What are /tg/'s thoughts on objective morality systems in games?
>>51880989
>selflessness is inherently "good"
>self-love is inherently "evil"
well spooked
>>51880989
>Sulla
>Any kind of good
>>51880989
>only thing that matters is doing what the laws demand
>Lawful Good
>not textbook Lawful Neutral
>you have to follow the law, even if it means bending the laws to suit yourself
>not DEFINITION of Lawful Evil
stop it
>>51880989
>2017
>People still using rigid alignment systems that in in way allow for realistic or interesting characters.
>>51881281
Lawful Good is wielding order as a shield for the benefit of all. Lawful Neutral is bludgeoning with that shield for the benefit of those that follow it. Lawful Evil is wielding order as a sword for the benefit of yourself.
The laws of man are not aligned in any way, the manner in which they are enforced are.
>>51880989
Objective morality is good in game systems because they can be clearly defined and used to punish special snowflake edge lords like the ones posting itt
>>51880989
It works in D&D because it's inextricably tied to the class and magic system.
It has no place in other games though.
>>51881455
Lawful Neutral is upholding the law with no interest in befitting anyone specifically. The laws themselves are a purpose.
There use to be tons of these. Anyone got some to post I don't have them anymore.
>>51885559
>>51880989
>Lawful neutral is retarded, if you are willing to bend laws just to suit your needs you aren't lawful neutral
>Caesar's quote makes zero fucking sense in this context
>Sulla wasn't good
>Executing rebellious slaves is practically the definition of lawful
>>51886092
>mass slaughter of slaves is lawful
well meme'd my dude
>>51886168
>Executing people who are rebelling against the state
>not utterly legal
'Lawful' is not just a different word for 'good' , the laws of almost every fucking country say that treason gets the death penalty, especially back then.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not the law.
Chaotic evil would be sacking a town of people who haven't done anything in particular just to make a point.
>>51880989
i have in the past proclaimed a dislike of them, but of late i find them interesting in the sense that you need to have some kind of system imo for morality for a lot of players, in the same way that you have a system for casting spells and fighting with a sword. i.e. i think a weird abstraction of reality that puts characters and npcs into categories is actually kind of useful as both a player and a dm.
it doesn't have to be intense, and i'm not into stupid games about making paladins fall or whatever, but i think its a good thing to have so you can point to it when the paladin decides the best way to beat the monster is to burn down the church or the party forgets about the choir boy.
>>51880989
In that a person's ego can be all of the and none of them because morality is subjective and only an Active God could enforce such as thing as objective morality
Alos
>spooks
>>51886200
FWIW the morality of the roman state as an entity is basically similar to the drow; the people in it are mostly towards lawful, the actual state as an entity veers towards chaotic evil due to its overwhelming worship of strength and its overall tendency to treat allies and enemies alike like slaves (this might trigger the romaboos but imo Tacitus was overwhelmingly right in his assessment of the empire, and it holds until all the way to the Constitutio Antoniana).
I like it because it prevents stupid faggots from trying to insert their """""profound""""" opinions nobody cares about. In this world, these things are evil and these things are good, if you don't like it you're just fucking wrong go play another game.