Could the Republicans Beat ARCHIE Three

[Killer Cyborg]

No, Doc Feral is simply an example of a writer who clearly didn't understand the alignment system (either that or also suffered from the same mental issues of Feral in thinking a sentient being isn't when it's not human)

Erick Wujcik wrote TMNT/N&SS/ATB, I think if KS didn't consider him to understand the basic rules I don't think he would have let him do 3 game lines.

Wujcik I think clearly did believe that mutant animal like the TMNT were equally sentient and deserving of rights: he simply designed Feral as an NPC who did not have those beliefs and reacted accordingly.

It sets the precedent that if you do not recognize a species' rights, your 'twisted' perceptions allow you to disregard your alignment guidelines in regard to them.

No, it sets no precedent at all, it only shows that Wujick CLEARLY failed to acknowledge that Doctor Feral was a monstrous villain of truly evil nature like he actually is. Feral was not 'Principled but twisted' he was Aberrant, period. No your perceptions do NOT allow you to ignore alignment guidelines, that's why the aliens in Heroes Unlimited are clearly listed as being of various evil alignments because you don't get to go 'oh well I don't recognize them as people that makes torturing and killing them okay' that's nothing more than basic evil trying to rationalize that it isn't really evil. It doesn't make the settlers killing the indians to take there land good, it didn't make Hitler and his Nazis good, and it doesn't make Feral good either it just makes him an evil person who still shows some decency to some people.

You are going to fail utterly and completely trying to argue that someone like Feral is or can be a good alignment because they can't, they're evil without doubt. It doesn't matter if it's a demon from Hades or a human from the CS treating Dog Boys like an un-uplifted animal they're still evil. The torturer who goes home to his wife and kids and treats them all loving after a day of torturing people is still evil, he's not 'good but twisted', he's evil but still does some good things.

Yes, yes... we understand that this is your opinion.
But it's unsupported and unexplained.

Look at Doc Feral.

Doc Feral:
-Will never break the law
-Is non-violent
-Is generous with his friends, employees, the poor, etc.
-Is not in any way evil or malicious toward fellow humans.
-Has no compunctions about kidnapping and killing (via vivisection) mutant animals, because he sees them as just animals.

Look at the Aberrant alignment.

People of the Aberrent:
-Never kill an innocent, particularly a child, but may harm, harass, or kidnap.
-Rarely attempts to work within the law
-Will break the law without hesitation
-Has no use for the law or bureaucracy
-Expects loyalty from his minions, punishing disloyalty and treachery with a swift, merciful debt.
-Will break all laws with impunity, harass their victims, beat and murder.

Notice that Doc Feral never breaks the law, and that goes directly against at least three of the criteria for being Aberrant.
Notice that Doc Feral has no qualms about kidnapping and KILLING innocent mutant animals, yet Aberrant characters would NEVER do such a thing.
Notice that Doc Feral is essentially a pacifist who would never dream of committing acts of violence, yet Aberrant characters will beat and murder people.

Doc Feral does NOT fit the Aberrant alignment, not unless you make adjustments for his particular personality.
For example, you could say something like, "Doc Feral would never kill an innocent HUMAN, sure... but he's racist against mutant animals. He doesn't consider them to be "innocent people," so therefore killing them is within the Aberrant alignment for him.

And please, DO say something like that.
I'd like to hear it.


Otherwise, quit trying to claim that Doc Feral is Aberrant, and try to find an alignment that does fit his personality as described, without taking into account his personal prejudices.

[jaymz]

Good and Evil are a point of view not a hard line in any way shape or form. One's own point of view determines what is good or evil. There is no such thing as a hard line on good or evil that applies to all regardless of their own points of view.

[Nightmask]

Good and Evil are a point of view not a hard line in any way shape or form. One's own point of view determines what is good or evil. There is no such thing as a hard line on good or evil that applies to all regardless of their own points of view.

Except there is, because it's written in the rule books what qualifies as good and evil. Such things are an OBJECTIVE aspect of the game just like what an object weighs NOT subjective. Feral is evil, whatever rationalizations he uses we know he's evil because his actions are those of an evil person as per the rules of the game. It doesn't matter what excuses someone might make in reality to justify their evil because they definitely don't work in the game because good and evil are concrete aspects of reality. We know what it takes to qualify for a good alignment and casually torturing and killing sentient beings is CLEARLY the work of an evil alignment therefor someone like Doc Feral is evil, there are no excuses one can make that can get him classified as good because he's not good he's evil, period. It's indisputable.

[jaymz]

And yet....ones point of view defines what those qualifiers encompass regardless of what your opinion about it may be.

[Killer Cyborg]

We know what it takes to qualify for a good alignment and casually torturing and killing sentient beings is CLEARLY the work of an evil alignment therefor someone like Doc Feral is evil, there are no excuses one can make that can get him classified as good because he's not good he's evil, period. It's indisputable.

Okay, so which Evil alignment is he supposed to be?
I've already addressed Aberrant.
Which Evil alignment does Doc Feral fall into, and how?

[eliakon]

Actually Doc Feral could be Aberrant. He just defines most (not all) of societies laws though as part of his personal code of honor (which Aberrant characters don't break) and now he is following his code, not the law.

The biggest problem is that strictly speaking, no character in any book, anywhere follows the alignment system. Doc Feral is not, pardon the pun, and aberration in this... he is the standard. Not a single character I have ever seen in a single book actually follows the alignment system as written.

[Pepsi Jedi]

No, Doc Feral is simply an example of a writer who clearly didn't understand the alignment system (either that or also suffered from the same mental issues of Feral in thinking a sentient being isn't when it's not human)

Erick Wujcik wrote TMNT/N&SS/ATB, I think if KS didn't consider him to understand the basic rules I don't think he would have let him do 3 game lines.

Wujcik I think clearly did believe that mutant animal like the TMNT were equally sentient and deserving of rights: he simply designed Feral as an NPC who did not have those beliefs and reacted accordingly.

It sets the precedent that if you do not recognize a species' rights, your 'twisted' perceptions allow you to disregard your alignment guidelines in regard to them.

No, it sets no precedent at all, it only shows that Wujick CLEARLY failed to acknowledge that Doctor Feral was a monstrous villain of truly evil nature like he actually is. Feral was not 'Principled but twisted' he was Aberrant, period. No your perceptions do NOT allow you to ignore alignment guidelines, that's why the aliens in Heroes Unlimited are clearly listed as being of various evil alignments because you don't get to go 'oh well I don't recognize them as people that makes torturing and killing them okay' that's nothing more than basic evil trying to rationalize that it isn't really evil. It doesn't make the settlers killing the indians to take there land good, it didn't make Hitler and his Nazis good, and it doesn't make Feral good either it just makes him an evil person who still shows some decency to some people.

You are going to fail utterly and completely trying to argue that someone like Feral is or can be a good alignment because they can't, they're evil without doubt. It doesn't matter if it's a demon from Hades or a human from the CS treating Dog Boys like an un-uplifted animal they're still evil. The torturer who goes home to his wife and kids and treats them all loving after a day of torturing people is still evil, he's not 'good but twisted', he's evil but still does some good things.

Doesn't happen often, so... you know. Pay attention when it does...

But I agree with Nightmask here. The listing of Doc Feral with that alignment was either 1) A gross editing mistake, or 2) A lack of full comprehension in how Palladium's alignment's work.


That being said, the way Palladium's alignments work, Superman couldn't be higher than Anarhist or Aberrant.. so... you know... take that as you will.

[dragonfett]

Is it possible for for a Good Aligned character to hate a race or group of individuals (such as D-Bees, Mutant Animals, etc.)?

[Pepsi Jedi]

You can dislike or even hate a group. As long as you don't act on that hate in a way that would 'breach' your "Would nevers" and "would always" on the alignment charts

[Nightmask]

Is it possible for for a Good Aligned character to hate a race or group of individuals (such as D-Bees, Mutant Animals, etc.)?

Good-aligned people aren't required to be perfect, they can still have flaws. Archie Bunker was still a good person in spite of his flaws. So a good person could hate a particular group BUT if he engaged in regular abuse of that group particularly torture or killing he'd stop qualifying as a good person because his actions have taken him outside the range of good. The character of Siegfried from Dominic Deegan for example, he had some good he did but was brought up to see Orcs as nothing but animals and as his backstory was revealed was shown to have committed truly brutal acts against them (as a kid he murdered an entire orc family including the young daughter and hung them in a tree as a birthday present for his dad who loved it) and was routinely violent even towards supposed friends. When he died he went straight to hell where he insisted that it was a mistake and he was a good person. What lies he told himself meant nothing from the objective truth of reality.

[jaymz]

Actually since the standard you are using is what is written in the rules then no...perfection is pretty much required thanks to the use of words like always and never. To do otherwise is breaking alignment as written even if you do it only once.

So which is it? Absolute or interpretive because you can't have it both ways in order to justify your opinion that good is good and evil is evil regardless of ones point of view.

[flatline]

Most groups I've played with just threw out the alignment system entirely.

--flatline

[dragonfett]

You can dislike or even hate a group. As long as you don't act on that hate in a way that would 'breach' your "Would nevers" and "would always" on the alignment charts

So in theory then, a Scrupulous or even Principaled aligned character could hate and kill all D-Bees so long as they did mercifully/humanely (i.e. with as little pain to them as possible, much like how hunters attempt to inflict as little suffering as possible on the game that they hunt)?

[Library Ogre]

I'd say that a Scrupulous person could be racist... but, as others have pointed out, the problem comes down to when and how they act on their racism.

Let's picture a theoretical "Mr. Feral", who holds the exact same beliefs and attitudes as "Doc Feral", but works as a cab driver in New York. A badly beaten Raphael gets into his cab and tells him to drive to 11th and Bleeker, tossing him a three-fingered fist full of cash. If Mr. Feral is Scrupulous, he'll drive there, and drop him off. He will, after all, "Always help others". He might complain about damn mutants when Raph gets out of the cab, he might refrain from offering his medical supplies in the front seat... he might even complain loudly about mutants while Raph is in the cab, because good doesn't mean nice. He might even make a coded call to dispatch letting them know that he thinks he's about to be robbed, and get a gun he doesn't officially have ready to shoot Raph if he tries anything. But, as a scrupulous person, he'll drive the cab to where he's been asked.

Compare this to Doc Feral. The key difference is Doc Feral has POWER over these creatures, and he consistently harms them. He doesn't torture for pleasure, no, but he tortures for knowledge. He harms again and again and again based on his belief that they're not really people, despite evidence that they are (i.e. Otto, and the other mutant animals he uses as lab assistants). And, IIRC, the lab assistants are all evil, while Doc Feral is Scrupulous with an asterisk.

I think it is more accurate to mark him Miscreant, with the asterisk that he acts Scrupulous towards humans, rather than Scrupulous but doesn't see mutants as real people. As they say, "If he's nice to you but not nice to the waiter, he's not a nice person." Well, if he's torturing and killing some people, but would never do it to others, he's still torturing and killing...

[Killer Cyborg]

Most groups I've played with just threw out the alignment system entirely.

--flatline

Then they're Anarchist.

[Killer Cyborg]

Actually Doc Feral could be Aberrant. He just defines most (not all) of societies laws though as part of his personal code of honor (which Aberrant characters don't break) and now he is following his code, not the law.

Right.
He could be Aberrant, but only if we give him leeway based on his own personal views of the world... by which standard, he could also be Scrupulous (which he is actually listed as being).

The biggest problem is that strictly speaking, no character in any book, anywhere follows the alignment system. Doc Feral is not, pardon the pun, an aberration in this... he is the standard. Not a single character I have ever seen in a single book actually follows the alignment system as written.

Yup.
Because the Alignment system isn't meant to be 100% literal; it's a general standard, one that is intended to allow for leeway based on the characters' individual perceptions and quirks.

[Killer Cyborg]

I'd say that a Scrupulous person could be racist... but, as others have pointed out, the problem comes down to when and how they act on their racism.

Let's picture a theoretical "Mr. Feral", who holds the exact same beliefs and attitudes as "Doc Feral", but works as a cab driver in New York. A badly beaten Raphael gets into his cab and tells him to drive to 11th and Bleeker, tossing him a three-fingered fist full of cash. If Mr. Feral is Scrupulous, he'll drive there, and drop him off. He will, after all, "Always help others". He might complain about damn mutants when Raph gets out of the cab, he might refrain from offering his medical supplies in the front seat... he might even complain loudly about mutants while Raph is in the cab, because good doesn't mean nice. He might even make a coded call to dispatch letting them know that he thinks he's about to be robbed, and get a gun he doesn't officially have ready to shoot Raph if he tries anything. But, as a scrupulous person, he'll drive the cab to where he's been asked.

Compare this to Doc Feral. The key difference is Doc Feral has POWER over these creatures, and he consistently harms them. He doesn't torture for pleasure, no, but he tortures for knowledge. He harms again and again and again based on his belief that they're not really people, despite evidence that they are (i.e. Otto, and the other mutant animals he uses as lab assistants). And, IIRC, the lab assistants are all evil, while Doc Feral is Scrupulous with an asterisk.

I think it is more accurate to mark him Miscreant, with the asterisk that he acts Scrupulous towards humans, rather than Scrupulous but doesn't see mutants as real people. As they say, "If he's nice to you but not nice to the waiter, he's not a nice person." Well, if he's torturing and killing some people, but would never do it to others, he's still torturing and killing...

Let's go another direction.
You have a character who is exactly like Doc Feral, only he never encounters mutant animals, and only performs experiments on normal animals.
Is he still Scrupulous?
Or is he Miscreant?
Or something else?

[eliakon]

Actually Doc Feral could be Aberrant. He just defines most (not all) of societies laws though as part of his personal code of honor (which Aberrant characters don't break) and now he is following his code, not the law.

Right.
He could be Aberrant, but only if we give him leeway based on his own personal views of the world... by which standard, he could also be Scrupulous (which he is actually listed as being).

actually, no that is not true. He would not be scrupulous, he would be aberrant. Since he would be following his code above all others. To be scrupulous he would have to follow all the rules of scrupulous, which he doesn't. Even if we changed things so that he has a code of honor that reflects the majority of the laws he is still not following all of the laws... ergo he can not be scrupulous.

The biggest problem is that strictly speaking, no character in any book, anywhere follows the alignment system. Doc Feral is not, pardon the pun, an aberration in this... he is the standard. Not a single character I have ever seen in a single book actually follows the alignment system as written.

Yup.
Because the Alignment system isn't meant to be 100% literal; it's a general standard, one that is intended to allow for leeway based on the characters' individual perceptions and quirks.

[/quote]
Except of course that it doesn't say that. I mean that is a nice house rule and all... but then it goes into pure moral relativism and the entire thing becomes pointless for the opposite reason since if your personal view of what is right or wrong gets to let you determine if it is objectively right or wrong... then there is no objective good or evil.

As written the entire alignment system is uselessly unworkable. No character can follow the system as written, and making it so that you CAN follow the system makes the entire thing an exercise in relativism in which everyone is good, in their own mind, and evil is 'other people'

Now if you have a book/page reference that says that the alignment system is not actually literal, that when it says "always" and "never" and gives rules... that those are not actual rules and standards and just guide lines I am all ears... otherwise RAW it is literal, and leeway is a houserule (which GMs add to try and make an unworkable concept more workable).

[Killer Cyborg]

Actually Doc Feral could be Aberrant. He just defines most (not all) of societies laws though as part of his personal code of honor (which Aberrant characters don't break) and now he is following his code, not the law.

Right.
He could be Aberrant, but only if we give him leeway based on his own personal views of the world... by which standard, he could also be Scrupulous (which he is actually listed as being).

actually, no that is not true. He would not be scrupulous, he would be aberrant. Since he would be following his code above all others.

It sounds like you're trying to argue that "following his own code above all others" includes following his own code over the qualifications of the Aberrant alignment, which is pretty funny, but it would mean that anybody could qualify as Aberrant, as long as they "follow their own code."

To be scrupulous he would have to follow all the rules of scrupulous, which he doesn't. Even if we changed things so that he has a code of honor that reflects the majority of the laws he is still not following all of the laws... ergo he can not be scrupulous.

a) To be Aberrant, he would have to follow all the rules of Aberrant, which he doesn't.
b) He does follow all the laws of Scrupulous as he understands it.

The biggest problem is that strictly speaking, no character in any book, anywhere follows the alignment system. Doc Feral is not, pardon the pun, an aberration in this... he is the standard. Not a single character I have ever seen in a single book actually follows the alignment system as written.

Yup.
Because the Alignment system isn't meant to be 100% literal; it's a general standard, one that is intended to allow for leeway based on the characters' individual perceptions and quirks.

Except of course that it doesn't say that.

It doesn't. It's one of those "common sense" things that Palladium is so fond of.
It's not RAW, just RAI.
Palladium's system doesn't work RAW.

I mean that is a nice house rule and all... but then it goes into pure moral relativism and the entire thing becomes pointless for the opposite reason since if your personal view of what is right or wrong gets to let you determine if it is objectively right or wrong... then there is no objective good or evil.

Not exactly.
Pure moral relativism would mean that somebody could believe that killing innocent people is Good, and that's not allowed by Palladium's alignment.
What I'm describing is people (like Doc Feral) acting on their alignment's rules based on their own perceptions instead of based on a cosmic third-person-omniscient perspective that they couldn't possibly have as an individual.
It's a kind of Kantian view, where intent matters more than results when it comes to morality--where having a Good Will matters more than doing Good Deeds.

It's the classic moral question of "If you kill an innocent person unnecessarily, but you honestly believe that you've killed a guilty person necessarily, did you act morally or immorally?"
As a rule, Kant would come firmly down on the side of the action being moral, as would every other moral philosophy that comes to mind, excepting those that believe that all killing is necessarily immoral.

Now if you have a book/page reference that says that the alignment system is not actually literal,

Do you have a book/page reference that says that Palladium's rules are to be taken literally as a default?

[Killer Cyborg]

Say you're an average Rifts Vagabond, out hunting to feed your family.
You spot a deer, and you shoot it.
Then you carve it up, and feed it to your family.
Unbeknownst to you, it was a mutant deer with full human intelligence--it just looked like a normal deer.

You've just killed and eaten an innocent.

Does that mean you're Evil now?

[dragonfett]

Wow, this thread is getting deep (philosophically speaking that is)!

[Pepsi Jedi]

Most groups I've played with just threw out the alignment system entirely.

--flatline

And again. I agree with Flatline.

The palladium alignment system is flawd. And 49 out of 50 groups I've been in just ignore it. They might have it on the sheet, as it's something to fill out on a sheet, but they play their characters as characters and ignore it.

That 1 in 50 group that really sticks to it, never lasts long. usually for other reasons but someone being a stickler about a flawed system like that, is indicative of them being so in other aspects that will come up.

[Pepsi Jedi]

You can dislike or even hate a group. As long as you don't act on that hate in a way that would 'breach' your "Would nevers" and "would always" on the alignment charts

So in theory then, a Scrupulous or even Principaled aligned character could hate and kill all D-Bees so long as they did mercifully/humanely (i.e. with as little pain to them as possible, much like how hunters attempt to inflict as little suffering as possible on the game that they hunt)?

I'd say that murdering someone due to prejudice is in violation of the alignment charts. That's certainly "acting" on your hatred.

Principled:
1) Never harm an innocent.
2) Never kill for pleasure.
3) Always help others.
4) Never break laws, unless conditions are desperate. This means no breaking an entering, theft, torture, unprovoked assaults etc.
5) (likely) Never kill or attack an unarmed foe.

This would prevent cold blooded murder on the basis of skin color a number of times over. If absolutely nothing else, murdering people for their skin color is against the laws.

Scrupulous has many of the same restrictions. There's a little more play but not that much. The same hang ups would stop you with that one too.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Say you're an average Rifts Vagabond, out hunting to feed your family.
You spot a deer, and you shoot it.
Then you carve it up, and feed it to your family.
Unbeknownst to you, it was a mutant deer with full human intelligence--it just looked like a normal deer.

You've just killed and eaten an innocent.

Does that mean you're Evil now?

There is no mens rea in this act, so you are not 'evil' for having done so. That doesn't mean you're not 'responsible' for your actions. You did kill the creature and if the creatures sapient buddies come and want restitution in some form. (Indeed even if it was ignorant and involuntary manslaughter) They'd have reason and right to do so, but the lack of mens rea would be a defense. ( One that may or may not work.)

[eliakon]

Actually Doc Feral could be Aberrant. He just defines most (not all) of societies laws though as part of his personal code of honor (which Aberrant characters don't break) and now he is following his code, not the law.

Right.
He could be Aberrant, but only if we give him leeway based on his own personal views of the world... by which standard, he could also be Scrupulous (which he is actually listed as being).

actually, no that is not true. He would not be scrupulous, he would be aberrant. Since he would be following his code above all others.

It sounds like you're trying to argue that "following his own code above all others" includes following his own code over the qualifications of the Aberrant alignment, which is pretty funny, but it would mean that anybody could qualify as Aberrant, as long as they "follow their own code."

To be scrupulous he would have to follow all the rules of scrupulous, which he doesn't. Even if we changed things so that he has a code of honor that reflects the majority of the laws he is still not following all of the laws... ergo he can not be scrupulous.

a) To be Aberrant, he would have to follow all the rules of Aberrant, which he doesn't.
b) He does follow all the laws of Scrupulous as he understands it.

The biggest problem is that strictly speaking, no character in any book, anywhere follows the alignment system. Doc Feral is not, pardon the pun, an aberration in this... he is the standard. Not a single character I have ever seen in a single book actually follows the alignment system as written.

Yup.
Because the Alignment system isn't meant to be 100% literal; it's a general standard, one that is intended to allow for leeway based on the characters' individual perceptions and quirks.

Except of course that it doesn't say that.

It doesn't. It's one of those "common sense" things that Palladium is so fond of.
It's not RAW, just RAI.
Palladium's system doesn't work RAW.

I mean that is a nice house rule and all... but then it goes into pure moral relativism and the entire thing becomes pointless for the opposite reason since if your personal view of what is right or wrong gets to let you determine if it is objectively right or wrong... then there is no objective good or evil.

Not exactly.
Pure moral relativism would mean that somebody could believe that killing innocent people is Good, and that's not allowed by Palladium's alignment.
What I'm describing is people (like Doc Feral) acting on their alignment's rules based on their own perceptions instead of based on a cosmic third-person-omniscient perspective that they couldn't possibly have as an individual.
It's a kind of Kantian view, where intent matters more than results when it comes to morality--where having a Good Will matters more than doing Good Deeds.

It's the classic moral question of "If you kill an innocent person unnecessarily, but you honestly believe that you've killed a guilty person necessarily, did you act morally or immorally?"
As a rule, Kant would come firmly down on the side of the action being moral, as would every other moral philosophy that comes to mind, excepting those that believe that all killing is necessarily immoral.

Now if you have a book/page reference that says that the alignment system is not actually literal,

Do you have a book/page reference that says that Palladium's rules are to be taken literally as a default?

But the simple fact is that sorry, a rule is, by definition, a rule. That means that when a rule says "Always does X" then, yes it means "Always does X". t does not mean "well does X when convenient, if we define X to really mean Y or possibly Z"
The rule book says something, then gosh darn it, that is what the rule book means. If it was up to interpretation it would say that it could be interpreted, it would not give a blanket statement that was not up for interpretation.

However I am getting the feeling that you are not interested in actually discussing anything. As I notice that when the situation calls for your personal interpretation to require the rules to be flexible (like this one) then you are an advocate of flexibility. But when your interpretation calls for ridged hard line inflexibility (like say... guilds and spells) then lo and behold you argue that the rules are clear and that any wiggle room or the slightest doubt is house rule because the book doesn't give that doubt.
Its a double standard that suggests to me that you are not interested in an honest, open discussion and frankly, I have better things to do than play "catch the moving goalpost" with someone.

[Killer Cyborg]

But the simple fact is that sorry, a rule is, by definition, a rule. That means that when a rule says "Always does X" then, yes it means "Always does X".
It does not mean "well does X when convenient, if we define X to really mean Y or possibly Z"

That depends on what kind of rule you're talking about, and what kind of circumstances.
A "Rule of Thumb" is a kind of rule that by definition is NOT necessarily intended to be followed all the time, under any and every circumstances, for example.
Then there are "unwritten rules," which are another kind of rule, which are not necessarily hard-and-fast, and which by definition cannot be utilized RAW.
And there are rules that you always follow... unless another rule countermands the rule in question.

So, no. Not all rules are meant to be followed hard and fast, 100%, all the time, by everybody, under every circumstance.

Furthermore, you're looking at rules for characters as if they were the same as rules for players, but they're not the same thing.
A Principled Character will "Never harm an innocent," but that's not a mechanical rule for game play--that's a moral code for an imaginary person to follow as best as they can.
A Principled character who unknowingly harms an innocent doesn't automatically change their alignment.

RUE 289
Alignments define what the character sees as right and wrong, good and evil, acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable.

Alignments should be seen as a guideline for each character that indicates how he or she is likely to react in any given situation.

The Alignment descriptions are about character perception, not about player or even GM perception, and not about some cosmic code of morality that exists outside of the character's perceptions and experiences.
Doc Feral would never kill or harm anybody that he perceived as an innocent.
But it's based on his perception, not on reality.

So in that example I posed where a Vagabond hunts, kills, and eats a deer that he didn't know was sapient?
He doesn't have to change his alignment, because he didn't know what he did. He didn't perceive the target as an innocent sapient, therefore he was acting within his alignment (i.e., acting within his own perception about right and wrong, good and evil, acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable).

The rule book says something, then gosh darn it, that is what the rule book means. If it was up to interpretation it would say that it could be interpreted, it would not give a blanket statement that was not up for interpretation.

I can see that you're new to Palladium.

However I am getting the feeling that you are not interested in actually discussing anything.

I am actively discussing things.
Not sure how that gives the impression that I'm not interested in discussing things.

As I notice that when the situation calls for your personal interpretation to require the rules to be flexible (like this one) then you are an advocate of flexibility. But when your interpretation calls for ridged hard line inflexibility (like say... guilds and spells) then lo and behold you argue that the rules are clear and that any wiggle room or the slightest doubt is house rule because the book doesn't give that doubt.
Its a double standard that suggests to me that you are not interested in an honest, open discussion and frankly, I have better things to do than play "catch the moving goalpost" with someone.

My standard is always the same, and I can spell it out clearly for anybody who wants to listen:
When there are multiple possible house interpretations, then I prefer the interpretation that agrees with the official material.
In this case, Doc Feral is listed as Scrupulous.
I'm not going to take a house interpretation that conflicts with the book, and declares that I know more than the writer.
The only time I do that is when official material conflicts with official material, in such a way where there is no reasonable way for all official material to be correct.

I'm not entirely sure what stance I've taken on guilds and spells that you feel is inconsistent with this position.
The only stance that I can remember taking is that the official prices of spells, existence of guilds, and lack of proliferation of easy-to-access spells makes sense if you look at guilds and mages in a certain way that is consistent with the official text, and that any way of looking at such things that leads one to the conclusion that the books are wrong about the setting is logically incorrect.
Which is the same stance that I'm taking here.

Whenever anybody claims that the books are wrong, and their argument hinges on a personal interpretation of things, then it is most likely the personal interpretation that is wrong, NOT the official material.
In this case, guess what that means?
It means that Doc Feral's alignment is Scrupulous, just as the book says, for the reasons that the book says, in the ways that the book says.
It means that people's personal guesses about how alignments are supposed to work are less likely to be correct than the official material, just like their personal guesses about what the price of spells should be, just like their guesses about how free mages should be with giving away their spells, and just like their guesses whether or not the CS should have lost the war to Tolkeen.
My stance is--in every situation I can think of--that the official material is correct, and that personal opinion that conflicts with the official material is incorrect in the context of the overall game.

[Genhuman]

So I guess what you are all saying, is because Doc Feral experiments upon animals, and everyone disagrees upon alignments, good and evil, that means the Republicans (and by nomination, The Donald) have a chance to beat Archie 3 and win the fall election? Or have I missed something here?

[Pepsi Jedi]

You seem to have missed quite a few things there.

[Killer Cyborg]

So I guess what you are all saying, is because Doc Feral experiments upon animals, and everyone disagrees upon alignments, good and evil, that means the Republicans (and by nomination, The Donald) have a chance to beat Archie 3 and win the fall election? Or have I missed something here?

Nailed it.

Really, though, we're on a lengthy tangent about how alignments work in Rifts, for the ultimate purpose (in this thread) of shedding light on the moral implications of the Republicans hacking Archie, and using his body for their own purposes.

From my view, if they [i]truly[/u] don't see him as a sapient being, then they shouldn't have any alignment repercussions according to the rules.
From the other view, it doesn't matter if they truly believe/understand that he's alive, a real person--either way, it's an Evil act on their part.

All of which goes toward the topic of what the Republicans might be able to do to beat Archie.