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.