|
I figure "aberrant" palladium alignment would be a subset of lawful evil, right? I mean, all lawful evil wouldn't be aberrant, but aberrant would be lawful evil; i.e. Dr. Doom would be lawful evil.
Oh, and if you hate palladium, and you don't have anything to contribute but the fact that you hate palladium,....well, good for you; now buh bye.
|
While I am very fond of the alignment system I have grown up with since 1st ed, I think that the Palladium alignment system is that game's strong suit.
I would port it into any system had I needed to (the need never came about, and the last time I played Palladium was 20 years ago, as a Harvard Professor who was also happened to be a humanoid bat).
I figure "aberrant" palladium alignment would be a subset of lawful evil, right? I mean, all lawful evil wouldn't be aberrant, but aberrant would be lawful evil; i.e. Dr. Doom would be lawful evil.
Oh, and if you hate palladium, and you don't have anything to contribute but the fact that you hate palladium,....well, good for you; now buh bye.
I believe you are correct with the LE subset.
wasgreg
I figure "aberrant" palladium alignment would be a subset of lawful evil, right? I mean, all lawful evil wouldn't be aberrant, but aberrant would be lawful evil; i.e. Dr. Doom would be lawful evil.
Oh, and if you hate palladium, and you don't have anything to contribute but the fact that you hate palladium,....well, good for you; now buh bye.
You're spot on there. When I first read the alignments in the Palladium system, the first thing that came to mind when I read the description of the Aberrant alignment was "Oh, this is like Lawful Evil in D&D."
Oh, and if you hate palladium, and you don't have anything to contribute but the fact that you hate palladium,....well, good for you; now buh bye.
You forgot to add that if you want to pop in because you saw the word "alignment" and you feel as if you have to show up in every alignment thread and talk about how horrible the concept of alignment is, no matter what the actual topic is, said theoretical post is duly noted and need not be actually expressed . . . ;)
Forgive me my ignorance, but I'm curious now, how does alignment work in Palladium RPG?
Oh, and if you hate palladium, and you don't have anything to contribute but the fact that you hate palladium,....well, good for you; now buh bye.You forgot to add that if you want to pop in because you saw the word "alignment" and you feel as if you have to show up in every alignment thread and talk about how horrible the concept of alignment is, no matter what the actual topic is, said theoretical post is duly noted and need not be actually expressed . . . ;)
Forgive me my ignorance, but I'm curious now, how does alignment work in Palladium RPG?
More of a list of what each alignment type will or won't do. Often with movie references as further examples.
Superman Principled
Dirty Harry Scrupulous
Han Solo Unprincipled
and more..but my memory of it all kind of fades
I do remember that Aberant was one of my FAVE alignments with the " Does not kill or torture for pleasure" ( still kills and tortures..but not for pleasure :P)
wasgreg
|
|
It's pretty much the same principle, they just had a different slant on things.
there's two "good" alignments; one's lawful and one's chaotic.
there's two "selfish" alignments; again one's like lawful neutral and one's like chaotic neutral.
He doesn't follow "law vs. chaos" and doesn't believe "neutrality" is possible; in lieu of "neutral" he has selfish.
Most people are selfish. They don't aspire to awesome goodness, and they don't usually get that evil. They take care of themselves pretty much. Natural pragmatism.
then there's three evils.
One of the evils is aberrant. Dr. Doom imho is aberrant. He WOULD murder Reed Richards or anybody he's fighting in a heartbeat, but he has his own warped code of ethics; Doom wouldn't (probably) harm civilians or a child.
So I think aberrant is a subset of lawful evil. The aberrant evil guy DOES have a code of ethics, it's just warped.
Asmodeus wouldn't be aberrant, but Dr. Doom would. Rorschach would be aberrant probably...
Gotcha. I pretty much get the picture at this point. Its still basically a system to short hand general behavioral traits, in other words, so you have a quick snapshot of how a given character behaves.
The other two evil alignments were "Miscreant" and "Diabolic." Most common career criminals are considered to be of miscreant alignment. They will hurt, cheat, steal, and kill in order to get what they want. Those of diabolic alignment actually enjoy those things and are the type that will kill someone for the sheer pleasure of doing so.
So, a little counter to D&D naming conventions, but diabolic is kind of similar to CE, and miscreant is kind of NE. Or at least that's my read on it.
Oh, and if you hate palladium, and you don't have anything to contribute but the fact that you hate palladium,....well, good for you; now buh bye.
Putting aside the fact that I do hate palladium (lol couldn't resist), yes, IMHO the aberrant alignment would be a strange and even "benign" variant of lawful evil, default Lawful Evil is "the tyrant", whereas aberrant would be "the benevolent tyrant". Doctor Doom, Magneto, and Sam Fisher all share those traits.
Oh, and if you hate palladium, and you don't have anything to contribute but the fact that you hate palladium,....well, good for you; now buh bye.Putting aside the fact that I do hate palladium (lol couldn't resist), yes, IMHO the aberrant alignment would be a strange and even "benign" variant of lawful evil, default Lawful Evil is "the tyrant", whereas aberrant would be "the benevolent tyrant". Doctor Doom, Magneto, and Sam Fisher all share those traits.
Slightly off topic ( okay, alot I guess)
wasgreg