Quote from: Andy KAnd I'm curious as to which ones.  Are we talking "D&D Alignment" here?

-Andy

Damn you, Andy!  :muttering:

I was going to wait for answers before the "Yeah, you're right, Holy Smite and its cousins are such a fucking (cop-out/waste of time/abomination)".

I mean, I'm geniunely interested in an actual argument that "Can't Abide Weakness In Himself" or "Devoted To The King" aren't as valid for mechanical impact as "Dedicated His Life To Archery" or "Wizard Of The Unseen University", but I was hoping to get the alignment dig in.

Bastard.

I don't see the modern take on D&D alignment as a personality mechanic, but I think in a more AD&D2 interpretation, it certainly qualifies as bad.

Currently D&D alignment isn't really a personality mechanic. Your alignment determines things like "what items you can use" or "what prestige classes you can get into". It doesn't actually interfere with your roleplaying that much. You can have a character be a total jerk, mark 'lawful good' on there and have no problems whatsoever.

In AD&D2, alignment was used in a bludgeoning sort of way. My revised AD&D2 PHB actually has an example: a lawful neutral character goes on a few aventures... the DM comes to the decision that she's been performing a lot of good acts lately, so he changes her alignment to Lawful good, then he docks her 1 and a half levels worth of XP. It's almost like they wanted the game to fail.

I recall in the day of AD&D2 there was constantly a discussion going on about "what does lawful good mean?" and it just got unbelievably stupid after a while. I'm totally convinced the real reason those discussions went on, is because people were concerned about getting blindsided by someone saying "your'e not playing your alignment" and then getting an XP penalty...  or they didn't want to be looked at as being a "roll player vs. a real role-player".

However, that's just what I think sucks about the old take on alignment. I (pretty much) like the way it works just fine now. I also liked how it worked in basic D&D when it was just lawful, chaotic and neutral. Those were fine.

But personality mechanics are so fucking awful. That thing where you stick something like (Christmas Ape's example) "Can't Abide Weakness In Himself" on the character sheet and play that.. well.. first of all, it locks you into a very static character. You've essentially played the character out before you even get a chance to use him in a game. Now he's either the character that can't abide weakness in himself, or he's the character that was forced at some point by some GM-hammering to deal with abiding weakness in himself. But either way, he didn't get to develop naturally into being a unique character. It's just this totally artificial foil for whatever issue you stuck him with when you created him.

In a normal long term campaign, you have no idea what your character really is going to develop into. I can think of several examples from my roleplaying past where I had this concept for a character when I started, but 6-12 months later, the character had developed into a much more complex personality than what I had kind of thought at first- it's one of the great joys of roleplaying to see what comes out over time. If you rely on things like personality mechanics, you won't get to appreciate it- it just won't happen for you. So in that way, yeah, I'm saying that personality mechanics make a game less fun.

Two examples:
One example is from a game I was the GM for: there was a character named Archie. Archie started out as this optimistic happy-go-lucky "salesman" type character when he first entered the campaign. But slowly he became a lot more serious- by the campaign wrapped up (over a year later) he had been through so much that he had turned into this sort of grimly determined ronin type character.  

My second example was one of my own characters: I had an "absent-minded professor" type character that ended up stranded on this savage island as part of the campaign. He starts out doing what I thought his personality was supposed to be- sort of an academic fish out of water, who would do things like -- when he ended up in an evil temple, he would tell the high priest that the place had "fascinating architecture" and ask him when it was built. But he changed over time too- he became a lot darker the more ancient secrets he uncovered- until I sort of a did a "Kurtz from Heart of Darkness" bit near the end of the campaign.

Those characters had freedom to develop in the awesome way they did because they weren't saddled with "love for humanity 6d6" (or something similarly idiotic) on their character sheet.

Although I guess for short term games you'd have to have something like that. What I'm talking about takes time. I generally don't start to 'feel' a real personality start to develop until maybe the 3rd or 4th session, but the payoff is huge.

Quote from: Christmas ApeDamn you, Andy!  :muttering:

I was going to wait for answers before the "Yeah, you're right, Holy Smite and its cousins are such a fucking (cop-out/waste of time/abomination)".

I mean, I'm geniunely interested in an actual argument that "Can't Abide Weakness In Himself" or "Devoted To The King" aren't as valid for mechanical impact as "Dedicated His Life To Archery" or "Wizard Of The Unseen University", but I was hoping to get the alignment dig in.

Bastard.

But Holy smite doesn't change your personality or force you into a roleplaying box. It just does some extra damage.  Your'e welcome to yell out "in the name of Pelor!" when you do it, but it's totally optional.

EDIT: Also, I just backspaced a few pages and I noted that this is totally not the topic this started out as. Probably my fault. Someone else can feel free to split the topic off.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIn AD&D2, alignment was used in a bludgeoning sort of way. My revised AD&D2 PHB actually has an example: a lawful neutral character goes on a few aventures... the DM comes to the decision that she's been performing a lot of good acts lately, so he changes her alignment to Lawful good, then he docks her 1 and a half levels worth of XP. It's almost like they wanted the game to fail.

I recall in the day of AD&D2 there was constantly a discussion going on about "what does lawful good mean?" and it just got unbelievably stupid after a while. I'm totally convinced the real reason those discussions went on, is because people were concerned about getting blindsided by someone saying "your'e not playing your alignment" and then getting an XP penalty...  or they didn't want to be looked at as being a "roll player vs. a real role-player".

For all this and the stuff I snipped out, I'm with you 110%. I don't really like alignment one way or the other, but I'm certainly on board with the idea that 2nd Edition Alignment was a fucking train wreck.

QuoteThat thing where you stick something like (Christmas Ape's example) "Can't Abide Weakness In Himself" on the character sheet and play that.. well.. first of all, it locks you into a very static character. You've essentially played the character out before you even get a chance to use him in a game. Now he's either the character that can't abide weakness in himself, or he's the character that was forced at some point by some GM-hammering to deal with abiding weakness in himself. But either way, he didn't get to develop naturally into being a unique character. It's just this totally artificial foil for whatever issue you stuck him with when you created him.

In a normal long term campaign, you have no idea what your character really is going to develop into. I can think of several examples from my roleplaying past where I had this concept for a character when I started, but 6-12 months later, the character had developed into a much more complex personality than what I had kind of thought at first- it's one of the joys of roleplaying to see what comes out over time.

Alright, I think we're just at it from two different sides, and that's cool. I don't see these traits as being, ultimately, any different from class level or skill ranks; a feature of the character you decided on creation. He's no more locked into that mindset than writing "Fighter 1" on the sheet means you can only ever wear armor, hit things with swords, and run in terror of displacer beasts. All this shit could, should, and almost certainly will change. Nor is having developed that mindset - from, say, a stern disciplinarian parent who didn't believe in displays of emotion - make that character any more 'played out' than the fact he's had training in, say, armor use, fighting with a longsword, and keeping a shield between him and the foe.

This is all just IMO, and I'm sure some disagree. I'm not happy being locked into anything either, but I don't think having traits that describe the character's personality in terms that can give it mechanical weight in the system of choice is any more restrictive than having 'Strength' set at a number when the game starts.

QuoteTwo examples:
One example is from a game I was the GM for: there was a character named Archie. Archie started out as this optimistic happy-go-lucky "salesman" type character when he first entered the campaign. But slowly he became a lot more serious- by the campaign wrapped up (over a year later) he had been through so much that he had turned into this sort of grimly determined ronin type character.  

My second example was one of my own characters: I had an "absent-minded professor" type character that ended up stranded on this savage island as part of the campaign. He starts out doing what I thought his personality was supposed to be- sort of an academic fish out of water, who would do things like -- when he ended up in an evil temple, he would tell the high priest that the place had "fascinating architecture" and ask him when it was built. But he changed over time too- he became a lot darker the more ancient secrets he uncovered- until I sort of a did a "Kurtz from Heart of Darkness" bit near the end of the campaign.

As an aside, and not to pick on you in any way, but I've noticed that not one of these stories that I've ever heard has characters becoming better-adjusted by the end of their development. Always darker, harder, more ready to solve problems with force. To contrast, Humanity (and I hate V:tM) at least gave you the option to choose "trying for Golconda" (transcendance of the vampiric condition via 'humane' acts) as a character goal and have some kind of mechanical chance at it. I don't think there are -0- stories about PCs becoming better people, but they seem very few and far between.

QuoteThose characters had freedom to develop in the awesome way they did because they weren't saddled with "love for humanity 6d6" (or something similarly idiotic) on their character sheet.

See, the way I picture this, you might well start with "Love of humanity +4" (or whatever mechanical system you use) on the sheet; and even if it stays there, things like "tortured by the Ahran Church +5" and "Loathes vampires +3" (both acquired in play) override that, and the Ahran temple burns to the ground, worshippers trapped inside, so you can kill the secretly vampiric congregation leader, as a random example off the top of my head. You may love humanity, but those fuckers have to -pay-.


It's a difference in perspective, and one I doubt we'll ever agree on. Where you see them restricting the character's development, I see them as letting me model -all- of the character's development in terms that are clearly laid out (without resorting to levels of Ranger for the favored enemy bonuses ). I agree they are more likely to damage play than having purely physical or mental mechanics, but I don't think they always will. It's all in how they're used.


This is all my opinion; others may disagree. I don't claim truth, just a style my players have fun with.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThat thing where you stick something like (Christmas Ape's example) "Can't Abide Weakness In Himself" on the character sheet and play that.. well.. first of all, it locks you into a very static character. You've essentially played the character out before you even get a chance to use him in a game. Now he's either the character that can't abide weakness in himself, or he's the character that was forced at some point by some GM-hammering to deal with abiding weakness in himself.

Of course he has to deal with that at some point, successfully or not, as internal conflicts are perfect fuel for roleplaying and one of the reasons why personality mechanics exist in the first place. That conflict in turn may lead to the character developing in other directions when he either learns to accept moments of weakness or begin to deny them more resolutely than ever before. Having the trait defined like that doesn't prevent the character from changing in the future. Besides, unless you start out by playing someone who is a completely blank slate in terms of personality, he must have at least something that could be written into that same space on the sheet; otherwise, well, he's not really a character, just a bunch of numbers.

Well in both of these cases- the characters became a bit tougher and darker because they were adventurers. They saw danger every day, and it hardened them in certain ways.

But what I think is more important and illustrative is that Archie the salesman became sort of this determined samurai character over time. His alignment never changed from the original lawful neutral

My character the professor (by contrast) became a character that ended up manipulating the foolish savages and using their superstitions against them, despite the fact that he started out by trying to help the savage tribes. His alignment never changed either.

So in the sense that alignment determined things like "what monsters I can summon" or whatever, alignment suceeded here. But in the sense that alignment told us how to roleplay our characters, it certainly didn't. And I'm extremely thankful for that.

Quote from: GrimGentOf course he has to deal with that at some point, successfully or not, as internal conflicts are perfect fuel for roleplaying and one of the reasons why personality mechanics exist in the first place.

Well, yes. Thats why they are there: to help people with roleplaying. I disagree on the idea that people really need this help, though. Experts don't need any help, and amateurs who might benefit from it are usually better served by coming to it on their own. I hate the idea of forcing anyone to roleplay or 'judging' roleplay.

Quote from: grimgentThat conflict in turn may lead to the character developing in other directions when he either learns to accept moments of weakness or begin to deny them more resolutely than ever before. Having the trait defined like that doesn't prevent the character from changing in the future. Besides, unless you start out by playing someone who is a completely blank slate in terms of personality, he must have at least something that could be written into that same space on the sheet; otherwise, well, he's not really a character, just a bunch of numbers.

This I disagree with: yes you need sort of a baseline personality to begin with, but writing it down is the wrong thing to do. I don't even advise players in my campaign to write background stories for their characters until they play for a while (usually the 3rd or 4th session).

I remember a superhero campaign we had in college where one player came in saying "This character is totally going to be about my dark side.. " and 4 sessions later he had turned into the team's fun jokester character, not dark at all. I don't want to miss out on that stuff (or have the player miss out on that stuff) by strapping something to their character sheet at conception.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThis I disagree with: yes you need sort of a baseline personality to begin with, but writing it down is the wrong thing to do. I don't even advise players in my campaign to write background stories for their characters until they play for a while (usually the 3rd or 4th session).

That's pretty much the opposite of what I (or the people I've played with) have always done. For me, it all starts with a fairly detailed concept and at least a few key details of personal background, none of which will be rewritten later even though the character may very well change drastically as a person. The stats follow afterwards.

(Also, note that in games like Nobilis the characters can in a very literal sense gain power by remaining true to themselves or be weakened by doubt: it's a central game mechanic. This simply isn't possible unless their priorities are kept straight from the beginning.)

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut personality mechanics are so fucking awful...

A brilliant analysis, Maw. And I agree with you completely.  You put it better than I could have.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimGent(Also, note that in games like Nobilis the characters can in a very literal sense gain power by remaining true to themselves or be weakened by doubt: it's a central game mechanic. This simply isn't possible unless their priorities are kept straight from the beginning.)

Yet another reason to add to my long list of "Why Nobilis Sucks ASS". Thanks, Grim.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYet another reason to add to my long list of "Why Nobilis Sucks ASS". Thanks, Grim.

Eh, you're welcome, I'm sure. But it does make sense in the setting: even if a character is absolutely invulnerable to any earthly weapons but has a personal Code against tolerating weakness, maneuvering him into acknowledging whatever weaknesses he tries to deny might do more damage than a nuclear bomb. On the other hand, direct violence generally isn't the most useful solution.

(You could also implement the same problem as a Handicap, of course, but that wouldn't render him anywhere near as vulnerable.)

Quote from: Andy KAnd I'm curious as to which ones.  Are we talking "D&D Alignment" here?

No.

I'm not, at least, and I'm pretty confiden Maddman wasn't either.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadNo.

I'm not, at least, and I'm pretty confiden Maddman wasn't either.

No, I'm not.  Alignment is more 'football teams' than moral system.  I'm talking about things like Unisystem's Drawbacks, Qualites, and Drama Points, Exalteds Motivation, Intimicies, and Virtues, and Unknown Armies Passions and Madness Meter.

Alignments came in play because I mentioned that even old-school D&D had some kind of background mechanics. Certainly of another kind, 'though it was pretty important for certain classes. And a lot of DM's rewarded role-playing close to your alignment, so it was some kind of retroactive positive enforcement (as opposed to the instant boosts more modern games implement).

I'm generally not a big fan of them, especially when you get some character creation bonus from them. If you want to play someone who's overconfident and curious, please do so (as if there's another type), but don't expect me to subsidize your insane strength from that...
('Though I get some kind of minor sadistic kick from certain rolls on the Hackmaster Flaws tables...)

I found the Pendragon implementation quite interesting, and amongst recent games Artesia is doing quite well. Might actually play the latter one pretty soon.

Quote from: SosthenesI'm generally not a big fan of them, especially when you get some character creation bonus from them. If you want to play someone who's overconfident and curious, please do so (as if there's another type), but don't expect me to subsidize your insane strength from that...
('Though I get some kind of minor sadistic kick from certain rolls on the Hackmaster Flaws tables...)

I'll agree with that.  With drawbacks I much prefer systems that give some kind of reward when they come up in play - Buffy gives Drama points (though it also gives points at chargen) and World of Darkness gives bonus XP.  

Probably the worst implementation was the 2e S|<1llZ n P0\/\/3rZ book, which perfected the 'reward players for what they were going to do anyway'.  Couldn't count the PCs that were Bad Tempered and Greedy.  Oh noes, what a drawback, a D&D character that had an attitude and liked treasure!  That might lead to killing of things and taking of stuff!  Unless you were a paladin, in which case you took Zealot and Honorable.