|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quasit just hanging out by herself, making up fake scenarios to hurt her own feelings. I too also have anxiety and emotional trauma, I feel that vibe girl.
The melancholy comes in on little cat feet when she gets off by herself, very true. But the scene at the tub sort of unintentionally rubbed her nose in the blooming relationships that Saki and Maka are having, and even though she was genuinely having a good time and genuinely is happy for all her friends, I think we all experience a little private grief when our close friends put romantic partners first in their lives. Just involuntary moments of envy and sadness for that new part of themselves that we aren't a part of now. I felt I needed her to nod to that, especially with her so far from home and especially as she continues to grieve for her own lost love.
Our poor emo girl. She should probably just come out of the closet and let Maka love her. But we'll see if Kal can open up Quasit's sad heart.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hahaha well my grandparents did the same little shuffle dance regardless of the music playing, so maybe it's something like that?
|
Great job with the sidebar, Kal. I agree with what Q said as the first thing I thought when reading that was wow, that sounds like exactly what would happen:
1. Thanks, you killed the dragon, you’re awesome, let’s celebrate
2. Wait a minute, they really killed a dragon, they’re awesome, what’s to stop ‘em from doing the same to us?
3. Here’s your hat, what’s your hurry?
The Report
Great post Kal, really enjoyed it.
As if any of us would have any interest in staying on this frozen wasteland planet, but of course they don't see that. I'm reminded of the end of Lawrence of Arabia, where Prince Faisal remarks to Allenby that he'll be as glad to see the back of Lawrence as any of them.
Well Maka has been enjoying the dragon planet at least. If she ever makes her way back to Triaxus to visit she's probably going to be in for a nasty surprise. Doesn't seem her 'friends' would be happy to see her.
Not that Pharamol is entirely in the wrong. Maka is political extremist currently involved in overthrowing 2 governments, though Taldor is on pause. She'd add the legion to the list if she learned they liked slavery or something.
|
|
Well Maka has been enjoying the dragon planet at least.
Fin was considering Spurhorn as a retirement home; they have hot baths, a dance floor, and swill…what more could he ask? He could probably find work there as an archery instructor…but reading the report, they’d probably poison his swill…or worse, put a bunch of ice in the hot baths… ;)
Poor feeble mortals and your vulnerability to the cold!
Wait! They can add ice to the bath?! Sweet! I'll have to try that!
:)
You can fill it full of water and get in it!
Are you crazy? Who wants to get in a tub full of hot water, I've got a temperature!
...You can also fill it with cold water.
|
|
I dropped out of organized play shortly before 2nd edition came out. I’ve dipped my toe into 2E but I can’t get the hang of it.
So I’m not sure what Paizo is referring to about a recent controversy? OGL vs ORC? Getting rid of alignment — that’s a jolt to my sensibilities but I can certainly adapt. What ‘nostalgic’ creatures are they trashing?
Reformatting the rules a little might make character building more intuitive, which I would welcome, but I’m not sure I’m interested in another $50 book. My bookshelves are already groaning with obsolete RPG books in less than mint condition.
WoTC tried to undo the OGL. The OGL is what allowed third party publishers to do things like make adventure paths, modules, and splat books for dnd 3.x and 5e without legal repercussions or problems. Arguably the greatest factor in making dnd so massive. It's also what allowed paizo to make pf1 when wotc tried to make 4e.
But wotc tried to make the OGL go away and replace it with a new license that was extremely unfair to creators, unreliable and dangerous in a business sense and basically poised wotc to be a very nasty bbeg with probably horrible consequences to the gaming community.
Thus paizo and a bunch of other companies got together to support and fund ORC, a replacement for the OGL that will be untouchable by wotc or any other game company. Think of it like creative commons specializing in gaming.
Some details,
Many creatures in pf1 are available because of the ogl and depend on the ogl to be used, and I imagine some were carried over into pf2. Cutting ties with the ogl means getting rid of any content that is allowed solely because of the ogl. Pf2 probably doesn't have any need for the ogl except for legacy creatures and perhaps a few items or other references.
Organized play is pretty much all I do and I like 2e much better than 1e. But then, as I've proven here, I'm terrible at choosing spells and feats and 2e makes both those things easier. The Combat Maneuver rules are also a lot easier and more effective.
I'm actually glad that they're getting rid of the alignment system. It's never really worked in my opinion. If nothing else, it applies mechanical repercussions to something that isn't defined mechanically. For example, if the Big Bad gives an orphan an ice cream cone, is he suddenly not Chaotic Evil and therefor not subject to spells that hurt Chaotic or Evil creatures? How many free ice cream cones does he have to give out? Likewise, if a Lawful Good character kills a bunch of kobold babies, is she now Chaotic Evil or was what she did a good thing because they were going to cause problems in the future?
The answer to all these questions is "depends on the person running the game" and that is no way to design such a big part of the system.
But then, I usually have to play 3 or 4 sessions before I know what alignment one of my characters is going to be.
I have rarely seen alignment work in play, but then I've rarely seen alignment portrayed like I believe it was intended. For me, an interpretation of alignment must at a minimum make sense for most cases in the system, if it doesn't than that interpretation is obviously not as intended. I've never actually seen anyone else use an interpretation that meets that criteria, and even my own interpretation that does meet that criteria came only after studying psychology.
That said, I find my interpretation to be extremely useful especially as a GM.
Thus, I've kept alignment in my system, but I radically changed how I present it, though I'm not sure I've described it well enough.
|
|
I'd like to stand up for alignment, unrealistic and simplistic as it may be.
In DnD-type games, as a player you have the twin goals of building a character that can defeat enemies in a fight and embodying an interesting heroic character to flesh out an adventure story. Often those two goals coincide seamlessly, but if you've ever GM'd (especially in a home campaign) you've had to deal with players who are much more wedded to the thrill of killing and plundering than they are to any roleplaying consideration. I think alignment is (a) a good tool for a GM to impose some very basic boundaries on acceptable behavior to keep a character viable within the story he wants to tell, and (b) a handy shorthand for a player to consult when their character is presented with an ethical quandary in the game's story.
Speaking personally, I find that shorthand very useful when imagining how my character might react in any situation. No realistic person is strictly wedded to a particular alignment, but they do have tendencies, and for the very important decisions of their life, they have core priorities that fundamentally inform who they are. And there can be few more inherently dramatic situations than a person who, either intentionally or through cosmic error, makes a choice that has the mechanical effect of changing their core value system.
The original six Star Wars films are dramatic because of the alignment shifts of Anakin Skywalker and the rigid ethical steadfastness of Luke Skywalker. Good people can choose evil and vice versa, but the concept of alignment assigns a consequence to those choices that fits within the archetypes of legendary storytelling. Is it necessary? No. Can it be overly simplistic? Of course. But I feel it adds a foundational support to a character concept that helps it grow the way a stick helps your bean plant grow.
What ‘nostalgic’ creatures are they trashing?
We don't know the full list yet but you can definitely say goodbye to Owlbears.
Alignment has only ever worked for me when it's used as a rough guideline and not actual rules. So much of it comes down to philosophy. I mean I have Maka as Lawful Good because she is studiously dedicated to her path and beliefs. But she's also fire incarnate, only cares about the law if it helps people, and is a political revolutionary. You could easily argue her as a Chaotic Good character. I could argue for pages in either direction but ultimately it feels like a matter of perspective to me.
Video games really highlight the issues with the alignment system. The Owlcat games have some Lawful Good options that are laughably evil. "Well that bandit declared rape was legal, as a Paladin I have to respect his lawful commands and return the slaves."
Demons, angels, and the like are basically just elementals and probably won't get much of a rework other than the alignments getting new tags.
Likewise, if a Lawful Good character kills a bunch of kobold babies, is she now Chaotic Evil or was what she did a good thing because they were going to cause problems in the future?
Well that depends on if the DM treats the monstrous races as people and not monsters. I definitely had games/DMs that had goblins/kobolds/etc be nothing but little murder monsters and then tried to get me in a moral catch 22 with babies. Which of course just got those babies Goblin Slayered and I wouldn't hear a word about my alignment. I'll treat them like people when you do. If they don't create anything, if they don't live, if they don't love, if they just kill, eat, rape, and hide; Then they aren't a person, they are just a thing.
Thankfully I haven't had that problem since college and there are monstrous races live, laugh, loving all over the place in my games.
Speaking personally, I find that shorthand very useful when imagining how my character might react in any situation.
I think we probably have similar uses for alignment, and I agree that this is a good way to use it. The problem has always come when trying to tie all that to specific mechanics.
Philosophical discussion about what drives our characters? Great.
Recognizing that though we have the same goals, how we go about achieving those goals says something intrinsic about who we are as people? Great.
Hour long argument on if the bandit has murdered enough people to take smite damage. Not great.
*Edit*
An after thought. Evil is way more of a spanner in the works than Good. Not only in the arguments about what constitutes evil or not, but also just the general idea of how Evil should act.
Pointing back to the video game example. Good/Neutral typically gets multiple options to go about things: Donate money to orphans, keep money for yourself, ignore problem, get involved, etc. Where as evil typically just gets: Kill person, Kill person for no reason.
Like, just because I'm evil and don't feel bad about killing people doesn't mean I'm going around killing people all the damn time. And it doesn't mean I'm not going to get involved in things. Like Lex Luthor is taking over the world and killing people? Whatever, he'll keep things running and I'm not going to be one of the people he kills. But it'll be a cold day in hell before I let the Joker take over the world. I f+%#ing live here, I'm not dealing with that.
|
|
I’ve often found that, with the right players, an evil campaign is one of the most interesting role playing experiences you can have. Characters quickly realize that they can’t just be murderous maniacs if they want to succeed. They quickly learn that, although they lack compassion and scoff at social norms and institutions, the day to day practical choices are not always defined by mayhem and cruelty. Evil people work together. Neutral people and evil people work together. They may not be able to trust one another, but they can share goals and reach understandings. But the premise is that at their core, an evil character will act in their own interest regardless of what duty or honor may demand. Exploring an evil character arc as a way to explore ambition, ruthlessness and cruelty can be a blast.
Having said that, there’s certainly a qualitative difference between such a campaign run with alignment labels, and one without alignment labels. I’d say that to run such a campaign with alignment labels is a way to explicitly give permission to players to really dive into non ethical choices. It allows them to choose a side and have a clear conception of who they are. Things are inevitably more complex without those alignment labels — that can be very satisfying in the right group, but it is a lot more likely to lead to player conflict and intractable character arguments. At least that’s been my experience.
Kalchine and I are in another game together that has no alignments, though I’d roughly say my character behaves in a usually neutral good way, and his tends toward neutral evil. The other characters feel chaotic neutral and lawful neutral. We butt heads in character a LOT. Often in a pretty tedious way and often over the same sort of thing over and over. It creates an interesting level of tension in the group and leads to odd momentary alliances, but I feel it’s also prevented us from coalescing into a unit. We will likely remain an association of convenience, and will most likely fall apart before the adventure path can run its course. Is that a desirable experience? I’m not sure.
Evil people work together. Neutral people and evil people work together. They may not be able to trust one another, but they can share goals and reach understandings. But the premise is that at their core, an evil character will act in their own interest regardless of what duty or honor may demand. Exploring an evil character arc as a way to explore ambition, ruthlessness and cruelty can be a blast.
Yah there is so much material to work with for evil characters. Though I will say that evil characters can still have duty or honor, just very skewed versions. I love an evil character that genuinely loves their own family and just doesn't give a shit about anyone else's. Being a monster who doesn't understand or feel is one thing. Being a monster who completely understands what they are doing, who has a sense of morality, and is evil anyway? That's way scarier to me, that's way more of a threat.
Kalchine and I are in another game together that has no alignments, though I’d roughly say my character behaves in a usually neutral good way, and his tends toward neutral evil. The other characters feel chaotic neutral and lawful neutral. We butt heads in character a LOT. Often in a pretty tedious way and often over the same sort of thing over and over. It creates an interesting level of tension in the group and leads to odd momentary alliances, but I feel it’s also prevented us from coalescing into a unit. We will likely remain an association of convenience, and will most likely fall apart before the adventure path can run its course. Is that a desirable experience? I’m not sure.
So there is definitely narrative to be explored there, but in my experience characters not fully coalescing leads to more trouble than anything. I always find it's helpful to set up specific agendas and principals to help prevent people from butting heads too much.
It's sort of tied to the classic problem of "Why would my character do this?". Which is a great question to ask but can really trip up novices. So often that question is asked as a way of not going along with this, when it needs to be asked as a way of figuring out how to go along with things.
"I'm a lone wolf, why would I work with these people?"
Classic player problem. And the classic answer is "I wouldn't, I just do my own thing", which is just the worst. When the answer should be something along the lines of "Because they are the exception. Or I'm forced to because..."
The 'Monster of the Week' PBtA probably has the most concise example.
Hunter Agenda:
• Act like you’re the hero in this
story (because you are).
• Make your own destiny.
• Find the damn monsters and stop
them.
• Play your hunter like they’re a real
person.
If you do those things, at least even vaguely, you will play a monster hunter trying to solve the mystery. If you don't do these things, you'll likely end up as some rando who doesn't even know there is a monster in the background.
The "act like you're the hero in this story" is one I really like. Because it's not, act like you're a hero. You might be a monster in your own right. The human part of you died along with your parents that fateful night. You've done things that would have made your parents ashamed and you'll do worse yet. Maybe one day you'll be the one hunted. But this night? This night no monster is ruining another child.
You don't even have to like it or feel good about it. Maybe you hate the parents for not being able to keep the kids safe? Maybe this is all just a way to unleash the hate in your heart, some pitiful way to feel like you have any semblance of control over the world. But in the story of someone trying to eat this poor kid's parents, you are the hero. You are the one trying to stop it.
#1 That really depends on the run. On average I'd put him at Lawful Neutral. He knows that he isn't a good guy but he does think he is working for the greater good. A decent amount of the time he actually is. But it really depends on how many rooms full of people he has indiscriminately mowed down. The canon really goes back and forth on that.
Anytime Ennis gets a hold of Frank though? Full stop evil. Usually stupid evil too.
That time Frank became an Angel of Vengeance and had a magic trench coat that served as hammer space for an arsenal of holy guns? Lawful Good, entirely by technicality.
Followup Question: What alignment is Zuko?
#2 Okay so this is a tough one, those 3 form the majority of my diet. I maintain that rice and beans is the meaning of life, so I guess I have to marry rice. With that, I'll f$#% bread and kill pasta.
This conversation highlights what I believe is one of the two biggest misconceptions about alignment. I don't believe alignment is about whether a character does good or evil things, but rather is about how a character determines what is right or wrong.
The villain of a play I saw that claims morality is fictional and it's really just power that matters, he is neutral evil because his philosophy of power is centered on the individual at the expense of others but neither defines a code of behavior nor submits to the whims of emotions.
This villain is perfectly capable of doing good things, he might have friends or family, he might take care of his town, though for the utility and a desire to keep his people productive and not fighting him, yet no matter how much good he does, it doesn't impact his fundamental belief that power is the one true goal and every choice he makes, good or bad, is driven by that philosophy.
That brings things around to the major misunderstanding, lawful is not about laws or even an explicit code of conduct, but about the belief that there is a right way and a wrong way to act, as well as authority and group structures being moral issues.
I also run on the idea that on either axis, only 10% of people have non neutral alignment.
Well morality is fictional. It's nothing more than a story we tell each other.
“Take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. and yet... and yet you act as if there is some ideal order in the world, as if there is some... some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.”
― Terry Pratchett
That's actual sort of the crux of the matter. You have a fictional concept that does not have an agreed upon meaning. Then you apply that to the setting as if it's a law of nature the same as gravity or the speed of light. Very much an ask 100 people get 100 answers situation.
And you are right, for the most part people are shades of grey. It is the rare extraordinary person who is actually good or evil and not a multitude that contains layers. But as a game play mechanic that's difficult to deal with.
Morality is not fictional, it's just not a single absolute. It's like dna, dna is not fictional but different creatures have different dna. Morality is similar in that it exists objectively but expresses in a varied way that seems more subjective.
There are five moral topics. Across all studied cultures around the whole world, liberal believe that issues of harm and fairness (together I call them Justice) are moral issues, while conservatives believe those and the three additional topics of authority, in-group vs out-group treatment, and "purity" (in the sense that things have a proper form of existence that can be corrupted) are also moral topics (I lump the latter three together as Order). These five topics are universal to humanity. Such universal presence demonstrates some underlying objective truth, and not fiction.
It is a different layer than what most think about though. There is a difference between what is fair vs the concept of fair. Thus you can have multiple people agree that it is morally correct to be fair yet disagree about what specifically is fair vs unfair. In playing a card game, some might think it's fair for every player to have similar amounts of winning even at the expense of breaking the rules, while others might think it's fair to equally enforce the rules for all. Both still think fair is important.
These five topics are universal to humanity. Such universal presence demonstrates some underlying objective truth, and not fiction.
This simply is not true. Morality in no way exists objectively. There is no mathematical equation for morality, there are no strands of morality. It is a concept, it is made up. It's real, for certain, but so is the concept of religion. And I hate to break it to you, but that's not based on any objective truth either.
These five topics are universal to humanity. Such universal presence demonstrates some underlying objective truth, and not fiction.This simply is not true. Morality in no way exists objectively. There is no mathematical equation for morality, there are no strands of morality. It is a concept, it is made up. It's real, for certain, but so is the concept of religion. And I hate to break it to you, but that's not based on any objective truth either.
Oddly enough, math is built from the ground up on silly imaginary ideas. There is less basis for objective truth in math than there is in morality.
That said, math can actually measure morality. A bit awkward but it can. Mostly uses statistics. Primarily by measuring how much good different sets of morality does for a group. But even lower level stuff studied. It falls under game theory, the study of decision making. There is even an awesome youtube video on the evolution of trust. I'll drop a link when I find it again.
Morality is clearly built on a foundation that is "programmed" into us. No it isn't a specific morality, but it's more like how a character sheet has a place for us write an alignment but does not assume a specific alignment. Morality in people is the same way, it is built into us to have morality but left open for different kinds of morality. And honestly I'm pretty sure morality comes from contradictory drives within us and how we resolve that conflict becomes our morality.
Math however is "If we make this rule and that rule, and strictly follow them, what happens?" It's literally built on choices made by a committee. Square root of negative one? A committee chose the answer, literally. Addition and multiplication are human defined operations. All of math is built on axioms chosen by humans. Math is our greatest tool, but still just an invention.
There is less basis for objective truth in math than there is in morality.
That's utter nonsense. There is philosophy of mathematics, yes. There is no objective truth in morality.
That said, math can actually measure morality. A bit awkward but it can. Mostly uses statistics.
That's not measuring morality. That's using numbers to support what you consider moral. The very concept that things should be for the greater good is, in no way, intrinsic to the concept of morality.
Morality is a collection of ideas of what is right and wrong. Not good and evil. You can consider the moral option to be subjugating those weaker than you. Because 'survival of the fittest', or whatever, is the right thing to you. That doesn't make it an objective truth, and no amount of numbers will prove otherwise. There is no objectively true list of things that are right or wrong.
Hell objective truth doesn't even exist. Quantum mechanics tells us that nature is not deterministic. But that's a whole ass other conversation.
Raise your hand if you’re tired of Drunk Quasit posts. ;D
Our poor GM is probably wondering when he can play again.
Too late, you spread the sads to Maka.
There is no objectively true list of things that are right or wrong.
.
Of course there isn't. I've been clarifying that this whole time. There is a difference between the existence of morality and a specific morality.
It's like I said earlier, people can agree that fairness is important and moral while disagreeing about what is fair. Think about that for a moment, in that statement there is a thing that is agreed upon and a thing disagreed about. Two separate things.
Morality is the same way, the fact that morality exists is true, but there is no single correct morality.
An alternative comparison is life itself. It is an indisputable fact that life exists, but yet there is a wide variety of different kinds of life and neither science nor philosophy have found a good definition for life.
Bonus: Considering how the big bang just got shot down, I would not be surprised to find that quantum mechanics is just as capable of being disproven. But objective truth doesn't require determinism anyway.
Selena doesn't trust it. A local wants to tag along on a suicide mission for a completely different world? Begs the question, why? What does he really want?
Selena has no idea this is just an excuse to get a new player joined up.
But we made friends with him! You always go on suicide missions for friends. That's literally what friends are for.
*Sighs and puts hand on Maka's shoulder*
Maka, people like you are rare. So rare it's almost like they only exist in stories.
Maka's just dealing with something every gay kid has to grapple with: Living in a heteronormative world is exhausting and a lack of positive media representation sucks. That's okay though, the stories that will be told about her are the stories she wants to see in the world.
Maka, I was referring to your post about friends going on suicidal missions.
Hahaha my bad.
Now that's how to spend a day! And seconded about Audrey Hepburn. Absolutely beautiful, inside and out.
What's with the sudden jump to dinner time? I thought we were leaving this morning?
|
|
My apologies to Kalchine for commandeering Chest Thumper. The hand will dare at midnight what the cheek will blush to consider at noon. Kal writes Chest Thumper so well that I couldn’t resist touching his monkey, just this once.
