Salt is goddamn malevolent. Destroying the world wouldn't do anything positive, however.
That makes you Neutral Evil at best. I'm looking for CHAOTIC evil.
You're looking for stupid evil, actually.
There is no real difference between Chaotic evil and stupid evil if it's done right.
... No, see, chaotic if done right doesn't resemble stupid at all.
/boggle
Man, I am just not going to deal with you in here anymore. You make my head ache.
Let us not get into this debate boy, because you will lose.
Of the nine alignment types, there are two extremities, Lawful Good, and Chaotic Evil. These two alignments are generally pretty rare, because they require the most prerequesites. Especially Chaotic Evil. A chaotic evil character generally results in as much chaos as possible. Often, this chaos goes unchecked, and if it does so for a very long time, then the Chaotic Evil ultimately meets it's horrible demise by it's own chaos. Chaotic evils should never favor the calculated, well-planned evil plots if they can cause more mayhem through another more haphazard method that is available. The only time a Chaotic Evil doesn't appear stupid, is when by some miracle all the plans manage to work, despite the shit poor planning and lack of forethought.
In the case of dieties or entities in a vacuum of existance, there are also 2 hidden alignments, True Good and True Evil, which branch off of True Neutral.
Being a comic geek, I tend to think of comic examples for these. Sabretooth is my ideal Chaotic Evil character, and he's no idiot.
Sabretooth absolutely exudes Chaotic Evil.
Evil characters are lacking morally. They tend to do things that are just plain wrong, like kicking babies and flipping off kittens.
Chaotic characters are opposed to order. They tend to do things that are either against the law or against ethical standards.
Where the two overlap is where the CE character will be most in his element.
Not everything a chaotic character does has to be the absolutely most chaotic thing possible, nor does everything an evil character does have to be the absolutely most evil thing possible. Saying a chaotic character can never plan anything is like saying a good character can never do anything not good. Once you force all characters to fit to their alignments in the most extreme way possible, you move from roleplaying to improvised play-acting.
laughingfuzzball on
0
Options
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
Salt is goddamn malevolent. Destroying the world wouldn't do anything positive, however.
That makes you Neutral Evil at best. I'm looking for CHAOTIC evil.
You're looking for stupid evil, actually.
There is no real difference between Chaotic evil and stupid evil if it's done right.
... No, see, chaotic if done right doesn't resemble stupid at all.
/boggle
Man, I am just not going to deal with you in here anymore. You make my head ache.
Let us not get into this debate boy, because you will lose.
Of the nine alignment types, there are two extremities, Lawful Good, and Chaotic Evil. These two alignments are generally pretty rare, because they require the most prerequesites. Especially Chaotic Evil. A chaotic evil character generally results in as much chaos as possible. Often, this chaos goes unchecked, and if it does so for a very long time, then the Chaotic Evil ultimately meets it's horrible demise by it's own chaos. Chaotic evils should never favor the calculated, well-planned evil plots if they can cause more mayhem through another more haphazard method that is available. The only time a Chaotic Evil doesn't appear stupid, is when by some miracle all the plans manage to work, despite the shit poor planning and lack of forethought.
In the case of dieties or entities in a vacuum of existance, there are also 2 hidden alignments, True Good and True Evil, which branch off of True Neutral.
Also, *birdseeds* *birdseeds* olol
That whole thing is completely retarded and tells me you really don't understand the D&D alignment system.
It has been my opinion that the entire idea of "alignment" is pretty much one of the stupidest things in RPGs. The idea that your character is confined to a set of ethics is dumb.
That being said, I don't see at all what Casket is saying...
Talonrazor on
0
Options
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
It has been my opinion that the entire idea of "alignment" is pretty much one of the stupidest things in RPGs. The idea that your character is confined to a set of ethics is dumb.
That being said, I don't see at all what Casket is saying...
You're looking at it the wrong way. Your alignment doesn't confine you or define your actions; your actions define your alignment. I don't mind it so much in hack-and-slash games, where it's just another value on a sheet, although it can get in the way for RP.
Casket doesn't seem to understand that Chaotic Good is just as extreme as Lawful good or Chaotic Evil (and True Neutral is just as sever and any other) and Neutral Good can be just as extreme as Lawful Evil or Lawful Good...
There is no alignment that is more 'extreme' or 'severe' than any other. Claiming otherwise is just slapping 'I don't get it' onto your face.
It has been my opinion that the entire idea of "alignment" is pretty much one of the stupidest things in RPGs. The idea that your character is confined to a set of ethics is dumb.
That being said, I don't see at all what Casket is saying...
You were good up until your first statement.
See, the problem with the DnD alignment system is that it has no real place to put certain types of characters.
The alignment system doesn't really have any point to it other than giving a basic summary of how a character behaves. If a character behaves in an exceptional way, then suddenly the alignment is useless unless modified.
Alignment can be constrictive to roleplaying if done wrong, but it's a quick and easy way to set up ethical, moral, and behavioral alignments for classes and spells and somesuch. My main objection is that it's too simplistic, but then plenty of people don't understand it as it stands. It can also be a pain when someone uses aignment as a crutch, playing an alignment more than a fully developed character. It's my opinion that the latter is a result of the former.
It has been my opinion that the entire idea of "alignment" is pretty much one of the stupidest things in RPGs. The idea that your character is confined to a set of ethics is dumb.
That being said, I don't see at all what Casket is saying...
You're looking at it the wrong way. Your alignment doesn't confine you or define your actions; your actions define your alignment. I don't mind it so much in hack-and-slash games, where it's just another value on a sheet, although it can get in the way for RP.
Casket doesn't seem to understand that Chaotic Good is just as extreme as Lawful good or Chaotic Evil (and True Neutral is just as sever and any other) and Neutral Good can be just as extreme as Lawful Evil or Lawful Good...
There is no alignment that is more 'extreme' or 'severe' than any other. Claiming otherwise is just slapping 'I don't get it' onto your face.
Neutral carries no charge. Lawful and Good both carry positive charges and Chaotic and Evil both carry negative charges. And now your going to tell me there are no extremes? There are 2 extremes and 2 alone.
Casket on
0
Options
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
It has been my opinion that the entire idea of "alignment" is pretty much one of the stupidest things in RPGs. The idea that your character is confined to a set of ethics is dumb.
That being said, I don't see at all what Casket is saying...
You're looking at it the wrong way. Your alignment doesn't confine you or define your actions; your actions define your alignment. I don't mind it so much in hack-and-slash games, where it's just another value on a sheet, although it can get in the way for RP.
Casket doesn't seem to understand that Chaotic Good is just as extreme as Lawful good or Chaotic Evil (and True Neutral is just as sever and any other) and Neutral Good can be just as extreme as Lawful Evil or Lawful Good...
There is no alignment that is more 'extreme' or 'severe' than any other. Claiming otherwise is just slapping 'I don't get it' onto your face.
Neutral carries no charge. Lawful and Good both carry positive charges and Chaotic and Evil both carry negative charges. And now your going to tell me there are no extremes? There are 2 extremes and 2 alone.
No. You DON'T UNDERSTAND. LAWFUL is not POSITIVE. CHAOTIC is not NEGATIVE.
You can be so severely LAWFUL that you will kill anything that threatens to bring change. You can be so moderately chaotic evil that you've never bothered to organize your binder and you join in when you see people picking on others.
but, you know, the chaotic evil person who is just a little unorganized and a bit odd at times is far more negative than the Lawful Neutral who murders people for going against his idealized vision of the world.
It has been my opinion that the entire idea of "alignment" is pretty much one of the stupidest things in RPGs. The idea that your character is confined to a set of ethics is dumb.
That being said, I don't see at all what Casket is saying...
You were good up until your first statement.
See, the problem with the DnD alignment system is that it has no real place to put certain types of characters.
The alignment system doesn't really have any point to it other than giving a basic summary of how a character behaves. If a character behaves in an exceptional way, then suddenly the alignment is useless unless modified.
Now I see where you're confused. Alignment isn't meant to dictate absolutely every action a character takes. Alignment indicate tendancies and basic core ideals. This is stated rather explicitly in the PHB. As soon as you make it an absolute definition of everything the character will do, you reduce the number of possible characters to nine.
It can also be a pain when someone uses alignment as a crutch, playing an alignment more than a fully developed character.
From what I've seen, this is what happens almost all the time. Some guy will do an action as dictated by his alignment v. what his character would really do in a situation. To me, alignment is just a lazy way out of developing a full character.
And Casket, what the hell. Salt's point is that the idea of Chaotic character doesn't make him evil. A person can be very chaotic, random and still be good or can be very lawful and legalistic and be very evil.
It has been my opinion that the entire idea of "alignment" is pretty much one of the stupidest things in RPGs. The idea that your character is confined to a set of ethics is dumb.
That being said, I don't see at all what Casket is saying...
You were good up until your first statement.
See, the problem with the DnD alignment system is that it has no real place to put certain types of characters.
The alignment system doesn't really have any point to it other than giving a basic summary of how a character behaves. If a character behaves in an exceptional way, then suddenly the alignment is useless unless modified.
Now I see where you're confused. Alignment isn't meant to dictate absolutely every action a character takes. Alignment indicate tendancies and basic core ideals. This is stated rather explicitly in the PHB. As soon as you make it an absolute definition of everything the character will do, you reduce the number of possible characters to nine.
And Casket, what the hell. Salt's point is that the idea of Chaotic character doesn't make him evil. A person can be very chaotic, random and still be good or can be very lawful and legalistic and be very evil.
I know that, Chaos is independant of evil. You could just be Chaotic Good as hell.
It has been my opinion that the entire idea of "alignment" is pretty much one of the stupidest things in RPGs. The idea that your character is confined to a set of ethics is dumb.
That being said, I don't see at all what Casket is saying...
You were good up until your first statement.
See, the problem with the DnD alignment system is that it has no real place to put certain types of characters.
The alignment system doesn't really have any point to it other than giving a basic summary of how a character behaves. If a character behaves in an exceptional way, then suddenly the alignment is useless unless modified.
Alignment isn't meant to dictate absolutely every action a character takes.
It may not but it is almost always used in that manner. I see what the idea of alignment is but I don't think it ever really serves that purpose. I want less restrictive RPing. Alignment easily serves in that category.
Talonrazor on
0
Options
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
It has been my opinion that the entire idea of "alignment" is pretty much one of the stupidest things in RPGs. The idea that your character is confined to a set of ethics is dumb.
That being said, I don't see at all what Casket is saying...
You were good up until your first statement.
See, the problem with the DnD alignment system is that it has no real place to put certain types of characters.
The alignment system doesn't really have any point to it other than giving a basic summary of how a character behaves. If a character behaves in an exceptional way, then suddenly the alignment is useless unless modified.
Now I see where you're confused. Alignment isn't meant to dictate absolutely every action a character takes. Alignment indicate tendancies and basic core ideals. This is stated rather explicitly in the PHB. As soon as you make it an absolute definition of everything the character will do, you reduce the number of possible characters to nine.
Oh I see, basically its useless.
So, you see, you don't understand how it works.
Because as far as you seem to understand, Chaotic Good = Neutral = Lawful Evil.
It has been my opinion that the entire idea of "alignment" is pretty much one of the stupidest things in RPGs. The idea that your character is confined to a set of ethics is dumb.
That being said, I don't see at all what Casket is saying...
You were good up until your first statement.
See, the problem with the DnD alignment system is that it has no real place to put certain types of characters.
The alignment system doesn't really have any point to it other than giving a basic summary of how a character behaves. If a character behaves in an exceptional way, then suddenly the alignment is useless unless modified.
Alignment isn't meant to dictate absolutely every action a character takes.
It may not but it is almost always used in that manner. I see what the idea of alignment is but I don't think it ever really serves that purpose. I want less restrictive RPing. Alignment easily serves in that category.
Yeah, most people I've met in D&D don't so much RP as wargame with a single character, so alignment makes an easy copout for them. Alignments, when used properly (and I've met some very good players and GMs who do just that) is an easy way to sum up the ways your character will tend to act so as to determine class requirements, Cleric abilities, whether or not you can use certain spells, and rules with certain items. While a few actions outside the tendancies of your chosen alignment don't generally mean much, if a player is playing a character consistantly out of alignment, the declared alignment should be changed to reflect how he's acting and any consequences should be dealt with.
While a few actions outside the tendancies of your chosen alignment don't generally mean much, if a player is playing a character consistantly out of alignment, the declared alignment should be changed to reflect how he's acting and any consequences should be dealt with.
See, that's my problem. If a character keeps acting in a certain way, then it is most likely a way the character needs to develop. Punishing the player isn't very beneficial. Now I can see you point regarding the need for classification a la spells and whatnot. Still, I think it takes a careful GM to keep alignment from becoming a problem. It's really more trouble then it's worth.
I have to agree a bit with not using alignment too much. Thinking about it, I don't even know how I would classify Cerise in the Novo game. She's definitely not Lawful, so somewhere between Neutral and Chaotic. But as for good and evil...she's got the 'heart of gold' thing going on deep down, but due to how her life's run out she may often act Evil and is usually Neutral.
I want to read more about how we continue this world! I agree, the alien races are strange, and it's hard to wrap one's mind around it, but frankly, I'd say we're good for gaming if we wanted to RP it. I'd like to give these mutants a try. All we have to do is say that the given characters we run are the exceptional ones. d20, in this case, would be a real shit system. We RP the leaders of races, and when necessary, the gods we once played? We have enough people to make different rising factions within the races.
I'm more interested in getting the framework for a worldcreation game set at the moment than playing/running one. I think that with a little work ahead of time, we can make it so that there are plenty of 'campaignable' points for people that want to make a setting. Think of them like divergent points. You start at a certain point and say "We accept everything that has happened in the world as true, but we're going our own way now because there's some mofo PCs about!"
That way, folks who lean more towards seeing the world through to its eventual end (When the Orbs of Syzlak shatter, so does the world!) can still play it through and those that want to play in the world and do their own thing (The Orbs of Syzlak have been drained of their destructive power by the PCs. The world will go on!).
And it means we can have wacky Crisis on Infinate Earths craziness, then retcon it all, then unretcon Supergirl for some reason.
robocop is bleeding on
0
Options
UtsanomikoBros before DoesRollin' in the thlayRegistered Userregular
edited October 2006
Man, and I thought this got off-topic with discussing labels for stages of creation.
I still don't think there was anything wrong with the framework of the project, and that the only change the awakening of the minor races did was add potential for secondary characters. As the writer of the God of the night sky, I had all intentions of still adding regular actions and influences from him along with any mortal characters I was playing at the time. There's still plenty of room for Godly intervention on a mortal level (hell, we've only got like 4 locations and maybe a dozen divine artifacts from a couple gods total)
At most, we lost too many contributors, mainly from after the initial posts and during the long wait for the races to be added, which again are too 'different' without being all that interesting. Also the new stage does sound very open-ended and daunting, although I for one am just as eager to help define and shape it; it's smaller, but it's also has more space to freely write within and a potential for detail.
Posts
You're looking for stupid evil, actually.
There is no real difference between Chaotic evil and stupid evil if it's done right.
... No, see, chaotic if done right doesn't resemble stupid at all.
/boggle
Man, I am just not going to deal with you in here anymore. You make my head ache.
Let us not get into this debate boy, because you will lose.
Of the nine alignment types, there are two extremities, Lawful Good, and Chaotic Evil. These two alignments are generally pretty rare, because they require the most prerequesites. Especially Chaotic Evil. A chaotic evil character generally results in as much chaos as possible. Often, this chaos goes unchecked, and if it does so for a very long time, then the Chaotic Evil ultimately meets it's horrible demise by it's own chaos. Chaotic evils should never favor the calculated, well-planned evil plots if they can cause more mayhem through another more haphazard method that is available. The only time a Chaotic Evil doesn't appear stupid, is when by some miracle all the plans manage to work, despite the shit poor planning and lack of forethought.
In the case of dieties or entities in a vacuum of existance, there are also 2 hidden alignments, True Good and True Evil, which branch off of True Neutral.
Also, *birdseeds* *birdseeds* olol
Perhaps not, but he's in the same crowd as a lot of stupid evil characters.
A man who is just spinning around in circles while screaming and holding knives out and slashing people all crazily is Chaotic evil.
Sabretooth absolutely exudes Chaotic Evil.
Evil characters are lacking morally. They tend to do things that are just plain wrong, like kicking babies and flipping off kittens.
Chaotic characters are opposed to order. They tend to do things that are either against the law or against ethical standards.
Where the two overlap is where the CE character will be most in his element.
Not everything a chaotic character does has to be the absolutely most chaotic thing possible, nor does everything an evil character does have to be the absolutely most evil thing possible. Saying a chaotic character can never plan anything is like saying a good character can never do anything not good. Once you force all characters to fit to their alignments in the most extreme way possible, you move from roleplaying to improvised play-acting.
That being said, I don't see at all what Casket is saying...
Casket doesn't seem to understand that Chaotic Good is just as extreme as Lawful good or Chaotic Evil (and True Neutral is just as sever and any other) and Neutral Good can be just as extreme as Lawful Evil or Lawful Good...
There is no alignment that is more 'extreme' or 'severe' than any other. Claiming otherwise is just slapping 'I don't get it' onto your face.
You were good up until your first statement.
See, the problem with the DnD alignment system is that it has no real place to put certain types of characters.
The alignment system doesn't really have any point to it other than giving a basic summary of how a character behaves. If a character behaves in an exceptional way, then suddenly the alignment is useless unless modified.
Neutral carries no charge. Lawful and Good both carry positive charges and Chaotic and Evil both carry negative charges. And now your going to tell me there are no extremes? There are 2 extremes and 2 alone.
No. You DON'T UNDERSTAND. LAWFUL is not POSITIVE. CHAOTIC is not NEGATIVE.
You can be so severely LAWFUL that you will kill anything that threatens to bring change. You can be so moderately chaotic evil that you've never bothered to organize your binder and you join in when you see people picking on others.
but, you know, the chaotic evil person who is just a little unorganized and a bit odd at times is far more negative than the Lawful Neutral who murders people for going against his idealized vision of the world.
Now I see where you're confused. Alignment isn't meant to dictate absolutely every action a character takes. Alignment indicate tendancies and basic core ideals. This is stated rather explicitly in the PHB. As soon as you make it an absolute definition of everything the character will do, you reduce the number of possible characters to nine.
From what I've seen, this is what happens almost all the time. Some guy will do an action as dictated by his alignment v. what his character would really do in a situation. To me, alignment is just a lazy way out of developing a full character.
And Casket, what the hell. Salt's point is that the idea of Chaotic character doesn't make him evil. A person can be very chaotic, random and still be good or can be very lawful and legalistic and be very evil.
Oh I see, basically its useless.
I know that, Chaos is independant of evil. You could just be Chaotic Good as hell.
It may not but it is almost always used in that manner. I see what the idea of alignment is but I don't think it ever really serves that purpose. I want less restrictive RPing. Alignment easily serves in that category.
So, you see, you don't understand how it works.
Because as far as you seem to understand, Chaotic Good = Neutral = Lawful Evil.
Yeah, most people I've met in D&D don't so much RP as wargame with a single character, so alignment makes an easy copout for them. Alignments, when used properly (and I've met some very good players and GMs who do just that) is an easy way to sum up the ways your character will tend to act so as to determine class requirements, Cleric abilities, whether or not you can use certain spells, and rules with certain items. While a few actions outside the tendancies of your chosen alignment don't generally mean much, if a player is playing a character consistantly out of alignment, the declared alignment should be changed to reflect how he's acting and any consequences should be dealt with.
See, that's my problem. If a character keeps acting in a certain way, then it is most likely a way the character needs to develop. Punishing the player isn't very beneficial. Now I can see you point regarding the need for classification a la spells and whatnot. Still, I think it takes a careful GM to keep alignment from becoming a problem. It's really more trouble then it's worth.
I want to read more about how we continue this world! I agree, the alien races are strange, and it's hard to wrap one's mind around it, but frankly, I'd say we're good for gaming if we wanted to RP it. I'd like to give these mutants a try. All we have to do is say that the given characters we run are the exceptional ones. d20, in this case, would be a real shit system. We RP the leaders of races, and when necessary, the gods we once played? We have enough people to make different rising factions within the races.
expansion/criticism of this idea?
Planeswalker
Will of the Council - Starting with you, each player votes for death goblin.
Then I was all like 'Oh, nvrmnd.'
I'm more interested in getting the framework for a worldcreation game set at the moment than playing/running one. I think that with a little work ahead of time, we can make it so that there are plenty of 'campaignable' points for people that want to make a setting. Think of them like divergent points. You start at a certain point and say "We accept everything that has happened in the world as true, but we're going our own way now because there's some mofo PCs about!"
That way, folks who lean more towards seeing the world through to its eventual end (When the Orbs of Syzlak shatter, so does the world!) can still play it through and those that want to play in the world and do their own thing (The Orbs of Syzlak have been drained of their destructive power by the PCs. The world will go on!).
And it means we can have wacky Crisis on Infinate Earths craziness, then retcon it all, then unretcon Supergirl for some reason.
I still don't think there was anything wrong with the framework of the project, and that the only change the awakening of the minor races did was add potential for secondary characters. As the writer of the God of the night sky, I had all intentions of still adding regular actions and influences from him along with any mortal characters I was playing at the time. There's still plenty of room for Godly intervention on a mortal level (hell, we've only got like 4 locations and maybe a dozen divine artifacts from a couple gods total)
At most, we lost too many contributors, mainly from after the initial posts and during the long wait for the races to be added, which again are too 'different' without being all that interesting. Also the new stage does sound very open-ended and daunting, although I for one am just as eager to help define and shape it; it's smaller, but it's also has more space to freely write within and a potential for detail.