What are your thoughts on D&D alignment and objective

>>50255891
good and evil are spooks

>>50255891
I think that alignment could be solved with a simple name change.
Authoritarian to Libertarianism describes Lawful to Chaotic

Selflessness to Selfishness describes
Good to Evil

>>50255891
>What are your thoughts on D&D alignment
Meh.

A tool being used for the wrong purposes by people who forgot what it was originally made for.

Roll it back to just a one dimensional axis for "You should/not kill this creature on sight" and you'd barely see a difference in function but a lot less stupid arguing.

>and objective morality in games?
Basically impossible without forcing every character to have the exact same moral compass, really. Without that you have the exact same kind of morality the real world does. Even if the cosmos declares something to be Good, people will form their own judgments on what's morally wrong/right.

Yeah, casting/doing [whatever] is Evil, but to the villagers who are still alive for it, they'll probably shrug. Might even consider the act MORE righteous, since their savior was willing to risk a literal eternity in Hell to save them. Some might be appalled, of course.

File: Max Stirner.gif (671KB, 273x322px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 273x322px

OP is spooks.

This thread is spooks.

None of you are free of spooks.

File: Tge76.jpg (157KB, 600x710px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 600x710px

They have their uses, primarily in designating what team you're on and who it's okay to kill on sight and should never trust.

File: Alignments for Gordons.png (277KB, 1340x2230px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1340x2230px

>>50255891
I don't even bother typing everything ot anymore, I saved it.

>>50255956
>Saying anything you don't like is a spook
Sounds like what a spook would say.

>>50255891
>>50255920
>>50255956
So is Stirner basically just the philosophical equivalent of posting an image of a smug anime girl?
Because I've literally never seen any explanation of what this shit is about that couldn't be summarized as ">having opinions"

>>50256253
"Spooks" means "don't real", so yes.

File: IMG_9964.png (58KB, 636x674px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 636x674px

>good
>evil
>right
>wrong

>>50256620
>Alignment: I contain multitudes

>>50256620
>Having no basis of morality
Like living like an animal, eh?

>>50255891
Objective morality is pointless and shit.

I like the D:tD way though, where you have a god/religion and a degree to which you align with those ideals.

>>50256253
Stirner was basically the 19th century philosopher equivalent of an edgy tryhard, so kinda. His views are laughably stupid and contradictory even by the standards of the era.

alignment was made for the players, not players for alignment
its a rough guide for how your character generally acts, but should never be an iron cage that restricts your character

>>50255920
Law and chaos are also spooks.

>>50256620
I hereby prupose a new alignment.
Memer-Normie aligned to the 4chan-reddit and neutral becomes shitpost.

For example, straya would be memer-shitposter.

File: 1468057101659.png (23KB, 694x578px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 694x578px

Daily reminder that you are all my property.
I am the indivisible ego.
You are all figments of my psyche, mere spooks that I allow to exist.

File: StirnerSocial.jpg (42KB, 672x373px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 672x373px

>>50258420
>19th century
>philosopher
>edgy tryhard
>views
>stupid
>contradictory
>standards
>era
Pretty damn spooked right now

>>50259691
>Thinking your ego is greater than anyone else's
you spook

File: StirnerPoly.jpg (165KB, 956x960px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 956x960px

>>50259811
>anyone else's
>ego
Other minds beyond mine own are spooks.
I allow them to exist partially seperate from my singular godhead for the sake of amusement.
I am the indivisible Ego.

>>50255931
>Selfishness
>Evil
STOP. This dumb bioware morality needs to die. Selfishness is not evil. Murder is evil. Rape is evil. Theft is evil. Selfishness is neither good nor evil so it's neutral.

>>50260087
>Selfishness
>not evil
Caring solely about yourself pretty much makes you a failure of a human being, which is about as evil as I can consider someone to be.

>>50256253
Stirner basically believed that any form of government or selfless ideology shackles the individual spirit. He was the inspiration for a lot of ideologies after him that refuse to admit that they were inspired by him as they all try and establish their own sense of morality to justify their actions.

A more positive idea of Stirner is "your life is the most important thing there is, so live it how you wish, even if your wishes go against society". The more negative side is "your ideals and beliefs are useless when I can just shoot you and take your shit".

I like it alot once I realized to not take it autistically.

It works well when you use it as a base line. If I'm chaotic good, it doesn't mean I don't follow law and I'm a saint. but its a decent guilde line.

The problem is people take it too seriously, which is why we end up with Lawful stupid paladins, Chaotic neutral being the retarded alignment and Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil being edgelord central. They allow the alignment to completely define their character and that makes the concept of alignments god awful when they aren't.

I was GMing a game last week and one of my players refused to do something because it wasn't something a "Good" character would do, its idiotic. Just because you do one bad thing doesn't mean you're literally satan.

>>50260087
Why do you think murder and rape arise, because people put their needs above others. Saying "B-but you can be selfish in moderation" doesn't do away with the fact that all 'evil' acts stem from selfishness.

>>50260211
I played a Chaotic Evil character one time. He wasn't an edgelord asshole; he was just a thief who enjoyed what he did, and did it for his own enjoyment.

>>50260096
But all humans at their core are designed to care about themselves above all else. Our societies, religions, and economic systems are all based around putting people in situations where their selfishness benefits others. The free market, where by people's selfishness allocates work effectively. Religion, where people's selfishness gets them to do good deeds to redeem their soul or otherwise acquire supernatural benefit. Society who's laws are all based around making the cost of unthinking selfishness too high to bear by a rational self interested being. Selfishness is no failure, it is to be true to the core of every living being.

File: Elric.jpg (60KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 620x413px

>>50255891
I think that objective morality is stupid. However, objective entropy as a cosmic concept isn't nearly as absurd. In the earliest of editions, good and evil were subjective, but law and chaos were indeed cosmically objective aspects. Admittedly, to the average mortal who's not familiar with the metaphysical makeup of the cosmos, most law aligned entities seem "good" and most chaos aligned entities seem "evil" but when something goes too far down EITHER path starts seeming a truly alien eldritch entity.

From a narrative standpoint, I just like it better, as well as from a player agency standpoint: allowing players to make their own qualitative judgement about morality is a good thing.

>>50260269
Haha, no, absolutely not. Humans are unique among animals in that our sense of altruism and selflessness is VERY well developed.
People will help each other because it is the right thing to do, and not because they expect a reward.
Their only reward is feeling good, which you could spin as "selfishness" in a biological sense, but it's a very weak argument.

>the free market
Don't even start memeing about that cancerous, disgusting abomination of human society. Almost as bad as communism in its depravity and degeneration of the human spirit.

>Religion
Not all religions hold the promise of eternal utopia over their follower's heads like a carrot, and people from all walks of life, from all creeds, can and do engage in extreme self-sacrifice for the good of others, even going so far as their own death.
It's also fair to say that in those religions, you go to the good after life for being a good person. You don't become a good person by doing good works, you do good works because you are a good person.

>Society who's laws are all based around making the cost of unthinking selfishness too high to bear by a rational self interested being.
Yes, because selfishness is a failure in human nature, and unfortunately one that is very, VERY successful when left unchecked.

>rational self-interested being
People aren't rational, nor are they perfectly self-interested. A non-broken person is altruistic to his fellow man in general.

>Selfishness is no failure, it is to be true to the core of every living being.
You would reduce man to mere selfish animals, thinking of nothing more than the next day and survival? We are better than that.

Selfishness and self-interest are powerful biological motivators, and can be used for good, but they are not good in of themselves.

>>50255931
>authoritarian
>lawful
nope, law is principaled, and nobody can deny that at least right libertarians are principled to the point of autism.

law and choas are difficult becuase they seem to talk about two unrelated things at once: rule-orientation and conformism. it would be better if alignment were treated as apolitical and asicial, and we just looked at law vs choas are principled vs arbitrary.

>>50260240
That's NE though. CE is more conflict seeking.

>>50260336
That's horseshit though, all altruism and "selflessness" stems from selfish desires. Truly selfless people would be an aberration of nature. Humans are a part of nature, and as such are subject to the same rules that govern other living beings. To pretend that we have some completely unnatural sense of selflessness and altruism is patently absurd. It's like saying that ant's are compassionate and altruistic simply because they have evolved a strategy that makes use of the individual machinations of the wants of the individual.
The way society is set up, people who are "selfless" or "altruistic" are often rewarded, sometimes in tangible ways, sometimes in less obvious ones. You say that people do not expect reward, and yet they clearly will. I don't know about you, but I very much doubt there are many people who would expect to be punished or harmed by a so called "Good deed", in fact one can nearly always expect it to do them good. People will obviously consider this and other social norms and rules whenever they decide to act. And that's just one way of looking at it, there are also various other refutations of the claim that human's are uniquely and somehow supernaturally selfless, for one there's that mathematics model that suggest that "altruistic acts" would ultimately benefit those that do them and their offspring (ignoring the fact of course that that is exactly what society is designed around in the first place).

cont...

>>50260576
>Their only reward is feeling good,
As I have already said, it is not the "only reward", but let's assume it is. This is by no means a 'weak arguement', being selfish is acting on one's wants. It is not selfless to act on one's want, even if it may be losely termed "self destructive". For instance, suicide is nearly always a selfish act justified by the common logical fallacies, or even by the simple want of an end of pain. A suicide bomber is not selfless for sacrificing their lives for their beliefs in a better world. If we call any act that is done because one wishes it, to be selfless then that completely negates the meaning of the word. Further it's ridiculous to try to pretend that there is a nonbiological sense of selfishness. Function follows form. The material function of an object leads to it's other properties. A want is a want is a want, no mater if you classify it biologically or psychologically.

>Don't even start memeing about that cancerous, disgusting abomination of human society. Almost as bad as communism in its depravity and degeneration of the human spirit.
I don't see a single legitimate logical refutation in there. Please try again.

>Not all religions hold the promise of eternal utopia over their follower's heads like a carrot, and people from all walks of life,
Nearly all the religions that arose from groups that had begun to transition to more complex forms of society do provide various forms of punishment/reward for those who act too selfishly. That is a prime function of more complex forms of region versus the animism and shamanism that dominates less complex societies where simple social norms and rules often hold people's behavior in check.

>can and do engage in extreme self-sacrifice for the good of others, even going so far as their own death.
See paragraph 2.

cont...

>>50260584
>You don't become a good person by doing good works, you do good works because you are a good person.
That's only really in a subset of thought primarily expressed in Abraham religions, it's not even that popular a theological interpretation these days.

>Yes, because selfishness is a failure in human nature,
It is the basis of human nature, of all living things nature. Selfishness is the root cause, and end game of evolution. Every living thing, thinking or no, wants to live and preserve it's own well being. The only failure in human nature is to think we are more than we are as you are demonstrating right now.

>People aren't rational, nor are they perfectly self-interested.
People are rational to a point, and they are always driven by self inerest. Just because being altruistic on occasion is in one's self interest doesn't negate selfishness as the core of being.

>You would reduce man to mere selfish animals, thinking of nothing more than the next day and survival?
>We are better than that.
We aren't and we will never be. You keep going on about man's flaw of selfishness, but you neglect to mention man's hubris. Always believing himself to be special, above it all. Above everything else in nature, even above nature herself, all but his own race. That is your own form of selfishness, believing you are superior and specially worthy of consideration.

>Selfishness and self-interest are powerful biological motivators, and can be used for good, but they are not good in of themselves.
Good is a moral judgement, I never stated it's goodness, I only refuted your belief in it's evilness as something that makes people "failures of human beings".

File: alignmentAshit.png (56KB, 897x787px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 897x787px

>>50255891
Here is the most accurate alignment chart.
I made this for a shitpost that I expected to get sage'd into oblivion, but the thread stayed in the catalogue for a day and a half

File: Alignment_Demotivational.jpg (26KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x400px

>>50255891

>>50259627
I don't quite understand your wording, but I'm interested.

File: Alignments.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50255891
D&D alignments are shit, Palladium alignments are way more sensical (at least if you take them as rough guidelines).

>>50260208
Stirner was a faggot that fucked cleaning girls and got them killed giving birth to his bastards. Fuck Stirner and fuck all the edgetards he spawned since then.

>>50260584
>A suicide bomber is not selfless for sacrificing their lives for their beliefs in a better world
He's literally giving all he has for a better world, idiot.

>>50263083
Yeah, people argue because the whole thing isn't entirely orthogonal. Most violations of the rule "don't murder people" mean you are a prick. Also obeying "report jews for extermination" means you are a prick.
>inb4 /pol/

Palladium's alignments are much more sensical because they operate on weighing self-interest versus principles:

>Principled - lawful good guys
>Scrupulous - Charles Bronson/Clint Eastwoord-types, do whatever it takes for the good guys to win
>Unprincipled - reluctant hero, Han Solo-style. wants to be selfish but good tends to win him over
>Anarchist - selfish guy, doesn't care about goodness but refrains from evil
>Aberrant - will do evil acts if necessary but can work in a team. honor among thieves
>Miscreant - evil for the sake of self-gain
>Diabolic - evil for the sake of evil

>>50260576
So basically your entire argument boils down to "selfless and altruistic acts can't be truly selfless, because they often benefit the agent in some way". Bullshit, what makes an action selfless and altruistic is the fact that no compensation is guaranteed, and that people help for the sake of helping.
You also assume that there is some sort of universal law or teleos that "governs living beings", which is absolutely absurd. There is no governing force to cause life to evolve to be absolutely selfish. Humans are selfless, and have demonstrated as such.

>I don't know ... good.
It's not that they don't expect to be punished, it's that they don't expect to be rewarded in any way besides that little burst of dopamines saying "good on you, you did a good thing".

>For instance, ... better world
But that's an utterly inane argument; in the former, the suicider is commiting suicide for selfish reasons, an end to their pain, choosing their own desires over the harm that will befall their family and friends because of it.
In the latter, assuming the suicide bomber is not motivated by some larger number of celestial virgins, it is indeed a selfless act because they are putting the wants of others over their own.

> If we ... word.
What fucking bullshit is this? Everything is selfish because everything needs to have a conscious will behind it to be done? That's absolutely sophomoric; giving up your food to a hungry homeless man that you will never see again is obviously a selfless act, even if you "wanted" to do it.

>I don't .... Please try again.
Fuck off Stefan.

>do ... selfishly.
Yes, because selfishness is often bad. Punishing selfishness doesn't absolutely reward selflessness, and selflessness is selflessness regardless of how it is achieved.

(cont)

>>50263330

>Selfishness is the root cause, and end game of evolution.
>evolution has a teleos
Stopped reading there.

>We aren't and we will never be.
We are and always have been, since the first days of primitive man.

>but y... own race.
But humanity IS greater than other animals, than nature! To deny that obvious truth is willful blindness!

>That ... of consideration.
Ah, so now we're moving onto collective selfishness, aye? The very fact that we are discussing this proves that man is special. Acknowledging reality doesn't make anything selfish.

File: even bigger clusterfuck.png (17KB, 338x341px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 338x341px

>>50255891
>D&D alignments
Okay concept, but overused and perceived too strictly by people.
>objective morality
*sounds of hysterical anger and teeth breaking wood*

>>50255891
>Most DMs/players aren't contemplative or thoughtful enough to tackle morality that isn't rule-based.

File: 1475251964529.png (5KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 224x225px

>>50255891
>law and chaos are spooks

fucking how

how can they BOTH be spooks

>>50257171
The term "Cynic" itself derives from the Greek word kυνιkός, kynikos, "dog-like" and that from kύων, kyôn, "dog" (genitive: kynos).

>>50263272
You sound pretty spooked, anon.

>>50263356
the average dog is smarter than the average politician

>>50263365
I would also trust a dog with moral quandaries over a human.

>>50263352
>enslaving your ego to concepts of behavior
Spooky

>>50263083
It comes down exactly to that...

File: 1451233497737.gif (104KB, 500x370px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 500x370px

This thread is both educational and entertaining

File: 1475248064276.jpg (49KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 640x480px

>>50263381
that's nonsense you faggot

>rules are a construct of humanity
>ignoring the rules is also a construct of humanity
>somehow
>my entire philosophy basically boils down to 'I say things don't exist and that means I win'

>>50263330
>giving up your food to a hungry homeless man...
I'm a wagecuck who works at target and just the other week I had a mom and her kid buy a bunch of shit for a homeless person. The mom was incredibly excited to take a picture of her kid in front of all the things they bought for the man and undoubtedly put it on facebook to brag to everyone about just how good of a person she is.
Personally I find this scummy as fuck but I also have a core belief of doing good things for a bad reason is still doing a good thing so I feel pretty meh about it. But ultimately I don't think what she did was selfless because she was way more concerned with making herself look/feel good than the person she was helping

>>50255891
They suck.

>>50263441
You're falling for the Stirner trolling, dude. Take a breath and step back, then embrace this new age of philosophical shitposting.

>>50263447
In that case, I would agree that the mother was being selfish. Feeling good about yourself is a lot different than getting peer-cred.
That being said, I have bought food for homeless people many times, nothing more or less than a quick ten dollar thing, and I have never seen them ever again. They gave me nothing, and I never told anyone about it (except here, but we're all anonymous so it doesn't matter).
I don't think I'm a particularly special or exceptional person, so I would think that there are plenty other people who are selfless for the sake of being selfless, because they are good people.

File: 814206047_2019824[1].gif (150KB, 245x320px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 245x320px

>>50263441
>nonsense
>construct of
>humanity
Spook'd

>>50263482
>You know, I just don't care anymore.

File: 1478093998130.jpg (27KB, 327x240px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 327x240px

>>50263507
is a bullet flying towards your skull a spook?

It's a construct of humanity, after all.

File: images[1].png (6KB, 208x243px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 208x243px

>>50263511
>caring
>not carring
How spooky

File: 1af.jpg (103KB, 680x771px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 680x771px

>>50263530

File: anarchy31[1].jpg (286KB, 750x733px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 750x733px

>>50263525
All that is, is mine ego.
The bullet is for I will it to be.
You are all my property.

File: TEXAS-FLAG-LONE-STAR-STATE-1024x698.jpg (99KB, 1024x698px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1024x698px

>>50263547
Well you can be smug about it in hell.

>>50263330
>Bullshit, what makes an action selfless and altruistic is the fact that no compensation is guaranteed, and that people help for the sake of helping.
A. Selfish people dont need guarantees. If the potential reward is high enough (from a subjective POV), the investment risk might be worth it.
B. Selfless acts still carry the reward of either being seen by others in a positive way or regarding yourself as better than the selfish people out there.

>>50263482
Why did Stirner trolling become a thing anyway. 10 years ago I knew who he was, but he wasn't ever brought up in philosophy classes or on the chans and I can't even remember how I ended up reading about him in the first place.

File: index.png (13KB, 226x223px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 226x223px

>>50263543
>shitposting
>irony

>>50263356
In ancient Greece, cynic meant something pretty different than what it means today.

>>50263558
A. If you're going to be modeling it like that, then sure, why not, all selfless people are selfish. The difference between them and selfish people, is that they have some mental reward called "doing the right thing" that has some arbitrarily large value.

B. 1) If it's not a planned reward, then I say it didn't enter into the consideration of the agent.
2) So only emotionless stoics can be selfless?

File: combat_shovel.gif (46KB, 324x266px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 324x266px

>>50263564

File: property.jpg (12KB, 243x208px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 243x208px

>>50263557
>states
>nation
>culture
>not the biggest spooks of them all

>>50263594
>shovels

Does Stirner remind anyone else of Ayn Rand? They both have utterly nonsensical excuses for a philosophy that embrace selfishness and they both attract retards.

File: smug pipe man.jpg (42KB, 720x340px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 720x340px

>>50263608
property is the biggest human construct of them all.

File: PVzg67M[1].jpg (223KB, 500x509px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 500x509px

>>50263622
>Ayn Rand
She's pretty spooky, in bed

>>50263631
No, it is my construct, spook. I will it to be, being the Ego, and so it is.

>>50255891
I don't really want to make a thread about this so I'll ask here:

I made a Warlock, and due to the nature of his backstory and where he gets his power I felt it inaccurate to call him Good or Evil, so I went with Chaotic Neutral. How do I best roleplay this? Dismiss the rule of law as arbitrary and play by his own rules in terms of morality?

>>50263622
>does a shitty retarded person with a nonsense philosophy remind you of another shitty retarded person with a nonsense philosophy

yes

>>50263665
depends entirely on which edition of D&D you are playing

File: 1473444087891.png (647KB, 670x554px) Image search: [Google]

647KB, 670x554px

>>50263660
property is a spook because thieves exist.

File: KEPktVR[1].jpg (31KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x400px

>>50263667
>yes

>>50263667
>>50263660
So if Ayn Rand and Max Stirner met, perhaps by the contrivance of some sort of time warp, do you think they would get along? Would they hate each other and fight (perhaps with philosophy-based sorcery), or would they fuck?

I need to know for fanfiction purposes.

File: 2263b5629d[1].jpg (105KB, 498x494px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 498x494px

>>50263679
Thieves do not exist because everything is my property. Even if the spooks "take" it, it is still mine.

File: 1475247387626.jpg (29KB, 597x465px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 597x465px

>>50263688
hatefuck

Then Stirner would say that lust is a construct of the ego

and Rand would call him a faggot commie.

If humans are selfish such that they act selflessly, then we're lost in semantics.

>>50263701
let me give you back your board with a nail in it, then.

File: e3e7d8c61b[1].jpg (112KB, 638x473px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 638x473px

>>50263741
The nail is my property too.
It's pretty spooky how you think property can steal property; if my property has my property in their possession, then by inheritance it is still my property.

>>50255891
It's a useful and important tool to have at your disposal, but one that's been badly misused over the years.

Alignment mechanics are good because they're a convenient shorthand for adjudicating a certain set of classic fantasy tropes. Lots of stories have things like holy weapons that can only be used by the pure of heart, or divine judgments that selectively smite the wicked while sparing the righteous. These are the sort of things alignment is great for -- it makes you aware that these sorts of matters of cosmic standing are important in the setting, and so prompts you to think it over in advance so when it comes up you already know where people stand.

The problem is, this sort of thing isn't necessary or appropriate for all campaigns, particularly with the D&D system of using both good/evil and law/chaos axes. Few stories will meaningfully engage more than one such moral axis, and many won't really care about either.

Alignment should only be used when you want to run a campaign in a world where how your beliefs and conduct align with grand cosmis forces/principles matter, and that's not for everyone. Furthermore, the cosmic principles that are relevant will vary from campaign to campaign. So having a specific alignment system that's inextricably woven into the rules is a bad idea for any system that's not specifically for one single particular setting.

I like the way Fantasy Craft handles it much better. There, "alignment" is just a generic term for whatever faiths or cosmic forces are relevant in your setting -- you decide what exactly that is when you make the setting, if you want to use it at all. If you want to use the two axes of D&D, you can -- but you could also use a more morally ambiguous system of various competing gods, or even key your alignments to things unrelated to religion or morality, like classical elements or astrological signs. Or simply not use alignment at all, which would exclude divine casters but not impact much else.

>>50263373
Are you a fifty years old housewife, anon? Shouldn't you have kids at home to care about?

File: a board with a nail in it.gif (1MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x360px

>>50263772
Damn Vern, this here homosexual shur do talk funny.

Not fer long though

File: kvffitみ-rare-stirner-3140296[1].png (65KB, 500x616px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 500x616px

>>50263801
Try me, spook

>>50263670
3.5

And to get further into his specific backstory, he was a bookish priest whose abbey was raided by an evil order who were looking for an artifact, and he was left for dead. He called out for help and what answered wasn't his god, but an unidentified entity which healed him and granted him the powers of a warlock.

I felt it too cliche for him to be Chaotic Good because he does realize that whatever saved him he is indebted to, regardless of whether it is Good or Evil, and will fulfill his debt to it if it ever contacts him.

>>50263817
So what Stirner's D&D alignment would be anyway? CN?

>>50263817
>>50263772
>>50263701
Ah, /lit/, how I missed ye and your shitposting.

>>50255891
It's not a big a deal as people on the Internet make it out to be. Anyone who hides behind "I'm just playing my alignment" is as shitlord who would say something equally insipid if alignment didn't exist. The alignment restriction behind paladins and monks has never impacted my playgroup.

Then again, I didn't start playing pen and paper RPGs until college so maybe I've never been traumatized by trying to play DnD with piece of shit teenagers

File: 2Ls8Hw3[1].jpg (88KB, 650x600px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 650x600px

>>50263953
>chaotic
>neutral
Both spooks.

>>50263968
>ye and your
>implying anything exists beyond me and mineself

File: slav-c6254ca82121716388fbe360df20bbb2.png (119KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 500x281px

>>50263817
>Your idea of shpook ish, at its esshence, a new manisfeshtation of *sniff* oppreshun

>>50258023
Fantasy Craft does something similar by making alignments external forces with which you are aligned, rather than innate morality. They're also user-created, though, so it would be perfectly possible for a group to recreate the DnD 9x9 alignments, and, with insufficient consideration, all of the problems that go with them.

File: stirner-art[1].png (23KB, 209x205px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 209x205px

>>50264072
>Oppression
You almost spooked me, but not quite

File: how would you handle this situation.jpg (111KB, 510x518px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 510x518px

>>50264108

File: 501eae2c0b66dac8b0d96f2a0c34ad5f[1].jpg (49KB, 351x434px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 351x434px

>>50264130

File: why-can't-I-hold-all-these-spooks.jpg (142KB, 445x598px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 445x598px

>>50263953
CE, definitely. Law is a spook because society makes you live in fear of it. Good is a spook because society makes you feel guilty defying it. Chaos is a spook because society rejects you because of it. Evil is a spook because society despises you because of it. Act in accordance with your own will and no others', for all the world is yours.

>>50255891
"If everything that is worth living and struggling for is nothing more but a mere spook, then why does it matter that it is a spook at all? If there is no true goodness in the universe, then I shall struggle to create a reasonably similar facsimile of it. Get bent, Stirner."
- Me talking out of my own ass, 2016.

>>50264328
If that is the will of the Ego, then so shall it be.

File: soren_kierkegaard_drawing_niels_christian_kierkegaard.jpg (124KB, 1167x656px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1167x656px

>>50264328
[LEAPING INTENSIFIES]

File: 000_zizek.gif (44KB, 350x263px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 350x263px

>>50264108
Let me ekshplain why you are wrong ushing thish *sniff* shimple analogy about toilets....

>>50264344
And if enough people believe that very same concept that it becomes more than a matter of a simple Ego? If it pervades the society on a level deeper than subliminal?

File: eb55wZD.png (56KB, 322x280px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 322x280px

>>50256253
pretty much

>>50264421
>people
>other than the Ego

>>50264563
Id?

>>50264583
Spook

>>50264592
Super-ego?

>>50264592
I'd argue that Ego is more of a spook than Id is.
>>50264604
Nah, super-ego is basically societal conscience and is more of a construct than Ego is.

>>50264604
Super-un-spook

File: bigbrother.jpg (16KB, 200x235px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 200x235px

>>50264615
doubleplusunspook

>>50264615
>>50264613
Turbo-ego?

>>50264675
Gigaspook

>>50258420
How are they contradictory?

>>50259764
Who are the manlets next to the fat fuck I assume is Marx?

File: akuma-stirner.jpg (51KB, 446x530px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 446x530px

>>50264675
Super Street Spooker II Turbo!

>>50263953
He is aligned to himself, always. Alignment to anything else shifts according to how that thing furthers his own will.

>>50258023
While I do belive in objective good and evil, all actions must still be judged in their contexts and that's what alot of these things neglect, there are lines you don't cross WITHOUT GOOD REASON and that's there things get confused as the context and question of if the reas on was good become points of contention

>>50264931
What's a good reason for rape?

>>50264130
Simple, aim for your smug face and then take care of the kittens, not only is it right to eliminate the hostage taker and save the innocent animals, I get to wipe the smug of your face and I love kittens

>>50264976
Ask the SCP foundation, from what we know they have to subject an innocent to it or something at least as deplorable [it's never fully explained] regularly to prevent something from destroying the planet

>>50263485
>>50263447

Once i bought a meal for a hobo so he could just fuck off and let me enjoy mine.

This was pretty selfish thing to do, but then again i did buy him food and not give him money, and the fact that meal costed at least four times the amount he asked for... that he would use just to buy more alcohol i think that can be considered thoughtful and selfless act.

Its a wishy washy example, but my point is, its never black and white, there is many moving and changing parts to a behaviour and humans are complex animals.

>>50260336
>High school philosophy
Just because something makes you feel good about yourself, doesn't mean it's true.

>>50263330
>An action is not selfish if you aren't given a 100% guarantee of tangible material reward
That's a ridiculous criterion for selfishness. It relies on external factors and not the internal ones that we are clearly discussing. Where does an action suddenly become non-selfish, 50% chance of reward, 20% chance, 1% chance? People gamble over truly minuscule odds and you think something not being guaranteed changes the nature of the thought behind the decision? Balderdash. Of course that's ignoring the point already brought up that society does reward people who appear "selfless", being praised and adored is as much a gain as anything tangible, more in fact. Having people think well of you increases all sorts of societal benefits one receives, and negates many possible harms that can come about by being seen as a selfish actor.

> There is no governing force to cause life to evolve to be absolutely selfish
As stated before, it is not a "force" it is an underlying principle that was required for complex life to form. Competition has hard coded putting one's own interests first. It doesn't matter if you are a loose coupling of RNA in the primordial ooze, or a complex macroorganism, selfishness is what kept you and your ancestors alive. Selflessness, true selflessness, not occasionally doing things that don't lead to direct tangible reward in the singular but often do in the aggregate, is absolutely self destructive and agents that exhibit that behavior don't exist for very long.

>it is indeed a selfless act because they are putting the wants of others over their own.
Right, a suicide bomber who kills others (disregarding them completely) in the name of what they believe, for their beliefs, because they want to see a world based on those beliefs is selfless because they believe that what they are doing to create the world they want is good for others? That's an outrageous claim.

File: Hide_Stirner_Threads.png (41KB, 1020x740px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1020x740px

Quality thread

>>50264976
>Rape this woman or I blow your brains out!
To rape or not to rape, that is the question.

The answer is obviously >rape

>>50265558
>giving up your food to a hungry homeless man that you will never see again is obviously a selfless act
So, doing what you YOURSELF want to do, is not selfish because... ? You don't actually give any good reasons for this anywhere. You do realize that selfishness is doing things you want to do, regardless of how they harm or benefit others. No matter how many times you say it isn't so you haven't provided an alternate explanation that has any degree of sophistication or applicability. Selfishness has nothing to do with just accruing material gain, a selfless decision is one that MUST disregard the SELF, the self's wants. Giving of yourself when you don't wish to, will benefit in no way whatsoever materially, emotionally, spiritually or otherwise, because it's the right thing to do even if you hate doing it. That is a truly selfish act and the rate which those occur is abysmally low.

>Fuck off
Still not seeing any arguments against it here.

>But punishment is =/= to reward
No, but as stated there are rewards, but let's ignore that for the moment. Their function is clearly to play off inherent selfishness. Considering the good and the bad of one's actions in relations to oneself is being selfish. Not acting because you fear reprisal is a selfish motivation because it protects the self. Religions that use this to control do so to great effect because selfishness is inherent and immutable in the greater human population.

>Stopped reading there.
Then see paragraph 2, post 1.

>we are though
Nuh uh.

>Humanity is greater
Not greater, just different and certainly not apart from nature and the rules that govern her. It's pure delusion to think otherwise.

>Man is special because we can be selfish together
An ant is not above nature because it can co-operate with it's hive to kill other insects for their exclusive benefit. Simply exhibiting unique features doesn't make anyone or anything separate from the circumstances that created it.

>>50256058
>neutrals cannot be mercenary among friends

>lawful means I will abide by the law

you are wrong

>>50265588
>Giving of yourself when you don't wish to, will benefit in no way whatsoever materially, emotionally, spiritually or otherwise, because it's the right thing to do even if you hate doing it.

If you do it because it's the right thing to do, you are still doing it for selfless reasions, i.e. emotional validation.

>>50265656
>though it would be nice
If you're not willing to help them within reason for free they're not really your friends.
>and social mores
Lawfuls must either be rigid in their way of operating such that they have their own code or work within tradition and laws of society that may or may not be present around them.

>>50260473
Depends on how much focus he put onto opposing "the system" or social moorings. If he does it for the gold/pride i'd put him NE. If he does it just because fucking with other people's stuff is fun, CE.

>>50255891
I mean from story perspective doing alignments the way DnD does is kinda dumb. It's good to have beliefs and values that guide characters, but not to the degree of having some evil-o-meter. I think it should work more like real life, there are certainly things that are good and evil, right and wrong, but you can't just cast a magic spell that tells you something is evil or not.
Unfortunate thing is DnD sort of has to work that way for gameplay to work. In order for 'smite evil' or 'magic circle against <alignment>'
to exists you need those things to be objective measures.

>>50265943
Yeah this. DnD alignment isn't there to be some kind of actual simulation of the way people actually think or act. It's just there so the mechanics can key into it.

Was rand the first shitposter?

>>50266133
Neither the first shitposter nor the first shitposter of her kind, but she was so good at it as to ascend to minor shitposting deity status.

>>50256253
If you replace the word spook with construct in every shitpost you more or less get the idea. The world is full of made up rules that prevent you from acting in accordance with your real wishes. Not exactly a revolutionary thought now, but pretty relevant back in the day.

"Do what you want because a pirate is free" -- Stirner

>>50255891
D&D alignments are cancerous and objective morality is for people with double digit IQ's

>>50266133
Diogenes was the first shitposter.
And he was good.

Killing is bad, torture is bad, rape is bad. Just go away you dumb stupid edgy children.

File: 1477597213967.png (273KB, 900x750px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 900x750px

A much better format

>>50267303
>the way I hold one isn't even listed
Huh

>>50263447
I once gave a homeless man $20 for his jacket because it looked cool. Saw him a couple of day latter sitting in the cold freezing, but that's his fault.

Max Stirner 101:
>Your side of the argument is wrong because everything you just mentioned is a spook (meaning everything you just mentioned is a construct and doesn't actually exist)
>You are all my property because I say so

Did I miss anything?

>>50268100
Nah that's about it. As a counter you can say that what he is saying actually only applies to you since you are the ego, but that will only work to make yourself feel better.

>>50266608
>If you replace the word spook with construct
I am almost offended, and definetly disgusted, by the fact that this actually has to be explained. The term is self-explanatory.

>>50264351
>Kierkegaard
My brother of enhanced melanin

>>50255891
It's pretty good as long as you don't make it influence personality.
It's used to differentiate the abyss and hell and other shit like that.
If you're in your own system with less complicated cosmology you can go without it.

>>50260310
This one hundred times. The elric saga is key material to understanding alignment.

All evil comes from selfish acts.
No evil comes from selfless acts.

>>50268415
>All evil comes from selfish acts.
Hahahaha!
>No evil comes from selfless acts.
Oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh even harder!

>>50268466
Give me an example of an evil act that is selfless, and that will disprove both of my claims.

>>50268285
How does one separate once morality from once personalty, while not living a sheltered life?

>>50255891
Good and evil are just points of view, there's no standardized moral compass or anything to base it off of. I still make use of an alignment system in my group because people tend to enjoy it. If someone wants to play as a good character and believes they are doing good, then that's sufficient enough for me.

It's not my place to be an arbiter of what is "good" and what is "evil".

I like it.
Elves are always chaotic. Dwarves are always lawful. and so on.
Oh so your elf is lawful? Did you include in his backstory how he was in a law cult from his very childhood? No, he was just raised by humans? Then he's chaotic, fuck you.

>>50268498
A girl is being held hostage by terrorists.
You can either call the counter-terrorist squad, or rush in and try to save her yourself.
You are incompetent and pretty sure that if you rush in, there's an almost certain chance of both you and the hostage dying. However, you also know that if CT squad fails to arrive in time, the girl will die anyway.

Question of the day: which of these acts - calling in support or rushing in alone - is more "good"?

>>50268659
We're not talking about good actions, we're talking about evil actions.
Rushing in to save the girl is good, but undeniably Pyrrhic if you believe that the CT squad won't arrive in time.

Keep in mind, I only made the claim that all evil comes from selfish acts. I did not make the claim that no good comes from selfish acts.

and although this is cheap, rushing in to save the girl could be construed as a selfish act for the sake of personal glory and heroism

>>50268693
>I only made the claim that all evil comes from selfish acts.
Any situation where the person is incompetent enough or unaware of far-reaching consequences, but still enthusiastic enough to do good anyway is an example of selfless evil.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and all that.
So, no, not *all* evil comes from selfish acts.

>>50268722
>Any situation where the person is incompetent enough or unaware of far-reaching consequences
>unaware of
You cannot be held accountable for which you could not know.

>but still enthusiastic enough to do good anyway is an example of selfless evil.
It depends on what his motives for doing good were in the first place.

>"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and all that.
That relies on some universal and objective definition of hell; one man's dystopia is another's utopia and all that.

>>50268659
No this is stupid and morally ambiguous at worst

However, I have a better example

>>50268498
Suicide bombers say hello

>>50268758
Look, mate, the burden of proof is for you - not for me - to bear.
I argue that there exists a percentage of selfless evil acts, no matter how small it is, and if I cared enough to construct a proper hypothetical situation, I probably would.
Claiming that *all* evil is selfish is simply dumb.

>>50268782
>Suicide bombers say hello

>morality extending to those outside of your tribe
>morality extending to the Other
MEDIOCRE

>>50268815
>Look, mate, the burden of proof is for you - not for me - to bear.
How could I prove it? The only way for me to do so would be to prove that there can be no evil selfless act, and that is impossible to prove (black swan and so forth).

You, on the other hand, need only provide a single evil selfless act, which is exceedingly easy to do.

I have made a bold claim, and if it is as dumb as you say it is, then it should be trivial for you to disprove it.

>>50268852
Suicide bombers, destroy-everything-including-themselves cultists, a large proportion of evil priesthoods, etc.

>>50268896
How are those latter two selfless?
For the first, >>50268817

>>50268950


>How are those latter two selfless?

Dedicating your life to serving a higher power, even at cost to yourself, and without reward = selfless
Dedicating your life to serving a higher power, even at cost to yourself, and without a reward, and doing evil things in the process = selfless and evil

>>50268817

Just memeing nonsensically isn't a valid debate technique, try again.

>>50263272
kinda hot desu

>>50263272
>and got them killed giving birth to his bastards

Doesn't sound like his fault.

>>50269012
Alright, fair enough, I'll concede that.

I am ammending my claims to be:
Almost All (in the mathematical sense) evil acts are selfish.
Almost None evil acts are selfless.

>>50268693
>>50268722
>>50268758
>spoiler
Yeah yeah, altruism is not altruistic without divining the mental state of the actor and disproving the existence of any unconscious motivations.

In the specific instance of doing harm by attempting to do good and failing, you might be interested in looking at the different approaches to Good Samaritan laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
Generally speaking, they protect those who attempt to rescue accident victims from being sued for any accidental damage caused by their rescue attempt. Jurisdictions vary on how competent a helper you have to be to be protected, whether there must be imminent peril for the victim, and whether there's a selflessness requirement.

Essentially, some people out there have decided that yes, despite the general presumption against holding people responsible for unforeseeable harm, you can be held accountable for what you couldn't know (see also: eggshell plaintiff rule), and it may or may not depend on your motives at the time and your ability to meaningfully assist, because the law makes a distinction between knowing the likely outcome and knowing the likely extent of the harm caused.

If you accept that a person can be selflessly motivated and still wrong for doing something that causes additional harm when they know that they aren't qualified to help, then yes, it may be selflessly evil. Unless you want to go back around and call it selfish good, in which case you're prioritizing mental state over outcome, which is not how the law usually sees things.

It's ridiculous, using myself as a random example you could make the case that I'm TN, CN, CG, or CE. This applies to many people and characters.

>>50255891
It is a tool to measure how close you are to one or the other god/aftelife in the planes beyond the material. It makes sense in the mainstream DnD universe if you use it in this way instead of abusing of it for cheap morality drama.

File: 1412293670047.gif (2MB, 250x158px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x158px

>>50269660
This is the correct answer.

>>50255891

Important to the games actually being fun.

>>50255891
I don't care for them. I don't use them in my games, and I could not care less about sticking labels "good" and "evil" on things I do or don't like.

File: HWxMYV3o2MFvvAq0ILm_o-Okh1VOhdD2nzyzNTzpG_o.jpg (103KB, 507x768px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 507x768px

Some of the spook memes are comedy gold.

File: loli-stirner.jpg (43KB, 613x771px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 613x771px

>>50270009
That they are.

File: 1466858218978.png (34KB, 852x674px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 852x674px

>Tg is currently posting better political memes then /pol/ will ever produce.

>>50264351
>>50268269
My people.

>>50268498
Easy, the Holocaust. Hitler thought he was doing what was right for Germany. In fact, it was pretty good for Germans who weren't disabled, gay, or non-"Aryan." Thought he was just removing social parasites.

In our global economy, I'm really convinced that the greatest source of evil in the world is ignorance, not selfishness or cruelty. I don't assume people are innately good (I think people are pretty much garbage in general), but most people conform to the strictures of society most of the time. Basically we want to be liked, so we do what we're supposed to socially.

File: 1478147037676.png (91KB, 500x424px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 500x424px

>>50270195
>implying I'm not a /pol/ack as well
>implying anything will ever top literally memeing Trump into office

File: 1471524624434.png (191KB, 853x543px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 853x543px

>>50270251

File: love-is-capitalism-stirner-senpai-ayn-rand-love-is-a-3659409.png (249KB, 500x491px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 500x491px

>>50270191

File: 1477956792163.jpg (66KB, 669x669px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 669x669px

>>50270287

File: 1476562243511.jpg (258KB, 1200x1123px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1200x1123px

>>50270195
sup

File: Chaotic Evil.png (2MB, 538x2377px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 538x2377px

>>50270376
Best setting guide I've seen on here in a while.

File: self-pride.jpg (77KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 960x720px

>>50270195
That's because they're primarily philosophical and secondarily political.

ALTERA FORA NON IAM NECESSE EST

File: laughing_pc_demon.jpg (34KB, 533x354px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 533x354px

>>50270595
A+

>>50270595
Which episode/season, if you know?

File: PoliticalCompass1.jpg (131KB, 639x601px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 639x601px

Daily reminder this is the best chart.

File: 1422112335326.jpg (344KB, 1425x597px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 1425x597px

>>50270691
Literally the first result for "Kitchen Nightmares seafood ravioli"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GGQLXJ-oLs

Your google-fu is weak sauce.

File: ToughAngloShit.jpg (123KB, 950x593px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 950x593px

>>50270751
Thanks senpai

File: 1477736505071.jpg (506KB, 2403x1074px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 2403x1074px

>>50270751
thats a shit image man, can barely read it

>>50260269
As far as I've understood humanity has always been proud of acting different enough from animals to be considered above them.

The reason why being selfish is evil is because you are working against everything that humanity and a lawful civilization stands for, there is a reason animals of lower intelligence haven't been able to build what we have, and that is because they are stupid enough to only think about survival.

That kind of line of thought is what breeds criminals who lie, steal and murder for their own personal benefit and more importantly, to the detriment of others, and pretty much always the benefit the single person acting out gains is far outweighed by the damage it causes on the society around said person as a whole.

If you are not disgusted by the fact that you would choose to benefit off of other people's suffering, or worse yet you decide to go through with it anyway, then there is something seriously wrong with your ability to relate to others and you are, in my personal opinion, sufficiently mentally lacking to be classified as an animal, rather than a person.

Laws and organized religion are there to encourage and educate you about the kind of positive behavior that shoud make you think about how your actions are affecting your neighbors, in other words looking farther than your own nose.

While it makes little difference to you in the small niche you've etched out within this society, it affects society as a whole. And people have already long since realized that it is only by working together that we've been able to achieve the kind of lives we have for ourselves now, rather than living in caves and beating each other with sticks because someone decided to try and steal the rack of lamb he knew the other person was hiding in their cave.

It is precisely because of that reason that we have people to enforce the law, to throw people into correctional facilities to teach them why what they did was not only stupid but wrong.

>>50270827
>English Fashion: French
>English Ruler: Changing every day
KEK

File: Lawful Good Rogue.jpg (68KB, 450x631px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 450x631px

>>50270827
>>50270751
Yeah, but I think the translations in mine are more accurate.

Spaniard: Dies: in bed
vs
Spaniard: Dies: in a boat

>>50270827
t. Spaniard

File: i cant stop.jpg (79KB, 345x343px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 345x343px

>>50259764
>his name is literally just a 19th century German version of the name "Max Headroom"
>because he had a big forehead

File: $600 ain't shit.jpg (2MB, 2985x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2985x3000px

>>50270899
>that image

File: 1300044776986.jpg (16KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 250x250px

>>50270827
>spaniards are amazing in every way
>everyone else are stinking retards

shiggydig

File: giphy.gif (2MB, 276x199px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 276x199px

>>50270899
Ha!

File: 205411-neverwinter-nights-shadows-of-undrentide-windows-screenshot.jpg (111KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 800x600px

>>50255891
So.

Neverwinter nights was a game, based on D&D. It had a morality axis that was from 100 to 0, good to evil, and 100 to 0 Law to Chaos.

Most actions and response in the game were tagged one of five things, Good Evil Law Chaos and neutral. And awarded or subtracted points from your Alignment scale based on severity. (In the case of Neutral is was a few rare choices where you specifically attempted to balance the scales, which moved you closer to 50 on either scale).

>Theory land
Lets presume that we could program every action possible in real life into said game. As complex or as nuanced as you.
Take your character. This character may be simple or complex. Whatever you like.
Have an adventure with your character.
Have your complex morality character, do good, do bad, do what feels right for your character.
For each and every action we'll have 1000 neutral parties examine each action and have them determine if that specific action was one of the five alignments.
Said parties will agree on severity of said action. -10 to +10
Total up your points.

Congratulations. That is your alignment.

>>50271072
Still evil. Acting out of self-interest to not get catch when he saw the camera.

My alignment is deontological altruistic.

File: 55590624.jpg (71KB, 340x247px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 340x247px

Is mayonnaise a spook?

>>50270899
It doesn't matter how good the translations are if only ants can read them.

>>50271398
No, it is my property.

>>50260336
>the free market is bad
>and communism is too

This doesn't make any sense. Aside from free economies and planned economies, the only option is anarchism and primitivism. That is pretty much retardation.

>>50271467
>there is only the free market
>or planned economies
>or primitive economies
Anon, have you never heard of hybrid or modified economies?

Protip: There isn't an economy today that is purely free.

>>50256058
>free willy and jaws
Lost it

>>50271539
Of course not. But the implication here is that generally free markets are bad, such as in America-even though it is a mixed economy.

>>50271628
Free markets are bad, thankfully America isn't a free market.

And it's not in general; the free market is inherently just as bad as communism.

>>50263441
Anyone who says that ignoring the rules, following the rules, or even alternating between doing those things according to one's self interest is what one OUGHT to do is spooked.

The keyword is OUGHT.

>>50260087

You don't have to be evil to be selfish, but other alignments that are selfish are selfish with moderation and reason.

A Neutral character wants gold, he might want that gold, he may even want all the gold. He might fight you for it, he might steal it, but it's solely in pursuit of the wealth.

Only an evil character goes a step further and says "I want your gold, and I don't care what I have to do to you to get it."

The Neutral Thief slips into your bedroom and takes your coin pouch, ready to jump for the window in case you waken. He doesn't specially value your life and will fight you if he has to, but he doesn't want to kill you.

The Evil Thief slits your throat because dead men don't wake up. Your life is irrelevant, even forfeit for the gold in your belt.

File: 1476218991288.jpg (60KB, 820x357px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 820x357px

Stirnerists are just ancaps in denial. The wording and rationale are different, but the execution of the ideas and the results are exactly the same.

>>50264689
>>50264814
Infra-id?

>>50255931
Selfishness was never equivalent to evil, it's equivalent to neutral. Malice is equivalent to evil

>>50273528
Not according to the players handbook in more than one edition.

How do alignment changing items work or are they too case by case to do? Case a party member, while in a room talking with his wizard teacher, just fucking opened up the Book of Vile Darkness after the DM specifically stated that the book was some special shit with negative energy oozing out of it.

>>50265825
it doesn't mean you can't operate on and be motivated by the promise of reward. I didn't mean to imply the party would have to pay the person directly but they might refuse a quest if they didn't expect good loot. It's often player greed bleeding over into a character but it can work as a genuine character trait.

and yes, I was under the impression you were saying a lawful character must follow the law of the land and it's rulers.

Imagine a lawful good paladin in ravenloft, not exactly going to be the upstanding citizen he would be elsewhere, legally speaking.

>>50255891
My thoughts are that Stirner was a bad philosopher whose credibility has been further ruined by bad memes. The only thing he ever did right was make Karl Marx, another bad philosopher, really fucking angry that one time.

>Remember, do not let anything that has no material presence influence your life, said the philosopher.

>>50274195
>The only thing he ever did right was make Karl Marx, another bad philosopher, really fucking angry that one time.
When did that happen?

File: sp00ks.jpg (12KB, 243x208px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 243x208px

>>50260336
spot the paladin

>>50270191
>I thought you were a girl Stirner-kun!
>Gender is a spook senpai

File: BKSpV-KCEAA7BRe.jpg (45KB, 500x360px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x360px

>>50274263
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner#Marx_and_Engels

Stirner was a fantastic shitposter.

>>50263793
Are you implying that housewives fuck dogs?

File: 1474071525545.gif (327KB, 515x355px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 515x355px

>>50267486
Because smoking cock only makes you gay.

File: sp00ked.png (8KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x225px

>>50274494
Bestiality is just a spook

>>50255891
Alignment is worse than useless; it actively impedes roleplaying.

At best it confines your character into behaving "according to expectation" by assigning you an arbitrary alignment with regards to some absurd cosmic balance malarkey which somehow also influences your basic personality traits, which is more dumb, contrived and weird than many people who are just used to the idea of "alignment" seem to appreciate.

One of the dumbest things about alignment is that characters with contrasting characteristics tend to be lumped together in the bland "neutral" bracket, or else have their counter-aligned traits flimsily justified to shoehorn them into the "right" alignment to fit with the party to avoid asinine conflict because "the Paladin cast detect evil and the Tiefling rogue pinged".

>>50274467
>The number of pages Marx and Engels devote to attacking Stirner in (the unexpurgated text of) The German Ideology, in which they derided him as "Sankt Max" (Saint Max), exceeds the total of Stirner's written works.

>literally making some kraut so mad that he spergs out over more pages than you've ever shitposted

I like this guy already, he'd fit right in here.

>>50269103
Okay. That's a decent opinion.

>>50269414
In 5e, the same character can qualify for the following alignments simultaneously:

Lawful Good (good as defined by society)
Chaotic Good (good as defined by your conscience)
Lawful Neutral (follow a personal code)
Chaotic Neutral (follow your whims)
Lawful Evil (take what you can within the limits of your personal code)

So if your whims and code were what is good as defined by society and you take what you want so long as its legal and by your code, you could pick any of the above and be indistinguishable.

File: 1259785616329.jpg (44KB, 500x327px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x327px

It's retarded, and every 100+ post thread that's been had about it only makes my point stronger. Considering that there have probably been literally thousands on all the boards of the internet, my point must be bullet-proof by now.

>>50274609
You know, Marx was kind of a sperg. He would write entire books to refute some third rate philosopher's pamphlet.
If 4chan existed he would be the one writing multi post responses to every single troll.

File: Zizek.jpg (65KB, 620x412px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 620x412px

There are a LOT of unexamined ideologies ITT.

>>50255891
the "everything is a spook" thing is just a stupid meme, Stirner defines spooks as anything that's supposed to be put above one's own desires, like God, the Law or morality
he would definitely be chaotic neutral

>>50276049
Sounds like something a spook would say.

>>50260576
It's not unnatural though.

You're a dumb cunt so I'm not going to put any effort into this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology)

>>50260602
If we are nothing more than animals then I have nothing to live for.

Neither do you.

>>50260602
>Every living thing, thinking or no, wants to live and preserve it's own well being.
There are several cases where one's well being is forfeited in favor of reproduction/the well being of offspring. The end game of evolution is the endless perpetuation of life itself. The fate of individual organisms is negligible.
>>50276337
I don't follow that logic. Animals clearly have something to live for, what makes those drives insufficient for humans?

File: alignment.png (49KB, 701x701px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 701x701px

>>50262949

>>50255891
The same fate way I feel about a lot of concepts in RPGs, it's not necessarily a bad idea on General principle, but it's awful as hell D&D does it.

>>50276313
tl;dr altruism evolved only because it benefits the altruist
there is no such thing as true selflessness in nature, because it would be evolutionally impossible, and thus there is also no egoism to counter it
these are just ways in which our minds percieve certain human actions, and they are not applicable to nature

>>50276963
The octopus mother starves to protect/feed her young

>>50277096
that's because of her instincts, she has no real choice in the matter
this of course happens because it increases the survival rate of her young, thus making it more probable that her genes will be passed on than if she prioritised herself
it's largely the same with elderly women btw, although not to such an extent. that's why your grandma always wanted you to eat your greens

>>50255891
I wonder if children of tomorrow will remember the current philosophical and political mainstream just like we remember Rand and Stirner - nonsensical, unintentional comedy gold and completely inapplicable to real life.

File: party-pooper.jpg (41KB, 500x497px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x497px

>>50277328
I don't think Rand and Stirner were considered applicable to real life in their time, either. A philosophy major friend of mine likes to joke that Stirner never showed up at the big philosophical talks not because he didn't want to, but because nobody wanted to invite him.

>>50277391
Well, you can say the same about today's various movements, and yet they still somehow gain traction (most likely due to the existence of Internet) - just look at our favorite boogeymen like tumblr and reddit.

>>50277415
You can't really say the same about those modern movements, because they're fringe in the same way that Stirner and Rand were. Trump got into office for reasons other than /pol/'s meme magic, you know. He appealed to Republicans who were sick of political correctness, and he repealed to the conservative working class that felt neglected (being excluded from the American right for class reasons and excluded from the American left for ideological reasons).

I think a good modern analogue would be second-wave (not third) radical feminism. Their ideas are largely discredited, including by feminists, and they're kind of a joke at this point (see also dead baby jokes), but they undeniably had their influence. The idea of rape culture was first put forth by second-wave radical feminism, and feminism obviously hasn't discredited that at all.

Stirner's the same way. His philosophy itself is discredited, but his influence can be found in a lot of places -- of course, those influenced by him vehemently deny that they're influenced by him, but the influence is there.

>>50277645
*appealed, not repealed

D&D 4 alignment was stupid. Where are the LEs? Where are the CN and CGs?

>>50278508
You realize you didn't actually support your argument, there? Like, it's a popular opinion so maybe you don't have to, but then why even post?

>>50277328
>>50277391
while I agree that Rand is comedy gold, Stirner is quite underrated and misunderstood
he isn't actually for kicking puppies and being a douchebag, he just deconstructed morality and proposed some ideas for a utopia while unwittingly inspiring anarchism (remember this is before the big failures of communist and nazi utopias)
contrary to Rand he wasn't politically motivated and didn't base his philosophy on baseless assumptions
tl;dr he's a victim of the memes

>>50277645
It is perhaps worth noting that Hillary also failed to energize her own base. Voter turnout was at a 20-year-low this election, and a large part of why Trump got elected has less to do with a great outpouring of Trump support and more to do with Hillary voters staying home for one reason or another.

Indeed Trump actually lost ground in some traditional Republican strongholds. He won Texas only by 815,000 votes, for example, which is less than Romney in 2012 (1.2 million) or McCain in 2008 (950,000), and overall go the lowest Republican percentage (52.4%) of the Texas vote since 1996 (Bob Dole, 48.8%).

>>50278508
I played 4e for about a year before learning that they had changed the alignment system. I was chaotic good! I had been chaotic good the whole time; it said so on my character sheet!

Rule zero really is the most important rule.

>>50255891
It's a good tool for the DM to remind their players that maybe paladins don't mug old ladies to pay for their potion habits.

File: 1398218876498.png (165KB, 298x400px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 298x400px

>>50278636
>and proposed some ideas for a utopia

>>50279511
Proposing ideas isn't the same as saying those ideas are good. Just look at the granddaddy of all of them - Thomas More.

>>50277168
>that's because of her instincts, she has no real choice in the matter
So the altruistic behavior is literally built into her
>this of course happens because it increases the survival rate of her young, thus making it more probable that her genes will be passed on than if she prioritised herself
So evolution demands an organism care for things that are not itself

File: 1447503644857.jpg (143KB, 799x1000px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 799x1000px

>>50255891
It's not terrible as a quick way of getting a creature / NPC's morality across to the GM, it's just horrible when the GM thinks that alignment -restricts- how a creature acts. It's a guideline, not a prison.

In my campaign it's not about morality, it's about choice. Humans have free will and are responsible for their decisions and actions. Monstrous creatures do not have true free will and are beholden to their inherent natures. Humans define themselves with passions, drives, and ideals that they follow. Monsters are defined by their cravings, compulsions, and phobias. Humans who willingly accept the taint of monstrous, unnatural powers lose these drives and gain the compulsions of the creatures they emulate. At the same time those powers make them far stronger and more capable than other men, though the price is great.

Yes, it's a giant metaphor for drug abuse and addiction, but it doesn't make it any less effective.

Magic is also inherently addictive and corrupting but none of the players have figured this out yet, since 3/4 of them are not spellcasters.

Didn't Planescape do alignment well?

>>50281318
alignment cannot be done well

>>50255891
My group does not play any system that uses DnD style alignment. We all agreed that innate cosmic alignment is something we do not want in our games.

>>50256253
No. This is an extremely common misconception about the philosopher.

Spook is not just a catchall for an abstraction or mental construct. It refers to ideas you attempt to place ahead of your own interest (self interest in the context of Stirner bears more in common with Sartre's Radical Freedom than it does anything out of Rand, I should note). You're still free to value all of these things, you just do it from a standpoint of genuine interest, understanding that these values stem from you first and foremost.

>>50278636
This: Stirner is an excellent philosopher that 4chan has a really stupid opinion of due to memery (it doesn't help that he writes like a Hegelian, while being largely anti-Hegelian, so not even people interested in Hegel will typically go to the effort of reading his book).

I think the addition of good and evil was a stupid one, and making alignment a measure of personal morality first and cosmological alignment second even stupider.

Also fuck Paladins. Three Hearts and Three Lions wasn't that good, and the class can basically be summed up as "he's good, really really good" which is a boring premise for a class (anyone can be a good guy, so just do that instead you goddamn weirdos).

>>50282442
>the class can basically be summed up as "he's good, really really good" which is a boring premise for a class
Anon, I think you need to read up on what paladins were on their inception, and why they are the way they are from Gygax himself.
Paladins were Hard Mode in D&D, even when you rolled high enough to play one, the power they had countered by an immensely difficult setting responsibility that other pcs were not bound to.
They are a large example of Gygax's method of using the setting, rather than just the mechanics, to bring balance to the game.

>>50282546
>Anon, I think you need to read up on what paladins were on their inception, and why they are the way they are from Gygax himself.

They're basically the protagonist of Three Hearts and Three Lions turned into a class with the world-hopping bit stripped out.

>Paladins were Hard Mode in D&D, even when you rolled high enough to play one, the power they had countered by an immensely difficult setting responsibility that other pcs were not bound to.

I sincerely do not give a shit. You want to play a guy bound with a code of honor? Do that then. This is part of why I play retroclones that don't include that sort of stupid chaff.

>They are a large example of Gygax's method of using the setting, rather than just the mechanics, to bring balance to the game.

Gygax wasn't actually that good of a designer, he's been behind some serious flops and there's a reason that the game started to become an unwieldy mess right around the time he had total control of its design.

>>50279565
>So evolution demands an organism care for things that are not itself
Different anon here. Yes, caring for things that aren't the self is not proof of altruism. Evolution in many species has favored herd-protection instincts, which is the root of our construct of altruism. It's especially apparent in certain species of monkeys who, for example, will howl loudly at the sight of a predator. This is to warn other members of the same genetic grouping that a predator is near, which also directly puts that individual in harms way, since a tiger will just rush it and chow down.

However, many more members of the individuals tribe is saved at their sacrifice, so success for the tribe is success for the individual. The genetics still propagate. Same for octopi feeding themselves to young'uns, and bird's and fish with herd movements that allow predators to pick off only those who cant stay close to the flock/school. So yeah, even humans putting themselves in harms way for the survival of other humans, while selfless and respectable, is still a herd instinct. 'Altruism' is just a word to represent the aspiration towards or feeling good about pursuing such a mode of behavior.

It's still a good goal to pursue, at least that's what my moral compass and instincts tell me, but set emotions aside and recognise the behavior for what it is.

>>50282603
>I sincerely do not give a shit. You want to play a guy bound with a code of honor? Do that then. This is part of why I play retroclones that don't include that sort of stupid chaff.
>admitting freely to complaining about something you know nothing about
Did you start with 3e, anon?
I'll explain to you the short version.
In 2e and earlier, the point of adventuring was to survive>get paid>spend payment.
That was it. It wasn't about saving the world, and mechanically, the game reflected that, with Thiefs getting bonus xp for how much loot they socked away. You didn't gain xp for killing creatures, only for surmounting challenges and getting away with it.
As the focus was on survival, being a "good" character, or one with "a code of honor" merely got you killed, or you abandoned it because such things drastically decreased your odds of living in a game where running or sneaking by enemies was usually the preferred method of engagement.
The paladin came about as a class that had the raw power to actually confront enemies in combat and win, but this strength was hemmed in, as a balancing tactic, by obligating them to do so, to actively aid others in danger, alone if need be, in a game that very much dissuaded foolish heroics.
Paladins were THE heroes in a game that was not about heroes, had the edge over other classes to reflect it, and had added responsibilities and demands to represent that power does indeed have a price.
Most paladins I've seen in 2e died, often alone, outnumbered, and abandoned by their group who were pointedly not heroes, not good guys, or simply didn't want to follow the paladin against unassailable odds that the paladin MUST confront.
You are screaming about alignment, yet admit to being ignorant of the purpose it served, especially to something like the paladin.

>>50282852
Woah, D&D was full of edgelords back in the day.

>>50282852
I didn't say I knew nothing about it. I've read countless justifications for old school mechanics. I just don't share this bizarre consideration that Gygax was some sort of divinely inspired genius of game design. He was an OK designer who got lucky with a system that scored some free publicity due to an idiotic moral panic.

>Did you start with 3e, anon?

What of it? I play OSR these days.

>As the focus was on survival, being a "good" character, or one with "a code of honor" merely got you killed, or you abandoned it because such things drastically decreased your odds of living in a game where running or sneaking by enemies was usually the preferred method of engagement.

I thought you said this was supposed to be hard mode?

>The paladin came about as a class that had the raw power to actually confront enemies in combat and win, but this strength was hemmed in, as a balancing tactic, by obligating them to do so, to actively aid others in danger, alone if need be, in a game that very much dissuaded foolish heroics.

The Paladin wasn't a substantially better fighter than the fighter, and a substantially worse spell caster than the cleric.

>Paladins were THE heroes in a game that was not about heroes, had the edge over other classes to reflect it, and had added responsibilities and demands to represent that power does indeed have a price.

See my original assessment. Their whole shtick is being good, like really really good. Which is a stupid shtick, since personal moral stance isn't a sound basis for a class. Want to be a divinely endowed warrior? Play a fucking cleric.

>You are screaming about alignment, yet admit to being ignorant of the purpose it served, especially to something like the paladin.

I'm pretty mellow about this whole affair. You're the one asshurt about the fact I don't like your favourite class. Not caring about the reasoning behind something is not the same as not understanding the reasoning behind it.

>>50282852
>You didn't gain xp for killing creatures, only for surmounting challenges and getting away with it.

You absolutely did. There's a reason every monster has an XP total under its description.

>>50282975
>I just don't share this bizarre consideration that Gygax was some sort of divinely inspired genius of game design.
Amazing, considering no one save yourself has brought up anything of the sort
>The Paladin wasn't a substantially better fighter than the fighter, and a substantially worse spell caster than the cleric.
In a game with extremely rigid skill sets, you, who say plays OSR games, do not understand how being able to transcend that grants power?
>Their whole shtick is being good, like really really good
This is why I said you are harping on about alignment. Their schtick is being a hero, and having obligations within the setting that other pcs are not bound by, be they some variety of good or not, commensurate with the additional power they possess.
>Want to be a divinely endowed warrior? Play a fucking cleric
This is not 3e, anon, a cleric will NEVER outfight an equivalent Fighter.
>I'm pretty mellow about this whole affair
Evidence points otherwise, as you are proving your skill in 4chan style debates, replacing wit and knowledge with acerbic, caustic replies and absurdist sarcasm.
There is no point to talking to you, so I bid you g'day.

>>50283178
>Amazing, considering no one save yourself has brought up anything of the sort

Not in those terms, but there's a conceit amongst the old school crowd that just explaining the reasoning behind a choice of Gygax automatically makes that choice a good one. I think Paladins were a poor inclusion in the system, regardless of his reasoning.

>In a game with extremely rigid skill sets, you, who say plays OSR games, do not understand how being able to transcend that grants power?

Not all that much. The spellcasting is at best a minor bonus, and they trade it for slower advancement than a fighter; meaning they'll be effectively a worse fighter at equal experience.

>This is why I said you are harping on about alignment. Their schtick is being a hero, and having obligations within the setting that other pcs are not bound by, be they some variety of good or not, commensurate with the additional power they possess.

I was referring to good in a colloquial sense. Not strictly in an alignment sense. Being a particularly violent Ned Flanders is a stupid basis for a class.

>This is not 3e, anon, a cleric will NEVER outfight an equivalent Fighter.

Never said they would. But they'll be able to fight just fine and pull some nasty tricks of their own.

>Evidence points otherwise, as you are proving your skill in 4chan style debates, replacing wit and knowledge with acerbic, caustic replies and absurdist sarcasm.

Actually I'm just an asshole and I don't particularly like you at this point, as you seem to hold that your views are the only views I should hold. But I'll point out that you were the first one to resort to personal attacks.

>There is no point to talking to you, so I bid you g'day.

I hope you stew on it for a while, and if you're truly gone, remember that I got the last word in. If you're not truly gone, I want you to pay consideration to the fact you went back on your word.

File: stirner.gif (5KB, 200x175px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x175px

You properties better stop arguing about spooky paladins.

And I used to think Nietzsche was the chaotic evil of modern western philosophy.

>>50284592
The concept of an ubermensh is an ultimate spook.

>>50255891
Absolutes are horseshit.

>>50284981
>horseshit
>not spooks

This was a surprisingly decent thread with good discussion, given the subject matter. Thanks /tg/,