Alignment

You are currently browsing articles tagged Alignment.

What alignment is your GM?

Welcome back!

I had an interesting conversation with my GM last week. We somehow got onto the topic of how evil he was as a gamemaster. Honestly I don’t see him as evil, but I ran with it for the sake of ignoring some other things I really didn’t want to work on. :)

yinyangBetween the alignments of Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil, we decided that he was a Neutral Evil GM with some Chaotic tendencies.

A Lawful Evil GM is a rules lawyer and typically more interested in enforcing the letter of the law as spelled out in whatever game he is entranced with at the time. Mike definitely doesn’t fall into this category. I don’t think I even fell into this category when I was GMing either – I’m far more likely to either make a ruling and go with it on the spot or stop the game to get into a philosophical debate about why it was phrased the way it was. (Occupational hazard when you’re the one who wrote the game.)

A Neutral Evil GM is more interested in game balance than the rules persay. Mike tries to be very balanced and err on the side of roleplaying and story more than focusing on either making sure the PCs get their butts handed to them regularly. I’d like to think I fall into this category myself, but I know better.

And then there’s the Chaotic Evil GM. These are the guys who sometimes roll dice for no reason but to increase his players’ blood pressure. (Mike’s been guilty of doing this from time to time.) These are the GMs who decide one session they want to really teach the PCs a lesson and beat up on them and then in the next session be really nice to make up for it… And then there’s my type of chaos, where I end up GMing a sandbox game and watching the fireworks.

Each of these types of GMs should be observed in their natural habitat and not removed through the use of force, or that might backfire.

Why Evil you might ask? Honestly good and evil are in the eyes of the players most of the time, not in the eyes of the GM. So the night that your GM springs an encounter with an invisible flying creature in a cave and nearly kills all the PCs (one actually did die in that case and was raised later), he might be evil. The night he just happens to leave a magical crystal sword in a pile of loot just so your character can use it, he might be good.

Just don’t anger your GM without good reason. Then you’ll see True Evil raise its ugly head. ;)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

So from the first three parts of this series (part 1, part 2, part 3), you hopefully have seen some of the thought that went into our slightly different take on alignment for Moebius Adventures. Again, this is totally portable and could be used with any system I think.

RPGBlogCarnivalLogocopyBut does it work? The jury’s still out. Ultimately, this may not be a usable alignment system. But it provides some interesting flexibility that the traditional good/evil scheme may not. If nothing else, perhaps it offers some methods for fleshing out characters in addition to a traditional good/evil alignment.

I think that new players should focus on the basic alignment grid of Good, Neutral, and Evil. But more advanced players may want a bit more play in how they approach decisions for their characters in a given world.

When conflicts arise between different levels of morality, it definitely gets interesting.

Let’s say that someone is trapped in a burning building and your character has enough time to safely extract the individual from harm. A character with a light moral alignment (+6 to +10) would save the individual, since Man is more important than Nature (in order of moral codes). A character with a gray moral alignment (-5 to +5) may or may not aid the trapped person. Is the person a friend? Would there be a possibility of a reward? These things may tip the scale one way or another. A character with a dark moral alignment (-6 to -10) might have started the fire or help the fire burn other nearby buildings. Maybe they consider cities dirty, unnatural structures and seek to, like Nature, clear the area for new growth.

Considering these qualities of Morality and Virtue provide some interesting insights into how our characters deal with the world around them and the people in it.

Hopefully I haven’t put anyone to sleep with this series. I think it’s philosophically interesting to approach roleplaying from more abstract ways than the old “good vs. evil” scheme.

Thanks for your time!
–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As I said in Part 1, this series deals with Morality and Virtue as we define them for the Moebius Adventures games. But as with many things, I think it goes beyond the system of rules and provides more food for thought when looking at alignment.

yinyangSo let’s talk a bit about Morality. Every time I hear that word, I think of the Animaniacs and their “Wheel of Morality” – “Wheel of morality, turn, turn turn… Tell me the lessons that we should learn…” Yes, I am warped.

Anyway… Morality… As I said last time, Morality indicates roughly how a character views right and wrong. And morals are principles or standards relating to a system governing right and wrong behavior in the universe. Codes of morality provide frameworks that benefit an individual or group if used properly.

In terms of the rules for Moral Alignments, “Moral” is 10 to 6, “Gray” is the 5 to -5 range, and -6 to -10 is “Immoral.”

An individual’s morality may differ from that of society, and both may differ from the morality of higher beings.

There’s also a difference between the morality of a character and the player or GM as a person. As a player, you concentrate on what your character understands as right and wrong. For example, let’s take a character in the thieves’ guild. In the real world, the player would (probably) never steal from another person. However, the character has his own reasons for stealing and therefore a different morality from the player.

We found that there are some general, high-level categories of moral codes – Nature, Animals, Man, Society, Thought, and Time. The sum of these define the overall morality of the universe.

Nature’s moral code defines how the elements (fire, wind, earth, water), plant life, and geological events work in the universe. Nature’s moral code is structured to ensure its own continuity. It often does this by cycling through periods of creation and destruction – lightning starts a fire, burns dense forests, and thus provides room for new growth; floods redistribute rich new soil for growth higher along the flood plain.

RPGBlogCarnivalLogocopySurvival of the fittest” is a basically the moral code for Animals. Only the strongest and most able animals are able to perpetuate the species. Often, this moral code is in conflict with Nature. However, animals are more able to survive the effects of Nature because they can adapt.

Mankind’s moral code represents all individuals and genders and their struggle to survive in the world of Nature and Animals. At a basic level, the Human moral code is “might makes right.” To survive, one must live within Nature and control a portion of the Animal kingdom (through the domestication of animals) to improve their quality of life.

Society’s moral code represents groups of individuals brought together to ensure protection of all those in the group. Society requires the participation of its members to succeed. Where conflicts arise between the moral codes of Man and Society, Society should win more often than not. People typically recognize that they have better lives within properly functioning societies than without.

The moral code of Thought includes those individuals capable of reasoning what’s best for Society, Man, Animals, and Nature. The responsibility of Thought is to manage all the lower moral codes to they might all peacefully coexist. Intellectuals recognize that they must minimize conflict between moral codes to obtain a better life for all.

And Time has the highest moral code of all. Like Nature, Time continues marching on.

So what happens when there are conflicts between moral codes?

Let’s go back to the fire example with Nature. Fire cleanses the forest for a new cycle of life. But this may seem cruel to Man or Society to kill life. Nature knows it’s necessary to sacrifice some of the forest so the rest can thrive. Without it, life cannot exist.

However, when a fire threatens a city and its inhabitants, a conflict arises between moral codes. Which moral code should prevail? A character with a “Gray” level of morality at 1 would probably try to stop the fire to protect themselves and their family, thinking more of themselves than Society. Characters with a higher moral alignment, around a 4, would also try to save the city, but because their goal was to save everyone within it, not just themselves.

Examples of Moral Alignment:

  • Time = +10
  • Thought = +6
  • Society = +2
  • Man = -1
  • Animals = -6
  • Nature = -10

When a course of events favors two or more moral codes, no conflict arises. When events don’t favor all participants, conflicts arise. Following the morality of the universe, the right thing to do is to favor the higher moral code.

When two different moral codes conflict, you must weigh them. It is morally just to place Time over Thought, Thought over Society, Society over Man, Man over Animals, and Animals over Nature. A character with a moral alignment of -3 might side more with Animals and Nature than Society and Man. This might make him believe it’s morally right to kill poachers in the forest because they are upsetting the moral code when they kill healthy animals instead of the old or sick ones.

Obviously there’s more to discuss for Morality, but we’ll leave it there for now.

Next time we’ll discuss Virtue.

–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For this month’s Blog Carnival, I thought I’d throw some different ideas out there about an alternative to the simple alignment grid…

Though I understand the attraction of a simple alignment scheme for some games, I’ve always been fascinated by the gray area. Rarely will you find anyone who has a perfect moral compass. As Citizen G’Kar said once in an episode of Babylon 5 – “The universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements. Energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest.”

yinyangIt’s that “enlightened self-interest” that motivates even the most well-intentioned individual.

What is alignment? A character’s alignment generally describes how the character perceives moral choices in their world. Are they really good? Really evil? Or somewhere in-between?

Though extremes may be interesting experiments in roleplaying, I find that most player characters tend to fall in the Chaotic or Neutral camps, using their judgment to decide whether to do good or evil or obey the laws. It’s that gray area between good and evil that most of us reside in – using the context of the decision to help us make those crucial decisions.

It’s in the spirit of the “gray” that for the Moebius Adventures system we created an alternative to the traditional good, neutral, and evil alignments – Morality and Virtue – to measure character behavior a bit differently.

Morality indicates how a character views right and wrong. Virtue reflects a character’s attitude to pain – do they ease pain or cause it? Together the two scales help define how a character can gauge decisions.

RPGBlogCarnivalLogocopyWhat are morals? Morals are principles or standards relating to a system governing right and wrong behavior in the universe. Codes of morality provide frameworks that benefit an individual or group if used properly.

What is Virtue? Virtue represents the mortal drive to ease or cause pain and suffering in themselves and others. Someone’s virtue isn’t determined by how they perceive the pain they inflict or receive, but in how they deal with that pain.

So by now you’re wondering how the heck any of this could be playable… And I agree, it gets a bit philosophically deep. But as with alignments, we’re talking about rough guidelines for PC behavior. Evil may be just another way of saying that an individual is immoral and likes causing pain.

But what happens when a character (PC or NPC) strongly believes in their morality, is ok with a certain amount of pain caused to others, and yet is opposed to the social or natural order of the world? Does that make them evil? Or does it make them good? It all depends on the context of a particular decision, doesn’t it? The player or GM has to weigh the decision of the character based on the circumstances around them – just like in life.

It makes things a bit more interesting anyway.

The next couple of posts will go into more detail about how we use Morality and Virtue in-game and then how to work through some different situations.

Until next time,

–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,