When trying to judge characters alignment, should we take in

Alignment is character's implicit support for their side in the war between the Upper realms and the lower realms, i.e. heaven and hell.

Good people bat for angels, evil people bat for demons and devils, neutrals don't care.

>>54030554

Motives and actions. End results only affects other peoples' perceptions of the alignment.

>>54030572
This is how it's always been in D&D (and why stuff like people saying Nox wasn't evil is retarded). Ends don't justify the means, ever, when it comes to alignment.

Would he have won the war if it was a True Realistic like George said it was?

>>54031205
>if it was a True Realistic like George said it was
What did he mean by this?

File: Absolutely disgusting.gif (350KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 500x282px

>>54030554
>2017
>People still use alignments

Of all the cancers DnD has infected Traditional Gaming with, this is one of the top 3.

>>54031311
What >>54030569 said is right: making alignments a personality test was one of the biggest mistakes D&D has ever done.

>>54031205
>writes a fantasy book
>it has dragons and literal ice fairy demons and zombies in it
>"so realistic"

ASoIaF was never a "realistic" setting by any stretch of the imagination.
It was merely a fantasy setting where magic was low-key and often difficult to prove that it exists and all and not merely weird dreams or rare natural phenomena.
The realism came from the motivations of his characters, whom while certainly are not all relatable are still very understandable in the why they do the things that they do. Even the "pure evil" characters he writes are very clearly mentally ill or perhaps suffering from sociopathy or other psychological maladies.

>>54031347
Dragons, demons, zombies, and other magical aspect never had anything to do with realism as we know the word. Realism is that things work the same way they do in real life: birds fly, grass is green, gravity binds you down, exercise burns fat, and people have complex motivations and a lot of depth.

Dragons and shit aren't of the real world at all and thus can be gotten away with.

>>54030554
Combination of motive and actions. How competent you are does not influence your alignment.

>>54030554
If it's D&D, the only thing that matters is if they fit the template, because Alignment is an all powerful behaviour controlling force that follows an acute narrative, escaping it means the road to CE, and Elder Evil hood in any to all cases.

Modern sensibilities have dampened the correct way this system is viewed and treated however, but the best way of running it is on par with NWN1 with points to where on the spectrum a person's actions lead.

There's a degree of forethought that goes into casting evil descriptor spells and there are consequences in every event of involving oneself with the lower planes, there's a fucking reason why doing remotely anything bad in the abyss in many adventures has PC's turning inadvertently evil, and that's because evil in D&D works identical to Warp taint in the same vein as Warhammer 40k's mission on board the Judgement of Carron if you over expose your marines to chaos taint.

>>54031309
George keeps on insisting his novels are realistic

>>54031390
Should background be taken into consideration?

>>54031477
>Modern sensibilities have dampened the correct way this system is viewed and treated however,

Alignment in its current form was invented in 1978.

>>54030554
Actions determine your alignment. You can have the best intentions in the world, but if you go about it in an evil shithole way, then you're an evil shithole regardless of the results.

>>54030554
You can't judge the end result, as result don't actually end. Every action chains infinitely into the future.
You eating a hamburger today might be a key step into the third world war, but it's not inherently evil as there's no way to know.

>>54032377
Yes

>>54030569
That's Law and Chaos, not Good and Evil.

>>54030572

My motive is to improve lives of my countrymen. My actions improve lives of my countrymen.

It is nice to be chaotic good with all those pillaging, raiding, killing and raping. Because only my enemies perceive it as a bad thing, I'm in the clear.

Thanks anon.

>>54030554
motive, actions, and philosophy

So, the alignment system is something I like to ramble about.

Law and Chaos are pretty straightforward, they're more about methodology. Chaotic people believe that you'll over all be more effective if you tailor your decisions to every situation because obviously every situation is different, Lawful people would contend that you aren't going to know everything in every situation you're in and it's best to follow preexisting guidelines about what's usually the best decision. For example your classic lawful good paladin is a knight raised in a time where there isn't much education to be had and you need to be rich just to get it, so he doesn't trust his own judgement and puts his faith in the rules of his society or faith or code or so on. Modern western humans have high standards of education and how much information they receive and generally can assume they have the relevant facts, so western morality shades more towards chaos these days. It's not actually that closely related to whether you follow the law of the land or anything, it's about how you approach problems.

Good and Evil are the complicated ones. As a lot of people will tell you, the concepts of good and evil for DnD's purpose was to support mechanics relating to the idea of good and evil as manifest forces in a setting. When you try to relate it to actual morality, it falls apart - for example, the idea of an "elemental" good or evil being who's literally made of goodness or evil (as angels and demons/devils basically are) is paradoxical, because a being who has no choice but to be good cannot be good and a being who has no choice but to be evil can't be evil.

Most people simplify good and evil into selfess vs selfish, but that doesn't really work either. A person acting selflessly can still do unquestionably evil things.

>>54039124
>Law and Chaos are pretty straightforward, they're more about methodology
No, wrong.

>>54030554
Definitely yes to the first two. Conditional yes to the third if the results are foreseeable by the character.

>>54031205
No. He would have been killed by Renly's boyfriend.

>>54030554
All three of them.

>>54039561
>should we take in consideration on motive, actions, or en
Loars is overhyped.

>>54040168
Stannis is overhyped

>>54037344
But pillaging, raiding, killing and raping are all actions that would be taken into account when choosing your alignment, retard. Yes, you could be perceived as good by your allies because of the results, but it doesn't mean that is your ACTUAL alignment.

File: Alignment_Sandwich.jpg (214KB, 1200x825px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1200x825px

>>54030554
Yes.

>>54043729
>pillaging, raiding, killing and raping are all actions
If you do this for the greater good than by default you are good.

>>54044466
Well of course an icecream taco is a sandwich. All tacos are. Poptart is pushing it too far, though.

File: 1377367256601.jpg (76KB, 831x445px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 831x445px

>>54030554

>>54030554
It is likely that your answer to that question is what gives you your allignment, not vice versa.

>>54030569
/thread

And that was achieved in first post

>>54044466
Radical Sandwich Anarchy would be a great punk rock band name.

>>54030554
Congratulations!
You've made what is most likely your first unoriginal and unimaginative thread on /tg/, retreading a topic so old that in all likelyhood you hadn't even managed to hit high school when it was outdated and dull!
You've nowhere to go but upwards now as literally anything else you could post other then what you've posted would be more interesting and less talked about!
You have much to look forward to a long future of near-constant meteoric improval of posting quality as you skyrocket from the near-unattainable nadir that is this astounding creative low you started your journey at!

>>54044956
Under what situation does rape contribute to any greater good, edgelord? If you go above and beyond in ways that do not contribute to any good, you obviously have some bad intent, whether you realize it or not.

>>54046554
For someone as limited as you perhaps

>>54030554
Motive>Action>Results
If an evil wizard lays waste to a kingdom to loot its coffers and rape the princess, but it turns out this kingdom was incredibly oppressive, and regularly executed people for shits and giggles, it makes the wizard no less evil
If a paladin kills a guy he believes is actually an orcish warchief hell-bent on laying waste to the country side, but it turns out that wasn't an orcish warchief at all, but the guy operating the Toys for Tots distribution center, the Paladin is still fundamentally good, since he intended to do right. He might get a frowny face on his annual Paladin review card though.

>>54046554
The love baby of X and Y is foretold to be the great Philosopher King that will lead his people into a golden age, but X isn't really into Y.

>>54044956
Nah, you'd be both good and evil (not neutral), but since that makes things unnecessarily complex, easy way out ingame is to have good side of alignment not want to associate with you even if you did everything for greater good, thus making your final alignment evil. Otherwise you'd just be universally despised, you gain disadvantages of both evil and good alignment while none of the benefits. In D&D good gods should probably revoke powers from anybody commiting mass murder, even in good will.

>>54046554
Well if you're raiding and pillaging an always evil race like orcs then it's good.

>>54030554
>When trying to judge characters alignment, should we take in consideration on motive, actions, or end results?

No, because that way everyone is good (trying to make things better according to their believes) and lawful (acts according to their rules and principles).

You need to have some divine, outworldly, objective and set in stone center, and everything one side of it is good, the other is bad, and so on.
You need objective morals to have alignments.

>>54046719
Morality is subjective anon.

>>54030569
he talks about law and chaos you faggot

>>54030554
Stop playing DnD, alignment is fucking terrible.

>>54046554
>be part of a big group of people
>conquer and rape a smaller group of people
Good is being done for the greater group of people. It's for the greater good.

File: 3d cupdrinking chan.jpg (70KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x480px

>>54044466
>food analogy

>>54030554
>2017
>Alignment thread
But I'll give you a free pass, because it's summer.

>>54046729
was that not the point of his post?

>>54044466

Everything in this picture is objectively a sandwich.

File: RThmrgN.png (1MB, 1278x718px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1278x718px

>>54046554
>Under what situation does rape contribute to any greater good, edgelord?
1 woman versus however many men. As long as you make it a group effort there is net pleasure.

I did the math.

File: Alignments_Simplified.png (49KB, 701x701px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 701x701px

>>54047280
Honestly? I just like seeing people debate alignment through the delicious lens of sandwich.

I do have more "serious" alignment charts lying around though...

>>54048108
Problem with that is you are assuming the pleasure of the group outweighs the basic human rights of the individual. I think it is perfectly moral for my wants to take a backseat to rights of others but the opposite is terribly immoral.

>>54048108
Hedonic calculus please leave

>>54050033
This one's pretty good desu

Consequentialist Ethics is fucktarded. By that logic the guy who killed Batman's parents saved N-2 people.

Actions are the only things that matter.

>>54050033
Op just used this

>>54052567
Go more on detail

>>54053403
Why? Its shit

>>54055839
No, it's not. it is an accurate portrayal

>>54056969
Of what?