What do the four Primal Alignments mean to you? (Like, in terms of story. We already know what the game mechanics mean.)

[Zombra]

You ever have those D&D conversations back in the day like, "What's the difference between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil really?", or, "How can anyone really be True Neutral?"  Do you love those little detailed differences between Principled and Scrupulous in Palladium?  Even Paragon vs Renegade has sparked some interesting discussions over the years.

 

Well now's your chance to have another ridiculous, picky conversation about a game that attempts to pigeonhole the vast spectrums of morality and philosophy into just four pigeonholes!

 

Just kidding.  We know these alignments aren't supposed to strictly define just 4 personality types where everyone within each type is identical.  Every superpowered entity is unique, except maybe for clones and duplicate robots.  Still, since games have rules and we try to fit our stories into those rules, systems like Alignment can be instructive (and entertaining!) to talk about.

 

So: what do you think are the traits that all Heroes share?  What about Vigilantes?  Rogues?  Villains?  What really makes a Hero different from a Villain?  How are Vigilantes and Rogues similar?  Best of all, how about you simply make a list of all four and tell me what you think each one means?

 

I have some thoughts of my own, but first I want to read your alignment rants.  Rant! Rant! Rant!

[Scarlet Shocker]

I think this is one of those unanswerables. A lot depends on a person's cultural upbringing.

 

Good example: Back on live I remember a discussion regarding Blue Steel, Kings Row trainer. You could broadly break down the discussion into two distinct groups; those who thought he was a hero and those who thought he was if not exactly a villain a very nasty piece of work. What I found most interesting from that conversation was that there was a very clear divide about the geography of those two positions. Largely those in the USA revered him while almost everyone else thought he was a complete git.

 

That's one of those conversations that challenges our world view - which tends to be very fixed. Our "moral compass" is largely formed very young and informs us, unchangingly throughout our life, like our politics and religious beliefs.

 

How do you measure goodness or villainy in a game anyhow?

 

 

[Zombra]

11 minutes ago, Scarlet Shocker said:

I think this is one of those unanswerables.

 

Exactly why I hope to see some different perspectives I might not have already thought of.  Not trying to find the One True Answer here.  So what do you think?  ... based on your upbringing of course 😇

[Scarlet Shocker]

26 minutes ago, Zombra said:

 

Exactly why I hope to see some different perspectives I might not have already thought of.  Not trying to find the One True Answer here.  So what do you think?  ... based on your upbringing of course 😇

 

I think it's a can of worms that is best left unopened 🤣

 

Truthfully, I don't know. Each of my characters is different but they are all aspects of me. Some are simply drones - run them to 50 then parked forevermore except on high days, holidays or when that specific toon is needed. Others, well they become much more significant - and I know where they stand in the CoH universe but it's largely fluffy and mutable.

 

Three examples:

 

Scarlet Shocker will always try and do the right thing, to keep Paragon safe. But sometimes she "slips up" despite her best intentions and of course has been red side (because badges and progression reasons)

 

Barbed Quarrel is one of the few things missing from the end game: An unalloyed Cole absolutist. The founder of the Praetorian Imperial Secret Service, she wants to complete his mission on Primal Earth.

 

Huntsman Strauss is one of the toughest SOBs in Arachnos and will stop at little to get the job done, whatever it takes.

 

I don't play to an alignment so much as how their character works out.

 

 

 

Edited 21 hours ago by Scarlet Shocker
it would seem I struggle to count on occasion

[Zombra]

5 hours ago, Scarlet Shocker said:

Truthfully, I don't know. Each of my characters is different but they are all aspects of me.

 

Of course.  I think that's true to some degree of all fictional creations everywhere - they reflect their authors in some way.

 

Let me reframe the question.  There are alignments in the game, including Alignment Missions that offer decisions to be made, which are meant to reflect player character (←important) worldviews.  The writers on the development team were given parameters on how to shade the mission text.  Without it needing to reflect on your personal opinions of right and wrong, can you speculate on the developer intent for approximately where the lines are between different alignments?

For example, one recurring theme I see in most blueside Alignment Missions is that a Hero will (generally) not accept the loss of a single innocent life, even if it causes larger problems down the road.  A Vigilante is more of a "big picture" person who will let one neighborhood be blown up for the "greater good" of stopping the bomb-maker from setting 10 more bombs tomorrow.  I feel like this observation is evident without my personal upbringing coming into it.  To the game, these are clear aspects of "Hero" and "Vigilante".

 

Edited 15 hours ago by Zombra

[Doc_Scorpion]

7 hours ago, Scarlet Shocker said:

Good example: Back on live I remember a discussion regarding Blue Steel, Kings Row trainer. You could broadly break down the discussion into two distinct groups; those who thought he was a hero and those who thought he was if not exactly a villain a very nasty piece of work.

Reminds me of a discussion we'd sometimes have when I was in the Navy...  Over the type of captain you'd want to go to sea with and the type of captain you'd want to go to war with.  (The canonical example of the latter was a certain CO known throughout the Fleet as the "Terrible T".  One mean SOB who treated the crew like shit and ran them right to the ragged edge...  But who was also well known for his technical and tactical acumen.)

So while Blue Steel isn't exactly the nicest guy around...  He's also the kind of guy that sometimes you want to have around because sometimes there's just no other way.  The practical dilemma is how to keep him bottled up when you don't need him.  The moral dilemma is whether it's acceptable to keep him around at all.

My heroes are mostly...  just heroes.  They have no particular reason to be heroes other than a vague sense of that's what they're supposed to be.  There's not a lot of deep thought involved because in the main I don't have a lot of headcanon as to their morals and motivations.  (Except the Doc himself, who loathes the Rikti with a blinding passion, and there's some backstory there.)

[Go0gleplex]

Well...if it's an alignment talk/comparison it's fairly easy.

 

Hero = Lawful Good

Vigilante = Chaotic Good verging Neutral

Rogue = Chaotic Neutral verging Evil

Villain = Neutral/Chaotic Evil

or

Hero : Upholding all laws while doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people

Vigilante : Doing good knowing that sometimes the law and some people will suffer for it

Rogue : Doing whatever for their own 'good' unconcerned by the small things like collateral damage/casualties.

Villain : Gaining the most riches & power possible and/or burning the world to the ground while being the only one left standing.

[Rishidian]

[Techwright]

For me, in game, it's all about the considerations for theft and also in regards killing and the legal system.  I realize there's going to be an irony to that, as, external to the game, Batman is a vigilante but doesn't kill.

 

Hero - in my thinking, there are actually two levels to Hero:

• Top Tier:  I will not steal.   I will not kill.  Render unconscious, possibly break bones if absolutely necessary, but in the end, turn the guy alive over to the authorities.
• Second Tier: I will not steal.  I will kill, but only in one of two conditions:

1. Immediate threat to lives and or a threat of permanent injury
2. Under state-sanctioned conditions, such as war

Vigilante - I will steal only if deemed necessary, such as the need to resupply or the taking of evidence to be analyzed more closely in my lair.  I do not take for my own pleasure, but as a means to an end goal.  I will kill for  three conditions:

1. Immediate threat to life and or permanent safety
2. Under state-sanctioned conditions, such as war
3. When I believe the state of point #2 is so corrupted or paralyzed that it cannot make clear, good sanctions, resulting in an extended threat to those lives in point #1.

 

Rogue - I will steal for my pleasure and profit.  I will kill or maim if my heart doesn't intervene.  It is not my real objective, so if I can accomplish goals without extreme violence, I will.  If I've an employer who orders me to kill/maim, I will do so.  It is on him, not me.

 

Villain - The day I plundered and murdered your village was a rather pleasant Tuesday.

[UltraAlt]

There was a time when there was a Comics Code Authority, and it was made very clear what was good and what was bad; what made a hero and what made a villain.

That is gone.

And, yeah, some want to make everything a grey mess.

 

23 hours ago, Zombra said:

So: what do you think are the traits that all Heroes share?

 

Heroes are working to protect people within the constraints of society's rules and are willing to forfeit their life if it means protecting the helpless.

In the highest sense, strive not to kill.

 

23 hours ago, Zombra said:

Villains?

 

Are out to do damage to society on one level or another and lack compassion for anyone else.

In general, a villain will kill anyone in the way of their goal.

 

23 hours ago, Zombra said:

What about Vigilantes?  Rogues?

 

23 hours ago, Zombra said:

Vigilantes and Rogues similar?

 

Vigilantes and Rogues are both wanted by the police and targets of both heroes and villains due to their behavior.

 

Vigilanties feel that killing and injury of villains is necessary because the justice of civilization simply can't do what needs to be done to stem the tide of evil/for the good of society.

 

Rogues have done bad things, but they know that true villains are far too harsh and uncaring to associate with. They are willing to break societal laws on whatever level suits them as they are out for themselves.

 

23 hours ago, Zombra said:

Best of all, how about you simply make a list of all four and tell me what you think each one means?

 

Isn't that what you already asked for?

 

23 hours ago, Zombra said:

So: what do you think are the traits that all Heroes share?  What about Vigilantes?  Rogues?  Villains?  What really makes a Hero different from a Villain?  How are Vigilantes and Rogues similar?

 

23 hours ago, Zombra said:

have some thoughts of my own, but first I want to read your alignment rants.  Rant! Rant! Rant!

 

These are comic book "alignments".

 

As the game started, there was only the hero - the City of Heroes.

 

But we know that if you don't strive for that - to be heroic - there are those that want to be villains. And there are those characters in comics that are obviously villains.

 

We also know that there are those that consider villains to be the ones with morals and behaving correctly. It isn't that case in comic books ... or, at least, it wasn't.

 

There has a been a huge move to deconstruct and tarnish the comic book media in America and think that has done true and obvious damage to the American psyche in general. I'm not talking about just removing the Comic Code Authority. I'm talking about undermining what it means to be a hero and throwing everything into a grey muddled mess.