reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/14/85)
In article <5121@ukc.UUCP> ncg@ukc.UUCP (Nige Gale) writes: > >Alignments is a clumsy way of imposing a personality upon the >character. > Agreed, with the emphasis on the "clumsy". >Without alignments, the party becomes a profit-making unit, and >characters are good or evil as it suits the players at the time, >and will inevitably fall victim to munchkinism. Depends on the players. Bad players need, shall we say, help in their role playing. Good players don't. Some of us are saddled with bad players, some are fortunate enough to consort with good ones, most have to deal with a few of both. The problem with alignments as a device for channeling the players' attention away from gold/magic/EP lust is that the munchkins just ignore it anyway, choosing an alignment that generally lets them get away with such behavior without being nuked for transgressing the alignment's principles. (Neutrals can do a lot of stuff without getting in trouble; the stuff they really shouldn't do is the interesting, frequently counter- productive stuff that makes frp games a joy.) Absolutely forcing players to come up with a character's beliefs and morality before using it can help, if you don't like the religion idea. If the player is unimaginative and seems to be shying away from interesting quirks in favor of bland acquisitiveness, saddle him with some foibles, or leftover tasks which must be performed, or interesting enemies. (As a side note, few things are more interesting than when a very clever player's character decides to make a munchkin's character's life miserable. You'd be surprised what a fascinating character the poor munchkin can become under some prodding.) -- Peter Reiher reiher@ucla-cs.arpa {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher
sps@drusd.UUCP (ShaplandSP) (05/17/85)
"Role playing a character" is similar to "acting a part" in a play. Alignment, character abilities, non-classical professions (farmer, jeweler, etc), rolled personality traits; These are all part of the script! A new/poor actor should follow the script exactly. An good actor may "spice-up" a script, but will NOT make significant changes. An excellent actor will follow the script exactly, making the audience feel what the author wrote. If an actor cannot agree with the script, then s/he needs to find a new author. As Harrison Ford once responded to a studio head's complaint that he "did not see an actor" when Ford was doing a bit part as a waiter. "You were not supposed to see an actor. You were supposed to see a waiter." S.P. Shapland, aka AMLWCH, Lord of the Karpian Dragons drusd!sps 11655 N Logan St. Northglenn, CO 80233
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (05/17/85)
There were a couple of articles pasting the Alignments concept. The thing is about role-playing games is that they are *role*-playing. Alignments is a clumsy way of imposing a personality upon the character. Without alignments, the party becomes a profit-making unit, and characters are good or evil as it suits the players at the time, and will inevitably fall victim to munchkinism. Certainly, the 3X3 system is too restricting and vague, and GMs should expand it/ change it completely to their own tastes. My own preference is for a system that includes personality disorders, phobias, etc. It gives a player an excuse for behaving like a pillock - "I'm only playing my alignment" when otherwise the others would just assume that he is really a pillock. -Nige Gale
ttorgers@udenva.UUCP (Troy Torgerson) (05/20/85)
In article <> ncg@ukc.UUCP (Nige Gale) writes: > >There were a couple of articles pasting the Alignments concept. >The thing is about role-playing games is that they are *role*-playing. >Alignments is a clumsy way of imposing a personality upon the >character. NO, NO, NO. Why must Alignments have to "impose" a personality upon a character?? I think that many of you have the wrong idea (maybe it's me :-)) about them. First of all, your giving too much importance to them. They weren't designed (as so many of you have said) to make the entire personality of a character. Instead, they give a starting base for characters (read that players) to begin with. A character should develop his/her own personality for a character depending on how they want their character to be. That wasn't real clear, (and didn't get my point across!) so let me try and give an example. (I said try, ok?) If a PC is CE, that doesn't mean he can't help little old ladies across the street if he wants to get into their daughters pants. This same PC could also have a weakness for flowers, and likes to pick daisys. Clearly, this isn't what most of you would think of when some PC (or NPC) is CE! And yet, helping the little old lady was still a nice thing to do (even if he had other reasons for doing it) and liking flowers is even stranger! I have a dwarf (high-level) who happens to be a transvestite. This makes for interesting interaction between him and others. He is often given gifts of earrings or goes shopping for a new dress. BTW, he is No Good alignment. Wearing a dress is chaotic, yet he isn't living a strict NG, because that just defines some of his beliefs, not his personality!Key words there. . . Beliefs, not personality. > >Without alignments, the party becomes a profit-making unit, and >characters are good or evil as it suits the players at the time, >and will inevitably fall victim to munchkinism. > true. Thats why they need beliefs (there's that word again!) >My own preference is for a system that includes personality disorders, >phobias, etc. Yeah team! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >It gives a player an excuse for behaving like a pillock - > >"I'm only playing my alignment" > Don't let 'em do this! It's just a bunch of bullshit. They can do whatever they like so long as it fits in somewhere close with their alignment (read that beliefs) Of course, there are fits of rage, etc. where you might forget your beliefs. . . then you might be filled with remorse after it is all over and you did something that goes against your beliefs. . etc... Troy Torgerson udenva!ttorgers
michael3@garfield.UUCP (Mike Rendell) (05/23/85)
[] While we're on the subject of alignments of the famous and the infamous, anyone care to venture a guess concerning the alignment of God? This isn't as easy as it sounds. He is unabashedly law- ful good today in North America, but the vengeful Lord of the Old Testament strikes me as being strongly chaotic, if not whole- heartedly neutral. Add to this the various philosophical views of God (ie existentialism and pantheism) and you have one vicious conceptual mess.
robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (05/23/85)
The purpose of alignment is to give characters an alibi for cold-blooded
murder. Since D&D is set up to emphasize murder and robbery, someone with a
bit of conscience must have felt it necessary to justify the atrocities that
are D&D's bread and butter.
Alignment allows the player character to categorize members of other
alignments as "the enemy," and cold-bloodedly murder them with a clear
conscience.
Did you ever wonder why there are only two kinds of Paladins? -- the
eager-beaver Hitler Youth type (I'm murdering these people for God and
Country!) and the psychotic SS type (I'm murdering these people because
that's what Paladins do, and besides, it's fun!).
-- Robert
{turtlevax,cae780,resonex}!weitek!robertpdb@cstvax.UUCP (Dave Berry) (05/28/85)
>> Sure, this isn't net.politics, but using politicians as examples of >> alignments is a useful tool in frp. >Hmm... How about: >Lawful Good: Metternich >Lawful Neutral: Napoleon >Lawful Evil: Hitler >Neutral Good: ? >Absolute Neutral: ? >Neutral Evil: Nixon >Chaotic Good: Jefferson >Chaotic Neutral: ? >Chaotic Evil: Khadaffy > This is pretty tough... Can anybody fill in the blanks? This just >shows how unrealistic alignments are... > Wayne It also shows what an unrealistic idea you're trying to use! The whole idea depends on your own political beliefs. I certainly wouldn't put Khadaffy (sp?) in the Chaotic Evil class. I would put both Ronald Reagan & Margaret Thatcher in the Lawful Evil class; others would put them in the Lawful Good class! Examples of this sort really aren't very helpful unless you're sure all your readers share the same beliefs as yourself. -- Dave Berry. CS postgrad, Univ. of Edinburgh ...mcvax!ukc!{hwcs,kcl-cs}!cstvax!db
eliovson@aecom.UUCP (Moshe Eliovson) (05/29/85)
> [] > > While we're on the subject of alignments of the famous and the > infamous, anyone care to venture a guess concerning the alignment > of God? This isn't as easy as it sounds. He is unabashedly law- > ful good today in North America, but the vengeful Lord of the Old > Testament strikes me as being strongly chaotic, if not whole- > heartedly neutral. Add to this the various philosophical views > of God (ie existentialism and pantheism) and you have one vicious > conceptual mess. G-d is Neutral. The Laws of Nature may be Laws but they are neutral too, right? Nobody questions about the existence of good and peace etc, but regarding evil: I just finished a study of Job. According to some VERY serious interpretations (that follow Aristotlean philosophy) the text reveals that evil was not created by G-d. It crept in. Satan, the Evil Eye, "The Devil made me do it" are all the same thing. Without them there wouldn't be Free Will, a major concern from G-d's point of view and mine too. Moshe Eliovson philabs!aecom!eliovson
steve@avsdS.UUCP (Steve Russell) (05/31/85)
> >My own preference is for a system that includes personality disorders, > >phobias, etc. > Yeah team! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Troy Torgerson > udenva!ttorgers Right-On, Troy!!! My own first-level fighter had a phobia about spiders. Just about shit his pants when he met his first *BIG* one... avsdS!steve
steve@avsdS.UUCP (Steve Russell) (05/31/85)
> > The purpose of alignment is to give characters an alibi for cold-blooded > murder. > -- Robert Wouldn't it be rather DULL if you always ended up playing cards with bad guys? steve