Is it possible to have non-shitty alignment systems?

>>52184128
>"The depth of human motivation is absurd to try and embody in a two-dimensional chart"
>proceeds to put human motivation into specific boxes labeled "do not touch", "meters" meant to measure identity, and sanity reduced to numbers

>>52184128
>lawful good
Should be lawful neutral, since he'd advocating obeying the law no matter what.
>lawful neutral
Should be lawful evil, because he's advocating twisting the law to his own ends.

>>52184128
Literally any system you devise is going to be an abstraction and simplification, ultimately breaking down in certain circumstances. Listing personal values as a flexible system is fine, but once you're trying to put people in bins, it's not going to work.

File: CharacterAlignment.pdf (72KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1x1px

Possible angle?

>>52184420

TLDR:

1. Pick 1 (or more) values - those are the things your character wants and considers "good".

2. Pick an ethical system - that is how your character understands the world, and how they relate to the things they value.

>>52184636
Can you give us some example ethical systems?

>>52184650

From the PDF:

Roll d12: Ethics:
1 Utilitarian - The results justify the means.
2 Deontological - Doing what’s right because it’s right.
3 Virtuous - What sort of person are you?
4 Confucian - Focus on relationships between social roles.
5 Transcendental - Overcome the physical world.
6 Taoist - Live and let live.
7 Nihilistic - Nothing matters, nothing is true.
8 Romanticist - the pursuit of authenticity and ideals.
9 Manichean - Divide the world into good and evil.
10 Skeptical - But is it true?
11 Stoic - Learning to endure all else.
12 Post-Modernist - Take apart the ideas of the world

>>52184128
Alignment works better once you realize it's a measurement of how your actions align with four objective and verifiable forces in the universe rather than a coherent system of dividing up human morality.

>>52184690

couldn't you mix a lot of those, or have two noncontradictory ones simultaneously?

>>52184728

Theoretically, but this still assumes a certain level of abstraction - you could think of it as your primary ethic and your primary value. You can hold others, but at the end of the day one comes first.

>>52184128
In my homebrew you gain traits (murderous, malicious, benefactor, noble, kind, generous etc as i think of them) as you act, kinda like fallen London, that can have moral based story implications. think police, divine judgement, how characters act around you via 'intuition', we even had a devil show up to try and claim a dude.

The one guy has about 37 counts of cold blooded murder under his belt. He's the face.

They are not good people...

>>52184128

The "problem" with alignment systems is that people all too often play themselves than play their actual characters.

Think about it. When was the last time you saw someone with a stupid PC "hold frame" with their character and behave stupidly throughout an entire session?

While this is bigger problem now with all the special snowflakes running around, it was a problem back in the 70s too. I remember an article in which the writer wrote about how much fun it had been to play "Ferd the Nerd" in a campaign. He "held frame" with Ferd's stupidity and it led to all sorts of great role playing moments.

Playing a PC's good and bad attributes, like alignments, is a form of constraint and people don't much like that. They want attributes and abilities which allow them to be "better" and not "worse" than they are. They want to be smarter, stronger, more deadly, etc. and not stupider, weaker, etc.

It's just human.

>>52184911

Of course, the whole point of "role playing" is to try and play something other than a cookie cutter generic hero and actually do something interesting.

>>52184128
The only good way to do it is a by having arbitrary motivations which the character strives towards whenever given the chance, and one or more flaws which hinder his ability to do the former.

Some older systems, among others Pendragon I think, also had a system where you had scores in certain vices, and whenever you were at the risk of falling for one of them you had to roll against it to see if you did or not. That's passable, I think. I know some people who don't like that at all because they feel agency is removed from them, but in my experience those are also the same people who would never willingly let their character make a bad decision, so their complaint doesn't ring quite true. The result is, in fact, that the game plays their character better than they do.

>>52185071

The real question then is how strongly do those bonuses or penalties come into play?

Make them too big and it turns into railroading, make them too small and they're easy to ignore.

>>52185359
The first time each session that a character manages to fulfill one of his or her motivations the player marks it, and at the end of the session he or she gets the chance to, for each motivation fulfilled, increase one of the character's skills (preferably one that was somehow relevant to whatever he did) by one point.

Whenever a player makes a bad decision based on his character's flaw he gets a hero point, or whatever you prefer to call them, which he can spend to reroll any future failed dice roll.

>>52185053
>Of course, the whole point of "role playing" is to try and play something other than a cookie cutter generic hero and actually do something interesting.

Which, of course, is why so few people actually play something other than a cookie cutter generic hero.

When was the last time you played a PC who was nerfed in one aspect without being buffed in another? When was the last time you played "Ferd the Nerd"? A run-of-the-mill fighter who also happens to be stupid with poor impulse control?

The answer is never, of course. No one wants to be constrained like that. They want to enjoy the good bits while ignoring the bad.

>>52184128
Yes, once you understand how those alignment systems work in the course of the game and it's particular setting, as well as the goal of the alignment system as a whole.
For example, most people fuck up what D&D's alignment system is and means, because they have swallowed too many memes, and thus think it's bad.
The issue is exactly what >>52184395 already said, and also what >>52184697 said.
>a coherent system of dividing up human morality
This is not what alignments or any similar system is trying to be, it's what people who haven't read the book think it is.
Even Morality/Integrity in WoD is more about how you relate to the world and setting, compared to personal values. You can have high values, but low Morality in WoD because it's your actions that determine it, not your moral code/compass.

>>52184128
Although good-evil is generally bullshit (is it good if you're only doing it to selfishly satisfy your own instinctive drive towards protecting those simmilar to yourself in some capacity? Is evil just neutrality that is deemed unsatisfactory on a societal scale?), Lawful-Chaos is accurate as fuck. Just look at Repub-Democrats, Superego-Id, etc. The real problem is that an accurate allignment chat would have too many variables to be neetly displayed in a two-dimensional grid, so trying do develope a system of guidelines based on a set of independant sliding scales makes the most sense. (Law-Chaos, Introversion-Extroversion, Tolleration-Supremacism, Moderation-Extremism, Idealism-Hedonism, etc.)

>>52185756
I once played a barbarian with an INT of 6.

Everyone called him Horse, loved hm to death because i played him well, and he was probably the most generic barbarian yo can make.

A lot of people do play the generic hero, and a lot don't, different groups. I know my group actually tends to make stereotypical characters (they are all new Roleplayers, so i suppose thats why). Generally in my experience, newer players will either make a generic and 'classic' version of whatever class they are and older players go for the gimmicks. There are players that test the rule, but they are outlier (like myself, first character was a bear, and it's all bears from there... mostly)

but that's my observations as a DM and player so *shrug*

Alignment to factions instead of alignment to a code of ethics.

Paladins are only for players who want to play a good, honorable person at all costs. Avoid them in most of your games.

>>52185756
Also depends on how those flaws manifest.
I am currently playing a skilled warrior who, while no idiot, isn't as bright or sociable as some, and is old/curmudgeonly to boot.
While perceptive and good at reading the mood, his life experience is defined by his military service, and he doesn't really get that other people may not key in to his logic born of surviving a savage war, and before that, being a member of a small hunter/gatherer tribe.
His skill has led to some arrogance, and his faith in his own wisdom (which sometimes IS lacking), belief in his own strength (which honestly isn't lacking), lack of book learning (frickin' useless books in his words) and lack of social grace means he constantly has friction within his own party, especially since he sees no need to explain his rationale.
After all, everyone (where he's from) "gets it", right?

>>52186028
My friends have never had an issue with paladins in our groups, I've played a couple of them.

What's been your specific issue anon?

>>52186019
>is it good if you're only doing it to selfishly satisfy your own instinctive drive towards protecting those simmilar to yourself in some capacity? Is evil just neutrality that is deemed unsatisfactory on a societal scale?
How about you rely on the definition of good and evil as provided by the game you are playing, and not your subjective real life interpretations?
>people getting alignments wrong: 101
>>52186075
A surprising number of people have issues with actual good guys in their games.

>>52186100
>A surprising number of people have issues with actual good guys in their games.

The hardass paladin is a funhouse mirror image of the dickass thief, and as much of a pain in the ass for a party that isn't interested in playing along with his shenanigans.


As for me, I like my alignment systems to be about joining a team, not a box that I fill in to tell me what my character thinks, as if I would ever need that. The OD&D single axis alignment is the best version of alignment in D&D.

>>52186100
>A surprising number of people have issues with actual good guys in their games.

Ah. Dick heads, i get ya.

My group tends to eject those people at high velocity from our games. not in the 'must play good guy, otherwise leave' way but, 'if you get butthurt that the good character who has explicitly told you not to kill anyone kills you because you ate a baby and told him to fuck off (in character)' way.

We don't really tolerate distruptive behaviour or making anyone uncomfortable. We also adhear to how a narrative would play out. If you act like dickhead murder Hobos someone will come and wreck your day. Sure the campaign might turn into a 'hunt for the criminal PC's who were supposed to deliver that gold', but it takes a team effort.

As an aside; I've always enjoyed playing pladins, even with the whole good guy shit. I think of it like a always must behave good, not always must think good. I made a snarky as shit young Paladin that ripped into people when he thought it would be funny. He's also an unflinching by the books rules lawyer and generous to boot.

Being a villain or a murder hobo is fun and all, but so is genuinely standing up against the dark forces, being the heroes, and feeling that feel you get when a world is made peaceful.

>>52186154
Then they was a shitty paladin or a shitty player bro. a good player knows when to make his hardassedness work for the party, and when his paladin needs to take a dump. players are the problem you are describing, not a class

>>52186154
The asshole paladin is a problem, yes, but saying that paladins should be avoided means people should avoid any kind of rogue or thief class because they can go sour, too.
Add warlocks to that list, because edgy.
Better put wizards on it, they can be complete dicks.
> tell me what my character thinks
This THIS THIS IS WHY YOU ARE WRONG.
I mean, seriously, you, and most people in these threads, are fucking up what alignments mean, then calling them bad because you are fucking up.
The character informs on their alignment, not the other way around. If the character is a kindly sort that doesn't mind performing self sacrificing acts, then they are generally Good.
That you think it is the other way around is the internet meme that got promulgated with 3.5 and people not reading the book, but listening to what other people say.

>>52186021
>I once played a barbarian with an INT of 6.
>Everyone called him Horse, loved hm to death because i played him well, and he was probably the most generic barbarian yo can make.

That's a perfect example of type great role playing we sadly don't see too often. Not only did you had a PC with an nerfed INT, you also didn't buffed stat or ability for some mythical "balance". Now compare and contrast your PC Horse to >>52186064

While that PC is somewhat nerfed by being, old, unsociable, hating "book learning", etc., he's also buffed by having great survival skills, being perceptive, reads moods well, etc. That player's PCs simply MUST have something something above average about them if only to "balance" a few below average aspects.

Rather than playing "Ferd the Nerd", players like this play "Ferd the Idiot Savant" and can't see the difference.

>>52184128
A decent alternative, I think, would be to simply say that all villains are always evil, all heroes are always good (and that all NPCs are always heroes) because they fight evil, and all other NPCs are neutral because they don't actively fight for either side.

>>52186218
>Then they was a shitty paladin or a shitty player bro.

That's what I meant when I said "hardass paladin." It is to a normal paladin what a dickass thief is to a regular thief. The dickass thief steals from the party because "it says thief on my sheet" and the hardass paladin smites his party members because "it says lawful on my sheet."
It might not have been clear, though, it's like midnight here and the room's spinning ever so slowly. Until I can get to sleep, might as well ramble about alignment some more, eh?

>>52186269
>This THIS THIS IS WHY YOU ARE WRONG.

You know I phrased it that way just because someone would sperg, right? It doesn't actually matter which way it goes, it's still pointless because it doesn't do anything. A descriptor of what my character does, whether it's describing what I've been doing or prescribing what I will do, is just totally superfluous.

>>52186305
>That player's PCs simply MUST have something something above average about them if only to "balance" a few below average aspects.
Anon, do realize the character didn't start out that good, what I'm speaking of is the end result of almost 2 years of playing the pc from base start to end game.
You also seem to be glossing over just how much trouble being a old grouch in a game mostly about social investigating causes. A downside need not be crippling in order for it to matter, and you could play a double amputee in a game, but you wouldn't have much fun being incapable of contributing to the game.

>>52186354
>A descriptor of what my character does, whether it's describing what I've been doing or prescribing what I will do, is just totally superfluous.
>continues to ignore >>52184697
No, anon, you are just stupid and STILL fucking it up.

>>52186305
Horse was also super strong and had a wis of like 18

I just rolled a shitty INT.

also;
>>52186064
sounds perfectly legitimate. As long as he didn't become the face or do altruistic things all too often.

I don't mind it when the party is balanced power level wise, just as long as the 'power' is in an appropriate spot. Horse was strong and kinda intuitive. He never got ambushed and generally knew what to kill, but he couldn't speak, open doors well, or use a fork so social was hard.

Another Example would be Bartholomew Warchuck, Desk Jockey. Play BESM in the BPRD (Hellboy) universe. We were the beta team, made up of a wendigo, an ancient Cherokee god of fire, a selkie, OWLMAN, and Bart. Bart was a plain human, with sorc one (Basically prestidigitation) and one unique skill, he can read, write, speak, and understand any for of communication. He did not like field work, but they brought him along to read the various Spanish they would encounter while looking for nazi Aztec gold (and eventually successfully threatening Quetzalcoatl with annihilation)

But again, iu think that's part of good role playing, and good narritive for everyone to have a use. If one person is going to be a Lame Steve, it should a party of Lame Steve's trying to survive, not just a guy hanging out because he's a macguffin or whatever. In my opinion of course.

>>52186354
Well, if the party did break the law.... and the paladin DID give a warning... he's not really being a hardass eh?

They party is kinda being dicks. I mean, if you know you are going to have a paladin with you, don't decide to make an evil toon, or if you do, curb that shit so the paladin doesn't see. That's part of the game, shitty players can happen on both ends. I've played the hardass paladin, who killed party members for breaking the law, it wasn't disruptive because he explicitly told people that's what he's ordered to do. It also became part of the narrative. When the rouge decided to steal something IN FRONT of the paladin, there wasn't a choice.

It's a give and take thing anon, BOTH sides have to not be shitty in order to have a good time, and that's how TTRPGing goes sadly.

>>52186449
>do altruistic things all too often
In our last game, I waved away the chopper that was on hand to bail us out if our current job went bad because "I didn't have choppas waiting for me when I served, and you all don't need them, either! Now you have to win, 'stead of thinkin' you can run with your tails tucked wheneva you want!"
Turned into a mexican stand off (again).
>>52186490
I've been in that position as the good guy paladin, always tried to help the next guy, was always reading to drop a fiver on a party member because they needed a bit of gear or some such.
Then 2 of the party members tortured a prisoner under my care, and I didn't run off to smite them. I pulled them aside and politely asked them to cease such acts, or I would have to act against them to the regret of all.
One of them agreed, and later died an honorable death in battle holding off giant centipedes from overwhelming us.
The other did not, and trespassed again on what was good, and I forgave him again, and begged him to do better. Then there was a third time, and I took his head clean off his shoulders.
Later, I spared a frost giant from execution, and reformed him. Now he travels with me, having taken his first level as a paladin, bringing justice to the frozen wastes he called home for those who have never known it.

>>52186547
You sir, are a good paladin.

A good person always asks you stop, before showing you that he can make you stop. Evil just does what it wants.

>>52186590
Anon, I honestly, genuinely do not understand where all these horror stories about paladins come from.
I mean, it's really fucking simple: be a good guy, do good things, fight Evil where it raises it's hood.
Sensible restraint is a must, because overly self righteous judgment can easily lead to you becoming the Evil for others caught up in sweeping gestures.
Understand that while you must cleave to a strident code, others need not, but mutual respect among comrades is the blooming flower of justice.
>in my game, my super bro was a half orc warlord who gave his support when I launched a full crusade, and I later knighted
The older I get, the more I believe these paladin horror stories are overblown, if not lies. Hell, I dealt with a jerkass paladin, but I also knew that the player was trying to add nuance and conflict in order to challenge his roleplaying, and the paladin, while trying at times, never failed to do what was right, and in the end, died going 1v1 against a Great Evil to buy us time to prepare a ritual to banish it.

>>52186668
I know anon, it's shameful how much straw people throw at eachother...

The paladin i'm currently playing is enamored with another PC. A tiefling witch who collects 'taxes' (souls) for her god. Who's -technically- neutral. He's even knit (yes Knit) a sweater for her goat with his Paladin symbol on it (a retarded looking sheep).

I've met the well intentioned extremist version of paladin as a gm, he quickly lost his powers because he kept going to far.

I think the issue come from older (read OG) DnDer's who've had to play with assholes because no one else would play with them. It's a new age, finding a decent, though hard, isn't impossible anymore. You can kick out the Dickbags.

>>52184128
Nope, morality is a spook

>>52187093
How so?

>>52184690
Trascendental makes no sense to me.
What does what is described even have anything to do with their view on ethics and behaviour?

>>52186100
>subjective real life interpretations
Problem is, they aren't, at least for the evil axiom.
i.e., an LE npc is effectively just a LN who's found himself a cushy job.

>>52187518
They give 0 fucks about the physical world. There for physical evil/good (murder, torture sex living flesh etc) means shit to them.

It's bad description of it.

>>52187618
The big difference between a LE and a LN is that the evil one doesn't care about how he makes money (as long as it's legal/following a specific set of rules) isn't against fucking people over (as long as it's legal/following a specific set of rules) and generally is an asshat to employees (as long as it's legal/following a specific set of rules)

Basically, LE is the guy in the room going 'you can't REALLY make an OBJECTIVE claim that humans have an impact on the planet's climate... would like to by an SUV?' where NE would be 'would you like to by a car? What car would you like? i can make that work for you"

so no, very different.

>>52187688
>>52187618
But doesn't giving a fuck about fucking people over mean a character isn't a hard moral neural, so to speak? Wouldn't that mean he had a tendancy towards good?
Or is the scale actually not good-evil but good-(hard)neutral, with what is called neutral in actuallity being "morally indiferent but with an average level of empathy"? In that case, wouldn't hard-core druids be evil, on account of their not giving a shit about people beyond their roles in the "circle of life" or some shit?

And can't good characters be asshats, too? Who's to say any given LE isn't just an LN acting pissy? Or is the line legitimately so thin that that would push them into evil territory?

>>52187794
Well really the good and evil axis is about which side of the cosmos you align to.

Which, in dnd, means being a prick tends to make evils gods like you and have a claim to your soul. Or something.

Acting like a prick is evil, acting altruistic and decent is good, and the in between is just... being a normal person really.

Imagine three people at a company that does pretty bad thing; The guy who knows he's fucking people over but doesn't care? he's evil. the guy working without that knowledge or intent, probably neural. The guy who's trying to bring them down from the inside using their own policies and practices? good. All are lawful (because they follow the rules/policies/laws ETC)

the line is a thin as you want it, an people who whine about alignments really don't understand measuring sticks and their uses (as a DM i use a PC's alignment to judge if they are going to be dicks to my characters, or are going to be nice. I also will change your alignment if i think the appropriate force will approve of you being on their side more than another.

at least how i see anyway.

and ofc special powers that use it and whatnot, but the stick is there.

>>52187931
Shit, I've never thought about alignments' being a metaphysical yardstick specific to DnD's setting rather than a description of character which just happens to correspond to alignment-based powers because reasons, but that actually explains a lot.

>>52188329
IS in the literature anon, but i'm glad to have enlightened you. If only more people saw it that way instead of trying to make an argument out of straw.

My bigest problem with a lot of bad Tabletoppers is that they focus to much on the rules and systems and not on the narrative or the fun shit.

I regularly throw rules out the window when it would mean that a)Unearned TPK b)less fun for everyone (Losing is Fun remember) or c) because it wouldn't fitto have the acorbatic character fucking die because he was off by one, at least not without an extra chance to just barely survive.

all rules are guidelines, and if you try to fuck me, i will fucking fuck you right back.

File: This + law and chaos are planar concepts = patrician.png (32KB, 1380x83px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 1380x83px

Reminder that if you're playing in a setting where planes are aligned (ie: plane of positive/negative energy) the alignment system is a cosmologic system and doesn't reflect the psychology or actions of people.
And if the setting doesn't have cosmologic alignment it's just a way to reduce a character's psyche and actions to two words. That's so diminutive there's almost no information in there. Why would you describe a character by its alignment instead of taking twenty seconds to do a better job with actual sentences?

>>52188329
>this entire post
Thank you for proving what I repeatedly said: People who bitch about D&D alignments have never actually read the book on what alignments mean, and follow memes instead.

>>52184128
Two axis
Order<->Chaos or how much respect for authority you have
and
Ends<->Means. Which is self explanatory

Other than that, there's sympathy which isn't really an ethics or morality issue as it is a character trait.

A genuine good person will have a high sympathy, so much so that ignoring it is difficult or practically impossible. A sociopath may have 0 sympathy, being completely apathetic to other people's troubles. A psychopath might have negative sympathy, showing a desire to make others suffer.

File: 1477340747251.png (260KB, 500x481px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 500x481px

>>52184128
The best way I've found to handle alignment, if you really wanna do it, is to ask the players some questions about their characters. Ie, give them a situation and ask them what they would do. Then ask them things about their character's opinions; what their goal is, what they hate, what they like, what they think is wrong and right. Record all that and then refer back to it as the game progresses to make sure they're following those initial ideas and opinions, or if they're changing it makes sense.

>>52190400
I'm not a hardcore tabletopper and have actually never played DnD, but if this shit is true, people need to cut throwing it onto every other peice of media under the sun the fuck out.

>>52193616
You can still say which alignment a character would fall into if they were in a D&D setting, more or less. People just need to stop thinking of alignments as manuals of conduct and more as, say, Myers-Briggs types.

>>52184339
Clearly, it needs to be a three-dimensional chart.

What is the difference between Chaotic Neutral and True Neutral?

>>52197453
True neutral isn't interested. Chaotic neutral is interested in anything that isn't the same, routine, commonplace, or boring. Chaotic neutral are individualists who enjoy life and have no interest in causing trouble or getting into trouble that would cause other people problems (themselves, they don't mind so much, and are usually smart enough not to do anything suicidal or homicidal - those would be chaotic stupid people).

Good luck on getting someone to play chaotic neutral without being chaotic stupid.

>>52184128
>clodius
>not chaotic evil

>cicero
>not neutral/chaotic good

I mean, I'm biased because Cicero is my dead roman boyfriend, but still.

t. Atticus

>>52187688
>>52187931
If your model of someone of a certain alignment is a CEO or an employee, you need to start over.

File: Alignments.pdf (107KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1x1px

>>52184128
Palladium's Alignment system is actually very good. It captures the basic (cliched, admittedly) attitudes of fictional character quite well.

File: England Upturn'd.jpg (201KB, 505x772px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 505x772px

>>52184128
In England Upturn'd, a Civil War-set module for LotFP, the gygaxian alignment axes are adapted for the time period.

Essentially, you have Royalist-Neutral-Republican and Cavalier-Neutral-Roundhead.

Royalist vs Republican denotes whether you believe society should be structured top-down or bottom-up, respectively.
Cavalier vs Roundhead denotes your characters temperament, with the former being passionate but flighty, while the later are sober and dour.

To clarify apparent contradictions, a Republican Cavalier would be someone who is caught up in the romance of revolution and the like, while a Royalist Roundhead is a serious and sober supporter of absolute monarchy, or similar.

On top of this there a bunch of different denominations clerics can adhere too, each with certain alignment restrictions. So a Catholic can't be Republican, while a Presbyterian has to be Roundhead

>>52185756
I play a gullible, tactless bumpkin of a Cleric. Does that count?

>>52186756
>The paladin i'm currently playing is enamored with another PC. A tiefling witch who collects 'taxes' (souls) for her god. Who's -technically- neutral. He's even knit (yes Knit) a sweater for her goat with his Paladin symbol on it (a retarded looking sheep).

This is cute

>>52184128
D&D allignmnents were pretty workable when just Law/Chaos was a measurable force of the universe and not good/evil. Mortals interpreted law as good and chaos as evil, but both were pretty fucking dark and inhuman when you fell to far down either path.

No. It's a simple matter of computational irreducibility: a single act can't be placed into only 1 of 9 possible ethical judgement, so a pattern of them can't be, either. You'll always need more boxes to place things into than you'll have.

>>52184128
Is it possible to read the tiny lines on OPs pic ?

>>52184128
Come up with a massive list of personality traits and values.

Players have to choose at least 3

>>52186490
>Party all made up.
>Gold hungry mercenaries and grifters.
>New guy shows up with paladin character.
>Try to carry him along because of out of character bs.
Whelp, I guess we do what he wants now guys, there goes the campaign

>>52205125
Easy. Don't let him be a Paladin. It's no different to not allowing someone Evil to join a campaign where everyone is good, or where the intent may even be to be heroes.

Or, just murder the character if it becomes a problem. This happened ina WFRP2 game of mine recently, where one of the characters kept chopping off hands of shit and pushed the idea of grinding dead bodies down to make pies we could sell. He ended up reported and killed. Cue new character.

It's not that fucking hard and sometimes new people need to learn that.

>>52184128
Anyone have this image without it being for ants?

>>52197453
>Chaotic Neutral and True Neutral
True Neutral
>What will be will be, it's fate/will of the gods/the nature of the thing
Chaotic Neutral
>What will be will be, but I'd rather it be about me first

>>52205125
What you are talking about is entirely different, and if the other pcs are so stubborn and shockingly stupid that they can't at least keep their shit to themselves, how have they survived in the world thus far?
Or do you think that the sole authority you need to have issue with is the party's paladin?

>>52205521
The party's paladin sees shit the authorities don't, because of the metagame need to not just leave him in that town 10 miles back, and drag the fucker along with you.

>>52205543
>The party's paladin sees shit the authorities don't
Again, if your crooks aren't smart enough to hide shit, how have they survived to this point?
Or think of how having a universally recognized good guy around can be used for them?
What I'm seeing here is "I can't murderhobo stupidly or with DM assisted impunity, so it's bad". I've been the shady fucker in a party with a paladin, and I worked him over solidly. Not only did we have an "agreement", his very existence placed me beyond suspicion; the paladin vouched for me, getting me into places that would have required far more work to rob, and got me out of trouble repeatedly because I could easily claim I was working on the side of Justice and Good.
Git gud, scrub, and be a successful murderhobo.

>>52205489
It seems weird that they're both Neutral, but one is more selfish/egoistic than the other.

>>52205634
So you propose that they simply not play with the paladin, but carry out two concurrently running games? Are you retarded?

>>52184365
>Should be lawful neutral, since he'd advocating obeying the law no matter what.
this
lawful good is following your own (good) principles and morals no matter what , not the law of the land

>>52199301
>republican propaganda 5 centuries after the event
goddamn

>>52207358
No, I propose they act like smart crooks and use the paladin to further the long con, rather than be stupid ones and do shit in front of the paladin they already know will cause him to take interest.

>>52206652
The hinge of Chaotic is a "Me First/My Way" approach to the world.