Forums of the Megaverse®

Palladium Books has seven alignments for it's roleplaying games: Principled (basically lawful good), Scrupulous (neutral good), Unprincipled (chaotic good), Anarchist (true neutral and chaotic neutral), Aberrent (lawful neutral and lawful evil), Miscreant (neutral evil), and Diabolic (chaotic evil).

I have an alternate alignment system with but three alignments: Good, Evil, and Middle Way (between Good and Evil). In this alignment system, a Good character will mostly avoid lies, avoid killing unarmed foes, generally avoid harming innocents, avoid breaking the law most of the time, and mostly help those in need. A Good character will generally try to avoid betraying a friend and mostly avoid using torture unless absolutely necessary. An Evil character will lie, cheat, harm, and sometimes kill innocents, sometimes betray friends, often break the law, often kill unarmed foes, regularly use torture both for information and for pleasure, and often ignore those in need. A character of the Middle Way will never kill or torture innocents, but sometimes may harm them. A character of the Middle Way may torture an enemy or kill an unarmed enemy, but never kill or torture for pleasure. A Middle Way character will usually help friends in need, but often ignore strangers in need.

I don't agree with many of your D&D alignment analogues: Scrupulous is more Chaotic Good while Unprincipled is more neutral good; anarchist is nothing like true neutral, the dumbest alignment any gaming system has ever known (I'm only concerned about the balance=dumb, & totally without basis in human behaviour).

Your alignment system is basically good, evil and selfish, the three major categories that the Palladium alignments fall into. That's fine if you like it, but I don't really see what this is adding, or what problem this is addressing.

Depends on the player(s).

As a GM I would go with anything, even sans alignment if the player can remain consistent and actually pull it off.

In 15 or so years no one ever asked 'can we do something different?' regarding alignment.

Skinny Girl wrote:And there could be eight or more alignments. Passive Anarchist in BtS-2. I'm not sure if there are any more in other books.

Mystic China offers the Taoist alignment.

Say it right and they sound almost exactly the same.

And still leaves a lot of room for me to be me.

sawg138 wrote:

NulSyn wrote:

sawg138 wrote:

Skinny Girl wrote:

sawg138 wrote:No, that's bad assed.

Changing your tune, ay?

Nope. Correcting yours. He's bad-assed, not biased.

I think he is a biased bad ass!

You are half right.

And half left, too

sawg138 wrote:

lather wrote:

sawg138 wrote:

NulSyn wrote:

sawg138 wrote:

Skinny Girl wrote:

sawg138 wrote:No, that's bad assed.

Changing your tune, ay?

Nope. Correcting yours. He's bad-assed, not biased.

I think he is a biased bad ass!

You are half right.

And half left, too

Just because he has two left feet...

... in his freezer?

sawg138 wrote:

lather wrote:

sawg138 wrote:

lather wrote:

sawg138 wrote:

NulSyn wrote:

sawg138 wrote:

Skinny Girl wrote:

sawg138 wrote:No, that's bad assed.

Changing your tune, ay?

Nope. Correcting yours. He's bad-assed, not biased.

I think he is a biased bad ass!

You are half right.

And half left, too

Just because he has two left feet...

... in his freezer?

No, his feet aren't detachable.

Aaaaaaaaah, we are talking his feet. Five by five.

There will always be exceptions and some of them justifiable. The alignment system does not preclude either.


I think of alignments like music theory... well developed guidelines that work in most cases.

lather wrote:There will always be exceptions and some of them justifiable. The alignment system does not preclude either.


I think of alignments like music theory... well developed guidelines that work in most cases.

RPG alignment systems like music theory? I like that analogy.

allmarduk wrote:

lather wrote:There will always be exceptions and some of them justifiable. The alignment system does not preclude either.


I think of alignments like music theory... well developed guidelines that work in most cases.

RPG alignment systems like music theory? I like that analogy.

Thank you!

EPIC wrote:i never liked the alignment system that decides what you can and cannot do, it feels like being told how you are supposed to play rather than just being allowed to play.

alignment should be based on what you do rather than scripting what you need to do.

It doesn't say what your character can or must do, but it's a guideline for what your character should do. If you are playing a principled character, killing the villain so you can loot his corpse is out of character - you can still decide to do it, but you aren't going to be principled any more. Alignments can certainly change during play, at the GM's discretion if the players don't pay any attention to following the alignment they picked.

Why are you all talking after me?

I already covered it.

Good work team.

You know... explaining things to each other so thoroughly

Well, my work here is done.

"But you didn't do anything!"

Hah good call.

Do basketball players have alignments?

Shaq the Anarchist.

"Pass me the ball I am wide open!"

"Screw you hippy!"

Skinny Girl wrote:

lather wrote:Do basketball players have alignments?

Shaq the Anarchist.

"Pass me the ball I am wide open!"

"Screw you hippy!"

I don't enough about NBA players to comment . . . but I remember my dad and brothers arguing about some guy that threw a really bad technical?

I do not follow basketball either. It is one of those sports that is more fun to play than to watch and even then I do not really enjoy it. But I think a technical is something that happens by throwing a ball at the referee or insulting his mama or something like that.

A technical can also be a Toyota, usually white, with a machinegun mounted in the back and loaded up with too many occupants to be considered safe. Imagine the carnage if one of those puppies rolled over.

I identify with Unprincipled the most.