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.