I think that you, tenbones, have an implied hierarchy of stability attached to prosperity and conflate that upon the alignment grid. Which, since I am totally for GM determination of setting, works out perfectly well for you and your games. However do be aware of what assumptions you are baking into it.

The alignment grid is the entirety of moral thought and its relation to the world baked down to a two-axis Cartesian plane with nine convenient buckets. Something must get lost in translation. And the only one to interpret it is the creator/manager of the world, the GM.

For me, I bake into Law and Chaos the assumption that Law is structured upward instead of being diffused outward like Chaos. There is also my assumption of the tension between explicit versus implicit expectations (Code of Hammurabi stelae v. unspoken cultural taboos and mores). Further I assume tension between contiguous and/or overlapping contained life facet borders, and the lack thereof. (That would be the difference of military, law, econ, faith, culture, etc. homogeneity of boundaries -- very unlike feudal overlaps, weird pockets of distant representation, or boiling cosmopolitan centers.)

Again, running Birthright or Crusader Kings, or even personal travel, you see again and again the functioning chaos of life. I personally find it a disservice for my settings to render it cornered to violent, anarchic tribal states in the hinterland. As I layer alignment too, it gives me flexibility to state great cosmopolitan cities can feel more chaotic and have chaotic tendencies even though they are the seat of power in a very explicitly lawful society (e.g. Thyatis City within Thyatis Empire). I feel that an accessory or two of these ideas does not make the man, and similarly not make any nation or its territories under it.

But that's how I keep the two-axes alive and interesting in my games. It keeps my evil and good more complex when I turn down the contrast dial, and asks more from my players than "petty evil." (Oh, and you're a heretic who must be burned. XOXO )

Quote from: Opaopajr;830680I think that you, tenbones, have an implied hierarchy of stability attached to prosperity and conflate that upon the alignment grid. Which, since I am totally for GM determination of setting, works out perfectly well for you and your games. However do be aware of what assumptions you are baking into it.

Nope. I don't use the alignment grid as anything other than a general signpost. PC's don't have them on their character-sheets for anything other than an arbitrary doodle that happens to look exactly like the english letters that spell an "alignment".

I think you're grossly, but respectfully overstating (and overthinking) my position on Alignment. To me - it serves no purpose unless you're manifesting these labels as functioning "social structures" - albeit on a cosmic scale within your game. If these labels are actually forces that one "signs up with" for example. If you're running a Moorcock-flavored game with Law vs. Chaos, then Alignment absolutely makes sense to me.

I generally don't (but have in the past).

Quote from: Opaopajr;830680The alignment grid is the entirety of moral thought and its relation to the world baked down to a two-axis Cartesian plane with nine convenient buckets. Something must get lost in translation. And the only one to interpret it is the creator/manager of the world, the GM.

Certainly. But the discussion is NEVER about this fact that you can contain the entirety of the abstract concept of moral thought in nine categories. I can do it on line too. Or I can do it in three boxes - no one is debating that morality can be quantified and codified for the purposes of a game. I certainly am not.

It's about where the boundaries of your labels actually have mechanical use in your game that adds to the game vs. being representative of some thing that people generally aren't uniform in their understanding. This is precisely why people argue about stupid shit like Batman's alignment, the alignment of ALL the Nazis, the alignment of my rear-differential (joke) etc.

I think it's perfectly fine to use Alignment as a general descriptor of a culture with the blunt assumption that how that alignment might be manifest might still be different on an individual basis.

Quote from: Opaopajr;830680For me, I bake into Law and Chaos the assumption that Law is structured upward instead of being diffused outward like Chaos. There is also my assumption of the tension between explicit versus implicit expectations (Code of Hammurabi stelae v. unspoken cultural taboos and mores). Further I assume tension between contiguous and/or overlapping contained life facet borders, and the lack thereof. (That would be the difference of military, law, econ, faith, culture, etc. homogeneity of boundaries -- very unlike feudal overlaps, weird pockets of distant representation, or boiling cosmopolitan centers.)

This is actually how I approach it without the labels, because I find the labels useless in terms of the game. Cultures are rarely so homogenous that each individual member of each culture holds the exact same values.There is usually some drift from that harder center. Likewise cultures have different forms of consciousness and experience that actually flavor their outlook of "alignment". How Lawful Good manifests among tribal folks and sophisticated city dwellers doesn't necessarily mean cultural taboos of one aren't crossed with the other and they find themselves at odds for example. There is, as you've stated overlap.

I find that when people discuss alignment, it generally gets into these tedious one-off examples as representative of the norm. When in reality, they're just signposts of general abstraction that really doesn't impact the game beyond the needs of the conceits of your particular game.

Quote from: Opaopajr;830680Again, running Birthright or Crusader Kings, or even personal travel, you see again and again the functioning chaos of life. I personally find it a disservice for my settings to render it cornered to violent, anarchic tribal states in the hinterland. As I layer alignment too, it gives me flexibility to state great cosmopolitan cities can feel more chaotic and have chaotic tendencies even though they are the seat of power in a very explicitly lawful society (e.g. Thyatis City within Thyatis Empire). I feel that an accessory or two of these ideas does not make the man, and similarly not make any nation or its territories under it.

When I travel the US, or when I'm in Asia - I don't see signs about alignment. Some places are much more chaotic than lawful, likewise I can portray that in my campaigns without needing to be explicit (but I can and do if the players ask in general, because the use of shorthand - which alignment is - is useful). Beyond that - outside of Gods and religion or organizational mandates, I simply don't have much for it.

Quote from: Opaopajr;830680But that's how I keep the two-axes alive and interesting in my games. It keeps my evil and good more complex when I turn down the contrast dial, and asks more from my players than "petty evil." (Oh, and you're a heretic who must be burned. XOXO )

I don't think anyone in my games has ever told me my use/non-use of alignment is an issue. In fact, I've had more WHOA! positive-moments when I've had players play without worrying what I think their alignment is and vice versa and just playing the game. Some have found themselves drifting from the moral centers they thought their characters possessed, only to fight to get back there - and it has produced some fantastic gameplay. Most times people who don't give alignment enough thought - like you obviously have, use it to justify their actions instead of exemplifying it.

The irony is - if everyone DID that... alignment would not need to exist. But of course that will never happen.

As a curiosity - do you use alignment in all your RPGs that don't have it?

I tried to make a game setting for a player who wanted to play a GURPS Bale (a fantasy race that drinks blood, but isn't a vampire). Being a simulationist, detail-oriented GM, I made a map of the fortress, the prison for keeping blood slaves, and started detailing the blood slave population... when I was confronted by how horrible the lives of the blood slaves would be.  It showed clearly how horrible the consequences of the idea were, and the abomination rose up and destroyed the desire to play that situation, before I could go any farther with the setup. And I stopped.

I find that when games admit the detailed humanity of the victims, my interest in gaming the situation gets killed, in a good way, but a way that also has me stop playing. It was a good thing to learn, but it didn't lead to a game.

I've had similar experience with combat games that have detailed people for the combatants on both sides, detailed violence, and high casualty rates. I no longer wanted to play war, probably akin to how real veterans don't want to fight or talk about war after having seen the reality, loss and suffering of it.

...

As for alignments, I've always thought D&D alignments were a crude artificial construct, though perhaps needed to help organize the thousands of monsters and character types and their behavior in an efficient way.

I mostly play systems that don't use alignments, and have pretty much never wanted to. What I do use is honor codes and cultural mores and character traits and so on, but they're not simple grid values like in D&D. Chaos/Order and Good/Evil rarely describe the morality or alignment of the people or creatures in my worlds.

Quote from: Skarg;830820I've had similar experience with combat games that have detailed people for the combatants on both sides, detailed violence, and high casualty rates. I no longer wanted to play war, probably akin to how real veterans don't want to fight or talk about war after having seen the reality, loss and suffering of it.

I like those games - long as I can play a regular grunt just trying to stay alive, keep his friends alive, and dream of home. I recall a Wehrmacht WW2 game I played in like that fell apart when the GM wanted my PC to join the elite Brandeburgers, and I was  horrified at the notion.

Quote from: Skarg;830820I tried to make a game setting for a player who wanted to play a GURPS Bale (a fantasy race that drinks blood, but isn't a vampire). Being a simulationist, detail-oriented GM, I made a map of the fortress, the prison for keeping blood slaves, and started detailing the blood slave population... when I was confronted by how horrible the lives of the blood slaves would be.  It showed clearly how horrible the consequences of the idea were, and the abomination rose up and destroyed the desire to play that situation, before I could go any farther with the setup. And I stopped.

I find that when games admit the detailed humanity of the victims, my interest in gaming the situation gets killed, in a good way, but a way that also has me stop playing. It was a good thing to learn, but it didn't lead to a game.

I've had similar experience with combat games that have detailed people for the combatants on both sides, detailed violence, and high casualty rates. I no longer wanted to play war, probably akin to how real veterans don't want to fight or talk about war after having seen the reality, loss and suffering of it.

...

As for alignments, I've always thought D&D alignments were a crude artificial construct, though perhaps needed to help organize the thousands of monsters and character types and their behavior in an efficient way.

I mostly play systems that don't use alignments, and have pretty much never wanted to. What I do use is honor codes and cultural mores and character traits and so on, but they're not simple grid values like in D&D. Chaos/Order and Good/Evil rarely describe the morality or alignment of the people or creatures in my worlds.

Well, the good news is that the blood slave campaign can totally be turned around if the players want to be good guys rescuing them. Wouldn't be the same of course but your background material could come to great use.

Playing the "bad guys" most often sounds like a bad idea, no pun intended. Except I kinda want to play the Cosa Nostra. No, wait bad, baaad. But ooooh, what about Vikings?? Oh shoot, let people play whatever they want.

If you want to see Dark Elves (Drow) done excellently, I highly recommend Dan Abnett's Chronicles of Malus Darkblade, especially if you are fan of Warhammer. Malus is utterly Chaotic Evil (far worse than Elric), yet he works as the protagonist because the other characters are equally bad, if not worse, than him.

Every Vampire campaign I played was an Evil Campaign, because every PC was an bloodsucking monster seeking power. It worked fine, but of course, there was plenty of backstabbing too.

As for alignment, I really like it. It's an easy shorthand, but it was never meant to be the be-all, end-all of your PC's personality.

Quote from: tenbones;830714Nope. I don't use the alignment grid as anything other than a general signpost. PC's don't have them on their character-sheets for anything other than an arbitrary doodle that happens to look exactly like the english letters that spell an "alignment".

I think you're grossly, but respectfully overstating (and overthinking) my position on Alignment. To me - it serves no purpose unless you're manifesting these labels as functioning "social structures" - albeit on a cosmic scale within your game. If these labels are actually forces that one "signs up with" for example. If you're running a Moorcock-flavored game with Law vs. Chaos, then Alignment absolutely makes sense to me.

I generally don't (but have in the past).

Your own usage of alignment within your campaign, and your position on its purpose to a campaign, is irrelevant for this conversation as you have already expressed an opinion on what CE seems like to you. That is not what I am talking about or interested in. We are having a GM-to-GM disagreement on the manifestation CE and whether drow society would fit that conception.

I am explaining how I see that CE works for drow society in my view.

I am deducing what assumptions you are baking into your view of CE that inclines you to disagree.

There is no more to read into it than that.

Quote from: tenbones;830714Certainly. But the discussion is NEVER about this fact that you can contain the entirety of the abstract concept of moral thought in nine categories. I can do it on line too. Or I can do it in three boxes - no one is debating that morality can be quantified and codified for the purposes of a game. I certainly am not.

I do believe I have stated that I am aware of other game systems and their conception of alignment and morality within their system.

Quote from: tenbones;830714It's about where the boundaries of your labels actually have mechanical use in your game that adds to the game vs. being representative of some thing that people generally aren't uniform in their understanding. This is precisely why people argue about stupid shit like Batman's alignment, the alignment of ALL the Nazis, the alignment of my rear-differential (joke) etc.

That is the point, it isn't uniform. To understand it, and setting, you are to turn to the GM who is final arbiter of all definitions. There is no argument about who defines the GM's rules in Imagination Land -- its the GM's imagination, you're just playing in it, you offer trust in turn that you won't get arbitrarily screwed. Want clarity, ask. (Even received canon material habitually lays final arbitration at the table GM's feet.)

One big difference between the mechanic existing and not is it brings up this conversation faster than relying on floating table assumptions. All IC groups have boundaries, and there's OOC interpretations of said boundaries. Better to hash out that conversation before than later. The GM should be communicating constantly about what PCs know IC to their players.

Quote from: tenbones;830714I find that when people discuss alignment, it generally gets into these tedious one-off examples as representative of the norm. When in reality, they're just signposts of general abstraction that really doesn't impact the game beyond the needs of the conceits of your particular game.

Yes, they are signposts of general abstraction (to be clarified at the table). But what do you mean about them not impacting "the game beyond the needs of the conceits of your particular game?" That reads to me as the world's context, its atmosphere, and the likely manner of its responses. Those are to me very in-game impacts. I am likely reading you wrong, what is it you are trying to say?

Quote from: tenbones;830714I don't think anyone in my games has ever told me my use/non-use of alignment is an issue. In fact, I've had more WHOA! positive-moments when I've had players play without worrying what I think their alignment is and vice versa and just playing the game. Some have found themselves drifting from the moral centers they thought their characters possessed, only to fight to get back there - and it has produced some fantastic gameplay. Most times people who don't give alignment enough thought - like you obviously have, use it to justify their actions instead of exemplifying it.

The irony is - if everyone DID that... alignment would not need to exist. But of course that will never happen.

As a curiosity - do you use alignment in all your RPGs that don't have it?

I find alignment, in its various system forms, highly motivating to my play and my world motion. I honestly could care less about "adventure," or "loot," until it is tied into the framework of something more expressive in manner. It's just an imaginary name on paper. Its interest is in its attached impact  outside of a mechanical sense. Things to do with history, atmosphere, character motivation, etc. move me.

So, I view CoC and Sanity as alignment. You are team humanity, in all its glorious foibles (hence gangster and dilettante playing with nun and professor). Lose too much and you become the monster.

But I get into issues when I game concepts that have multiple implied assumptions but no one bothered to openly define and select which ones they are applying. A big challenging one here for me is Supers. There's a diverse array of representing cartoons, Supers, and their genre assumptions. I try not to assume, but then am left with operating on logical coherence. For example, there's no logical justification of continually leaving the more modern and homicidal Joker alive... Without morality explicit, and coherence flouted, I'm left in the wind.

As for games without an alignment, I'm at a bit of a loss to think of one I play at the moment. Those that I did were joke sessions where I fucked around and waited for a better game for me. Again, trinkets and derring-do is not what I play for, I want character motivation and exploration. I am OK with emergent characterization, but again a concept sketch helps (and that's where alignment tools shine once more).

What game were you thinking of?

Quote from: Opaopajr;830935That is the point, it isn't uniform. To understand it, and setting, you are to turn to the GM who is final arbiter of all definitions. There is no argument about who defines the GM's rules in Imagination Land -- its the GM's imagination, you're just playing in it, you offer trust in turn that you won't get arbitrarily screwed. Want clarity, ask. (Even received canon material habitually lays final arbitration at the table GM's feet.)

Sure. Again, I don't think we're saying much different. I do pretty much exactly this.

Quote from: Opaopajr;830935One big difference between the mechanic existing and not is it brings up this conversation faster than relying on floating table assumptions. All IC groups have boundaries, and there's OOC interpretations of said boundaries. Better to hash out that conversation before than later. The GM should be communicating constantly about what PCs know IC to their players.

Right. I need to clarify that before I start any campaign, we usually have a big sit-down to discuss the starting parameters. I take extra care to make sure that my players understand the cultural backdrop of where they're playing and/or where they're from to inform their character choices during chargen. Sure - as a GM you should give the general ethical disposition of the respective cultures as you interpret them so the PC's can act accordingly.

A good example is my current game I'm running...

In my FR game - Lolth died about 150-years ago. The major cities of the Drow essentially imploded. Without the immediate power-structure of the Lolth matriarchy, the Houses fell upon one another with wild abandon, to the point that by the time anyone of significance had taken a breather to look at the big picture, the Drow's enemies were sharpening their knives and waiting.

So essentially the Drow 'civilization' is in utter shambles. It's different from city to city. So I drilled down into specifics based on some of the PC's are from different Underdark cities. Let's say the last 150-years has been Chaotic Evil. Completely post-apocalyptic. They've survived by extreme measures in bands and armed groups. Some have eventually tried making it out of the Underdark to havens they've heard rumors about. But essentially I reflected what Chaotic Evil is in the purest tribal sense - where "tribal" only exists as a term of a group of individuals pack-fighting together through force of strength and will.

ALL that said... I did not require that my players tell me explicitly *they* are CE. They can play how they feel is appropriate for their characters given those circumstances. Much like Drizzt Do'Urden is "good" despite the cultural probability that demands the unlikeliness of such a fact - it is what it is.

Now we're in Spelljammer (the Drow here have a very different culture). The PC's are blind to a lot of that and are being forced to learn the hard way. At no point do I bludgeon them with the idea that "alignment" is a necessary factor. The scheme of "law and order" and "evil and good" are most definitely in play, but it's something to be explored in-game.

Having said all that - I recognize the desire for GM's to use Alignment to provide that shorthand (I use it in a much more shorter-hand by not using the general labels implicitly). It does require a certain amount of work or awareness and attention detail to it my way that many GM's probably don't want to do. But I find it very rewarding to it this way, as do my players.

Currently my campaign is squarely and "EEEEEVIL Campaign". Most of the PC's are hard-bitten survivors of a race that is essentially an "endangered species". And they are overcoming great distrust for one another and the world to explore how their ruthlessness might be channeled into hope for the survival of their race among the stars. Yep. It's pretty epic in scope.

Quote from: Opaopajr;830935Yes, they are signposts of general abstraction (to be clarified at the table). But what do you mean about them not impacting "the game beyond the needs of the conceits of your particular game?" That reads to me as the world's context, its atmosphere, and the likely manner of its responses. Those are to me very in-game impacts. I am likely reading you wrong, what is it you are trying to say?

What I mean is by saying the Kingdom of Alpha is Lawful Good - whereas next door, the Caliphate of Beta is Chaotic Good, does nothing to impact the on-the-ground play of the game where the PC's are doing whatever PC's do. It's more of a convenience for the GM who *should* know this stuff. Yes as you pointed out the atmosphere and context is most certainly impacted. But PC's don't play on the State-Level in my games. As I've said - it's perfectly fine to label your cultures alignment. I'm more of a rubber-meets-the-road kinda GM. *I* know what a cultures general alignment is, I don't presume that all my PC's do (depends on their background). Most of that stuff is fodder for the PC's to base their character from or to interact with as their character.

At no point do I need to correct a player on their alignment. The alignment of a culture will do that for me. If they're playing CE assholes... the Magistrate will show up and deal with them. If the locale they're at has a cultural tone and rules that are accordingly different - then the PC's will have to deal with them at that level in play.

It's for the same reason I don't ask the GM when I'm playing in a modern game what the alignment of New York City is and base my behavior on that. I just play based on my character's background. I don't begrudge a player to slap an Alignment on their sheet either. If that helps them - rock on.

Quote from: Opaopajr;830935I find alignment, in its various system forms, highly motivating to my play and my world motion. I honestly could care less about "adventure," or "loot," until it is tied into the framework of something more expressive in manner. It's just an imaginary name on paper. Its interest is in its attached impact  outside of a mechanical sense. Things to do with history, atmosphere, character motivation, etc. move me.

Same here. All I'm saying is I don't need to implictly label anything an "alignment". That's all. I'm more into building consistency of atmosphere and letting the PC's run wild.

Quote from: Opaopajr;830935So, I view CoC and Sanity as alignment. You are team humanity, in all its glorious foibles (hence gangster and dilettante playing with nun and professor). Lose too much and you become the monster.

I think Sanity and Alignment are different. Sanity has a direct impact on CoC play. Alignment mechanical impact is negligible. I also don't think Sanity and Alignment are the same (and you're not making that claim technically either) - but in my old age I've become wary of games that implicitly try to make demands about the morality of a character in play without real mechanical significance. Sanity works in CoC because, well, Cthulu Mythos are all about the fact that they drive you batshit nuts when confronted with extra-dimensional horrors and whatnot. This is why they put optional Sanity rules in D&D... because lets face it, if Sanity in CoC were "real" - then everyone in D&D would be batshit nuts on day three. We make excuses based on the context of the genre. To me this underscores my general feeling that Alignment is less important.

Quote from: Opaopajr;830935But I get into issues when I game concepts that have multiple implied assumptions but no one bothered to openly define and select which ones they are applying. A big challenging one here for me is Supers. There's a diverse array of representing cartoons, Supers, and their genre assumptions. I try not to assume, but then am left with operating on logical coherence. For example, there's no logical justification of continually leaving the more modern and homicidal Joker alive... Without morality explicit, and coherence flouted, I'm left in the wind.

As for games without an alignment, I'm at a bit of a loss to think of one I play at the moment. Those that I did were joke sessions where I fucked around and waited for a better game for me. Again, trinkets and derring-do is not what I play for, I want character motivation and exploration. I am OK with emergent characterization, but again a concept sketch helps (and that's where alignment tools shine once more).

What game were you thinking of?

Ahh! This is exactly what I was thinking of. Supers. This is what broke me of using Alignment in D&D because in FASERIP I was finding myself perturbed at the way the Karma system worked. It was keeping some of my players from playing the kinds of characters they wanted to play, and from me to run the kinds of games I wanted to run. (I revamped the Karma system entirely).

Essentially it wasn't so much that I wanted to give players the ability to kill people (obviously, it's Supers, right?) But I wanted some "texture" vs. only incentivizing them to try and act like a "Captain Trueheart". If you're doing Silver-Age style Supers, fine, but that's not what I'm doing. Some of my players were like Batman and they simply could make no progress by beating that ass in back-alleys and still be considered heroes by that standard. And exploring the ethics and morality of being a superhero is kinda interesting for me as a GM.

That's when I decided to make things more flexible and react to the PC's like in the comics naturally vs. mechanically. Popularity and how they are perceived is a big part of it. If they go around smashing shit up - they WILL look like Villains. Spiderman, Daredevil, Batman - all of them were perceived as such early in their careers (some longer). And if players toss their hands up and say "Well I may as well be a villain because no one is treating me like a hero" - then go that route... don't be surprised when the sky's go dark and a lightning-shooting hammer clubs your ass upside the head for robbing a bank, or whatever because you don't have the intestinal fortitude to go the extra mile to be the hero you want to be.

Not to say that everyone ends up like this. I'm just saying - if the game fully accepts the abilities and capacities of the PC's in play, then there will always be checks and balances that render Alignment largely (but not always) unnecessary to be implicit. Of course this is in my games... YMMV.

Yeah I'd second the idea that Dark Heresy is a great framework for evil as fuck PC campaigns that "work".

No matter what, all of my friends played their characters as sadistic, if not cold-heartedly cruel, murdering opportunists. Yet, they somehow worked together consistently.

Well, not entirely true: distrusting and murdering the party's Psyker was always a recurring theme.

Evil Campaigns *generally* are hard for GM's to either run or players to play, simply because most people aren't *eeevvvil* to the degree that it can sustain the "fun-factor" for prolonged periods of time without a real goal.

But I could say the same thing about "good campaigns"...

I played a short-lived Necessary Evil campaign that probably could have worked for a while if our player schedule had worked. Necessary Evil is a Savage Worlds Superheroes setting where aliens tricked the Good Guys to leave the planet to save them, and then the aliens whacked them. So all that's left to save the Earth are the villains...cuz no alien scum is going to rule my planet that I plan to subjugate to my will!

I played a tentacle blob mutant villain and it was a blast. We saved a school bus full of kids from the aliens and before the kids could thank us, I ate one of them. But hey, we saved the other 29! I was just taking my cut!

Quote from: Spinachcat;831027I played a tentacle blob mutant villain and it was a blast. We saved a school bus full of kids from the aliens and before the kids could thank us, I ate one of them. But hey, we saved the other 29! I was just taking my cut!

:rotfl: That made me laugh. Then I read it to my wife and we both laughed.

Quote from: Spinachcat;830899If you want to see Dark Elves (Drow) done excellently, I highly recommend Dan Abnett's Chronicles of Malus Darkblade, especially if you are fan of Warhammer. Malus is utterly Chaotic Evil (far worse than Elric), yet he works as the protagonist because the other characters are equally bad, if not worse, than him.

Every Vampire campaign I played was an Evil Campaign, because every PC was an bloodsucking monster seeking power. It worked fine, but of course, there was plenty of backstabbing too.

As for alignment, I really like it. It's an easy shorthand, but it was never meant to be the be-all, end-all of your PC's personality.

I think you're saying everything I've been trying to convey in like 1% of my words. The only difference, I just shrugged and tossed Alignment out, mostly.

Quote from: tenbones;830947What I mean is by saying the Kingdom of Alpha is Lawful Good - whereas next door, the Caliphate of Beta is Chaotic Good, does nothing to impact the on-the-ground play of the game where the PC's are doing whatever PC's do. It's more of a convenience for the GM who *should* know this stuff. Yes as you pointed out the atmosphere and context is most certainly impacted. But PC's don't play on the State-Level in my games. As I've said - it's perfectly fine to label your cultures alignment. I'm more of a rubber-meets-the-road kinda GM. *I* know what a cultures general alignment is, I don't presume that all my PC's do (depends on their background). Most of that stuff is fodder for the PC's to base their character from or to interact with as their character.

At no point do I need to correct a player on their alignment. The alignment of a culture will do that for me. If they're playing CE assholes... the Magistrate will show up and deal with them. If the locale they're at has a cultural tone and rules that are accordingly different - then the PC's will have to deal with them at that level in play.

Quote from: tenbones;830947I think Sanity and Alignment are different. Sanity has a direct impact on CoC play. Alignment mechanical impact is negligible. I also don't think Sanity and Alignment are the same (and you're not making that claim technically either) - but in my old age I've become wary of games that implicitly try to make demands about the morality of a character in play without real mechanical significance. Sanity works in CoC because, well, Cthulu Mythos are all about the fact that they drive you batshit nuts when confronted with extra-dimensional horrors and whatnot. This is why they put optional Sanity rules in D&D... because lets face it, if Sanity in CoC were "real" - then everyone in D&D would be batshit nuts on day three. We make excuses based on the context of the genre. To me this underscores my general feeling that Alignment is less important.

Fascinating. I think this captures our divergent opinions. I find alignment affecting on down through the glazed layers and having mechanical impact. I actually do run the alignment penalty of XP reset and relearn your alignment through a "wasted level." As the rubber meets the road, each glaze greater tints the actions of the smaller including the descriptors of PCs actions and perceptions.

Like, I will describe how an NPC or PC's combat style is shaped by their attitude, their boundaries of "honorable" body targets and the like (going for the 'nads, sand in the eyes, etc.). Or how an NPC divergent from the general society will seem furtive in their alignment approach to day to day activities, like being conspiratorial when offering charity. It sometimes affects how I clue in PCs on that sixth sense, such as LG general suspicion to people from notorious regions (that are OOC knowledge LE) leading to more Insight checks ("He seems like he's telling the truth, this time, but y'know when in Thay...").

As world view shapes attitude and approach, it begins to conflict on down and shape responses. Then masking demeanors become useful feints from discovery. It then colors some side descriptive commentary I feed my players (i.e. good more trusting, evil more paranoid). There are rewards to each approach; paranoia has more caution, though it insults proffered trust, and vice versa.

It also explains why I find the alignment XP penalty useful. You learned one way to approach the world. Changing your world view changes your core, which changes your approach to the world. Re-seeing the world with new eyes, and acting upon this new lens, takes time.

That said, a lot of the labeling stays off scene even as it tints its own slice of the world. Players should know about why I feed their IC biases, and whether to stick with or change as they see fit. Then the shorthand as tinted lenses atop each other is a quick shorthand for me about responses and agendas.

Quote from: Opaopajr;831048Fascinating. I think this captures our divergent opinions. I find alignment affecting on down through the glazed layers and having mechanical impact. I actually do run the alignment penalty of XP reset and relearn your alignment through a "wasted level." As the rubber meets the road, each glaze greater tints the actions of the smaller including the descriptors of PCs actions and perceptions.

Like, I will describe how an NPC or PC's combat style is shaped by their attitude, their boundaries of "honorable" body targets and the like (going for the 'nads, sand in the eyes, etc.). Or how an NPC divergent from the general society will seem furtive in their alignment approach to day to day activities, like being conspiratorial when offering charity. It sometimes affects how I clue in PCs on that sixth sense, such as LG general suspicion to people from notorious regions (that are OOC knowledge LE) leading to more Insight checks ("He seems like he's telling the truth, this time, but y'know when in Thay...").

As world view shapes attitude and approach, it begins to conflict on down and shape responses. Then masking demeanors become useful feints from discovery. It then colors some side descriptive commentary I feed my players (i.e. good more trusting, evil more paranoid). There are rewards to each approach; paranoia has more caution, though it insults proffered trust, and vice versa.

It also explains why I find the alignment XP penalty useful. You learned one way to approach the world. Changing your world view changes your core, which changes your approach to the world. Re-seeing the world with new eyes, and acting upon this new lens, takes time.

That said, a lot of the labeling stays off scene even as it tints its own slice of the world. Players should know about why I feed their IC biases, and whether to stick with or change as they see fit. Then the shorthand as tinted lenses atop each other is a quick shorthand for me about responses and agendas.

See? We're actually saying/doing the same thing with one minor difference - you're using Alignment exactly how I think it should be used. You're tying it directly to the mechanics of how your campaign operates and giving it what I think is fine attribution.

I don't use that mechanic, and therefore don't need Alignment. I think either one of us would feel perfectly at home in one another's game. Even if we were... EEEEEEEEEEVIIIIL!

Edit: I should note - the mechanical point where I do use "alignment", softly, is through Faction. I've been exploring creating Factions for my campaign, and some factions are most definitely going to require taking a ethical/non-ethical approach to rank up in. I've pushed alignment to the social impact of play, you're doing it directly tied to progression. General level progression is something I'm currently de-emphasizing in my game. This is our first campaign where we're doing Milestone leveling.