Quote from: Spinachcat;1132997LOL!!! A whole chunk of my post vanished! D'oh! Sorry I didn't catch that.

Here's what I actually meant.

Geeky, another reason I use Law vs. Chaos instead of Good vs. Evil is that players for whatever reason feel the Good vs. Evil dynamic DEMANDS inter-party combat. It's Team Good vs. Team Evil and the only interaction with the opposite team involves rolling for initiative. And I totally get that!

I've done the "Good guys must work with the Bad guys because Bigger Evil" one-shot scenario, but that makes little sense for week after week in a campaign.  

Law vs. Chaos doesn't seem to trigger than same PvP reaction in players.

As I'm a big fan of alignment (its an easy shorthand), I encourage players to roleplay their choice at the table, and in general, a mixed table of L/N/C alignments creates interesting interactions and tensions without auto PvP. But of course, that's not what I want in every campaign. I'm happy for my Good vs. Evil campaigns to be a unified table of stalwart heroes.

This can also give the "enemy of my enemy shares my alignment" bit where, for example, the Age of Sigmar Stormcast Eternals are the paragons of Order. They fight Chaos...along with other Order-aligned forces like the murder-cult wytch aelves and the soul-stealing fish aelves.

Quote from: Shasarak;1132916I would guess that the reason is probably because he did not want Gamma World to be as successful as DnD.

I envy your knack for tossing grenades into discussions!

Do you believe Alignment has been pivotal to D&D's success? If so, please explain.

Personally, I don't know. Do you feel Alignment has helped the success of Warhammer and Palladium's games?

I enjoy alignment as the shorthand for a PC's core values, but I've enjoyed plenty of RPGs without alignment.

Quote from: Shasarak;1132917Just so that I can get this argument straight, Alignment is useless subjective fluff that does not affect game play in any way and at the same time is a straight jacket that gets in the way.

All depends on the GM.

As a GM, I expect Paladins to be Lawful Good paragons 24/7/365 because YOU - not me, not anybody else, just you - choose to play a Paladin. If I'm running a game with Paladins, they get social advantages beyond other PCs because hot damn, everybody knows you can trust that Paladin. The rest of the adventurers may talk about being good guys, but the Paladin literally glows with divine grace. In exchange for those social bonuses, you must adhere to LG - ESPECIALLY when it sucks to adhere to LG.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132988In game you'd need to become a tally machine, to keep track of how many times you acted Chaotic and Orderly to maintain the perfect balance. Does that model any sort of real person?

There was an edition of Elric/Stormbringer that had you track your status of Law vs. Chaos. I don't think it added anything to the game. In a Moorcock RPG setting, most people are Unaligned and only those who pledge themselves to certain gods then take on the alignment of their chosen gods.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1132997LOL!!! A whole chunk of my post vanished! D'oh! Sorry I didn't catch that.

Here's what I actually meant.

Geeky, another reason I use Law vs. Chaos instead of Good vs. Evil is that players for whatever reason feel the Good vs. Evil dynamic DEMANDS inter-party combat. It's Team Good vs. Team Evil and the only interaction with the opposite team involves rolling for initiative. And I totally get that!

I've done the "Good guys must work with the Bad guys because Bigger Evil" one-shot scenario, but that makes little sense for week after week in a campaign.  

Law vs. Chaos doesn't seem to trigger than same PvP reaction in players.

As I'm a big fan of alignment (its an easy shorthand), I encourage players to roleplay their choice at the table, and in general, a mixed table of L/N/C alignments creates interesting interactions and tensions without auto PvP. But of course, that's not what I want in every campaign. I'm happy for my Good vs. Evil campaigns to be a unified table of stalwart heroes.

If I may insert an anecdote from my current campaign.  My group of (Good) players rescued a young Red Dragon that was going to be sacrificed and then decided to "adopt" him, even while knowing that he is an Evil creature.  On the other hand another NPC asked them to capture some people that he could use as Slaves and that was an instant initiative roll.

In other words, it can depend on how annoying the Evil people are.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1132982You don't appear to understand that the "neutral" in neutral evil is only in regards to taking a lawful vs. chaotic approach to doing evil. It has nothing to do with being neutral or passive towards others. I now believe that much of your crusade against alignment stems from a lack of comprehension.

Except that you have yet to make the case for "neutrality" in the "Law/Chaos" axis of alignment. All you have really said is "but neutrality!", "but you forget about neutral", "I believe Nazis are neutral evil", etc. Reason given to justify this: 0.

It is simply "but neutral in the Law/Chaos axis exists, therefore if we can't figure out if a group of overt, totalitarian rampaging lunatics is Lawful or Chaotic, then they must obviously be Neutral". When neutrality is supposed to imply moderation, and there was nothing moderate about the Nazis or any form of totalitarianism.

Neutral Evil is supposed be the covert, subtle "work behind the scenes, stab you in the back when no one's watching then go back to my business like nothing happened" kind of "evil". Not the overt, rampaging lunatic, "my way or the highway, and everyone we don't like is getting thrown in a gas chamber--and we're making a huge spectacle of it, going through everyone's house and forcing everyone to report back to us" kind of evil. That shit is not "neutral" evil.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132989Correct in one respect, it is "Team A vs Team B". Now, innocent civilians (those not engaged in the conflict) are civilians, but, are they really neutral? If Team B comes to town do they give them shelter and food? If Team B is known to be in the forests nearby do they go invite them to town or do they call someone from Team A?

In order for it to work as it should (Team A vs Team B) you can't have really neutral parties, unless you posit (like my old DM) a truly powerful Dragon that took a territory and by virtue of it's power the conflict stays outside of his lands, and you could even ask to be let in if you renounced to the fight. Of course if you then reverted you wouldn't last long and your punishment would be exemplar. In his Kingdom you could find almost all the races (the more intelligent ones) living in tolerance of each other.

But his neutrality only worked because his power was such no one short of a God would dare challenge him, and as long as he really stayed outside of the conflict helping no one the sides were happy to let him be.

Neutral is (usually) not highly motivated to get involved for alignment reasons.  As in, I'm mostly neutral about alignment discussions when they verge into real world religion, ethics, etc. . I'll read them for amusement, and occasionally have 2 pennies to contribute.

That in no way says that motivation can't change in given circumstances.  Recall that the original Law versus Chaos thing (in Chainmail, I think) said that the "law" side couldn't hire "chaos" side troops and vice versa. However, a great deal of troops were neutral and thus available for either side.  Given a "neutral" town near the conflict, any or even multiple of these would be sticking to their alignment:

- Staying out of it as much as possible.
- Going with the side that offered them the best deal.
- Hiring out mercenaries to one or even both sides.
- Housing mercenaries for one or the other without otherwise committing.
- Throwing in freely with one side or another because it seemed to be in their best interests.

And so forth.  Of course, since the town is made of individuals and possibly multiple sub factions, they are going to have their own slant on things. But keep in mind that even if the town is mostly in agreement, they can still go with either side.

Basically, "alignment" isn't the only motivations that characters have.  Sometimes alignment trumps other motivations.  More often than not, it informs them.  Sometimes, the other motivations are strong enough to set the alignment temporarily aside--maybe even the start of the alignment changing.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1133003Except that you have yet to make the case for "neutrality" in the "Law/Chaos" axis of alignment. All you have really said is "but neutrality!", "but you forget about neutral", "I believe Nazis are neutral evil", etc. Reason given to justify this: 0.

It is simply "but neutral in the Law/Chaos axis exists, therefore if we can't figure out if a group of overt, totalitarian rampaging lunatics is Lawful or Chaotic, then they must obviously be Neutral". When neutrality is supposed to imply moderation, and there was nothing moderate about the Nazis or any form of totalitarianism.

Neutral Evil is supposed be the covert, subtle "work behind the scenes, stab you in the back when no one's watching then go back to my business like nothing happened" kind of "evil". Not the overt, rampaging lunatic, "my way or the highway, and everyone we don't like is getting thrown in a gas chamber--and we're making a huge spectacle of it, going through everyone's house and forcing everyone to report back to us" kind of evil. That shit is not "neutral" evil.

Neutral Evil is consistently Evil. It is not consistently Lawful or consistently Chaotic.

That's it. Neutral Evil has no requirement to be subtle (nor to be overt).

As I only use L/N/C, Neutral exists in a dual role. First, its for players who really want "Unaligned", aka no alignment, perhaps no strong moral convictions. Second, it exists in the setting for cults and gods whose focus isn't about civilization.

Quote from: Shasarak;1133002If I may insert an anecdote from my current campaign.

You may.

Quote from: Shasarak;1133002My group of (Good) players rescued a young Red Dragon that was going to be sacrificed and then decided to "adopt" him, even while knowing that he is an Evil creature.

Is Evil a choice or innate in your campaign? AKA, can that Red Dragon change its alignment?

In my game, those players just invited a time bomb into their midst. The scorpion will be true to itself.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132987Lets talk "Cosmic Factions", which one is neutral?

There would be no "neutral" faction in this scenario (other than maybe mercenary bands or some such). It would just be the two cosmic factions, and "neutral" parties would simply not align themselves with either faction. They could be criminals, normal people who just want to be left alone, or mercenaries willing to fight for whichever side is willing to pay them the highest.

I don't really see factions as "alignment" in the D&D sense because it's not really about morality, but about taking sides between two groups, or working for whichever pays you better that week. One group could be "good/beneficial" for one culture or the people of one region, but "bad/detrimental" for another, or completely irrelevant for yet a third. It's all relative and a matter of relationships with either faction.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1132995I don't care about your religious add-ons; they're a you thing not a D&D thing. In D&D, neutral has long been a middle ground for those uncommitted to either side, and most humans (as but one example) tend toward neutral. Old school druids took the odd approach to a strict middle ground approach, but that wasn't the default.

But it is a religious issue in the game! The Gods of Order vs the Gods of Chaos!

Quote from: HappyDaze;1133008Neutral Evil is consistently Evil. It is not consistently Lawful or consistently Chaotic.

That's it. Neutral Evil has no requirement to be subtle (nor to be overt).

So it's basically "conveniently" evil. Not "convenient" in the sense that they do what's convenient for them, but in the sense that you can just conveniently slap that label to anything without bothering to define exactly WTF constitutes "neutral" evil in particular, as opposed to other kinds of evil that are too stupid to just conveniently identify as "neutral" evil and still do whatever they want without regard Law or Chaos, like neither of those things matter. Almost like something making the OP's point that the Law/Chaos axis is completely irrelevant and unnecessary.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1132997LOL!!! A whole chunk of my post vanished! D'oh! Sorry I didn't catch that.

Here's what I actually meant.

Geeky, another reason I use Law vs. Chaos instead of Good vs. Evil is that players for whatever reason feel the Good vs. Evil dynamic DEMANDS inter-party combat. It's Team Good vs. Team Evil and the only interaction with the opposite team involves rolling for initiative. And I totally get that!

I've done the "Good guys must work with the Bad guys because Bigger Evil" one-shot scenario, but that makes little sense for week after week in a campaign.  

Law vs. Chaos doesn't seem to trigger than same PvP reaction in players.

As I'm a big fan of alignment (its an easy shorthand), I encourage players to roleplay their choice at the table, and in general, a mixed table of L/N/C alignments creates interesting interactions and tensions without auto PvP. But of course, that's not what I want in every campaign. I'm happy for my Good vs. Evil campaigns to be a unified table of stalwart heroes.

Do you agree that Law/Chaos was a shorthand for Good/Evil? I seem to remember it even says so in the 0e.

By all means, do play as you wish and use whatever works for you and your players. I'm inviting discussion not telling anyone they're having badwrongfun.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1133005Neutral is (usually) not highly motivated to get involved for alignment reasons.  As in, I'm mostly neutral about alignment discussions when they verge into real world religion, ethics, etc. . I'll read them for amusement, and occasionally have 2 pennies to contribute.

That in no way says that motivation can't change in given circumstances.  Recall that the original Law versus Chaos thing (in Chainmail, I think) said that the "law" side couldn't hire "chaos" side troops and vice versa. However, a great deal of troops were neutral and thus available for either side.  Given a "neutral" town near the conflict, any or even multiple of these would be sticking to their alignment:

- Staying out of it as much as possible.
- Going with the side that offered them the best deal.
- Hiring out mercenaries to one or even both sides.
- Housing mercenaries for one or the other without otherwise committing.
- Throwing in freely with one side or another because it seemed to be in their best interests.

And so forth.  Of course, since the town is made of individuals and possibly multiple sub factions, they are going to have their own slant on things. But keep in mind that even if the town is mostly in agreement, they can still go with either side.

Basically, "alignment" isn't the only motivations that characters have.  Sometimes alignment trumps other motivations.  More often than not, it informs them.  Sometimes, the other motivations are strong enough to set the alignment temporarily aside--maybe even the start of the alignment changing.

But you're reverting now to Chainmail, which isn't part of the discussion, we're talking about D&D where Law/Order are shorthand for Good/Evil and are eminently and obviously religious since you have gods from both sides.

You even have classes that must follow the Lawful/Chaotic code to a T or loose their powers.

If the inherent conflict is among gods this makes the alignment issue a theological one (in world, I care little for IRL theology), and by extension, given a Medieval/Pseudo-Medieval setting, a moral one.

So a "Neutral" individual is one that put's his religious values, his morals side for profit/personal gain. Which doesn't really sound like something a good person would do from a POV of a Medieval/Pseudo-Medieval population.

Quote from: Shasarak;1132994Gygax wrote a series of books that detailed the cosmic clash of Devil vs Demons and the Neutral Evil Daemons interfered to stop either side from gaining too much power.  Infact the main character Gord was supposed to be the Neutral Champion but because Greyhawk is such a shit show of evil he only had to fight agianst evil to act as a blancing force.

There's a interesting idea. Usually in fiction "evil" is proactive and "good" is reactive. IE every saturday morning cartoon where the bad guys have a crazy plan and the heroes have to stop them.

What would a neutral campaign versus good look like? It's easy to come up with reasons for them to oppose "evil", but why would they oppose "good", without making the "good guys" (I'm running out of quotation marks) seem "evil".

Quote from: Spinachcat;1133009As I only use L/N/C, Neutral exists in a dual role. First, its for players who really want "Unaligned", aka no alignment, perhaps no strong moral convictions. Second, it exists in the setting for cults and gods whose focus isn't about civilization.




You may.




Is Evil a choice or innate in your campaign? AKA, can that Red Dragon change its alignment?

In my game, those players just invited a time bomb into their midst. The scorpion will be true to itself.

Exactly, you do get it.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1133014So it's basically "conveniently" evil. Not "convenient" in the sense that they do what's convenient for them, but in the sense that you can just conveniently slap that label to anything without bothering to define exactly WTF constitutes "neutral" evil in particular, as opposed to other kinds of evil that are too stupid to just conveniently identify as "neutral" evil and still do whatever they want without regard Law or Chaos, like neither of those things matter. Almost like something making the OP's point that the Law/Chaos axis is completely irrelevant and unnecessary.

It is irrelevant and unnecessary because from the word go it was shorthand for Good/Evil, IF I remember correctly it even says so in the 0e.