|
Post by Falconer on Jan 4, 2010 1:53:23 GMT -5
The Japanese Enterprise RPG has one component that I really like: Alignment. Ah, alignment, that semi-BS, semi-genius RPG convention that has led to my friends and me spending endless hours of faux-philosophizing about the ways of the universe. If there is one thing that ought to come out of a Star Trek RPG, it’s faux-philosophy! Here is what Enterprise proposes as alignments: - LG (Logical Good) - This character has good intentions as the owner of a logical mind.
- LB (Logical Bad) - This character thinks logically, but his or her actions are motivated by evil.
- N (Neutral) - The character is neither inclined to nor partial toward good or evil.
- EG (Emotional Good) - The character acts intuitively but thinks with good intentions.
- EB (Emotional Bad) - The character is emotional and actions are taken with malice.
I think it’s pretty brilliant, considering this is Star Trek, that Logic vs Emotion replaces D&D’s Law vs Chaos. Of course, instead of a 5-point Alignment graph it could just as easily be 3-point (Logical, Neutral, Emotional) by ignoring the good/bad axis, or 9-point as in AD&D, or possibly a 6-point system which admits a middle-ground between logical and emotional, but admits no neutrality with respect to good and bad. By my interpretation, good and bad is not so much about your motivation as it is about the results of your logic or emotionalism. Example—3 point system: Spock: Logical McCoy: Emotional Kirk: Neutral Example—6 point system: Spock: Logical Good McCoy: Emotional Good Kirk: Neutral Good Nomad/M5/Landru: Logical Bad Khan/Romulans: Neutral Bad Klingons: Emotional Bad What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by blackbat242 on Jan 5, 2010 1:31:25 GMT -5
I'd switch the Romulans and Klingons.
To me, Klingons have always been the epitome of "ruled by emotion", while Romulans have always been "intellectually-ruled, but with strong emotion"... a balance of logic and emotion.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jan 5, 2010 1:50:23 GMT -5
I’ll buy that. Switched!
|
|
Grendelwulf
Lt. Commander
Second star on the...no... To Infinity and..no.. Ah-ha! Never give up, Never surrender! THAT'S it!
Posts: 147
|
Post by Grendelwulf on Jan 7, 2010 21:08:09 GMT -5
I think it should be a 9-point range. Albeit, I've been too programmed by D&D...
Kirk should be Emotional Neutral - The character acts intuitively but can be impartial to make the BIG decisions (i.e. letting Edith Keeler die, assigning crew to deadly situations, allowing Ben Finney to 'die' rather than risk the ship, etc) It doesn't make him coldhearted, just stoic enough to hide the pain inside.
Ciao! Grendelwulf
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jan 7, 2010 21:14:37 GMT -5
Wouldn’t those be examples of Logic winning over Emotion? There are also examples of Emotion winning over Logic, as when he won’t abandon Spock in The Galileo Seven or The Immunity Syndrome. Either way, his balance of Emotion and Logic usually turns out to have Good consequences, not Neutral (questionable).
|
|
Grendelwulf
Lt. Commander
Second star on the...no... To Infinity and..no.. Ah-ha! Never give up, Never surrender! THAT'S it!
Posts: 147
|
Post by Grendelwulf on Jan 7, 2010 21:20:55 GMT -5
Hmm, hadn't thought of it that way. Like I said, too much D&D programming. I forget simpler is better sometimes. As Scotty would say, "The more they overtake the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain." Neutral or Neutral Good it is then. Ciao! Grendelwulf
|
|
|
Post by robertfisher on Jan 7, 2010 23:34:31 GMT -5
Would “intuitive” be a better foil for “logical”?
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jan 7, 2010 23:48:51 GMT -5
I would say no, just because intuition = ESP per Where No Man Has Gone Before, which establishes it pretty firmly as a measurable stat tied to actual powers that I’m sure we’ll want to have game mechanics for.
|
|
|
Post by michaeltaylor on Jul 21, 2016 16:03:25 GMT -5
"What I’m saying here goes against the D&D gospel, but in my opinion, based on many years of roleplaying with a large number of different game systems, the concept of alignment may be the biggest obstacle to roleplaying ever introduced." - Gamemastering by Brian Jamison (Though I'll admit I smiled when I read that in Enterprise as well!)
|
|
|
Post by aramis on Jul 31, 2016 23:43:42 GMT -5
I'm in the "Alignment is an impediment" crowd, myself.
|
|
|
Post by blackbat242 on Aug 1, 2016 20:37:20 GMT -5
It can be useful or hindering, depending on whether it is used as a "descriptor of general philosophy and behavior" or as a "locked-in pattern of action that must be followed".
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Dec 18, 2019 20:23:30 GMT -5
Remember also that the original OD&D alignment system was more like "us" versus "them" so in Star Trek it could be "Federation" versus "not."
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Dec 18, 2019 23:59:26 GMT -5
In my one-shot game I did use logical, emotional, and willful (IIRC) as the alignments. It still seems to me it would be flavorful and fun to infuse a Star Trek game with some banter or even mild conflict along this axis.
I have also come to think an important theme in the show is freedom vs. totalitarianism (or utopianism), but I don’t really want to get too deep into it for a game mechanic, nor do I want players to try to inhabit absolute, here, so, probably just not try.
|
|