|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 23, 2017 10:31:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Jun 24, 2017 1:12:35 GMT -5
A shallow view of -Good alignments is a stage in our mental development as people and players. Some folks are in that mental zone during the time you play with them, and you can't force them out of it.
We had a different problem at my table many years ago. I had some players who would call themselves "neutral good" but then act more chaotic neutral or chaotic evil. We never really solved that problem at the time, but in the fullness of time spent with the several online D&D communities, I have better insight into what's happened.
We were at cross purposes because we had differering ideas. Not about ethics, but about definitions. What these two players really meant by "neutral good" was more in line with Lawful in three point alignment. That is, they were the protagonists; the Good Guys; they would act in defense of Man and his allies and against the forces arrayed against him. They were not thinking in terms of "being good" but rather in terms of "being Good Guys."
I would suggest that the Lawful alignment, full-stop, does not suggest weakness or dumbness like the -Good alignment can.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 24, 2017 9:20:22 GMT -5
I have always used the three point alignment and the article has given me ideas those for the game in regards to Paladins vs other fighting types and for Clerics - variations. I hope to expand on those eventually.
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on Jun 24, 2017 12:34:59 GMT -5
So true
|
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Jun 24, 2017 13:03:14 GMT -5
I have always used the three point alignment and the article has given me ideas those for the game in regards to Paladins vs other fighting types and for Clerics - variations. I hope to expand on those eventually. I've never played Good as dumb and very rarely as nice. My last paladin was modeled on Arnaud Amalric, the medieval abbot who reportedly advised, "Kill them all. The Lord will know his own." |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 24, 2017 13:06:19 GMT -5
I have always used the three point alignment and the article has given me ideas those for the game in regards to Paladins vs other fighting types and for Clerics - variations. I hope to expand on those eventually. I've never played Good as dumb and very rarely as nice. My last paladin was modeled on Arnaud Amalric, the medieval abbot who reportedly advised, "Kill them all. The Lord will know his own." , IIRC advocates using Solomon Kane as a model, which I endorse. I am familiar with the abbot. Good reference. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Jun 27, 2017 9:05:54 GMT -5
I love playing LG Wizs thats my fav class in all sorts of variety, I had one I was particullary fond of called Xur, who was an LG version of Sheldon from Big Bang Theory. He wasnt any of those things.
EDIT I gotta put reading those links at the top of my reading list to find more LG wiz varieties.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 27, 2017 9:28:29 GMT -5
I love playing LG Wizs thats my fav class in all sorts of variety, I had one I was particullary fond of called Xur, who was an LG version of Sheldon from Big Bang Theory. He wasnt any of those things. EDIT I gotta put reading those links at the top of my reading list to find more LG wiz varieties. Sheldon is quite odd he alternates between Lawful and Chaotic and between Neutral and Evil and every combination thereof, except the ones involving Good. So that would be a novelty indeed.  |
|
|
|
Post by Robert the Black on Jun 27, 2017 14:20:23 GMT -5
I use the three point alignment system and it is pretty prominent IMC and mainly affects your relationship with magic items as far as in game consequences. Everyone is either Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic. Lawful is not necessarily good and Chaotic is not necessarily Evil, in and of themselves. Neutrals cannot be trusted to keep their word. Paladins are Good by definition and IMC Good trumps Lawful in their behavior. A Cleric that is Good as in Paladin Good also gets a couple of small extra perks. I make sure that players understand alignment before they play. For instance, IMC slitting the throat or otherwise killing any unconscious or held prisoner is evil, unless the creature has been judged by the law of the land or by a Paladin for known actions. Paladins and high level Clerics that are Paladin Good, can release creatures with a binding oath on their behavior, the breaking of which has consequences.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2017 15:03:41 GMT -5
Meh. Wasn't impressed by the article.
I haven't had that problem since I stopped playing with 14 year olds, frankly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including a tendency to look at alignment like a 14 year old boy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 27, 2017 16:33:28 GMT -5
Meh. Wasn't impressed by the article. I haven't had that problem since I stopped playing with 14 year olds, frankly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including a tendency to look at alignment like a 14 year old boy. While I think most of us here would agree with you, it is also important to note that many people have not been exposed to these ideas before, I have seen many threads on forums where almost everyone in the thread has that problem and they don't have the excuse of being 14 years old. In fact most of them claim to be Gygaxian. So I think it is pretty cool to have something out there to counter the prevailing "wisdom" that is dominant. |
|
|
|
Post by Bartholmew Quarrels on Jun 27, 2017 16:42:45 GMT -5
Meh. Wasn't impressed by the article. I haven't had that problem since I stopped playing with 14 year olds, frankly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including a tendency to look at alignment like a 14 year old boy. Unfortunately too few have matured past 14 years old. Some even manifest the temper tantrums and other behavior of two year olds. I'm in favor of people who try to counter that thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Jun 27, 2017 18:27:34 GMT -5
Read the first artical, Too Cool!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Maximum Forest Ranger on Jun 28, 2017 8:58:11 GMT -5
Meh. Wasn't impressed by the article. I haven't had that problem since I stopped playing with 14 year olds, frankly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including a tendency to look at alignment like a 14 year old boy. That's why we play with our kids and grandkids, so we can teach them how to play and widen their horizons. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Jun 29, 2017 7:01:11 GMT -5
Meh. Wasn't impressed by the article. I haven't had that problem since I stopped playing with 14 year olds, frankly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including a tendency to look at alignment like a 14 year old boy. That is only because you didn't write it. You did put away childish things, when did that happen. I think you are delusional.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2017 14:57:02 GMT -5
* PBLFFT! *
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Jun 29, 2017 15:16:01 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 10:57:44 GMT -5
"By Crom, I like a..."
"If," she said, fixing him with a steely gaze, "if you say, 'by Crom I like a girl with spirit,' I promise things will go very, very badly for you."
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Jun 30, 2017 20:06:02 GMT -5
"By Crom, I like a..." "If," she said, fixing him with a steely gaze, "if you say, 'by Crom I like a girl with spirit,' I promise things will go very, very badly for you."Thank your wife for posting the part in bold, I am sure that you didn't think of that on your own. |
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Jun 30, 2017 23:31:38 GMT -5
Mr. Mornard has seen literally everything with his own eyes and/or internet connection, so I am not surprised that he isn't impressed.
OTOH it's not a great article nor is it terrible. It's a good article for people who have had limited exposure to those ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jul 1, 2017 6:38:37 GMT -5
Mr. Mornard has seen literally everything with his own eyes and/or internet connection, so I am not surprised that he isn't impressed. OTOH it's not a great article nor is it terrible. It's a good article for people who have had limited exposure to those ideas. Emphasis added by me. I have read many, many, threads where those ideas are never broached. For that reason I think the article is of value and that more such article's should be written simply because so many have had such limited exposure to those ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by Von on Jul 14, 2017 3:35:17 GMT -5
A shallow view of -Good alignments is a stage in our mental development as people and players. Some folks are in that mental zone during the time you play with them, and you can't force them out of it. We had a different problem at my table many years ago. I had some players who would call themselves "neutral good" but then act more chaotic neutral or chaotic evil. We never really solved that problem at the time, but in the fullness of time spent with the several online D&D communities, I have better insight into what's happened. We were at cross purposes because we had differering ideas. Not about ethics, but about definitions. What these two players really meant by "neutral good" was more in line with Lawful in three point alignment. That is, they were the protagonists; the Good Guys; they would act in defense of Man and his allies and against the forces arrayed against him. They were not thinking in terms of "being good" but rather in terms of "being Good Guys." I would suggest that the Lawful alignment, full-stop, does not suggest weakness or dumbness like the -Good alignment can. That gets an Exalt. I have come to favour the more elegant Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic axis (which operates in terms of cosmic Law, the grand dance of energy and entropy) or in terms of natural Law (the continued operation of things as they should be) or in terms of societal Law (follow the rules as they're established by others, or violate them and establish your own?). What I need from alignment is simply a mechanic for whose powers affect whom and in what way, and whose powers unravel the fabric of reality when used and whose don't. Morality doesn't come into it. We can do awful things because the Law says we can; we can do awful things because we think no Law can stop us. On a personal level I have spent much time explaining that Dark is not Evil and Good is not Nice. Once you grasp that a lot of moral angst simply evaporates. (Apropos of nothing, it makes you unable to sit through contemporary Doctor Who, obsessing as it does over whether the Doctor is a Good Man. Yes he is. That doesn't preclude him being a nasty git sometimes, when it's called for or when he's cross or what have you. Intent counts.) |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Jul 18, 2017 13:16:49 GMT -5
Lawful - Neutral- Chaotic makes a lot of sense really - while Good and Evil come into play on an individual basis. I really like the point that Good is not stupid or weak or nice. Too often nice just means you haven't had a chance to do something evil yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 18, 2017 15:40:18 GMT -5
Good (Law) is constructive (for all).
Neutral is constructive (for self).
Chaotic (Evil) is destructive (for either self or all).
Building, creating, and construction is hard. Creating something new is hard.
Destruction and ignorance is easy.
Toddlers have to be taught to share, empathize, follow rules, and cultivate imagination.
Toddlers if left alone, will steal, lie, abuse, and act very neutrally by nature.
Good is playing in hard-mode. Good is taking on the greatest challenges. Being good is not easy but ultimately more rewarding for self and society.
Which is easier?: Playing a level 1 cleric with 1 HP, no armor, and no spells; or a level 1 f-m with 7 HP, armor & shield, and a troop of meatshields? Which is the greatest challenge?
What's more impressive?: the level one LG cleric that goes into a dungeon and makes it out alive; or a level 9 CE Lord who goes into a dungeon with all his minions and makes it out alive?
Being LG with poor stats (3s in every ability) is for those that want the greatest challenge in the game and the most bragging rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Aug 8, 2017 19:14:12 GMT -5
I accepted your reading assignment, and I think that it is a topic that doesn't come up enough.
I found it eye opening about the legends of King Arthur is a cautionary tale. I honestly never looked at it that way, but the writer is correct. I just never really thought about it and always assumed things exactly the way that it described. I am far from 14, but when you look at the same forest all your life you tend to overlook things.
I am probably going to get laughed at, but, for me, the best examples of the war of Good vs. Evil is Professional Wrestling. Now I'm not talking about that glitzy multi-billion dollar company that is now associated with Pro Wrestling, my favorite is the Mexican style that holds on to the traditions in its purest form. The ring is a temple, the fighters aren't fighters, they are channeling the gods themselves. These stories have been told for centuries, these characters have existed for centuries and they all mean something.
When I was a child, my father took me to a live event. This was before the WWWF took over the territories, it was a much smaller show that wasn't in an arena or anything like that. I was probably 9 or 10 years old, and Dad had me sitting on the end so I could watch the wrestlers walk right past me on the way to the ring. I would watch these guys on TV, to see them live was a huge deal! I was all caught up in the emotions of the gathering, it is almost religious in a way. Anyhow, there was a bad guy wrestler named Big John Studd. This guy was a hulk of a man, his character was that of a giant, and he fits this description. There I was, booing him, and Studd stops walking to the ring and starts yelling at me. I am this really, really little kid and the biggest man that I have ever seen in my life is telling me that he is going to take me into that ring and beat some respect into me.
This wasn't fake at that moment in time, this was very very real to me. I told him that my dad wouldn't let that happen, and he says that he'll take both me AND my dad and there isn't anything that anybody can do to stop him. Now I had seen Big John Studd on my television, but until that very moment, I believed that my dad was the biggest, toughest man in the world. If Big John Studd wanted to drag me and my dad to the ring and kick the snot out of us, he could. And then he started grabbing for me and I am freaking out, but thank god that another wrestler came running out to save my life that day. The other wrestler still got beat up, but what those two men gave me was something very special. Big John Studd was a bully, who would rather fight those who he knows that he can beat up, and the good guy who came running out knew that he couldn't beat the giant, but he had to fight anyway.
Good vs. Evil. You don't get any simpler than that. That is what wrestlers do, they take these ancient stories and they act them out. People think that it is about violence, and it can be, but it can also be so much more. There is a very complex psychology going on. Two men pretending to fight isn't all that interesting, but you put two masters of their crafts in a ring and they are going to tell a story.
It has always been much harder for wrestlers to play the good guys, WWE has no idea what they are doing half the time. One of the greatest examples of a crummy good guy was Rocky Mavaya (sp). His original character was a Samoan good looking guy, and the fans were supposed to support him; they didn't. Not until he shed that persona and became a trash talking punk now known as The Rock did he find success. They thought that The Rock would be a bad guy, but he wasn't . . . he could be, but most of the time he was a good guy that didn't let people walk all over him. He wasn't nice, but there was right, and there was wrong. As The Rock, he could make you FEEL. When he got hit, the people in the cheap seats felt it. When he needed help he would get it from the energy of the crowd, and it felt like he was pulling the energy from the arena. This was a very classic form of the good guy, but the bookers had no idea. It wasn't the bookers that made him a hero, nor was it Dwayne Johnson (the guy who was playing him), it was the people. Heroes depend on people. People look at them and get behind them. Heroes set an example. When they lose, we lose; but when they win, we win! No hero in the history of good guys has ever done anything by themselves. In D&D terms, they lead by example. If the NPCs aren't reacting to this if they aren't inspired to get behind the good guy, then what is the point?
As DM I do use the Alignment system, and I do judge the characters ability to play their alignment, but I also think that it is my job to allow the good guys to FEEL like good guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Aug 11, 2017 19:53:58 GMT -5
|
|
FaerieGodfather
Wanderer
Returned Home. Still returning to Humanity.
Posts: 46 
|
Post by FaerieGodfather on Aug 15, 2017 22:16:46 GMT -5
Having not read the articles (yet), I would forcefully assert that the problem with the D&D alignment system and the reason it causes so many arguments, is that 90% of humanity is Neutral, 9% is Evil... and 99% believe themselves to be Good. The alignment descriptions were mostly written by people who couldn't tell the difference between benevolence and slavish adherence to their tribal prejudices, a key example being the entirety of the 3.5 Book of Exalted Deeds which I only own because I was obligated to pay for a copy I damaged out of sheer revulsion.
Seriously, can anyone explain to me what abstaining from property ownership or sexual relations has to do with altruism, what either of those things has to do with helping other people live better lives? How is using a poison "evil" because... well, because, but using a "ravage" isn't?
And yet, the rules tell Dungeon Masters who can read that utter tripe uncritically to judge the morality of their players and punish them for failing to conform to their own unexamined, unspoken, arbitrary and irrational moral assumptions.
I will comment again after reading. May take awhile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Aug 16, 2017 7:14:07 GMT -5
Having not read the articles (yet), I would forcefully assert that the problem with the D&D alignment system and the reason it causes so many arguments, is that 90% of humanity is Neutral, 9% is Evil... and 99% believe themselves to be Good. The alignment descriptions were mostly written by people who couldn't tell the difference between benevolence and slavish adherence to their tribal prejudices, a key example being the entirety of the 3.5 Book of Exalted Deeds which I only own because I was obligated to pay for a copy I damaged out of sheer revulsion. Seriously, can anyone explain to me what abstaining from property ownership or sexual relations has to do with altruism, what either of those things has to do with helping other people live better lives? How is using a poison "evil" because... well, because, but using a "ravage" isn't? And yet, the rules tell Dungeon Masters who can read that utter tripe uncritically to judge the morality of their players and punish them for failing to conform to their own unexamined, unspoken, arbitrary and irrational moral assumptions. I will comment again after reading. May take awhile. While the first sentence and possibly the first part of the second may possibly apply to OD&D the rest of it does not. I have never read the 3.5 Book of Exalted Deeds, but I can assure you that it has nothing to do with any OD&D I have ever been exposed to. IMC we use Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic with Lawful not meaning just the tendency Good and Chaotic not meaning Evil just the tendency. The only things I apply Good and Evil to are specific things. IMC Paladins are Good, Clerics not necessarily, Fighters and Magic-Users are typically Neutral or Chaotic, but if you want to play Evil find a different campaign. Anti-Clerics are Evil. No one is restricted from owning property in OD&D not does it discuss abstaining from sex or discuss it at all; however, IMC we don't go into sex, I like to keep it clean my preference and I often have kids IMC too. Players don't get punished for not-conforming, aside from basic things, such as, you change from Lawful to Neutral or Chaotic you can't keep the magic sword, you will need to find one that matches your new alignment. I tell people to pick the alignment that matches the way you play. Then things like that won't happen. In the pbp game that I will be starting on Oct 1st and for which I will be posting more information, including guidance on alignment and what I consider various things to be. |
|
FaerieGodfather
Wanderer
Returned Home. Still returning to Humanity.
Posts: 46
|
Post by FaerieGodfather on Aug 16, 2017 7:44:52 GMT -5
I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, and I am sorry for giving you the impression that I was.
second edit: On further thought... whatever productive conversation is happening here, it's pretty clear that I'm not contributing to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Aug 16, 2017 7:52:40 GMT -5
I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, and I am sorry for giving you the impression that I was. I don't have a lot of experience with OD&D. I have a lot of experience with AD&D, when they added the "Good versus Evil" axis to alignment and introduced the Paladin class, which DMs were encouraged to strip PCs of for the slightest indiscretion, no matter how arbitrary. I may be a little bitter about this. You are fine, I did not feel you were accusing me or us of anything. I just wanted to put things in context relative to OD&D. BTW IMO any DM that punished players "for the slightest indiscretion, no matter how arbitrary." Is not a DM whose game I would play in. Besides which the DM should spell out the general before the game. For specifics during the game especially when it is a moral choice the Ref/DM has IMO a responsibility to say something along the lines of, "Are you sure that you want to do that?" |
|
