Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-08-2013, 06:06 PM   #1
AJAC's Avatar
AJAC
-- registered --
  • Dec 2013
  • 2
Some RP/Story issues
First, the term "anarchy" from the main page, which says "anarchist survivor groups have taken control".

..anarchists taking control? They're not anarchists. Anarchy means there nobody is in control; "an absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal". Having some group or individuals in control means that there's no anarchy.


Second, the alignment system. While old-fashioned and memorable, the good-evil-lawful-chaotic spiel is outdated and plainly wrong.

See, good and evil are subjective evaluations; what one person thinks is good, another might think is bad, and a third might see as neither. Stealing food from person A to give to person B, for an example, can be seen as both good and bad, depending on one's own views on that particular situation. So would murdering one person in order to harvest his or her organs to save lives.

Aside from being a larger topic in itself, what will happen when the game calls you "evil" for doing what you consider to be good? Or vice versa? How will the game know the particular circumstances, the reasons, the driving motivation behind the PCs actions?

And, regarding the "chaos vs. order" thing, we've further problems.

For one, you can have order without laws, and laws which do not stop chaos. It's entirely possible to wish to promote law, structure, tradition and all that, and still be against whatever laws there currently are. Will the game, again, assume to know the motivations of the PC? Will the game consider the PC an anarchist if the PC wishes to topple the current government of a given area?

Which brings me to the "lawful good, chaotic evil" side of things. It's easy to argue that there is no such thing as "lawful good", or "chaotic good". If a person is morally opposed to laws, then she will not see "a stern, but fair mayor" as lawful good, but would instead see him as a despot- Just as another person might see "a marauder, distributing stolen goods to the needy" as nothing but a wicked criminal.

And what about the person who seeks only personal gain, but would not harm an innocent? Someone who would disregard all laws, who would not help anyone out of altruism, someone without any sort of creed, who would honour all contracts to keep her reputation, who would trade fairly only to keep customers, someone who would give to charity for PR? How would the game classify someone like that?

My point being, will the game assume to know the PCs enough to define them with these overly simplified terms? Should it?
Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 07:20 AM   #2
MrNixon's Avatar
MrNixon
-- administrator --
  • Jul 2013
  • 579
Good and reasonable questions you put. Glad to hear them.
So let me use my 5 years of experience as DM to answer them.


First, the term "anarchy" from the main page, which says "anarchist survivor groups have taken control". ...anarchists taking control? They're not anarchists. Anarchy means there nobody is in control; "an absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal". Having some group or individuals in control means that there's no anarchy.
The order and chaos are pretty comparative things. In real life they flow one to another. Good sample of such "chaos-order" scale is contemporary prison: the chaos is prisoners, the law is guards. You may say that prisoners have their own "law system", but everyone who's been in jail would say that is not true. You can have a positin there but nothing insures you from knife between the ribs. You can live my that law system for some time but when the time comes you will do very chaotic things to survive. Speaking about "anarchist survivor groups": those people hates any governments because they blame government system for the Apocalypse.

Second, the alignment system. While old-fashioned and memorable, the good-evil-lawful-chaotic spiel is outdated and plainly wrong. See, good and evil are subjective evaluations; what one person thinks is good, another might think is bad, and a third might see as neither.
Despite those scales are pretty subjective, we know that every people have their primitive basis inherited. Hitler cold though that death camps were for good of German people. But it doesn't make him "lawful-good" character. Moreover in real life alignment is pretty flowing thing. In AR RPG I am sure it will change a lot during your play through.

Stealing food from person A to give to person B, for an example, can be seen as both good and bad, depending on one's own views on that particular situation.
Most of your cations will affect alignment shifts. And you are right: in your pattern if A is G and B is bad and you are true neutral it doesn't change anything (if A steals not by order of other ppl). If you are lawful-good it gives you -1 point for lawfulness scale and -1 point for goodness scale. If you are chaotic-good it will give -1 point for goodness scale. If lawful-evil -1 point for lawfulness scale. If chaotic-evil - it won't change anything. Etc.

So would murdering one person in order to harvest his or her organs to save lives.
Murdering people is bad :) I mean if you are good person and you kill any person except for hostile that action should shift your alignment a little (in SACPIC). Harvesting other people organs wont bring you popularity as well. But when (and if) you give all you harvested to other people to save them that action might be regarded as a good action.

Aside from being a larger topic in itself, what will happen when the game calls you "evil" for doing what you consider to be good? Or vice versa? How will the game know the particular circumstances, the reasons, the driving motivation behind the PCs actions?
The game cant call you evil - your actions shifts your alignment. Do not worry, that old school scales are pretty good in hands of good DM.

For one, you can have order without laws, and laws which do not stop chaos. It's entirely possible to wish to promote law, structure, tradition and all that, and still be against whatever laws there currently are. Will the game, again, assume to know the motivations of the PC? Will the game consider the PC an anarchist if the PC wishes to topple the current government of a given area?
Several examples of sophisticated popular characters' alignment if SACPIC:
- Walter White 'Heisenberg' (Breaking Bad): neutral-good (at the beginning), lawful-evil (at the culmination), neutral-good (at the end).
- Philip Blake 'The Governor' (Walking Dead): lawful-evil (at the beginning), chaotic-evil (by the end of Woodbury), chaotic-good (at the beginning of S04), chaotic-evil (by the end).
Etc.


And what about the person who seeks only personal gain, but would not harm an innocent?
True neutral.

Someone who would disregard all laws, who would not help anyone out of altruism, someone without any sort of creed,
Chaotic Neutral.

who would honour all contracts to keep her reputation, who would trade fairly only to keep customers, someone who would give to charity for PR?
Lawful... but the evil-good scales depends on deeper motivations.

My point being, will the game assume to know the PCs enough to define them with these overly simplified terms? Should it?
The game have not to judge you in complex - but it will put you in many small situations which can slightly shifts your alignment. I haven't met any person who have one determined alignment through his life. So don't forget about character and person evolution.
Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 07:43 AM   #3
AJAC's Avatar
AJAC
-- registered --
  • Dec 2013
  • 2
The examples of the characters (Walter White & The Governor) are good points, and different points: While it's fair to say that Walter White's character changed over the series, it seems that The Governor's character didn't change much, only what we saw of him.

And the person I described, in the "what about.." paragraph, was a single person. Acting like a "good" character, but with completely selfish motives.

I've never met a DM who could reasonably try to categorise my characters in these blocks, and that has been in a fluid, face-to-face interaction where I could explain my character's behaviour and motivation.

Doubt it'll change gameplay much, if at all, but I think it'll still be irksome when, while doing something I'd not consider "evil", the game calls me evil. Or calls me good for doing something which I didn't consider good. :|
Quote
Old 12-11-2013, 03:16 AM   #4
MrNixon's Avatar
MrNixon
-- administrator --
  • Jul 2013
  • 579
Originally Posted by AJAC View Post
I've never met a DM who could reasonably try to categorise my characters in these blocks
Let's check with the game release :)
Quote
Old 12-11-2013, 06:09 AM   #5
Abbysam007's Avatar
Abbysam007
-- registered --
  • Dec 2013
  • 1
Having moved a whole epoch beyond the technology of the Past Age allowed the UG in 112 AR to establish a few outposts on the planet's surface, and install barriers and radiation shields over industrial areas reclaimed from the Survivors.

______________________
Pass4sure http://pass4-sure.org.uk/
Braindumps http://mybraindumps.org

Last edited by Abbysam007; 03-21-2014 at 11:21 AM.
Quote
Old 12-13-2013, 09:44 AM   #6
markjosol's Avatar
markjosol
-- registered --
  • Dec 2013
  • 2
paragraph, was a single person. Acting like a "good" character, but with completely selfish motives.
Quote
Old 12-15-2013, 08:44 PM   #7
Valti's Avatar
Valti
-- registered --
  • Dec 2013
  • 7
I agree with markjosol in a way, but I also agree with the devs on this one.

What I mean is that I think that it would be nigh impossible to come up with a perfect system that covers it all. While the good-evil, lawful-chaotic system seems a bit outdated, I can't think of a better one that I have encountered. And you have to have something if you want a morality system...

Do you know of any other systems that might work better markjosol?
Quote
Old 12-19-2013, 08:31 PM   #8
ArtX_Jazz's Avatar
ArtX_Jazz
-- registered --
  • Dec 2013
  • 11
Originally Posted by MrNixon View Post
The game cant call you evil - your actions shifts your alignment. Do not worry, that old school scales are pretty good in hands of good DM.
The key problem in single-player cRPG is the lack of DM :(

Historically, alignment in fantasy influenced the choice of classes, the attitude of the gods and the possibility of using rare weapons and armor.
AR does not involve classes. In science fiction, find the "The machine gun of justice", which shoots only in the hands of good owner is at least strange 0_o

Reputation seems for me more appropriate to regulate the relationship of different factions to the player.

Maybe I do not see the whole picture. Waiting for further post about skills.

Last edited by ArtX_Jazz; 12-19-2013 at 08:32 PM.
Quote
Old 12-20-2013, 08:58 AM   #9
MrNixon's Avatar
MrNixon
-- administrator --
  • Jul 2013
  • 579
Originally Posted by ArtX_Jazz View Post
AR does not involve classes. In science fiction, find the "The machine gun of justice", which shoots only in the hands of good owner is at least strange 0_o.
Very strange. Because of that no alignment restrictions on items are applied.
Quote
Reply

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes