Question concerning alignments in BTS-2 book

[mrloucifer]

This might be a case where I've been a GM for so long that I cant see through Player eyes like I used to, so I've asking for your thoughts.

One of my players has created a character with an Aberrant alignment as he thinks its a "better person" alignment than the selfish ones (Anarchist in particular). I'm not seeing this at the case, but again I might be missing something.

Would you kindly read the Anarchist and Aberrant alignments (pages 140-142), and let me know your thoughts?

[everloss]

This might be a case where I've been a GM for so long that I cant see through Player eyes like I used to, so I've asking for your thoughts.

One of my players has created a character with an Aberrant alignment as he thinks its a "better person" alignment than the selfish ones (Anarchist in particular). I'm not seeing this at the case, but again I might be missing something.

Would you kindly read the Anarchist and Aberrant alignments (pages 140-142), and let me know your thoughts?

What do you mean by, "better?"

Aberrant characters have a moral/ethical code that they live by, unlike Anarchist alignments. I've always thought of Aberrant as being not much different from Scrupulous, but willing to take things to a darker level; hence it being considered evil. An aberrant character would certainly see the other evil alignments for what they are; twisted and repugnant, but at the same time see the good alignments as naive and childish. The Punisher from Marvel comics would be aberrant.

Within the alignment system, aberrant is definitely below Unprincipled on the "good" scale. Anarchist though, I would consider arguable.

[Hibik]

I find often characters (or people) aren't necessarily 'aware' of alignment. An unprincipled person might think they're largely good, or could think of themselves as a complete scumbag - neither are necessarily the case, but people are often bad at taking stock of themselves. Likewise, an aberrant character might think they are honorable and just, but just willing to do certain 'necessary' things. They're not (usually anyway) going to think of himself as inherently evil though. I don't think most people think of themselves as such, honestly, but everyone loves to think they're saints.

I open with the above because, to answer your question, I think it depends. I think he has a point in the sense that an Anarchist character is much more erratic and may behave openly in a less socially acceptable manner. They aren't necessarily reliable people, they may be indifferent to collateral damage, ignore rules to suit their ends, and may by most moral standards be a total delinquent. To varying extents, we probably have people in our lives like that, and society either deals with or they pay the price. Conversely, there are people (aberrant) who can follow all the rules, but frankly lack empathy and might see the necessary evil of certain unsavory things, and might like the anarchist bend things to their will. Yet, they function in society just fine, understand team work, etc. They might even believe in some greater good (political, religious, or just a social ideal like equality or something) but take it a bit far. From an in-character standpoint, the alignment no longer matters - I'm going to possibly see one as a rebel and the other as an intense but dedicated professional.

What you could do is see how his character acts and simply adjust accordingly. The alignment is a trend of behavior, not this concrete thing that can never change. The world responds to actions, not a one word descriptor - a principled, anarchist, and aberrant person will all get arrested for committing the same crime. They might feel differently about it, but that doesn't matter. If you feel he's slipping more into anarchist than aberrant or vise versa, get the eraser.

[Sir Neil]

Your player is a man with fine judgment, and a snappy dresser to boot. Anarchist aligned characters are undisciplined scum that will lie, cheat, or betray their "friends." At least you can trust an aberrant character.

[Dlanaan]

The thing about Anarchist is that they are not generally 'evil'. They are more about doing things for their own benefit. An Anarchist character who wants some money might think about strong-arming someone or beating them up, but probably not killing someone. They are all about looking out for number one. They do not really care what others think about them (generally) as long as they are getting what they want.

An Aberrant character is more about the ends justify the means. They have their own code of honor, but that code does not necessarily comport with what most of society would accept. They prefer things ordered, and can in some respects be predictable, but they are not good. Some parts of society may accept what they do, but the law probably does not. If you have seen (or read) the Superman vs. The Elite movie/comic, the goals of the Elite would fit as Aberrant. In short, destroy all evil, as defined by the Elite, because the current justice system does not work.

An Aberrant character may see themselves as a better person, but that is based on the perception that someone who can keep their own code of honor. From a more objective perspective, an Aberrant character is generally much more ruthless than an Anarchist character and is far more willing to do more despicable things, albeit in the name of the Aberrant character's 'code'.

[mrloucifer]

Maybe that's where I'm getting lost.

An anarchist character may be a complete loudmouth, ****** of a human being who does what he wants and is all about self gratification, but's he's not ruthless and he's not a killer.

On the other hand; the calm, cool, likable guy who curbs the violence and uses refined methods until it suits his purposes and kills with impunity... to me this puts him far more into the realm of evil than the Anarchist guy.

[Hibik]

Yet the former is way more likely to end up in jail than the latter, just by the odds that the former will do something thoughtless and reckless. That isn't a guarantee that they -will-, but their nature make it highly likely - they are largely self centered. That doesn't mean that an Anarchist character can't be disciplined, have friends, maintain normal social connections, and avoid jail, of course.

Conversely, in the latter portion you get the 'honorable mafioso' types as well as government-sanctioned black-ops 'patriots' willing to blow up a school bus full of children if he also happens to kill a major target. Ethically more evil? Yeah, probably. But in many aspects they are more reliable, competent, and from a ruthless perspective get results.

In Palladium there's a fair number of books describing teams that have one or two (or more, depending) evil characters. I never see any reason that player groups should be different. If they start acting up, the group will probably handle that. Dramatic circumstances bring very different people together.

[tmikesecrist3]

I think part of the issues, Is there a number of phlisofical anarchist. That have come to light lately. Stefan Molyneux of free domain radio comes to mind. he is an Anar-capoltlist. he is not a evil man. and when you brake down the word anarchist you get ana (greek for without) acorn (rulers or master) so all anarchist means is with out masters or rulers. with out rulers does not mean with out rulers. in fact what that means is that they are advocating and lifting people up. So that they can exersize self ownership personaly resposablaty and self goverment. Ie the behave in a moral and ethical free life and respect the rights of others. With out using threats force or cousern by a goverment... it is a nice dream. but sadly not all of us can exercise self discipline let alone self governance I dont know that we will ever be. the problem we run into is that some of us are, and if we need a goverment for those that are not. The should be governed by those that can govern themselves the problem is that those that can govern them selves have no intrest in governing others... hope that sheads some light on that...

As for aberrant many of or folk heros would likely be aberrant. Washington, Jefferson, John Paul Jones, robon hood, Michael Collens,

hope that sheds some light on things

[Lori]

Good Question.

Probably one of the better ones-this forum has had in some time.

Honor is in higher regard with this particular character and the real question: Whether honor is, or could be considered a virtue that rivals good?

We can design ideas around this concept in specific happenings (such as what is presented in the alignment section), but none will come to a clear understanding beyond their own value system.

I think it would be a better idea to flip the script. Or try and apply the alignment to people without knowing what their alignment is (supposed to be).

Aberrant Alignments remind me of soldiers in the field. Loyal to a certain rule of military law. More loyal to each other than to authority; yet each may be called upon to perform duties, which some may argue are morally in the grey (perhaps even the black), in the name of a cause or ideal. If acts of violence are a means to an end then a soldier better have a system that allows such acts to happen without questioning ones own morality/humanity.

As I said: Good Question.