Quote from: Omega;838739Even when it has been more defined people still will re-interpret it to read whatever they want. Lawful Evil for example. Slaver, killer, noble, renegade, viking, lawyer, whatever.

Viking Lawyer!

Quote from: James Gillen;838742Viking Lawyer!

With the right Viking you could actually tick all those boxes.

I can understand that players look down upon a world that is "Renaissance Faire with magick". But on the other hand most people just want to play the game, not get into long digressions about the specifics of the world. How many people really care about the nitty gritty details of whether the fantasy nation has a workable, realistic economy? None that I've met. Or if sailing ships behave realistically? Nope. Or if an army is realistic in how it moves, behaves and is fed? None.

I suppose before a campaign starts the GM and players could have a long talk about the standards of morality and what is considered "Lawful" and "Neutral" etc. A bunch of questions can be asked and examples given:

If a Paladin captures  some bandits, and killing them isn't an option, how about chopping off their hands? Or breaking their legs and leaving them? Or selling them into slavery?

My superior officer orders me to burn the village to the ground, including the crops. Is that Lawful, or Good?

We won the battle and conquered the city! Time to gang-rape all the women and loot every home! Everyone does it so it's okay.

I just rescued these peasants from Orc slavery. I have the right to do anything I want with them, correct?


And so forth. Could be a long night of talking when people just want to play.

Quote from: Bren;838754With the right Viking you could actually tick all those boxes.

Add in merchant then. Vikings were darn good tradesmen when they wanted to be. And we all know merchants are LE anyhoo.

Quote from: Doughdee222;838756How many people really care about the nitty gritty details of whether the fantasy nation has a workable, realistic economy? None that I've met. Or if sailing ships behave realistically? Nope. Or if an army is realistic in how it moves, behaves and is fed? None.

Whether anyone cares depends on who you play with I guess. I've always cared. Some of my players have never cared even back in 1974. Some of my players have always cared, even now in 2015. If you have really never, ever played with anyone who cares your circle of gaming acquaintances is kind of limited.

Quote from: Omega;838761Add in merchant then. Vikings were darn good tradesmen when they wanted to be. And we all know merchants are LE anyhoo.

Sure. But merchant wasn't on the list. And we're never going to get Bingo if you keep making the board bigger so you can fit in more careers.

Quote from: Doughdee222;838756I can understand that players look down upon a world that is "Renaissance Faire with magick". But on the other hand most people just want to play the game, not get into long digressions about the specifics of the world. How many people really care about the nitty gritty details of whether the fantasy nation has a workable, realistic economy? None that I've met. Or if sailing ships behave realistically? Nope. Or if an army is realistic in how it moves, behaves and is fed? None.

I suppose before a campaign starts the GM and players could have a long talk about the standards of morality and what is considered "Lawful" and "Neutral" etc. A bunch of questions can be asked and examples given:

If a Paladin captures  some bandits, and killing them isn't an option, how about chopping off their hands? Or breaking their legs and leaving them? Or selling them into slavery?

My superior officer orders me to burn the village to the ground, including the crops. Is that Lawful, or Good?

We won the battle and conquered the city! Time to gang-rape all the women and loot every home! Everyone does it so it's okay.

I just rescued these peasants from Orc slavery. I have the right to do anything I want with them, correct?


And so forth. Could be a long night of talking when people just want to play.

First, what Bren said:).

Quote from: Bren;838785Whether anyone cares depends on who you play with I guess. I've always cared. Some of my players have never cared even back in 1974. Some of my players have always cared, even now in 2015. If you have really never, ever played with anyone who cares your circle of gaming acquaintances is kind of limited.

And second, if you really, really can't be bothered to ask yourself about the setting's economy, politics and similar stuff, you playing in one of my campaigns is likely to become an exercise in frustration.
Same with morality, except I'm just going to tell you how the setting's morality works. As a GM I've worked it out before the game, and a speech cuts down on the length of the "discussion", since in fact the only questions are asked in order to clarify edge cases.
You can decide where you fit in that scale. Saints and sinners are equally welcome, usually, or at least I'm going to indicate whether this is the case;).
(The elements of the campaign were discussed before that, when we were deciding what to play).

Also, I think mafiosi are the clearest example of real-world LE characters. Except, of course, that given the misinformation about how their world works, this example is more likely to muddy the waters:D! Said misinformation is widely known as "popular knowledge", if you're wondering.

Quote from: Bren;838785Whether anyone cares depends on who you play with I guess. I've always cared. Some of my players have never cared even back in 1974. Some of my players have always cared, even now in 2015. If you have really never, ever played with anyone who cares your circle of gaming acquaintances is kind of limited.

Sure. But merchant wasn't on the list. And we're never going to get Bingo if you keep making the board bigger so you can fit in more careers.

Seems that the more someone knows about a subject, the more they care about how well represented it is in the game. If it's not represented reasonably well, and it is used a lot in the game,  it can affect their enjoyment.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;838835Seems that the more someone knows about a subject, the more they care about how well represented it is in the game. If it's not represented reasonably well, and it is used a lot in the game,  it can affect their enjoyment.

Yes, that too. People who know nothing and have no opinion about a subject probably don't care about it. Personally I just can't think of a subject that I haven't had someone at the table know and care about it. That might have something to do with my mostly gaming with well read nerds and academcs.

Quote from: Bren;838850Yes, that too. People who know nothing and have no opinion about a subject probably don't care about it. Personally I just can't think of a subject that I haven't had someone at the table know and care about it. That might have something to do with my mostly gaming with well read nerds and academcs.

Well, mostly that, but not quite. People that think they know about a subject while actually knowing nothing are doubly less pleasant:).
Yet they're even more likely to care about the subject;).

Quote from: AsenRG;838852Well, mostly that, but not quite. People that think they know about a subject while actually knowing nothing are doubly less pleasant:).
Yet they're even more likely to care about the subject;).

I was sticking to positive examples of caring. But I'd imagine we've all seen those folks, but I don't play for long with the folks who have strong, ignorant opinions that come up at the table.

Quote from: CRKrueger;837825The Empire, Nazi Germany, hell even Rome under some regimes - L/E

I would say that Rome under both Republic (except late) and the Empire was mostly L Neutral, with being G or E depending on specific emperor, Caligula and Commodus being the best known exceptions. Anyone who uses Social Darwinism is definitely Evil.

I can't think of any fictional character who exemplifies LE whom hasn't been discussed already other than President Snow from the Hunger Games or maybe Auntie Entity and Immortal Joe from Mad Max.

Quote from: Bren;838855I was sticking to positive examples of caring. But I'd imagine we've all seen those folks, but I don't play for long with the folks who have strong, ignorant opinions that come up at the table.

Well, that was me being nitpicky on you:). After all, if we mention the positive examples, we can as well mention those that give a bad rep to the whole endeavour.
Besides, a book I was reading today had just reminded me of a particular GM's rulings;).

Quote from: AsenRG;838885Well, that was me being nitpicky on you:).

To quote Mr. Spock, "Sauce for the goose."

Quote from: Bren;838891To quote Mr. Spock, "Sauce for the goose."

And sauce for the gander, I guess?

Quote from: AsenRG;838893And sauce for the gander, I guess?

He's half Vulcan, not perfect. He mixed up the saying.