Alignment theories for Joseph Prosek I and Nostrous Dunscon

[Tor]

Their sons Karl and Alistair are currently Diabolic. I don't know if they were always that way, or if the murder of their fathers led each down into that spiral of evil. I'd like to think that the teenage K and A were a little more gentle-hearted, maybe good, selfish, or Aberrent at worst. I'd be simpler villainy to think of them Miscreant/Diabolic since birth, but I like the more complex 'formed from tragedy' villains.

Since we never got stats for the dead fathers of the CS/FoM heads, I don't know if I've ever known there alignments. I am wondering if it is possible for us to form some vague ideas of what they might have been at their deaths, or at earlier points in their lives.

I would say near the end they approached evil (though not necessarily Diabolic, thinking possibly Aberrent in both cases) during the course of the Chi-Town/Great-City war. Having survived, Joseph might have improved his alignment a bit until he was assassinated, though I'm not sure. Overall I'm prone to thinking that Nostrous had a worse alignment than Joseph while alive, and that if Joseph ever equalled or surpassed him in evil that this only could have occurred during the period of the Magic Zone genocide. Still not sure there though, as he might have hated the idea of killing innocents but seen it as unavoidable since they didn't know how to ferret out all the disguised mages or shape-changers and could only survive with scorched-earth brutality by jumping on hunches and rumors.

What ideas do others have about these two?

Nostrous is described alternately as a Temporal Wizard and as a Ley Line Walker, so I figure he's at least dual class like his son (LLW/Shifter).

Temporal Wizards can have alignment problems if they do the extra service with their Raider master. I don't know if that's the case for Nostrous though, if he left at 1st this wouldn't be an issue.

This also makes for an interesting NPC: could the Temporal Raider who trained Alistair's father still be alive and out there raiding somehow? Could he eventually approach Alistair and train him as a Temporal Wizard too? I don't recall mention of Alistair knowing any Temporal Magic, so those would be some fun new abilities for him to mess with (ie send a fusion block forward in time so it appears just as a CS patrol is passing over the area, make Scrolls of 4-D Transformation to send kamikaze warriors at your enemies). Maybe Nostrous' Raider could also train a bunch of auto-dodging Temporal Warrior troops to defend the City of Brass?

MercTown indicates that CoB has somehow been able to train Battle Magi (luckily not Controllers/Lords/Creators) so an army of Battle Magi and Temporal Warriors defending the New Federation would be pretty scary.

[implementor]

I never run the Proseks as diabolic. I generally consider Diabolic alignments to be "evil for evil's sake", they do horrible things because they personally enjoy it, and are usually insane to a greater or lesser degree, or supernatural evil. I always run the Proseks as Aberrant, they have a code and a sense of honor (protect "pure" humanity as a group from things they consider to be evil, even if some have to be sacrificed to make that happen, remember, Karl objected at some point to Juicers and Borgs on the principle that it required the sacrifice of human life to some extent, and still limits their implementation, I don't believe a diabolic character would care at all). I'd run Nostrous as the same, maybe sliding toward Diabolic near the end, but I always run Alistair as Diabolic, as he really is evil for evil's sake, and life has no value to him except as a resource.

[Nightmask]

I never run the Proseks as diabolic. I generally consider Diabolic alignments to be "evil for evil's sake", they do horrible things because they personally enjoy it, and are usually insane to a greater or lesser degree, or supernatural evil. I always run the Proseks as Aberrant, they have a code and a sense of honor (protect "pure" humanity as a group from things they consider to be evil, even if some have to be sacrificed to make that happen, remember, Karl objected at some point to Juicers and Borgs on the principle that it required the sacrifice of human life to some extent, and still limits their implementation, I don't believe a diabolic character would care at all). I'd run Nostrous as the same, maybe sliding toward Diabolic near the end, but I always run Alistair as Diabolic, as he really is evil for evil's sake, and life has no value to him except as a resource.

Except Diabolic isn't evil for evil's sake, even if it were it wouldn't prevent one from having things it wouldn't do for one reason or another. So yes someone who's diabolic can still have no problems going 'Okay, no, I don't think we should be doing that'. Hence why he can go 'no I don't think due to my human-centric view on things that we should be implementing wholesale Juicer or Cybernetic augmentation and should limit its use as much as possible' and still be diabolic. He's not Stupid Evil after all, he's diabolic. Just like being diabolic doesn't mean he can't love someone, sure how he expresses it would likely be twisted (but not necessarily) but it's not a mutually exclusive thing.

[Tor]

Karl objected at some point to Juicers and Borgs
on the principle that it required the sacrifice of human life to some extent,
and still limits their implementation,
I don't believe a diabolic character would care at all

One can not care about exploitation or harm to others and still object to it for political purposes though. Like a lot of politicians and efforts to help the poor, immigrants, etc. Karl might be Emperor and not have to worry about votes and stuff but I think he still wants to keep his public happy.

I think he cared about them once... but lost his way.

[Blue_Lion]

Karl objected at some point to Juicers and Borgs
on the principle that it required the sacrifice of human life to some extent,
and still limits their implementation,
I don't believe a diabolic character would care at all

One can not care about exploitation or harm to others and still object to it for political purposes though. Like a lot of politicians and efforts to help the poor, immigrants, etc. Karl might be Emperor and not have to worry about votes and stuff but I think he still wants to keep his public happy.

I think he cared about them once... but lost his way.

In the case of the CS emperor I think it might be a matter of power corrupts. He may have stared out with good goals, but starting with the war against the FOM he started making little concessions that caused his aliment to slide over the years to where it is now.

Dunscat is do to his focus on revenge, so his dads death a big part of why is evil but maybe something to do with upbringing as well.

[eliakon]

Since someone has to say it......

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” – Yoda.

You can start off good and well intentioned....but each time you make just one little concession, each time you figure that its safer this way, each time you shrug off something with a 'well they probably deserved it'.....you slip just a tiny bit farther. And each time it is easier to do, because after all you did this before right? And besides its not like it really matters in the long run....your a good person so you know when to stop right?....and pretty soon the Moral Event Horizon is behind you and you know what...you don't care, because they Just Don't Understand Anyway.

At death? They were both very likely either Diabolic or a very twisted Aberrant, regardless of what they may have been as idealistic youths.

[Proseksword]

I've always assumed that Karl & Joseph Prosek's alignments (Diabolic and Aberrant, respectively) are intended to encompass the whole of their alignments viewed through the lens of a culture which is peaceable and tolerant, reflecting their lack of moral compunctions regarding non-humans.

If Karl Prosek's alignment was to be judged only by his interactions with other humans, I'd presume his alignment would be something more akin to Anarchist or Aberrant, and his son Joseph may even rise to Unprincipled. It is only where D-bees are concerned that Karl Prosek displays a more vindictive, savage and sadistic streak, and it is with non-humans that Joseph Prosek's actions take on a more hard-edged, intolerant nature.

When applying the single-word short-hand for a character's moral outlook that is the alignment system, however, there is little room for more nuanced descriptions of a character's moral compass, and it could be argued that if we accept that D-Bees can be morally upstanding, sentient and compassionate sentient beings, as they are clearly portrayed in the sourcebooks neutral narrative, that there really is no nuanced distinction in the first place.

If someone was of good or at least decent moral character in their interactions with their own race, gender, or ethnic group, but then treated those of another group abysmally, few would shirk from labeling that individual as evil, despite that they might treat people they aren't racist against perfectly civilly. I presume the sourcebook's labeling of the Proseks operates according to the same principle - To be evil, someone needed be awful to absolutely everyone, but to any innocent sentient being. In order to be Diabolic, one needn't necessarily approach every living creature with slavering sadism, but relishing the suffering of any creature, particularly those who've done you no direct harm, is more than likely to earn one the label.

[say652]

Prosek, I feel views all humans as his property, to breed and serve. If properly controlled a ready willing army of idiots.
His goodwill only extends to humans because controlling the unknown D-bees for example is nearing magic.

[Proseksword]

Prosek, I feel views all humans as his property, to breed and serve. If properly controlled a ready willing army of idiots.
His goodwill only extends to humans because controlling the unknown D-bees for example is nearing magic.

You may disagree with the extent to which Prosek legitimately cares for humans, but I think it's nearly undeniable that there's a distinction in his mind between humans and d-bees and that he harbours a greater disregard for the latter.

If we look at the definitions provided in RIFTs Ultimate Edition for Miscreant and Diabolic, the primary distinction is the way the Diabolic alignment is described as possessing an inherently sadistic quality, whereas the Miscreant alignment is merely morally bankrupt and willing to do anything for personal gain. Consider, which of the following seems to more accurately reflect the personality of Karl Prosek as portrayed in the fiction?

M. Have no deference to the law, but will work within the law if he must.
D. Rarely attempt to work within the law.

M. Blatantly break the law for his own goals and pleasure.
D. Blatantly break the law and mock authority.

M. Dislike and distrust authority and the law.
D. Despise honor, authority and self-discipline. Views them as weaknesses.

M. Work with others if it will help him attain his personal goals.
D. Not work well within a group; constantly disregarding orders and vying for power/command.

M. Betray a friend if it serves his needs.
D. Betray a friend without hesitation; after all, you can always find new friends.

Diabolic as described in the rulebook is inherently sadistic, anarchist, and megalomaniacal. It is a step beyond simply self-serving behavior into mad depravity.

Such is simply not an accurate description of Karl Prosek's interaction with his human subjects and subordinates. At worst, he probably matches the description of Miscreant most accurately. It is only when non-humans become involved where Karl Prosek's character becomes increasingly unreasoning and vindictive - he actively wants to kill d-bees, not for power, but simply because he loathes them. He won't entertain any relations with them, and would cut off his own nose rather than do so even if it would work out in his favor, such is his self-assurance of his own righteousness and his loathing for D-bees. I have no problem interpreting Karl Prosek's character as evil, but his character only seems to manifest its Diabolic qualities where non-humans are concerned.

[Tor]

In the case of the CS emperor I think it might be a matter of power corrupts. He may have stared out with good goals, but starting with the war against the FOM he started making little concessions that caused his aliment to slide over the years to where it is now.

Joseph was never emperor, only chairman, elected ~20PA after the campaign ended (at which time Alistair was ~12 when Nostrous died).

Karl was born 44 PA (making Alistair about 36 at the time) and elected chairman in 71 PA (a year after his father was assassinated) when he's 27 years old a year (making Alistair 63 at the time) and emperor in 78 PA (when Karl's 34 years old and Alistair is 70 years old)

At death? They were both very likely either Diabolic or a very twisted Aberrant, regardless of what they may have been as idealistic youths.

I'm more confident about this for Nostrous, I could theoretically envision even a Principled person leading the Bloody Campaign into the magic zone. War's brutal enough as it is, but to actually come out on top against magic when you don't have Psi-Hounds to help (and who knows how many Psi-Stalkers or other psychics...) would probably require a lot of "collateral damage".

I mean, just look at all the rumor-based guesswork the US government does in regard to detaining people without supplying concrete evidence of their guilt in the 'war on terror'. That's in a relatively peaceful time when you're one of the major powers, and when the terrorists can't inflict MD with naked thought, or have mega-disguising monster-summoning stuff.

I think if back then Chi-Town had the resources of Psi-Bat and NTSET and Psi-Net and Psi-Hounds as they do at present day, the Bloody Campaign would've been a lot less bloody since they would've been more easily able to counter magic and verify who's a mage (and even detect which ones are evil or want to hurt you). Back then I just think they had too little intel, and that resulted in a lot of unfortunate mistakes.

Prosek, I feel views all humans as his property, to breed and serve. If properly controlled a ready willing army of idiots. His goodwill only extends to humans because controlling the unknown D-bees for example is nearing magic.

I would find 'most humans' slightly more believable than 'all humans', I mean we gotta harp on Karl so much we think he even views his immediate family that way?

Maybe he just wants to secure the elite of humanity and is willing to ride upon those he views as inferiors to accomplish it. Sides, it's for their own long-term good too, since he's wiser and they ought to obey him.

Consider, which of the following seems to more accurately reflect the personality of Karl Prosek as portrayed in the fiction?

M. Have no deference to the law, but will work within the law if he must.
D. Rarely attempt to work within the law.

Given that as Emperor he probably has even more power to ignore or shape the law than he did as chairman, it kinda makes sense that he would not defer to it, and would rarely attempt to work within it since the law defers to him in the role he's in, anyway.

Having these views as emperor, of course, doesn't speak for what his attitude was as merely Chairman, or before that as a military officer.

Plus, it would also be good to steer back to the thread topic of what his dad's alignment is, a guy who never had to deal with being an emperor.

M. Blatantly break the law for his own goals and pleasure.
D. Blatantly break the law and mock authority.

Well, I doubt he'd mock his own authority, but I can see him mocking the legitimacy of others who claim it, like the Dunscons, the Three, Creed, etc. There's really nothing at all wrong with mocking authority. To me that's more like "Diabolics are entertaining cool guys" not a sinister element. A miscreant probably might avoid mocking authority because they'd like to be underestimated, be sneakier. Diabolic might be more prone to blatently snapping at their enemies.

M. Dislike and distrust authority and the law.
D. Despise honor, authority and self-discipline. Views them as weaknesses.

Despising authority is an interesting feeling for someone who wields the highest authority in his empire. It makes you wonder about the context. Does he actually despise the authority his people forced upon him, and wish they were more independent?

Does he despise the self-discipline of Miscreants which prevent them from mocking authority, because it is cowardly and doesn't give you the chance to grow, or your people to benefit from your honesty?

Dealing honorably with dishonorable invaders like D-Bees and Wizards is certainly a weakness.

So yeah I'm actually digging this DiaboliKarl

M. Work with others if it will help him attain his personal goals.
D. Not work well within a group; constantly disregarding orders and vying for power/command.

Again it seems more like Diabolics are just so enthusiastic that they're prone to honesty, they don't waste time boot-licking to weasel their way up a command chain, they take it, and are confident about their own viewpoints, why they want to be giving commands and not taking them.

M. Betray a friend if it serves his needs.
D. Betray a friend without hesitation; after all, you can always find new friends.

I actually find Diabolics to be of greater morality than Miscreants in this respect. Miscreants are closer to selfish for a reason.

Diabolics could actually be closer to looping around to Principleds in this respect. This may be why Azlum so readily can interchange them.

Miscreant's condition for betrayal is HIS OWN needs. Diabolics however, are more freewheeling about it, and would do it for other reasons.

I see a Diabolic as doing it for a greater purpose, like betraying friends for the greater need of humanity. Besides, prioritizing your friends over others who you haven't befriended is not being a fair and just ruler, is it? It's giving preferential treatment. Better a leader who betrays everyone equally than a leader who betrays everyone except his friends. This way, his betrayals will fall in line with his grand vision, not his base interpersonal relationships which primarily benefit himself, not his people.

No wonder Desmond Bradford is Diabolic too. Desmond and Karl are of a higher moral caliber than mere Miscreants.

This however, does give me cause to reconsider my negative opinions of Alistair, as well, and many of the other super-villains in Rifts. It doesn't mean they will be as moral as Des and Kar but it means I need to shape my views more upon what the text says about their ideas and less about assumptions I make based on alignments' tone instead of word.

Diabolic as described in the rulebook is inherently sadistic, anarchist, and megalomaniacal. It is a step beyond simply self-serving behavior into mad depravity.

I thought we had specific insanities to cover that stuff. I think the text might be misconstrued a bit. Let's consult it.

RUEp290 "All evil characters are not necessarily bent on universal genocide or dominating all other living creatures. Nor are all evil characters sadistic" It goes on to say that evil characters are ruthless, but it only says that goals that cause suffering (as a goal or side effect) are "most common" not that they are a requirement.

RUEp291 "The category that most megalomaniacs, psychopaths, and violent and despicable characters fall into" doesn't mean that everyone who falls into the category must have one of those traits, just that having the trait predisposes you to being Diabolic.

The "trusts no one and has no value for any life other than his own" thing sounds like a nail, but dark as it is, it doesn't make you anarchist or sadistic or megalomaniacal.

I'm also not sure if that description is about all Diabolics, or if it's about the mega/psycho/violent ones. (I ignore terms like 'despicable' since everyone can be despised, never made sense to me as an insult)

Diabolics will kill for pleasure, but that doesn't mean that killing inherently brings them pleasure or that they're a sadist. A lot of normal people might think pleasantly of killing 1 or 2 particular people in the world they view as villains (or maybe, take pleasure in killing a Brodkil who invisibly ate your grandmother) but that doesn't make you a sadist. It just means that, while some people might hold back and want to make sure their killing is justified by other reasons, pleasure is enough for the Diabolic, if that particular death would happen to induce it.

Evil alignments really don't seem as awful as we want to make them out to be, if anything it's more about just not being super-ethical, not about being a cackling psycho, I think you need to layer some insanities on top to achieve that.

[Proseksword]

M. Blatantly break the law for his own goals and pleasure.
D. Blatantly break the law and mock authority.

Well, I doubt he'd mock his own authority, but I can see him mocking the legitimacy of others who claim it, like the Dunscons, the Three, Creed, etc. There's really nothing at all wrong with mocking authority. To me that's more like "Diabolics are entertaining cool guys" not a sinister element. A miscreant probably might avoid mocking authority because they'd like to be underestimated, be sneakier. Diabolic might be more prone to blatently snapping at their enemies.

And yet, Emperor Prosek doesn't mock or question the authority of human states like Northern Gun or Manistique. Hell, he even accepts Free Quebec's independence despite them openly rebelling against him directly! That's not Diabolic behavior. In contrast, Alistair Dunscon's personality seems to be textbook Diabolic - he appears to view himself as the legitimate authority over all of North America, and any other leader is an upstart or rebel that he schemes to cut down to size when the moment is right.

M. Dislike and distrust authority and the law.
D. Despise honor, authority and self-discipline. Views them as weaknesses.

Despising authority is an interesting feeling for someone who wields the highest authority in his empire. It makes you wonder about the context. Does he actually despise the authority his people forced upon him, and wish they were more independent?

Does he despise the self-discipline of Miscreants which prevent them from mocking authority, because it is cowardly and doesn't give you the chance to grow, or your people to benefit from your honesty?

And yet, do we actually believe Karl Prosek doesn't value authority and self-discipline? I'd say he absolutely must! There's no way an ordinary human could survive engaging in a war of extermination against supernatural horrors without a huge degree of self-discipline, and he is not only an authority figure himself, but has spent his life upholding and reinforcing a rigid hierarchy of authority.

Dealing honorably with dishonorable invaders like D-Bees and Wizards is certainly a weakness.

And there's the kicker - I assert that Karl Prosek's behavior is only truly Diabolic where non-humans become involved!

M. Work with others if it will help him attain his personal goals.
D. Not work well within a group; constantly disregarding orders and vying for power/command.

Again it seems more like Diabolics are just so enthusiastic that they're prone to honesty, they don't waste time boot-licking to weasel their way up a command chain, they take it, and are confident about their own viewpoints, why they want to be giving commands and not taking them.

But Karl Prosek is not a unilateral actor - he is neither field commander, nor spymaster, nor social architect. His entire administration firmly rests on the shoulders of others to whom he's delegated significant military, political, economic and social authority. Arguably, without the likes of his son, Bradford, Cabot, and Holmes, Prosek would be lost.

This however, does give me cause to reconsider my negative opinions of Alistair, as well, and many of the other super-villains in Rifts. It doesn't mean they will be as moral as Des and Kar but it means I need to shape my views more upon what the text says about their ideas and less about assumptions I make based on alignments' tone instead of word.

Indeed, alignment is always going to be a short-hand, and a character's outlook will often be far more than their unembellished alignment description.

Diabolic as described in the rulebook is inherently sadistic, anarchist, and megalomaniacal. It is a step beyond simply self-serving behavior into mad depravity.

I thought we had specific insanities to cover that stuff. I think the text might be misconstrued a bit. Let's consult it.

[snip]

Diabolics will kill for pleasure, but that doesn't mean that killing inherently brings them pleasure or that they're a sadist.

While in isolation, I could see how you may read "6. Kill for sheer pleasure." as only a possibility, when contrasted against the entries for Aberrant and Miscreant, it seems to indicate it's a defining requirement:

A. Never kill for pleasure, will always have a reason.
M. May kill for sheer pleasure.
D. Kill for sheer pleasure.

An Aberrant character is never a murderous sadist. A Miscreant character may be a sadist. A Diabolic character is a thrill-killer by definition. There is no "May" disclaimer in the Diabolic description.

A lot of normal people might think pleasantly of killing 1 or 2 particular people in the world they view as villains (or maybe, take pleasure in killing a Brodkil who invisibly ate your grandmother) but that doesn't make you a sadist. It just means that, while some people might hold back and want to make sure their killing is justified by other reasons, pleasure is enough for the Diabolic, if that particular death would happen to induce it.

I'm pretty sure "I killed you for no other reason than because I thought I'd enjoy it" is textbook sadism.

[Tor]

Emperor Prosek doesn't mock or question the authority of human states like Northern Gun or Manistique.

Perhaps he just hasn't done so openly, but mocks them behind closed doors? Plus, what if these guys maintained human-supremist anti-magic views but still opted to buy Naruni Force Fields because they're so gosh darn useful? Would Karl not question them then?

Hell, he even accepts Free Quebec's independence despite them openly rebelling against him directly!

That seems like a mix of a tactical decision mixed with gratitude that they'd still help even after CS attacked them, he clearly didn't accept it to begin with.

That's not Diabolic behavior. In contrast, Alistair Dunscon's personality seems to be textbook Diabolic - he appears to view himself as the legitimate authority over all of North America, and any other leader is an upstart or rebel that he schemes to cut down to size when the moment is right.

I think these traits of Alistair's are explained more by his views than by the actual requirements of the Diabolic alignment.

do we actually believe Karl Prosek doesn't value authority and self-discipline?

RUEp292 only says he has to despise them and view them as a weakness, not that he can't value them.

It's also possible to have mixed feelings about stuff. I for example, sometimes find that I despise love and view it as a weakness, but I also value love, and actually really like it too. I can also understanding feeling for/against authority and self-discipline. Karl is able to value them and even like them, so long as he also has feelings of despising them and viewing them as a weakness. Diabolic requiring these feelings does not mean they need to be your exclusive feelings or even predominant feeling about them.

I assert that Karl Prosek's behavior is only truly Diabolic where non-humans become involved!

Part of my problem with this is if we look at Doc Feral vs. Desmond Bradford, we see that you can do a 'good but twisted' approach for humans who treat their own well and others badly. A precedent has been set for your actual alignment referring to your own people and 'twisted perceptions' accounting for alignment violations to those you "other" like mutant animals (in Feral's case) or elves/mages (in Karl's case).

Karl Prosek is not a unilateral actor - he is neither field commander, nor spymaster, nor social architect. His entire administration firmly rests on the shoulders of others to whom he's delegated significant military, political, economic and social authority. Arguably, without the likes of his son, Bradford, Cabot, and Holmes, Prosek would be lost.

Right, but these people who he delegates to do not give him orders to disregard, and he has no need to vy for power/command since he already has it, even if he opts to delegate the responsibilities the power comes with. He doesn't work 'with' the others so much as they work for him.

While in isolation, I could see how you may read "6. Kill for sheer pleasure." as only a possibility, when contrasted against the entries for Aberrant and Miscreant, it seems to indicate it's a defining requirement:

A. Never kill for pleasure, will always have a reason.
M. May kill for sheer pleasure.
D. Kill for sheer pleasure.

An Aberrant character is never a murderous sadist. A Miscreant character may be a sadist. A Diabolic character is a thrill-killer by definition. There is no "May" disclaimer in the Diabolic description.

I think it depends on how we apply the 'may'. There are some people who pleasure is reason enough to kill, but that doesn't by default mean that the mere fact of killing gives the person pleasure.

Miscreant means that even if a person would get pleasure from killing, they may opt to avoid that pleasure for other aims (like making money, their own safety, etc).

Diabolics wouldn't hold back, but that still doesn't say anything about WHICH killing (if any) would give them pleasure.

A miscreant CS underling might think "gee I would love to kill Joseph so my wife would stop making eyes at him, but I don't want Karl to kill me". However, if the miscreant CS underling were unapologetically making eyes at Karl's wife, he wouldn't have anything to worry about and, IF the killing was thought to be something pleasure-inducing (and we don't know if Karl feels that way about killing) THEN he would kill him.

I'm pretty sure "I killed you for no other reason than because I thought I'd enjoy it" is textbook sadism.

I thought sadism is taking pleasure in others' pain or suffering. It is possible to kill someone without that happening, and possibly to do those things without killing.

What you put in quotes is also not a requirement of the Diabolic alignment. It's doubtful there is 'no other reason'. If that were true then Karl could just randomly kill citizens or puppies for pleasure.

The whole reason a lot of killing is appealing is because of specifically who you are thinking about killing and how you hate them or what they represent.

[Proseksword]

I assert that Karl Prosek's behavior is only truly Diabolic where non-humans become involved!

Part of my problem with this is if we look at Doc Feral vs. Desmond Bradford, we see that you can do a 'good but twisted' approach for humans who treat their own well and others badly. A precedent has been set for your actual alignment referring to your own people and 'twisted perceptions' accounting for alignment violations to those you "other" like mutant animals (in Feral's case) or elves/mages (in Karl's case).

In a previous thread discussing Coalition morality, you brought up Doc Feral as well, and someone keenly pointed out that Feral doesn't acknowledge the sentience of those whom he torments, whereas Prosek does. I'm not sure how much credence we should grant to a single entry in what is now a dead game line when it comes to interpreting alignment descriptions, but I don't see any contradiction inherent in the two descriptions. Just as you are asserting that just because someone is Diabolic doesn't mean they want to murder everyone, everywhere, because it's fun, I'm asserting that just because one is Diabolic overall does not mean that their behavior when interacting with certain select groups could not conform to a more moral alignment.

I'm pretty sure "I killed you for no other reason than because I thought I'd enjoy it" is textbook sadism.

I thought sadism is taking pleasure in others' pain or suffering. It is possible to kill someone without that happening, and possibly to do those things without killing.

I'm interested to hear how you think being killed is not suffering, and how Karl Prosek enjoys killing people without inflicting either pain or suffering upon them.

What you put in quotes is also not a requirement of the Diabolic alignment.

On the contrary, I've simply rephrased the clause "Kill for sheer pleasure". It's a phrase that inherently tells us no other reason is required to commit murder than the enjoyment of it. While it doesn't indicate that all killing is inherently enjoyable, it does say that no greater justification is required.

[Tor]

The alignments haven't changed, and a game being discontinued doesn't matter.

Interesting point about sentience-acknowledgement though. It does beg the question though: why would Feral be in denial about this while Prosek would understand it?

We seem to agree that Diabolic doesn't mean you need to have to be bad to your favored group (be it humanity or close family) with the difference being that I don't think Diabolic requires you to do bad stuff to others anyway (just opens the door for it) while I guess you're seeing it as an exception to it?

I'm interested to hear how you think being killed is not suffering

If you died instantly and were unable to feel pain you wouldn't suffer. I mean in the sense of 'you suffer the loss of your life' sure but not in the usual sense of 'I am feeling distraught' since there's nothing to feel.

I agree that it does say no greater justification is required, but that's only going to come up if you're someone who can actually derive pleasure from unjustified killing, and Karl isn't necessarily that kinda guy. I think what would make killing pleasant for him is seeing some kind of purpose behind it. He'll kill ALSO for the sheer pleasure, but the sheerness comes from the context.

[Proseksword]

We seem to agree that Diabolic doesn't mean you need to have to be bad to your favored group (be it humanity or close family) with the difference being that I don't think Diabolic requires you to do bad stuff to others anyway (just opens the door for it) while I guess you're seeing it as an exception to it?

It sounds like you are interpreting a character's alignment as simply a set of rules which they must operate within. The problem with seeing it solely as their personal rules and not a description of their overall nature is that it becomes a virtually meaningless description - a character who is Diabolic could spend their entire life acting Principled without ever taking a malicious act against anyone, and would still be deemed "Evil".

According to RIFTs Ultimate Edition:

"All players must choose an alignment for their character. This defines a character's attitudes and provides a moral center."

An alignment's description doesn't simply define the outer boundaries of their behavior, but is an accurate, if general, description of their character and nature. Were alignments were simply a set of boundaries, there'd be no distinction between Miscreant and Diabolic, as both are utterly self-serving and will do whatever is necessary to achieve those goals. The difference between the two is that while the Miscreant is completely comfortable in using any means to achieve their desired ends, to the Diabolic character vile means are an end to themselves.

"Likewise, a Miscreant evil character who has learned the value of friendship and begins to act kind, noble and compassionate, or forsakes his villainous ways, may go up to Anarchist or Unprincipled, and eventually, even higher if he keeps it up." - RIFTs Ultimate Edition

This contradicts your description of Diabolic alignment as simply defining something someone can opt to do. A Diabolic character who ceases to want to kill people for pleasure ceases to be Diabolic. A Miscreant character who learns to value other people ceases to be Miscreant.

While I agree that being Diabolic does not mean a character is a full-time, irrational, megalomaniac who wants to hurt and kill everyone they meet, it does mean that somewhere in their life, they enjoy making someone suffer and die, and they're completely comfortable with themselves in doing so.

So, yes, in order to be Diabolic, you must want to hurt someone just for pleasure, you must want to kill someone just for pleasure. It doesn't have to be everyone. It could be a specific group, or a certain personality type, but whomever they are, you just don't see the need to afford them any sympathy and would enjoy watching them struggle and croak.

[eliakon]

Just a word on Doc Feral.
He is only relevant if we assume a strict megaversalist stance that all books are completely compatible for all games at all times. If we don't assume this, if we look at him and say "Well that is in TMNT and things were a bit wonky back then" then suddenly we are back to all the examples of the alignments in Rifts matching the descriptions used in Rifts.....

[Nekira Sudacne]

We seem to agree that Diabolic doesn't mean you need to have to be bad to your favored group (be it humanity or close family) with the difference being that I don't think Diabolic requires you to do bad stuff to others anyway (just opens the door for it) while I guess you're seeing it as an exception to it?

It sounds like you are interpreting a character's alignment as simply a set of rules which they must operate within. The problem with seeing it solely as their personal rules and not a description of their overall nature is that it becomes a virtually meaningless description - a character who is Diabolic could spend their entire life acting Principled without ever taking a malicious act against anyone, and would still be deemed "Evil".

According to RIFTs Ultimate Edition:

"All players must choose an alignment for their character. This defines a character's attitudes and provides a moral center."

An alignment's description doesn't simply define the outer boundaries of their behavior, but is an accurate, if general, description of their character and nature. Were alignments were simply a set of boundaries, there'd be no distinction between Miscreant and Diabolic, as both are utterly self-serving and will do whatever is necessary to achieve those goals. The difference between the two is that while the Miscreant is completely comfortable in using any means to achieve their desired ends, to the Diabolic character vile means are an end to themselves.

"Likewise, a Miscreant evil character who has learned the value of friendship and begins to act kind, noble and compassionate, or forsakes his villainous ways, may go up to Anarchist or Unprincipled, and eventually, even higher if he keeps it up." - RIFTs Ultimate Edition

This contradicts your description of Diabolic alignment as simply defining something someone can opt to do. A Diabolic character who ceases to want to kill people for pleasure ceases to be Diabolic. A Miscreant character who learns to value other people ceases to be Miscreant.

While I agree that being Diabolic does not mean a character is a full-time, irrational, megalomaniac who wants to hurt and kill everyone they meet, it does mean that somewhere in their life, they enjoy making someone suffer and die, and they're completely comfortable with themselves in doing so.

So, yes, in order to be Diabolic, you must want to hurt someone just for pleasure, you must want to kill someone just for pleasure. It doesn't have to be everyone. It could be a specific group, or a certain personality type, but whomever they are, you just don't see the need to afford them any sympathy and would enjoy watching them struggle and croak.

given the discription in SoT wherein Prosek was weepingly openly when he saw the heroism of the doomed FQ Glitter Boy battalion and made an impassioned speech about how he was wrong, do you think it's possible he actually found it so moving it inspired him to begin moving his alignment upwards? Prehaps Karl really was Diabolic in 101 PA, but gradually gained more respect for other life forms after the horrors of the Tolkeen war and Civil war impressed themselves on him? And that's why he's suddenly allying with nations like Northern Gun and El Dorado who have, at best, ambivilent attidues twords the Coalitions anti-magic line? It's possible that by 113 he'll have moved up to Abberant at the very least.

[Nightmask]

We seem to agree that Diabolic doesn't mean you need to have to be bad to your favored group (be it humanity or close family) with the difference being that I don't think Diabolic requires you to do bad stuff to others anyway (just opens the door for it) while I guess you're seeing it as an exception to it?

It sounds like you are interpreting a character's alignment as simply a set of rules which they must operate within. The problem with seeing it solely as their personal rules and not a description of their overall nature is that it becomes a virtually meaningless description - a character who is Diabolic could spend their entire life acting Principled without ever taking a malicious act against anyone, and would still be deemed "Evil".

According to RIFTs Ultimate Edition:

"All players must choose an alignment for their character. This defines a character's attitudes and provides a moral center."

An alignment's description doesn't simply define the outer boundaries of their behavior, but is an accurate, if general, description of their character and nature. Were alignments were simply a set of boundaries, there'd be no distinction between Miscreant and Diabolic, as both are utterly self-serving and will do whatever is necessary to achieve those goals. The difference between the two is that while the Miscreant is completely comfortable in using any means to achieve their desired ends, to the Diabolic character vile means are an end to themselves.

"Likewise, a Miscreant evil character who has learned the value of friendship and begins to act kind, noble and compassionate, or forsakes his villainous ways, may go up to Anarchist or Unprincipled, and eventually, even higher if he keeps it up." - RIFTs Ultimate Edition

This contradicts your description of Diabolic alignment as simply defining something someone can opt to do. A Diabolic character who ceases to want to kill people for pleasure ceases to be Diabolic. A Miscreant character who learns to value other people ceases to be Miscreant.

While I agree that being Diabolic does not mean a character is a full-time, irrational, megalomaniac who wants to hurt and kill everyone they meet, it does mean that somewhere in their life, they enjoy making someone suffer and die, and they're completely comfortable with themselves in doing so.

So, yes, in order to be Diabolic, you must want to hurt someone just for pleasure, you must want to kill someone just for pleasure. It doesn't have to be everyone. It could be a specific group, or a certain personality type, but whomever they are, you just don't see the need to afford them any sympathy and would enjoy watching them struggle and croak.

given the discription in SoT wherein Prosek was weepingly openly when he saw the heroism of the doomed FQ Glitter Boy battalion and made an impassioned speech about how he was wrong, do you think it's possible he actually found it so moving it inspired him to begin moving his alignment upwards? Prehaps Karl really was Diabolic in 101 PA, but gradually gained more respect for other life forms after the horrors of the Tolkeen war and Civil war impressed themselves on him? And that's why he's suddenly allying with nations like Northern Gun and El Dorado who have, at best, ambivilent attidues twords the Coalitions anti-magic line? It's possible that by 113 he'll have moved up to Abberant at the very least.

Would be nice if that were a canon tie-in with that 'redeem Prosek' magic item optional mission from the War on Tolkeen. He wasn't targeted with it until after it was too late and the war was over so begins trying to redeem himself.

[Tor]

It sounds like you are interpreting a character's alignment as simply a set of rules which they must operate within.

Correct.

The problem with seeing it solely as their personal rules and not a description of their overall nature is that it becomes a virtually meaningless description - a character who is Diabolic could spend their entire life acting Principled without ever taking a malicious act against anyone, and would still be deemed "Evil".

Principled guys 'always help others', which I think defies the requirements of Diabolic, so I don't see how that's possible.

According to RIFTs Ultimate Edition:

"All players must choose an alignment for their character. This defines a character's attitudes and provides a moral center."

Right. Superman won't kill for pleasure. Joker will. But that doesn't mean he'll go hill Harley to take pleasure in it, that might make him sad. It also won't give him pleasure to kill unless there's a joke involved.

An alignment's description doesn't simply define the outer boundaries of their behavior, but is an accurate, if general, description of their character and nature. Were alignments were simply a set of boundaries, there'd be no distinction between Miscreant and Diabolic, as both are utterly self-serving and will do whatever is necessary to achieve those goals.

There are behaviour bondaries AND emotional/attitude aspects, I think I took that into account. We have to make sure we're going by the text and not adding things.

The difference between the two is that while the Miscreant is completely comfortable in using any means to achieve their desired ends, to the Diabolic character vile means are an end to themselves.

Except that's not what the alignment says, this ventures into the realm of insanity.

Diabolic, perhaps, dictates how a person with insanity would react to it, though.

"Likewise, a Miscreant evil character who has learned the value of friendship and begins to act kind, noble and compassionate, or forsakes his villainous ways, may go up to Anarchist or Unprincipled, and eventually, even higher if he keeps it up." - RIFTs Ultimate Edition

This contradicts your description of Diabolic alignment as simply defining something someone can opt to do. A Diabolic character who ceases to want to kill people for pleasure ceases to be Diabolic. A Miscreant character who learns to value other people ceases to be Miscreant.

The kill for pleasure thing doesn't specify 'people', it can cover people who kill non-sentients for pleasure too.

While I agree that being Diabolic does not mean a character is a full-time, irrational, megalomaniac who wants to hurt and kill everyone they meet, it does mean that somewhere in their life, they enjoy making someone suffer and die, and they're completely comfortable with themselves in doing so.

Right, and I think Karl does that with D-Bees, moreso by proxy nowadays, course.

So, yes, in order to be Diabolic, you must want to hurt someone just for pleasure, you must want to kill someone just for pleasure.

"Just" for pleasure is not spelled out. If logic underpins what you take pleasure in, if there are rules for it, then it is also that logic indivisible from what decides your killing, even if it is subconscious logic.

Just a word on Doc Feral.
He is only relevant if we assume a strict megaversalist stance that all books are completely compatible for all games at all times. If we don't assume this, if we look at him and say "Well that is in TMNT and things were a bit wonky back then" then suddenly we are back to all the examples of the alignments in Rifts matching the descriptions used in Rifts.....

If we're going to say alignments work differently in 2 games then we ought to look at what is different between the wording of the two. I know there's been some minor changes, I think HU2 added some stuff not in RMB, but I figured alignments for the most part stayed pretty constant.

given the discription in SoT wherein Prosek was weepingly openly when he saw the heroism of the doomed FQ Glitter Boy battalion and made an impassioned speech about how he was wrong, do you think it's possible he actually found it so moving it inspired him to begin moving his alignment upwards? Prehaps Karl really was Diabolic in 101 PA, but gradually gained more respect for other life forms after the horrors of the Tolkeen war and Civil war impressed themselves on him? And that's why he's suddenly allying with nations like Northern Gun and El Dorado who have, at best, ambivilent attidues twords the Coalitions anti-magic line? It's possible that by 113 he'll have moved up to Abberant at the very least.

Interesting idea, stats are certainly fixed in time so we can't guarantee that Karl stayed, true.

Probably don't want to put it in stone in case a GM wants to milk the 'fake tears' angle.

[Proseksword]

The difference between the two is that while the Miscreant is completely comfortable in using any means to achieve their desired ends, to the Diabolic character vile means are an end to themselves.

Except that's not what the alignment says, this ventures into the realm of insanity.

"5. Use torture for pleasure and information, regularly."
"6. Kill for sheer pleasure."

Both of those mean you inflict pain and kill just because you like to.

The kill for pleasure thing doesn't specify 'people', it can cover people who kill non-sentients for pleasure too.

In many ways, that could still be considered sadism.

So, yes, in order to be Diabolic, you must want to hurt someone just for pleasure, you must want to kill someone just for pleasure.

"Just" for pleasure is not spelled out.

I think our disconnect is your understanding of the word "sheer". The Oxford English Dictionary defines sheer as "Nothing other than; unmitigated". It is a synonym of just, solely, and only. When the rulebook states that a Diabolic character "Kills for sheer pleasure", it is clearly stating that they do it only for that reason.

[Tor]

We are told a diabolic will "kill anyone less powerful than he is". We have to be careful not to take these "will" statements too literally, otherwise what, Karl goes around killing babies and cats at every opportunity?

"Will" just mean the option is on the table for them. Karl is not put off by killing or by torturing for sheer pleasure, but only if it appeals to him. Not having morals about keeping it off the table doesn't mean he is compelled to do it or even that he wants to.