Games Discussion Thread

[Hentaispider]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Hmm. Well, NE is primarily out for himself. He might be comparatively normal or he might be the kind of person who tortures animals. But if he was given a choice between saving someone from drowning or rifling through the persons clothing to see if there are any valuables he could pickpocket, he'd choose the latter(assuming no-one was watching and he wouldn't benefit from saving the person). Chaotic Neutral person doesn't like rules or organizations. He's the kind who participates in protests, boycotts big corporations, et cetera.

Let's say they come across an unlocked car. NE would steal and sell it if he thought he'd get away with it. CN would probably do nothing if it belonged to an ordinary person, but if he knew it belonged to someone rich or, say, a police chief or a successful bureaucrat, he'd either steal it or smash windows, etc.

 

[Alias]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Hooker's got it. The way I see it, being lawful is basically just about how well you follow rules. If you're chaotic, you're disruptive and disorderly, but not necessarily in a bad way - chaotic neutral for example would vandalize but typically not in any sort of fashion that would particularly hurt others. Neutral evil on the other hand would kill with no particular remorse, because they don't really follow any code of ethics, not even their own twisted version (like lawful evil would). However, they wouldn't be quite as disruptive and loud about it as chaotic evil would - they would just kill their victims, not torture and draw out their death like CE would.

 

[Nunu]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

i always thought it would be more descriptive if you renamed good and evil to selfless and selfish. Although one major thing its missing is the intensity of their alignment, thats why it works better as two scales, or as i prefer to make them as triangles as i believe in a two kinds of neutral (one being actively neutral and the other just not being good or evil).

although it is very broad, roughly accurate for general descriptions and everyone normally falls into a category , i wouldn't say its comprehensive as there are many things it doesn't say and there is a lot of room for interpretation.

 

[Alias]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

i always thought it would be more descriptive if you renamed good and evil to selfless and selfish.

Uhh... isn't that pretty much what good and evil mean?

although it is very broad, roughly accurate for general descriptions and everyone normally falls into a category , i wouldn't say its comprehensive as there are many things it doesn't say and there is a lot of room for interpretation.

Good thing I didn't say it was comprehensive then, or I'd probably look pretty stupid. I was just wondering if there was anything else out there that was quite as good as the current d&d model.

 

[Nunu]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Uhh... isn't that pretty much what good and evil mean?

hence why i said it would be more descriptive. not much point calling it one thing that means something else when you could just call it that other thing.

Good thing I didn't say it was comprehensive then, or I'd probably look pretty stupid. I was just wondering if there was anything else out there that was quite as good as the current d&d model.

someone else did though, and they weren't stupid they were paraphrasing.

 

[Alias]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

hence why i said it would be more descriptive. not much point calling it one thing that means something else when you could just call it that other thing.

I guess. But that's a problem with the human idea of good and evil and not being able to call it what it actually is rather than the system, I think.

someone else did though, and they weren't stupid they were paraphrasing.

Saying that there's not anything out there that's not (oops meant IS) as comprehensive isn't the same thing as calling something comprehensive. Unless I'm missing a post where someone actually did say that.

 

[Incubus]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Why does everyone think that the law chaos axis has anything to do with following or upholding laws?

This idealology falls apart the moment someone leaves their native lands and finds themselves in a different society, with different laws that may even conflict with the ones you upheld in your own.

Law-chaos is poorly named and often leads to this misconception. Frankly, I think there's only one way for the law-chaos axis to make sense in the meta-universe; considering that there are powers that actually affect people based on their alignment on this axis.

Simply put, it's got very little to do with laws. I'll get into details about this later, but the whole upholding the law or not thing is an effect, not a cause. By my system, chaotic people are not automatically likely to be breaking laws.

Much like good vs evil, law vs chaos must be a fundamental part of the person's thought process. But at the same time, it can't be a case of "I'm going to piss on their laws because I'm chaotic". Doing things that are specifically prohibited for the sake of doing them leans much towards being evil than chaotic.

No, the way to justify law v chaos is a method of thinking. The 'lawful' individual, which I'd much prefer to call 'ordered' as it helps reduce the confusion, has set habits and patterns. Everything is done through careful planning, and the perfectly ordered individual will often have plans for any occasion they can conceive. They do not like to be taken by surprise and do their best to prevent it from occurring.

As a result of this highly ordered and structured nature, they are indeed more likely to adhere and uphold a lawful system, but that does not necessarily mean they will. By finding loopholes that violate the spirit of the law, or even carefully breaking it in such a way that they are not caught out, a lawful person can indeed break laws while staying true to their alignment. This typically results in a person of Lawful Evil alignment.

However, chaotic individuals are much more spontaneous. Not ones for heavy planning, they prefer to simply wing things and improvise to adapt to situations on the fly. Contrary to the lawful person who hates surprises, they love them as it keeps things interesting. They are not necessarily stupid, as is often the case in stereotypes, they could be brilliant minds who love working on the fly and solving problems by quickly adapting their thoughts to the sudden changes in situations. However, due to their spontaneous nature, they have little patience for ordered systems and are equally likely to be prone to wanderlust.

By law and chaos representing a very way of thinking, rather than respect for any given system of laws, the risk of people's alignments do not change as geography and governments do, and you don't have Paladins who paradox because they're confronted by an evil lawful government.

 

[Nunu]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

hence the largest flaw in the system, room for interpretation, there is no right answer and no wrong answer (unless you define good as kicking babies; thats probably, but not always, wrong)

but the thought that being lawful is about upholding your native laws brings in the issue of traveling to another land. Who's laws do you start upholding? Are these people evil because they have different values? all these questions are up to the players to find out for themselves and i believe that sticking to any concrete definition reduces the game to mathematics.

 

[ToxicShock]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Awesome, I hate D&D now. Thanks guys

 

[Nunu]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

i order you not to hate D&D.

 

[Mamono Assault Force]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

I thought you always hated D&D.

 

[ToxicShock]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

I never said that. I just said I never played it, knew nothing about it, and didn't like the idea of putting forth what seemed like a lot of effort for the startup.

Granted, that makes it sound like I hate D&D, but it's more like I just never liked it.

 

[Mamono Assault Force]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

That does make it sound like you hate D&D. And now that you've said you hate it, I guess that makes me kinda right?

 

[DarkFire1004]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

What's D&D?

 

[Nunu]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

dark all you need to know is that some monsters have the swallow whole ability which them makes the person take acid damage.

 

[ToxicShock]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

What's D&D?

I'm not sure, but it has nothing to do with basketballs, so I have no idea what it is.

Oh I'm sorry, that didn't help you, you don't even know what I'm talking about. D&D and basketballs have nothing to do with math and acupuncture. MATHUPUNCTURE HIGH FIVE!

dark all you need to know is that some monsters have the swallow whole ability which them makes the person take acid damage.

.... So yeah, let's get back to those alignments!

 

[Mamono Assault Force]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Diplomacy and Democracy.

 

[Dusty]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

I thought it meant Drugs and Disease.

 

[Hentaispider]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

i always thought it would be more descriptive if you renamed good and evil to selfless and selfish. Although one major thing its missing is the intensity of their alignment, thats why it works better as two scales, or as i prefer to make them as triangles as i believe in a two kinds of neutral (one being actively neutral and the other just not being good or evil).

although it is very broad, roughly accurate for general descriptions and everyone normally falls into a category , i wouldn't say its comprehensive as there are many things it doesn't say and there is a lot of room for interpretation.

Calling them selfless and selfish is less accurate, though. Generally it's true, but it's entirely possible to be selfless and evil. An example would be a priest who is completely loyal to his evil god and willing to do whatever he can for his god's glory.

 

[Lucas]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Shit comes out tomorrow. Fuck yeah, SamASS.