djb@cbosgd.UUCP (David J. Bryant) (05/06/85)
I think that most of the controversy about playing/DM'ing Paladins
stems from a basic lack of general agreement on alignment. I have found
that the concept of alignment, although essential to the game, is perhaps
the hardest thing to explain to new players, and also the most difficult
aspect of the role-playing that is central to FRP games. In order to make
it easier for me as both a player and a DM, I have tried to come up with
a simplified explanation of the various alignment components so that
it is easier for me to consistantly play/DM characters. It would be
interesting to me to have this subject discussed widely among the serious,
experienced FRP'ers on the net to see if we can perhaps further refine
the concept, and hammer out some reasonably acceptable common foundation
for discussing alignment and dealing with alignment-based game events.
To start things off, here are the basic interpretations I use. Let me
say beforhand that I realize we are trying to embody an amazingly complex
set of concepts in a small 3x3 matrix of alignment components, and are
therefore going to radically over simplify. Given the importance of
alignment, however, I am willing to accept considerable oversimplification
in the interest of clarity and ease of consistent play.
LAWFUL - Hold the concept of Law most dear. Believes that the individual
must make sacrifices in the interest of society/community. "The
needs of the many outway the needs of the few, or the one."
People who violate the society/LAW concept should be punished
(although punishment may not be meted out until the "afterlife".)
CHAOTIC - Believes that he/she is most important, and is unwilling to give up
any freedoms or opportunities in the interest of a larger group.
This makes CHAOTICS often the destabilizing element in an adventuring
party. ("I want to see what's behind that curtain, and don't care
what the rest of you think...") Remember that CHAOS is not
necessarily either GOOD or EVIL (see below).
GOOD - Believes that each individual's right to life is sacred. Obviously
there will be variation in the definition of "individual" in each
GOOD character's mind. (Use common sense here - the 47,373 microbes
you killed upon taking a deep breath are not "individuals").
EVIL - Asigns no special meaning to "life", and will indiscriminately take
the life of another without remorse. If asked to philosophize, an
EVIL character will perhaps indicate that creatures must justify
their existance.
NEUTRAL - Balanced between each of the two opposing forces. This is generally
not hard to imagine, although it is often difficult to balance in the
long run (true-neutrals often evidence an alignment drift over a long
period of playing, even though they won't admit it.)
Comments? Please remember to keep these "definitions" simple. I don't want
to have to hand players a ten page treatise when they ask me about my
interpretation of alignment.
David Bryant AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus, OH (614) 860-4516
(cbosgd!djb)
ps: Many others, even the Obnoxious EGG have expounded at length on the
topic "Lawful Good != Lawful Stupid". In particular, it galls me to
see people insist that a 1st level LG character would charge head-first
into a room that contains four Balrogs. Nothing could be further from
the truth. (Well, perhaps if the character's intelligence was 6 or less...). baldwin@cornell.UUCP (Michael S. Baldwin) (05/08/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LION WITH YOUR MASSAGE *** I will control myself, and not flame anybody including Gygax about alignment, but I truly believe that is one of the most limiting aspects of the AD&D system. I think that it was designed to force people who were used to wargames to develop something resembling a personality, but once one achieves any real experience with role-playing, I prefer to chuck to whole system out the window (at least in regards to PC's). I think that any well developed character will have a complete set of morals and will not need the crutch of a specific alignment (hmm, what do I do now, well I'm CG so I have to...). I suspect that most characters will fit into a certain spectrum of the alignment scale, and will not switch from sadistic mass murder to saint overnight, but I think that characters like people have more depth than the alignment system offers. It forces characters into a two-dimensional mold which really is unneccessary. certainly, clerics and paladins and the like will have strict religiously based morality that will be limiting on them, but I think that the other character classes should be less limited. Asassins, for instance, have to be evil because the taking of life for money is evil(player's handbook's rational) and yet I suspect that most PC Asassins have never done a `job'. Also, Why should someone be penalized a level of experience for changing alignments? why the artificial limitations on a characters possible actions? I think that if a otherwise good person flies into a rage one day and kills a peasant or two that is acceptable if it is within the character of the PC to do so. We are role-playing imperfect beings who feel the whole range of human emotions, I find running saints to be very boring and tedious. In the campaign I'm in now, no one has a defined alignment, and we run into no problem whatsoever. I agree that for mor beginning players that it is helpful, but if you've got a group of experienced players, try not defining yourself according to a limiting group of 9 possibilities and see what happens, you'll probably realize you don't need them and certainly don't miss them
ccrrick@ucdavis.UUCP (Rick Heli) (05/08/85)
I frankly think all this talk about alignment is garbage. What is the point of assigning someone a value A and someone else a value B? And then that person is supposed to try to live under that particular value. Why not let the character's actions determine their reputations or labels as in real life, not the reverse. As for this stuff about those of the same alignment being able to communicate with their alignment language, I never understood where this silly and unrealistic idea came from. By the way, much of the above also applies to (ugh) character classes... -- --rick heli (... ucbvax!ucdavis!groucho!ccrrick)
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (05/08/85)
It seems to me that the whole idea of alignment is far too much of a
simplification, and very inaccurate at that. Since the forces that
enforce alignment anyway are the gods, how about this system: each god
dictates rules for his worshippers, which may be the standard sorts of
good/evil/chaotic/lawful rules, or they may be quite different. ("You are
to respect all life, except for some race, which you are to take all
possible measures to exterminate", for instance.) Whether a group
of characters can travel together will depend on what the character's
gods think of each other, and how strongly their opinions are. Of
course, a character need not have a god, in which case he can freely
associate with anybody (unless the other person's god doesn't like
atheists...), but for most characters, the benefits of having a god
will outweigh the problems of having to follow the god's rules. This
sort of system may be a bit more paperwork, as the players and the DM's
have to keep track of what their gods want of them as opposed to the
dictates of a few alignment classifications, but I think it would add
a lot more variety than the alignment system...
Waynetomj@dartvax.UUCP (Thomas Johnston) (05/08/85)
> > GOOD - Believes that each individual's right to life is sacred. Obviously > there will be variation in the definition of "individual" in each > GOOD character's mind. (Use common sense here - the 47,373 microbes > you killed upon taking a deep breath are not "individuals"). > > EVIL - Asigns no special meaning to "life", and will indiscriminately take > the life of another without remorse. If asked to philosophize, an > EVIL character will perhaps indicate that creatures must justify > their existance. > > NEUTRAL - Balanced between each of the two opposing forces. This is generally > not hard to imagine, although it is often difficult to balance in the > long run (true-neutrals often evidence an alignment drift over a long > period of playing, even though they won't admit it.) > > David Bryant AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus, OH (614) 860-4516 > (cbosgd!djb) > One source of this confusion is the difference in alignment definitions in the various books. Compare the definitions of evil in the Player's Handbook with those in the Dungeon Master's Guide for example. As an exercise, where does one place Niccolo Machiavelli in each system? The system also breaks down when it is applied to poison and restrictions on its use, particularly when conjoined with the lawfully aligned. The Fascists were certainly lawful, yet they used extreme methods to kill their enemies (including poison)... D & D was originally designed with a polarized scheme of alignments suitable for use in a military campaign of Good (Law) vs. Evil (Chaos) similar to Supper's Ready or perhaps LOTR. For a campaign organized around this concept, it doesn't do too badly, but it breaks down when put into a more complicated sociological system. Gygax once claimed that the majority of men were Good, and under proper leadership Lawful (perhaps I have that reversed. The statement was made in an early Dragon, I believe between #10 & #30). This is clear evidence that the system cannot work in a well-developed world in which character's beliefs encompass such themes as nationalism [You claim that nationalism did not exist early on? Nationalism has three components: belief in a common descent, a piece of territory, and a common attitude towards the future. Look at the Hebrews coming out of Egypt. They were nationalistic], ethnocentrism, etc. The best approach, given sufficient time & interest, would be to junk the system, and begin again. "Your background is French. You have this cultural heritage; your society has these basic beliefs and conflicts. You have 110 gold pieces..." Thomas Johnston Dartmouth College usnet: {linus,decvax,cornell,astrovax}!dartvax!tomj Hinman Box 2921 arpa: tomj%dartmouth@csnet-relay Hanover NH 03755 csnet: tomj@dartmouth 603.643.1414
eliovson@aecom.UUCP (Moshe Eliovson) (05/09/85)
*** UltraChaos Rules *** Three issues here: 1) Philosophy is nice but let's work out how different alignments interact. Keep in mind that there are always exceptions. Is Chaotic Dominant or Good/Neutral/Evil ? 2) Diametrically opposed and similar distates. What is the reaction. For a powerful paladin it may be avoiding the brothel or for extreme situations the sword. For a lowly plebe it may be creating a society protest against the brothel and distinctly avoiding the sword case. Would a LN be more opposed to being with a CN than with either a CG or CE? 3) Before you ever make a judgement ask yourself: Is it a question of alignment or MORALITY?! A NG thief stumbles upon a large treasure while scouting for the party. He reports a still sizeable 1/3rd. In my opinion this isn't evil but rather immoral. You might say Evil is disregard of life and Neutral disregard of personal rights? NO. That's lawful's area. I too would appreciate working out an almost clearcut system with everyone- but it's going to take a while. Moshe Eliovson philabs!aecom!eliovson
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/09/85)
Personally, I've never liked alignments a la AD&D at all. A far better way
to give the players standards of behavior different from their real life ones
is to use religions a la Runequest. By this I mean that no one has an
alignment. Rather, everyone, or almost everyone, belongs to some religion or
other. This is "enforced" on the players by making membership in a religion
a social expectation (no atheists in the dungeons) and by providing positive
benefits for being a member of a religion. (Clerics might only perform healing
and resurrection on coreligionists, or members of friendly religions.) Along
with the benefits go obligations. Each god has certain interests and standards,
and worshipers are expected to advance those interests and live up to those
standards.
Some might argue that alignment is a useful shorthand for determining the
principles of a religion. If one has little interest in role playing and
just wants to get on with the battles and loot, this is a reasonable argument.
Roleplayers are likely to find the alignment system too sketchy to serve by
itself, so they will have to do more work, anyway. All the mechanism attached
to alignments just gets in the way.
Even if one doesn't like heavy involvement of religions in their campaigns,
alignments (as specified in D&D) are not a good idea. I much prefer to let
a player's actions have their natural effects, rather than zapping them with
fairly arbitrary punishments for stepping out of alignment bounds. If a
player goes about indiscriminently killing things, what are other people going
to think? Probably that he's a menace which should be stopped. Thieves who
are caught are likely to be punished heavily. If they're not caught, but
they develop a reputation, they may get into less formal trouble when someone
with few scruples finds something missing and jumps to possibly incorrect
conclusions. On the other hand, someone who always lends a helping hand and
is the first to volunteer to help clean out the nest of orcs despoiling the
local villages will make friends and can expect a little assistance in his
time of need.
Maybe it's personal prejudice. Basically, I view alignments as being a
very restrictive feature. They bind you into a certain type of fantasy world
with a very particular set of rules. I don't like that kind of world much
myself, and I resent TSR's implication that this is the only kind of world
to play in. (Yeah, I know that I'm free to do whatever I want, etc., etc.,
but Gygax & Co. have been selling this approach for all it's worth and
increasingly passing it off as holy writ. There are a lot of gamers out there
who can't seem to picture a game without the crutch of alignments to prop them
up, which is a pity.)
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiherplutchak@uwmacc.UUCP (Joel Plutchak) (05/09/85)
In article <1572@cornell.UUCP> baldwin@cornell.UUCP (Michael S. Baldwin) writes: >*** REPLACE THIS LION WITH YOUR MASSAGE *** > > certainly, clerics >and paladins and the like will have strict religiously based morality that >will be limiting on them, but I think that the other character classes >should be less limited. Asassins, for instance, have to be evil because >the taking of life for money is evil(player's handbook's rational) and >yet I suspect that most PC Asassins have never done a `job'. Also, Yes. I never really considered this before, but I think you have a good point about alignments being alright for new players to use as a tool in playing, until they get the hang of it. However, at the risk of being ultra-redundant for those of you who read net.SF-lovers, try reading Steven Brust's _Jhereg_ and _Yendi_ for a treatment of an assassin who I would not consider evil. Heck, the protaganist is only doing his job. The matter of morals and alignment *is* complicated by the fact that people can generally be "revivified" (but then again they can in most frp's). That leads to another question: I admit to not having played with a wide variety of people, but I've NEVER been in a campaign with an assassin, mostly because of the presence of the much discussed "lawful stupids". I'd be interested in hearing a bit about y'alls' (a word I learned during my stint in Texas; it's pronounced "yallziz") experiences with assassins. -- - joel "The only thing worse than a hacker is a hacker who's proud of being one."
lucius@tardis.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) (05/11/85)
> Personally, I've never liked alignments a la AD&D at all. A far better way > to give the players standards of behavior different from their real life ones > is to use religions a la Runequest. By this I mean that no one has an > alignment. Rather, everyone, or almost everyone, belongs to some religion or > other. This is "enforced" on the players by making membership in a religion > a social expectation (no atheists in the dungeons) and by providing positive > benefits for being a member of a religion. (Clerics might only perform > healing > and resurrection on coreligionists, or members of friendly religions.) Along > with the benefits go obligations. Each god has certain interests and > standards, > and worshipers are expected to advance those interests and live up to those > standards. This does enhance the role-playing, but for atheists it is quite bad. Atheists should be able to play characters who are close to their personality just as much as people with religion. I can see that a good role-playing game would simulate (even in much exaggerated form) the social difficulties have in real life, and maybe some different ones to make it more interesting, but characters of certain religions forbidden in a world would have similar experiences. This could be toned up or down depending on the world. However, atheists should not be nuked automatically for being atheists -- give them at least a fair shot at starting up and surviving. -- -- Lucius Chiaraviglio { seismo!tardis!lucius | lucius@tardis.ARPA | lucius@tardis.UUCP }
euren@ttds.UUCP (Leif Euren) (05/14/85)
Rick Heli (ccrrick@ucdavis) writes in <167@ucdavis.UUCP>: >I frankly think all this talk about alignment is garbage. What is >the point of assigning someone a value A and someone else a value B? >And then that person is supposed to try to live under that particular >value. Why not let the character's actions determine their >reputations or labels as in real life, not the reverse. I've found that alignments have helped my players to know who their characters are. Until now I've started 3 campaigns with totally 19 players, all of them rookies. They had to learn that their characters where not extensions of themselves, but personalities of their own (well, not so stringent, but sort of). Having to choose an alignment for a character make one think of who this character is, how he/she thinks and will react in this situation or that. Now, as DM, I don't play alignment strict, but instead inform the player that he/she is stepping over the alignment limit. And then, if it happens all too often, I deem it a change of alignment and inform the player so. >As for this >stuff about those of the same alignment being able to communicate >with their alignment language, I never understood where this silly >and unrealistic idea came from. On this I agree. The whole idea is silly, and will always cause trouble if used in play. I tried to use it once, but abandoned it soon after. >By the way, much of the above also applies to (ugh) character classes... Flame BEGIN You shouldn't play (A)D&D at all! END; Leif Euren euren@ttds
ccrrick@ucdavis.UUCP (Rick Heli) (05/21/85)
> Now, as DM, I don't play alignment strict, but instead inform the player > that he/she is stepping over the alignment limit. And then, if it happens > all too often, I deem it a change of alignment and inform the player so. > So what's the point? If they change behavior, you just change the alignment. Might as well skip the whole idea in the first place. > Flame BEGIN > > You shouldn't play (A)D&D at all! > > END; Me?? Play AD&D?? Just long enough to understand how much I didn't like it. Someone mentioned T&T. There we have a case of taking all D&D's worst features and trivializing the rules such that your average juvenile delinquent can understand them. You know, the 8 year olds with the 50th level paladins who keep getting underfoot at conventions... I am sorry to hear that AD&D has spread to Sweden. But it does raise an interesting question. What is the state of the gaming/frp world in Sweden? Are there other American game products? Are they used in English or translated? What is popular? Are there homegrown products? Conventions? It would be interesting to hear from other countries as well... -- --rick heli (... ucbvax!ucdavis!groucho!ccrrick)
goldman@umn-cs.UUCP (Matthew D. Goldman ) (05/26/85)
In article <200@ucdavis.UUCP> ccrrick@ucdavis.UUCP (Rick Heli) writes: >You know, the 8 >year olds with the 50th level paladins who keep getting underfoot at >conventions... > solution... STOMP :-) -- ------- Matthew Goldman Computer Science Department University of Minnesota ...ihnp4{!stolaf}!umn-cs!goldman Home is where you take your hat off... Banzai! Kyllara : What did you just do? Moederan : I don't know but it's going to be fun...
db@cstvax.UUCP (Dave Berry) (05/28/85)
From a set of rules I started once upon a time ....
(With acknowledgements to Trevor Mendham & others).
.SH
Creating a "personality".
.PP
Personally, I prefer to create character's personalities myself, and
only make general notes to remind me between play sessions. However,
some people prefer to generate initial personalities by mechanistic
means. One reason that this may be preferable is that it encourages you
to play characters with differing personalities. Some new players have
also said they prefer a guide to help them create a character because
they haven't done it before.
.PP
This system can also be used to create sketches of NPC personalities.
Finally, some players involved in many games
like to have a quick summary of a character's personality available,
and use a description of the form given here, even though they supply
the values themselves. This can also be done when specifying a
character in an adventure to be used by someone else.
.PP
This system assigns two numerical values to each of the following traits:
.DS
Morality (Evil - Good)
Honesty (Chaotic - Dependable)
Restraint (Hedonist - Ascetic)
Politics (Individualist - Collectivist)
Faith (Agnostic - Devout)
Humour (Depressed - Manic)
Optimism (Pessimist - Optimist)
Politeness (Obnoxious - Charming)
Sociality (Aloof - Gregarious)
Helpfulness (Meanie - Angel)
Cunning (Direct - Subtle)
Involvement (Passive - Active)
Greed (Altruistic - Miser)
Temper (Cool - Hot)
Self-importance (Diffident - Egomaniac)
Trust (Suspicious - Gullible)
Bravery (Cowardly - Heroic)
Libido (Frigid - Randy)
Appetite (Anorexic - Hobbit)
Drug use (Straight - Junkie)
.DE
.PP
The first of the two values indicates the degree to which the character has
the named trait, from 0 (not at all) to 10 (completely). For example, if your
character has a 0 value for drug use, he or she will never touch drugs and
might well disapprove of its use by others, while if he or she has a 10 value
he or she will rarely be sober.
.PP
The second value indicates the variability of the first number, from
0 (constant) to 10 (highly variable). Thus if your character has a 10 value for
drug use, he or she would go on occasional binges, interspersed with periods of
no drugs at all. In this case, the relative frequency of the two extremes is
given by the first value. If this is 0 it means that your character goes on rare
binges, whereas if it is 10 it means that he or she occasionally
has periods on the wagon.
.PP
Unless you are creating the personality yourself,
both numbers are generated by rolling 2D12-2. If you can't fit a personality
around the results either roll again or modify them until you can. Try and
change as few values as possible.
.PP
Most of these values depend to some extent on the norm in the society
the character lives in. For example, a society may encourage suspicion
among its members (or its members could encourage it amongst themselves,
whichever you prefer).
This could be represented by rolling a D20-10 to get the values
for this trait instead of 2D12-2, treating negative results as 0.
Each society created for the game could have a set of die rolls used
to generate these (or other) traits.
You can interpret drug use as indicating narcotics, tobacco, alcohol,
valium, heart pills, vitamin tablets, diet pills or whatever fits your society
best. Indeed, most of the traits I've selected are open to some interpretation.
The resulting 'personality' should not be regarded as even approaching a
complete description of the character!
--
Dave Berry. CS postgrad, Univ. of Edinburgh
...mcvax!ukc!{hwcs,kcl-cs}!cstvax!dbsteve@avsdS.UUCP (Steve Russell) (05/31/85)
> > Now, as DM, I don't play alignment strict, but instead inform the player > > that he/she is stepping over the alignment limit. And then, if it happens > > all too often, I deem it a change of alignment and inform the player so. > So what's the point? If they change behavior, you just change the > alignment. Might as well skip the whole idea in the first place. > --rick heli This raises a point. Do you penalize the player with a loss of level if it turns out that your interpetation of his alignment is different than his? Would you support a proposal to allow the player to be 're-aligned' without penality if his/her play doesn't match your interpetation? steve AMPEX