Print

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

[Servant Corps]

I have my own pet system of determing Good and Evil within fanasty games (which operate on a different level from our reality), and I have a draft of a fanasty story of a battle between Good and Evil. I have talked about this pet system to the IRC channel, and it was lukewarm, so I want to keep the inherent system intact without making it confusing. Here's how it works.

Basically, alignment is attached to the person, not to the action.

So, you have people who are inherently Good and people who are inherently Evil. To be Good, you fill out paperwork to be Good. To be Evil, you fill out paperwork to be Evil. If you have not filled out paperwork, you are Netrual.

If you are Good, anything you think or do must be Good. If you burn down an orphanage, it is a Good act, because a Good person is doing it. Prehaps the orphanage may be invaded by Evil people, and thus it is better to burn the orphanage so as to protect the orphans from Evil.

If you are Evil, anything you think or do must be Evil. If you help an orphanage, it is an Evil act, because an Evil person is doing it.

The goal of Good and Evil is to take over the world, and destroy the opposite faction/alignment. So, anything a Good person does must be Good because it is all part of a grander scheme to get rid of Evil. Anything an Evil person does must be Evil because it is all part of a grander scheme to get rid of Good.

The average people, like peasents, are Netrual, and so are opposed to both Good and Evil. People can easily switch alignment by filling out paperwork and defecting to the other side.

I do not know how best to handle inter-alignment conflict such as Good vs. Good. There are two ways:
--A Good Person may see the enemy Good person as Evil, and thus will wage war, thereby weakening Good.
--The two Good people will have friendly arguments over what to do, but will not wage war. After all, they are both Good people, on the same Alignment. Why kill each other?

Good and Evil can be said to be two different organizations, just hating each other. This is a good represenation of my Fanasty Alignment System.

I need to know any flaws associated with this, and how best to make it easier to be understood. This isn't meant to showcase Good Heroes as a "Villian With Good Publicity" (see TVTropes), but rather, just to just make "Good" less, well, good, to turn Good into nothing more than just a label.

Spoiler: My Intention for the FAS (click to show/hide)

The setup for the story would be that Good and Evil finds out God staged the entire feud between Good and Evil just to make money and promote his own political agenda to the other Gods, and so God get arrested and sent to trial. Not really a spoiler, just the set up for the story.

[JoshuaFH]

I'm sorry SC, when I started reading this, I thought it was a joke, and started laughing to myself about it.

But you appear to be taking it seriously, so I'll critique it seriously.

The world you've detailed to me, seems, I don't know, warped. How someone can be deemed good or evil (ideas that are flawed to begin with) through a deranged bureaucracy, seems to me to devalue the actions of every character, and the characters themselves.

Also, how you described the alignment being attached to the character and not the action, makes it seem like Reductio ad Hitlerum would not only NOT be a fallacy in this world of yours, but a damn good method of debating. This line of thinking is completely flawed, is what I'm trying to say, and reduces characters to either flat, 2d stereotypes, or to giant hypocritical, convoluted messes, unless there's something you haven't told us yet.

When writing this, I can't help but think that the only way this could make less sense would be if doctors were slapping stickers on newborn babies, giving them their alignment for the rest of their lives;

"This one looks pretty evil! *slap* chaotic evil. This one is so cute! *slap* true neutral. This one looks fairly decent. *slap* lawful good!"

I don't mean to say this system you've detailed for us is without merit, perhaps you have some great ideas that I'm just not grasping, but this is how I see it. No hard feelings.

[Servant Corps]

I consider this system to be a twisted joke, I'm just trying to understand its implications if I ever get around to using it. Somebody is going to treat this seriously, so I need to think of how to deal with that.

Well, the people do select what alignment they want. So the characters aren't really being devalued. If a great person wants to be Good, he just needs to fill out the paperwork and check the box stating "Good". The character got free will to determine which faction/alignment he wants to join, and he can leave it at any time. I think it might prevent sterotypical behavior, in that you aren't restrained by your alignment. You can save kittens, burn down cottages, steal money, volunteer at a food bank, etc. all without violating your Alignment. After all, if you are Good, you can do whatever you want and sitll be considered Good, so you are free to do what you desire.

I treat this system as a construct that might be useful in understanding fanasty and possibly in creating a twisted fanasty world. Originally, I came up with this system in case I have to DM a D&D game, it was the only way I could make the Alignment system make sense without having to get into "alignment arguments", and without trashing the Alignment System entirely (which I would actually prefer). The story I was writing has to do with some fanasty writer getting arrested in his own world, as well as his author surrogate character, Mary Sue, so the system might have comicial use.

In some serious works, entire races are deemed Evil by the Word of God, such as Orcs, so this system might also apply to those serious works.

[JoshuaFH]

Well, I'm somewhat comforted now that I know that this is a joke.

Emphasis on "somewhat".

Well, the people do select what alignment they want. So the characters aren't really being devalued. If a great person wants to be Good, he just needs to fill out the paperwork and check the box stating "Good". The character got free will to determine which faction/alignment he wants to join, and he can leave it at any time. I think it might prevent sterotypical behavior, in that you aren't restrained by your alignment. You can save kittens, burn down cottages, steal money, volunteer at a food bank, etc. all without violating your Alignment. After all, if you are Good, you can do whatever you want and sitll be considered Good, so you are free to do what you desire.

This paragraph only makes the system you detailed even MORE twisted, as there's an alignment system, but it doesn't have any real effect on the world. You say that there are good and evil characters, but those characters can do whatever they want anyway, so the alignment system might as well not exist at all.

So you've gone from character's whose actions are dictated by vague ideas to characters that are just normal characters whose actions are not curtailed by an arbitrary system at all.

You've returned to status quo is what I'm trying to say, doing all this work without actually making any progress.

[PTTG??]

It's naturally not anything like the real world, and I kind of like it- it's a parody of Good and Evil as we often see it compared to how it truly is.
We really know that there are multiple layers of intent for even the simplest action, shades of meaning. Even a charitable act could be a cynical attempt to garner more respect from one's peers, and even a despicable murder could have emerged from the kindest of intent- some twisted and possibly forgotten wish to protect annother or some twisted and insane but not inhuman honor.
But the way we act in much of life is exactly like this system describes. We shun criminals because to open our arms to them would make us be seen as their equals. In even the smallest conflict, our opposition become ignorant and elitist trolls, with whom we share no common ground.

...but those characters can do whatever they want anyway, so the alignment system might as well not exist at all.

On the contrary, they are still expected to do as their superiors tell them and have goals that can only be achieved by working with others- whom they are working for is defined by alignment, which does affect the path the characters will take.

Furthermore, it seems bizarre, but this extremist system seems to capture an essential element of morality that the original lacked; and you said it best:

So you've gone from character's whose actions are dictated by vague ideas to characters that are just normal characters whose actions are not curtailed by an arbitrary system at all.
 

[Gunner-Chan]

Alignment System = Blah, it just makes people more aware of the character sheet and less of their character.

Every D&D game I ran had the alignment system stripped out, and was better for it.

[Psyco Jelly]

My group uses the 3.5 alignments, even in 4.0. We don't fit the alignment stereotypes, the lawful evil person can get along with the chaotic good one.

[zchris13]

These seems like a perfect setup for epic fight to the death. With giant mecha. I support the giant mecha, and all associated chaos.

[inaluct]

I say you replace Good with Green and Evil with Red. Neutral people have red-green color blindness.

It would be more meaningful and more interesting.

[JoshuaFH]

I say you replace Good with Green and Evil with Red. Neutral people have red-green color blindness.

It would be more meaningful and more interesting.

Stop trying to instigate fictional racism between imaginary peoples.

[inaluct]

I say you replace Good with Green and Evil with Red. Neutral people have red-green color blindness.

It would be more meaningful and more interesting.

Stop trying to instigate fictional racism between imaginary peoples.

It shouldn't be skin color. It should be clothing color. It's more interesting that way. Racism? How passé. Clothingism is where it's at.

[Awayfarer]

I say you replace Good with Green and Evil with Red. Neutral people have red-green color blindness.

It would be more meaningful and more interesting.

Stop trying to instigate fictional racism between imaginary peoples.

It shouldn't be skin color. It should be clothing color. It's more interesting that way. Racism? How passé. Clothingism is where it's at.

What to do with all the nudists?

[Grek]

Body paint and jewelery.

[JoshuaFH]

Body paint and jewelery.

Stop trying to oppress the nudists with your body paint and jewelry.

[bjlong]

Stop trying to oppress body paint and jewelry with nudists.