Chaos and Law make no sense whatsoever. And the the alternative are not good at all.
MTGs color system is deeply problematic bordering on nonsense like
>Black is not le evil
However the most bullshit has to be green because it is all about big monsters.
>Like big monsters ? Frick you ! You must also love the forest and shit !
>What do you mean the biggest creatures live in the ocean ???
>What do you mean black can create undead abominations who are bigger then anything ?
>That does not count !
> *cries itself to sleep*
Making psychological profiles is outside the
>Le lets make evil VS chaos and good Vs evil LE
Setting.
Okay, what do we need to do in order to fix this? Can we fix this in the mediums you're talking about, and if not, what can we do in future mediums we create?
>Okay, what do we need to do in order to fix this?
This is not fixable not in the way you think. Human psychology is not something you can force to fix.
MTG is less offensive since it is like a Netflix VS Disney+ Subscription some spells and in one of these categories and that how it works. Do not take it serious for psychology.
>t, what can we do in future mediums we create?
Stop making shitty psychology in your games.
It would be like you making 2+2 = 5 however 3 + 1 =7 There is no going around.
>mediums we create?
Either make something like the gemstone magic system. Or 40K where you describe a typical guy from a faction and a guideline how to behave.
Notice that no one debates how a imperial will react to tau in 40K. Chaotic Evil ? Who the frick knows no one can agree.
Holy shit man what the hell are you sperging about?
chaos and law make perfect sense, chaotic individuals don't care about ramifications, and law tries to maintain order to keep those greater arching issues in check
>chaos and law make perfect sense
They do not.
The manual says that Robbin Hood is chaotic good.
Because wanting to return the lawful king of the land to power scream CHAOS everyone ! I swear you make something more sane then D&D alignment if you gave a crazy hobo crack and started writing what he thinks.
That doesn't mean chaos and order aren't real. It just means whoever wrote that didn't understand Robin Hood
the popular archetype of robin hood is “steal from rich, give to poor, strike at the authority figure that screwed you”, which is chaotic good
More like the pop culture caricature.
>popular archetype
>More like the pop culture caricature.
...yeah that's the same thing
>The manual says that Robbin Hood is chaotic good.
The dude was willing to break the law and usurp his immediate structure of power, in the intent to point out the illegitimacy of the governing body, rather than substitute it for his own.
It's a perfect example. You're just a pseudointellectual homosexual.
This entire thread reads like you tried to play some character acting out of alignment, got veto'd by the GM, and got butthurt about it.
>tHiS vIdEo aRgUeS tHe oPpOsItE
Who gives a frick what some fan theorist thinks?
>Because wanting to return the lawful king of the land to power
Except that Prince John was in fact the lawful ruler of the land and the Sheriff of Nottingham was in fact the lawful sheriff. Of Nottingham. Everything Prince John did was completely legal. He still called himself "prince", didn't he? He didn't try to usurp Richard's throne, he simply ruled England while Richard was away, as Richard literally appointed him to do.
Within that context, yeah, Robin Hood is completely chaotic. He's going against the rightfully-appointed ruler of the land, the ruler's completely legitimate subordinate, and their completely legitimate authority.
It’s funny because Richard didn’t even speak English or consider being “King of England” one of his important holdings but a source of revenue for the rest of his holding and crusading. He’s like the absent father the minds still love for some reason even if he raided their piggy bank.
Probably because he had balls of steel.
Jumping off his ship, wading into battle without his armour and not only living, but crushing the enemy, goes a long way.
Medieval people considered that a king's job was first and foremost to kick the living shit out of people they didn't like.
Besides, every good Christian circa the 1200's knows that God will smile on your charges for killing heathens.
Most admini8stration of the realm was defaulted to local proxies anyway.
>chaotic individuals don't care about ramifications,
Contradicted by the manual.
And chaotic characters do not suicide walk themselves into town guards in battles to the death. So your point is debunked.
>chaotic individuals don't care about ramifications, and law tries to maintain order to keep those greater arching issues in check
That's not what those things mean at all.
HYTNPDND? Honestly, it might actually be too advanced for you.
>OP is autistic
many such cases.
>this shitty bait thread
>again
>still doesn't even understand Green
doesn't even understand Green
Try to explain.
White = Collectivism
Black - individualism
Blue = intelligence
Green = "I LIKE BIG MONSTERS"
Exactly. "I like big monsters" is an out of place outlook that would require wilfully misunderstanding or outright moronation to earnestly list it alongside others.
The thread is bait because you've started from a faulty premise and are parading around how faulty your understanding is.
>The thread is bait because you've started from a faulty premise and are parading around how faulty your understanding is.
There are videos and official materials who say this.
>wilfully misunderstanding
Then what is it ?
This is wrong.
White: Order
Blue: Perfection
Black: Ambition
Red: Passion
Green: Harmony
Taken to its logical conclusion, Green represents tradition, stagnation, conservatism, opposition to change, determinism and the natural order. A lot of this is folded into White because it's easier to depict Green as mindless monsters and wilderness. However, almost every Green-focused society in Magic the Gathering's lore is intensely traditional and reveres what it considers to be the natural order - the way things always have been and always should be.
Why would anyone chose anything other then black ?
Black = individualism.
While = collectivism.
Green = accept your destiny (AKA collectivism by another name).
>choosing just one color
How does one properly roleplay orzhov?
With a lot of hand rubbing.
An idiot made that chart
This.
Azorius, Simic, and Izzet are correct.
Golgari are the people willing to do 'dirty jobs' since someone needs to do them. Dimir aren't emo kids because emo is about attention-seeking (Dimir are closer to the school shooters). Rakdos are Chaotic-moron. Gruul are your NEETs. Selesnya are stinky communists who also have a horde of deer ready to stomp your shit. Orzhov are semi-correct, but if you don't pay your taxes you'll just get law magic'd after death.
Look to the proper order of society as an opportunity for your own advancement.
The more you look into it the more bullshit all of it sounds since non of these things are exclusive except white and green.
Blue = study and knowledge
Black = individuality
Red = going first and being honest.
So you can not be an individualist who studies magic and rushes into things ?
Why not be all of them?
Blue is specifically about studying knowledge for its own sake, btw, but an ambitious frankenstein type could easily be UBR
just one color
This is the point 3 different people can look at someone and see
mono black
mono blue
mono red
or a combination of all these things
Yeah, an individual's color identity can change. Sarkhan Vol has been R, RB, RG, and RUG at different points.
Color identity is also broad. Red covers aspects such as freedom, creativity, passion, chaos, and impulsiveness, but that doesn't mean every Red creature is equally all of those aspects.
What MTG morality is spiderman ?
Basically
You're also talking about a character that's been around for decades and depicted with multiple versions under a variety of writers and directors, so it'd be very easy for someone to pull up examples to argue for a different color identity.
>with multiple versions under a variety of writers and directors
Here is the thing pick ONE movie or TV show and do that. I like to see. And then ask yourself if not another classification is also possible.
Yes, a long running animated series will cover a broad spectrum of potential color combinations.
This shouldn't be surprising, given Sarkhan Vol went from Red to Blue/Red/Green within the same MtG block, and was mono-Red again by his next appearance.
Is the complaint that dynamic characters exist, or just that different people might have different opinions about the significance of character traits?
>Yes, a long running animated series
Pick 1 movie then.
>Is the complaint that dynamic characters exist
More like the colors mean nothing and anyone an interpret a different color into the same actions.
Lets see spider-man 2.
What color is spiderman there ?
Black because he is alone ?
White because he protects his city ?
Blue because he is intelligent ?
The fact you think someone being alone is enough to qualify as Black just confirms that I was right about this being a bait thread. Have a nice day, and hopefully someday you'll stop pretending to be moronic.
I see absolutely seething.
You are genuinely too moronic to understand the lore for a card game made for children. Go play with finger paints or something.
LOL imagine thinking "lore for a card game made for children" is valuable and not crap.
>Go play with finger paints or something.
I rather read on moral philosophy.
red, white, and blue
Cuz he's american
>Why not be all of them?
Because it is vague BS like in horoscopes.
Still better then D&D alignment.
All alignment systems are vague BS. That's a feature, it allows GMs and players to warp them to their own needs.
Magic colors need to be flexible because 1000+ cards are published a year, so they need to be fairly vague. Hence black including shifty shopkeepers and white including ghosts.
>Magic colors need to be flexible because 1000+ cards are published a year, so they need to be fairly vague. Hence black including shifty shopkeepers and white including ghosts.
I know.
Here is some advice.
Do not take it seriously then.
>
Because it is vague BS like in horoscopes.
Still better then D&D alignment. (You)
All alignment systems are vague BS. That's a feature
Not really see 40K.
>Not really see 40K
?????
40k doesn't have an alignment system, unless you consider corruption levels an alignment.
And yes, Alignment systems shouldn't be used for serious purposes. They are to be used in traditional games.
White-Red
>fights crime due to a strong idealistic moral code
>happily gives his life for others
>believes the powerful should protect the weak
>recognizes that the law cannot protect everyone, but still believes they are just
>cares deeply for multiple lovers
>risks his life, feeds off the thrill of vigilantism
>prone to "go off half-wienered", is often screwed over by going in punching without a solid understanding of the situation
Some depictions of spiderman, especially ultimate spiderman, can be blue as well. Black suit spiderman should include black, for obvious reasons.
>40k doesn't have an alignment system
However it has descriptions how members of a faction act.
Funny how everyone can understand how an Imperial is to act or an Ork is to act and no one goes.
>Orks would never do that
Unlike with D&D Alignment where its non stop
>THIS IS NOT HOW CHAOTIC EVIL IS SUPPOSED TO WORK !
All the time. Chaos and law are bullshit no one can understand.
Also in come instances, desperation and struggle make his powers stronger.
You are, homosexual. Find me a person who never learns, never cares about themselves, never does what they want, never goes with the flow, or never cares about anyone else and I'll show you a liar. The point is to what extent are you one, or multiple, colors.
>MTGs color system is deeply problematic
MtG colour well is not and has never been an alignment system. You'd have to be brain dead to think of it as such. You'd have to be nearly totally ignorant of the colour wheel to say things like
> nonsense like is not le evil
>green because it is all about big monsters.
>MtG colour well is not and has never been an alignment system.
This video argues the opposite https://youtu.be/_y--G9B6LtY
>Some rando made a YT about how the MtG colour wheel is an alignment system
>This totally means that the MtG colour wheel was designed as an alignment system
>This totally means that the MtG colour wheel makes a good alignment system
>I ignore reality
>I ignore people who start using the MtG colour wheel as an alignment system
>I ignore a video with 77,318 views on a channel with 11K subs
>I ignore this thread is about busting these people
>Wow why is op such a gayot ?
Unreal.
>77,318 views on a channel with 11K subs
Like a said, a rando.
>a video with 77,318 views on a channel with 11K subs
Oh, so it's your video. Yeah, that is a good first hit against the algorithm. But at this point you're still a rando. Accept that, but keep fighting the good fight. Just be prepared to fade back into complete obscurity, it happens a lot.
Wow you must be really proud of your video, I've watched it and it's still shit I disliked it and reported it for terrorism, get fricked kiddo
It literally does not argue the opposite. It wasn't an alignment system. And it isn't. Using it as one doesn't mean it was or was made to be one. Dumbass.
White : Morality, order
Blue : Logic, technology
Black : Parasitism, amorality
Red : Chaos, impulse
Green : Instinct, interdependence
>Black is not le evil
I'm sure many people would consider the virtue of selfishness evil.
Low effort shitpost, go have a nice day homosexual.
Alligment is like a rollercoaster . You start of liking it, grow to hate it and then, after a long ride, realize that it's actually pretty good, great even when looked from the perspective of a classic dnd cosmology.
Also, interpretations do not matter. Alligments are laws of crearion.
>Alligments are laws of crearion.
Looks like another example of D&D drama between IRL humans then.
Just embrace the subjective nature of morality as a concept and drop the alignment system completely. Most games that rely on it can still work with it completely removed anyways, it's outdated game design that should absolutely be abandoned.
>and drop the alignment system completely
This. However special players need to educated to craving being ass raped by alignment.
> it's outdated game design that should absolutely be abandoned.
Absolutely I'm surprised how D&D managed to survive when everything in it is so shit from Vancian Magic to alignment. I think D&D is only around because of the controversy in the 80s.
>subjective nature of morality
Not really, I mean it is pretty obvious in most setting who is good and who is evil.
Green is about natural order which is why true green philosophy is vehemently anti lgbt
bump
What are you talking about, animals engage in homosexual/lesbian behavior all the time. The majority of giraffe sex is between male giraffes, koalas have lesbian orgies, bonobos (our closest ape relative) are all bisexual bawds. There are gay and lesbian Albatross pair bonds, and albatrosses mate for life. The New Mexico Whiptail Lizard is entirely female and parthenogenetic, and mate with each other before laying eggs. A female Komodo Dragon can, without mating, produce male Komodo Dragon eggs. Clownfish are sequentially hermaphroditic, changing from male to female depending on conditions. There are other fish that change from female to male as they mature and reach a certain size. So many gastropods are hermaphrodites. Cuttlefish will disguise themselves as female to approach female cuttlefish guarded by bigger males in order to mate with them, and there are fish that can employ similar strategies.
The “Natural” Order is so fricking strange, sexually speaking, that to call it “Anti-LGBT” shows absolute ignorance for how it all works. Watch a documentary or take a biology class for fricks sake.
Because aside from chaotic elements, natural order doesn't concern itself with ethics, sex is just a ruthless tool that is easy to use unethically.
just replace "lawful" with "orderly", now it makes perfect sense and makes autists who want to get into semantic arguments seethe because "law" is a much easier semantic shitposting target
>just replace "lawful" with "orderly", now it makes perfect sense
It literally doese not.
>"orderly"
Ok what does this mean ? I means nothing.
Give a list of characteristics this "orderly" does VS chaos.
I wait.
You eliminated 1 minor objection it is still shit.
You can fricken name these things Kiki and Buba and you have the same shit + minor grobbing over remembering strange name.
in contrast it is funny how outside D&D with no Aliment systems in other games everyone know who and what is good and who and what is evil
Order is procedure according to the [implied or intended] way things should be, chaos is disruption of it into anything else.
>[implied or intended] way things should be,
This literally means less and less, and it did mean nothing in the start.
It pertains to original design of any select metaphysical and physical structures.
Imagine that in order for universe to be proper (in a proper sense or to someone else's goals) it must be so in specific ways.
That overarching totality of correct ideas, structures, causality constructs, metrics, institutions, and so on constitutes a given "order".
You can not bullshit your way into alignment making sense.
Alignment is just an ideological method of judgement of general morality level and destructive tendencies that works by using broad categories at some points.
>what does this mean
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orderly
OK hear me out..big green AND black monsters..OR BIG GREEN AND BLUE MONSTERS.
black and blue and red all over
every single time i've been on this site for the past two months, i have seen your thread
you're going to give me a mental illness
I'm not versed in MTG at all, but death isn't evil, sad on occasion, fun on occasion, evil on occasion, but not inherently.
Same goes for destruction.
Seek the source. There are three alignments, Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic.
>Neutral
The most gay option. What kind of pussy plays neutral anything ?
CHAOTIC EVIL it is !
Alignment arguments should result in an immediate ban
Here's your new alignment:
Dreaming ------- Awake
Dead ------- Alive
You forgot a line anon.
One low effort post deserves another, I'm not gonna bother pitching it myself right now.
Read this page and embrace the best use of 'alignment' as a game design concept there has been. The game is Fantasy Craft, it's somehow elegant despite all the moving parts and subsystems it's got going on. Pathfinder 2e stole its action system from this game, but naturally made it a little worse.
Only what does it mean in practice ?
What part of 'low effort' did you not understand, read it yourself.
If a game isn't married to a default setting it's worthless to have people start entirely with prescribed setting elements with profound ramifications like established religions, divine spellcasting, cosmological alignments, yadda yadda yadda.
>idk make it up yourself lol
what the frick did i buy the book for then
I mean if you really upset about alignment charts just make a bunch of slider graphs "if you are this much of one element and not this much of another"
more simple if you really need things to be black and white you absolute Man Child how are we still having discussions about alignment charts in the year 2022
>Man Child how are we still having discussions about alignment charts in the year 2022
Maybe because you have no grasp on reality ?
>of slider graphs
Morality can not be places as a XYZ coordinate on a graph.
If you want an anon this stupid to understand alignment you gotta use meme words.
Chaos = Schizo
Lawful = Autistic
Good = Fren
Evil = Sigma
>Morality cannot be places on a. XYZ coordinate graph
t. Mathlet + philosophylet
Don't make statements about morality without first putting forth a definition of your own.
bump
>philosophylet
You literally did not read anything about philosophy.
>Don't make statements about morality without first putting forth a definition of your own.
Literally university lecture in video form:
I'm sorry ? MY own ? Did you not mean to teach you what philosophy says ?
You are literally on the level of
>Hur dur you present your own way of say how many things there are
>Don't make statements about morality without first putting forth a definition of your own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology
VS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
Sub category
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
>Don't make statements about morality without first putting forth a definition of your own.
Literally university lecture in video form on this subject:
D&D and other bullshit rotted your brain. Most people know how to behave themselves while the brainless game devs wanted to be cool and like have alignment or something with chaos order and radicalism as mathematical axis On a Cartesian coordinate system [this is so wrong].
If we are to go by the current state of science the best way to represent morality is some for of algorithm and algorithms are not scalar values on cartesian coordinate system.
If you disagree tell me what the scalar values on Cartesian coordinate system of a bubble sort VS a heap sort are.
And i think most moralities can be placed on a flowchart (because they are painfully Deontological ).
You do not need to look further then video games to see how algorithms can be used for behaviors (see the sims)
>If we are to go by the current state of science the best way to represent morality is some for of algorithm and algorithms are not scalar values on cartesian coordinate system
This is a mathlet statement. Algorithms can't represent anything.
>Algorithms
Yet they do not have a XYZ position. Asking how far on the X axis the bubble sort is from the heap sort is 100% meaningless and 100% invalid.
>Algorithms can't represent anything.
They can, however even if they do not they are the best way to represent morality.
>Asking how far on the X axis the bubble sort is from the heap sort is 100% meaningless and 100% invalid.
That's because sorting methods apply to lists, you brainlet. Lists can be represented on a Cartesian plane, if you use the X axis to represent value and the Y to represent order (or vice versa).
Saying algorithms can be physically represented on the Cartesian plane is pure nonsense, since algorithms don't represent anything.
algorithms can be physically represented on the Cartesian plane is pure nonsense, since algorithms don't represent anything.
Oh no you start to get it.
>represented on the Cartesian plane is pure nonsense,
And placing the morality algorithms on a grid is sane ? Like the 9 alignment grid ?
>Reee
They clearly talk about axis intersecting.
Try to apply this to bubble sort VS heap sort what axis are intersecting to make bubble sort OR heap sort.
This is he most invalid idea ever proposed.
>morality algorithms
Alignment isn't an algorithm. It's a set of classifications. Different game systems sort characters into those classifications in different ways (for instance, 2e AD&D presented Chaotic Neutral as the alignment for literal madmen as opposed to the uninterested individualist of modern D&D).
>Alignment isn't an algorithm
WHY the frick are you talking about Alignment ?
You can not simply assume it to be real or valid, your job is to prove alignment is valid.
In other words prove morality is a scalar value on a Cartesian coordinate system.
>prove morality is a scalar value on a Cartesian coordinate system.
I'm not the anon who claimed that. I was just pointing out that you don't misunderstand what algorithms are.
>I'm not the anon who claimed that
Yet by implication Alignment assumes that morality is a scalar value on a Cartesian coordinate system.
You have lines intersecting like
>The intersection of chaos and evil
>Alignment assumes that morality is a scalar value on a Cartesian coordinate system
Not necessarily. It's better to visualize alignment as a set of boxes arranged in a grid. Each box is related to all adjacent boxes (e.g. LG borders NG and LN).
The thing is, D&D alignment is absolute. A character is lawful good, or he is not. There's no spectrum.
That makes it a good way to build characters and describe them, since it's very fast and easy to classify characters according to alignment. This works well both for TTRPGs as well as other forms of media such as literature or film.
However, I do also think that such a representation alignment does not describe real morality well. It's too absolutist to leave much nuance, but it's also too broad to describe any moral struggle (Law vs Chaos or Good vs Evil is better there).
>Not necessarily
Yes it does.
I know I'm using big words however it does.
> a set of boxes arranged in a grid
IRL 3D space literally is a Cartesian coordinate system.
>There's no spectrum
>. It's too absolutist
Oh you are one of these gays. There is nothing wrong with that.
Alignment is incoherent bullshit. In like no one can understand it or roll play it, you think you can however then the other guy says you are not playing your alignment.
>Law vs Chaos
Try saying what this law and what this chaos character will do. It is impossible. Not in D&D not what the manual says in D&D.
>I know I'm using big words however it does.
You're not using big words, and it doesn't. The burden of proof is on you, and you haven't shown anything.
>IRL 3D space literally is a Cartesian coordinate system.
Please don't be this dense. The boxes are just a metaphor. If you put an object into one box, it is firmly part of that box and not any others.
>There is nothing wrong with that.
Absolutist systems are wrong if you believe morality isn't absolutist, but we aren't debating that.
>Alignment is incoherent bullshit
It's just a system of categorizing characters' outlooks on morality and society. Different systems and different tables categorize characters slightly differently, but they are still valid instances of alignment.
>no one can understand it or roll play it
Most people can't understand morality, and most people can't role-play. That doesn't mean anything.
>Try saying what this law and what this chaos character will do
Elric basically coined that conflict. Law represents civilization and order, chaos represents disorder and freedom.
>If you put an object into one box
Who intersect.
There s no way around this if they intersect (and this is fundamental BTW) then they are.
>It's just a system of categorizing characters' outlooks on morality and society
And this is impossible is the description is insane and imposible.
Prove it is not.
>Elric basically coined that conflict. Law represents civilization and order, chaos represents disorder and freedom.
This literally means nothing. Describe a lawful character what he can do and what not same for chaos.
>Most people can't understand morality,
Debunked.
Look at 40K ask most people how a Imperial or a Ork will behave and they can understand or role play it with zero problems.
>Who intersect.
Boxes don't intersect. They can be adjacent to one another, but that's not an intersection.
>Prove it is not.
Then all I need to do is show a case of alignment properly describing at least one character. That's easy.
Gandalf from Lord of the Rings is a prime example of Lawful Good as a characterization. His good is unquestionable, and he is also lawful. He always strives to work within the social order and ensure that others do the duties expected of them - counselling others according to their stations (for instance, he advises Theoden and Denethor in kingship, but does not do so for Frodo).
Likewise, Sauron is a prime example of Lawful Evil. His desire is not only to rule everything and everyone, but to do so in a world of order. His armies are highly organized and regimented, and he is a master of diplomacy and intrigue.
>Look at 40K ask most people how a Imperial or a Ork will behave and they can understand or role play it with zero problems.
That's not morality. They are using the factions and their stereotypes to characterize their PCs.
>Boxes don't intersect.
>bla bla bla
From
https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Chaotic_Evil
>Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
As you can see Chaotic evil is the combination or 2D intersection of evil and chaotic
>Gandalf from Lord of the Rings
I only watched the movies.
>Gandalf is Lawful Good as a characterization.
Why lawful ?
He bums around the land gets in talks with some people then gets people to go on his quest. How is he lawful ?
>Sauron is a prime example of Lawful Evil.
Why lawful ?
He is hardly in the movie, swings a club in a war, gets his hand slashed then is le evil eye in tower and presumably sends all the other evil creatures to do his war.
How is he lawful ? Can he not be chaotic evil and simply have lawful evil minions under him ?
>hey are using the factions and their stereotypes
It is not a stereotype if 100% of the orks and ~99% of all imperials are like this.
>That's not morality
Debatable, however it is a understandable ideology.
PS: For orks and nids it is however biology.
>Linking dandwiki
>I only watched the movies
>Obviously didn't read the post
It's pathetic at this point.
Morality is a scalar value, it's just really complex, and most ya people are really unenthusiastic to learn it.
why should people learn something they already know
Know so much they can't always recognize things as things, and argue more often than not?
yes, they also all know it differently, but they definitely know it
Know it, but do they know it as what it is?
Because knowing differently isn't the same as knowing different parts, pardon the lacking wording.
Knowledge can be warped.
yes
>Alignment isn't an algorithm.
Then it can not exist and is nothing. Thanks for playing.
>You do not need to look further then video games to see how algorithms can be used for behaviors (see the sims)
then see more sims, and more, and even more than that, then make nice houses for your sims, and see how they behave, how they make nice meals and throw them away and then complain about being hungry
>then see more sims, and more, and even more than that, then make nice houses for your sims
The point is that the sim characters can behave and have goals.
what if there's a power outage, mister lamp expert, didn't think of that huh
Mucho texto
I no reado
You are a child.
texto
>I can not read long texts
I'm perfectly comfortable reading things of great length. Just not your dumb posts. 🙂
This is beautiful insane amounts of autism, thank you for this thread
It's a metaphysical conflict, genius. and things can be very much compressed to fit on cartesian either 2d or 3d at least.
As for algorithms, that'd be a clusterfrick of an algorithm.
Good and evil as semantic categories are already 2d enough, regardless of depth of complexity.
>It's a metaphysical conflict
The more you speak the dumber you sound.
>It's a metaphysical conflict
IRRELEVANT.
Human PCs are to role play or understand what aliment is and role play it.
This must mean it must be understandable to humans.
>As for algorithms, that'd be a clusterfrick of an algorithm.
Yet when you explain it this way
>My character has claustrophobia and will get panic attacks when in closed spaces
And literally everyone understands it no need for
If space == enclosed then get_panic_attack();
>b-b--b-b
Or how about this
>My character can literally not lie in like he must answer truthfully
Everyone can understand this:
>t-t-t-tthat is not morality.
Yes it is you uneducated peace of crap
?t=130
It fricken amazes me that D&D shitheads try to lecture anyone on morality without having any grasp on it whatsoever outside thinking reading the D&D monster manual constitutes philosophy.
THERE ARE LITERALLY BOOKS WRITTEN ON THIS SUBJECT YOU DUMB FRICK, YOU CAN WATCH FREE LECTURES FROM LITERALLY REAL UNIVERSITIES TODAY YOU DUMB SHITS !
So looping back you can make a character with 3 variants
A) Can not lie however can refuse to answer
B) Can not lie and must answer however can be deceptive in his answer.
C) Can not lie must answer and can not be deceptive in his answers.
No idea why most people would be like this more looks like some curse/blessing you get for swearing allegiance to some cosmic entity.
And everyone understands what this means.
So literally if you made a game where the axis is
Can tell lies / can not tell lies
You literally made something that is based on real moral philosophy. And literally everyone understands what is going on.
1/2
2/2
Actually if you wanted you can try to make a cosmic balance between 2 forces <insert made up names here> swearing allegiance to one will give you powers however also place a cosmic magic enchantment on you that compels you to only say the truth. The other side can be compelling you to say only lies. This can look confusing however think about bizarro superman instead of saying
>I kill you
you MUST say (something like)
>I make you live forever
instead of saying
>I hate you
you say
>I love you
Instead of saying
>I love you
you say
>I hate you
And this is really simple to abuse
want to say
>Lets all wake up on 8:00
you say
>Lets all NOT wake up on 8:00
This makes the people who swore allegiance to the gods of lies basically understand how to communicate with others of their kind however since they can not tell the truth of their condition neither in writing or any other way this requires the other people to understand their condition. So mostly they hang out with only others of their kind. And everyone understands what to role play.
And this is a cosmic compulsion for these people.
?t=43
Contrast this to D&D shit.
Cosmic forces imply no balance or need for it, and yin yang itself can be said to be easy in being interpreted incorrectly as some people say there's one of other in each other, whereas in actuality it's one for each other, spinning around each other, attracting.
Given extent of your aggression or usage of authority on matter of morality, you're not in any particular position to lecture others before judging yourself.
DnD worked without particularly many problems for how many years, and its rough implementation gave more than a plenty food for thought for players, allowing them to refine their reasoning were they to do so.
Please try talking like a normal human being.
>literally everyone
Any form of knowledge is predicated on assorted set of knowledge structures, which work so seamlessly they require no statements, however, yes algorithmization of any possible situation is too needlessly heavy, hence why is it a clusterfrick. It's not a programming exercise, it's a board game.
>3 variants
>can tell lies
You can tell lies without telling lies entirely. There are more to morality than your presumption, and if literally everyone understood, there wouldn't be any debates on the matter.
I take it you never interacted with actual evil people?
>Given extent of your aggression or usage of authority on matter of morality, you're not in any particular position to lecture others before judging yourself.
OH look the D&D gay speaks
> you're not in any particular position to lecture others
No. How about you shut up and admit that you have no fricken idea what the philosophy of morality is ? Because I know it.
I swear you D&D gayots.
You do this if the school system did not force you to learn mathematics if a professor of mathematics corrects you
>Given extent of your aggression or usage of authority on matter of mathematics , you're not in any particular position to lecture others before judging yourself.
>Any form of knowledge is predicated on assorted set of knowledge structures, which work so seamlessly they require no statements, however,
This means nothing, at this point I'm convinced you must have some form of brain damage to like D&D
>You can tell lies without telling lies entirely.
Pictured literal brain damage.
Morality is morality, it's just knowledge of good and evil in its complexity, all else is secondary.
>The only argument he can bring up is "D&D homosexual"
Have you tried not being moronic?
Are you implying a bunch of self-describing words constituting alignment aren't understandable to humans?
This is why the entire concept of an ‘alignment’ system being used to describe human/fantasy race behavior is asinine. Any system of this kind should be focused entirely on individual behavior and say nothing about the greater metaphysical state of reality, like this
Something that just boils down to personality
It's just too broad, that is all.
That was exactly my point. You tell people someone is ‘chaotic neutral’ they might not know what you mean, but you tell people someone is ‘reckless, greedy, and self-centered’ almost everyone will know what you mean
>You tell people someone is ‘chaotic neutral’ they might not know what you mean, but you tell people someone is ‘reckless, greedy, and self-centered’ almost everyone will know what you mean
This one gets it.
Also see :
I swear everything in D&D was made to be as counter intuitive to reality and taking days to explain as humanly possible.
Perhaps a more christian "law" must be used as a metric?
Chaotic forces destroy, lawful maintain course.
No you keep going the wrong way with things, you need a system that remains more or less the same outside of changing religions/moralistic definitions. Order/chaos law/chaos are just too broad of concepts to use accurately as a system that applies to individual behavior
Makes sense.
100% completely sincerely and unironically, take your medicine.
Chaos: "Right now."
Law: "Now and forever."
It's not difficult.
I like the colors in Magic. And don’t get too obsessed about the mechanics vs the lore please.
not caring about what the colors DO.
Do you even gameplay?
The theatre is down the street if you just wanna role-play
>itt
>law vs chaos
Is no one talking about how the vast majority of people would just be neutral? It’s fine.
>neutral
Neutrality means nothing it is a incoherent bullshit for people who do not want to commit to a position.
>for people who do not want to commit to a position
Exactly right. So, the vast majority of people. We’ll do whatever is best for us in the moment. Very few of us are principled enough to be considered Lawful in terms of alignment. Very few of us are dedicated enough to disruption and revolution to be considered Chaotic.
Anyway, alignment is not your personality. Gygax used it to answer a question: is your character on the side of Law or the side of Chaos (those two things being tangible forces in his fantasy world, not abstract concepts)?
The war between neutrality and good continues.
Neutrality describes a being who is not on the side of either Law or Chaos, whistlepiss. Neutrality is not a tangible force like the other two are in Gygax’s world. So if you don’t like Law and Chaos in that context, scrap alignment altogether and be happy. The 9-box alignment system made by tossing good and evil in there is so fricking moronic it makes my head hurt.
Good and evil were never the problem, law and chaos are the problem.
>Good and evil were never the problem, law and chaos are the problem.
Exactly this.
Most people have a feeling for good and evil even without you literally making the world ping people who are evil on your magic radar.
The problem is when shit writers decide to be fancy and make a le law VS le chaos and combine it.
> The 9-box alignment system made by tossing good and evil in there is so fricking moronic it makes my head hurt.
And this is the point.
>Gygax’s
Looking back at D&D it was always shit and an incredible dumpster fire. No idea why it go so big. Must have ridden the wiener of the satanic panic to the bank fricken free advertisement.
Nothing wrong with law or chaos, either.
>Nothing wrong with law or chaos, either.
It is nonsensical dumb dumb.
About as straight forward as it comes, to facilitate a story.
What doesn't make sense to you in particular?
If you understand D&D as a game trying to simulate how fantastical concepts would exist in our real world, then yes, it’s shit. If you can drop that and enter a make believe world where law and chaos affect physics, you’ll have a better time.
Why do you hate it? It's just a system simple at worst.
Hate what
Alignment system. I wouldn't call it bad.
Which one? The 9 box? I don’t hate it, it’s just stupid and a waste of time to think about. You can call a Lawful player out for acting Chaotic or neutral. But what’s the fricking point of telling a player they’re playing their chaotic good character in a neutral good kind of way? You wouldn’t even bother because that’s asinine. That granularity negates the fluidity of human personality.
Isn't it meant to be used as a general assisting tool, like a guideline of general behavioral tendencies in some overarching conflict?
I'm unsure how they came up with it, but perhaps it grew out of "detect evil" spells in some capacity, after all how do you do that without some framework to use?
If so, then it should be presented as an optional rule, because some of us don’t need or want that kind of tool.
>"detect evil"
And like mentioned OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
99% of people have no problem with evil and good law and chaos are nonsensical.
>You can call a Lawful player out for acting Chaotic or neutral. But what’s the fricking point of telling a player they’re playing their chaotic good character in a neutral good kind of way? You wouldn’t even bothe
You can not role play nonsense. Alignment is literally nonsensical.
>Why do you hate it?
Me?
One word Vancian Magic.
Then you get into the rest of the crap like the alignment bullshit.
Too limiting to feats as opposed to something like spell creating and better energy management, I presume?
Vancian magic sucks first and foremost from a thematic perspective because it is not at all how magic users from traditional fantasy operate and it’s counterintuitive to how they might operate. It’s entirely specific to The Dying Earth novels. If a wizard knows a spell, they shouldn’t “forget” it after casting it. That’s too weird and specific to put in a game that’s supposed to encompass generic fantasy. What D&D needs is something more like DCC’s magic system, which makes you roll to cast a spell and if you roll poorly then shitty things happen.
It's ostensibly intuitive. It's less that they forget the spell, and more that they have to run calculations of phenomena on an energy information substrate.
They know how it works, but to use it, they have to program the energy assembly, which they do with their mind and keep in form by will.
For instance, what is a spell, not counting direct semantic meaning, along with all other distinctions like enchanting, charms and so on.
It's an assembly of energy, information and possibly matter.
It's not knowledge of an assembly, thought one can do that, it's a construction. When it is activated, it does what it's made to do, expends energy and loses form.
Golly, you wouldn’t know that from the way wizards are played and portrayed. I think Gygax put it in because original D&D was all about resource management, and he wanted spells to be managed like that too.
You can play it in many ways even within its purview, including among other things, creating autocasting machinery.
Well, it works, doesn't it?
>was all about resource management, and he wanted spells to be managed like that too.
And a mana pool was what exactly to him ? He fricken understood to make HP a number, a number who decreases in combat ....
WTF !
>calculations of phenomena on an energy information substrate.
>They know how it works, but to use it, they have to program the energy assembly, which they do with their mind and keep in form by will.
It is like watching magical techno bable.
>Why do you hate it?
Another grievance D&D attracts the worse king of players imaginable.
Try thinking.
You have energy pool, then you have knowledge of, say, how a sword works, then you imagine that sword entirely and apply that construction to energy structure which you then manifest, as a sword.
If you will treat everything as a babble, what will remain?
Take your meds.
Now you're just being ridiculous.
No.
I'm more a fan of a copy or identical casting system to LDR where you can cast anything at any power you know however the more mana you cast the greater the strain on you gets in LDR a novice can decide to cast a city destroying spell however the strain on his body is to great and he will kill himself since this is what happens in LDR if the strain becomes to big you die (and fail to cast it) the increase in level of the mage let you cast more powerful spells or more precisely you can use the same spells only throw more power into them without daying.
It kind of makes sense if you imagine a spell coming with 2 components where the more mana you spend the more pollution your body accumulates and this can kill you if you do not rest between castings.
You can modify LDR to say your wizards faints.
Basically this. What crack where they smoking while making this up ?
>If a wizard knows a spell, they shouldn’t “forget” it after casting it
I agree with you and D&D sucks, however consider the following there is a way to make this work.
Imagine something like scrolls or the paper magic of Mars in Sailor Moon or something like alchemy. Lets say you can not cast magic you can only do 2 things
1) Write a short novel on paper, or make some academical mixture.
2) Use what you made, this means that after you make a potion or scroll and use it it is used up. The simplest thing is to think of a alchmical mixture you throw it at the enemy and it explodes like a grandad, or you drink it and it changes you in some way, or you pint the flask at the enemy and you get a ice beam from a bottle. This of course uses up the mixture and it one shot.
With scrolls imagine after the magic activates (you close the magic circle) and this will ultimately destroy the scroll while allowing a spell to be cast.
Now all of this makes sense and get the same thing working. looking back at D&D Gygaxisms I'm convinced Gygax was a drug fueled schizo while writing this, the magic system is explained so convoluted and counter intuitive and is so strange that it is hard to not bash D&D.
What's with you people and this expectation of things being somehow obligated to be intuitive to you, or complaining about relatively unsophisticated things somehow "making no sense"?
The D&D brain rot speaks.
> What's with you people and this expectation of things being somehow obligated to be intuitive to you
The D&D brain rot speaks.
If you are ever wondering why people shit on D&D and its player base it is this.
D&D is the McDonald's of RPGs Popular and trash.
> to be intuitive to you,
Yet I fricken managed to explain Vancian magic simpler and without involving counter intuitive notions like "forgetting the spell after casting it" and all you need to do is to do a little modifications (fun fact at one time D&D required ingredient to create spells by wizards) like I have explained.
Frick you can even get closer to Vancian magic by making it magic tattoos who disappear after casting and take like 1h to make on your body. And the space on your body limits the number of tattoos you can have.
Frick make it the same tattoos only invisible and you have Vancian magic or make the tattoos on your soul and you have Vancian magic.
> being somehow obligated to be intuitive to you
1) Vancian magic is not hard to understand see my explanation
2) I EXPECT THE MATERIALS TO NOT BE moronic SHIT AND INTRODUCE CRAP LIKE "forgetting the spell after casting it" that is hard to understand.
Learn to explain things better WOC See D&D Gygaxisms I'm convinced Gygax was a drug fueled schizo.
vancian magic assumes 99% of the spell is cast as a long fireball ritual first and the thing you do to throw the fireball in combat is the final 1%, it has nothing to do with "forgetting" anything, you just used up the effort you made before going to bed yesterday so you can't cast anymore until you do the ritual again
that still doesn't explain why you can't just have infinite fireballs memorized, but whatever
>effort you made before going to bed yesterday so you can't cast anymore until you do the ritual again
>
>that still doesn't explain why you can't just have infinite fireballs memorized, but whatever
Tell that to the 99% of D&D gays who try to explain vancian magic.
vancian magic is really shit anyway
>vancian magic is really shit anyway
We know. Still the only magic in D&D. Why is D&D like this ?
>I don't understand vancian magic, which means no-one does!
Dunning-Kruger on display, there. The reason you can't have infinite fireballs "memorized" (prepared) is because your mind can literally only hold a given amount of formulae, as your headspace is essentially faceted, and you only have so many facets to fill, and they are not equal.
it's the same formula for the same spell, moron, and you don't keep it in your head anyway, you just keep a bunch of trigger words in your head, of which it should easily be possible to remember hundreds at least
>make the tattoos on your soul and you have Vancian magic.
But making the "tattoo" (in fact an intensively complicated piece of extensive mathematical formulae capable of warping physics as most people understands it) inside a memory palace construct (i.e. your mind instead of your soul) is somehow counter-intuitive?
>Vancian magic is not hard to understand
Then why does it seem to trip you up so bad?
>Then why does it seem to trip you up so bad?
Cry harder:
A) Because hardly anything outside D&D and some old books uses this kind of magic
B) Your explanations are shit.
>Because hardly anything outside D&D and some old books uses this kind of magic
Why would that make you mad or make vancian magic harder for you to understand?
>hardly anything outside
Novel or uncommon does not mean bad. In fact, it is often (but far from always) the opposite.
>muh old
Old does not mean bad. Yet again, the opposite tend to be true.
>Your explanations are shit.
My explanations are fine, anon, you just might be too moronic to follow. That said, most of D&D has done a shit job of explaining vancian magic, relegating it to a mere ruleset that brainlets struggle to rationalize and the uncultured have never been exposed to, whereas the concepts involved was likely self-evident to the earlier generation of creators and thus needed no explanation.
Poor mechanics-narrative fidelity is cancerous, but it's what storygays have been pushing for, just as much as autistic rollplayers have been dismantling the genre with pushing balance over toolboxing.
Energy management for me.
Serious question was Gygax smoking crack while writing this crap ?
Oh and before we forget remember the alignment specific languages ?
Nah, can't remember that. Which material?
>Nah, can't remember that. Which material?
https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Alignment#Alignment_languages
>For example, lawful dwarves might speak not only "Dwarf" as a language, but also "Lawful", and could converse with other Lawful creatures, such as halflings.
>D&D creator Gary Gygax imagined that alignment langauges were akin to how mediaeval Christians spoke Latin, and thus were able to converse with other people who shared their philosophical beliefs.[10]
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/please-explain-alignment-language-to-me.692808/
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/10032/whats-the-deal-with-alignment-languages
Looks like this AIDS was before your time. And it was killed and thrown away to be forgotten. Maybe 60 years from now D&D will be fixed in removing more of its stupid ideas.
Nah. It's just that you commit to your own position.
>alignment is a scalar value on a Cartesian coordinate system
It's not a coordinate graph, it's a fricking matrix.
And this entire argument is peak No-Games.
>>What do you mean the biggest creatures live in the ocean ???
>>What do you mean black can create undead abominations who are bigger then anything ?
>>That does not count !
Fricking zoomer, blue and black both had these cards before nu-MTG set in
The MtG colors can work, but you have to free yourself from Wizards's rigid interpretation of them
A good system would be one similar to the trait system in Divinity original sin 1. Simply have a long list of basically personality traits that could or could not offer minor mechanical effects. Each one could have like 3-5 degrees of severity, with an expanding list of incompatible traits you can’t have as you get more and more that thing. For example take the trait brave. At ‘rank 1’ of brave it makes sense you couldn’t have the tait ‘coward’, but say you get to ‘rank 5’ of brave, now you also can’t have the cautious trait because you are so brave and brazen that any natural caution you might have is completely subsumed. In this way extreme bravery can imitate recklessness which could also be a trait but at ‘rank 1’ of reckless you can’t have the cautious trait but might be able to have the coward one. And of course you’d have to play to these traits as well and the DM could make you gain/lose ranks of them depending on your actions. You could even build in ‘crises of faith’ or ‘crises of character’ where certain actions you take would cause you to have incompatible character traits
I tell you what, talking about D&D on the internet has made me despise every edition of it
>I tell you what, talking about D&D on the internet has made me despise every edition of it
Good, maybe now you will play something that is not total garbage.
I swear D&D looks like some joke where literally everything is made to be as counter intuitive to reality as humanly possible.
What do you play?
GURPS
What about Goodl/Evil Law/Chaos alignment(s) do you have a hard time grasping?