Remove ads

Puella Magi Adfligo Systema

Reader mode
Redshirt Army said:
Okay. Fess up. Who here doesn't like Mami? Who's the one who voted for option 5?

If you cooperate now, we'll be more lenient at your trial.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How do you know? It could have been a missclick or whatever. Should we really rush into lobotomy like this? Our brain damage is bad enough as it is...

Nah, it must have been malicious, and you can never have enough brain damage. Burn the Heretic!
 
Gadjo said:
At a risk, I have to say that Kyoko is at worst chaotic neutral at first. She only lets people die because she'd die if she didn't- she'd run out of witches to kill if she didn't familiar farm. She was hurt in a way that made her believe that trying to use her magic to help people would only bring disaster, and so when she saw Sayaka, she saw those old values and decided to beat reality into her. It only even got deadly when Sayaka implied Kyoko was why an old friend of hers died, which would piss anyone off, to be fair.

Sorry. I just had to give my two cents on it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Kyoko is a teenage girl in an extremely hard place. It's important to acknowledge just how much people are affected by their environment. "Who you are" is a very important factor in the decisions one makes, but as psychology has found, the pressures of a given environment can greatly alter the decision making process. Someone who is an upstanding citizen in their usual social groups and environments can be greatly altered when forced into something completely different.

What I'm trying to get at here is that somebody with extremely strong morals might respond to being left without friendly contacts and with a need for grief seeds to stay alive might commit suicide (I will kill familiars instead of farming them), try to find a job instead of stealing, etcetera etcetera. But even somebody who might otherwise be a model citizen might resort to the same things as Kyoko does in her situation.

Many of the actions Kyoko takes are morally repugnant. And, probably, that makes her a "bad person" in the present of those actions. But those actions are driven primarily by stimuli that at her age we consider to be culturally unacceptable. Food is a good metaphor for grief seeds for meguca. Kyoko has no provider of food or grief seeds, despite being underage. And because she's a meguca even an orphanage couldn't fill those needs -- the system that's meant to support people in her position can't support her.

The accurate metaphor to consider here is a teenager with no parents who can't get a job (being underage) and who can't go to the authorities because they can't care for her, resorting to crime to keep herself alive.

It's not ethical. She gets people killed so that she has grief seeds.

But the other options are to try to be Mami or to kill herself, and the fact is that not everyone is an Athena-expy with drills.

Frankly the only thing I feel Kyoko can truly be condemned for is the separation from Mami, with whom she presumably wouldn't have needed to engage in familiar-farming. I don't know the specifics of that, and actually saying Kyoko was wrong to split from Mami is probably a hard point to make.
 
Last edited:
"Sabrina! You have been found guilty of not liking Mami, being stupid, and having no taste! How do you plead?"

"Your Sabrina, I am innocent."

*Murmurs fill Warehouse-kun*

"Order in the warehouse! Sabrina. Did you, or did you not admit to not liking Mami?"

"I did."

"And yet you plead innocence."

"I do. I believe, in fact, that I do not have an obligation to like Mami just for being Sabrina."

*Dead silence*

"This is preposterous!" snaps a Sabrina.

"I don't understand what this Sabrina is saying," says another Sabrina.

Another Sabrina stands up to yell: "Can we stop humoring this insane Sabrina so we can all go hug the Mami?"

"Yeah!" agree a bunch of Sabrinas.

And then...

"Off with her head!"

Nobody knows which Sabrina amongst the mass of Sabrina said it, but soon enough, all Sabrina are clamoring for Sabrina's head.

"Off with her head!"

"Off with her head!"

"ORDER!" exclaims the judge Sabrina, bashing a miniature warhammer against her desk, cracking it.

The Sabrina's demands for blood lower down to a murmur.

"Anything else to say in your defence, Sabrina?"

"Yes Sabrina. I want to say that I am not stupid, nor do I have bad taste."

"But Mami-" starts a Sabrina before being cut off.

"Enough! What does the jury have to say?"

Out of two lines of six Sabrina, one of them stands up. "Your Sabrina, we have thoroughly deliberated on the matter of Mumihugs and, without giving this clearly insane Sabrina any consideration whatsoever, we have decided that she is guilty."

"MADNESS!" yells Sabrina, turning to face the two Sabrina who were now approaching her.

One of the two says: "Please don't resist, Sabrina. This is for your own good."

Then both Sabrina leap at Sabrina.

But Sabrina doesn't go without a fight. She struggles against both Sabrina, kicking, punching, biting, yelling, "madness! This is madness!"

"Madness?" asks Sabrina, before casting her gaze around the warehouse. "This... Is... S-"

"What," interrupts a new voice.

All the Sabrina turn as one to stare at Mami, who is standing at Warehouse-kun's entrance, wide eyed.

"S-Sa..." she gapes, "Sabrina???"

Half a second later, an avalanche.

"MAMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!"

All together, all the Sabrina rush at the newly arrived Mami, with only one thought on their mind: Hugs.

Mami hesitates a mere moment, and then there is no escape. The mass of Sabrina softly crashes around her, dozens of arms enveloping in an instant, and soon enough, Mami is lost amongst the multitude of Sabrina.

One of the Sabrina at the edge of the Sabrina Hug Ball, who couldn't get Mumihugs, startles and looks around.

"Where's the guilty Sabrina?"

Another three Sabrina blink, and look aroud also.

But there is no point.

The insane, tasteless, dangerous Sabrina was lost amongst the Sabrina collective, her being Sabrina proving a perfect disguise amidst all the other Sabrina.

"Damn it, Sabrina," says Sabrina, sighing. "You get away this time."

"Are we really letting her go?" asks Sabrina, troubled.

"Well, we can chase a needle in a haystack... or we can get some Mumihugs."

"Mumihugs," answers Sabrina.

"Mumihugs," agrees Sabrina.

"Mumihugs," agrees Sabrina also.

"Mumihugs it is."

And so they go back to elbowing their way through all the other Sabrina, the whole matter forgotten.

But not forgiven.
 
Last edited:
Onmur said:
Sorry, but only around 79% of Sabrina's brain agrees with Mumi Rabu.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The percentages have shifted slightly since I last checked the results. It's still an overwhelming majority.

Kaizuki said:
Frankly the only thing I feel Kyoko can truly be condemned for is the separation from Mami, with whom she presumably wouldn't have needed to engage in familiar-farming. I don't fucking know the specifics of that, and actually saying Kyoko was wrong to split from Mami is probably a hard point to make.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If you're curious, the specifics are in the "Different Story" spin-off manga, which you can probably find if you Google for it. It's a pretty good story.

To summarize, after losing her family Kyouko tried to deliberately drive Mami away because she thought that if she relied on Mami for support, she'd just drag Mami down with her. This was probably a completely wrong decision for her to make (I think that working together they could have managed to get enough Seeds to support themselves even without Kyouko's illusion powers), but she was acting from emotional trauma; people who suffer loss sometimes drive others away so avoid having to experience losing them as well.
 
Sereg said:
If people do want to debate it, there are other threads for it (where I've actually said my piece before. Not that I'd call that description Chaotic Neutral in the first place. Under DnD morality, it takes very little to be evil, to the point that a third of the people you meet are evil)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not really. Under most versions of the Dungeon Master's Manual, most people are neutral on both spectrums.
 
AuraTwilight said:
Not really. Under most versions of the Dungeon Master's Manual, most people are neutral on both spectrums.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nope. At least, not in the older versions. They said that humans were equally likely to be every alignment,which is why they are not labelled "usually neutral" or "often neutral".

EDIT:

In fact, 3rd ed explicitly states that humans "do not tend towards any alignment. Not even neutrality".

EDIT: Which is also one of they reasons paladins are not supposed to smite everything they detect as evil.

When I DM, I treat the fact that there is an equal number of humans for each alignment as an incredibly important rule and it's one of the ways I judge what it takes to be a member of each alignment.
 
Last edited:
my PnP GM just had us leave Alignment blank and had our reputation and actions dictate that stuff.
 
Well, I tracked my players' alignments based on their actions and would warn them if they were coming close to an alignment change.
 
"Can a Witch be Lawful?" asketh Sabrina.

"Nay," answered Homura, "a Witch be the most chaotic representation of being."

"Can a Wich be Good?" asketh Sabrina.

"Nay," answered Mami, "a Witch be the most fundamental Evil in existence, such is its foundation."

Thus the snow haired maiden did despair.

"Am I Good and Lawful?" asketh Sabrina.

"Thou bringest hope and parity to those who posses it not," answered Sayaka, "thus, I confirm."

But the Hero's words rung hollow in her ears, unlike those of her mentors. Perhaps, because of her mentors' answers did the blue maiden's words appear false to Sabrina.

Oh, Sabrina wished to believe in her own inherent Goodness, her capacity for Order, but clouded was her judgement, a doubt lied deeply rooted, whithin her very Heart.

"I am not a Witch," spoketh Sabrina.

She received no answer. No agreement. No denial.

Not from without, nor from within.
 
Last edited:
bird_poison said:
That raises an interesting conundrum: would a paladin casting "holy word" in the middle of a town at peak hour fall?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I wouldn't cause a paladin to fall for a simple mistake. As such, I'd consider it dependent on the scenario and the apparent reason for doing so. If they seemed to do it out of idiocy, for example, I wouldn't have them fall the first time, but there'd be consequences and they'd fall the second time. If they did it to try catch someone without caring who got in the way, for example, I'd rule that as a falling offense.

EDIT:^ I do not believe they are meant to be used as a barometer of human nature in the first place. I think they function perfectly well for what they do, but admit that other systems have interesting ideas too and I sometimes add them on as extras. In addition to things like the psychological traits and the Meyers Briggs test.
 
Last edited:
Nah, I'd say most of your average people fall under neutral alignment- it's the alignment that requires the least conviction. Neutral, in my understanding, is easy morality. You have compunctions against doing bad things, but you can be tempted into them for the right price. You won't sacrifice yourself for someone else's good (mostly. Neutral people tend to be willing to do that, but only for those very close to them, and not for anyone else), and you won't usually stop evil actions unless it requires no self sacrifice or it's in your interest specifically.

Evil, on the other hand, is both more and less common than one would think. We all likely talk to and get along fine with people who are evil on the D&D alignment chart without knowing it, but I think most people are better than that. It's just prime selfishness. For the greater me, so to speak. Other people don't matter much if they're not super close to them. Not that they'd kill them, just that they don't matter to them and they will take actions that hurt them if it's to their benefit.

Good is more selflessness- the willingness to sacrifice your own comfort, safety, and wellbeing for the good of others.

Yeah, it's imperfect, but I've always enjoyed it, frankly.
 
Gadjo said:
Nah, I'd say most of your average people fall under neutral alignment- it's the alignment that requires the least conviction. Neutral, in my understanding, is easy morality. You have compunctions against doing bad things, but you can be tempted into them for the right price. You won't sacrifice yourself for someone else's good (mostly. Neutral people tend to be willing to do that, but only for those very close to them, and not for anyone else), and you won't usually stop evil actions unless it requires no self sacrifice or it's in your interest specifically.

Evil, on the other hand, is both more and less common than one would think. We all likely talk to and get along fine with people who are evil on the D&D alignment chart without knowing it, but I think most people are better than that. It's just prime selfishness. For the greater me, so to speak. Other people don't matter much if they're not super close to them. Not that they'd kill them, just that they don't matter to them and they will take actions that hurt them if it's to their benefit.

Good is more selflessness- the willingness to sacrifice your own comfort, safety, and wellbeing for the good of others.

Yeah, it's imperfect, but I've always enjoyed it, frankly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I agree with this in principle. I just disagree with where the boarders lie. (And evil is a pretty easy alignment too. It just requires not caring about others unless you have a reason to). As I said, I choose the boarders based on the fact that the guide says that humans are equally likely to be each alignment, so a third of all people you meet are good, another third are neutral and the last third are evil.

EDIT:^ Well, yes, but I liked that simplicity. (Though adding additional axes is fun too. And the colour wheel can also be fun)
 
Last edited:
Sereg said:
I agree with this in principle. I just disagree with where the boarders lie. (And evil is a pretty easy alignment too. It just requires not caring about others unless you have a reason to). As I said, I choose the boarders based on the fact that the guide says that humans are equally likely to be each alignment, so a third of all people you meet are good, another third are neutral and the last third are evil.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Actually, in the first D&D alignment grid, less than a third of people were a neutral of any stripe.



That being said, it's a stupid system. I gave Paladins "Detect Hostile Intent" instead, removed alignment restrictions on spells and classes, and ditched the thing altogether in my campaigns.
 
Last edited:
I remember that one. That said, those aren't numbers of people. They're areas of behaviour. Not the same thing. That said, I used equal areas for my tracker as it's simpler.
 
Gadjo said:
Evil, on the other hand, is both more and less common than one would think. We all likely talk to and get along fine with people who are evil on the D&D alignment chart without knowing it, but I think most people are better than that. It's just prime selfishness. For the greater me, so to speak. Other people don't matter much if they're not super close to them. Not that they'd kill them, just that they don't matter to them and they will take actions that hurt them if it's to their benefit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are other kinds of evil equally valid in the D&D alignment. There's lawful evil for honest convictions (like some sort of unholy paladins) or simply love to order above morality (sauron). There's neutral evil derived from love, and chaotic evil not done for the individual but by primal hate.

In my view, much of what you describe as neutral can be subscribed to neutral good (and evil) too, depending on magnitude. But much of it derives from personal oppinion, so to each one their fill (or something like that).

And now I wonder if religious dedication to chaos and mayhem is chaotic or lawful...
 
Last edited:
Sereg said:
I agree with this in principle. I just disagree with where the boarders lie. (And evil is a pretty easy alignment too. It just requires not caring about others unless you have a reason to). As I said, I choose the boarders based on the fact that the guide says that humans are equally likely to be each alignment, so a third of all people you meet are good, another third are neutral and the last third are evil.

EDIT:^ Well, yes, but I liked that simplicity. (Though adding additional axes is fun too. And the colour wheel can also be fun)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh, I've never really held to that. equal measure of good, evil, and neutral doesn't make anywhere near as much sense to me. Evil requires a certain special kind of selfishness that most people aren't really capable of, while good requires a selflessness that's also quite difficult for most people.
 
Sereg said:
In fact, 3rd ed explicitly states that humans "do not tend towards any alignment. Not even neutrality".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't think that means that humans in D&D are evenly divided between all nine alignments. It just means that there isn't a single alignment that the vast majority of humans fall into the same way that, for example, the vast majority of orcs are "chaotic evil".

I just looked at my D&D 3.5 PHB and Pathfinder core rulebook, and neither says that humans are evenly divided among all alignments, just that all alignments are found among them.
 
bird_poison said:
There are other kinds of evil equally valid in the D&D alignment. There's lawful evil for honest convictions (like some sort of unholy paladins) or simply love to order above morality (sauron). There's neutral evil derived from love, and chaotic evil not done for the individual but by primal hate.

In my view, much of what you describe as neutral can be subscribed to neutral good too, depending on magnitude. But much of it derives from personal oppinion, so to each one their fill (or something like that).

And now I wonder if religious dedication to chaos and mayhem is chaotic or lawful...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well honestly lawful evil is just an evil person who will hold to their word, doesn't lie, and follows their code strictly. Kyubey, for example, is lawful evil.
 
bird_poison said:
And now I wonder if religious dedication to chaos and mayhem is chaotic or lawful...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I treat it as chaotic. I treat the law/chaos axis as about preferences.

EDIT:^^ It doesn't explicitly say that there are exactly equal numbers of humans for each alignment, but I took that as the implication, and considered that actually important to the themes of the game in both the role of humans and the way the setting works.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top