syringesin:

THIS IS PRECISELY WHY I DON’T USE ALIGNMENT. WAD THE ALIGNMENTS INTO A BALL AND TOSS THAT SHIT IN THE GARBAGE.

from Gamemasternig by Brian Jamison.

Relevant.

literaryfirearms:

corruptionpoints:

For those that have played within the nine alignments, do you find yourself attempting to objectively define Good and Evil in such a manner, or do you stray from the concept all-together?

For those that have created a homebrewed fantasy setting, is there a method you use to objectively define that which is “Good” and “Evil” on a celestial level as well as mortal level?

For my players, have you found a surefire method to fit a character into the concepts of “Lawful Good” and “Chaotic Evil” or simply “Good” and “Evil” perfectly? Do you think it is even possible?

Alignment to me is more of a question about action than it is about motivation. Knowing strong values is different from upholding strong values. Having good intentions is not the same as doing good. Though good can come from evil actions, the person who has the balls to do them is not a good person. Both good actions and good intentions need to line up for me to really consider a character “good” in the classic sense.

A lot of villains can think they’re doing good in their own minds, but if the actions they take end up hurting others, spawning chaos, and fertilizing destruction, they are still evil. It doesn’t matter if their intent was to better the world, because if they’re wounding it in the process, they are not good.

I’ve played a range of alignments, mostly by accident. I play characters first and figure out their alignments later. I would argue Law and Chaos on the scale help to flavor how a character’s tendency towards good or evil interacts with the world. Lawful characters tend to learn and do things by the book; chaotic characters couldn’t be bothered to follow tradition. That’s a really oversimplified statement, but since this is about good and evil, not law and chaos, it’ll do for now.

Good doesn’t have to be nice. Good can be tough love and rough around the edges, but you can count on Good in a crisis. Good can be the jerk who tells you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear, because it’s for your benefit in the long run. Good is self-sacrificing, because if even one person is better off, Good thinks it was worth it. Good will go out of its way to help someone, even if it’s inconvenient for Good or Good is busy. I wouldn’t say Good is concerned for the group so much as Good will prioritize the world outside of the self. Good takes others into consideration; Good takes responsibility; Good expects better of itself; Good pushes others to be the best they can be.

Evil can be nice. Evil can be sweet and loyal, but will backstab you when Evil benefits from it. Evil will then crawl back and legitimately not understand why you’re upset, because you have to understand, it wasn’t Evil’s fault. Evil doesn’t say sorry because Evil doesn’t see a need to. Evil doesn’t get it. Evil doesn’t care what it has to do to get what it wants. Evil is inherently selfish, but it’s more than just that. Evil thinks it knows better; Evil makes excuses; Evil will cross the line; Evil doesn’t take questions.

A view on “Good” and “Evil” that reflects action over motivation. While this is only a piece, I recommend you all read the full text located here, as it is excellent.

Actions are the best definition for intent, representation of character, and concrete moments to color a player character. Through the malleability of tabletop, dependent only upon how long the game is run, a character would be tested many times through their actions.

Within this, the question still begs to be asked, is there such a thing as “Objective Good” or “Objective Evil” in a tabletop setting? Is there a singular action that is always a good one, and one that is always evil? More importantly, is there a motivation that is always good or evil?

Expanding upon that, it may not particularly be a bad thing if we cannot define a specific “Good” or “Evil”. As every game is different, and every player is a different storyteller within the games, the concept that there may not be one answer to this question would only strengthen the game.

But I’ll propose the same question here as I did to Ms. S-P-B, do you think it is possible to define objective good and evil in a fantasy setting? Or are the “Good” and the “Evil” simply how we act out the other side of the nine alignments?

slaaneshi-party-bus:

corruptionpoints:

As usual, I issued a challenge to you all on Tuesday, offering triple points for a topic regarding “Good vs. Evil”. Like clockwork, Rashiko took the charge with the following question.

We will stick with the standard Greyhawk 3.5 campaign setting for clarity. Please explain the difference…

 

Unless I’ve misread and you mean this to be campaign specific, I really don’t feel that good = selfless/communitarian and evil = selfish/individualistic. Lawful and chaotic describe that contrast better. Take a relatively common situation: your party captures a npc who knows something vital. Of course they’re not talking. You can torture or otherwise compell them, and by doing so you’ll be saving the lives of thousands.

But torture is a fairly evil act.

A communitarian approach might suggest, as Jeremy Benthem and the Tau agree, that you ought to do what is for the greater good of the greatest number. And this can be a good action. An individualistic approach might follow Immanual Kant or Luke Skywalker and refuse to condone an action on the basis that particular wrongs can be universal wrongs. This can also be a good action. Ultimately I don’t have an answer to what is a good or bad action, but I’d start by suggesting that actions can be considered good and evil in terms of whether they force a character to go against their alignment.

All of this was a device to open a forum on whether or not the concepts of “Objective Good” and “Objective Evil” can be defined within a Fantasy setting, and so far it is working well!

I don’t think my position is the end-all be-all on the subject. As I stated, there are millions of grey areas on what could be defined as good and evil, restricted to tabletop, as I don’t have the ground or the interest in bringing the conversation to real life.

I think it would be easier to do so in a setting that is established to have certain values over general concepts. If I read Lord of the Rings and am therefore told that Gandalf is good and Sauron/The Ring is evil, I am subject to the ideas and concepts put forth by the book.

However, in a tabletop setting, the players are the defining factors of what is considered a “Good” action or an “Evil” action, where there is less of a specific example on what those actually mean, other than “Kill bad guys, don’t kill good guys.”

With that being said, and if I could ask you directly, do you think it is possible to define objective good and evil in a fantasy setting? Or are the “Good” and the “Evil” simply how we act out the other side of the nine alignments? 

As usual, I issued a challenge to you all on Tuesday, offering triple points for a topic regarding “Good vs. Evil”. Like clockwork, Rashiko took the charge with the following question.

We will stick with the standard Greyhawk 3.5 campaign setting for clarity. Please explain the difference between Good and Evil in a fantasy setting and how this impacts or justifies the battles between celestial and abyssal/infernal beings, not to mention mere mortals. Feel free to draw a distinction between fantasy moral systems and real world moral systems if you find there to be a difference. 

Apparently, he decided to bring the heat on Tuesday.

When I am designing a fantasy setting, or explaining within a fantasy setting, the idea of “Good” and “Evil” are not a cut and dry system of specific values that can be checked off.

I often state that the nine-alignment system is necessary, but restrictive by nature, to fully explore the concepts of morality within a system.

It could easily be argued that there are many systems that don’t rely on alignments, but that would be a digression, as we are talking about Dungeons & Dragons.

If I had to very generally explain the concepts, I would say the following: “Good” would be the morality that values the needs of the collective, the whole, or the group over the needs of the singular, the self, or the one, and “Evil” would be the inverse.

To that end, the Celestial Beings aligned “Good” would inspire their champions to produce the greatest benefit for their world and its inhabitants over themselves individually.

Celestial Beings aligned “Evil” would inspire their champions to find the greatest power they can individually acquire and utilize it to the best of their judgment and ability, while simultaneously securing that power.

Within that idea, a Celestial Good would fight a Celestial Evil for the sake that being rid of the Evil would benefit the world and its inhabitants in a positive manner, where Celestial Evil would fight Celestial Good to better position itself in a court of power. The cycle continues.

Within that idea, concepts themselves are not particularly evil, but only the motivations behind them. I say this to declare fully that a celestial being that controls “Death” is no more evil than one that controls “Life”.

Especially in a fantasy setting, there must be balance of all things within the world, or disaster will strike. Within that, I base my concepts of “Good” and “Evil” very much about maintaining that overall balance.

Although that could be considered more a matter of Chaotic and Lawful, which is an entirely different situation entirely.

There are millions of grey areas within this concept, as it is very hard to objectively define what is “Good” and what is “Evil”. In the sliding scale of morality, and examining all the grey areas inbetween, I write narrative to reflect the above.

Being a “Good” Hero is being a Hero that finds the best solution for the entirety, and being an “Evil” Hero is being a Hero that finds the best solution for their benefit alone.

With that, I’d like to open the concepts to discussion with you all.

For those that have played within the nine alignments, do you find yourself attempting to objectively define Good and Evil in such a manner, or do you stray from the concept all-together?

For those that have created a homebrewed fantasy setting, is there a method you use to objectively define that which is “Good” and “Evil” on a celestial level as well as mortal level?

For my players, have you found a surefire method to fit a character into the concepts of “Lawful Good” and “Chaotic Evil” or simply “Good” and “Evil” perfectly? Do you think it is even possible?

This is a cool idea!

The Exalted revised warstrider rules can be found here for reference.

To even the playing field, I would first give everyone the same Athletics score based on their relevant combat score. A substitution if you will, based on a narrativistic declaration that all Exalts have had “equal training” in warstriders before the event.

This keeps those that have built beefy front-line characters from being completely gimped by their lack of nimbleness, or innately magical characters from being able to move whatsoever, etc.

Other than that, it would really come down to a large and epic fight. If an Exalt had a much higher Essence Rating than another, it would still be an uneven fight, but depending on the qualifier for entering the Battle Royale, that might be a risk known and worth taking.

I will refrain from entering, as the might of my retired Solar Exalt would be TOO GREAT.

(Also, I’m not sure where I put his character sheet after finishing that game.)

However, I will absolutely open this to my Exalted followers to send submissions your way! (I’m looking at you, Path.)

-What’s Your Favorite System, and Why is it 3.5?

-To Subvert and Destroy: The Mindset of a Player.

-TPKs: Great DM Tool, Or Greatest DM Tool?

-I Can’t Believe It’s Not Cantrips: Reviewing Bad Spells in D&D Sourcebooks.

Decisions, decisions…

Tonight’s game: Mutants & Masterminds!

I had a character in a three year long(ish) campaign of Dark Heresy that symbolized loyalty.

His theme from the very beginning was “Here is the one person that will never turn his back on the party. Every single other person can be a traitor to the cause, but not this guy.”

Unanimously, when we ended our very last Dark Heresy session, he was the favored NPC. 

I felt kind of weird talking about this from a subjective standpoint, because it feels too self-congratulatory. So I asked my players your question (in a nutshell) and this is what they had to say.

Mikallen said: His quirks. The set up. His sneaky involvement with the overall story. His seeming invincibility. His moral ambiguity. The fact we knew he just had our backs no matter what. And how he wanted us to be a team.

Whiskeydown said: He had a unique voice and was one of the few NPCs who felt like one of us rather than someone we had to protect/hide behind. 

Finalknight said: Everything (Mikallen) said also he’s Bruce Willis.

So there you go! He was memorable for his loyalty, motivations, strength, and Willis-esque qualities.

OTHER than Dark Heresy?

Ascension.

I joke! It would probably be Rogue Trader, but that is simply because I have yet to play a session of Only War! 

Theoretically, it would be Only War!, as I am in love with the system.

I’ve always been a strange fan of the Loxatl. 

While I don’t think they’re particularly smart enough to lead warbands, I can see them being a mercenary ally to a larger, more evil and ambitiously minded race like the Stryxis, roaming around with an army of vat-warriors. 

Yes. Yes, good.

Although, because my heart lies in Dark Heresy, I’d like to see the Slaugth get a little canon love.