some more) and I believe she is saying it is more a case of facilitating an heroic mindset. LG just puts you in the mood. I can't really argue that as I pull inspiration from all over the place.

Bill

Quote from: Drohem;265511No, an alignment system is not necessary to portray a truly heroic or evil character.  A character's actions and deeds will determine whether the character is heroic or not.

This. Acts and deeds determine heroism not what side of the alignment system you fall or whether the game even has one.

Heck, you could argue that in a game with an alignment system, even those on the "bad guy" side could be heroic in their own way.

Quote from: HinterWelt;265805Agreed Clash. It just really struck me as odd and Saida is a pleasant person to have a disagreement with but I was wondering if her view was somehow the inside track.

I'm going to ask this as tactfully as possible, so bear with me: Could this be a cultural issue?

Quote from: HinterWelt;265495So, more play testers blasting me about my game. I love it.  Essentially, Saida, an Egyptian play tester pointed out that my games do not have "heroic" definitions. That is to say, it does not really have a moral framework. You are not "LG" or "CE" and thus it makes it difficult to:
1. create a true villain for the PC to be heroic against
2. create a defined "heroic" character as in "The Paladin is LG and heroic".

I had it out with her (don't worry we made up) on the grounds that if anything, my games allow for greater heroism because you are in a sea of greys.

I think this is a matter of taste.  There is no universal "true villain" or "true heroism" -- it is what it is.  I don't think there's anything wrong with having an old-school division of good guys and bad guys, and she is right that it takes some support from the game.  

Quote from: HinterWelt;265495So, what is your take? Do you need a framework to make heroism work;i.e. a "job description"? Or is it enough to have the option, the will to do so in the story;i.e. story based heroism?

I don't need a framework, but it can be useful.  All of the PCs in my current Middle Earth game are defined as different levels of "Corruptible" or "Incorruptible".  Everyone is good, but some may fall -- though it is open whether they redeem themselves.

Quote from: JongWK;266051I'm going to ask this as tactfully as possible, so bear with me: Could this be a cultural issue?

Oh, it definitely could. She is pretty international though. She is siting a lack of rules though but that, honestly, could just be Saida. She is a bit of a gear head when it comes to rules and we clash often (in a good way) over rules I propose. It makes her a good play tester. So, unless it is defined morality/heroic rules are a cultural thing, it may just be her being her.

Bill

Heya Bill,
I don't think a system of moral compass is necessary in a game at all That said, even having one doesn't make a game black and white.

Let me illustrate a bit.
OD&D, AD&D (and hell, all the way through to current 4E) you have alignment systems. Now a great many of the games/ campaigns run morally grey. I think moreso in the past when there was more of a pulp fantasy influence than currently where more story-based or high fantasy influences are used.

Think in the terms of the very idea of adventurers. They are largely...functionally mercenaries. Swords for hire. Sure, they slay dragons and save princesses. They also get experience for killing. Basically, the PCs are often hired sword-slinging "troubleshooters" hired, guilted, or cajoled in to solving a problem for someone.

There's no rules saying that the PCs need to be all hirelings of a noble lord, doing their duty for king and country (in which case I think the idea of them being heroic would be diminished a bit because they are simply doing their job).

I figure as long as PC can have any variety of backgrounds (altruistic or not) they can be more or less heroic as they choose...and having an alignment system makes no difference unless the setting makes it so.

For example: if I were running a campaign based on late republican/ early imperial Rome, using say AD&D 1E, I'd say heroics could most certainly be done because IMO, that setting would be based on what I consider an almost Lawful Evil core (basically self-interest, and getting ahead at the expense of others was the game of the day: and truly altruistic types would shine even brighter).

In summary, I believe moral ambiguity or shades of grey are thematic elements of setting, not necessarily the result of having a codified "alignment" mechanic and (N)PCs can freely be either altruistic or morally questionable regardless.

Quote from: HinterWelt;265495Essentially, Saida, an Egyptian play tester pointed out that my games do not have "heroic" definitions. That is to say, it does not really have a moral framework. You are not "LG" or "CE" and thus it makes it difficult to:
1. create a true villain for the PC to be heroic against
2. create a defined "heroic" character as in "The Paladin is LG and heroic".

Has Saida played many rpgs other than D&D? D&D is designed to reinforce certain archtypes, to a greater degree than many other games.

I prefer games without the mechanical pigeon-holes of D&D (though at the same time I don't think I'd ever want to see alignment dropped from D&D altogether - it's part of what I expect from the game). While my games certainly include "villains" and "heroes," I'm not enamored of cartoon characatures of stereotypical EVILNESS or HEROISM.

I'm finding that as a referee I'm more likely to write up antagonists that can be enemies one week and allies another as circumstances change. This makes one-dimensional bad guys a bad fit for me.