Alignment Examples

>Neutral Good: "Need a hand? I need a ride into town."

That's Neutral, not Good.
Ain't even going to finish reading the rest.

>>51637968
>le "every lawful good character talks like a robot" epic meme

Way to fuck up on the very start.

>>51637968

None of these are on the mark except maybe Lawful Good.

>"Need a hand? I need a ride into town."

As >>51638016 pointed out that's more Neutral than anything else.

>Toss the cargo into the river. It'll get to where it needs.

That's just outright dickishness and is something I'd expect a Chaotic Evil character to do. Not a Good one.

Your examples for LE and NE are also totally interchangeable.

>>51638016
If you continued reading to Neutral you'll see that you're wrong.

>>51638034
Citizen, I request that you cease your shit posting.

>>51638059

NG is commiting a good... for a price.

CG is "attempting" a good.

LE stares you in the eyes. NE though gets in and gets out.

I've always thought that alignment has more to do with the ethical framework the individual works on. So, a lawful good character tends to deontology/Kantian maxims, the neutral good character follows virtue ethics. The character who tends chaotic good tends towards a utilitarianism. Chaotic neutral is probably something like crude hedonism, the neutral character is going to be.. I dunno, Hume's passions? Lawful neutral is something like DCT.
Probably throw some Nietzschean will to power for lawful evil, and I forget what I had for neutral evil and chaotic evil.
In the end, the good characters are going to give fairly similar responses, but for different reasons. Not sure about the rest.

File: download.jpg (9KB, 253x199px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 253x199px

>>51638122

I know there's a lot of wiggle room in how we interpret alignments but this is all way off.

Neutral Good characters don't have to be bought. Pure mercenary motivations are pretty much in the realm of Neutral. An NG just someone who can take or leave institutionalized Good. CG is someone who is overall a Good character, they're just more brash about it.

>LE stares you in the eyes. NE though gets in and gets out.

What did he mean by this?

>NINE (9) alignments
c >>51633849

>>51638158

Using the scenario, how do you think each would react?

>>51638177

Mercenaries would be amoral. Anything for a price. NG will go out of their way to do good.. if they can get something out of it. But nothing else.

I think CG was described like that. Merchants can travel quicker if unburdened.

LE is conniving. Befriends you then stabs you in the back. NE is practical. They wait in the shadows to stab you.

File: tommy-lee-jones.gif (62KB, 387x291px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 387x291px

>>51638194

>games don't perfectly match reality

And?

>>51638294
Not even trying to match reality. Alignment was a Moorcock reference.
Law and Chaos were both meant to be alien, cosmic forces.
Most players were assumed to be Neutral (unaligned).

>>51638213

Lawful Good: Can I will that everyone help people in need when it isn't entirely inconvenient? Yes. So I'll help them.

Neutral Good: It's the virtuous thing to help people, so I'll help them.

Chaotic Good: There are a whole lot of people in this trade caravan, and it would help to bring happiness to a whole lot of people if I helped them. I'll help them.

Lawful Neutral: The law says we should lend a hand to friends of the empire, and these are friends of the empire, so I will help them.

True Neutral: (I realized Humean passions fit CN better, so I don't have anything for this.) Eh, I'll help them.

Chaotic Neutral: I really don't have a strong passion to help them, but then again, there seems to be this quiet passion to do good things, so I guess I will.

Lawful Evil: I can leverage this situation to my advantage, I will help them.

Neutral Evil: I might be benefited by helping the caravan, so I'll help them. (Egoism)

Chaotic Evil: It'll bring me loads of pleasure if I bang some of the caravan girls, so sure, I'll help them. (Crude Hedonism)

File: 1485278927619.jpg (9KB, 206x206px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 206x206px

>>51638364

>unique and rich psyches that no one but the player will know about
>exact same outcomes for everyone else playing

File: 1485732585840.jpg (24KB, 401x372px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 401x372px

>>51638281

>NG will go out of their way to do good.. if they can get something out of it

Again, not really a Good character. The general understanding of Good is these characters have a certain degree of selflessness. Taking a reward or prize for doing good is totally in character, but refusing to help someone unless they reward you is Neutral. Not Good.

>Merchants can travel quicker if unburdened.

Again, this is not Good. It's literal-minded dickishness. A character can *say* they're CG, and probably believe it too. But hurling someone's shit in the river because "now you'll go faster" is not helping them or making their lives easier unless the monsters are literally right behind them and they have to high tail it.

>>51638075
Pretty low opinion on chaotic huh OP?

>>51637968
Normal Human Being Tier:
LG, NG, N

Douchebag Tier:
CG, LN, CN, LE, NE

Edgelord Tier:
CE

>>51638364
Close anon. NE is the selfish and egocentric alignment, but it's more "if they pay me or it's not going out of my way" the NE character likely has a cutoff point for how suggested a reward is before doing something for a stranger

>>51638281
>NG will go out of their way to do good.. if they can get something out of it. But nothing else.

That's True Neutral, not Good.

Neutral Good will do the right thing even at personal cost, because it is the Right Thing to do.

File: Citizen.jpg (62KB, 370x278px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 370x278px

>>51638034
Citizen

File: 1486609911480.png (40KB, 488x478px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 488x478px

>>51638605

>>51638781
I remember that thread

>>51638781
That image is pretty redundant.

The people that aren't good aren't good people.

>>51638849
True Neutral people are still little-G good. Mostly.

Outliers and OCD Druids notwithstanding.

LG: Can I help you?
NG: Do you need help?
CG: If I help you, you'll never learn.
LN: There is help available.
TN: I can help if you help me.
CN: Can I HELP you?!
LE: Sign here and I'll help you.
NE: Give me your wallet.
CG: NIGGERS

File: help.gif (501KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 300x200px

>>51637968
I would really like to hear more situations like this, I'm new to /tg/ and I have a poor grasp on the alignment system.

I started my first campaign with some friends. 5e, going as Life Cleric. I'm not quite Lawful Good, but something close to it. Could someone contrast NG and LN for me?

>>51639000
That's obviously meant to be CE at the end.

>>51639003
Neutral Good: holds Goodness above all, basically a saint
Lawful Neutral: holds Order above all, hopeless bureaucrat who may or may not have fantasies of being Judge Dredd

>>51639000
>CG: If he hassles you again, contact me
FTFY.

>>51639051
Saints in practice are more Chaotic Good, though.

>>51639070
I was thinking along the lines of a passerby has a problem, unrelated to any third party.

>>51639000

>CG: If I help you, you'll never learn.

That kind of Social Darwinist cynicism is more in line with Lawful Evil than anything else.

>>51639167
I was thinking that, but LE has nothing to gain from such an attitude and in my mind evil alignments are about personal gain.

>>51637968
>Neutral Good won't help unless there's something in it for them
>Chaotic Good will throw a stranger's shit into the river and aside from that act just like TN
>Lawful Neutral expects a broken down vehicle to move
>True Neutral definitely won't help even if it's not an inconvenience
>Chaotic Neutral will definitely throw a stranger in the river for no reason

The two-axis alignment system has its flaws but you don't even understand it.

First, LG, NG, and CG all would probably actively help the person. Second, LN, TN, and CN all MIGHT actively help the person, if it's not too big of an inconvenience or they personally have a soft spot for trade caravans or something. Third, being chaotic doesn't mean you have to fuck strangers over for the hell of it.

>>51639199

>in my mind evil alignments are about personal gain.

Yes and no. There are other alignments which are interested in personal gain, like CN. Whether or not you want something is not really what makes you a good or bad person. It's your overall dickishness. I've also generally interpreted the LE mindset as someone who can be interested in helping certain groups of people (which of course includes himself) at the extreme expense of innocents.

>LE has nothing to gain from such an attitude

He gets to be right. He gets to not waste his time on someone who's weak. Remember evil doesn't always have clear cut logic behind it. Sometimes it's just about pettiness.

File: 1467175291267.jpg (229KB, 700x695px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 700x695px

>>51638364
That's a 5 star post

>>51638364
I think Stirner's egoism is CN. It's an absolute rejection of law and duty to things outside oneself. Which means it rejects the idea that one OUGHT be kind, but likewise, it rejects the idea that one ought NOT be kind. In fact, it rejects the idea of "ought" entirely and says that such talk is all an effort to manipulate people and has no underlying truth to it.

It doesn't say that caring about others is wrong or even a mistake; it just points out that if you do so because someone else says you should, you are, in some sense, being subjugated.

It's the ultimate in CN philosophies.

>>51639051
No, Chaotic Good holds goodness above all else and refuses to allow its benevolent actions to be restricted by any law or regulation. Any manner of restriction just limits the maximum amount of goodness and facilitates evil.
Neutral Good places great value on goodness but at the same time believes that disruption of the established order can hinder goodness and that law should only be disregarded when they facilitate evil.
Lawful Good believes that regulations are required in order to promote and support goodness. Without law, there is no system to promote benevolence. To go against the existing order is to hinder goodness and facilitates evil.

There's exceptions to this but this is generally the rule of thumb.

>>51639318
>conflating mortal little-L law with capital-o Order

Opinion discarded.

>>51639356
The former tends to bolster the latter. So yes, lawful characters tend to be more respectful of systems and laws than neutral characters and opposed to chaotic characters, that tend to be against any form of restriction or bondage.

That's usually the source of conflict between lawful and chaotic characters. I'm not saying this is set-in-stone truth, just that this is usually the case. It's rare that you'll find situations where a chaotic character is mad at a lawful one for breaking rules, but it can happen.

>>51639199
Going by what the PHB (for 5e) says Chaotic is more the selfish alignment as it's driven by its whims whereas evil does 'what it can get away with, without compassion or qualms."

If you want a reasonably good description of Chaotic Good, all of Cyrano's dying speech at the end of the play is basically that.

If your behavior is barely distinguishable from that of an opera villain, you're evil, neutral at best.

>>51637968
Lawful Good: I approach the broken down trade caravan and inquire as to what happened. If they were attacked, I will make a note of that and make it a point to alert the local militia to the problem. I'll be on the lookout for contraband, and if I find any I will confront the caravan owner, threatening to turn him over to the authorities if he doesn't rid of them. I will then offer to help fix their cart, and will refuse any reward - though I appreciate the gesture. The caravan owner will probably get an earful from me about being more careful and prepared next time, but I'll also share my knowledge on how to spot ambushes or cart repair to make sure he knows how to take care of himself the next time.

Neutral Good: I approach the broken down trade caravan and inquire as to what happened. If they were attacked; I will try to handle the bandits myself unless the task is too dangerous, then I will opt to alert the local militia. If I happen to find any contraband I will confront the caravan owner, and tell him that while it's none of my business what he does, he will find himself in a great deal of trouble when he gets to the city and should just rid himself of the stuff. I'll offer to help fix their cart, and will refuse any reward - though I appreciate the gesture.

Chaotic Good: I approach the broken down trade caravan and ask what happened. If they were attacked, I will see about solving the matter myself, the local militia can't be trusted to handle the issue. If I find any contraband I'll let the caravan owner know that while I don't personally care about what goods get regulated between kingdoms or if people use drugs, he might find himself in hot water with the local authorities. He's probably just down on his luck and this is the best way he knows how to make some money. I'll offer to help fix the cart, and will refuse any reward - though I appreciate the gesture.

cont.

Is there a more boring alignment than Neutral Evil?
It's just "always be selfish" without any subtlety or flavor

>>51639886

Lawful Neutral: I approach the broken down trade caravan and inquire as to what happened. If they were attacked, I will make a note of that and make it a point to alert the local militia to the problem. I'll be on the lookout for contraband, and if I find any I will confront the caravan owner, threatening to turn him over to the authorities if he doesn't rid of them. I will offer to help fix their cart, and will accept a reward.

True Neutral: If I'm not in a hurry to get somewhere, I'll offer to help fix their cart, and will accept a reward. I'll ask what happened, and be sure to tread carefully through this area if they were attacked. If I find any contraband, I'll try to avoid them.

Chaotic Neutral: I ask what happened, and if it was something that grabs my interest, I'll peruse the matter further. I'm not very interested in helping them fix their cart - but I might do it if they make it worth my while. If I find any contraband, I might confront the caravan owner and threaten to sell them out if I think I can get away with it. Unless I happen to like the caravan owner after talking with them; If that's the case I might share my secrets as to how to best avoid the local militia.

>>51640034

Lawful Evil: I approach the broken down trade caravan and inquire as to what happened. If they were attacked by something I think I can handle, I'll see about capturing them - there is probably a reward for their heads from the local militia. I'll search the cart for contraband, and if I find any I'll attack the caravan owner outright - taking their goods as treasure. If I feel like I won't be able to take on the caravan, I'll alert the local authorities if they have a reward for selling out smugglers and drug peddlers. Otherwise, I leave them to their own devices unless they make it worth my while.

Neutral Evil: I approach the broken down trade caravan, and ask what happened. If they were attacked by something, I'll be sure to watch myself around these parts from now on. I'll offer to help fix their cart as an implied gesture of good will, but after finishing I will demand payment for my services if I think I can get away with it. If I find any contraband I'll threaten the caravan unless they pay up, but I'll find out where they are going and sell them out to the local militia if I can for a reward regardless.

Chaotic Evil: I approach the broken down trade caravan and see if I can take them on. If I can, I attack the caravan and take whatever is useful. If I can't, I walk away.

>>51639769
Are you calling cyrano a villain?

>>51638364
Best post in this thread right here boy.

>>51640149
I'm saying Cyrano is the ultimate CG.

I'm saying OP's CG is basically an opera villain therefore not CG.

>>51640212
Mk. That makes more sense, sorry.

File: 1484386632833.jpg (462KB, 1162x1191px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 1162x1191px

>>51639886
>>51640034
>>51640042
Good posts, have art

File: ice_planet_2002_by_tekka_croe-d30r9n8.png.jpg (98KB, 746x1070px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 746x1070px

>>51640387
That's sweet, here's another.

Why people think that chaotic means "selfish and greedy"? Or cause random anarchy?
Chaotic is about defying things:
Person: "wow that warrior is unbeatable"
Chaotic Character: We will see about that! (regardless if the warrior fights for good or bad)

File: dude sheev lmao.png (1MB, 642x916px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 642x916px

>>51639000
>CG: NIGGERS

File: Frasier alignment chart.png (3MB, 2250x1800px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2250x1800px

Show me a more accurate alignment chart.

File: alignment fetishes.png (23KB, 488x478px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 488x478px

Am I doing it right?

>>51641209

Lawful: I challenge you to a duel!
Neutral: *Sneak attacks*
Chaotic: YOU FUCK! AAGH! *charges*

>>51642411
Roz is a good person though.

>>51642510
Never knew I was more of a chaotic type than a lawful type, but it seems like it is like that

>>51638781
So everyone except Neutral Good is an asshole?

>>51643894
A little bit

>>51638122
Chaotic Good isn't less good than Lawful Good. They just don't give a shit about rules, formalities and silly concepts of honor. And as far as helping people for a price, that's more of a neutral thing. Good helps, Neutral helps for a price (or maybe doesn't help at all, depending), Evil takes advantage.

File: alignments.jpg (74KB, 821x524px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 821x524px

>>51638969
I don't see why True Neutral is any more good than, say, Lawful Neutral.

>>51643894
Yes Lawful good asshole are the holier than thou, chaotic good asshole are the "I wanted to play Chaotic neutral but the DM didn't let me do it" and neutral asshole are the one who thinks giving money to charity compensate for killing an innocent and so make you neutral.

>>51643994
This is wrong
Would you say a partisan, or Robin Hood are dishonorable?

>>51644047
"Dishonorable" can encompass a number of different things. It's playing by the rules, which society clearly values, so it's often portrayed as being synonymous with being good. But since "good" is covered by the selfishness axis, you need to take a definition that is divorced from that. A dishonorable person, therefore, isn't bound by society standards of stand-up-edness. They're okay with breaking the rules* and fighting dirty. Robin Hood is clearly breaking the rules. He's ambushing folks and stealing from them. That's dishonorable. A gentleman of honor wouldn't do such things.

*Laws may vary radically from country to country, but codes of honor and polite behavior tend to be more consistent.

File: Arsene_Lupin_III_full_798490.jpg (194KB, 1123x794px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1123x794px

>>51644095
Nope
Pic related is considered a gentleman thief, even though he's CN or even CE by some

>>51637968
Alignment is a shit system that doesn't add anything to the game except stupid arguments.

>>51644131
I've not really watched any Lupin, but I will say that just because somebody acts with gentlemanly mannerisms, that doesn't make him a gentleman. But again, we're seeing a word that can be interpreted in multiple different ways.

File: antonio-banderas-zorro-wallpaper-3.jpg (127KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1280x1024px

>>51644149
Then what about Zorro?
He's a criminal, but he's definitely beloved and fits CG perfectly

>>51644149
>I've not really watched any Lupin
Fix that

>>51644137
This
I think the only way the system makes sense is for monsters and stock characters so the DM knows how to play them
For PCs it's useless

>>51644137
Or you can learn that it's a statistic that represents the universe's opinion of you.

>>51644181
I think the difference is motivation. Lupin's motivations are ultimately greed, though he at least doesn't harm people and in fact goes out of his way to ensure that he doesn't (hence why he's well away from "Evil", which wouldn't care if people are harmed). El Zorro, meanwhile, is a criminal because he he is trying to protect the people of Mexico from its lackluster at best to outright villainous at worst rulers. He's basically Robin Hood.

>>51644137
Agreed.

>>51644137
But without detect evil, what would people do?

You honestly believe that they would actually think for themselves for once? ;^)

>>51638849
Yo don't need to be good to nt be an asshole.
Sometimes non being a dumbass and having enough inscentive to benefit from "doing good" is enough even if you're evl as all fuck.

>>51644047
They are dishonorable because honor is bullshit to serve the mighty.

"Why won't they fight us with honor, we who are stronger than them?" That's when you show that you beat them on your own terms.

>>51644922
And they are mighty
Just because they don't have the law on their side doesn't make them dishonorable

>>51637968
Why does the paladin always assume every person they meet is a citizen? They could just be a resident.

>>51638158
Neutral would consequentialism as they would choose an outcome that would yield the best results for them.

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

273KB, 900x750px

Much better system to use

>>51644137
It serves cosmology and plot devices like "only one of pure heart may wield the sword".
I still think shit like detect evil shouldn't be available to normal adventurers.

>>51638158
Utilitarianism is lawful as fuck

>>51644047

Isn't Robin Hood's ultimate agenda the destruction of a tyrannical userper and the restoration of the rightful king?

I feel this would make him more Lawful Good than anything else. Remember "Lawful" does not mean "enforces the status quo".

>>51646138

If you were adventuring in a hell realm, you'd be the odd one out. A Paladin would be Lawful Evil then.

>>51645516

In feudalism you were either claimed by a king or killed off so no other king could claim you.

You were a citizen whether you liked it or not.

>>51642510
I don't understand Chaotic Good, otherwise spot on.

>>51644137
Alignment is a useful crutch for the people who can't roleplay.
That's its sole function.

>>51642510
What about lolidom

Scenario: the player passes by a mill. He sees the miller is beating his wife in the yard. He is cursing her and hitting her with a stick and she is weeping.

Lawful Good: My moral code tells me to defend the weak against the strong. I'll try to deescalate the situation but I won't back down if things get ugly.
Neutral Good: I feel bad for her. Men shouldn't abuse their wives. I'm putting a stop to this one way or another.
Chaotic Good: This is very upsetting. I'm going to beat that guy with my walking stick and see how he likes it.

Lawful Neutral: The natural order of things is that the husband is the master of the wife, but this is just offensive and grotesque. Maybe I should go over there and try to stop this.
True Neutral: This is sickening, but if I intervene he'll just beat her even harder when I'm gone. This is really awful though, maybe I should do something.
Chaotic Neutral 1: I feel bad for her, but it's not my problem.
Chaotic Neutral 2: This reminds me of how my father beat me and my sisters. I'm going to beat him within an inch of his life.

Lawful Evil: He's her husband and he's completely within his rights to beat her. I see no problem here.
Neutral Evil: She probably did something cunty to deserve that. Let's keep moving.
Chaotic Evil: Haha, oh man he's really kicking her ass.

>>51646138
To be sure, anon, Robin Hood is the archetypal Chaotic Good set down by the person who created the alignments you are arguing about, mostly because despite his good goal, he still flouted even just and fair laws to do so.

>>51646264
>That's its sole function.
No, it's actual function was prescriptive; it was where your pc fit in the cosmic balance.
Your character behaves in XYZ was, so his soul aligns with B power.
I honestly do not know how so many people get alignments wrong when every single book explains them in increasingly simple ways. Do that many DMs not read the DMG?

File: bentham.jpg (24KB, 300x292px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x292px

>>51646125
But a utilitarian is willing to break good laws to do good things (well, an act utilitarian at least; maybe not a rule utilitarian), where a deontologist would rarely, if ever, break a good law to do a good thing.

The CG character is not necessarily opposed to laws, but will break those laws when needed. Likewise, the (act) utilitarian is not opposed to laws, but will break them when needed.

>>51646465
I think you're too hung up on laws specifically.
I find it much easier to see a lawful good character being willing to do underhanded things for a greater good than a chaotic good one, who probably won't give a shit about a great perspective and probably just try to help whoever is in front of him.

File: b10a35507fd34f3de919020db9688cd5.jpg (24KB, 400x489px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x489px

>>51646314
PERFECT
E
R
F
E
C
T

do they give out medals for being right on the internet?

>>51646505
It's the opposite
A chaotic good guy is a freedom fighter, typically fighting against a lawful evil tyrant
A lawful good guy is just good to whoever he meets and fights the chaotic evil psycho

>>51646373
Oh how I love (not) the anal GM's who think there's one holy universal explanation to all the gaming terms across all systems and settings.

>>51637968
Scenario: Somebody dies

Lawful Good: "Who was it, and why?"

Neutral Good: "Oh no, that's so sad!"

Chaotic Good: "Was this a good thing?"

Lawful Neutral: "They have people that take care of things like this."

Neutral: "Oh, that sucks."

Chaotic Neutral: "Sure, whatever."

Lawful Evil: "Who was it, and why?"

Neutral Evil: "Was he one of ours?"

Chaotic Evil: "Big deal, people die every day."

>>51646314
And then it turns out the man is beating the wife for drowning their kid that he wanted, but she didn't, and the good guys kind of fucked up by helping the wife.

>>51646741
I hope you understand that real people are overwhelmingly Chaotic Evil by your definition.

>>51646727
Anon, you see OP picture?
That is D&D's alignment system, what has been talked about this whole thread.
I'm sorry you thought you had a clever post that is just really stupid, but shitposters like you tend to be stupid.
Pay attention to the conversation next time, and try to keep up, ok?

>>51646776
I'm pretty sure the heroes would find out one way or another about that after even a cursory interrogation of either party.

Granted this is one of those moral dilemmas that has no place in your run-of-the-mill D&D game, so trying to slap D&D alignments on it is stupid.

>>51646724
That's just one specific context, it doesn't tell much, there isn't always an evil tyrant to overthrow.

File: Rita from MyPreggo.com, just in case you were wondering.jpg (618KB, 1948x2132px) Image search: [Google]

618KB, 1948x2132px

>>51646776
You're right, people should never intervene against evil because there might be some secret, absurd, convoluted backstory that makes the evil good.

>>51646844
But my point is lawful good is the guy that tries to help an old lady cross the street, chaotic good is the guy who's trying to kill the drunk driver who killed her sister

>>51638281
These are all wrong. Try reading the book

>>51646800
Embracing this line of thought is both chaotic and evil.

It assumes there's no way to stop meaningless death, and people you don't know don't matter.

It's the ultimate selfishness.


-- Besides, you're wrong.
Most people fall into neutral or neutral evil.
"Someone else should really do something about this."

>>51638364
A+
You did your homework anon

>>51646895
People should ALWAYS find out the backstory before acting. The proverb "shoots first and asks questions later" exists for a reason.

>>51637968

The lawful axis is totally unrelated to this scenario. Read the goddamn description.

>>51646952
Can you honestly say you feel anything at all when you learn that another Chinese plane fell into the sea?

>>51646915
Chaotic good is only more likely to going after revenge because they don't trust legal systems.
They'd still help the old lady cross the street.

And the lawful good guy would try to find a lawyer to put the drunk driver in jail.

>>51647001
Chaotic good believes the best way is to kill the drunk driver, lawful good wouldn't do that

>>51645994
Dapper Fellow master race

>>51647015
Doing justice with your own hands doesn't seem very utilitarian to me.

>>51646999
I feel like it's a damn shame.
I wonder what could be done to prevent these things, but then remember I have no real power over the situation. So I say to myself: "Somebody should really do something about this."

>>51645994
If you smoke at all, you're pretty much a scruffy ruffian and that's that.

>>51647034
It is, you get rid of the problem this way

>>51647058
And then forget all about it forever as soon as the next news item comes up. It shouldn't be shameful at all to admit that you feel nothing about the death of people completely unrelated to you. It's natural and it's not bad.

>>51638158
Sounds good to me.

>neutral evil and chaotic evil.
Objectivism lel

>>51647101
More like: "Added to a blurrier and blurrier pile of why things are so messed up in this world."

I admit, it loses it's significance in the never-ending stream of bad news, but it never loses it's emotional aspect. -- I'm not exactly crying my eyes out over it, but I do recognize it as a part of a problem that deserves recognition, and remedy.

I can't force myself to not care about other people. -- Maybe I'm just.. .. Not a neutral after all.

>>51647184
But this is wrong
Lawful good should be reeducate nazis, neutral good should be what lawful says and chaotic good should be what neutral good is
The problem I keep seeing with this is that chaotic good and lawful evil end up being the exact same person, same morals, same course of action, only with different ideology so that one of them is on the side of the law and the other is the outlaw

>>51644137
I've removed it from my games and nothing of value was lost. Characters are defined by their actions, not by some words on a piece of paper.

>>51647080
Not in a way that is best for everyone, only for those directly involved.

I feel like people who shit on the alignment system just don't know how to roleplay a character with predetermined principles.
Sure, not every single PC is going to fit flush into one of the 9 but as long as you don't strictly adhere to them they're a pretty good place to start building a new character's morals, values, ethics, etc.

I'm playing what I assigned as True Neutral, but because of a backstory curse is led to seek his & his parties hapless fate.
I play that as being not outwardly and directly screwing the party nor attempting TPKs at every chance.
Instead I see it as more beneficial to help the party through any situation that doesn't seem completely hopeless to more quickly reach one that is and at that moment throw it all.
Some of my actions are more subtly evil, as ruled by the GM, such as poisoning a well so that only he has access to fresh clean water thus ensuring his necessity. The GM has warned me that I may slide into NE, but that's not a punishment as alignment is just a classification.

OOC everyone is aware of my backstory and motives, but IC everyone assumes I'm just a fucking weirdo.

What do you think /tg/? Am I playing true to the TN classification? With a tendency towards NE because of the curse.

>>51647403
In the campaign I'm playing right now I'm a drunk pirate who gives no fucks and just likes money, shooting stuff and fucking whores
Nothing is too much and he's very self-serving except for when it comes to his friends
Is this CN or CE?

>>51647416
I think you're just annoying everyone

>>51647465
Depends on how willing he is to shoot a random innocent person on the the head.

>>51647515
Depends on the money
I mostly decide on a situation by situation basis

>>51647483
Ouch. Really? No one has said anything.
Stop triggering my insecurities that everyone hates me.

>>51644137
Some people really like stupid arguments though. I mean, this is why the board exists.

>>51646776
>she did something
>the correct response isn't to call the authorities, but to beat her yourself
>get mad when someone stops you
Anon, this is one of the dumbest statements in this thread, right up there with the repeated posts of people who clearly don't know how alignments work.

>>51647902
The husband was chaotic good, he doesn't trust the authorities

>>51647987
>beating up your wife for an abortion is CG
*tips mitre*

>>51648064
Drowning a kid is not an abortion

File: Untitled.jpg (50KB, 947x710px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 947x710px

>>51637968

I got it you guys.

>>51647902
>>the correct response isn't to call the authorities

I see you're too much of a child to solve your own problems and need to call for an adult.

>>51649443
I see it as more "Keep yourself from getting arrested"

>>51647902
>medieval people behave like modern people
fuck off to tumblr

File: just-girly-things-6.jpg (66KB, 391x645px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 391x645px

>>51648349

Still see some flaws with this. Mostly in the "Bad Means vs Good Means". The biggest contradictions which show up involve CG and LE.

You describe CG as "Bad Means to a Good End". That can be the case for a CG character, but it's by no means the only one.

For LE you use "Good Means to a Bad End". This one really swings wide. Take most repressive dictator archetypes, which are standard LE character templates. Often they have visions for a prosperous utopian future, and they try to achieve this goal through police state politics and often institutionalized genocide as well. These aren't Good means by a long shot.

You can't assign extra value judgements to Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic. Law does not automatically mean Good and Chaos does not automatically mean Bad.

>>51649467
I hope you realize that the police don't have a solution for everything, specifically marriage or family issues. They're specifically there to ensure society as a whole behaves, justice is usually meted out, speak for the voiceless (as in the case of solving murders), or to assist the incapable.

It's always better when a problem is solved without any paperwork. Stop assuming everyone is incapable of fixing their own issues.

>>51644137

You have a point, but it's just too ingrained in everyone's imagination of how a game is supposed to look like

>>51649542
what police? this is a medieval town. it's lucky if there's a couple of men at arms permanently stationed there to maintain the law. you'd have to gather a bunch of people from your village and go to the local feudal liege's castle to ask him to hear your case, which he may or may not do. in the worst case scenario he'd just order to flog the whole posse for distracting him.

>>51649620
Exactly. Families were expected to solve their own problems unless it was so big they couldn't.

>>51638016
this is completely wrong.

>>51638034
almost every good lawful good character does.

>>51638059
a CG druid or diviner could absolutely toss goods into a river under the firm belief that they will arrive where they need to.

File: 1485907515786.jpg (50KB, 545x588px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 545x588px

>>51649583

> but it's just too ingrained in everyone's imagination of how a game is supposed to look like

As much as I hate seeming like I'm playing the "stop playing D&D card" I can say that's not really true for any system other than ones which actually use the Alignment chart. No one I've played with has ever given a shit about Alignment outside of D&D. There are morality mechanics in other systems but they're nowhere near as much of a skubfest as Alignments.

>>51649497
>>51649443
>how you know a thread has jumped way into the irredeemable shit pool
Have fun you guys

>>51644047
robin hood is LG, retard.

>>51649670
Even DND should get rid of it. It causes more problems than it solves. And as for people who insist on planar powers each having clear delineations of authority and interests, it was always better when they were mysterious and unknowable.

>>51649637

>a CG druid or diviner could absolutely toss goods into a river under the firm belief that they will arrive where they need to.

No matter what it says on their sheet they won't be CG for very long at my table if they keep doing that.

You can't just do whatever you want while insisting "it's okay I'm Good this is the right course of action". That's kind of the exact reason Paladins have a fall mechanic.

>>51649693
>oh no someone disagreed with a retarded opinion
>they were so snarky
>they must be irredeemable shit

>>51649730
shit DM. it's the intentions behind an act that define alignment, not the consequences.

according to your logic, a LG who saves a child who happens to be the BBEG in disguise who then proceeds to wipe out a city committed an evil act.

"b-but that's different!"

no, it isn't. the character thought he was doing something good, even though there were negative consequences for others. you don't understand alignment. this is part of why your games are shit, btw.

>>51649709
it's shitty players and DMs that cause problems in TTGs, never the system. if there's a problem with the system, a good DM solves it.

>>51649853
>never the system

No, the system is always flawless. That's why there have been dozens of iterations of just dnd :^)

How would the alignments respond to catching a poor man stealing bread to support his family?

>>51644131
Nah. Arsene Lupin is considered a gentleman thief. Lupin III is just a thief. At least in part 1.

He plays by his own set of self imposed rules rather than societal norms and standards and enjoys the challenge and adrenaline rush more than the profit/wealth. That makes him CN by my estimation. He does a grand total of 3-4 'good' things throughout the first series (some are more debatable than others) and in all but one of those cases the good is a byproduct of another outcome rather than the primary aim of his actions.
>>51644181
Yes, this falls in line with CG being 'dishonorable'. Zorro is not an honorable man but he is kind and beloved.

>>51649730
No I disagree with you. If a retard drops a tortoise into a river because he thought it was a turtle and that turtles lived in water he is not necessarily evil. He just doesn't know better.

Intent matters a lot more than actions. If a BBEG is constantly foiled by the party, does his alignment eventually shift from evil to neutral because he hasn't ever succeeded in doing anything wicked?

>>51649827

>"b-but that's different!"

It totally is though. The LG character in your example had absolutely no way of knowing he was helping the BBEG. Why would I ever mete out meta punishments for someone who has no actual control over what they're doing? If you think that's the only way to shift someone's alignment then you're the real idiot.

The guy who throws someone's shit in the river because he thinks he's helping is either an idiot or a jackass, but either way he should know better than to think that's a "Good" act. It has an immediate and expected negative effect on someone, so he better be able to come up with a good reason why it's sincerely in that person's best interest


>it's the intentions behind an act that define alignment, not the consequences.

By this logic every one is Lawful Good by default. Very few people think they're the bad guy.

>>51650183

I get what you're saying and I should say intentions do take into account, but agency and consequences absolutely are important. Someone can be incompetent at Good and still be Good, but at the same time if your character is a jaded cynical jerk who just hurts people while insisting he's totally Chaotic Good guys, then that's grounds for some Alignment shifts.

>>51646978
Yeah, it exists because sometimes you need to shoot first and ask questions later. If a man is savagely beating his wife, you need to act before he breaks her orbital bones or knocks her front teeth out. It's much more likely that the miller is beating his wife because he's a sadistic bully, not because of some convoluted backstory in which she's the villain. Your argument sounds like a typical bystander's excuse for doing nothing in the face of evil.

>>51649498

CG = save the cute woodland critters... by burning down the invasive human settlement.

LE = kill off the unicorns in their forest... by convincing the Lord that cutting down the woods would greatly increase the yield of their farms.

>>51649705

Neutral Good. He does steal and commit crimes... for good though.

>>51651729

>ecoterrorism
>Good

I get what you're saying but you need to articulate it better

>>51637968
Not sure if bait or a normal alignment thread.

>>51649922

Scenario: You turn a corner, and a peasant slams into you. His basket of bread spills all over. He was on the run.

Lawful Good: "Return those ill gotten gains, citizen. I shall assist you in your time of need. Pray with me brother."

Neutral Good: "Hand over a bagel, and I didn't see anything."

Chaotic Good: "Five second rule... lets get more."

Lawful Neutral: "Turn yourself in citizen. However, I swear this basket will make it to your family.

Neutral: Keep walking. *words to the wise, this is basically all true neutrals ever do in all situations*

Chaotic Neutral: "He's over here officers."

Lawful Evil: "The guards are coming. Let me take these off your hands. Go, hide! ... He went over there officers."

Neutral Evil: Take everything and run.

Chaotic Evil: "So you got a wife and kids eh? Maybe you show me where you live or I call those guards over there."

>>51652107

>Pray with me brother.

Now I want to play a Paladin as a church youth minister. Go around calling myself "Pastor Dave", have a bunch of kickass tats, and wear a "Reps for Pelor" tank top.

>>51643994
Doesn't ruthless imply dishonorable? Dishonorable ruthless is redundant.

>>51652060

They're super cute though... and can talk. That little rabbit over there is nuzzling his mama, trying to wake her up. She's not going to wake up though. Ever.

>>51638364
Join my group please

>>51652107
>Neutral: Keep walking. *words to the wise, this is basically all true neutrals ever do in all situations*
Why would they walk anywhere? What's the point? If they have no ambitions and no goals, shouldn't they just lay down and die?

>>51652264
>Why would they walk anywhere? What's the point? If they have no ambitions and no goals, shouldn't they just lay down and die?

*ignores ravings. continues walking*

"Where is he going?"
"No one knows."
"How long is he going to walk?"
"Legends say until judgement day. And then walk right on in through the gates of heaven. ... or hell. He's kind of a dick."

>>51652264

I also think saying the CN character would automatically rat the guy out is a broad statement. A particularly craven or selfish one might if he thinks the guards will reward him for it. But your typical dashing Han Solo type rogue would probably just ask what the guy's problem is.

Maybe he'd even help the guy back up and pick up his bread while discreetly pocketing one of the rolls.

>>51652264
>>51652363
They acknowledge the importance of the self and doing things for yourself, while also acknowledging the importance of others and the impact they have on their life. In addition, they acknowledge the importance of the law while also accepting that it isn't infallible and sometimes there's no good reason for certain regulations and codes.

Neutral characters aren't empty-headed nihilists, they're just balanced people.

>>51652467
Proably the majority of people are TN

>>51650468
>sometimes you need to shoot first and ask questions later
I pray that you're legally restrained from buying a gun of any kind.

File: 1484850430734.gif (548KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 1200x800px

>>51644137
It helps a person who is bad at role playing decide what to do. In a given situation that they are unfamiliar with, using a character that "aligns" in a way that they are unfamiliar with. However the actions they take should only use alignments as a guild line and nothing more.
Like, what would superman do in this situation?
If you already know what superman will do and can role play half decent then. Yes, there is no need for the alignment system.

>>51653692

>roll to snap neck

>>51637968
I see the attempt.
However, alignment is based off morales, and that is interchangeable from person to person.
Thus, no matter what, this will fail.

File: middlering.jpg (425KB, 1952x2016px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 1952x2016px

>>51645994
But where does the Nazi hold fit in?

>>51653692

>Like, what would superman do in this situation?
>Krypton had its chance

>>51649922

Lawful Good: "Return this bread to the person you took them from, and make proper restitution, and I will help you feed yourself and your family."

Neutral Good: Goes and pays for the bread.

Chaotic Good: "I didn't see anything, officer."

Lawful Neutral: "These are stolen goods. Return them and face the justice of the law, criminal."

True Neutral: Keeps walking.

Chaotic Neutral: "Hand over a bread roll and I didn't see anything."

Lawful Evil: Testifies against the peasant and tries to get the maximum and most painful punishment possible. Possibly keeps the stolen bread as "evidence".

Neutral Evil: Throws the bread in the river, extorts the peasant, and then sells the peasant out to law enforcement anyway unless there's a good reason not to.

Chaotic Evil: Kills the peasant and steals the bread for himself. When law enforcement comes by, kills them as well.

>>51652107
>>51654426

Noticing everyone has similar scenarios, just for different alignments.

There must be a simpler way to organize everything so everyone is happy.

>>51654501
There is. Ignore the alignment section of the book. Live a carefree existence where everyone stops arguing about what exact delineations every sort of activity falls under.

>>51652173
Well that changes things greatly because if those things can full on talk, it's not humans exploiting a lesser species with lesser moral worth for gain, it's them murdering a fellow sapient being of roughly equal moral worth for gain.

>>51652161
Again, a word can have a number of different denotations and connotations. Ruthless here I see as the willingness to take advantage of others without mercy and to go far doing so. An Honorable Ruthless man might be like an evil, but gentlemanly lawyer. He follows the rules and acts cultured. He keeps his word, and generally comports himself like an upstanding citizen, only he's willing to ruthlessly exploit the law to fuck people over when it's in his benefit. If you prefer, substitute "disreputable" or "ignoble" for "dishonorable", though both of those words carry some baggage that doesn't really fit.

>>51654659
It's essentially:
altruistic <----> ruthless
behaves in an upstanding, dignified way <----> behaves in an underhanded, undignified way

So while situations vary, a Lawful character takes his word of honor very seriously. A Chaotic character probably cares a lot less about something like that. You can trust a Chaotic Good character's intentions. If he promises to help you out, that means he's concerned about you, and you can depend on his good will, but the actual wording of his promise probably means a lot less to him than if he were Lawful. Generally speaking, a Chaotic character is going to be far more willing to break his word and play dirty. A Lawful character tends to consider those things disgraceful.

File: d13926abd233217a0e751e4b3f824140.png (23KB, 240x236px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 240x236px

There is a crazed lunatic going to shoot up an elementary school and you're the only one who knows.

>LG
"Children and staff! Please line up in an orderly fashioned line, we are evacuating the school. A threat is on the way."
>NG
Knock on the window outside. "Hey, there is a shooter coming, you should probably get out."
>CG
Light the school on fire to funnel the kids out while peeking through the windows to make sure they aren't being turned to ash.
>LN
Call the authorities and continue your day.
>TN
"It was meant to be, I guess."
>CN
"Not much we can do about that, although I could rob the gun off the shooter."
>LE
"Listen, children, just sign this contract and I will help you all out of here."
>NE
Find out who the gunner is and offer to pay for his services.
>CE
Am the gunner.

I think I'm kinda right here:

LG - In formal clothes, maybe a truly selfless politician or priest
NG - In casual clothing, maybe a regular civilian and good samaritan who does not seek to be kind but is when they get the chance
CG - In clothing/armor for battle, maybe a soldier or crusader

LN - In semi-formal clothes, maybe a police officer or a regular civilian
TN - In regular clothing, maybe a normal civilian or adventurer
CN - In a straight jacket or cheap clothing/rags, maybe an asylum patient or bum

LE - In formal clothing, maybe a mob boss or corrupt politician/dictator
NE - In unwashed clothing, maybe a neckbeard or some other kind of selfish civilian or criminal
CE - In shitty DIY armor made of pots and pans, maybe a serial killer without a severe mental disorder or a criminal

>>51638440
Not sure that it's what he was going for, but this is a good example of how a player ought to use alignment. If the player wishes to help the caravan they have the agency to do so, but they need to consider why their character would do it. They then need to consider the outcome of their actions based on why they did so in the first place and develop from there. This is why alignment is best considered as a guide and not a limitation. Not to say that a LG should go randomly burning an orphanage any more than a CE would decide to build one, and you should have at least the integrity to decide if you're a good boy or a bad boy at character gen, but this is still a fine example of how to manage the balance between DnD being a game and DnD being a co-operative story.

>>51638364
A round of applause for the anon of the hour!

>>51655237
>Harlequins
>Lawful good

Lol nope.

File: TGT alignments.jpg (132KB, 900x681px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 900x681px

Tried some shitty OC, but I can't think of any characters that would fit Lawful Neutral, considering the general anarchy of the setting. Any suggestions?

>>51637968
Fuck your shit. I use slavery as an example. How does your character feel about slavery in a setting that has legal slavery?

LG: I'll buy a slave just to grant them freedom.
NG: Underground railroad.
CG: I'll free the slaves with force.
LN: It's legal, so I'll own slaves but I'll treat them decently and possibly give them freedom once they're no longer able to serve me.
NN: I own slaves, work them, and treat them no better than average.
CN: Slaves are my property and I'll work them as hard as I want.
LE: I beat my slaves if they don't work hard enough, but I don't kill them or rape them.
NE: I'll kill a slave if I think it'll keep the others in line.
CE: It's not rape or murder if they aren't actually people.

File: cb81d06bfc3dabeb91432746ee077014.jpg (47KB, 640x518px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x518px

>>51655227
>that chaotic good

So my dumbass friend and I had a "heated discussion" on the D&D alignment system. He had two arguments that I thought were fucking stupid:
>You can be lawful by only following a personal code
He sincerely believes "Having a strong code to break every law in sight" is lawful.
>Good and Evil are based solely on intentions, the actions one take matter significantly less.
According to him, if a paladin believed a child was possessed by a demon, by a botched roll, if that paladin struck the child down without even smiting and the child was innocent, the paladin would still be good.
>He also doesn't believe in the line "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," but that's kinda redundant here.
He's wrong, right? Or am I the one who's w-wrong?
My primary argument was that good and evil were dictated by circumstances, choices, and actions on a pseudo-karmic scale dictated by the DM.
Granted, we both agreed the system was broken in of itself.

>>51650201
>By this logic every one is Lawful Good by default. Very few people think they're the bad guy.
semantical argument. "the bad guy" is a relative term, not a moral one, and is not the opposite of "good". get your shit together and your games will be better.

>>51658765
>He sincerely believes "Having a strong code to break every law in sight" is lawful.
That's fucking stupid.

>According to him, if a paladin believed a child was possessed by a demon, by a botched roll, if that paladin struck the child down without even smiting and the child was innocent, the paladin would still be good.
I'm not sure what the official D&D take on this would be (as much as there is one, unified D&D take). I think I remember reading in one edition or another that certain actions were inherently evil (casting an evil spell for good purposes is still evil). But I, personally, am with your friend on this... mostly. It's not an ends-justifies-the-means argument, which indicates that evil actions are justified as long as you're aiming for something good. Rather, it's "a guy can only act according to what he knows" argument. The only thing here is that maybe the paladin should be extra careful before striking down a child. In other words, he might not have taken any doubts or possibilities properly into account. You need to be really careful before you start smiting helpless people, especially children, and that he is responsible for.

>He also doesn't believe in the line "the road to hell is paved with good intentions,"
I don't either, at least not in a direct sense. If you think you're doing good and you've done your due diligence, you aren't morally to blame if things don't turn out the way you thought they would. Now, where the whole "road to hell" thing might come into play is if you start justifying doing (presumably lesser) evil things in support of your ultimate (good) goal.

Of course, it's impossible to really get inside people's heads and the GM can only really judge on the basis of what a PC actually does. On the other hand, he can take into account the PC's past actions (and any meta-knowledge he may have from the character's background or whatever) to achieve an understanding of the character's personality and, well, character.

>>51658955
>Of course, it's impossible to really get inside people's heads and the GM can only really judge on the basis of what a PC actually does. On the other hand, he can take into account the PC's past actions (and any meta-knowledge he may have from the character's background or whatever) to achieve an understanding of the character's personality and, well, character.
He can then view the character's actions through that prism, interpreting the intent from what he knows about the character. But it still ultimately comes down to what the character does and not what he thinks (because you don't really play out the latter).

>>51658765
>Granted, we both agreed the system was broken in of itself.
One thing you have to understand is when the alignment system was first developed, it was single-axis. Lawful, neutral and chaotic were your only choices. And they corresponded more to your alignment with cosmic forces (think Law vs. Chaos in Elric or Three Hearts and Three Lions). Thus, they were almost an indication of what team you were on. Adding another axis maybe lead to some interesting situations and concepts, but it made everything a lot less clear and lead to endless debates like this one.

>>51637968
Stop playing with alignment. It is poisoning your brain.

>>51653953
Looks like either dapper or unassuming hooligan

>>51638364
>LG: It's considered proper conduct to help someone by the side of the road. This makes sense to me because helping people is good.

>NG: Looks like someone needs help.

>CG: Those people need my help. I don't care wether or not trying to help them is considered proper conduct I'll do it because I want to.

>LN: It's considered proper conduct to help somebody by the side of the road. That's all I need to know.

>TN: Looks like someone needs help. Maybe if I'm not in a hurry or if they offer some compensation I'll help them.

>CN: A look a cart. So anyway, what was I thinking about?

>LE: Those people are vulnerable by the side of the road, but it's not proper code of conduct to take advantage of them through violence. Maybe I can arrive in the city earlier and use that to make their life miserable somehow.

>NE: Those people are vulnerable by the side of the road. Looting time!

>CE: Those people are vulnerable by the side of the road. I can loot them but maybe I can make them even more miserable by breaking some taboo they have.

Evil is not self interest, evil is trying to cause suffering for the sake of suffering.

>>51637968
>LG
"Must... Kill... Party members!!!"
>NG
"How do you like my purple highlights tee-hee I think they're so cuuuute~!"
>CG
"Hahaha bro check out this radical boooong I'm tokin' hahahaa..."
>LN
"Urge... to kill... party members... rising!!!"
>TN
"So, I walk over to this guy and use my six sneak attacks for... 16d8+14 damage - and then I loot his corpse. Isn't my goblin shadowmaster build AWESOME hehe..."
>CN
"Pssh, nothin' personnel kid..." *unsheathes katana*
>LE
*actual roleplayi-* [LG/LN has killed this character]
>NE
"I'm just here to roll /|big numbers|\ and delve into dungeons...[dungeons]...[[dungeons]]..." *Le beer and le pretzels intensifies*
>CE
"Hohoooo I'm so waaacky and fun, betcha didn't expect a coool gurrrrl like me to be so mischievous!"

File: condescending goku.jpg (87KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 720x540px

>>51660531

>>51661634
Alignment is shit.

It poisons the players' minds about how they should play a character and interact with the world.

>>51658765
Killing a child is always an Evil act, even if the child is possessed by a demon. That paladin should fall like the gods drop kicked him off of the empire state building.

>>51662437
>Killing a child is always an Evil act
According to who? You?

File: 1437270362030.jpg (369KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1024x1024px

>not using the 5x5 system instead

>>51658765
I agree with your friend somewhat
It becomes difficult to gauge whether someone is lawful or chaotic using anything other than a scale of internal consistency and stability when you have conflicting laws from different governments.

As an example, if you had a guy who lived in a city where it's illegal to wear a green shirt, and he travels to another city where it's illegal to not wear a green shirt, would he be more lawful for wearing a green shirt or for not wearing one? An externally consistent lawfully aligned character would be more lawful for wearing a green shirt in the other city because they respect the laws of wherever it is they are, but that ultimately makes them chaotic because they're constantly changing to fit whatever new power structure they have to adapt to. Whereas an internally lawfully aligned character would continue to not wear a green shirt, even those this presents them as externally chaotic because they clash with their environment.

So is it what's on the inside that counts or is it about how others see you? Either way it's pretty grey but because roleplaying is all about developing and exploring a character I side with what's on the inside.

Also I have a tendency to see chaos as a tendency to accept or induce change moreso than violate authority. It's just that change often means violating authority. A chaotic neutral character probably has "been" every other alignment at some point, according to personal whim, more often than a lawful good or lawful evil one, and a chaotic good character is more likely to accidentally do or create something morally antithetical to their alignment as an accident of expressing freedom than a lawful good one, who has their behavior strictly codified.

>>51663045
*Whereas an internally lawfully aligned character would continue to not wear a green shirt out of respect for the laws of their own state/identity

>>51663045
>even those this presents them as externally chaotic because they clash with their environment
Is everyone in that town wearing a green shirt? Is it St. Patrick's Day?

>>51661668
Alignment is fun.
It's a challenge about leaving behind your real-word subjective sense of morality for one where ethics and morals are unwritten draconian rules of the Universe.

>>51663045
Lawful is not about following every law ever at all times because such a character would shut down whenever he met two contraddicting rules.
Lawful is about a strong commitment to a particular set of ethics, which can be "the laws I was raised in my home country", "the laws of whatever place I happen to be walking through" or "the bullshit code of honor and self-restraint they beat into me at the monastery"
Chaos is about not letting any code influence you and can veer into being rebellious on principle about any rule tentatively imposed to you, even if in your own interests at times. It's a challenging mindset to play without devolving into I YAM AN ANARCHISTA stereotypes and it leaves ethical Neutrality in a very ill-defined place.

>>51663446
>I don't like grapes anyways!
Characters defined by the notion of alignment are universally awful.

>>51658765
Your friend sounds like an insufferable idiot.
Where does his beard grow down to? Does he own one or more of these items or set of items: a trilby, a trenchcoat, a replica katana he swears is the real deal, multiple knives, fingerless gloves, a vape pen, combat boots?
>My primary argument was that good and evil were dictated by circumstances, choices, and actions on a pseudo-karmic scale dictated by the DM.
Exactly like it is meant to be played imho

>>51663526
I honestly don't get what do sour grapes have to do with anything we are discussing familia.
And it's the character's action defining its alignment, not the other way round. Or it should be, when it isn't you are right but that is the player's fault, not the system's.

>>51663606
Alignment should be ignored. Characters should act according to their personalities and the circumstances at hand.

Alignment is just the shorthanded excuse to turn off your brain and slaughter things, perfect for most deeNdee shitters, but there's a REASON it is found in almost no other RPG. Because it's BAD.

>>51663628
>Alignment should be ignored. Characters should act according to their personalities and the circumstances at hand.
Yes.
From which their alignment derives.
A lot of games have some sort of morality system wether you call it alignment or not, with as much RP and mechanical impact even. At least D&D makes it clear that what's written down as your morality and what you actually roleplay should interplay into and influence each other. When was the last time you saw a Vampire player play a Courage 1 vampire as genuinely cowardly instead of "the vampire I'd have played anyway, just going into Rotschrek more often"?

>>51656984
Sonic I guess? Bit of a stretch though

If challenged to a duel by a enemy
LG: "I accept the villain's offer. Fighting him honorably in one-on-one combat is the most efficient way to end this.."
NG: "I'll accept his offer as long as it's the best option to get rid of him."
CG: "I accept the challenge, wait until he shows up for the duel, then shoot him from a hidden location as far away as possible. If the fate of the world is at stake why would I risk a fair fight?"

If a fugitive asked for refuge in their home.
LN: "Of course not. He is a criminal and must be punished for his crime!"
TN: "Only if he is willing to pay me back in some manner."
CN: "Of course, anyone willing to stick it to the government is an ally to me!"

>>51663877
If challenged to a duel by a enemy
LE: "Whatever my goals and ambitions are, they are more important than any concept of honor, but if stomping this fool alone is the quickest way to achieve them then so be it"
NE: "Why not make him believe I'm playing his game? I'll have my way with the rest of htem after I'm done with him"
CE: "I accept your challenge!" *calls half a dozen henchmen to swarm the "duel" and uses the confusion to go after the most vulnerable member in the opposing party

If a fugitive asked for refuge in their home.
LG: "The courts in this country are fair and the punishments are generally commisurate. Turn yourself in or I will turn you in."
NG: "Tell me your story. I might offer assistance or not, just don't try and lie to me."
CG: "Sure, I'm helping, but I will be watching you closely. Betray my trust and I'll deal with you myself."

>>51663690
>A lot of games have some sort of morality system
Not really. And the one major example, WoD, is not even close to the cancer of DnD alignment.
>>51663877
>the villain
Ugh, god damn DnDfags are simpleminded.

Lawful Good: Cicero and Vorenus in Rome, USA, superman. Follows flawed but inspirational honor/justice.

Neutral Good: Witchers. Elves in lotr. JESUS!

Chaotic Good: Rorschach. Miller in 'The Expanse'. They do what's ultimately right no matter what. The greater good. The Punisher.

Lawful Neutral: Civilians, Prime Directive, unprovoked guardians, hobbits,

True Neutral: Monks, shamans, seers, oracles, Ents pre-hobbits, Dr. Manhattan. Ayn Rand.

Chaotic Neutral: Jack Sparrow, Godzilla, Riddick, trickster gods (real trickster gods not modern crap), Trump on twitter.

Lawful Evil: Sauron, God and most gods, stereotypical kings and emperors. Galactus. Some aren't neccesarily malevolent, but think they work for the greater good. Others are evil, but follow rules. Gaunter O'Dimm.

Neutral Evil:
>women.
Can't feel remorse, but they don't do evil things with the intent of harm. They just do evil, cause they only think of their own happiness.
Chaotic Evil: The Joker.The older kid in school that offers all the kids candy, then say to some of the kids, "did you really think I'd give you too" after offering them candy. CRUELTY!

>>51662728
According to me, according to the tenets of Christianity and Judaism, probably other religions as well but I don't know those as well, and—more applicably for this conversation—according to the D&D rules for alignment as set forth in the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness.

Sure, maybe killing a child is the only way to prevent the death of thousands and thousands of innocents. That doesn't mean it's not an Evil act. It is most definitely an Evil act. Justification doesn't determine whether something is evil or whether a paladin falls. Justification determines whether the paladin can Atone. And even then, I'd say probably not unless the paladin was victim of a spell clouding their judgement.

>>51664828
>The Book of Exalted Deeds is an optional sourcebook for the 3.5 edition of the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game
>3.5
>Optional
Yeah, you keep going on about your absurd headcanon kiddo. Adults will be ignoring it.

>>51638281

lawful = play by rules

chaotic = don't give a fuck about rules

good = will help others at no benefit to self

evil = unearned malevolence toward others, or no qualms about harming others for personal gain

neutral= in between on one of the axes

>>51663519
According to that definition, if you follow a hard rule where you break every externally imposed law that you can, then you are lawful because you are committed to an ethic that you never veer from. If you're always rebellious on principle, then you adhere to that principle far too much to actually be chaotic. Instead of seeing your counter-law behavior as chaotic it could be seen as following a different law because it is predictable and it follows strict guidelines. One could always trick such a "chaotic" character into doing what they want by using reverse psychology because that person has rules that govern their behavior. A chaotic person can't be grasped in that way.

So a truly chaotic person would act without regard to a law or set of laws, or even be unaware of them, they would neither affirm it nor its opposite, and there would be no discernible pattern to what governs that person's behavior. The chaotic individual isn't a predictable rebel but instead someone who wears rainbow suits to business meetings and doesn't understand when someone tells them it's inappropriate.

If chaos is just "inverse law" and not something different from law then chaos and law become interchangeable because one person's law is another's chaos and it's all relative. It makes more sense to see it as the absence of law.

>>51664747

Jesus would be chaotic, wouldn't he? He simultaneously pissed off the religious leaders and ruling class enough to be put to death, and at the same time lightened up on some of the religious restrictions that had been in place since the Old Testament.

>>51665048

I think if you only have one rule that you always follow, that's not sufficient to say you aren't chaotic. Like Batman and his rule against killing. He seems pretty chaotic to me for the most part, willing to cheat, lie, deceive, and break pretty much any law, as long as he doesn't kill. I think a person with one rule to not follow rules would be the same.

File: 5959322-16x9-940x529.jpg (49KB, 940x529px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 940x529px

I've been wondering...

>In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of the Earth. But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit. Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants, by a triple treachery: 1. Because of his admiration of Strength he had become a follower of Morgoth and fell with him down into the depths of evil, becoming his chief agent in Middle Earth. 2. when Morgoth was defeated by the Valar finally he forsook his allegiance; but out of fear only; he did not present himself to the Valar or sue for pardon, and remained in Middle Earth. 3. When he found how greatly his knowledge was admired by all other rational creatures and how easy it was to influence them, his pride became boundless.
>—J.R.R. Tolkien

Where would he be on the alignment grid?

>>51665099
I think a person who abides by the one rule of not following rules is more lawful than batman because that one rule influences all other rules- it dictates their behavior in basically any given situation, whereas batman's rule against killing pretty much stops there and doesn't influence how he deals with other rules as much.

>>51665055
In result, but not in character or action.
A chaotic good individual would resist capture.
You wouldn't call Ghandi chaotic good would you?

Just cause what you do results in chaos or order, doesn't make you lawfull or chaotic.
It's by what means and why you do stuff.

>>51665143
Lawful evil.
>>51664747
He does everything cause he wants complete order in the world. Turbo OCD autist.

File: How Malkor Goes.jpg (896KB, 550x1652px) Image search: [Google]

896KB, 550x1652px

>>51637968
>Conflicting examples
I often feel that each persons perspective skews the alignment wheel in a different direction so that- like in this thread- you have two example with different labels.

Really wish /tg/ can pull together and just set out a bunch of example and (seriously) vote on what we think each example's alignment it. After averaging 100 or so votes we'd get an unbiased middle ground on the subject.

>A For people that want to use the alignment system. Yes, yes, "real beliefs are more complicated" and all that jazz.
>B /tg/ working cohesively together
>C not trolling the answers to death and uselessness.

>I can dream...
>Pic unrelated to post.

Scenario: Some guy drops his wallet in the grocery store.
LG: SIR, THOU HATH DROPPED THINE BILLFOLD PLEASE ALLOW ME TO RETURN IT TO YOU
NG: Dude, you dropped your wallet. Be more careful next time.
CG: Sweet, free wallet.
LN: Sir, I'm going to have to arrest you for littering.
N: Hey, that guy dropped his wallet.
CN: Sweet, free wallet.
LE: If you want your wallet back, t will cost you...
NE: Perhaps I can use the information in this wallet to blackmail him for even more money.
CE: I AM GOING TO ASSFUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKING WALLET

>>51665249
>CG: Sweet, free wallet.
>CN: Sweet, free wallet.

?

File: stopsluts.gif (3MB, 640x266px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x266px

>>51665249
>CE: I AM GOING TO ASSFUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKING WALLET

>>51665249
>CG
>Sweet, free waller
>not "Money is being used to enslave the masses and rob them of their freedom. I will take this wallet and dispose of it so that I can liberate this man from his formulaic, preconceived notion of how life is meant to be lived."

>>51665265
That's the joke.

SOMEONE DO ONE WITH GOVERNMENT TYPES, ANARCHO PRIMITIVISTM, ANARCHO CAPITALISM, ANARCHO INDIVIDUALISM, COMMUNISM, NAZISM AND THIS GOES ON

>>51665214
what makes him lawful?

>>51665292
Communist Good then?

>>51665374
I guess anarcho communism is CG
Ancap is CN
Totalitarianism is LE
Western-style democracies are LN
I got nothing more

>>51665922
>Ancap is CN
You clearly haven't been keeping up with the memes.

>>51665957
Ancap doesn't go out of its way to bring misery
But if you step on my lawn god help me you'll feed the pics in my slave farm
So yeah, CN

>>51637968
Chaotic Good isn't "I do random shit and hope it ends well for someone"

>>51657689
All you did was put those options in order from least to most dickish. That's not what the Law/Chaos axis is for.

>>51638122
>NG is commiting a good... for a price.
Wrong. Objectively wrong.

>>51665608
His desire to order the world according to his will.

File: DR Alignment.jpg (1MB, 3200x2560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3200x2560px

>>51666105
It, isn't they do it KNOWING it'll end well

File: good shit.png (263KB, 578x790px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 578x790px

>>51638364

>>51658858
>"the bad guy" is a relative term, not a moral one
not him, but morals by definition are fucking relative.

>>51664915
> Official D&D sourcebook for possibly the most widely played role playing game ever
> headcanon

Yeah okay.

>>51664747
>Rorschach
>Punisher
>Good

File: 1485120004047.jpg (133KB, 996x868px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 996x868px

>>51639000
>CG: NIGGERS

File: waifu alignment.gif (40KB, 487x487px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 487x487px

Truly the superior alignment matrix

>>51668296
How does chaste+kinky work?

File: disappointed.png (90KB, 487x479px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 487x479px

>>51664747

>the Punisher
>Chaotic Good
>Women
>Neutral Evil

>>51660265
>Stop playing with alignment. It is poisoning your brain
That's a very chaotic thing to say.

>>51654501
There is
Play a character first and alignment second. The DM will hash it out with you later.

>>51668324
nuns? virgins doing s&m?

>>51665143
The avatar of LE. He wants to bend the world to his unflinching, iron whim. He respects rules and customs as far as it doesn't get in the way of his ambitions, the ring wraiths fucking go to the shire and just ask around before going pure evil.

File: 1456854353143.png (302KB, 635x457px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 635x457px

>>51660531
>LE
>*actual roleplayi-* [LG/LN has killed this character]

this is so true

Lads pls you're forgetting the most important part of alignments; they are not a strait jacket. All they do is suggest what kind of choices a character is LIKELY to make as opposed to other alternatives. But just because a character is a certain alignment it doesn't mean all of his choices will be in line with his alignment. Never forget that these are tools, not an end in themselves; if you play them as ends you'll get the 'stupid' characters who ironically become the opposite of their alignments. Now for an actual example, Chaotic Neutral. In a single sentence, a chaotic neutral character does whatever the fuck he wants. People who AIM to play as chaotic as possible on purpose end up becoming evil or lawful, or some mix of the two, because they deliberately ignore what a sensible person would (want) to do, and instead do what they think fits chaos, aka they're either working out of pure principle (lawful) or just malice (evil). An actual chaotic evil character (and just about every alignment) can do good things, can do evil things, can even do lawful things. If a DM has a problem with a CN character, for example, not expecting money/gold as a reward for a helpful deed, he is a bad DM. Alignment is there to simply help players define their characters, just like a backstory, or physical description. But naturally, a criminal past doesn't necessarily mean a criminal future, long hair doesn't mean you're a feminist, and chaotic neutral doesn't mean chaotic stupid.

Lawful Good: Catholics

Neutral Good: Protestants

Chaotic Good: Mormons

Lawful Neutral: Buddhists

True Neutral: Druids

Chaotic Neutral: Hindus

Lawful Evil: Scientists

Neutral Evil: Atheists

Chaotic Evil: Moslems

>>51665374
Lawful good: Anarcho Catholicism
Neutral Good:
Chaotic Good:
Lawful Neutral: Centrism
True Neutral: Anarcho-Individualism
Chaotic Neutral: Anarcho Survivalism
Lawful Evil:
Neutral Evil:
Chaotic Evil: Anarcho-Egoism

File: 1422223527_extras_noticia_foton_7_1.jpg (17KB, 630x316px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 630x316px

>>51675365
>Lawful good: Anarcho Catholicism

>>51665265
Because its really rare that someone who plays chaotic good is actually good

>>51675599
It depends on personal morals and how far you'd go for "the greater good"
I believe the main problem with alignments is that people value morality differently
For example, I've seen put Light Yagami in LG, CG, LE, and CE

>>51654501
Literally force everyone to be as neutral as their class allows them to be, and make them earn their alignment with extreme deeds.

>>51657689
Kinda of a weird goal here, are you a slave owner? slave? or is it just how you feel about legal slavery? Assuming it's the last:

LG: I agree with this, although opposing the legality of slavery and freeing them by force would also fit this.

NG: This needs to be CG, a NG would probably be very sympathetic toward slaves and do their best to make life easier for them. Something like an educator who teaches them how to read/write in secret.

CG: Agree, although they don't necessarily have to be freed by force. You could trick a slave owner or something I guess?

LN: Agree, but if treating them decently isn't a legal requirement then it kind of falls apart. For the most part I'd swap this with NN.

N: Disagree, depending on how you feel about a particular slave it might lean toward NG or NE.

CN: Agree

LE: Disagree, sounds too close to LN.
You may not kill or rape them, but if you're evil then you should have no problem making another slave or an enforcer do it.

NE: Agree to some extent, however what you have for CE should be here too.

CE: With no regard for the law at all, you would make anyone you could your slave. Probably disguising them as legal slaves if it's worth the effort.

>>51662437
Sorry but it's not, what about killing a child soldier or bandit in self-defense, for example?

Or killing a child unintentionally?

>>51638968
>D&D Aussie Edition
I love it. Awesome work, wanker.

>>51642510
>have 2 each from good, neutral, and evil
Ok, so I can tell I'm leaning more lawful, but... do I like, average them out or something? would I be LN? The spanking is pretty low on the list, though... GODS DAMMIT, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE AN ALIGNMENT CHART, NOT A BINGO CARD

>>51637968
This thread was already making me cringe in the catalog, when I didn't even read anything yet.

>>51644095
>"Dishonorable" can encompass a number of different things.
Wow, it's almost like nothing fucking changed from just calling it lawful. Wonderful accomplishment.

Protip: it should be orderly, not honorable.