New alignments!

[Vincent Takeda]

Ever been frustrated with the published alignments? Ever think 'this one's close but just not quite right'

Have you ever made a new custom alignment to cover edge case belief systems? What was it called? What made it unique?

[taalismn]

Isn't there a Taoist alignment in Mystic China? It's pretty cool from what I recall.

[Vincent Takeda]

Indeed it does! I wonder if there's ever been a rifter entry with imaginative new alignments...

[taalismn]

Indeed it does! I wonder if there's ever been a rifter entry with imaginative new alignments...

None that I recall, though there's been some imaginative interpretation in the forums of what constitutes 'Good' and 'Evil', especially with regards to organizations like Rifts Coalition States.(In a nutshell, while author canon outright declares the CS to be a fascist state ruled by a guy who admires Adolf Hitler, you still have people of listed Good alignments working in the CS organization in positions where they just HAVE to see evil acts carried out, especially against non-humans, and really make no comment on them....yet they're still considered to be of Good alignment, due, arguably, their loyalty to their fellow humans/the human State). You can get into almost Hobbesian arguments about the need for strong and ruthless government with the looming threat of demons and monsters versus the ideals of tolerance and compassion for the Other.
I generally gloss over the details of alignments if it causes problems, and allow for a degree of wiggle-room so that Principled characters aren't suffocatingly straitlaced prudes and Anarchists aren't all switch-loyalties-on-a-moment's-notice, because there are going to be moments of temptation(where a character will have a toe across the line) or brutal clarity(where they might have to allow something horrible to happen because to try to do otherwise might make the situation WORSE).

[eliakon]

My solution has been to simply get rid of alignments all together. It solves a LOT of the problems and then allows each character to live by their own code of conduct and struggle (or not) to justify their actions.

[Zer0 Kay]

My solution has been to simply get rid of alignments all together. It solves a LOT of the problems and then allows each character to live by their own code of conduct and struggle (or not) to justify their actions.

If they're living by their own code of conduct then why would they have to justify anything, ever? You'd only have to justify your actions vs. someone else's beliefs.

[Vincent Takeda]

Now linguistically I think of a person who 'never has to justify anything' as 'anarchist', unless what they're justifying is the few things that differentiate them from 'more evil' alignments. In palladium I've always thought of them as a spectrum or two... I think functionally you could call yourself an anarchist despite your characters actons all being even objectively scrupulous. I'm not sure what the point of that would be other than 'I like to keep my options open... 'Maybe I might wanna torture a child tomorrow' kind of thing, or the trollish philosophy that 'sure i'm torturing children but they're not innocents... NOBODY is innocent!' which is the kinda philosophy I'd have a hard time welcoming at my table. If you're gonna be bad, at least own up to it.

The best thing about palladium's system is it factors in subjectivity and uses some objective existance wide identifiers... "Never and Always". Anarchist, who is not evil mind you, 'seldom kills for pleasure'... so really the only dividing line between anarchy and diabolic is killing the unarmed and innocent. Eliakon's 'solution' sounds to me like 'there are only 2 alignments. anarchist or diabolic', but even thats not actually true... because killing the unarmed is still listed as 'not likely' instead of 'never'

The innocent, while subjective, are where palladium draws a line in the sand between 'I do whatever I feel like' and 'i'm actually a straight up bad guy'. The anarchist can still kill the unarmed for pleasure without being evil. Only killing the innocent is still in 'never' territory for an anarchist. It's the only 'never' on his list.

I still find it narratively satisfying and useful not to blur that line.

[Zer0 Kay]

Now linguistically I think of a person who 'never has to justify anything' as 'anarchist', unless what they're justifying is the few things that differentiate them from 'more evil' alignments. In palladium I've always thought of them as a spectrum or two... I think functionally you could call yourself an anarchist despite your characters actons all being even objectively scrupulous. I'm not sure what the point of that would be other than 'I like to keep my options open... 'Maybe I might wanna torture a child tomorrow' kind of thing, or the trollish philosophy that 'sure i'm torturing children but they're not innocents... NOBODY is innocent!' which is the kinda philosophy I'd have a hard time welcoming at my table. If you're gonna be bad, at least own up to it.

The best thing about palladium's system is it factors in subjectivity and uses some objective existance wide identifiers... "Never and Always". Anarchist, who is not evil mind you, 'seldom kills for pleasure'... so really the only dividing line between anarchy and diabolic is killing the unarmed and innocent. Eliakon's 'solution' sounds to me like 'there are only 2 alignments. anarchist or diabolic', but even thats not actually true... because killing the unarmed is still listed as 'not likely' instead of 'never'

The innocent, while subjective, are where palladium draws a line in the sand between 'I do whatever I feel like' and 'i'm actually a straight up bad guy'. The anarchist can still kill the unarmed for pleasure without being evil. Only killing the innocent is still in 'never' territory for an anarchist. It's the only 'never' on his list.

I still find it narratively satisfying and useful not to blur that line.

Are you saying the "nobody is innocent," used as an excuse for hurting someone is trollish? Or anyone who thinks that nobody is innocent is trollish? So is Christianity trollish because "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," seeing as how that is paraphrased down to nobody is innocent?

I agree with the first.

I find them useful along with written dispositions. It gives the GM something to base "are they role playing their character" on. Otherwise the GM is sitting there, "well did they do what they want, maybe I'll give them playing in character for doing that, then again it could just be their real persona and they're not be playing a role at all?" No actor is hired to do a role, gets a blank script and is told to do whatever the heck they want.

[eliakon]

My solution has been to simply get rid of alignments all together. It solves a LOT of the problems and then allows each character to live by their own code of conduct and struggle (or not) to justify their actions.

If they're living by their own code of conduct then why would they have to justify anything, ever? You'd only have to justify your actions vs. someone else's beliefs.

Easy.
Its just like how in the real world there aren't alignments (I say this as there is absolutely zero empirical evidence for the existence of a fundamental force of nature that is liked to moral actions...unlike in the Palladium universe where alignments are a known quantity and can be empirically studied (which makes philosophy a rigorous science )). And thus everybody la de dadi lives by their own code of conduct. And they then have to justify to themselves and others why they are a "good" person and not an "evil" one.
Since most people tend to not want to hang out with evil people and like to consider themselves good.

[eliakon]

Now linguistically I think of a person who 'never has to justify anything' as 'anarchist', unless what they're justifying is the few things that differentiate them from 'more evil' alignments. In palladium I've always thought of them as a spectrum or two... I think functionally you could call yourself an anarchist despite your characters actons all being even objectively scrupulous. I'm not sure what the point of that would be other than 'I like to keep my options open... 'Maybe I might wanna torture a child tomorrow' kind of thing, or the trollish philosophy that 'sure i'm torturing children but they're not innocents... NOBODY is innocent!' which is the kinda philosophy I'd have a hard time welcoming at my table. If you're gonna be bad, at least own up to it.

The best thing about palladium's system is it factors in subjectivity and uses some objective existance wide identifiers... "Never and Always". Anarchist, who is not evil mind you, 'seldom kills for pleasure'... so really the only dividing line between anarchy and diabolic is killing the unarmed and innocent. Eliakon's 'solution' sounds to me like 'there are only 2 alignments. anarchist or diabolic', but even thats not actually true... because killing the unarmed is still listed as 'not likely' instead of 'never'

The innocent, while subjective, are where palladium draws a line in the sand between 'I do whatever I feel like' and 'i'm actually a straight up bad guy'. The anarchist can still kill the unarmed for pleasure without being evil. Only killing the innocent is still in 'never' territory for an anarchist. It's the only 'never' on his list.

I still find it narratively satisfying and useful not to blur that line.

Are you saying the "nobody is innocent," used as an excuse for hurting someone is trollish? Or anyone who thinks that nobody is innocent is trollish? So is Christianity trollish because "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," seeing as how that is paraphrased down to nobody is innocent?

Except that it doesnt paraphrase down to that
Unless you are claiming that it is Christian Theology that no one is innocent and thus anyone and everyone is deserving of anything that you wish to do because they are guilty.
Which it isnt.
The claim then *is* trollish because it is attempting to justify petty attacks on people by claiming that the victim deserved the abuse.

[Vincent Takeda]

Thats what I like about the system. Its got subjectivity built right into it. There is at least to me an important distinction between a character who kills innocents but considers himself anarchist anyway because 'no one is truly innocent' and a character who kills innocents full well personally believing them to be innocent and doing it anyway. That still paints two profoundly different philosophies in a way that I appreciate. To simply say that 'the net effect is that they both kill innocents, thus alignment shouldnt exist' is the thing I'm rallying against. The best part of the alignment system is the very fact that its not just what your characters actions end up being, but also their motivations and justifications and qualifications and subjectivities are for those actions. What a disservice to the dichotomy to simply suggest these two characters are one and the same.

[Zer0 Kay]

My solution has been to simply get rid of alignments all together. It solves a LOT of the problems and then allows each character to live by their own code of conduct and struggle (or not) to justify their actions.

If they're living by their own code of conduct then why would they have to justify anything, ever? You'd only have to justify your actions vs. someone else's beliefs.

Easy.
Its just like how in the real world there aren't alignments (I say this as there is absolutely zero empirical evidence for the existence of a fundamental force of nature that is liked to moral actions...unlike in the Palladium universe where alignments are a known quantity and can be empirically studied (which makes philosophy a rigorous science )). And thus everybody la de dadi lives by their own code of conduct. And they then have to justify to themselves and others why they are a "good" person and not an "evil" one.
Since most people tend to not want to hang out with evil people and like to consider themselves good.

Hmm... so you put an entire part of playing in character into the characters defining themselves when seen by others as persons of I'll repute. Interesting. It also takes a lot off the plate of the GM, no having to deal with checklists no 10 minutes later, "oh wait your character wouldn't have done that."

[Zer0 Kay]

Now linguistically I think of a person who 'never has to justify anything' as 'anarchist', unless what they're justifying is the few things that differentiate them from 'more evil' alignments. In palladium I've always thought of them as a spectrum or two... I think functionally you could call yourself an anarchist despite your characters actons all being even objectively scrupulous. I'm not sure what the point of that would be other than 'I like to keep my options open... 'Maybe I might wanna torture a child tomorrow' kind of thing, or the trollish philosophy that 'sure i'm torturing children but they're not innocents... NOBODY is innocent!' which is the kinda philosophy I'd have a hard time welcoming at my table. If you're gonna be bad, at least own up to it.

The best thing about palladium's system is it factors in subjectivity and uses some objective existance wide identifiers... "Never and Always". Anarchist, who is not evil mind you, 'seldom kills for pleasure'... so really the only dividing line between anarchy and diabolic is killing the unarmed and innocent. Eliakon's 'solution' sounds to me like 'there are only 2 alignments. anarchist or diabolic', but even thats not actually true... because killing the unarmed is still listed as 'not likely' instead of 'never'

The innocent, while subjective, are where palladium draws a line in the sand between 'I do whatever I feel like' and 'i'm actually a straight up bad guy'. The anarchist can still kill the unarmed for pleasure without being evil. Only killing the innocent is still in 'never' territory for an anarchist. It's the only 'never' on his list.

I still find it narratively satisfying and useful not to blur that line.

Are you saying the "nobody is innocent," used as an excuse for hurting someone is trollish? Or anyone who thinks that nobody is innocent is trollish? So is Christianity trollish because "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," seeing as how that is paraphrased down to nobody is innocent?

Except that it doesnt paraphrase down to that
Unless you are claiming that it is Christian Theology that no one is innocent and thus anyone and everyone is deserving of anything that you wish to do because they are guilty.
Which it isnt.
The claim then *is* trollish because it is attempting to justify petty attacks on people by claiming that the victim deserved the abuse.

That was horrid quoting.

No I'm saying that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" paraphrases to "no one is innocent." I did not say it paraphrased down to "no one is innocent and whatever they get they deserve." Anyone that knows Christianity know that is only the first part of the Gospell the rest is "and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Which together would paraphrase to No one is innocent but if you accept Christ he will forgive you.
I was asking because their statement was
"'Maybe I might wanna torture a child tomorrow' kind of thing, or the trollish philosophy that 'sure i'm torturing children but they're not innocents... NOBODY is innocent!' which is the kinda philosophy I'd have a hard time welcoming at my table. If you're gonna be bad, at least own up to it." So is the philosophy they're speaking of after the eclipses or in context with that prior to the eclipses? The first would be a poorly chosen choice of words. The second no one can argue with... unless they are the very sociopaths that would use the phrase to justify their actions.

[eliakon]

My solution has been to simply get rid of alignments all together. It solves a LOT of the problems and then allows each character to live by their own code of conduct and struggle (or not) to justify their actions.

If they're living by their own code of conduct then why would they have to justify anything, ever? You'd only have to justify your actions vs. someone else's beliefs.

Easy.
Its just like how in the real world there aren't alignments (I say this as there is absolutely zero empirical evidence for the existence of a fundamental force of nature that is liked to moral actions...unlike in the Palladium universe where alignments are a known quantity and can be empirically studied (which makes philosophy a rigorous science )). And thus everybody la de dadi lives by their own code of conduct. And they then have to justify to themselves and others why they are a "good" person and not an "evil" one.
Since most people tend to not want to hang out with evil people and like to consider themselves good.

Hmm... so you put an entire part of playing in character into the characters defining themselves when seen by others as persons of I'll repute. Interesting. It also takes a lot off the plate of the GM, no having to deal with checklists no 10 minutes later, "oh wait your character wouldn't have done that."

Basically I make each person play their character as they feel that character should be played and not by some random checklist.
This allows for assasins with a heart of gold, cynical knights, bigoted saints and all sorts of other things.
It also removes the crutch of "I detect for evil" and the like. Evil no longer becomes a cosmic property that people wear on their sleeve and instead has to be something that you determine by choice and actions and observation...
...thus the CS people can consider themselves good even though by the book they are evil... because with out the ability to do a spot check to determine the universal rightness or wrongness of an action they have to make a judgement call... a call that can be affected by all sorts of qualifiers and provisios. Thus they can say "hurting innocents is wrong" AND "only Humans are people, everything else is just animals"
Sort of like how realworld people in groups like the KKK or ISIS or the SS feel that they are good loving people who are protecting the innocent... they just don't feel that "the other" are people.

[Vincent Takeda]

Thats the important difference for me between the two systems. Its a lot harder to resolve the discrepancies of a lawfulgood paladin who kills goblinbabies orphaned by the paladin himself. When our quattoria caught up with the kreeghor noble and after beginning to read him his miranda rights saw him attempting to escape and slagged him right there on the spot, he was executing an unarmed opponent. We dont have to worry about if the kreeghor was innocent or not. The relevant question here is 'do we kill unarmed opponents?' so while we might have to parse a few additional possible entries on the alignment list, nobody at the table is gonna try to sell me on the idea that the action was 'Good'... doing bad things to bad people doesnt get to be labeled good. Such problems were rife in D&D but blissfully absent in this system. So the quattoria is aberrant. No big deal. Far better to own it than try to pass off a murderin paladin as not fallen. Saves so much time both in and out of game, but without necessarily throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Alignment still matters. But its descriptive not prescriptive and more specifically establishes the finer dividing lines. An aberrant quattoria is on the table while a murderin paladin not so much.

In the much more satisfying way that if a real police officer shoots a criminal who is both unarmed and fleeing, I'm far more comfortable calling him aberrant than good. When I label the behavior as aberrant, in this case the quattoria player isnt giving me any sass about subjectivity and rationalization. He could have shot for anarchist at best, but he didn't. He knows what he's about and he cops to it without fuss. By writ this guy is exactly the murderous paladin, but suddenly the 'evil' label fits like a glove. Because in paladium evil is not narrowly defined. It can simply be 'ruthless'... He doesn't disagree that this quattoria is ruthless. Evil is the end justifies the means, just like it says on the tin. The ends is one dead kreeghor noble... For queen and country... By any means necessary. Perfectly acceptable quattoria position. For some reason saying this kinda guy wasnt a paladin was the one thing that was a bridge too far.

But the alignment system also has room for subjectivity and rationalization when they are appropriate and I think delineates them appropriately.

Not wanting to have alignments and not judging people is usually the baliwick of the guys who lean ruthless at best. Those guys hate being thought of as 'not good'... They perform occasional good actions and say 'see, i'm not bad!'

Well, if that were true... why didn't you just say 'see, i'm good!' But you didn't say that. Because in them dark little hearts they know it ain't trueeeee.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Palladium alignments are fundamentally flawed.

Far too many "Will always" or "Would never"

By the alignment chart, and reading it, Superman could barely rate Unprincipled. (Yes I realize it SAYS that Superman would be one of the 'good' alignments' but by the rules themselves he doesn't measure up.

Principled characters "Always keep their word" and "Avoid lies"

Kal-el lies every day to assume his secret identity.

By his nature many of his foes are unarmed when he attacks them. With Deity level strength no less. A robber with a pistol isn't really 'armed' against superman is he? Sure technically it's a weapon, but that's like trying to say a kindergartner was 'armed' when you shoot a bazooka at him, if he threw a ball of paper at you. (Actually the paper ball has a much higher chance of hurting you than the gun does superman.)

Always work with in the law when ever possible. Superman breaks many laws in his day to day activities. I know in canon he's been deputized by many (Not all ) world governments but he still conducts unlawful searches (Xray visions) Breaking an entering, assault, etc.

Scrupulous isn't terribly better.
Keep his word to other good people/Will only lie to selfish or evil people. Superman lies every day and has a secret life as a human. The majority of the JLA don't know who he is.
Never attack or kill an unarmed foe (See above)
Attempt to work with in the law (See above)

Etc.

Basically the 'highest' of the Palladium alignments that Superman, the ... world renown "Boy Scout/Good guy" could hope to achieve would be Unprincipled.

And this isn't trying to "Convert" Superman to Palladium rules. Palladium itself says Superman is of Principaled alignment in the books, as it describes the alignments.

I'm just pointing out by their rules and their "Always" and "Never"s, he's really not.

When --Superman-- can't hit your two good alignments. Your system is broken. Most especially when it says that the vast majority of heroes are of the two good alignments or Unprincipaled. The rules and break points for those, mean the vast vast VAST majority of RPers couldn't -play- one of the two alighments. Or else they won't get through pretty much ANY RP session with out degrading down the chart.

So in the end I ignore alignments. As a few have said above. people don't have strict behavioral limits. They have things they SAY they'd never do, and do them on a regular basis, or when the chips are down.

Most people say they'd never kill someone else, but murders happen every second of every day. Do you think every one of those are by people that are like "Oh via my alignment. I'm allowed to kill"

Nopers.

And before someone says "They're guidelines" nope. Palladium's alignments are written with tons of "Would ALWAYS" or "Would NEVER"s up and down the lists. firm black and white statements like that preclude the majority of the population from fitting in many of them.

[Vincent Takeda]

Well. precludes them from fitting into the 'good' ones anyway. But thats also good news, because paladins that want to still be called good even though they kill people and folks who say since good is subjective then alignments shouldnt exist are just trying to bring you down to their level. Like our aberrant who says killing innocents is ok because nobody's innocent. He says 'if he were innocent then killing him would make ME evil. But since nobody's innocent, i'm NOT evil. Lowering the value of innocents to not innocent raises his value from evil to selfish. A rising tide that lifts all boats only requires that he submerges the concept of innocence. Nothin evil about that. Functionally it accomplishes the goal of the folks who dont want alignment. They are not good, thus I am not evil and everyone ends up in the middle, where none of us can be judged.

These kinds of rationalizations happen a metric ton in the real world, and not just in politicians. So these concepts are modeled and interact with each other more organically than most of the rest of the system.

Your analysis of superman is spot on in the same way that they pointed out in Kill Bill. His false persona is his judgement on humanity, and it's not a 'good one'... At least in the latest superman movies they drop the pretense that he's a jesus analogue.

You're also right that in the real world i've never met anyone who'd fit the principled or scrupulous labels. Those watermarks are set 'supernaturally high' which is tough for even the man of steel to achieve, specifically to illustrate that point. Even our Jesus analogue has flaws, which in fact gives him a certain 'humanity'. Superman may still fit under the heading of never 'attacking' an unarmed foe... Examples of him 'attacking' arent coming to mind for me as readily as I thought they might. In the comics he probably spends much more time punchin and wrasslin the baddies than christopher reeves does on film, so we're talkin about a few different renditions of the character.

But even chrisopher reeves goes back to the diner to return the favor on that guy who bullied him. Theres no mistaking a dark spark in that superman too. Petty revenge is not principled so on that I agree that superman is a bad example for principled. That doesnt make palladium's alignment system 'broken'. Hyperbole there.

[Zer0 Kay]

Palladium alignments are fundamentally flawed.

Far too many "Will always" or "Would never"

By the alignment chart, and reading it, Superman could barely rate Unprincipled. (Yes I realize it SAYS that Superman would be one of the 'good' alignments' but by the rules themselves he doesn't measure up.

Principled characters "Always keep their word" and "Avoid lies"

Kal-el lies every day to assume his secret identity.

By his nature many of his foes are unarmed when he attacks them. With Deity level strength no less. A robber with a pistol isn't really 'armed' against superman is he? Sure technically it's a weapon, but that's like trying to say a kindergartner was 'armed' when you shoot a bazooka at him, if he threw a ball of paper at you. (Actually the paper ball has a much higher chance of hurting you than the gun does superman.)

Always work with in the law when ever possible. Superman breaks many laws in his day to day activities. I know in canon he's been deputized by many (Not all ) world governments but he still conducts unlawful searches (Xray visions) Breaking an entering, assault, etc.

Scrupulous isn't terribly better.
Keep his word to other good people/Will only lie to selfish or evil people. Superman lies every day and has a secret life as a human. The majority of the JLA don't know who he is.
Never attack or kill an unarmed foe (See above)
Attempt to work with in the law (See above)

Etc.

Basically the 'highest' of the Palladium alignments that Superman, the ... world renown "Boy Scout/Good guy" could hope to achieve would be Unprincipled.

And this isn't trying to "Convert" Superman to Palladium rules. Palladium itself says Superman is of Principaled alignment in the books, as it describes the alignments.

I'm just pointing out by their rules and their "Always" and "Never"s, he's really not.

When --Superman-- can't hit your two good alignments. Your system is broken. Most especially when it says that the vast majority of heroes are of the two good alignments or Unprincipaled. The rules and break points for those, mean the vast vast VAST majority of RPers couldn't -play- one of the two alighments. Or else they won't get through pretty much ANY RP session with out degrading down the chart.

So in the end I ignore alignments. As a few have said above. people don't have strict behavioral limits. They have things they SAY they'd never do, and do them on a regular basis, or when the chips are down.

Most people say they'd never kill someone else, but murders happen every second of every day. Do you think every one of those are by people that are like "Oh via my alignment. I'm allowed to kill"

Nopers.

And before someone says "They're guidelines" nope. Palladium's alignments are written with tons of "Would ALWAYS" or "Would NEVER"s up and down the lists. firm black and white statements like that preclude the majority of the population from fitting in many of them.

Has he ever said I am not Clark Kent? Maybe palladium does not consider a lie of omission a lie. Maybe Palladium only considers direct misinformation a lie.

How many times does he kill that robber with the pistol? He is usually protecting innocents who can be killed by that gun and justifying that he shouldnt put a gunman down because the gunman cant hurt him when others around can be hurt would be evil. Cant get around that law one though... UNLESS palladium justifies those actions too as following a law just not Earth law.

[zerombr]

I disagree that keeping a secret identity is tantamount to 'lying every single day'. His reasons for doing so aren't malicious, nor are they so he can gain advantage over anyone. That'd be like saying 'Since Superman doesn't work for the police directly, he's not 'working with authorities'.

Anyway, lets remember two things. Alignments are not straightjackets, they are tools. AND that people can act outside their alignment, repeated actions as such would result in alignment change, unless it was drastic (say a principled person torturing for fun, would drop alignment immediately, without need for a pattern of behavior)

[Pepsi Jedi]

I disagree that keeping a secret identity is tantamount to 'lying every single day'. His reasons for doing so aren't malicious, nor are they so he can gain advantage over anyone. That'd be like saying 'Since Superman doesn't work for the police directly, he's not 'working with authorities'.

His real name is Kal'el from the planet Krypton, and he's an alien living on earth. Yes every time he introduces himself as Clark Kent. Mild mannered reporter for the Daily planet he's lying.

Maliciousness is not needed to lie. A lie is simply telling an untruth. And yes he is lying so he can gain advantage over someone. It's to gain advantage over -everyone-. That's the entire point of the secret idenity. To avoid repercussion to yourself (and others) For being a superhero. It may be a lie told in good intent, but it's still a lie.

And yes. Superman does NOT work for the police directly. (Though in some incarnations he's deputized by quite a number of countries but NOT all). He conducts all sorts of illegal activities in his day to day superheroing. Illegal search with the Xray vision. Border jumping. International incidents. Kidnapping. Etc. He's even kidnapped and Mind wiped Jimmy and Lois at times. Flat out straight up killing with out trial, etc etc etc.

He's killed Zod multiple times over the years. Not "Just" The 'new darker' superman, but back in Superman 2. Back in Superman Vol 2 $22 (Where he killed Zod and the other phantom zoners)

He's allowed intergalactic aliens to kidnap children because "Down the line" In the future they'll help fight a war.

He's drugged and paralyzed college football players and impersinated them and even let the paralyzed player get kidnapped.

When his cousin (Supergirl) First showed up on earth he shunted her off to live in an oprhanage and forbid her from using her powers unless he said so. She later outted her self to Krypto.. (Yes.. the dog) and Superman got so pissed he exiled her from earth.

There was also the time he had a superman robot spank Lois.....

He once hit Lois with a fat ray, making her gain 100 lbs. Later on he explains. "I did it with out askign you because I know you wouldn't consent if I did ask"

He once decided that low income housing was to blame for crime.. so he told the poor people living in them to get out and destroyed them all.... just ripped their houses down witht hem watching, figuring "Hey when there's a hurricane the government rebuilds stuff so.. Same same.

He's even pretended to commit suicide infront of Lois, to "Teach her a lesson"

Lets not even touch the time he turned her black....

He once adopted JImmy and then psychologically abused him...

Blew off Dr Light's head...

He printed off flyers during the war that read "Superman says: You can slap a jap".....

Yeah...

And that's just things found with a glance. Just looking at that list where would you put Superman on palladium's alignment chart?

Anyway, lets remember two things. Alignments are not straightjackets, they are tools. AND that people can act outside their alignment, repeated actions as such would result in alignment change, unless it was drastic (say a principled person torturing for fun, would drop alignment immediately, without need for a pattern of behavior)

But.. that's not true. Alignments are straightjackets in Palladium. Many rules, spells, weapons, etc only work for certain alignments. It also says IN the alignment set up if you break one of the "Would never" or "Would always" Rules listed out that you degrade down the scale.

That's the nature of "Never" and "Always"

They're very well defined words. And we know they're there on purpose because in some places you see "Would sometimes do ____" So it's not like it's just a turn of phrase in that section.

The Alignments (As written) In palladium are very black and white.

[Vincent Takeda]

When he says he's Clark Kent, mild mannered reporter with the daily planet, that is not a lie. He was adopted before being self aware by good old country folk. They named him Clark. He got a job at the dialy planet and he's pretty mild mannered even when he isnt Clark Kent. Sure not outright saying I'm the alien kal el from krypton might be a lie, but one of the two good alignments in palladium says 'avoids lying'.

Even trump could slide in under the heading of 'avoids lying'

[Vincent Takeda]

Lets see.

His real name is Kal'el from the planet Krypton, and he's an alien living on earth. Yes every time he introduces himself as Clark Kent. Mild mannered reporter for the Daily planet he's lying.

So avoiding lies, but still being capable of them, so far we're still at principled. Scrupulous people would not lie to selfish or evil people... Then again maybe superman thinks all of humanity is selfish, so subjectively maybe he calls himself scrupulous.

And yes. Superman does NOT work for the police directly. (Though in some incarnations he's deputized by quite a number of countries but NOT all). He conducts all sorts of illegal activities in his day to day superheroing. Illegal search with the Xray vision. Border jumping. International incidents. Kidnapping. Etc. He's even kidnapped and Mind wiped Jimmy and Lois at times. Flat out straight up killing with out trial, etc etc etc.

Mind wipes, even with the best of intent and 'for your own good' is objectivly 'harming' people, so we're officially out of 'good' territory' with that one. Unprincipled is also off the table.

So we're down to anarchist at best so far.

He's killed Zod multiple times over the years. Not "Just" The 'new darker' superman, but back in Superman 2. Back in Superman Vol 2 $22 (Where he killed Zod and the other phantom zoners)

Not likely to kill unarmed foe... but not likely doesnt mean never... still anarchist.

He's allowed intergalactic aliens to kidnap children because "Down the line" In the future they'll help fight a war.

Allowing others to harm innocents isnt really covered under alignments except to say its covered by 'always help others' in the good alignments but at this point that position is immaterial. We already know good is off the table. But does allowing others to harm innocents violate anarchist? No it does not.

He's drugged and paralyzed college football players and impersinated them and even let the paralyzed player get kidnapped.

More of the same. Harming innocents and not helping innocents. Still anarchist.

When his cousin (Supergirl) First showed up on earth he shunted her off to live in an oprhanage and forbid her from using her powers unless he said so. She later outted her self to Krypto.. (Yes.. the dog) and Superman got so pissed he exiled her from earth.

Exile your sister for not following the rules? No violations on the anarchist list for that.

There was also the time he had a superman robot spank Lois.....

Funny but perhaps falls under 'may betray a friend' lol. Still ararchist.

He once hit Lois with a fat ray, making her gain 100 lbs. Later on he explains. "I did it with out askign you because I know you wouldn't consent if I did ask"

Such betrayal... No change.

He once decided that low income housing was to blame for crime.. so he told the poor people living in them to get out and destroyed them all.... just ripped their houses down witht hem watching, figuring "Hey when there's a hurricane the government rebuilds stuff so.. Same same.

Even with the best of intentions, still harming innocents. No change.

He's even pretended to commit suicide infront of Lois, to "Teach her a lesson"

Betraying friends, lying if he feels its necessary.. Still anarchist.

Lets not even touch the time he turned her black....

La la la. Nothing new here.

He once adopted JImmy and then psychologically abused him...

Not likely to torture for pleasure? Heheheheh. Still anarchist though.

Blew off Dr Light's head...

I dont know who Doctor light is. Not likely to kill unarmed opponent? Seldom kill for pleasure... I mean SOMETIMES killing for pleasure means i'm fairly sure blowing poor doctor lights head off isnt violating anarchist even if it was just for fun. If Doctor light is an 'innocent' then this would officially knock him into evil territory.

He printed off flyers during the war that read "Superman says: You can slap a jap".....

Mmmmm. racism... not on any of the alignment charts but would have violated 'have a high regard for life and freedom if unprincipled were still on the table... It aint.

So yeah. Based exclusively on the evidence provided. Anarchist.... Does sound about right. Doesnt work within the law. Doesnt play well with others. Does as he pleases. Breaks the law to achieve his goals. Doesnt usually torture for fun. Does not usually kill foes. He aint good. But he aint evil. He's 'DC Comics version of good' where the ends justify the means.

The alignment list probably came out after most of the events listed in this table had already hit the publisher so at best we can argue that Kevin had a very narrow experience with the entire superman timeline... Cant just say 'back when the alignment list came out superman wasnt so dark yet'...

This is the whole reason I like palladium alignments though. It allows you to take a look at even the vaunted superman and go well... He may not fit any of the 'good' alignments but anarchist is a solid fit, which is more than I can say for any of the possible D&D combinations. Lines up pretty good with 'chaotic good' though... Do the right thing by breakin the rules. Unprincipled is a better chaotic good but obviously this list shows he's not qualified for unprincipled. And if he has killed an innocent? Well, I dont think anyones gonna have a hard time calling him evil unless he'd been mind controlled. I dont call the system broken just because it lies about superman being good. Kevin lying about superman being good just means Kevin is unprincipled at best, lol.

Certainly there's been many iterations of superman though. If we only take christopher or george reeves versions we'd come up with a different answer than we would for a review of every version of superman that's ever been written. With heroes unlimited being a 1984 book its very likely his alignment is being compared to the christopher reeves movies and we all know the alignments havent been updated since his superman IV in 1987. Which superman are we talking about in 1984? Probably the most popular version of the time. Reeves.

Doesnt mean we cant also put all these other versions of superman into their own boxes. And no surprise they will land differently.

[Pepsi Jedi]

When he says he's Clark Kent, mild mannered reporter with the daily planet, that is not a lie. He was adopted before being self aware by good old country folk. They named him Clark. He got a job at the dialy planet and he's pretty mild mannered even when he isnt Clark Kent. Sure not outright saying I'm the alien kal el from krypton might be a lie, but one of the two good alignments in palladium says 'avoids lying'.

Even trump could slide in under the heading of 'avoids lying'

When he says he's "Clark kent" He knows it's a lie. The truth of his name and who and what he is was made aware to him a long time ago.

If you grow up thinking your white and you find out when you're 18 that you're actually adopted and not, telling people you are, is at that point, a lie.

And no. Trump in no way avoids lying. He lies more than he tells the truth.

[Vincent Takeda]

How this all relates to the question originally asked by the OP. Which is me by the way... Is that no matter what superman you're talkin about, there's an alignment for him that sticks. The question I actually asked is have you ever had a situation where NONE of the alignments quite covered it so you had to make something new and if so, what was it. This alignment system clearly handles a plethora of different supermans...

Its a testament to the system that 'taoist' is the only one that's come up so far. Call it broken if you must, but it seems to be pretty comprehensive. The fact that superman cant qualify for a good palladium alignment feels more like a feature than a bug... To be honest most of my players dont even WANT to play principled and scrupulous once they understand a concept like an inquisitor. They love doing bad things to bad people. But once they get past the idea that being that kind of person isn't necessarily 'good' but also isn't 'bad'... As long as you're ok with that, these alignments work just fine.

Works a lot better than the murderhobo paladin problem unless you're still trying to fit the 'I'm a good person' box while you still love punching people in the face just because you think they deserve it. It's ok to be unprincipled or anarchist. Leave the good alignments for charity work and first responders and the peace core.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Mmmmm. racism... not on any of the alignment charts but would have violated 'have a high regard for life and freedom if unprincipled were still on the table... It aint.

So yeah. Based exclusively on the evidence provided. Anarchist.... Does sound about right. Doesnt work within the law. Doesnt play well with others. Does as he pleases. Breaks the law to achieve his goals. Doesnt usually torture for fun. Does not usually kill foes. He ain't good. But he aint evil. He's 'DC Comics version of good'

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. He strikes me more as aberrant by the Palladium alignment chart.

The alignment list probably came out after most of the events listed in this table had already hit the publisher so at best we can argue that Kevin had a very narrow experience with the entire superman timeline... Cant just say 'back when the alignment list came out superman wasnt so dark yet'...

Most of those came out before Kevin's alignment chart. I tended to stay away from more modern transgressions of Superman because people will argue timelines and retcons and what have you when you get there. Want to see some really messed up stuff? Check out the Injustice comics, Where you know.. he kills Lois, and loses his (crap) and literally punches his arm through the joker killing him and taking over the planet and killing a number of DC heroes. But that one's rated "Alternate universe/timeline" so I left that off. Anyone could do anything in an Alt universe, but that one (modern) gets really dark.

This is the whole reason I like palladium alignments though. It allows you to take a look at even the vaunted superman and go well... He may not fit any of the 'good' alignments but anarchist is a solid fit, which is more than I can say for any of the possible D&D combinations. Lines up pretty good with 'chaotic good' though... Do the right thing by breakin the rules. Unprincipled is a better chaotic good but obviously this list shows he's not qualified for unprincipled. And if he has killed an innocent? Well, I dont think anyones gonna have a hard time calling him evil unless he'd been mind controlled. I dont call the system broken just because it lies about superman being good. Kevin lying about superman being good just means Kevin is unprincipled at best, lol.

Well that's one way to look at it I suppose. My point was more that while Kevin lies about Superman being good.... if Superman can't rate the good alignments -who could??-. And with many spells, effects, items, etc being based on good alignments (and kevin saying most heroes will -be- good alignments) and noone being able to rate those high ideals, then the system is broken.

Certainly there's been many iterations of superman though.

Indeed. Because of that I stayed away from "known" Alternate universes, and or mind controlled moments. I also tended to stay away from the more modern things (Like when he and Wonderwoman engaged in sexual activity so hard it leveled a mountain... literally. Can you imagine the fall out to the surrounding area from THAT?) In one of the newer movies. A terrorist is about to Hurt Lois and Superman comes in. Kills a few dozen other terrorists and literally blows the guy through the wall, full superman strength and speed, through the stone/brick wall. While I think the guy did have a gun, it's no threat to superman, and once superman was there. No longer a threat to lois. He could casually catch every bullet fired and drop them on the ground, Walk over, take the gun. Casually break it and gently take Mr Terrorist into custody and there's not one thing the terrorist could do to stop him. But instead. SPLATTER!!!!! But I stayed away from that and other more recent depictions on purpose.

If we only take christopher or george reeves versions we'd come up with a different answer than we would for a review of every version of superman that's ever been written.

Very true, but not exactly the point being made. Even those conducted many behaviors that would knock them out of the 'good' alignments into selfish at best.

With heroes unlimited being a 1984 book its very likely his alignment is being compared to the christopher reeves movies and we all know the alignments havent been updated since his superman IV in 1987. Which superman are we talking about in 1984? Probably the most popular version of the time. Reeves.

"Updated" no. Reprinted many many times? Yes. In every core book Palladium has produced since.

Doesnt mean we cant also put all these other versions of superman into their own boxes. And no surprise they will land differently.

Indeed, but the overreaching point, remains the same. The Alignments as written preclude even superman from achieving a good Alignment. Even when the write up's use him as an example of one.

if Sups can't even make it, your average person on the street doesn't have a chance, or your average PC's either.

[Vincent Takeda]

As I say. Medics, peace core, first responders. Plenty of non supers can pull off the 'good' alignments. That one movie with desmond doss the conscientious objector.

But even the good alignments dont preclude crime fighting as long as the foe is armed, and if they're unarmed, trying to take them in peacefully like a respectable police officer? Thats still full blown good. I dont disagree that there aren't many tables where the players feel like 'taking the bad guy peacefully into custody' is something they bother trying to achieve, but its certainly an option. The problem isnt that good isnt achievable. Its that players so often choose not to.

These players arent going for the 'lets put you in time out and help you figure out what you did wrong' kind of parents. They're the spankin kind of parents.

Properly played good alignment characters COULD disarm the armed opponent, try to get him to surrender, take him into custody and let the law do its job... Most players prefer a more hands on approach because being the spankin parent is easier than taking the time to do it right and often times produces the same results. Sure being good is rare. Its hard and thankless to be kind and caring and helpful all the time. Its just as rare if not moreso than the murderin evil bastards and waaay more rare than people who are just out for themselves. Its a bell curve. But there are plenty of good people out there. Rare but achievable. Much harder to achieve the more face you like punchin. Your average person on the street actually has a way higher chance of being good than a crimefighter.

Players arent often interested in being the good guy. They want to protect the good people of the world. Not BE the good people of the world. Players dont want to be good. They want to be the blunt instrument that is the last line of defence against the bad. Which isn't inherently good. And we certainly shouldnt be fooling ourselves into thinking it is. Does a disservice to the truly good people in the world.

[zerombr]

if you're going to bring up every incident of good ole 'silver age' superman doing stupid stuff, then this conversation doesn't need to continue, because a lot of that was wildly and intentionally out of character.

If your idea of an alignment is that restrictive, to the point where a Principled character is literally forced to tell the truth to anyone he talks to, then I don't know what to tell you.

"Superman, what's the passcode to set off that nuke next to us?"

"Well I can't lie or withhold the truth, so here it is!"

I highly question that unnecessary restrictiveness.

[Pepsi Jedi]

if you're going to bring up every incident of good ole 'silver age' superman doing stupid stuff, then this conversation doesn't need to continue, because a lot of that was wildly and intentionally out of character.

If your idea of an alignment is that restrictive, to the point where a Principled character is literally forced to tell the truth to anyone he talks to, then I don't know what to tell you.

"Superman, what's the passcode to set off that nuke next to us?"

"Well I can't lie or withhold the truth, so here it is!"

I highly question that unnecessary restrictiveness.

Hey don't get snarky because superman DID do a bunch of stupid stuff. I didn't write it. It was still done. (And yes much of that stuff was Silver age). It still happened and was still Superman. I'm not sure about it being 'Intentionally out of character'. If you look at it over all it's right in there.

And As I noted above I stayed away from the more modern stuff due to that exact sort of reply. "Oh well that's not the REAL superman like he USED To be, that's some new fangled "Darker' Superman that's not the "REAL" Superman"

By you r post you want to cherry pick a narrow slice of superman's history and use it to justify the debate.

Well if you look at Charles Manson from 7:49 to 8:03 on a Tuesday in prison the only thing he might be doing is eating his breakfast. (Before he died). By that justification you could go "See. In this time frame Mansion is clearly Principled!' Cutting out the entire silver age of superman because it happened before many of us were born is doing the same sort of thing.

So Superman is either -Superman- and you take the insane, wacky and bad with the good. Or you're cutting a narrow slice to purposefully cherry pick. (And if it were one or two divination from the 'norm' you may be able to write things off as just that. Strange deviations from the norm, but when the lists is a dozen strong from a simple google search, that's not divination from the norm. That's a pattern of behavior.)

As for "My idea" of alignment being restrictive. It's not --my idea--. It's how the book is written. Which is part of the point. When you use words like "ALWAYS" and "NEVER" you draw lines in the sand. You make breakpoints very clear. And by reading through all the alignments it's very clear they're -purposeful- as many other instances have "Refrains from" or "Will usually" or what have you. Which are not such hard line definitive points. So seeing the ones that are less definitive, it proves that the ones that ARE more Definitive are there on purpose. As they're there on purpose, yes they're literal. "Always" and "Never" are words that mean things. Does it mean you have to be stupidly literal? No. But literal yes. Your example while purposefully hyperbolic wouldn't fit.

Withholding information from someone trying to set off a nuke isn't a lie.

"Superman do you know the code?"
"Yes"
"Give me the code"
"Oh, I don't think I will"

That's not a lie of omission. It's failing to acquiesce to a request/demand. There's a difference between refusing to answer and divulge information on purpose and lying. Just like there -is- such a thing as a lie of omission.

[taalismn]

So....how DO we rewrite the Alignment system, such that works with the Insanity tables and some of the magic and psionics?

And doesn't trip alignment breakers like "Gee, I was raised Clark Kent of Earth, but I was BORN as Kal'el of Krypton, though I didn't learn of it until later in life, so now, if I use it to cover my vigilante activities, that's the first of my steps on the slippery slope...."

[Vincent Takeda]

I do love the idea that superman's vigilante justice is anarchist. Much better fit. I'd argue that insanities could create actions outside one's alignment, creating internal conflict, or that they are as usual descriptive in that your alignment becomes whatever the results of your actions are even if your insanities are what's causing it. Even better, I love the multiple personality disorder having several different alignments. One of the few times alignment sort of *has* to be prescriptive. Don't like the idea of forcing multiple personality on a player against their will though.

I suppose in relation to my initial question, if there were room for another alignment unlike the ones already available, the fact that there's no alignment that says abjectly never ever lies is ripe for picking... The wierd combination perhaps of an evil person who pathologically tells the truth for example. An odd kind of nihilist zealot. A guy who does not value lives, or fairness or honor, but does for some odd reason singly value truth. I may backstab you at any time, but I'd never ever lead you to believe that I wouldn't.

I know I told you that i'd never stab you in the back, but I just wanted to mention that I've change my mind on that point... Just so you know... I wouldnt want to stab you in the back at some point and have you suddenly call me a liar. The conditions have changed and I just want you to be aware.

[eliakon]

How this all relates to the question originally asked by the OP. Which is me by the way... Is that no matter what superman you're talkin about, there's an alignment for him that sticks. The question I actually asked is have you ever had a situation where NONE of the alignments quite covered it so you had to make something new and if so, what was it. This alignment system clearly handles a plethora of different supermans...

Hmm, actually yes, yes I have.

For a N&SS/PF game the player wanted to play a Samurai. Not a Ronin, but an actual Samurai, with a lord and everything. Cool! I'm game.
Then we realized that the Samurai Code would basically require them to be Aberant! Oops, that wont fly in a party of heroes questing for the Gods of Light... and would mean that they can't use the magic sword that was the entire purpose of having a sword saint (literal) in the group in the first place! that's a no go there!
Solution?
New Good Alignment "Oathbound". Which was a slight reskin of Aberant, but good.
Oathbound Good characters will never lie to their master.
Oathbound Good characters will never steal from their master
Oathbound Good characters are required to uphold the honor and rules of their master above all, even their life and safety.
So on and so forth. We had seven or eight bullet points sketched out for the alignemnet, and the character drew up the oath that they swore and the code and game on.

Thus we had our sword saint of Isis, who was an honorable samurai and was also a nice proper card carrying Good Guy <tm>

[Vincent Takeda]

Thats a good one. sort of chasing the intent of superman... superman himself may be anarchist in his means, but the end is typically above reproach goodness... A slight modification of scrupulous's 'good to those who deserve it'. For the scrupulous character who is still dutybound to kill even a deserving but unarmed opponent. Scrupulous with a modified 3 bent down and 10 bent up, where killing unarmed is still necessary and respecting authority is still important. I do feel like most folks troubles with alignments systems is chasing these 'executioner paladin' situations. The 'inquisitors'. My job is still to get the bad guy, but my duty is the opposite of capture and reform. Reminds me of the star trek episode where the dudes in the purple rompers must regrettably euthanize wesley for falling in the flowerbed because 'thats how our society does not descend into unpleasantness'. Season 1, episode 8: Justice. The Edo People of Rubicun III. A favorite episode of mine.

Or the 'happiness officer' in paranoia... Pleasantness with authoritarian turned up to 11.

[Pepsi Jedi]

To be honest the insanity tables need to go as well. I get it that they wanted a hint of CoC in there but they don't fit. And are horribly..... horribly wrong, on so many levels for so many of the insanity listed. And that's even after they took 'homosexuality' off the list.

Just.. ignore those right off.

So how to 'fix' the Alignment tables. Well.. to be honest. Noone I've met with 30+ years of Roleplaying Palladium has ever "HELD" an alignment for more than just something to toss on the sheet.

The only time it ever comes up is when a spell or somehting damages someone of one alignment more than another or a Rune weapon or the like only goes to a certain alignment or the "Heroes of the Megaverse" thing where you had to be of the two good alignments (Or Unpirincipled trying to be better) To even get in the game.

It's an antiquated system from the early 80s that has no real place in modern RPGs.

So... pretty much ignore it.

Or use it as a nifty stepping off point if you need it. I've neer needed an alignment to play a PC. I play them as the PC would react and roll right on from there.

[Vincent Takeda]

Considering how hard it is to qualify for the good alignments, I'm having a renewed interest in including a powerful artifact in my games that can only be used by good aligned characters, lol. My players would simply try to sell it, but demand is not high for an item so few can put to actual use... so it sells poorly.

[Pepsi Jedi]

That'd be pretty funny. Especially if they had a hard adventure to get it. And then none could use it

[eliakon]

So....how DO we rewrite the Alignment system, such that works with the Insanity tables and some of the magic and psionics?

And doesn't trip alignment breakers like "Gee, I was raised Clark Kent of Earth, but I was BORN as Kal'el of Krypton, though I didn't learn of it until later in life, so now, if I use it to cover my vigilante activities, that's the first of my steps on the slippery slope...."

Honestly?
You can't.
Full stop.
I say that because once you have magic and psionics and the like that can detect alignment it moves from an abstract principle that your character uses to guide their actions to an actual, factual concrete fundamental force of nature. And that means that there are no shades of grey. Either something is universally good, or it is universally evil, you can't have "well to us its good, but you might find it evil"... that just doesn't fly because with Detect Evil you will know if your actions are good or evil... because if you do the action and now flag as Evil, or Not Good, then guess what? It was wrong, even if your society thinks its okay.

The moral relativism that many people use to justify the good CS person for example, doesn't work in the game as written (big shocker, something in the game that doesn't work RAW). Because you can't have a character doing evil, but thinking they are good, and thus stay good. Good and Evil are fundamental forces, like gravity. Your shooting those D-bees is evil, regardless of what you think. Just like your laser does damage, even if someone thinks that its just light and that shouldn't hurt them

[Zer0 Kay]

So....how DO we rewrite the Alignment system, such that works with the Insanity tables and some of the magic and psionics?

And doesn't trip alignment breakers like "Gee, I was raised Clark Kent of Earth, but I was BORN as Kal'el of Krypton, though I didn't learn of it until later in life, so now, if I use it to cover my vigilante activities, that's the first of my steps on the slippery slope...."

Honestly?
You can't.
Full stop.
I say that because once you have magic and psionics and the like that can detect alignment it moves from an abstract principle that your character uses to guide their actions to an actual, factual concrete fundamental force of nature. And that means that there are no shades of grey. Either something is universally good, or it is universally evil, you can't have "well to us its good, but you might find it evil"... that just doesn't fly because with Detect Evil you will know if your actions are good or evil... because if you do the action and now flag as Evil, or Not Good, then guess what? It was wrong, even if your society thinks its okay.

The moral relativism that many people use to justify the good CS person for example, doesn't work in the game as written (big shocker, something in the game that doesn't work RAW). Because you can't have a character doing evil, but thinking they are good, and thus stay good. Good and Evil are fundamental forces, like gravity. Your shooting those D-bees is evil, regardless of what you think. Just like your laser does damage, even if someone thinks that its just light and that shouldn't hurt them

Does it? Or does the ability to see auras/detect alignments simply mean you as another faulty character knows the general likelyhood of a person to commit heinous acts or tell the truth. Is this dude a law enforcement guy who is a good person but is angry and taking the loss of his daughter out on the people group he planes for it or is this doctor with a calm demeanor, psychologically unstable, some kind of ist or just down right evil. Maybe alignment and aura reading should be a combination of empathy, sociology, eidetic memory and some sort of aura reading.

I've always used alignments as what a person is like on a good day. If they're furious or their significant other's life is threatened then they may end up doing something they never would. If they're a non combatant and they're suddenly thrown into a firefight and their friend is wounded maybe they'll run instead of trying to save their friend. Most people have a code they stick to "alignment" until something out of their ordinary knocks them out of alignment and whether they maintain or have to change or maintain their alignment with an insanity all depends on how they handle the aftermath.

[taalismn]

Woe...I'm getting another '80s' vibe from this ...Gordon Gecko with his Wallstreet speech..."Greed is GOOD. Greed WORKS"

[Zer0 Kay]

Woe...I'm getting another '80s' vibe from this ...Gordon Gecko with his Wallstreet speech..."Greed is GOOD. Greed WORKS"

And yet greed was bad and so was he. What is the point your trying to make again?

[guardiandashi]

the biggest issue with the good alignments is the flat absolutes and some peoples interpretation of what that means.

I will use one of the best examples I have read in a novel, The Deed of Paksenarrion , by Elizabeth Moon. this is a character that is an example of the classic heroes journey, but with quite a few rocks in the trail, someone who starts out as a sheepfarmers daughter, joins up with essentially a mercenary group (run by the local lord) fights in a foreign war, where everyone's ethics get challenged and tainted, gets corrupted and falls to evil and still ends up a Paladin at the end of the story, as in a holy warrior that can stand toe to toe with the worst evils you can imagine and take them on and win without stooping to their level.

or Bahzell Bahnakson from the war god series by David Weber, another hero that doesn't really fit the standard image but what he does completely changes the world and seriously pushes back the forces of darkness (Evil) in the world he is in, no he's not a Knight, or a paladin as such, but don't get in between him and something he believes in you won't like the results.

I guess what I am trying to say is I can see how superman can be the definition of Principled, on one hand, but people can also make the argument that he absolutely doesn't fit that alignment and yet both are true depending on how you interpret what the rules for principled actually are.
Supermans stated code really does line up with principled in most ways, and yet there is the argument that by having a cover (secret identity) he is either bending or breaking the code.

[Regularguy]

I can see how superman can be the definition of Principled, on one hand, but people can also make the argument that he absolutely doesn't fit that alignment and yet both are true depending on how you interpret what the rules for principled actually are.
Supermans stated code really does line up with principled in most ways, and yet there is the argument that by having a cover (secret identity) he is either bending or breaking the code.

As long as a Silver-Age-type Superman is enjoying himself and having fun doing the whole ‘pair of glasses’ act — you know, practically winking at the reader while saying “oh, I have a feeling he already knows,” and so on — could his stated, good, code line up with Taoist?

No bending or breaking, just the alignment as written?

[Vincent Takeda]

Of all the reasons to dispute superman's alignment, I think the lying part is reaching the farthest. The most stringent alignment there is 'avoids them' thats not very restrictive. If we are indeed talking about Christopher Reeves movie superman, the only thing in principled that might even be in question is does he break the law in times that are other than desperate... I think he's got the other 12 on lockdown. 'how you interpret' those 12 isnt even an issue.

Splittin those kinda hairs eventually will just lead us to trying to figure out how to make Mister Rogers and Bob Ross diabolic. Weren't they both in the military. Maybe they killed some poor little north korean children we dont know about. ooooooooooo.... I bet him and mister mcfeely were summoning the great satan every day after the cameras stopped rolling. Thats probably what PBS stands for. Please Bring Satan. I bet the rituals were successful. Who's to say the great satan didn't arrive in the deceptively upbeat Elmo. I mean... He's red, right?

If theres one thing the core book states more than anything else its 'cmon people. use your common sense'. Sure sure, critical thought is a wonderful skill, but being contrary for contrariness's sake? Its hard to take ya seriously.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Of all the reasons to dispute superman's alignment, I think the lying part is reaching the farthest. The most stringent alignment there is 'avoids them' thats not very restrictive. If we are indeed talking about Christopher Reeves movie superman, the only thing in principled that might even be in question is does he break the law in times that are other than desperate... I think he's got the other 12 on lockdown. 'how you interpret' those 12 isnt even an issue.

Splittin those kinda hairs eventually will just lead us to trying to figure out how to make Mister Rogers and Bob Ross diabolic. Weren't they both in the military. Maybe they killed some poor little north korean children we dont know about. ooooooooooo.... I bet him and mister mcfeely were summoning the great satan every day after the cameras stopped rolling. Thats probably what PBS stands for. Please Bring Satan. I bet the rituals were successful. Who's to say the great satan didn't arrive in the deceptively upbeat Elmo. I mean... He's red, right?

If theres one thing the core book states more than anything else its 'cmon people. use your common sense'. Sure sure, critical thought is a wonderful skill, but being contrary for contrariness's sake? Its hard to take ya seriously.

That's not it at all. You're acting like people are some how "Twisting" superman to make him 'not' fit the alignment. That's not what's happening.

RAW, the Alignment chart and list has many "Absolutes". And Absolutes are hard to maintain. When it's written as "Would always" and "Would NEVER" then any time you go against that you're working against the alignment and the book says you slip down a notch.

Superman's many transgressions aren't in question. They've happened. Not just once or twice, but repeatedly. "Oh well if I limit my view of superman to one narrow category and only use that"

Well sheesh. You can take a day out of the life of Lex Luthor and paint him as principled. That's the exact thing you're advocating with superman. "Oh well ingore all the 1000s of comics he's been in and only take from one movie" That's "A day in the life" A day in the life of Magneto might paint him as Scrupulous, a day in the life of the Joker may paint him as Unprincipaled.

But that's not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is the rigidity of the Alignments and how as they -are- so ridgid, that they're broken.

When -superman- can't even make it into a 'good' alignment then your ruleset seems to be broken.

And it's not about "Splitting hairs" As written it'd be hard to get Superman past anarchist. He'd never make it into Good. And that's with out the "lying to people every day" Part.

Not trying to be reptetative but with out even trying I had a list.

Superman does NOT work for the police directly. (Though in some incarnations he's deputized by quite a number of countries but NOT all). He conducts all sorts of illegal activities in his day to day superheroing. Illegal search with the Xray vision. Border jumping. International incidents. Kidnapping. Etc. He's even kidnapped and Mind wiped Jimmy and Lois at times. Flat out straight up killing with out trial, etc etc etc.

He's killed Zod multiple times over the years. Not "Just" The 'new darker' superman, but back in Superman 2. Back in Superman Vol 2 $22 (Where he killed Zod and the other phantom zoners)

He's allowed intergalactic aliens to kidnap children because "Down the line" In the future they'll help fight a war.

He's drugged and paralyzed college football players and impersinated them and even let the paralyzed player get kidnapped.

When his cousin (Supergirl) First showed up on earth he shunted her off to live in an oprhanage and forbid her from using her powers unless he said so. She later outted her self to Krypto.. (Yes.. the dog) and Superman got so pissed he exiled her from earth.

There was also the time he had a superman robot spank Lois.....

He once hit Lois with a fat ray, making her gain 100 lbs. Later on he explains. "I did it with out askign you because I know you wouldn't consent if I did ask"

He once decided that low income housing was to blame for crime.. so he told the poor people living in them to get out and destroyed them all.... just ripped their houses down witht hem watching, figuring "Hey when there's a hurricane the government rebuilds stuff so.. Same same.

He's even pretended to commit suicide infront of Lois, to "Teach her a lesson"

Lets not even touch the time he turned her black....

He once adopted JImmy and then psychologically abused him...

Blew off Dr Light's head...

He printed off flyers during the war that read "Superman says: You can slap a jap".....

This isn't splitting hairs. Those would not fit into the good categories even with a stretch.

[Vincent Takeda]

I dont think you can credibly suggest that every iteration of superman is the same superman. You are comparing apples to oranges and supporting your argument by making the box of fruit larger. By that logic of course superman might as well be diabolic. That doesnt make it a cogent argument. If its all the exact same guy then how come zod is played by 7 different people and sometimes he dies and sometimes he doesnt. Just the idea of parallel universes where things work out differently means they're not the same superman and if you're not using multiple universe theory then the whole thing falls apart.

You're not only using the logical fallacy of the 'one true superman', you're lumping every discrete iteration of him into a single bucket and slapping your chosen label on the pile. Thats not being intellectually honest. Its gestalt superstrawman, not superman.

Its one step away from saying fat albert is evil because he was voiced by a guy we know did bad stuff to young people. 'But THEYRE THE SAME PERSON!' While we're at it lets start pokin holes in whether we actually 'know' he did bad stuff... or whether the stuff he did can be called objectively 'bad'... who are we to judge? This is the kind of logic where alignment threads go to die. Its a zen koan of obfuscation of the issues. We call carrot soup because many times in life carrot has been in soup. Where does soup begin and carrot end? Dont want to talk about carrot discretely as carrot. Henceforth carrot shall be known as soup. Its Monty Python logic.

Alignment isn't about what you do. Its about why you do it. We can't credibly suggest that the one and only singular superman is evil because he's killed zod at least 3 times anymore than we can argue that a person can't be called scrupulous if they got into a car accident and a baby accidentally died. Intentions matter and yes, even when they're subjective, and even when things go differently than how you intended.

And if you can't make these distinctions, alignment threads are probably not the best place for you. Its either intentionally super fuzzy logic for devil's advocate's sake (a popular libra hobby), intentionally diverting the conversation into the semantics of 'who really decides what evil or immoral or unethical or dishonorable behavior is really?', a legitimate inability to see where the lines or drawn, or an intentional refuting that there should be any lines (beware the trolls).

All great conversations to be had in bible schools and ted talks, but in order for any of those truths to be meaningful, we gotta take em in their relevant pieces. Alignment is all about drawing lines and making distinctions and exploring why your character did what he did and how he feels about it, so those nebulous conversations can still be had, but alignment is about sorting that out and establishing where the lines are. Not blurring them all together. You flat out cant even have meaningful discussion about alignment if you pull a bill clinton and start arguing about what the definition of 'is' is. "How knowable is any of it really..." Perhaps the alignment we're missing is 'nihilist'. We'll group it in with the selfish alignments. Not evil.

Alignments are mutable. They DO change. We've all seen the meme with the alignment chart with batman in every single position. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that over the course of his life, batman has at some point been each of the available alignments. People change, their perspective changes, their motivations change... So yeah. Its entirely right to say we're making alignment judgements one slice at a time. Thats exactly how alignments work. Alignment isn't something you're born with and stuck with for all your live long days, across multiple timelines across multiple storylines. Nobody is ever trapped in their alignment and I've never seen any published material for any game system that suggested such a thing.

Thats what we mean when we say descriptive not prescriptive. But the description is meaninful, even (and sometimes most specifically) when it changes. Its the very definition of a character arc all the way from Darth Vader to the FaceHeel turns of Hulk Hogan. Alignment is about why you make the choices you make and how you intend to operate on those intentions. What actually happened is tertiary to these other two, and not in an ironic way.

[eliakon]

So....how DO we rewrite the Alignment system, such that works with the Insanity tables and some of the magic and psionics?

And doesn't trip alignment breakers like "Gee, I was raised Clark Kent of Earth, but I was BORN as Kal'el of Krypton, though I didn't learn of it until later in life, so now, if I use it to cover my vigilante activities, that's the first of my steps on the slippery slope...."

Honestly?
You can't.
Full stop.
I say that because once you have magic and psionics and the like that can detect alignment it moves from an abstract principle that your character uses to guide their actions to an actual, factual concrete fundamental force of nature. And that means that there are no shades of grey. Either something is universally good, or it is universally evil, you can't have "well to us its good, but you might find it evil"... that just doesn't fly because with Detect Evil you will know if your actions are good or evil... because if you do the action and now flag as Evil, or Not Good, then guess what? It was wrong, even if your society thinks its okay.

The moral relativism that many people use to justify the good CS person for example, doesn't work in the game as written (big shocker, something in the game that doesn't work RAW). Because you can't have a character doing evil, but thinking they are good, and thus stay good. Good and Evil are fundamental forces, like gravity. Your shooting those D-bees is evil, regardless of what you think. Just like your laser does damage, even if someone thinks that its just light and that shouldn't hurt them

Does it? Or does the ability to see auras/detect alignments simply mean you as another faulty character knows the general likelyhood of a person to commit heinous acts or tell the truth. Is this dude a law enforcement guy who is a good person but is angry and taking the loss of his daughter out on the people group he planes for it or is this doctor with a calm demeanor, psychologically unstable, some kind of ist or just down right evil. Maybe alignment and aura reading should be a combination of empathy, sociology, eidetic memory and some sort of aura reading.

I've always used alignments as what a person is like on a good day. If they're furious or their significant other's life is threatened then they may end up doing something they never would. If they're a non combatant and they're suddenly thrown into a firefight and their friend is wounded maybe they'll run instead of trying to save their friend. Most people have a code they stick to "alignment" until something out of their ordinary knocks them out of alignment and whether they maintain or have to change or maintain their alignment with an insanity all depends on how they handle the aftermath.

"You are what you are on your worst day." -Order of the Stick.
I would say that if you can detect evil, then if someone is evil they HAVE to break at least one of the rules for good. And for most of them its not "on their best day" its never or always. Not 'try' not 'when feeling good' but absolutes.
It is, black and white, and absolute elemental force as fundamental as gravity or electro-magnetism... and you have three possible poles, Good/Selfish/Evil. No grey.
And we know this to be canon as Kevin himself has put in adventures situations where a single choice will change your alignment automatically.
One choice.
On your worst day.
One single decision can move you down to Anarchist or even Miscreant.

Now people can play how they want... but RAW the alignments are cut and dried absolutes that are cosmic rules of reality.

[Pepsi Jedi]

I dont think you can credibly suggest that every iteration of superman is the same superman. You are comparing apples to oranges and supporting your argument by making the box of fruit larger. By that logic of course superman might as well be diabolic. That doesnt make it a cogent argument. If its all the exact same guy then how come zod is played by 7 different people and sometimes he dies and sometimes he doesnt. Just the idea of parallel universes where things work out differently means they're not the same superman and if you're not using multiple universe theory then the whole thing falls apart.

You're not only using the logical fallacy of the 'one true superman', you're lumping every discrete iteration of him into a single bucket and slapping your chosen label on the pile. Thats not being intellectually honest. Its gestalt superstrawman, not superman.

Its one step away from saying fat albert is evil because he was voiced by a guy we know did bad stuff to young people. 'But THEYRE THE SAME PERSON!' While we're at it lets start pokin holes in whether we actually 'know' he did bad stuff... or whether the stuff he did can be called objectively 'bad'... who are we to judge? This is the kind of logic where alignment threads go to die. Its a zen koan of obfuscation of the issues. We call carrot soup because many times in life carrot has been in soup. Where does soup begin and carrot end? Dont want to talk about carrot discretely as carrot. Henceforth carrot shall be known as soup. Its Monty Python logic.

Alignment isn't about what you do. Its about why you do it. We can't credibly suggest that the one and only singular superman is evil because he's killed zod at least 3 times anymore than we can argue that a person can't be called scrupulous if they got into a car accident and a baby accidentally died. Intentions matter and yes, even when they're subjective, and even when things go differently than how you intended.

And if you can't make these distinctions, alignment threads are probably not the best place for you. Its either intentionally super fuzzy logic for devil's advocate's sake (a popular libra hobby), intentionally diverting the conversation into the semantics of 'who really decides what evil or immoral or unethical or dishonorable behavior is really?', a legitimate inability to see where the lines or drawn, or an intentional refuting that there should be any lines (beware the trolls).

All great conversations to be had in bible schools and ted talks, but in order for any of those truths to be meaningful, we gotta take em in their relevant pieces. Alignment is all about drawing lines and making distinctions and exploring why your character did what he did and how he feels about it, so those nebulous conversations can still be had, but alignment is about sorting that out and establishing where the lines are. Not blurring them all together. You flat out cant even have meaningful discussion about alignment if you pull a bill clinton and start arguing about what the definition of 'is' is. "How knowable is any of it really..." Perhaps the alignment we're missing is 'nihilist'. We'll group it in with the selfish alignments. Not evil.

Alignments are mutable. They DO change. We've all seen the meme with the alignment chart with batman in every single position. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that over the course of his life, batman has at some point been each of the available alignments. People change, their perspective changes, their motivations change... So yeah. Its entirely right to say we're making alignment judgements one slice at a time. Thats exactly how alignments work. Alignment isn't something you're born with and stuck with for all your live long days, across multiple timelines across multiple storylines. Nobody is ever trapped in their alignment and I've never seen any published material for any game system that suggested such a thing.

Thats what we mean when we say descriptive not prescriptive. But the description is meaninful, even (and sometimes most specifically) when it changes. Its the very definition of a character arc all the way from Darth Vader to the FaceHeel turns of Hulk Hogan. Alignment is about why you make the choices you make and how you intend to operate on those intentions. What actually happened is tertiary to these other two, and not in an ironic way.

WOW That's a whole bunch of words that boil down to "I want to ignore all the Stuff superman has done over decades and decades of existence EXCEPT for the part I want to use"

If you're cherry picking to suit your argument you don't have an argument.

And Alignments as written are about what you DO, as well as WHY you do it. That's why they're filled with things like "Would never kill an innocent" Not "Wouldn't kill if someone was perceived innocent in that moment in time by the character to the best of his knowledge in this reality and space time".

Alignments can change, but it's supposed to be a huge deal when they do. The way you have it one's alignment changes on what time of day it is, if he or she has eaten and if they've had enough caffine. That's not an alignment that's a mood ring.

But your quite wordy post still boils down to "As written, the Palladium alignment system is broken"

If Superman is everything from Diabolic to Principled depending on issue, movie, tv show, time of day and phase of moon.... then the alignment system is broken.

(( And Frankly it's a hold over from 70s-80s rpgs that most modern RPGs have moved past, because..... yep... We ARE different depending on situation and context and alignments are too ridgid to actually depict real life people.)

[Daniel Stoker]

Serious question because it's DC and I don't pay nearly as much attention to it as I do Marvel... how much of the "Super ******" Superman is still considered canon?


Daniel Stoker

[Zer0 Kay]

I dont think you can credibly suggest that every iteration of superman is the same superman. You are comparing apples to oranges and supporting your argument by making the box of fruit larger. By that logic of course superman might as well be diabolic. That doesnt make it a cogent argument. If its all the exact same guy then how come zod is played by 7 different people and sometimes he dies and sometimes he doesnt. Just the idea of parallel universes where things work out differently means they're not the same superman and if you're not using multiple universe theory then the whole thing falls apart.

You're not only using the logical fallacy of the 'one true superman', you're lumping every discrete iteration of him into a single bucket and slapping your chosen label on the pile. Thats not being intellectually honest. Its gestalt superstrawman, not superman.

Its one step away from saying fat albert is evil because he was voiced by a guy we know did bad stuff to young people. 'But THEYRE THE SAME PERSON!' While we're at it lets start pokin holes in whether we actually 'know' he did bad stuff... or whether the stuff he did can be called objectively 'bad'... who are we to judge? This is the kind of logic where alignment threads go to die. Its a zen koan of obfuscation of the issues. We call carrot soup because many times in life carrot has been in soup. Where does soup begin and carrot end? Dont want to talk about carrot discretely as carrot. Henceforth carrot shall be known as soup. Its Monty Python logic.

Alignment isn't about what you do. Its about why you do it. We can't credibly suggest that the one and only singular superman is evil because he's killed zod at least 3 times anymore than we can argue that a person can't be called scrupulous if they got into a car accident and a baby accidentally died. Intentions matter and yes, even when they're subjective, and even when things go differently than how you intended.

And if you can't make these distinctions, alignment threads are probably not the best place for you. Its either intentionally super fuzzy logic for devil's advocate's sake (a popular libra hobby), intentionally diverting the conversation into the semantics of 'who really decides what evil or immoral or unethical or dishonorable behavior is really?', a legitimate inability to see where the lines or drawn, or an intentional refuting that there should be any lines (beware the trolls).

All great conversations to be had in bible schools and ted talks, but in order for any of those truths to be meaningful, we gotta take em in their relevant pieces. Alignment is all about drawing lines and making distinctions and exploring why your character did what he did and how he feels about it, so those nebulous conversations can still be had, but alignment is about sorting that out and establishing where the lines are. Not blurring them all together. You flat out cant even have meaningful discussion about alignment if you pull a bill clinton and start arguing about what the definition of 'is' is. "How knowable is any of it really..." Perhaps the alignment we're missing is 'nihilist'. We'll group it in with the selfish alignments. Not evil.

Alignments are mutable. They DO change. We've all seen the meme with the alignment chart with batman in every single position. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that over the course of his life, batman has at some point been each of the available alignments. People change, their perspective changes, their motivations change... So yeah. Its entirely right to say we're making alignment judgements one slice at a time. Thats exactly how alignments work. Alignment isn't something you're born with and stuck with for all your live long days, across multiple timelines across multiple storylines. Nobody is ever trapped in their alignment and I've never seen any published material for any game system that suggested such a thing.

Thats what we mean when we say descriptive not prescriptive. But the description is meaninful, even (and sometimes most specifically) when it changes. Its the very definition of a character arc all the way from Darth Vader to the FaceHeel turns of Hulk Hogan. Alignment is about why you make the choices you make and how you intend to operate on those intentions. What actually happened is tertiary to these other two, and not in an ironic way.

WOW That's a whole bunch of words that boil down to "I want to ignore all the Stuff superman has done over decades and decades of existence EXCEPT for the part I want to use"

If you're cherry picking to suit your argument you don't have an argument.

And Alignments as written are about what you DO, as well as WHY you do it. That's why they're filled with things like "Would never kill an innocent" Not "Wouldn't kill if someone was perceived innocent in that moment in time by the character to the best of his knowledge in this reality and space time".

Alignments can change, but it's supposed to be a huge deal when they do. The way you have it one's alignment changes on what time of day it is, if he or she has eaten and if they've had enough caffine. That's not an alignment that's a mood ring.

But your quite wordy post still boils down to "As written, the Palladium alignment system is broken"

If Superman is everything from Diabolic to Principled depending on issue, movie, tv show, time of day and phase of moon.... then the alignment system is broken.

(( And Frankly it's a hold over from 70s-80s rpgs that most modern RPGs have moved past, because..... yep... We ARE different depending on situation and context and alignments are too ridgid to actually depict real life people.)

So I have but one question. Is everything your attributing to superman the same superman, as in which reality is he from?

[Pepsi Jedi]

I dont think you can credibly suggest that every iteration of superman is the same superman. You are comparing apples to oranges and supporting your argument by making the box of fruit larger. By that logic of course superman might as well be diabolic. That doesnt make it a cogent argument. If its all the exact same guy then how come zod is played by 7 different people and sometimes he dies and sometimes he doesnt. Just the idea of parallel universes where things work out differently means they're not the same superman and if you're not using multiple universe theory then the whole thing falls apart.

You're not only using the logical fallacy of the 'one true superman', you're lumping every discrete iteration of him into a single bucket and slapping your chosen label on the pile. Thats not being intellectually honest. Its gestalt superstrawman, not superman.

Its one step away from saying fat albert is evil because he was voiced by a guy we know did bad stuff to young people. 'But THEYRE THE SAME PERSON!' While we're at it lets start pokin holes in whether we actually 'know' he did bad stuff... or whether the stuff he did can be called objectively 'bad'... who are we to judge? This is the kind of logic where alignment threads go to die. Its a zen koan of obfuscation of the issues. We call carrot soup because many times in life carrot has been in soup. Where does soup begin and carrot end? Dont want to talk about carrot discretely as carrot. Henceforth carrot shall be known as soup. Its Monty Python logic.

Alignment isn't about what you do. Its about why you do it. We can't credibly suggest that the one and only singular superman is evil because he's killed zod at least 3 times anymore than we can argue that a person can't be called scrupulous if they got into a car accident and a baby accidentally died. Intentions matter and yes, even when they're subjective, and even when things go differently than how you intended.

And if you can't make these distinctions, alignment threads are probably not the best place for you. Its either intentionally super fuzzy logic for devil's advocate's sake (a popular libra hobby), intentionally diverting the conversation into the semantics of 'who really decides what evil or immoral or unethical or dishonorable behavior is really?', a legitimate inability to see where the lines or drawn, or an intentional refuting that there should be any lines (beware the trolls).

All great conversations to be had in bible schools and ted talks, but in order for any of those truths to be meaningful, we gotta take em in their relevant pieces. Alignment is all about drawing lines and making distinctions and exploring why your character did what he did and how he feels about it, so those nebulous conversations can still be had, but alignment is about sorting that out and establishing where the lines are. Not blurring them all together. You flat out cant even have meaningful discussion about alignment if you pull a bill clinton and start arguing about what the definition of 'is' is. "How knowable is any of it really..." Perhaps the alignment we're missing is 'nihilist'. We'll group it in with the selfish alignments. Not evil.

Alignments are mutable. They DO change. We've all seen the meme with the alignment chart with batman in every single position. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that over the course of his life, batman has at some point been each of the available alignments. People change, their perspective changes, their motivations change... So yeah. Its entirely right to say we're making alignment judgements one slice at a time. Thats exactly how alignments work. Alignment isn't something you're born with and stuck with for all your live long days, across multiple timelines across multiple storylines. Nobody is ever trapped in their alignment and I've never seen any published material for any game system that suggested such a thing.

Thats what we mean when we say descriptive not prescriptive. But the description is meaninful, even (and sometimes most specifically) when it changes. Its the very definition of a character arc all the way from Darth Vader to the FaceHeel turns of Hulk Hogan. Alignment is about why you make the choices you make and how you intend to operate on those intentions. What actually happened is tertiary to these other two, and not in an ironic way.

WOW That's a whole bunch of words that boil down to "I want to ignore all the Stuff superman has done over decades and decades of existence EXCEPT for the part I want to use"

If you're cherry picking to suit your argument you don't have an argument.

And Alignments as written are about what you DO, as well as WHY you do it. That's why they're filled with things like "Would never kill an innocent" Not "Wouldn't kill if someone was perceived innocent in that moment in time by the character to the best of his knowledge in this reality and space time".

Alignments can change, but it's supposed to be a huge deal when they do. The way you have it one's alignment changes on what time of day it is, if he or she has eaten and if they've had enough caffine. That's not an alignment that's a mood ring.

But your quite wordy post still boils down to "As written, the Palladium alignment system is broken"

If Superman is everything from Diabolic to Principled depending on issue, movie, tv show, time of day and phase of moon.... then the alignment system is broken.

(( And Frankly it's a hold over from 70s-80s rpgs that most modern RPGs have moved past, because..... yep... We ARE different depending on situation and context and alignments are too ridgid to actually depict real life people.)

So I have but one question. Is everything your attributing to superman the same superman, as in which reality is he from?

Short answer "Yes" I purposefully left off stuff from alternate realities and the more modern stuff (Where it reboots every so often)

Though the "Superman and wonder woman had sex so hard they destroyed a mountain and caused earthquakes" Was modern era. That wasn't used in my example I don't believe. (Though it no doubt did harm innocents as you can level a mountain and cause earth quakes and NOONe get hurt)

Stuff like 'Injustice" and stuff take him to a really dark/evil place but it's alternate reality so I didn't touch it.

The list I gave came 'before' the modern shenanigans with reboots and what have you.

[eliakon]

<massive snip>

So I have but one question. Is everything your attributing to superman the same superman, as in which reality is he from?

Well, we know that every one of them lies, so thats an issue.
Most of the material presented seems to be from the first Superman, the one that would be considered 'the' superman in the 70s and early 80s when the book was written.


I think the bigger issue is that as demonstrated the alignment system as written is flawed because of the absolutes. Always and Never are hard to deal with since if you break it even once, for any reason, your disqualified. We see this being canon in Adventures on the High Seas, where if a single member of the party takes a single piece of treasure from the tomb, they automatically drop to Anarchist on the spot... one mistake on your worst day and *boom* 'No Good For You, One Year!" (as it states that it will be a chore to work back up...)