Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorhook" data-source="post: 6383573" data-attributes="member: 58401">Thanks!Actually, the specificity is completely by design. I want the descriptions to be crystal clear about my expectations of my players, and I want to encourage a heroic game, so I gave specific examples of appropriate behaviour for each alignment, and I phrased things to make evil seem as unpalatable to social-play as possible.As for good characters and willingness to cause harm, I definitely don't want my players to think that being good-aligned limits them to being cowardly or pacifist (read: boring). I included the caveat &quot;(if anyone at all)&quot; as a nod to the possibilities of pacifism, but when it comes to villains, I am completely okay with Lawful Good paladins kicking butt and taking names. I want my players to read the way I described the good alignments and feel empowered, not limited.I like your chart, and I definitely designed mine with axes like these in mind. My chart has four criteria, two each for the good-evil and law-chaos spectrums. That said, like I mentioned above, I designed it to be specific on purpose, and I think speaking in abstractions would seriously undermine the effect I'm aiming for.I used the word &quot;often&quot; for all of the evil alignments to emphasize that evil characters are intensely selfish and typically anti-social in the long run. I want to frame evil (especially chaotic evil) as anathema to cooperation generally and to long-term participation in an adventuring group specifically.Thanks, I'll look into that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorhook, post: 6383573, member: 58401"] Thanks! Actually, the specificity is completely by design. I want the descriptions to be crystal clear about my expectations of my players, and I want to encourage a heroic game, so I gave specific examples of appropriate behaviour for each alignment, and I phrased things to make evil seem as unpalatable to social-play as possible. As for good characters and willingness to cause harm, I definitely don't want my players to think that being good-aligned limits them to being cowardly or pacifist (read: boring). I included the caveat "(if anyone at all)" as a nod to the possibilities of pacifism, but when it comes to villains, I am completely okay with Lawful Good paladins kicking butt and taking names. I want my players to read the way I described the good alignments and feel empowered, not limited. I like your chart, and I definitely designed mine with axes like these in mind. My chart has four criteria, two each for the good-evil and law-chaos spectrums. That said, like I mentioned above, I designed it to be specific on purpose, and I think speaking in abstractions would seriously undermine the effect I'm aiming for. I used the word "often" for all of the evil alignments to emphasize that evil characters are intensely selfish and typically anti-social in the long run. I want to frame evil (especially chaotic evil) as anathema to cooperation generally and to long-term participation in an adventuring group specifically. Thanks, I'll look into that. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification