Google thinks its a 4e thing and there seems to be some controversy around it. Can someone brief me on the new alignment design from 4e? Do we know how much of it carried into 5e?
I first noticed "unaligned" today on the Ocre Jelly teaser page for the Starter Set. That used to mean 'N', but maybe it's CN now?
It feels weird to be surprised by D&D...
Quote from: mcbobbo;761584Google thinks its a 4e thing and there seems to be some controversy around it. Can someone brief me on the new alignment design from 4e? Do we know how much of it carried into 5e?
I first noticed "unaligned" today on the Ocre Jelly teaser page for the Starter Set. That used to mean 'N', but maybe it's CN now?
It feels weird to be surprised by D&D...
In the playtest section on alignment it states that most creatures that lack the capacity for rational thought do not have an alignment. Example was a shark.
In 4e it was basically the equivalent to True Neutral, but less in a "The Balance must be preserved!" way and more in the "I really could give a fuck" way. In 5e I think it's been reserved to mean True Neutral in the "this thing does not have the intellectual capacity to represent a moral being sufficient to adhere to an alignment."
I liken it to unenlightened self-interest.
Essentially it means Neutral.
Of course, ask 10 people what that means and you will get ten different answers.
Quote from: Omega;761585In the playtest section on alignment it states that most creatures that lack the capacity for rational thought do not have an alignment. Example was a shark.
Yeah. And the bestiray pretty much backs that up. All creatures of animal intelligence were Unaligned. It seems to mean you don't have the ability to make decisions based on morality.
Quote from: jadrax;761593It seems to mean you don't have the ability to make decisions based on morality.
I think this is a pretty fair distinction. As much as I want to tie everything up in the neat little box of the alignments, a dung beetle with Intelligence 2 has very little to say on moral philosophy.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: Panjumanju;761595I think this is a pretty fair distinction. As much as I want to tie everything up in the neat little box of the alignments, a dung beetle with Intelligence 2 has very little to say on moral philosophy.
//Panjumanju
Dung Beetle Paladin is crafting a Holy Ball of Dung to fight evil.
My limited Googling seemed to indicate it was an option for PCs? Seems like that's not tye the case?
Quote from: Bill;761592Essentially it means Neutral.
Of course, ask 10 people what that means and you will get ten different answers.
More like 25 different mutually conflicting answers.
However it was intended, alignment is my least favorite thing about D&D because no two people ever agree on it's interpretation.
Quote from: mcbobbo;761604My limited Googling seemed to indicate it was an option for PCs? Seems like that's not tye the case?
I think it was an option in 4e. Pretty sure the two characters I made were both unaligned. Unless I just had a nice GM for that game who let me choose it rather than argue with me about alignment. I recall it just meaning "doesn't strongly lean towards good or evil, law or chaos." Though in my case I took it as "doesn't adhere to any ridiculous caricature of behavior and thought."
Quote from: Brander;761607Though in my case I took it as "doesn't adhere to any ridiculous caricature of behavior and thought."
That's the anti-alignment way to put it. The pro-alignment way to say the same thing might be "behaves in whatever way amuses me as the player with or without any consistent psychological construct behind the behavior".
Alignments can serve as a personality for the character that's different from the player's. So you can do things that make sense for your character but you might never do yourself.
"Unaligned" as a game concept cops out of that, unless it really is limited to psychopathic creatures of limited intelligence.
Quote from: mcbobbo;761609That's the anti-alignment way to put it. The pro-alignment way to say the same thing might be "behaves in whatever way amuses me as the player with or without any consistent psychological construct behind the behavior".
Alignments can serve as a personality for the character that's different from the player's. So you can do things that make sense for your character but you might never do yourself.
"Unaligned" as a game concept cops out of that, unless it really is limited to psychopathic creatures of limited intelligence.
From the playtest it read more like unaligned was for things that did what they did without any malice or kindness. Nature. Its applied to pretty much only animal types in the playtest. Horse, cocatrice, Basilisc, Carrion Crawler, slime, Cube. Also Stone Golem, Hydra.
Interesting that Zombies and Skeletons are evil aligned. Id have classed them as neutral or unaligned as they are usually the equivalent of automatons without thought. With the occasional notable exceptions.
Think of it as alignment: Animal.
Quote from: Omega;761645Interesting that Zombies and Skeletons are evil aligned. Id have classed them as neutral or unaligned as they are usually the equivalent of automatons without thought. With the occasional notable exceptions.
Historically, things created or animated by negative energy get the "evil" tag.
Quote from: Bill;761598Dung Beetle Paladin is crafting a Holy Ball of Dung to fight evil.
Pepper Mouseguard in your Dungeons & Dragons. Add Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for other strangeness.
//Panjumanju
I love alignment. It is one of the bridges between a wargame (red vs blue) and role playing (morality is presumed).
Unaligned should be different than Neutral. They taste different.
Quote from: mcbobbo;761609That's the anti-alignment way to put it. The pro-alignment way to say the same thing might be "behaves in whatever way amuses me as the player with or without any consistent psychological construct behind the behavior".
Alignments can serve as a personality for the character that's different from the player's. So you can do things that make sense for your character but you might never do yourself.
"Unaligned" as a game concept cops out of that, unless it really is limited to psychopathic creatures of limited intelligence.
This is all suggesting you need alignment to play someone other than yourself as the character. I'm not sure you meant this, but I can assure you it's untrue. Though my biggest complaint isn't that it's a caricature, it's that the same alignment seems to be a completely different caricature to each player and GM.
Quote from: robiswrong;761646Historically, things created or animated by negative energy get the "evil" tag.
While not disagreeing with you, I think if that is so they should just rename positive and negative energy to good and evil energy if they are going to run things that way.
That said, while I don't like alignment, I consider skeletons and zombies as automata with no personality of their own and thus they would certainly fall under the proposed "unaligned."
Quote from: Brander;761654While not disagreeing with you, I think if that is so they should just rename positive and negative energy to good and evil energy if they are going to run things that way.
That said, while I don't like alignment, I consider skeletons and zombies as automata with no personality of their own and thus they would certainly fall under the proposed "unaligned."
In D&D they operate without direct control, so there must be some basic programming. Without actual orders they default to the energy that created them, so with a baseline of "destroy life", evil is certainly an option if you assume some form of intelligence from the animating force.
More likely they are "evil" as in "tag that allows evil-destroying stuff to work against them". :)
Quote from: Brander;761607I think it was an option in 4e. Pretty sure the two characters I made were both unaligned. Unless I just had a nice GM for that game who let me choose it rather than argue with me about alignment. I recall it just meaning "doesn't strongly lean towards good or evil, law or chaos." Though in my case I took it as "doesn't adhere to any ridiculous caricature of behavior and thought."
I certainly would allow PCs to choose to be unaligned in a 5e game, and furthermore, I'd make most NPCs be unaligned as well. A good amount of the ridiculousness of the alignment system is dissipated if you make adherence to them a relatively rare thing, I think, assuming you want any axis of absolute morality in your game world.
Quote from: Brander;761654That said, while I don't like alignment, I consider skeletons and zombies as automata with no personality of their own and thus they would certainly fall under the proposed "unaligned."
In the last play test, Zombies are as smart as an Ogre (Int 5) and Skeletons are even smarter (Int 6).
Although Giant Apes and Carnivorous Giant Apes are also 5 and 6 respectively and are both Unaligned, so make of that what you will.
Quote from: Omega;761645Interesting that Zombies and Skeletons are evil aligned. Id have classed them as neutral or unaligned as they are usually the equivalent of automatons without thought. With the occasional notable exceptions.
Think of it as alignment: Animal.
I think the idea there is that zombies and skeletons aren't neutral tools - they are animated by foul magics and the evil will of the necromancer that raised them. They're not evil as a result of philosophical agreement so much as cosmological nature.
Quote from: jadrax;761661In the last play test, Zombies are as smart as an Ogre (Int 5) and Skeletons are even smarter (Int 6).
Although Giant Apes and Carnivorous Giant Apes are also 5 and 6 respectively and are both Unaligned, so make of that what you will.
OK, that's not the image of fantasy zombies and skeletons I normally have, though it's not an archetype breaker to me either. Most Zombie fiction has zombies with some intellect (though a LOT of zombies are more like ghouls to me too). Why skeletons are smarter I'm curious. I guess they could now be considered to be inhabited by lesser evil spirits or something.
Quote from: Imp;761660I certainly would allow PCs to choose to be unaligned in a 5e game, and furthermore, I'd make most NPCs be unaligned as well. A good amount of the ridiculousness of the alignment system is dissipated if you make adherence to them a relatively rare thing, I think, assuming you want any axis of absolute morality in your game world.
Hmm.
I hate D&D alignment with the fury of a thousand suns, but I think I could tolerate this presentation of them.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;761669Hmm.
I hate D&D alignment with the fury of a thousand suns, but I think I could tolerate this presentation of them.
Alignment is not so bad if you use it as a handy guide for npc's / monsters.
For pc's, I view alignment as how the universe views you based on what you actually do, and your intent.
That way, I never have issues with alignment.
The worst way to use alignment is as a hammer to beat a player with.
I think the 'unaligned' was primarily developed for the purpose of the collectible miniature's game.
Each faction was based on alignment (if I understand correctly). If you were playing CG, you might have elves and unicorns and such, but you wouldn't have a barghest.
An 'unaligned' creature wasn't associated with any faction, so they could be added to your army without penalty.
Maybe.
Quote from: Warthur;761662I think the idea there is that zombies and skeletons aren't neutral tools - they are animated by foul magics and the evil will of the necromancer that raised them. They're not evil as a result of philosophical agreement so much as cosmological nature.
Oh I don't know. They're patently homicidal and aren't interested in self preservation. That's psychotic if not evil.
Quote from: Brander;761653This is all suggesting you need alignment to play someone other than yourself as the character. I'm not sure you meant this, but I can assure you it's untrue. Though my biggest complaint isn't that it's a caricature, it's that the same alignment seems to be a completely different caricature to each player and GM.
In my view, what you do need is a person to play. This involves making choices that you're not always happy about later on, like gender, race, class, etc. All of this makes up a persona and typically creates an emotional attachment to the character. In D&D alignment is the behavioral angle, and represents a choice made about who that person is in this world. How they interact with others, and why.
As for the Gygaxian axis, one can argue against that model being accurate I would agree with much of it. As for the 'freedom' to not have to decide when you make the character, coupled with the freedom to change who that person fundamentally is on a whim, that's just, honestly, cheating yourself.
So use whatever system you want from Gygax to Palladium to modern psychological thought, but do please put something behavioral down on the sheet.
To be clear, I am not saying it can't be changed. Everything on the sheet can be changed somehow. Everything. But I see alignment shifts like quitting smoking. It typically takes effort and doesn't happen overnight.
Quote from: mcbobbo;761746...
So use whatever system you want from Gygax to Palladium to modern psychological thought, but do please put something behavioral down on the sheet.
...
Or, just make a character...
I've never met a person in the flesh that had anything resembling the traits that would give them any of the alignments of D&D (except perhaps unaligned or neutral (not NEUTRAL)). Why should I create some shallow stereotype instead of someone with actual depth to their personality. Real people are immensely more complex and have seemingly contradictory bits to them that can be just played so much easier than trying to tie them to some cliched game rule.
Quote from: Brander;761777Or, just make a character...
I've never met a person in the flesh that had anything resembling the traits that would give them any of the alignments of D&D (except perhaps unaligned or neutral (not NEUTRAL)). Why should I create some shallow stereotype instead of someone with actual depth to their personality. Real people are immensely more complex and have seemingly contradictory bits to them that can be just played so much easier than trying to tie them to some cliched game rule.
You have never met someone who processed information in a fundamentally different way than you do and came to different conclusions?
Ever hear the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative'? Or hear about Ghandi or Mother Theresa? What about Jeffrey Dalmer or Ted Bundy, just "unaligned"?
I have a hard time believing a person could be classified as truly neutral, unless they were in a casket.
Quote from: mcbobbo;761786You have never met someone who processed information in a fundamentally different way than you do and came to different conclusions?
Ever hear the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative'? Or hear about Ghandi or Mother Theresa? What about Jeffrey Dalmer or Ted Bundy, just "unaligned"?
Of course I've met people different than me. That's my point. They aren't anything like any of the alignments. They are a hell of a lot more complex than that by at least an order of magnitude and you want to pigeonhole them in tiny little boxes of behavior. You seem to think no one is capable of playing a complex character without game rules to that effect. Decades of Traveller and it's minimalist character details should show that to be wrong.
As for the people you mention:
What alignment is Ghandi? In addition to his more well known stuff he has also said:
"If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British."
"Hitler is not a bad man."
"I do believe that where there is a choice between cowardice and non-violence I would advise violence."
"We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race."
http://www.gandhism.net/index.php
(I don't agree with that site, but the quotes appear legit)
The Ghandi we all know and love was a mix of good and bad things, not GOOD as personified in D&D.
Mother Teresa?
"Often I wonder what does really God get from me in this state — no faith, no love — not even in feelings. The other day I can't tell you how bad I felt. — There was a moment when I nearly refused to accept. — Deliberately I took the Rosary and very slowly and without even meditating or thinking – I said it slowly and calmly. The moment passed — but the darkness is so dark, and the pain is so painful. – But I accept whatever He gives and I give whatever He takes. People say they are drawn closer to God — seeing my strong faith. – is this not deceiving people? Every time I have wanted to tell the truth – "that I have no faith" – the words just do not come – my mouth remains closed. – And yet I still keep on smiling at God and all."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa
Considered a saint by many and actually beautified by the Catholic Church, she lost her faith but kept right on acting like she hadn't. I'm still in awe of her service, but was she GOOD in D&D terms despite her deception?
Jeffrey Dalmer? Ted Bundy?
OK, what alignment here? If they are incapable of actual control they could be considered animalistic and thus neutral. In a fantasy world both may have been possessed by an evil spirit. Does that make them or the spirit evil? Some of them have been otherwise upstanding citizens who worked with charities and the youth (John Wayne Gacy) until their horrific activities were brought to light. Either way serial killers are best described by a description of "serial killer" than anything in D&D. And even if we agree they were evil (I do think they count as evil in our world, just perhaps not by DnD alignment logic), which evil?
What about the actual Vlad Tepes, a Romanian hero. Who just happened to be utterly brutal to the enemies of his people. Was he evil because he was brutal to his enemies or was he neutral because he was willing to do evil things for a "good" cause (from his peoples standpoint) or was he good because he was willing to kill and die for his people. I think it's a LOT more complicated than that.
There is certainly evil in the world, and evil people, but none of them are so simple as to be describable by any of the DnD evil alignments.
Quote from: Endless Flight;761791I have a hard time believing a person could be classified as truly neutral, unless they were in a casket.
Neutral (neither strongly for nor against) =/= neutral (unaligned) =/= NEUTRAL (balance) and that's part of the problem. It's been expanded upon over time to mean multiple different things in D&D.
Quote from: Brander;761806Of course I've met people different than me. That's my point. They aren't anything like any of the alignments. They are a hell of a lot more complex than that by at least an order of magnitude and you want to pigeonhole them in tiny little boxes of behavior. You seem to think no one is capable of playing a complex character without game rules to that effect. Decades of Traveller and it's minimalist character details should show that to be wrong.
As for the people you mention:
What alignment is Ghandi? In addition to his more well known stuff he has also said:
"If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British."
"Hitler is not a bad man."
"I do believe that where there is a choice between cowardice and non-violence I would advise violence."
"We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race."
http://www.gandhism.net/index.php
(I don't agree with that site, but the quotes appear legit)
The Ghandi we all know and love was a mix of good and bad things, not GOOD as personified in D&D.
Mother Teresa?
"Often I wonder what does really God get from me in this state — no faith, no love — not even in feelings. The other day I can't tell you how bad I felt. — There was a moment when I nearly refused to accept. — Deliberately I took the Rosary and very slowly and without even meditating or thinking – I said it slowly and calmly. The moment passed — but the darkness is so dark, and the pain is so painful. – But I accept whatever He gives and I give whatever He takes. People say they are drawn closer to God — seeing my strong faith. – is this not deceiving people? Every time I have wanted to tell the truth – "that I have no faith" – the words just do not come – my mouth remains closed. – And yet I still keep on smiling at God and all."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa
Considered a saint by many and actually beautified by the Catholic Church, she lost her faith but kept right on acting like she hadn't. I'm still in awe of her service, but was she GOOD in D&D terms despite her deception?
Jeffrey Dalmer? Ted Bundy?
OK, what alignment here? If they are incapable of actual control they could be considered animalistic and thus neutral. In a fantasy world both may have been possessed by an evil spirit. Does that make them or the spirit evil? Some of them have been otherwise upstanding citizens who worked with charities and the youth (John Wayne Gacy) until their horrific activities were brought to light. Either way serial killers are best described by a description of "serial killer" than anything in D&D. And even if we agree they were evil (I do think they count as evil in our world, just perhaps not by DnD alignment logic), which evil?
What about the actual Vlad Tepes, a Romanian hero. Who just happened to be utterly brutal to the enemies of his people. Was he evil because he was brutal to his enemies or was he neutral because he was willing to do evil things for a "good" cause (from his peoples standpoint) or was he good because he was willing to kill and die for his people. I think it's a LOT more complicated than that.
There is certainly evil in the world, and evil people, but none of them are so simple as to be describable by any of the DnD evil alignments.
This is why alignment works betetr as a result of ones actions instead on a label beforehand.
However, I agree 100 percent that most people are complicated when it comes to alignment.
The thing with alignment in D&D that makes it hard to compare with alignment of historical figures is that in D&D, the gods not only exist, people know they exist because they constantly affect the world.
Alignment isn't just an abstract thing, it's very important way of designating whose side you are on in a struggle of superpowers.
The D&D universe is sort of like the Cold War was. Only with more sides.
Quote from: Endless Flight;761791I have a hard time believing a person could be classified as truly neutral, unless they were in a casket.
*insert that Siembieda rant against true neutrals*
Quote from: Endless Flight;761791I have a hard time believing a person could be classified as truly neutral, unless they were in a casket.
What would you call that poor unfortunate person? a Casket case?
In my 4e games, I changed alignments to Law, Chaos, Good, Evil and Unaligned. The first four were sides in their battles, Law vs. Chaos, Good vs. Evil and Unaligned weren't in that fight, but may have their own battles. AKA, there were Unaligned Elemental / Nature gods who were all about their element, and their opposing sides were opposing elements or in the case of Nature, the enemy was the Unnatural.
As for 5e, I can't see going back to the 9 alignments of 1e. They never worked for me and in OD&D, I stick to Law, Neutral and Chaos, which for me, is very playable as I get to have both Lawful and Chaotic PCs in the same group without auto-PvP.
Quote from: Brander;761806Of course I've met people different than me. That's my point. They aren't anything like any of the alignments. They are a hell of a lot more complex than that by at least an order of magnitude and you want to pigeonhole them in tiny little boxes of behavior.
You're projecting. I already said you can make the box as big as you want, using whatever sources you want, and I'd be perfectly happy. Someone else may have said the boxes need to be tiny, but it wasn't me. Sorry dude.
Quote from: Brander;761806You seem to think no one is capable of playing a complex character without game rules to that effect. Decades of Traveller and it's minimalist character details should show that to be wrong.
I 'seem to think' that any character is better with a fully fleshed out personality.
You can't do that without making some decisions about the psychological character.
It's not rocket science.
Quote from: Brander;761806What alignment is Ghandi?
Lawful Neutral, from your examples.
Quote from: Brander;761806Mother Teresa?
Still good, yep. Plus in D&D there's atonement, so no harm no foul.
Quote from: Brander;761806Jeffrey Dalmer? Ted Bundy?
Chaotic Evil. This isn't even a challenge and I'm staying inside the Gygaxian boxes. Like I said, you can pick any box you want. 'Just like Ghandi' could be an 'alignment' if you so desired.
Quote from: Brander;761806What about the actual Vlad Tepes, a Romanian hero.
Probably evil, in D&D, but again so long as the player picks one and tries to use it to depict a realistic person different from themselves, it doesn't really matter.
Also this IS D&D we're talking about. Remember hit points? It isn't supposed to be a precise model of the actual real world. If the alignments are a bit wonkey, that's part of the charm, IMO.
Quote from: Brander;761806There is certainly evil in the world, and evil people, but none of them are so simple as to be describable by any of the DnD evil alignments.
Not only are they certainly so easily describable, but the whole exercise is convincing me you haven't actually read them. There's no 'MUWAHAHAH' requirement in the evil parts of the spectrum. I'll not bog this down with debates of what is and is not evil per minutia. It's not necessary, for reasons I've already laid out.
Quote from: mcbobbo;761836Also this IS D&D we're talking about. Remember hit points? It isn't supposed to be a precise model of the actual real world. If the alignments are a bit wonkey, that's part of the charm, IMO.
I have never walked out of a game because of a disagreement about the nature of hit points. That typically falls into the "huh, that's weird," we have a laugh, and get back to it.
I have left a game because of alignment disagreements. The DM was being an asshole about it, and I said, "enough is enough, I'm done here."
That is why alignment is way touchier than hit points.
Quote from: Brander;761806There is certainly evil in the world, and evil people, but none of them are so simple as to be describable by any of the DnD evil alignments.
In every possible action, no, but as an overall descriptor it is pretty easy.
Stalin and Hitler were Lawful Evil, they used a system of laws to commit atrocities.
Bin Ladin was Chaotic Evil, he used chaos and destruction to commit atrocities.
The main issue is not that alignments can't be useful, it's that the alignments haven't been defined in a way to be useful. I wrote an article for The Escapist a while ago in which I showed how traditional moral theory could be translated into alignments. I'll use it to offer my answers below.
Article is here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/checkfortraps/8386-All-About-Alignment
Quote from: Brander;761806What alignment is Ghandi? The Ghandi we all know and love was a mix of good and bad things, not GOOD as personified in D&D.
Ghandi's morality was teleological (see http://philosophy.columbia.edu/files/philosophy/content/BilgramiGandhi.pdf) rooted on a belief that the goal of human life was the search for truth, with virtues rooted in integrity and non-judgment (as no one could be sure they had absolute truth). This places him, like Aristotelians, squarely in the Neutral component of Law v. Chaos (again, per my article above).
On the Good-Evil axis, he also seems to be Neutral, because his morality is fundamentally egoistic (the goal of human life is the human's search for truth, not helping others, say). His unwillingness to judge Hitler or the Apartheid South Africans as evil, and his tolerance for the Hindu caste system, suggests he did not universalize to an equal value of human life. But deeper study is probably warranted before casting final judgment.
QuoteMother Teresa? Considered a saint by many and actually beautified by the Catholic Church, she lost her faith but kept right on acting like she hadn't. I'm still in awe of her service, but was she GOOD in D&D terms despite her deception?
Mother Teresa was Lawful Good. The Catholic faith is deontological (rules-following) and therefore Lawful. It teaches the universal value and equality of human life and the stewardship of living things and is therefore Good (again, per my article above). The fact that she has doubts is irrelevant; Jesus - the exemplar of Lawful Good Catholicism did too.
QuoteJeffrey Dalmer? Ted Bundy? OK, what alignment here?
Unquestionably chaotic evil. In both cases they were diagnosed with antisocial or borderline personality disorder, which translates to a circle of morality of one (themselves - total lack of empathy) and to impulsive (unprincipled) behavior.
QuoteWhat about the actual Vlad Tepes, a Romanian hero. Who just happened to be utterly brutal to the enemies of his people. Was he evil because he was brutal to his enemies or was he neutral because he was willing to do evil things for a "good" cause (from his peoples standpoint) or was he good because he was willing to kill and die for his people. I think it's a LOT more complicated than that.
He was unquestionably Lawful - a faithful Orthodox Christian and scrupulous about upholding the law: "And he hated evil in his country so much that, if anyone committed some harm, theft or robbery or a lye or an injustice, none of those remained alive. Even if he was a great boyar or a priest or a monk or an ordinary man, or even if he had a great fortune, he couldn't pay himself from death." A better description of Lawful could scarcely be written.
His alignment on the Good, Neutral, or Evil axis is hard to determine because of factual questions as to what he did. It depends which sources you believe. The Hungarian sources of his rival Matthias Corvinus suggest an Evil alignment, with Vlad engaging in wanton slaughter for the sadistic pleasure of it. The Russian sources paint him as harsh but just, brutal by necessity. During his own life time the Pope celebrated his victories. So that would suggest Good.
I agree that people are definitely more complicated than any alignment system presented in D&D and it's progeny. I take issue with some of the examples given.
A moment of doubt does not define the personality of a person of faith it just proves them to be a sentient being in Mother Theresa's case. I think arguing over whether Ted Bundy was evil requires an exercise in moral equivalency that even the most bed wetting liberal would be loathe to undertake.
But this is a game played probably mostly by casual gamers that like little boxes. 5th edition seems ready to indulge the casual gamer with backgrounds, traits, and flaws to go in little boxes on the character sheet. Maybe it is time to ditch the alignment system for better things to go in those boxes.
Honestly most of our group hasn't cared by alignment for a long while.
I understand "unaligned" to mean no discernable moral position or a natural animal. But the players tend to treat every NPC or creature they meet as such until said creature tries to kill or eat the part. Then it doesn't really matter what it's motivation is, it just needs to die.
Mother Teresa was Lawful Neutral, at best, since her organization is most accurately described as a cult, who allowed people to die in agony, while she spent all the money on missionary work.
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
To the others in this thread who have commented on my characterizations of the (in)famous figures: I was specifically addressing McBobo's stacked deck of examples (and adding a new one to the options). I think applying the D&D style alignment system to real people is even worse than trying to use it in play, but I was willing to play along in the hope he wasn't being disingenuous. To those who have made additional analysis, thanks, it's been interesting reading.
I'll also add that I don't have a problem with noting an allegience to law or chaos or even good or evil since such things do exist in many settings, but who they are fighting for is and can be quite different from who they are and how they do it. It's the tie-in with behavior that bugs me.
Quote from: mcbobbo;761836You're projecting. I already said you can make the box as big as you want, using whatever sources you want, and I'd be perfectly happy. Someone else may have said the boxes need to be tiny, but it wasn't me. Sorry dude.
Sorry, your the one who got all stupid by suggesting I had somehow never met anyone different than myself when I was quite specifically criticizing the D&D style alignment system*. It's not projecting to accept what you wrote at face value. Say stupid shit, someone might just call you on it.
And in case you really are not understanding it the last time I said it: I'm criticizing the D&D style alignment system. I'm also criticizing the idea that something needs to be written down on the character sheet. Traveller has gotten along fine for decades without it, I'm pretty sure D&D could too (and has in most of my groups). If you didn't or don't have a problem with this, then why the fuck did you go all "never met anyone with a differing opinion" stupid on it?
Quote from: mcbobbo;761836I 'seem to think' that any character is better with a fully fleshed out personality.
You can't do that without making some decisions about the psychological character.
It's not rocket science.
And at what point have I disagreed with this? It's just that I and the literally hundreds of other people I have gamed with in other systems can almost all flesh out a character without having to resort to a shitty tool using measurements no one agrees on.
You also quite firmly suggest that without something written down people can't be trusted to stay in character. I have decades of experience directly counter to this since I tossed out alignment almost from day one. Now who's the one projecting?
Quote from: mcbobbo;761836...
Also this IS D&D we're talking about. Remember hit points? It isn't supposed to be a precise model of the actual real world. If the alignments are a bit wonkey, that's part of the charm, IMO.
As we've seen here, it's a shitty model that gives shitty results because no two people agree on the interpretation. And like at least one other poster has noted, it's way more likely to cause an at-the-table problem than hit points. Any class with an alignment requirement can become a problem if player and GM disagree on the interpretations. A good GM and player will work this out, but why waste the time.
Quote from: mcbobbo;761836Not only are they certainly so easily describable, but the whole exercise is convincing me you haven't actually read them. There's no 'MUWAHAHAH' requirement in the evil parts of the spectrum. I'll not bog this down with debates of what is and is not evil per minutia. It's not necessary, for reasons I've already laid out.
And yet as you see everyone who has replied has had a DIFFERENT opinion on what alignment each of these people would be (and I was kind enough to actually address your stacked deck). I also note that you conveniently ignore that I addressed the serial killers from a fantasy standpoint while noting that in reality I think they are evil. That's being disingenous.
* The Palladium alignment system has problems too (though it is nonetheless an improvement), but since this is about D&D, I'll perhaps address it later.
Quote from: mcbobbo;761584Google thinks its a 4e thing and there seems to be some controversy around it. Can someone brief me on the new alignment design from 4e? Do we know how much of it carried into 5e?
I first noticed "unaligned" today on the Ocre Jelly teaser page for the Starter Set. That used to mean 'N', but maybe it's CN now?
It feels weird to be surprised by D&D...
Its like, Chaotic Neutral Lite.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;761669Hmm.
I hate D&D alignment with the fury of a thousand suns, but I think I could tolerate this presentation of them.
I liked and adopted to other settings the original DragonLance hardbacks shifting Alignment system where the character started out as whatever alignment the PC wanted or class required. But thereafter your characters actions could and often did slide you this way and that.
That sort of dynamic alignment is more realistic. People, even in real life can display a general outlook and over time that may shift, sometimes dramatically.
Quote from: Endless Flight;761791I have a hard time believing a person could be classified as truly neutral, unless they were in a casket.
There is alot of definitions of neutral.
Some seem to read it as:
An excuse to be Chaotic Chaotic in the name of Balance: But without the moral repercussions. They might help an old lady across the street. Then club her to death. They might burn down an orphanage to balance out saving the whales... etc ad chaotium.
Or
Passive Observer: Kinda just... there... watching... you...
Or
Reacting according to the situation: If someone is mean you fight them, if someone is nice you help them. Alot of Amish people I knew had that sort of vibe.
Quote from: Omega;761936I liked and adopted to other settings the original DragonLance hardbacks shifting Alignment system where the character started out as whatever alignment the PC wanted or class required. But thereafter your characters actions could and often did slide you this way and that.
That sort of dynamic alignment is more realistic. People, even in real life can display a general outlook and over time that may shift, sometimes dramatically.
If you're going to have an alignment system, don't half-ass it with a two-axis system that winds up encouraging people to say, "Hey, that guy has an 'e' in his alignment? Sounds like he needs a killin'." Or leads GMs to just dick over players because they think your PC is evil and force that alignment change on you without any real evidence that you've actually done anything "evil," and now all his NPCs treat you like shit as though your alignment is stamped on your forehead (I am still a bit bitter about that)
I have found that using the "color pie" from M:tG (http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mc3) as a starting point for an alignment system works out pretty well. You can get a much more subjective moral framework out of it, which makes significantly more sense to me.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;761938If you're going to have an alignment system, don't half-ass it with a two-axis system that winds up encouraging people to say, "Hey, that guy has an 'e' in his alignment? Sounds like he needs a killin'." Or leads GMs to just dick over players because they think your PC is evil and force that alignment change on you without any real evidence that you've actually done anything "evil," and now all his NPCs treat you like shit as though your alignment is stamped on your forehead (I am still a bit bitter about that)
I have found that using the "color pie" from M:tG (http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mc3) as a starting point for an alignment system works out pretty well. You can get a much more subjective moral framework out of it, which makes significantly more sense to me.
It was a sliding scale with neutral in the middle with Evil at one end and Good at the other I believe.
I generally do not enforce alignment unless someone is playing a paladin or such. Nut I note down the initial choice and then keep loos track of which way the character is sliding if they did something notable.
Quote from: Omega;761939It was a sliding scale with neutral in the middle with Evil at one end and Good at the other I believe.
Yeah, I know the thing you're talking about. Don't think I've used it, though; only played in a homebrew setting in 1e and 2e. Sorry for kind of going on a tangent, there; D&D alignment just pisses me off that much.
QuoteI generally do not enforce alignment unless someone is playing a paladin or such. Nut I note down the initial choice and then keep loos track of which way the character is sliding if they did something notable.
I was playing a dwarf fighter/rogue, who started N, got changed to LE (I was aiming for LN, since I wanted to go dwarven defender). Apparently the fact that I was using the fact that I was the only non-good member of the party to "argue" with other players about why we were doing good things - as a way to help them illustrate their alignments/personalities/etc - meant that my PC was evil, I guess.
I 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.
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.
I have observed that, too, as fitting the alignment to the situation. Neutral Evil is always the easiest course to take. Seeing that behaviour in players, to me, was always just a sign that they didn't know how to roleplay a character.
//Panjumanju
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.
Not always but mostly.
The funny thing is they don't actually play NE very well because when you do play NE properly and you slit the wizard's throat while he is asleep so you can take that wand he picked up and sell it in town everyone gets all upset :)
I used to have long in character discourses on topics that were very close to alignment and have never really seen an issue with it.
When we as a bunch of thieves found a set of old cellars we decided to set up a thieves' guild and I argued long and hard that there was no need for us to bother with a long list of rules, we were all friends and trusted one another and we knew that we would pull together to help each other out if needs be, we could trust everyone to share whatever gold they found without bothering to keep a ledger and we didn't need to have ranks like guild master or whatever because we could always work things out for the greater good just by talking things over.
Later on one of the other thieves pushed me off a roof....
Just to cherry pick a few points:
Bad 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.
Traveller 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 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.
Quote from: mcbobbo;761989Bad DMs are bad DMs, with or without alignment.
Bad roleplayers are bad roleplayers, with our without writing "neutral good" on their character sheet. If someone can't roleplay a character without alignment, alignment isn't changing that.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;761991Bad roleplayers are bad roleplayers, with our without writing "neutral good" on their character sheet. If someone can't roleplay a character without alignment, alignment isn't changing that.
Advising 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.
If 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.
Palladiums 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: 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.
I like how Paladium had 'Selfish' instead of 'Evil'
Unless my memory is bad. Been many years since I played paladium.
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.
Oh, you were most definitely a heavy, as Marc as a Mercurian Superior tends to favor keeping humans alive, and his Word focuses on fair and profitable bargains. It's always useful to have a less restricted heavy on loan as they can break normal rules. And who else can smother vice with a grandma, colorful adverbs, and a rubber chicken? (If anyone can do it, it is them.)
Quote from: Opaopajr;762003Pro tip: ask the GM, it's their setting.
This is only useful advice if the DM isn't an inconsistent asshole and/or doesn't have a personal vendetta against you.
The vast majority of DMs I have dealt with did not fall under either of those labels, and - funnily enough - I have not had major "walk away from the table" issues (alignment or otherwise) with them. But I have had a couple who most certainly did.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;762242This is only useful advice if the DM isn't an inconsistent asshole and/or doesn't have a personal vendetta against you.
The vast majority of DMs I have dealt with did not fall under either of those labels.
You're not exactly banishing the stereotype that RAW people are reacting to bad GM experiences.
Quote from: CRKrueger;762243You're not exactly banishing the stereotype that RAW people are reacting to bad GM experiences.
Does it really matter?
That argument is... very tired. I don't even care about winning or losing it anymore. It doesn't matter. I'm sure I have explained elsewhere, in probably excruciating detail, why I am more mechanics-focused than a lot of people here.
If those points continue to fall on deaf ears... why should I care, anymore? If people are willing to be dismissive because of what they perceive as my reasoning behind my particular approach, then chances are pretty solid that the actual reasoning doesn't matter: they'll find another reason to be dismissive. It just feels pretty fucking pointless to keep arguing the point and trying to make my case.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;762244Does it really matter?
That argument is... very tired. I don't even care about winning or losing it anymore. It doesn't matter. I'm sure I have explained elsewhere, in probably excruciating detail, why I am more mechanics-focused than a lot of people here.
You're the one who brought it up. When you're using the fact that you don't or feel you can't trust GM's to be competent or non-hostile to answer points, it does kinda matter, doesn't it?
Quote from: GnomeWorks;762242This is only useful advice if the DM isn't an inconsistent asshole and/or doesn't have a personal vendetta against you.
The vast majority of DMs I have dealt with did not fall under either of those labels, and - funnily enough - I have not had major "walk away from the table" issues (alignment or otherwise) with them. But I have had a couple who most certainly did.
How weird, to be a player with assholes willingly. I have seen what you talk about but that is an RPGA/Society/Living thing, IME. As a GM I keep playing with RPGA victims/players who are learning to unclench from this poisoned GM-PC dynamic.
At least you acknowledge such issues are rare from your experience. Most people fixate on their bad experiences while glossing over the good. There is no game, system, or structure anywhere immune from assholes. It is a fact of life uncorrectable and unremovable. Give up on this non-argument.
Quote from: CRKrueger;762257You're the one who brought it up. When you're using the fact that you don't or feel you can't trust GM's to be competent or non-hostile to answer points, it does kinda matter, doesn't it?
I also said that such asshole DMs were a rarity.
The argument that the only people who enjoy strong rule sets are those who have been dicked over by shit DMs in the past is a very tired argument.
Believe it or not, there are many reasons to enjoy stronger mechanics, and to prefer groups that strongly adhere to those rules rather than expect the DM to make up things on the fly.
Quote from: Opaopajr;762272How weird, to be a player with assholes willingly. I have seen what you talk about but that is an RPGA/Society/Living thing, IME. As a GM I keep playing with RPGA victims/players who are learning to unclench from this poisoned GM-PC dynamic.
I don't play under either of those DMs anymore. I acknowledged there was a problem, saw that there was only going to be more trouble down the line, and gracefully bowed out.
QuoteAt least you acknowledge such issues are rare from your experience. Most people fixate on their bad experiences while glossing over the good. There is no game, system, or structure anywhere immune from assholes. It is a fact of life uncorrectable and unremovable. Give up on this non-argument.
I just don't care for alignment because I think it's wonky and doesn't really fit my personal views of how morality and ethics work. Trying to shoehorn everybody into nine little boxes really bugs me and does not match my experience.
The fact that alignment has apparently caused arguments since pretty much the beginning is just kinda icing on the cake, so far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;762337I also said that such asshole DMs were a rarity.
Ah, you meant labels "an inconsistent asshole" and "have a personal vendetta", instead of labels "isn't an inconsistent asshole" and "doesn't have a personal vendetta against you".
[Gilda Radner]Nevermind.[/Gilda Radner]
Carry on. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;762340Carry on. :D
Haha, yeah, sorry for the confusion. I vaguely remember looking at the grammar this morning and getting mixed up on it for a moment myself, so I'm not surprised you parsed it opposite of my intent.
Honestly, I've mostly ignored alignment forever in my own games. I've never in my life, seen alignment actually have a positive impact on a game, so I'm not sure why anyone is such a staunch defender of it.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;762242This is only useful advice if the DM isn't an inconsistent asshole and/or doesn't have a personal vendetta against you.
Which means it's useful advice. The only useful advice if the GM is an inconsistent asshole/has a vendetta is "don't play with him."
Quote from: GnomeWorks;762337I also said that such asshole DMs were a rarity.
The argument that the only people who enjoy strong rule sets are those who have been dicked over by shit DMs in the past is a very tired argument.
Lots of people enjoy strong rulesets. The argument isn't that "only people that have been dicked over enjoy strong rulesets". The argument is that "people who argue for strong rulesets because they prevent getting dicked over, have probably been dicked over."
Quote from: GnomeWorks;762337Believe it or not, there are many reasons to enjoy stronger mechanics, and to prefer groups that strongly adhere to those rules rather than expect the DM to make up things on the fly.
Sure, and that's fine. (There's also the issue of "where are the rules", as for instance I play Fate very by-the-rules, but it's a game that, by the rules, requires much GM adjudication. So it kinda doesn't really fit either category).
Give us those reasons rather than "it prevents GMs from dicking us over/prevents arguments/...", and it will go far to show that the preference *isn't* because you've been dicked over and are suffering PDGMSD.
Quote from: robiswrong;762354Give us those reasons rather than "it prevents GMs from dicking us over/prevents arguments/...", and it will go far to show that the preference *isn't* because you've been dicked over and are suffering PDGMSD.
I am removing my response because it was unnecessarily angry and overly reactionary.
It is unfair of me to assume that you have participated in the number of threads over the past couple months in which I have defended my position.
Given that this question veers from the thread topic, I will post a more thorough response in a new thread. I will quote this "request" to clarify why I am starting that thread.
I will then put a link to that thread in my sig, so that we do not need to go over this conversation again, and again, and again.
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.
It sounds like they're Roleplaying people. Can't there be value in that rationalization? It tells you a lot about how the character sees the world, for instance. Maybe even more about how the player sees the world. It at least recognizes the tension between what they want to do and the person they want the character to be. So what if they find a way to rationalize the behavior? Rationalization is fascinating.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;762359I am removing my response because it was unnecessarily angry and overly reactionary.
It is unfair of me to assume that you have participated in the number of threads over the past couple months in which I have defended my position.
Given that this question veers from the thread topic, I will post a more thorough response in a new thread. I will quote this "request" to clarify why I am starting that thread.
I will then put a link to that thread in my sig, so that we do not need to go over this conversation again, and again, and again.
Cool.
Please keep in mind that I am *explicitly* not saying either of the two following statements:
1) "Strong" rulesets are bad.
2) People who like "strong" rulesets only do so because of bad GM experiences.
I'll even do you one better:
1) There are some things that strong rulesets do better than lighter rulesets.
Quote from: Noclue;762364It sounds like they're Roleplaying people. Can't there be value in that rationalization? It tells you a lot about how the character sees the world, for instance. Maybe even more about how the player sees the world. It at least recognizes the tension between what they want to do and the person they want the character to be. So what if they find a way to rationalize the behavior? Rationalization is fascinating.
Rationalization is fascinating.
But I find it tiresome to listen to a person lie and claim to be good, claim what they are doing is good, etc...
Just admit you enjoy playing an evil monster.
Quote from: Bill;762695Rationalization is fascinating.
But I find it tiresome to listen to a person lie and claim to be good, claim what they are doing is good, etc...
Just admit you enjoy playing an evil monster.
This.
Plus please don't decide to become an evil monster "because people are complicated". Vis-a-vis selfish bastard, religious zealot, etc.
Again so long as you don't go changing your character's persona on a whim and/or for out of game reasons I won't do likewise with your foe's Armor Class. Writing things down is a good way to hold us both to that standard, IMO.