Best alignment system.

Since D&D Alignment is schizo crap ....
What are the best alignment systems?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    People who post WoW shouldn't throw stones.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >WoW
      Jokes on you for me warcraft ended with Warcraft 3 I only use activision blizzard artwork to post my boy Guldan.

      WoW is not canon.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    good vs evil

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What exactly does hots have to do with alignment?

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    the question is always what do you want the system to do to enhance your game
    what is its purpose?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >the question is always what do you want the system to do to enhance your game
      >what is its purpose?
      Basically be something like this.

      Some characters can not use certain items.

      Whats this you burned children alive and washed yourself in the the blood of innocents?

      Yea you can not use this item.

      Whats this you did not burned children alive and did not washed yourself in the the blood of innocents?

      Yea you can not use this item.

      Gives some interesting things to the world.

      What exactly does hots have to do with alignment?

      >What exactly does hots have to do
      It is a cover picture.
      A neutral cover picture.

      what do you think of the alignment in Talisman?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I've not played talisman

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Give it a try.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'll add it to the list

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        sounds like you just want a bunch of tags for players to have
        they gain them (or lose them) from certain actions in play
        and they only matter when something checks to see if you have them
        you can even have players not start with any, and only gain them through play
        Cursed
        Blood-Sacrifice
        Demon-Worshiper
        Respected
        Holy Anointed
        etc
        they don't dictate behavior like alignments do, instead they are the tangible result of what you've done so far

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I wanted to see what others think.

          Yes I know talisman can literally replace
          Good with the word Apelio
          Neutral with word Zonata
          Evil with the word Yelina

          And nothing basically changes.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Alignments don't dictate anything. Alignment doesn't define character, character defines alignment.
          But yeah, it's a neat way to do what the anon suggested.
          Also, may be some of these tags might have extra limitations, like compatibilities

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not really a fan of any alignment system that isn't a reflection of what your character has actually done. So if I'm going to use a morality stat I want it to really be about what's happened in game and who my PC is and what they've done. On that front I think Chronicles of Darkness (nWoD2e) has the best set of them

    Each gameline has its own "Morality" stat and each function similarly but has it's own set of conditions, effects, and flavour to best sell the specific themes and tones of each splat. As a general rule they are rated from 10 to 0, you'll start at 7, and 10 represents the "good" side of the scale, and 0 the "bad". There will be a set of Breaking Points across the scale and when you do a thing that is a Breaking Point of equal or lower level than your Morality you risk losing a point. Typically it's hard to maintain a high Morality stat

    For example Vampire: The Requiem 2e has Humanity. This is about how well you can reconcile who you were with what you now are. I've included the full list of sample Breaking Points to give you an idea of the direction the mechanic has. It's not strictly about being good or evil, but it's about being human. As your Humanity drops you have a harder time relating to humans, you become more callous and jaded, and can eventually become an unreasoning monster. The further you drift the more sunlight hurts you, the worse other banes get, and the longer torpor lasts. Anything that makes you confront your vampiric nature will make you lose Humanity, whether you'd call the act "good" doesn't matter

    All the gamelines do things a little differently but I'm a really big fan of the mechanics for them all. I'd be happy to go over the others too, if anyone cares. Those would be Clarity for Changelings, Cover for Demons, Loyalty/Conviction for Deviants, Harmony for Werewolves, Integrity for Mortals/Hunters, Memory for Mummies, Pilgrimage for Prometheans, Stability for Deviants, Synergy for Sin-Eaters, and Wisdom for Mages

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Wisdom blows massive ass as far as the nWoD moral systems go. Humanity for vamps is great but the default list for humanity goes out of its way towards punishing wizards for ever using magic

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Oh yeah. Wisdom does megasuck. Wisdom's Conditions are cool but it lacks penalty otherwise. It's less interesting than base Integrity is.

        I'm not sure what Humanity has to do with wizards though. Unless you mean Blood Sorcerers. But even then that's just with Crúac but Crúac's whole thing is that it's deeply tied into the Beast. So, yeah. If you want to entreat you most inhuman aspects you're going to take some Humanity penalties at some point.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >I'd be happy to go over the others too, if anyone cares
      Please do, this is interesting

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Do you have a preference on where to start there?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Changelings, if you don't mind.
          Don't know much about WoD beside the basics, but this seem very revelant for a few projects of mine.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Damn, one I hadn't written about already. I'll get around to it in a little bit.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Oh, I'm interested about the others as well, feel free to start with thoses if you prefer. Thanks for your time, regardless!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I lied.

                Clarity is all about perception, Changelings are people who have been abducted by the Gentry (True Fae) to live in an Arcadian realm of their design and play roles in fairy tales. You'll have your form twisted, and power foisted upon you to play your role. At some point after all this abuse and trauma you'll escape from your keeper and travel through the borderlands between the mortal world and Arcadia. These lands are called the Hedge and it's a labyrinthine and often surreal place that doesn't conform to any rigid laws. The Hedge is as mutable as the lands of Arcadia are but they change based on who is in the Hedge and what it is they carry with them. Both physically and mentally. Because of all of this, the ability to trust what is is you are seeing is actually real is an important ability for a Changeling to possess. That is what Clarity reflects.

                Mechanically Clarity works very differently to the prior example of Humanity. It's not a track of 10-0 instead it's a secondary health track that's equal to your Wits + Composure. The Breaking Point math is now reversed because of this, small things give you less dice than big things and you want to fail on those rolls instead of succeed. It sounds like a nightmare in comparison to VtR but these are whole separate games so it's not really an issue. Clarity is your dice pool for "Kenning" which is an action you can take to sense magical effects in your area. If you have no Clarity damage you gain bonuses to Perception rolls, and you'll take penalties to Perception rolls for having lower Clarity too. When you start taking enough Clarity damage you'll gain certain "Conditions", which are things like Confused, Distracted, or Spooked. If it was severe damage than the condition is Persistent which are much harder to resolve. When you resolve a Condition you do heal 1 Clarity, or 2 if it was Persistent. If you max out on Clarity damage you'll become Comatose and get lost in your dreams.

                Pick another

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Do Demon next. I want to know the sort of ""morality"" a demon could have.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                So Cover next, and it's my fave. Demon: the Descent is a spy thriller, or more accurately it's techgnostic espionage. Demons are fallen angels, but these aren't biblical angels these are the robotic agents of the God-Machine. GM is an unknowably vast eldritch supercomputer that's working towards some inscrutable goal (lots of options for all that) and to achieve said goal it's constructing "Infrastructure". This Infrastructure is what demons seek to dismantle. You play as defected agents behind enemy lines on sabotage missions, and the GM is out to stop you. This is where Cover comes in. Your Cover is a human guise you take to avoid detection but the GM and its angels. Angels have these too, granted by the GM to help it further its given tasks, and your initial Cover is one the GM made for you. It bent reality to fit you in somewhere, it built you a life, of sorts, and that's what you take over after your Fall, with a few alterations like cutting it off from the GM. Essentially the human half of your Demon PC.

                We're back to a 10-0 scale but we've dropped Breaking Points. The rating of your Cover reflects how realistic it is, a low rating cover might live in Apartment 25 while the building should only have 24 or every outfit you own is the exact same outfit, high Cover will give you something more fleshed out and real. You can increase Cover by just meticulously living out your Cover's life and tricking reality into accepting you as more real than you are, or by dealing with mortals for bits of their soul. As this is a spy game you lose Cover by getting Compromised. People finding out about you, running into angels, dropping your Cover to take your true form all draw the GM's attention. If this goes badly you'll lose dots in Cover, but higher Cover makes this less likely to happen. You can also take on multiple Covers as you grow in power, or lose them altogether and be forced into your true form permanently. The other benefits would need a new post.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    OD&D's basic Law/Neutral/Chaos system is best

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Law/Neutral/Chaos
      Law and Chaos are schizo shit.
      So is Neutral.

      >OD&D's
      What is the difference to the standard
      Law/Neutral/Chaos
      and
      Good/Neutral/Evil

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Shin Megami Tensei's Law-Neutral-Chaos and Light-Neutral-Dark axes. LNC is how you view an ideal society. LND is how society views you. Light and Dark are only for those deeply revered or reviled and off limits for mere mortals.

      It's what you come up with after reading the spine text of a Moorwiener book without even checking its contents.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Thinking hard about it. D&D's nine alignment system works best.

        SMT's alignment is pretty gay.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on the genre/setting. For high fantasy, DnD alignments will do, the alternative way they've attempted with Paladin Oaths is also decent, if you really hate alignments.
    WoD's Nature/Demeanor system works for psychological and intrigue games.
    I like Unknown Armies 1-2 e. Obsession/ Fear/ Anger/ Noble system, works well for horror, may work for dark fantasy too. Unknown Armies also has the best fear/ sanity mechanics I've encountered in games so far.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The one I'm working on in my system:

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Copy past the TXT into Ganker.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's too big to fit into one post.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I think there is an issue: you list colourful floating rocks as attractive and then list a colourful crystal as "Alien"

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What's the point of this? How does it come up during gameplay? What mechanical implications does it have? What use is it for understanding one's standing in the universe?

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Just use the names of gods. Or of pantheons or whatever. Otherwise you get people confusing your alignment system for a morality system.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >your alignment system for a morality system.
      Fun fact the official D&D books are schizo garbage that has no connection to reality

      Chaotic Good
      >example Robin hood is chaotic good

      Remember kids ! If you are on a quest to RESTORE THE LAWFUL KING OF THE LAND you are chaotic !

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Robin Hood is first and foremost about stealing from the rich to give to the poor, standing up for the common folk, and defying the king's enforcers and tax collectors. The part about being a disgraced nobleman who seeks to re-establish his place in the Feudal hierarchy by supporting a rightful king in place of the unpopular usurper was added later.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Exactly. So he's a Lawful character, having a moral code and fighting against unjust rulers, and then a Lawful Neutral specifically when that becomes a thing.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >having a moral code and fighting against unjust rulers
            That's Good. A Lawful Neutral character would render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's. Robin Hood says, frick you, I don't care if you're the king, what you're doing is wrong because it hurts people and I'm going to do whatever it takes to foil your plans. That this involves restoring the rightful king just goes to show that Chaotic characters are able to cooperate with Lawful ones if their interests are aligned. But by your definition, anyone who shows loyalty or opposes injustice cannot be Chaotic. That's dumb.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Good came after, anon. In a single axis system he is Lawful. In a dual access system his is Lawful Neutral. Almost explicitly in the majority of cases.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Bitch, the whole reason they added the second axis was to recognise that "Good" is not synonymous with "Lawful". Robin Hood (in most incarnations) doesn't really care that Prince John is an illegitimate ruler, but that his taxes are an undue burden on a suffering populace. If it really was all about the proper line of succession not being followed, then Robin was under no obligation to risk his life for the peasantry. In fact, a Lawful Neutral character in that position wouldn't want to undermine the rule of law entirely by robbing tax collectors and fighting the Sheriff's men who are simply doing their job within an established hierarchy, since his beef would only be with the person at the top on account of succession law.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                But it did used to be synonymous with it, and then that definition was expanded upon in a way that still encapsulated Robin Hood. Then they added a new axis. And all that meant was that Robin Hood isn't default good now. But he's still Lawful because he still aligns himself with laws as mentioned in the succession argument that I don't care about, hierarchy as seen in the Merry Men, and is driven by his own personal code about how the world should be. That's lawful all the way down.

                Him being so opposed to unjust laws doesn't mean he's not lawful. You can't paint an alignment with such broad strokes because the alignment isn't that narrow. Undermining laws of the land is entirely within the scope of lawful because lawful isn't just about laws of the land. Personal codes of conduct and traditions also fall within its narrative scope. A character can not believe in any form of government and still entirely be lawful if they believe in self order and internal laws to follow. But Robin Hood also believes in governmental laws, just not the current ones, is also the leader of a band that has lieutenants and delegation instead of the chaotic total freedom of self, and has a strong internal code about how things should be and tries to impose that upon others through violence and the overthrowing of a government. He's a lawful as frick dude.

                He's not just doing whatever he pleases whenever he pleases. He's not letting other people do their own thing without trying to sway them. He doesn't think government has little role. He hasn't avoided authority. He isn't trying to shirk duty. And the reason for all of that is because he's not actually chaotic. If he was a chaotic character he'd be obviously aligned with all the things they're about. But he isn't, he's just against a current lawful establishment. But lawful characters aren't all on the same side and all believe in the same application of law.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Robin Hood doesn't give a shit about any law, just or unjust. He will freely lie and cheat and steal and sometimes even kill. He is an OUTLAW for a reason. To claim he is Lawful because he "opposes unjust laws" is pure sophistry. Pretty much everything can be Lawful according to you, and because it can be, it therefore is. Can anyone even be Chaotic?

                Also lmao at your desperate attempt to twist the band of Merry Men into a regimented militia.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Aw man, I thought we were actually going to have a conversation about his in good faith. If you wanna be a child about it and strawman instead of actually talking about what I'm saying you can count me out. Although I will say there is a reason he's not Lawful Good, dingus.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I thought we were actually going to have a conversation about his in good faith
                How could you think that when that requires good faith from you?
                >Although I will say there is a reason he's not Lawful Good
                Yes, it's because he's Chaotic Good.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Have a good day, anon.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I was going to give a more serious reply to this but for almost everything I just found myself saying "that's not Lawful" or "that's not Robin Hood".

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                If you say so, anon. I don't know what books you're reading though. But I would suggest you pick up OD&D, 3e, and 5e for alignment information (4e is a strange outlier doing a bit of its own thing) and just flick through some of the Child Ballads for Robin Hood. All that stuff is very much what those things are. You will see that in those things.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >But I would suggest you pick up OD&D, 3e, and 5e for alignment information
                I thought you relied only on the original definition of Law vs. Chaos?
                >and just flick through some of the Child Ballads for Robin Hood
                I thought you relied only on the modern interpretation of the character? There's not a lot in those ballads about "supporting the just and fair rule of law" but a lot of just robbing knights and clergy through violence and deceit.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Why bother replying to half read posts? Man, this place is going to shit.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Why bother talking about unread ballads?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                But it did used to be synonymous with it, and then that definition was expanded upon in a way that still encapsulated Robin Hood. Then they added a new axis. And all that meant was that Robin Hood isn't default good now. But he's still Lawful because he still aligns himself with laws as mentioned in the succession argument that I don't care about, hierarchy as seen in the Merry Men, and is driven by his own personal code about how the world should be. That's lawful all the way down.

                Him being so opposed to unjust laws doesn't mean he's not lawful. You can't paint an alignment with such broad strokes because the alignment isn't that narrow. Undermining laws of the land is entirely within the scope of lawful because lawful isn't just about laws of the land. Personal codes of conduct and traditions also fall within its narrative scope. A character can not believe in any form of government and still entirely be lawful if they believe in self order and internal laws to follow. But Robin Hood also believes in governmental laws, just not the current ones, is also the leader of a band that has lieutenants and delegation instead of the chaotic total freedom of self, and has a strong internal code about how things should be and tries to impose that upon others through violence and the overthrowing of a government. He's a lawful as frick dude.

                He's not just doing whatever he pleases whenever he pleases. He's not letting other people do their own thing without trying to sway them. He doesn't think government has little role. He hasn't avoided authority. He isn't trying to shirk duty. And the reason for all of that is because he's not actually chaotic. If he was a chaotic character he'd be obviously aligned with all the things they're about. But he isn't, he's just against a current lawful establishment. But lawful characters aren't all on the same side and all believe in the same application of law.

                Give an example of a character you consider obviously Chaotic Good, and another example of Lawful Neutral that isn't Robin Hood.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Pendragon's, no contest.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What's so good about it? I haven't read Pendragon

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Same here. Details please anon.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        NAYRT but Pendragon doesn't have an "alignment system" per se, but your character has a list of traits (chaste vs lustful, humble vs proud, etc) and passions (loyalty to the king, loyalty to your family, hatred towards the Saxons). These all scale and the closer you are to rank 20 in any of them the more your are driven by them.

  11. 1 year ago
    Smaugchad

    The nine D&D alignments are fine just as they are. However if YOU are schizo and can't handle playing a character with fairly simple morality, I suggest pdf related.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >The nine D&D alignments are fine just as they are
      Nope the 9 alignment idea is literally schizo crazy

      • 1 year ago
        Smaugchad

        >nuh-uh
        >yes-huh
        In the absence of any actual argument I'm just going to assume that you're one of those people who refuses to accept the idea that self-interest is called "Evil" in Dungeons & Dragons since they seem to represent the majority of people who have a problem with the 9 alignment system.

        This is not an attack by Gary Gygax from beyond the grave on your real life nor is it an anti-capitalism manifesto. It is simply a tool that developed organically for D&D style fantasy role playing.

        The game's roots are in player vs player wargaming where it was law vs chaos but all players were assumed to be "good guy" from their own perspective since the players did not represent individual people but rather a group of people pursuing their communal benefit.

        When the game made the quantum leap to being about individual characters with narrative mechanics, lawful and chaotic characters started to associate with one another so there needed to be a new axis that Gary perhaps foolishly decided to call "Good" (the PCs) vs "Evil" (the monsters) but it was only a few years before players wanted to create PCs who were "Evil" because people fricking love anti-heroes/sympathetic villains. It's just the same type of people who ran chaotic armies in the early 70s.

        You could keep adding more and more axes and dimensions to the system to your heart's desire but Gary decided that no frick that, two dimensions is enough and it truly is for the purposes of D&D style fantasy role playing.

        I do like the sound of what

        13th age builds upon gygaxian alignment in a way that makes its network of axis 4 dimensional.

        The dm sets up a zodiac of 13 iconic characters. The icons have a disposition to your character ( Positive, Neutral, Negative) based on where you lot stand on the traditional alignment system and race relations. You get three points to spend on bonds to these iconic characters. You can choose to have an Allied, Conflicted or Hostile relationship.

        Instead of being a neutral good murder hobo you Like The Pope, Hate the Lich King and have a conflicted on again off again relationship with The Thieves Guild.

        After a full rest you roll your alignment dice and your relationships are improv'd into directly effecting the plot, sometimes. This is where the game usually awards magic items.

        is describing here though and I agree that this seems like the next logical step beyond the 9 grid while also preemptively solving many problems, the vast majority of which are semantic or to a lesser extent setting-specific

        >I'm not evil, I'm just aligned with the bankers union and a soul sucking demon from hell - but I also love puppies, teehee!

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >In the absence of any actual argument
          defend the official books defining robin hood as chaotic good.

          FYI Robin Hood was on a mission to restore the LAWFUL king of the land.

          What is most moronic is Chaos VS Law.

          >In the absence of any actual argument
          How about what I posted?
          That lawful VS chaos makes ZERO sense!

          And the books are self contradicting schizo crap if it comes to this subject.

          >that you're one of those people who refuses to accept the idea that self-interest is called "Evil"
          > on your real life nor is it an anti-capitalism manifesto.
          WTF are you even talking about at this point?!
          My point is that D&D Alignment is insane, the rules make no god damn sense, it only hinders any communication or discussion and if you are one of these gayots who insist on playing 3e the schizo interpretation of what alignment is by the GM can have in game impacts.

          >Gary Gygax
          Gary Gygax is actually a schizo everything he made up is moronic and what makes D&D bad.

          > call "Good" (the PCs) vs "Evil"
          No one sees a problem with having good and evil in your game.
          The point is that D&D has Chaos VS Law and this is nonsense.

          Evil characters see nothing wrong in setting children on fire and thing torturing babies is a great hobby, good characters disagree.

          • 1 year ago
            Smaugchad

            You're ranting. Law vs Chaos is even easier to understand than Good vs Evil. Lawful means believing that organization and explicit method is optimal while Chaotic means believing that freedom to act impulsively on a case by case basis is optimal.

            Which circles us right back around to Robin Hood breaking the long standing laws of the land against brigandry to diminish the power of the legal regent because of the specific circumstances.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Lawful means believing that organization and explicit method is optimal while Chaotic means believing that freedom to act impulsively on a case by case basis is optimal.
              Yes like I was saying schizo crap.

              >freedom
              This is literally nonsense.

              >freedom
              Because you can not be pro freedom and obey the law ????

              > Lawful means believing that organization and
              Debunked.
              Then you arrive at
              >Law = having a personal code.
              And you then are pushed into accepting that the joker is lawful evil since he never broke his code; the code "to do always what is funny" (it makes sense in his head).

              And then you are forced into only taking legitimate nut cases and absolute morons as chaotic. However then you b***h and moan that "this is not what it means to be chaotic the D&D book says chaos =/= insane ...." and then we arrive at what the living frick it means to be chaotic?!

              >Which circles us right back around to Robin Hood
              This will be priceless.

              >Robin Hood breaking the long standing laws
              Here is the best part he did not.
              The government he was fighting was not legitimate. And after the correct government was established the correct and lawful government declared all his actions legal.

              It's almost like alignment is meant to describe behavior (robbing from the rich and giving to the poor) not internal motivation (that thing nobody but nerds and/or pendants know about Robin Hood)

              Even if we don't make it about D&D, Prince John was the legal acting regent in Richard's absence and was legal heir to the throne after his death both historically and fictionally. Just because in Robin Hood's universe John assassinated Richard doesn't alter the laws of succession and just because the league of barons were the good guys doesn't make their rebellion legal.

              >that thing nobody but nerds
              See above.

              The reason why I bring up Robin Hood is that it literally breaks any D&D alignment gay. You can cry nerd all day however the fact is that the morons writing these D&D books did not give a shit to this level that they wrote in Robin Hood as an example.

              This breaks you.
              The book also says that Darth Vader is Lawful evil.
              You try to defend this one however it is had.
              Clearly D&D WOTC thinks that
              >Assaulting your (Superior ???) officers is Lawful
              >>>>I find your lack of faith disturbing

              >Killing your subordinates for the most trivial shit is lawful

              >Planing to assassinate your superior in Lawful
              >

              [...]

              Luke we can kill the emperor and rule the galaxy together
              1/2

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                2/2
                Whoever wrote this garbage clearly did not give a shit or was working on the most telephone game version of Star Wars or he was a schizo.
                >laws of succession
                Fun fact regicide happened and you can look up how that worked in real history.

                And you can see this all over the place in real history.

                Best example assassinating Hitler.
                There where multiple attempts to assassinate Hitler. The people who tried where found, put on trial and found guilty and killed since
                >Herp Derp killing is wrong and a crime

                While
                The facts are simple now that nazi Germany is debunked these """"criminals""""" are celebrated as heroes.

                There are countless examples of this in history.
                If D&D was sane it acknowledge this and literally say that if you oppose the laws of this land you are standing in you get changed to having the property chaotic and there are consequences for this in game play (like in talisman) however D&D is going 100% schizo by literally posting schizo crap and not explaining anything. No one fricken knows what chaotic means.

                While talking to D&D gays this is how literally everyone feels like

                ?t=13

                >What qualifies as a visit?
                The restaurant lady is insane since she keeps talking about it yet never explains it
                >Do I need to leave the premises?
                No answer.
                >is it time based?
                No answer.

                However D&D gays will go the extra mile to be ultra insane in nonsensical arguments.

                PS: D&D is unbelievable garbage.

                >Oh look you debunked how shit the official books are.
                >THAT MAKES YOU A NEEEEERRRRRDDDDDD

                How about you acknowledge that whoever writes this garbage is clearly crap?

              • 1 year ago
                Smaugchad

                2/2
                Whoever wrote this garbage clearly did not give a shit or was working on the most telephone game version of Star Wars or he was a schizo.
                >laws of succession
                Fun fact regicide happened and you can look up how that worked in real history.

                And you can see this all over the place in real history.

                Best example assassinating Hitler.
                There where multiple attempts to assassinate Hitler. The people who tried where found, put on trial and found guilty and killed since
                >Herp Derp killing is wrong and a crime

                While
                The facts are simple now that nazi Germany is debunked these """"criminals""""" are celebrated as heroes.

                There are countless examples of this in history.
                If D&D was sane it acknowledge this and literally say that if you oppose the laws of this land you are standing in you get changed to having the property chaotic and there are consequences for this in game play (like in talisman) however D&D is going 100% schizo by literally posting schizo crap and not explaining anything. No one fricken knows what chaotic means.

                While talking to D&D gays this is how literally everyone feels like

                ?t=13

                >What qualifies as a visit?
                The restaurant lady is insane since she keeps talking about it yet never explains it
                >Do I need to leave the premises?
                No answer.
                >is it time based?
                No answer.

                However D&D gays will go the extra mile to be ultra insane in nonsensical arguments.

                PS: D&D is unbelievable garbage.

                >Oh look you debunked how shit the official books are.
                >THAT MAKES YOU A NEEEEERRRRRDDDDDD

                How about you acknowledge that whoever writes this garbage is clearly crap?

                from the rich and giving to the poor
                code of ethics he abides by
                >>ah yes, chaos
                >Are you okay?
                This is why law VS chaos is so moronic.

                If Law = >internal code of ethics he abides by
                Then about everyone is Lawful.

                > I have only 1 rule /i watch out for myself and place myself first

                Do you fricken know how many evil characters can say that?

                What even is chaos then?????

                To go back to star wars, the jedi code is clearly self contradicting crap. Only unlike D&D shit it can be used for fun or you know ROLE PLAYING.

                Because you can use the jedi code to justify about everything if you can bullshit and quote enough.

                Or how about a more explicit example
                Star Trek the rules of acquisition

                >34 War is good for business.
                And
                >35 Peace is good for business

                ?t=117

                D&D is so shot that it can not be an accident these must be some hones to god result of some super schizophrenia.

                >Everything I do not like IN THE OFFICIAL D&D BOOKS is a typo
                At this point we have to ask the D&D gay why is he even playing D&D? Or if he ignores the official books why not make up his own game?

                No seriously why?

                D&D is good for one thing, to be a containment brand for all the schizos and frick ups.

                >Anyway I just think of it as something like:
                > I just think of it
                > I

                I quote myself.
                >At this point we have to ask the D&D gay why is he even playing D&D? Or if he ignores the official books why not make up his own game?

                >No seriously why?

                Why are you even reading these books then?
                >My interpretation of this is...
                WTF? is D&D the modern art of games or what?!

                >My interpretation of this is...
                How about you give us your interpretation of what 10 - 7 is ? A game SYSTEM should be CLEAR.

                Damn. Look at him go.

                Reminder that ALL OF THIS is over literally one word ("personal" in the phrase "personal code of conduct") being inadequately clear in third edition's definition of Lawful Neutral

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                But every D&D game's description of Lawful puts Robin Hood as Lawful. Just and fair laws are what they're about. And Robin Hood's whole reason for existing is that the laws are not just and fair.

              • 1 year ago
                Smaugchad

                Lawful Evil is an alignment, Anon.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >he doesn't know good/evil are newer additions
                Ah, you're just stupid. I see.

              • 1 year ago
                Smaugchad

                Even by OD&D's one dimensional Law-Chaos axis, Robin Hood is Chaotic. Since he is the protagonist, he is just presumed to be Good and the antagonist, Prince John is presumed to be Evil.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Even by OD&D's one dimensional Law-Chaos axis, Robin Hood is Chaotic

                >Gygax
                >Doesn't ever define them only implies heroism
                So Robin Hood shit by default.

                >Holmes
                >Lawful characters always act according to a highly regulated code of behavior, whether for good or evil
                Robin Hood shit. And more personal codes of conduct that definitely aren't a thing.

                >Moldvay
                >Law (or Lawful) is the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life. Lawful creatures will try to tell the truth, obey laws, and care about all living things. Lawful characters always try to keep their promises. They will try to obey laws as long as such laws are fair and just.
                >If a choice must be made between the benefit of a group or an individual, a Lawful character will usually choose the group. Sometimes individual freedoms must be given up for the good of the group. Lawful characters and monsters often act in predictable ways. Lawful behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called “good.”
                Robin Hood shit. His whole deal is that the laws are unjust and so he disobeys them for the common good and to assert of rule of law that is fair and just.

                >Mentzer
                >Same as Moldvay
                Robin Hood shit.

                Would you look at that? Smaug still doesn't know frick all. Wild.

              • 1 year ago
                Smaugchad

                Gygax defines them quite eloquently in the AD&D DMG, Perhaps his single most artful work.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                AD&D isn't OD&D. You're going to put your back out moving the goal posts so many times.

              • 1 year ago
                Smaugchad

                >Robin Hood always acts according to a highly regulated code of behavior
                >Robin Hood believes that obeying rules is the natural way of life

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Herp derp
                >Why everyone angry over change of
                >Thou shalt not commit adultery
                >to
                >Thou shalt commit adultery

                >It is like 1 word "not"

                Thank god D&D exist to contain these morons away from real games,

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The part that's "schizo crap" is the entire concept of an objective cosmic grid of moral alignment. D&D's implementation isn't actually the problem.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >The part that's "schizo crap" is the entire concept of an objective cosmic grid of moral alignment
      No it is not.

      Check out how easy every fictional character fits if you simplify it to Evil VS GOOD.

      What is schizo shit is D&Ds Chaos VS Law

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    13th age builds upon gygaxian alignment in a way that makes its network of axis 4 dimensional.

    The dm sets up a zodiac of 13 iconic characters. The icons have a disposition to your character ( Positive, Neutral, Negative) based on where you lot stand on the traditional alignment system and race relations. You get three points to spend on bonds to these iconic characters. You can choose to have an Allied, Conflicted or Hostile relationship.

    Instead of being a neutral good murder hobo you Like The Pope, Hate the Lich King and have a conflicted on again off again relationship with The Thieves Guild.

    After a full rest you roll your alignment dice and your relationships are improv'd into directly effecting the plot, sometimes. This is where the game usually awards magic items.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    A small minority of Good vs Evil, Law vs Chaos, with the majority being Neutral fence sitting, self obsessed and easliy influenced twats stuck in the middle. If you can't understand this, you probably wont get any other system.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >If you can't understand this
      I'm still waiting for a moronic D&D gay to even try to defend the official books defining robin hood as chaotic good.

      FYI Robin Hood was on a mission to restore the LAWFUL king of the land.

      D&D books say he is chaotic.

      >I'm a neutrality gay
      Every time.

      Neutral gays are the worst morons imaginable. The word neutral should be banned from any alignment to destroy these gayots.

      • 1 year ago
        Smaugchad

        It's almost like alignment is meant to describe behavior (robbing from the rich and giving to the poor) not internal motivation (that thing nobody but nerds and/or pendants know about Robin Hood)

        Even if we don't make it about D&D, Prince John was the legal acting regent in Richard's absence and was legal heir to the throne after his death both historically and fictionally. Just because in Robin Hood's universe John assassinated Richard doesn't alter the laws of succession and just because the league of barons were the good guys doesn't make their rebellion legal.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >robbing from the rich and giving to the poor
          >internal code of ethics he abides by
          >ah yes, chaos
          Are you okay?

          • 1 year ago
            Smaugchad

            As it is often necessary to point out time and time again in these threads, having an internal code of ethics is not what Lawfulness is about. It is about outward action, which is what drives the game of Dungeons & Dragons as it was designed to be played. There are other games to play if you want to intensely scrutinize your characters motivations and inner experience. D&D is about having adventures, winning loot and leveling up.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >having an internal code of ethics is not what Lawfulness is about
              >A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her.

              • 1 year ago
                Smaugchad

                That's a typo

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Everything I do not like IN THE OFFICIAL D&D BOOKS is a typo
                At this point we have to ask the D&D gay why is he even playing D&D? Or if he ignores the official books why not make up his own game?

                No seriously why?

                D&D is good for one thing, to be a containment brand for all the schizos and frick ups.

              • 1 year ago
                Smaugchad

                To specifically address what I take to be your conclusion here in this post, yes. It is my discretion as DM to interpret any and all rules as I see fit. I personally try to make things consistent and concrete and in this case it is objectively more consistent and concrete to interpret the phrase "personal code of conduct" as meaning one that is explicitly stated and consistently adhered to. People interpreting it otherwise has quite literally driven you to the brink of madness so you should be thanking me.

                A game with as broad a collection of rules as D&D is going to be somewhat contradictory sometimes - especially in mechanics that predate the keyword/stack WotC game design philosophy. Arbitrating the rules is why there needed to be a DM in the first place rather instead of just a Fighting Fantasy choose your own adventure book.

                For your own sake please don't ever try to play Second Edition. If the contradictions in Third make you this nuts you would certainly have an aneurysm.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                However why are you playing D&D and not making up your own game at this point???

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                an internal code of ethics is not what Lawfulness is about
                >>A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her.
                LOL the D&D books are self contradictory like that.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Not that I disagree, but only one of those is from a book. The other is Smaug being a moron.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            from the rich and giving to the poor
            code of ethics he abides by
            >>ah yes, chaos
            >Are you okay?
            This is why law VS chaos is so moronic.

            If Law = >internal code of ethics he abides by
            Then about everyone is Lawful.

            > I have only 1 rule /i watch out for myself and place myself first

            Do you fricken know how many evil characters can say that?

            What even is chaos then?????

            To go back to star wars, the jedi code is clearly self contradicting crap. Only unlike D&D shit it can be used for fun or you know ROLE PLAYING.

            Because you can use the jedi code to justify about everything if you can bullshit and quote enough.

            Or how about a more explicit example
            Star Trek the rules of acquisition

            >34 War is good for business.
            And
            >35 Peace is good for business

            ?t=117

            D&D is so shot that it can not be an accident these must be some hones to god result of some super schizophrenia.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Okay?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Neutral can mean the person isnt really that bothered about being really lawful, chaotic, good or evil all the time, They just tend to do their own thing and do little acts of law/chaos/good and evil as opportunities present themselves. Like most people really. Only extremists (from the neutral persons point of view) actually go out of their way to be Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic all the time, often to their own detriment.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No alignment system is the best alignment system.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Alignment is not a good way of judging characters, if an item or magic would affect alignment it should just be up to the dm to decide and be obscured

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    D&D's alignment system is fine when used as intended. Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are all real things that manifest in the world and a character's alignment represents their *alignment* with those forces. Alignment isn't a personality, it's a reflection of how a character's personality and actions map onto the order of the cosmos.
    That said, D&D alignment is written specifically for the assumed cosmology and really ought to be presented in an abstract form then realized into Law/Chaos and Good/Evil axes so GMs who wish to have do away with the rather shallow default system and implement a more complicated system have guidelines to work with that mesh well with the rules.

    • 1 year ago
      Smaugchad

      Check out what

      13th age builds upon gygaxian alignment in a way that makes its network of axis 4 dimensional.

      The dm sets up a zodiac of 13 iconic characters. The icons have a disposition to your character ( Positive, Neutral, Negative) based on where you lot stand on the traditional alignment system and race relations. You get three points to spend on bonds to these iconic characters. You can choose to have an Allied, Conflicted or Hostile relationship.

      Instead of being a neutral good murder hobo you Like The Pope, Hate the Lich King and have a conflicted on again off again relationship with The Thieves Guild.

      After a full rest you roll your alignment dice and your relationships are improv'd into directly effecting the plot, sometimes. This is where the game usually awards magic items.

      wrote about how 13th age does it. It falls squarely between the Gygaxian systems and my ever-less-facetious suggestion of using the entire Tarot.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Alignment isn't a personality, it's a reflection of how a character's personality and actions map onto the order of the cosmos.
      WOW it is like reading a schizo post.

      >That said, D&D alignment is written specifically for the assumed cosmology and really ought to be presented in an abstract form then realized into
      Take your meds

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The one autist ranting about alignments and calling everything they dislike schizo/moronic is truly a Ganker moment lmao.

    Anyway I just think of it as something like: Selfless vs Selfish, Composed vs Impulsive, Consistent vs ... Inconsistent, I guess.
    Tho some of the suggestions and mentions here are interesting for both theory and gameplay.

    • 1 year ago
      Smaugchad

      I like how his argument ultimately boiled down to being very angry about the one word "personal" in one (third) edition's definition of "Lawful" that has legitimately been used to justify schizo interpretations of Lawfulness. I've seen it happen myself. The rule was INTENDED to mean a "personal (explicit, consistent) code of conduct" but they really should have just left that word "personal" completely out since I agree it's caused an exceptional amount of confusion over the last couple decades.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Oh you actually weren't kidding with the type reply. I thought you had a moment of clarity. How foolish.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Anyway I just think of it as something like:
      > I just think of it
      > I

      I quote myself.
      >At this point we have to ask the D&D gay why is he even playing D&D? Or if he ignores the official books why not make up his own game?

      >No seriously why?

      Why are you even reading these books then?
      >My interpretation of this is...
      WTF? is D&D the modern art of games or what?!

      >My interpretation of this is...
      How about you give us your interpretation of what 10 - 7 is ? A game SYSTEM should be CLEAR.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The Special Unitary group of order three, SU(3), is the superior eight-fold way of organization for alignments, magic, particles etc. We can use it for the eight colors of the RBG, red, blue and green plus Anti-red, Anti-blue, Anti-green - or as we know them better, cyan, yellow and magenta, and then black and white at the center.

    The position of each object in the hexagon tells you how much they have of a certain kind of quark, color, etc. The reason this pattern arises in so many different places is a question of symmetry. Whenever you have combinations of three degrees of freedom in groups of three, and two of those combinations are neutral, like black and white for example, you get this mathematical structure.

    This symmetry is baked into the laws of physics and there it manifests as the Strong Force, but SU(3) is free to appear in many other contexts, like the behavior of the colour receptors in our eyes.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >I limit myself to human visible colors
      Pathetic.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    FROM THE SLUMS OF SHAOLIN
    WU-TANG CLAN STRIKES AGAIN

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      word is bond

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Don't slap it on there as a vague detail. Alignment, if you're using it at all, should communicate something about your campaign setting. Law/Chaos was conceived as a meaningful dichotomy, not just a mood ring (not that it was ever presented especially well).

    Good examples of alignment use separate from D&D's axes are 13th Age, where it's essentially how you stand (both positively and negatively) with some of the major factions or individuals of the setting; and Fantasy Craft, which I'll post an excerpt from in a moment when I get back to my desktop.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/crMmnl7.jpg

      Since D&D Alignment is schizo crap ....
      What are the best alignment systems?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Look kids human cancer:
      >Law/Chaos was conceived as a
      Translation:
      >I presume Law/Chaos are even coherent or possible positions
      Yea news flash kid they are not the are schizo crap that makes no sense and is impossible.
      >Law/Chaos was conceived as a
      This is how you start drama over schizo crap.

      People explained to you why alignment and Law/Chaos are impossible nonsense yet you continue to pretend they make sense.

      > where it's essentially how you stand (both positively and negatively)
      It is called reality. Shocking there are factions you will be pro and not in the real world. In other news fire is hot !

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Man, I hope this is some Andy Kaufman-tier farce, because...damn.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >schizo crap

    What I see here is a good-faith effort to engage in intellectual discussion. Move along.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >good-faith
      Opinion discarded.

      Whoever uses "good-faith" un ironically is moronic.

      >to engage in intellectual discussion.
      Why?
      We do not debate what is smaller an elephant or an ant. Most people realize it on their own.

      There are only people who did not know this and we are giving them the information and fricked in the head people who literally are immune to all reason and logic.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >best
    >alignment
    Cheese on fricking rice, just make some actual fricking characters.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Spending a couple of hours thinking over a personality of a character you want to play in a campaign you haven't yet entered, in a party you don't yet know, in a game you haven't yet had a taste of, that may get killed off, or turn out actually boring, or not really fit, is a waste of time and effort, especially if you aren't really into creative writing, and just want to play the fricking game. So, some shortcuts to model basic personality and behaviour principles to stick to are a good thing. And this is what alignments and all sorts of other personality systems in other games are for. To simply define the way your character is supposed to behave.

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    ...Apropos of nothing: consider getting a carbon monoxide detector and check your house for a bedbug infestation. They can make you go crazy and are actually a lot more likely than other sources of psychosis.

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Dicks, Pussies, and buttholes.

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No alignments whatsoever
    >b-but
    None.

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Also bump because everyone should see how moronic the anon posting about schizo is. Like damn son.

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Chaotic: Your motivation stems from personal interest, and you act in ways that benefit you, even if it means going against moral tenets or principles. You remain skeptical of any truth or benefit that contradicts your own beliefs. As a cynic, you have no set principles to follow, and what you deem as right is simply whatever you can achieve. Your behavior can often resemble that of a wild beast, making you unpredictable and dangerous.

    Lawful: You prioritize the social order and adhere to your own principles and codes of conduct. If a conflict arises between the two, you choose the collective over personal beliefs. You believe that the well-being of many outweighs that of a few, and that true righteousness and justice stem from the institution of society, civic duty, and personal discipline. In situations where the greater good is not under threat, you may act selfishly.

    Rebel: You never put the good of the many above the good of the few because you believe that righteousness can’t be legitimate without voluntary sacrifice. You believe that justice can only be achieved through the actions and choices of free individuals. You are willing to sacrifice yourself to protect your beliefs and others who cannot protect themselves. You prioritize individualism over the law, believing that laws exist to serve individuals rather than the other way around.

    Selfless: You prioritize the well-being of others over your own and believe that personal sacrifice is necessary for righteousness and justice. You are altruistic and detached from materialism and personal passions, viewing individuals as conduits for something greater. You see laws and institutions as mere extensions of individuals, no more relevant to the grand scheme of reality than the people who created them.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Tyrant: You believe that the ends justify the means, with power as your ultimate goal. The interests of the many always take precedence over those of the few because you, or those who share your vision, dictate the interests of the many. Others are simply tools for achieving the greater good, which is the protection and increase of your power. You prioritize uniformity of ideas, obedience of actions, and submission of will.

      Zealot: Your principles, beliefs, and codes take precedence over everything else, including your own self. Your code shapes your actions, beliefs, and motivations, and you act selflessly to protect your code and its ideals. Your code is both your ends and means, and your faith in its honor drives you. Protecting this circular truth is your main purpose in life, often at the expense of other goals.

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Richard left political authority in England—the post of justiciar—jointly in the hands of Bishop Hugh de Puiset and William de Mandeville, 3rd Earl of Essex, and made William Longchamp, the Bishop of Ely, his chancellor. Mandeville immediately died, and Longchamp took over as joint justiciar with Puiset, which would prove a less than satisfactory partnership. Eleanor, the queen mother, convinced Richard to allow John into England in his absence.
    >The political situation in England rapidly began to deteriorate. Longchamp refused to work with Puiset and became unpopular with the English nobility and clergy. John exploited this unpopularity to set himself up as an alternative ruler with his own royal court, complete with his own justiciar, chancellor and other royal posts, and was happy to be portrayed as an alternative regent, and possibly the next king.
    Hot take: King Richard left the lands in chaos, so Prince John was the Lawful alternative.

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I really liked the way Divinity Original Sin 2(ha ha yes a video game) handled it. You didn't really have an 'alignment', you had tags that defined who you were and how people reacted to you, and gained/lost these tags based on what you did. As an example, early on you can get the 'Hero' tag by being honest, giving up extremely useful loot(a ring that lets you cast a healing spell) to convince a woman to reunite with her father.
    By contrast, the 'Villain' tag required you to murder any three innocent people, lie, cheat, and do monstrous things like EAT SOULS to get it.
    The unfortunate thing is that this system wasn't expanded upon in the game, and that some of its uses that did exist weren't great. As an example, each character started with anywhere from 2-3 tags; one for their race, one for their origin(unless you picked a custom character), and one for their aspiration(a bad word for it, but basically how they act; are they a savage, someone who's very funny, very focused/calm and concerned with the arcane, etc).
    I'd love to see a TTRPG using this system, though. It's deceptively simple.

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    alignment is fine for beginners, as it's a concise summary of how your character thinks society ought to be, and the manner in which they interact with others. once you're good enough at roleplay to feel constrained by alignment you can just kind of shed it

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Shedding moral constraints? Sounds like a fine start to a villainous path.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *