by chuckdee68

TV Shows Already Used

Just your average everyday story of an immigrant from a far away land that buys into the American Dream, gets married, has kids, and returns to his adopted hometown to find that even though everything is familiar, it's a bit different when you have your family with you.

by ctimmins

johngorno wrote:

It's a shame all this good philosophizing is winding up buried under such a trivial title.

I believe you can edit the title of your own posts. If you'd like.

Just click the little pencil icon directly to the right of the title when you're reading the thread.

by lawingm

That's game, folks. Thanks for sticking it out.

by johngorno

ctimmins wrote:

SteamCraft wrote:

You are treating it as a global character trait.

Within D&D, it is a global character trait but it's more than global - it's universal. Chaos is an actual thing you can detect. Good is an actual thing you can be. A CG deity is not merely prone to act in a certain way, they are chaotic and they are good. You can travel to any country, continent, planet, or plane in a D&D campaign and find the same chaos. The same good.

Honestly, I wasn't even thinking in terms of the official interpretation of alignment as a cosmic universal: I regard alignment as a rudimentary, genre-suited psychological type. Benevolent vs. malicious (in general), joiner vs loner. The second axis adds nuance to the first, thus (in my thinking) a cannibal who loves their tribe but kills and eats outsiders would get labeled Lawful Evil, maybe even Lawful Neutral. Of course that's subjective and contextual, but in my thinking, it doesn't need to be anything else.

To carry on the point, D&D alignment labels would be silly in an "Expanse" RPG -- but James Holden is still Lawful Good! Psychologists would assign him a Myer-Briggs Personality type and rate his "Big Five(?)" personality traits, but that's just another way of saying the same thing. He's a man of his word who always tries to the do the right thing. Much of the drama arises from his struggle to retain his principles in an unprincipled world -- if there weren't some inertia to his personality, some constancy (and a desire to be constant), there would be no internal conflict, no drama. And if he violates those principles, it's a big deal, psychologically, dramatically. If he abandons them ("changes his alignment"), it's an even bigger deal -- but only if he had some principles to violate!

As for the globalness of personality traits, even aside from people who've made a conscious determination to adhere to some set of principles, people have habits of behavior. Lying, stealing, murdering are prone to being habitual (and skills that have to be honed with practice). I don't know if I believe in integrity (originally, the notion of the harmonious integration of a person's traits), but many people do, and that very belief constrains their behavior. Almost all cultures have a cosmic moral framework of some sort, with their own notion of right and wrong, which they regard as a seamless whole and attempt to imbue in their children.

Now, you can say it's a stretch to map alignment onto more detailed personality traits. Basic things aren't that much of a stretch: it stands to reason that a loner dislikes teams and (all other things being equal) is likely to chafe in them, avoid them, and, lacking interest and experience, have a disadvantage at group skills like leadership and group tactics. Conversely, a joiner might be at a loss outside a group context and lack adaptability. I'd say that, as duty is a group concept, joiners are prone to be more dutiful.

Bigger stretches: joiners might have more self-discipline, fortitude, and drive -- they might need it more in a team. Loners might have more creativity and adaptability -- they might lack follow-through for things that fail to catch their interest, but have an obsession for things that do! Even bigger stretches: joiners are tidy, loners know where everything is in their mess?
As for who makes their bed every day, I think that's too much to ask from a single digit of characterization... but it's probably the lawful characters.

And neutrals are just mush.

by Boscos

If only LG and LE characters can get 100% experience than your games will primarily consist of the only thing LG and LE can agree on, killing, or otherwise punishing, people who are doing "the wrong thing" (either to protect innocents and uphold order (LG) or to impose tyrannical control and uphold order (LE)). Think of how Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker worked together for years, until they didn't....

If you're all fine with that, have fun.

by Hameser

DaCubsFan wrote:

Here are my discounted remaining games for exchange on Saturday.
$35 Mice and Mystics

Would do 30 for this.

by Hameser

Yeah it was listed in comments. Guess I didn’t tag it correctly.

by aramis

enduran wrote:

I don't understand about warnings regarding alignment. I guess in the case of alignment-limited classes there's the threat of lost power (not to balance out power gained from the alignment violations, generally, just out of some sense of realism). Again, though, that's still mostly just paladins: I've never heard of anyone telling a barbarian or bard that they were acting too lawful, or that a druid was not neutral enough, or even that a monk was being too chaotic.

There are alignment based effects, like spells and weapons, but I've never seen those come up as either a stick or a carrot.

But, generally, why would someone care if their alignment were changed to match their behavior? And how is that tracked and decided anyway?

You've never played D&D with me DMing. I have called people on their alignment. Including in AL play.

I had a player playing CE, instead of the allowed LE on his sheet. And note: CE means, in practical terms, self before others without fail, help others only for own benefit, and laws and promises made are ignored, while promises received are used as levers. I pointed out I'd have to bounce the character if he continued playing CE instead of one of the 7 allowed. He opted to go to CN... and stopped asking, "What's in it for me?" when asked to do things by others, did so provided the risks were small.

And yes, CE as defined isn't of need the extremes that many take it to.

by dragontrainer

Banned for mouthering off to your mother.

by bulldog93

Gulp!

by drathbun

Hameser wrote:

Take 30 for Mice and Mystics?

Hey there, you probably meant to comment on a specific item, rather than the list in general. There are a couple of listings for Mice and Mystics. :)

by johngorno

SteamCraft wrote:

Since this seems more aimed at your gaming table, rather than game design, here are some things you need to consider. If XP is awarded based on these archetypes, would anyone pick something that does not give the maximum amount of XP? Will you end up fighting with your players over how much XP is awarded? If everyone has the same personality traits to maximize XP, and they play it accordingly, is that going to enhance the game or worsen it because now everyone is the same? Does this change make the game play better in some way? How does this system make the game more fun?

However, my notion would serve to diversify characters -- as it is, nobody but a Paladin chooses "Lawful Stupid" because of the burdens it imposes (which I see as exaggerated, anyway). This idea merely balances out that incentive to lazy homogeneity, just as points from Disadvantages in GURPS can be spent on desirable traits.

It's a shame all this good philosophizing is winding up buried under such a trivial title.