Forums of the Megaverse®

Cyberpunk don't use alignments.

Big Eyes, Small Mouth don't use alignments.

These are 2 more RPGs that play well without alignments.

My next question is, have or would you play a RPG that doesn't use alignments at all? Since just about all but me think they are needed in game play.

If a RPG you like doesn't have alignments, do you bring them over from another game?

Just curious

twhaley wrote:With no alignments do you just kind of play yourself? Sounds kind of LARP.

No, you play your character as you think he/she would do in any given situation. Not what an alignment states you have to play it.

I think alignments have been around so long in a lot of RPGs that GM/players feel uncomfortable not using them. There are a lot of RPGs that do not have any type of alignment system and they are played by thousands of players without any problems.

I have said if it works for you, that's great. My point is that alignments are not needed in any RPG to be able to play it and have fun doing. If a player's PC acts evil or kills innocents they may have to answer to the law, township, reward for their capture, etc.

When I GM a game without alignments the law or fear of retribution keeps player's PCs in line or they try not to get caught.

Same as people in real life. Real people don't have alignments they are kept in line mostly by the laws of the land. Those that don't are mostly caught and punished. Even though all are not caught or punished by the courts, the threat is still there to keep the majority of people in line. Has nothing to do with "Oh, I can't litter because I'm Lawful Good." It has to do with "Oh, I shouldn't liter because I might get caught and be fined."

Enjoy

macksting wrote:

bigbobsr6000 wrote:Real people don't have alignments they are kept in line mostly by the laws of the land.

FOR GODS SAKES! Make a real argument, please!
What does that say about the alignments of these real people?!

Alignment is how you act when nobody's looking. Jebus...
Yeah, if this is part of the definition, it's no wonder folks hate the alignment system.
It's easy. If you don't like playing principled characters, don't play principled characters.

Is alignment mental or actions. One can think a lot of evil thoughts but not act them out. So, are they evil?

It is a valid argument. Do you really think people say I can or can't do something because of my alignment? Laws, personal beliefs, upbringing, environment, etc. dictate how any one person will react to any given situation. What you are referring is an individual personal morals, not a game made rule called "alignments", so I stand by original statement.

I like playing a human with all the emotions, moral dilemmas, free will decision making, consequences of actions, etc that a set of alignments do not allow. Alignments do not allow free will choices of a PC.

So, you would limit me again by saying: "It's easy. If you don't like playing principled characters, don't play principled characters." I say play without alignments and let the player guide his PC as he/she thinks they would act in any situation keeping in mind the laws of the land, retributions/rewards of actions, how would their family feel about them if they did such and such, will they help or hurt their friends/party members, etc., etc. These and many other influences to numerous to mention guides the PC, IMO, and not a set of restrictive alignments.

You know like real life issues guides our every day decisions in any given situation.

Anyone who has ever taken a rubber band, pen or paper clip from work has stolen and broken the law. Anyone who has gone 1 mile over the posted speed limit has broken the law. Anyone who has employed the local kid to cut their lawn and didn't take out for taxes and social security has broken the law. Anyone who realized after they got home from the store an item wasn't paid for and did not return it has broken the law. Any one who has cheated on tax returns has broken the law. I could go and on. These people made a conscience decision to break the law, most on a daily basis. They can’t be principled because they constantly break the law.

Well, more thoughts on this issue. Enjoy:D

Real live people do not have alignments from some made up game.

They have morals, emotions, other people influences, famiy lnfluences, law of the land influences, environmental influences, reglious or lack of influences, etc.

Not fictional fantasy game alignments. Real Life Influences and Challanges and Victories and Defeats and Tragdey and Triumphs and Death and Birth and Joyment and Sadness.

Again not made up game rules. Real Stuff.

Enjoy

macksting wrote:

bigbobsr6000 wrote:Is alignment mental or actions. One can think a lot of evil thoughts but not act them out. So, are they evil?

Read the alignment/honor section in Ninjas & Superspies. It'll demonstrate my point, I think.

I have read it and just reread it to refresh my memory. That whole section just proves my point that social influences dictate how one should act or is treated. Talks about having honor and how the Oriental Culture preceives it. How one is ridiculed if they lose face or an unhonorable person will not be trusted.

Again, social influence is what most people are kept along good moral decisions not alignments.

Enjoy

macksting wrote:Stop saying "enjoy" after you think you've made a trumping argument. It's crass, and in this case wholly undeserved.

I don't think you read that section in N&SS, did you? Go read it.

First I don't put "Enjoy " at the bottom of my post because I think I have made a "trumping argument" or to be crass. I have put it at the bottom of lot of my posts. I merely mean just plain enjoy (intransitive verb : to have a good time.) And nothing more. You seem to have made this personal when I have not.

Read my other post where I have and did read "that section in N&SS". Again you personally attacked me by accusing me of not doing something and then telling me, "Go read it".

I have stated repeatedly on these threads that what ever works for anyone and their group is great and I support it 100%. I like to express my personal views and opinions in a civil matter.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But I support your right to say it and the way you use alignments. I just differ with you. I use alignments in all the RPG's that have them, as I have stated before, I just don't like them, that was my point and argument.

So you won't feel I am being "crass":

I have enjoyed this debate with you. Is that better?

bigbobsr6000 wrote:My next question is, have or would you play a RPG that doesn't use alignments at all? Since just about all but me think they are needed in game play.

It's actually your first question.

I dont think they are needed. My point was that they dont railroad a player's decision making.

bigbobsr6000 wrote:If a RPG you like doesn't have alignments, do you bring them over from another game?

I play by the rules of the game I'm playing.

Monopoly money doesn't help you in Settlers of Catan.

I gotta run, Bob.
I'm not done responding to you yet.

I just hope it doesn't get locked before my return! I read Bob's posts and he likes the discussion and never makes it personal.

lather wrote:It's actually your first question.

Picky, picky, picky

lather wrote:I dont think they are needed. My point was that they dont railroad a player's decision making.

I agree, just enjoying the discussion

lather wrote:

bigbobsr6000 wrote:If a RPG you like doesn't have alignments, do you bring them over from another game?

I play by the rules of the game I'm playing.

Monopoly money doesn't help you in Settlers of Catan.

lather wrote:I gotta run, Bob.
I'm not done responding to you yet.

I just hope it doesn't get locked before my return! I read Bob's posts and he likes the discussion and never makes it personal.

Thanks, and to the Powers Of the Message Boards, I am not offended and please don't lock this down, we are enjoying the comments and discussions.

Thanks, Enjoy

William Shakespeare
Julius Caesar
Act 3, Scene 2,

Mark Antony:

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interréd with their bones,
So let it be with Caesar….

We humans always remember the evilness of past personages but rarely if ever remember the great goodness done by persons.

As the saying goes: "One 'AW! S**T!' erases all 'ATTA BOYS'." And so it seems with alignments. Once your good PC crosses the line to evil once to several times (depending on GM interpretation) all the good that has been done is erased by having to change to an evil alignlment.

Enjoy

Hi again, macksting. I didn't know that about the enjoy thing w/smiley meant something different. I rarely post on other forums. Thanks for informing me. And thanks for the Apologies Accepted and moving on now.

Would you mind explaining this in more layman terms? Sometimes my brain splinter gets lodged in my skull and I can't see what I am thinking.

macksting wrote:Do you differ from my opinion that using alignments only to refer to the behavior a person holds to when under observation renders them totally useless as a mechanic?

Thanks, I want to be sure I understand your statement before I reply.


Big sometimes I don't get it Bob...............

just waiting for his reply to me.
Also I ahve played werewolf vampire cyberpunk shadowrun all with no alignments. HOwever I recently ran CP2020 and found something lacking and couldn't place it, until I realized that the only thing really missing was alignment. I like to know where the players and NPCs are coming from, when push comes to shove and your back is against the wall, what do you believe? where is your faith? will you betray your friends? Do you have any? Or are they all just tools to be used and disposed of at will?

Sure it gives you MV Person MV Possession Lifepath all of which I have adapted to my game, but all of that is flavor on top of the alignment which all together gives a rich and full psychological and moral profile. You ven be an evil bastard but have a soft spot for children, a scrupulous hero who has a problem letting rapists live and struggles with either letting them go or with the one all of his pent up rage moved himto brutally beat and kill, then hiding the body, leaving him with guilt, and a dark secret which haunts him.

Now if you still think that alignments make for predictable and cookie cutter characters then I can only imagine how much that terrible GM so long ago hurt you

KillWatch wrote:just waiting for his reply to me.

Are you referring to me? If you are please let me know which post. Thanks.

KillWatch wrote:Now if you still think that alignments make for predictable and cookie cutter characters then I can only imagine how much that terrible GM so long ago hurt you

Yes that is how I see alignments: "....predictable and cookie cutter characters..."

And it was just about every GM. To be honest, it wasn't the GMs' fault they were just enforcing the game mechanic. It was me and the way I played my characters by ignoring my PC's alignment. Not on purpose. A warrior or ex-soldier of good alignment that was trained not to leave any enemy behind you. I wanted to kill all guards we came across and hide the bodies. GM at the time said I couldn't do it since this is not a battle or war and was against my alignment. All the party was trying to do is get past the guards in the dungeon. This is just one example.

I really like Chaotic Neutral from D&D. That's the one I always choose when I got to play after being reminded of not acting within alignment. After I started using that one, I had no trouble. Lots of freedom to do stuff.

Big Unaligned Bob...............

Your GMs sucked (without knowing your GMs). and they have tainted you. Alignments aren't traditional rules, they are guideliens and personality. I know it was a way to personalize and give character to what use to be unnamed wargame miniatures coming from wargames to chainmail and then into D&D. The mentality o f your GMs seems to have fallen into this category where they are inflexible and unforgiving in the technical perception of the "rules of the game", that seem more like draconion "monopoly" rather than the in character, improvisational, amateur thespian expereince that ROLE PLAYING, can be and, in my game, is the most fun. THAT and one hitting a huge villain into oblivian.

I think that part of the problem, other than the wargaming mentality, is that some of the classes like Clerics and Paladins, do ride a lot on alignemnt, but again there is always penance, guilt, the climb back to the holy. An LG Paladin will feel guilty about steeling peanuts from a vendor, and his sense of justice may nag him until he pays the vendor days weeks or even years later. But I don't think a dire decision or absent minded fuax pax should cause an alignment shift. However portraying paragons of your alignment, embodying the goals and promises of a god or gods, it will be difficult, it will be difficult. It's kind of like being THE spokesperson for a huge international corporation where they expect you to live breathe and eat their corporate message. However, in the terms of religion, it isn't because they are making you, you fell in love with the god/s, their message, their goals, their qualities, it spoke to you somehwere deep within and you have promised yourself to them, to embody these ideals and they then give you power and tools to serve. THe longer you prove yourself the more power they give to you. So the GM kind of has to keep an eye on you and your actions, but not necassarily reminding you out of game that you cna't do that.

The GM should be more imaginitive and send visions, omens, fellow priests to console, consult and counsel the would be waning priest or paladin. Obviously with other characters an alignment shift isn't as deterimental to their class, however it should still be a weighty personal issue.


IMHO anyhow

You could prepare to subdue the guards before assaulthe guards with poisoned darts. Maybe even throwing burning pitch in their general direction. Bribing can sometimes work espescially when they have reason to believe that their employer will soon fall. Palladium has rules, although greatly underused, to facilitate in the non lethal convincing; trust/intimidate/charm/impress etc. This is not mentioning KOs Disarms and Called Shots. Once one's armor is destroyed you could let them rethinking their conviction or loyalties.

macksting wrote:However, alignments do serve a purpose, if one allows them to and if they're meant to speak of the person's motives as well as actions.
Or perhaps you disagree.

Yes I agree with this as stated.

As to your other sharing of info, that was appreciated. However, I still stand by my earlier statements that people respond based on their influcences as they move through life.

So, why can't just that be it during character creation. Why can't I just say "My character grew up stealing to survive. So, now that's what he does as a profession." No alignment, just the threat of being caught, jailed and/or hands cut off. Or, "My character grew up in a monastary and learned the Way Of The Light. He has vowed not to harm anyone unless to protect the innocent." Again, no alignment asigned just a way of life.

I know you all will say they are alignments just stated diferrently. But the big difference IMO is that there is no changing of anything if the Thief gives up stealing and joins the monk's order. This way there's no big "Oh, you are acting out of your alignment, you can't do that." Or "Wow that's a big alignment change we have to talk about it." It just plain happens as in life. Get over it and move on.

That's one Big Bob's Opinion......

Brought to you by "Alignments R Us". Need an Alignment or one altered? Come to Alignments R Us, we have them all. How about trading in that old used "Principled (Good)" Alignment for a nice brand new "Unprincipled (Selfish)" Alignment. Or even the top of the line model "Aberrant (Evil)". You would be the talk of the town when you pull off your first brand new Aberrant (Evil) act.

We're always open for you and your GM's shopping convenience. Remember ask for BIG BOB for ease of changing to new Alignment.

Remember that's Alignments R Us!
Prices or trades do not include taxes or licenses. All sales maybe final, see GM's contract. Not affiliated with any actual business or enterprise. Any resemblance to actual company or firm is purely coincidence. An Equal Opportunity Employer.

That's why I am a bit more flexible on this whole alignment thing. I still reel in players that are habitual abusers or go way out in left field. I am just enjoying the discussion. This is what I like about RPGs there are so many oppinions and interpetation that is good to hear others comments and thoughts.

Thanks guys

Yes, macksting, I do believe you are right. We can agree to disagree. (Hey we agreed on something ) One of my good friends and I can not game together because of our different gaming styles. We still remain friends and debate the issues from time to time. Besides, its fun.

However you and your players game is great by me. And your oppinions are respected as I respect all person oppinions and the right to say it, especially if I diagree. Who knows, maybe somebody will crack this thick skull of mine and actual dump something in it useful.

How about some custom alignments. Like ones between the main alignments. You know some traits from one above and some from the one below it. Let me know what you guys think. If it is workable we could post the new alignments here and discuss them. Give the players more selection.

Yes, No, What were you thinking? I like cheese?

How about giving it a shot, macksting. I'd like to see what custom alignments you would come up with. If you don't want to post it here, you could PM me or email me. I'd be glad to look at it.

I moved Aberrant to the Neutral category because while it can be mean it doesn't have to be and it just doesn't fit EVIL for me. Created an honorable alignment like that based out of N&SS for Good and Created another, darker evil called Vile

When I run games, I tell people up front that if they want to play "bad guys," then my campaign is not for them. I'm not "strict" per say, but I don't allow players to act in evil ways (unless the story calls for it for some reason). If they do, they better have a good reason for it, and the charcter should have put some thought and planning into it.

The reason for this is that I belive that roleplaying should be constructive for players, not destructive. I don't want to run a game that allows people to live out evil fantasies. This is controversial, but again, if someone wants to ride through the countryside slaying women and children, not in my game. For me, roleplaying is noble, chivalrous and heroic, and I tend to play with people who believe that.

I would never have read Lord of the Rings if the main characters were actually anti-heroes who raped, pillaged and plundered. I read it because the characters ELEVATED the human spirit, not degenerated it.

Now, I'm not judging people who play evil characters; it's just not how I serve up my fantasy campaigns. In fact, as the GM, I have to play the evil, degenerate characters . But hey, *someone* has to throw challenges into the path of good characters, and it's done to bring out the best in them, not for the sake of sadistic violence.

I ran a RIFTS game with a guy who said he was good, but he didn't care who he killed in order to stop the bad guys. If the bad guy was in a mall, surrounded by innocents, this guy would mow-down the crowd in order to kill the bad guy. Personally, I don't agree with this. Sure, Indiana Jones kills people, but only if they have it coming, and he never kills women and children excessively or needless (and has never as far as I know).

So, while I don't use alignments, players realize and understand that THEY ARE THE HEROES. Sure, heroes have faults and they make bad decisions, but I'm talking about senseless, murderous evil here. Not allowed. Hey, one day I might change my mind, but I doubt it. Sure, I bet it's fun to play evil characters, but again... not my cup of tea.

Gallahan wrote:In fact, as the GM, I have to play the evil, degenerate characters . But hey, *someone* has to throw challenges into the path of good characters, and it's done to bring out the best in them, not for the sake of sadistic violence.

It's a dirty job, but somebody got's to do it.

Hey, maybe we can get that guy on "Dirty Jobs" to do a segment on it.

macksting wrote:I'm usually rather content with the basic ones + Taoist, so long as I'm allowed to put conditions on them. For instance, an Anarchist who is told by somebody important to him to "be good" will generally try to do "good" things unless he can benefit from something selfish without anybody knowing. If this slowly starts to feel more and more like cheating to him, he's probably slipping toward Unprincipled.
Why? What did you have in mind?

Good call on the whole Taoist thing. I like Oriental Philosophies. One of the hardest characters alignment wise I played a couple of times was a Samurai following the Bashido Code and Lawful Good. That GM was a bit more lienent on the Lawful Good part. I was strict on the Bashido Code, sometimes it trumped the Lawful Good stuff.

I am mulling some things over about alternate alignments in Palladium game setting. I keep throwing out the stuff I come up with. Something like Aberrant with Good tendicies? Or Anarchist with Unselfish tendicies? Doable? Not?

Just brainstorming more selection to allow players to customize their PC.

I was also thinking letting the player swap out two of the traits from the nearest Alignment they chose in the direction of Principled (Good). If they chose Principled (Good), swap two from Scrupulous (Good) only. Would this work?

Big Bob......................

bigbobsr6000 wrote:Same as people in real life. Real people don't have alignments ... Has nothing to do with "Oh, I can't litter because I'm Lawful Good." It has to do with "Oh, I shouldn't liter because I might get caught and be fined."

It's perception of what alignment is and thinking of your character as a character rather than a collection of stat blocks.

"I bet I can climb that wall because I'm the climbingest mfer in town."

"I bet I can climb that wall because my Climb skill's 95%."

People have alignments in real life. We just don't call them alignments, just like our characters don't call them alignments.

Diabolic evil people don't break the law every time they act. The threat of punishment keeps them in line just like it keeps a Principled fellow in line.

bigbobsr6000 wrote:One can think a lot of evil thoughts but not act them out. So, are they evil?

No.

bigbobsr6000 wrote:Do you really think people say I can or can't do something because of my alignment? Laws, personal beliefs, upbringing, environment, etc. dictate how any one person will react to any given situation. What you are referring is an individual personal morals, not a game made rule called "alignments", so I stand by original statement.

Of course they don't (see above). Alignment is that game mechanic which expresses personal beliefs, upbringing, environment, etc. What you are referring to is alignment.

bigbobsr6000 wrote:Alignments do not allow free will choices of a PC.

Alignment is a free will choice.

When you choose your PC's morals, you are taking away your PC's free will choice.

You are giving your PC alignment.

Alignments are an important factor in developing a character, his/her attitudes and moral principles. ALL players must choose an alignment for their character.

This is what Rifts main book says. Emphasis mine. Whether you use alignment or your own custom set, you are still giving your character alignment.

bigbobsr6000 wrote:These and many other influences to numerous to mention guides the PC, IMO, and not a set of restrictive alignments.

Again, try using alignments another way.

The correct way.

bigbobsr6000 wrote:Anyone who has ever taken a rubber band, pen or paper clip from work has stolen and broken the law. Anyone who has gone 1 mile over the posted speed limit has broken the law. Anyone who has employed the local kid to cut their lawn and didn't take out for taxes and social security has broken the law. Anyone who realized after they got home from the store an item wasn't paid for and did not return it has broken the law. Any one who has cheated on tax returns has broken the law. I could go and on. These people made a conscience decision to break the law, most on a daily basis. They can’t be principled because they constantly break the law.

Then consider Scrupulous. Or consider that the alignment system is a broad system of guidelines that doesn't bother with going 1 mile over the speed limit, however, 15 or 20 could be endangerment and thus something a Principled character would not do. Remember that "life and freedom are
of the highest priority" for any good aligned character.

The alignment section never takes itself as serious or at literal as you are.

What confuses me is that you say you use alignment as a guideline but nothing strictly literal. At the same time you say alignments are not guidelines, that they are strictly literal. You say that they are successful in games. At the same time you argue against using them because they fail.

Thanks for your comments.

lather wrote:What confuses me is that you say you use alignment as a guideline but nothing strictly literal.

That's correct interpretation of what I do.

lather wrote:At the same time you say alignments are not guidelines, that they are strictly literal.

That's what a lot of GMs and players see them as. That is what I meant.

lather wrote:You say that they are successful in games. At the same time you argue against using them because they fail.

They are successful in games when GMs and players agree on interpretations. When they don't they fail IMO.
Hope this helps to clarify any confusion. Sometimes my tongue gets in front of my eyeteeth and I can't see what I am saying.

As to your other comments, I know I am menceing words here or kinda saying the same meaning of "Alignments" with others like "morals" and "influences". However, I just feel the "Alignment" is just to harsh and cofining compared to the wider interpretations of "morals" and/or oustside "influences." I think that's my personal hang-up here. We all have our quirks.

Below is the Webester def of Alignment that applys (left out parts alignment stuff) without comment.

Alignment: 1: the act of aligning or state of being aligned 4: an arrangement of groups or forces in relation to one another.

Aligning: 1 : to bring into line or alignment 2 : to array on the side of or against a party or cause

Aligned: 1 : to bring into line or alignment 2 : to array on the side of or against a party or cause

So, I am thinking if I dump the word "alignment" and subsitute the word "morals" or "moral compass" and keep my liberal interpretation of them, I can see that better and live with that in gameplay easier.

How does that sound to you guys?

I always make my players play in the alignment but i don't give experience for it, I take it away for not playing it. a long time ago some posted a make your own alignment with a bunch of questions it was really cool, but i dont have it anymore.

bigbogsr6000, thank you; all clear now.

bigbogsr6000 wrote:How does that sound to you guys?

I have to be honest; this sounds a lot like what I said earlier: it's a matter of how the alignment system is used, not the alignment system itself. So obviously it sounds fine by me.

bigbobsr6000 wrote:Aligning: 1 : to bring into line or alignment 2 : to array on the side of or against a party or cause

Aligned: 1 : to bring into line or alignment 2 : to array on the side of or against a party or cause

I bet not.

lather wrote:bigbogsr6000, thank you; all clear now.

bigbogsr6000 wrote:How does that sound to you guys?

I have to be honest; this sounds a lot like what I said earlier: it's a matter of how the alignment system is used, not the alignment system itself. So obviously it sounds fine by me.

Dang it! Stop making sense! Geez! Some people.

bigbobsr6000 wrote:

lather wrote:bigbogsr6000, thank you; all clear now.

bigbogsr6000 wrote:How does that sound to you guys?

I have to be honest; this sounds a lot like what I said earlier: it's a matter of how the alignment system is used, not the alignment system itself. So obviously it sounds fine by me.

Dang it! Stop making sense! Geez! Some people.

Yea, so not cool lather

Delwugor wrote:their application of evil was based on a different form of morality and it worked out really well.

Yep. Have had a few of those myself.

Evil expresses itself in different ways.

ak-73 wrote:Would you be so kind to explain to me one more time why you think alignments do make any big difference at all? Thanks.

Alex

Just so you know I do use alignments in the Palladium System. I am very liberal with interpretation of them. Habitual repeat offenders or one who goes way out of alignment I reel them back in or we talk about a new alignment.

I just do not like them, personally.

My basis is I feel alignments are too restrictive and doesn't reflect free will in the game setting. As I have stated earlier games like Mutants and Master Mind, d20 Modern, Cyberpunk, and a couple of others I can't think of right now, do not have any alignment system. They are played just fine without them. I have GM'd some of these myself. The players didn't go on a killing spree, robbing people, burning down schools, etc. They played their PCs as they thought they would behave/react in their campaign environment.

Rewards, punishments, religious beliefs, background, social influences, etc. in the campaign setting should be enough of a catalyst/deterrent to the PCs. Just as these same influences guide us through our life to do good, evil acts, to be indifferent, etc.

Ex: If you get caught stealing in this town, 1st offense left hand is cut off.
That, IMO, should be the deterrent to prevent your PC from stealing not because his alignment says he shouldn't/can't.

Last note, I had GMs that if you broke just one of the alignment traits, you had to shift alignments. Or they would tell player "I am not allowing that to happen, because it is against your PC's alignment." That's the restrictive part I really do not like.

That's it in a nut shell.

And thanks for asking.

One more thing I grew up with a saying:

"A lock has one function, to keep an honest man honest, not to stop a thief."

bigbobsr6000 wrote:Ex: If you get caught stealing in this town, 1st offense left hand is cut off.
That, IMO, should be the deterrent to prevent your PC from stealing not because his alignment says he shouldn't/can't.

It is a deterrent for the PC. That's why he doesn't break laws, he likes his hands, you know what I mean.

Sometimes they work together because they have common interests and goals.

Sometimes they work together because they are friends.

sasha wrote:

bigbobsr6000 wrote:Ex: If you get caught stealing in this town, 1st offense left hand is cut off.
That, IMO, should be the deterrent to prevent your PC from stealing not because his alignment says he shouldn't/can't.

It is a deterrent for the PC. That's why he doesn't break laws, he likes his hands, you know what I mean.

Being arrested, tried and convicted is a deterrent for the real people. That's why great majority don't break laws, they like their freedom. So should it be in gameplay. The threat of punishment for breaking the law acts as a deterrent for a lot of people. Same as the threat for cutting off the left hand of a 1st offense thief.

Big Bob..................

bigbobsr6000 wrote:

sasha wrote:

bigbobsr6000 wrote:Ex: If you get caught stealing in this town, 1st offense left hand is cut off.
That, IMO, should be the deterrent to prevent your PC from stealing not because his alignment says he shouldn't/can't.

It is a deterrent for the PC. That's why he doesn't break laws, he likes his hands, you know what I mean.

Being arrested, tried and convicted is a deterrent for the real people. That's why great majority don't break laws, they like their freedom. So should it be in gameplay. The threat of punishment for breaking the law acts as a deterrent for a lot of people. Same as the threat for cutting off the left hand of a 1st offense thief.

Big Bob..................

Isn't this exactly what I said?

Yes, I guess so. (Dragging right foot around in dirt looking down fidgetting with his hands.)

Nice input, Zylo.

twhaley wrote:I was thinking maybe at the end of each session, add up the experience points then modify based on alignment played. Such as, principled adds 10%, scrupulous adds 5%, selfish no modifier, miscreant minus 5%, aberrant minus 10%, and diabolic minus 15%.

Does this sound harsh or fair?

I kinda like this idea.

Petite Elfgirl wrote:...Example One: My character never lies to other people, but she will gladly stretch the truth when trying to sneak past the security guards of the Neo-Nazi complex. My character enjoys fighting, but will never attack first unless provoked. My character likes to bully people around, but was horrified and crushed when she broke the thug's arm on accident. My character prefers to keep her opponents alive when fighting, though she understands that innocents come first; if by saving a life her foe dies . . . while extremely regrettable, so be it. The orphan was saved. My character obeys all the city's laws to the best of her ability, though she laughs at Officer Barnaby Jones' enormous potbelly . . . when he's not looking at her, that is. My character refused the highpaying job because the rules were too strict for her taste and she felt confined by the never-ending paperwork necessary to join. However, when her best friend Joes was kidnapped by (insert villain here) and the only way to find him was by accepting the job, she gladly joined and rescued Joe . . . and did the paperwork afterward....

Seems more like personality traits IMO.

Seems like the character's alignment IMO.

Instead of seeing alignments as rules, maybe we should see them as the character's conscious.

bigbobsr6000 wrote:My next question is, have or would you play a RPG that doesn't use alignments at all?

Yes I have, and aside from what items & skills they had, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart. At least with Palladium I have my PCs behave when they were good, out for #1 when selfish, and..... the one evil game we were playing never really went anywhere. I'd like to think he'd be at least abberant, but I think I was only playing him as anarchist.

bigbobsr6000 wrote:

twhaley wrote:With no alignments do you just kind of play yourself? Sounds kind of LARP.

No, you play your character as you think he/she would do in any given situation. Not what an alignment states you have to play it.

Then you're not playing your PC, you're playing you with magic, psionics, cyborg parts, juicer powers, or whatever.

bigbobsr6000 wrote:Anyone who has ever taken a rubber band, pen or paper clip from work has stolen and broken the law. Anyone who has gone 1 mile over the posted speed limit has broken the law. Anyone who has employed the local kid to cut their lawn and didn't take out for taxes and social security has broken the law. Anyone who realized after they got home from the store an item wasn't paid for and did not return it has broken the law. Any one who has cheated on tax returns has broken the law. I could go and on. These people made a conscience decision to break the law, most on a daily basis. They can’t be principled because they constantly break the law.

You're right, and that's why most people aren't principled. Most people would fall into one of the selfish alignments.

Zylo wrote:I see alignment as a simple guideline for how certain people act in given situations. They are not carved in stone and enforced by divine law (unless you are a priest, I suppose) without some wiggle room.

The laws the priest lives with are stricter than alignment.
They happen to supercede alignment, too.

The Beast wrote:Instead of seeing alignments as rules, maybe we should see them as the character's conscious.

I like that idea. You got that little devil on your left shoulder and that little angel on your right shoulder. I just thought of another one resting on top of your head: Apathy. Not neutral, just tries to make you not care to take action or what is about to happen. Sort of turning the blind eye to a situation.

These aren't literal creatures on you, just got that idea from the cartoons and some comedy movies that have those angels and devils appear on the character's shoulder to try and convince him to do good or evil.

Evil Psychologist wrote:Conscience, you mean?

I'm assuming.