Forums of the Megaverse®

I tell my players not to write down anything; after a few sessions I give them an alignment based apon how they act.

I like your idea of offering a penalty for not being within their alignments, and I think I might use a less-harsh version of it (like an EXP. loss, not an entire level).

You'd expect a manic-depressive character to be manic-depressive, right?

I really don't care for alignments either. I use them in game play, but don't like 'em. I feel a person/PC is as a person/PC does. I only bring up alignments in gameplay if one is acting way out of alignment or repeatedly doing so. Then it's time to go the the garage and get an alignment done on the PC.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

bigbobsr6000 wrote:I really don't care for alignments either. I use them in game play, but don't like 'em. I feel a person/PC is as a person/PC does. I only bring up alignments in gameplay if one is acting way out of alignment or repeatedly doing so. Then it's time to go the the garage and get an alignment done on the PC.

Nicely put.

Big Bob the Garrulous strikes again. I feel so smrt!

Me mutter tanks ya, me fatter tanks ya, me sister tanks ya, me brudder tanks ya, and I tank ya.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

bigbobsr6000 wrote:I really don't care for alignments either. I use them in game play, but don't like 'em. I feel a person/PC is as a person/PC does. I only bring up alignments in gameplay if one is acting way out of alignment or repeatedly doing so. Then it's time to go the the garage and get an alignment done on the PC.

Nicely put.

Big Bob the Garrulous strikes again. I feel so smrt!

You're learning, grasshopper.

Yea well I still like mine better.

Natasha wrote:You'd expect a manic-depressive character to be manic-depressive, right?

bigbobsr6000 wrote:Me mutter tanks ya, me fatter tanks ya, me sister tanks ya, me brudder tanks ya, and I tank ya.

Yer welcome laddie.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

bigbobsr6000 wrote:I really don't care for alignments either. I use them in game play, but don't like 'em. I feel a person/PC is as a person/PC does. I only bring up alignments in gameplay if one is acting way out of alignment or repeatedly doing so. Then it's time to go the the garage and get an alignment done on the PC.

Nicely put.

Big Bob the Garrulous strikes again. I feel so smrt!

You're learning, grasshopper.

Yea well I still like mine better.

Natasha wrote:You'd expect a manic-depressive character to be manic-depressive, right?

Yes, but alignments aren't psychological disorders.

Don't be so difficult man.
My genius use of analogy regarding essential aspects of character is obvious.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:Don't be so difficult man.
My genius use of analogy regarding essential aspects of character is obvious.

Sure, to the insane and Cherico.

Well Chico is a stud

I like alignments / codes of conduct. It has always worked well for me as a player and a GM. I don't enforce them with level loss. I just say that doesn't make sense for your alignment and if the player says I do it anyway, that's cool...and the alignment shifts.

Some alignments are MUCH harder to play than others. That's cool. It is really hard to be good. It's so much easier being a selfish child who does nothing except his whims.

That's why honor is such a double edged sword in Legend of the Five Rings. If you want to know tough alignment challenges, go play L5R. The stricture makes the game incredibly fun because the "me me me" character has no place.

And D&D 4e is as much as a roleplaying game as it ever was. No amount of mechanics affects a player's ability to roleplay their character and immerse themselves in the story. If my crew can roleplay while playing board games and card games, I am sure 4e will do us fine.

I use alignments as general guidelines, and have managed to get my players to adhere to them pretty closely. That said, with my career field what it is I view alignments as a ridiculously oversimplified set of parameters (although it is almost necessary that they be extremely simple). In my opinion, real individuals can be defined by several of the alignments in different situations. So this is yet another gray area where G.M.'s best judegement comes into play.

Natasha wrote:Don't be so difficult man.
My genius use of analogy regarding essential aspects of character is obvious.

I think it's a good point.

Our character's attributes, dispositions, O.C.C.s, skills... they all make our character our character. Alignment's just as well a part of that make up.

Yea I'm pretty much agreeing with the alignment keepers.

Alignment helps keep a character consistent.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:Alignment helps keep a character consistent.

Character keeps a character consistent.

Of which alignment is an essential component.
Haven't you been listening to me?

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:Alignment helps keep a character consistent.

Character keeps a character consistent.

Of which alignment is an essential component.
Haven't you been listening to me?

Yes, and when I want cardboard caricatures, I'll use alignments.

Then you're not using them properly if you get cardboard caricatures. Seriously.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:Alignment helps keep a character consistent.

Character keeps a character consistent.

Of which alignment is an essential component.
Haven't you been listening to me?

Yes, and when I want cardboard caricatures, I'll use alignments.

Then you're not using them properly if you get cardboard caricatures. Seriously.

It's hard to use them properly when they're not used.

That's not a reply to what I said though.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:Alignment helps keep a character consistent.

Character keeps a character consistent.

Of which alignment is an essential component.
Haven't you been listening to me?

Yes, and when I want cardboard caricatures, I'll use alignments.

Then you're not using them properly if you get cardboard caricatures. Seriously.

It's hard to use them properly when they're not used.

That's not a reply to what I said though.

Sure it is. I don't like alignments, therefor I don't use them.

It's not a reply. It's just reiteration you don't like alignments.
It is not response to the point I am making.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:It's not a reply. It's just reiteration you don't like alignments.
It is not response to the point I am making.

I don't need an artificial structure to make a believable, in depth character.

Now we're getting somewhere.

What makes alignment artificial?

Misfit KotLD wrote:The fact it's an external framework with parallels to religious morality that may or may not apply exactly to any particular character. If I were to play a faithful Franciscan friar, there would be a strictly set body of guidelines he would follow. If I play a peasant, that may not be the case. But I find alignment to be too artificial a way to determine the character's outlook.

Yeah! What he said.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:It's not a reply. It's just reiteration you don't like alignments.
It is not response to the point I am making.

I don't need an artificial structure to make a believable, in depth character.

Now we're getting somewhere.

What makes alignment artificial?

The fact it's an external framework with parallels to religious morality that may or may not apply exactly to any particular character. If I were to play a faithful Franciscan friar, there would be a strictly set body of guidelines he would follow. If I play a peasant, that may not be the case. But I find alignment to be too artificial a way to determine the character's outlook.

And race and O.C.C. are external frameworks, too. External frameworks are necessary.

What's wrong with morality being a part of the PC?
After all, morality is a part of your character. And an important one at that.

Because, if my PC wants to shoot the guy in the head after I knocked him out, I don't want to have to look at my alignment to see if I can or not, that's why. I just shoot him in the head.

I don't want to see if I'm strong enough to lift a gate requiring P.S. of 12. So I just ignore my P.S. of 7 and lift the gate.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:And race and O.C.C. are external frameworks, too. External frameworks are necessary.

What's wrong with morality being a part of the PC?
After all, morality is a part of your character. And an important one at that.

Race and OCC are not artificial and external. And morality may or may not be an important part of the character.

They are both. They make the difference between the ability to have psionics or have natural abilities like nightvision, they are what separate a Palladin from a Summoner. You can have the deepest character in the world but without the external races and O.C.C. framework you just got a character concept.

If morality isn't a part of your character, then you are Diabolic.

Alignment is like O.C.C.

It's not a limiter; it's a definer.

twhaley wrote:OCC gives powers and stuff, alignment does not. Alignment defines you, yes, it defines you with limits.

Look at it another way.

O.C.C. defines you with limits: attribute prerequisites, you can choose only from these skills, you can choose only from these spells, you can only begin the game with this equipment and this money to buy more, you cannot set foot in CS territory without being hunted and exterminated, you can get cybernetic but only these, you cannot get cybernetics because druids hate them, ...

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:And race and O.C.C. are external frameworks, too. External frameworks are necessary.

What's wrong with morality being a part of the PC?
After all, morality is a part of your character. And an important one at that.

Race and OCC are not artificial and external. And morality may or may not be an important part of the character.

They are both. They make the difference between the ability to have psionics or have natural abilities like nightvision, they are what separate a Palladin from a Summoner. You can have the deepest character in the world but without the external races and O.C.C. framework you just got a character concept.

I'm not sure what artificial means here or why it's even relevant, but race and O.C.C. are definitely external frameworks. Most of the steps in character creation are external. You use dice to determine your character's mental and physical attributes rather than ignoring them so that you are free to lift that gate or charm that shopkeeper. You use race and O.C.C. to define your characters fundamental direction in life, and to determine just about everything your character knows and owns when the game starts...

twhaley wrote:Ya, that's a good point, you are limited by OCC.

I'm just saying if you can complete quests and goals within given limits you should be rewarded as such.

No doubt about it, Principled is harder than Diabolic.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:Alignment is like O.C.C.

It's not a limiter; it's a definer.

Not if the definition I need doesn't fit a pre-existing alignment. Unlike physics (your PS example), psychology a ton of gray area.

Do you scrap Mental Affinity attribute, too?

Misfit KotLD wrote:

lather wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:And race and O.C.C. are external frameworks, too. External frameworks are necessary.

What's wrong with morality being a part of the PC?
After all, morality is a part of your character. And an important one at that.

Race and OCC are not artificial and external. And morality may or may not be an important part of the character.

They are both. They make the difference between the ability to have psionics or have natural abilities like nightvision, they are what separate a Palladin from a Summoner. You can have the deepest character in the world but without the external races and O.C.C. framework you just got a character concept.

I'm not sure what artificial means here or why it's even relevant, but race and O.C.C. are definitely external frameworks. Most of the steps in character creation are external. You use dice to determine your character's mental and physical attributes rather than ignoring them so that you are free to lift that gate or charm that shopkeeper. You use race and O.C.C. to define your characters fundamental direction in life, and to determine just about everything your character knows and owns when the game starts...

Race and OCC reflect the individual better than an artificial code that covers multiple races from multiple dimensions.

You've never seen Natasha play a Troll Sailor.

I've played Operators that jump into the thick of battle, and I've played Operators that don't even own a S.D.C. gun.

I've played cowardly humans, I've played brave humans, I've played depressed humans, I've played happy humans.

If my character is a Human Rogue Scientist what does that say about the character?
Would your perception change if I told you my character is Principled?

Misfit KotLD wrote:Good for you. Operators have no inherent code about carrying weapons or charging into battle. I just find alignments artificially imposed and fail to hold up to real people. Since I generally know my character, I know what he or she will and won't do already. Though sometimes my characters have surprised me.

Sometimes Selfish for me

Alignment says nothing about carrying weapons or charging into battle.
It does say what I would do if I carry weapons or charge into battle.

The problem is not with alignments. They're fine, they've worked fine for decades. All characters have alignments, whether we label them or not.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:Alignment is like O.C.C.

It's not a limiter; it's a definer.

Not if the definition I need doesn't fit a pre-existing alignment. Unlike physics (your PS example), psychology a ton of gray area.

Do you scrap Mental Affinity attribute, too?

Huh?

It's psychology.

It's artificial.

It limits your ability to play.

Toss it out with the alignments.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:Alignment is like O.C.C.

It's not a limiter; it's a definer.

Not if the definition I need doesn't fit a pre-existing alignment. Unlike physics (your PS example), psychology a ton of gray area.

Do you scrap Mental Affinity attribute, too?

Huh?

It's psychology.

It's artificial.

It limits your ability to play.

Toss it out with the alignments.

It works as a comparative measure. Character X is more likable than Character Y.

Same with alignment.
Character X is more trustworthy than Character Y.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:Alignment is like O.C.C.

It's not a limiter; it's a definer.

Not if the definition I need doesn't fit a pre-existing alignment. Unlike physics (your PS example), psychology a ton of gray area.

Do you scrap Mental Affinity attribute, too?

Huh?

It's psychology.

It's artificial.

It limits your ability to play.

Toss it out with the alignments.

It works as a comparative measure. Character X is more likable than Character Y.

Same with alignment.
Character X is more trustworthy than Character Y.

Alignment doesn't only measure trustworthiness.

Neither does Mental Affinity.

M.A. has nothing to do with trustworthiness, yea.

So there's these two guys, Prun and Mbek living in a village. They hear some commotion from a hunting party returning one man short. They were waylaid by some goblin banditos with a human leader. The village calls a meeting to determine what to do. Prun and Mbek being men of action head out rather than wait for the village to make up its mind. They find and stalk the bandito camp, mapping it and making careful notes about the things going on, such as the goblin with the plate of food entering a tent which has two sentries on guard. The camp is small.

They prowl into the camp to behind the tent. It's canvas and they already decided that cutting it would alert the sentries' attention. So they decide to take out the sentries. They sneak up behind them, wrap hands around mouths, and cut their throats deep and wide. They grab the imprisoned hunter and make their way out unnoticed and back to the village.

The villagers are still talking about whether or not to send a rescue mission, to wait for ransom information, or what. Mbek brings in the rescued hunter and the crowd shuts up he clearly has the floor. "Let's change the topic to rewards, shall we?"

What is Mbek's alignment?

If he's a cardboard caricature, should be a no-brainer.

Yes. Since you asked.

And to tell you why, it's the character's alignment which gives some but not all insight into what motivates him and guides his decision-making processes.

In other words, it tells us a little about his character.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:Yes. Since you asked.

And to tell you why, it's the character's alignment which gives some but not all insight into what motivates him and guides his decision-making processes.

In other words, it tells us a little about his character.

So does saying he's a nice guy or he's a ****.

It doesn't say as much as aligments do though.

And we're discussing how alignments create cardboard caricature characters.

What cardboard caricature is Mbek?

He certainly could be that.

This was the retelling of the actions of an Anarchist aligned PC.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:He certainly could be that.

This was the retelling of the actions of an Anarchist aligned PC.

So, if he could be multiple alignments, they don't define so good.

Then how on earth do they create cardboard caricatures?

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:He certainly could be that.

This was the retelling of the actions of an Anarchist aligned PC.

So, if he could be multiple alignments, they don't define so good.

Then how on earth do they create cardboard caricatures?

You're reverse engineering now.

Well you're contradicting yourself.

While they are not the character definition, they are meaningful. I mean clearly Mbek is not Principled and if I said he was, I'd be spewing bullpucky.

Alejandro wrote:and assume that a person will NEVER change over time

No they don't.
Picking Principled alignment and Greedy disposition are mechanically the same thing. Neither of them assume anything except that at the time this character is created, he's Principled and Greedy.

The character creation process is not lengthy because of intent of locking the PC but instead to give the PC a solid foundation to grow upon.

Alejandro wrote:There's so many crossovers in the alignment system that one alignment is really no different than another in many regards.

I think that's the point.

It gives a PC latitude rather than lock him down into 1, 2, 3 ordered list of prescribed behaviours.

The western movie Red Headed Stranger starring Willie Nelson. His character has so many alignment changes in that movie, that it shows to me how alignments are really meaningless.

SPOILER BELOW.





He is a preacher of a western town who helps with the bad guys. His wife leaves him. He soons find out she left him for another man. He steals the sheriff's horse, rides to the town they are in. He walks in and shoots his wife and lover dead and rides away. He then stops and plows a field for a widow farmer. He stays there and helps out for food and a place in the barn. Meanwhile the town he left is getting worse cause he is not there to stand up to the baddies. He then goes back to the town and single handedly kills all the baddies at their farm. That's the gest of it anyway.

He changed alignments multiple times instantly. So, what good are they? I know I use them but am not strictly binding by them unless the PC goes way out of line as I have stated before.

bigbobsr6000 wrote:He then stops and plows a field for a widow farmer. He stays there and helps out for food and a place in the barn.

Under which alignment does this fall?

I have no idea. That's my point.

bigbobsr6000 wrote:I have no idea. That's my point.

Oh I thought you were enumerating his alignment changes.

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

bigbobsr6000 wrote:I have no idea. That's my point.

Oh I thought you were enumerating his alignment changes.

Well, it's certainly not the diabolic of shooting his wife and her lover.

Is it the diabolic of a cheap and easy meal ticket?
Just because you are diabolic doesn't mean you are going shoot granny and take her house.

Dang it! Now I have to let granny go and return her house. Cursed alignments.

bigbobsr6000 wrote:Dang it! Now I have to let granny go and return her house. Cursed alignments.

I hate myself for being nice, too.

bigbobsr6000 wrote:Dang it! Now I have to let granny go and return her house. Cursed alignments.

That's something you should have thought about at character creation time. "Am I willing to shoot granny?"

It's always possible to change alignment, but I would prefer not on a whim but on something that is actually life changing. Such as learning your wife's banging the milkman.