New alignments!

[Vincent Takeda]

I just wish folks who didnt agree with alignment in its entirety would stay out of alignment threads.

You dont like them. We get it. Stop derailing.

5 digits worth of post history and still cant figure out how to avoid threadcrappin.

[eliakon]

I think the way to fix alignments is two things.
1) I would remove most of the 'always' and 'never' parts. Absolutes make alignments pretty unworkable.
2) I would, strongly, advise that you remove the ability to detect good/evil. By doing that you allow some potential for moral ambiguity...and that wiggle room is what lets you have things like the good CS soldier that honestly thinks what he is doing is right.

I would then suggest that you reorganize them on a selfish/selfless axis instead of trying to have a three way good/selfish/evil one. Maybe borrow from N&SS and add in "discipline of honor" and "no discipline of honor" as a secondary axis.
Then you can have say Selfless and Honorable (the saints of sweetness and light), Selfish and Honorable (the cruel samurai), and all the rest.

[Pepsi Jedi]

I just wish folks who didnt agree with alignment in its entirety would stay out of alignment threads.

You dont like them. We get it. Stop derailing.

5 digits worth of post history and still cant figure out how to avoid threadcrappin.

If you only want to hear your own voice, or read your own text, and your own opinion, I would advise not posting on forums or online. As others will respond in ways that don't line up with your thoughts. If that distresses you, perhaps social media and forums are not the place for you.

Nor are back handed insults welcome. If you're going to attack someone have the testicular fortitude to do so directly.

If I have an opinion on a topic and I feel like voicing it. I will voice it. If you don't like it, that's a you problem. You are more than welcome to ignore my posts, or skip ahead.

[Vincent Takeda]

With 16000 posts you're a hard man to ignore. If threadcrappin is your hobby, yeah. We got a problem.

Is there any way I can hide your posts? never mind. found it. ahhhhhhh. so nice.

Still not gonna solve the fact that threadcrap derails the conversation, but its somethin... I'll still be able to 'smell' the threadcrap, but at least I wont have to see it so much.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Not even sure what you mean by "Threadcrap" If you don't like what I have to say, scroll on by. It's an option open to everyone.

[Vincent Takeda]

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... 20crapping with as much experience as you have on the forums, I'm surprised you've never heard of this.

Its when someone wants to talk about a thing, and you show up simply to say 'I dont like the thing, the thing is horrible, dont ever use the thing.'

The etymology of the term is "I want to talk about a thing" then you show up and say 'That thing is crap'. Thats threadcrapping.

Its considered bad forum etiquette and is typically a modworthy offense.

As an example, I dont like dice pools and fate points and storyteller gaming, so on other forums I have to self regulate myself and stay out of forums where they talk about liking dice pools and fate points and storytellier gaming and different ways to do dice pools, fate points, and storyteller gaming. My job in avoiding threadcrapping is to not show up in forums about things I think are crap. I'm not supposed to show up and say 'oh that? thats crap. shouldnt do it. doesnt work.'..

Another term we have for it it most forum communities is 'wrongbadfun'... as in there's no such thing as wrongbadfun... If I like alignments then I should be able to talk about them without someone showing up and saying they're wrongbadfun.

If you're allowed to show up in any alignment forum and say these things, then every alignment thread changes from an alignment discussion into an alignment debate where one position is 'lets talk about alignments' and the other position is 'kill it. kill it with fire'

If, by extension, we allow threadcrapping on any subject, then no forum would be safe from degenerating into a 'here's what I want to talk about'/'every game mechanic must die' thread.

Thats why threadcrappin is frowned upon. Thats why when I say you shouldnt show up to alignment threads if your only position is that you dont like them. You're tacitly not interested in any aspect of them than the fact that they're broken, so you're not interested in using them as written.... Your position is that they shouldnt be used. Your position is the polar opposite of what the thread is about, so in order to avoid threadcrapping, posters are expected to self regulate and stay away from threads where their only opinion on the subject is 'I don't like it, its broken, dont use it.'

Mods are supposed to regulate this behavior, but either threadcrappin is something that's ok here on these particular threads, or there's nobody watchin the report button. Point is you should be avoiding the conversations about alignment yourself if your position is that they're broken unless you offer suggestions on how to fix them instead of killiing them outright.

I created a thread because I want to talk about alignments. I didnt create a thread to hear how much you dont like them. Its in fact built into normal forum mod behavior that you shouldnt be free to show up in threads just to take the position that the thing thats being talked about shouldnt exist. Its doubly inappropriate for you to assert your freedom to do so. Thats what threadcrapping is. You're not supposed to do it... You're not entitled to it. Its such a common thing on forums that they've made it a word and added it to the reasons to report forum abuse to the mods.

I reported you for threadcrappin days ago with a pin to be notified once a decision was made, but its been days and there's been no response, leading me to believe that there's nobody watching the shop. I can undertand if you've been getting away with this kind of behavior for a long time if these threads don't have any mods, but you shouldn't be doing it anyway. I can understand why you'd be confused at anyone pushing back on you for threadcrapping if you've never heard of it and never been modded for it.

As a result I have to block your posts so that I don't see them, which I shouldn't have to do. You should be avoiding threads where your position is in direct opposition to the subject matter and the mods should address it when you fail to self regulate, but none of that's been happening so far. My hope is that I can have discussions about game mechanics without having detractors of those mechanics showing up to the threads and bashing them, even if your intentions are 'spirited debate' and not malicious. I'm not interested in having my threads hijacked for 'sprited debate'.

I'm not supposed to need to 'scroll past' your posts. I'm not supposed to have to blacklist your posts to avoid seeing them. If you don't like alignments at all and think they're broken, your posts are not supposed to be here. Post only in the threads on mechanics that you agree with, and avoid posting about mechanics you disagree with unless the thread is titled 'which mechanics do you think suck and are broken' where such opinions are appropriate.

The forums are supposed to be a happy place. Not a place for you to vent about the stuff you don't like. Unless the thread is titled 'lets talk about why you dont like the stuff you don't like'

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's not a no threadcrapping rule on this particular forum. If thats the case I need to know so I can avoid posting here, which is a shame since palladium is about the only game system I use anymore. I'd hate to not be able to use the forums of the specific game system that I use exclusively but if threadcrapping is just something they allow here, then I'm gonna need forums with higher standards of behavior and I'll just let myself out. Some people enjoy 'spirited debate'. I am not one of those people. I want to discuss the subjects I discuss with folks who like the things I want to discuss and like to discuss those things in a positive way. I find it exhausting but I can imagine you're the opposite and really get charged up by the constant back and forth of 'it sucks, no it dont, yes it do!' I can't stand that kind of conversation. It drains me. Threadcrapping seems to be a thing you like to do so for now I've got you on a blacklist until I can discover if such activities are considered ok here at palladium, because for me they're not. You seem to be offended at the notion that you shouldnt be allowed to threadcrap and if the mods have never come after you for it then I'm not surprised you feel that way. I'm gonna expect better though.

Its so hard to find welcoming forum communities in the first place when your gaming preference is only one system. But puttin up with threadcrappin aint how I roll so we'll see what the mods have to say about it, if anything and I'll make my decisions accordingly. For every one person who shows up and becomes a palladium gamer because they love 'spirited debate' there could be 10 gamers that dont want to touch palladium with a 10 foot pole because they see that this is how things work around here. I hope what's been going on in this thread is a 'temporary oversight' and not standard operating procedure.

I apologize for presuming you were doing what you're doing with malice. I presumed with a post count 5000 higher than NMI himself and a hundred times as many posts here as I do, that you're familiar with forum etiquette but if threadcrappin is normal around here I can see why you wouldn't be familiar with it. I just can't expect it to continue or I've gotta get me outta here. I'll have to talk about the only kind of gaming I ever do, palladium gaming, on every other forum than a palladium forum, which sounds stupid, but I'll do it.

[dreicunan]

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thread%20crapping with as much experience as you have on the forums, I'm surprised you've never heard of this.

Its when someone wants to talk about a thing, and you show up simply to say 'I dont like the thing, the thing is horrible, dont ever use the thing.'

The etymology of the term is "I want to talk about a thing" then you show up and say 'That thing is crap'. Thats threadcrapping.

Its considered bad forum etiquette and is typically a modworthy offense.

As an example, I dont like dice pools and fate points and storyteller gaming, so on other forums I have to self regulate myself and stay out of forums where they talk about liking dice pools and fate points and storytellier gaming and different ways to do dice pools, fate points, and storyteller gaming. My job in avoiding threadcrapping is to not show up in forums about things I think are crap. I'm not supposed to show up and say 'oh that? thats crap. shouldnt do it. doesnt work.'..

Another term we have for it it most forum communities is 'wrongbadfun'... as in there's no such thing as wrongbadfun... If I like alignments then I should be able to talk about them without someone showing up and saying they're wrongbadfun.

If you're allowed to show up in any alignment forum and say these things, then every alignment thread changes from an alignment discussion into an alignment debate where one position is 'lets talk about alignments' and the other position is 'kill it. kill it with fire'

If, by extension, we allow threadcrapping on any subject, then no forum would be safe from degenerating into a 'here's what I want to talk about'/'every game mechanic must die' thread.

Thats why threadcrappin is frowned upon. Thats why when I say you shouldnt show up to alignment threads if your only position is that you dont like them. You're tacitly not interested in any aspect of them than the fact that they're broken, so you're not interested in using them as written.... Your position is that they shouldnt be used. Your position is the polar opposite of what the thread is about, so in order to avoid threadcrapping, posters are expected to self regulate and stay away from threads where their only opinion on the subject is 'I don't like it, its broken, dont use it.'

Mods are supposed to regulate this behavior, but either threadcrappin is something that's ok here on these particular threads, or there's nobody watchin the report button. Point is you should be avoiding the conversations about alignment yourself if your position is that they're broken unless you offer suggestions on how to fix them instead of killiing them outright.

I created a thread because I want to talk about alignments. I didnt create a thread to hear how much you dont like them. Its in fact built into normal forum mod behavior that you shouldnt be free to show up in threads just to take the position that the thing thats being talked about shouldnt exist. Its doubly inappropriate for you to assert your freedom to do so. Thats what threadcrapping is. You're not supposed to do it... You're not entitled to it. Its such a common thing on forums that they've made it a word and added it to the reasons to report forum abuse to the mods.

I reported you for threadcrappin days ago with a pin to be notified once a decision was made, but its been days and there's been no response, leading me to believe that there's nobody watching the shop. I can undertand if you've been getting away with this kind of behavior for a long time if these threads don't have any mods, but you shouldn't be doing it anyway. I can understand why you'd be confused at anyone pushing back on you for threadcrapping if you've never heard of it and never been modded for it.

As a result I have to block your posts so that I don't see them, which I shouldn't have to do. You should be avoiding threads where your position is in direct opposition to the subject matter and the mods should address it when you fail to self regulate, but none of that's been happening so far. My hope is that I can have discussions about game mechanics without having detractors of those mechanics showing up to the threads and bashing them, even if your intentions are 'spirited debate' and not malicious. I'm not interested in having my threads hijacked for 'sprited debate'.

I'm not supposed to need to 'scroll past' your posts. I'm not supposed to have to blacklist your posts to avoid seeing them. If you don't like alignments at all and think they're broken, your posts are not supposed to be here. Post only in the threads on mechanics that you agree with, and avoid posting about mechanics you disagree with unless the thread is titled 'which mechanics do you think suck and are broken' where such opinions are appropriate.

The forums are supposed to be a happy place. Not a place for you to vent about the stuff you don't like. Unless the thread is titled 'lets talk about why you dont like the stuff you don't like'

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's not a no threadcrapping rule on this particular forum. If thats the case I need to know so I can avoid posting here, which is a shame since palladium is about the only game system I use anymore. I'd hate to not be able to use the forums of the specific game system that I use exclusively but if threadcrapping is just something they allow here, then I'm gonna need forums with higher standards of behavior and I'll just let myself out. Some people enjoy 'spirited debate'. I am not one of those people. I want to discuss the subjects I discuss with folks who like the things I want to discuss and like to discuss those things in a positive way. I find it exhausting but I can imagine you're the opposite and really get charged up by the constant back and forth of 'it sucks, no it dont, yes it do!' I can't stand that kind of conversation. It drains me. Threadcrapping seems to be a thing you like to do so for now I've got you on a blacklist until I can discover if such activities are considered ok here at palladium, because for me they're not. You seem to be offended at the notion that you shouldnt be allowed to threadcrap and if the mods have never come after you for it then I'm not surprised you feel that way. I'm gonna expect better though.

Its so hard to find welcoming forum communities in the first place when your gaming preference is only one system. But puttin up with threadcrappin aint how I roll so we'll see what the mods have to say about it, if anything and I'll make my decisions accordingly. For every one person who shows up and becomes a palladium gamer because they love 'spirited debate' there could be 10 gamers that dont want to touch palladium with a 10 foot pole because they see that this is how things work around here. I hope what's been going on in this thread is a 'temporary oversight' and not standard operating procedure.

I apologize for presuming you were doing what you're doing with malice. I presumed with a post count 5000 higher than NMI himself and a hundred times as many posts here as I do, that you're familiar with forum etiquette but if threadcrappin is normal around here I can see why you wouldn't be familiar with it. I just can't expect it to continue or I've gotta get me outta here. I'll have to talk about the only kind of gaming I ever do, palladium gaming, on every other forum than a palladium forum, which sounds stupid, but I'll do it.

The Palladium forums are not a "safe space." People who disagree with you get to post, too. You sound like you want an echo chamber, not a forum for ideas. And heck, you can make it an echo chamber by blocking the people who disagree with you.

That said, Pepsi didn't engage in "threadcrapping" anyways. He pointed out flaws in the system and then explained why he didn't use it. He also suggested that one "use it as a nifty stepping off point." That isn't saying "this is crap and don't use it."

If you don't like the back and forth with someone, don't engage. Also, you won't HAVE to leave this forum. You are entitely capable of choosing to continue coming here and posting, merely ignoring posts with which you don't want to engage.

[Vincent Takeda]

I appreciate your perspective. So far we're nearly 2 pages into my thread and the only suggestion for an alignment that isnt handled by the existing published ones is taoist in the first response, and 2 suggestions I made myself, and eliakon's oathbound. It seems like so far the discussion is revolving almost exclusively around the first sentence in my post which was 'have you ever been frustrated by the alignment system' and not responding to the nature of the discussion I was actually interested in having.

Didn't think I'd have to preface my post with a tacit 'I'm not interested in hearing how you'd revamp the alignment system itself' but I'll have to be more thorough in the future. I was only interested in hearing about niche cases that the alignments themselves dont already cover. The title of the thread is 'new alignments' not 'revamping the alignment system' and certainly not 'the system is broke because superman cant be good in it', unless you're suggesting that you've made up a new alignment in which superman's lying habits dont preclude him from goodness. If superman's lying precludes you from using the alignment system altogether, thats derailing.

Staying on topic is part of the terms of service for this website.

From the forum rules I quote "when responding to a post, always respond to the topic at hand".

Maybe we call lying sack of sh** superman's new alignment the 'secretive hero' or 'dishonest hero'... Genuinely interested in helping others and doing whats right, but sometimes lying to your face constantly is the right thing to do. Thats a new alignment to cover one that does not already exist. But we can't quite seem to get to that point with this thread despite my constant attempts to drag it back there.

I want a forum of ideas. I asked for ideas about new alignments that break the existing molds. Focus.

[Pepsi Jedi]

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thread%20crapping with as much experience as you have on the forums, I'm surprised you've never heard of this.

Its when someone wants to talk about a thing, and you show up simply to say 'I dont like the thing, the thing is horrible, dont ever use the thing.'

The etymology of the term is "I want to talk about a thing" then you show up and say 'That thing is crap'. Thats threadcrapping.

Its considered bad forum etiquette and is typically a modworthy offense.

As an example, I dont like dice pools and fate points and storyteller gaming, so on other forums I have to self regulate myself and stay out of forums where they talk about liking dice pools and fate points and storytellier gaming and different ways to do dice pools, fate points, and storyteller gaming. My job in avoiding threadcrapping is to not show up in forums about things I think are crap. I'm not supposed to show up and say 'oh that? thats crap. shouldnt do it. doesnt work.'..

Another term we have for it it most forum communities is 'wrongbadfun'... as in there's no such thing as wrongbadfun... If I like alignments then I should be able to talk about them without someone showing up and saying they're wrongbadfun.

If you're allowed to show up in any alignment forum and say these things, then every alignment thread changes from an alignment discussion into an alignment debate where one position is 'lets talk about alignments' and the other position is 'kill it. kill it with fire'

If, by extension, we allow threadcrapping on any subject, then no forum would be safe from degenerating into a 'here's what I want to talk about'/'every game mechanic must die' thread.

Thats why threadcrappin is frowned upon. Thats why when I say you shouldnt show up to alignment threads if your only position is that you dont like them. You're tacitly not interested in any aspect of them than the fact that they're broken, so you're not interested in using them as written.... Your position is that they shouldnt be used. Your position is the polar opposite of what the thread is about, so in order to avoid threadcrapping, posters are expected to self regulate and stay away from threads where their only opinion on the subject is 'I don't like it, its broken, dont use it.'

Mods are supposed to regulate this behavior, but either threadcrappin is something that's ok here on these particular threads, or there's nobody watchin the report button. Point is you should be avoiding the conversations about alignment yourself if your position is that they're broken unless you offer suggestions on how to fix them instead of killiing them outright.

I created a thread because I want to talk about alignments. I didnt create a thread to hear how much you dont like them. Its in fact built into normal forum mod behavior that you shouldnt be free to show up in threads just to take the position that the thing thats being talked about shouldnt exist. Its doubly inappropriate for you to assert your freedom to do so. Thats what threadcrapping is. You're not supposed to do it... You're not entitled to it. Its such a common thing on forums that they've made it a word and added it to the reasons to report forum abuse to the mods.

I reported you for threadcrappin days ago with a pin to be notified once a decision was made, but its been days and there's been no response, leading me to believe that there's nobody watching the shop. I can undertand if you've been getting away with this kind of behavior for a long time if these threads don't have any mods, but you shouldn't be doing it anyway. I can understand why you'd be confused at anyone pushing back on you for threadcrapping if you've never heard of it and never been modded for it.

As a result I have to block your posts so that I don't see them, which I shouldn't have to do. You should be avoiding threads where your position is in direct opposition to the subject matter and the mods should address it when you fail to self regulate, but none of that's been happening so far. My hope is that I can have discussions about game mechanics without having detractors of those mechanics showing up to the threads and bashing them, even if your intentions are 'spirited debate' and not malicious. I'm not interested in having my threads hijacked for 'sprited debate'.

I'm not supposed to need to 'scroll past' your posts. I'm not supposed to have to blacklist your posts to avoid seeing them. If you don't like alignments at all and think they're broken, your posts are not supposed to be here. Post only in the threads on mechanics that you agree with, and avoid posting about mechanics you disagree with unless the thread is titled 'which mechanics do you think suck and are broken' where such opinions are appropriate.

The forums are supposed to be a happy place. Not a place for you to vent about the stuff you don't like. Unless the thread is titled 'lets talk about why you dont like the stuff you don't like'

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's not a no threadcrapping rule on this particular forum. If thats the case I need to know so I can avoid posting here, which is a shame since palladium is about the only game system I use anymore. I'd hate to not be able to use the forums of the specific game system that I use exclusively but if threadcrapping is just something they allow here, then I'm gonna need forums with higher standards of behavior and I'll just let myself out. Some people enjoy 'spirited debate'. I am not one of those people. I want to discuss the subjects I discuss with folks who like the things I want to discuss and like to discuss those things in a positive way. I find it exhausting but I can imagine you're the opposite and really get charged up by the constant back and forth of 'it sucks, no it dont, yes it do!' I can't stand that kind of conversation. It drains me. Threadcrapping seems to be a thing you like to do so for now I've got you on a blacklist until I can discover if such activities are considered ok here at palladium, because for me they're not. You seem to be offended at the notion that you shouldnt be allowed to threadcrap and if the mods have never come after you for it then I'm not surprised you feel that way. I'm gonna expect better though.

Its so hard to find welcoming forum communities in the first place when your gaming preference is only one system. But puttin up with threadcrappin aint how I roll so we'll see what the mods have to say about it, if anything and I'll make my decisions accordingly. For every one person who shows up and becomes a palladium gamer because they love 'spirited debate' there could be 10 gamers that dont want to touch palladium with a 10 foot pole because they see that this is how things work around here. I hope what's been going on in this thread is a 'temporary oversight' and not standard operating procedure.

I apologize for presuming you were doing what you're doing with malice. I presumed with a post count 5000 higher than NMI himself and a hundred times as many posts here as I do, that you're familiar with forum etiquette but if threadcrappin is normal around here I can see why you wouldn't be familiar with it. I just can't expect it to continue or I've gotta get me outta here. I'll have to talk about the only kind of gaming I ever do, palladium gaming, on every other forum than a palladium forum, which sounds stupid, but I'll do it.

That's a whole BUNCHA words there, that boil down to "If you don't agree with what I have to say, I don't want to hear from you. How dare you disagree! And I'll report you to the mods! Then go on at length re-iterating why I think the mods should punish you for not agreeing with me!!! More over I'll hold the mods hostage. If they do NOT punish you I'm going to storm off and leave. So unless the mods want to lose a forums member they better do what I say!"

I'm sorry but, that's not how forums work, or real life for that matter. This is a forum. One run by palladium to -discuss- palladium topics. Not for you to post your opinion with out possibility of disagreement or decent. In short, It is -not- an echo chamber. Which -does- seem to be what you are striving for. To quote,

" I want to discuss the subjects I discuss with folks who like the things I want to discuss and like to discuss those things in a positive way"

That's an echo chamber. That's not what this forum is. Or.. any other forum that I've been a part of since.. 1994 when I became an online presence. I'm sure they exist, but I've never been a part of one.

Your post is an accusation of misbehavior and utter demand that the mods punish me or else you'll leave the forums. You're laying down blackmail/ultimatum.

I'm sorry if you do not like it when people disagree. Or when people may not like something that you like. I post my opinions and thoughts either way. If I really like something I'll post to that extent. If I really don't. I'll post to that as well. I'm not just going 'Oh it's crap'. I'm pointing out the limitations of the system. Why the mechanics don't work as written, and due to that, the difficulties of the alignment system in total.

i.e. I'm not just joining a thread to go "This sucks"

I joined and commented on the severe limitations of the system RAW, and why RAW it contradicts itself.

This community is quite welcoming. I personally welcome you and I like to hear other's thoughts and opinions. This community does not how ever enforce some sort of 'Agree with everyone or shut your cakehole rule" As far as I know of. People are free to disagree and post at -great length- about why, as long as they don't get abusive.

I've been apart of some threads that have gone dozens and dozens if not 100s of posts back and forth. And... as long as people stay respectful. It's all good.

As stated, if you don't like a certain poster, there is the option to block their posts and simply not read them.

Personally I find it a bit childish, but it helps some people and keeps the peace. If you find myself or anyone else objectionable to the point that simply perceiving their existence or the possibility that they might post something you don't agree with bothers you. I would, as gently as possible suggest, you simply scroll past, or block them. It's quite simple. Then you can continue to enjoy the forums to which ever extent you allow yourself.

Hope this is helpful and you stay and contribute to the Palladium forums. New voices are always welcome.

[jaymz]

After reading through this.....I'm not sure my opinion is wanted as it doesn't agree with the op but nope as written the alignments are garbage. I've basically taken them and deleted what's written and used them as they should be and that's a guideline nothing more. Palladium too often paints every npc as black and white when our modern media of such things is all sorts of shades of gray. Now hopefully I won't get reported for not agreeing. I dont know what I'd ever do with myself if I was......

[jaymz]

Actually now rereading the OP....it does actually invite discussion debate and criticism of alignments since it straight up asks if people are frustrated with the published alignments.....so the only threadcrapping is the complaining about threadcrapping which isn't about alignments....

[Zer0 Kay]

I appreciate your perspective. So far we're nearly 2 pages into my thread and the only suggestion for an alignment that isnt handled by the existing published ones is taoist in the first response, and 2 suggestions I made myself, and eliakon's oathbound. It seems like so far the discussion is revolving almost exclusively around the first sentence in my post which was 'have you ever been frustrated by the alignment system' and not responding to the nature of the discussion I was actually interested in having.

Didn't think I'd have to preface my post with a tacit 'I'm not interested in hearing how you'd revamp the alignment system itself' but I'll have to be more thorough in the future. I was only interested in hearing about niche cases that the alignments themselves dont already cover. The title of the thread is 'new alignments' not 'revamping the alignment system' and certainly not 'the system is broke because superman cant be good in it', unless you're suggesting that you've made up a new alignment in which superman's lying habits dont preclude him from goodness. If superman's lying precludes you from using the alignment system altogether, thats derailing.

Staying on topic is part of the terms of service for this website.

From the forum rules I quote "when responding to a post, always respond to the topic at hand".

Maybe we call lying sack of sh** superman's new alignment the 'secretive hero' or 'dishonest hero'... Genuinely interested in helping others and doing whats right, but sometimes lying to your face constantly is the right thing to do. Thats a new alignment to cover one that does not already exist. But we can't quite seem to get to that point with this thread despite my constant attempts to drag it back there.

I want a forum of ideas. I asked for ideas about new alignments that break the existing molds. Focus.

Uh... Taoist IS an existing published alignment.

[Vincent Takeda]

Uh... Taoist IS an existing published alignment.

Exactly. Reducing the overall count to 3, two of which I came up with myself.

[dreicunan]

Uh... Taoist IS an existing published alignment.

Exactly. Reducing the overall count to 3, two of which I came up with myself.

I guess the answer at this point may well be that in the majority of cases, people frustrated with alignments just ignore it or don't include it as a real world thing instead of making up new ones.

[Vincent Takeda]

while at the same time sort of showing that the existing alignments do cover most of the bases already

[dreicunan]

In at least one game that I played in, alignment was only an in-world, detectable thing for supernatural creatures. Mortals had them, but they didn't affect gameplay directly.

[Pepsi Jedi]

while at the same time sort of showing that the existing alignments do cover most of the bases already

If most people don't think they work and ignore them, then no, that doesn't show they cover most of the bases. It shows the exact opposite.

[eliakon]

Uh... Taoist IS an existing published alignment.

Exactly. Reducing the overall count to 3, two of which I came up with myself.

ooh 3.5
I think my "here is my suggestion on fixing them by making them "suggestions" instead of rigid absolutes" should rank at least a .5
call them neo-Scrupulous, neo-Principled, et multiple (neo) cetera.

That said i usually find that the best way to customize alignments is to use the N&SS "Disciplines of Honor" thing. That way people can come up with their own codes of honor that they 'tack onto' the existing allignment.
This allows for the "good samurai who is forced to do bad things because of their honor" or, from the books the good CS soldier who is forced to do bad things because they have a code of honor that requires them to obey their leaders/support their nation/what ever.

It provides an 'escape hatch' to the potentially game breaking 'straight jacket' plot hole of requiring that people always do specific things... since if they must always do X, no matter what... then you loose free will and most players will put up with almost anything but loosing free will. Thus I would say that you need to provide a way to keep free will. This allows for the OotS model where Roy is still Lawful Good, even because of his actions and companions... because he is trying to be Lawful Good. By making the attempt matter and not the absolutist outcomes you avoid both "ends justify the means" and "no free will". Both of which allow for alignments that stop being straight jackets and turn into new elements of fun.

A way to look at this is that in GURPS many of my characters take "Code of Honor" as one of their disadvantages. It often ends up looking much like an "alignment"... eg it has a list of things that the person finds good, finds bad and how they will or will not go about doing things. Thus they play like an aligned character even if mechanically they are not. In Palladium it would be really easy to take many of those codes of honor and make them Alignments... as mechanically they are alignments just with a different name. Chivalrous (good), Rouge Knight (selfish), Black Knight (evil), Pirate (selfish), etc.

TL:DR I would say the first step to making new alignments is to first decide what you are looking for in the alignments in the first place, figure out what the variables are there that provide the fun your looking for, and then combine those variables in different ways while avoiding the those variables that do not appeal to your sense of fun.

[eliakon]

Spoiler:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thread%20crapping with as much experience as you have on the forums, I'm surprised you've never heard of this.

Its when someone wants to talk about a thing, and you show up simply to say 'I dont like the thing, the thing is horrible, dont ever use the thing.'

The etymology of the term is "I want to talk about a thing" then you show up and say 'That thing is crap'. Thats threadcrapping.

Its considered bad forum etiquette and is typically a modworthy offense.

As an example, I dont like dice pools and fate points and storyteller gaming, so on other forums I have to self regulate myself and stay out of forums where they talk about liking dice pools and fate points and storytellier gaming and different ways to do dice pools, fate points, and storyteller gaming. My job in avoiding threadcrapping is to not show up in forums about things I think are crap. I'm not supposed to show up and say 'oh that? thats crap. shouldnt do it. doesnt work.'..

Another term we have for it it most forum communities is 'wrongbadfun'... as in there's no such thing as wrongbadfun... If I like alignments then I should be able to talk about them without someone showing up and saying they're wrongbadfun.

If you're allowed to show up in any alignment forum and say these things, then every alignment thread changes from an alignment discussion into an alignment debate where one position is 'lets talk about alignments' and the other position is 'kill it. kill it with fire'

If, by extension, we allow threadcrapping on any subject, then no forum would be safe from degenerating into a 'here's what I want to talk about'/'every game mechanic must die' thread.

Thats why threadcrappin is frowned upon. Thats why when I say you shouldnt show up to alignment threads if your only position is that you dont like them. You're tacitly not interested in any aspect of them than the fact that they're broken, so you're not interested in using them as written.... Your position is that they shouldnt be used. Your position is the polar opposite of what the thread is about, so in order to avoid threadcrapping, posters are expected to self regulate and stay away from threads where their only opinion on the subject is 'I don't like it, its broken, dont use it.'

Mods are supposed to regulate this behavior, but either threadcrappin is something that's ok here on these particular threads, or there's nobody watchin the report button. Point is you should be avoiding the conversations about alignment yourself if your position is that they're broken unless you offer suggestions on how to fix them instead of killiing them outright.

I created a thread because I want to talk about alignments. I didnt create a thread to hear how much you dont like them. Its in fact built into normal forum mod behavior that you shouldnt be free to show up in threads just to take the position that the thing thats being talked about shouldnt exist. Its doubly inappropriate for you to assert your freedom to do so. Thats what threadcrapping is. You're not supposed to do it... You're not entitled to it. Its such a common thing on forums that they've made it a word and added it to the reasons to report forum abuse to the mods.

I reported you for threadcrappin days ago with a pin to be notified once a decision was made, but its been days and there's been no response, leading me to believe that there's nobody watching the shop. I can undertand if you've been getting away with this kind of behavior for a long time if these threads don't have any mods, but you shouldn't be doing it anyway. I can understand why you'd be confused at anyone pushing back on you for threadcrapping if you've never heard of it and never been modded for it.

As a result I have to block your posts so that I don't see them, which I shouldn't have to do. You should be avoiding threads where your position is in direct opposition to the subject matter and the mods should address it when you fail to self regulate, but none of that's been happening so far. My hope is that I can have discussions about game mechanics without having detractors of those mechanics showing up to the threads and bashing them, even if your intentions are 'spirited debate' and not malicious. I'm not interested in having my threads hijacked for 'sprited debate'.

I'm not supposed to need to 'scroll past' your posts. I'm not supposed to have to blacklist your posts to avoid seeing them. If you don't like alignments at all and think they're broken, your posts are not supposed to be here. Post only in the threads on mechanics that you agree with, and avoid posting about mechanics you disagree with unless the thread is titled 'which mechanics do you think suck and are broken' where such opinions are appropriate.

The forums are supposed to be a happy place. Not a place for you to vent about the stuff you don't like. Unless the thread is titled 'lets talk about why you dont like the stuff you don't like'

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's not a no threadcrapping rule on this particular forum. If thats the case I need to know so I can avoid posting here, which is a shame since palladium is about the only game system I use anymore. I'd hate to not be able to use the forums of the specific game system that I use exclusively but if threadcrapping is just something they allow here, then I'm gonna need forums with higher standards of behavior and I'll just let myself out. Some people enjoy 'spirited debate'. I am not one of those people. I want to discuss the subjects I discuss with folks who like the things I want to discuss and like to discuss those things in a positive way. I find it exhausting but I can imagine you're the opposite and really get charged up by the constant back and forth of 'it sucks, no it dont, yes it do!' I can't stand that kind of conversation. It drains me. Threadcrapping seems to be a thing you like to do so for now I've got you on a blacklist until I can discover if such activities are considered ok here at palladium, because for me they're not. You seem to be offended at the notion that you shouldnt be allowed to threadcrap and if the mods have never come after you for it then I'm not surprised you feel that way. I'm gonna expect better though.

Its so hard to find welcoming forum communities in the first place when your gaming preference is only one system. But puttin up with threadcrappin aint how I roll so we'll see what the mods have to say about it, if anything and I'll make my decisions accordingly. For every one person who shows up and becomes a palladium gamer because they love 'spirited debate' there could be 10 gamers that dont want to touch palladium with a 10 foot pole because they see that this is how things work around here. I hope what's been going on in this thread is a 'temporary oversight' and not standard operating procedure.

I apologize for presuming you were doing what you're doing with malice. I presumed with a post count 5000 higher than NMI himself and a hundred times as many posts here as I do, that you're familiar with forum etiquette but if threadcrappin is normal around here I can see why you wouldn't be familiar with it. I just can't expect it to continue or I've gotta get me outta here. I'll have to talk about the only kind of gaming I ever do, palladium gaming, on every other forum than a palladium forum, which sounds stupid, but I'll do it.

The Palladium forums are not a "safe space." People who disagree with you get to post, too. You sound like you want an echo chamber, not a forum for ideas. And heck, you can make it an echo chamber by blocking the people who disagree with you.

Its not a 'safe space' nor an echo chamber to want a discussion on Topic A to be... on topic A and not B, C, D or E.

That said, Pepsi didn't engage in "threadcrapping" anyways. He pointed out flaws in the system and then explained why he didn't use it. He also suggested that one "use it as a nifty stepping off point." That isn't saying "this is crap and don't use it."

No, that IS threadcrapping. And I will admit that I did it too.
Coming into a discussion on how to play alignments and saying "They are bad, don't use them" is the very definition of threadcrapping. And I will admit that my doing so was rude.

If you don't like the back and forth with someone, don't engage. Also, you won't HAVE to leave this forum. You are entitely capable of choosing to continue coming here and posting, merely ignoring posts with which you don't want to engage.

There is no 'back and forth' though with someone who chooses to say "your playing wrong, here is the right way to do it"
And saying "Alignments are bad, here is how to fix that" is saying exactly that. We have all been most rude to the original poster and I for one wish to apologize.

[jaymz]

Except we haven't been rude. His opening post straight up asks if people are frustrated with the published alignment system. That alone invites people to actually discuss flaws and/or how we change it for our purposes. He then says he doesn't want that but that's what he essentially asked for. Words mean things. We care not mind readers and for him to rant as he did is what was rude.

[Vincent Takeda]

Yep, the good part about the alignment system in terms of its definition of 'harm and kill' is that it references innocents, which can still be a subjective term... If your daimyo or the coalition has determined that mutants or insurgents or whatever are not legal, then they are not innocent, and are not subject to the definition of innocents under the alignment rules.

A loyal samurai keeps his word of honor, is free to lie if necessary. Doesnt attack or kill the unarmed, never harms what his code defines as innocent, does not torture for fun but is free to torture what his daimyo considers criminals, doesnt kill for fun, but always attempts to bring the enemy to justice alive, but a daimyo might consider 'justice' to be giving the criminal a chance to honorably seppukku himself, meaning he is alive to issue the justice of an honorable death to himself... and if that attempt should fail, he's still free to use whatever the daimyo's second option for 'justice' is, which might include killing the criminal. He's still lawful to the laws of his daimyo, and helpful to other lawful members of his society, free to break the law when justice demands it but wont do so mockingly, prefers justice to be swift and not drug out. Does not betray or steal...

By writ, objectively samurai ARE scrupulous. You don't even need to make a new alignment for it. They are the good person who does the dirty work to bad people for good reasons and still get to be called good for doing so. Same with the coalition example. If the coalition deems an unregistered mutant or psionic or mage is 'illegal'... you've got a job to do soldier, and lets try not to make us look bad in the execution of your duty. Continue to be caring and compassionate merciful cooperative and sincere, but these are not innocents and justice still needs be done. Field execution MIGHT be what needs be done. Its ok to be joyful about your work, because justice is a good thing you should enjoy. Feel bad when it has to be done the hard way, but if it has to be done the hard way, its actually your job to do it, and its a good job. You're doing what may be doing an objectively bad thing, but the motivation... the unenviable task itself, is what the folks in charge are free to subjectively label as 'good'.

We sure hope you're not just killing them because you think its fun. We dont just send you out to kill people for fun. Thats not your job. We hope you dont enjoy having to kill them for killing sake. We have just chosen our laws and want the laws to be carried out. Justice is still the prime motivator and enjoyment shouldn't factor into it though it might indeed be enjoyable to be such an effective purveyor of justice. It should be the joy of being so actively just, not the joy of doing the regrettable thing. If the sentence is death, and if the criminal decides to issue his own justice, you leave him alive to honorably do so, and help him along if he is weak.

Scrupulous as published covers all of this all by itself.

[Vincent Takeda]

Except we haven't been rude. His opening post straight up asks if people are frustrated with the published alignment system. That alone invites people to actually discuss flaws and/or how we change it for our purposes. He then says he doesn't want that but that's what he essentially asked for. Words mean things. We care not mind readers and for him to rant as he did is what was rude.

Well, the title of the thread is 'new alignments' not '1000th forum for sharting about the alignment system' but you know. Details.

[Vincent Takeda]

One of the tricky bits to navigating a scrupulous samurai are the never attack or kill unarmed bits, and I agree it should be handled as a never, and unarmed is subjective.

If the criminal is attacking you, even without a weapon, he's taking up arms against you even if its just his actual arms.
Even just his legs even if he has no actual arms.
So you can attack and kill a criminal opponent who's fighting you.
If he's innocent he shouldnt be fighting or running in the first place, and if he is, its because the scrupulous samurai in the area have a reputation for being not so scrupulous and he's fearing for his life, but its still not a wise move for the truly innocent.

If he is armed but fleeing, thats armed. Attacking and killing is regrettable but entirely on the table.
If he has no weapons but his own body and is also fleeing... Yeah. The scrupulous samurai actually can't kill him... He must be captured. Even in the rare instance that 'the crime' is 'running from justice' and 'the penalty' for 'running from justice' is 'death'. If thats the case, killing an unarmed fleeing opponent is still violating scrupuous's never attack or kill unarmed foes. Nobody said the job was easy. You catch him first and give him his opportunity to come to justice, which again might mean letting him seppukku himself. Only then is execution on the table, because it is the regrettable issuing of justice to a criminal not 'attacking or killing a foe'.

The only other time scrupulous samurai have problems is 'never kill an innocent', and that only becomes a problem when 'guilt hasnt been established'. If he MIGHT be innocent, there better not be any killing going on. A truly scrupulous samurai should have no interest in killing what could be an innocent. Makes it a lot easier when 'running from the law' is illegal in the first place, especially if the penalty for it is death. Then suddenly you're off the innocent list again and in a really bad way.

I entirely agree that these two things do make samurai, seraphim, wolfen quattoria and coalition officers the hardest alignment to play. I don't recommend them for novices. Nobody's job is harder than the guy who might have to do the killin but still needs to detect as good. Thats the narrowest margin in the system. But the guy who does the bad things to bad people for 'good' reasons is already in the books, and there's still one of them in the 'good' column.

Its not just the hardest for the player either. Its hard for the gm too because the gm should have the presence of mind to inform a character in these situations that something in the back of their head is reminding them that the guy they're chasing through the alleyway could very well be running because he's innnocent and fears being the victim of injustice, and that if the player is truly scrupulous that might alter how he manages the situation.

If the way the player manages the situation is 'screw it i'm killin the guy' well... he's maybe not walking that fine line anymore, is he? There's a reason the blue line is a thin one.

Principled is a far easier alignment to play and there are a lot of easy ways to do it. Maybe you're the party's wrench turner or healer. Bringing people to justice isnt your job. Maybe you're the guy who gets all the innocents to safety, not the guy punchin face with the baddie. Principled is way easier than scrupulous by comparison most of the time. To suggest the good alignments arent attainable, I don't agree with one bit. But maintaining scrupulous is the hardest good you can be. Principled is easier because the character is less likely to be buttin heads with the baddies in the first place. They have different priorities and are still quite common and attainable. Certainly not very POPULAR choice... but much easier to play than scrupulous.

The guy who wants to be called good but also wants to kill stuff without complications is the one you have to worry about. A truly scrupulous character doesnt wanna kill the good guys, so he has to keep that a leash on that killing instinct harder than any other alignment, and he has to watch out for collateral damage more than any other alignment, and a player who doesnt enjoy that dynamic should be pickin somethin else. And a gm that enjoys 'surprising' a scrupulous character with 'oops. you killed a guy who turned out to be innocent' only makes playing one that much harder. Best to avoid that kinda gm one way or the other.

[jaymz]

Except we haven't been rude. His opening post straight up asks if people are frustrated with the published alignment system. That alone invites people to actually discuss flaws and/or how we change it for our purposes. He then says he doesn't want that but that's what he essentially asked for. Words mean things. We care not mind readers and for him to rant as he did is what was rude.

Well, the title of the thread is 'new alignments' not '1000th forum for sharting about the alignment system' but you know. Details.

And headlines in a newspaper aren't always what the article is about. News articles on TV, in magazines and newspapers, and topics on these and hundred of other forums can be misleading.....especially if the OP apparently asks a question that infers much more than just what the topic says, which you most certainly did.

Your words not mine:

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?

Words mean things. If you did't want to discuss the issues with alignments don't ask people if they are frustrated and what they did to fix that.

Just ask for new ones. Which you did not do. You prefaced your request of what they did if they were frustrated.

Also for the record I answered your post

Your question above - I think they are garbage and I use them at best as a guideline nothing more.

However since it didn't adhere to your so called "I don't want to debate alignments" idea, that can have only been in your brain based on the words you actually used, you apparently didn't bother to reply. Not only that others answered similarly and you felt the need to report at least one person because of it.

Here is an idea, if you do not want people to answer a certain way, word your questions better. In fact had you left out the first line of your initial post out then you might have actually gotten what you wanted and not had to whine about how that's not what you wanted, at length.

Public forums are funny in that they have a lot of different types of people on it. I know for fact there are number here with learning disabilities. You cannot expect every single person to act or behave the same way, nor can you expect every single person to know exactly what you want based solely on your opening post.

You worded it wrong for the outcome you wanted. Get over it, don't whine and report people about it.

[Vincent Takeda]

Ever been frustrated with the published alignments? The answer to that question is 'yes'. Not 2 pages of diatribe.
Ever think one is close but just not quite right? Again. Longest answer you need there is 'yes'.
The NEXT three questions are the ones that illicit more detail, not the two questions that can be answered with a single word.

I VERY SPECIFICALLY did NOT ask 'what did you do'.

I asked what alignment did you create. A very specific question. Did you create a new alignment and what was it called and what were its details. Not 'what did you do'. If the answer to that question is 'no I did not create a new alignment system' then the answer to that question is 'no'. Again, not 2 pages of diatribe.

I did not ask 'how much joy did you derive from flushing alignments down the toilet'
I did not ask 'how broken is the alignment system' and 'how fast did you flush it'
I did not ask 'how do you handle alignments as a whole'
I did not ask 'show me where the alignment system touched you' even after you used your 'safe word'
I did not ask 'how much of a whiner are you about having to constantly defend your paladin's desire to be both a gleeful pompous murderhobo and 'righteous'?
and I certainly did not ask 'how many ways can Jaymz read words wrong' and how much more carefully can I craft my words to his liking.

I asked 'have the alignments NOT QUITE WORKED. ALMOST! SO CLOSE! and as a result did you make a new alignment?

If your answer to those questions is yes, no, no and no... You have typed a mere 4 words that more completely and correctly answer the question than expounding upon your own solutions possibly could.

I used very specific questions worded very specific ways. With all due respect, your assertion that the question was wrongly worded and/or vaguely asked is so far the most inaccurate statement of everything in this threads entirety. You're damn right words have meaning. My questions were very specific and very focused.

The last thing I ever want to hear about the alignment system in general is 'what did you do'. Thats why I didnt ask 'what did you do'.
The second to last thing I ever want to hear about the alignment system in any alignment thread is 'I don't use em.' Why are you even here?

I asked 'did you make one' and 'what was it like'. To assert I was unspecific in my line of questioning is award winning levels of absurd. If you want to cite pedantics and semantics, you best get them straight yourself. If you want to make a thread called 'how I eliminated alignments and how happy I've been ever since' by all means create that thread, but dont come in here and wipe your crack on the walls and call it art.

And dont pretend I havent been pleasant and nice. I tried gently and pleasantly and cheerfully pulling the conversation back on topic for a full page.

Your contribution is even worse because by the time you showed up, the nature of my questions had been made perfectly clear and yet you decided we needed to hear from one more member of the 'I hate alignments peanut gallery. Fantastic. Take a bow. Better yet thread hijacker, lets so full tilt, shall we?

You dont like alignments and your icon says you're a paladin, so I'm gonna be bold and make some assumptions about why you don't like alignments. If you've spent any time feeling bad about being the bad guy who wants to be called a good guy, which is how a lot of people who call themselves paladins spend their time... but then suddenly find that you've 'fallen' and no longer con as 'good' because of some silly list of rules about how your particular brand of good just doesnt quite cut it... Well, its understandable that you'd take issue with whoever made the list and certainly the list itself. But if you fell, then you're not as good as you think you are and the hurt you feel from being called out on it is both healthy (for a true paladin) and something that ought to be addressed with a therapist... I'm not a therapist so I cant address the deep seated personal angst at failing the goodness test and the sadness that comes from thinking you're gooder than you are and being so filthy wrong about it so badly and so often, but I am a gamer and it sounds like you need to get it off your chest. So for now my original thread focus is on hold because I want to change the focus here... Tell me, paladin... When did your paladin fall? How does that make you feel? If a paladin truly wishes to be good and just, why would he rather die than walk the published path of justice and righteousness? Without an alignment system, is a paladin even good and just at all? How would we know? Why would we care? Why would anyone believe it? Without alignments how could he properly send evildoers to hell? Could his parents still be proud of him? Without an alignment system wouldn't paladins themselves cease to exist? I might just be on board with this idea after all... Wipe all these wanna be self labeled paladins who can't seem to earn it right off the map in one fell swoop. And all the true paladins as well for good measure because nobody really likes their pompous butts in the first place. I mean in 3 decades I've never seen a player play a paladin and the party thought 'he's a really swell guy who causes no problems and we really enjoy being around and everybody loves him...'... Biggest problem with alignments has never been 'what is good and righteous'... Biggest problem with alignments is them damn paladins being more SELF righteous than published righteous. Good riddance I say. How's that sound?

Lay it on me, Hondo, because I really really REALLY wanna know.

[jaymz]

That's a lot of whining to say we should be able to read your mind in regards to your intentions.

By the way asking if we made new ones is asking what we did so.....

[Vincent Takeda]

no, its asking if you made new ones, so like. yes or no there too.

Don't hold back on me now there jimbo, nows your moment to shine.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Vincent. Repeated personal attacks in your last few posts against Jaymz are against forums rules. Did you report yourself?

[Vincent Takeda]

Oh no. I get it now. Between your paladin thing and your sig and stuff... I get where we're going with this.

I want to say I'm so sorry. The hints were too subtle for me to pick up on. I get it now. You are a good person.Dont think my take on alignments in any way reflects my attitude towards your situation in real life.

[jaymz]

You asked if people were frustrated. That invites a response. Not a one word answer, a response. If you just wanted a yes or no you should have said as much. Not doing so invites discussion which people did.

You asked if people made new ones. Again that invites a response. Not a yes or no answer, a response. Again if you wanted a yes or no response you should have said so. Again not doing so invites discussion including people answering no but I did X instead like my using them as a guideline and not as published.

By the way if you are only looking for yes and no answers you CAN in fact just create a poll to do so.

To reiterate, words mean things. People cannot read your mind when it comes to the intentions behind your words. You need to be clear. You were not.

Furthermore I don't have to do anything let alone hold back. You are doing that for me just fine on your own.

As for my "Icon" that is just the rank you get based on post count so you read into that however you wish.

Keep it up Vinnie. I am rather entertained by how a person can get so bent out of shape all because they are upset people didn't read their questions as specifically intended to the point of lengthy diatribes about it along with so called forum etiquette in regards to "thread crapping" as well as reporting someone who did not actually break any actual rules, they just didn't adhere to your "parameters" that only you knew existed.

*golf clap*

[Vincent Takeda]

No I was talking about your icon. I thought it was rifts canada because you like rifts canada. Then I read below you're actually FROM canada. Your sig says you like rubbing people the wrong way, which I kinda dont expect from a canadian since they're all so damn nice all the time. I didn't realize you were just havin a laugh. Its all good.

[jaymz]

No my sig said "Yes I rub people the wrong way", not that I like doing it. Again words.....they mean things. As for how nice we Canadians are......I can tell you haven't met very many then....

[Vincent Takeda]

Not in person. My exposure is mostly limited to how awesome celebrity canadians are. You'd be surprised the number of times I found myself really liking a celebrity only to find out that they're canadian. I'm saying you're sig is correct, you do rub me the wrong way but I noticed you're a canadian which means you're a good person as far as my exposure to canadians is concerned. Unless you really are posting out of malice, which wouldnt be cool.

By the time you showed up even you were pretty clear on what I wanted to discuss. At that point then specifically chiming in on the discussion I didn't want to have is threadjacking. Your late entry into the thread would have made you the most informed on the nature of the discussion of anyone who'd entered it up to that point, so you can't claim ignorance. It folllows then that you're doing it knowingly and willfully. I know a few military guys who like to toss back and forth the most brutal barbs and insults because they think its fun, but when they realize they've tossed one at someone that doesn't toss them back, they stop tossing them. The brotherhood of the brutal insults among military guys because in the end they're all family, and when they realize oops. That guy doesnt do this thing like we do... They politely refrain. Seeing your profile information I then, perhaps erroneously, decided you were just having some clumsy but good natured fun at my expense. Because canadians are perhaps like marines and like taking brutal jabs at family (ostensibly to prove to each other that they're made of sterner stuff and can dish it as well as they take it if I understand the practice correctly).

We're all gamers here. We're a family of sorts. So while I don't participate in good natured ribbing, and notice it far too late when its happening, I understand it.

By the time you got here, the mystery of what the thread is supposed to be about was long gone, and the suggestion that my questions were too vaguely worded does not stand up to scrutiny. It sounds like you're the one who wants the forums to be an echo chamber where you control the threads and you control the feed and its always gonna be about whatever you want it to be about. I for a fact know that you're familiar with how this is supposed to work because less than a week ago on one of your own threads you post viewtopic.php?p=3000543#p3000543 so you clearly don't have a problem asking people to stay thread relevant on your OWN threads.

One of the thread rules is be cool, and if you discovered what I didn't want the thread to be about and then knowingly and willfully happily jumped in to that activity anyway, ESPECIALLY without the intent of being funny, you're not posting in this thread even under the auspices of having a good natured debate. By the time I said it wasnt the conversation I was interested in having, continuing to have that discussion is threadjacking in bad faith, both of which are infractions on these threads. I particularly enjoy viewtopic.php?p=2994313#p2994313 where you school another forumite on staying on topic with delicate and tactful precision. Spoiler alert, that thread got locked.

I believe its also the third time your reply has been 'thats a lot of words' which sounds a lot to me like you're being argumentative without actually reading my posts at all.

Does me a real disservice as a fellow gamer to be dragging me out to the point that i'm getting upset and being rude. I didnt come here to be upset and rude. A lack of clarity I understand, but once clarity has been established, I expect people to respect my wishes. If you were young I could understand 'juvenile' 'we'll talk about whatever we WANT to talk about!' from a young kid who didn't read the forum rules. But you're in your 40s man and a forum veteran. I expect better than righteous indignance. I expect better than pedantic pushback. Maybe I shouldn't. No wonder the industry gets a bad antisocial rap. 12000 posts across the last decade? You're not just supposed to be behaving properly, you're supposed to be modeling proper forum behavior. Unquestionably you know what proper forum behavior is, but you aren't even nice to your own and get defiant when nicely asked to be. And to what end? What the heck's up with that? I fundamentally do not understand that.

[dreicunan]

This is quite possibly the most meta thread that I've seen on this forum.

[Pepsi Jedi]

This is quite possibly the most meta thread that I've seen on this forum.

*Chuckles*

And where would you rate us on the scale, Dreicunan?

[jaymz]

Huh..neither of those threads above, vinnie, asks someone to stay on topic. One is questioning relevance to which I got a PM answer and the other was pointing out someone was literally talking out their a$$. Care to try again? Or is the fact you had to dig back thru my post history to somehow "shame" me the best you got?

[Vincent Takeda]

Reported and blacklisted for you too I guess. repeated requests to stay on topic occurred several times above your post, but you've displayed a habit of not reading any post that's even lengthy, much less to your liking. Why do you not post in good spirit?

[eliakon]

Expanding on the idea I presented earlier about codes of honor as alignments... I think it might be interesting to try a game where players get to play 'build a bear' with alignments. Make a list of twenty or thirty 'planks' that are 'good' and the same number that are 'evil' and let the players design their custom alignment. Maybe something like "you must have at least 6 planks, including at least two "Thou shalt" and two "thou shalt not" to be in the good list, Evil picks at least one 'bad' plank and that everyone else defaults to a generic "selfish".

The result would be a range of nuanced good people who, while they are all 'good' would disagree on points of principle while still agreeing on the overall theme. Likewise you would have a range of evil with people who run the gamut from "nice guy other than that one shocking bit" down through "villain from a bad slasher film" all the way down to "Horrific Monster that is the sworn enemy of all that is good"...
...and the rest of the people drift in a sea of moral indifference, neither good nor bad but instead worried about themselves.

I am not sure how I would go about labeling the different alignments... and I might not do so unless a specific combination were to become popular in which case I would give it a 'type' name. So, for example, a Good Alignment might look like this
-Will never go back on their sworn word
-Will always obey the most moral of the letter or the spirit of the law
-Will always obey the lawful orders of their superior
-Will always strive to live a life of exempelary goodness in public as an ideal for others
-Will never refuse a request for aid from the innocent if they have the means to provide it.
-Will neither cheat nor allow a known cheater to not be called out publicly.

would be a personal 'good'... but if a group of people all want to play it I might call it "Chivalric Good" and formalize it.

The various knightly codes in the game would be good options for other alignments with the Noble codes being good alignments and the most ignoble ones being Evil ones and the others being simply selfish.

[jaymz]

Reported and blacklisted for you too I guess. repeated requests to stay on topic occurred several times above your post, but you've displayed a habit of not reading any post that's even lengthy, much less to your liking. Why do you not post in good spirit?

In case you see this.....for several posts now I have done nothing more than respond directly to YOU since you felt the need to repeatedly single me out, going so far as to spend some amount of time digging thru my post history to make some sort of point or to somehow shame me.

For someone so adamant about staying on topic you yourself felt it was so important as to spend an inordinate amount of time not being on topic in order to whine and complain to me, at me, and about me.

So basically you did exactly what you were so upset over, repeatedly and got further upset because I dared respond to the singling out you perpetrated.....

This is not a safe space nor is it a private personal forum. It is an open public space for for engaging others. It does not take nuclear physics to understand that if you do not want someone to engage with you then you yourself should not engage with them, repeatedly, to begin with.

As for the topic.....at this point I am most certainly leaning towards a hybrid aberrant diabolic crossbreed having to read your lengthy diatribes which are precisely the same thing as what you have been whining and complaining about others doing to your precious thread.

So by all means, report me. You reported someone else a week ago and low and behold nothing came of that either. Maybe just MAYBE the problem isn't others but in your mirror.

*golf clap*


OH one more thing, if anyone cares to say a word don't. He made this way more personal than it had to be and does not concern you. Scroll on.

[jaymz]

Expanding on the idea I presented earlier about codes of honor as alignments... I think it might be interesting to try a game where players get to play 'build a bear' with alignments. Make a list of twenty or thirty 'planks' that are 'good' and the same number that are 'evil' and let the players design their custom alignment. Maybe something like "you must have at least 6 planks, including at least two "Thou shalt" and two "thou shalt not" to be in the good list, Evil picks at least one 'bad' plank and that everyone else defaults to a generic "selfish".

The result would be a range of nuanced good people who, while they are all 'good' would disagree on points of principle while still agreeing on the overall theme. Likewise you would have a range of evil with people who run the gamut from "nice guy other than that one shocking bit" down through "villain from a bad slasher film" all the way down to "Horrific Monster that is the sworn enemy of all that is good"...
...and the rest of the people drift in a sea of moral indifference, neither good nor bad but instead worried about themselves.

I like this idea. It is basically what I imagine the vast majority of do anyway, just without any codification.