Shattered Kingdoms

I knew it! I was playing Rifts a few weeks ago and i was like, wait, this is eerily similar... as in exactly.

Let me specify my "harm" guideline a little closer. It's not so much how you harm obvious threats or invulnerable juggernauts. It's how you deal with people you can injure but ideally shouldn't.

If a necromancer storms into a city with a horde of undead, killing citiznes, he's an obvious menace. Even the most principled knight could cut him down without a qualm, for the benefit of society.

On the other hand, if a necromancer comes into a city just to talk, there's a potential conflict. Do you respect the law, or do you kill the wretch while you can? While many considerations can come into play, a difference begins to emerge between the principled and the scrupulous.

Of course, these ethical dilemmas are for those who could kill the necromancer. A shoemaker might have a different quandry. Does he push someone else forward before he runs?

To my mind, one of the great advantages of our system is that each alignment naturally dictates limits on the character's behavior. Harming people is admittedly only one dimension of this, but it's a reasonable way to justify the current ordering of aligments in the good-evil scale.

I grant we've no true equivalent to D&D's lawful neutral alignment. However, why we'd want one I've no idea. Someone devoted enough to follow laws to his own disadvantage surely isn't selfish. Having to choose between supporting good law systems or evil ones doesn't seem an undue hardship, since that can't be avoided as a practical matter. Avoiding the nonsense of "neutral" anything is another great bonus of our system.

You might be right on the name man. I only remember that the RPG was based on arhurian legend. I've got a photo copy of it somewhere, but not sure where or how deep in the piles. True neutral is an easy choice for truly indifferent, truly selfish or truly balance-seeking characters. Also, alignments are what characters really feel, not what they might show to the world or pretend to be. A "whipped" character as you called him would not really have this alignment; he'd be forced to act like he did.

The Ordered or Disciplined or whatever might sound uninteresting, but really, are all characters supposed to be adventurers? Many tribunal members are effectively government agents, and while they may serve in other lands, they are still closely bound to their homes in duty and in spirit.

"Someone who is basically selfish but doesn't break the rules cause they don't want to get caught."

That's only one way to put it, and honestly, this sounds more like anarchist or unprincipled! I would see it as someone who effectively -lives-to follow the rules and organized way of thinking he's learned in his lifetime. An insensitive army officer, who has no particular intent on causing suffering or helping others but only duty is a nice example. Most non-holy knights would also fit in perfectly with this alignment. For whatever reason, the Orderly character has chosen to place lawful conduct and belief in the pure Order of things around him above anything else. Such dedication could manifests as duty to a particular society, group, nation, or ideology. The common characteristic would be a deeply-rooted belief that Order is the "right" way the universe should effectively work.

If you decide to fit in such an alignment in the future, at least -I- would make a char with it right away.

Forsooth: I disagree with your last paragraph. You, as a player, -might- have grown used to the greys of SKs gravitating towards good or evil as a necessity or a natural byproduct of the conflict between those two generic alignment groups, but the Druid cabal has shown time and again that neutrality does not mean indifference, but specific dedication to a sophisticated ideal like, most commonly, "Balance".

"However, why we'd want one" (a lawful neutral alignment) "I've no idea. Someone devoted enough to follow laws to his own disadvantage surely isn't selfish."

I think the reason for much confusion lies in grey alignments originally being called "selfish". People think that all grey-aura characters -must- be selfish for that to work. But being selfish is a very particular personality trait that everyone, from evil to good might or might not have (within certain limits for each alignment). I also believe that the term is misleading and extremely narrow in scope of what sort of personality it allows.

Someone devoted enough to follow laws - period- does not -have- to necessarily be selfish, but might as well be. Evil characters -also- follow laws that might be to their own disadvantage. They might not hesitate to use the letter of the law, but they don't actually mock their own laws by constantly trying to abuse them (stretching them in some cases would probably be a challenge of wits and initiative). A supposed Orderly character would -want- to be completely devoted to following and promoting the Law within society and without. See my first reply to Dulrik for reference on the imaginary character who'd act all Orderly only because he has to.

No, I've played Palladium extensively. It's a pretty standard fantasy world. It's true that in the original game, certain alignments were bound to laws of chivalry. Dulrik has been wise enough to tone these rules down, so we aren't so restricted. The resulting system is the best I've seen.



You miss the point. There is no "grey" in the Palladium system - only good, selfish, and evil. Even in ours, grey is only a color you see when you use detect aura. I realize you're not fond of that, but it's not an accident. The whole system presumes there is no "neutral" between good and evil. Instead there's a scale of philosophies from most good to most evil. The advantage in such precision is overwhelming.

I can sympathize with the desire for an aberrant that's obviously different from a hellion's aberrant. I felt the same way when playing Palladium, but a "neutral" of any sort simply can't work in this system. My solution was a scrupulous character. That alignment's willingness to harm others in pursuit of the greater good fits such a character well, I think. If that's too white-aura for your character, perhaps aberrant isn't such a bad fit?

Forsooth is on the same wavelength that I am. I don't believe in neutrality as a philosophy at all. Everything that thinks, feels and wants to live has some self-interest that will cause them to take the side of an issue that they believe will benefit them the most.

The way I see it, when we say good and evil, what we are really talking about is the range of complete selflessness to a level of selfishness that precludes consideration of anyone but yourself. Generally when we say selfish, we are usually thinking of the mild type that values yourself over others. But "evil" is really just an even more intense version of selfish.

Alright, pretty dance around the issue, I admit, but the problem of priests going grey to avoid HW, SoF and that other thing while following light or dark gods still remains, and is still jacked up. I say if your a PRIEST, as in the pinicle of that particular faith and a prime example of its tennants, dark or light, you should BE dark or light. It is an abuse of the system and needs to be stopped. Do not allow greys in dark/light religions. (<-- period)

Wow, Dulrik, I actually agree with you completely on this issue. I've had rather intense arguments in favor of this viewpoint IRL, even! Go figure.

Why not make it where spear of faith and other spells affect not only those of dark aura, but those flagged with a dark god?

Neutral can be taken a couple different ways. I do think there can be a true middle ground and a system although I don't like called Imagine. Did describe the different alignments through good-neutral-evil. According to the game there are those that are just neutral. Most people in America despite what they might think fall into this catagory because they just want to deal with what is facing them in their lives. They care enough not to go out and harm others but they won't go out and stop others from being harmed either. Then they had True Neutral. This alignment consisted of people who seeked a balance in the world of good and evil. They recognize that too much of either is bad for the world. So if a good kingdom claims most of the world. They will fight with those against the kingdom while if evil is running rampant in the world they will side with good to keep the balance in the world.

So in response to that, I'd say your first example of Americans are that they are selfish not neutral. For your other example about a person who would switch to the opposite side when their former side is winning, I just don't think that's something you'd ever find in real life unless you are counting people who are psychotic.