Does anyone really use alignments?

[lather]

Dang it! Now I have to let granny go and return her house. Cursed alignments.

I hate myself for being nice, too.

It's an interesting theme for a character.

[lather]

The western movie Red Headed Stranger starring Willie Nelson. His character has so many alignment changes in that movie, that it shows to me how alignments are really meaningless.

I see one definite and one questionable alignment change.

[bigbobsr6000]

You really need to see the movie to get the many changes this man goes thru. And besides, it is a decent western movie IMO.

[lather]

You really need to see the movie to get the many changes this man goes thru. And besides, it is a decent western movie IMO.

I'll try.

But I will say that just because you can ignore alignments, doesn't mean you have to ignore them.

You not being you, since you don't, at least from what I've seen earlier from you.

[Natasha]

Dang it! Now I have to let granny go and return her house. Cursed alignments.

That's something you should have thought about at character creation time. "Am I willing to shoot granny?"

It's always possible to change alignment, but I would prefer not on a whim but on something that is actually life changing. Such as learning your wife's banging the milkman.

Of course it could change you either way. You could become Principled as a result.

I don't know why alignment's viewed so cut and dry. It's just not.

[bigbobsr6000]

"A person is as a person does."

I look at "alignments" as a bar graph with no “0” at center as they aren’t any “Neutrals” in life:

Evil Gray Area Good
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A person’s moral “needle” can range from one extreme to the other depending on the situation. Most rest in the Gray Area. The higher the number toward evil the more evil and same for good.

Just some thoughts, feel free to use and abuse at will, Big Bob………………….

[Warwolf]

Dang it! Now I have to let granny go and return her house. Cursed alignments.

I hate myself for being nice, too.

It's an interesting theme for a character.

What? Being unprincipled?

Again, people, if you use them as a very basic description of a character's moral code they work just fine... trust me. Of course, I also use a rough system that includes characters of X alignment with Y or Z leanings (which has been supported in canon).

If I'm a psych major and can use these, I think they are fine as-is. That said, they are not a critical element of gameplay.

[Natasha]

Dang it! Now I have to let granny go and return her house. Cursed alignments.

I hate myself for being nice, too.

It's an interesting theme for a character.

What? Being unprincipled?

Or any other alignment.

I seen Principled who wish they were Diabolic and hated that they couldn't bring themself to shoot some beggar in a dark alley for the hell of it.

[KillWatch]

In my game Alignments are the core principles of a character. Sure they may be violated once in a while but as long as they show angst and or guilt regarding it then I have no problem with it. I mean if a principled character commits cold blooded murder, imagine the role playing going into it. What pushed them so far? How are they handling the guilt?

Sure I have the characters draw up motivations natures dispositions histories etc, but through it all despite in whcih direction all of that would point the alignments is their core belief, the thing that everything else spins off of. Can you be mean suspiscious and vengeful with a motivation of money and be principled? Yes and what great RPing potential for it

[Natasha]

Yep and yep.

[bigbobsr6000]

If my character wants to kill an unarmed foe, why should I have to check an alignment to see if I have permission to do so?

If my PC wants to use torture to get iinfo, why should I have to check an alignment to see if I have permission to do so?

If my PC wants to help little old ladies across the street, why should I have to check an alignment to see if I have permission to do so?

If my PC wants to save a town from the bad guys and accept no reward at all, why should I have to check an alignment to see if I have permission to do so?

It can get totally out of hand.

By the way, did anyone read my previous post about the alignment bar graph? I would like some input on that idea.

[Natasha]

If my character wants to kill an unarmed foe, why should I have to check an alignment to see if I have permission to do so?

If I want to climb the Empire State Building why should I check my Climb skill, if I have one at all?

If you want to kill an unarmed foe, make your character evil. Problem solved.

By the way, did anyone read my previous post about the alignment bar graph? I would like some input on that idea.

I did. And I responded about it.

[bigbobsr6000]

So, just because you kill an unarmed foe that makes your character evil forever? What about all the warriors in battles that were told to take no prisoners and to kill all enemy warriors wounded or not? Is each and evey warrior that does this is evil aligned? Like the Mexican Army did to the defenders of the Alamo? Each soldier that did their orders were evil aligned?

I do not think so.

And no I don't have to check my Climb Skill if I want to scale the Empire State Building. I can just do it and then check to see how successfull I am every 10 feet. Not to see if I can do it at all or allowed to.

[bigbobsr6000]

By the way, did anyone read my previous post about the alignment bar graph? I would like some input on that idea.

I did. And I responded about it.

[Natasha]

No worries, it got lost in the mix.

[KillWatch]

Just because your character wants to kill an unarmed foe? No YOU want to kill the unarmed foe

Should you check, if needed yes

You are a schlub behind a table with dice. The character (assuming anyway) is highly trained, been through hell and back, been tested over and over again maybe even before game play began

Now if you kill the unarmed foe when your character wouldn't again, some angst and guilty aftermath and possibly atonement should be taking place. If they commit a personal sin(aka act against alignment) then it will gnaw at them and if hey continue, then they should repent or change alignment.

I like that palladium does give XP for plaing in character and all that I think there should be more categories like playing disposition, alignment, etc and a range of say 50 for showing up maybe, to say 500 for excellence in rping

[bigbobsr6000]

That's my point alignment restricts the way I the, "schlub behind a table with dice", wants to play MY character.

If I take an evil alignment, then I can't be with good aligned characters. So, again I am restricted to what I can play by alignments.

This is fantasy, everything and nothing is possible. I am going to bring up at our next session to do away with alignments all together. Then any player can do what ever the player wants to.

The Gladiator OCC has to be Evil:Abberant because that is the first alignment that allows you to kill an unarmed foe and in the arena that's what you do if commanded to do so. Therefore, you can't play a good aligned Gladiator.

[Natasha]

So, just because you kill an unarmed foe that makes your character evil forever?

Just because you will kill an unarmed foe that makes you evil. Nothing about a PC is forever, necessarily.

What about all the warriors in battles that were told to take no prisoners and to kill all enemy warriors wounded or not? Is each and evey warrior that does this is evil aligned? Like the Mexican Army did to the defenders of the Alamo? Each soldier that did their orders were evil aligned?

I do not think so.

I do not think so, too. A Principled soldier can kill an enemy combatant.

I'm willing to treat soldiers following orders as special cases. Although, most militaries have Rules of Engagement which supercede orders from your CO. So it is your duty as a soldier to not shoot a child if RoE says not to shoot children and your sergeant says to. In the absence of RoE, following orders is what soldiers do. Now if the soldier is on RnR in Bangkok, he's no longer a special case.

And no I don't have to check my Climb Skill if I want to scale the Empire State Building. I can just do it and then check to see how successfull I am every 10 feet. Not to see if I can do it at all or allowed to.

But, you still have to check.
The point is that alignment is an aspect of character like any other. There's no reason to treat it as some kind of special thing which trumps all other aspects of character, or as some thing which dictates behaviour.

[Natasha]

If I take an evil alignment, then I can't be with good aligned characters.

Why?

This is fantasy, everything and nothing is possible. I am going to bring up at our next session to do away with alignments all together. Then any player can do what ever the player wants to.

Then do away with skills system, too, so player can do whatever he wants to.

The Gladiator OCC has to be Evil:Abberant because that is the first alignment that allows you to kill an unarmed foe and in the arena that's what you do if commanded to do so. Therefore, you can't play a good aligned Gladiator.

The problem is not with alignment.
The problem is with the Gladiator O.C.C. Fix that.

[lather]

I've played a Diabolic character that didn't kill anybody.

I've played a Principled character that did kill, a lot.

Alignment is just one of several things on a character sheet that defines the character. I agree completely with KillWatch and Natasha.

[bigbobsr6000]

The point is that alignment is an aspect of character like any other. There's no reason to treat it as some kind of special thing which trumps all other aspects of character, or as some thing which dictates behaviour.

Aw, but it does. If you act within alignment you are rewarded XP. If you act out of alignment you are deducted XP.

If you act out of alignment, the GM reminds that your character wouldn't do that because of alignment.

So, how does this not some thing which dictates behaviour?

Because it does by the rules of the game.

[Natasha]

The point is that alignment is an aspect of character like any other. There's no reason to treat it as some kind of special thing which trumps all other aspects of character, or as some thing which dictates behaviour.

Aw, but it does. If you act within alignment you are rewarded XP. If you act out of alignment you are deducted XP.

If you act out of alignment, the GM reminds that your character wouldn't do that because of alignment.

So, how does this not some thing which dictates behaviour?

Because it does by the rules of the game.

If you act within character you are rewarded xp. I don't think there are rules for xp deduction in Palladium's games.

If you fly a plane, the GM reminds you that your character wouldn't do that because the PC doesn't know how to fly the plane nevermind start the engines. It's the same mechanic.

It does not dictate behaviour anymore than being a Summoner does. It does not dictate behaviour anymore than having Pilot: Helicopter skill does. It defines. Not dictates.

[Natasha]

When you put it that way, ak-73, I don't mind the word "dictate" as much. Nicely said.

[bigbobsr6000]

If I take an evil alignment, then I can't be with good aligned characters.

Why?

Because the good aligned PCs want to arrest me, some kill me and all will prevent by any means any so-called "evil" actions on my part. That's why.

This is fantasy, everything and nothing is possible. I am going to bring up at our next session to do away with alignments all together. Then any player can do what ever the player wants to.

Then do away with skills system, too, so player can do whatever he wants to.

Skills are physical and learned thru training. Alignments are mental and maybe learned by up-bringing, environment, trauma, etc. The only way you might deduct one's alignment is thru their actions which can be deceiving. You don't need an alignment to climb the Empire State Building but you do need the trained skill to do it successfully.

The Gladiator OCC has to be Evil:Abberant because that is the first alignment that allows you to kill an unarmed foe and in the arena that's what you do if commanded to do so. Therefore, you can't play a good aligned Gladiator.

The problem is not with alignment.
The problem is with the Gladiator O.C.C. Fix that.

I can only fix that as a "House Rule". I can't rewrite the OCC and change it for all of Palladium. Besides, I'm a krappy writer.

[bigbobsr6000]

Well I think I beat this issue enough. This is one of the things I like about RPGs, they can be crafted to one's own liking and player's fun. I use alignments as per game rules, just don't like'em as I have said in earlier posts.

I do support anyone's oppinion and the way it works for them and their gaming group. More power to y'all. The key issue is enjoying the Role Playing.

[bigbobsr6000]

After thought, I quit palying and started GMing because I could never fit in as a player in any group. Periodically I tried just playing, but after a few session went back to GMing. Maybe it's a control issue.










Ya think?

[Natasha]

If I take an evil alignment, then I can't be with good aligned characters.

Why?

Because the good aligned PCs want to arrest me, some kill me and all will prevent by any means any so-called "evil" actions on my part. That's why.

Words like Scrupulous and Miscreant are labels for convenience in stat blocks. A PC is not a collection of stat blocks, facts, and figures. A PC is a character. Remember that story you write in Rifts (you are not a krappy writer, Bob, you can't hide behind that ) in which the characters and their EBAs felt natural and not like stat blocks? Do that with alignment.

You don't need an alignment to climb the Empire State Building but you do need the trained skill to do it successfully.

Hm. Perhaps my comparison wasn't so good of a choice. The point I was trying to make was that O.C.C., attributes, skills, and everything else that goes to character creation require you to "check" if you can do something. You choose your O.C.C., you choose your skills, you choose your alignment. If you are opposed to checking to see if something is doable, then you are opposed to skills, for example, right?

Well we can forget that if you like and try another approach. You don't need alignment to fly a helicopter and you still don't need alignment to decide to shoot someone in the head. You need alignment to know if shooting someone in the head is something your PC is going to freak out over or just step over and move on down the trail.

The Gladiator OCC has to be Evil:Abberant because that is the first alignment that allows you to kill an unarmed foe and in the arena that's what you do if commanded to do so. Therefore, you can't play a good aligned Gladiator.

The problem is not with alignment.
The problem is with the Gladiator O.C.C. Fix that.

I can only fix that as a "House Rule". I can't rewrite the OCC and change it for all of Palladium. Besides, I'm a krappy writer.

If you drop alignments or modify the O.C.C., you're house ruling one way or another.
Since you are house ruling, why not fix what's broken, and fix the O.C.C.

[Natasha]

Well I think I beat this issue enough.

I regret you feel so.

[lather]

Well I think I beat this issue enough.

I regret you feel so.

Your stamina outlasts anyone I know.
Can I get some innuendo pts?

[bigbobsr6000]

And another thing.......

d20 Modern does not use Alignments they use Allegiance to an organization or nothing. I do allow Allegiance to an alignment if that is what the player wants.

Mutants and Masterminds don't use any Alignments at all. Basically a character is as a character does.

So, you can play a RPG without alignments. I have GMed both quite successfully I might add. Which fuels my point that alignments are not needed in RPGs.

So, there

Yes I am resorting to childish tatics

[KillWatch]

Again you can be a vindicitve principled character as muchas you can be a kind and hospitable diabolic character

Which one would Dexter be?

I don't htink you 've really thought about this. It sounds like you saw alignments, maybe had bad experiences with a gm and said nope this sux. No it's a tool for you to play the character. YOu don't have to play alignments but it does help one get into the head of the character. And allegiances? Sure more than one person can be part of an allegiance, one could be your straight laced, by the book character who might have a drinking problem, his partner likes to rape women, dismemeber children, and stir fy the neighborhood animals. But as long as they are keeping the border safe, all is good.

No there might be an alignment issue here despite allegiances. and ou can break your moral code and be repentant

[lather]

d20 Modern does not use Alignments they use Allegiance to an organization or nothing. I do allow Allegiance to an alignment if that is what the player wants.

A loooong time ago we worked out an allegiance type system that could be allegiance to a king, an aligment, whatever. Palladins have to put the Code of Honour above all else and follow it to the letter absolutely; otherwise, PCs are free to select an allegiance that could, potentially trump 1 maybe 2 aspects of alignment (such as never under any circumstances harm, injury, damage, or kill anything that is alive; not eating beef has nothing to do with alignment, but just places a further restriction on the character, so if you don't alignment, you're gonna hate allegiance ), but the allegiance had to make sense according to alignment, just like selecting religion. Furthermore, unfortunately, perhaps, switching allegiances is far more difficult that switching alignments.

So, you can play a RPG without alignments. I have GMed both quite successfully I might add. Which fuels my point that alignments are not needed in RPGs.

All true and not disputed.

What was under discussion is whether or not alignments railroad a character's decision making process.

Which they don't.

[bigbobsr6000]

After 35+ years of gaming and GMing I have thought it through lots of times. Alignments are a Love / Hate relationship for me. Can you guess which way I am leaning now?

When I have played, the GM was always saying to me, "What's your alignment?" or "Your character wouldn't do that because of his alignment." or "Your not acting within your alignment." So what. What if I don't want to act in my alignment?

As a GM I sometimes have to do the same thing, but rarely. I was getting it every single session as a player.

As a player in D&D I always took Chaotic Neutral. That's an alignment I can play with.

More beating of an old issue.

[lather]

As a GM I sometimes have to do the same thing, but rarely. I was getting it every single session as a player.

So it's an issue of good or bad GMing rather than alignments railroading a player's choice continuum.

That sound fair to you?

[Vrykolas2k]

For the game I'm writing, allignments are a scoche different... for instance, I use terms like Machiavellian, Nihilist, or whatever.
As for other game systems, I do like Palladium's version the best... it's more open than say D&D.

[bigbobsr6000]

As a GM I sometimes have to do the same thing, but rarely. I was getting it every single session as a player.

So it's an issue of good or bad GMing rather than alignments railroading a player's choice continuum.

That sound fair to you?

No, if one goes strictly by the alignments (wow, I am really getting good at typing the word "alignment".) They should never ever act outside of it. That's the restriction. The more leinant the GM is on alignments the less restrictive it is.

EX: Good Alignment will never kill an unarmed foe.

That is a restriction on a good aligned PC. The way I look at is if the foe has useable hands, feet and teeth he is armed.

[lather]

EX: Good Alignment will never kill an unarmed foe.

That is a restriction on a good aligned PC. The way I look at is if the foe has useable hands, feet and teeth he is armed.

The devil IS in the details. So, yea, alignments are not supposed to be read strictly, but interpreted appropriately...just like the Bible. So even in your Good Alignment example, the character is not railroaded. When it comes to alignment, it's usually grey and exceptions are always possible.

Alignment is one defining aspect of a character. There is much more to a character than alignment. There's such a thing as personality and disposition and fears and strengths and weaknesses and O.C.C.s and races and attributes and and skills and so on.

It is interesting that Palladium's alignment system allows my Diabolic mercenary fighter to be nicer, kinder, and gentler than my Principled mercenary fighter.

Intelligent people do stupid things sometimes, too.

"I'm sorry you can't step three, you're character is far too intelligent to make that mistake."

"Huh?"

[lather]

Never know when it's going to end up like a Gallagher show.

[bigbobsr6000]

You mean I can use the Sledge-A-Matic on squishy human heads?

[lather]

You mean I can use the Sledge-A-Matic on squishy human heads?

It's been done by Principled characters and not been an act of evil.

So the answer is maybe.

[bigbobsr6000]

You mean I can use the Sledge-A-Matic on squishy human heads?

It's been done by Principled characters and not been an act of evil.

So the answer is maybe.

Tease!

[lather]

You mean I can use the Sledge-A-Matic on squishy human heads?

It's been done by Principled characters and not been an act of evil.

So the answer is maybe.

Tease!

I can live with that.

[bigbobsr6000]

You mean I can use the Sledge-A-Matic on squishy human heads?

NO!

That is de-heading...not disarming. If teeth are the only head mounted weaponry in the human arsenal (not including chemical warfare in the form of morning breath), then you cannot eliminate the entire head in order to get to the teeth. It's like using a missile to shoot someone's rifle. You can claim you had intentions of one thing...but no one's going to believe you when you say you only meant to hit the weapon.

Meanie You're no fun

[bigbobsr6000]

You mean I can use the Sledge-A-Matic on squishy human heads?

NO!

That is de-heading...not disarming. If teeth are the only head mounted weaponry in the human arsenal (not including chemical warfare in the form of morning breath), then you cannot eliminate the entire head in order to get to the teeth. It's like using a missile to shoot someone's rifle. You can claim you had intentions of one thing...but no one's going to believe you when you say you only meant to hit the weapon.

You mean like the if the ROE stat you can't use a .50 cal or larger MG against troops on the ground in the open only against equipment and venicles? And I just shoot at their LBE or helmet or canteen that's equipment isn't it?

[Vrykolas2k]

You mean I can use the Sledge-A-Matic on squishy human heads?

NO!

That is de-heading...not disarming. If teeth are the only head mounted weaponry in the human arsenal (not including chemical warfare in the form of morning breath), then you cannot eliminate the entire head in order to get to the teeth. It's like using a missile to shoot someone's rifle. You can claim you had intentions of one thing...but no one's going to believe you when you say you only meant to hit the weapon.

You mean like the if the ROE stat you can't use a .50 cal or larger MG against troops on the ground in the open only against equipment and venicles? And I just shoot at their LBE or helmet or canteen that's equipment isn't it?

Yeah...and your CO still won't believe it.

My CO actually encouraged that line...

[sasha]

That's my point alignment restricts the way I the, "schlub behind a table with dice", wants to play MY character.

Alignment and everything else on your character sheet.

[bigbobsr6000]

That's my point alignment restricts the way I the, "schlub behind a table with dice", wants to play MY character.

Alignment and everything else on your character sheet.

Ergo, towit, therefore I am strictly GMing so I can do what I want in game play and not worrying about any restrictions at all.


And stop makeing sense

[sasha]

That's my point alignment restricts the way I the, "schlub behind a table with dice", wants to play MY character.

Alignment and everything else on your character sheet.

Ergo, towit, therefore I am strictly GMing so I can do what I want in game play and not worrying about any restrictions at all.


And stop makeing sense

Hehe, ok, I'll try.

[KillWatch]

Except the npcs have alignments and your are restricted by OOG knowledge which is a big one for GMs

And again as for alignment, you can violate them but this is the characters beliefs and values. If a good character violates it then they might feel guilty. IF a neutral character violates it they might feel like they've sold out. If an evil character violates it they might feel like they are getting soft and weak

[lather]

The answer to your question is that nothing is wrong with them.