Forums of the Megaverse®

most of the time i play good characters. Ive posted this uestion on several forum to see what people say.

jade von delioch wrote:most of the time i play good characters. Ive posted this uestion on several forum to see what people say.

I usually prefer aberrant.

I tend to play Unprincipled characters as they give the largest range of freedom while still being more or less good guys. I shy away from good alignments depending on the GM. If they're overly strict in their interpretations of what alignments allow or use alignments as a way to control player character actions, I choose an alignment that allows me the most freedom of action.

If a GM looks at alignments as a way the character acts most of the time, then I'll consider Scrupulous. If a GM says, "If you do that, your alignment will change" rather than, "You can't do that because of your alignment" then I will consider Scrupulous.

there is is no Neutral

Usually play Unpincipled chars

Depends on the character

I've played everything but Diabolic.

I picked selfish although good is a close second.

i know there is no Neutral. that is why it says Selfish next to it. This was not designed with only palladium in mind, hense why it says Neutral.

I've played em all. It really depends on the character concept for me.

Selfish & good alignments mostly. As a GM you play them all because you are god of the game.

I usually play unprincipled in the palladium system. Chaotic Good in D&D.

In palladium games, I've only ever played selfish characters. Really, I've wanted a lure to turn good or bad, instead of just starting that way. That way, when I react - I can react more naturally.

For instance..... I was playing a Headhunter (my favorite OCC) in a reasonably long-running campaign. During one such instance we intercepted a major business deal by chance and fate, which netted us alot of money. Alot of money. Overnight (well, within a couple of months) we became hunted by an unknown faction; our small-time merc outfit based in the outskirts of the Chi-town 'burbs. We had a nice little set-up too, with only a couple of unfortunate run-ins with the CS. We helped out their patrols in the past, and generally because we weren't harboring any D-Bees or magic-users they left us alone (if only watched closely).

Anyways, on a particular botched job we got ambushed by a dragon (some adult variety I'd never heard of - it couldn't fly, and that's all I cared about). I totalled our "aquired" and heavily customed Mark V APC, and when the chips were down I totally bailed on my buddy (I had a jetpack, he had only hope and my plasma ejector). Instead of going down fighting, he shot me out of the sky (the bastard ). But I suppose one good turn deserves another. Then we were to be the dragons' minions, as it decided that we were just the type of resourceful humans it was looking for.....

Later, we'd hired on more staff in a different location for yet another job. Now up until this point in time, we'd never really had a problem with the CS, but this time we'd met up with a particularily sadistic group consisting of some kill-cats. during this altercation, they killed my best friend (an NPC crazy). It was on. I proceeded to work against them in the shadows, using my personal funds to fuel a private war.

(heh, the first thing I did was hire a bunch of Juicer mercs to find that unit and kill them. Unfortunately I had a very poor choice of words and put a way-high bounty out, so instead of a specific unit of kill-cats, I pretty much put out a hit on all the kill-cats that could be found in the 'Burbs Lesson learned)

Anyways, I'd gone from a selfish, self-serving bastard (in-game) to a rebel with a cause. Pretty much what ended up happening to Han Solo (though we'd only made that connection afterwards).


This is what I find to be more fullfilling in the end; to rise up and meet your destiny. To be allowed to choose your path by the actions you take, and the actions of others around you. This path led me down the road of the righteous, and without these events taking place, I'd have probably ended up as a major crime-lord or something (or likely just a failed mercenary).

So I guess that when I say I've only ever played selfish characters, what I meant to say is that I tend to start selfish and see where that takes me.

Overlord Rikonius wrote:

jade von delioch wrote:most of the time i play good characters. Ive posted this uestion on several forum to see what people say.

I usually prefer aberrant.

Seconded, but I usually play an aberrant good guy, in a group of good guys. I actually play the counterpart to the one guy who always plays Principled, and we usually agree on a lot of things. Interesting how that works out. The main difference is in the motivations that drive our similar actions. That and my lack of regard for the laws of consistant force.

I suppose I would either be Good or Selfish, but it would depend on the setting. Selfish would be good for a ruthless setting like Rifts, but Heroes Unlimited would probably inspire me to more noble leanings.

I think many people shy away from the Good alignments because of something I heard someone say on a forums somewhere. It basically came down to "Good is a job, Evil is a hobby."
If you are good, you can't turn away from suffering. You have to help. But if you are evil, you don't have to be evil 24/7. Darth Vader doesn't have to Force Choke everyone he passes. He can do it when he wants to show off, and can even show mercy, just to keep people guessing.
A person might want to play a really nice guy, but when it comes down to it, they don't want to write Principled on their character sheet, since it is So Darned Restrictive!

Brian

Aberrant usually, sometimes unprincipled.

Scrupulous, generally.

Since this discussion also apprarently includes D&D, I'll add in that I usually play Lawful Neutral in that game. Although lately I've been playing Lawful Good.

My buddies are somewhat awed/impressed/scared at how cunning and even manipulative I can be while still being both good and lawful. Mostly it's been about proving a point about the difference between Lawfull Good and Lawful Stupid.

Kind of related to the difference between Chaotic Evil and Chaotic Stupid.

All about the unprincipled baby...

Unprincipled seems to be a bit of a copout to me. It's the default, I can do whatever I want, but I am a nice guy.

Unprincipled and Anarchist are the Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral of Palladium.

Brian

Rifter6 wrote:

BillionSix wrote:Unprincipled seems to be a bit of a copout to me. It's the default, I can do whatever I want, but I am a nice guy.

Unprincipled and Anarchist are the Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral of Palladium.

Brian

Pretty much agreed... I "in general" see less creativity with RPing a character from players who choose unprincipled.

That's a problem with the player, not the alignment.

BillionSix wrote:Unprincipled seems to be a bit of a copout to me. It's the default, I can do whatever I want, but I am a nice guy.

Unprincipled and Anarchist are the Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral of Palladium.

Brian

I'm not totally familiar with these alignments from D&D, but Unprincipled and Anarchist are selfish; they're not neutral.

Evil, evil and more evil!!!

But that's because I mostly GM.

As a player, it totally depends on the character concept but I always choose something that works WITH the group and HELPS the GM tell the story of his campaign.

I prefere the good alignments - esp. scrupulous. But for some characters I go with unprincipled and see where it would lead to good or evil.

I usually go with aberrant.

I selected Selfish. I almost always play aberrant or unprincipled. Also, as a house rule, we switched anarchist to evil and aberrant to selfish...*flame suit on*

In my earlier gaming days I would always play diabolic. It lost its fun being the bad guy though. I prefer to just be the guy. I do as I wish, whatever is best for me.

Aaryq wrote:I selected Selfish. I almost always play aberrant or unprincipled. Also, as a house rule, we switched anarchist to evil and aberrant to selfish...*flame suit on*

To be honest I see things the same way.

It depends ont he setting really, but for most games I choose Aberrant evil, (Which I would consider more "selfish" given they define their own code of honor and such) since generally fits most of my chars pretty well since they usually won't hesitate to deal with evil/villains in which ever way seems seems expedient/just in their view. (Especially in a world like System Failure or After The Bomb where "obeying the law" is kind of a moot point beyond one's own belief of what is "the law".) In Shadowrun the rpg I play most often, Aberrant Evil would be considered the "norm" for most runners, so I'm more used to having my chars think/act in such a manner. (not that Shadowrun actually bothers with clear cut "alignments.")

It actually once sparked a interesting debate around the gaming table during the start of a HU campaign if it was truly "evil" to administer justice ala Judge Dredd/Casey Jones style on guilty villains (those caught in the act of committing the crime so there can be no doubt of guilt) or more evil to trust a corrupted and flawed judicial system likely to let the villain off with a mere slap on the wrist or a legal technicality.

In the end the GM ruled the justice system in her HU world was far less corrupt then in the real world and parole was only available for non violent/non felony crimes; which settled the issue of the morality being widely acceptable.

In other settings like PF or HU if I'm playing a more noble char, (Like a paladin or upstanding super heroine) I usually choose Scrupulous to help keep compatibility with the rest of the group/fit the theme of the campaign/o.c.c.

jedi078 wrote:

Aaryq wrote:I selected Selfish. I almost always play aberrant or unprincipled. Also, as a house rule, we switched anarchist to evil and aberrant to selfish...*flame suit on*

To be honest I see things the same way.

I could see bumping Anarchist into evil, although I wouldn't.

Aberrant is evil, not selfish, however. Keeping your word is something a selfish character chooses to do, not something a selfish character must do.