Shattered Kingdoms

Actually, he's coming as close to quoting the "Rifts" rulebook as one can without outright plagarizing it, and is therefore pretty correct IMO... whether by accident or design [except about point 12, which I don't recall appearing in "Rifts" - in fact, wasn't there a note specifically pointing out the Aberrant characters find Diabolics as offensive as anyone else?].



Um... if that's what WoTC have written in the 3*e books, shame on them. Are you sure you're not just drawing the wrong conclusion from one of a few websites on which I've seen people attempting to equate [A]D&D alignments with Palladium alignments?

Correct, however, this isn't AD&D, this is SK. Erevan wants gray elves here, like AD&D.

And yes, aberrants do. My hellion despised diabolics and didn't hide it the least bit. However, if you want to look at a true diabolic, good luck. 99.9% of them are miscreant. Even ghimgul is miscreant. Every necro has been miscreant.

Delear was even a major miscreant. Debate that or not, but everything he did was self-serving to him and his cause - miscreant.

Willingness to betray doesn't make up a diabolic, nor does 'how the diabolic sees the world', I'll tell you all what makes diabolic on sk:

The ability to not think of yourself as a sentient, sensible being. You may be brilliant, but you are little more than an animal. Consumed and driven by madness, no matter how refined.

The reason they must betray is because THEY HOLD NO ALLIANCE. ALLIANCE DOES NOT EXIST FOR THEM. There are no friends, no nothing. They are completely alone in their world and there are no consequences from any of their actions. Diabolic, folks, diabolic.

What you people think diabolic is, well, is flatly wrong because you're pulling the description from another source.

To me, diabolic is someone who goes on a whim if they have no other plans set. They get the urge to kill, they kill. The get the urge to be generous, they donate and help. They want to be flamboyant, so be it. They are chaotic in nature. Quick to anger; quick to pleasantries, and everything in between. Diabolic to me means that they have no concern for life, other than their own. They don't care about laws or rules if it doesn't suit their needs. If it gains them power, all the better to do. Death to the useless, spare and use those who they can gain from. This is how I would play one. If someone doesn't like it, tough. It's MY character.

My necromancer was diabolic damnit.

Did you just describe yourself?

Yes, I am evil and diabolic. Fear me, etc. Remember, I am real on sk and everything here is an accurate, perfect reflection of who I am and I think of this game as a social outlet.

And since I am, please take what I say as what a diabolic here should truly be.

Thanks.

I don't see how this has anything to do with the conversation really.


Yeah, well, I'm sorry to say but the paladium system, which is pretty similar to the alternity system if memory serves, based its alignments on classic d&d alignments.
My point here is that no matter what system you're using, alignments are pretty much the same. You can call it chaotic evil, you can call it diabolic, you can call it blue five if you like. The helpfile is a good place to get your bearings on how to play a chaotic character, but when we're talking about a chaotic character, it is difficult to put rules arround him. There's going to be a chaotic character that will constantly betray, and there's going to be a chaotic character that never does. The thing is, others are not likely to trust you, when they know that people with the same aura as you are known to backstab, (since yeah, unfortunately in SK people can pinpoint your alignment with a single spell) They will not be readily trusting you that much.

I'm starting to think you're trying to turn this alignment to what you think it should or could be, instead of what it is seen and understood as.

It doesn't, he's just trolling.



Sources?

I'm not familiar with Alternity, and I don't know what this has to do with SK anyhow. I was under the distinct impression that our system was based upon Palladium... since, you know, it's got the exact same categories into which alignment is divided in RIFTS et al; Dulrik has stated in the past that part of his reason for not using the traditional [A]D&D alignments has to do with a similar skepticism about the concept of "neutrality" [at least among characters who might appear in a fantasy-genre tale] that prompted the Palladium system's existence in the first place; et cetera. See his post in this thread, for instance [yes, this is something of a perennial issue].

D&D has obviously been a big influence on many builders and players throughout the MUD's history, and I think its presumptions about alignment kind of underlie much stock MUD code in the first place. So of course we end up with a weird hybrid in some ways. That still doesn't mean "Aberrant" is just a secret code word for "Lawful Evil," though. That's like saying the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl "is" the Christian Jesus. Or that Thuban "is" Coyote, or Nyarlathotep. Maybe the tropes contain a lot of similar ideas, but that doesn't imply a direct equivalency.

If it helps you to start with D&D alignments as a reference point, that's great. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking we have only the same nodes with fancier names.

I don't. What I'm saying here is that while the appropriate alignment helpfile may be a more clear indication of how to play a character of said alignment, it is good to keep in mind the root of said alignment.

No alignment, not even principled, has just one right way of playing it, or one right way of interpreting it. What I've been trying to say here is that if the helpfile of diabolic is confusing in SK, try to understand what its trying to say, instead of tryin to find a loophole in its typing in order to prove your character is being played appropriately under the guidance of the helpfile.

If the helpfile does not cover you or your character, that is still fine in some alignments, as they are extremely generic. For example, the unprincipled. You could very much play a character that creates his own faction, and has everyone in it follow a certain set of rules, and -still- be unprincipled.

What I believe is that classic D&D alignments, even without reading or quoting their 'helpfiles', are a very good guide to get a sense if your character is playing his alignment right. You can have a tendency to follow rules, a tendency to be chaotic, or you just do as you see fit in every case. You can also be good and benevolent, evil and twisted, or you just couldn't give a damn if someone has a problem, but you won't kill them for it either. This is the root of all alignments. From there on, more strict alignments such as Principled need to be followed nearly to-word, while alignments as loose as limbo itself like diabolic, can be seen as anyone sees fit.

I for one had a diabolic once whose entire purpose in life was to destroy all other necromancers once and for all, and for this he would team up with lighties.

On another note, perhaps the hardest alignment to understand is 'true neutral' or neutral between chaos and law when evil or good. However, those alignments, for better or worse, are not included in SK.

For the sake of knowledge though, the best examples of true neutral creatures would be found in planescape.

The Rilmani and the Kamerel are outsiders (like angels and demons) that live near the center of the outlands, protecting certain areas from the extremes.

The rilmani remain completely neutral by maintaining perfect balance within themselves, while the kamerel maintain neutrality by being evil as they are good. Being as chaotic as they are lawful. For example if a group of evil adventurers enter their territory, they will assume a good portfolio to maintain the plane's balance. You can find more on these two races in 'Tales from the infinite staircase', an adventure for planescape.