Midnight RPG - Alignment Conversations - Revision history

161.38.223.221 at 21:19, 16 January 2008

2008-01-16T21:19:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:19, 16 January 2008
Line 819:		Line 819:

	:: ARE you making special allowances for one PC over another because you feel that the PC in question (and/or his player) is being unfairly "ganged up on" by the other PCs and/or players?		:: ARE you making special allowances for one PC over another because you feel that the PC in question (and/or his player) is being unfairly "ganged up on" by the other PCs and/or players?


			No.

			:: When you say that 'you wish Adam hadn't told us that', are you implying that the only reason you're entertaining the possibility that this is an alignment-buster is that someone FOUND OUT about it?"


Line 849:		Line 854:
	As you noted with Bill's perceptions, I think this is just a misconception about my intentions. In other words...		As you noted with Bill's perceptions, I think this is just a misconception about my intentions. In other words...

	'''"The GM works in mysterious ways, trust that I know what I'm doing."'''		'''"The GM works in mysterious ways, trust that I know what I'm doing."'''

161.38.223.221: /* Andrew */

2008-01-16T21:14:55Z

Andrew

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:14, 16 January 2008
Line 806:		Line 806:

	<br>But I get it now. So yeah, cool.		<br>But I get it now. So yeah, cool.


			==Kevin==
			:: Maybe you have information that I don't. Maybe Zal is evil already, as you pointed out. Maybe he's actually setting up his secret police to smuggle food and medicine to sick orphans all over Eredane, and just hasn't told us yet. Obviously, I don't have any idea what all we're dealing with here. But IF something like that is the case, I wish you'd just say what I suggested you say to Bill. -snip- But when you start making arguments that seem (to me) completely untenable, without any indication that there's anything going on other than what we've been made aware of, it is in my nature to SAY so if I think those arguments don't hold water.


			just FYI - the only reason I was making arguments was to get more info and "ammunition" in case Adam questioned the change. As it turns out (after talking with him) he sees the point and agrees, although regrettably...

			But otherwise - yeah... '''"The GM works in mysterious ways, trust that I know what I'm doing."''' hehe



			:: ARE you making special allowances for one PC over another because you feel that the PC in question (and/or his player) is being unfairly "ganged up on" by the other PCs and/or players?


			No.


			:: There's another factor at work here, and it was touched on when I mentioned GM consistency. -snip- Did you argue this hard when it was MY character's alignment on the line?


			Yes and no.

			I questioned just like I have here. But I never argued for. I haven't ever argued here for Adam. I've questioned but not argued. I did the same with Durgaz's alignment shift. Exactly.


			:: And another point: you say you just want to hear everyone's thoughts before you "take this to Adam". But you didn't "take it to me" when you changed Durgaz's alignment; the first I learned of it was when a good-aligned outsider sniffed it out and threatened to kill him over it. I didn't get a chance to argue MY case. What gives?



			Correct. But ONLY because yours mattered to your powers/abilities. The choice was made then I wanted to bring it out in-game. Bringing it to you prior would have been anti-climactic for the story purposes (meaning you suddenly learning your power was gone).

			In Adam's case. In Steve's case. It just doesn't matter to the abilities so there's no need to keep it. There'd be no way to "show" it in-game as there was with you.



			:: But you, being the GM, are supposed to be impartial, so when I see you acting like Zal'Kazzir's defense attorney, it bugs me.


			In my opinion I have been 100% impartial. I've repeated noted that I AGREE with this, "however..." then I ask a question. Not in Zal's defense, but rather to have the full discussion. What you're seeing as bias, is actually me just looking for more material and thought to take to Adam as reasoning behind the fact for the change.

			As you noted with Bill's perceptions, I think this is just a misconception about my intentions. In other words...

			'''"The GM works in mysterious ways, trust that I know what I'm doing."'''


			:: Please don't read those last few paragraphs as antagonistic or angry, and don't take them to mean I'm accusing you of anything, because I'm not. What I AM doing there is giving you some insight into where my reaction to some of your previous responses was coming from. I get that we're in agreement, NOW, but there was a lot of in-between there when I was absolutely baffled by what seemed to be utterly specious reasoning.
			:: But I get it now. So yeah, cool.



			Great!

			I'm not looking to baffle or confuse. If I question, its to get more detail. Its not because I don't have a formed opinion yet, its not because I disagree. Its because I want to be as informed as possible. And also make sure that YOU are all informed or have though out things I think of, or know to be true that you're not aware of yet.

71.217.100.43: /* kevin */

2008-01-16T17:25:01Z

kevin

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:25, 16 January 2008
Line 782:		Line 782:
	'''EDIT''': I just reread the definition of Chaotic Evil. Funny... Its Zal to the letter:		'''EDIT''': I just reread the definition of Chaotic Evil. Funny... Its Zal to the letter:
	:: '''''"Characters of this alignment tend to have little respect for rules, other peoples' lives, or anything but their own selfish desires. They typically only behave themselves out of fear of punishment."'''''		:: '''''"Characters of this alignment tend to have little respect for rules, other peoples' lives, or anything but their own selfish desires. They typically only behave themselves out of fear of punishment."'''''

			==Andrew==

			Re-reading some of my responses here, I realize that they do come off as kind of angry-sounding. This isn't intentional. If the "voice" of these posts reads as seems angry to you, replace the "angriness" with "extreme confusion". Maybe I've misunderstood a lot of your statements; maybe you're just playing devil's advocate to an extreme. But when I hear what I THINK is an argument that manslaughter is inherently and automatically worse than turning over hundreds of lives to a secret self-interested shadow regime, or when it SOUNDS like you're saying that this stuff is only worthy of consideration because we FOUND OUT about it, or when you keep making defenses for Adam's character that are DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED by things Adam has told us himself ... do you understand why my reaction might be along the lines of "what? Wait ... huh? What? WHAT?"

			<br>Maybe you have information that I don't. Maybe Zal is evil already, as you pointed out. Maybe he's actually setting up his secret police to smuggle food and medicine to sick orphans all over Eredane, and just hasn't told us yet. Obviously, I don't have any idea what all we're dealing with here. But IF something like that is the case, I wish you'd just say what I suggested you say to Bill. Tell me that there's stuff at play here that I don't know about yet, and that this stuff has some bearing on the topic at hand, and I'll drop it and trust that you know what you're doing. Seriously, I will. But when you start making arguments that seem (to me) completely untenable, without any indication that there's anything going on other than what we've been made aware of, it is in my nature to SAY so if I think those arguments don't hold water.

			<br>There's another factor at work here, and it was touched on when I mentioned GM consistency. Reading just how hard you seem to be fighting AGAINST the notion that subverting democracy is inherently evil, while repeatedly bringing up by way of comparison that what amounts to manslaughter IS inherently evil, I can't help but ask myself "What the hell? Did you argue this hard when it was MY character's alignment on the line? ARE you making special allowances for one PC over another because you feel that the PC in question (and/or his player) is being unfairly "ganged up on" by the other PCs and/or players? When you say that 'you wish Adam hadn't told us that', are you implying that the only reason you're entertaining the possibility that this is an alignment-buster is that someone FOUND OUT about it?" And another point: you say you just want to hear everyone's thoughts before you "take this to Adam". But you didn't "take it to me" when you changed Durgaz's alignment; the first I learned of it was when a good-aligned outsider sniffed it out and threatened to kill him over it. I didn't get a chance to argue MY case. What gives?

			<br>Honestly, if I was having this discussion with ADAM, I'd be a lot more open to HIS rationalization of why what Zal did wasn't evil (if, in fact, he DOESN'T consider it evil.) I think Adam is a smart guy, a good roleplayer and an honest player, and if he thinks he has a genuine case against the evil-ness of election-fixing, sure, I'll listen to that. But you, being the GM, are supposed to be impartial, so when I see you acting like Zal'Kazzir's defense attorney, it bugs me. I'm not out to get Adam OR his character; I never have been, although I obviously HAVE had more quibbles about things he's done in and out of game than I have had with any other player/PC. Nonetheless - and you can choose to believe this, or not - these prior quibbles, and the resolution thereof, have NOTHING whatsoever to do with my approach to this debate. I just wanted to be sure they weren't influencing yours, either.

			<br>
			:: ''Hope that clears up the misunderstanding. I don't want you (or anyone) to think I'm disagreeing or arguing here. This has been a good and enlightening discussion. I'm glad we're having it. I hope it will happen as needed in the future. ''
			::''But I also hope that (as you suggested to Bill) you won't assume the worst.''
			::''I don't think you did completely, but I can feel a little aggravation. ''
			::''I don't want to insight that.''
			::''Since we're both ACTUALLY in total agreement on this. I just had questions to aid my decision process.''
			::''Cool?''

			<br>Yes. Totally.

			<br>Please don't read those last few paragraphs as antagonistic or angry, and don't take them to mean I'm accusing you of anything, because I'm not. What I AM doing there is giving you some insight into where my reaction to some of your previous responses was coming from. I get that we're in agreement, NOW, but there was a lot of in-between there when I was absolutely baffled by what seemed to be utterly specious reasoning.

			<br>But I get it now. So yeah, cool.

24.22.171.33 at 10:12, 16 January 2008

2008-01-16T10:12:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:12, 16 January 2008
Line 778:		Line 778:

	Cool?		Cool?


			'''EDIT''': I just reread the definition of Chaotic Evil. Funny... Its Zal to the letter:
			:: '''''"Characters of this alignment tend to have little respect for rules, other peoples' lives, or anything but their own selfish desires. They typically only behave themselves out of fear of punishment."'''''

24.22.171.33 at 07:46, 16 January 2008

2008-01-16T07:46:01Z

Show changes

71.217.100.43: /* Kevin */

2008-01-16T04:08:13Z

Kevin

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:08, 16 January 2008
Line 602:		Line 602:

	other thoughts?		other thoughts?

			==Andrew==

			::''The only negative about all this talk is the fact that RIGHT NOW all our player-to-player out-of-game talk is great but ultimately its all meaningless. The fact is that until someone learns that the election was fixed (through some sort of investigation) its all only out-of-character talk.''

			<br>
			Huh? How is it meaningless? A ruling on whether a random PC's alignment should change HAS to take place out of game, by definition. We're not discussing how our CHARACTERS would react to Zal's deception. Honestly, I have no idea. In character, I'm not sure that Durgaz has enough understanding of how democracy is supposed to work to determine that any wrongdoing was done. The WORST thing we might figure out that he's done was lie to the townspeople, and since we haven't figured that out, we're not going to be making any in-character decisions any time soon.

			<br>
			Also, you keep mentioning the fact that nobody knows the election was fixed, as if that automatically makes it any less evil. Putting aside for a minute that, well, it doesn't, I'd like to point out that unless I'm remembering wrong, none of the PCs witnessed Durgaz murdering the three sailors. So I guess that makes it OK, right? Even if there WERE PCs present, are you implying that it wouldn't have been evil if there weren't? It sounds like you are.

			<br>
			::''I feel that's the consistency. The situations are obviously different.
			::''Durgaz's situation was a little more cut and dry. He killed three people in cold blood who offered him no real danger at all. They were neither anywhere near his power level and they were only coming to "arrest" and remove him as ordered by the dock manager.''
			::''Zal'Kazzir altered the results of an election. One that he thought (via his "supreme" ability of Diplomacy and Nobility Knowledge) would be the best option for the new government.''
			<br>
			I don't know whether you're just playing devil's advocate to an extreme, or whether you've just forgotten or just haven't been paying attention to a few things, so let me recap them here:

			<br>
			1) Durgaz killed three people in cold blood, '''while insane,''' whom he had no way of knowing in character were "nowhere near his power level." They outnumbered him three to one. They were armed. They were '''openly discussing their plans to torture and kill him.''' Was there a better, less-evil way to deal with this problem? Absolutely. Is it the cut-and-dried, obvious situation you make it out to be? You'd have a much stronger case for that if you weren't trying to argue that it's inherently more evil than selling out the futures of hundreds of people for personal gain.

			<br>
			2) Zal'Kazzir altered the results of an election. I don't know where you're getting this whole "He thought it would be best for the townspeople due to his supreme Nobility Knowledge and Diplomacy", because '''Adam himself told us, right there in game, out loud, that he was doing it solely to consolidate his own power.''' NOT for the benefit of the townsfolk. NOT because he thought Wilhelm would be the best leader of First-Hold. For Zal'Kazzir. You can keep saying that his motives were pure, but '''the player behind the character explicitly told us otherwise.''' I can keep repeating ad nauseam that Ardherin is probably just orchestrating these situations to test us, so that once he's convinced we're strong enough he can appoint us all his magic guardians of goodness and send us riding around outer space on flying unicorns, helping the unfortunate, but I seriously doubt that will make it true.

			I should note here that if Adam HAD told us that Zal was doing this out of genuine concern for the townpeople, I could have been convinced that the act was pretty Chaotic, but not inherently Evil, even if it DID result in badness for First-Hold (the same way Eranon's decision to free the dragon was Chaotic, not Evil, even if the dragon ends up killing a lot of people.) He didn't, though. He did it for himself. There's no question in my mind that it's Evil under those circumstances.

			<br>
			And before you say that you wish Adam had kept his mouth shut and not told us that, whether we know doesn't have any bearing on how evil something is. If Durgaz decides to start sneaking into First-Hold and eating babies every night, but he does it all via bluebook so nobody knows, it's still fucking evil.

			:: ''Afterall those situations exemplify the character for which they are based! Its martial action vs. political motivation.''

			So ... what ... mugging someone is totally worse than being, or enabling, a dictator? Stabbing someone is always worse than bilking dozens or even hundreds of people out of their livelihood? I don't see what "martial action vs. political motivation" has to do with the inherent wrongness of an act.

			:: ''The only caviate I would add is that this is the way Adam has demonstrated Zal to be over many many games. Its despicable. But that's why we LOVE to hate Zal'Kazzir.''

			I'm not arguing that. It's totally within Zal'Kazzir's character, just as it is within Durgaz's character to lash out violently when he feels he's being threatened. Acting "according to character" isn't a free pass to do whatever we want, UNLESS the character in question is chaotic or neutral evil. In fact, doesn't the very statement "this is the way Adam has demonstrated Zal to be over many many games" describe EXACTLY the sort of "pattern of behavior" that we determined would be grounds for alignment change?

			<br>
			Look, when all's said and done, you are the GM and you can make whatever ruling you want, even if I disagree with it (and, with all due respect, most of your reasoning doesn't make a lot of sense to me.) I really don't understand your apparent feeling that we shouldn't be discussing this as PLAYERS because our characters don't know about it. Whether our characters know about it, and what they would do (if anything) upon finding out should have no bearing whatsoever on our ability to discuss its ramifications as players ... we obviously wouldn't be discussing "Alignment" IN character, so either it's discussed here or not at all.

			<br>
			It also occurs to me that you may also be making special allowances for Adam here, either because you think the rest of us have been "unfair" to him OR because you think that his turning evil would force the group to kill him, thereby causing problems you don't want to deal with. If that is the case, I can understand why you might want to do that, but I certainly hope you wouldn't actually go through with it. First of all, as I've stated already, I'm NOT arguing that the group needs to kill Zal, or that he should become an NPC. I AM arguing that he's done something bad enough to warrant an alignment change. Whatever comes after that is up to Adam and all of the rest of us, '''exactly as it was when you alignment-shifted Durgaz.''' When I talk about wanting consistency, that's what I mean.

24.22.171.33 at 01:39, 16 January 2008

2008-01-16T01:39:09Z

Show changes

24.22.171.33 at 22:58, 15 January 2008

2008-01-15T22:58:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:58, 15 January 2008
Line 493:		Line 493:

	: <font color="red">'''''Andrew:''' Oh, just to be clear, I totally think '''Adam''' deserves the benefit of the doubt. I'm not arguing that '''Adam''' is evil. However, based off what we've observed Adam's '''character''' doing, and what Adam himself told us his character was doing and why, I don't see much doubt to give Zal'Kazzir the benefit of.		: <font color="red">'''''Andrew:''' Oh, just to be clear, I totally think '''Adam''' deserves the benefit of the doubt. I'm not arguing that '''Adam''' is evil. However, based off what we've observed Adam's '''character''' doing, and what Adam himself told us his character was doing and why, I don't see much doubt to give Zal'Kazzir the benefit of.


			==Kevin==
			Bill, on your point about - I took it to the Yahoo Group, because its a CONTINUING bigger concern I want FINISHED that all players need to be aware of...

71.217.100.43: /* Andrew */

2008-01-15T21:38:03Z

Andrew

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:38, 15 January 2008
Line 491:		Line 491:

	: <font color="red">'''''Bill:''' Be that as it may, I think we owe Adam the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he dealt with the whole situation flippantly, like, "Gee, I just want this '''done''' and this is the fastest way I can think of to make that happen." It could be that Adam really didn't think things through very well (or even treat the situation with the gravity that it deserved), and if he had he would have handled the whole thing very differently. I remember that there was much laughing and talking OOC at the time, so I think that assuming he did it all with the spirit of disdain and deception that WE all rightly perceive isn't necessarily a safe assumption. I want to give Adam the freedom to make mistakes.''</font>		: <font color="red">'''''Bill:''' Be that as it may, I think we owe Adam the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he dealt with the whole situation flippantly, like, "Gee, I just want this '''done''' and this is the fastest way I can think of to make that happen." It could be that Adam really didn't think things through very well (or even treat the situation with the gravity that it deserved), and if he had he would have handled the whole thing very differently. I remember that there was much laughing and talking OOC at the time, so I think that assuming he did it all with the spirit of disdain and deception that WE all rightly perceive isn't necessarily a safe assumption. I want to give Adam the freedom to make mistakes.''</font>

			: <font color="red">'''''Andrew:''' Oh, just to be clear, I totally think '''Adam''' deserves the benefit of the doubt. I'm not arguing that '''Adam''' is evil. However, based off what we've observed Adam's '''character''' doing, and what Adam himself told us his character was doing and why, I don't see much doubt to give Zal'Kazzir the benefit of.

64.62.7.202: /* Andrew */

2008-01-15T20:05:31Z

Andrew

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:05, 15 January 2008
Line 490:		Line 490:
	: <font color="red">'''''Bill:''' I agree with this whole paragraph. Especially in light of the fact that Adam didn't have to do anything underhanded. He could have had Zal approach the other characters and point out that he thinks things are too sensitive to leave the new leadership up to chance, and that one candidate stands out as the best choice, even if the people of the city don't see it. Instead he treated the whole thing as if the other PCs' desires for a fairly-elected government were so unimportant that he needn't bother himself with changing anyone's mind - he could just lie to US and pretend that the election was a success! "See? Your plan worked, and now there's a leader in charge," is I'm sure what Zal is going to say to us. Not only is it selfish, it's horribly disdainful... of US.''</font>		: <font color="red">'''''Bill:''' I agree with this whole paragraph. Especially in light of the fact that Adam didn't have to do anything underhanded. He could have had Zal approach the other characters and point out that he thinks things are too sensitive to leave the new leadership up to chance, and that one candidate stands out as the best choice, even if the people of the city don't see it. Instead he treated the whole thing as if the other PCs' desires for a fairly-elected government were so unimportant that he needn't bother himself with changing anyone's mind - he could just lie to US and pretend that the election was a success! "See? Your plan worked, and now there's a leader in charge," is I'm sure what Zal is going to say to us. Not only is it selfish, it's horribly disdainful... of US.''</font>

	: <font color="red">'''''Bill:''' Be that as it may, I think we owe Adam the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he dealt with the whole situation flippantly, like, "Gee, I just want this '''done''' and this is the fastest way I can think of to make that happen." It could be that Adam really didn't think things through very well (or even treat the situation with the gravity that it deserved), and if he had he would have handled the whole thing very differently. I remember that there was much laughing and talking OOC at the time, so I think that assuming he did it all with the spirit of disdain and deception that WE all rightly perceive isn't necessarily a safe assumption.''</font>		: <font color="red">'''''Bill:''' Be that as it may, I think we owe Adam the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he dealt with the whole situation flippantly, like, "Gee, I just want this '''done''' and this is the fastest way I can think of to make that happen." It could be that Adam really didn't think things through very well (or even treat the situation with the gravity that it deserved), and if he had he would have handled the whole thing very differently. I remember that there was much laughing and talking OOC at the time, so I think that assuming he did it all with the spirit of disdain and deception that WE all rightly perceive isn't necessarily a safe assumption. I want to give Adam the freedom to make mistakes.''</font>