|
|
Post by ripx187 on Sept 25, 2017 16:22:52 GMT -5
Admin Edit: I am starting this thread using the below post as the starter and moving other posts to this thread. I think we have a good alignment discussion going and since it is relevant to the PBP game I will be running the players may find my take interesting.ripx187 starts from here on: I think that everyone has their favorite class, mine is thief. Back when I first started playing, the DM told me that thieves have to be Neutral or Evil, so I chose Neutral Evil. I had to play my alignment! It would had been suicidal, and not serve my best interests to turn on the party, so I was always a team player, I just had different ways of making decisions. Eventually my greed and selfishness caught up to me, but that was my undoing and had nothing to do with the DM. Do you allow evil PC characters? It isn't my alignment of choice, and the Evil Thief rule was ignored after what I was able to do with it. For myself, I prefer my players to play good characters, but you've always got that one! I'll let him play too.
|
|
FaerieGodfather
Wanderer
Returned Home. Still returning to Humanity.
Posts: 46 
|
Post by FaerieGodfather on Sept 25, 2017 17:19:04 GMT -5
Honestly... I barely even use the alignment rules in my games. The only things that have alignments in my games are creatures with alignment subtypes-- angels, fiends, and their various servitors-- and as far as I am concerned, being [good] or [evil] is about the same as being [fire] or [water]. It's an energy type, not a moral argument, and if your class has an alignment restriction or a code of conduct, they are not the same thing.
I also strongly prefer the modern D&D approach where classes like Paladins and Warlocks cannot be divested of their powers once their patrons have bestowed them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Sept 25, 2017 17:29:06 GMT -5
Honestly... I barely even use the alignment rules in my games. The only things that have alignments in my games are creatures with alignment subtypes-- angels, fiends, and their various servitors-- and as far as I am concerned, being [good] or [evil] is about the same as being [fire] or [water]. It's an energy type, not a moral argument, and if your class has an alignment restriciton or a code of conduct, they are not the same thing. I also strongly prefer the modern D&D approach where classes like Paladins and Warlocks cannot be divested of their powers once their patrons have bestowed them. That is one of my biggest problems with modern D&D. I always used my Alignment as a tool to figuring out how to role-play my character. What I would do in a situation, and what my character would do are sometimes different things, and it is fun to go there. As a DM, I do judge alignment, but it isn't something that dominates the game. Alignment is a guideline, the players themselves are constantly moving around the spectrum, only if they do something completely out of character will I threaten to change their current alignment. I also set up alignment tests during play so it helps me DM as well. EDIT: Alignments are fun, especially when magic is involved and forces alignment changes. You can do fun stuff like have a Armor+5 which is Chaotic Evil, it can put ideas into your head, and sometimes it can force you to do things against your will, especially when you are using it. The game now is, how do you take this thing off or do I want to? |
|
FaerieGodfather
Wanderer
Returned Home. Still returning to Humanity.
Posts: 46
|
Post by FaerieGodfather on Sept 26, 2017 5:39:29 GMT -5
That is one of my biggest problems with modern D&D. I always used my Alignment as a tool to figuring out how to role-play my character. As did I. The problem always arose when me and my DM inevitably disagreed over what my character's alignment meant-- because the rules may say that morality is objective, but cannot make it so-- and the game's rules gave him both the means and the encouragement to screw me over because of it. I don't inherently object to attempting to classify every sentient creature's moral philosophy into one of nine arbitrary (and vaguely silly) categories, but I do object to tying my ability to play my character-- in a roleplaying game-- to one person's autocratic and inconsistent interpretations of those vague and subjective categories, and the sadistic glee with which that person was encouraged, by the game rules, to apply that bludgeon to the players' heads at every opportunity. The problem with the alignment system in D&D isn't that it's a steaming pile of incoherent nonsense, or that it's a straitjacket that punishes you for attempting to play outside of its rigid boundaries. The problem is that the alignment system, no matter how the books say that it's neither, is both. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2017 7:13:48 GMT -5
In my opinion the OD&D alignment of Law -v- Chaos works pretty well. I used it in the manner of the old sword and sorcery novels, more as a way of being than ethos. Almost like a shirts versus skins way of dividing up at football squad into teams. But then, I never used alignment as a straitjacket anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Sept 26, 2017 11:42:51 GMT -5
And we're back to the age-old debate about what alignment can or should mean. I took it to mean that Gygax was still thinking like a wargamer at the time. Was Arneson using alignment in his systemless system at the time? (Could anyone know without having read ALL of Arneson's notes and reading his mind as well?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2017 13:23:59 GMT -5
Oops! Sorry, brother gamers. I guess I didn't realize it was a hotly debated issue. Never mind!  |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Sept 26, 2017 13:55:08 GMT -5
Oops! Sorry, brother gamers. I guess I didn't realize it was a hotly debated issue. Never mind! I don't think that it's hot. It is debated, frequently - though I only remember seeing it here recently. My take is that alignment makes sense in wargames (especially miniatures) but that roleplaying trumps alignment. In real life, I might consider myself Chaotic Good - but it's my actions and my thoughts that determines who and what I am. ("By their fruits ye shall know them.") But the house of rolegaming is very large, and there are rooms for each type of rolegaming. So I have no problem playing an adventure or campaign that uses alignment. I shall play that alignment to the core, though, and probably become very annoying. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 26, 2017 16:18:40 GMT -5
Oops! Sorry, brother gamers. I guess I didn't realize it was a hotly debated issue. Never mind! I don't mind the debate and I think alignment should not be a hot debate, I think it should be reasoned debate. Some have had bad experiences with it, I personally have not. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 26, 2017 16:32:06 GMT -5
I want to address this a bit more since I am getting ready to run a pbp downforum. My view of alignment is that it does not dictate player (PC) action or choices. Alignment is the record of who you (the PC) are and what you become. Certain magic weapons IMC are Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic. Some have a purpose. Most PCs are like people in real life, they are a mixture of things and may not be consistent. Some like Paladins or Evil High Priests are by definition Good or EVIL, most are not. If you start off Lawful and start moving away from that as the Ref I will ask you, "That is an evil act or chaotic act (or whatever applies), are you sure you want to do that" at that point the player (PC) makes a decision, as he goes down a certain path he may at some point lose his Lawful Magic Sword whose purpose it to destroy Chaos or Destroy Evil. The PC makes that choice knowingly.
Up to now I have always gamed with people who are in close agreement of what is good and what is evil. In the example of the OP, IMC killing an innocent would be an evil act and the PC would then make the decision to proceed or not and accept the in game consequences. The other PC's would make their own decisions. I do not normally have evil PCs IMC, but if a player went that way, he could and again it would be with full knowledge of the consequences that might occur.
Generally if a PC changes alignment it is a gradual change and the player is making a deliberate choice knowing it could turn out badly for the PC. I will post in the game forum more about this if more clarification is needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Sept 26, 2017 16:50:31 GMT -5
Alignment debates and discussions almost always fascinate me, even though I dasn't use 'em when I GM. It wouldn't be a bad idea to make a new thread, since we have so many gamers who have been around since the first published rolegame - and a few who have been around before anyone realized they had cooperatively created a new type of game.
I would be a bad one to start such a thread, because I am such a fan of alignments being used for hilarious plot devices. Yamara, Gamers 2 (PG version), almost any issue of KoDT. People who are very serious about their games would be really irritated with me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2017 17:24:41 GMT -5
Oh, well if nobody minds a little friendly discussion here is how I see it.
My view of alignment is fairly close to TPD's. The law versus chaos dichotomy I just basically lifted from my readings of the Elric saga and related novels. A being is either of Law or Chaos, or possibly neutral with regard to the two. This is a part of what these being is, it is intrinsic to it. Law is not necessarily "good," nor is Chaos "bad." Both alignments certainly have traits of what we associate with good (in the case of Law) and evil (Chaos). But so also do both alignments have creatures out this perception, with "good" creature of a Chaotic nature, for example.
At any rate? As I stated, I've used the alignment system in OD&D mainly as a way of denoting which team encountered NPCs and some magical items are on. Spells also. For example? Detect evil becomes to detect chaos.
My players have found this very freeing. Alignment is no longer a straitjacket, it is merely what the character is. With the exception of clerics, nobody spends a lot of time worrying about the matter at all. Plus, the intrinsic nature of alignment makes alignment languages easier to swallow as a concept.
Anyway, that is my take on it. As always? Run your world your way!
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Sept 26, 2017 17:47:38 GMT -5
Alignment gives me lots of information very quickly. Law vs. Chaos tells me how you work with others. Lawful characters tend to work better with others, while Chaotic characters are more independent. This goes back directly to wargames, Lawful units are able to take up less space and work as a team, while chaotic units require more space and work independently. Neutral is more dependant on Good or Evil.
Good vs. Evil is a bit more complex, but the simple version is that Good is concerned with others, and Evil is focused on the self. Neutral is more dependant on Law vs. Chaos.
This only applies to my NPCs, and there are many many shades of grey. It is a classification system, if a character is important enough then I will add personality traits to further define who this character is.
As far as PC's go, the player's input defines their alignment. We have quick discussions at the table sometimes. I don't force my philosophies in regards to alignment onto anybody, if they have a different opinion and can justify their actions then so be it. Alignment isn't a restraint. I've been a DM for a couple of decades and I've never had to force an alignment change as defined in AD&D. We've made adjustments to better identify who they are, which may change over time, but those were made WITH the player. Dungeons and Dragons, as it is played at my table, is a cooperative game.
I've played evil PCs, and none of them thought that they were bad people. Only the player should know their own alignment, but it isn't anything to get hung up about, nor should it be a form of DM punishment because the DM wants to use it to predict the actions of the players, it doesn't work like that. Good characters can be bigots and liars, and Evil characters can be loyal and brave, personality trumps alignment.
Men have free will, Gods do not. Gods are held up to that level of crazy standard, as do political engines and mob mentality, but individuals? Never. Alignment only comes up if the player absolutely is at a loss for how to react to something unusual.
That is how I see it. I went through that weird stage where there was no grey, but instead of getting rid of it completely (which I feel is an over-correction), I instead chose to refine it over time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 26, 2017 17:49:54 GMT -5
My view of alignment is fairly close to TPD's. The law versus chaos dichotomy I just basically lifted from my readings of the Elric saga and related novels. A being is either of Law or Chaos, or possibly neutral with regard to the two. This is a part of what these being is, it is intrinsic to it. Law is not necessarily "good," nor is Chaos "bad." Both alignments certainly have traits of what we associate with good and evil. But so also do both alignments have creatures we would consider both good or evil. Up to here we are in near exact agreement. At any rate? As I stated, I've used the alignment system in OD&D mainly as a way of denoting which team encountered NPCs and some magical items are on. Spells also. For example? Detect evil becomes to detect chaos. I differ a bit, I will accept chaotic PCs if the players can work with lawful, neutral and chaotic in the same party. It is up to them to make it work. Detect evil is still detect evil. A Paladin IMC is pragmatic, he will not associate with evil, but will tolerate chaotic up to a point if there is a need to do something that makes it necessary. Anti-Clerics IMC are primarily evil and can be either Lawful or Chaotic. My players have found this very freeing. Alignment is no longer a straitjacket, it is merely what the character is. With the exception of clerics, nobody spends a lot of time worrying about the matter at all. Plus, the intrinsic nature of alignment makes alignment languages easier to swallow as a concept. I agree with this and only add clerics and paladins. IMO players should not have a valid reason to feel that the ref is being arbitrary, if you spell things out enough up front with help along the way so the players know where things stand before they acts instead of only afterward. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2017 19:29:27 GMT -5
I differ a bit, I will accept chaotic PCs if the players can work with lawful, neutral and chaotic in the same party. It is up to them to make it work. Detect evil is still detect evil. A Paladin IMC is pragmatic, he will not associate with evil, but will tolerate chaotic up to a point if there is a need to do something that makes it necessary. Anti-Clerics IMC are primarily evil and can be either Lawful or Chaotic. Agreed. That's actually how I run it, too. I kept it simple in my quoted post but to more fully explain: in war, or the great struggle between nations, or the various church factions? These are all separated by alignment. I refer to it as The Great Struggle. PC parties? Not so much. That goes for other "flavor" type interactions. For example, gnomes and dwarves are in a state of cold war in my campaign. One that threatens to go "hot" at any time (but never seems to). I let players know right up front all that is for NPCs and, for them, they are exception (see: Legolas & Gimli bromance in LOTR). Pallys are a good exception, too; though I don't actually have them IMC. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2017 21:02:58 GMT -5
Alignment works just fine.
The problem is the game got into the hands of 14 year old kids who'd never read Poul Anderson or Michael Moorcock.
Three Hearts and Three Lions is, I think, the first of Anderson's works to feature the concepts. As presented, they are cosmic forces, or even "tendencies." "Chaotic" people or creatures are not the "random stupidity" sometimes seen in games, nor are they the "stomp kittens for fun" types. Anderson's real world experiences and living through several major wars meant that his sentient creatures are not cardboard cutouts; in "Operation Chaos," the army of the "Caliphate," though on the side of Chaos, still uses rank structures, bureaucracy, etc.
The problem is when people expect a fast and easy set of steps to follow instead of vaguely defined cosmic forces.
And yes, Dave Arneson used alignment, though I don't remember what he called it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Sept 27, 2017 11:49:31 GMT -5
As cosmic forces, law/chaos make sense. Always enjoyed Anderson's take on it and his ability to draw the cosmic plots into smaller personal stories. This would work well in any game, and doesn't cause the inherent humor/burden of PCs practically wearing buttons proclaiming their alignment.
I liked Moorcock's plots, but never enjoyed his actual prose. Maybe that's why his characters seemed to be in boxes that they never got out. Of. Loved the Stormbringer RPG (1ed) though.
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 27, 2017 23:19:11 GMT -5
Cool thread. I'm thinking back on my prior groups... I'm realizing that alignment was only ever considered at character creation and then promptly forgotten/ignored/avoided. I guess I'm saying I've never really practically utilized alignment beyond taking up space on the character sheet. Maybe I should change that...
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 27, 2017 23:28:29 GMT -5
As cosmic forces, law/chaos make sense. Always enjoyed Anderson's take on it and his ability to draw the cosmic plots into smaller personal stories. This would work well in any game, and doesn't cause the inherent humor/burden of PCs practically wearing buttons proclaiming their alignment. I liked Moorcock's plots, but never enjoyed his actual prose. Maybe that's why his characters seemed to be in boxes that they never got out. Of. Loved the Stormbringer RPG (1ed) though. I tried to read Moorcock and it was a struggle. So dry. Poul Anderson's Three Hears Three Lions was just released as an eBook on Kindle so I might have to check it out. It's only $6. I've read mixed reviews, but I'm aware of it's influence on D&D. I'm still desperately trying to enjoy REH's Conan. I'm not gonna give up yet because I know it's had such a big impact on the game. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Sept 28, 2017 4:16:17 GMT -5
REH is best enjoyed if you don't expect very good writing, but enjoy tall tales of adventures being told by cowboys around a campfire after a hard day's work. Howard wasn't a skilled writer, but he was a natural born storyteller.
You might prefer to try one of his stories set in the modern world of his time: westerns, sea adventures, boxers, crime... Very, very pulp.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dartanian on Sept 28, 2017 7:20:07 GMT -5
Anderson, Moorcock and REH, I enjoy all three immensely. Anderson is classic, I don't find Moorcock to be dry and I love the writing of REH. IMO writing and gaming can have to much polish, but raw and vivid, that is magic.
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 28, 2017 11:38:20 GMT -5
REH is best enjoyed if you don't expect very good writing, but enjoy tall tales of adventures being told by cowboys around a campfire after a hard day's work. Howard wasn't a skilled writer, but he was a natural born storyteller. You might prefer to try one of his stories set in the modern world of his time: westerns, sea adventures, boxers, crime... Very, very pulp. That is a perfect description of REH, mormonyoyoman , and much better than I could articulate. Thanks for the recommendations. |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 28, 2017 13:29:05 GMT -5
Anderson, Moorcock and REH, I enjoy all three immensely. Anderson is classic, I don't find Moorcock to be dry and I love the writing of REH. IMO writing and gaming can have to much polish, but raw and vivid, that is magic. I've been dabbling with Moorcock, Howard, Smith, Lieber, Burroughs, Vance, and Zelazny recently. It's been fun picking out all the little fantasy references that have now become common tropes, but were groundbreaking at the time. "Raw and vivid" is very apt, indeed. That's a good way to put it. Also, to clarify, by "dry", I was talking more about the flat characters and abstract worlds. I wish they were a little more grounded. It can be hard for me to relate to the somewhat vanilla characters and plot abstractions sometimes. I'm still enjoying them a great deal though. It's a writing style I'm not familiar with yet, but I'm working on it, and overall I'm having a good time delving into this particular genre. I do agree, the various writing styles, though oftentimes amateurish, are very raw and vivid as you put it. I think the modern emphasis on character and world-building has put me in a different mindset than some of these old pulp adventures assume. I'm still embracing the stories, and most being so short, it's easy to read one here and there without much time-commitment. I've been reading REH, Lieber, and Vance, for instance, before bed since they can be read in less than 30 minutes usually. I like that. Zelazny and Moorcock, I've had a harder time with, but that could just be me. Anderson is next on the list. So far, of the pulps, I tend to lean towards Lovecraft, Herbert, Tolkien, Farmer, Verne, Wells, Poe, and Asimov (dry also, but SO intellectually stimulating.) I like the way they get inside their character's heads and really flesh out a living world and philosophy. I just started on Rothfuss and it's been hard to pry myself from it which is a pleasant surprise. He's also a bigtime D&D player which is always nice. I haven't finished The Name of the Wind yet, but so far i'm enjoying it, if anyone wants a recommendation. Anyway, thanks for indulging me, and now back to the discussion on alignment... |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Sept 28, 2017 14:26:20 GMT -5
The "masters," as we call them now, wrote for a very different audience that doesn't exist today. Pulps sold like crazy to commuters, when the move to suburbia had begun and thousands were taking a train to work. Fast and short (some editors, such as Weisenger, were radical about keeping the stories short!) so a story could be finished by the end of the commute. Even the "novel length" stories read quickly, though they were often saved to read when one got home. This fast and furious type of writing was made to order for pure storytelling without embellishment, and writers such as REH might never get published today, though the ebook market is changing that possibility. The quick action story, especially if it used stock characters and situations so that exposition wasn't needed, was bought and published - Literature, it wasn't. This may be why the biggest selling genres of pulp magazines was NOT the detective/hero pulps. We tend to think of the Shadow or Doc Savage when we think of pulps, but the best selling pulp magazines by far were the westerns...followed, not too closely, by romance pulps.
We'll not see the likes of REH again. As Karl Wagner opined (and I agree) Carter and deCamp rewrote REH to make the stories more "professional" - which was a mistake. So far, it's only in the comics medium, especially when written by Roy Thomas, that Conan seems both roughly written and professional without sacrificing one for the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 28, 2017 14:48:07 GMT -5
The "masters," as we call them now, wrote for a very different audience that doesn't exist today. Pulps sold like crazy to commuters, when the move to suburbia had begun and thousands were taking a train to work. Fast and short (some editors, such as Weisenger, were radical about keeping the stories short!) so a story could be finished by the end of the commute. Even the "novel length" stories read quickly, though they were often saved to read when one got home. This fast and furious type of writing was made to order for pure storytelling without embellishment, and writers such as REH might never get published today, though the ebook market is changing that possibility. The quick action story, especially if it used stock characters and situations so that exposition wasn't needed, was bought and published - Literature, it wasn't. This may be why the biggest selling genres of pulp magazines was NOT the detective/hero pulps. We tend to think of the Shadow or Doc Savage when we think of pulps, but the best selling pulp magazines by far were the westerns...followed, not too closely, by romance pulps. We'll not see the likes of REH again. As Karl Wagner opined (and I agree) Carter and deCamp rewrote REH to make the stories more "professional" - which was a mistake. So far, it's only in the comics medium, especially when written by Roy Thomas, that Conan seems both roughly written and professional without sacrificing one for the other. What a thoughtful post! Thanks for the historical context. It's a very exciting time for both producers and consumers of all types and genres of media it seems. I hope we don't manage to screw it all up somehow, lol. I almost wonder if these pioneers would have been better editors than pure writers. Similarly, George Lucas is great idea guy, but not exactly the most natural writer. As a producer, he's a genius. Maybe the analogy doesn't totally hold up, but thanks for the interesting discussion. Asimov, Tolkien, and Herbert were my first and thus my most memorable sci-fi/fantasy authors. I still reread them to this day. People don't like the ending to Riverworld, but I like it so it's close to those others for me as well, but I've never reread it. Recently, only GRRM and Rowling have excited me. We shall see how Rothfuss works out once I finish this doorstop novel. EDIT: I forgot, I went down an Anne Rice rabbit hole once back in the day, but I haven't reread those either. I hear they don't hold up very well. Reading the "Masters" is a great change of pace to what I'm used to. Having the context you provided will help me even more. Thanks again! |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Sept 28, 2017 20:18:08 GMT -5
Anne Rice. I was at my shrink's office to keep getting my happy pills, and I brought along "The Witching Hour" to keep me company. I prefer the witches series and to me, it holds up great! But, I got to looking around, and there were six other people in the waiting room, all of us reading Anne Rice books.
Huh.
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 28, 2017 20:28:28 GMT -5
The Witching Hour (and the sequels) and the first three Lestat books (Interview, Lestat, and Queen) were my favorites as well. Not many people know about the witch series which (ha!) is too bad. They are possibly(?) very underrated. Then again, I was a teenager at the time and I was also reading Vertigo comics, watching The X-Files, ST:TNG, and Army of Darkness on VHS!!! My palette was hardly "refined" haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Sept 28, 2017 22:34:38 GMT -5
My only problem with Anne Rice is the lack of straight men. Everyone in her books are poofs!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 29, 2017 9:01:38 GMT -5
I have never read Anne Rice, I have tried several times but could not get through the first chapter.
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Sept 29, 2017 17:05:54 GMT -5
I don't live in New Orleans, but that is where my soul is. I love her history, her beauty, her music, her food. I love New Orleans! She can capture the heart and the spirit of the city. Maybe it is a generational thing, but I enjoy it when an author can capture a setting. Not just what it looks like, or smells like, but what it feels like.
The Witching Hour takes place in New Orleans' Garden District (I believe in the Author's r/l house at the time), this is a mysterious place but she allows you to feel that you live there. It is a nice slow burn of discovering secrets about this family, and they got some doozies! It is a great modern ghost story. I absolutely love it!
The Vampire Chronicles became her money crop, the first three books are okay. They are for young people, and she may have invented the glittery vampires, but inside those vampires have problems. The first book is actually pretty disturbing, out of pity for this little girl one of them turns her, thinking that he's doing her a solid, but after that, we have to deal with the ramifications of these actions. Inside she is a woman, a very old and angry soul because she is trapped in this little girls body, never to be taken seriously by anybody. She is one of the greatest monsters in horror. Today it is probably dated, but at the time she was 'a bag over your face and a sucker punch' while reading it.
They made a movie about it, but that movie really sanitized the character. It is quite the emotional rollercoaster, and it is just hidden in this book being told by somebody who you think is just whining and having a pity-party, but he isn't. He's got to live with what he's done, forever. And he loves this creature very deeply.
|
|
