Someone's got to benefit from telling the gullibles there are only 9 ways to think of morality, The especially addled folks use it casually in conversation or media as if its normal to not consider viewpoints outside of a particular spectrum or chart spread via popular media.
The point of "9 ways to think of morality" isn't that there is only 9 ways, but that alignment captures 9 different fantasy archetypes it would make sense to place into a fantasy game like D&D. It serves as a template for the player to build off of, just like classes do, for their roleplaying.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on August 24, 2023, 04:59:52 AM
The point of "9 ways to think of morality" isn't that there is only 9 ways, but that alignment captures 9 different fantasy archetypes it would make sense to place into a fantasy game like D&D. It serves as a template for the player to build off of, just like classes do, for their roleplaying.
Except that there are no such archetypes and Gary Gygax made those up by adding Good, Neutral and Evil to the Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic used in OG D&D and mashing them together. The 9 alignments didn't exist before AD&D. They're a BS made up D&Dism.
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 24, 2023, 06:00:12 AM
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on August 24, 2023, 04:59:52 AM
The point of "9 ways to think of morality" isn't that there is only 9 ways, but that alignment captures 9 different fantasy archetypes it would make sense to place into a fantasy game like D&D. It serves as a template for the player to build off of, just like classes do, for their roleplaying.
Except that there are no such archetypes and Gary Gygax made those up by adding Good, Neutral and Evil to the Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic used in OG D&D and mashing them together. The 9 alignments didn't exist before AD&D. They're a BS made up D&Dism.
Pretty much yes. I'm ok with still using the Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic spectrum as broad types. D&D is a game, not a place to explore all the nuances of human morality.
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 24, 2023, 06:00:12 AM
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on August 24, 2023, 04:59:52 AM
The point of "9 ways to think of morality" isn't that there is only 9 ways, but that alignment captures 9 different fantasy archetypes it would make sense to place into a fantasy game like D&D. It serves as a template for the player to build off of, just like classes do, for their roleplaying.
Except that there are no such archetypes and Gary Gygax made those up by adding Good, Neutral and Evil to the Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic used in OG D&D and mashing them together. The 9 alignments didn't exist before AD&D. They're a BS made up D&Dism.
99% of D&D is made up bullshit. The rest is cheeto dust and empty Mt. Dew cans.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 24, 2023, 07:15:21 AM
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 24, 2023, 06:00:12 AM
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on August 24, 2023, 04:59:52 AM
The point of "9 ways to think of morality" isn't that there is only 9 ways, but that alignment captures 9 different fantasy archetypes it would make sense to place into a fantasy game like D&D. It serves as a template for the player to build off of, just like classes do, for their roleplaying.
Except that there are no such archetypes and Gary Gygax made those up by adding Good, Neutral and Evil to the Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic used in OG D&D and mashing them together. The 9 alignments didn't exist before AD&D. They're a BS made up D&Dism.
Pretty much yes. I'm ok with still using the Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic spectrum as broad types. D&D is a game, not a place to explore all the nuances of human morality.
Maybe not nuances, but I do use the Virtues in place of Alignment.
Temperance, Justice, Wisdom, Fortitude, Humility, Hope and Charity.
You're supposed to be playing a hero in my campaigns so embrace one and try to have your character live it.
Quote from: Chris24601 on August 24, 2023, 07:34:59 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 24, 2023, 07:15:21 AM
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 24, 2023, 06:00:12 AM
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on August 24, 2023, 04:59:52 AM
The point of "9 ways to think of morality" isn't that there is only 9 ways, but that alignment captures 9 different fantasy archetypes it would make sense to place into a fantasy game like D&D. It serves as a template for the player to build off of, just like classes do, for their roleplaying.
Except that there are no such archetypes and Gary Gygax made those up by adding Good, Neutral and Evil to the Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic used in OG D&D and mashing them together. The 9 alignments didn't exist before AD&D. They're a BS made up D&Dism.
Pretty much yes. I'm ok with still using the Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic spectrum as broad types. D&D is a game, not a place to explore all the nuances of human morality.
Maybe not nuances, but I do use the Virtues in place of Alignment.
Temperance, Justice, Wisdom, Fortitude, Humility, Hope and Charity.
You're supposed to be playing a hero in my campaigns so embrace one and try to have your character live it.
Nothing wrong with that. I can run an all lawful B/X game and get the same thing with less fiddlyness.
Quote from: GiantToenail on August 24, 2023, 04:29:44 AM
Someone's got to benefit from telling the gullibles there are only 9 ways to think of morality, The especially addled folks use it casually in conversation or media as if its normal to not consider viewpoints outside of a particular spectrum or chart spread via popular media.
Only the terminally stupid think it is for something other than an RPG. So, don't worry about those people unless they get violent towards you. Then, remember what they said about Sam Colt...
:D I do. Because it is a shorthand framework to structure worldviews while allowing various gradients within each of the 9 sections. That way LG can disagree with LG on minutiae within their own 'square', so you can add a secondary 9 section grid within a square and show deeper nuance within. Repeat as necessary, elephants & turtles all the way on down.
It's a useful tool to quickly define your parameters from the macro- to the micro-, like color theory or elements of grammatical style. It's not about the confinement of the rules or how you "break free" of them, it's about learning how to walk before you run. It is a framework (and a concise and manageable one) on how to be a student and teach yourself world building, psychology, and dramatic tension with quick sketches in shorter strokes.
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 24, 2023, 06:00:12 AM
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on August 24, 2023, 04:59:52 AM
The point of "9 ways to think of morality" isn't that there is only 9 ways, but that alignment captures 9 different fantasy archetypes it would make sense to place into a fantasy game like D&D. It serves as a template for the player to build off of, just like classes do, for their roleplaying.
Except that there are no such archetypes and Gary Gygax made those up by adding Good, Neutral and Evil to the Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic used in OG D&D and mashing them together. The 9 alignments didn't exist before AD&D. They're a BS made up D&Dism.
D&Disms are the worst. They pollute the fantasy genre with incoherent nonsense that people mindlessly repeat without critical thought. We already had enough of that before Gygax and co's OCD made it worse.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 24, 2023, 12:30:45 PM
D&Disms are the worst. They pollute the fantasy genre with incoherent nonsense that people mindlessly repeat without critical thought. We already had enough of that before Gygax and co's OCD made it worse.
Only mindless people do that. So, not a real problem. ALL fantasy rules are nonsense BTW. Only rules modeled on reality aren't incoherent.
Who benefits? Groups that use alignment in a manner that fits their playstyles.
Outside of organized play, there is NO RAW D&D. You play as your group decides. Simple shit. It's like people get off arguing over rules. Get a real conversation finally >:(
This is one of those things that never comes up with casuals at the table. Maaaaybe once or twice in four decades.
I ran a Law vs. Chaos with OD&D as the chassis. Nobody cared it was missing. I've run most of the other D&D versions that have 9-box. Nobody cared it was there.
If I were building a game, I wouldn't have it. But it just isn't a huge issue. As the famous philosopher Shawn Corey Carter said, "I've got 99 problems when running a campaign, but 9-box alignment ain't one."
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 24, 2023, 06:00:12 AM
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on August 24, 2023, 04:59:52 AM
The point of "9 ways to think of morality" isn't that there is only 9 ways, but that alignment captures 9 different fantasy archetypes it would make sense to place into a fantasy game like D&D. It serves as a template for the player to build off of, just like classes do, for their roleplaying.
Except that there are no such archetypes and Gary Gygax made those up by adding Good, Neutral and Evil to the Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic used in OG D&D and mashing them together. The 9 alignments didn't exist before AD&D. They're a BS made up D&Dism.
Whatever the source, they work well and do the job in D&D. They aren't supposed to be the complete picture of morality but encapsulate good adventuring archetypes for gameplay.
Alignment gives you a basic framework to go by. If you want to be good, play neutral good, you want to be evil be neutral evil. You want to follow the law no matter the consequences and enjoy taking peoples lands through famine play a communists, I mean play Lawful Evil. It gives you a basic framework for monster behavior. Chaotic tribes types tends to have some sacrifice themselves and others run away if it goes bad whereas a lawful hive types fight to the bitter end to save the hive. People who has issues with alignment tend to have a political axe to grind with everything else about RPG's as well. Typically because the concept of codifiable good and evil destroys their ability to inflict evil on people for their own fucked up needs.
In my experience, Alignment was never particularly good at anything but getting into arguments about what "Alignment" really meant, and incentivizing players to play stupidly malicious characters whenever they had the word "evil" written on their character sheet. Otherwise people mostly went along with whatever the adventure was about and rarely payed mind to whatever their "alignment" was supposed to be. And even when they were "evil" they still mostly ignored it most of the time, till they suddenly decided to do stupid stuff, because "evil".
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 24, 2023, 03:40:25 PM
In my experience, Alignment was never particularly good at anything but getting into arguments about what "Alignment" really meant, and incentivizing players to play stupidly malicious characters whenever they had the word "evil" written on their character sheet.
Well, play with more intelligent and mature people in the future
I like Alignment when it comes to my D&D style games. No it isn't perfect, no it doesn't fit every morality perfectly...
But the idea that Good and Evil, Law, Chaos, and Neutrality are fundamental forces of the Universe, and have their own realms and magical beings aligned with them, is a very cool and thematic idea.
It also works for roleplaying NPCs as a baseline if you know their alignment, even when you have the majority of folks being Neutral.... saying someone *is* aligned with Law/Chaos, Good/Evil means they are fundamentally *different* in motivations from the majority of those around them.
I love alignment, and even if Pathfinder 2.1 is removing it, I will still use it.
Quote from: Orphan81 on August 24, 2023, 03:57:31 PM
I like Alignment when it comes to my D&D style games. No it isn't perfect, no it doesn't fit every morality perfectly...
But the idea that Good and Evil, Law, Chaos, and Neutrality are fundamental forces of the Universe, and have their own realms and magical beings aligned with them, is a very cool and thematic idea.
It also works for roleplaying NPCs as a baseline if you know their alignment, even when you have the majority of folks being Neutral.... saying someone *is* aligned with Law/Chaos, Good/Evil means they are fundamentally *different* in motivations from the majority of those around them.
I love alignment, and even if Pathfinder 2.1 is removing it, I will still use it.
Paizo does a lot of dunder headed shit like removing slavery from the world and then putting it back in after realizing they went too woke. Like Paizo's plan to remove ability scores and just leave the modifiers. So now the +1 to strength if you are 15 strength means nothing, it will be a whole ability point. Idiotic move on Paizo's part limiting build viability. I wonder how far will they go, they could streamline it to strength, intelligence and dexterity and call it Skyrim I mean Paizo and dungeons. All that Paizo and D&D are doing is recreating the alignment system with extra steps. Its fucking hillarious watching a bunch of race marxist writers trying to come up with a morals system where they don't call out the evil they want done to their fellow man.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 24, 2023, 04:23:16 PM
Paizo does a lot of dunder headed shit like removing slavery from the world and then putting it back in after realizing they went too woke. Like Paizo's plan to remove ability scores and just leave the modifiers. So now the +1 to strength if you are 15 strength means nothing, it will be a whole ability point. Idiotic move on Paizo's part limiting build viability. I wonder how far will they go, they could streamline it to strength, intelligence and dexterity and call it Skyrim I mean Paizo and dungeons. All that Paizo and D&D are doing is recreating the alignment system with extra steps. Its fucking hillarious watching a bunch of race marxist writers trying to come up with a morals system where they don't call out the evil they want done to their fellow man.
Nah, removing ability scores themselves was done by Green Ronin for Mutants and Masterminds 12 years ago, and it's perfect. In the current iterations of D&D going from 3.0 forward, there is no damn reason to have attribute scores. We know every 2 points above 10 gives a +1, every 2 points below 10 gives a -1... So just put the damn Modifier there and be done with it. It's easy enough to rework the system to support this, and in the long run more intuitive, especially for new players to say, "I have a +4 Strength" instead of "I have an 18" strength.
It's only in older editions of D&D and more OSR style games where a 15 strength versus a 14 strength might actually *Matter*, but if you're going with the D&D system from 3.0 onward, you lose literally nothing by ditching the scores and going straight to the bonuses.
Who benefits?
Newbie players benefit because alignment gives them something to base their role playing around.
Newbie DMs benefit because it provides a nice shortcut on how NPC and monsters will act.
These factors were more important in the 70s than today, but they are still benefits.
Like many other things in D&D, alignment is not an ideal approach, but it works well enough for a game and replacing it with something else is more trouble than its worth.
One place I do actually find it useful is in monster design. It's a lot faster to just pick an alignment than to work out the whole psychology of a new monster, especially if it's just meant to be dead on one combat.
Quote from: Orphan81 on August 24, 2023, 04:29:58 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 24, 2023, 04:23:16 PM
Paizo does a lot of dunder headed shit like removing slavery from the world and then putting it back in after realizing they went too woke. Like Paizo's plan to remove ability scores and just leave the modifiers. So now the +1 to strength if you are 15 strength means nothing, it will be a whole ability point. Idiotic move on Paizo's part limiting build viability. I wonder how far will they go, they could streamline it to strength, intelligence and dexterity and call it Skyrim I mean Paizo and dungeons. All that Paizo and D&D are doing is recreating the alignment system with extra steps. Its fucking hillarious watching a bunch of race marxist writers trying to come up with a morals system where they don't call out the evil they want done to their fellow man.
Nah, removing ability scores themselves was done by Green Ronin for Mutants and Masterminds 12 years ago, and it's perfect. In the current iterations of D&D going from 3.0 forward, there is no damn reason to have attribute scores. We know every 2 points above 10 gives a +1, every 2 points below 10 gives a -1... So just put the damn Modifier there and be done with it. It's easy enough to rework the system to support this, and in the long run more intuitive, especially for new players to say, "I have a +4 Strength" instead of "I have an 18" strength.
It's only in older editions of D&D and more OSR style games where a 15 strength versus a 14 strength might actually *Matter*, but if you're going with the D&D system from 3.0 onward, you lose literally nothing by ditching the scores and going straight to the bonuses.
It cuts down on builds and magic item distribution. Again, have a character with a 15 strength who gets a +1 strength ring is good, it takes his modifier up to a +3. That +1 to strength may or may not change the modifier, but it does allow a character to in the future allocate their +2 to stats in a way more beneficial to them. Now, its either no bonus or a +1 bonus, there is no half bonus. Its a poor decision.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 24, 2023, 04:46:23 PM
It cuts down on builds and magic item distribution. Again, have a character with a 15 strength who gets a +1 strength ring is good, it takes his modifier up to a +3. That +1 to strength may or may not change the modifier, but it does allow a character to in the future allocate their +2 to stats in a way more beneficial to them. Now, its either no bonus or a +1 bonus, there is no half bonus. Its a poor decision.
...
So just have the magic strength ring give a +1 bonus to strength. As in, the modifier.
I've been running D&D since 3rd edition in 1999 my Senior year of high school. I have never once given out an artifact or magic item that gives a bonus to the attribute itself, unless it was already in increments of 2. Making a magic item that only gives a bonus of +1 to a specific attribute is such an edge case item to be functionally useless unless you specifically designed it for a player who has an attribute that's a 11, 13, 15, or 17...
And for that matter...Which of your player characters in any edition of D&D from 3rd on is going to have an odd number in one of their important attributes.... Unless you're forcing something like Standard array, and even then with racial bonuses, chances are their important attributes are already going to be in factors of even numbers to maximize their benefits... Unless it's 5th edition, they didn't plan on taking a Feat and were really hoping to... spread out the +2 attribute bonus to a 1 and 1.... Rather than maxing out their best attribute at +5.
Getting rid of the Attributes and sticking with the Bonuses themselves is far better mathematically and game wise..
Again, Mutants and Masterminds figured this out, ditched the attribute numbers and kept the straight bonuses 12 years ago.
Quote from: Orphan81 on August 24, 2023, 04:52:27 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 24, 2023, 04:46:23 PM
It cuts down on builds and magic item distribution. Again, have a character with a 15 strength who gets a +1 strength ring is good, it takes his modifier up to a +3. That +1 to strength may or may not change the modifier, but it does allow a character to in the future allocate their +2 to stats in a way more beneficial to them. Now, its either no bonus or a +1 bonus, there is no half bonus. Its a poor decision.
...
So just have the magic strength ring give a +1 bonus to strength. As in, the modifier.
I've been running D&D since 3rd edition in 1999 my Senior year of high school. I have never once given out an artifact or magic item that gives a bonus to the attribute itself, unless it was already in increments of 2. Making a magic item that only gives a bonus of +1 to a specific attribute is such an edge case item to be functionally useless unless you specifically designed it for a player who has an attribute that's a 11, 13, 15, or 17...
And for that matter...Which of your player characters in any edition of D&D from 3rd on is going to have an odd number in one of their important attributes.... Unless you're forcing something like Standard array, and even then with racial bonuses, chances are their important attributes are already going to be in factors of even numbers to maximize their benefits... Unless it's 5th edition, they didn't plan on taking a Feat and were really hoping to... spread out the +2 attribute bonus to a 1 and 1.... Rather than maxing out their best attribute at +5.
Getting rid of the Attributes and sticking with the Bonuses themselves is far better mathematically and game wise..
Again, Mutants and Masterminds figured this out, ditched the attribute numbers and kept the straight bonuses 12 years ago.
I do it a fair bit, let players figure out their builds and who will use. A +2 item for someone with an odd stat number may or may not be good for them, might more sense for another character at even numbers. Lets put some decisions on the players and let them figure out what works best for the group. Its fun listening to the discussions. Or give them a +1 modifier and its decided fairly quick. I like people haggling with the merchants, over hearing conversations and debating in game who gets the loot. Removing a half modifier isn't exactly a smart move. Again it cuts down on build diversity. You can go with it and that's good for you, not at my tables.
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 24, 2023, 03:40:25 PM
In my experience, Alignment was never particularly good at anything but getting into arguments about what "Alignment" really meant, and incentivizing players to play stupidly malicious characters whenever they had the word "evil" written on their character sheet. Otherwise people mostly went along with whatever the adventure was about and rarely payed mind to whatever their "alignment" was supposed to be. And even when they were "evil" they still mostly ignored it most of the time, till they suddenly decided to do stupid stuff, because "evil".
I made an evil character for my brother's mega-campaign. My concept was a Githyanki who fell in to the party of good character to avoid his enemies. I based him loosely on Garak from Deep Space Nine. The sketchy guy who isn't afraid of the dirty work. We were trying to destroy Keraptis from White Plume Mountain and went through the bulk of the B/X/Advanced modules with the added feature of gathering and destroying Keraptis' various phylacteries. (My brother was never shy about how he was ripping off Harry Potter.)
The phylacteries were various artifacts, and they had to be destroyed. When it came time to destroy the good aligned artifact, my character was like "I got this guys."
Quote from: Ratman_tf on August 24, 2023, 05:52:32 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 24, 2023, 03:40:25 PM
In my experience, Alignment was never particularly good at anything but getting into arguments about what "Alignment" really meant, and incentivizing players to play stupidly malicious characters whenever they had the word "evil" written on their character sheet. Otherwise people mostly went along with whatever the adventure was about and rarely payed mind to whatever their "alignment" was supposed to be. And even when they were "evil" they still mostly ignored it most of the time, till they suddenly decided to do stupid stuff, because "evil".
I made an evil character for my brother's mega-campaign. My concept was a Githyanki who fell in to the party of good character to avoid his enemies. I based him loosely on Garak from Deep Space Nine. The sketchy guy who isn't afraid of the dirty work. We were trying to destroy Keraptis from White Plume Mountain and went through the bulk of the B/X/Advanced modules with the added feature of gathering and destroying Keraptis' various phylacteries. (My brother was never shy about how he was ripping off Harry Potter.)
The phylacteries were various artifacts, and they had to be destroyed. When it came time to destroy the good aligned artifact, my character was like "I got this guys."
Absolutely *LOVE* Garak, but Deep Space Nine is the best Star Trek out of all of them.
Lawful Evil is the only evil I'll allow in a mixed party with Good characters when I run... Since the 'Lawful' part means they have some kind of an honor code and can be trusted to not betray the party once they've aligned with them... It just means they're willing to do the sorts of things Good characters won't allow themselves to do to get shit done.
"You may have just saved the Entire Alpha Quadrant and all it cost was the life of One Romulan Senator, One Criminal, and the self respect of a Star Fleet Officer. I don't know about you but I'd call that, a bargain."
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on August 24, 2023, 02:33:14 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 24, 2023, 06:00:12 AM
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on August 24, 2023, 04:59:52 AM
The point of "9 ways to think of morality" isn't that there is only 9 ways, but that alignment captures 9 different fantasy archetypes it would make sense to place into a fantasy game like D&D. It serves as a template for the player to build off of, just like classes do, for their roleplaying.
Except that there are no such archetypes and Gary Gygax made those up by adding Good, Neutral and Evil to the Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic used in OG D&D and mashing them together. The 9 alignments didn't exist before AD&D. They're a BS made up D&Dism.
Whatever the source, they work well and do the job in D&D. They aren't supposed to be the complete picture of morality but encapsulate good adventuring archetypes for gameplay.
Did you read the response? It doesn't encapsulate any real archetypes. Players are forced into those roles because that's how the game was written. The community just made up tons of bullshit to justify it by claiming this nonsense is real archetypes. I could invent my own moral axis of bacon vs necktie, but that doesn't make the options archetypes. It means I made shit up.
Since the alignments aren't actually based on any real value system but on vague notions that differ between individuals, they bleed into the adjacent squares and become difficult to quantify in meaningful terms. They simultaneously make unnecessary distinctions while ignoring tons of necessary distinctions.
For example, an obstructive bureaucrat isn't Lawful Neutral. He's either Lawful Evil because he gets sick jollies from being obstructive, or he's Lawful Good and Stupid because he thinks laws are just inherently good no matter how stupid. Lawful Good and Stupid types are everywhere in real life and they're so obnoxious.
Scarred Lands is the only campaign setting that I've seen bother to try assigning coherent values to alignments. It distinguishes Lawful Neutral by making the LN God and his holy city
execute homosexuals. Um... I'm pretty sure that nobody on Earth thinks "execute homosexuals" is a neutral act. This is exactly the kind of stupid that alignment encourages with its asinine distinctions.
There's no such thing as moral neutrality in real life. It's a fundamentally stupid concept. Everyone has the capacity for good and evil and most people think of themselves as good people. No real person thinks of themself as morally neutral. Again, it's fundamentally stupid. Trying to maintain harmony and balance against hostile extremes is inherently good according to all real moral systems. Look at Ma'at, Tao, etc. In real belief systems, Order is synonymous with Good.
But D&D assigns Norsemen to Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral. Nevermind that their religion distinguished between the orderly Aesir and the chaotic everything else.
Or take Robin Hood. He's commonly assigned to Chaotic Good, but the entire reason he's rebelling is because the law has been corrupted. He's not against law, he's against bad laws that hurt the populace. But alignment doesn't make distinctions like that. So Chaotic Good becomes this bizarre morass that includes tribal people, small villages, communist nations, Robin Hood, vikings, and so on.
The alignment system is just fundamentally nonsense, but because "it's tradition!" countless people make up excuses to justify keeping it. Blindly following tradition is stupid. You don't know why it's tradition or if it's still relevant unless you apply critical analysis. Some traditions may have lost relevance, while others were always stupid nonsense. Alignment was always stupid nonsense.
You don't need it. Keep using it if you like, but I'm chucking it out in my games.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 24, 2023, 06:47:09 PM
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on August 24, 2023, 02:33:14 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 24, 2023, 06:00:12 AM
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on August 24, 2023, 04:59:52 AM
The point of "9 ways to think of morality" isn't that there is only 9 ways, but that alignment captures 9 different fantasy archetypes it would make sense to place into a fantasy game like D&D. It serves as a template for the player to build off of, just like classes do, for their roleplaying.
Except that there are no such archetypes and Gary Gygax made those up by adding Good, Neutral and Evil to the Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic used in OG D&D and mashing them together. The 9 alignments didn't exist before AD&D. They're a BS made up D&Dism.
Whatever the source, they work well and do the job in D&D. They aren't supposed to be the complete picture of morality but encapsulate good adventuring archetypes for gameplay.
Did you read the response? It doesn't encapsulate any real archetypes. Players are forced into those roles because that's how the game was written. The community just made up tons of bullshit to justify it by claiming this nonsense is real archetypes. I could invent my own moral axis of bacon vs necktie, but that doesn't make the options archetypes. It means I made shit up.
Since the alignments aren't actually based on any real value system but on vague notions that differ between individuals, they bleed into the adjacent squares and become difficult to quantify in meaningful terms. They simultaneously make unnecessary distinctions while ignoring tons of necessary distinctions.
For example, an obstructive bureaucrat isn't Lawful Neutral. He's either Lawful Evil because he gets sick jollies from being obstructive, or he's Lawful Good and Stupid because he thinks laws are just inherently good no matter how stupid. Lawful Good and Stupid types are everywhere in real life and they're so obnoxious.
Scarred Lands is the only campaign setting that I've seen bother to try assigning coherent values to alignments. It distinguishes Lawful Neutral by making the LN God and his holy city execute homosexuals. Um... I'm pretty sure that nobody on Earth thinks "execute homosexuals" is a neutral act. This is exactly the kind of stupid that alignment encourages with its asinine distinctions.
There's no such thing as moral neutrality in real life. It's a fundamentally stupid concept. Everyone has the capacity for good and evil and most people think of themselves as good people. No real person thinks of themself as morally neutral. Again, it's fundamentally stupid. Trying to maintain harmony and balance against hostile extremes is inherently good according to all real moral systems. Look at Ma'at, Tao, etc. In real belief systems, Order is synonymous with Good.
But D&D assigns Norsemen to Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral. Nevermind that their religion distinguished between the orderly Aesir and the chaotic everything else.
Or take Robin Hood. He's commonly assigned to Chaotic Good, but the entire reason he's rebelling is because the law has been corrupted. He's not against law, he's against bad laws that hurt the populace. But alignment doesn't make distinctions like that. So Chaotic Good becomes this bizarre morass that includes tribal people, small villages, communist nations, Robin Hood, vikings, and so on.
The alignment system is just fundamentally nonsense, but because "it's tradition!" countless people make up excuses to justify keeping it. Blindly following tradition is stupid. You don't know why it's tradition or if it's still relevant unless you apply critical analysis. Some traditions may have lost relevance, while others were always stupid nonsense. Alignment was always stupid nonsense.
You don't need it. Keep using it if you like, but I'm chucking it out in my games.
Law and Chaos as fundamental concepts of the universe existed before Dungeons and Dragons, they come from Michael Morecock's stories. If you want to get even further back than that, they show up as concepts in Conan as well.
Gary Gygax didn't 'make up' Law, Chaos, and Neutrality... He took a bunch of Fantasy Tropes that existed... Like Law and Chaos from Morcock, Lovecraft, and Howard... and combined them with the concepts of "Good" and "Evil" existing in High Fantasy along the lines of Tolkein.
Trying to claim that "Law" and "Chaos" and "Good" and "Evil" don't exist or never existed in fantasy stories before D&D is just outright wrong, completely wrong in every single manner.
You might not like it, you might find yourself 'straight jacketed to it' but that's on you.
Neutral characters aren't characters that completely stay away from Good and Evil, it means they tend to follow the laws of a society, generally look out for their friends and family only, and mainly want to be left alone.
A character aligned to "Good" is someone who fundamentally supports and is an advocate of the very supernatural concept of "Good" as it exists in the Universe... given Good is an actual energy within the Fantasy Universe. They might not consciously know they're supporting the element of "Good", but their actions fundamentally buoy and increase this energy in the world.
Characters that are "evil" engage in acts that support, encourage, and increase the energy of "Evil" in the universe... A Lawful Evil character might support a Kingdom that has fundamentally good rules... But they're willing to support that Kingdom in ways that Good characters would find reprehensible, and Neutral characters would balk at as well.
The alignments fit a Universe where these forces exist and are real and embodied by Literal Gods made up of them. Getting rid of alignment is where you go down the road of "No race is fundamentally evil"... Except in a Universe where there are Gods that are *Evil* who can make their own races, there can be races and beings that are *evil*
You're welcome to chuck it from your games... Nobody is stopping you, but your understanding of how Alignment works is completely fucking wrong and borked on every level you should shut up now before you keep making a bigger fool of yourself.
Quote from: Orphan81 on August 24, 2023, 06:06:37 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on August 24, 2023, 05:52:32 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 24, 2023, 03:40:25 PM
In my experience, Alignment was never particularly good at anything but getting into arguments about what "Alignment" really meant, and incentivizing players to play stupidly malicious characters whenever they had the word "evil" written on their character sheet. Otherwise people mostly went along with whatever the adventure was about and rarely payed mind to whatever their "alignment" was supposed to be. And even when they were "evil" they still mostly ignored it most of the time, till they suddenly decided to do stupid stuff, because "evil".
I made an evil character for my brother's mega-campaign. My concept was a Githyanki who fell in to the party of good character to avoid his enemies. I based him loosely on Garak from Deep Space Nine. The sketchy guy who isn't afraid of the dirty work. We were trying to destroy Keraptis from White Plume Mountain and went through the bulk of the B/X/Advanced modules with the added feature of gathering and destroying Keraptis' various phylacteries. (My brother was never shy about how he was ripping off Harry Potter.)
The phylacteries were various artifacts, and they had to be destroyed. When it came time to destroy the good aligned artifact, my character was like "I got this guys."
Absolutely *LOVE* Garak, but Deep Space Nine is the best Star Trek out of all of them.
Lawful Evil is the only evil I'll allow in a mixed party with Good characters when I run... Since the 'Lawful' part means they have some kind of an honor code and can be trusted to not betray the party once they've aligned with them... It just means they're willing to do the sorts of things Good characters won't allow themselves to do to get shit done.
"You may have just saved the Entire Alpha Quadrant and all it cost was the life of One Romulan Senator, One Criminal, and the self respect of a Star Fleet Officer. I don't know about you but I'd call that, a bargain."
People are right to question an evil character in a group of good characters. It does usually mean they want to be an asshole. If a player wanted to play an evil character in a mostly good campagin, I'd have a short convo wtih them and make sure they're on board and not just disrupting the game for their own enjoyment.
Quote from: Orphan81 on August 24, 2023, 07:06:38 PM
Law and Chaos as fundamental concepts of the universe existed before Dungeons and Dragons, they come from Michael Morecock's stories. If you want to get even further back than that, they show up as concepts in Conan as well.
/achkutally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony)
Alignment is fun and useful for a game; makes it easier to know who is affected by certain spells, for instance. Only absolute fucking rubes go out of their way to mount incoherent retarded arguments against alignment instead of using something else (or nothing at all). If you like playing games, particularly D&D, use alignment. If you want to play another game where it doesn't make any sense, like Star Wars, don't. An argument against alignment WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF D&D is idiotic. It's like complaining you hate Vancian magic but insist on playing D&D. Why? Play another fucking game, it's not that hard.
It probably wouldn't be hard to convince the wokesters at WotC to dump alignment entirely because it can be so judgmental and the definitions can be triggering, etc, etc.
I'm kind of surprised they didn't replace Alignment with carefully crafted Ideal, Bond, and Flaws.
Quote from: Ruprecht on August 24, 2023, 09:01:26 PM
It probably wouldn't be hard to convince the wokesters at WotC to dump alignment entirely because it can be so judgmental and the definitions can be triggering, etc, etc.
I'm kind of surprised they didn't replace Alignment with carefully crafted Ideal, Bond, and Flaws.
There would only be two alignments. Progressive and Nazi.
Quote from: GiantToenail on August 24, 2023, 04:29:44 AM
Someone's got to benefit from telling the gullibles there are only 9 ways to think of morality, The especially addled folks use it casually in conversation or media as if its normal to not consider viewpoints outside of a particular spectrum or chart spread via popular media.
Sooooo you are like idiot number 1-billion who never actually read alignment. Or all you've ever seen is wotc's moron interpretation of it.
Alignment in D&D is alot more nuanced in AD&D. You could have someone who was LE(n) meaning they were Lawful Evil, but had some neutral tendencies. And depending on what they do. They might eventually slide into actual LN.
Quote from: Omega on August 25, 2023, 05:39:03 AM
Quote from: GiantToenail on August 24, 2023, 04:29:44 AM
Someone's got to benefit from telling the gullibles there are only 9 ways to think of morality, The especially addled folks use it casually in conversation or media as if its normal to not consider viewpoints outside of a particular spectrum or chart spread via popular media.
Sooooo you are like idiot number 1-billion who never actually read alignment. Or all you've ever seen is wotc's moron interpretation of it.
Alignment in D&D is alot more nuanced in AD&D. You could have someone who was LE(n) meaning they were Lawful Evil, but had some neutral tendencies. And depending on what they do. They might eventually slide into actual LN.
That depends on what the (n) is in reference to; lawfulness or evil? They could just as easily slide into NE.
Quote from: Omega on August 25, 2023, 05:39:03 AM
Quote from: GiantToenail on August 24, 2023, 04:29:44 AM
Someone's got to benefit from telling the gullibles there are only 9 ways to think of morality, The especially addled folks use it casually in conversation or media as if its normal to not consider viewpoints outside of a particular spectrum or chart spread via popular media.
Sooooo you are like idiot number 1-billion who never actually read alignment. Or all you've ever seen is wotc's moron interpretation of it.
Alignment in D&D is a lot more nuanced in AD&D. You could have someone who was LE(n) meaning they were Lawful Evil, but had some neutral tendencies. And depending on what they do. They might eventually slide into actual LN.
You can have a Lawful Good paladin serving a regime, following the rules and exterminating the undesirables for break the rules and he would still be Lawful Good. Maybe those thieves should have used the social network rather than steal when they know stealing is the death penalty.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:13:57 PM
You can have a Lawful Good paladin serving a regime, following the rules and exterminating the undesirables for break the rules and he would still be Lawful Good.
Nope, exterminating people who are merely undesirable is NOT a GOOD act. It is EVIL. Rent an English language vocabulary.
Quote from: Scooter on August 25, 2023, 12:19:34 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:13:57 PM
You can have a Lawful Good paladin serving a regime, following the rules and exterminating the undesirables for break the rules and he would still be Lawful Good.
Nope, exterminating people who are merely undesirable is NOT a GOOD act. It is EVIL. Rent an English language vocabulary.
Son its a lawful act, and following the law is for the good of society. Notice, they are breaking the rules, that would be the reason to the killing of said people if the law they broke had the death penalty. The good would come in trying to help people not commit the crimes in the first place through charity. But once someone goes against the law, especially in areas mostly lawless, medieval societies tended to be quite brutal. Now lets add rampaging orcs and owlbears to the mix, laws would tend to be very strict to maintain social order. Unless you are running Seattle in 1200 AD aka Radiant Citadel.
It's cute when people try to put modern laws on the equivalent of 1200 AD Europe (its not extermination is the medieval legal codes and norms). Pro Tip, they tended to kill a lot of people for a number of infractions. Speak ill of the king, that's treason and the death penalty. Burn a home down, that's the death penalty. Hell, stealing crops you get your hands cut off - which might as well be the death penalty in 1200 AD.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:37:22 PM
Quote from: Scooter on August 25, 2023, 12:19:34 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:13:57 PM
You can have a Lawful Good paladin serving a regime, following the rules and exterminating the undesirables for break the rules and he would still be Lawful Good.
Nope, exterminating people who are merely undesirable is NOT a GOOD act. It is EVIL. Rent an English language vocabulary.
Son its a lawful act,
Another insane straw man act. I didn't say it wasn't lawful
Quote from: Scooter on August 25, 2023, 12:38:28 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:37:22 PM
Quote from: Scooter on August 25, 2023, 12:19:34 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:13:57 PM
You can have a Lawful Good paladin serving a regime, following the rules and exterminating the undesirables for break the rules and he would still be Lawful Good.
Nope, exterminating people who are merely undesirable is NOT a GOOD act. It is EVIL. Rent an English language vocabulary.
Son its a lawful act,
Another insane straw man act. I didn't say it wasn't lawful
OK ::)
Low IQ individuals don't know that uncharitably twisting what other people say to make it sound like a StRaW mAn does not in fact make it a straw man. Or that calling out (perceived) fallacies with the naked objective of pwning someone and dismissing their argument is itself a fallacy, commonly referred to as the Fallacy Fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy). Because, even if some portion of an argument is actually fallacious*, that doesn't make its conclusion invalid. It just means that that specific portion of the argument is poorly constructed. But the rest of the thing may still be perfectly sound, or at least a close approximation of reality.
Unfortunately, the low intelligence often believe themselves to be fucking geniuses and master debaters. But all they do is jerk off to their own misapprehended genius.
Also...
Quote from: Brad on August 24, 2023, 08:23:02 PM
Alignment is fun and useful for a game; makes it easier to know who is affected by certain spells, for instance. Only absolute fucking rubes go out of their way to mount incoherent retarded arguments against alignment instead of using something else (or nothing at all). If you like playing games, particularly D&D, use alignment. If you want to play another game where it doesn't make any sense, like Star Wars, don't. An argument against alignment WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF D&D is idiotic. It's like complaining you hate Vancian magic but insist on playing D&D. Why? Play another fucking game, it's not that hard.
I'm sorry for your inability to articulate a proper argument. Or to observe criticism for game styles, elements or mechanics, or other things that you've become investment on, without becoming an emotional wreck, spewing incoherent bile and venom. And hope that one day you may overcome the irrational hatred and childish ignorance that makes you throw a temper tantrum or passive aggressive snipes anytime someone says something you take issue with, rather than formulate a proper counterargument against anything they have actually said.
But alignment is not fundamental to playing D&D. Ignoring alignment is simple and I've been doing it for DECADES. The vast (VAST) majority of the game is completely and utterly unaffected if you ignore alignment entirely. Nothing breaks apart or makes the game unplayable, and you don't need to drag useless mechanics like alignment around in order to justify the existence of a tiny handful of insignificant spells that are not necessary and have no fundamental impact on the vast majority of the game.
Spells like "Protection from Evil/Good"** can easily be retained without alignment by simply making them effective against certain types of creatures (angels, demons, etc), and classes (paladins, anti paladins, clerics of certain gods, etc), which are the only ones normally affected by such spells anyway. And Detect Evil/Good and items that work against evil or good can get a similar treatment as well. Alignment isn't necessary for any of this shit. Or for it's purported, but failed purpose of (supposedly) aiding RP.
*Pro-tip: 90% of the time people on this forum call out a fallacy, it isn't an actual fallacy. Just a willfully uncharitable interpretation of what's being said to attempt to dismiss it and "win" the argument.
**The only alignment related spell arguably necessary, given its thematic relevance to real life religion and fiction, where prayers and charms against evil or demonic entities are relatively commonplace.
I like this video on alignment
https://youtube.com/watch?v=8v_eJrPS59I&si=hqPrPHMOdNu14NKC
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 25, 2023, 02:14:22 PM
Low IQ individuals don't know that uncharitably twisting what other people say to make it sound like a StRaW mAn does not in fact make it a straw man. Or that calling out (perceived) fallacies with the naked objective of pwning someone and dismissing their argument is itself a fallacy, commonly referred to as the Fallacy Fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy). Because, even if some portion of an argument is actually fallacious*, that doesn't make its conclusion invalid. It just means that that specific portion of the argument is poorly constructed. But the rest of the thing may still be perfectly sound, or at least a close approximation of reality.
Unfortunately, the low intelligence often believe themselves to be fucking geniuses and master debaters. But all they do is jerk off to their own misapprehended genius.
Also...
Quote from: Brad on August 24, 2023, 08:23:02 PM
Alignment is fun and useful for a game; makes it easier to know who is affected by certain spells, for instance. Only absolute fucking rubes go out of their way to mount incoherent retarded arguments against alignment instead of using something else (or nothing at all). If you like playing games, particularly D&D, use alignment. If you want to play another game where it doesn't make any sense, like Star Wars, don't. An argument against alignment WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF D&D is idiotic. It's like complaining you hate Vancian magic but insist on playing D&D. Why? Play another fucking game, it's not that hard.
I'm sorry for your inability to articulate a proper argument. Or to observe criticism for game styles, elements or mechanics, or other things that you've become investment on, without becoming an emotional wreck, spewing incoherent bile and venom. And hope that one day you may overcome the irrational hatred and childish ignorance that makes you throw a temper tantrum or passive aggressive snipes anytime someone says something you take issue with, rather than formulate a proper counterargument against anything they have actually said.
But alignment is not fundamental to playing D&D. Ignoring alignment is simple and I've been doing it for DECADES. The vast (VAST) majority of the game is completely and utterly unaffected if you ignore alignment entirely. Nothing breaks apart or makes the game unplayable, and you don't need to drag useless mechanics like alignment around in order to justify the existence of a tiny handful of insignificant spells that are not necessary and have no fundamental impact on the vast majority of the game.
Spells like "Protection from Evil/Good"** can easily be retained without alignment by simply making them effective against certain types of creatures (angels, demons, etc), and classes (paladins, anti paladins, clerics of certain gods, etc), which are the only ones normally affected by such spells anyway. And Detect Evil/Good and items that work against evil or good can get a similar treatment as well. Alignment isn't necessary for any of this shit. Or for it's purported, but failed purpose of (supposedly) aiding RP.
*Pro-tip: 90% of the time people on this forum call out a fallacy, it isn't an actual fallacy. Just a willfully uncharitable interpretation of what's being said to attempt to dismiss it and "win" the argument.
**The only alignment related spell arguably necessary, given its thematic relevance to real life religion and fiction, where prayers and charms against evil or demonic entities are relatively commonplace.
There were plenty of people serving the Lawful Evil Soviet Union. They followed the rules, often time out of liking to follow rules and felt bad sending some people to gulags. But they'd still send people to the gulags for breaking the rules. Maybe they would do some charity or take care of someone or if they had extra (haha extra in the soviet union) they would help out people. They were Lawful Good working for a Lawful Evil government system.
And even then, just because you are Lawful Good doesn't mean you have to follow the law at all times. The logical fallacy made by leftards is "alignment is so restrictive", STFU. Alignment is what you make of it, its a framework for a persons behavior. You don't follow it all the time. However if you are lawful evil and you are giving out candy to children, saving orphans, and putting your own life on the line to save the downtrodden and never once asked for a concession to benefit yourself, well after a few sessions then the DM would have a talk with the player, ask him if he has an angle and if he needs help to get his characters goals and if he says nope my guy is a kind hero, we'd talk about an alignment change at that point. Evil is self serving, there has to be an angle if a character wants to remain evil in my campaigns if all they do is good deeds.
Younger posters got spoon fed "alignment is evil" etc crap and they can't even articulate the points why they can't use it. All we are getting now are alignment systems with extra steps, its down right silly. Either Law/Neutral/Chaos or the 9 grid and its a good system to use. I'd rather have a loosely defined short hand system for behavior easy expanded upon than a codified behavior system made for millennials because they were taught not to use their own fucking imaginations and they have to have everything spoon fed to them.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 02:33:47 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 25, 2023, 02:14:22 PM
Low IQ individuals don't know that uncharitably twisting what other people say to make it sound like a StRaW mAn does not in fact make it a straw man. Or that calling out (perceived) fallacies with the naked objective of pwning someone and dismissing their argument is itself a fallacy, commonly referred to as the Fallacy Fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy). Because, even if some portion of an argument is actually fallacious*, that doesn't make its conclusion invalid. It just means that that specific portion of the argument is poorly constructed. But the rest of the thing may still be perfectly sound, or at least a close approximation of reality.
Unfortunately, the low intelligence often believe themselves to be fucking geniuses and master debaters. But all they do is jerk off to their own misapprehended genius.
Also...
Quote from: Brad on August 24, 2023, 08:23:02 PM
Alignment is fun and useful for a game; makes it easier to know who is affected by certain spells, for instance. Only absolute fucking rubes go out of their way to mount incoherent retarded arguments against alignment instead of using something else (or nothing at all). If you like playing games, particularly D&D, use alignment. If you want to play another game where it doesn't make any sense, like Star Wars, don't. An argument against alignment WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF D&D is idiotic. It's like complaining you hate Vancian magic but insist on playing D&D. Why? Play another fucking game, it's not that hard.
I'm sorry for your inability to articulate a proper argument. Or to observe criticism for game styles, elements or mechanics, or other things that you've become investment on, without becoming an emotional wreck, spewing incoherent bile and venom. And hope that one day you may overcome the irrational hatred and childish ignorance that makes you throw a temper tantrum or passive aggressive snipes anytime someone says something you take issue with, rather than formulate a proper counterargument against anything they have actually said.
But alignment is not fundamental to playing D&D. Ignoring alignment is simple and I've been doing it for DECADES. The vast (VAST) majority of the game is completely and utterly unaffected if you ignore alignment entirely. Nothing breaks apart or makes the game unplayable, and you don't need to drag useless mechanics like alignment around in order to justify the existence of a tiny handful of insignificant spells that are not necessary and have no fundamental impact on the vast majority of the game.
Spells like "Protection from Evil/Good"** can easily be retained without alignment by simply making them effective against certain types of creatures (angels, demons, etc), and classes (paladins, anti paladins, clerics of certain gods, etc), which are the only ones normally affected by such spells anyway. And Detect Evil/Good and items that work against evil or good can get a similar treatment as well. Alignment isn't necessary for any of this shit. Or for it's purported, but failed purpose of (supposedly) aiding RP.
*Pro-tip: 90% of the time people on this forum call out a fallacy, it isn't an actual fallacy. Just a willfully uncharitable interpretation of what's being said to attempt to dismiss it and "win" the argument.
**The only alignment related spell arguably necessary, given its thematic relevance to real life religion and fiction, where prayers and charms against evil or demonic entities are relatively commonplace.
There were plenty of people serving the Lawful Evil Soviet Union. They followed the rules, often time out of liking to follow rules and felt bad sending some people to gulags. But they'd still send people to the gulags for breaking the rules. Maybe they would do some charity or take care of someone or if they had extra (haha extra in the soviet union) they would help out people. They were Lawful Good working for a Lawful Evil government system.
And even then, just because you are Lawful Good doesn't mean you have to follow the law at all times. The logical fallacy made by leftards is "alignment is so restrictive", STFU. Alignment is what you make of it, its a framework for a persons behavior. You don't follow it all the time. However if you are lawful evil and you are giving out candy to children, saving orphans, and putting your own life on the line to save the downtrodden and never once asked for a concession to benefit yourself, well after a few sessions then the DM would have a talk with the player, ask him if he has an angle and if he needs help to get his characters goals and if he says nope my guy is a kind hero, we'd talk about an alignment change at that point. Evil is self serving, there has to be an angle if a character wants to remain evil in my campaigns if all they do is good deeds.
Younger posters got spoon fed "alignment is evil" etc crap and they can't even articulate the points why they can't use it. All we are getting now are alignment systems with extra steps, its down right silly. Either Law/Neutral/Chaos or the 9 grid and its a good system to use. I'd rather have a loosely defined short hand system for behavior easy expanded upon than a codified behavior system made for millennials because they were taught not to use their own fucking imaginations and they have to have everything spoon fed to them.
A Lawful Good character does not execute undesirables, period. A Lawful Good character, working for a Lawful evil Regime, is someone who is working to undermine it from the inside. They are the Cop that looks the other way when broken and destitute people steal to feed themselves. They are the one who is giving information to the Chaotic Good rebels who are working to fully overthrow it...
"Good" means Good. Full stop. There is no moral relativism in this. The character you've describing as the Paladin who puts the thieves to death is LAWFUL Neutral.
You're the same idiot who argues Darth Vader was "Lawful Good" because he served his government and emperor to the best of his ability.
No, this is a setting where Good is a real tangible force backed up by metaphysics. That's what Dungeons and Dragons is, just as Law and Chaos are too. That's why the majority of people are just "Neutral" neither fully commited one way or another. They're just trying to get by.
A Chaotic Good character isn't someone who seeks to always break every law they see, they'll follow the laws in a Just society unless they have reason not to. They're someone who doesn't do well with hierarchies of any kind. They don't want someone telling them what to do, and wishes to be independent in any and all ways, while still striving towards the ideals of "Good" overall.
A Lawful Good character respects Tradition, and Order, social harmony and community... except in those cases where things are clearly unjust and or serving evil.
A Neutral Good character will strive towards doing Good things over anything else, while not fully committed to the chaotic no one in charge, or the Lawful, we should have a plan for everything.
The Lawful Neutral character is the one who in the corrupt society, strives to follow the rules to the best of their ability because they believe the social harmony, hierarchy and order is worth it. They're not commited to the idea of 'by any means necessary' though. Rather than being the cop that looks the other way, they're the cop that will arrest the thief, but also make sure they get as fair a trial as possible and all mitgating circumstances are taken into account.
The Lawful Evil character is the one that believes Order is the most important thing, by ANY means necessary. Chaos *Must* be stamped out, rules are there to be followed for the greater 'order' of all, until they're needed to be broken in service to those same ideals. They're the cop that's going to torture the thief, not because he likes it (though he might) but because he genuinely wants to find out the conspirators and stamp out discontent. The Tyranical government is preferable to the alternative of pure Chaos.
This shit isn't hard... It's all based off the idea of there being Moral OBJECTIVISM. There is an ultimate Truth to what is Good, and What is Evil along with what is Chaotic and what is Lawful. Sometimes a Lawful Evil character might occasionally do something that's Chaotic Good in nature... but that doesn't change his Alignment, it just means he's a person whose multifaceted, but the majority of his actions will remain Lawful Evil in nature.
There are Planes of Existence which embody these concepts in most D&D style settings, and that is one of the coolest things about them.
Fuck Moral Relativism...Moral Relativism is for fucking commies and the weak.
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 25, 2023, 02:14:22 PM
junk
Just shut the fuck up, please? You hate D&D, I get it. No one cares.
Quote from: Orphan81 on August 25, 2023, 03:09:40 PM
This shit isn't hard... It's all based off the idea of there being Moral OBJECTIVISM.
People with a criminal mind DO find it hard. As the two you are replying to demonstrate... These two are of the ilk who served in concentration camps liquidating the "undesirables" in that society. Thinking they were "good". Nuremberg gave the objective lesson to them but people with minds like that just disagree and continue being the sociopaths that genetics made them.
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 24, 2023, 06:00:12 AM
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on August 24, 2023, 04:59:52 AM
The point of "9 ways to think of morality" isn't that there is only 9 ways, but that alignment captures 9 different fantasy archetypes it would make sense to place into a fantasy game like D&D. It serves as a template for the player to build off of, just like classes do, for their roleplaying.
Except that there are no such archetypes and Gary Gygax made those up by adding Good, Neutral and Evil to the Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic used in OG D&D and mashing them together. The 9 alignments didn't exist before AD&D. They're a BS made up D&Dism.
The alignment chart helps someone who is new to D&D, who has never pondered such things. The different mindsets, possessed by different foes; etc.
Quote from: Scooter on August 25, 2023, 06:03:20 PM
Quote from: Orphan81 on August 25, 2023, 03:09:40 PM
This shit isn't hard... It's all based off the idea of there being Moral OBJECTIVISM.
People with a criminal mind DO find it hard. As the two you are replying to demonstrate... These two are of the ilk who served in concentration camps liquidating the "undesirables" in that society. Thinking they were "good". Nuremberg gave the objective lesson to them but people with minds like that just disagree and continue being the sociopaths that genetics made them.
I love this drama queen, so fucking hilarious to hear someone of such simplistic take that causes problems at all tables, that they can't read let alone think. You have a lawful and you have good, you don't believe in law, you just believe in good no matter what like a simp. Characters with Law and Good, can have equal importance. The laws are laws, if you break the law and the penalty is death, its likely a lawful good character would support it. They would most likely in a repressive regime find ways of charity and helping people so they don't have to break the law in the first place. They could also bend the laws for a bit to help people avoid such laws.
Now let go to the "undesirables", if someone breaks the law are they desirable to society? Like, the next race riots that take place, can I drop you off in a black race riot (assuming your are white) or could I drop you off in an Antifa riot where they are pillaging and looting (assuming you aren't black block) and would you say they are not undesirables? According to a BLM mob, they are the good guys, I'd call them Chaotic Neutral from the D&D Alignment System and Antifa Chaotic Evil from the D&D alignment system. Would you then call them desirable? How about they break into your home and start stealing and you are a Lawful Good in "Real Life", do you help the poor misunderstood youths loot or do you kill them? Me, I'd put them to rest quite quickly, would that make me Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil in your black and white rules are rules dickwad definition of alignment?
Son, if you are going to focus on something, put it all in context, we really don't need Cathy Newman's around here "So what you really mean", that level of moronic rhetorically devices is sophistry.
QuoteYou can have a Lawful Good paladin serving a regime, following the rules and exterminating the undesirables for break the rules and he would still be Lawful Good. Maybe those thieves should have used the social network rather than steal when they know stealing is the death penalty.
Do you see the break the rules portion and do you see the undesirables, would thievery for instance make one an undesirable in 1200 AD Europe, you know what most of the D&D Settings draw their inspiration from?
Use you fucking brain before you reply, god damn "morans".
The above exchange only highlights my position on the uselessness of alignment as a RP tool, or in general (except arguably as allegiances to discreet enemy camps, for which the 9 alignments are still garbage). That adherents for alignment can't agree about WTF alignment means, while simultaneously believing that their own personal take on the interpretation of alignment is obviously the "objectively" correct one (as a matter of arbitrary declaration, not demonstrated fact) is proof that alignment can't and doesn't work.
If people who believe in alignment can't agree about what it means then what possible use can it have as a RP tool, much less as a tool for arbitration when handling class based alignment requirements? How do you determine when a character violated their alignment requirements and punishment needs to be dealt, without the game dissolving into pointless bickering around the table, cuz you just removed someone's class abilities when they believed that they were playing their character correctly, but you didn't?
Also...
Quote from: Brad on August 25, 2023, 03:12:47 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 25, 2023, 02:14:22 PM
junk
Just shut the fuck up, please? You hate D&D, I get it. No one cares.
You have no counterargument and are still irrationally clinging to your childish spite. So you are lashing out instead of engaging rationally. And despite claiming not to care, you're unable to keep yourself from responding. Proving in the process that you do care. You just lack the emotional maturity to realize it. I get it.
I will pray for you tonight. :-*
I'll agree with other posters who have stated that the 9 alignments are a useful template for storytelling purposes. Yes, morality in real life is more nuanced, but there are limits to how nuanced a campaign can get.
That being said, Lawful alignments are of particular interest to me, because Lawful Good can be interpreted in more ways than one. Lawful Neutral is particularly flexible for mercenary type characters that don't typically abide by local laws but hold their own rigid code regarding things like contracts.
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 25, 2023, 06:56:55 PM
The above exchange only highlights my position on the uselessness of alignment as a RP tool, or in general (except arguably as allegiances to discreet enemy camps, for which the 9 alignments are still garbage). That adherents for alignment can't agree about WTF alignment means, while simultaneously believing that their own personal take on the interpretation of alignment is obviously the "objectively" correct one (as a matter of arbitrary declaration, not demonstrated fact) is proof that alignment can't and doesn't work.
If people who believe in alignment can't agree about what it means then what possible use can it have as a RP tool, much less as a tool for arbitration when handling class based alignment requirements? How do you determine when a character violated their alignment requirements and punishment needs to be dealt, without the game dissolving into pointless bickering around the table, cuz you just removed someone's class abilities when they believed that they were playing their character correctly, but you didn't?
Interpretations of morality can certainly differ between the DM and the player, but a good DM can typically work something out with the player if a conflict arises. For example, some DMs will warn a cleric player when they're approaching an action that would violate the ethics of their deity. If the player still goes ahead with the action, then the punishment shouldn't be a surprise. Characters who don't serve a specific deity are less straightforward, but there is still a rhyme and reason to it (at least with a good DM).
I think the alignment system is arguably most interesting when it has mechanical effects and in-world recognition. Because then players and characters can imagine what it might be like to live in such a world. That tension between what "good" means within the context of the laws of physics vs what one actually thinks is moral or acceptable is an interesting question. One of many that such a setup allows for.
That being said, I actually almost prefer a fuzzier approach to what the categories are in the game rules. The group agrees on the meaning of alignments, guided by the rulings and explanations of the dungeon master, but not all groups need to have that one-size-fits-all approach to exactly what that particular alignment/expression of alignment means. That way the conversations and tropes at each table remain unique and adaptable even as people have a rough idea what a particular alignment lean or aura might POTENTIALLY mean if that particular group's game is discussed elsewhere.
Quote from: Orphan81 on August 25, 2023, 03:09:40 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 02:33:47 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 25, 2023, 02:14:22 PM
Low IQ individuals don't know that uncharitably twisting what other people say to make it sound like a StRaW mAn does not in fact make it a straw man. Or that calling out (perceived) fallacies with the naked objective of pwning someone and dismissing their argument is itself a fallacy, commonly referred to as the Fallacy Fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy). Because, even if some portion of an argument is actually fallacious*, that doesn't make its conclusion invalid. It just means that that specific portion of the argument is poorly constructed. But the rest of the thing may still be perfectly sound, or at least a close approximation of reality.
Unfortunately, the low intelligence often believe themselves to be fucking geniuses and master debaters. But all they do is jerk off to their own misapprehended genius.
Also...
Quote from: Brad on August 24, 2023, 08:23:02 PM
Alignment is fun and useful for a game; makes it easier to know who is affected by certain spells, for instance. Only absolute fucking rubes go out of their way to mount incoherent retarded arguments against alignment instead of using something else (or nothing at all). If you like playing games, particularly D&D, use alignment. If you want to play another game where it doesn't make any sense, like Star Wars, don't. An argument against alignment WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF D&D is idiotic. It's like complaining you hate Vancian magic but insist on playing D&D. Why? Play another fucking game, it's not that hard.
I'm sorry for your inability to articulate a proper argument. Or to observe criticism for game styles, elements or mechanics, or other things that you've become investment on, without becoming an emotional wreck, spewing incoherent bile and venom. And hope that one day you may overcome the irrational hatred and childish ignorance that makes you throw a temper tantrum or passive aggressive snipes anytime someone says something you take issue with, rather than formulate a proper counterargument against anything they have actually said.
But alignment is not fundamental to playing D&D. Ignoring alignment is simple and I've been doing it for DECADES. The vast (VAST) majority of the game is completely and utterly unaffected if you ignore alignment entirely. Nothing breaks apart or makes the game unplayable, and you don't need to drag useless mechanics like alignment around in order to justify the existence of a tiny handful of insignificant spells that are not necessary and have no fundamental impact on the vast majority of the game.
Spells like "Protection from Evil/Good"** can easily be retained without alignment by simply making them effective against certain types of creatures (angels, demons, etc), and classes (paladins, anti paladins, clerics of certain gods, etc), which are the only ones normally affected by such spells anyway. And Detect Evil/Good and items that work against evil or good can get a similar treatment as well. Alignment isn't necessary for any of this shit. Or for it's purported, but failed purpose of (supposedly) aiding RP.
*Pro-tip: 90% of the time people on this forum call out a fallacy, it isn't an actual fallacy. Just a willfully uncharitable interpretation of what's being said to attempt to dismiss it and "win" the argument.
**The only alignment related spell arguably necessary, given its thematic relevance to real life religion and fiction, where prayers and charms against evil or demonic entities are relatively commonplace.
There were plenty of people serving the Lawful Evil Soviet Union. They followed the rules, often time out of liking to follow rules and felt bad sending some people to gulags. But they'd still send people to the gulags for breaking the rules. Maybe they would do some charity or take care of someone or if they had extra (haha extra in the soviet union) they would help out people. They were Lawful Good working for a Lawful Evil government system.
And even then, just because you are Lawful Good doesn't mean you have to follow the law at all times. The logical fallacy made by leftards is "alignment is so restrictive", STFU. Alignment is what you make of it, its a framework for a persons behavior. You don't follow it all the time. However if you are lawful evil and you are giving out candy to children, saving orphans, and putting your own life on the line to save the downtrodden and never once asked for a concession to benefit yourself, well after a few sessions then the DM would have a talk with the player, ask him if he has an angle and if he needs help to get his characters goals and if he says nope my guy is a kind hero, we'd talk about an alignment change at that point. Evil is self serving, there has to be an angle if a character wants to remain evil in my campaigns if all they do is good deeds.
Younger posters got spoon fed "alignment is evil" etc crap and they can't even articulate the points why they can't use it. All we are getting now are alignment systems with extra steps, its down right silly. Either Law/Neutral/Chaos or the 9 grid and its a good system to use. I'd rather have a loosely defined short hand system for behavior easy expanded upon than a codified behavior system made for millennials because they were taught not to use their own fucking imaginations and they have to have everything spoon fed to them.
A Lawful Good character does not execute undesirables, period. A Lawful Good character, working for a Lawful evil Regime, is someone who is working to undermine it from the inside. They are the Cop that looks the other way when broken and destitute people steal to feed themselves. They are the one who is giving information to the Chaotic Good rebels who are working to fully overthrow it...
"Good" means Good. Full stop. There is no moral relativism in this. The character you've describing as the Paladin who puts the thieves to death is LAWFUL Neutral.
You're the same idiot who argues Darth Vader was "Lawful Good" because he served his government and emperor to the best of his ability.
No, this is a setting where Good is a real tangible force backed up by metaphysics. That's what Dungeons and Dragons is, just as Law and Chaos are too. That's why the majority of people are just "Neutral" neither fully commited one way or another. They're just trying to get by.
A Chaotic Good character isn't someone who seeks to always break every law they see, they'll follow the laws in a Just society unless they have reason not to. They're someone who doesn't do well with hierarchies of any kind. They don't want someone telling them what to do, and wishes to be independent in any and all ways, while still striving towards the ideals of "Good" overall.
A Lawful Good character respects Tradition, and Order, social harmony and community... except in those cases where things are clearly unjust and or serving evil.
A Neutral Good character will strive towards doing Good things over anything else, while not fully committed to the chaotic no one in charge, or the Lawful, we should have a plan for everything.
The Lawful Neutral character is the one who in the corrupt society, strives to follow the rules to the best of their ability because they believe the social harmony, hierarchy and order is worth it. They're not commited to the idea of 'by any means necessary' though. Rather than being the cop that looks the other way, they're the cop that will arrest the thief, but also make sure they get as fair a trial as possible and all mitgating circumstances are taken into account.
The Lawful Evil character is the one that believes Order is the most important thing, by ANY means necessary. Chaos *Must* be stamped out, rules are there to be followed for the greater 'order' of all, until they're needed to be broken in service to those same ideals. They're the cop that's going to torture the thief, not because he likes it (though he might) but because he genuinely wants to find out the conspirators and stamp out discontent. The Tyranical government is preferable to the alternative of pure Chaos.
This shit isn't hard... It's all based off the idea of there being Moral OBJECTIVISM. There is an ultimate Truth to what is Good, and What is Evil along with what is Chaotic and what is Lawful. Sometimes a Lawful Evil character might occasionally do something that's Chaotic Good in nature... but that doesn't change his Alignment, it just means he's a person whose multifaceted, but the majority of his actions will remain Lawful Evil in nature.
There are Planes of Existence which embody these concepts in most D&D style settings, and that is one of the coolest things about them.
Fuck Moral Relativism...Moral Relativism is for fucking commies and the weak.
Well, well, well. Finally someone who actually read the rules and understands the purpose of alignment. Bravo!
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 06:26:33 PM
Do you see the break the rules portion and do you see the undesirables, would thievery for instance make one an undesirable in 1200 AD Europe, you know what most of the D&D Settings draw their inspiration from?
Use you fucking brain before you reply, god damn "morans".
The majority of punishments for theft in the Middle ages ranged from being put in the stocks, fines, extra labor, or at the worst end, having your hands cut off. Seems like you need to actually read your history before you go off and start calling people 'morons.'
In the Wild West, Horse thievery was punished by death... and a Lawful Good Paladin would certainly support that notion. That's because stealing someone's horse in that period of time in America was consigning the Victim to death.
Yes, a Lawful Good Paladin would support the Death Penalty for those crimes that deserved it. But again, the *Good* part is more important. They're going to look at the totality of the circumstances involved in whatever crime was committed.
Quote from: Orphan81 on August 26, 2023, 05:26:28 AM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 06:26:33 PM
Do you see the break the rules portion and do you see the undesirables, would thievery for instance make one an undesirable in 1200 AD Europe, you know what most of the D&D Settings draw their inspiration from?
Use you fucking brain before you reply, god damn "morans".
The majority of punishments for theft in the Middle ages ranged from being put in the stocks, fines, extra labor, or at the worst end, having your hands cut off. Seems like you need to actually read your history before you go off and start calling people 'morons.'
In the Wild West, Horse thievery was punished by death... and a Lawful Good Paladin would certainly support that notion. That's because stealing someone's horse in that period of time in America was consigning the Victim to death.
Yes, a Lawful Good Paladin would support the Death Penalty for those crimes that deserved it. But again, the *Good* part is more important. They're going to look at the totality of the circumstances involved in whatever crime was committed.
Sociopaths will fight to the death to make butchering people for as little as being undesirable acceptable in society.
Quote from: Scooter on August 26, 2023, 08:45:12 AM
Quote from: Orphan81 on August 26, 2023, 05:26:28 AM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 06:26:33 PM
Do you see the break the rules portion and do you see the undesirables, would thievery for instance make one an undesirable in 1200 AD Europe, you know what most of the D&D Settings draw their inspiration from?
Use you fucking brain before you reply, god damn "morans".
The majority of punishments for theft in the Middle ages ranged from being put in the stocks, fines, extra labor, or at the worst end, having your hands cut off. Seems like you need to actually read your history before you go off and start calling people 'morons.'
In the Wild West, Horse thievery was punished by death... and a Lawful Good Paladin would certainly support that notion. That's because stealing someone's horse in that period of time in America was consigning the Victim to death.
Yes, a Lawful Good Paladin would support the Death Penalty for those crimes that deserved it. But again, the *Good* part is more important. They're going to look at the totality of the circumstances involved in whatever crime was committed.
Sociopaths will fight to the death to make butchering people for as little as being undesirable acceptable in society.
Culture and environment play major roles in how harsh a society is. In the real world, many Middle Eastern societies were/are known for harsh punishments for what many in the West would consider minor crimes, but this stems from this area having a long history of scarce resources. A society trying to survive in the desert is going to have a much lower tolerance for certain behaviors than most people living in a temperate environment with abundant resources. There are obviously exceptions to this (like the harshness of Aztec society), but this is the general pattern. It is also true that very cold environments tend to have less harsh cultures in punishments than desert environments despite scarce resources, but again, there are additional factors that drive this. And of course, the modern Persian Gulf has a lot of oil wealth, so resources aren't as scarce there now, but culture changes slower than economics. In a medieval setting, it makes perfect sense that a desert culture would have harsh punishments for certain minor infractions, and this is somewhat true for temperate environments in this setting.
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 26, 2023, 10:13:32 AM
Culture and environment play major roles in how harsh a society is. In the real world, many Middle Eastern societies were/are known for harsh punishments for what many in the West would consider minor crimes, but this stems from this area having a long history of scarce resources. A society trying to survive in the desert is going to have a much lower tolerance for certain behaviors than most people living in a temperate environment with abundant resources. There are obviously exceptions to this (like the harshness of Aztec society), but this is the general pattern. It is also true that very cold environments tend to have less harsh cultures in punishments than desert environments despite scarce resources, but again, there are additional factors that drive this. And of course, the modern Persian Gulf has a lot of oil wealth, so resources aren't as scarce there now, but culture changes slower than economics. In a medieval setting, it makes perfect sense that a desert culture would have harsh punishments for certain minor infractions, and this is somewhat true for temperate environments in this setting.
Yes, however slaughtering "undesirables" is NEVER a Good act. Some societies are more evil than others. Consensus is not equal to something being Good or Evil.
Quote from: Scooter on August 26, 2023, 11:04:15 AM
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 26, 2023, 10:13:32 AM
Culture and environment play major roles in how harsh a society is. In the real world, many Middle Eastern societies were/are known for harsh punishments for what many in the West would consider minor crimes, but this stems from this area having a long history of scarce resources. A society trying to survive in the desert is going to have a much lower tolerance for certain behaviors than most people living in a temperate environment with abundant resources. There are obviously exceptions to this (like the harshness of Aztec society), but this is the general pattern. It is also true that very cold environments tend to have less harsh cultures in punishments than desert environments despite scarce resources, but again, there are additional factors that drive this. And of course, the modern Persian Gulf has a lot of oil wealth, so resources aren't as scarce there now, but culture changes slower than economics. In a medieval setting, it makes perfect sense that a desert culture would have harsh punishments for certain minor infractions, and this is somewhat true for temperate environments in this setting.
Yes, however slaughtering "undesirables" is NEVER a Good act. Some societies are more evil than others. Consensus is not equal to something being Good or Evil.
I agree, although this is where Lawful and Good diverge. It's part of why I like the 9 categories. There is a lot of room for moral dilemmas in a story set where laws are generally oppressive.
A Lawful Good society, for example, will not support killing undesirables unless the undesirables are innately evil (like Demons).
Whereas a Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil society will often have some group that is considered undesirable and will either promote the oppression of that group or will simply permit it.
Still, there are possibilities that are similar to this that could still involve Lawful Good cultures. For example, slavery was seen as moral in many societies when the slaves are prisoners of war. One could argue that a person could still be Lawful Good while supporting slavery when the context is that slaves are criminals repaying a debt to society or members of a defeated enemy nation. Of course, this particular topic is very controversial today, because woke ideology doesn't understand nuance or historical contexts. Indentured servitude is similar.
It's much harder to defend slavery as an institution permitted by a Lawful Good culture when it is hereditary, however. Enslaving the child of a slave is much more oppressive, because the child never committed any crimes or was not part of a fallen enemy nation.
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 26, 2023, 11:15:39 AM
I agree, although this is where Lawful and Good diverge. It's part of why I like the 9 categories. There is a lot of room for moral dilemmas in a story set where laws are generally oppressive.
A Lawful Good society, for example, will not support killing undesirables unless the undesirables are innately evil (like Demons).
Whereas a Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil society will often have some group that is considered undesirable and will either promote the oppression of that group or will simply permit it.
Still, there are possibilities that are similar to this that could still involve Lawful Good cultures. For example, slavery was seen as moral in many societies when the slaves are prisoners of war. One could argue that a person could still be Lawful Good while supporting slavery when the context is that slaves are criminals repaying a debt to society or members of a defeated enemy nation. Of course, this particular topic is very controversial today, because woke ideology doesn't understand nuance or historical contexts. Indentured servitude is similar.
It's much harder to defend slavery as an institution permitted by a Lawful Good culture when it is hereditary, however. Enslaving the child of a slave is much more oppressive, because the child never committed any crimes or was not part of a fallen enemy nation.
Yes, agreed. Case in point; After WW 2, forced labor by ex German soldiers was used to help rebuild what their country had destroyed in the UK & France. The conditions (as affirmed by diaries kept by those ex soldiers) under which they worked/lived under were benign. As befitting a generally moral society.
8) I'd also like to remind how difficult old TSR Detect Evil was to use upon "mere mortals" of the Prime Material Plane. You had to be a wholly devoted 9HD (9th lvl) creature -- in the middle of acting on evil intentions! -- to radiate an Evil aura for the spell. And even then it did not reveal alignment outright.
Why mentioned this? Because alignment, with desire & effort, could be changed. There is hope to choose a new path while still alive.
That's huge. That means even 'the legendary wandering Black Monk!' sipping beer at the tavern is unlikely radiating an evil aura. They can't be thinking and acting on evil intentions every moment of the day. There is still a chance to shift alignment while alive -- which is a whole roleplaying adventure story unto itself.
Further, it speaks of extra-dimensional forces that objectively have designs upon one's world. It speaks of an order greater and actively concerned about your (PC's) life outcome. The universe is not wholly neutral and meaning solely derived from yourself; as you become aware a meaningful choice opens up -- and remains open all the while you play.
How and where you walk your line is the story your PC leaves behind as its role is being played in full. It isn't preordained, there is still time to change it. It is open to be 'lived' until the very end and leave its own narrative mark upon your shared table experience.
Alignment's potential is beautiful for both GM & Player, if you let it. :D
Quote from: Opaopajr on August 27, 2023, 08:29:40 AM
8) I'd also like to remind how difficult old TSR Detect Evil was to use upon "mere mortals" of the Prime Material Plane. You had to be a wholly devoted 9HD (9th lvl) creature -- in the middle of acting on evil intentions! -- to radiate an Evil aura for the spell. And even then it did not reveal alignment outright.
Detect Evil Cleric 1st level spell
"Explanation/Description: This is a spell which discovers emanations of evil, or of good in the case of the reverse spell, from
any creature or object "
Quote from: Scooter on August 27, 2023, 09:26:17 AM
Quote from: Opaopajr on August 27, 2023, 08:29:40 AM
8) I'd also like to remind how difficult old TSR Detect Evil was to use upon "mere mortals" of the Prime Material Plane. You had to be a wholly devoted 9HD (9th lvl) creature -- in the middle of acting on evil intentions! -- to radiate an Evil aura for the spell. And even then it did not reveal alignment outright.
Detect Evil Cleric 1st level spell
"Explanation/Description: This is a spell which discovers emanations of evil, or of good in the case of the reverse spell, from any creature or object "
Now post the quote from page 60 of the AD&D DMG where it says that only strongly aligned creatures of at least 8th level will register on a detection spell...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on August 27, 2023, 09:56:24 AM
Quote from: Scooter on August 27, 2023, 09:26:17 AM
Quote from: Opaopajr on August 27, 2023, 08:29:40 AM
8) I'd also like to remind how difficult old TSR Detect Evil was to use upon "mere mortals" of the Prime Material Plane. You had to be a wholly devoted 9HD (9th lvl) creature -- in the middle of acting on evil intentions! -- to radiate an Evil aura for the spell. And even then it did not reveal alignment outright.
Detect Evil Cleric 1st level spell
"Explanation/Description: This is a spell which discovers emanations of evil, or of good in the case of the reverse spell, from any creature or object "
Now post the quote from page 60 of the AD&D DMG where it says that only strongly aligned creatures of at least 8th level will register on a detection spell...
Why don't you?
Quote from: Scooter on August 27, 2023, 10:08:20 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on August 27, 2023, 09:56:24 AM
Quote from: Scooter on August 27, 2023, 09:26:17 AM
Quote from: Opaopajr on August 27, 2023, 08:29:40 AM
8) I'd also like to remind how difficult old TSR Detect Evil was to use upon "mere mortals" of the Prime Material Plane. You had to be a wholly devoted 9HD (9th lvl) creature -- in the middle of acting on evil intentions! -- to radiate an Evil aura for the spell. And even then it did not reveal alignment outright.
Detect Evil Cleric 1st level spell
"Explanation/Description: This is a spell which discovers emanations of evil, or of good in the case of the reverse spell, from any creature or object "
Now post the quote from page 60 of the AD&D DMG where it says that only strongly aligned creatures of at least 8th level will register on a detection spell...
Why don't you?
Quote from: AD&D DMG
DETECTION OF EVIL AND/OR GOOD
It is important to make a distinction between character alignment and some powerful force of evil or good when this detection function is considered. In general, only a know alignment spell will determine the evil or good a character holds within. It must be a great evil or a strong good to be detected. Characters who are very strongly aligned, do not stray from their faith, and who are of relatively high level (at least 8th or higher) might radiate evil or good if they are intent upon appropriate actions. Powerful monsters such as demons, devils, ki-rin and the like will send forth emanations of their evil or good. Aligned undead must radiate evil, for it is this power and negative force which enables them to continue existing.
Note that none of these emanations are noticeable without magical detection.
Bolding mine.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on August 27, 2023, 12:29:34 PM
It is important to make a distinction between character alignment and some powerful force of evil or good when this detection function is considered. In general, only a know alignment spell will determine the evil or good a character holds within. It must be a great evil or a strong good to be detected. Characters who are very strongly aligned, do not stray from their faith, and who are of relatively high level (at least 8th or higher) might radiate evil or good if they are intent upon appropriate actions. Powerful monsters such as demons, devils, ki-rin and the like will send forth emanations of their evil or good. Aligned undead must radiate evil, for it is this power and negative force which enables them to continue existing.
Note that none of these emanations are noticeable without magical detection.
Bolding mine.
Thank you mucho
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 25, 2023, 11:48:57 AM
That depends on what the (n) is in reference to; lawfulness or evil? They could just as easily slide into NE.
(n) as in with neutral leanings. How AD&D sometimes notated it.
Was just one example of a possoble slide. Not the only one.