Future game set-up concepts

[CSF - Flint]

Who had '6 minutes' in the 'Amy Cant Help Herself' pool?

[TH - The Hunt]

It's you who couldn't help yourself, Rich. You couldn't help misrepresenting the alignment system after you misinterpreted it. You couldn't help saying something so disastrously wrong someone had to correct you lest you get someone else as confused as you are.

Here's what it has to say about a 'positive' CE character, by the way:

So, our "positive" chaotic evil is simply a pure hedonist. This sort of character is concerned with themselves and their own pleasure. They avoid pain, hardship, and discomfort through any means available. They seek wealth because pleasure can be purchased. They want others to work for them, so as to avoid the pain of labor. They will lie in seeking pleasure and also if telling the truth would bring them discomfort.

Does that sound 'heroic' to anyone? Bears no resemblance to Mishrak, that's for sure.

This could be because his true values are stimulation and power--with him torn between them--and these average out to NE(C); close enough to squeak by as a claim to CE. That seemed a fair explanation. Or it could just be he's cruel, merciless, unconcerned with others, and so forth. You tell me. I'm just telling you what he's not.

[CSF - Flint]

5 minutes for round 2! who is our next winner?

[TF - The Fortress]

We can all argue what we think someone's alignment is -- Juan is the final determiner of the alignment and whatnot. Since characters don't walk around with their alignment stamped on their forehead, I try to have my characters base their interactions solely on any observed or actual interactions with the other party.

[TH - The Hunt]

Very useful when the aim is to achieve plausible deniability. Even more useful than not reading about how the system works or what the definitions are...

I'm not aware of one instance where Juan has made a final decision that a PC's actions didn't fit their alignment, and that seems to be because it always results in an argument... But, when the character becomes an NPC, he doesn't shy away from playing them the way he thinks they should be played, or requiring a player who takes over for them to do so. So, that's a better way to gain insight into what the alignments mean in this game than how PCs with those alignments are played, since there's no limits on that, and not all players are on the same page, or even in the same book, on how they should be.

[WB - Water's Blessing]

I have to leave LG and CG out of my assessments typically. For example, Ector Gladanil was 'LG' yet dehumanized and was villainous to anyone but humans. Shireen and Dhoesone were LN, and continued EGs racism. When it's okay to wipe out a peaceful realm or slaughter innocents just because they are different it quickly leaves the rational behind and becomes legalistic interpretations of alignment rather than moral ones. This is similar to the Holocaust. It was evil, period. Yes, some of the Germans involved were decent people who were scared to do the right thing, but from a realm perspective, it set Nazi Germany firmly into the category of Evil.

Are there still excesses in The Hunt? Very likely (but since litte information is really published on the individual realms by their regents or the news it is hard to tell). However, since the time of Riva's imprisonment, he has seen more positive actions from The Hunt and less negative ones. Is it due to Riva's influence? Probably not in the least. Does it make it worth considering them in a different light? Certainly.

I don't think the terms "good" or "evil" are useful in the Easydamus alignment system. The lawful-chaotic axis is really about traditionalism (reverence for the past) v progressivism (receptiveness to innovation and change) while the good-evil axis is really about collectivism (others before self) vs individualism (look after your self first). Chaotic Evil is "individualism-progressivism". Lawful Good is "collectivism-traditionalism". There's no reason why CE has to be particularly bad or evil, though. A person emphasizing self-care and their individual relationships would fit just as well into the CE framework as a ruthless raider rebelling from society because they didn't want to be stuck at the bottom.

From what I have seen of the Hunt, I wouldn't call them either heroic or villainous. They are somewhere in that grey area between those two poles that most things fall into. It seems more like Ayn Rand's Gault's Gulch to me more than anything else -- held together mostly by (perhaps enlightened) self-interested rather than mere terror, tradition, or any other motivation. In that, it seems to really do a good job of reflecting the individualism-progressivism that we code as "Hedonism" in the system.

RE: Juan weighing in on alignments, I can think of at least one case where Juan ruled a character transgressed their alignment - that being a paladin of Avani who decided to assassinate someone.

[CIC - Duke Cicero]

And then there’s the well-studied phenomenon in which real world people generally speaking don’t act according to a moral code - they just make post facto rationalizations for their behavior. (Or something like that, I’m not quoting an individual study here)

[HaQ - Hakim al-Qadr]

Don't forget the Gods manipulated all our alignments with their gifts.

[TH - The Hunt]

Motivations for actions tend to be emotional, while the explanations given for them tend to be rationalizations to soothe the one providing them, yeah.

It's good to know at least some alignment violations are that extreme, haha.

The EasyDamus page describes the four quadrants as Openness to Change (C), Self-Enhancement (E), Conservation (L) and Self-Transcendence (G). And there's a circular contiuum, so the 'Power' value is associated with 'Conservation' but, very sensibly, not with 'Openness to Change', since to be open to change requires giving up power. Those kind of contradictions are what makes it work, since it's easier for characters to hold values that aren't in conflict.

[HaQ - Hakim al-Qadr]

I was writing up a long rationale but decided to delete it. I will stick with my previous position on discussing IC things OOC. I believe Mishrak is entirely consistent internally with what motivates him. The methodology of pursuing his motives are filtered by his alignment which may or may not have changed. Being CE doesn't mean you have to be insane - stupid - or irrational. Merely that individual trumps collective.