Alignment falwed?

[Kenneth Gauck]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0133_01BE5E00.59ABE100
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I, for one, don't think the alignment system is flawed, nor have I =
detected any arguements in this thread that finds fault with the system. =
The disagreement has, so far, been what is or is not the proper =
alignment of a way of thought.

Personally I have never seen the argument that the alignment system is =
not worth it, though I have heard such a position refered to many times. =
I certainly would not mind hearing it. Although be forwarned: I may =
comment.

Further I welcome all posts to this list, even the ones about topics I =
find tedious. Because someone finds their ideas useful, and that makes =
the list itself useful. =20

Also, I would like to object to the idea that because 3 or 4 of us are =
discussing alignment, others are silenced from, or we are to busy to =
take part in, discussions on other topics. The list has enough bandwith =
to cover a great number of topics.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Dalrymple
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Monday, February 22, 1999 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Neutral Alignment (was I feel a duty)


You know, it has just dawned upon me that this whole neutrality =
discussion is
just another one of those "the alignment system is flawed" threads. We =
are
beating a very dead horse into the ground, alebit with some very good =
points
on our spears :)
=20
I'd like to see some end on this one soon. I am not telling any of you =
what to
do but heck I would rather hear more ideas on how exactly Hermedhie =
got
those nasty scars on her cheeks.
=20
Craig

- ------=_NextPart_000_0133_01BE5E00.59ABE100
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable






I, for one, don't think the alignment system is flawed, nor have I =
detected=20
any arguements in this thread that finds fault with the system.  =
The=20
disagreement has, so far, been what is or is not the proper alignment of =
a way=20
of thought.
 
Personally I have never seen the argument that the alignment system =
is not=20
worth it, though I have heard such a position refered to many =
times.  I=20
certainly would not mind hearing it.  Although be forwarned: I may=20
comment.
 
Further I welcome all posts to this list, even the ones about =
topics I find=20
tedious.  Because someone finds their ideas useful, and that makes =
the list=20
itself useful. 
 
Also, I would like to object to the idea that because 3 or 4 of us =
are=20
discussing alignment, others are silenced from, or we are to busy to =
take part=20
in, discussions on other topics.  The list has enough bandwith to =
cover a=20
great number of topics.
 
Kenneth Gauckc558382@earthlink.net

-----Original =
Message-----From:=20
Craig Dalrymple <craigd@mediaone.net>To:=
birthright@MPGN.COM <birthright@MPGN.COM>Dat=
e:=20
Monday, February 22, 1999 12:36 AMSubject: Re: =
[BIRTHRIGHT] -=20
Neutral Alignment (was I feel a duty)
You know, it has just dawned upon =
me that this=20
whole neutrality discussion is
just another one of those =
"the alignment=20
system is flawed" threads. We are
beating a very dead horse into the =
ground,=20
alebit with some very good points
on our spears :)
 
I'd like to see some end on this =
one soon. I=20
am not telling any of you what to
do but heck I would rather hear =
more ideas on=20
how exactly Hermedhie got
those nasty scars on her =
cheeks.
 
Craig

- ------=_NextPart_000_0133_01BE5E00.59ABE100--

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 2/22/99 1:15:45 AM Central Standard Time,
c558382@earthlink.net writes:

>

No alignment means most players are blood thirsty murders one minute, saints
the next. No fun at all for any serious gamer who is playing an actual person
as opposed to numbers on a peice of paper. Seen it happen, done it myself.
Alignments work.

[Pieter Sleijpen]

JulesMrshn@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/22/99 1:15:45 AM Central Standard Time,
> c558382@earthlink.net writes:
>
> Personally I have never seen the argument that the alignment system
> is not worth it, though I have heard such a position refered to many
> times. I certainly would not mind hearing it. Although be
> forwarned: I may comment.
> >>
>
> No alignment means most players are blood thirsty murders one minute,
> saints the next. No fun at all for any serious gamer who is playing an
> actual person as opposed to numbers on a peice of paper. Seen it
> happen, done it myself. Alignments work.

I totataly agree with this. While alignments are unnessecary for the
more experienced good (as in skill, not alignment :-) ) players do not
need it. It makes rolepalying for inexperienced players somewhat easier.
It also helps the DM define behavior of certain groups, get the feeling
of a nation and so. The only thing that makes the alignment system so
open to discussion, is that everyone has got his own opinion on what
each alignment means. When playing, you just have to make sure that the
players know the DM's idea's on alignment.

Pieter Sleijpen

[DKEvermore@aol.co]

In a message dated 2/22/99 1:25:20 AM Central Standard Time,
JulesMrshn@aol.com writes:

> In a message dated 2/22/99 1:15:45 AM Central Standard Time,
> c558382@earthlink.net writes:
>
> Personally I have never seen the argument that the alignment system is not
> worth it, though I have heard such a position refered to many times. I
> certainly would not mind hearing it. Although be forwarned: I may comment.
> >>
>
> No alignment means most players are blood thirsty murders one minute,
saints
> the next. No fun at all for any serious gamer who is playing an actual
> person
> as opposed to numbers on a peice of paper. Seen it happen, done it myself.
> Alignments work.
>
If you drop Alignments and use Complications/Disads/Flaws, whatever, you still
have a strong and consistant guideline with which to play the character.

I understand that it can be hard even for an experienced and talented
roleplayer to remember everything about a character he plays once a week or
every two weeks. But there _are_ better systems (IMO) than alignment. I
don't make black and white, good vs. evil, law vs. chaos distinctions in my
game. Yet the personality can still be made more consistant, detailed, and
individualized than with Alignments because I do use the
Complications/Disads/Flaws idea.

If a player acts inconsistently with the complication, they get no XP.
Therefore, I have no problems with players being "blood thirsty murderers one
minute, saints the next". Why can't they flip back an forth like that?
Because it would more than likely conflict with a complication (such as code
against killing, code of honor, various senses of duty, etc. etc.).

Note that by your alignment system you can still have the "blood thirsty
murderers one minute, saints the next" problem. Look at the Chaotic Neutral
and Chaotic Evil alignments.

My advice: Drop Alignments and make the player actually write something down
about the character's personality. Then make him roleplay it.

There you have it. My argument on why Alignment is not worth it.

- -DKE

P.S. Know Alignment pretty well stinks, too. It gives "Good" characters a
license to kill "Evil" characters.

[Craig Dalrymple]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01BE5E92.7C4538A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Gauck
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Monday, February 22, 1999 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Alignment falwed?
=20
=20
I, for one, don't think the alignment system is flawed, nor have I =
detected any arguements in this thread that finds fault with the system. =
The disagreement has, so far, been what is or is not the proper =
alignment of a way of thought.
=20
Personally I have never seen the argument that the alignment system =
is not worth it, though I have heard such a position refered to many =
times. I certainly would not mind hearing it. Although be forwarned: I =
may comment.
=20
Further I welcome all posts to this list, even the ones about topics =
I find tedious. Because someone finds their ideas useful, and that =
makes the list itself useful. =20
=20
Also, I would like to object to the idea that because 3 or 4 of us =
are discussing alignment, others are silenced from, or we are to busy to =
take part in, discussions on other topics. The list has enough bandwith =
to cover a great number of topics.
=20
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net
=20
=20
Kenneth,=20
=20
Figured a direct reply was more appropriate. The "alignments =
being flawed" statement referred to something that has been going on for =
years on the various lists for AD&D on the net. Some issue such as "what =
is LN??" comes up legitimately and is discussed thoroughly with people =
making lots of valid points, but no final point being made. In the end =
the inbox, or newsgroup is filled with say 10-20 posts on this topic =
alone each day, most of which quote the previous 10 documents so they =
are LONG reads. Personally, I find this droll after a while. It's nice =
to review what an alignment should be associated with, but it's =
irrelevant to most peoples games as the whole discussion can be put down =
to this:
=20
The alignment system in DND is flawed. The alignments are too =
iconoclastic and do not legitimately cover the spectrum of human (and =
other races) behavior. I cannot say that there is something better out =
there. That depends on the individuals and the game in which they are =
playing. I cannot offer a better system. I don't have the time to design =
one, and for the most part I have
yet to see one that everybody would like.
=20
This leaves me just simply accepting that the system is flawed =
inherently, like much of DND, but still worthy of use for the populace =
of gamers as a whole. Knowing this, I don't like to sift through 20+ =
messages filled with people differing on what kind of pie a LG paladin =
would eat on Thursdays if he knows that on his God is going to ask him =
to eat hamburger three days from yesterday. :)
=20
As for any reference that I may have made that people would talk =
about something else. I also made it clear that I am not telling anyone =
what to do. Discuss it all you wish. If things get too bad for me, I can =
take a vacation from the list, which I do from time to time. Nobody made =
me join! :)=20
=20
I just needed to vent and see if anyone wanted to talk more =
about Cerilia. Despite what you say, there is only so much time in the =
day and every post somebody makes about something that is generic to the =
game is time spent away from posts that discuss what is special about =
BR.
=20
Hope this helps you understand my angle a bit more.
=20
Craig

- ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01BE5E92.7C4538A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable









 

-----Original =
Message-----From:=20
Kenneth Gauck <c558382@earthlink.net>To:=20
birthright@MPGN.COM =
<birthright@MPGN.COM>Dat=
e:=20
Monday, February 22, 1999 1:21 AMSubject: Re: =
[BIRTHRIGHT] -=20
Alignment falwed?
I, for one, don't think the alignment system is flawed, nor =
have I=20
detected any arguements in this thread that finds fault with the=20
system.  The disagreement has, so far, been what is or is not =
the=20
proper alignment of a way of thought.
 
Personally I have never seen the argument that the alignment =
system is=20
not worth it, though I have heard such a position refered to many=20
times.  I certainly would not mind hearing it.  Although =
be=20
forwarned: I may comment.
 
Further I welcome all posts to this list, even the ones about =
topics I=20
find tedious.  Because someone finds their ideas useful, and =
that makes=20
the list itself useful. 
 
Also, I would like to object to the idea that because 3 or 4 of =
us are=20
discussing alignment, others are silenced from, or we are to busy to =
take=20
part in, discussions on other topics.  The list has enough =
bandwith to=20
cover a great number of topics.
 
Kenneth Gauckc558382@earthlink.net

 
Kenneth,
 
Figured a direct reply was =
more=20
appropriate. The "alignments being flawed" statement =
referred=20
to something that has been going on for years on the various =
lists for=20
AD&D on the net. Some issue such as "what is LN??" =
comes=20
up legitimately and is discussed thoroughly with people making =
lots of=20
valid points, but no final point being made. In the end the =
inbox, or=20
newsgroup is filled with say 10-20 posts on this topic alone =
each day,=20
most of which quote the previous 10 documents so they are LONG =
reads.=20
Personally, I find this droll after a while. It's nice to review =
what an=20
alignment should be associated with, but it's irrelevant to most =
peoples=20
games as the whole discussion can be put down to =
this:
 
The alignment system in DND is flawed. The =
alignments=20
are too iconoclastic and do not legitimately cover the spectrum =
of human=20
(and other races) behavior. I cannot say that there is something =
better=20
out there. That depends on the individuals and the game in which =
they=20
are playing. I cannot offer a better system. I don't have the =
time to=20
design one, and for the most part I have
yet to see one that everybody would =
like.
 
This leaves me just simply accepting that =
the system=20
is flawed inherently, like much of DND, but still worthy of use =
for the=20
populace of gamers as a whole. Knowing this, I don't like to =
sift=20
through 20+ messages filled with people differing on what kind =
of pie a=20
LG paladin would eat on Thursdays if he knows that on his God is =
going=20
to ask him to eat hamburger three days from yesterday. =
:)
 
As for any =
reference that I may=20
have made that people would talk about something else. I also =
made it=20
clear that I am not telling anyone what to do. Discuss it all =
you wish.=20
If things get too bad for me, I can take a vacation from the =
list, which=20
I do from time to time. Nobody made me join! :)
 
I just needed to =
vent and see if=20
anyone wanted to talk more about Cerilia. Despite what you say, =
there is=20
only so much time in the day and every post somebody makes about =

something that is generic to the game is time spent away from =
posts that=20
discuss what is special about BR.
 
Hope this helps =
you understand=20
my angle a bit more.
 
Craig

- ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01BE5E92.7C4538A0--

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 2/22/99 1:32:44 PM Central Standard Time,
DKEvermore@aol.com writes:

>

I understand that it can be hard even for an experienced and talented
roleplayer to remember everything about a character he plays once a week or
every two weeks. But there _are_ better systems (IMO) than alignment. I
don't make black and white, good vs. evil, law vs. chaos distinctions in my
game. Yet the personality can still be made more consistant, detailed, and
individualized than with Alignments because I do use the
Complications/Disads/Flaws idea.

If a player acts inconsistently with the complication, they get no XP.
Therefore, I have no problems with players being "blood thirsty murderers one
minute, saints the next". Why can't they flip back an forth like that?
Because it would more than likely conflict with a complication (such as code
against killing, code of honor, various senses of duty, etc. etc.).

Note that by your alignment system you can still have the "blood thirsty
murderers one minute, saints the next" problem. Look at the Chaotic Neutral
and Chaotic Evil alignments.>>

Ha, once agian I hear the call of the anti alignments again. You see, Chaotic
Neutral and Chaotic Evil are not alignments for Heroes. IF a player wanted to
play them I would make them play them. the blood thirsty-saint referance is to
players that make a rational decison to do one and another and continue to try
and be HEROES. The CN character would not be able to make a rational decison,
if he did, he would not be playing by alignment.
They would also not fell bad about turning around and killing a human child.
This would go against the blood thirsty- saint motif. Chaotic Evil people can
not be saints, they can pretend but can not be a Saint.

You are interpreting Alignment as a suggestion, not a guide. If one of my
players wants CN, or CE then they HAVE to be CN and CE, none of this part time
villian. If you want to be a Madman, then you have to play one.

[the Falcon]

> Ha, once agian I hear the call of the anti alignments again. You see, Chaotic
> Neutral and Chaotic Evil are not alignments for Heroes. IF a player wanted to
> play them I would make them play them. the blood thirsty-saint referance is to
> players that make a rational decison to do one and another and continue to try
> and be HEROES. The CN character would not be able to make a rational decison,
> if he did, he would not be playing by alignment.

You'd better not say that in the vicinity of my players. They usually
play CG or CN characters (sometimes N). CN not able to make rational
decisions? Well, yeah that's the joke all around here: "Wait - I'll roll
a dice for that to see if I do it." But that's only a joke. CNs are
perfectly able to make rational decisions. If you want some examples of
CN characters in the AD&D game, check out any mercenary captain. 9 of 10
times it'll be a CN. Some merchants and wizards are CN as well. Take
Orthien Tane for example. Is he insane? I reckon not. What about that
renegade Khinasi necromancer? All different approaches to CN.

> They would also not fell bad about turning around and killing a human child.
> This would go against the blood thirsty- saint motif. Chaotic Evil people can
> not be saints, they can pretend but can not be a Saint.

Any alignment can mean lots of different things and can have lots of
different meanings. Sure, CN can be madmen, but not all CN are like that.
A pure anarchist would surely be CN, but he wouldn't go around killing
people. Likewise, being LG doesn't necessarily mean you're a nice guy or
polite. IMC, the PCs highly frown upon LGs, but that doesn't mean they're
the best of friends with CEs. Every alignment is open to different
interpretations. Like the basic AD&D rules say: alignment is a tool, not
a straight jacket.

> You are interpreting Alignment as a suggestion, not a guide. If one of my
> players wants CN, or CE then they HAVE to be CN and CE, none of this part time
> villian. If you want to be a Madman, then you have to play one.

The CNs IMC are well in character, but they sure aren't madmen. Only in
the eyes of the Lawful are they crazy. But then again, in their eyes
those Lawfuls are just a bunch of fools, so who cares about those anyways?
I don't.

- the Falcon


************************************************** *****************************
* *
* "You got a bullet in your head" -- Z. de la Rocha *
* *
************************************************** *****************************

[Kenneth Gauck]

One of my players puts it nicely: "Alignment is something the player
chooses, its not something he wants to violate."

It seems simple and elegant, and indeed universal. It contains two kinds of
information. On the one hand it measures a character's fondness for order,
loyalty, and legalism. This is a continuum from having a very high regard
to little or no regard. All positions along this line are possible, and
everyone has an strong preference for some place on this line. We could
break this line into any number of incriments, perhaps using a decimal
system, "I am Lawful 2.7", but that would serve us no better. Instead we
have three catagories: High Lawfulness, Moderate Lawfulness and Little to no
Lawfulness, or as we more familiarly regard them, Lawful, Neutral, and
Chaotic.

In a similar vein, there is a continuum which measures a second trait:
regard for or disregard for life. Once again, all positions are possible
from extream love of life (and hence abhorance at harm done to it) all the
way, and with all points in between, to extream disregard of life. Again,
all characters have some strong inclination in this area.

And so we have these two traits, and they seem valuable to the game. Every
position a person (or character) could hold about the desirability of life
or order can be represented on these two lines, and everyone has a position.
But why measure them? Why concern ourselves with it? Because, these two
measures are probably the most important determinants in how and who we will
get along with in society.

Consider:
1) Irregardless of alignment, people regard trouble as a bad thing. People
who by nature regard life highly and follow the social customs will get into
less trouble than those who do not
2) Your alignment acts constantly, every interaction is colored by your
alignment; the way you treat stable boys, what kind of tip you leave, your
romatic relationships, how you deal with your anger, &c, &c, &c. Characters
who spend time with you see this, they come to know how you regard other
people in terms of such things as harm and loyalty.
3) People of similar attitude find each other and collect in groups.
Likewise they shun people of differing views on fundamental matters.

By keeping track of the way a player aligns his character with these two
axis of lawfulness and goodsnes, we can best see how his personality and
philosophy effect his social interactions. The simple device of crossing
these two measures in a cross-tab chart makes perfect sense, since it allows
us to convieniently mate up the axis of law and the axis of good.

Let us also look at this continuum, now in two dimentions. While every
position is occupied, and each could be precisely measured, it is better to
consider only three catagories in each direction. We need to know two
things: 1) are charcters alike enough in alignment to be disposed or
ill-disposed toward one another, and 2) are players staying in character.
Since it is difficult in practice to tell if a person is precicely one
alignment or the next degree over, the breakdown into three broad catagories
is best, after all normal people will vary somewhat from moment to moment,
by mood, and situation, and this system takes no accont of slight variance.
Indeed all we are really concerned with is variance which crosses one of the
axies completly: the lawful character who acts chaotic, for example.

None of this seems in any way to conflict with the systems of disadvantages
(like aggrogance 5pts) that some games used. Indeed Player's Option has
such a system.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net