Alignments

>>52134215
What if someone has something I want, and I take it? I'm helping me, but I'm also potentially hurting them. Am I Neutral, or Evil?

>>52134268
Neutral

>>52134302
The person tries to stop me, but I still really want the thing, so I kill them, to get the thing. Is this still Neutral? And/or the thing I stole was food, and they starved as a result. Is THAT Evil?

>>52134315
Killing is Evil, stealing is Nneutral.

>>52134268

You're hurting people for a price. The price being the stolen item.

>>52134215
Sounds like you broke it even more, not to mention the names sound horrible.

You can't call yourself good if you refuse to help people if they can't offer you anything in return.

Pretty much everyone would be neutral. There's no need for any of the other alignments per your definition; people hurt others or help others for themselves. Either for pleasure or for a strategic advantage.

Every alignment becomes smaller, almost needlessly narrow.

The three alignments are fine, there's no reason to change them.

>>52134215
So what if I help people because it gives me an excuse to kill others?

>>52134215
You're the nigger who thought Neutral Good meant helping people for a price right? Try actually learning the alignments before shitposting about them.

>>52134215
Revision

Noble = Helps people out of altruism
Good = Helps people for the benefits(ranging from a monetary reward to that warm fuzzy feeling when you make someone's day)
Neutral = Helps themselves/wildcard/Amoral
Evil = Hurts people for a cause(whether it's to create a utopia or earn a living)
Cruel = Hurts people because they enjoy hurting people and the exercise of power that comes with it.

>>52134836
Better.

>>52134215
Does this mean I can be Noble Bad?

I'll help anyone for free, and if someone pays me, I'll hurt people?

>>52134345
What if you only steal to hurt people?

It wasn't broken.

Law/Chaos: Determined by ones willingness (or lack thereof) to act within structures, either imposed on you by society or as a product of self discipline (think monks)

Good/Evil: Determined by one's tendency towards altruistic or selfish actions, respectively.

Prefer to act within structures, for the purpose of helping others? Lawful Good. Or maybe those two things are independent of each other, it's just that the components of Law and Good are there.

Don't have any inclination towards acting within structures or rebelling against them, and you're a prick? Neutral Evil. Neutral because of the first part, Evil because of the second.

Don't particularly prefer order or disorder, and you'll help or hurt on a none-too-consistent basis? True Neutral

Want to act within or enforce the Law, regardless of the nature of the impact it has on others? Lawful Neutral.

Prefer to act on ones whims as opposed to being put in a cage, but like to be generally helpful? Congratulations, you're Chaotic Good!

IT'S NOT HARD. Just a description of where's you're character is at, and it's not like every action one's character takes has to be within that alignment at pain of death. Not every character has to be a paladin of their alignment. You can be a a LITTLE BIT of a boy-scout and be Lawful Good, you don't have to be a model citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven. You can be a BIT of a hooligan and still be Chaotic Evil; you're not automatically required to act like you've been possessed by the spirit of an aborted archdemon. It was never meant to be a straitjacket!

>>52135008
Fucking this. It's really fucking easy to use, and yet so many fucking morons on this board just don't seem able to understand it.

Considering the countless threads I nowadays like to think that people need creeds, not alignments.

>>52135008
>>52135122
People take it to the extremes and then winge and whine about how their hypothetical extreme is so terrible.

It's called a straw man argument and it's one of the most insidious kinds of bullshit.

>>52134215
Noble does not mean altruistic.

It means people like my morality/personal behavior/Money/ideals so much they put me on a pedestal.

And yes, i mean me. you uneducated pleb.

>>52134215
>Noble = helps ppl for tax
>Good = helps ppl for the joy of helping
>Neutral = helps ppl when they feel like it
>Bad = hurt ppl when they feel like it
>Evil = exploit ppl for benefit that they don't even need

Fixed that.

>>52134215
If noble help me for free, why do they have high tax policy?

>>52134215
You somehow made it worse. Good job.

>>52134215
Lawful:Chaotic :: Honorable:Recusant
Pragmatic would be a middle-ground

Good:Evil :: Altruistic:Selfish
Ethical would be a middle-ground

>>52134215
>Heroic = I'll help people even if it costs me personally to do so
>Noble = Helping people matters more than my own profit, but I still need to eat
>Good = I like helping people, especially when I profit from it
>Neutral = I try to achieve profit while hurting as few people as possible
>Bad = I don't mind screwing people over if it means I profit as a result
>Evil = I like to profit, and hurting other people along the way is a nice perk
>Villainous = I'll intentionally seek to profit in ways that hurt or exploit other people

Fixed that for you.

Lawful = Aligned with Law
Good = Aligned with Good
Neutral = Not aligned with anybody
Evil = Aligned with Evil
Chaotic = Aligned with Chaos

Whoa. That was hard.

>>52139397

Your noble/good and bad/evil are just degrees of the same concept. Might as well just merge them.

I like these >>52139279, giving them better labels is really all you need, barring a total overhaul like >>52135372

File: janitor.jpg (44KB, 600x603px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x603px

>>52134215
>Evil
>Does it for free

It checks out