Goodman Games

This is a quote of the thread going on at ENworld.

That said: most of it I like, but the idea of demons as a mechanic for player spellcasters gives the wrong impression for the game. I see its place in the genre, but how can I tell friends of mine (who I'm proud of having, as they're good people) who happen to be on the conservative religious side, that the game isn't what the wackos say it is, when this is part of it?
Options for non-demon entities will be an important part of this process, minimum.

Priests: The dagger-waving priests mentioned above are just sorcerers, eh? Not clerics. Read the books: all wizards call on outsiders for help, some of them are "priests". Mitra aided Conan in that story (the pheonix on the sword, I think it was), and he had his followers; contrasted to Set and the Stygians, or Elric and Arioch. Cleric-style characters are in there, but they aren't representative of all "priests".

I'd argue that, while Cthulhu is popular, the CoC game does make use of the Elder gods as opposed to the Old Ones, right? ie: strange entities of law vs. the chaotic Old Ones, entities helpful to PCs.


The game likely won't have 3e sorcerers, then. They're not really part of Appendix N. Maybe I can call my Wizard a "sorcerer supreme", finally!

Anyway, as part of the fiction is Law vs. Chaos rather than the D&D alignment wheel; and the popular CoC mythos vs. the Elder Gods (something GG knows a bit about, sure), with REH as an example, I wanted to see what's going on with Alignment and Religion.

Do my wizards need to get it on with the forces of Chaos, or are there less repugnant options for them? Like that priest of Mitra in the Conan story mentioned, that sort of thing. Are there gods vs. demons, or is it going to be more about abstract supernatural entities?

And: if the expectation is no alignment except in magic (which I like a lot, and fits the literature), what is that going to look like?

Will the REH vs. HPL debate, regarding barbarians vs. civilization have an impact (the noble savage? The noble scholar?)

fireinthedust wrote:Anyway, as part of the fiction is Law vs. Chaos rather than the D&D alignment wheel; and the popular CoC mythos vs. the Elder Gods (something GG knows a bit about, sure), with REH as an example, I wanted to see what's going on with Alignment and Religion.

The original Appendix N literature, at least that which I have read, is very strong in Law vs. Chaos themes, and equates the two with good and evil. Moorcock, and before him (and most importantly) Anderson, are the origin of the D&D alignment system, and explicitly equate Law and Chaos with good and evil, as well as Christian and non-Christian. There are additional hints of this in Lord Dunsany and others. For a while I pondered a truly old-school alignment system of strictly Law, Neutral, or Chaos. But it's too hard for modern gamers to grasp: you need to have actually read Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock for that to make sense. Thus I'm making a concession to "the common language of gamers" (similar to what I did with spell names) and going with the traditional D&D 9-grid, or Law/Neutral/Chaos and Evil/Neutral/Good.

fireinthedust wrote:Do my wizards need to get it on with the forces of Chaos, or are there less repugnant options for them? Like that priest of Mitra in the Conan story mentioned, that sort of thing. Are there gods vs. demons, or is it going to be more about abstract supernatural entities?

Supernatural entities. Some are demons, and many of the games I've played so far involve demons, so that's probably what you've read the most about. But there are many other possibilities, both described in the rules and for DMs to create on their own: ghosts, daevas, angels, elementals, planar lords, demigods, titans, and so on.

fireinthedust wrote:And: if the expectation is no alignment except in magic (which I like a lot, and fits the literature), what is that going to look like?

Characters have alignment. Cleric healing is based around the similarities in alignment between the healer and the healed: the closer the alignments, the more beneficial the healing. Alignment also determines thief skills and other aspects of the game. I like alignment and I think it's an important concept of D&D that has somehow become optional over the years. It will play into the rules of DCC RPG, not in a huge way, but enough that players, and entire parties, will have to think a little more about the alignments they choose.

fireinthedust wrote:Will the REH vs. HPL debate, regarding barbarians vs. civilization have an impact (the noble savage? The noble scholar?)

There's one warrior class, cleverly called "warrior." There will not be rules for barbarians, rangers, paladins, cavaliers, or other warrior variants (at least, not which I will write - others may add them). There's one wizard class, cleverly called "wizard." There will not be rules for illusionists, evokers, necromancers, sorcerers, scholars or other wizard variants. Again, others can add them. My goal is to create flexible, open-ended classes that can be used to portray any character REH would come up with, as well as any character HPL could come up with...plus the many other Appendix N heroes. Hope that makes sense.

goodmangames wrote:Characters have alignment. Cleric healing is based around the similarities in alignment between the healer and the healed: the closer the alignments, the more beneficial the healing. Alignment also determines thief skills and other aspects of the game. I like alignment and I think it's an important concept of D&D that has somehow become optional over the years. It will play into the rules of DCC RPG, not in a huge way, but enough that players, and entire parties, will have to think a little more about the alignments they choose.

I'm not sure if alignment became optional on its own merits or whether the post-modern younguns didn't know what to do with it. I think you're totally right. To really understand the concept of alignment, a person should probably read Moorcock or Anderson. But not too many people did and I think the gaming culture hoisted their own meanings onto the terms.

So Lawful became "I can be a smug, self-satisfied jerk". Chaotic became "I can do whatever the hell I want". And Neutral became "Screw both of you". Later that morphed into the various Evil/Neutral/Good and I think things got really self-referential and hair-brained. Suddenly we had a new axis hoisted upon a Law-Chaos divide that had no cognizance of its origin.

So I think gaming culture had little recourse but to transform Lawful Good into "I'm going to be prim and proper and I'll frown at you mightily if you do anything that upsets my myopic moral code" and Chaotic Evil became "I don't give a **** about anything and I'm going to stab people in the back for the heck of it" and everyone's favorite "Chaotic Neutral" became "Now I REALLY don't give a **** about any of you".

I think gaming culture made alignment this huge mess that lost, well, ANY connection to its inspiration. Just look at 4e. The alignment system is meaningless -- ON PURPOSE.

I think that's a mistake. I look at Warhammer -- which I feel did a decent job of demarcating Law and Chaos and what lies in between. And then I look at 4e. It's like D&D forgot to pass on the metaphysical aspects of alignment in a digestible format. And so that aspect is lost. I'm glad to read that DCC is bringing it back. Hopefully with a sidebar or something explaining the distinction and why it matters -- beyond the assumed "Law is a teetotaller", "Chaos is Keith Richards" that completely misses the mark and has for decades.

That said, how difficult would it be to bring it down to the Law-Neutral-Chaos axis. Are the Evil/Good distinctions super-important? Because I don't feel that Evil/Good is necessary, really. And I'd probably try to house-rule it out.

goodmangames wrote:My goal is to create flexible, open-ended classes that can be used to portray any character REH would come up with, as well as any character HPL could come up with...plus the many other Appendix N heroes. Hope that makes sense.

With my own project... the more I think about it, the fewer classes I'm considering making. Open-ended classes work so much better, IMO. The ability to reskin and flavor classes however you want is really useful, IMO. Maybe different types of spellcasters (Illusionists, Necromancers and whatnot) could just use different options for spells or different Spellburn or spellcasting charts. But fundamentally, they're all just Wizards.

Sometimes the simplest option is the best.

goodmangames wrote:Cleric healing is based around the similarities in alignment between the healer and the healed: the closer the alignments, the more beneficial the healing. It will play into the rules of DCC RPG, not in a huge way, but enough that players, and entire parties, will have to think a little more about the alignments they choose.

HackMaster Basic does this sort of thing as well. I think it helps to encourage party unity.

Thanks for the response!

Alignment: The 9-axis Alignment system isn't (what I call) ANR (appendix N revival; as opposed to OSR, "old school revival", which isn't really what you've been pointing out as your guide) as much as a hand-me-down of gaming conventions over the years. Considering Law supposedly meant good, having Lawful Good is redundant, and Lawful Evil is contradictory.

I don't think 4e alignment is bad. I think it's a fairly good approximation of a) how alignment plays out in actual game sessions, and b) the Order/Chaos spectrum. Evil is fine, with the ability to keep their word being possible (ie: I don't thin there's enough distinction between Neutral and Lawful Evil to warrant separate alignments); Good covers both chaotic and neutral good; and Unaligned does a fine job of basically CN and N. Even the TN stance of balance technically is geared towards the greater good of balance (ie: LG).

Otherwise:

Lawful Good: You're a Paladin/Cleric
Neutral Good: Someone in the party is a Paladin/Cleric, but you're not.
Chaotic Good: The DM won't let you play evil.
Lawful Neutral: The DM won't let you play Lawful Evil
Neutral: you're a Druid, or you don't want to be tied down to anything. I do something heroic.
Chaotic Neutral: What? You said no evil, not "no neutral". I explode something.
Lawful Evil: What? He's lawful. I buy slaves.
Neutral Evil: someone in the party is a paladin, but you're the one who put on the helm of opposite alignment
Chaotic Evil: the DM didn't check your sheet, or he missed this! ahahahaha. Or you're a Paladin/Cleric and you picked the helm; whatever, they'll fix it in three rounds when the spellcaster casts dispel magic. Meanwhile, I make Undead!



If the game is going to say "we're based on Appendix N" you're assuming that the audience is there for the original books. I'd like to see something "like" the classic aspect of the 9-axis, but maybe innovative? Or some new way of looking at Law vs. Chaos (moorcock) or civilization vs. savagery (REH)

I recently read The Fallible Fiend, an Appendix N satire that uses the travels of a logical, courteous, philosophical demon called Zdim amongst fantasy human society to poke fun at modern governance. It's interesting to try to apply alignments to the characters and societies, such as the moralistic cannibals.

geordie racer wrote:I recently read The Fallible Fiend, an Appendix N satire that uses the travels of a logical, courteous, philosophical demon called Zdim amongst fantasy human society to poke fun at modern governance. It's interesting to try to apply alignments to the characters and societies, such as the moralistic cannibals.

That's a fun book -- I read that one last year. I agree, it's a fun read and it raises some questions about alignment mechanics in D&D.

Random though here to (maybe) simplify things.

Instead of having a character choose one of nine axis... write it in such a way that they choose a primary and secondary alignment focus.

There are two separate axis:

Lawful to Chaos

Good to Evil

A character picks one of the axis to be his primary character motivation. Are the rules of law more important than chaos? Make good descriptions there.

Is good more important than evil?

After picking the primary, you pick the secondary axis you work with. So instead of coming up with nine different descriptions, you end up with really six (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic, Good, Neutral, Evil)

Yes, you end up with the same basic alignment structure, but it is explained differently and hopefully cleaner.

As a side point... did you ever think about doing a system like Palladium uses? Palladium uses a system where alignments are described in detailed terms with alignments describing how a character acts in a certain situation; whether they will lie, how much force they will use against innocents, how they view the law, and so on. The alignments are organized into three broad categories: Good, Selfish, and Evil. The seven core alignments are Principled (Good), Scrupulous (Good), Unprincipled (Selfish), Anarchist (Selfish), Aberrant (Evil), Miscreant (Evil), and Diabolic (Evil).

They are similar to:
Principled is close to LG
Scrupulous NG/CG
Unprincipled CG/CN
Anarchist CN
Abberrant CE
Miscreant NE
Diabolic LE

But not the same as the DnD equivalents. If instead of trying to get people to understand archaic and abstract concepts, you create a dozen basic action types. Each of those would have two tags on them for spell effects/turning/healing (how close you are to the cleric alignment). Principled (tagged Lawful and Good).

You could reduce the entire alignment explanation down to 1 or 2 pages and even keep it clear. If you have not played the Palladium games, it would be worth taking a look at their alignment to see the beauty of it.

Hamakto wrote:As a side point... did you ever think about doing a system like Palladium uses? Palladium uses a system where alignments are described in detailed terms with alignments describing how a character acts in a certain situation; whether they will lie, how much force they will use against innocents, how they view the law, and so on. The alignments are organized into three broad categories: Good, Selfish, and Evil. The seven core alignments are Principled (Good), Scrupulous (Good), Unprincipled (Selfish), Anarchist (Selfish), Aberrant (Evil), Miscreant (Evil), and Diabolic (Evil).

I think the best thing about Palladium (and for me it's hard to find a good thing in there) where those bullet point guides for how the various "alignments" would approach a situation. I felt those sort of guidelines helped flesh out characters. But it was also a bit annoying when an Anarchist party member would pull the "...but my character is Anarchist" excuse for messing over the party.

One issue I have with the Palladium "spectrum" is that it had come along after "alignment" had already become this self-referential thing removed from its source. The axis of Law and Chaos in the fiction is something completely different from what most roleplayers think it is.

But I agree that some sort of simple ideas as to how alignment contributes to a character's actions would be helpful.

Once Palladium insisted that there is no such thing as someone who is True Neutral, I was done with that alignment system. There's no one that's absolutely Lawful Good, either, but what if I want to play a character in a game that's like that? Palladium thinks I shouldn't have the option. I think otherwise. We agreed to move on, and see other people.

GnomeBoy wrote:Once Palladium insisted that there is no such thing as someone who is True Neutral, I was done with that alignment system. There's no one that's absolutely Lawful Good, either, but what if I want to play a character in a game that's like that? Palladium thinks I shouldn't have the option. I think otherwise. We agreed to move on, and see other people.

To clarify, I hate Palladium's system. It's one of the few RPGs I will refuse to play. I've played it more times than I care to remember. But I did like that bit about how they tried to explain their alignment system in a simple, coherent (for them) way.

But what you touch on with the "Lawful Good" and "True Neutral" comment is the reason why I don't care for the 9-alignment system. In fact, I think it makes the distinction between Law and Chaos more difficult for the average, product-of-his-time roleplayer to grasp.

Most people in modern Western societies view Good and Evil as an ever-shifting scale. Relativism is the order of the day, for better or worse. Moreover, everyone's individual interpretation of "good" and "evil" is pretty much unique. I've had players with evil PCs declare they were evil because they picked the party's pockets at every opportunity. Then again, I've had others that believed evil was genocide and engaged in it at every opportunity.

But NONE OF THAT had anything to do with Good or Evil. Because if we're going by the fiction, a "Lawful" character who is supposedly GOOD could engage in genocidal actions without a moment's thought. The battle is between Law and Chaos. Not Good and Evil.

The problem with the 9-alignment axis, IMO, is that it muddies the water such that my "Lawful Good" cleric would never burn a village of cultists to the ground. Because he's, well, GOOD. But that's exactly what a LAWFUL aligned character SHOULD do. But many would argue he'd have to be Lawful Evil to do it.

GnomeBoy wrote:Once Palladium insisted that there is no such thing as someone who is True Neutral, I was done with that alignment system. There's no one that's absolutely Lawful Good, either, but what if I want to play a character in a game that's like that? Palladium thinks I shouldn't have the option. I think otherwise. We agreed to move on, and see other people.

Actually, that is not how I take it to be honest. But to each his own. Those 7 alignments are just relative classifications of actions. Not hard set in stone one.

In a way, I like OD&D alignments... 3. Lawful, Neutral, Choatic

In MY opinion... here is what I think of the alignments in DnD.

There is really no such thing as of Chaotic and Good. By definition Good is taking actions that do not hurt someone else and EVEN help someone else. That means that a CG character follows a strict moral code of action to (1) determine what is good (2) show restraint on taking some actions. Strict moral code === Lawfulish...

True Neutral is a totally bogus alignment. It is truly unplayable in a party environment as written. In 30+ years of gaming, I have never meet anyone that can truly play that alignment in a party. I would rather have a CE person in the group than a True Neutral. Because then you can trust a CE person to act in a certain manner and act appropriately around them.

Lawful Neutral/Lawful Evil are two alignments that greatly similar. The main difference between the two is how far a LE person will twist things for their own gain But in reality, they both push the limits of the law for themselves.

Neutral Good --- This is the alignment that a Paladin should of always been. A Paladin is more geared to be a warrior of Good and not a warrior of Law. A Paladin would follow laws as long as good is being done, but would not follow laws that pushed the boundary of evil.

So...

What does that get us?

7 really playable alignments.

LG, LN, LE
NG, NE
CN, CE

Very similar to Palladium alignment system.

The way I look at alignment in DCC RPG, it's less about the character's personality and more about what supernatural forces the character serves (willingly or unwillingly, knowingly or unknowingly).

Judged by his actions, Elric is clearly a chaotic character. But even he expresses doubt and disgust at some of the things he's forced to do in the service of Chaos. Based on his thoughts and personality (especially toward the end of the series) he's more neutral than chaotic.

Translating that into DCC RPG, I'd rule that even if a character believed in the rule of Law, if they served a Lord of Chaos, the rest of the world would treat them as chaotic: lawful clerics couldn't heal them as well, intelligent lawful magic items would refuse to work with them, etc.

It's kind of like "nature" vs "demeanor" in the World of Darkness games. Your nature is how you play your character, but your demeanor determines what alignment you write on your character sheet.

Ok...

Is alignment too complex and grey of an area? In my mind it always has been that way.

I think we could probably get away with four alignments.

Lawful
Lawful (Evil)
Neutral
Chaotic

I would even go so far that you cannot be good without law being on your side (either laws of the lands or a strict moral code).

We could even go to six alignments if we added:

Neutral (Good)
Neutral (Evil)

I am still not a fan of a true balancing alignment in game play.. because most play it as a version of Chaotic Evil.

I'd say three alignments: Lawful, Chaotic and Unaligned. I prefer to let a character's actions and decisions determine if they're good or evil.

Law and Chaos are at war. Sure, I can see characters aligned either way cooperating with each other to address a greater threat. Perhaps putting themselves in a position opposed to their choice (or birthright) of alignment.

But Law and Chaos are in a constantly evolving metaphysical conflagration. Like Jedi and Sith in the Star Wars mythos. One gets the upper hand for a while but never indefinitely.

In my mind, 85% of all characters are Unaligned. Not Neutral. Just not standing on either side of the fence definitively. The rest are firmly contributing to the supremacy of Stasis and Heirarchy or Entropy and Anarchy.

Hamakto wrote: They are similar to:
Principled is close to LG
Scrupulous NG/CG
Unprincipled CG/CN
Anarchist CN
Abberrant CE
Miscreant NE
Diabolic LE

Abberant was LE, not CE
Diabolic was CE or NE, not LE
Miscreant was CE with a CN side to it.

Alignment has such a Myers-Briggs side to it, though. D&D characters do that. What are you? I'm a LG Grey Elf Wizard, that's what. My issue with the Palladium alignment system is that it wasn't based on magic, it was rather a prescription for personality types. Not a bad thing, but so hard-and-fast that there weren't gray areas (or aren't; I think the company is still producing content with the old rules). And it was different from the 9-axis system, I suppose.

Meh, I'm a non-alignment (except for magic purposes) kinda GM... except when my barbarian player picked up the deck of many things and became LG!!! hehheheheh!


Law Vs. Chaos: how present will they be, though? Come to think of it, if it's a literal war between these two sides, what if the threat the PCs face *isn't* as big as all that? Or is from their side, so they end up fighting their own people with a party of 'the enemy'? And how can any threat be realistically bigger than the fundamental order v chaos bit?

My gripe with Palladium's alignment system stems from only owning one book with an eye toward running the setting, not the system (and barely having played any other Palladium games), which said:

There is no such thing as an absolute neutral alignment. A character with an absolute, true neutral position could not make a decision, fight tyranny, hurt others, go adventuring, or take any action of any kind without leaning toward good, evil, or self-gratification. It is humanly impossible, and therefore is eliminated in the context of this game.

There are ... those out there who might disagree with this, but ... this is one of the very few definitive, unbending rules.

...which to me misses the point entirely: a neutral alignment is something one can strive towards. I'm pretty sure there's a religion or two out there that makes something central of The Middle Way, if someone wants a real world touchstone. The Palladium system seems to want neutrality to be "I won't do anything that actually does anything", which just seems wrong-headed from the get-go. That makes alignment almost a pre-determinite, no-free-will kind of thing -- as if "I'm Lawful Good, and I simply can't do anything else". Alignment is where a character's heart is -- but countless things can get in the way of that (and it's probably more interesting when they do).

LG, CG, LE and CE seem fairly distinct to me, and adding Ns in various positions just makes halfway markers between those points. I think it could catch on...

mythfish wrote:The way I look at alignment in DCC RPG, it's less about the character's personality and more about what supernatural forces the character serves.

This is how I see Alignment. A Neutral is just someone who hasn't had (or chosen) to take sides yet, but it's only a matter of time.

This way there is no argument over a character's motives and underlying ethics. It's just - who do you serve ?