Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

I realized I have a videogame (a few in fact, but in this case I am talking about Armello) that I have but pretty much never played

Not because it isn't fun... but because it is multiplayer only with the same sort of thing as DOTA and LOL.

So meaning if I want to play it, I have to sit down and play it non-stop, without pausing, without looking away, and to the end no matter how much I am losing... and I am so rarely in the mood for that. In a game where you can only play 1/4th of the time it is on and where people can completely surpass you and yet you still have to wait until the game finishes which can take extra long... Basically imagine if League of Legends took an hour but you only could play for 15 minutes of that hour, had to sit and watch other people's turns, and even when you are winning by a huge margin or losing you still have to wait until the game declares a winner.

I only have one friend who I play that with, and never have because he only likes playing REALLY FREEKEN LATE AT NIGHT! (dang it man!), but you can only play with a minimum of 4 players.

And yet when I think about when I'd want to play this game... pretty much never... Because of the requirements.

By the by did I ever tell you I actually like board games? I have no idea why I have so much trouble with Armello... Then again I don't think it particularly takes advantage of the fact that it is a videogame very much.

I mean the limit of a board game is that you can only have so many cards, pieces, actions, what have you. So a videogame board game that didn't have to copy any existing board game, should be able to basically surpass any limitations. Yet I feel like you could easily run a game of Armello.

Heck it is even less complex and diverse then Eclipse phase.

Then again I'd LOVE a videogame version of Arkham Horror... I love that game... Tried to run a Play by post version but hit a huge snag of being unable to represent the board.

And there was this awesome videogame boardgame version of what looked like house of horror or mansion of madness... that I don't know where that thing is, its name, or even got to play it... Now that I want to check out again.

All in all I guess is to say... If you are going to make a boardgame in a videogame that there are no fidelity issues... Why not take advantage?

---

On a side note I am having a heated discussion on Daredevil.

I'll open this up a bit more later... but basically... Daredevil is an EXTREMELY immoral lawyer who should have his license revoked.

[Neonivek]

Man I am embarrassed that Ponyfinder

A... MLP-alike (it avoids copyright... barely)... Is actually really well thought out and filled out.

And is kickstarted to come to 5th edition now too...

It is kind of sad that THIS is pretty much the height of third party material.

----

BAD NEONIVEK BAD!

I need to remember that I NEVER EVER get to play boardgames. Currently I really really want the Red Dragon Inn allies... There are 6 I have left to collect and a friend already agreed to pay for 2.

I have such a compunction to always have everything (hence my dislike of DLC heavy games or why I might not buy a game even if it is perfectly alright without DLC) yet this is going to end up as 60 bucks... UGH!

[Neonivek]

Well my last musing before I hit my personal bump limit.

Ever notice that in most fiction they include a sort of "If you haven't caught on by now, we are just going to flat out tell you" moment? Something that basically confirms what you already know but also serves as a sort of catch up point in case you missed details, forgot, or are slow.

I wonder if that has a name.

---

On a side note I notice how people pretty much dislike the idea that their characters are interchangeable or replicable. Which is a position I whole heartedly support.

Yet every once in a while I see fiction that just up and replaces a character with... pretty much the exact same character.

Goodness examples would be spoilerific... Since most of the time these characters die.

Though freakishly enough when I think about it... It happens overwhelmingly to female characters.

In one game I feel like I should have saw it happening since you can find a VERY similar looking female character walking around, she is unimportant, but I honestly HONESTLY thought she was supposed to be a special character meant to replace the female lead mechanically so you are never deprived of her (since this is a game where not everyone is important)... But nope she actually jumps right into her shoes in everyway from having all her old skills and her old position.

Which is a shame because the character she replaces was actually a pretty awesome character who died in a pretty cool way... I would have wanted a clone to be a secret character you unlock who would have no story impact.

[Harry Baldman]

Man I am embarrassed that Ponyfinder

A... MLP-alike (it avoids copyright... barely)... Is actually really well thought out and filled out.

And is kickstarted to come to 5th edition now too...

It is kind of sad that THIS is pretty much the height of third party material.

Is that where the 3rd party pony stuff on the 5th edition SRD comes from? Not sure that qualifies as "well thought out", though.

[Neonivek]

It is 3rd party Pony stuff and it is having a kickstarter to add it to 5th edition.

But... no that isn't where you saw it.

---

On a side note I am sad I slipped up so badly politically view wise. I am kind of ashamed that what originally made me have to shy away from my more extreme views (Horseshoe politics) is pretty much exactly what ended up happening.

I mean I know that Brexit is a complicated issue and frankly... I don't like Nigel (ERRR NIGEL!). Yet I openly demonized Leavers pretty much immediately as well.

But then again I was so immediately trusting that it was the case mostly because I knew ahead of time that increasing tension between cultures and increasing amounts of racism (or surfacing racism) has been an issue in the UK since the early 2000s. My incorrect assumption was that this was just a byproduct of simply that. That and once again Nigel! DAMN IT NIGEL!

Though in this case it is more that Britain is split between people who want a strong alliance versus people who want strong self-determination (ignoring that Britain almost exclusively ruled the EU thanks to their masterful maneuvering of the system).

[Neonivek]

Ok doing this here because it strongly hints at alignment... if you want to discuss alignment here go ahead, this is a place where your thoughts and ideas are allowed to flow freely as long as your not a jerk (and that applies to me too, so If I am being a jerk tell me)

---

I think ultimately my biggest problem with Dungeons and dragons as a DM is that it has a complete inability to really do morality plays or to play with the idea of good and evil.

Not because I think good is particularly flexible and even I think that both "Black and White" and "Grey" Morality are reductionist...

And I respect the idea that characters can be held to a strict code of morality (I personally think Clerics get it WAY too easy a lot of the time..). Heck I can respect how Necromancy is evil in the setting (it changes. Forgotten Realms the whole Necromancy school is corrupted and subverted by a demon)

and not that morality plays haven't been done in dungeons and dragons before. Neverwinter featured a Archon who basically allowed evil to win and prosper because it would rather allow a great evil to be unleashed and itself to be punished for all eternity then for it to even THINK of breaking a contract. Something a moral would think mad.

But I never feel like as a DM I personally get the artistic license to do this. The problem is dungeons and dragons FORCES a cosmic weigh in constantly.

It removes any real otis for decision making or contemplation because at the end of the day the cosmos tells you if what you are doing is good, evil, or what have you... Just don't do it next time... and only Wizards of the Coast is allowed to get around it otherwise.

The issue I have is I don't see why... in a world where Black and White not only exists but where Virtue is power and Evil is endless... That it boils down to such.

---

I think the best way to handle Morality in dungeons and dragons is to simply assume that it doesn't exist.

That ideas and causes spawn a power of their own that stand to counter balance the opposite... BUT that the opposite doesn't necessarily hold the opposite or equal-yet-opposite effect.

That people can create exceptions within those ideas WITHOUT compromising them is another important one, and that these ideas don't necessarily have to hold up to extremes.

As well corruption of an idea doesn't destroy the idea itself.

---

I think I should run Shadowrun next...

[Harry Baldman]

You should really run an evil campaign, Neon. That way morality stops being an issue entirely, in just about every way imaginable.

Well, either that or a sandbox campaign. Sandbox campaigns also obviate most questions of morality and cosmic significance thereof.

Or there's the third option, which is to not try to mash morality plays into actual legit high fantasy (in terms of themes, you can't do a morality play while still being intent on using alignment as a hair-triggered jackhammer - as in, within a setting where the Hordes of Evil and Chaos led by the God of Evil and Chaos are actually a relevant and important thing to everyday affairs). You want to do a more low fantasy kind of game to explore the kind of stuff you want to explore. Limit magic. Distance the gods. And for god's sake don't use the Forgotten Realms.

See, within high fantasy Good and Evil are attributes of civilizations, armies, factions and races rather than individuals (barring exceptional godlike ones), so you can't effectively do a morality play with that at all.

[Reelya]

    At least the AD&D 9 alignment system was better than the original D&D system of three alignments: lawful, neutral, chaotic. Basically "good" societies were lawful and "bad" societies were chaotic. Which made it kind of difficult to represent an evil dictatorship whatsoever, since all the devout followers of that societies rules had to be cast as Chaotic, implying that each and every person would happily backstab everyone else if they could just a get a leg up the hierarchy.

EDIT: with only one axis (law/chaos), you could in theory fudge the good/evil concept to create more complex morality, but the reality is actual players overlay law/chaos as meaning good/evil, so that it is in fact more restrictive.

[Neonivek]

See, within high fantasy Good and Evil are attributes of civilizations, armies, factions and races rather than individuals (barring exceptional godlike ones), so you can't effectively do a morality play with that at all.

Except for the majority of high fantasy. In fact even Lord of the Rings had a theme of moral ambiguity hidden amongst its characters.

As well there are plenty of Dungeons and dragons stories that also do this. They are just the ones who don't have to suddenly pull on the strings of the books incredibly nonsense alignment system that doesn't even function on its own two feet yet alone is consistent with its own lore. Once again Drow are "Chaotic Evil" and yet have a highly organized society with strict code of laws. (AKA: Even Wizards of the Coast ignores its own dang alignment system).

Or there is the Ultima series which is just one big morality play (That ended badly but still)

Or Witchcraft where one of the biggest villains in the series is Gabriel who created the combine (Evil anti-magic organization) as a way to contain the supernatural element in order to prevent the awakening of leviathan... And demons who unlike most depictions of demons are... not evil, even remotely. Bonus points that "Power from faith" also exists in this setting.

or Shadowrun (Science Fantasy to admit... but still high fantasy). Which before you say "It is just shades of grey", it is more that it is supposed to be banal.

Or... Disc World which even though it has a VERY black and white idea of morality, it explores the idea of good and evil quite in depth. Then again Disc world explores a lot of deep themes.

---

ONLY Dungeons and Dragons has this problem.

Only it has a strict code of conduct that all characters, all creatures, and all beings must obey at all times that is ritualistically enforced, not by the creators, but by the fans.

Even Order of the Stick just flatly ignores this...

At least the AD&D 9 alignment system was better than the original D&D system of three alignments: lawful, neutral, chaotic. Basically "good" societies were lawful and "bad" societies were chaotic. Which made it kind of difficult to represent an evil dictatorship whatsoever, since all the devout followers of that societies rules had to be cast as Chaotic, implying that each and every person would happily backstab everyone else if they could just a get a leg up the hierarchy.

Probably. Though the earliest editions of dnd weren't always about the story... and I have a fondness for just flat out dungeon crawls.

You should really run an evil campaign, Neon. That way morality stops being an issue entirely, in just about every way imaginable.

On the contrary evil campaigns biggest problem is morality. In that there isn't any... Evil campaigns would be interesting, IF there was a sense of morality, ethics, or even taste.

Soul Nomad knew this lesson well. When you did the Demon Run (path to the evil ending) you are no longer the "main character" but rather the plot element.

[Harry Baldman]

Describing a totalitarian society as Chaotic can be perfectly apt, though, since they are ruled by fear and characterized by massive corruption, bold-faced lying and gross abuses of rules. And they would happily backstab everyone else if they could just get a leg up in the hierarchy too (the important thing preventing this from escalating is whether someone thinks they can get away with it as well), so not sure what the problem is at all.

In fact, Nazism is a pretty good example of Chaos overall, given its newness, opposition to existing dogma, appropriation of then-fresh philosophy and "science" in an ends-justify-the-means approach to creating the utopian Aryan state.

Except for the majority of high fantasy. In fact even Lord of the Rings had a theme of moral ambiguity hidden amongst its characters.

At the end of the day, though, elves are still good, dwarves are still meh and the orcs are still villainous, no?

As well there are plenty of Dungeons and dragons stories that also do this. They are just the ones who don't have to suddenly pull on the strings of the books incredibly nonsense alignment system that doesn't even function on its own two feet yet alone is consistent with its own lore. Once again Drow are "Chaotic Evil" and yet have a highly organized society with strict code of laws. (AKA: Even Wizards of the Coast ignores its own dang alignment system).

Isn't drow society characterized by constant betrayal, violence, lack of trust and flagrant abuses of the law if you're good enough to break it? That's as chaotic as it gets. A chaotic evil society isn't one where the sheriff doesn't exist, to compare with a Wild West town, it's one where the sheriff is in on the criminal activity. Or the head of criminal activity, like the priesthood of Lolth.

Also, retreading old ground. The issue is with lack of imagination and a desire to engage a concept at its simplest level (they have laws and organization! how is that chaotic!), which is at odds with the idea of doing a morality play, no?

And Order of the Stick ignores the code in places because that's good DMing practice. Being a dick about alignment is the way to ruin it for everyone.

[Reelya]

A moral dilemma pits two values against each other.

I actually think there is ample room for this in AD&D

After all, each characters has two morality axes, so e.g. a Paladin can be faced with a dilemma of choosing to either : (1) break the law, or (2) condone evil. These sort of decision-forcing moments could work best if the players are at the extreme corners: LG, LE, CG, CE.

Obviously it's more trivial to do this for "good" characters, as evil are basically defined by not caring about others. How would such a morality choice play itself out for e.g. Chaotic Evil? The DM would have to be very clever. Chaos implies valuing freedom above everything else, and Evil implies valuing the self above others. So you'd have to concoct a situation where the CE character had to choose between giving up their freedom (forced to sumbit to authority), vs giving up their selfishness (forced to give up material wealth). Obviously this is more contrived and going to have less impact than the Lawful Good equivalent.

But this might just fall apart for e.g. Neutral Good players, because they can just say they chose between law and chaos on a whim, which defeats the purpose of having to make a choice.

[Neonivek]

Elves aren't exactly good in Lord of the Rings. They definitely believe themselves to be though... but I can't think of any single thing that ever painted them as good in the entire series outside the Simarian (whatever the name was)

In fact, Nazism is a pretty good example of Chaos overall, given its newness, opposition to existing dogma, appropriation of then-fresh philosophy and "science" in an ends-justify-the-means approach to creating the utopian Aryan state.

Nazi-ism is closer to an extreme version of Order... Achieved through some pretty unscrupulous ends.

Order doesn't have to agree with other order. and creating Chaos in order to create a proper order... isn't breaking the rule either.

Afterall Democracy is often considered a "Lawful" form of government, and yet it is often created via overthrowing the previous government.

Describing a totalitarian society as Chaotic can be perfectly apt, though, since they are ruled by fear and characterized by massive corruption and gross abuses of rules

Well... SORT OF! most governments in Dungeons and dragons are "Totalitarian" at their heart and most gods are absolutely totalitarian.

Totalitarian is only how the for of government is set up, not how it is ruled.

The scenario you described is usually considered chaotic though.

---

Morality plays aren't the BEST word I could have given... but I mean more characters who don't have to toe the line between the extremes of good or evil... NOR be beholden to some sort of sense of neutrality.

OR that are within good or evil... but are not good or evil themselves...

Complexity is what I am referring to.

---

For example I always wanted to include a Fallen Angel in one of my games...

And he is clearly evil does horrible things... but when the players go to his realm to confront him... They don't see a hellish landscape but rather a heavenly garden surrounded by golden statues.

They see the friends and loved ones of the Angel living in heavenly bliss within the grounds. They aren't possessed or deluded... But rather the Angel, though fallen, still has a natural compunction to do good or be good... and his tastes haven't changed regardless of his new beliefs. I'd even go as far as no not even depict this character as being particular malevolent at least on the surface, perhaps finding ways to imitate his old powers (assuming he lost them... Dungeons and dragons is oddly open to interpretation as to whether a fallen angel can lose their powers... There are examples of them both keeping and gaining new ones)

He will genuinely protect and care for his loved ones.

I'd be thrown out for this character in normal dnd.

---

Or even a Militant Moral Totalitarian society... which wouldn't usually work because they would check their "goodness compass" and it would say EVIL!

[Reelya]

Militant Moral would usually fit in Lawful Neutral.

Because they have good aims, but use evil means. Neutral can and does imply a mix. A "Neutral" entity is capable of doing both good and evil actions. They're not constrained to "neutral" actions only.

[Harry Baldman]

Nazi-ism is closer to an extreme version of Order... Achieved through some pretty unscrupulous ends.

Order doesn't have to agree with other order. and creating Chaos in order to create a proper order... isn't breaking the rule either.

Afterall Democracy is often considered a "Lawful" form of government, and yet it is often created via overthrowing the previous government.

The difference here is in theory and practice. Compare this to 1984, for example. In theory and in propaganda Oceania is an orderly society based on concrete principles. In reality, though, it seeks to destroy every semblance of order in society, all of its institutions and every single worthwhile impulse in man, while permitting everything for its higher echelons. It sets rules and visions that it does not obey and visits its madness upon its subjects freely and without compunction, urging the Outer Party to betray each other at the slightest provocation to sow fear and mutual distrust. It is a boot stamping on the face of the human race, forever. This is Chaotic, unprincipled Evil in a position of power rather than as a Joker-esque outcast.

Morality plays aren't the BEST word I could have given... but I mean more characters who don't have to toe the line between the extremes of good or evil... NOR be beholden to some sort of sense of neutrality.

OR that are within good or evil... but are not good or evil themselves...

Complexity is what I am referring to.

You can't have complexity when your perception of good, evil, law and chaos is itself wildly simplistic and mechanistic is my point (hence your own perceptions of D&D's societies and gods as totalitarian rather than what they are actually meant to be). Law does not mean 'they have laws', chaos does not mean 'argleblarg', neutrality does not mean 'I must uphold the balance', good does not mean 'I go to church every Sunday' and evil doesn't mean 'I go to the meeting of the local League of Evil where we plot world domination and worship the Elder Elemental Eye'. And even if it does work like that in the lore, that's shitty lore, throw it right out, what are you even doing?

EDIT: On a less griping note, certain things about Law and Chaos also depend on the underlying philosophy of the setting, which also needs to be considered. Is evil the natural order, or good? For instance, when the forces of Evil also represent Chaos, they tend to be railing against an inherently Good natural order of things - like Tolkien's idea of nature and agrarian life, as opposed to chaotic and disruptive industrialism. You could have the opposite - either a world where futurist thought is true (in the early 20th century sense, in that war is an engine of change, and we must rush toward the new age), or where the natural order is an oppressive society of feudalistic tradition opposed by Chaotic leanings toward freedom through violence. Or the revolution could not be civilized while the natural order is oppressive, and you end up at Evil both ways.

[Neonivek]

hence your own perceptions of D&D's societies and gods as totalitarian rather than what they are actually meant to be

No... They are Totalitarian in everyway... They rule with absolute authority... with very few exceptions.

No one is allowed to veto them, they are not subject to their own rules, and their words are not only law but their will is imposed on all within their purview. The only people they are subject to are their direct allies and enemies who will often not interfere with their own affairs. If they have people under them who govern (which they almost always do) then they are completely 100% subservient to that god.

Well then again Demon Gods could be considered a anarchistic society. Since the demon while the most powerful only has the authority it can take on a day to day basis.

The exception are the gods who do nothing or actually develop another form of government... Though one COULD say Feudalism... but then again they have absolute authority within their own realm... so... Yeah it isn't helping.

The fact that they are sometimes benevolent or wise does not exclude them from being totalitarian.

Which is kind of what pisses me off about the whole "Societies by alignment" lists they gave... They are 100% politically based... Rather then a serious observation of those forms of government. Which... again... They do not follow (plenty of Lawful dictatorships in dnd...)

Totalitarian isn't "Good" or "Evil" or even could be "Neutral"... How good or evil depends on the ruler... and how Lawful or Chaotic depends on how much the ruler sticks by their own guidelines and rules.

Is evil the natural order, or good?

Dungeons and Dragons seems to go by the idea that both good and evil are the natural order most of the time.

In a few it is evil that is the natural order. Good is the imposition.

---

The way I always go about it is a society or Order is one that "follows its own rules". It doesn't matter how harmful those rules actually are as far as understanding that it is a lawful society so long as those rules aren't "Organized chaos". These rules can be codified laws or some other form of organization such as honor.

A chaotic society either has few or no rules... OR the rules are constantly broken or ultimately meaningless. This can either be by the citizens or its higher governing body.

Though complications do arise... that is my rule of thumb.

Though yes "Practice" matters... but this whole "Communism is chaotic" is just... Political grandstanding that democracy HAS to be the better form of government and must be the opposite! Rather then understanding it or its principles... OR is using its few failed attempts (which were a corrupted version of communism that Karl Marx wouldn't recognize) as its typical form in spite there still being communist countries today... OR not understanding how any form of government can become corrupt.
-It is especially hilarious because in the "Forms of governments to alignments" they seem to not understand what a monarchy is...