What is the easiest allignment to play and which is the hardest

>>53180516
Chaotic allignments are supposed to be insane.

The easiest allignment to play are Neutral good, Neutral Evil and Lawfull evil.

I think that a lot depends on your attitude as a person. Some folks are going to have trouble adhering to a code and aren't going to take to lawful characters, while others will do it by reflex. I do think that a fair number of people have trouble with evil, making it all "brotherhood of darkness" or "lol, randumb kill!" I'd guess that neutral good would be the easiest, because some folks also overdo chaotic (and lawful is restrictive).

>easiest
Chaotic good

>hardest
Lawful good because of the DM, Lawful evil because of players

>>53180783
Chaotic doesn't mean insane, it just means they aren't lawful.

>>53180823
Chaotic means they don't even think about taking laws and customs into account when making a decision.

Usually only mentally ill people do so.

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

74KB, 821x524px

>>53180844
>Chaotic means they don't even think about taking laws and customs into account when making a decision.
This is what I mean by people overdoing chaotic. What you say is no more true than that is *all* that lawful characters think about. Chaotic characters just pay less heed to societal norms and strictures on behavior than most folks do. They're more willing to cheat, fight dirty, and break common conventions. They are, in short, dishonorable, at least in their methodology. Their intentions may be good (that's the good/evil axis, after all), but they do shit that isn't proper or respectable.

>>53180516
Unaligned

>>53180844
I've always thought of chaotic good more like Robin hood or something. He steals but gives it to the poor.
Neutral I interpret as being more about the balance between doing what is right and following a code.

>>53180516
Easiest is definitely Neutral Good. You literally just need a remotely functional moral compass.

Hardest is probably Chaotic Neutral, actually, as evidenced by the great many people who completely cock it up and annoy everyone.

>>53180516
Lawful good might be the hardest to pull off because it is the most restrictive one. It's not a problem with good DM's but with the rest, there's will always be someone whowill disagree on what is good or lawful or lawful good.

I think chaotic evil is the easiest one becaise you could write down "chaotic evil" and play as any other alignment.

If a good PC frees slaves, a DM might argue on the morality of endangering the economy, the good ofbthe many, etc and say your act was not good. But if you are evil, you can free slaves, give money to the poor, protect the orcs babies, save the orphan instead of the nun or create an egalitarian state with low risk of getting called out on it.

Most people might argue that a PC is not really good. Few will argue a PC is not really evil.

>>53180516
Every alignment could be the hardest or the easiest for you to play.

The real challenge is coming up with a clear idea of what an alignment means for you and sticking to it

>>53180516
The hardest alignments start at "LG" and then get easier as your travel diagonally towards CE.

Lawful and Good is the antithesis of a strong dungeon-crawling party because you're killing, stealing, and only helping people on the assumption that there's compensation to cover the risks of life and limb.

Evil is a bit easier because you have more wiggle room as far as what's acceptable and LE tends to be the easiest of the evil alignments to gel with the rest of the party.

Neutral is "eh" the alignment, allowing you to ignore one axis (or both) in favor focusing all your energy towards being one alignment but the issue is that doing so tends to create alignment-stupid characters.

Chaotic is the easiest because it means that you can say or do whatever you want, whenever you want, and if you die, you can just reroll another character. I've literally never seen a chaotic-alignment character not end up becoming a disruptive ass with a low half-life and probably never will.

>>53180951
You seem to forget that Robin Hood stole from an evil tax goverment official, which made people poor by overtaxing them.

Stealing from a good rich guy even if to give to the poor is an evil action.

>>53180516
You're supposed to play a character, not an alignment. You understand that, right?

>>53184903
>Stealing from a good rich guy even if to give to the poor is an evil action.
Says a Lawful person. A Chaotic person would probably disagree.

Changing Law and Chaos to Lawful and Chaotic was a mistake.

>>53185214
It's evil. You are deliberaly hurting someone who didn't do anything wrong just to benefit another person. How do you know he wasn't saving for example for a very expensive cirurgy?

>>53185266
>You are deliberaly hurting someone who didn't do anything wrong just to benefit another person.
It depends a bit on how rich they are and how much you're stealing, but we make decisions everyday based on incomplete information. This can come down to breaking into the chemist at night to get the medicine to save a child's life. A life is saved; a window's broken.

I would argue that, in most cases, a Lawful person sees this as Evil (you're hurting somebody by taking what belongs to them), a Chaotic person sees it as Good (fuck the rules; they're getting the money to the people who really need it), and a Neutral person sees it as Neutral (you're hurting one guy, but you're helping another who needs it more desperately).

>>53185730
Except that alignment isn't subjective in DnD. And you cannot do something evil (hurt an innocent) and justify with a good cause (help an innocent).

>>53185785
>And you cannot do something evil (hurt an innocent) and justify with a good cause (help an innocent).
Doing something minorly evil moves you a little bit towards evil. Doing something majorly good moves you more towards good. Net result: you move towards good.

>>53186091
>I played too many Fallout games
No anon, this isn't how it goes. A good person won't consider doing something evil, not unless he has no choice besides doing it. A good person will always search first for another way to fulfill what he wants to do.

>>53186160
>A good person won't consider doing something evil
Maybe if they're the very embodiment of all that is good and holy, but this is in the same category with a Lawful person never telling a lie. Good people consider doing selfish things all the time, and sometimes they actually do them too. Nobody's perfect.

>>53180516
>Chaotic Good since you aren't bound by the law

Making it quite difficult.

Law's are a combination of social contracts, moral codes, agreements, traditions and common sense rulings that give society grounding. The reason for this is that most the population aren't edge lords, golden knights, madmen or lone wolves. They are just regular people who want to live undisturbed and get on with shit. For the large part, the populace of a civilization obeying the decreed law isn't an issue as long as its not interfering with day to day life. This is because its a mutual, tacit agreement between everyone that you aren't going to cause them trouble and they won't cause you trouble.

Being someone who lives against that tacit agreement and actually thriving is difficult because laws are enforced regardless of how much you buy into them or don't - and individuals who see you disregarding them aren't exactly going to want to be near you or trust you because your a liability / threat. Add to that you push an ideological angle and you'll actually cause a great deal of trouble for things like codes and rules and laws that people follow but conflict with you 'good' ideology.

The easiest alignment is probably Lawful Neutral. How you should behave and act is largely guided for you and you aren't tied to any cosmic ideology. Do what is expected and you'll probably come out even at the end.

The hardest is Chaotic Evil. Because you are actively trying to disregard laws and at the same time promote evil - which tends to tread on many basic foundations and agreements in society which are already in things like...laws.

>>53180516
I like to think of alignments more in terms of what it means the character COULD do, rather than what it means they must do at all times.

In general, what your character is capable of doing gets more restrictive in the upper left and less restrictive as it moves to bottom right.

There is no single action that a Lawful Good character can do that a Chaotic Evil couldn't also do if he felt like it. There's a whole fucking lot of shit a Chaotic Evil character can do that LG just can't.

Save children from a burning orphanage? Yeah, a CE character with the proper motivation (he grew up there and it was the only place anyone ever treated him well, he's being paid, one of his numerous bastards is inside)

Killing someone who looks at you funny? Or murder for money? Being the guy who sets fire to an orphanage? Can't exactly justify those as LG in any reasonable way

An Evil character has the freedom to do whatever he wants in any given circumstance in a way that a Good character doesn't. That can frequently (and with shitty role players only) involve doing really messed up evil shit, but you don't HAVE to always act like a monster if you don't WANT to. Evil is tempting for a reason, and should have more inherent reward than being "good" because if being good got everything done in just as timely a manner as Evil with no downside then Evil people would just act Good because theyre not stupid. Like in bioshock doing the evil option to little sisters makes zero sense because you end up being an asshole AND getting less rewards AND getting a worse ending. If harvesting sisters was the ONLY way to get the best shit and upgrades, not doing it made the game a ton harder, and you didn't see measurable benefits for freeing them until you got the nice ending, that'd be a lot better moral dilemma.

Easiest is Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. Just run around and try to help people. It's okay if the net effect is negative, it's the thought that counts! Also, good doesn't have to be nice. It's oaky to kill torture and steal as long as you're doing it to evil people. Hell, if you're Chaotic Good you can get away with doing crazier stuff like raping people as long as the victims evil and deserved it, like they raped someone else first and your rape was to avenge their earlier crime rape. People often forget that being good doesn't mean you have to be nice, sometimes good people do nasty things for the greater good.

Lawful Neutral isn't too hard either because you can do morally gray things like burn down villages or kill children if you feel it's your obligation, like The King ordered you to execute these child soldiers in front of their mothers and then execute the mothers and you might think that's a bit too harsh but loyalty to your king and country is more important than things like morals and wha you think personally is good or evil. Only thing is, if you go by a command ethics system, like whatever your king or your god says is what you do, you're putting a lot of extra power in your GM, and you're easily manipulated if said king or god is mind controlled or you're tricked with an illusion of them.

Hardest to play is probably anything evil, but especially Lawful Evil. Evil generally doesn't gel well with being in a group of adventurers. If you're all looking out only for yourselves it's a bit hard to justify joining together unless it's some kind of Legion of Doom scenario where the good guys trying to keep you down are so strong you HAVE to work together to keep the forces of Good from thwarting you all. And being evil generally gets you in trouble with the locals too, so if you're a bunch of well known outlaws you might have a hard time walking into an inn just to get a rest for a while because they all fear and sort of hate you and might call the cops.

>>53185785
>Except that alignment isn't subjective in DnD.
Yet we have this same argument every other week.

>>53186599
A lawful good won't plan to tell a lie. He may tell a lie on impulse and feel bad about it afterwards, or he may tell a lie because he didn't found another way, but someone good or lawful don't plan to do something evil or to break the law willingly.

>>53187815
Because people are unable to read?

>>53188941
No, because alignments aren't, and haven't been, fucking subjective at all. At best, you could argue that shit like positive/negative energy is objective but even then, huge difference between that and alignments as a whole.

>>53187649
I contend that Lawful Evil is the easiest Evil to adventure with provided that the rules the Lawful Evil person abides by are very clear. I.e. never tell a lie, never steal from an ally, etc.

>>53188905
Your standards are ridiculous. Everybody in your universe would end up being neutral, because they have to be the perfect, unwavering embodiment of the extremes to qualify for any of the other alignments. A lawful good guy is probably going to dislike telling lies more than other folks, but there are a lot of facets of a person's character, and even lawful people can have one somewhat chaotic trait, just like a good person can have a somewhat evil trait (as long as these things aren't too extreme).

>>53189034
>I haven't read the materials, the post
Go back to debating if genocide is evil.

>>53189124
>not doing premeditated bad things means you are Jesus
A lawful person, someone who respects laws and norms isn't going to wake up and say 'you know I would like to lie today'. A lawful good person will only lie in a impulse or if in a situation they believe there is no other choice.

Let me go with a more simpler example: a good person don't go 'I think I will commit murder today'. Ie: lawful or/and good people don't premeditate going against their alignments.

>>53189249
a LG person would think, "I will commit murder against the heathen jihadists in the name of King and Country,". His actions are Lawful (his King declared war after all) and Good (protecting innocent civilians).

Any alignment can think, "I will commit murder today," depending on the situation and still be well within their alignment.

>>53189249
So what alignment is a character that believes in the redistribution of wealth by force, acquiring coin by stealing from the rich (whether they are deserving or not) and giving it to the poor and down-trodden, because they believe that they need that coin more immediately than the rich do?

>>53189321
Good doesn't enjoy killing, it does because it's necessary. Go read your alignment books for example if it's okay to go killing orcs who haven't done anything.

>>53189360
Chaotic Neutral at best.

>>53189360
Chaotic Evil.

Knowingly stealing from anyone regardless of their alignment is chaotic and evil.

>>53189199
An act can have several different connotations depending on intent, even if it leads to the same outcome, which makes alignments subjective by default.

If you don't believe me then answer this question. If I stumble upon a woman being raped in an alley and I saved her because she was physically attractive to me, and I used the rescue as a means of convincing her to leave her abusive husband and this eventually leads to a happier and more fulfilling life for her, what alignment would this act fall under?

>>53189411
No it doesn't dumbass, in DnD genocide is evil. Go read your fucking books.

>>53189393
>Good doesn't enjoy killing, it does because it's necessary

Protecting yourself and your country from violence and death is pretty necessary, bud.

I'd like to ask a question that doesn't deserve it's own thread.

>Be DM
>Party facing group of people under charm spell
>Fight begins, remind players of the knock unconscious option.
>Remind them these are innocent people under charm spell
>They begin knocking people out, however Unlawful Good ranger decides to kill one
>Party warns him not to do that
>He continues to kill when able, no reason given.

The players and some NPCs now see him as irrational, unpredictable and a murderer, but do I gotta force an alignment change? One of his bonds is to make peace around his home, which he's also going against.

What do about players acting out of their alignment?

>>53189445
Yes. He is literally evil.

>>53189442
You can only use self defence as an justification if they were actually attacking numbnuts.

>>53189445
Make him fall to at least neutral, he is killing people that he knows that is innocent just because it's easier.

>>53189360
Chaotic Good, Chaotic Neutral, or Chaotic Evil, depending on the particulars.

>>53189430
Answer the question posed here >>53189411
>If I stumble upon a woman being raped in an alley and I saved her because she was physically attractive to me, and I used the rescue as a means of convincing her to leave her abusive husband and this eventually leads to a happier and more fulfilling life for her, what alignment would this act fall under?

>>53189474
no... the sacreans have to die before they get a chance to pillage my home and innocent women.

>>53189546
>anon answer my gotcha question pls

>>53189559
No anon, you cannot invade an orc city and start killing orcs because they may attack a city.

Wait, why am I debating with you? Go read the book of Exalted Deeds.

>>53189598
The fact that a "gotcha" question exists proves how alignment cannot be objective.

I hope you know that.

>>53189611
Except by the fact resource books clearly define how characters should act?

>>53189598
>>53189638
God himself has killed more people throughout the old testiment than Satan has throughout the whole bible.

So under your criteria of genocide = evil, how do you define God in this scenario?

Also, referencing source material that is refuted by its own material isn't going to do a whole lot to help your case. You might as well reference a book that you wrote explaining why you're right.

>>53189673
>in DnD


>Also, referencing source material that is refuted by its own material isn't going to do a whole lot to help your case.
Which book has released changing how a good character should act in DnD?

>>53189598
>Book of Exalted Deeds
You mean the book that's dedicated to the goodest of the goodest of the goodest, sir?

Orcs are Evil. Killing Evil is Good. Slaying those Orcs is Good.

>>53187649
Evil characters work fine in a group so long as there aren't any anti-evil characters in said group. Just like how good doesn't have to be nice, evil doesn't have to be mustache-twirling. Similarly, good doesn't have to be anti-evil and evil doesn't have to be anti-good. Your evil character could be the guy who gets results regardless of method, the guy with his own agenda who isn't afraid to use a few people along the way, the guy with some inner demons he may or may not give into, or just the guy who really likes killing but likes getting paid for it even more.

>>53185266
>overtaxing
>didn't do anything wrong

And murder can be right even though by definition it means to wrongfully kill.

>>53180922
>that pic
that's perfect; it has exactly the same meaning as the alignments as they are, but now retards will understand it
totally using it

>>53189721
First, it's to help composing and roleplaying a good character.

Second orcs aren't inheriently evil. They are evil because of their societies so no, you aren't justified in killing them without reason.

>>53189784
I think you should follow the conversation before posting.

>>53180922
This might be the best retooling of the alignment grid I've ever seen.

File: 1461860166263.png (416KB, 950x760px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 950x760px

>>53189833
There's also this.

>>53189692
>Which book has released changing how a good character should act in DnD?
You still never answered the question anon. Under the criteria that genocide = evil, how do you define God in this scenario?
>inb4 gotcha question
If alignment was truly objective, there'd be "gotcha" questions at all because such questions would already be answered and there'd be no need for a debate.

But let's face it, we both know that you're up against a wall, so you'll never answer the question because there's no way you can do so without proving that alignment is subjective by default.

>>53189844
>They are evil because of their societies

You can't use subjective morality in a game based on objective morality. Monster Manual says Evil. They are Evil, it does not matter the cause.

>>53189721
>You mean the book that's dedicated to the goodest of the goodest of the goodest, sir?

While it is dedicated to that, it does spend time defining what does and does not constitute Good in the context of D&D. That you haven't bothered to read it is your fault, not mine. A PDF of it is floating around somewhere on /tg/, I'm sure.

>>53189844
>Second orcs aren't inheriently evil. They are evil because of their societies so no, you aren't justified in killing them without reason.
Beyond the fact that their society glofifies and condones the rape and murder of sentient creatures just because they're weaker than them?

If this were a human society, there'd be no compunctions about firebombing them off the map to protect the lives of everyone else around them.

>>53189881
>there'd be
should be
>there wouldn't be.

File: 1488724149690.png (2MB, 1910x1420px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1910x1420px

Neutral Good best alignment

>>53189904
Either orcs are always evil by nature (which means that it's objectively okay to genocide them to protect good-aligned races) or orcs can be evil if they're raised to be (meaning that it depends on circumstance, making their alignments subjective), so which is it?

But, y'know, you've already lost so I don't expect you to answer the question, your silence is proof enough.

>>53189881
>pls answer my scenario even through we are talking in DnD

In DnD there is no good deity who would do genocide. You would know that if you actually read the books.

>>53189890
If you actually paid attention, they were Evil because those were exactly Orc raiders. And second, Evil means that a good deal are evil and not all of them.

>>53189906
And that wouldn't be good. Good would be trying to reeducate them into being better people.

>>53189981
>it's a only two ways fallacy
Orcs are evil because they were raised evil. That doesn't change that evil acts in DnD are clearly listed on the books and are objective.

Have you got it now or you want me to draw it?

>>53189881
Hang on, new Anon here. God in the Bible is difficult because we're talking about a book written over the course of millennia by dozens of people with different goals reinterpreted and rewritten an unknown number of times. But I'll give it a try based on what I remember from when I last read the Bible

First, is God Evil according to D&D? Let's consult the Book of Vile Darkness.

>Lying
Not in the sense BoVD means.

>Cheating
I don't recall God cheating in his bet with Satan over Job. In fact he is a deity of his word for the most part.

>Theft
God does not steal and in fact specifically speaks against it.

>Betrayal
God never breaks his word once given, and looks very poorly on being betrayed himself.

>Murder
God murders countless thousands of otherwise innocent Egyptians.

>Vengeance
Specifically, "revenge at any price". Again, God demonstrates this quite a bit.

>Worshipping Evil Gods/Demons
Obviously God does not do this himself. He also commands his followers not to do it, but more out of possessiveness of worshippers: "I your Lord am a jealous god."

>Animating the Dead/Creating Undead
Not that I recall.

>Casting Evil Spells
Difficult to tell as all the magic God uses could be any number of different spells.

>Damning/Harming Souls
Extensively. God damns a lot of people, with his criterion being simply "if they don't worship me, they're damned."

>Consorting with Fiends
Well, he made a bet with Satan over Job, but then it's debatable Satan counts (Hebrew mythoi has Satan as an angel in Heaven who serves God and is an adversary of Man, not God).

>Creating Evil Creatures
God created everything, and therefore created evil creatures.

>Using Others for Personal Gain
Not that I recall.

>Greed
God is jealous and demands that no one worship any God but him.

>Bullying/Cowing Innocents
While Pharaoh was not innocent, the various Egyptians who suffered because of God's actions were.

>Bringing Despair
SEE 10 Plagues

>Tempting Others
Not that I recall.

>>53189869
I really like how the good/evil axis touches on something that's frequently overlooked: narrowness of concern. However, I don't think it's strictly accurate as presented. I think an evil person can care about more than himself. You can have the genocidal dictator who cares about his ethnic group and wants to exterminate another. You can have the guy who will arrange an accident to get the organ transplant his wife needs to survive. You can can have the murderous gang member who would lay die his life for his crew. And then you can have the guy who's only out for himself and everybody else be damned. But acknowledging the issue of there being an inside group and an outside group when it comes to morality is an important matter that doesn't get discussed enough.

>>53189833
>>53189855
Thanks! I had struggled a bit about how to frame law vs. chaos when it came to following the rules, and it occurred to me that while the laws of the land could be arbitrary and vary from place to place, the concept of honor is much more consistent and fundamental to the morality of a culture. I will say that I'd rather not have "neutral" in there, but I couldn't come up with a better term (that wouldn't seem like it's modifying the second axis, like "middling kind"), and "altruistic" is probably a better fit than "kind", but is a bit too clunky to say.

>>53190019
>In DnD there is no good deity who would do genocide.
So God is evil then?
>And second, Evil means that a good deal are evil and not all of them.
So their alignment is subjective?
>Good would be trying to reeducate them into being better people.
Even when objective alignment states that they are evil creatures by default?

>>53190109
>God in the Bible is difficult because we're talking about a book written over the course of millennia by dozens of people with different goals reinterpreted and rewritten an unknown number of times.
Exactly, you can't map down a complex being down to a 3x3 grid and yet have an objective alignment system that still allows you to define what is or isn't good or lawful or whatever.

>>53190151
>So God is evil then?
I'm not interested in real life theology. We are talking in DnD, stop trying to move goalposts.

>So their alignment is subjective?
Are you braindead? Seriously, what part of 'evil' doesn't mean 'all of them are evil' didn't you get?

>Even when objective alignment states that they are evil creatures by default?
Yes, if someone evil can be regenerated it's the objective of good to regenerate that person. You are only justified in killing it in self defense.

>>53190109
Right, God hits quite a few of the "Evil" checkmarks in the BoVD (Murder, vengeance, damnation/harming souls, creating evil creatures, greed, bullying/cowing innocents, bringing despair). Let's see how he does with Good.

>Helping others
Not really. God is primarily concerned with his own worshippers and his Chosen People. Several times he directs those Chosen People to go to war with other people. Likewise, until the Messiah was born, God made no special effort to spread His message to other parts of the world beyond Israel.

>Charity
God does not demonstrate charity himself. He helps those who are performing tasks for him, but never goes out of his way to help others. Jesus Christ, on the other hand, does.

>Healing
Healing magic involves positive energy and so is closely linked to Good. However God does not often heal people, although Jesus does.

>Personal Sacrifice
God? Never. Jesus? His very life, though one has to question how much of a "sacrifice" it is given that Jesus knew with 100% certainty that he'd be back within 3 days and better than ever.

>Worshiping Good Deities
No, but only because gods don't worship other gods. God discourages the worship of other gods in his followers, even Good ones.

>Casting Good spells
Same problem as Casting Evil Spells, above.

>Mercy
Not really, no. Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is fairly merciful.

>Forgiveness
God? A few times, but he doesn't make a habit of it and actually has a policy of damning people unto the seventh generation and all that. Jesus, on the other hand, is literally all about mercy.

>Bringing Hope
Yes, but only for his own chosen people.

>Redeeming Evil
I actually can't think of a single instance of this in the whole of the Bible, although Jesus seemed to think it was possible.

PERSONAL CONCLUSION:
In D&D terms, God comes across as Lawful Evil. However, Jesus Christ comes across as Lawful Good.

Wow, I've heard a lot of stupid shit but this thread takes the cake

>>53184903
Robin Hood is like the iconic of the Chaotic Good. His band gives the people back their positions that were taken from them by an illegitimate government.

>>53185730
A Lawful Neutral character might see it like that, but a Lawful Good character would merely give a light reprimand, and make reparations by morning, mending the window and compensating the cost of the medicine. On the question to be Lawful or be Good, Good will generally win out, at least if the player is genuinely playing LG, and not a sanctimonious LN.

Lawful Good is simultaneously incredibly easy to play and extremely difficult, depending on the campaign. You know precisely what you must do, follow that standard of ethics that is set forth by your patron and society. At the same time, laws are made by mortal men, and sometimes it is necessary to willfully ignore them lest a more important law be broken.

And of course, there's the rub. Even Paladins aren't expected to act in a 100% LG manner, 100% of the time. PCs are allowed to err, to make a mistake in judgement, as long as they are trying to hold up the standard and do their best to fix their mistakes when they do slip up.

File: Alignments for Gordons.png (277KB, 1340x2230px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1340x2230px

>>53190176
No, you can't, because you are unwilling to compromise and find a "best fit", as well as likely forgetting that alignment can shift over time so it doesn't matter if something isn't a perfect fit because that just means that it has a potential for change.

I, personally, am able to map down a complex being into a 3x3 grid and yet have an objective alignment system that allows me to define what is or isn't good or lawful (though law/chaos is more about personal opinion due to a book on them never being published).

I did so here: >>53190272

>>53190140
I have an amended version of this, but it's longer and more involved. Pic related.

>>53190151
>So God is evil then?
Pretty clearly, yes. At least as one of a pantheon of deities. As the one and only omnipotent, omniscient deity? Well, everything he does is righteous because he did it, and all things flow from him. Or at least that's the argument. But taken on their own, some of his actions and demands would clearly bury the needle on the evil-meter if performed or demanded by anybody else. What was the thing about killing babies? No, not that one. The other one. No, not that one either. The one with Moses.

>>53190312
Yes, that what I said. Robin Hood stole from an evil douchebag because he was taking stuff that wasn't his, not just because he was rich.

>>53190313
>No, you can't, because you are unwilling to compromise and find a "best fit", as well as likely forgetting that alignment can shift over time so it doesn't matter if something isn't a perfect fit because that just means that it has a potential for change.
If it can change then doesn't that make it subjective?
>I, personally, am able to map down a complex being into a 3x3 grid and yet have an objective alignment system that allows me to define what is or isn't good or lawful
So does that mean that God is evil or not?

>>53190195
>I'm not interested in real life theology. We are talking in DnD, stop trying to move goalposts.
Answer the question sweetie.
>Are you braindead? Seriously, what part of 'evil' doesn't mean 'all of them are evil' didn't you get?
So they are subjectively evil.
>Yes, if someone evil can be regenerated it's the objective of good to regenerate that person.
If you have a man who murdered hundreds of innocent people, but he laid down his weapon and said "I surrender," does this mean that his life should take precedence over his victim's family receiving justice?

>>53190272
>God is primarily concerned with his own worshippers and his Chosen People.
In the Old Testament he's downright racist like that. He's picked one cultural-ethnic group that he's championing, and he's down with slaughtering anybody who happens to be standing in their way. In the New Testament, he tends to be a bit more accepting, and is willing to look out for everybody who worships him. Maybe. Depending on your beliefs concerning predestination and shit, he may be arbitrarily sending people to hell, regardless of their actions.

>>53190383
>If it can change then doesn't that make it subjective?

No. What is and is not evil or good or lawful or chaotic is objective (in Dungeons & Dragons). However, your alignment is the result of your choices, not the source of them. A Good person isn't such because his alignment forces him to act Good. Rather, he acts Good and so his alignment is Good. But something might happen that lead him to act differently, and the result of that is he shifts (to Neutral or Evil).

>So does that mean that God is evil or not?

How about you try reading the post where I answered that question exactly, which I went to the trouble of linking for you already. You moron.

File: that's bullshit you're retarded.png (47KB, 146x160px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 146x160px

>>53189869
>...in your methods

>>53190406
>answer my question, even through it has nothing to do with it
I will answer it when God becomes part of DnD.

>So they are subjectively evil.
Ah, and humans are neutral so they are sujectively neutral.

Are you retarded?

>If you have a man who murdered hundreds of innocent people, but he laid down his weapon and said "I surrender," does this mean that his life should take precedence over his victim's family receiving justice?
You probably mean revenge, and revenge is evil. A good person wouldn't kill him, they would help him see the error of his ways and then take him to whatever authority to decide his fate.

>>53190427
>What is and is not evil or good or lawful or chaotic is objective (in Dungeons & Dragons).
So wouldn't that mean that certain actions would always be good/evil/neutral/lawful/chaotic, regardless of circumstance?

Like if killing a sentient being was always lawful/good/evil/etc. then you could make an argument for objective alignment. However, the reality is that you can't, because it's dependent on circumstance, making it subjective to the variables that lead to that action taking place.

>>53190437
Like I said, I do have an updated version. >>53190313

>>53190477
It's still fucking wrong.

>>53190458
>I will answer it when God becomes part of DnD.
Cool, you admitted that you have no argument, baby steps anon, I believe in you.
>Ah, and humans are neutral so they are sujectively neutral.
If alignment is objective then they'd be objectively neutral.
>You probably mean revenge, and revenge is evil.
This isn't revenge though, justice is meant to see that those who committed a crime feel justice on behalf of those that they've wronged. It's no more evil to make someone pay someone back for property damage.
>A good person wouldn't kill him, they would help him see the error of his ways and then take him to whatever authority to decide his fate.
You realize that the authorities in this case would just execute him for his crimes anyways right? Even in our modern justice system, murdering someone responsible for the death of hundreds would be an appropriate use of the law. Rehabilitation is no longer on the table.

>>53190465
>I'm retarded and I can't into DnD alignments
They are objective because the books clearly shows how a good and an evil character should act.

It's not 'killing is subjective because it depends on circumtances', because the circumtances you are allowed to kill are clearly listed in the books.

>>53180516
Easiest I would say is a tie between neutral good and neutral evil

>>53190313
While I do have an issue with some of the examples of people for each alignment (starting with the very first antagonist, who is clearly Lawful Neutral and not Lawful Good), I quite like outlook summary for each individual alignment. I still say that the size of the "in group" that a person cares about is going to vary even within a particular alignment, though the trend is definitely going to be towards a shrinking group as you move towards evil.

>>53190521
>Cool, you admitted that you have no argument
Are you retarded? What part of God doesn't exist in DnD so it doesn't fucking matter did you miss?

Unless you want to be a fucktard and apply morality from a RPG system in other, completely different things.

>If alignment is objective then they'd be objectively neutral.
Yes, humans are generally objectively neutral. That's the point, the majority of humans are neutral.

>This isn't revenge though, justice is meant to see that those who committed a crime feel justice on behalf of those that they've wronged. It's no more evil to make someone pay someone back for property damage.
Except that killing someone won't bring anyone back. Especially someone who just gave up and is at your mercy.

>You realize that the authorities in this case would just execute him for his crimes anyways right?
Not the call of a good person.

> Even in our modern justice system, murdering someone responsiable for the death of hundreds would be an appropriate use of the law. Rehabilitation is no longer on the table.
It's up to the gods to decide if he is no longer worth rehabilitation, not you.

>>53190465
>making it subjective to the variables that lead to that action taking place.

I think we have different definitions of "subjective". When talking about subjective morality, generally I understand it to mean that it's based on the mindset of the person going in: a person might be raised to think goblins are evil and so slaughter any goblin he comes across because he thinks it good, even ones that are no threat to him or anyone else (RE: Nojheim). However, the action is NOT Good and never will be, and the person is Evil for his actions regardless of the fact that he genuinely considers himself Good.

Fuck Goblin Slayer.

>>53190545
Yet you go on about how you shouldn't kill evil creatures on the off chance that they're only *mostly* evil, okay.

>>53190406
>If you have a man who murdered hundreds of innocent people, but he laid down his weapon and said "I surrender," does this mean that his life should take precedence over his victim's family receiving justice?

Yes.

There are a few exception, but in general most LG characters will accept surrender as an option, no matter how wicked the individual is.

That doesn't mean stupid though. A paladin or cleric would probably bring the criminal before a tribunal by his order, with those families as witnesses, and then the criminal would be executed. Less religious focused characters would probably turn him over to the Law of the land, or if the criminal was a tyrant, then allow the people that the tyrant ruled over decide his fate.

Of course, a GM may turn that into an angry mob, but then a LG character would be honor bound to ensure that it was Law, not vengeance, that dictated the murderer's fate

>>53190618
The Book of Exalted Deeds explicitly lists mercy, forgiveness, and redeeming evil as being Good. So of course slaughtering creatures you think are evil without giving them any mercy or forgiveness or trying to redeem them isn't Good.

>>53190618
>Yet you go on about how you shouldn't kill evil creatures on the off chance that they're only *mostly* evil, okay.
Point me in the book of Exalted Deeds, or even better the vanilla DnD book where it says a good character is allowed to go murderhoboing orcs and goblins.

>>53190596
>Yes, humans are generally objectively neutral. That's the point, the majority of humans are neutral.
Which comes down to the same issue. If most humans are neutral, why aren't they forced into being TN by default if alignment is truly objective?
>Except that killing someone won't bring anyone back.
Try telling that to the victim's families, I'm sure they'll understand.
>It's up to the gods to decide if he is no longer worth rehabilitation, not you.
Actually, it'd be up to the authorities to decide that, and most authorities would call you out for not lynching him sooner. Or are you going to disobey the laws of the land just to save an evil person who has no plans on truly going straight?

>>53190597
If alignment was objective, his actions would still be good because he's both saving people from goblins and riding the world of a race of CE monsters who murder-fuck everything around them until they're put down.

>>53180516

that chart is wrong, on so many levels

>>53190637
>The Book of Exalted Deeds explicitly lists mercy, forgiveness, and redeeming evil as being Good.
Even if the creatures have no plans on not being evil? Even if the creatures you're fighting wouldn't give you or the people they've hurt the same mercy the same benefit?

At some point, you gotta stop being a sucker.
>>53190643
Smite Evil.

>>53180922
>>53189833
>>53189855
I kinda prefer altruist-egoist as a good-evil scale. 'Kind' and 'ruthless' are behaviors, and altruism/egoism are motivations.

File: d1dfe78761c561fd0ada4de72916a388273c1f1b_hq.jpg (64KB, 465x727px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 465x727px

>>53190686
>and ridding the world of a race of CE monsters who murder-fuck everything around them until they're put down.

Nope. Because he explicitly does not offer mercy or forgiveness and outright rejects even attempting to find a good goblin. We don't actually *know* whether or not goblins are capable of being good, because the main character in Goblin Slayer can't be bothered to even attempt to find out and in fact rejects even bothering to do so.

>>53190664
>Which comes down to the same issue. If most humans are neutral, why aren't they forced into being TN by default if alignment is truly objective?
Because alignment in this case is showing a tendency and not a rule. Most humans are definitely neutral. And frankly this has nothing to do with good or evil acts.

>Try telling that to the victim's families, I'm sure they'll understand.
Good isn't about guaranting revenge to others.

>Actually, it'd be up to the authorities to decide that, and most authorities would call you out for not lynching him sooner.
That would imply that you are a judge. And even if you were you cannot justify executing a just surrendered enemy without a judgement.

>Or are you going to disobey the laws of the land just to save an evil person who has no plans on truly going straight?
Who are you to say he has no plans of going straight?

>>53190717
>Smite Evil
Are you retarded? Just because you have a spell that does extra damage to evil people doesn't mean you are allowed to murder Bob, the evil dude who never broke the law.

why is Mr A from comics arguing with people on 4chan

>>53190717
Good isn't stupid. You don't have to keep offering those things. You offer mercy and forgiveness and so on as the opportunity presents itself.

>Even if the creatures have no plans on not being evil?

How do you know they have no plans? You can reasonably assume that with demons since they're literally made of evil, but non-evil goblins aren't so uncommon. The Realms has Nojheim, for example, or the goblins of Sheemzher or Horseshoe Temple Oasis in Zakhara.

>>53190619
>Of course, a GM may turn that into an angry mob, but then a LG character would be honor bound to ensure that it was Law, not vengeance, that dictated the murderer's fate
So would he willingly kill otherwise innocent people just to protect a monster who doesn't deserve nor appreciate his gracious acts of mercy?

Because he's not going to win otherwise.

>>53190736
Considering that we've seen goblins
>Use a dead women as bait for a trap
>Rape female adventurers
>Use their own scat to critically injure people in a way that can't even be healed with holy magic
>Have kidnapped innocent people in the past.
>Are responsible for killing a sizeable portion of new adventurers.
Can you honestly tell me that such a race seems like it would qualify as possibly being redeemed? Even when left to their own devices, all they do is eat, sleep, kill, and rape; which isn't exactly a race that seems like it could play nice with others.

File: Bait+_8809bf6f52c9e3610da2406aae8fa679.png (9KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 224x225px

>>53180516

>>53190736
>>53190847
I must point that goblins in Goblin Slayer may work differently than goblins in DnD settings.

Carry on.

>>53190721
Like I said here >>53190140, "altruistic" is actually a better fit than "kind", but "dishonorable altruistic" is a train-wreck of a phrase, so I left it as "kind". You just have to realize that we're not just talking about etiquette / manner, but rather how generous you are by nature. As for "egoist", that's not really a word that's in common usage and it comes off as a bit too clinical, I think. Also, I think that egoism could land you in the merely self-centered territory of Neutral. Evil is when you're ruthlessly self-interested.

>>53190744
>Because alignment in this case is showing a tendency and not a rule.
Then alignments aren't objective, it's subjective towards a certain tendency of actions that *mostly* fall under a certain criteria.
>Good isn't about guaranting revenge to others.
It is about bringing criminals to justice though, which the paladin is apparently okay with preventing until the proper authorities kill him themselves.
>And even if you were you cannot justify executing a just surrendered enemy without a judgement.
You can when the atrocities that they've committed are too high and they show no remorse for their actions.
>Who are you to say he has no plans of going straight?
You don't murder hundreds of people and go through a startling revelation the moment the paladin finds you anon. Anyone with half a brain can tell that he's abusing the paladin's code to get out of facing justice.

>>53190802
No one said being Good was easy, son.

>So would he willingly kill otherwise innocent people

He'd probably restrict himself to nonlethal blows as much as possible. Mechanically speaking, at least in 5e this is very easy: whenever you drop an opponent to 0 hit points with damage you can decide that your damage was nonlethal and you only knocked them out.

I had a Chaotic Good thief character who made it all the way to level 8 and only killed 2 people as a result, and only one of them deliberately, and he'd more than earned it.

The second time I did so much damage with the blow that the DM ruled that I couldn't possibly have not killed the target. It actually seriously messed my thief's psyche up for a little bit, particularly since the being killed was just a kobold.

Around 8th-10th level I actually forgot to keep specifying that I was only dealing nonlethal damage. When this was finally pointed out to my thief, she was SERIOUSLY messed up for a little bit and nearly quit the party, before coming to terms that the needs of the moment required killing in order to help save the Sword Coast.

>>53190802
Hilariously, he could and be completely justified in doing so.

BoED, pg. 11

Being ahead of your time
Heroic characters often end up at odds with their culture and
society. The standards expected of good characters in D&D,
especially those who lay claim to exalted status, bear much more
similarity to modern sensibilities about justice, equality, and
respect for life than to the actual medieval world that D&D is
loosely based on, and that is quite intentional.

Good characters are basically the fedora-tippers of D&D.

>>53190770
>Just because you have a spell that does extra damage to evil people doesn't mean you are allowed to murder Bob, the evil dude who never broke the law.
Alignment is objective, so if Bob is evil enough to trigger my spell, then he deserves to die for being evil.

>>53190786
All I'm seeing is three names vs. billions of evil rape-happy murder-fucking goblins anon. Excuse me if I don't stay my hand just because you offer exceptions to the rule.

>>53190847
>Can you honestly tell me that such a race seems like it would qualify as possibly being redeemed?

Doesn't sound much different from the tactics practiced by some Amazon, Papua New Guinean, Polynesian, or other primitive tribes of humans. Except the holy magic part, for obvious reasons.

>>53190875
>I must point that goblins in Goblin Slayer may work differently than goblins in DnD settings.

It also may not...the character is based off of the author's 5e D&D character, and the Adventurer's Guild in the setting has as its sign-up sheet an actual 5e character sheet.

>>53190802
So shaming a mob is not a thing that's ever happened where you play. CHA is a stat for a reason.

And if he fails and they kill the criminal then that's the time to make the Kirk speech, and show the people the error of their ways.

If you don't know how to play LG, I'd play Ultima IV. It's basically a long lesson for how to play Lawful Good.

>>53190897
>He'd probably restrict himself to nonlethal blows as much as possible.
Against an unruly mob crying out for justice, he's not going to be able to knock everyone out before they eventually swarm him. Then when the smoke clears, the world will have one less paladin to save it and the villain would wins in the end.
>>53190900
Man, D&D is fucking stupid.
>>53190937
>So shaming a mob is not a thing that's ever happened where you play.
Yes friend, a paladin shaming a mob into not killing the monster responsible for their family's deaths is sure going to cow a mob of unruly villagers who want to see the monster face justice.
>show the people the error of their ways.
You're the one in the wrong here anon, not them. They wanted justice, you just wanted to pay lip service to your code even when it made everyone's lives worse as a result.

>>53190935
>Doesn't sound much different from the tactics practiced by some Amazon, Papua New Guinean, Polynesian, or other primitive tribes of humans. Except the holy magic part, for obvious reasons.
If you notice, a good portion of those primitives are either dead or cut off from most of civilization.

>>53180516
I think True Neutral is the easiest, there're a lot of ways to play it as long as you don't go into extremes. You can dip in a direction and you're not really going to fall out unless you commit.

People're are saying that Chaotic alignments are the easiest to play but I strongly disagree. You need to establish a code and stick to it as Lawful, but a decent Chaotic character still has values and needs to be played with consideration to them while still maintaining their character's independent thought process. It asks for more of the roleplayer.

While I do think that Chaotic Evil as a braindead murder monkey is a valid interpretation, I think that a compelling Chaotic Evil character is easily the hardest one to play. You need to know what your character is about, their opinions on various things, and then you need to play them that you're both Chaotic and Evil without being disruptive and while maintaining consistency in their character. I suppose the question might just be aimed at the floor but I like to think that posed like this, we're talking ceilings.

>>53190919
Well, then, crack open your 3.0 or 3.5 D&D Monster Manual. You'll note that Goblins are "usually" Neutral Evil, which means (pg. 305 of the 3.5 MM) that the majority (51% or a little more) are NE but exceptions are by no means unheard of. As a point of comparison, Elves in the same book are usually Chaotic Good, yet the two of us can probably think of tons of elves in D&D who have different alignments, even Evil ones.

Goblins are just as likely to shift up to Neutral as they are to shift left to Lawful or right to Chaotic.

>>53180516
Alignments are dildo, just roleplay your character and let the DM worry about this irrelevant shit on your sheet.

>>53190882
I wasn't even arguing, just sharing my opinion.
>As for "egoist", that's not really a word that's in common usage and it comes off as a bit too clinical, I think.
Huh, that's interesting. It's quite common in my language.

>>53190977
>and the villain would wins in the end.

And it's the mob's fault, not the paladin's.

>>53190996
If you'll notice, most of those primitives practiced those tactics because they were the best tactics available to them to ensure their survival. They are more than capable and usually more than happy to abandon them in favor of a more "civilized" life when possible. You really think Europeaners and the like didn't practice the same tactics when they had nothing but animal hides and wooden sticks?

>>53191004
K, but that doesn't mean that just because they can, that they actually will. Just safer just to off the little bastards and let whoever serves as their god sort out the rest.

>>53191045
>And it's the mob's fault, not the paladin's.
Nope, it's the paladins fault. Rather than giving the mob the justice that they deserved, he chose to put the villain's safety above their needs. If he allowed them to kill the monster for all the wrong that he did to them and their friends/families, the paladin would be alive, the monster would be dead, justice would prevail, and the world as a whole would enjoy one definitive victory over evil.

But nope, paladin code dictates that every paladin must be lawful-stupid and die a martyr for their code, regardless of circumstance.
>>53191045
In that case we come across another subjective alignment issue.

Either it's okay to rape/kill/torture people if you're only doing so for survival, or it's not okay because doing those things are objectively evil.

File: dfc7c690d000166b515649e79c127f36b8485700_hq.jpg (38KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x400px

>>53191077
Sure, it's safer and easier. But it's not Good.

Did you never watch Star Wars, or something?

File: 8 virtues.png (56KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 300x300px

>>53190977
No, they're darkening their own souls for a moment's satisfaction. That's not justice.

And if a PC is in that kind of situation and doesn't have the rest of their party at their back, then that's less an issue of morality and more of stupidity.

https://youtu.be/6lac59xKEH8

Once again, playing Lawful Good is extremely simple to do. It also means not taking the quick and easy road, making sure that you make an honest effort to act justly, to not only make sure that you act good but that everyone around you is better because of your influence.

>>53191136
Didn't the sith ultimately succeed in wiping out every Jedi in the universe though?

File: sure jan.png (185KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 500x281px

>>53191159
Sure Jan

>>53191138
>No, they're darkening their own souls for a moment's satisfaction.
No, they're administering justice in the name of those they've lost and making sure that the monster cannot harm anyone else again.
>It also means not taking the quick and easy road, making sure that you make an honest effort to act justly, to not only make sure that you act good but that everyone around you is better because of your influence.
And do you think that you're making anyone else's life better by keeping them from exacting justice upon the monster that took everything from them? Do you think that your words will undo the days/weeks/months/years that they've had to live without their loved ones because of the monster's actions? Who are you to say that they're not justified in their position just because it violates YOUR personal code of ethics?

>>53191128
>Rather than giving the mob the justice

You understand that "mob justice" is actually used as a euphemism for something that is actually a total lack of justice, right?

>Either it's okay to rape/kill/torture people if you're only doing so for survival, or it's not okay because doing those things are objectively evil.

It's not okay. But the point is that the actions of a given tribe of goblins can hardly be used as proof that the race is fundamentally, irredeemably evil and beyond saving when humans themselves in the past demonstrated the same actions, but are obviously not irredeemably evil and beyond saving (within the context of D&D - or Goblin Slayer, for that matter).

>>53191181
It still doesn't mean that the Sith didn't wipe out every Jedi in the galaxy through one means or another.

Vader killed Obi-Wan, Yoda died old and practically alone in a swamp, and Luke isn't exactly a Jedi y'know.

>>53191159
Nope. They missed two. Who then proceeded to defeat them.

And note how they were defeated: by Luke reaching out to and redeeming one, who then turned on and slew the other at the cost of his own life. Luke didn't defeat the Emperor by jamming a lightsaber through the guy, he defeated him through his love for and faith in his father. And his decision to do that was born precisely out of the knowledge that if he had struck out at the Emperor or cut down Vader, then he too would have fallen towards the Dark Side.

>>53191199
>You understand that "mob justice" is actually used as a euphemism for something that is actually a total lack of justice, right?
Mob justice is also usually done without a lack of evidence and is more a product of emotion than fact, which doesn't apply because the monster is proven to have killed hundreds of people and would've otherwise been slain if the Paladin didn't stay his hand when the monster "surrendered."
>It's not okay.
Cool, then fuck the goblins and fuck any culture that condones that bullshit.

>>53191215
>and Luke isn't exactly a Jedi y'know.

You're wrong. Luke is a Jedi, like his father before him. HE SAYS AS MUCH.

You actually haven't seen Star Wars, have you? Any of them? You know what you do through cultural osmosis.

>>53191240
Whoops, sorry, meant to say:

>Nope. They missed two, who then proceeded to train a third, who proceeded to defeat them.

>>53191257
I mean, you can make this argument if you like. I don't mind. but you must understand: it's not Good. You're not Good.

>>53191270
>You're wrong. Luke is a Jedi, like his father before him. HE SAYS AS MUCH.
I can say that I'm a pretty pink princess but that doesn't mean that that's what I actually am. I mean, he cut through a shitload of Jabba's men without any remorse and only really stopped when he saw Vader's own prosthetic hand.

>>53191283
So it's objectively better to let a villain escape justice than for the villain's victims to execute him for his crimes against humanity.

Gotcha.

File: jedi-luke-flap-white-underneath.jpg (16KB, 425x251px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 425x251px

>>53191312
And when we first meet Luke in person Episode VI he appears dressed in all black with a hooded cloak that make shim look like a blend between Vader and the Emperor in silhouette, and the first thing we see him do is Force Choke a couple of Gamorrean guards.

The entire point of VI is that Luke has the potential to fall to the Dark Side just like his father did, and very nearly did so during the course of the movie's run. But in the end, he's a good person - hence why his black shirt has a flap that, when opened, is white and overlays Luke's heart, showing that he was a fundamentally good person the entire time, that as close as he came to the Dark Side, he was never going to really fall.

In the end, he chose the harder, more difficult, but ultimately right path - he spared his father and refused to kill the Emperor. And as a result, the Sith were defeated, and Like ultimately ended up Good.

>>53191380
Yet Luke still has the potential to use dark force powers like his father and only stopped at the last moment.

At best, Luke would be a gray Jedi but I'm not sure how the current canon defines them.

>>53191197
>And do you think that you're making anyone else's life better by keeping them from exacting justice upon the monster that took everything from them? Do you think that your words will undo the days/weeks/months/years that they've had to live without their loved ones because of the monster's actions? Who are you to say that they're not justified in their position just because it violates YOUR personal code of ethics?

Yes. Glad we settled this.

Sure, murdering the murderer will feel good in the moment. Maybe they won't feel guilty about it, maybe they will. But that's still an evil that will haunt them til the end of their days. Stopping a mob from murdering Vecna himself would be a good action because mob "justice" isn't justice, even in a medieval setting.

It's pretty simple. When dealing with a surrendering foe, they are now your charge until a higher authority takes them off your hands. Angry mobs aren't that.

>>53191436
Wow, you really missed the point of that scene. Luke is a true Jedi, maybe even truer then the old Jedi who simply wanted to retry the old plan but with Luke instead of Anakin, because he not only did not repeat history (Anakin kills Dooku) but when he was in the heart of darkness he remained himself.

His belief that his father could be redeemed, combined the Emperor's own blindness for Vader's attachment to Luke, allowed him to stay true to the Jedi.

CN is probably the easiest to play, not the lolsorandumb type of course, just someone who does what they want, when they want.

LE seems like it'd be hard to get down right.

>>53191595
>But that's still an evil that will haunt them til the end of their days.
Why would it haunt them? They're killing a monster who killed hundreds of people and then took advantage of the paladin's good will in a bid to escape justice. If anything, the paladin will feel more broken up about then they will.
>When dealing with a surrendering foe, they are now your charge until a higher authority takes them off your hands.
Even if they only surrendered because they knew that if they did, you would not only protect them from justice but would actively HARM innocent people just to protect him from his victim's loved ones? Why is the mob a lesser authority when it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the monster has killed hundreds of people and deserves to fucking die?

>>53191595
Not him, but
>When dealing with a surrendering foe, they are now your charge until a higher authority takes them off your hands

Yeah, I'm gonna go with the classic Gygax quote here.

"Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old adage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide"

>>53191595
>Wow, you really missed the point of that scene.

He really did. Although having said that, the lightsaber fight proceeding it is my favorite in the series, particularly from "NEVER!" on. The combination of music, camera angles, and raw emotion is fantastic. Plus I really like how in the Original Trilogy lightsabers actually came across as being heavy, not light (even though that makes no sense), and the weight of them really comes across in this fight.

And also the music. I LOVE the misc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li0vFxbo3sY

3:08 onward.

>>53180516
Try playing a character instead of an alignment you pustulant ass scab faggot.

>>53191679
I think if a 2e paladin saw what they would eventually become, I think they'd have to kill themselves.

Obviously, you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

>>53191077
I hope you don't complain when a gang of paladins murders your party in their sleep because they did some sketchy shit and decides that it's better to send you off to your heavenly reward rather than have you slip into evil.

That mindset can be used to wipe out every sapient being ever. It's JRPG villain tier.

>>53191339
No, you've got your context mixed up somewhere, it is objectively better to show mercy, no matter how horrible your enemy, than to outright kill that enemy for the things he may or may not have done.

Nobody is arguing against justice here, but in the context of D&D, the paladin is never the Arbiter of Justice, not unless he is literally his god's Chosen and/or the last of his order, and only if there is no law of the land to give the enemy over to, so that they may decide the enemy's fate.

If that law of the land, is mob justice, the paladin cannot give him over to the mob, his code would not allow it. he is required to put his code above everything, even innocent lives, because if he falls he damages the cause of Good far more than the loss of 1000 vengeful "innocents".

Now, if, like in your post, it's assumed the situation requires you to either let the villain go, or to kill him, no other options are possible? The paladin looks at the greater scope of things and decides what each choice would cost, and then makes the best choice for the Greater Good. Yes, even if everyone he knows will hate him for it, even if a thousand men swear vengeance, and hunt him to the ends of the earth. He will stand by his choice, come the Hells, or high water, and will defend it to his last.

>>53191679
>The old adage about nits making lice applies.

A saying attributed to Oliver Cromwell has he justified the mass slaughter of thousands of Irish civilians who were until that point not taking up arms with him and previously had no interest in doing so.

I fucking hate Gary Gygax.

>>53191674
>Why would it haunt them?

Because now they've learned how easy it is for them to get together and kill someone in the name of "justice". How long until they do it again? And again? And who's to say that all their targets will be good?

About 40,000 French folk can tell you why mob justice and kangaroo courts never works out in the end. Or they would be able to had they not had a run-in with Monsieur Guillotine.

>Why is the mob a lesser authority when it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the monster has killed hundreds of people and deserves to fucking die?

Because there hasn't been a society since the dawn of time that gave the mob the authority to make those decisions, for precisely the reasons the French demonstrated during their Revolution.

A person can be smart; people are panicky and stupid and will always choose immediate satisfaction over long-term benefit.

>>53191766
>If that law of the land, is mob justice, the paladin cannot give him over to the mob, his code would not allow it. he is required to put his code above everything, even innocent lives, because if he falls he damages the cause of Good far more than the loss of 1000 vengeful "innocents".
So basically, the life of a monster who killed hundreds is worth more than the lives of either the people that he's killed or the lives that the paladin will have to take in order to protect him from his own actions?

Do you not see how stupid this is?

>>53191763
Paladins wouldn't murder our party in their sleep, their code wouldn't allow it.

Also, a group of assholes doing shady shit is not the same as killing evil creatures who have murder-fucked innocent people in the past.

>>53191746
>I think if a 2e paladin saw what they would eventually become

Those words don't apply to 2e Paladins, though. Gygax said that on a message board in the early 2000s, long after he left TSR, which incidentally was three or so years before 2nd Edition was made. Gary Gygax has been in no position of moral authority over D&D since 1987, if I recall correctly.

For which I'm grateful - again, his "nits make lice" comment originates from Oliver Cromwell as he slaughtered Irish civilians. Had Cromwell a few thousand more men under his command, he probably would have decided to try and wipe out the Irish people entirely.

So, to reiterate: I fucking hate Gary Gygax.

>>53191775
>A saying attributed to Oliver Cromwell has he justified the mass slaughter of thousands of Irish civilians who were until that point not taking up arms with him and previously had no interest in doing so.
Maybe he was protecting a serial rapist and the irish were trying to string him up for his crimes? That makes it okay right?

>>53191878
>Had Cromwell a few thousand more men under his command, he probably would have decided to try and wipe out the Irish people entirely.

And just like killing Goblins and Orcs and Drow, we would have been better off.

>>53190596
Gary Gygax said a paladin should execute someone for killing his horse.

>>53191775
>How long until they do it again?
Killing one errant psychopath who had no plans to change is not the same as going on a murder-spree because you found out what killing was like. This is literal "if you kill him, you'll be just like him" capeshit levels of retardation.
>Because there hasn't been a society since the dawn of time that gave the mob the authority to make those decisions, for precisely the reasons the French demonstrated during their Revolution.
Except a) IRL morality has nothing to do with D&D's alignment system and b) the monster has been proven to be responsible for hundreds of innocent's deaths and the punishment in most cases would be execution anyways.

>>53191858
>the life of a monster who killed hundreds is worth more than the lives of either the people that he's killed

I'd like to reiterate that it's pretty easy to do nonlethal damage in D&D in 4th and 5th editions; while in earlier editions the paladin is likely to have a high/low (depending on the edition) enough AC that he can easily escape the mob without taking much damage himself. Further, the paladin isn't required to kill the mob, he's required to do his utmost to defend the surrendered villain, without violating his oath is the process. That means nonlethal damage and spells. The mob is probably not going to try and kill him (he did presumably play a part in saving them, after all), only get him out of the way or shove past him to get to the villain.

If, during the course of his actions, the villain dies, he is not required to then turn on the mob and kill them; likewise though he failed to defend the surrendered charge he doesn't Fall because he did his utmost to defend the surrendered charge. He would, however, most likely subsequently be of a mind to leave the village as quickly as he could and not be inclined to return...save if they once again needed saving from some evil. Which, given that they've allowed themselves to give in to mob justice, will probably not be too far in the future.

>Do you not see how stupid this is?

I see that you would make a piss-poor paladin.

>>53191878
For all we know, the Irish were a mob hoping to exact justice upon a serial rapist and Cromwell killed them to make sure that he got his due justice.

We've already established that 1000 innocent lives means nothing in the face of the paladin's code.

>>53191943
Do you know how expensive it is to breed a warhorse? They wished that their lives were enough to pay back the charges in full.

>>53191858
No! The Paladin, is more important, his choices are more important than the lives of any number of innocent civilians! Say, in this instance, that this Paladin, is a level 20 Paladin. If so, when/if he falls, literally every force for Good in that universe, whether they be gods or men, is severely weakened. Evil is thus strengthened substantially. This works in reverse as well, if Evil is redeemed, Good gets stronger. You see, in D&D, the gods and various planar beings are fighting for mortal souls, and the choices the mortals make decide how the conflict goes.
Also this >>53191985

>>53191876

Except this creature hasn't done any thing yet. You're just killing it on the ASSUMPTION it has.

If everyone in your family was a criminal dick hole, it would be okay to kill you too? Those creatures have murder fucked innocent people in the past, why should you be different?

>>53191985
>I'd like to reiterate that it's pretty easy to do nonlethal damage in D&D in 4th and 5th editions
When you have a mob coming at you though, can you really tell me that every blow you make is going to be non-fatal?
>Which, given that they've allowed themselves to give in to mob justice, will probably not be too far in the future.
I really hate people like you who equate all murder as being wrong yet have nothing to say in defense of the people who have already suffered at the hands of the monster.

You're basically saying "hey, I know that this monster killed hundreds of people and likely will never be redeemed, but I'm obligated to put his safety above your own and will assume the worst of you if you force me to fail in protecting this monster from your wrath."

Why is the paladin duty-bound to become lawful-stupid at all times?

>>53191921
I wouldn't have been better off, what with not existing today had the Irish been wiped out in the 1600s. I was born in America, but I was the first member of my family to be so - everyone before me has been Irish, going back as far as we can trace the family tree. We know there's a Spaniard somewhere in the depths of my mother's side, and my grandmother's maiden name is Duff, which is ultimately Scottish, but then her own father was Irish, as was his, back and back and back through the ages.

>>53191943
Gary Gygax was a psychopath.

>>53191948
>and the punishment in most cases would be execution anyways.

That does not give the mob the right to override the law. In fact, almost nothing does, save when the law is imposing itself unjustly on the mob. "Let us conduct a proper trial and sentencing" is not unjust.

>s not the same as going on a murder-spree because you found out what killing was like.

Tell that to the French.

>This is literal "if you kill him, you'll be just like him" capeshit levels of retardation.

Actually you tend to end up worse. Again...the French. Or the Russians. Or the Germans. Or really any people at any point in history when mob justice was allowed to take over for actual justice.

This isn't capeshit, this is real shit that has ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

>>53192023
Evil is under no obligation to redeem itself, especially when the reverse is playing second-fiddle to a long list of obligations that, if ever broken, forces them to fall to evil all over again, even if the "good" way causes more problems than solutions in the long run.

Nobody said being good was easy, but couldn't they at least try to make good look...good? Because the way I'm seeing it, being good is the worst alignment for actually defending the tenets of good.

>>53192067
>Except this creature hasn't done any thing yet. You're just killing it on the ASSUMPTION it has.
If it's in a goblin village that's been kidnapping people, it's not our fault if he gets caught in the crossfire.
>If everyone in your family was a criminal dick hole, it would be okay to kill you too?
No, because humans are assumed to be neutral, not evil.

>>53192138
>defending the tenets of good.
Because you have a warped perception of what Good is.

>>53192158
Good people don't kill others on a fucking hunch.
>If it's in a goblin village that's been kidnapping people, it's not our fault if he gets caught in the crossfire
If you think this is an attitude a Good person should have. You're a goddamn psychopath.

>>53192074
>When you have a mob coming at you though, can you really tell me that every blow you make is going to be non-fatal?

In D&D? Yes, most likely, though if accidents happen, then accidents happen. The mob knows that I am sworn to see my charge brought to proper justice. It is their choice to put their lives on the line, not mine. I will do my utmost to see that no permanent harm comes to them, but I am not perfect, and I have a sworn duty to uphold.

The mob is the one being stupid in this case since they know that a) I have this sworn duty, and I just saved their asses from this villain, yet they are attacking me anyway; and b) the villain is going to go to a court of law and get sentenced and most likely executed. They know full well that justice will be carried out. They just want to trade in that justice for immediate satisfaction.

And if allowed to do so once, history - real, Earth history - shows that they will likely do so again, and again, and again, until the day that it comes back to bite them royally in the ass.

>>53192095
His thoughts on paladins did allow them to be more efficient though.

>>53192095
>"Let us conduct a proper trial and sentencing" is not unjust.
It becomes unjust when you're allowing evil to manipulate you into avoiding punishment for just a little while longer while the innocents you've sworn to protect can do nothing but take the law into their own hands. Again, he'd be executed anyways, so what's the difference?
>This isn't capeshit
Yes it is, you're just too close to this to view this from an objective standpoint.

>>53192158
>No, because humans are assumed to be neutral, not evil.

Actually, no. Humans are presumed to be of any alignment, which is not quite the same thing. If humans were presumed to be True Neutral, then any given human you point to would likely be True Neutral. However, instead, humans run the gamut of alignment. Any given human you point to is likely to be of any alignment.

>>53192074
>When you have a mob coming at you though, can you really tell me that every blow you make is going to be non-fatal?
No, you can't know every blow is non lethal, and that Paladin would have to live with the guilt of killing innocents to defend his sworn code! A code his very soul is bound to!

>I really hate people like you who equate all murder as being wrong yet have nothing to say in defense of the people who have already suffered at the hands of the monster.
Because they are D - E - A -D, DEAD beyond the Paladins help!
>You're basically saying "hey, I know that this monster killed hundreds of people and likely will never be redeemed, but I'm obligated to put his safety above your own and will assume the worst of you if you force me to fail in protecting this monster from your wrath."
Because the paladin puts GOOD before revenge or Law, as his code commands!
>Why is the paladin duty-bound to become lawful-stupid at all times?
He is not, you are the stupid one here, the Paladin is taking a risk in trying to rehabilitate this Evil person, but if he did not try he would fall, especially if I were the DM.
>>53192138
No EVIL isn't under obligation to do anything that's why it is EVIL! Good, in this case the Paladin, is required, by his code, by his gods, by his very soul to attempt redemption! If redemption is unattainable, say, in the case of Balor himself, his code both allows and REQUIRES him to kill that enemy.
Mercy is one of the highest Tenets of Good, at least in D&D.

>>53192162
No I haven't, good is supposed to protect innocents while making sure that evil is brought to justice.

According to your logic, a LG character is honor-bound to be evil's bitch just because they were smart/fast enough to say "I surrender" before Deus Vult changed from a statement to a verb. Also, it's okay to attack innocent people who want to string up the monster for the crimes that he's committed and if you don't potentially kill these people, then the universe will dry heave and evil will become that much stronger, even though one act shouldn't cause someone to rise, yet does because...reasons.

If I can't freely murder evil creatures that have no plans on changing, then what's the point of being a paladin?

>>53192194
>If you think this is an attitude a Good person should have. You're a goddamn psychopath.
How am I a psychopath? We've been hired to clear out a goblin village to save people that have been kidnapped. If this supposed goblin is still there and actively attacking us, it brought DEUS VULT upon its own head.

I'm sorry you're too much of a bitch to actually defend the tenets of your alignment.

>>53191674
John Adams was probably asked the same question when he chose to defend the shooters of the Boston Massacre to the best of his ability rather then allowing the angry mob lynch them.

And the fact that you don't understand that allowing a mob to murder a man, regardless of how evil he is, is neither lawful nor good is really worrying. Being Lawful Good isn't about playing the Punisher. It's about playing Superman or the real Captain America or Carrot Ironfoundersson, et cetera

Even when you're not playing Paladin, you're supposed to act virtuously, even at personal cost.

And you keep equating "don't let mob murder criminal" with "let criminal go on a killing spree". I don't even know where you got that.

I'm not saying don't kill evil characters. I'm not even saying don't let villains die. I'm saying that a LG character will not kill an unarmed prisoner, or allow a prisoner in their charge to be harmed.

Once that LG character has brought his charge in front of the area's just ruler, he'll take the man's head himself if that's the judgement the lawfully appointed authority gives.

>>53192074
There's like ten spells amongst the magic classes for dealing non-lethal damage by level 3, including Calm Emotions which would shut down an angry mob instantly.

And martial characters can deal with mobs non-lethally

And that's assuming that the mob cannot be talked down. By the people who caught the person who has been terrorizing them in the first place.

>>53192221
What does this even mean? He's not avoiding punishment. He's being dealt with in a just manner instead of a way that corrupts a bunch of innocent souls

>>53192196
If you're going to reference the game, reference the game.

If you're going to reference real life, reference real life.

But don't do both and claim that you're being clever.

>>53192239
Humans come up as neutral on detect alignment unless they have 5 HD by default.

>>53192334
So do goblins.

>>53192199
"Good" is not about efficiency. It's about doing what's right, not what's quick or convenient.

>>53192221
>It becomes unjust when you're allowing evil to manipulate you into avoiding punishment for just a little while longer while the innocents you've sworn to protect can do nothing but take the law into their own hands.

But they can't do nothing but take the law into their own hands, dipshit. They can wait. They can not give in, and they can see that justice is done in the way that it should be done. They can be patient.

Your whole argument rests on the idea that the mob has no choice but to attack the paladin, but they do. They're the ones giving in to their base desires. Their reasons for doing so are understandable, but they're not enough to justify surrendering a prisoner in my charge to them.

>you're just too close to this to view this from an objective standpoint.

I am viewing it from a historical standpoint. It's not my fault I got straight As in every history class I ever took and had usually read the provided book cover-to-cover within the first few weeks of class at most. Actually, wait, no, that is my fault, but in a good way.

And I'm not close to the subject. I've never played a paladin in my life and don't have any particular desire to - I prefer playing thieves. But I know right, and I know wrong, and I have the sense to tell one from the other.

When I write "Good" on my characters' sheets, I mean it.

>>53192265
>No, you can't know every blow is non lethal, and that Paladin would have to live with the guilt of killing innocents to defend his sworn code!
Honestly, considering that he's defending a villain and killing innocents, he probably should fall even if it was to "defend" his code.

Think about it, do you honestly believe that the forces of good would want to condone that type of behavior in the future?
>Because they are D - E - A -D, DEAD beyond the Paladins help!
They're loved ones were still alive before the paladin killed them.
>Because the paladin puts GOOD before revenge or Law, as his code commands!
A good act would be to execute him for the good of everyone else, but that's none of my business.
>He is not
Yes he is, he's a) trusting evil, b) slaying innocents, and c) hiding behind his code.
>No EVIL isn't under obligation to do anything that's why it is EVIL!
This is also why evil gets shit done and is winning.

>>53180516
Well I am by no means an expert but in my experience, the two easiest are NG and NE, while the others are all equally hard.
But alignment is a really weird way of measuring a characters morality anyway, so I don't usually worry about it

>>53192364
>
I am viewing it from a historical standpoint. It's not my fault I got straight As in every history class I ever took and had usually read the provided book cover-to-cover within the first few weeks of class at most. Actually, wait, no, that is my fault, but in a good way.

I fucking agree with you, but don't jerk yourself off like that dude. It's only hurting your argument

>>53192284
>No I haven't, good is supposed to protect innocents while making sure that evil is brought to justice.

Yes, but not if those innocents plan to bring evil, thus making them no longer innocents.

>According to your logic, a LG character is honor-bound to be evil's bitch just because they were smart/fast enough to say "I surrender" before Deus Vult changed from a statement to a verb. Also, it's okay to attack innocent people who want to string up the monster for the crimes that he's committed and if you don't potentially kill these people, then the universe will dry heave and evil will become that much stronger, even though one act shouldn't cause someone to rise, yet does because...reasons.

Because his code demands mercy and Good before any Law, save that of his own code! He must protect the life of his surrendered enemy to the best of his abilities even if he must kill to do so.

>If I can't freely murder evil creatures that have no plans on changing, then what's the point of being a paladin?

Key point being murder, you can freely smite any evil who attacks you and even kill them, but you may not Murder any being even a Demon for any reason! Why?! because murder is defined as UNLAWFUL KILLING! A truly enlightened Paladin, would not kill unless absolutely necessary, not orcs, not goblins, maybe not even demons who still have have a chance of redemption. period

>>53192320
>What does this even mean?
He's playing you for sucker anon. He knew that you'd protect him no matter what, so now he gets to watch you go from a virtuous hero to a murderous pariah and all so that he can one day escape and kill again.

File: Untitled.png (113KB, 815x149px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 815x149px

>>53192334
That means they detect as neutral, not that they are neutral. 3e and 5e both make a point of saying that humans don't tend towards any alignment, even neutrality, however.

Why are we assuming there's no middle ground betwen "let the villain run off scot free" and throw him to lynch mob"?

Redemption is hard fucking worth. There's more to it than "sorry". You're ass is going in chains and being watched like a fucking hawk. When we aren't traveling, you're gonna get preached to and fucking psycho analyzed until you're deemed fit to be let go and if you try ANY funny bullshit you get your head lopped off.

That's how you do it.

Sense motive and equivalents are important skills for a fucking reason.

>>53192357
Nope, goblins are always chaotic-evil.

>>53192436
Nothing is "ALWAYS" anything unless it's an outsider and even if that was the case you're character does not know the fucking monster manual.

File: fedora.jpg (27KB, 474x527px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 474x527px

>>53192364
>I am viewing it from a historical standpoint. It's not my fault I got straight As in every history class I ever took and had usually read the provided book cover-to-cover within the first few weeks of class at most. Actually, wait, no, that is my fault, but in a good way.
Wew lad

>>53192415
>Because his code demands mercy and Good before any Law, save that of his own code! He must protect the life of his surrendered enemy to the best of his abilities even if he must kill to do so

I hope you realize how hypocritical that is. You either kill the bad man, or kill to protect the bad man. Either way, you've done an Evil thing by killing. So either you're wrong, or Paladins are hypocrites.

>>53192498
See
>>53192434

>>53192364
>I am viewing it from a historical standpoint. It's not my fault I got straight As in every history class I ever took and had usually read the provided book cover-to-cover within the first few weeks of class at most. Actually, wait, no, that is my fault, but in a good way.
Yeah, I now realize that this entire argument was FUBAR from the start. I'm sorry I fueled your ego but realize that this is my last reply.

Here's a (you) for the road, you overplayed your hand troll.

>>53192383
> and killing innocents

He's not killing innocents. He's doing his utmost to defend his charge against an angry mob. He will most likely be doing so through every non-lethal means in his arsenal, which is quite a few. If an accident happens and someone gets seriously hurt, however, that is not on the paladin, it's on the mob. They chose to attack his charge knowing that he would have to defend said charge. The paladin's conscience is clear, and he is in no danger of Falling.

>do you honestly believe that the forces of good would want to condone that type of behavior in the future?

As opposed to mob mentality? Absolutely.

>>53192402
Sorry. Mea culpa.

>>53192422
>He's playing you for sucker anon.

Evil is petty like that. That doesn't change what I have to do, though I regret its necessity and the chance of accidentally harming someone. Besides, we're only in this mess at all because he decided to be a jerk and kill people and otherwise be a villain. Ultimately this whole situation is his fault, not mine. And soon he'll stand trial properly and receive his just fate anyway.

Also if I manage to get through this mob without killing anyone I am totally going to rub it in the villain's face. The paladin's code doesn't prevent me from being snarky.

>>53192436
Not in 3e, where they're only usually Neutral Evil. They're Evil with the same sort of frequency that elves are Good. Also in 5e their alignment is listed as Neutral Evil as well.

You're thinking of either orcs (which have the same "usually" qualify applied in 3e) or Bugbears as Chaotic Evil.

>>53192510
I'm not trolling. I was establishing my credentials. Just because 4chan for some reason frowns on that, does not invalidate a single one of my argument points.

Alignments are of variable difficulty to play based primarily on the 'intended' alignment of the party for a campaign.

Personally I have the hardest time roleplaying as TN or CN. A true neutral character needs to have some sort of defining characteristic and it can't be a strict adherence to morality or laws/a personal code but it also can't be 'lol so randumb' because that's a shitty way to play virtually any character no matter your alignment. Too often TN characters I play end up having dumb gimmicks in lieu of a proper personality.

CN is just a pain in the ass to roleplay without going full wacky random dude. Tendencies toward good/evil are usually pretty difficult to avoid, particularly in a mostly good/evil party.

>>53192221
>It becomes unjust when you're allowing evil to manipulate you into avoiding punishment for just a little while longer while the innocents you've sworn to protect can do nothing but take the law into their own hands. Again, he'd be executed anyways, so what's the difference?
Going through due process isn't 'avoiding punishment'. Punishment is a natural consequence to laws and due process. Punishing someone without first verifying that they are guilty is just sadism or revenge.

This is basic moral theory you fucking oaf.

File: Saris.jpg (142KB, 638x356px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 638x356px

>>53192593

>>53192383
>Honestly, considering that he's defending a villain and killing innocents, he probably should fall even if it was to "defend" his code.

No, he swore solemn Oaths which form his code. A god, the universe, or maybe just the paladin himself purely from his own conviction bound his soul to those tenets. If he follows them, he is blessed with incredible power, not because he wants it, but because he deserves it! If, he fails to follow the tenets, or no longer believes them, he loses his power, because he's no longer worthy!

>Think about it, do you honestly believe that the forces of good would want to condone that type of behavior in the future?

Yes all of the lawful good gods in D&D cosmology would prefer you attempt redemption if possible before you kill, (NOT MURDER, MURDER IS NOT THE SAME AS KILLING) someone.

>They're loved ones were still alive before the paladin killed them.

The paladin didn't kill their loved ones, and if they attacked the paladin out of rage at what the paladins prisoner did, their fate, whatever it may be, is deserved.

>A good act would be to execute him for the good of everyone else, but that's none of my business.

Yes and no paladin worth his fucking salt is going to presume to be the authority to judge that man worthy of death unless ABSOLUTELY necessary!

>Yes he is, he's a) trusting evil, b) slaying innocents, and c) hiding behind his code.

A) I never implied that either the Paladin or I, would trust in the Evil person.
B) If they attack, they are not innocents, they want revenge, not Justice, something the Paladin will not allow.
C) It's called sticking to his convictions, he is doing the opposite of hiding.

>This is also why evil gets shit done and is winning.

Evil is not winning in D&D's default setting, Anon.

>>53192544
To be fair, Anon, I think he made the classic blunder of assuming you and I are the same person.

This thread only gives me more assurance that D&D causes brain damage and alignments cause nothing but trouble.

Ever since I banned them, my games have gone a lot smoother.

>>53189981
Two possible explanations, one explicitly supported by the books and one played with.

Individuals have alignments. Cultures/societies have alignments. Being raised into a culture means you are more likely to have an alignment that matches that culture rather than once which doesn't, but it doesn't preclude having or "falling" to an alignment that differs from the norm, nor does it prevent objective alignments from existing.

Orcs, as creations of an evil god, have a further "pull" towards the Evil end of the alignment scale, because that's how Gruumsh made them. He wants them to serve his Chaotic Evil will. Those who have a different alignments actively fight this compulsion to do Evil, and this is why they do not have Evil alignments. Objectivity is still preserved unless you have no idea what objective means.

Have you noticed that whenever a character has a moral code, regardless of how rigid or flexible it is, they're "hiding" behind it if they don't immediately toss it away the second it becomes inconvenient?

Lawful Good means not being that guy. It's about looking at a situation with eyes unclouded by hate, planting yourself in front of evil, and stopping it dead in it's tracks.

Sometimes that evil is a necromancer or bandit king. Sometimes it's the hatred in the hearts of a mob. Sometimes it's your own baser instincts.

It's hard to do, especially at the table, but if you pull it off then it's immensely satisfying

>>53192747
Nobody on the whole of 4chan knows what "objective" actually means, especially people who use the term "objective" to describe alignments.

>>53192766
You are "objectively" wrong.

>>53192775
No, you're "objectively" wrong.

>>53180922
This is now the standard I'll have my character alignments.

>>53192740
I've been playing D&D for 17 years and not once has alignment ever actually been a problem for me or my players. If alignments were fundamentally that disruptive to the game, they would have been changed or removed as part of the update from 2e to 3e, the same way negative armor class was.

Hell, one of the most fondly remembered settings - Planescape - is intrinsically tied to alignments.

Given that the sort of people who take issue with alignment are usually the same sort of people who, in a system with alignment, are the first to jump on the Chaotic Neutral "but it's what my character would do, I shouldn't be Evil just because I killed a baby and raped the princess" train, it's probably safe to assume that the problem isn't the game, it's you.

>>53192766
Certain actions are, per the books, defined under the various axes of alignment, as are exceptions. Personally, I like looser alignments, but it's not hard to see how an action clearly defined as a lawful, good, or evil action is an objective stance.

>>53192797
I've found that the people who complain the most about alignments are the ones most prone to being disruptive.

>>53192766

But alignments are objective. That is their point. Certain actions fall under a certain alignment. And in DnD there are actually gods and planes, so even more it becomes objective fact. It isn't like real life where morality can be grey or whatever. In the DnD setting morals are objective and certain actions fall under any of the 9 alignments. And why is it objective? Because the rules and setting make them that way.

Ya can always ignore them, but alignments are an objective thing if only because that is how the game makes them. Like if I say killing is objectively good in a game I make then it is objective for that game. Because that is how I made it. There is no room for debate. The only reason why people argue over it is because we try to apply real world morality which isn't always cut and dry to alignments were they clearly are.

File: congratulations, you've played yourself.jpg (24KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x360px

>>53192842
>There is no room for debate.
>Which why I'm debating this point
>In a thread with over 214+ posts
>With a topic that has been discussed to death for the past few years
>With no end in sight.

>>53180516
Chaotic Evil is by far the hardest to play without devolving into Random Evil.

>>53192842
I have never once met someone argue about the subjectivity of alignment or how difficult it was to place a realistic character into them who wasn't the sort of person who was trying to get away with something stupid in game or who would argue about some pedantic shit.

>>53192865
We do it because it's fun to argue over pedantic shit on the internet. I'm convinced that no one actually believes any of the crap spewed in this thread.

>>53192865
Because people try to push in real world morality into a game that did not use real world morality as a base for alignments.

As per game rules and the setting, alignments (for that game) are objective. People tend to forget that or work around it, clearly not realizing that this isn't the real world so real world morals don't apply to alignments. Alignments in game are objective, real world ones have a lot more debate because we don't live in a fictional world.

>>53192797
>>53192822
I've found that the people who need alignment also tend to be shittier roleplayers than those who ignore it.

Like look at the examples ITT, they don't protect a criminal because "it's the right thing to do" or "because my character wants him to receive proper justice" it's always "because if I don't, God will take away my superpowers."

I cannot call a character good when he's only doing what he does out of fear of punishment. If you want to be good, be good knowing that your actions aren't intrinsically supported by some random force in the universe

>>53192924
I've encountered people who are DEPENDENT on alignment (rather than using it as a side-thing or a shorthand) almost never, whereas the same can't be said about the Goblin Slayer wannabes trying to justify something to the rest of the party.

>>53192905
>People tend to forget that or work around it, clearly not realizing that this isn't the real world so real world morals don't apply to alignments.
Tell that to the one overachiving troll going about having straight A's in history class because obviously he missed the memo.

>>53192924
5e removed your fear of punishment objection, and I was literally arguing that it was the right thing to do, go elsewhere, you do not belong here.

>>53192953
Shitty players will be shitty players regardless but there is a correlation between alignment and those who use it as a means of avoiding consequences to their actions.

>>53192965
The punishment thing has been gone since 4e, even. Now the only people who can fall are people who don't follow the codes on the paladin pages, which have multiple options that all tend to be pretty loosely interpretable.

>>53192965
>Oh no, a differing opinion, I WON'T STAND FOR THIS!
Well aren't you a special snowflake?

>>53180951
>>53184903
>>53185214
>>53185266
>>53185730
>>53190312
>>53190334
It's called being communist and it's objectively evil. Robin hood's alignment is irrelevant, because communists aren't human.
>b-but, the tax man was ebul and sheiiit
The tax man is fictional, the entire thing stinks of propaganda for the sort of middle school mentality of communism, regardless of what they called it at the time of the story's conception.

>>53192987
There is a correlation between people who use alignments to do something and having alignments in the game, yes.

>>53193026
Way to exercise that 5 INT moralfag.

>>53193042
I didn't say anything about morals though, what the fuck? Are you feeling okay, Anon?

>>53192924
>I've found that the people who need alignment

Who says I need alignment? I like alignment, I understand alignment, but I don't need alignment.

>Like look at the examples ITT

All the examples I posted in this thread, on that exact line of comment, centered more or less on "because it's the right thing to do", even if I didn't use those exact words.

>"because if I don't, God will take away my superpowers."

That line of discussion is specifically about paladins, who are more complicated than just "good" since the entire point of the class is that you have a bunch of supernatural oaths. Even then, the argument being advanced was continuously about what constitutes justice and whether or not it's right to turn a surrendered prisoner over to an unruly mob, which has noting to do with supernatural powers. While I myself did bring up the possibility of Falling, it was only to emphasize that a paladin who IS acting to protect a surrendered prisoner and who otherwise does not break his oaths does not have to worry about Falling. But again, that's a separate argument to alignments, though it is related.

>>53192961
*sigh*

You fuck one goat...

>>53193056
>Argument about alignments
>Not mentioning anything about morals
Man, 5 INT was being generous holy shit.

Enjoy the last (you) retard.

>>53193006
>The tax man is fictional

Uh...so was Robin Hood, dude. And if you want to get technical the entire story was probably commissioned by and for various dye and wool guilds as they started to acquire serious money but would then have huge amounts of it taxed away by greedy kings - dirt farming peasants don't have much money to tax, after all. The story of Robin Hood originates as a story about a hero for the emerging middle class of guilds and private enterprises.

It would take a stupid person to extract communism from it. Or to forget that the entire thing is fictional so if the tax man can't be called evil because he was fictional, then Robin Hood can't be called evil for the same reasons.

Like, a particularly stupid person.

>>53193097
What you said was:
>“there is a correlation between alignment and those who use it as a means of avoiding consequences”

Or, in short, “There's a correlation between rules and people who abuse them”. Of course there fucking is. That's self-evident. There's a correlation between ham sandwiches and the guy who threw one at you in the cafeteria, too. I was pointing out your shitty logic, not the alignments themselves. Alignments are unimportant as fuck.

Again, are you feeling okay, Anon?

>>53192988
I know, but you know 4e's reputation, and I've never played 4e myself. I started with 5e and of course I've played BG1 AND 2 as well as NWN and IWD1&2.

>>53192999
It's not that you have a differing opinion, it's that you failed to see that I did argue that I would do that, as my Paladin, because it was the right thing to do.

>>53193106
Sounds like something a communist would say.

File: Comrade_Hood.jpg (29KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x300px

>>53193154
Nyet! Of course not!

>>53193106
>dirt farming peasants don't have much money to tax, after all.
Well, no, their taxes are usually taken in the form of the crops they grew, if I understand correctly.

>>53189445
>but do I gotta force an alignment change?
Yes. Not just to neutral but to evil.

>>53180516
Easiest is Chaotoc Good, or Lawful Neutral. Chaotic Good because you can be a generic good guy who doesn't play by the rules, Lawful Neutral because you can roleplay that as a normie/commoner.

>>53180516
True Neutral is the easiest because, most likely, that's how you already act in real life. The others are all about the same. Easy to play poorly, hard to play well.

File: Where do you work out.jpg (27KB, 500x372px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x372px

>>53191240
>>53191270
>>53191136
What next, you're gonna use fucking Harry Potter for your argument?

>>53191138
>>53190937
>>53190619
>>53190195
>>53191766
>>53192095
>>53192320
>If you kill your enemies, they win
>t. Paladins whose retarded players have morals straight from fucking Disney shit and Saturday morning cartoons
You're trying to make a Paladin from the dark ages act with the morality of a fucking pansy faggot (you) from 2017.

>>53192760
Sometimes, That Guy is the one acting like a fucking retard because they have the retarded worldview of a screeching suburbanite hippie

>>53192842
Except at the end of the day, nobody playing D&D is a fucking paladin or a sorcerer or rogue or whatever bullshit have you. Nobody involved is that character, they are mortal, fallible people in real life using a system MADE by mortal, fallible people, makers of the system which can absolutely be wrong.
My theory on the prevalence of caster supremacy is going to be the fact that the majority of people who write/participate in /tg/ related stuff are the same people who have never lifted anything heavier than their sourcebook or the communist manifesto. Some of them are invariably going to be /r9k/ tier types. You know what types I'm talking about, the fucking pic related types.

>>53180516
>Chaotic neutral
The fuck you think it was?

>>53180783
Your an idiot, who do you have playing , not fat neck beard cuz I doubt it, saying other wise is a true lie

>>53180922
Only flaw in that chart is that the "evil mechant/lawyer from hell" also ends up Honourable Ruthless, when in essence he's the least honourable of all letting officers do his fighting, the law take the blame and the system be his armour.

>>53180516
>tfw all alignments and the whole system is shit, because people are more complicated than "I am lawful, therefore I shall for an arbitrary never do anything unlawful even when the circumstances would support it"

>>53180516
True Neutral, you can do whatever you want.

>>53191858
If the population wants to lynch a rapist, do you really think the police (in ideal conditions) will let them do it?

Of course they wouldn't. They would fire rubber bullets, gas, they would make people disperse. They cannot let mob justice happen.

>>53192284
How is it being 'evil's bitch' to accepting a surrendering criminal and then promptly take him to trial?

>>53196650
>If the population wants to lynch a rapist, do you really think the police (in ideal conditions) will let them do it?
I can think of several cops who would look the other way when a pedophile is being beaten to death.

>>53196675
>I can think of several cops who would look the other way when a pedophile is being beaten to death.
Which is a break of duty.

>>53196670
Because you allow evil to win based off of a technicality in your bullshit manifesto.
>"No no no, Mr. Paladin, says here in your code, you can't kill me if I lay down my arms and surrender. Oh, and I *totally* want to reform my ways, now you HAVE to escort me to the proper authorities."
And then the bastard escapes justice because laws can be corrupted and men can be bought and then he goes off and does it all again because you allowed evil to use your own paladin code against you.

>>53196732
>Which is a break of duty.
AND, AND...it means that there's one less kiddy diddler on the streets, which makes it a net gain in the supernatural world of objective morality.

Besides, nobody's going to punish a cop for looking the other way when a pedo is being beaten to death, all they have to say is "welp, we got there too late" and they'll maybe even get time off w/ pay.

Know why? Because even hardened criminals hate pedos.

>>53196735
>Because you allow evil to win based off of a technicality in your bullshit manifesto.
So everyone having the right for a fair trial is part of a technicality? Are you braindead?

>And then the bastard escapes justice because laws can be corrupted and men can be bought and then he goes off and does it all again because you allowed evil to use your own paladin code against you.
First off, when you capture an enemy you usually make sure he won't escape. That's your job until delivering him to the authority.

Second, a paladin authority comes from their deity, which also hands authority to his superiors. So if there is a corrupt judge then the paladin is by duty bound to expose and replace him to ensure the law is fair.

>>53196747
>AND, AND...it means that there's one less kiddy diddler on the streets, which makes it a net gain in the supernatural world of objective morality.
That's not how it works anon. You still commited an evil act.

>
Besides, nobody's going to punish a cop for looking the other way when a pedo is being beaten to death, all they have to say is "welp, we got there too late" and they'll maybe even get time off w/ pay.
Now you are shilling for lying to cover your tracks. Good.

>Know why? Because even hardened criminals hate pedos.
It doesn't change it's a break of duty, the duty that policeman are expected to follow.

>>53196767
>So everyone having the right for a fair trial is part of a technicality?
After a certain point, you gotta realize when someone's willing to change and when people are playing you for a sap.
>"No no no, Mr. Paladin, says here in your code, you can't kill me if I lay down my arms and surrender. Oh, and I *totally* want to reform my ways, now you HAVE to escort me to the proper authorities."
This is not something that someone says or does when they're actually willing to change their ways.
>First off, when you capture an enemy you usually make sure he won't escape.
They can escape from prison.
>So if there is a corrupt judge then the paladin is by duty bound to expose and replace him to ensure the law is fair.
By then, it's too late though.

Also, all this shit hinges on the fact that we use our modern justice system in lieu of the medieval justice system where people could be executed for witchcraft just for standing too close to a flame.

>>53196793
>That's not how it works anon. You still commited an evil act.
Nope, destroying evil is always a net gain for the side of good, no exceptions. It is OBJECTIVELY so.
>Now you are shilling for lying to cover your tracks. Good.
That's only for the boys who handle paperwork. Everyone at the office knows what's up and don't care because the pedo was a blight on society anyways.
>It doesn't change it's a break of duty, the duty that policeman are expected to follow.
Whose going to be the guy who exposes a police officer for letting a pedo die though? It's just asking for your reputation to falter because nobody, even hardened criminals, wants to defend a pedophile's death any further than "we did all we could."

>>53196811
>After a certain point, you gotta realize when someone's willing to change and when people are playing you for a sap.
You have no authority to make this judgement.

>This is not something that someone says or does when they're actually willing to change their ways.
You have no authority to also make this judgement.

>They can escape from prison.
All criminals can escape from prisons. This is why prisons need to be build to hold them.

>By then, it's too late though.
Then go capture him again after you got the judge. It's even a net gain because that judge would probably corrupt justice of a lot of other people.

>Also, all this shit hinges on the fact that we use our modern justice system in lieu of the medieval justice system where people could be executed for witchcraft just for standing too close to a flame.
Which is the system promoted in DnD. DnD doesn't use the medieval system, it's closer to our modern morality.

Basically anon you are advocating for unlawful things who are in the context of DnD deities and morality not good.

>>53196850
>Nope, destroying evil is always a net gain for the side of good, no exceptions. It is OBJECTIVELY so.
Citation needed.

>That's only for the boys who handle paperwork. Everyone at the office knows what's up and don't care because the pedo was a blight on society anyways.
Good is supposed to care about people's lives. And you shouldn't want others to be conevient with your lies.

>Whose going to be the guy who exposes a police officer for letting a pedo die though?
Any police officer who saw it and knows they are by law supposed to report him.

>It's just asking for your reputation to falter because nobody, even hardened criminals, wants to defend a pedophile's death any further than "we did all we could."
Doesn't change that's the duty expected of a police officer, which he accepted to follow when he took the profession.

>>53193006
>Isn't communist

wow it's like you want humanity to fail

>>53196852
>You have no authority to make this judgement.
Actually, as a paladin, yes I would.
>You have no authority to also make this judgement.
If I cannot make a sound judgment based off the situation and my code is more important than protecting people's lives, maybe the code isn't worth upholding anymore.
>This is why prisons need to be build to hold them.
No prison is such that it's impossible to escape.
>Then go capture him again after you got the judge.
Yeah, after he's killed who knows how many people and makes paladins as a whole look like wimps, that sure is a net gain for good.
>DnD doesn't use the medieval system, it's closer to our modern morality.
Which is fucking retarded when our own legal system is the furthest thing from objective.

Neutral Good is the easiest to do "right." You don't have to worry about a strict code, or overdo the freedom bit. You simply do what you believe is the most Good.

>>53193006
>Robin Hood was communist
>Robin Hood was created by disgruntled merchants who were struggling over heavy taxes because the king needed more treasure to wage his stupid wars

>>53196868
>Citation needed.
You can't rape children if you're dead.
>Good is supposed to care about people's lives.
Which is why I'm putting the lives of the children that he's ruined over his own worthless life.
>Any police officer who saw it and knows they are by law supposed to report him.
>Doesn't change that's the duty expected of a police officer, which he accepted to follow when he took the profession.
Pssh, nice joke anon. Crimes only reach trial when the criminals are poor yet alive.

Don't conflate real life morality with the morality in your game of pretend. I hope you're not Mr. Straight A history buff, otherwise to have to ask you for your handler's phone number.

>>53196908
>Actually, as a paladin, yes I would.
So you don't know how a paladin works. Final judgement is your deity domain.

>If I cannot make a sound judgment based off the situation and my code is more important than protecting people's lives, maybe the code isn't worth upholding anymore.
Feel free to fall then.

>No prison is such that it's impossible to escape.
Doesn't justify killing criminals.

>Yeah, after he's killed who knows how many people and makes paladins as a whole look like wimps, that sure is a net gain for good.
Look like wimps? By who, you? Making an example, when prisoners break free the authorities go capture them again not summarily execute them.

>Which is fucking retarded when our own legal system is the furthest thing from objective.
Because we don't have codexes or gods who clearly define how you should or shouldn't act.

>>53196926
>You can't rape children if you're dead.
I meant a citation in a source material.

>Which is why I'm putting the lives of the children that he's ruined over his own worthless life.
Killing him won't change anything he did. And again, you cannot make the judgement he will do it again.

>Pssh, nice joke anon. Crimes only reach trial when the criminals are poor yet alive.
A fault in the justice system in our world doesn't change your duty, not in the real world and much less in a fictional one.

>Don't conflate real life morality with the morality in your game of pretend. I hope you're not Mr. Straight A history buff, otherwise to have to ask you for your handler's phone number.
Exactly, but you seem to be the one who isn't getting that morality in DnD is sourced. What you feel is completely irrelevant, how a paladin should act is exactly written on the book.

>>53196933
>So you don't know how a paladin works.
LAW states that this man committed wonton acts of evil while GOOD states that I have a duty towards making sure that he cannot harm another innocent with his actions. If the laws prevent justice from being served, then the matter must be taken into my own hands to preserve both the lives of innocents and the laws that keep society held together.
>Feel free to fall then.
I will, and then I'll resist the pull of evil to do what's necessary.
>Doesn't justify killing criminals.
A dead criminal is 100% less likely to commit another crime.
>Look like wimps? By who,
To the people who want the man's head on a platter yet were denied justice because of a technicality that allowed him to escape. It makes all paladins look feckless when their own codes prevents justice from being made.

>>53196955
>I meant a citation in a source material.
You shouldn't need a source material to prove that 100% of all dead criminals never become repeat offenders.
>Killing him won't change anything he did.
No, but it'll certainly protect everyone that he would've molested if given the chance.
>A fault in the justice system in our world doesn't change your duty, not in the real world and much less in a fictional one.
A fault in the justice system makes a strong case for when you gotta take justice into your own hands anon. Until the laws are infallible, it all falls down to one's opinion.
>Exactly, but you seem to be the one who isn't getting that morality in DnD is sourced.
Every passage that condones the genocide of orcs will also be opposed by passages that say it's abhorrent. You'd have an easier time gleaming objective morality from an IRL bible.

>>53196984
>LAW states that this man committed wonton acts of evil while GOOD states that I have a duty towards making sure that he cannot harm another innocent with his actions. If the laws prevent justice from being served, then the matter must be taken into my own hands to preserve both the lives of innocents and the laws that keep society held together.
Killing surrendered enemies isn't unlawful, it's evil actually so this excuse doesn't applies.

>I will, and then I'll resist the pull of evil to do what's necessary.
'I did what I had to do' is a pretty common justification from those lawful evil.

>A dead criminal is 100% less likely to commit another crime.
Doesn't justify taking their chance of redemption.

>To the people who want the man's head on a platter yet were denied justice because of a technicality that allowed him to escape.
The law and right to trial is not a technicality, it's a safeguard for everyone.

>It makes all paladins look feckless when their own codes prevents justice from being made.
Summary execution is not justice.

>>53197010
>You shouldn't need a source material to prove that 100% of all dead criminals never become repeat offenders.
You need to source material to claim that in DnD it's okay to kill people because they broke the law once.

>No, but it'll certainly protect everyone that he would've molested if given the chance.
And you cannot make the judgment he would hurt others again.

>A fault in the justice system makes a strong case for when you gotta take justice into your own hands anon. Until the laws are infallible, it all falls down to one's opinion.
Except this isn't canon in DnD, which clearly define how you should act.

>Every passage that condones the genocide of orcs will also be opposed by passages that say it's abhorrent. You'd have an easier time gleaming objective morality from an IRL bible.
There is no passage who condones the genocide of orcs. At all.

I suggest you reread the source materials.

>>53197020
>Killing surrendered enemies isn't unlawful, it's evil actually so this excuse doesn't applies.
Killing a criminal who is trying to subvert justice by utilizing the flaws of my doctrine isn't a truly surrendered foe, at best it's monster that is perverting the words of law/good just to save his own skin, making more abhorrent than those who no choice in the matter.
>'I did what I had to do' is a pretty common justification from those lawful evil.
I'm not justifying anything. He deserved to die, I deserved to fall, doesn't mean I'm going to stop defending the weak just because my god would rather defend his words than his followers.
>Doesn't justify taking their chance of redemption.
I cannot take something that isn't there.
>The law and right to trial is not a technicality, it's a safeguard for everyone.
When you've committed atrocity after atrocity, a trial becomes a formality. Let's just cut to the chase.
>Summary execution is not justice.
In our modern interpretation.

>>53197041
>You need to source material to claim that in DnD it's okay to kill people because they broke the law once.
"Children" implies that he did so more than once.
>And you cannot make the judgment he would hurt others again.
You cannot make the judgment that he wouldn't either.
>Except this isn't canon in DnD, which clearly define how you should act.
In what way? Because morality will always fall down to one's personal opinion and nobody (even the writers) have a definition that's 100% infallible.
>There is no passage who condones the genocide of orcs. At all.
Except for all the passages stating that it's okay to destroy evil to protect good. Not to mention this shit >>53190900

Like I said, there are passages that condone it and passages that abhor it.

>>53197058
>Killing a criminal who is trying to subvert justice by utilizing the flaws of my doctrine isn't a truly surrendered foe, at best it's monster that is perverting the words of law/good just to save his own skin, making more abhorrent than those who no choice in the matter.
You cannot make this judgement. And even if you could, that doesn't make him irredemable.

>I'm not justifying anything. He deserved to die, I deserved to fall, doesn't mean I'm going to stop defending the weak just because my god would rather defend his words than his followers.
Well, if you aren't lawful good anymore then sure do as you want to.

>I cannot take something that isn't there.
You cannot make this judgement.

>When you've committed atrocity after atrocity, a trial becomes a formality. Let's just cut to the chase.
You don't have this authority.

>In our modern interpretation.
Which is closer to DnD than the medieval one.

>>53197102
>"Children" implies that he did so more than once.
Still need source material to imply it's okay to kill people who broke the law at a moment.

>You cannot make the judgment that he wouldn't either.
So don't make it and leave it to those who can.

>In what way? Because morality will always fall down to one's personal opinion and nobody (even the writers) have a definition that's 100% infallible.
The books of moralities clearly define lawful and good behavior and what is allowed or isn't.

>Except for all the passages stating that it's okay to destroy evil to protect good.
Yes, but you cannot claim protect if you aren't actually protecting it at the moment.

>Like I said, there are passages that condone it and passages that abhor it.
That passage just said that paladins are hold than a higher standard. As they should.

>>53197121
>You cannot make this judgement.
Yes I can, I'm a man, with two eyes and ears. If I can't judge this man, then what does my title truly represent?
>Well, if you aren't lawful good anymore then sure do as you want to.
And I will.
>You cannot make this judgement.
See above
>You don't have this authority.
See above

>>53197137
>Still need source material to imply it's okay to kill people who broke the law at a moment.
I will, but first let me help you move those goalposts.
>So don't make it and leave it to those who can.
Who says that they're qualified either?
>The books of moralities clearly define lawful and good behavior and what is allowed or isn't.
And these stances change depending on who the criminal's race is.
>Yes, but you cannot claim protect if you aren't actually protecting it at the moment.
If there's an orc village that's raiding nearby settlements, wiping them out will protect future settlements from their actions.
>That passage just said that paladins are hold than a higher standard. As they should.
If they're held to a higher standard, shouldn't that mean that they gain more pull in deciding what's right and wrong?

>>53190019
>In DnD there is no good deity who would do genocide. You would know that if you actually read the books.
With the crucial exception of the people getting wiped out are either "evil" or are servants of their enemies.

Let's not pretend like if there was a way to permanently rid the world of Drow, most of the Elven Pantheon wouldn't jump at the chance.
Perfectly reasonably too, as Drow are a blight upon the world, just as mankind was before the flood.

>>53197200
>I will, but first let me help you move those goalposts.
You are ignoring the point.

>Who says that they're qualified either?
Because they are gods or received this authority.

>And these stances change depending on who the criminal's race is.
No they don't, the book clearly defines you cannot go and raze an orc village for example.

>If there's an orc village that's raiding nearby settlements, wiping them out will protect future settlements from their actions.
Keyword being raiding. If they aren't raiding you have no stand and even then you are just justified in killing the combatants.

>If they're held to a higher standard, shouldn't that mean that they gain more pull in deciding what's right and wrong?
Not when it goes against their code.

>>53197154
>Yes I can, I'm a man
And there are gods.

>And I will.
That's the end then.

>>53197234
>Because they are gods or received this authority.
Okay, and you're saying that my paladin, who received the same god's authority, isn't qualified to make that same judgment?
>No they don't, the book clearly defines you cannot go and raze an orc village for example.
You can if they've shown themselves to being nothing more than rape-happy murder-fucks who would destroy every village around them if given the chance.
>If they aren't raiding you have no stand and even then you are just justified in killing the combatants.
Oh, I gotcha, we can't prevent evil from spreading its influence, we can only clean up the shattered lives it leaves in its wake.
>Not when it goes against their code.
All I'm reading is "the law is powerless to help you unless you're smart enough to manipulate it" which is the furthest thing from justice as you can actually get.
>And there are gods.
If gods could freely intervene in mortal affairs, why even have paladins in the first place?

>>53197271
>Okay, and you're saying that my paladin, who received the same god's authority, isn't qualified to make that same judgment?
Yes, because you are going against the alignment of your god, which would result in you falling.

>You can if they've shown themselves to being nothing more than rape-happy murder-fucks who would destroy every village around them if given the chance.
Source?

>Oh, I gotcha, we can't prevent evil from spreading its influence, we can only clean up the shattered lives it leaves in its wake.
You can prevent evil, but killing should be a last resort.

>All I'm reading is "the law is powerless to help you unless you're smart enough to manipulate it" which is the furthest thing from justice as you can actually get.
You would have a point if the law permitted summary executing surrendering enemies. It doesn't.

>If gods could freely intervene in mortal affairs, why even have paladins in the first place?
Because gods in DnD aren't omnipotent. They can however clearly define postures of what is good and what isn't.

>ITT: Reasons why LG paladins are the least capable of defending justice.

And people told me that I was crazy for playing a LN paladin of vengeance. Literally saved more lives than the "good" characters without being hung up on whether the villains surrendered or not.

>>53187649
>It's oaky to kill torture and steal as long as you're doing it to evil people. Hell, if you're Chaotic Good you can get away with doing crazier stuff like raping people as long as the victims evil and deserved it, like they raped someone else first and your rape was to avenge their earlier crime rape.
I think Neutral Good would usually draw the line at torture and rape. Chaotic Good might be more open to torture, but I doubt they'd be any more open to rape.

Part of actually being good is not doing really evil things, even to people who arguably deserve it.

File: 1492700688062.png (72KB, 988x1044px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 988x1044px

>>53187649
>Chaotic Good
>it's okay to rape evil people

>>53197337
>Yes, because you are going against the alignment of your god, which would result in you falling.
Which means that my god is more concerned with maintaining petty rules than protecting innocent people.
>Source?
Read: "Orcs: Chaotic Evil"
>You can prevent evil, but killing should be a last resort.
How do you prevent a large group of people from committing a crime without killing? You're not going to undue years of conditioning with a speech about the tenets of lawful good, especially in a culture where might makes right.
>You would have a point if the law permitted summary executing surrendering enemies. It doesn't.
Read: "the law is powerless to help you unless you're smart enough to manipulate it."
>Because gods in DnD aren't omnipotent.
Then what good are they?

>>53197386
Sometimes you gotta be willing to choose a lesser evil to truly prevent a greater one.

>>53197419
>Which means that my god is more concerned with maintaining petty rules than protecting innocent people.
Which actually means that you think you know better than the one providing your powers, so really don't cry when you lose them.

>Read: "Orcs: Chaotic Evil"
That's like the dumbest reading of the monster book I saw. Congrats if you aren't trolling.

>How do you prevent a large group of people from committing a crime without killing?
Through teaching and reeducation. You only kill them if they are currently trying to kill other people.

>You're not going to undue years of conditioning with a speech about the tenets of lawful good, especially in a culture where might makes right.
If that was true preaching wouldn't work. And even if you can save a single one for good that's worth it.

>Read: "the law is powerless to help you unless you're smart enough to manipulate it."
It's not manipulating the law surrendering it. The law clearly defines you should be allowed to surrender.

>Then what good are they?
They are the definition of good in DnD.

>>53197452
Only when there is no other choice. And that requires really considering other choices.

>>53197485
When you give evil an inch, you give evil as a whole a whole damned mile. If I can kill a village of chaotic evil orcs to protect the lives of innocents, I'd do so.

They made their choice, they chose their path, and only a truly evil being would put their redemption over the safety of the people they'd harm, if given a chance.

>>53197472
>Which actually means that you think you know better than the one providing your powers, so really don't cry when you lose them.
I don't think a truly LG deity would allow a monster to live on a technicality like that though.
>That's like the dumbest reading of the monster book I saw.
Oh, I gotcha, only you can reference the book and only when it helps your own argument. I gotcha senpai.
>Through teaching and reeducation.
You're not going to undue years of conditioning, especially when it's in their nature to be chaotic evil creatures.
>If that was true preaching wouldn't work.
It generally doesn't.
>And even if you can save a single one for good that's worth it.
Not if it comes at the cost of another's person's safety and well-being.
>It's not manipulating the law surrendering it.
You're misunderstanding my point here.

>>53197537
I think you are reading too much Punisher anon.

Anyway, as said you are free to do anything you want to. But even if you do think that's good it wouldn't make that good, as per books of deeds says.

>>53197588
>I don't think a truly LG deity would allow a monster to live on a technicality like that though.
Which LG deity would be okay with summary execution?

>Oh, I gotcha, only you can reference the book and only when it helps your own argument. I gotcha senpai.
It's the dumbest because the monster book is talking about raiding orcs and even then it's considered a majority and not all.

>You're not going to undue years of conditioning, especially when it's in their nature to be chaotic evil creatures.
Except that as I said even if you change one it's already worthwhile.

>It generally doesn't.
It does work, there were always people preaching opposing values in totalitarian societies.

>Not if it comes at the cost of another's person's safety and well-being.
That doesn't apply if they aren't offering a threat at that moment.

>You're misunderstanding my point here.
Not at all. Regardless of intention, the enemy is free to surrender for whatever reason he wants to. And as per rules you cannot summary execute a surrendered enemy.

>>53197622
>I think you are reading too much Punisher anon.
Punisher gives further credence to the idea that evil actually gets shit done. Notice how Punisher doesn't have a rogue's gallery?

>>53197634
>Punisher gives further credence to the idea that evil actually gets shit done. Notice how Punisher doesn't have a rogue's gallery?
Notice how the Punisher every time he hits an innocent it reveals he actually didn't, it was a trap or that it was a bad guy?

I would suggest you reading Vigilante, since it's a more accurate portrayal with less fanwank.

>>53197622
>Which LG deity would be okay with summary execution?
Are we going by D&D logic or actual lore?
>It's the dumbest because the monster book is talking about raiding orcs and even then it's considered a majority and not all.
Okay, either I kill orcs who deserve it or I allow the orcs to receive their reward for being good before their society can corrupt them into being evil. There's literally no downsides to genociding orcs.
>It does work
No, prayer only makes you feel like it's working when in reality you're doing nothing at all.
>That doesn't apply if they aren't offering a threat at that moment.
They're fucking orcs, their entire existence is based around some CE god making a creature that's CE to do CE shit. You might as well argue that isn't not okay to kill undead because some of them are smart enough to be sentient.
>And as per rules you cannot summary execute a surrendered enemy
I should if they're only doing so because they know that I'd be forced to "save" them.

>>53197653
>Notice how the Punisher every time he hits an innocent it reveals he actually didn't, it was a trap or that it was a bad guy?
If they weren't actually innocent, what's the issue here?

>>53197676
>Are we going by D&D logic or actual lore?
Which says so in the material.

>Okay, either I kill orcs who deserve it or I allow the orcs to receive their reward for being good before their society can corrupt them into being evil. There's literally no downsides to genociding orcs.
Except that it's an evil action.

>No, prayer only makes you feel like it's working when in reality you're doing nothing at all.
You moron, preaching works because even in the most totalitarian regimes there were people changing their minds.

>They're fucking orcs, their entire existence is based around some CE god making a creature that's CE to do CE shit.
They are canon good orcs, good drows, good goblins, etc.

>You might as well argue that isn't not okay to kill undead because some of them are smart enough to be sentient.
Depends on undead. Mostly undead however are manipulated by a necromancer and go berserk without his input.

>I should if they're only doing so because they know that I'd be forced to "save" them.
You aren't 'saving' them, you are capturing them.

>>53197686
>If they weren't actually innocent, what's the issue here?
That saying 'The Punisher has no rogues' has no value since fanwank makes The Punisher incapable of making mistakes.

>>53180516
So what's the difference between NG and CG anyway? Both want to do the right thing and neither is too keen on following the letter of law.

>>53197710
>Which says so in the material.
Again, D&D logic or actual lore?
>Except that it's an evil action.
I'm preventing a greater evil from occurring by committing a comparably lesser evil, at best it'd be neutral, especially if they attack me since self-defense is always justified.
>preaching works
Prayer doesn't work unless there are people who make it work. If you don't believe me, go to a doctor and a preacher and see who will cure your flu sooner.
>They are canon good orcs, good drows, good goblins, etc.
Cool, upon death, they'll go to LG heaven and their CE brethren will receive their justice.
>Depends on undead.
Now we've reached the apologist trifecta.
>You aren't 'saving' them, you are capturing them.
I'm allowing them to draw breath while they gave their victims no such mercy while wasting my own time just to either see them escape or see them fall to my blade anyways.

>>53197724
>That saying 'The Punisher has no rogues' has no value since fanwank makes The Punisher incapable of making mistakes.
Sounds about as close as you can get to objective morality as you can get.

>>53197772
Neutral good is moderate on it's view of law, the law should be broken if it's unjust but normally it's good to follow laws. It's like the average joe who follows the law but don't see a problem in jaywalking.

Chaotic good however says that laws shouldn't be considered when acting. Someone chaotic good will basically only follow laws if what they do is good. It's a matter of perspective: I'm not going to that, because regardless of what the law says I don't consider it right.

>>53180516
The easiest is whichever you personally align with because it requires little effort, which you can then dedicate to making the character deeper rather than simply having to focus on making them different. Or not, if you happen to be a lazy bastard

As for hardest, again it depends on the person, though there's a case to be made for true neutral because then you have to come up with a way to get involved and a reason why you're still there that doesn't shift you into one of the other alignments.

>>53197781
>Again, D&D logic or actual lore?
Actual lorebook.

>I'm preventing a greater evil from occurring by committing a comparably lesser evil,
So you admitted it's evil. Genocide isn't a lesser evil through, it's completely evil as per book.

>at best it'd be neutral, especially if they attack me since self-defense is always justified.
You cannot cry self defense if you are the one who attacked them.

>Prayer doesn't work unless there are people who make it work. If you don't believe me, go to a doctor and a preacher and see who will cure your flu sooner.
Are you retarded? I'm talking about preaching, the act of going and sharing with someone else your morality.

>Cool, upon death, they'll go to LG heaven and their CE brethren will receive their justice.
That's an evil action.

>Now we've reached the apologist trifecta.
Not at all. Liches are sentient. Ghouls are usually mindless.

>I'm allowing them to draw breath while they gave their victims no such mercy while wasting my own time just to either see them escape or see them fall to my blade anyways.
Yes, because this is the right thing to do. Being merciful is a good trait.

>Sounds about as close as you can get to objective morality as you can get.
You seem to forget that the Punisher is hated by all good characters and even writers implied he is insane.

>>53197872
What about Corellon Larethian, the patron god of elves? He's a Good deity who approves of killing orcs whenever it's possible.