Forums of the Megaverse®

What penalties, if any, do you impose on a player who refuses to play his character in his chosen alignment? (Besides changing the alignment, of course.)

I'm thinking docking XP, docking XP levels, or just removing the character all together (perhaps a bit extreme).

It quite honestly depends on the alignment, OCC, player and the specific actions. A Scrupulous or Principled using torture is a lot more alarming than an Aberant doing so for instance. A margin call I will generally allow to slide unless it's an OCC with a special code of conduct.

I dock points for playing out of character, or simply do not give any points for playing IN character, when players insist on going against their alignment.

Also, after a point, I change their alignments to whatever is most appropriate for their behavior.

yeah, in this instance, the character attacked another character (supposed to be teammates) with a stun gun, just to "see what it would do". The character is scrupulous and has a "kind and compassionate" disposition. obviously very out of character. In reality, it's just the player being juvenile. that's why I was thinking penalty.

I use in-game consequences.

If they are acting more evil than they should then they get in trouble with the authorities or certain nasty NPC's. If they are religious their gods dont like it etc.

If they are supposed to be evil but play good then maybe their guild doesnt like it or they become an unknown liability for their boss or people they've helped make loud exclamations about how nice they are at the most inopportune moment etc.

If alignment is important to your game, give an XP bonus for each session they play in their alignment. Rewarding good behavior is far more successful than penalizing people.

Of course, also keep in mind the in-game consequences.

I make characters Save vs Insanity to do anything clearly outside of Alignment. If I see them consistently stepping to gray areas, their alignment will shift towards it.

kmspade wrote:yeah, in this instance, the character attacked another character (supposed to be teammates) with a stun gun, just to "see what it would do". The character is scrupulous and has a "kind and compassionate" disposition. obviously very out of character. In reality, it's just the player being juvenile. that's why I was thinking penalty.

If the character is also "thoughtless and playful," I could see that action still being in character.
It would come down to the specifics of the character.

I don't use these Palladium alignments; they are too well defined, making only 7 personalities available for any given game.

For instance, a good character apparently will 'never' betray a friend. That makes for a very limited game. In reality, as with many other surrealities - good people betray friends; in moments of both strength and weakness.

Also, apparently people of scrupulous alignments can auto-detect people of selfish and evil alignments because those are the only people they could lie to. So if a scrupulous person lies, it was clearly to people who were either selfish or evil

It's the above short-sighted junk that is simply far too limiting for an alignment system.

Dog_O_War wrote:I don't use these Palladium alignments; they are too well defined, making only 7 personalities available for any given game.

For instance, a good character apparently will 'never' betray a friend. That makes for a very limited game. In reality, as with many other surrealities - good people betray friends; in moments of both strength and weakness.

That can happen in-game as well- it just means that they've acted against their alignment.
I don't recall anything in the rules stating that characters can never betray their principles.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I don't use these Palladium alignments; they are too well defined, making only 7 personalities available for any given game.

For instance, a good character apparently will 'never' betray a friend. That makes for a very limited game. In reality, as with many other surrealities - good people betray friends; in moments of both strength and weakness.

That can happen in-game as well- it just means that they've acted against their alignment.
I don't recall anything in the rules stating that characters can never betray their principles.

That's what I'm getting at; good people can betray friends. Period. And it can be a good thing to do.

But in Palladium, it's against the two good alignments that are available; that is the problem.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I don't use these Palladium alignments; they are too well defined, making only 7 personalities available for any given game.

For instance, a good character apparently will 'never' betray a friend. That makes for a very limited game. In reality, as with many other surrealities - good people betray friends; in moments of both strength and weakness.

That can happen in-game as well- it just means that they've acted against their alignment.
I don't recall anything in the rules stating that characters can never betray their principles.

That's what I'm getting at; good people can betray friends. Period. And it can be a good thing to do.

But in Palladium, it's against the two good alignments that are available; that is the problem.

Only if you for some reason assume that people are robot-like creature who can never break their alignments.
And since you don't assume that about people in life, why would you assume that about people in the game?

Killer Cyborg wrote:Only if you for some reason assume that people are robot-like creature who can never break their alignments.
And since you don't assume that about people in life, why would you assume that about people in the game?

I don't; that is why I dislike this alignment system - it's too well defined for my purposes.

Funny that, something in a Palladium game that is too well defined

Dog_O_War wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Only if you for some reason assume that people are robot-like creature who can never break their alignments.
And since you don't assume that about people in life, why would you assume that about people in the game?

I don't; that is why I dislike this alignment system - it's too well defined for my purposes.

Funny that, something in a Palladium game that is too well defined

What I'm saying is that you seem to be, for some reason, assuming that characters in the game cannot ever break any part of their alignment or go against their principles.
This is something that you're bringing into the game- it's not in the books.
So I don't see that the system is to blame here.

You're choosing to interpret the rules in a way that irritates you, instead of choosing to interpret them in a way that makes sense.

Killer Cyborg wrote:What I'm saying is that you seem to be, for some reason, assuming that characters in the game cannot ever break any part of their alignment or go against their principles.

No. I am pointing out that the alignments presented do not cover everything due to their narrow focus, and that in a game where penalties for breaking alignment are present, such people whose principles lay outside of these 7 alignments will be penalized often.

That is unfair, and a flaw in the system.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You're choosing to interpret the rules in a way that irritates you, instead of choosing to interpret them in a way that makes sense.

When something is clearly defined, ie: "never betrays a friend", it leaves zero room for interpretation. I am not interpreting the word "never" to mean "sometimes" as you seem to be here.

It is why I do not use Palladiums' alignment system; it is too well defined, and leaves no room for interpretation.

Instead I use a simple, 'good' and 'evil' system, whereby your actions fall somewhere within the good and evil spectrum; things in the middle of the spectrum are indicative of a 'selfish'-style alignment.

Hell, the only reason I keep the alignment system around is for stuff like 'detect evil'.


And as I pointed out in my first post, how the hell is a Scrupulous person supposed to know if he's lying to a 'selfish' or 'evil' person? Is he casting an alignment detection spell before he lies? Is he using his vagabond "eyeball a fella" skill? Or does he observe his mark for days before making an informed decision on whether a guy is 'selfish' or 'evil' before he lies to him? All of these are stupid to assume that a person would do, yet I really can't find any other way for a person to be sure that a person is definitively 'selfish' or 'evil' via the alignment system.

It makes no sense to even bother including that, unless of course it is implied somewhere that every person who is selfish is either counting piles of gold coins or acting 'shifty' as to indicate their "selfishness", and that every evil person has a furrowed brow or a Snydley Whiplash mustache to show they are evil.

In the book, it recommends using the alignments as guidelines. In the case of a Scrupulous character, it is a little insane to assume that everyone you meet is selfish or evil, but insanity is not out of the realm of reason in Rifts. So if I were to go around lying to everyone because of this cautious assumption, is the GM going to "stop the game and say that my alignment is slipping" even though I have no idea how people I'm lying to are aligned? If he does, it only stands to prove that the system presented is bad because of vague indicators on a clearly defined premise, and if he doesn't, it only stands to prove that the system is bad because it is so easily abused.

Either way the system is bad.

Rhomphaia wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:So I don't see that the system is to blame here.

You're choosing to interpret the rules in a way that irritates you, instead of choosing to interpret them in a way that makes sense.

It's not so much that he is interpreting the system in a way that irritates him, it is that he is interpreting it in an unimaginative way.

I am not interpreting anything; it is defined and leaves no room for interpretation

kmspade wrote:yeah, in this instance, the character attacked another character (supposed to be teammates) with a stun gun, just to "see what it would do". The character is scrupulous and has a "kind and compassionate" disposition. obviously very out of character. In reality, it's just the player being juvenile. that's why I was thinking penalty.

Well, alignment is pretty juvinile to begin with. It's basically narrow mindedness distilled into a procedure (alot like the thinking behind racism, actually - ie, the idea a certain person acts this way and this way only, etc).

Perhaps have a look at the riddle of steels spiritual attributes. Players define their spiritual attributes, like "save my town" or "become king" and when they pursue them in game, pass or fail, they get bonus dice to the next time they try (up to a generous cap)

Rhomphaia wrote:The explanations you are giving state quite clearly that you are interpreting the rules as you see fit.

No. My "interpretation" of the rules was not an interpretation - because there is nothing to interpret. The statement, "will lie to selfish and evil characters" is quite clearly defined.

My example though was applying a completely legitimate stance on the above.

Rhomphaia wrote:However, let's take an example, shall we?

Your interpretation of a Scrupulous character lying to a character of evil alignment assumes automatic knowledge of the person being evil by some supernatural means. Have you ever thought that the character could simply refrain from lying to anyone (even an evil character) until they had some evidence or reasonable suspicion that the character was evil? As an example of this; Mr Scrupulous Guy is in a new city and has been invited to attend a dinner party and meets Mr Evil Dude. However, Mr Scrupulous Guy does not know that Mr Evil Guy is evil, so he is honest with the man and even reasonably friendly. Now, later, Mr Scrupulous Guy learns that Mr Evil Guy is a scumbag crime lord. Everyone knows it but all attempts at prosecution have failed to stick. After doing his own investigation, Mr Scrupulous Guy becomes convinced of this and the next time he meets Mr Evil Dude, his ethical code leaves him free to lie his ass off.

Yes that's great. Another example.

Is your example more likely than mine? No. Is mine more likely than yours? No. As it stands though, my example exists and is validated by the alignment, which shows how the alignment itself is too well defined.

Yours is just playing nice by the GM. It is also valid, but it proves no point; it does not stand to say that my example is impossible and cannot exist.

Rhomphaia wrote:That is just one example. I have been through this with you before. You are taking a very narrow, inflexible and unimaginative interpretation of the alignment rules.

No, I'm applying the thread topic to the alignments available to show how penalizing a person who breaks from the narrowly defined alignments available is *gasp* unfair and and lacks forethought.

Rhomphaia wrote:To know how some situations would work requires a little thinking outside the box. It is not a bad system and contrary to your opinion, it actually offers a lot of flexibility and opportunity for character growth.

The system is terrible. I "thought outside the box" and pointed out why this alignment system is terrible. You've done nothing to prove my claim invalid, thus justifying my position.

Rhomphaia wrote:This is one of your best yet Dog. I don't know where to begin with all the contradictions and fallacies...Oh well, let's just dive right in.

Dog_O_War wrote:No. My "interpretation" of the rules was not an interpretation - because there is nothing to interpret. The statement, "will lie to selfish and evil characters" is quite clearly defined.

My example though was applying a completely legitimate stance on the above.

Actually, yes, your interpretation is an interpretation

My "interpretation is an interpretation"
I had no interpretation at all. I used the defined part of particular alignment, and thought of an example that contained logic to state that the definition made no sense in any context. I mean, how the hell is a scrupulous person supposed to know when he can and cannot lie? As far as were concerned, your examples could be another guy playing out of alignment (the scumbag underlord or whatever), who is merely playing a part to infiltrate a larger organization.

We'll never know for sure unless you use some form of detect alignment (spell or skills).

Rhomphaia wrote:because you invented a way to make the rule as written work that is not stated anywhere in the book. By definition, that is a form of interpretation.

I invented nothing; I took the stance that, "I assume all people are evil and selfish" because it is legitimate and reasonable. If I then take my previous belief and lie to people whom are good, how am I to know?
I don't, and I can be penalized for that? That is called "bullsh*t".

Rhomphaia wrote:

Yes that's great. Another example.

Yes, another example, which you chose to not address except in the most general of terms. Wonderful huh?

I did address it. I said it was valid.

I then stated that it does not invalidate my own example, making it a pointless example.
If you require further elaboration; I agree that your example is completely reasonable and serves to say, "hey, here's a way you can stay within your alignment!"

What I'm wondering is how this applies to my example. That is, if my character is very cautious of outsiders, and grew up with bad experiences, it would be playing out of character to do it your way, even though my character is a good guy as well.

Rhomphaia wrote:

Is your example more likely than mine? No. Is mine more likely than yours? No. As it stands though, my example exists and is validated by the alignment, which shows how the alignment itself is too well defined.

This is a clear example of "the rules don't state how, so I will just make **** up".

Hardly. You truly have no idea of what I'm saying, if this is a "clear example" to you.

Rhomphaia wrote:There is nothing in the rules that states that Scrupulous characters automatically get any kind of paranormal power to sense evil due to their alignment. According to your criteria (clearly defined rules), nothing of the sort exists. You are just making up crap (not to mention being self-contradictory in the process) to justify your opinion.

I said nothing of the sort.

I'll recap for you,
me: "without some sort of special alignment-detection abilities, how the hell am I supposed to know who I'm lying too? "
me: "well, I will take a 'cautious character' stance, and assume that the outside world is full of selfishness and evil, and I'll lie to keep myself safe."
Thread-topic
on alignment
penalties: "you keep lying to good people. Here's your penalty!"
me: "that is unfair and bullsh*t. How am I supposed to know this?"

Nothing I said was contradictory, it was not crap, and you clearly had no understanding of what I said. I suggest to you that you actually read my posts before quoting me, because your ignorance betrays you when you don't.

And I'm not saying that to taunt you or to be mean; I would rather you understand what I'm saying than get into a quote-for-quote.

Rhomphaia wrote:

Yours is just playing nice by the GM. It is also valid, but it proves no point; it does not stand to say that my example is impossible and cannot exist.

No, but your previous statements seem to contradict this way of thinking (see my above refutation), yet you keep clinging to it.

Your refutation was on a shadow; that is, you thought I said something I hadn't.

Rhomphaia wrote:

No, I'm applying the thread topic to the alignments available to show how penalizing a person who breaks from the narrowly defined alignments available is *gasp* unfair and and lacks forethought.

Not in all cases. Like I said in an earlier post, there are situations where it is warranted and there are times when taking the player aside is necessary. Just because you don't play with alignments doesn't mean that a GM who does is wrong when he seeks to bring a player who is being an ass and acting out of alignment out of control.

Oh, I hadn't realized that this game was about playing within an alignment. I thought it was about playing within a character
What I'm saying is that it is a device of the system that you must choose an alignment.
It is a flaw of the system that the alignments are narrowly defined as to leave many characters at odds with them.

Rhomphaia wrote:

The system is terrible. I "thought outside the box" and pointed out why this alignment system is terrible.

I have seen nothing, absolutely nothing from you that proves this.

You are blind. Metaphorically speaking.

Rhomphaia wrote:As it stands, it is your opinion.

This is a true statement on your behalf when taken in the context of the thread.

Rhomphaia wrote:You will not convince me that it is fact, ever, with your current meaningless, self-contradictory rhetoric.

I was never trying to convince you my opinion was fact. I only tried to point out that I do not quote interpretations; only facts.
I also tried to point out that my opinion on penalties for playing out of alignment is unfair, and legitimately so under this system, but you seem to have either missed or ignored that part.

Rhomphaia wrote:

You've done nothing to prove my claim invalid, thus justifying my position.

Sorry, that's not how it works. You are the one that is making the claim (the alignment system sucks), so the burden of proof is on you. That is a fact that you cannot dispute with any validity.

I bloody well proved it with several examples; the themes under the alignments are too well defined. They would have been better off eliminating the blurb, "a _____ character will..." and sticking with only the fluff text.

Actually, just looking at the 'scrupulous character can only lie to selfish/evil character' example, he has proven a practical contradiction. It's like if a scrupulous person could only lie to someone who glows in the ultra violent spectrum, yet the scrupulous person cannot see in the UV spectrum. Atleast acknowledge the proven components, even if they don't go on to prove a larger theory.

What are the penalties for alignment breaks in palladium, anyway? Being bumped down an alignment slot? That's the only one I've heard of - and if it didn't fit the character, who cares about losing it (of course, if what your bumped down to doesn't fit either, well, the whole thing is like a game of musical chairs where none of the chairs fit you anyway - who cares?)

Actually, as the "juvenile" player in question (thanks Mike ), let me make a few points. Yes, the character is Scrupulous. And I do not beleive that what I was doing was outside of my alignment.

OK a few points on the alignment:

1: Never attack or kill an unarmed foe- This is a HU setting, she knew he was a superhero, but had no idea of his capabilities. Therefore, she did not consider him unarmed.
2: Never harm an innocent-The character examined the stun item in question extremely well before taking any action (as outlined in my post). Given the GM's description of what the item does, she therefore concluded that no harm would be done. It would depend on your defination of harm, and I don't believe this consitutes "harm".
3: Never betray a friend-This character was not her teammate yet. We were just introduced, no one had even decided yet if we were taking the job. In fact, the character who was attacked was asking about pay. Therefore, he was neither a friend or a teammate.

As for the disposition, the disposition I wrote was written up about a month before we started playing, and posted 3 weeks before the game began. In that time, I had a change of heart of how I was going to play her. I updated my character sheet, but forgot to update the website. This fits with the way I am going to play her, which is playful and mischevious. To her, this was more of a pratical joke than an actual attack. To be truthful, she would be a little confused by his over reaction (as percevied by her).

There is nothing stating in a good alignment that the character has to be a saint. He or she can be an A**, if they want to be. Now, I fully admit that there should be "in-game" consequences for her actions. I figured there would be before I went down this path. However, since I truly believe that this is within the alignment given her intentions, description of the stun baton, and her nature as I intend to play her, any out of game consequences would be objected to STRONGLY.

Rhomphaia: Well, he already gave one round about method of evil detection himself, to begin with - detect evil. I thought that acknowleged it's not impossible, just very awkward. Eg

And as I pointed out in my first post, how the hell is a Scrupulous person supposed to know if he's lying to a 'selfish' or 'evil' person? Is he casting an alignment detection spell before he lies?

I mean what does the mundane scrupulous person think, in terms of his own morals "I must not lie...not unless I gain arcane powers AND gain detect evil, that is, then if they show up as evil I can....oh wait, do I trust the arcane powers to give absolutely no false positives? Ah crap!"

Actually that raises another point - the only reason we know detect alignment actually gives the truth is because of pure meta game knowledge. How would a PC know that? He's read the rule book?

No, there is a practical contradiction there, even if there are corner cases where it works out.

Noon wrote:Actually, just looking at the 'scrupulous character can only lie to selfish/evil character' example, he has proven a practical contradiction.

Someone understands!

strtkwr wrote:Actually, as the "juvenile" player in question (thanks Mike ), let me make a few points. Yes, the character is Scrupulous. And I do not beleive that what I was doing was outside of my alignment.

OK a few points on the alignment:

1: Never attack or kill an unarmed foe- This is a HU setting, she knew he was a superhero, but had no idea of his capabilities. Therefore, she did not consider him unarmed.
2: Never harm an innocent-The character examined the stun item in question extremely well before taking any action (as outlined in my post). Given the GM's description of what the item does, she therefore concluded that no harm would be done. It would depend on your defination of harm, and I don't believe this consitutes "harm".
3: Never betray a friend-This character was not her teammate yet. We were just introduced, no one had even decided yet if we were taking the job. In fact, the character who was attacked was asking about pay. Therefore, he was neither a friend or a teammate.

As for the disposition, the disposition I wrote was written up about a month before we started playing, and posted 3 weeks before the game began. In that time, I had a change of heart of how I was going to play her. I updated my character sheet, but forgot to update the website. This fits with the way I am going to play her, which is playful and mischevious. To her, this was more of a pratical joke than an actual attack. To be truthful, she would be a little confused by his over reaction (as percevied by her).

There is nothing stating in a good alignment that the character has to be a saint. He or she can be an A**, if they want to be. Now, I fully admit that there should be "in-game" consequences for her actions. I figured there would be before I went down this path. However, since I truly believe that this is within the alignment given her intentions, description of the stun baton, and her nature as I intend to play her, any out of game consequences would be objected to STRONGLY.

Dude, your either acting like your the GM or you genuinely think there is no semantic wiggle room on the matter? I mean, who at the table decides if it's harm or not? The GM or suddenly your that authority that decides? Because otherwise you'll use UPPER CASE!

Does it cramp your roleplaying style when you want to play a character a certain way but suddenly unexpected alignment interpretations occur? Yeah - so alignment sucks. I gave up on the stupid, bloody minded concept years ago.

Rhomphaia wrote:

Noon wrote:Actually, just looking at the 'scrupulous character can only lie to selfish/evil character' example, he has proven a practical contradiction. It's like if a scrupulous person could only lie to someone who glows in the ultra violent spectrum, yet the scrupulous perspm cannot see in the UV spectrum.

No, he has actually proven nothing of the sort.

In order for that point to be valid, he must show that there is no other way to tell if a person is evil. He has not done so. There are numerous ways to show, with a large percentage of certainty, that a person is evil.

Name one that does not include spells, the 'Eyeball a fella' skill, or that will not take days (and to a lesser extent, hours).


And as a side-note; the player in question (strtkwr) - his first point parallels my own example. That is validation in the fullest.

There is no practical contradiction.

All you have done is give a more complicated version of DoW's assertion (while adding in a straw-man or two), which has already been refuted and that refutation has not been responded to.

You are in the same boat as DoW on this now. You have the claim, therefore you must provide the evidence.

No, your hyjacking my term 'practical contradiction'.

You've decided on the qualifier that absolutely no method of detection must be there, or otherwise its fine.

That's your qualifier. You've introduced that and your acting like once you feel like introducing something, everyone else has to hop over to it.

I've spoken at the practical end. You only want to talk about the idea that if there is even one tiny chance of detection, it's fine. Okay, cool, but your not talking about practical contradiction with me.

Rhomphaia wrote:One corroborating opinion does not a fact make. That person that agrees with you may be just as misinformed as you are.

Also, you are relying on the word of a person who does not feel they should be punished or reprimanded as validation of your point. Sorry, but that is ****-poor validation at best.

Ummm, at what point did I not say there should be repercussions for my characters actions? I believe I said that they should be in game, not out of game, as I feel that I was in alignment. Did you not read my post?

Rhomphaia wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Name one that does not include spells, the 'Eyeball a fella' skill, or that will not take days (and to a lesser extent, hours).

Raise the bar on me and lower it for yourself. That should tell everything about your position.

Instead of making snide remarks, scroll up a bit and read the post I laid out to killer cyborg.

Rhomphaia wrote:And no, I am not going to answer this because you are applying different standards to yourself than you are to others so you can justify your position. Questions and requests for examples that follow under this category do not deserve to be answered.

spells, the vagabond's 'eyeball a fella' skill, and careful observation are the standards I set myself to. It's the only things I could come up with. Again, I highly recommend you read the post I made above to killer cyborg.

I'm not setting a double-standard here, bud. I already addressed how a person might possibly figure out a persons' alignment, and none of them are practical for everyone.

Rhomphaia wrote:I have maintained my stance; You provide the evidence. If I cannot refute it, then it stands as empyrical. If I can refute it and/or cast it in doubt and you are unable to reinforce it, then it is not evidence.

You sure maintained somethin'. I just wish it wasn't stubborness.

Rhomphaia wrote:

And as a side-note; the player in question (strtkwr) - his first point parallels my own example. That is validation in the fullest.

One corroborating opinion does not a fact make. That person that agrees with you may be just as misinformed as you are.

Also, you are relying on the word of a person who does not feel they should be punished or reprimanded as validation of your point. Sorry, but that is ****-poor validation at best.

You're as unreasonable as zer0 kay.
It (this) is apparently not a conversation, nor even a debate we've been having; you haven't asked me to elaborate on anything I've said. I assume you haven't done so because you think you got it. Yet when I say you're not getting me, you have held fast to say that "I'm wrong", and then refuse to state why.

Then you use a very low trollers' trick to state that noons' straw-manning you, when he laid out an example based entirely within the realm of reason, as well as made a point on the fact of alignment being meta-knowledge. For shame.


I gotta ask, why are you being this way?

Noon wrote:

strtkwr wrote:Actually, as the "juvenile" player in question (thanks Mike ), let me make a few points. Yes, the character is Scrupulous. And I do not beleive that what I was doing was outside of my alignment.

OK a few points on the alignment:

1: Never attack or kill an unarmed foe- This is a HU setting, she knew he was a superhero, but had no idea of his capabilities. Therefore, she did not consider him unarmed.
2: Never harm an innocent-The character examined the stun item in question extremely well before taking any action (as outlined in my post). Given the GM's description of what the item does, she therefore concluded that no harm would be done. It would depend on your defination of harm, and I don't believe this consitutes "harm".
3: Never betray a friend-This character was not her teammate yet. We were just introduced, no one had even decided yet if we were taking the job. In fact, the character who was attacked was asking about pay. Therefore, he was neither a friend or a teammate.

As for the disposition, the disposition I wrote was written up about a month before we started playing, and posted 3 weeks before the game began. In that time, I had a change of heart of how I was going to play her. I updated my character sheet, but forgot to update the website. This fits with the way I am going to play her, which is playful and mischevious. To her, this was more of a pratical joke than an actual attack. To be truthful, she would be a little confused by his over reaction (as percevied by her).

There is nothing stating in a good alignment that the character has to be a saint. He or she can be an A**, if they want to be. Now, I fully admit that there should be "in-game" consequences for her actions. I figured there would be before I went down this path. However, since I truly believe that this is within the alignment given her intentions, description of the stun baton, and her nature as I intend to play her, any out of game consequences would be objected to STRONGLY.

Dude, your either acting like your the GM or you genuinely think there is no semantic wiggle room on the matter? I mean, who at the table decides if it's harm or not? The GM or suddenly your that authority that decides? Because otherwise you'll use UPPER CASE!

Does it cramp your roleplaying style when you want to play a character a certain way but suddenly unexpected alignment interpretations occur? Yeah - so alignment sucks. I gave up on the stupid, bloody minded concept years ago.

I have no idea what you are even talking about here. I believe it is in my alignment if my character believes that no harm done would be done. Now, if there is actual harm done, then I leave it up to the GM. However, as what my character believes at the time (this is called intent in the real world) should be what the real basis is for if it is out of alignment or not. Now, if the GM decides otherwise, it is their call. However, I would note that the GM has not approached me on this. KMSPADE is not the GM for this game in question. If the GM does approach me, this is the reasons I will lay out as to why I believe it was in my characters alignment. Remeber the old adverb "the road to H*** is paved in good intentions". The intent may not be evil, but the outcome may not be what the orginator intended. I would believe that this is the case here.

Not sure why you believe that I was acting as the GM. This is my characters reasoning. I did not say there would be no consequences, nor that I would abide by them, but that I would object to them if they were out of game. In game, I do believe there should be consequences. There are always consequences.

Rhomphaia wrote:I want to make a complete separate point here...

I do not agree with your opinion Dog of War, but I do appreciate that it is your opinion and that you play your games according to your opinion. That's fine. I am not going to argue the point of it being your opinion or to change your opinion.

What I am trying to get you to see is that you are presenting an opinion-based statement (the alignment system sucks) as if it were a verifiable fact. So far, nothing you have presented supports this in the slightest. Therefore, it remains an opinion and not fact.

Well, what I have presented is that the rules governing the system are flawed and broken.

As far as I'm concerned, and I believe the majority will be with me on this on, is that things which are borken (brokens' more-wrecked cousin) do in-fact, suck.

For some examples you may be able to relate to (on broken things sucking), consider the following:
You buy a new car, but all the parts of the engine are miss-moulded so it runs like crap, and your warranty doesn't cover the replacements. That is a broken thing within a flawed system (seriously, why wouldn't a warranty cover that?! ). That 'sucks'.

You buy a tv dinner you actually quite enjoy, and go to cook it, but your microwave breaks. That 'sucks'.

etc...

I really can't be more clear on the term 'sucks', other than this (towards the bottom)

dictionary wrote:Slang Dictionary
in.
[for someone or something] to be bad or undesirable. : This movie sucks!

strtkwr wrote:

Noon wrote:

strtkwr wrote:Actually, as the "juvenile" player in question (thanks Mike ), let me make a few points. Yes, the character is Scrupulous. And I do not beleive that what I was doing was outside of my alignment.

OK a few points on the alignment:

1: Never attack or kill an unarmed foe- This is a HU setting, she knew he was a superhero, but had no idea of his capabilities. Therefore, she did not consider him unarmed.
2: Never harm an innocent-The character examined the stun item in question extremely well before taking any action (as outlined in my post). Given the GM's description of what the item does, she therefore concluded that no harm would be done. It would depend on your defination of harm, and I don't believe this consitutes "harm".
3: Never betray a friend-This character was not her teammate yet. We were just introduced, no one had even decided yet if we were taking the job. In fact, the character who was attacked was asking about pay. Therefore, he was neither a friend or a teammate.

As for the disposition, the disposition I wrote was written up about a month before we started playing, and posted 3 weeks before the game began. In that time, I had a change of heart of how I was going to play her. I updated my character sheet, but forgot to update the website. This fits with the way I am going to play her, which is playful and mischevious. To her, this was more of a pratical joke than an actual attack. To be truthful, she would be a little confused by his over reaction (as percevied by her).

There is nothing stating in a good alignment that the character has to be a saint. He or she can be an A**, if they want to be. Now, I fully admit that there should be "in-game" consequences for her actions. I figured there would be before I went down this path. However, since I truly believe that this is within the alignment given her intentions, description of the stun baton, and her nature as I intend to play her, any out of game consequences would be objected to STRONGLY.

Dude, your either acting like your the GM or you genuinely think there is no semantic wiggle room on the matter? I mean, who at the table decides if it's harm or not? The GM or suddenly your that authority that decides? Because otherwise you'll use UPPER CASE!

Does it cramp your roleplaying style when you want to play a character a certain way but suddenly unexpected alignment interpretations occur? Yeah - so alignment sucks. I gave up on the stupid, bloody minded concept years ago.

I have no idea what you are even talking about here. I believe it is in my alignment if my character believes that no harm done would be done. Now, if there is actual harm done, then I leave it up to the GM. However, as what my character believes at the time (this is called intent in the real world) should be what the real basis is for if it is out of alignment or not. Now, if the GM decides otherwise, it is their call. However, I would note that the GM has not approached me on this. KMSPADE is not the GM for this game in question. If the GM does approach me, this is the reasons I will lay out as to why I believe it was in my characters alignment. Remeber the old adverb "the road to H*** is paved in good intentions". The intent may not be evil, but the outcome may not be what the orginator intended. I would believe that this is the case here.

Not sure why you believe that I was acting as the GM. This is my characters reasoning. I did not say there would be no consequences, nor that I would abide by them, but that I would object to them if they were out of game. In game, I do believe there should be consequences. There are always consequences.

I think your acting like your the GM because your going to object to out of game consequences, if any. This is like complaining to an umpire when he calls your ball as having gone over the line and you object STRONGLY, to put it in your own words.

The line of what is in or out of alignment is stupid and philosophically weak, but arguing with it - to me that'll just pile more crap on top of crap. That isn't going to help.

To me, while I get some people (usually under 12) declare actions just for shock value, real roleplaying means never justifying why your character would do X. They just do it. As horrible or as beutiful as it is for them to do it.

Splynnys Girlfriend wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I don't use these Palladium alignments; they are too well defined, making only 7 personalities available for any given game.

For instance, a good character apparently will 'never' betray a friend. That makes for a very limited game. In reality, as with many other surrealities - good people betray friends; in moments of both strength and weakness.

That can happen in-game as well- it just means that they've acted against their alignment.
I don't recall anything in the rules stating that characters can never betray their principles.

i think what dogs sayin is that if u dont wanna play one of the limited number of personalities that perfectly match the alignments then ur gonna have to play out of alignment a lotta the time just to stay in character

I'm saying that they're not as limited as he thinks.

The alignments while they can be expanded a bit are still, in MY OPINION, are far to rigid. I mean some of the alligments sort of work but a lot of the stuff layed out just rubs me the wrong way as being limiting to my RP. I get that if I'm playing a 'must be a good guy character' that a lot of these standards I need to uphold and if I slip I get some penalties, but for other stuff as long as its justifable by character incineration I strongly object to the rigidly and character arch types. In part its the language, 'never' going to do this or that just irks me. It REALLY irks me. Its horrifically limiting. Because the alignments are not just 'minor shades of grey different' than each other, getting a shift is frankly annoying.

If your running a heroic campaign and the rules are no villains sure go ahead, rule the character leaves to pursue his own actions or was kicked out or something. However some of the out of alignment thing just irks me and seems more designed to stop good character interaction/story building than anything else. To be frankly, having to play to the fairly rigid alignments.

This is of course just my opinion but when I'm running a game we tend to discard the Palladium alignment system for something that is much more loose free style, with some points for characters that Must or ALWAYS are one extreme or the other or must be to avoid loosing large parts of their power.

you say she examined the stun gun and determined it would do no harm, based on the description given by the GM. yet the description of the stun gun states it does one point of damage per hit, and therefore harm. argue whatever else you want, but please stop claiming to be within the alignment, as you clearly were not.

kmspade wrote:you say she examined the stun gun and determined it would do no harm, based on the description given by the GM. yet the description of the stun gun states it does one point of damage per hit, and therefore harm. argue whatever else you want, but please stop claiming to be within the alignment, as you clearly were not.

A papercut also does 1 SDC. So if I rip a piece of paper out of your hands and give you a papercut, I am out of alignment? OK, I think I am going to change her alignment to aberrant. Just in case of papercuts.

Where's it say that a papercut does 1 SDC damage?

kmspade wrote:you say she examined the stun gun and determined it would do no harm, based on the description given by the GM. yet the description of the stun gun states it does one point of damage per hit, and therefore harm. argue whatever else you want, but please stop claiming to be within the alignment, as you clearly were not.

That's a little too by-the-book, even for me.

Hell, I'd bet that if they offered a stun-gun that didn't do 1 SDC (a token amount which you recover in hours btw), the character probably would've used that one - if only for the stunning effect.


That the stun-gun causes damage isn't the focal point of its use. That is an unfortunate side-effect, which is meta-game to even know that it would cause even 1 SDC.


That is, a stun-gun's primary ability is to "stun" and thus avoid seriously injuring or "harming" your target, and unless that character happened to have a distinct knowledge on stun-guns, he wouldn't have known that it did '1 point of SDC'.

kmspade wrote:you say she examined the stun gun and determined it would do no harm, based on the description given by the GM. yet the description of the stun gun states it does one point of damage per hit, and therefore harm. argue whatever else you want, but please stop claiming to be within the alignment, as you clearly were not.

It's a little off topic, but I'm curious as to why your so passionate on this? Why's it so important to you?

I mean, if someone rolled a natural 19 when they crit on a twenty and they said "Wow, it's close to twenty, so therefore I performed a critical hit!" I would get quite passionate about saying no, they clearly did not.

Is that why you go to the emotive language of 'please stop claiming' and such? Similar principle as in my example of myself - it seems that clear cut?

Are you familiar at all with semantic ambiguity in language? I mean, it's semantic ambiguity that is why priests riding to war back in the RL middle ages would use maces - because supposedly it didn't break the priestly commandment of "Though shalt not spill blood".

strtkwr wrote:

kmspade wrote:you say she examined the stun gun and determined it would do no harm, based on the description given by the GM. yet the description of the stun gun states it does one point of damage per hit, and therefore harm. argue whatever else you want, but please stop claiming to be within the alignment, as you clearly were not.

A papercut also does 1 SDC. So if I rip a piece of paper out of your hands and give you a papercut, I am out of alignment? OK, I think I am going to change her alignment to aberrant. Just in case of papercuts.

Dude, when a GM gets really anal about something that you disagree with, it's easier to find a new game than to stay and try to change them. GMs are usually stuck in their ways, if you make your point once or twice and they don't get it, they will likely never get it... best to just move on and find a better game. And by better I mean better for you, one where you and the GM see things the same or similarly.

You know whether or not your character was as acting in character or whether you were just bored and trying to get a reaction. If the game was so boring, you had to shock a fellow player to get amusement, you really need to find a new game more suited for you. Look for something with action and RP. There are games where people will sit around and discuss navel lint for days, and then there are games where the action comes so fast, you barely have time to think. Maybe you need a game on the action side to keep you interested, there is nothing wrong with that.

Also, nothing wrong with playing an alignment suited for the character. If you are aberrant, play aberrant, if you are anarchist, play that. Don't just go with a "good" alignment out of habit, think of what suits the character at hand and his background.

Athos wrote:Dude, when a GM gets really anal about something that you disagree with, it's easier to find a new game than to stay and try to change them. GMs are usually stuck in their ways, if you make your point once or twice and they don't get it, they will likely never get it... best to just move on and find a better game. And by better I mean better for you, one where you and the GM see things the same or similarly.

Well, if your never going to see the GM's point as much as the GM is not going to see your point, really your both being as stubborn as each other. I don't think shifting groups solves that.

Granted if you can compromise on a point but the GM (or player) cannot, then you may as well find another group.