Is this still accurate?

>>51899795
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JhrD5SVo3OU

>>51899795

Overgeneralizations are never accurate.

>not using one-axis alignment and just being chaotic, neutral, or lawful
You're missing out.

>>51899952

truth

if evil is selfish then evreyone is evil
cos people do good only because
1) they feel they must
2) it feels good to do good
3) it feels good to be praised

>>51899795
CN is the alignment of actual, crippling mental anguish/disorder

>>51899795
alignments never made sense to me in general

>>51899795
Sort of. Not everyone who plays evil alignments is fat, but I've yet to meet one who didn't have some kind of crippling mental illness or grotesque physical problem. There's always something wrong with them.

>>51900724
that's a fundamental misrepresentation of what people mean when they say 'selfish' and a completely meaningless comment outside of a discussion about the structure of motivation as such.

>>51899795
Seems inaccurate, I guess? Most NG players i've met wanted to play it to begin with, same with LG. I don't really understand what TN, CG and CN are trying to say, and I think LE gets a bad rap and has some really interesting players. I'm assuming the evil alignments are saying that players who play evil characters in good campaigns are bad, but it also could be taken to mean that GM's who force everyone to play a good alignment are fat tyrants?

I'm kind of confused. Who's being described here? Archetypes of players? Aspects of the game? God, alignments need to be left behind. Like, no offence if you've enjoyed campaigns that had alignment systems but I can't think of anything positive it brings to tabletop at all.

>>51900829
that's the GM

>>51900724
Wrong. The alignment of an action is independent of the intent behind the action. If a child has a magical plague and a character saves the child's life from peril, then that action is itself good, regardless of what the character's plans are with the child later.

>>51899795
Do people really only pick one alignment and never play other character types?
I've been every notch on the board except Lawful Evil.

Granted, the only time I played Neutral Evil was specifically an all-Evil campaign where we were playing psychotic madmen on a quest for immortality. And Chaotic Evil doesn't come often.

>>51901180
I've played the top 6 myself, but I have real trouble getting into character for evil alignments.

>>51901180
Pick three and display intelligence, best when catered with constitution then the player is the character.

>>51901199
The way I get into evil alignments is this.

Think about the usual way a campaign goes. Player characters become closer, they bond, they trust. They also become close to NPCs and the like.

For Neutral Evil, do the same thing. Bond, get close. But have a goal in mind. Something you want to build to. An item? A power? A state of being? Realize that you can and should use those bonds you make to get closer to that goal. People are tools the Gods gave you to use, so use them.

Chaotic Evil characters are primarily there to create suffering. So the best way to do it without being a fuckup to the party is to make sure you brutalize your enemies, whether it be in the name of your God or in the name of suffering itself.

Lawful Evil, think classic corrupt politician. Someone who wants to use the system they live in for personal gain. Either that, or someone who lives by a personal creed that will hurt others. Think an Orange Lantern, or a Thieve's Guild.

File: 1462499810596.jpg (129KB, 728x1092px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 728x1092px

>>51900724
Intuitively that doesn't really make sense. A more sane way of looking at it is how an individual chooses to treat the lives, dignity and general well being of those around them.

A good person will generally value the high of altruism more than the high of cruelty.
A good person might recognise that being evil is a lot of fun but they also have enough empathy to understand what it feels like to be on the other side of a villainous act. They would rather not be the guy who succeeds by making everyone else fail, so they choose to be good.

An evil person might recognise the that doing good deeds feels good and makes the world a generally better place to live in. However it's easier for them to just take what they want by force and coercion so they choose to be evil instead.

Of course this doesn't take into account more complex philosophical conundrums but even regular morality bends under those. The alignment system was never meant to take that sort of stress.Alignments in game terms are incomplete and are better served as ascetic tools to help get a character started. They make for interesting discussions but the idea that there is a single way of doing them is a little silly. They are general guidelines for conceptualising a character at most.

>>51900037
This actually sounds way better. You don't have to get into D&D's very poor understanding of morality. You just use it describe how you generally act.

>>51901721
>You just use it describe how you generally act.
No, dumbass.