Forums of the Megaverse®

It's difficult to detect and stop meta-gaming, but as a character develops his or her behaviour tends to reveal itself. But I suppose that it mostly depends from the character and the situation; after all, a Diabolic character may or may not kill an unarmed foe, too.

I let them have a bit of evil fun but if they do it too often then I would look at altering their alignments or reiterating that if they continue to act evil, they will become evil.

May to me means that it's iffy. If their is a slight provocation then it can happen
usually to me means that unless there is a good reason, this is what their actions should be
Alignment in my game is the character's core values
If they don't play it, then they don't get my rewards for it.
Gods help them if they are playing a bestowed being or cleric or something like that
Otherwise, I will simply look at it, ask them why, keep tally and if it becomes too much, then I will shift their alignment and inform them of such, to whatever it is they may be playing most accurately

Braska wrote:When dealing with alignments such as Unprincipled, Anarchist or Aberrant what limitations do you give on the parts that say "may" or "usually", ect? It seems that there is a loop hole for playing in character.

You should just play it by ear instead of trying to work out rules that are set in stone. Palladium alignments have virtually no in-game effect anyway, so they're more a convenient OOC label and reference point than a set of in-game restrictions.

what are you talking it about? Alignments can determine everything; who lives, who dies, who's family gets wiped, who gets saved, guilt, penance, friends, enemies, alliances, betrayals. I guess I simply don't understand your statement

Alignments are somewhere in between, I think. They are convenient labels for PCs but they present in game restrictions as well.
As for the "may" and "usually" items from the OP, they are rules of thumb and guidelines but not set in stone. But they are not (intended to be) exploitable.

Very true statement if you don't role play

KillWatch wrote:what are you talking it about? Alignments can determine everything; who lives, who dies, who's family gets wiped, who gets saved, guilt, penance, friends, enemies, alliances, betrayals. I guess I simply don't understand your statement

In game they determine precisely squat apart from whether you show up on Detect Evil and whether a Rune Weapon of a certain alignment will burn when you try and use it.

For the player, they also determine precisely squat. Alignments aren't a set in stone list of rules that your character is physically incapable of ignoring without changing his alignment. And changing your alignment has no real ramifications anyway so it wouldn't matter.

All alignments do is act as a convenient label and a guide. They're a one-word label that gives you a rough idea of what sort of moral outlook a character has. A very rough guide most of the time, since Alignments are little more than common archetypes from superheroics and high fantasy. What personality a character has and what his player wants to do with him determines who lives and who dies. All the alignment does is give the player a reminder of what he had in mind when he made the character.

1) Alignment is more than one word, in fact it is more than one word per 15 point list of what that alignment is
2) everything you say is correct unless you roleplay. Your character has their own ideas and convictions, mixed in with their disposition (and a slew of other stuff in my game) gives a greater detailed picture of who they are either despite or because of their surroundings. I let good aligned characters take assassin. The difference is is that they should use DB extremely sparingly. Hey you got my order wrong versus If there was any other way to keep your evil from spreading and then beating himself up later for not being able to find another way around it. Good or Evil, everything in the alignment the character tries to uphold for it is their core being. If the character doesn't when challenged to uphold it or take the easy way out then they might feel guilty or regret it. I should have saved them, I should have killed them, Why did I abandon my friends, This dirty money has caused so much pain, all these effing rules are giving me a headache-I'm out of here tardos.

I see the alignments as not cages but opportunities for role play. You may act british and talk your way through a lot of situations but that's you. The alignments answer a lot of questions off the bat. As long as you are consistent with most of the points or play through the struggle of some of the harder points, I'm all good with alignment violations. Alignments aren't a hindrance, they are a tool. When your character has soem hard questions to answer, your alignment should be the guiding light. THis last game I played in, it was my alignment that saved the group. My disposition what hot headed and I was talking smack to a god-like being. He was prepared to die. The god threatened his friends, and he couldn't let them pay for his actions.

I think a lot of people don't like alignments because, on some level, they are the player's responsibility to the game. The GM has tons of responsibility; keeping the game going, keeping informations straight, knowing what may or may not happen, what are the consequences if the players do this or that.
The player simply has to play their character faithfully, and alignment is part of that package. Otherwise, we are playing slightly varied versions of ourselves, who expect everything and give nothing. We want a good story, but do we give good story?

And if you don't like the alignments, make some of your own. I have. Evil wasn't evil enough so I created Vile Evil. Aberrant was a diet coke of evil, where their actions could easily be misinterpreted as good, so I moved it to selfish, which makes it a step above anarchist, since they are the anti principled.

Alignment (or nature in this example) is why two people can go through the same events and come out with two different points of view. I must kill people who look like my mother because she beat me and I have all this rage. Or, I must do my best to protect children. Or, we all have our own crap on our plates. You deal with yours and leave me out of it. The More character definitions the better, everything affects the core of alignment in its rotation, speed, direction, etc making for an entirely individual character. I mean can you play a mean suspicious and vengeful principled character? what about a nice friendly hospitable diabolic?

Name might tell us ethnicity
OCC/RCC tells us what we are
History tells us what happened to us
Alignment and Disposition inform WHO we are
What made us become this OCC
How did I handle the things that happened to me
How did I handle growing up vietnamese in the projects of chicago. Why did/didn't you join a gang, what were you forced to do that you didn't want to? how did you get out of doing the things you knew were wrong? How did you rise to gang leader? Why such a high body count? How did you manage never to fire a single shot?

so yes alignment is meaningless, or its a cage, or its an opportunity
One of the big differences between this, and card games, or video games is the interaction and the individual characters. Is it simply looking cool or is there someone behind the stats, the guns, the swords and the mohawk?
You can play the game without getting into character. YOu can play a PC who is very stylish, where you describe all your movements in beautiful detail. It's the same thing as an artist drawing a pretty profile. Sure they look cool but who are they?
anyone can be good when everything is going well. Character is what happens when things don't.
Throwing out alignment seems wasteful and/or lazy. It's a tool that can be used to great execution

However after all of that I will say there are idiots who simply look at alignments and dead pan it with zero inflection or nuance and think that that is role playing. Hey I followed my alignment give me fifty points.
-Yeah you did follow your alignment. I know this because you informed the bar keep that you were scrupulous and that buying his daughter for the night was obviously illegal and you could take no part in it no matter what her PB was

KillWatch wrote:Very true statement if you don't role play

You were talking to me, I suppose?
Please explain why you think so. On the face of it, I couldn't disagree more.

I don't think I could explain it anymore. If you don't get it , then that is where it lies

KillWatch wrote:I don't think I could explain it anymore. If you don't get it , then that is where it lies

You did not explain it at all. Unless your response to Rallan is a response to me; but it doesn't apply to me, since I never claimed alignments are meaningless.

How what I claimed is only true if I don't roleplay is not evident and sounds quite like nonsense to me. If you're not even going to try to explain something you say, better to just not say anything at all.

And I would point out that you can get into character without alignments. It happens all the time in role playing games that don't have alignments.

no sasha no. It was not directed toward you.

I am not saying it is vital, but it doesn't hinder, and if properly handled, actually encourages RPing

sasha wrote:

KillWatch wrote:Very true statement if you don't role play

You were talking to me, I suppose?
Please explain why you think so. On the face of it, I couldn't disagree more.

I think it was KillWatch deciding that the only reason anyone could dislike alignment is because they find them too restrictive. Which is kinda odd, since I've been arguing the exact opposite and calling Palladium's alignment system crap because alignments in Palladium are meaningless and have no significant effects or consequences

Although I could open up a second front by saying that I also think they're crap from an aesthetic perspective. Palladium alignments are just fine for comicbook supers, sword-waving high fantasy characters, or two-fisted larger than life action in general. They're absolutely terrible for anything else though, because they've got no depth and everything about them is written with the goal of describing how archetypal action heroes behave. Unprincipled isn't a description of how a kinda nice guy who ain't exactly a saint would behave, it's a description of Han Solo. Principled isn't a description of everyone who always strives to do the right thing, it's Superman. And Diabolical isn't a description of how any old amoral monster of a person would behave, it's Ming the Merciless. Which is just fine if you're running characters who are walking talking archetypes, but about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike if you're going for something a bit less epic and a bit more nuanced.

I am not even sure what your argument refers to. What effect, other than role playing, does alignment have in other games, other than the woeapons of good/evil, preisthoods etc?
as for their validity

You are in danger of being short sighted when it comes to alignments. A if you look at the alignments outside of a game and actual role playing yes they are cookie cutter, Of curse they are. They are words on a page. It is the situations and individual actions that make the alignment individual, it's the dialog and actions. Then when you mix in the dispositions, they can take on a whole nother spin.

And if you don't like the alignments, make some of your own. I have. Evil wasn't evil enough so I created Vile Evil. Aberrant was a diet coke of evil, where their actions could easily be misinterpreted as good, so I moved it to selfish, which makes it a step above anarchist, since they are the anti principled.

Would you consider posting the Alignments you created? They sound well thought out and interesting.

You'd like to think so wouldn't you, Lucy
I made everything have 15 points to follow
and no I don't think they are perfect, but it is what I got

Enjoy! or,.. whence


Good Alignments;
Principled
1 always keep his word
2 avoids lies
3 never kill or attack an unarmed foe
4 never torture for any reason
5 never harm an innocent
6 Never kill for pleasure
7 Always tries to help others
8 Works within the law whenever possible
9 Never breaks the law unless absolutely necessary
10 Respects authority, law, self discipline and honor, no matter the alignment
11 Works well in groups
12 Never takes ill gotten gains for they are tainted
13 Never betray a friend
14 Believes the system has everyone’s best interest in mind and that the corrupted need to be excised
15 Never takes a bribe, finds it insulting and a sad state of the human condition

Scrupulous
1 Keep his word to any other good person
2 Lie only to people of selfish or evil alignments
3 Never attacks or kills an unarmed foe
4 Never harm an innocent
5 May use muscle to get information from evil or selfish villains
6 Will attempt to bring the villain in alive
7 Always tries to help others
8 Seeks justice and vengeance but not through hate or anger
9 Bend and occasionally break the law when deemed necessary
10 Distrusts authority and the law, but respects it the idea and those who work within it
11 Works with groups but dislikes confining laws and bureaucracy
12 Takes dirty money to fund his war on crime, or to donate to charities
13 Never betray a friend
14 Believes the system has it’s hands tied sometimes
15 Never takes a bribe

Honorable
1 Always keeps his word
2 Never lies
3 Never attack an unarmed foe
4 Torture in the name of justice/vengeance but must be sure
5 Never harm an innocent/Attempts to subdue enemies who are beneath him
6 Kills in righteous vengeance but not anger
7 Always tries to help others
8 Works within the law until it fails justice
9 Breaks the law when deemed necessary or when wrong
10 Respects authority law self discipline and honor
11 Works well in groups
12 Never takes items unless won/earned
13 Never Betray a friend
14 The system is simply the rule of man, justice is eternal
15 Never Takes a Bribe

Neutral Alignments;
Unprincipled
1 Keep his word of honor
2 Lie and cheat if necessary
3 Will not kill an unarmed foe
4 Never harm an innocent
5 Never use torture unless absolutely necessary
6 never kill for pleasure
7 Attempts to bring the villain to justice alive or ruin him
8 Usually helps those in need
9 Rarely attempts to work within the law
10 Dislikes and distrusts authority the law and bureaucracy
11 Works within groups especially if it is beneficial
12 Takes dirty money and items
13 Never betrays a friend
14 Has a high regard for all life and freedom
15 Never takes a bribe

Aberrant
1 Always keeps word of Honor
2 Lie to and cheat those not worthy of his respect
3 May kill an unarmed foe
4 Never kill an innocent
5 Never torture for pleasure
6 Never kill for pleasure
7 May help someone in need
8 Rarely attempts to work within the law
9 Breaks the law without hesitation
10 Has no use for the law or bureaucracy, but respects self discipline and honor and the concept of law and order
11 Work with others to attain his goals
12 Takes dirty money and items
13 Never betrays a friend
14 The system looks good on paper but it doesn’t work
15 Never takes a bribe

Conservative
1 Always keep his word
2 Never lie or cheat
3 Kill only in self defense
4 Kill according to the law
5 Will use torture if permitted by law
6 Never kills for pleasure or vengeance
7 Will help others, as long as it is lawful to do so
8 Never works outside the law. If he does will take full responsibility
for crimes. don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time
9 The law is the only thing we have that makes us civilized
10 Has the utmost respect for authority
11 Works very well in structured and ordered organizations and groups
12 Always turns in dirty money and items
13 May betray a friend who has broken the law, try to convince them to
turn themselves in to make it easier on themselves
14 Values order and a right/wrong view of the world. Law=Justice. Freedom
is important within the confines of law
15 Never takes a bribe


Anarchist/Selfish
1 May keep his word
2 Lie and cheat has no concept or respect for honor or truth
3 Easily kill an unarmed foe
4 Will kill an innocent if it means he can get something out of it
5 Will use torture to get information
6 Never kills for pleasure
7 Will help others if he gains from it, even if it is just attention
8 Rarely works within the law unless it serves his purpose
9 Breaks the law on a whim to achieve is goals
10 Has no respect for authority the law or self discipline
11 Does not work well in a group, does as he pleases
12 takes dirty money without hesitation
13 may betray a friend
14 Values personal freedom above all else, even at the expense or the safety and well being of others
15 Takes bribes without a problem

Evil Alignments;
Miscreant
1 May keep his word
2 Lie and cheat indiscriminately
3 Kill an unarmed foe without qualm
4 Use and/or harm an innocent
5 Will use torture for pleasure
6 Kill for pleasure
7 Feels no compulsion to help others, but may enjoy their pain and torment
8 Has no respect for the law
9 Blatantly break the law for his own pleasure
10 Works with other if he gets what he wants
11 Dislikes and distrusts authority
12 Takes dirty money
13 Betrays a friend if it serves his purpose
14 Has no concern for the well being of others
15 Takes bribes without hesitation

Diabolic
1 Rarely keeps his word
2 Lie and cheat to anyone
3 Most certainly attacks and kills an unarmed foe, even for sport
4 Hurt and kill an innocent without a second thought for pleasure
5 Use torture for pleasure
6 Kill for pleasure
7 Help someone only on a really good day, or to increase their suffering
8 Never attempts to work within the law
9 Blatantly breaks the law and mocks it, unless they are his laws
10 Despises honor, authority and views those who do good as week and mindless
11 Not a team player/constantly vies for power
12 Takes dirty money/items
13 Betrays a friend without hesitation
14 Takes pleasure in the pain and suffering of the innocent and foes
15 No problem taking bribes, but may kill the briber

Vile Evil
1 Always keeps his word, if a bit twisted
2 Never lies or cheats
3 Kill an unarmed foe only if he has bested or if they are not worthy of his respect during combat
4 Hurt and kill anyone who wrongs him in any way-There are no innocents
5 Tortures, causes emotional and mental torment, for pleasure
6 Kill for pleasure, even if it is to cause someone else pain
7 Helps someone if loyal to him, or commands respect. Otherwise will laugh at your pain and consider you so week to have to ask for help
8 Attempts to work within the law when convenient
9 Breaks laws whenever it becomes easier
10 Honorable but feels he should be the authority
11 Teams with whoever can help him achieve his goals
12 No problem with dirty money or items-Obviously they couldn't hold on to it
13 Loyalty is sparing but true
14 Loves causing pain and suffering in anyone
15 Insulted by bribes-should be put to death-If you have it, and he wants it, he takes it. Bribery impinges on his character. Things are bought. The weak are bought.

I've posted this before, awhile ago, but this is basically my take on alignments.

The numbers in parentheses correspond to the numbers on the lists under the alignment descriptions in the books.

It seems a character's alignment could be divided into three general aspects:

1. Aggression ( 3, 4, 5, 6 9 )
How much force is the character willing to use to achieve their goals? This could be a range of complete pacifism, to fighting only in self defense or to protect innocents, all the way to attacking and torturing others just for the sadistic pleasure of it.

2. Integrity ( 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 )
Would the character ever lie to or betray someone, breaking a promise? If so, to whom? Also, would the character steal or keep money or items found from other sources?

3. Lawfulness ( 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 )
Would the character break or exploit the law for any reason? If so, to what extent? Are they vigilantes, believing they are working above the law for greater justice? Or do they actually have law enforcement power? This situation could change in a story. Lawfulness overlaps with the other two aspects of alignment mentioned above.

Since the player is supposed to be in complete control of their character, as the GM all I can do is warn them when they are playing outside of their alignment.
If they do shift alignment, there may be in game consequences like loss of friends, altering their personal reputaion, breaking the law, etc..
Of course the oppisite could occur for characters of evil alignments moving towards good.
Depends on each individual's situation and who they are interacting with at the moment.

Even if you don't play with alignments, these points are worth taking into consideration by the GM to decide how NPCs would react to a character.

Rhomphaia wrote:Quite frankly, to think the Palladium alignment system sucks because it has no rules for violating alignment is a very D&D way of thinking and does not apply to Palladium games.

Just to clarify, I think Palladium's alignment system sucks because it's got a fairly narrow focus (an aid to playing adventure story heroes and villains) and is about as nuanced as a filthy limerick and as deep as spilled beer. The fact that it's almost completely unrelated to the rest of the rules and is almost never tied to the game as a mechanic except when supernatural forces of good/evil are floating about is just the icing on the cake. Because really, the whole thing could be dropped in its entirety and replaced with a page or two of general advice discussing playing in-character and tackling morality in your game and you'd have pretty much the same thing. Only this time around it would be a bunch of out-of-game advice that isn't pretending to be some sort of actual rule.

Also, bonus lulz for the irony of saying that "very D&D ways of thinking" don't apply to games by a company who's financial success was launched by a D&D clone, and whose games all use houseruled D&D mechanics

ok what kind of in game effect would you suggest to make it more "reasonable" In game, alignments are guidelines for playing a PC, anda gain the mroe personality traits and history you give the character the more depth thy have. fug what do you want? a game that gives you your history to? Play cyberpunk. I've stolen a lot of stuff from them. Or hell traveller wherre you can die before game play.

Yes you can say that it is nearly meaniningless and shallow as it stands. Fine
But that is only if you yourself don't put any work into it or hold to it in game. If you don't put alignment and disposition into character context with whatever ideas you may have abou that character then it is on you. It is as important as you make it

to be fair, on that last comment A) I think Kevin said it himself, and B) He didn't say it was a bad thing.

Ultimately, the GM doesn't have much choice but to grin and bare it. There is no punishment in the game rules for alignmentent violations. The GM can change a character's alignment, sure, but that is just a label with no mechanical effects nor any change in the character's behavior. The player is still going to do what the player wants to do. There are almost no GMs who would say, 'No, your character did not do that.' Players would be frustrated and other gamers would be furious when the story got out.

I find that most GMs throw alignments out the proverbial window. The Window Throw policy is not one I endorse, but I understand why some GMs feel it is the right thing for them to do.

how about NPCs?
-I don't know who you are anymore?
-Why would I deal with someone with your reputation?
-Wow, you've changed man
-Your word is as good as a two dollar whore
-You know, back in the day, you were a stand up guy, now you are just another punk with a gun
-Geez I knew you were POed but dude, there were civilians on that bus
-APB, BOLO (your PC)

all in all it, again, is in the role playing and how the character treats others and how they treat him

There are plenty of websites that go into further detail about the alignments; what they would or would not do.

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html is the best I've found. It focuses on the old style D&D, but you can easily see the parallels between the alignments of Palladium and D&D. For example: Aberrant evil = Lawful evil. I would recommend a look.

Each character should be unique and complex so you're going to see a lot of variety. I find it best to define what a character's motivations are, and what they are wiling and unwilling to do to accomplish them. You might have Principled character who absolutely will not kill, or one who kills after giving his enemy a chance to surrender, and prays for their soul afterward.

If a character performs an act, can they justify it in light of their alignment? A character may not kill, but they can "neglect" to save someone who deserves to die. An aberrant evil character that doesn't normally torture for pleasure, but makes an exception for their most hated foe. A good rule of thumb would be allowing one exception to their alignment rules, one of which can exchanged from one of their neighboring alignments.

Of course in my own campaign setting I used this method of portraying characters in a black and gray morality setting, I had most of the alignments between miscreant and unprincipled, and then allowed some leeway between the extremes. Normally Unprincipled characters can act mainly Scrupulous, except that they work with evil characters and try to see the best in them.

Anarchist are "Whatever". They tend to be unfocused, spur-of-the-moment characters. They can be tempted either way. Greedy but not to a fault. Unlikely to commit truly evil acts, but also unlikely to commit good acts.

Likewise Aberrant evil characters share a lot of qualities with Miscreant characters, except they aren't excessively greedy and they keep their word and don't lie, but you could still mistake them for evil incarnate due to their other actions such as enforcing order on the world or making tyrannical laws. In order to play one, each Aberrant character must choose a seemingly good ideal to follow and the various means they use to accomplish it and justify it to themselves. Also they cannot pursue wealth or power or influence for its own sake, they must see these things only as the means to a greater end: even if it's only to safeguard them from the wrong people (in this way, they lie to themselves). They MUST be honest. If an aberrant character lies or outright deceives they become Miscreant. They can of course tell half lies or twist the truth, in fact that is how they prefer it.

Diabolic Evil characters are mainly excluded from gameplay, except for the incarnations of absolute evil (monsters who rape, torture and evil everything they get their hands on), just so there is no confusion. Diabolic characters are usually incapable of long-range planning and tend to be self-destructive. They have no friends or true allies, and can't tell the truth to save their lives. Emperor Prosek wouldn't be Diabolic evil in my campaign world. Only the extreme psychopaths can be Diabolic evil. If they display any kind of restraint, honesty or discipline, they cannot be Diabolic evil.

Miscreant characters are the consummate liars and deceivers as well as the blood-thirsty berserkers and torturers. Miscreant evil characters tend to be greedy to a fault and can only be restrained through the promise of reward or punishment. They can engage in long-term plans, but they tend to fall apart when the character consistently lies, and can't help but snatch at the trinket in front of them. They will betray their fellows and abandon them if they are offered a better deal without second thought. They are unlikely to have many genuine allies, though they can have many pawns and dupes. Miscreant characters are extremely unlikely to be self-sacrificing or to have any higher ideals than what benefits them. If Miscreant characters display genuine loyalty, honesty, or have ideals beyond satisfying their greed they are leaning towards Aberrant alignment.

I think Principled characters are reserved for saints or the innocent in mind; and they don't show up that often in the game. Scrupulous characters will likewise be idealistic because they are sheltered from the world. Unprincipled or Anarchist is what most common people are.

BTW, your "vile evil alignment" is exactly how I view Aberrant evil characters.

Braska wrote:When dealing with alignments such as Unprincipled, Anarchist or Aberrant what limitations do you give on the parts that say "may" or "usually", ect? It seems that there is a loop hole for playing in character.

Alignments are dumb. In this game that is.
The first reason being is that there is no reward for "playing in alignment". Note that this is different than "playing in character" because alignments and characters are two different things.
The second reason is that there is no penalty for diverging from your alignment. The worst thing that can happen is that your GM "imposes" an alignment change, which means nothing.

I mention this first because restricting a player to adhere to his alignment is total crap. With that kind of foolishness going on villains can never reform, heroes can never fall, etc... Making for a game with one less facet. The only real reason to even have them is for magic and detecting auras of strong evil/goodness. If a player consistently plays his character as a good guy then he's gonna have a good aura about him, regardless of what is written on his character sheet.

So as far as alignments go, let players play their characters without also having to play alignments.

Though I will add the following;
OCCs that require a specific alignment-type (ie: only evil, only selfish, only good, etc...) with the additional mention of HtH Assassin.
The reason these OCCs and HtH skill is alignment-restricted is because of constant harsh mental training (or experimentation, etc...). Assassins don't learn how to make kill-shots (and perfect them by level-advancement) by hugging orphans; they learn by shooting people in places that will kill them faster than normal. OCCs run very similar to the HtH skill in this regard.

If a PC is playing an OCC that is otherwise very regimented, and must remain regimented (such as a Samurai), then likely Aberrant and Principled alignments fit best for this OCCs' profile (this is just an example. I don't own Rifts Japan and know nothing of the actual samurai OCC; the samurai simply fits well for the example). If that Samurai is busy doing random acts of violence, back-stabbing more skilled opponents, etc... then impose a class penalty to something; combat being the Samurai's biggest focus, should be the obvious area to take a hit.

Players tend to want to keep their OCC abilities, so if they are in an otherwise "restricted" OCC, then you can use this as a way to "guide" their actions.

Rhomphaia wrote:

KillWatch wrote:how about NPCs?
-I don't know who you are anymore?
-Why would I deal with someone with your reputation?
-Wow, you've changed man
-Your word is as good as a two dollar whore
-You know, back in the day, you were a stand up guy, now you are just another punk with a gun
-Geez I knew you were POed but dude, there were civilians on that bus
-APB, BOLO (your PC)

all in all it, again, is in the role playing and how the character treats others and how they treat him

Exactly, the Palladium system heavily favors in character repercussions for their actions. If they change their moral compass, those that know them will take notice and act appropriately.

Except it's not the system doing that, it's the GM. NPCs don't react to a change in alignment. NPCs can't read your character sheet and see that you've slipped from Scrupulous to Aberrant, or that you've grown to care about other people enough to take a step up from Miscreant to Anarchist. He's not even aware of the concept of "Alignment", because it's an arbitrary set of labels made up by an RPG writer and is meant to be an abstract concept rather than a tangible thing. All they do is react to how they see your character behave around them, and what they're liable to hear "offstage" about you character. And if they start acting differently because of what they know about your character, it's because the GM has chosen to do that as a way of adding a bit of depth and realism to the game, not because he's following rules about how to handle this. After all, those rules don't even exist.

Or in other words it's got very little to do with the alignment rules and rather a lot to do with playing a role. Which is something that alignment systems often aren't much help with. Especially alignment systems which attempt to shoehorn everyone into a handful of cliched categories that are classified based on Morality According To Action Movies, and then do nothing except list a bunch of action movie taboos that you will or won't try to uphold and go into no detail at all about what happens if you deviate from the list.

Dog_O_War wrote:Though I will add the following;
OCCs that require a specific alignment-type (ie: only evil, only selfish, only good, etc...) with the additional mention of HtH Assassin.
The reason these OCCs and HtH skill is alignment-restricted is because of constant harsh mental training (or experimentation, etc...). Assassins don't learn how to make kill-shots (and perfect them by level-advancement) by hugging orphans; they learn by shooting people in places that will kill them faster than normal. OCCs run very similar to the HtH skill in this regard.

Actually I always found that moronic. See all those OCCs where the character is supposed to be some sort of professional soldier or mercenary or other man-at-arms-ish kind of a guy? He's trained to kill people. He spends hours at the firing range or the archery butts learning how to hit a man with deadly weapons at long range. He spends hours getting pummeled by drill sergeants so he can learn how to kick, punch, grapple, and choke the enemy until they stop struggling and he can kill them. He trains in a wide variety of weapons so that he can master the art of sticking them into other people. If he's a particularly fancy class he'll develop psychic powers, learn spells, or study inventions that exist purely so people can kill other people with them. And unless he's a la-di-da stereotypical chivalrous knight (and let's face it, only a handful of OCCs in Palladium's games fit that general category), he's also going to have it drilled into him that an even fight is an idiot's fight and there's no such thing as an unfair advantage. And they can be any alignment they feel like, from good-aligned patriots and square-jawed heroes through to evil-aligned rapacious thugs.

Unless he learns a particular hand to hand combat skill, or chooses a character class which focuses on killing people away from the battlefield. Then all of a sudden there's alignment restrictions. Because shooting an enemy officer from half a mile away while he's shaving outside his command centre isn't an evil act, but dressing yourself up as a servant and shooting him from half a yard away while he's shaving in a hotel suite is. And kneeing a guy in the crotch before choking him to death isn't an evil act, but using your CIA training to knee a guy in the crotch before choking him to death is.

"The first reason being is that there is no reward for "playing in alignment". Note that this is different than "playing in character" because alignments and characters are two different things."
-no, this is stupid. alignment is PART of the character. Now I think they should hand out more for playing in character and perhaps give a range like 50 for being at a a table up to 500+ for good RPing

"The second reason is that there is no penalty for diverging from your alignment. The worst thing that can happen is that your GM "imposes" an alignment change, which means nothing."
The "in game" penalty is no fifty points for you and lack change of NPC attitudes

"I mention this first because restricting a player to adhere to his alignment is total crap. With that kind of foolishness going on villains can never reform, heroes can never fall, etc... Making for a game with one less facet"
-who hurt you? The GM isn't suppose to MAKE you adhere, YOU are. They are simply suppose to keep track of you. And yes everyone slips once in a while, but, AGAIN, it is what we do when we slip that may stop an alignment change.

"Except it's not the system doing that, it's the GM. NPCs don't react to a change in alignment. NPCs can't read your character sheet and see that you've slipped from Scrupulous to Aberrant, or that you've grown to care about other people enough to take a step up from Miscreant to Anarchist. He's not even aware of the concept of "Alignment", because it's an arbitrary set of labels made up by an RPG writer and is meant to be an abstract concept rather than a tangible thing. All they do is react to how they see your character behave around them, and what they're liable to hear "offstage" about you character. And if they start acting differently because of what they know about your character, it's because the GM has chosen to do that as a way of adding a bit of depth and realism to the game, not because he's following rules about how to handle this. After all, those rules don't even exist."
-ok IF they are playing in character, especially if the NPCs have known them for a while, they will notice, even more so if they have a decent MA. The more blunt the alignment violation the more someone is going to notice. And if the PCs don't actually have conversations with the NPCs then they shouldn't have a relationship in the first place. The going without alignment thing is akin to the munchkin who doesn't have any family or friends so no one can get to him.

"Or in other words it's got very little to do with the alignment rules and rather a lot to do with playing a role. Which is something that alignment systems often aren't much help with. Especially alignment systems which attempt to shoehorn everyone into a handful of cliched categories that are classified based on Morality According To Action Movies, and then do nothing except list a bunch of action movie taboos that you will or won't try to uphold and go into no detail at all about what happens if you deviate from the list."
-wow another gem. Ok the "penalties" are going to be those RPing since it is an RP "violation". And let me get this right. It is at the same time too restrictive because it is shoe horning and "slaves" a character to a specific pattern of behavior, AND it is not restrictive enough because there are no in game rules for breakage. How does that picket feel up your rectum?
And if you like, let's just say that the PCs are those people that are dynamic individuals where alignments are tested every day
Most people meander through life without a whole lot asking them whether or not they are going to kill X, Torture Y and what not
The points of alignment are things that get tested regularly in characters
I can see a Principled character getting into a drug induced haze and raping a woman. if this behavior continues he becomes selfish or even evil. If he regrets it and tries to make amends somehow with himself, the universe or with the woman or even tries to off himself, I would say his alignment is still intact.

I agree that alignments should play no part in skill selection. But I love how you are so dismissive of things like chivalry, honor, fairness that's good. So terrorists are completely justified, and there should be no hard feelings since they are simply doing the best they can with what they have at their disposal? Geneva convention is for wuss'? and police officers should normally have miniguns mounted on their patrol units JIC, although that might be cost prohibitive, but a clear message

Rhomphaia wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Braska wrote:When dealing with alignments such as Unprincipled, Anarchist or Aberrant what limitations do you give on the parts that say "may" or "usually", ect? It seems that there is a loop hole for playing in character.

Alignments are dumb. In this game that is.
The first reason being is that there is no reward for "playing in alignment". Note that this is different than "playing in character" because alignments and characters are two different things.
The second reason is that there is no penalty for diverging from your alignment. The worst thing that can happen is that your GM "imposes" an alignment change, which means nothing.

Someone either didn't bother to read the thread,

I just read the important peoples' posts.

Rhomphaia wrote:or are so set in their misguided opinion that nothing will sway them. Every single point here has been brought up and addressed.

Misguided? No. And there was no single mention of forcing players to adhere to their alignments being crap. That being a point that was not brought up and addressed.

Rhomphaia wrote:

I mention this first because restricting a player to adhere to his alignment is total crap. With that kind of foolishness going on villains can never reform, heroes can never fall, etc... Making for a game with one less facet. The only real reason to even have them is for magic and detecting auras of strong evil/goodness. If a player consistently plays his character as a good guy then he's gonna have a good aura about him, regardless of what is written on his character sheet.

Uhhh...this makes zero sense as an argument against alignments in the game. It hardly makes any sense as any sort of argument really.

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Next time just ask for a clarification and someone (perhaps myself) will enlighten you.

Rallan wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Though I will add the following;
OCCs that require a specific alignment-type (ie: only evil, only selfish, only good, etc...) with the additional mention of HtH Assassin.
The reason these OCCs and HtH skill is alignment-restricted is because of constant harsh mental training (or experimentation, etc...). Assassins don't learn how to make kill-shots (and perfect them by level-advancement) by hugging orphans; they learn by shooting people in places that will kill them faster than normal. OCCs run very similar to the HtH skill in this regard.

Actually I always found that moronic. See all those OCCs where the character is supposed to be some sort of professional soldier or mercenary or other man-at-arms-ish kind of a guy? He's trained to kill people. He spends hours at the firing range or the archery butts learning how to hit a man with deadly weapons at long range. He spends hours getting pummeled by drill sergeants so he can learn how to kick, punch, grapple, and choke the enemy until they stop struggling and he can kill them. He trains in a wide variety of weapons so that he can master the art of sticking them into other people. If he's a particularly fancy class he'll develop psychic powers, learn spells, or study inventions that exist purely so people can kill other people with them. And unless he's a la-di-da stereotypical chivalrous knight (and let's face it, only a handful of OCCs in Palladium's games fit that general category), he's also going to have it drilled into him that an even fight is an idiot's fight and there's no such thing as an unfair advantage. And they can be any alignment they feel like, from good-aligned patriots and square-jawed heroes through to evil-aligned rapacious thugs.

I believe it has to do with the disassociation of OCC and hand to hand skill. I don't agree that it is moronic; part of said training (learning to kill people) is the hand-to-hand skill a person ends up with. Clearly with the more deadly hand-to-hands comes with more training, conditioning, etc... Basically I figure that if a person was capable in getting HtH Assassin, it was because they were more naturally gifted, better training, or maybe they just have the lack of emotions required to not shoot children. The reason in the end doesn't matter, what matters is that a professional soldier with HtH Assassin is trained differently than a professional soldier with HtH Basic.
So if that training required a certain type of mental profile (re: alignment), then sure - why not? We do this very same thing in real life.

This being applicable to both the HtH skill and the occupational character class a player has chosen.

The alignment descriptions provide common ground for the player and GM to describe the character's morality and philosophy.
There are XP rewards for roleplaying in alignment. And sometimes there are penelties for changing alignment.
But the player can have the character do whatever they want, as long as they realize and accept the consequences of the action.

The game does not force the charcter to adhere to one alignment. Alignments could change often.
The alignments provide guidelines, an agreement between the player and GM, stating what is expected to maintain a philosophy, reputation, mental stability or even legal status.

So when something happens because of the character's current alignment, knowing the how and why it is that way can prevent arguments and help things make sense.

Play nice people!
If not, threads will get locked and individuals warned!

I think that you get out of the Palladium alignments what you put in. It's primarily, perhaps entirely, a question of play style. Some players like it, some benefit from it, while some do neither (and in my personal experience is has nothing to do with being a newbie or not). I have run Palladium games with and without alignments on character sheets and had no problems doing so. So I really do not think that the Palladium alignment system has any intrinsic worth or intrinsic worthlessness. That said, I personally put very little into Palladium alignments. But I have one player that does while most of the other players hardly bother after incorporating it into their characters' dispositions.

Shang Li wrote:Also quite handy for those rare moments when a player has no clue how his character would respond in a given situation (Specificly when the player and the character have very different moral compasses.)

Or you can just think the situation through.

Shang Li wrote:Another place where I have to say the GM involved lacks the ability to bring his world to life and provide meaningfull consequences to his players. As a real world example, if you went from being a "nice guy, and helpfull to everyone" to being an a$$ to all your friends and threatening people (IRL alignment change) you would very quickly have to find a new batch of friends (don't worry about finding your new enemies - you already know them well)

This is just silly. You don't need Palladium alignments to bring a world to life and provide meaningful consequences to the players who make such a transition.

Shang Li wrote:You and your players must not try very challenging (far removed from their own personality) roles very often, having a guidline of how xyz alignment acts and reacts is quite helpfull when playing a character with a vastly different moral compass than your own.

Like I said, playstyle. For me, my imagination is more than enough to help me play a character. For others, they need a table to help them meet the challenge.

wow kinda condescending there sasha. You could put it that way that you are all that or you could say that you aren't up to the challenge and it is too complicated. Tomato Tomato

I think if you have a good handle on your character then you will be able to figure out what your character would do in any situation. I'm hard pressed to come up with a situation that would be saved by alignment. I look at all 15 points and don't see where if I knew my character well enough that a situation would actually stump me. And in real life, people are full of suprises. Going strictly by alignment removes that elment from the game world. Which seems to run counter to the point that alignments help add life to the game world.

All I meant was what I said previously. It's playstyle. Some people benefit from the alignments. Some do not. Just because I do not benefit from them, does not mean I am incapable of imagination and bringing worlds to life. It just means that I don't need a table to define my characters.

I'll amend though to "need or want".

Sasha for the recoveryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

ahem well it seems the chaos is gone now and I shall now,..... wash,.... someth ing,... in something