Dungeons & Dragons, Call of Cthulhu, Chronicles of Darkness, Other TTRPGs

[Totenkindly]

One of the older sites that is pretty extensive is this one:
The Alignment System

However, I really like the exploration of how to play various alignments in a realistic way here:
Alignment - Pathfinder_OGC

I mentioned my current character ended up drifting in Neutral Evil, but I play her as a paragon of "pragmatism," with a dallop of narcissism thrown in for good measure. I usually don't play "evil" and I didn't want to do something cliche -- my whole goal was to present her in a way that others could mistake her for "good" until they really understood her motivations. So she'll do good things if necessary but generally for selfish reasons at core, and she could sell others out if it suits her enough. She also can justify all of her actions with some rational-sounding reason, to support the end-goal. She doesn't even really recognize she is evil, at this point; she still thinks she's a good person. She has had others call her an evil person, and she just dismisses it as absurd.

Neutral, neutral or true neutral, sounds boring to me and I'm not sure who would choose to play a character like that but perhaps it is properly understood as a more balanced and evenly traited character as opposed to the more colourful but unbalanced strengths and weaknesses characters?

True neutral is difficult to play. Typically you either are committed to avoid extremes (if you're actually "striving" for balance); or you could just remain mostly indifferent; or you could be in a "zen" center without experiencing active desire/need to compel you to behave in certain ways. Some gamers break each trait into three parts and assign numbers in order to determine "degrees" on the scale (for good = 1,2,3 and 1 would be VERY good, and 3 would be marginally good; for neutral = 4, 5, 6, and so "pure neutral" would be 5, whereas if you are 4 neutral, you lean towards good and 6 neutral towards evil, etc.)

The idea of lawful evil or rule abiding evil and chaotic or lawless good are totally intriguing ideas. I'm already trying to figure out what marvel or DC characters I would consider in each category.

Ledger's "Joker" is probably Chaotic Neutral. Dr. Doom leans towards a more lawful/structured type of Evil. Captain America and Superman are typically viewed as Lawful Good. And so forth.

Batman's interesting... he operates outside the law. We think he's generally "good" but maybe not good to the degree Superman is, and he might even veer into Neutral in later representatives of him. He's focused on justice, but it almost becomes revenge.

 

[Passacaglia]

The nine grid system is familiar to me from memes and pics, I'm interested to hear this descriptive breakdown though because a lot didnt make sense to me about it.

Neutral, neutral or true neutral, sounds boring to me and I'm not sure who would choose to play a character like that but perhaps it is properly understood as a more balanced and evenly traited character as opposed to the more colourful but unbalanced strengths and weaknesses characters?

The idea of lawful evil or rule abiding evil and chaotic or lawless good are totally intriguing ideas. I'm already trying to figure out what marvel or DC characters I would consider in each category.

I know that the good and evil labels are things people dont generally want to apply outside of the realms of gaming but the whole grid and typology/traitology is interesting to me. I bet a lot of the characters I know from D&D would not fit in the categories I would guess for them.

The descriptions of each alignment tend to change a little with every new edition of the game, and there have been at least seven editions so far, I believe. But the official descriptions that inspired most of those internet memes can be found here.

On a personal note, True Neutral is one of my two go-to alignments for my own D&D characters because I think of it as the most 'real' alignment. That is, if I had to assign an alignment to the majority of humanity, it'd be True Neutral. So when I want to play a good ol' fashioned hero, I go Neutral Good; and when I want to play a more checkered character, I go True Neutral.

 

[Totenkindly]

On a personal note, True Neutral is one of my two go-to alignments for my own D&D characters because I think of it as the most 'real' alignment. That is, if I had to assign an alignment to the majority of humanity, it'd be True Neutral. So when I want to play a good ol' fashioned hero, I go Neutral Good; and when I want to play a more checkered character, I go True Neutral.

That's interesting. So it sounds like you view it more as avoiding the extremes?

 

[Lark]

The descriptions of each alignment tend to change a little with every new edition of the game, and there have been at least seven editions so far, I believe. But the official descriptions that inspired most of those internet memes can be found here.

On a personal note, True Neutral is one of my two go-to alignments for my own D&D characters because I think of it as the most 'real' alignment. That is, if I had to assign an alignment to the majority of humanity, it'd be True Neutral. So when I want to play a good ol' fashioned hero, I go Neutral Good; and when I want to play a more checkered character, I go True Neutral.

I was thinking that myself, well I was think that true neutral could be the norm or typical type.

 

[Lark]

That's interesting. So it sounds like you view it more as avoiding the extremes?

I think the extremes are not typical.

Of what I would describe as evil, without exaggeration, in the last seven years I've known three individuals fitting that bill, two lawful, one chaotic, it was the one chaotic who actually provided the clues to the characters of all three.

When I think about it most evil individuals at large and not dead or detained in some way are probably highly lawful in order to be at liberty at all.

I want to qualify that last statement in a way, these individuals I think have resorted to the evil behaviour as a compensation for inadequacy. In my experience that's always the case, evil isnt something more human, its something less than human on the whole.

 

[Passacaglia]

That's interesting. So it sounds like you view it more as avoiding the extremes?

In societal aggregate, yes, but not in a 2e 'keeper of cosmic balance' sort of way. That's one those D&D things that I accepted early on, much like alignment languages for you, and then later was like "How did that ever make sense?"

Anyhow, my idea of TN is the Average Joe. Average Joe thinks of himself as a good and upright citizen; he loves and works for his family (except his Aunt Tina, who he never forgave for embarrassing him when they were kids), he pays his taxes (though he has a not-quite-legit little business trading vintage coins), and he even gives a bit to charity. But he's also a little bit racist, he thinks his son Josh ought to man up and play football instead of D&D, and he hardly ever puts himself out there for anyone other than his close friends and family unless there's something to be gained.

Average Joe doesn't actively or intentionally avoid extremes, in fact he can get very extreme in certain circumstances, but he doesn't practice any extreme consistently enough to *ding* on a detect chaos/evil/good/law spell.

I don't think my idea of TN quite meshes with any standard definition...but then, we've already agreed that alignment definitions are less than ideal, so I'm okay with that.

PS: I clicked on your Paizo link, and holy cow! Every time I visit the PF SRD I seem to find some new corner. Clearly someone put a lot of thought into those guidelines!

- - - Updated - - -

I was thinking that myself, well I was think that true neutral could be the norm or typical type.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I think of the alignment. In the context of a D&D adventure, I see TN characters becoming adventurers for anti-heroic reasons. (As opposed to villainous or heroic reasons.) For example, Indiana Jones and Lara Croft adventure to find ancient relics; James Bond adventures because it's his job; Riddick adventures because the outside world won't leave him alone, etc..

(It's entirely possible to label these characters as other alignments, but I hope I'm getting my idea across. TN characters adventure for more 'mundane' reasons, for lack of a better word.)

 

[Totenkindly]

PS: I clicked on your Paizo link, and holy cow! Every time I visit the PF SRD I seem to find some new corner. Clearly someone put a lot of thought into those guidelines!

Yeah, there's a lot of stuff they put up... and basically there it is, right on the web.

Like I said, I really liked that page. It's obvious they really tried to think about this philosophically and psychologically in terms of how these behaviors work in a real-world framework. You could use that stuff to help generate realistic character behavior for a novel or movie.

 

[Lark]

Yeah, that's pretty much how I think of the alignment. In the context of a D&D adventure, I see TN characters becoming adventurers for anti-heroic reasons. (As opposed to villainous or heroic reasons.) For example, Indiana Jones and Lara Croft adventure to find ancient relics; James Bond adventures because it's his job; Riddick adventures because the outside world won't leave him alone, etc..

(It's entirely possible to label these characters as other alignments, but I hope I'm getting my idea across. TN characters adventure for more 'mundane' reasons, for lack of a better word.)

No, I understand, like The Hobbits in the Shire, the reluctant adventurer.

This is an interesting topic and I want to talk to you guys about it some more but just right now I dont really feel like discussing things. Which is unusual. I'm under attack from really strong feelings. I expect it to pass in time.

Someone has died/is dying who matters.

 

[Fluffywolf]

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-oTJHKXHicQ0jv37mr8D9kRFXox7-PXD

I love this one. It is set to the "Stars without numbers" universe, which is a sandbox sci fi world.

It asks a lot from the DM but the possibilities are amazing. It also does not neccesarily reward you for getting into fights but is based on completing missions and goals. So while fighting is part of the game if the PC's want to, you dont neccesarily have to resort to violence. Also the episodic nature means you can start end end storylines whenever whilest developping your character.

Also Ive watched quite a few DM's at work and I think Adam is the best I have seen.

 

[Xander]

I recall one evening spent telling the rest of the characters that I, as a paladin, was duty bound to inform the watch that we had hard evidence that an evil temple was running in their city and that we would be breaking in to prevent all kinds of nastiness. To a bunch of neutral and chaotic characters they thought this was ridiculous. I had to explain that as a law abiding citizen it was my duty to do so but as a weapon for justice and good I would only be informing them, not asking permission. I play Lawful Good like my god intended

The best of times was when we played a game of Dark Heresy though. Set in the 40K universe, a dark setting.

We played with a psychic, untrusted by most well thinking people as they can unintentionally summon demons if they get things wrong. Our psychic was of course cursed, so he managed to summon a demon in one of the first encounters and said demon headed straight for him. I tried to defend, firing my large calibre pistol at it...miss....miss...hit...the psychic straight in the head... The critical miss in that game can be hilarious!
Fast forward to a later time when this player had made a new psychic (after much grumbling) and we got into a tight spot when we were being advanced upon by several thugs. Being a cunning person he decided to create an aura of fear to drive them away...Only issue was, they all passed the check and we all failed...so we gunned him down. Fortunately he survived, only just. However he would slow our escape and could give up vital information if caught. Based on these tight parameters and our heightened sense of camaraderie, one of the group shot him in the head to make sure nothing bad happened.

I would humbly suggest you look into Pathfinder. The classes are much more entertaining and the system is better balanced (based on v3 and v3.5, not tried v5 and v4 was far too limited).

 

[Totenkindly]

D&D5 (what I can tell from the player's handbook) looks more viable than 4. It's a better mix. Monks might even rock more; in Pathfinder, a lot of people get frustrated with monk, it's something you dip into in order to play some other class. *doh*

Pathfinder has a lot more options to it, I think; but that can be confusing to inexperienced players. It looks like D&D5 is still trying to fish the "new to RPGs" player market.

 

[Xander]

D&D5 (what I can tell from the player's handbook) looks more viable than 4. It's a better mix. Monks might even rock more; in Pathfinder, a lot of people get frustrated with monk, it's something you dip into in order to play some other class. *doh*

Pathfinder has a lot more options to it, I think; but that can be confusing to inexperienced players. It looks like D&D5 is still trying to fish the "new to RPGs" player market.

Glad I never embarked upon buying it. As a died in the wool (proper) Munchkin, it's the options that drive me

One of my favourite games is still Shadowrun and the number of options in that is astounding!

Still, this new player idea seems a little myopic by the companies. What you need is a system that can be expanded painlessly. They could do with simpler early levels and more complexity as you grow as characters. Mind you D&D has always been about the exponential power creep. Why a ten level adventurer with perhaps a years experience can whoop ten city guards who've been on duty for forty years without breaking a sweat let alone getting a scratch is something which always irked me. The game is, however, intrinsically limited in it's obsession with a single die determining probability. No bell curve.

 

[Totenkindly]

At least THAC0 is dead. :whew:

I think smaller game systems with different infrastucture can avoiding doing the "niche" thing, they're used to being small and lean in their staffing.

And a lot of stuff for Pathfinder seems to be more like White Wolf, where you don't have internal staff per se, they're all doing other jobs and writing this stuff on freelance / putting together the game. (Is that true?)

TSR was the old-model company with in-house full-time employees. Not sure how Wizards handed that once they bought them out in the 90's, but it's like they are still on the model of having to be REALLY BIG / solid company and thus trying to scoop up new players all the time... people with no experience. Most people started with D&D but would then jump to more niche games like Shadowrun, I think, because they found the system and liked it and/or the genre better. Lots of games like that.

Pathfinder had a HUGE opportunity when D&D (1) made the rules open source and (2) took a huge turn with their 4e. They basically said, "Hey, we're going to take the 3.5e game that everyone likes and keep that and expand on it, so if you like that, stay with us!" It was a window of opportunity and they really capitalized on it successfully. (They also seem to have that stable "competition play" where you can build characters RAW, orthodox, and then take that character to any official game anywhere and be able to use it. And get official stuff for your characters in that context. Which is kind of cool.)

Anyway, D&D is still focused on "bringing in new players) to fuel later sales, and the other companies are more about winning over players once they understand RPGs and getting them to use their systems. At least that is how I view it.

Pathfinder to me seems pretty easy, but I've also been playing AD&D since I was 10-12 or so. I remember the rougher editions of the game and liked the 3.5 system, having ironed out some kinks, added skills and some diversity, etc. Pathfinder seems all about diversity, although you can get into some magic-item and attribute creep.

 

[Xander]

You missed out the main man, Monte Cook did his own system based on the Open d20 license.

It's depressing how far that system of rules went. Shadowrun's old dice pools were much better as a mechanic and I truly did love the d20 system in the old Star Wars game before d20s came along and homogenised the industry.

 

[Totenkindly]

You missed out the main man, Monte Cook did his own system based on the Open d20 license.

I actually have Numenera and the Strange. Not many people play it around here (I've only done one session of Numenera) but I liked it. Definitely simplifies the play session but did not feel over-inhibiting.




... i need a good game of Paranoia. hahaha!

 

[Xander]

i need a good game of Paranoia. hahaha!

You should work in local government. Plenty there to go around!

 

[Passacaglia]

Why a ten level adventurer with perhaps a years experience can whoop ten city guards who've been on duty for forty years without breaking a sweat let alone getting a scratch is something which always irked me.

It is more than a bit silly when a party goes from zero to hero demigod within a year of game world time, but of all the D&Disms that bug me -- and there are quite a few -- the game's very literal 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger' dynamic has never been one of them. I like dramatic advancement, so I just think of it as a byproduct of the game world's fantastical physics.

 

[Totenkindly]

It's all about balance. I mean, does anyone want to be a magic user who can still only cast magic missile after one year of play? If they aren't dead by then?

Some classes also do better out of the box than others; then some of those piddly classes can outdo the "faster developing" classes once they get up to level 10 or higher. So it can be a seesaw.

Most campaigns I'm in start around levels 4-6, and we usually haven't continued past level 11-12 before starting a new campaign with new characters.

 

[Passacaglia]

D&D5 (what I can tell from the player's handbook) looks more viable than 4. It's a better mix. Monks might even rock more; in Pathfinder, a lot of people get frustrated with monk, it's something you dip into in order to play some other class. *doh*

It's funny you mention not liking 4e and 3.x monks being frustrating, 'cause they actually rock in 4e! I may regret asking this, but this is the second time you've spoken badly about 4e despite having never played it, yes? What exactly do you not like about what you see?

 

[Totenkindly]

It's funny you mention not liking 4e and 3.x monks being frustrating, 'cause they actually rock in 4e! I may regret asking this, but this is the second time you've spoken badly about 4e despite having never played it, yes? What exactly do you not like about what you see?

In short, it looked like a lot of MMO'ing the AD&D game to me, when I've looked over the system in the past. My son also created characters in that system at college, his first experience with D&D, and I didn't really like his description of what he was working with.

(Note that I'm always willing to give something a go, but I don't shell out lots of money for PDFs and hardback rulebooks when it's a system I'm probably not going to use. So no, if people with similar playstyles don't like it, and what I see looks like a step down to me -- I'm not going to invest my money and time.)

It's not like that's a rare opinion. It's one reason why they released 5e and tried to merge different editions play experiences. 5e had better buzz, I read about it, though it might be enjoyable, and found a half-priced PH I could buy in order to read more closely.

If you enjoy it, or someone else thinks it looks interesting, be my guest.