|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 29, 2017 19:04:26 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. Really nice post! Your feelings exactly match my own from what I can remember at the time (early 90's). Her ability to make you escape to a distant time and place is remarkable. Her own existential crises really comes through in her early works. This is probably why it relates to young people so well, being so full of existential angst themselves. As she became more religious and dogmatic, her writing became less exploratory and ambiguous. She started to come off as preachy instead of questioning. Also, I'm not sure I'd compare the Twilight/Sookie Stackhouse glittery vamps to Anne Rice's. Rice's monsters had a ton of depth, nuance, and variety that Twilight lacks. Early Rice is great. Maybe it's just her later stuff than many people criticize. I'm not sure I'll go back and reread them again, but I did enjoy them a lot when I read them the first time. |
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Feb 13, 2018 2:24:48 GMT -5
Up until recently I hated alignments & refused to use them - which was easy since the games I played in or ran did not have them (Rolemaster & Cyberspace). That said I enjoyed the Palladium version of alignments tough I rarely played those games. Now that I'm getting into OD&D & OSR games I've started to reevaluate my stance on them; I do prefer the Law-Neutral-Chaos Alignment system - as I am a fan of Moorcock.
I know some people (I think even an OSR or two as well) equate Law with Good & Chaos with Evil; this is something I do not agree with at all. Law = order, how it manifests will define if it is "Good" (Benign order) or "Evil" (Tyrannical order). Chaos = Liberty, how it manifests will define if it is "Good" (Benign Liberty) or "Evil" (Destructive Anarchy). Neutral is a balance between Law (Order) vs. Chaos (Liberty)where neither is sought to the exclusion of the other. A lot of this is subjective depending on the society.
You also can look at Law representing Civilization while Chaos represents Nature , especially that of the untamed wilds. Most ancient cultures saw what was inside the Community as "good" (Benign) & what outside the community limits was "evil" (Hostile), they also saw that which was beneficial for the community was good, that which was hostile to the community was evil or bad - thus the concept of outlawry.
A Lawful PC will strive to obey the laws of the community they are in; as will a Neutral PC, though the Neutral PC my question or even break the laws if they oppressive; but a Chaotic PC, will be willing to break those laws depending on their personal ideology/worldview if: 1) doing so the benefits outweigh the negatives or 2) they simply refuse to comply as they reject all law no matter if it is benign or oppressive in nature.
As such I'll give a player leeway to act as they see fit under the alignment they have chosen; but in doing so they will have to live with the consequences: be it being abandoned by their comrades who cannot deal with the PC's actions or deal with losing their liberty or potentially their life if they cross the wrong person or break the wrong law & get caught afterwards. That said, my players will understand this well before the game even starts. If you are in a civilized community & you get caught stealing, committing murder, arson/destruction of property, kidnapping or espionage/sabotage for a foreign government/tribe you'll likely be arrested, tried & fined, jailed or executed. Outside "civilization" only your comrades or "Lawful" types will be the ones you need to really worry about beyond hostile threats in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Master on Feb 13, 2018 14:06:58 GMT -5
Up until recently I hated alignments & refused to use them - which was easy since the games I played in or ran did not have them (Rolemaster & Cyberspace). That said I enjoyed the Palladium version of alignments tough I rarely played those games. Now that I'm getting into OD&D & OSR games I've started to reevaluate my stance on them; I do prefer the Law-Neutral-Chaos Alignment system - as I am a fan of Moorcock. I know some people (I think even an OSR or two as well) equate Law with Good & Chaos with Evil; this is something I do not agree with at all. Law = order, how it manifests will define if it is "Good" (Benign order) or "Evil" (Tyrannical order). Chaos = Liberty, how it manifests will define if it is "Good" (Benign Liberty) or "Evil" (Destructive Anarchy). Neutral is a balance between Law (Order) vs. Chaos (Liberty)where neither is sought to the exclusion of the other. A lot of this is subjective depending on the society. You also can look at Law representing Civilization while Chaos represents Nature , especially that of the untamed wilds. Most ancient cultures saw what was inside the Community as "good" (Benign) & what outside the community limits was "evil" (Hostile), they also saw that which was beneficial for the community was good, that which was hostile to the community was evil or bad - thus the concept of outlawry. A Lawful PC will strive to obey the laws of the community they are in; as will a Neutral PC, though the Neutral PC my question or even break the laws if they oppressive; but a Chaotic PC, will be willing to break those laws depending on their personal ideology/worldview if: 1) doing so the benefits outweigh the negatives or 2) they simply refuse to comply as they reject all law no matter if it is benign or oppressive in nature. As such I'll give a player leeway to act as they see fit under the alignment they have chosen; but in doing so they will have to live with the consequences: be it being abandoned by their comrades who cannot deal with the PC's actions or deal with losing their liberty or potentially their life if they cross the wrong person or break the wrong law & get caught afterwards. That said, my players will understand this well before the game even starts. If you are in a civilized community & you get caught stealing, committing murder, arson/destruction of property, kidnapping or espionage/sabotage for a foreign government/tribe you'll likely be arrested, tried & fined, jailed or executed. Outside "civilization" only your comrades or "Lawful" types will be the ones you need to really worry about beyond hostile threats in general. Have an Exalt, this is the same way I feel about Alignment, I love them and I run them just like you do. As far an Anne Rice goes I have tried many times, but I find her to be completely unreadable, nothing about her writing does anything for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Feb 13, 2018 14:20:17 GMT -5
Yeah, I could never finish an Anne Rice book & I tried.
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Feb 13, 2018 14:24:14 GMT -5
If we're steering the discussion towards the alignment gimmick, I have to confess that my favorite alignment is Lawful Chaotic.
No, Chaotic Lawful!
No, Lawfully Chaotic!
Followed by Lawful Silly.
|
|
|
|
Alignment
Feb 14, 2018 14:18:27 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Jame Rowe on Feb 14, 2018 14:18:27 GMT -5
I don't use the alignment system if I'm running, but I usually run Traveller or Savage Worlds, which don't have alignment.
I do tend to disallow using Evil type characters, because that's asking for trouble. Not too can be done about Chaotic Neutral characters, which in real life tend to be jerks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 15:06:58 GMT -5
I don't use the alignment system if I'm running [...] The game works just fine without it. Pretty much anything can be excised, altered to the point of non-recognition, or added to ... and the "rules" (we like to call 'em more like guidelines) work just fine! That's why I'll always be a white box referee. I'll play anything, but I referee OD&D. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 15:13:18 GMT -5
People should either read Anderson and Moorcock, or drop alignment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 15:25:51 GMT -5
People should either read Anderson and Moorcock, or drop alignment. I get where you're coming from, Michael. While, as a reader of both authors, I agree with your assessment ... does it really mess things up if a player changes the concept of alignment to suit his or her vision of the game? I've always thought this was a strength of the boxed set, that is, its flexibility. At any rate, I'd love to hear your thoughts if you'd care to share them. |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Feb 14, 2018 20:58:43 GMT -5
This is Admin Pete and these posts got confused and @piper has apologized to hengest for the mixup, so I am editing the posts to put things back where they should be I believe. hengest missing post starts just below this note.Who are you? You still appear to be me! All I said was that I would do alignment this way: -monsters and magic items have magical alignment. -humans and demis participate in alignment and lean one way or the other. Alignment on sheet but DM makes calls about how PCs interact with alignment magic. -Good (selfless, loving, saintly) -Neutral (most people and natural world) -Evil (needlessly selfish, murdering, destructive)
|
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Feb 14, 2018 22:15:56 GMT -5
I’m with you. IMO alignment has always been more for the referee than players. I had Gary say something similar, once upon a GenCon. misquote - now corrected I didn't post this, and my actual post is gone. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 22:18:47 GMT -5
I’m with you. IMO alignment has always been more for the referee than players. I had Gary say something similar, once upon a GenCon. I didn't post this, and my actual post is gone. As noted above, I had a confused moment and hit “edit” instead of “quote.” I didn’t notice until after I hit enter. My sincere apologies! Edit: This post should read, All I said was that I would do alignment this way: -monsters and magic items have magical alignment. -humans and demis participate in alignment and lean one way or the other. Alignment on sheet but DM makes calls about how PCs interact with alignment magic. -Good (selfless, loving, saintly) -Neutral (most people and natural world) -Evil (needlessly selfish, murdering, destructive) I’m with you. IMO alignment has always been more for the referee than players. I had Gary say something similar, once upon a GenCon. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 22:19:50 GMT -5
Have an exalt as way of apology!
|
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Feb 14, 2018 22:20:50 GMT -5
I’m with you. IMO alignment has always been more for the referee than players. I had Gary say something similar, once upon a GenCon. hengest ... I am so sorry! I thought I hit reply and I hit edit, instead. If you can repost your original thought I will leave it be ... I promise! (Embarrassment) edit for clarity by admin Who are you? You still appear to be me! All I said was that I would do alignment this way: -monsters and magic items have magical alignment. -humans and demis participate in alignment and lean one way or the other. Alignment on sheet but DM makes calls about how PCs interact with alignment magic. -Good (selfless, loving, saintly) -Neutral (most people and natural world) -Evil (needlessly selfish, murdering, destructive) |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Feb 14, 2018 22:21:39 GMT -5
Thank you @piper! Sorry about the confusion. Disorienting!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 22:26:30 GMT -5
Talk about, hengest! I was looking at your post and thinking ... “that sounds like something I would say!” Again, my apologies! |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Feb 14, 2018 22:28:56 GMT -5
Are we having problems with our multiple personalities or have you inadvertently revealed your secret identity?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 22:30:02 GMT -5
People should either read Anderson and Moorcock, or drop alignment. I get where you're coming from, Michael. While, as a reader of both authors, I agree with your assessment ... does it really mess things up if a player changes the concept of alignment to suit his or her vision of the game? I've always thought this was a strength of the boxed set, that is, its flexibility. At any rate, I'd love to hear your thoughts if you'd care to share them. Well, see, the problem is a lot of people turn alignment into some sort of checklist, to the point where eventually it becomes dysfunctional. Like "chaotic" types not being able to cooperate, or not obeying laws. The Caliphate army of Anderson's "Operation Chaos" was aligned with Chaos, but it still had ranks and structure and a system of giving and following orders, etc. Neither "pure Law" nor "pure Chaos" can actually exist; they work much better as cosmological tendencies than as computer programs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 22:30:16 GMT -5
Are we having problems with our multiple personalities or have you inadvertently revealed your secret identity? LOL! Surfing while distracted! 😎 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 22:33:31 GMT -5
Well, see, the problem is a lot of people turn alignment into some sort of checklist, to the point where eventually it becomes dysfunctional. Like "chaotic" types not being able to cooperate, or not obeying laws. The Caliphate army of Anderson's "Operation Chaos" was aligned with Chaos, but it still had ranks and structure and a system of giving and following orders, etc. Neither "pure Law" nor "pure Chaos" can actually exist; they work much better as cosmological tendencies than as computer programs. That makes perfect sense. And, as always, well stated! |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Feb 14, 2018 22:37:49 GMT -5
Talk about, hengest! I was looking at your post and thinking ... “that sounds like something I would say!” Again, my apologies! This was a good example of Chaos (not Evil as in my system). |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 14, 2018 22:39:51 GMT -5
Are we having problems with our multiple personalities or have you inadvertently revealed your secret identity? Yes!  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 14, 2018 22:42:02 GMT -5
Talk about, hengest ! I was looking at your post and thinking ... “that sounds like something I would say!” Again, my apologies! This was a good example of Chaos (not Evil as in my system). I went back and did some patching on the relevant posts. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Feb 15, 2018 9:14:39 GMT -5
I don't know how I feel about this. in the "good old Days" CN was very popular, later I kind of forced 80% of the peeps to be good. Lately I have pretty much ignoring this issue and sort of forgot in my last 2 attempts at House Rule and left them out.
One of my fav ways to start a flame war is to point out that I think Batman would be LG, He lives by a strict cod of conduct(L) and does not kill and seeks to protect the peep. (G). A good argument can be made for CG,NG and LN.I think this really points out a lot of the flaws inherent in D&D treatment of the topic.
In the end it all comes back to Rule Number One w/ individual DMs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Feb 15, 2018 9:46:18 GMT -5
I get where you're coming from, Michael. While, as a reader of both authors, I agree with your assessment ... does it really mess things up if a player changes the concept of alignment to suit his or her vision of the game? I've always thought this was a strength of the boxed set, that is, its flexibility. At any rate, I'd love to hear your thoughts if you'd care to share them. Well, see, the problem is a lot of people turn alignment into some sort of checklist, to the point where eventually it becomes dysfunctional. Like "chaotic" types not being able to cooperate, or not obeying laws. The Caliphate army of Anderson's "Operation Chaos" was aligned with Chaos, but it still had ranks and structure and a system of giving and following orders, etc. Neither "pure Law" nor "pure Chaos" can actually exist; they work much better as cosmological tendencies than as computer programs. In The Saga of Recluce series the author L. E. Modesitt Jr. in his discussion of his magic system of Order and Chaos, makes the point that you can die if you have too much order in your body and more than once one of his Order Mages end up unconscious with a Healer (a specific type of order mage) having to try to drain off the excess order. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Feb 15, 2018 9:49:08 GMT -5
I don't know how I feel about this. in the "good old Days" CN was very popular, later I kind of forced 80% of the peeps to be good. Lately I have pretty much ignoring this issue and sort of forgot in my last 2 attempts at House Rule and left them out. One of my fav ways to start a flame war is to point out that I think Batman would be LG, He lives by a strict cod of conduct(L) and does not kill and seeks to protect the peep. (G). A good argument can be made for CG,NG and LN.I think this really points out a lot of the flaws inherent in D&D treatment of the topic. In the end it all comes back to Rule Number One w/ individual DMs. If you think Batman is LG, then what do you think Superman is (as most people make a big distinction between the two) and I mean the comic book Superman not the recent movie Superman. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Feb 15, 2018 9:52:03 GMT -5
I don't know how I feel about this. in the "good old Days" CN was very popular, later I kind of forced 80% of the peeps to be good. Lately I have pretty much ignoring this issue and sort of forgot in my last 2 attempts at House Rule and left them out. One of my fav ways to start a flame war is to point out that I think Batman would be LG, He lives by a strict cod of conduct(L) and does not kill and seeks to protect the peep. (G). A good argument can be made for CG,NG and LN.I think this really points out a lot of the flaws inherent in D&D treatment of the topic. In the end it all comes back to Rule Number One w/ individual DMs. If you think Batman is LG, then what do you think Superman is (as most people make a big distinction between the two) and I mean the comic book Superman not the recent movie Superman. Superman is also LG but with a radically dif perspective. Both fall under the general category, think how dif a LG Fighter, Wiz or Paladin could be just based on class |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Feb 15, 2018 12:12:17 GMT -5
Difference perspective is quite right, Batman is not called the Dark Knight for nothing. I see Batman as concerned with Justice more so than Law or Good, which in my mind makes him Neutral as in the scales must balance. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Feb 15, 2018 12:21:29 GMT -5
Difference perspective is quite right, Batman is not called the Dark Knight for nothing. I see Batman as concerned with Justice more so than Law or Good, which in my mind makes him Neutral as in the scales must balance. Look at this from this perspective, replace Batman with an LG Fighter, what does Batman do differently?He has a code against killing that would not sit well with the fighter. Breaking and entering? The LG fighter even takes the goods of things he slays. IMO LN is a close runner up on Batman, so I def see where your coming from. Also the way I look at d&d and the games I run and play is very harsh and gritty and that colors my perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 15, 2018 13:00:34 GMT -5
I don't know how I feel about this. in the "good old Days" CN was very popular, later I kind of forced 80% of the peeps to be good. Lately I have pretty much ignoring this issue and sort of forgot in my last 2 attempts at House Rule and left them out. One of my fav ways to start a flame war vigorous discussions is to point out that I think Batman would be LG, He lives by a strict code of conduct(L) and does not kill and seeks to protect the peep. (G). A good argument can be made for CG,NG and LN.I think this really points out a lot of the flaws inherent in D&D treatment of the topic. In the end it all comes back to Rule Number One w/ individual DMs. Here, I fixed your post for you! BTW by peep did you mean perp? Also his original creators wrote him as a gritty pulp hero who had no qualms with ending the lives of criminals and in the early days of the comics he killed at least a half dozen times. In one case he killed a mental patient who killed because of what the villain did and not of his own free will, In that case Batman hung him. Also in more recent movies Batman has killed. |
|
