Alignments

[Brian Manning]

It does lean towards evil, because Aberrant characters can (within their own twisted code of ethics) kill anyone they feel isn't worthy of living, whether they were somehow offended/attacked by them or not. They are they type to lay waste to a city block to get revenge for their fallen comrade.

I like Abberant as far as NPCs go, but to me, it's like an empty alignment that allows player characters to just do anything, but are still able to play within a party structure. I don't think it should be outlawed or anything, I just think it's the lazy man's alignment, so you can concentrate on other quirks of the character (like their twisted morals).

So yeah, I guess I would agree that it gives the best playable leeway. If you want "Aberrant-lite" then Anarchist would be the way to go. I think that's the Selfish alignment you were thinking when you think of Abberant.

My favorite alignment is Unprincipled, but I like playing alignments across the entire gamut, just for the challenge for some, but just to round the character out properly for the other times.

[Larsen]

I tend to play abberant alignments myself and while they can be considered better than some selfish characters that is because of the fact that with abberant you can pretty much write your own ticket in morals. On the otherhand Ive fought enemies b4 that were abberant but their morals were so twisted that they were more evil than a diobolic character which I had never thought possible b4 running into this NPC. But my personal reason for playing abberant stems from my first few experiences with GMs. My first GM was soo strict on alignment that it seemed that he was making my characters disposition more than I was. So after being a PC under him for so long I now pick abberant when I am under a new GM until I find out whether or not he is like my first one. However, when I have a GM that doesn't do that and I wanna be good I usually find myself being unprincipled or scrupulous, sometimes anarchist. I believe Ive only played a principled character twice.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I usually play anarchist or abberent. just have an easy time with it.

[Adam of the Old Kingdom]

lets not confuse code of chivalry with code of honour.

they are Evil.

[Vrykolas2k]

I'm in agreement with "Cat Daddy" Wong here...
Abs are the lazy gamers alignment.

no that would be Anarchist "I can do anything I want, without repercussion as long as i don't get caught".

[Adam of the Old Kingdom]

unfortunately we are dealing two groups of people, one that uses alignments and one that fill in what ever.
I once heard of a guy who was Anarchist, just so he could have the stylised A on his character sheet.

I agree that it is a lazy alignment, for people who do not want their GM pulling them up for being out of character when RL peeves intrude on the PCs.

I also think that some people confuse disposition with alignment.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Why do you all call Anarchist or abberent is Lazy?

maybe they CAN, I've played every alignment there is, in character, and never once had to be repreminded for playing out of character EVER.

the only reason I lean twords those two is that I enjoy the kind of personality it is. that's all.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I prefer Principled and Scrupulous, myself, but them's my Robotech roots speaking.

I started in robotech too. . .though I played an Abberrant Assassin for the UN spacy though. (GM's idea actually, not mine. . .)

[RoadWarriorFWaNK]

too many of you consider alignment as the 'end-all be-all' of a character's behavior and code of ethics.
my psi-stalker is micreant alignment, but he knows the value of group loyalty. why? because he spent his younger years growing up with street gangs. he knows that sometimes you need people to watch your back. does that make him any less miscreant? hell no! he's just as cold-blooded and nasty as any other evil character.

play the alignment, dont let the alignment play you.

[Vrykolas2k]

Never heard of the taoist alligmnent, it's not in the Rifts main book under the allignments, ergo as far as I'm concerned it doesn't exist...

[Vrykolas2k]

Never heard of the taoist alligmnent, it's not in the Rifts main book under the allignments, ergo as far as I'm concerned it doesn't exist...

Ninjas & Superspies and/or Mystic China

Listed under "Good"

The description is more scrupulous-anarchist with a tendency toward the selfish side.

Another book I need to get lol...

[RoadWarriorFWaNK]

i think erick wujcik put that in there as a small joke or for goofy NPCs. I can't see myself seriously playing a character like that. you wouldn't have any motivation for adventuring.

[Tinker Dragoon]

can someone please post this taoist thing for me? ive never heard of it before this thread, and dont have access to that book.

id appreciate it.

That is not allowed by the forum rules.

[Uncle Servo]

I usually prefer to play Scrupulous and Unprincipled characters. They're basically good, but aren't opposed to a little hardball now and again.

I would not say that Aberrant is a 'lazy alignment,' but only if it's done right. As has been stated before, an Aberrant individual won't hesitate to commit just about any evil deed that will help him/her accomplish his goals. In fact, the only thing he/she will NOT do is kill an innocent (emphasis on the word 'kill' -- as long as the innocent will survive it's pretty much fair game).

For instance, if Aberrant Andy says to his adversary "Surrender now and you won't be killed" and his adversary agrees, Andy could easily change his mind, killing him/her as a potential future threat -- and be squarely within his alignment if he didn't view his adversary as being worthy of respect.

In another instance, Aberrant Andy may view torture as distasteful, but if Vagabond Bob has information he needs then he won't hesitate to throw Bob on the rack.

The main difference between Aberrant and the other evil alignments is that the Aberrant character will always have a valid reason (at least to him) for doing what he does. I don't generally count the 'code of honor' because too often these characters don't regard very many people as worthy of their respect -- so there are only a select handfull of people to whom he's NOT going to lie, steal, and/or cheat.

[Vrykolas2k]

I usually prefer to play Scrupulous and Unprincipled characters. They're basically good, but aren't opposed to a little hardball now and again.

I would not say that Aberrant is a 'lazy alignment,' but only if it's done right. As has been stated before, an Aberrant individual won't hesitate to commit just about any evil deed that will help him/her accomplish his goals. In fact, the only thing he/she will NOT do is kill an innocent (emphasis on the word 'kill' -- as long as the innocent will survive it's pretty much fair game).

For instance, if Aberrant Andy says to his adversary "Surrender now and you won't be killed" and his adversary agrees, Andy could easily change his mind, killing him/her as a potential future threat -- and be squarely within his alignment if he didn't view his adversary as being worthy of respect.

In another instance, Aberrant Andy may view torture as distasteful, but if Vagabond Bob has information he needs then he won't hesitate to throw Bob on the rack.

The main difference between Aberrant and the other evil alignments is that the Aberrant character will always have a valid reason (at least to him) for doing what he does. I don't generally count the 'code of honor' because too often these characters don't regard very many people as worthy of their respect -- so there are only a select handfull of people to whom he's NOT going to lie, steal, and/or cheat.

I play the code of honour thing because it's specifically stated as part of the allignment... as for you example of killing the guy who surrenders... I play Aberrant usually, and I would KEEP MY WORD... as long as said person hadn't already reneged in the past. So if someone surrenders, I accept the surrender, but if it's a trick... BOO-YA!!!

[Uncle Servo]

I usually prefer to play Scrupulous and Unprincipled characters. They're basically good, but aren't opposed to a little hardball now and again.

I would not say that Aberrant is a 'lazy alignment,' but only if it's done right. As has been stated before, an Aberrant individual won't hesitate to commit just about any evil deed that will help him/her accomplish his goals. In fact, the only thing he/she will NOT do is kill an innocent (emphasis on the word 'kill' -- as long as the innocent will survive it's pretty much fair game).

For instance, if Aberrant Andy says to his adversary "Surrender now and you won't be killed" and his adversary agrees, Andy could easily change his mind, killing him/her as a potential future threat -- and be squarely within his alignment if he didn't view his adversary as being worthy of respect.

In another instance, Aberrant Andy may view torture as distasteful, but if Vagabond Bob has information he needs then he won't hesitate to throw Bob on the rack.

The main difference between Aberrant and the other evil alignments is that the Aberrant character will always have a valid reason (at least to him) for doing what he does. I don't generally count the 'code of honor' because too often these characters don't regard very many people as worthy of their respect -- so there are only a select handfull of people to whom he's NOT going to lie, steal, and/or cheat.

I play the code of honour thing because it's specifically stated as part of the allignment... as for you example of killing the guy who surrenders... I play Aberrant usually, and I would KEEP MY WORD... as long as said person hadn't already reneged in the past. So if someone surrenders, I accept the surrender, but if it's a trick... BOO-YA!!!

Ah, but you missed the qualifier I put in that example -- if he didn't view his adversary as being worthy of respect. If Andy didn't respect someone he has no compunctions about lying to or even killing him/her in cold blood.

You'll also notice that Aberrant Andy didn't specifically give his word that his adversary wouldn't be killed; if he had said something like "Surrender now and I give my word (or "I promise") you won't be killed," then killing him anyway would definitely be acting out of alignment.

That is a subtle yet crucial difference; you have to actually GIVE your word in order to KEEP it. As for how often an Aberrant character gives his/her word is pretty much up to the player, but when I've played an Aberrant character that hasn't been very often at all.

Another thing to consider is just what the criteria may be for an Aberrant character to deem someone worthy of his/her respect. In my opinion, this should not be very many people at all (in the case of a PC, then I would recommend at least most of the party be worthy enough so the Aberrant character won't be continually screwing the group over).

THAT is the reason I don't usually count the 'code of honor' as being a true differentiating factor among the evil alignments -- because by and large he/she is not going to respect others enough nor give his/her word enough for it to really come into play.

Of course, if you play your Aberrant characters a little more willing to give others the benefit of the doubt then yes the 'code of honor' would most likely come into play much more often.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I don't like the alignments in Palladium or d20. This is why in my game I'm planning to make, I won't be using them. Instead, I'll use personalities.

all personalites have aspects of the givin aligments.

[Uncle Servo]

Personalities can also be even more restrictive to character actions than alignments are.

There's a fine line between personalities and alignments... and that line can be easily blurred as they tend to heavily influence one another.

[RoadWarriorFWaNK]

Personalities can also be even more restrictive to character actions than alignments are.

There's a fine line between personalities and alignments... and that line can be easily blurred as they tend to heavily influence one another.

maybe the way you play it does. for me, alignment and personality aren't even close. alignment to me is basically just a question that asks "How far will I go for the things I want?" If I'll do anything to get what i want, I'm evil. If I stop short of seriously hurting people, i'm selfish. If I place more concern with the needs of others instead of my own wants, i'm good.

[KromeLizard]

The right algnment for the right character. If your consideration when choosing an alignment is which one lets you justify doing whatever the hell you want to the GM, then you have chosen poorly and are a tool who I don't want to invite to my table. However, if your selection is grounded in an interesting character concept that you think would work well in the game, then you have chosen wisely and will not be dissolved into a big pile of dust by the magic cup.

[KromeLizard]

What if it's both?

Being an ass at the table and attributing it to your character concept is still being an ass at the table.

[RoadWarriorFWaNK]

i think erick wujcik put that in there as a small joke or for goofy NPCs. I can't see myself seriously playing a character like that. you wouldn't have any motivation for adventuring.

Uhhhh..... no.

The point of the "Taoist" alignment is to represent some of the rather..... interesting (i.e., nondualistic) moral characteristics you see in Eastern sages of legend (and quite a few Western ones, for that matter). It seems weird and non-sensical by conventional standards because: 1) it doesn't conform easily to Western notions of "right" and "wrong", and 2) it doesn't conform to the dictations of formal-logic.

You can easily have motivation for roleplaying using a "Taoist". You just have to subtle about it.

My personal take is that the people that generally abhor this alignment are the ones that don't understand the concepts it attempts to convey all that well.

Sure, its open to abuses. But, so are most of the other alignments. That's what the GM is there for. A lazy GM is far worse than a lazy player.

actually I have studied Taoism in the 'real world' rather extensively, so i know what i'm talking about.
what i was saying in my quote was that I don't think Erick Wujcik's idea was to seriously present a 'new' alignment to add to the 8 existing ones. Take for example that this 'new' alignment is only mentioned once, in any palladium book ever. It hasn't been included in any new core books since Mystic China in 1994. There have been no important NPCs with Taoist alignment. Of course this may change if Rifts China 2 is ever realesed.
Erick was obviously so captivated and inspired by the Taoists when he wrote Mystic China that he wanted to .....decipher them the best way possible for an RPG book, so he wrote a 'new' alignment. To try to explain to us ignorant americansthe ways of these enigmatic people.
You might call it "flavor text".

[Tinker Dragoon]

It is intended as a new alignment, but it is also intended as an optional rule.

As with the Perception rules in Nightbane, you won't see it in any book that isn't written by its creator.

[KromeLizard]

The right algnment for the right character. If your consideration when choosing an alignment is which one lets you justify doing whatever the hell you want to the GM, then you have chosen poorly and are a tool who I don't want to invite to my table.

I was only referring to this seeming attitude of inflexibly allowing only characters constrained by a moral code of some sort. You say "the right alignment for the right character," but what if the character is an amoral type who doesn't care what he does? If you're saying that you really do allow only constrained characters, well, what if it was from a good, responsible player who just wants to provide a little in party friction (from being a cocky loudmouth who's out only for himself)? I believe Zerebus had it right, when we went over this earlier in the thread.

Yes, I do believe there are bad, lazy players, but that doesn't mean one should become a bad, lazy gm in response to it.

That's where what I said about the character concept comes into play. If you have an idea that works well and that will make the game more enjoyable, then I'm perfectly happy to let it in. I don't prohibit evil or self-centered characters. I prohibit disruptive and self-centered players. But you're right, I do want characters with an actual personality, which will invariably constrain the player's choices if played well.

[Tinker Dragoon]

i think erick wujcik put that in there as a small joke or for goofy NPCs...

No joke, folks.

Taoism, in my opinion, is a quite distinct alignment, useful for both player and non-player characters.

It won't be appearing in Rifts China, but only because there is no re-write of the alignments in Rifts.

Erick

So there!

[Vrykolas2k]

Actually bugger it, I might go back and actually bother reading the first few pages of this thread. There oughta be a few absolute pearlers from being waffling on about how Aberrant is such a great and noble alignment that totally fits their honorable badass modern samurai personality in real life


Rallan

Samurai personalities.... it occurs to me that if Taoist gets to be an alignment, why doesn't Bushido or Confuscist? Instead, they stuck the average samurai at Aberrant or Principle and left us to develop our own altered notions...

Erm instead of Bushido Allignment how about Shinto Allignment... it's at least as plausable as... taoist, IMO...

[Vrykolas2k]

Well.... Shinto, as I understand it, doesn't really have any kind of structured or organized philosophy in the way that we see in, say, Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. Unless, of course, you are referring to specific branches of Shinto like Ryubo or Amatsu Tatara.

Amatsu Tatara is what I'm more familiar with, but there are different Taosims too and the alligmnent doesn't seem to specify which it's based on...

[RoadWarriorFWaNK]

i think erick wujcik put that in there as a small joke or for goofy NPCs...

No joke, folks.

Taoism, in my opinion, is a quite distinct alignment, useful for both player and non-player characters.

It won't be appearing in Rifts China, but only because there is no re-write of the alignments in Rifts.

Erick

So there!

oh, okay, my bad. you win. gg noob