dnd alignment Table

File: DnDTable.jpg (83KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x800px

if the tax collectors were corrupt this would make a little sense

>>54320881
>paying taxes is good
>collecting taxes is evil
Really gets my noggin joggin'.

File: a67.jpg (47KB, 600x538px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x538px

yea the taxes part is a little off.

>>54320935
Tax collectors are corrupt. This is a known quantity in folklore and so on, so it works well enough for fantasy.

File: Composite2.png (61KB, 749x644px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 749x644px

ive never seen another one like this before.

Good
Lawful
Neutral
Chaotic
Evil

Literally all you need.

>>54320848
Trying to explain alignment to new players and i need examples for all them. Chaotic Good is Robin Hood or Batman, Lawful Neutral is Judge Dredd or your generic town guard, Lawful Evil is corrupt politicians and greedy lawyers
Any more good easy to understand examples for the others?

>>54320988
Swap Valve and Blizzard and this would work.

>>54321950
to be fair, it looks like this chart is pretty old

File: The reality of alignment and why it is shit.png (106KB, 712x615px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 712x615px

>>54320848

>>54320990
Is that why Majesty gave them stereotypically gay voices?

File: sounds like liberal bullshit but ok.jpg (22KB, 480x290px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x290px

>>54320881
>paying taxes is good
>collecting taxes is evil
>altruism is good
>selfishness is bad
>created by (((Mike Mearls)))

imagine my shock

>>54325607
Why do people have such problems with the evil alignment?

>>54325616

Randoid kys pls.

>>54325632
Because fundamentally there is no real evil. Even bad people think they're doing something good, even if "good" is something selfish and comes at the expense of others. So when people RP evil what they really want is to be an edgy asshole and it results in varying amounts of cringe and unfun

>>54325632

Well people generally play it badly because they either don't know any better (edgelords, lolsoevulz, etc) or because they want to be disruptive shitlords and fuck with other players.

Another part of it is a problem with intepreting alignment in general: there are many players who think you have to go all out with an alignment in every aspect of your character or else you're not 'roleplaying your alignment' properly. This is the same reason we get Lawful characters who won't budge a nanometer on their principles and are totally OCD orderly in everything they do - sure, that is A lawful character, but you don't always have to go to the extremes of the alignment to be an example of that alignment.

File: tipsfedora.jpg (106KB, 1200x794px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1200x794px

>>54325688
>Because fundamentally there is no real evil

File: keep crying, snowflake.jpg (11KB, 200x254px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x254px

>>54325644

>>54325688
You could have Evil in a fantasy setting if you based it off theological and mythological conceptions of evil

>>54325688
>>54325715
So it sounds like more a problem with individual players rather than the alignment itself.

What about undead/outsiders/monsters etc? Are they deserving of the evil alignment in settings where they are antagonists?

>>54325728
Wouldn't it be more fedora tier to say there's no good? Just think about all the "evil" shit in history. It was almost always done for the advancement of a people, or for science etc etc. People have causes that they think are worth killing or dying for and they kill or die for them. Even random crazies who shoot up a place have an internal justification for why they think random people deserve to die.
But when people RP they just want to be the edgelord and do "evil" for the sake of it, which is just unrealistic and cringey

>>54325728
There something in Calvinist theology about all evil being derivative of good impulses, basically all evil is just twisted and disproportionate good drives

>>54325802
>>54325793
Well no, this is what I'm saying. As part of the game it is a fundamental requirement for evil to exist, for bad people to do bad things for the sake of being bad. It's why basically all evil creatures are incomprehensible fiends and creatures of myth, whereas while good has shit like unicorns and certain dragons. most of it's deities are humanoid, and the heroes of tales are humanoids. Because realistically if we examined why an actual person did something "evil" they wouldn't consider themselves or their actions to be evil, they may even consider them to have been a good thing.
So it is a problem with the alignment more than anything. Evil doesnt exist, evil alignment is stupid, so when people want to play evil it's always ridiculous.

File: 1499642825048-tg.jpg (26KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 800x600px

>>54325688
Ok faggot, answer this:

Is Hitler evil, and why or why not?

>>54325607

That's a sadly realistic chart, and illustrates a problem with people, not with the alignment system.

>>54325855
I've met some spiteful and cruel people who's only motivation was that they enjoyed hurting others, they're rare but they do happen, it's hard to make them interesting characters though

>>54325715
>Another part of it is a problem with intepreting alignment in general:

This. From what I've noticed from peoples horror stories about Evil or Chaotic characters is that it seems as though these problem characters were created with these alignments as their focus. Rather than creating a character, and seeing which if the 9 boxes they fit in best, they looked at the 9 boxes and picked traits in one of those boxes to build their character around. A character that's created solely to behave in "edgy" ways, but has to justify their behavior after the fact, is going to be a bad character.

>>54320881
>>54325616
Ok maybe LE should say
>Fills personal coffers with tax money

>>54325805
>>54325828

I think you're off-piste, gentlebeings. DnD has an objective, non-consequentialist morality system. The only argument to be had when it comes to alignment is over interpreting what's written about it in the rulebook. It doesn't matter what you or some theologian think because it doesn't apply in the case of alignment. Morality in DnD is built into the physics of the setting. Not even just the metaphysics - you can literally be 'charged' with evil just by being from an evil plane, or from worshipping an evil deity.

>>54325856
No, because evil doesn't exist.

He killed people sure, but so do lots of rulers. He didn't even kill as many people as Stalin or Mao or ancient rulers, so it's not like what he did was some unprecedented act.
He did what he did for the betterment of his people, Germany was suffering after WW1, other nations had been very harsh on them and it had led to economic crisis and despair in his nation, he believed he had the answer to the problem and rose up. Theres a reason he was widely popular. And he did cause great leaps in infrastructure and technology in his nation. Had he have won people wouldn't remember him as an evil man at all, if bad actions lead to good results we consider them to be good actions. "History is written by the victors"

Theres entire papers written on these subjects in history, I can't believe you'd be unaware of these sorts of discussions

>>54325914
Another problem is that DnD fluff doesn't make sense within a world with objective morality, Orcs have this whole noble savage thing going on but worship a god who is objectively evil

>>54325941
Morality is objective in Calvinist theology to though, I'm more interested in stealing from it to better describe what morality is like in DnD

>>54325904
>I've met some spiteful and cruel people who's only motivation was that they enjoyed hurting others
Maybe on the surface. But look deeper and you'll find theres more to it. They may believe others deserve to suffer as they have suffered, a sort of revenge on society, to them what they do is justified by what was done to them. Now if we write a story in which our main character has been unfairly oppressed, and rises up to tear down the system, or seek revenge on those who hurt them, we have the typical plot line for someone we'd consider Chaotic Good. In their own minds what they're doing is right, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

>>54325941
>you can literally be 'charged' with evil just by being from an evil plane, or from worshipping an evil deity.
Sure but that's the point, the in game system of good and evil does not reflect reality, so inevitably attempts to live up to an unreal standard are cringe worthy and stupid

>>54325961
Also, Paladins can fall for not slaughtering baby orcs, yet the race is listed as Evil and according to Volo's guide >>54304807 Orcs will still come off as aggressive even when taught limited empathy.

So come on fellas, either it's objective morality or it isn't, don't half-and-half us and then punish us when we try to make sense of it all.

>>54326037
I guess you could fluff Orcs as similar to other humanoids in that they have a capacity to choose between good and evil, but then suddenly adventures run out of ethical enemies to fight

>>54326037
Exactly. Plus why the fuck would anyone with arcane knowledge worship dark gods when they know that their soul will just end up on some lower plane likely to be eaten by a fiend? It's not like they can't seek power and immortality from good gods

>>54326085
The dark gods help evil people for free since they make the world the worse place, of course that isn't official just something I homebrewed

>>54326114
Sure but then it's the same problem as literal deals with the devil, if you know the devil exists, then you can reasonably assume god exists, so why would you ever sell your soul to the devil?

>>54325953
What a misinterpretation!

Boethius argued evil didn't exist as a self-sufficient quality. Instead he said it was the absence of good.

>>54326076
The problem with that is that Orcs are naturally inclined to be evil in some capacity, which kinda throws out the whole "capacity for good and evil" shtick. Even then, why not have them be naturally neutral if it all boils down to a culture thing?
>>54326085
What makes it worse, a lot of the evil deities in D&D barely offer you anything better than what a good/neutral aligned god would offer. Like what's the point of being an evil sack of shit if there's no power to equal the price of tainting your soul?

Might as well just be a necromancer since it offers all the benefits of being an evil cleric with the added bonus of not being locked to just necromancy as a school of magic.

>>54326199
>Even then, why not have them be naturally neutral if it all boils down to a culture thing?
Somewhere on /pol/ an Orc refugee meme was just created

>>54326157
Because you're a sick fuck who couldn't get into heaven if he tried and the dark gods willl give you a cozy afterlife for being one of the few people that will actually worship them, they're very lonely and affectionate

>>54325953
>When you're so obtuse and autistically stuck in your head that you can't discern obvious b8

It all comes down to a mix of cultural values and perspective full stop.

>>54325424
Lawful Good is Superman. Defends the weak, protects the defenseless, and follows the law as much as the situation allows.

>B-but if you're Lawful, you can''t be a vigilante!
Bullshit. Lawful is a code of honor.

Chaotic Evil is definitely the Joker. I mean he's basically the quintessential CE archetype. Neutral Evil could be Xanatos?

I'd put Batman as way more NG with a lean on Lawful than Chaotic. CG for a superhero would probably be more along the lines of Catwoman on a good day, or the Hulk. Someone who just doesn't give a fuck about laws and rules and doesn't have any personal code more complicated than "Don't make people sad".

>>54326845
Most everyone has some form of a code; an essential modus operandi that informs their decisions. To be lawful is to attempt to comform to systems that match your code or values, or to mold your code to fit said system's values. To be chaotic is to seek to tear down systems that do not coincide with your code or values. Either you're working within the status quo or trying to change it. That's it.

>>54326860
Change selfish to indifferent
Change ruthless to selfish

>>54327003
Nah. Human beings are, by nature, selfish. Evil isn't merely: "fuck you, I'm looking out for number one". That's Neutral. Evil is more than just self-interested; It's ruthlessly self-interested.

>>54327089
It depends on the circumstances under which you would fuck someone over and lengths you would go to get something you want

>>54327089
Yes, selfish as in self interest to the detriment of all else is what I meant.

To say everyone is selfish by nature is true, but you have to put that into some context because we possess reason as well as instinct. Resisting that base selfish nature to put others above ones self is generally what is meant by kindness and compassion. On the other hand, a willingness to openly fuck anyone and everyone over for ones own benefit alone is generally considered mean, by familiar standards.

So while the default position is to think only of ones self, but the very existence of morality suggests a modifier. And giving in to that base id and taking as much as you can is no longer neutral selfishness, but reasoned and calculated greed.

No person over the age of 5 is only selfish in that purely neutral, instinctual sense outside of reflex action. We take too many factors into account. Taking fewer things into account when making decisions implies indifference. So that chart would be better off assuming what I meant by selfish, rather than basic individual rationality.

>>54320988
>valve
>good
>Nintendo
>good
>blizzard
>not evil
>activision
>not evil

>>54326037
>Paladins can fall
No.

>>54327291
I'd say that neutral means that while you aren't going to hurt innocent people, you also aren't going to sacrifice a lot to help others

>>54327411
elaborate on the evils, I don't know the name of a single one of those birds

>>54327425
if only the name of the file had information about the contents of the image

>>54327425
Goose, cuck, seagull

>>54327411
swap the goose with the seagul

>>54327425
Canadian Goose; Cuckoo (that bird feeding it is being tricked); Seagull.

They're all complete shithead birds.

>>54327425
Read the filename.

>>54325424
chaotic evil is the joker, neutral evil is that one drifter that likes to use enchantments/drugs to get towns to tear themselves apart, cant remember his name

>>54325616
>Altruism isn't good
>Selfishness isn't bad
Maybe in real life where everything is grey, but if we're talking about fantasy roleplaying games with things like "alignments" this is a weird stance to take.

That said the tax part is dumb. Funny, but dumb.

>>54327449
>>54327456
>>54327459
>>54327461
but why are they evil, come on guys, you know what I asked

If I didn't know the name of course I don't know how they behave.

>>54327504
very aggressive dickish bird

kills eggs of other birds and implants own eggs so other bird can raise young for it

I dunno why gulls. Gulls are bros.

t. south coast -> mid-west anon

>>54327376
Sounds fine but that seems more aloof or indifferent to me than overt selfishness, but that's just my two cents. I'll quit bugging you with semantics since I don't really disagree anyway.

>>54327411
Penguins rape children. Young penguins and I think even the young of other species.

Also are seagulls only CE because they shit on cars when you're parked at the beach all day?

>>54327587
I remember a sea lion raping a penguin in a .gif

was weird

>>54327623
Never let anyone tell you nature is ethical

>>54327623
Nothing wrong with putting a little special sauce on your meal.

>>54327648
I've never eaten cum, how does it taste?

>>54320988
Everyone is evil at this point

>>54327635
Nature don't give a single fuck. That's why it gets on my nerves in stories when you have nature coming to the aid of the nature loving heroes. Nature would be just as likely to fuck them as the evil industrialist villain. More likely, actually.

Only story I can think of where nature directly saved the day for the good guys that I liked was the end of Jurassic Park, because it was pure coincidence and it just as easily could have backfired hard.

>>54327776
What happened in Jurassic Park? I literally can't remember.

>>54327776
It works in fantasy where nature is literally a living spiritual force

>>54327660
It tastes like kinda like snot. Bland. The texture stands out more than the taste.

I'm bluffing, but am I right?

>>54327815
Feeling it on my hand it has the same consistency but it probably tastes different but I'm not willing to test it

>>54327815
No.

File: Dude 4.gif (676KB, 320x160px) Image search: [Google]

676KB, 320x160px

>>54325616
There are a lot of problems with the OP's pic, including it being made by mearls, but of all the problems you could find in it
>Altruism is Good
>Selfishness is Bad
Is not one of them. Altruism is good... like... by definition, and selfisness is bad... like... by definition. That's like taking issue with water being wet?

>>54327864
Lets open the worm can.

Why is selfishness bad?

File: 1443674036330.jpg (189KB, 799x860px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 799x860px

>>54327790
https://youtu.be/gTWo9oLJOWk?t=106

It's a little silly how the Utahraptors decided to attack the tyrannosaurus rather than run away or go for the easier prey, but whatever, they were all fucked up from that frog DNA.

The point though is that T Rex did not arrive to save them, it showed up because it was hungry. It couldn't have possibly given less of a shit about Grant and co. That's the wild nature I prefer to see.

>>54327883
It's canonically evil in DnD, if we're talking real life it gets a bit more complicated

>>54325855
>Because realistically if we examined why an actual person did something "evil" they wouldn't consider themselves or their actions to be evil, they may even consider them to have been a good thing.
If you wouldn't let it be done to yourself, it's not a good thing.

>>54327930
Oooh, I thought you were saying the T Rex died because of nature, and I couldn't remember that

>>54327953
>"Would I have sex with me?"
>"Fuck yeah I'm awesome!"
>Guess its time for rape then

Your logic is flawed

File: 1412573077953.jpg (68KB, 719x689px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 719x689px

>>54327883
In any logical, ethical, or metaphysical system, you are going to need at-least one given. It is indeed difficult to come up with a given for an ethical proof that everyone can agree on, but "generating net-negative human happiness and longevity" (I.E. selfishness) as a negative and "generating net-positive human happiness and longevity" (I.E. altruism) as a negative is rather hard to argue with.

File: 1462173055713.png (1MB, 2240x1748px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2240x1748px

>>54327944
>>54327883
It depends on what you mean by selfishness. Under what context and to what extent is it being employed? To say all selfishness regardless of context is universally justified is as silly as saying that selfishness is universally evil. Lets employ some nuance, apply some context, and therein may we find common ground...or argue more, ha, who am I kidding? All we do on this site is pretend like there's an objective truth to every little stupid thing.

>>54327971
The golden rule is flawed personally, I just consider any enforcement of your will on another human being wrong

>>54327991
Ehh, that's a very broad statement. So keeping babies alive is wrong? Or are they not human, or..?

>>54327991
>I just consider any enforcement of your will on another human being wrong
That's autistic. The mentally ill cannot understand slitting his wrists is bad. So you have to force him with one of those crazy people sweater to make him not kill himself.

Similarly, with your inbred logic, the one that goes on a rampage outside could not be put ever in jail, because that's imposing the will of someone on him against his will.

So in your absolutely moronic world view, everyone but the strongest would die. You would be one of the first victims since you probably wouldn't even defend yourself since constricting the attacker would be enforcing your will against him.

>>54327987
Stupid evil is best though

>>54328021
I'm pretty sure the baby doesn't want to die, so you aren't enforcing your will over the baby, I wasn't that clear though

>>54327976

>"generating net-negative human happiness and longevity" (I.E. selfishness) as a negative >"generating net-positive human happiness and longevity" (I.E. altruism) as a positive
But it's not nearly a given that either behavior universally leads to the consequence you've described, and more to the point, Selfishness does not imply harm to others or refusal to cooperate for a mutually beneficial goal.

>>54328039
Killing people is enforcing your will on them

>>54328073
How do you stop the killer without enforcing your will on him?

>>54328077
He didn't respect the ethical code and so the minimal amount of force necessary to keep him from hurting others

>>54325628
I really hope Tyson actually said that LE quote

>>54328096
So you don't actually consider any enforcement of your being on another human being wrong? Rest my case then :^)

>>54328126
I didn't make myself clear enough, why are you so upset though?

>>54328057
You're still enforcing your will over the baby by keeping it alive, because the baby can't decide that itself. It lacks the power to do so. The baby has no input besides being a noise machine that makes you react. The decision lies solely with you to interfere or not.

Even if we assume the baby is telling you what to do, you still have to decide a course of action for both of you. How is that not imposing will?

>>54328096
Once you start making exceptions, you have to make more and more, and then its hard to make simple blanket statements anymore. That's why I don't like them, personally.

>>54328140
It was pretty clear. You claimed to consider any enforcement of your being on another human wrong.

Then claimed you would imprison someone against his will, and even harm him if necessary.

Outing yourself as a hypocrite that basically said nothing at all.

>>54328141
Shouldn't you maintain the baby until it can voice it's opinion, the baby obviously doesn't want to kill itself and then even if it did it just has to wait until it can voice it's opinion

>>54320988
Every single one of these corporations is 100% lawful evil.

>>54328176
Minimal was the key word

>>54328188
>mother put baby in your doorstep
>you are now suppose to take care of it until it can voice his own opinion
lol

>>54328219
>letting a baby die because you don't care

>>54328213
Minimal does not change the action or intention at all, anon. You believe something that your own brain subconsciously doesn't believe, because it can't grasp the concept in any realistic way.

>>54328176
I feel like we might be putting his reasoning under too much of a microscope. It's not that hard to parse what he actually means, which is a general non-interference doctrine (within reason). He just put it badly, I think.

>>54328188
>Shouldn't you maintain the baby
Should I? That would be a decision of mine that affects another person. Everything you said constitutes our will, our conscious decision to affect change on the world around us and in this case another human being.

It's just a common sense exception to a rule of "never enforce your will." Without any exceptions to that rule you'd either have to exile yourself or lay down and die.

>>54320848
Model Citizen would be Lawful Neutral. Obeys, doesn't start troubles and doesn't stay in the way of government doing shady things.

>>54328219
>>54328232
There's always the option of kicking the rock further down the road. Shit rolls downhill they say, and shitting is one of the only things babies are good at.

>>54328219
Would you simply let the baby starve? Your only obligation is to make sure the baby makes it to independence without to much damage, it doesn't have to be you

>>54328264
>>54328263
>>54328232
>>54328219
Guys guys, the solution is to put the baby in your neighbor's doorstep instead

>>54328253
Model citizen in terms of what society expects and what the people in charge want can be different things, I think.

File: F1774.jpg (119KB, 900x679px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 900x679px

>>54328278
Yeah that's what I said!

That or give it to a skeleton. Skeletons know how to treat a baby, yanno.

>>54328278
>this is the future of all children in anon's Utopia of no enforcement of one's will on another one
A mother will no longer be able to enforce her will to protect her children against harm.
>mom the Ice Cream's trucker invited me in, can I go?
>BUT MOOM STOP ENFORCING YOUR WILL ON ME

>>54328282
Fair enough

>>54328316
If the ice cream trucker is actually a pedophile though he's enforcing his will on the kid

File: F1947.jpg (435KB, 780x1901px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 780x1901px

>>54328316
The answer to this is still skeletons.

>>54328356
He is just inviting her in though. Maybe he will take her to the park. Doesn't mean she will ever return to her mother, though.

>>54328123
Mike Tyson is a wordsmith and a national treasure, I'm happy he's starting to gain popularity again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx66LWV-CCk

>>54328361
That's hilarious how it fits to the argument kek

>>54328371
The kid wants to return to the mother

>>54328399
But she can't force the ice trucker to drive her to her home. He doesn't want to go to her home, its his truck.

File: Not here for ice cream.png (204KB, 463x293px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 463x293px

>>54328371
>>54328399
Maybe, maybe not. In fact I think the child is enforcing her will on the ice cream man by enticing him with that short skirt. Look at her, she knows what she's doing.

File: yesssssssssss.gif (621KB, 697x400px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 697x400px

>>54328399
She also wanted the cock.

Even when it hurt.

>>54328421
Very valid point, indeed!

>>54328421
>>54328435
>>54328438
Reminds me of old 4chan, it does. What were we talking about again?

>>54328421
>>54328435
There's nothing wrong with persuasion, together we shall create a lolitopia

>>54328417
Intentionally putting the child in a position where she can't return to her mother is enforcing her will on her, plus you can't stop the child from returning on her own

>>54328503
>enforcing her will on her
Oh shit, it's an ice cream lady? Now you really have my attention.

>>54328503
*Your

>>54328523
Aww.

>>54328526
So how many people actually care or is this just two autists yelling at each other?

File: 1492305329714.jpg (41KB, 324x394px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 324x394px

>>54328503
Theorically speaking, who could really stop the ice cream man if he went on a pedo rampage?

>the last time the little girl was seen she decided to jump in the truck on her own will
>the mother could not stop her because she is an abiding citizen of NoEnforcementland
The child is dead and buried, no one asks any questions.
>another girl falls for the ice cream
>and another
>and another
There would never be any investigation set in place, because there would be no reason for a mother to search for her free of will child.

>>54328601
If the child is missing for a day something is up, an investigation is called, plus a string of child disappearances would lead to an investigation, that and if the mother has reason to believe the man is a criminal in the first place the police would be called

>>54328552

There is definitely at least one autist involved in this. Possibly two, but right now i'm leaning towards one autist and an one idjit.

>>54328689
What's an idjit?

>>54328663
>If the child is missing for a day something is up
wut? why?
> plus a string of child disappearances would lead to an investigation
In that type of land no child would ever go to school. Child disappearances would be common as fuck as they would travel around constantly.
The ice cream man could just tell the cops that the child wanted to leave so he dropped her in X place, maybe even telling them the child wanted to travel to france, and since he is an abiding citizen of the law, he couldn't stop her. That was the last time he saw her.

What's next? By the way, the cops can't search his house against his will, or his yard, or touch his property. For all the cops know, the mother is crazy.

>>54328689
I hope I'm the idjit and not the autist this time. I am the one that brought up the baby example. I never imagined it would blossom into such a colorful analogy though. I'm enjoying this.

>>54328716
How is it somehow unknowable that the ice cream man is a pedophile?Hell even if it wasn't known but suspected the police would still be called

>>54328748
So its a police state now? The cops can claim any citizen could be guilty and they have no rights anymore?
>How is it somehow unknowable that the ice cream man is a pedophile?
That shit happened all the time with mass murderers, like Ted Bundy. Or the old guy that kept his daughter in a basement and bred with her for like 17 years. One would ask how did the neighbors not know? They just didn't, anon. You think criminals have red signs above their heads warning others?

>>54328741
I am too, I am surprised at how much I am enjoying this thread, I checked in because I was arguing about objective morality earlier in the thread and was surprised to see this

>>54328207
>Every single corporation is 100% lawful evil.

>>54328773
>Police are called after a child leaves with a mysterious man in a ice cream truck
>is a police state

>>54328702

It's how people where i live pronounce idiot. We have a bit of a thick accent. I don't know why but I got into the habit of typing out idiot how it sounded to me phonetically when i was a kid and i still do it on occasion.

>>54328802
>mysterious man
>local ice trucker everyone trusts

>>54328803
Who's the idiot? Enforcement anon is stubborn and might have clinical autism, where as the other guy seems normal albeit stupid, that could just be though that he's upset so he isn't being rational

>>54327883
Taking a stab at it:

Altruism with no other balancing traits leads to someone giving away all of their stuff. Very little to no harm is done. At worst, the only-altruistic person may overextend themselves and be left with nothing to live on after giving away all of their time/money/possessions.

Selfishness with no other balancing traits leads to what most would consider sleazy or at worst sociopathic behavior, which always does harm to more people than just the person acting this way.

Selfishness is "bad" in that it's only beneficial to family and society when tempered by other traits and beliefs.

>>54328809
If the ice truck man is trusted and well known why wouldn't the mother allow the kid to go with him in traditional society?

>>54328851
What? What is "traditional society" ?

>>54328863
Non no-enforment society

>>54328788
Yeah, some are NE or CE.

>>54328877
Can we please get back to lolitopia

>>54328893
NE I can understand (breaking laws when you can get away with it), but I think a corporation that was chaotic evil would be something along the lines of a revolutionary organization looking to bring down the government. So what corporation would that be?

>>54328962
A corporation which happened to be run by an incompetent narcissist who hates laws and government to the point where it actively keeps the corporation from profiting

>>54325616

Repeat after me: Alignment and Ethics are Completely Unrelated.

>>54328962
The U.S. State Department

>>54329066
Badum-tish.

>>54327376
>I'd say that neutral means that while you aren't going to hurt innocent people
Could be. Or you could be willing to hurt people only in situations where you can rationalize it. Or you aren't hurting them too badly. Or the situation you're in is desperate enough.

>>54329063
They should be the same though, I want my Good gods to actually be good

>>54329075
I can also agree with that

>>54328877
You mean why don't we allow strangers to take our kids today? Because we protect our children and we know better than them so they have to obey us. We indoctrinate and imprint our will on them since they are born to the day they leave the house.

Like I said
>no kids in schools
>no education for jobs
>entire society collapses
There is a storm outside so we would have to stop this conversation here. Sorry, internet is being gay right now, gonna have to switch to phone, so no more typing. Smell ya later

>>54329129
See you, thanks for the conversation

>>54329660

>they're all black hats.

What alignment is Donald Trump?

>>54329844
chaotic good

>>54325628

I find it interesting, and a bit heartwarming, that this is basically in reverse-chronological order.

>>54329844
Retarded Douchebag

>>54329723

That was a major theme of the movie, yes.

>>54329844

Chaotic We'll-See

>>54326192
>>54326686

Yeah, but he's right though.

>>54328064
>But it's not nearly a given that either behavior universally leads to the consequence you've described
When we're talking GRAND ethical blanket statements, unfortunately generalizations must be made, but yes, it is a generalization.

>and more to the point, Selfishness does not imply harm to others or refusal to cooperate for a mutually beneficial goal.
I would argue that, culturally speaking, the connotation of the word selfishness does indeed imply the willingness to cause greater harm to evoke greater help to the self: would you really describe someone who helps themselves, but only when it doesn't hurt others, as "selfish"?

>>54330532
I would argue that although "selfishness" is by and far regarded with negative connotations, it is not necessary that someone harm another in order to be selfish. A person who takes unnecessary benefits for themselves instead of offering these benefits (unnecessary to everyone) to others would be deemed as selfish: eg. a kid who eats all the cookies in the jar. In this case, kid is being selfish but not doing harm, as the lack of cookies brings no harm (except in very specific circumstances) to others. You could therefore have a Neutral PC (chaotic/true N) who might take stuff that no-one NEEDS / has earned, but might want, and not have to call this person evil.

For instance, the barbarian hogs all the sweetrolls. Dick move? Yeah. Selfish? I'd say so. Evil? No.

>>54330982
Not that anon, but I'd say taking cookies is a form of harm, just one so slight as to be negligible.
You are "harming" the community supply of cookies.

Similarly, the barbarian hogging all the sweetrolls is Evil, but so very slightly as to be negligible.

It's being on the selfish/Evil side of Neutral, as opposed to being dead center Neutral or the Good side of Neutral.

Splitting those hairs extra fine.

>>54327883
>Why is selfishness bad?
Concern for one's self is natural.
Concern for one's self to the point of "generating net-negative human happiness and longevity" is being selfish.

File: MixedAlignment2.png (1MB, 1600x1375px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1375px

>>54320848
I like an alignment chart that does does something else than vainly attempt to perfectly illustrate the alignments.

Good/Evil and especially Lawful/Chaotic are terrible names for alignments. What would be good substitutes? I like Selfless/Selfish and Collectivism/Individualism

>>54331663
>Collectivism/Individualism
Not disagreeing with the concept, but those don't exactly roll off the tongue, anon.

>>54320881

I initially forgave this as some cringe thing created by a 13 year old who had just read about D&D then I read..

>Created by Mike Mearls.

Sigh..

I need to play a different game.

>>54331674
>>Created by Mike Mearls.
>Sigh..
>I need to play a different game.
Who?
And why would their idiocy matter?

>>54327815
As a faggot, cum has a very, very strong taste.

>>54331606
This is an actually useful chart, although it somewhat cucks the good players.

Shit like these
>>54326966
>>54325331
>>54325628
is why I truly believe that alignment holds back character development as a concept.

>>54331912
>although it somewhat cucks the good players.
Well, Neutral and Evil have an easier time putting up with Good than Good has putting up with Neutral and Evil.

>>54331912
>This is an actually useful chart,
Also, thank you.

>>54320848
LEGALLY SELFISH IM DYING

>>54325616
>>altruism is good
>>selfishness is bad
ow the edge, look at this spiky social darwinist thinking survival of the fittest in society is the same as it was in wild nature

>>54331731
he's in the dev team of 5e

>>54320881
LG Pays taxes
LN Collects taxes
LE Steals taxpayer money for personal reasons

>>54320988
I mean, you'd think constantly pumping out the same thing in a predictable formula would be lawful, no?

Alignment measures a character's relationship with the various cosmic forces of D&D's settings. It has no real bearing outside of divine casting (and druids). Martials and arcane casters might as well have no sense of right and wrong, and usually don't.

>>54332797
Oh, and the afterlife. I forgot about that.

>>54327504
Seagulls will steal food out of your hands just for fun and literally never shut up.

>>54332737
No. LE is the official who sends the tax money to a general slush fund that can be used on his personal stuff. He doesn't "steal it," he is the one it's intended for.

>>54332878
You know what I mean. He's spending tax money on himself.

File: The stupidest post on earth.jpg (39KB, 800x387px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 800x387px

>>54329844
Chaotic Sad

>>54329844
Chaotic Stupid

>>54329844
Neutral Evil. Only cares about himself desu. Possibly his family also.

>>54326845
Superman isn't a vigilante, he's making citizens arrests. He's as law-breaking as a volunteer firefighter saving lives on his off hours

>>54326845
>hulk just wants to be left alone
Hulk is true neutral.

>>54329844
Lawful Good, he is a paladin of his own beliefs

>>54337115
I don't know a lot about the Hulk, but he seems more Chaotic Neutral to me. He has little use for rules, laws, honor, etc. Animals get placed in True Neutral simply because they have no ideology at all, lacking the intelligence to understand morality. The same can't be said of the Hulk, at least not unless he's mindlessly berserking.

>>54320848
Here's my personal favourite :

File: still_kind_of_dumb.png (49KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 900x900px

does this work better?

>>54326076
>the campaign has no ethical enemies to fight

my whole deal

>>54338793
Works for me. Can't tell if I'm neutral self centered or neutral greedy though.

>>54329844

Chaotic

>>54329844
Republican.

File: Robbie_Rotten_lazytown_02.gif (54KB, 273x343px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 273x343px

What alignment is Robbie Rotten?

>>54340171
Chaotic Good.

He wishes to give everyone the freedom to be lazy if they desire, opposed to the absolute law of fitness that Sporticus tries to enforce.

he is the unsung hero of the series

>>54340171
he is the chaotic neutral to Sportacus's lawful good.

Although being unhealthy may be bad for you, he simply wishes that people have that choice to make. Sprtacus believes that it is his duty to keep people healthy, so although his intentions may be good, they come into conflict with the freedom loving Robbie.

>>54338793
Giving and altruistic are pretty much the same thing. Greedy and self-centered aren't far off. It seems like you're just repeating the same axis.

>>54331912
Being good is what cucks the good players

>>54327587
>Penguins rape children. Young penguins and I think even the young of other species.

We're talking about birds here anon, not your dad

>>54343121
The were the best words I could think of to descrive the concepts. one axis is basically supposed to say "are you willing to give up what you have to further your goals?" and the other asks "Are your goals trying to help yourself, or others?"

>>54340171
Chaotic Lazy

>>54343236
How about this?
[Good-evil axis]
Altruistic / Indifferent / Selfish
[Law-chaos axis]
Rigid / Flexible / Loose?

Possibly, replace Indifferent with Equitable or Fair.

>>54327930
>The point though is that T Rex did not arrive to save them, it showed up because it was hungry. It couldn't have possibly given less of a shit about Grant and co. That's the wild nature I prefer to see.

But in Jurassic World, that very same T-Rex allies with the new gen Utahraptors to save not-Grant and the not-kids from a genetic monstrosity straight outta Dino Crisis 2

Frog DNA man, it fucks with you

>>54329844
Human

>>54329015

Sears?

File: 991486987774612.jpg (24KB, 168x274px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 168x274px

>>54343589
I do not like Jurassic World very much, if I'm being completely honest. I feel like the people that wrote the screenplay for it might have had a little too much of the old frog DNA if yanno what I mean.

>>54329844
Chaotic Neutral. Holds no genuine positions, veers wildly from one idea to its converse, is motivated entirely by whim and emotion.

File: Alignment Chart.jpg (218KB, 1319x907px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1319x907px

>>54320848

>>54343804
>Human
[citation needed]

>>54343946
Be less biased; it weakens your arguments.

>>54344593
I think that was less an argument and more of an insult. His opinion doesn't seem up for debate.

>>54344612
I know it wasn't an argument. Still, be less biased, because when you DO make an argument, it won't be weakened by a throwaway joke you made earlier

File: browser-alignment-chart.jpg (200KB, 1359x1137px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1359x1137px

>>54344654
I dunno about that, I found it pretty amusing myself.

>>54344733
You may be the choir, then.

File: 1380537251356.jpg (1MB, 2250x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2250x1800px

>>54344784
Maybe, or perhaps someone who doesn't feel strongly one way or the other. Seems rather rare these days.

Speaking of controversial opinions on American Presidents, here's this. I didn't make this myself, mind, so any ire would be wasted on me.

>>54344898
>someone who doesn't feel strongly one way or the other
Not that I'm trying to >imply anything, but you'd be surprised at how many people aren't neutral, but think they are.

>that chart
Holly shit. I'm a fucking leaf, and even I can tell how horribly wrong that is.

>>54326860
Using crappy 90s tier gradients like that has to constitute some kind of Evil.

>>54338638
>not unless he's mindlessly berserking
That's the hulk's base state

>>54345159
The pervasive political climate has convinced many that 'you're either with us or against us.' That too is a form of bias. So watch out for that. Or don't, it's your call.

I find it amusing that Washington is lawful. Isn't he famous for rebelling against royal authority? I agree giving John money was pointless, but he still tore down an established system to replace it with another. In before muh honor code or whatever.

>>54345339
>John
Meant George, oops

>>54338638
Hulk has little use for those civilized adult things because he is a separate personality spun off in Banner's childhood when he tried to compartmentalize his anger and shame over not being able to depend himself from his abusive father. Why do you think he talks like a child and goes on temper tantrums?
Hulk just wants people to stop trying to hurt him like his father did, but Ross, the Talbots and the gamma freaks won't stop hounding him. He doesn't attack unprovoked, and wants people to be left alone. He wants to be separate from others because in the end they're just like his father.

>>54345339
The solution, of course, is to pick a side, but not be afraid to change it. Never fence-sit, but don't be afraid to switch sides.
Alternatively, hold strong positions, but not in the most usual configuration for either party. Be fine with guns and with abortions. Tax the rich, and believe in reducing immigration. Break the mould.

Keep in mind that the revolution, originally, was gonna be much smaller in scope (before it got way out of hand). In the original version of things, all the founding fathers wanted to stay part of England; they were just rebelling to lower taxes.
And, there's the argument that revolutionaries aren't chaotic if the society they build after the revolution is lawful, but that's a whole other can of worms.

>>54320988
Activision is somewhere in super CE after Prototype 2

>>54345408
More like the actual solution is to stick to your moral integrity instead of flip flopping to please the idiotic masses.

>>54345665
Opinions change, but values don't. Opinions are how you make your values manifest, based on how circumstances and your own knowledge on the subject changes. It's perfectly moral and upright to change opinions to find a better 'fit' for your values.

>>54345665
>>54345689
Wasn't gonna say anything else but eh, what the hell.

The real solution is to talk when you've got something worth saying, and when you don't, just listen. Don't feel pressured to pick a side; Ya don't need to take some half assed political position to satisfy some stranger. And there's no need to justify every little thought or comment, either. We're all grown ups here and we've got nothing to prove.

>>54345883
Yes, but that leads to awfully boring conversation...

>>54345339
Not gonna pick apart that chart, but since you mentioned it...
>I find it amusing that Washington is lawful. Isn't he famous for rebelling against royal authority? I agree giving George money was pointless, but he still tore down an established system to replace it with another. In before muh honor code or whatever.
Just because you seem woefully ignorant, let me explain it.
He replaced a system of governing that worked for England, but not the colonies.
In effect, and utilizing the awful constraints of D&D Alignments, they replaced the LE or LN system with an LG system that allowed the colonies to strengthen, flourish, and prosper, as opposed to simply benefiting the parent kingdom.

As far as "muh honor code" goes, Washington was reportedly as Lawful as possible in regards to personal interactions.
Like Judge Dredd stiff.

There was a story about how one of his associates was bet to give Washington a familiar, friendly slap on the back at a gathering.
The guy won the bet, but regretted it because Washington never had the same respect for him after that.
I'm not sure where that story lies between Truth and Cherry Tree, though.

>>54345883
>>54345689
>>54345665
>>54345408
The actual solution is to keep an active and open mind to, you know, think.

File: alignmentAshit.png (56KB, 897x787px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 897x787px

This is the most accurate one.
Axes deliberately left un-labelled for your convenience

File: HadesMad.gif (1MB, 320x194px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x194px

>>54337967

>based max
>when alignment is a spook

File: Trumpachu I Choose You.jpg (67KB, 470x237px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 470x237px

>>54329844
You need an int-score of at-least 3 to have an alignment. A trained Orangutan may behave as though it has the alignment of its master, but it does not, itself, have an alignment.

File: 1477597213967.png (267KB, 900x750px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 900x750px

The only alignment chart I need.

>>54329723
Not Curly

>>54325424
Would the punisher be considered an extreme version of CG?

>>54345339
I'd switch FDR and Washington, Washington is pretty standard Neutral Good, while FDR was very lawful.

>>54344898

Fucken aye that's slander that is.

I wish I had saved the chart where it showed how it is meant to be played vs how it is played. It had something like:

>Chaotic Evil

"In my view, everytime some sucker dies, I get stronger" or whatever.

vs

SOMEONE LEFT THE ORPHANAGE UNGUARDED!

BIG MISTAKE.

>>54351805
>Teleports behind orphanage
"Nothing personell kids"

>>54347746
>scruffy hooligan
wow my cigar handling really does reflect who I am

>>54327353
of course paladins can fall. it's like getting fired and having your keycard revoked. You might be able to act like you still work there, but it's not the same, and the stain of what you did keeps you from getting your job back.

>>54327635
that'd be a good concept for druids other than "Holier than thou elves" or the opposite end of the spectrum "Holier than thou elves who want to kill you because you're a mortal race so you're responsible for fucking up the land" Sadly, "well intentioned savage in tune with nature" is usually reserved for a shaman

>>54325331
All of these except the good ones are stretching it

>>54347746
Unassuming fellow reporting in.

>>54347746
Unassuming Gentleman. Nice

>>54347746
Dapper fellow reporting in.

Fuck ya, glad I have class.

>>54347746
dapper hooligan here. is that an oxymoron or not?

>>54353586
>>54353708
I'm either of these... Interesting since the last character I played started as True Neutral and was shifting to Lawful Evil.

>>54337115
>>54338638
There are enough different Hulk personalities to fit at two in each alignment. Not even accounting for inconsistent writing or character development, just straight up split identities.

>>54353708
You can be a classy fellow in appearance but still act like a hooligan if that counts.

>>54354251
so kinda like charles bronson?