Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ACreepierFolklaw" data-source="post: 5708065" data-attributes="member: 6682969">For me with an interest in criminal profiling and developing characters for the screen I feel that on one level you are right, that people are generally emotionally consistent and the best indicator of future responses is past ones. But evil/good? Its too judgemental and contains such assumptions about how the world (even fictional ones) works that I just find it unworkable. Evil for evil's sake is just nonsense, so is good for goods sake for that matter. people (in real life) tend to follow a continuum that is more personalised, by which I mean what they consider to be a good situation or bad situation is judged by a particular criterion, they will opt for a choice that they feel is more likely to result in the situation they feel to be good, and will flee from those they believe to be bad. This is a more complex yet simple alignment form that I use in my games (only for NPCs). For example, an NPC I have possesses the alignment of ridicule<->recognition, this means given any choice he will try for recognition over ridicule, so sometimes he may do evil to avoid ridicule, sometimes do good to gain recognition and vice versa.Any choice he is given he will weigh up the options in terms of ridicule<->recognition. Of course my NPC’s alignment is never made known to the players except through the evidence of the NPCs actions. Sensing evil etc is off the cards as everyone is light and dark, yin/yang. All characters are capable of almost anything when backed into a metaphorical corner; the NPC would rather death than ridicule, rather kill others to get recognition if it was the only way, but also capable of great deeds… the goodness or badness is to be judged by someone else.</blockquote>

Verification