Does anyone really use alignments?

[sasha]

Evil characters can be good without a ruse. For example, an evil character may have deep respect for his elders and, as such, does not kill them, swindle them, or otherwise rain evil upon them.

[Natasha]

It's unfortunate they're called "good" and "evil".

[bigbobsr6000]

Same here. Just some time ago I had a debate with cornholioprime about the harvester occ and I said that if it would fit the campaign I might allow a player to play a scrupulous renegade harvester, sucking souls of harvesters, murderers, etc for the sake of bolstering his powers to ultimately fight nxla.

And that's not Canon.

That's cool.

How so? For example, I interpret alignments as expression of the free will of that PC/NPC.

My definition of free will is to have the choice of doing an act(s) with out checking your alignment to see if you can. Or the act(s) causes alignment change(s). This session I become Aberrant (Evil), next sesseion I become Principled (Good) then the next act(s) causes yet another alignment shift. I save the burning orphanage and all the kiddies and staff = Good. I find the arsonist who set it on fire, bind, torture for info to his boss, then douse him with gas and burn him to death for his actions = Evil. I spend my credits and energy rebuilding the damaged orphanage = Good. The orphans need more credits to help save them, I get them by deception = Unscrupleless. I give the credits to save the orpanage = Good., etc. One can change alignments several times in one session by using free will of choice. Now I run the risk of being caught by the law, relatives of my victim(s) and/or the boss of the arsonist. Not to mention the people I bilked out of credits to give to the orpanage.

If I take all the "What if's" of my actions into account that could befall me I would probably not be that extreme, especially if my character likes is freedom and life. Probably ruff up the arsonist, turn him over to authorities, run a charity drive to get the funds ligit. Not because of any alignment but because of the consequences that might befall my PC.

...,Shadowrun, Rolemaster, Paranoia, GURPS, COC, etc etc...
(very few rgs have alignments)

Yeah!

That's why I was asking - the games play more or less the same, with or without alignment. So what's your beef?

Games with alignments don't play the same, IMO, because GM/Players have to keep checking if they are "acting" within their alignments. Other games w/o alignments no such problem.

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.

If I need to deter players from something like that, I've done something wrong as a gm. Again, it comes down to the players understanding what campaign I am running: are they supposed to be the good guys? Or am I running an evil PCs campaign? Or am I giving the players the freedom to choose? The players should now that. If they are supposed to be good, there will be heavy sanctions should they murder innocents. Santions in whatever form. It's just agains the spirit of the campaign.

I think you missed my point. The laws of the land in the campaign is the deterrent to evil deeds. Nothing to do with doing something wrong as a GM. Nor does it have to do with good or evil campaign being run. Don’t you have a PC reward and punishment based in what they do in the campaign? Break a law, get arrested, tried and sentenced regardless of alignments. Save a village get reward regardless of alignments. Murder someone if not caught a bounty put on your head. Bring a murderer to justice get rewarded. These are the driving forces I am referring to. The old “Reward and Punishment” system, not alignments.

Otoh, if they are supposed to be able to freely decide between good and evil, that's what they are free to do. But in that case I am not going to scrub them should they decide to go for evil and they're bein adequately skillful in doing so.

Cool

The actual deterrent should be the question of whether it fits campaign and PC. If it does, then it comes down to the smarts of the player in deciding whether any given occasion is a good one or not.

Again I agree.

Well, if a player would go completely out of hand I would do so too, alignments or not. You can't play a Idealist-Pacifist Pointman and suddenly go around killing innocent NPCs because you're bored as a player. Sure I could also punish the PC for this but since the player's actions would be against the spirit of good role-playing, I'd address the player and not the PC.

I see no reason why I should allow someone who has upheld ideals of peace and freedom to throw it all over board just because they as players feel like.

In any game alignment free or not I’d tell the player he can surely do that, just be prepared to bear the consequences of his actions. Other players’ PCs may stop him before this happens if aware as well.



Again, thanks for the input, Alex. Good job.

[KillWatch]

Except that the alignment IS the character. That IS who they are. That is there deference. It's not CHOOSing to be evil it is just who they are

[Natasha]

Games with alignments don't play the same, IMO, because GM/Players have to keep checking if they are "acting" within their alignments. Other games w/o alignments no such problem.

You keep saying this, Bob

You can remember S.D.C., Hit Points, bonuses to strike for all the NPCs and write nothing down yet you have to keep checking alignment?
If you know your alignment, there's nothing to keep checking.

Learn your alignment, learn your bonus to Strike, and suddenly you don't have to keep checking your character sheet.

Bad, Bob. Bad.

[bigbobsr6000]

Games with alignments don't play the same, IMO, because GM/Players have to keep checking if they are "acting" within their alignments. Other games w/o alignments no such problem.

You keep saying this, Bob

You can remember S.D.C., Hit Points, bonuses to strike for all the NPCs and write nothing down yet you have to keep checking alignment?
If you know your alignment, there's nothing to keep checking.

Learn your alignment, learn your bonus to Strike, and suddenly you don't have to keep checking your character sheet.

Bad, Bob. Bad.

I have said it before, people! Stop making since, Dang Nabbit!

Bad sensible/logical people BAD!

It makes me when I have to think sensibily My warped brain-pan hurts when I do that.

[Natasha]

I'm trying, really.

[bigbobsr6000]

I'm trying, really.

Come to the "Warped Side". Join me and together we can rule the world. All you have to do is accept the illogical, unsensibe Warped Side. Nothing will ever need to make sense to you again.

Come, join........

[Natasha]

I'm trying, really.

Come to the "Warped Side". Join me and together we can rule the world. All you have to do is accept the illogical, unsensibe Warped Side. Nothing will ever need to make sense to you again.

Come, join........

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Never!

[bigbobsr6000]

It was worth a shot, oh well.

[Natasha]

:ugh: It was worth a shot, oh well.

Hm. You're fired as the Warped Side's recruiter, man.

[bigbobsr6000]

Hey, we have a dental plan and health care for the whole family, does that intice you?

Hah! lowered your defences so I could sneak this in.

It worked.

[Natasha]

I got no teeth and no family.

[bigbobsr6000]

I got no teeth and no family.

Hhmmm...How about your very own brand new shiney nickel?




That's what got me.

[Natasha]

I got no teeth and no family.

Hhmmm...How about your very own brand new shiney nickel?




That's what got me.

Where do I sign?

[bigbobsr6000]

Just sign away all logic and sensibility in your mind and there you are.

(Que Music)

Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high,
There's a land that I heard of
Once in a lullaby.
Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue,
And the dreams that you dare to dream
Really do come true.

Someday I'll wish upon a star
And wake up where the clouds are far
Behind me.
Where troubles melt like lemon drops
Away above the chimney tops
That's where you'll find me.

Somewhere over the rainbow
Bluebirds fly.
Birds fly over the rainbow.
Why then, oh why can't I?

If happy little bluebirds fly
Beyond the rainbow
Why, oh why can't I?



You just did, Natasha, you just did...................

[bigbobsr6000]

Wow. Burning a person alive?
That's... creepy. I think most people would find that just too uncomfortable if they were already good people. I must admit, that's the point where I'd consider digging out the book to see what alignment it corresponds best with.
Now, saving an orphanage is a good deed, but feeling for orphans and knowing you have the power to do something about it isn't restricted to good. Aberrant characters, Selfish of any stripe, and certainly all Good folk would want to see the right thing done there. (Aberrant folk might more easily write it off as not their problem, however.) Burning even a villain alive is kinda... gross.
Honestly, that's the sort of thing crazy people do. Folks might be crazy with grief, mind you. If somebody torches an orphanage, I shouldn't be surprised if a mourning person (even somebody unrelated to the orphans or the -age) did something really crazy. However, the screams, the burning and peeling flesh, and the reactions of people who discover the horror should be a deterrent in themselves.
I mean, really. Gross.

That's my point (in bold). And I did further state the character doing the "What if's" chose a different course of action.

[bigbobsr6000]

BTW, macksting, have you ever seen the movie "8mm"? If you have the hero did some pretty nasty stuff in the movie. I don't want to do a spoiler in case you haven't.

[bigbobsr6000]

How's this idea. "0" is the character's starting alignment. Each act out of alignment earns them 1 or more point(s), at GM's descreation, in the alignment they actually acted in. When the PC accumulates the coresponding score in any of the alignments outside of his/hers, their alignment shifts to that one. And that becomes their new "0". Notice it is easier to slip toward evil and harder to work your way up toward good.


Principled (Good),,,,,,,,30__25__20__15__10___5__0
Scrupulous (Good),,,,,,25__20__15__10___5___0__5
Unprincipled (Selfish),,20__15__10___5___0___5__5
Anarchist (Selfish),,,,,,15__10___5___0___5___5__5
Aberrant (Evil),,,,,,,,,,,,10___5___0___5___5___5__5
Miscreant (Evil),,,,,,,,,,,,5___0___5___5___5___5__5
Diabolic (Evil),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0___5___5___5___5___5__5

EX: Aberrant (Evil) PC would have to earn 20 points in Principled (Good) to shift "up" to that alignment. But a Diabolic (Evil) Would need 30 points or acts of Principled (Good) to shift to that alignment. If the Principled ( Good) PC gets even 5 points in any other alignment, that then becomes their new alignment at "0" and they have to start thier climb back "up" if they want to. Like gets 5 points in Anarchist (Selfish) that becomes the PC's new alignment at "0". Then they would need 5 points in Unprincpled (Selfish) to move "up" to that alignment. Or, 15 in Principled (Good) to get back to that one.

Or you could have the PC have to work toward the Good only one alignment shift at a time.

So, what do you think? I also write stereo instructions.

Feel free to use and abuse this idea anyway you want or adjust it. Feedback welcome.

[sasha]

Compare if I'm Principled and I shoot my neighbour in the head and eat her liver to I'm Principled and I tell my neighbour I don't have any sugar for her. Do I slide just 1 point in both cases?

[bigbobsr6000]

Compare if I'm Principled and I shoot my neighbour in the head and eat her liver to I'm Principled and I tell my neighbour I don't have any sugar for her. Do I slide just 1 point in both cases?

How the points are alloted and how many are up the the GM.

As to me, the law of the land would be after you. And/or the relatives/friends after you. Not to mention, possibly the other PCs feelings on the matter. Plus, chance of contacting diease from the victim. In addition, at least one roll on the insanity table. Don't forget fitful sleeps because of the nightmares of the victim coming after you. Depending on the campaign setting, the victim could put a curse on you.

And that's just for sugar incident.

[sasha]

Compare if I'm Principled and I shoot my neighbour in the head and eat her liver to I'm Principled and I tell my neighbour I don't have any sugar for her. Do I slide just 1 point in both cases?

How the points are alloted and how many are up the the GM.

As to me, the law of the land would be after you. And/or the relatives/friends after you. Not to mention, possibly the other PCs feelings on the matter. Plus, chance of contacting diease from the victim. In addition, at least one roll on the insanity table. Don't forget fitful sleeps because of the nightmares of the victim coming after you. Depending on the campaign setting, the victim could put a curse on you.

And that's just for sugar incident.

That's why I always give my neighbours sugar!

[bigbobsr6000]

Nice comment, macksting.

[bigbobsr6000]

Thanks again for all your comments/suggestions.

[lather]

There's nothing nice about biology.

[lather]

There's nothing nice about biology.

You haven't met the right girl.

I meant in the context of the conversation: alignment.

[lather]

There's nothing nice about biology.

You haven't met the right girl.

I meant in the context of the conversation: alignment.

Bah!

Besides, biology drives mothers to protect their young. That's good, alignment wise.

It's selfish.

[lather]

There's nothing nice about biology.

You haven't met the right girl.

I meant in the context of the conversation: alignment.

Bah!

Besides, biology drives mothers to protect their young. That's good, alignment wise.

It's selfish.

No, selfish is running and letting them get eaten.

Debatable.

She doesn't know if she'll have another opportunity to reproduce so she will protect what she has.

Then there are mothers that abandon their young.

If nature is good, it's selectively good. Which isn't really good.

[KillWatch]

I don't know if I agree that faith is learned. I think a lot of people are born into it and their parents teach them this way or that of about what is a proper way to worship, and most don't really give it a second thought and just do what their parents do, or find a religion that sounds right to them. But for a very few, I thinkit it is soemthing they uncover and slowly develope through their own personal inner search. They take books and the words of the religious under advisement for consideration, but if it doesn't feel like "truth" to them then it doesn't belong in the personal religion that they are excavating in their "souls"

[Killer Cyborg]

biology drives mothers to protect their young. That's good, alignment wise.

That would depend on how they do it, and whether their young deserve the protection.

[Natasha]

biology drives mothers to protect their young. That's good, alignment wise.

That would depend on how they do it, and whether their young deserve the protection.

It's a mom thing. Your cyborgy self can't understand.

Your mom.

[KillWatch]

Misfit: I disagree. It is an article of faith but I believe the spirits and beings we know as gods are found through inner searches. Just as one is more inclined to be an architect or carpenter, another would seek out universal truths and find their own by exploring the external and interal worlds.

As in your example we are not all born to qeustion. So many people live out there lives without questioning what they are told and taught. As long as they have answeres given to them when asked, if ever, then they are satiated. Many people really do believe the bible is a first hand account. That it isn't a derivitive work. I mean how many "christians" celebrate easter with chocolate, eggs and bunnies and give it a first or second thought?

So just as some are born to question, some are born to seek an inner truth. Some truths are learned. Others are known.

[Grug]

I feel alignments are important. Because it is what makes for great role-playing.
Example: Your character is scrupulous, Someone has poisoned the drinking water of a small village it has caused 30% of the residents to become sick. They are not dead but without some help it is possible that a few lives will be lost. So the PC goes out and finds the person responsible, He has apprehended the criminal. The PC has also found the criminals stash of gold, it is not a lot but would be enough to pay for medicine for the villagers.
Now a scrupulous PC would use the gold for some medicine, and help the villagers.
Thats just good Role-Playing, But not everyone wants to make choices like they are someone else aka there characters. I think that players who make different characters with varying alignments and plays within the alignments are just good role-players. Of course some alignments are harder but that's the fun of it. At times when you would want to still all the gold or beat up the prince just because. You do not because your playing in character!

[Nemo235]

This is a very in-depth discussion and I admit I have not read every post.
I just wanted to present this observation about the alignment system, which I have posted before, because this topic is one that pops up frequently:

After reading the alignment guidelines and, giving it some thought, I noticed the following ideas.
In order to avoid breaking any forum rules, I'm just going to summarize the alignment descriptions. Not sure how much I can quote directly from the book. The numbers in parentheses beside each heading correspond to the numbers on the lists under the alignment descriptions. If you have any Palladium rule book, you know what I'm talking about.

It seems a character's alignment could be divided into three general aspects:

Aggression ( 3, 4, 5, 6 9 )
How much force is the character willing to use to achieve their goals? This could be a range of complete pacifism, to fighting only in self defense or to protect innocents, all the way to attacking and torturing others just for the sadistic pleasure of it.

Integrity ( 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 )
Would the character ever lie to or betray someone, breaking a promise? If so, to whom? Also, would the hero keep money or items from criminals they have encountered, or found from other sources?

Lawfulness ( 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 )
Would the character break or exploit the law for any reason? If so, to what extent? Are they vigilantes, believing they are working above the law for greater justice? Or do they actually have law enforcement power? This situation could change in a story, and lawfulness overlaps with the other two aspects of alignment mentioned above.

Since the player is supposed to be in complete control of their character, as the GM all I can do is warn them when they are playing outside of their alignment. If they continue with their actions I have considered maybe making them play with some minor psychological drawbacks, like neuroses and such, until they either get back in line with their original alignment or change to a different alignment. If they do shift alignment completely, there would be in game consequences like loss of friends, working outside the law, etc.

[KillWatch]

True, but what is driving us to learn. Others are perfectly fine being ignorant. NvN

[KillWatch]

needed no but it helpsw and I am not saying it is even necassariyl devinely inspired. If you want we can look at it in a bhudist lens. Some people have not spirituall evolved to the point where spiritual concerns and questions take room in the front seat. THis life is concerned with more mundane acts. Or, if you like, some people just are geared that way. Others are. Now why they are engineered this way is yet another spiritual minded question of "why"

[Myrrhibis]

Wow - 6 pgs...

Been running or playing PB games for nearly 20 yrs, almost non stop. Always used alignments. Although (esp for new players, or those uncertain just how they wanted to play a new PC) I have allowed a 2-3 level allowance before settling on an alignment - they picked on @ PC creation, and it moved up or down based on actions & how they felt they wanted the character to go.

Alignments are a framework for a character. As others have mentioned, it gives a general idea whether a PC is likely to take a certain action. *points to the SB1 (orig) section about CS soldiers being Principled, even though they are killing "innocent" D-Bees - cuz they are law-abiding citizens obeying what they've been taught since childhood*

that said, there are deviations - myself & the other regular GM don't penalize, unless it's *really* bad, out of no-where; or unless there has been a noticeable & regular shift - and we've warned the player.

Again, it's a framework. I am currently playing a Unprincipled (Good) Assassin. How you may ask? She's an alien, an ateva based on CJ Cherryh's "Foreigner" books. Their society views assassination as A-Ok - with pre-notification (Letter of Intent) to the victim that a hit has been ordered and accepted by the Assassin's Guild. Doing a hit w/o a LoI is *very* bad, and the AG will be helping the victim hunt down the potential assassin.

She can be Unprincipled because generally, she's a "good guy" - but when necessary, to protect or obey the person she's sworn loyalty to (it's a biological imperative), she will kill or harm. But not taking pleasure in it - it's a job. And she won't off someone unless she feels confident that they've been notified their a$$ is grass (which makes her fun to play in the RIFTS & Phase World settings).

On the other hand, we had a Jedi-Knight import (Splynncryth's/Morpheus' Webbook) who was Scrupulous... and let demons walk around unchallenged, OK'd slavery, fought to kill in every battle & every enemy, etc... the above assassin had more reservations about letting "bad guys" get away than the Jedi... the GM called the player on it, she didn't care - Jedi dropped to Anarchist - and was called before the Jedi Council (and removed from game, since player couldn't see GM & every other player's POV that Jedi don't do that - Sith do).

I shudder to think what having *no* alignment would do in a game - I see anarchy reigning, w/ PCs changing how they "act" every session, if the player's having a bad day.

[Natasha]

I shudder to think what having *no* alignment would do in a game - I see anarchy reigning, w/ PCs changing how they "act" every session, if the player's having a bad day.

That's a possibility, I guess, I never played such a game, but I'd bet that it's not very common, at least if you're character is fairly well defined. Alignment just provides some detail about the character's personality.