The limits of a Good Alignment

[dragonfett]

What about the person who breaks their code and vows to not do that again?

[Colt47]

From experience, the palladium alignment system is largely based upon actions each individual person takes. A person is principled good because he ACTS principled good, not because he is principled good in his heart. This is one of the reasons that it is impossible for me to view the troll shop keeper in Pax Miles game as being good. An insanity might make the shop keeper worthy of pity, but his actions are what determine his alignment. This kind of reminds me of discussions that happened with D20 Ravenloft due to the settings corruption mechanic.

The only time I'd say a person has the right to break with their alignment is in a morally questionable situation. For example, lets say there are two people in a specific trap and the trap is designed to only allow one person to escape unharmed. If the person trying to help the two takes too long to make a decision both individuals die (think like the Movie SAW). Obviously neither individual will want to die, so it's quite a conundrum to be the savior in this scenario.

[Rallan]

From experience, the palladium alignment system is largely based upon actions each individual person takes. A person is principled good because he ACTS principled good, not because he is principled good in his heart.

There's a problem with this interpretation. It means there's no such thing as evil people who are faking it. If alignment is based purely on actions, then a Diabolical character who spends years of his life infiltrating a peaceloving society and acting like a paragon of virtue will eventually end up with a Principled alignment because of his nonstop good deeds, even though in his heart of hearts he's still scheming against everyone and biding his time for the day when his masterpiece of mass murder will be perfect. And a government assassin who spends years as a sleeper pretending to be a typical suburbanite will gradually become Unprincipled, even though in his heart of hearts he's a stone cold killer who'll murder innocents in the name of national security if he has to.

[Colt47]

From experience, the palladium alignment system is largely based upon actions each individual person takes. A person is principled good because he ACTS principled good, not because he is principled good in his heart.

There's a problem with this interpretation. It means there's no such thing as evil people who are faking it. If alignment is based purely on actions, then a Diabolical character who spends years of his life infiltrating a peaceloving society and acting like a paragon of virtue will eventually end up with a Principled alignment because of his nonstop good deeds, even though in his heart of hearts he's still scheming against everyone and biding his time for the day when his masterpiece of mass murder will be perfect. And a government assassin who spends years as a sleeper pretending to be a typical suburbanite will gradually become Unprincipled, even though in his heart of hearts he's a stone cold killer who'll murder innocents in the name of national security if he has to.

The acting game. It always screws with people when it comes to alignment in games.

The fact the person is pretending to be a flower picker in the scenario you have envisioned doesn't change the fact that he normally murders and kills. Plus you just wrote that he has the intention of betraying or killing further, which dictates a future action the person is planning to take. Once again, action determines alignment. He normally murders and kills, and he plans to infiltrate a society to further murder and kill.

Now if the person in question changes his mind and decides to fight his original evil nature and internal impulses by not going through with his originally planned killing, than an alignment change might be in order. However, this has to occur on a regular basis for the alignment change to occur, and it can't simply be done as part of some pre-planned act to commit some other form of murder or chaos.

[Rallan]

From experience, the palladium alignment system is largely based upon actions each individual person takes. A person is principled good because he ACTS principled good, not because he is principled good in his heart.

There's a problem with this interpretation. It means there's no such thing as evil people who are faking it. If alignment is based purely on actions, then a Diabolical character who spends years of his life infiltrating a peaceloving society and acting like a paragon of virtue will eventually end up with a Principled alignment because of his nonstop good deeds, even though in his heart of hearts he's still scheming against everyone and biding his time for the day when his masterpiece of mass murder will be perfect. And a government assassin who spends years as a sleeper pretending to be a typical suburbanite will gradually become Unprincipled, even though in his heart of hearts he's a stone cold killer who'll murder innocents in the name of national security if he has to.

The acting game. It always screws with people when it comes to alignment in games.

The fact the person is pretending to be a flower picker in the scenario you have envisioned doesn't change the fact that he normally murders and kills. Plus you just wrote that he has the intention of betraying or killing further, which dictates a future action the person is planning to take. Once again, action determines alignment. He normally murders and kills, and he plans to infiltrate a society to further murder and kill.

So what about a character who's never murdered or killed, and is just setting himself up for the ultimate betrayal? He's not a person who "normally murders and kills", or indeed someone who's ever murdered and killed.

You can't claim that Palladium's alignment is an action-based system and then claim that it's not an action-based system for people who think certain things. It either is or it isn't.

[Colt47]

From experience, the palladium alignment system is largely based upon actions each individual person takes. A person is principled good because he ACTS principled good, not because he is principled good in his heart.

There's a problem with this interpretation. It means there's no such thing as evil people who are faking it. If alignment is based purely on actions, then a Diabolical character who spends years of his life infiltrating a peaceloving society and acting like a paragon of virtue will eventually end up with a Principled alignment because of his nonstop good deeds, even though in his heart of hearts he's still scheming against everyone and biding his time for the day when his masterpiece of mass murder will be perfect. And a government assassin who spends years as a sleeper pretending to be a typical suburbanite will gradually become Unprincipled, even though in his heart of hearts he's a stone cold killer who'll murder innocents in the name of national security if he has to.

The acting game. It always screws with people when it comes to alignment in games.

The fact the person is pretending to be a flower picker in the scenario you have envisioned doesn't change the fact that he normally murders and kills. Plus you just wrote that he has the intention of betraying or killing further, which dictates a future action the person is planning to take. Once again, action determines alignment. He normally murders and kills, and he plans to infiltrate a society to further murder and kill.

So what about a character who's never murdered or killed, and is just setting himself up for the ultimate betrayal? He's not a person who "normally murders and kills", or indeed someone who's ever murdered and killed.

You can't claim that Palladium's alignment is an action-based system and then claim that it's not an action-based system for people who think certain things. It either is or it isn't.

What the heck does this even mean? Setting one self up for the ultimate betrayal? If the person has never murdered or killed, or done anything necessarily unsavory, then there is no basis to go off of in order to call the individual evil. Thought crime is not a reasonable measure of ones alignment: The person must deliberately act upon unsavory thoughts or ideas in order to be considered evil. Otherwise you might as well call every individual who ever wished someone dead, raped, or maimed evil, even though they never once committed to any such action. Also, keep in mind you set up the premise in the example you previously gave that the person who is planning to do the murder and killing normally murders and kills: As in he has done these actions before. I didn't word my statement very well to reflect this, but it isn't exactly like I've got infinite time to double check these sort of details.

In a game, Alignment is meant to be a tool to help dictate how a certain character will act in order to make things easier for the GM and player. In the game a person CAN assign an alignment to a character before he/she does any actions because it is intended to help guide the GM on how the character is supposed to act and possibly determine background.

[Vrykolas2k]

A law abiding, good character follows the laws even if they are made by an evil man or organization. Just because the laws aren't justly created, doesn't mean they shouldn't be followed on principle. Only following the good laws is the style of a selfish alignment.

So if you only follow the good lines, you're selfish alignment. A good alignment must follow all the laws to be good. So if, as previously stated, the laws say you need to eat a newborn baby, you need to eat a newborn baby or be selfish by default. Yes, he also stated you have to believe it's good. However, that doesn't change the end result. In the situation given, you'd have to believe eating a baby is good to be a good alignment. If you know it's wrong and don't do it, you'd be a selfish alignment. If you know it's wrong and do it anyways, you're probably selfish or evil.

If you know it's wrong and you do it anyway, yes, I agree it is an evil or selfish act.

However, we are talking about a principled alignment which, according to palladium is a law abiding person.

I think the baby eating one is a joke example, here's one that's more real:

In my hometown (portland, oregon), it is illegal to "answer the call of the wild" in a public location even if there are no witnesses. It is not illegal, to give the homeless no location to privately urinate. Guess what? It's considered a sex offense and has jail time associated with it. (even if they just catch you on camera...).

Now a principled person should try and follow the above law if they can. It's a stupid, evil law meant to discriminate against the homeless that our city is trying to remove, but a principled homeless guy would still try to follow it.

If they really couldn't follow it, for reasons beyond their control or because following the law would break one of their other principled traits - yes, they can break the law.

In your baby eating example, it would not deter a good character to break this law, but they would try to follow any other [crazy] laws that didn't conflict against their set of morals.

The deal is that a principled character doesn't just get to choose which laws they want to follow, they must follow all the ones they can. If you find a law that you can follow, but choose not to it's a selfish act by definition of the alignments.
-Pax

PS:we're actively trying to remove that law and others like it, but the businesses seem keen on treating the homeless as subhuman...

I think they should keep the law, and get rid of the homeless.

[Rallan]

What the heck does this even mean? Setting one self up for the ultimate betrayal? If the person has never murdered or killed, or done anything necessarily unsavory, then there is no basis to go off of in order to call the individual evil. Thought crime is not a reasonable measure of ones alignment: The person must deliberately act upon unsavory thoughts or ideas in order to be considered evil. Otherwise you might as well call every individual who ever wished someone dead, raped, or maimed evil, even though they never once committed to any such action. Also, keep in mind you set up the premise in the example you previously gave that the person who is planning to do the murder and killing normally murders and kills: As in he has done these actions before. I didn't word my statement very well to reflect this, but it isn't exactly like I've got infinite time to double check these sort of details.

Say for example you've got someone in a Rifts game who utterly despises the city of Lazlo. He's never murdererd or tortured or stole or any of the other big stuff, but he has dedicated his entire adult life to working his way deep into the government of Lazlo, biding his time for the day when he can sell them all out to the Coalition States and watch the city burn. He desperately wants to see everyone he knows dead or driven into the wilderness, and he's actively working to put himself in a position where he'll be able to accomplish it.

According to you, this dude can have a good alignment because he hasn't done any horrible things yet.

In a game, Alignment is meant to be a tool to help dictate how a certain character will act in order to make things easier for the GM and player. In the game a person CAN assign an alignment to a character before he/she does any actions because it is intended to help guide the GM on how the character is supposed to act and possibly determine background.

Thankyou for stating the obvious. And for using bold to patronisingly make sure nobody misses it. I know that alignment is meant to be a tool to help players and GMs, but what I'm getting at is that in Palladium's system it's a crap tool. It's vague, it's limited in scope to adventure-story archetypes, and it's a rule that has virtually no connection to any other game mechanics apart from "oppositely aligned rune weapons hurt". The whole alignment system is just a waste of a couple of pages that could've been better spent having a bit of a talk about exploring morality and encouraging personality development and in-character play without a bunch of bland lists all tied up in a useless appendix of a game rule. It's a relic from a bygone era, and was obviously only included because Dungeons And Dragons had an alignment system. Hell, it defines itself by the (trivial) ways that it's different from D&D's alignment, complete with a section on why there are no neutral alignments that they really need to ditch, because a company blowing its own trumpet about an improvement it made to the rules of the game it copied thirty years ago is kinda tacky.

[Spinachcat]

I play lots of RPGs. None of the alignment / personal code / honor systems work 100% because nuanced human behavior doesn't fit into nice categories. The more nuanced your NPCs, the more the system will show its cracks.

Alignment works fine for large brush strokes. It works great when you stick to archetypes, stereotypes and pulp genres where Good and Evil have capital letters and everyone on Team Good and everyone on Team Evil adheres to their team rules. This is great and fun and works as a terrific shorthand.

So if you are going the nuanced / realistic persona route...inside games with elves, spells and giant robots...you are probably best served by dropping alignments.

[Colt47]

What the heck does this even mean? Setting one self up for the ultimate betrayal? If the person has never murdered or killed, or done anything necessarily unsavory, then there is no basis to go off of in order to call the individual evil. Thought crime is not a reasonable measure of ones alignment: The person must deliberately act upon unsavory thoughts or ideas in order to be considered evil. Otherwise you might as well call every individual who ever wished someone dead, raped, or maimed evil, even though they never once committed to any such action. Also, keep in mind you set up the premise in the example you previously gave that the person who is planning to do the murder and killing normally murders and kills: As in he has done these actions before. I didn't word my statement very well to reflect this, but it isn't exactly like I've got infinite time to double check these sort of details.

Say for example you've got someone in a Rifts game who utterly despises the city of Lazlo. He's never murdererd or tortured or stole or any of the other big stuff, but he has dedicated his entire adult life to working his way deep into the government of Lazlo, biding his time for the day when he can sell them all out to the Coalition States and watch the city burn. He desperately wants to see everyone he knows dead or driven into the wilderness, and he's actively working to put himself in a position where he'll be able to accomplish it.

According to you, this dude can have a good alignment because he hasn't done any horrible things yet.

In a game, Alignment is meant to be a tool to help dictate how a certain character will act in order to make things easier for the GM and player. In the game a person CAN assign an alignment to a character before he/she does any actions because it is intended to help guide the GM on how the character is supposed to act and possibly determine background.

Thankyou for stating the obvious. And for using bold to patronisingly make sure nobody misses it. I know that alignment is meant to be a tool to help players and GMs, but what I'm getting at is that in Palladium's system it's a crap tool. It's vague, it's limited in scope to adventure-story archetypes, and it's a rule that has virtually no connection to any other game mechanics apart from "oppositely aligned rune weapons hurt". The whole alignment system is just a waste of a couple of pages that could've been better spent having a bit of a talk about exploring morality and encouraging personality development and in-character play without a bunch of bland lists all tied up in a useless appendix of a game rule. It's a relic from a bygone era, and was obviously only included because Dungeons And Dragons had an alignment system. Hell, it defines itself by the (trivial) ways that it's different from D&D's alignment, complete with a section on why there are no neutral alignments that they really need to ditch, because a company blowing its own trumpet about an improvement it made to the rules of the game it copied thirty years ago is kinda tacky.

Yes well in the first statement you are correct: that individual could be considered an upstanding citizen since he hasn't done any vile actions yet. The person might be planning on doing something, but there is nothing to go on in his past to judge that he will carry the action out. However, what else has he done in his life besides planning this whole revenge bit?

And as for the second paragraph on the entire alignment system: Yes it is a headache inducing nightmare. The flaw with the alignment system in this game is that it assumes that people are prone to certain actions because of their own morality and not necessarily other factors. I personally prefer the Allegiance system of D20 Modern over most of the current alignment systems simply because it lets the player completely SKIP the morality business and base their decisions on loyalties to specific groups or causes.

Oh, and lets not forget the Alignment detection spells. How in the world do these even work? If I were to suddenly feel an over powering urge to kill puppies or commit murder would I end up evil? Again, this is going into the whole thought crime ordeal.

Edit: Yes, I used bold to highlight that tidbit. However, I was not trying to be patronizing.

[Rallan]

Oh, and lets not forget the Alignment detection spells. How in the world do these even work? If I were to suddenly feel an over powering urge to kill puppies or commit murder would I end up evil? Again, this is going into the whole thought crime ordeal.

Oh god yes, those things are terrible. They really shouldn't apply unless you've got a setting with supernatural forces of evil, or you're doing a setting where you're deconstructing oldschool RPG tropes (either for laughs or for angst) and want to have a close look at some of the more disturbing moral ramifications of a society where some people can run around arbitrarily declaring who's good and who's evil.

[Vrykolas2k]

**** people, it's a fragging GAME.
If you don't like allignments, don't include them when you run.

[Colt47]

**** people, it's a fragging GAME.
If you don't like allignments, don't include them when you run.

Way to shoot a conversation down. The point of the thread isn't about whether people should use or not use the alignment system, but rather the limits of said system.

[Vrykolas2k]

**** people, it's a fragging GAME.
If you don't like allignments, don't include them when you run.

Way to shoot a conversation down. The point of the thread isn't about whether people should use or not use the alignment system, but rather the limits of said system.

Then you're jumping on the wrong guy for shooting it down, since I'm not the one who originally derailed the topic thusly.
I was actually trying to get those people to stuff it so the original topic could go on.
Which I participated in earlier, I might add.

[Rallan]

**** people, it's a fragging GAME.
If you don't like allignments, don't include them when you run.

Vry, what's this forum for again? Could it be a forum for talking about games?

If you don't like the fact that people are running around having opinions about games (including - shock horror - opinions that you might disagree with), why did you come to a forum for talking about tames?

[Rallan]

**** people, it's a fragging GAME.
If you don't like allignments, don't include them when you run.

Way to shoot a conversation down. The point of the thread isn't about whether people should use or not use the alignment system, but rather the limits of said system.

Then you're jumping on the wrong guy for shooting it down, since I'm not the one who originally derailed the topic thusly.
I was actually trying to get those people to stuff it so the original topic could go on.
Which I participated in earlier, I might add.

Which ended a week or two ago when everyone ran out of things to say about the original poster's predicament. All you're doing now is rocking up after it's all over to express your indignation at all these people who dare to critique a product that you like.

[Damian Magecraft]

**** people, it's a fragging GAME.
If you don't like allignments, don't include them when you run.

Dunno.

As a GM, alignments help me guess how the party will react to certain situations. It's certainly one of the few tools I get to predict the direction the game progresses in.

I'd prefer the players just write a custom alignment that's less vague than palladium one.

I have found that (real) people are often very distressed/go insane when subjected to things outside of their accepted limits of morality. Seems to be a sort of defense mechanism that humanity has developed to cope with the unexplainable.

If you want an example, make a list of the things that you can't comprehend doing or perhaps having done to you. Not good things either, only bad ones - ones that are so evil you can't grasp why someone would ever consider that course of action.

Now, do one of those and see what happens....

I will bet you will find yourself slowly slipping into insanity if your not there already - this is a normal human reaction.

The RPG is a game, but it's also there to replicate reality. You, a real person, are pretending to be a different person. I would certainly consider this replicating reality.

If you want to ditch that part of reality when you play, suppose you could. I wouldn't remove it, but you could.
-Pax

what does it mean if there is nothing you cannot comprehend doing or having done to you?

after all I can be a tad twisted...

[Colt47]

**** people, it's a fragging GAME.
If you don't like allignments, don't include them when you run.

Dunno.

As a GM, alignments help me guess how the party will react to certain situations. It's certainly one of the few tools I get to predict the direction the game progresses in.

I'd prefer the players just write a custom alignment that's less vague than palladium one.

I have found that (real) people are often very distressed/go insane when subjected to things outside of their accepted limits of morality. Seems to be a sort of defense mechanism that humanity has developed to cope with the unexplainable.

If you want an example, make a list of the things that you can't comprehend doing or perhaps having done to you. Not good things either, only bad ones - ones that are so evil you can't grasp why someone would ever consider that course of action.

Now, do one of those and see what happens....

I will bet you will find yourself slowly slipping into insanity if your not there already - this is a normal human reaction.

The RPG is a game, but it's also there to replicate reality. You, a real person, are pretending to be a different person. I would certainly consider this replicating reality.

If you want to ditch that part of reality when you play, suppose you could. I wouldn't remove it, but you could.
-Pax

what does it mean if there is nothing you cannot comprehend doing or having done to you?

after all I can be a tad twisted...

He's referring to Taboos. Those aren't exactly linked to alignment as much as they are linked to the culture a person is in. For example, running into a classroom with an instructor teaching and suddenly play a tune on a guitar will likely freeze up a number of people because they don't know exactly what to do in that kind of situation. Another, stronger example, would be the eating of dogs. In some places in Asia eating dogs is completely normal, while here if someone ate a dog it would be frowned upon and the individual could be potentially sued.

I find the statement that one will find himself slipping into insanity to be amusing, however (and I mean no offense by this Pax). People don't lose their sanity from breaking cultural taboos. They might get punched in the face, locked up in prison, or shooed out of an establishment, but they won't go insane. Otherwise the entire psychology department at the University I'm going to should be having problems and don't even get me started on their mid term where they have to break a minor social taboo as part of the lesson.

Of course, they could all secretly be insane...

[Damian Magecraft]

He's referring to Taboos. Those aren't exactly linked to alignment as much as they are linked to the culture a person is in. For example, running into a classroom with an instructor teaching and suddenly play a tune on a guitar will likely freeze up a number of people because they don't know exactly what to do in that kind of situation.

Taboos are not what I'm thinking of. I'm talking about things that are so wrong in your mind that they don't make any sense at all. And of those things, only the evil ones count.

For me personally, I could start a list:

1. Killing someone I know on a personal basis.

2. Committing rape for the need to have sex.

3. Becoming a racist.

4. Cheating in a romantic relationship.

The above four are things I can't grasp the "why" of. I just can't see the logic behind why one would do them. I can't comprehend them at all. They all strike me as nonsense actions without a discernible true motive. They also strike me as evil actions for me to undertake.

Granted, this is my list of things that would personally get me. Others on this forum, undoubtedly have their own lists of morals. These are 4 of mine.
-Pax

again I ask what does it mean when there is nothing to place on that list?
I honestly can not envision anything that would be so reprehensible that it would unbalance my already twisted mind.

[Vrykolas2k]

He's referring to Taboos. Those aren't exactly linked to alignment as much as they are linked to the culture a person is in. For example, running into a classroom with an instructor teaching and suddenly play a tune on a guitar will likely freeze up a number of people because they don't know exactly what to do in that kind of situation.

Taboos are not what I'm thinking of. I'm talking about things that are so wrong in your mind that they don't make any sense at all. And of those things, only the evil ones count.

For me personally, I could start a list:

1. Killing someone I know on a personal basis.

2. Committing rape for the need to have sex.

3. Becoming a racist.

4. Cheating in a romantic relationship.

The above four are things I can't grasp the "why" of. I just can't see the logic behind why one would do them. I can't comprehend them at all. They all strike me as nonsense actions without a discernible true motive. They also strike me as evil actions for me to undertake.

Granted, this is my list of things that would personally get me. Others on this forum, undoubtedly have their own lists of morals. These are 4 of mine.
-Pax

again I ask what does it mean when there is nothing to place on that list?
I honestly can not envision anything that would be so reprehensible that it would unbalance my already twisted mind.

The perhaps you should either seek professional help, or feed yourself to the sharks.

[Damian Magecraft]

He's referring to Taboos. Those aren't exactly linked to alignment as much as they are linked to the culture a person is in. For example, running into a classroom with an instructor teaching and suddenly play a tune on a guitar will likely freeze up a number of people because they don't know exactly what to do in that kind of situation.

Taboos are not what I'm thinking of. I'm talking about things that are so wrong in your mind that they don't make any sense at all. And of those things, only the evil ones count.

For me personally, I could start a list:

1. Killing someone I know on a personal basis.

2. Committing rape for the need to have sex.

3. Becoming a racist.

4. Cheating in a romantic relationship.

The above four are things I can't grasp the "why" of. I just can't see the logic behind why one would do them. I can't comprehend them at all. They all strike me as nonsense actions without a discernible true motive. They also strike me as evil actions for me to undertake.

Granted, this is my list of things that would personally get me. Others on this forum, undoubtedly have their own lists of morals. These are 4 of mine.
-Pax

again I ask what does it mean when there is nothing to place on that list?
I honestly can not envision anything that would be so reprehensible that it would unbalance my already twisted mind.

The perhaps you should either seek professional help, or feed yourself to the sharks.

Yeah My ex-mother in law would agree with you on that...
She is convinced I am the Anti-christ...
(just cause I sued for and won alimony from my ex-wife.)

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. I have to say I'm with Damian Magecraft on this one. I may not agree with him on other things, but I can't think of an action that I can't comprehend. For example: Everything on Paxmile's lists I understand why someone might do it. Now, don't get me wrong, by no means do I think these things are right (for example: I think rape is one of the worst acts someone can do and I think horrible things should happen to anyone who commits the act), but I understand them. I think being able to understand why people do things is important in creating interesting characters. If you can't understand why, then you can't give them depth (even the most evil S.O.B. needs to have reasons, and if you can't understand the why then it's just a mindless villain). Understanding something and agreeing with it aren't the same thing. Anyways, since Damian Magecraft seemed to be alone on the matter I felt the need to add in another opinion. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.



P.S. I didn't run out of things to say earlier in the thread. I have a bunch of comments that I've wanted to make in response, but I've been mostly staying out of it because my emotions will run high on the matter (not because I'm stumped, proven wrong, or agree with everything said).

[dragonfett]

I also agree with Prysus on that comprehending the reason someone would take a certain action and agreeing that it is a good thing are two completely different things.

[Vrykolas2k]

He's referring to Taboos. Those aren't exactly linked to alignment as much as they are linked to the culture a person is in. For example, running into a classroom with an instructor teaching and suddenly play a tune on a guitar will likely freeze up a number of people because they don't know exactly what to do in that kind of situation.

Taboos are not what I'm thinking of. I'm talking about things that are so wrong in your mind that they don't make any sense at all. And of those things, only the evil ones count.

For me personally, I could start a list:

1. Killing someone I know on a personal basis.

2. Committing rape for the need to have sex.

3. Becoming a racist.

4. Cheating in a romantic relationship.

The above four are things I can't grasp the "why" of. I just can't see the logic behind why one would do them. I can't comprehend them at all. They all strike me as nonsense actions without a discernible true motive. They also strike me as evil actions for me to undertake.

Granted, this is my list of things that would personally get me. Others on this forum, undoubtedly have their own lists of morals. These are 4 of mine.
-Pax

again I ask what does it mean when there is nothing to place on that list?
I honestly can not envision anything that would be so reprehensible that it would unbalance my already twisted mind.

The perhaps you should either seek professional help, or feed yourself to the sharks.

Yeah My ex-mother in law would agree with you on that...
She is convinced I am the Anti-christ...
(just cause I sued for and won alimony from my ex-wife.)

I consider that to be pretty awesome, actually.

[Damian Magecraft]

Taboos are not what I'm thinking of. I'm talking about things that are so wrong in your mind that they don't make any sense at all. And of those things, only the evil ones count.

For me personally, I could start a list:

1. Killing someone I know on a personal basis.

2. Committing rape for the need to have sex.

3. Becoming a racist.

4. Cheating in a romantic relationship.

The above four are things I can't grasp the "why" of. I just can't see the logic behind why one would do them. I can't comprehend them at all. They all strike me as nonsense actions without a discernible true motive. They also strike me as evil actions for me to undertake.

Granted, this is my list of things that would personally get me. Others on this forum, undoubtedly have their own lists of morals. These are 4 of mine.
-Pax

again I ask what does it mean when there is nothing to place on that list?
I honestly can not envision anything that would be so reprehensible that it would unbalance my already twisted mind.

The perhaps you should either seek professional help, or feed yourself to the sharks.

Yeah My ex-mother in law would agree with you on that...
She is convinced I am the Anti-christ...
(just cause I sued for and won alimony from my ex-wife.)

I consider that to be pretty awesome, actually.

hey she made 2x as much as I did for the entirety of the marriage...
she chose to sue for alimony... I counter sued...
I won. It was the first and last issue her lawyer tried for during the proceedings.

[Colt47]

He's referring to Taboos. Those aren't exactly linked to alignment as much as they are linked to the culture a person is in. For example, running into a classroom with an instructor teaching and suddenly play a tune on a guitar will likely freeze up a number of people because they don't know exactly what to do in that kind of situation.

Taboos are not what I'm thinking of. I'm talking about things that are so wrong in your mind that they don't make any sense at all. And of those things, only the evil ones count.

For me personally, I could start a list:

1. Killing someone I know on a personal basis.

2. Committing rape for the need to have sex.

3. Becoming a racist.

4. Cheating in a romantic relationship.

The above four are things I can't grasp the "why" of. I just can't see the logic behind why one would do them. I can't comprehend them at all. They all strike me as nonsense actions without a discernible true motive. They also strike me as evil actions for me to undertake.

Granted, this is my list of things that would personally get me. Others on this forum, undoubtedly have their own lists of morals. These are 4 of mine.
-Pax

You contradicted yourself logically. Because you are able to list the actions and understand the consequences of such actions with currently established legal systems you comprehend the action. You might not know why someone did one of the above listed things and therefore not comprehend the motive, but that is due to not knowing the circumstances and without further inquiry there isn't anything one can do about that.

[Vrykolas2k]

[quote="Damian Magecraft[/quote]


I consider that to be pretty awesome, actually.[/quote]
hey she made 2x as much as I did for the entirety of the marriage...
she chose to sue for alimony... I counter sued...
I won. It was the first and last issue her lawyer tried for during the proceedings.[/quote]


Most lawyers are Miscreant.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. For clarity, this is not to pick on you. However, I know what I responded to, and from the look of things I'm thinking both Damian Magecraft and Colt47 are responding to as well. You are now saying why we, personally, would do those acts, but in your previous posts you had included many general lack of comprehension to the actions. This is not to pick on you, but show what we've read. I can accept this is not what you meant.

If you want an example, make a list of the things that you can't comprehend doing or perhaps having done to you. Not good things either, only bad ones - ones that are so evil you can't grasp why someone would ever consider that course of action.

I'm talking about things that are so wrong in your mind that they don't make any sense at all.
[snip]
The above four are things I can't grasp the "why" of. I just can't see the logic behind why one would do them. I can't comprehend them at all. They all strike me as nonsense actions without a discernible true motive. They also strike me as evil actions for me to undertake.

Now, I'll admit that in those quotes there is some mention of you can't see why you, personally, would do them. But there are also a lot of general comments (put in bold to help them stand out). Though I think the way you're doing it is more confusing. Again, I'm not trying to pick on you, but I would like to understand. So I'm going to ask a few questions in an attempt to better understand.

1) Is this more about what we can't comprehend doing? If this is the case, does these mean you honestly don't see a problem if you went peeping on people? You mentioned how you don't mind someone peeping on you, but then you mentioned how there are so many options for sex that you can't imagine raping. I understand that mentality, but in use with the topic it baffles me a little. You think sex isn't a major issue, but seeing a woman naked is complicated enough that you can see yourself peeping at a woman against her will. I'm guessing this is not the case, but see point 2.

2) If this is about actions you wouldn't want done to you (thereby making peeping okay because you wouldn't mind), then I have to ask about other things. For example, in your list you specifically mentioned killing someone you know personally (for note: While I'd be opposed to the concept, it wouldn't fall into my list regardless of things I can't comprehend doing because I can imagine a list of reasons why I would). Does that mean you would have no problem if a stranger killed you? Hey, you're dead, but it was a stranger so it's no big deal. Again, I'm guessing this isn't the case, but if it's not 1 ... it's not 2 ... I'm not sure what it is.

Because it kind of seems like you want it both ways and you pick which one after we say it. I don't believe this is what you're going for, but that's kind of how it kind of looks (to me). I'll be honest, I'm not trying to pick on you or create some trap or trick of words to trip you up. I'm looking at it and my brain is following (what is to me) a logical train of thought from what you're saying, only where we end up isn't making sense. Whether I agree or not, I do like to understand. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Damian Magecraft]

1) Is this more about what we can't comprehend doing? If this is the case, does these mean you honestly don't see a problem if you went peeping on people? You mentioned how you don't mind someone peeping on you, but then you mentioned how there are so many options for sex that you can't imagine raping. I understand that mentality, but in use with the topic it baffles me a little. You think sex isn't a major issue, but seeing a woman naked is complicated enough that you can see yourself peeping at a woman against her will. I'm guessing this is not the case, but see point 2.

I've had female friends that were raped. The psychological effects are quite damaging. My concept of sex involves two people that are enjoying themselves. Rape isn't sex in my mind as it lacks this. Hence, I can't grasp why I would rape someone for sexual desire.

If I wanted to inflict major psychological damage to a young girl, rape does enter a list of actions I could take. I haven't seen a need to do this yet.

Voyeurism isn't just for peeking at women. I'm a guy. I'm proud enough of my body that if someone was desiring a peek at me, I would only see it as a complement. Voyeurism isn't something I engage in, it strikes me as impolite to stare at naked people when they don't want it. That said, it doesn't strike me as an inherently evil action, just impolite.

2) If this is about actions you wouldn't want done to you (thereby making peeping okay because you wouldn't mind), then I have to ask about other things. For example, in your list you specifically mentioned killing someone you know personally (for note: While I'd be opposed to the concept, it wouldn't fall into my list regardless of things I can't comprehend doing because I can imagine a list of reasons why I would). Does that mean you would have no problem if a stranger killed you? Hey, you're dead, but it was a stranger so it's no big deal. Again, I'm guessing this isn't the case, but if it's not 1 ... it's not 2 ... I'm not sure what it is.

I tend to like every person I meet in person. Killing a total stranger would be possible in my mind, killing someone I have met (and therefore like) is impossible. It's just how my personality works. I suppose I could be pushed over the edge, but I do think that would create an insanity of sorts.

As for being killed by a stranger, I don't think that was on my list. I don't think being killed should really be on anyone's list unless they have certain means to avoid it (like suicide). It's not like your going to break that moral code and develop an insanity, your too dead to do this.
-Pax

Thats because Rape has nothing to do with desire. Its about power.

[The Beast]

Define "picked a fight with him". Because from the sounds of it, the shopkeeper did something sleazy and morally dubious, and the PC responded by being a violent and deranged psychopath.

Good question.

Okay, so male PC and female PC go to my NPC's store. The look around for a PA suit for the male PC. They find one under some other things and dig it out. Before they buy it, they leave the shop only to return with a second female PC.

Now the male PC asks to "talk business." Our butter troll NPC shopkeeper asks the male PC to make an offer. The male PC never makes an offer. At this point, the male PC notices the monitor with the voyeuristic photos.

The male PC decides to take advantage of this, by saying that he needs to give him the PA and delete the photos or he'll start bashing some skulls and reveal his secret to the ladies (his alignment was unscrupulous). Now this alerts the ladies and they ask the shop keeper what our male NPC is talking about.

Our shopkeeper is honest and proud of his collection, so he turns the monitor around to show the ladies. He also smiles (meant as a prideful smile, but interpreted as an "evil smile" by our PCs). This also negates part of our male PC's attempt at blackmail.

Now the male PC is angry and "defending" our females at this surprising turn of events (really, he seems pissed that his blackmail was foiled). He unmaskes his ISP and prepares for combat, this triggers the other PCs to also get ready for combat. The PC also mention sending one of the females to retrieve another party member (one with quite a fearsome reputation, sort of a known terrorist...).

The shopkeeper panics at the mention of the other party member. He pushes a button on the computer keyboard and a crap ton of robotic weapon arms emerge from the walls, ceiling and floors. The exit also slams shut. A forcefield also emerges between PCs and the NPC.

Then one of the PCs decides that the computer is the trigger to fire the guns and places a magic barrier over the key board. Unfortunately, this is not correct, the weapons are motion sensitive as well as responding to radio signals, high temperature increases/decreases and just about everything else. The keyboard is the only way to disable them...

Now that our male PC realizes that the shopkeeper isn't a push over, he retreats into this line that he was only here to do business. He denies making any threats and is somehow convinced that he's on the defense.

At this point, this is his character and I don't care if it kills him, but he's got the other two PCs there thinking my shopkeeper has this evil plan going. I'm the GM worried about a TPK (well, more like half the party). I try to have my NPC talk them down, but since neither party believes they are in the wrong, this isn't going to work.

I do succeed in explaining that the weapon arms will kill everyone if they try to leave, radio for help, or attack the shopkeeper. And right as our male PC is about to start shooting despite getting the NPC and two other PCs killed in the process, one of the female PCs manages to talk him down...

This was a very awkward situation in general, but I really don't think the RP was wrong from any of the PCs or the NPC, they all stayed true to their character and there alignments. I did give them XP for avoiding a potential combat situation...
-Pax

Yeah, you should have went for a TPK...

[Vrykolas2k]

1) Is this more about what we can't comprehend doing? If this is the case, does these mean you honestly don't see a problem if you went peeping on people? You mentioned how you don't mind someone peeping on you, but then you mentioned how there are so many options for sex that you can't imagine raping. I understand that mentality, but in use with the topic it baffles me a little. You think sex isn't a major issue, but seeing a woman naked is complicated enough that you can see yourself peeping at a woman against her will. I'm guessing this is not the case, but see point 2.

I've had female friends that were raped. The psychological effects are quite damaging. My concept of sex involves two people that are enjoying themselves. Rape isn't sex in my mind as it lacks this. Hence, I can't grasp why I would rape someone for sexual desire.

If I wanted to inflict major psychological damage to a young girl, rape does enter a list of actions I could take. I haven't seen a need to do this yet.

Voyeurism isn't just for peeking at women. I'm a guy. I'm proud enough of my body that if someone was desiring a peek at me, I would only see it as a complement. Voyeurism isn't something I engage in, it strikes me as impolite to stare at naked people when they don't want it. That said, it doesn't strike me as an inherently evil action, just impolite.

2) If this is about actions you wouldn't want done to you (thereby making peeping okay because you wouldn't mind), then I have to ask about other things. For example, in your list you specifically mentioned killing someone you know personally (for note: While I'd be opposed to the concept, it wouldn't fall into my list regardless of things I can't comprehend doing because I can imagine a list of reasons why I would). Does that mean you would have no problem if a stranger killed you? Hey, you're dead, but it was a stranger so it's no big deal. Again, I'm guessing this isn't the case, but if it's not 1 ... it's not 2 ... I'm not sure what it is.

I tend to like every person I meet in person. Killing a total stranger would be possible in my mind, killing someone I have met (and therefore like) is impossible. It's just how my personality works. I suppose I could be pushed over the edge, but I do think that would create an insanity of sorts.

As for being killed by a stranger, I don't think that was on my list. I don't think being killed should really be on anyone's list unless they have certain means to avoid it (like suicide). It's not like your going to break that moral code and develop an insanity, your too dead to do this.
-Pax

Thats because Rape has nothing to do with desire. Its about power.

Depends on the rape.

[Killer Cyborg]

Thats because Rape has nothing to do with desire. Its about power.

That's a myth.

[Noon]

Pretty much your either co-operating with someone, or in a power struggle with them.

It's a bit like being in a gun fight - maybe you started shooting out of desire, but in the end it's about bullets.