Forums of the Megaverse®

Hey folks,

Just wondering, are other people a little confused by the titles of some of the alignments in the Palladium range too? Many of the titles seem quite illogical to me. Sure, Principled, Anarchist, Miscreant and Diabolic are fine alignments. However, the rest don't seem to make sense from an English definition perspective. Scrupulous really should be the same as Principled. Unprincipled implies a more evil alignment than what it is in the game. Aberrant also doesn't seem to make sense, since an aberrant person is generally just one who departs from the norm - it has nothing to do with being an honourable but evil person.

Just wondering what other people's thoughts are.

Regards,
RD

Actually the PB ""good"" alignments just say that they are law abiding and at what degree that are law abiding. Not actually saying that they do/are good. Which is what I noticed about them.

Well even the idea of having "good aligned people" being (at least mostly) law-abiding is a big assumption on PB's part, in my opinion. Whether one does or doesn't follow laws doesn't say much about how good they are, just whether or not they believe in the authority of Government. That's why I always preferred the Dungeons and Dragons idea of alignments - the law/chaos spectrum and the good/evil spectrum.

using the D&D to describe things the only truly good alignment is the Chaotic Good because if you get into the "lawful" aspects the person looses the ability to act when a loving act or good deed is needed, because they have to ""follow the rules"". (i.e.: The misconception that most people have about Christianity is that it is just a bunch of rules. Opposed to the core concept that you are to love on people.)

It's never bothered me. They can just be numbered 1-7 and it'd be the same to me. Palladium clearly lists the tenants or core beliefs of each alignment and those who have that alignment are expected to role-play in accordance with those beliefs.

Can't the same be argued for all the alignments if that were the case? A lawful evil person can't truly be evil because they have to put the law first? Or a chaotic good person would be unable to take someone to the police because that's a lawful act.
I have to disagree with your overall argument. Being lawful doesn't mean that the law and following the rules is the *most important* thing. The person may believe in the law and showing kindness to others. Hopefully those two things always go hand in hand, but sometimes it'll be impossible to do one without going against the other, such as a situation where someone falsely accused of a crime escapes from the authorities and asks the PC for help. Lawful says he must be returned, good says he must be helped. Law isn't the most important part, the PC there has to decide.

Overall, I do really like the alignments and having clear beliefs for each alignment really helps new PCs. I just find some of the names odd.

It's generally best not to overthink Palladium's alignments. The names are arbitrary and the alignments themselves are hella simple moral archetypes that are great for labelling what kinda person your character in a four-color comicbook story or a swashbuckling fantasy adventure is, but not much use for anything that's got a bit of nuance and complexity to it.

LE….I would interpret that as to being honorable evil, or to say the person has their own code of honor/rules that they keep to. Much like the aberrant in the PB alignments

I wouldn't really worry about the titles.

Then again, I don't even use Alignments....