Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hillsy7" data-source="post: 7170990" data-attributes="member: 6689191">So I’ll kick off.Generally speaking, I treat the Good-Evil axis as a continuum between who wins and who loses. At one end of the scale is Good, where the maximum number of people must win (often with the character themselves being expendable). Loss here is unfortunate, but even then the best outcomes are sought. Bang on halfway are Neutral characters, who only want to win themselves – they are ambivalent to the plight of others. And at the far end, Evil characters must win and everyone else must lose – it’s not enough to beat someone, you have to make them worse off for being in the game to begin with.The Law-Chaos axis I treat as where the character looks to for his moral compass. Lawful characters look externally for their source of ethics (either religion, social justice, the Harvester’s Guild, etc etc). At the far end is chaos, where the only source of morality is yourself and your view: you cannot ever be wrong as you are the source of your own moral view. Neutral floats somewhere in between external structural rules and internal validation, where you’re more looking at the world from a more traditional, philosophical moral viewpoint.From here I can sort of use those motivations to map how my character would react to differing stresses: In the classic “Save your Girlfriend, Save a dozen civilians, or attack the BBEG”, which way would they jump……As a GM, I only sort of vaguely apply those principles to my Players Alignment. As long as it doesn’t feel like they are making a small escape hatch for themselves in case they want to go on a hobo-killing rampage or sacrifice themselves heroically for no reason, I’ll let them treat alignment in their own way. Occasionally I might ask for an alignment if I don’t think a character is particularly well defined and they haven’t listed one…..</blockquote>

Verification