>does irreparable damage to millions of people
Were alignments net positive for players (incl. tabletop)?
>does irreparable damage to millions of people
>does irreparable damage to millions of people
Were alignments net positive for players (incl. tabletop)?
NG = Black person
LG = LETS GO!
CG = Chain Gang!
LN = Logarythmic
CN = China
LE = Car model name ending
CE = Common Era
NE = North East
Actually, one fix:
NG = New Game
N = 🙂
TN=Total Black person
Which is what you are.
That's not on the chart, silly.
Frick demons
so am i lawful good or Chaotic good because i want to frick this
every Good alignment is allowed to frick and redeem her
CNchad here
You can't
any Lawful and Good guy can frick her anon. Even Devil for some reason.
she gets Wet if you are Angel or a Azata so yes to both.
it's honestly shit but it's a necessary evil imo. othewise you would have morons justifying why they killed an entire village as a LG paladin because the cute witch they met in the forest told them too and because they want to frick her
this. if not for the Alignment system most people would start playing as a Chaotic Good Paladin who allows evil to flourish or a Chaotic evil Druid hell bent on destroying the land
Yeah it’s good for keeping people in line with their class I’ll admit.
pretty much. Imagine a Chaotic evil Hellknight Lmao. how would you even justify such a thing? or even a Lawful evil Iomedae worshipper?
>if the chart didn't exist people would do [thing that wouldn't exist either because it's based on the chart]
You don't need a graph to say "Paladin follows the word of his god and belief to a tee"
that image is really fricking reddit
>justifying why they killed an entire village as a LG paladin
This would be trivially easy to justify. There is a reason LG is called lawful stupid anon.
Would fricking a Xeno be an evil action since the Imperium hates Xenos?
the d&d system in particular is garbage. it's completely useless as a metric because no one can agree what any given alignment is supposed to act like or if it's even supposed to be descriptive or prescriptive. you can have two people talk about the same character and both think he's a different alignment for different reasons, or two people both claim that their characters are one alignment even though they act completely differently.
on top of that it dumbs people down so instead of thinking of characters in terms of motivations they slap an alignment on them and let that dictate how the character is going to act.
Alignment doesn't even matter in d&d anymore.
DnD “rules” are just guidelines. Are you some autist that argues with the dm about what the manual says? House rules reign supreme, alignment was always just a loose frame work.
This, it’s just a skeleton that you use before applying the framework of context and setting to. People taking it too autistically serious is the problem. It’ll mean different things for various settings and classes, you just take the idea of “I like laws and I’m a good guy” and mold it from there
they are useless even as guidelines for the reasons I stated. imagine if I made a measuring system where the base unit of length was a Black personlength. I tell you to bring me a rope 10 Black personlengths long, but you bring me one that's 40 Black personlengths long because I didn't bother to define it in a way that people could agree on. now I have a rope the wrong length but it's ok because "it's just a guideline."
DnD literally had spells that interacted with alignment, it was an in-universe force, granted it means much less now
Nothing interacts with alignment in d&d now.
Have you tried having non moronic players? Alignment isn't even a good moron leash, they'll find ways to turn the entire session into a fricking morality argument where they're the evil butthole who thinks they're in the right regardless.
Frick good and evil alignment, and any system that uses it. Law, Chaos, and Neutral are the only ones you'd need, and it would be mostly for gameplay mechanics anyways.
>and it would be mostly for gameplay mechanics anyways
Alignment only works when it doesn't interact with gameplay mechanics at all.
I think simple "Protection from Law" or "Protection from Chaos" spells or other things in that style are fine, And it's easy for everyone to wrap their heads around if they're chaotic, lawful, or neutral without having to frick around with good and evil. If there's no mechanical purpose then it only exists to cause arguments.
In our games we don't have disagreements about good neutral or evil. For us it seems to be pretty universally agreed on for the most part.
Perhaps you have had bad experiences because your sense of morality is skewed from what the majority of people are accustomed to.
If it's universally agreed on, why have it?
Seriously, what is the point of alignment? It's not a good moron leash, and if everyone is in agreement with what is good and what is bad, why do you need to label it? All it does is promote useless shit flinging like this thread.
Frick dungeons and dragons and FRICK 5e
it's a part of the setting in pathfinder and dnd was always moronic
>part of the setting
I've not played pathfinder because it always looked like "D&D but again" and I can't fricking stand D&D.
One thing I don't like about alignment in D&D is that things like "Good" and "Evil" are fundamental forces, which is honestly just stupid and strips the world of nuance. Is pathfinder similar or does it do it in a non moronic way?
Pathfinder literally IS d&d but again.
Pathfinder only exists because autists didn't like what 4e did to the d&d system so they took 3.5 and expanded it.
>and FRICK 5e
I agree with this sentiment, but 5e actually downplays alignment for the most part.
>Have you tried having non moronic players?
don't exist
>b-but my... I've...
moron. just as those players you think of bringing up.
isn't that what the gm is there for? to call out players on their bullshit?
>morons justifying why they killed an entire village as a LG paladin because the cute witch they met in the forest told them too and because they want to frick her
I mean, the plot of Megaman Zero was basically a god of war destroying the last nation on earth, cutting down entire armies, committing regicide TWICE, and even killing a living human just because a little girl vaguely asked him for help.
This.
It really is just meant to be moron-proofing.
Anyone who adheres to it dogmatically is as bad as the guy who ALWAYS plays Lawful Good and tries to murderhobo anyway because "muh evil enemies".
It's meant to be a sticker you slap on that tells you what "team" you're on. But it turned into dumb shit people argued over the meaning over for years. Keep It Simple, Stupid.
It's the opposite. The very presence of the evil and chaotic alignments is taken by morons to mean that the choice between being a normal, functional person vs an omnicidal rapist is the same as choosing between playing a fighter or a wizard. Consequences for bad behavior aren't even handled through alignment anyway with the sole exception of the paladin thing which no one likes having to enforce or have enforced on them. In pretty much every other context things are handled the same way as in real life, with the reactions of other people. If you murder a shopkeeper and try to loot his store, the posse that forms to lynch you is not concerned with alignment. Hell, even the paladin thing is arguably this as well, with the loss of powers being a reaction by the paladin's god(s) against behavior they personally disapprove of. A lawful good god of love and fertility and a lawful good god of purity and chastity may put their disciples into time out for very different reasons.
The power of pussy compelled me to slaughter the young and make wallets out of their skin. It was for the greater good.
Remember that your troubles affect others. For example, my grandpa has a viagra addiction. It’s been very hard to deal with, but it’s even harder for grandma.
least deranged Lawful ''good'' player
>Myers-Briggs but for fat, unclean men
Being lawful good or evil is based on whether you are capable and proficient at your role. If you are incompetent and make too many mistakes then you are evil. If you are highly skilled and never make mistakes then you are lawful good. Once you start making mistakes, then that makes you evil. Pic related.
I played a lawful evil snake salesman and it was the funnest character I've ever done and I am very angry I can't get an equivalent vidya experience.
LG self-inserters cannot fathom roleplaying characters that aren't their wish fulfilment power fantasies.
>good or evil is based on whether you are capable and proficient
>Once you start making mistakes, then that makes you evil.
>Pic related.
Your pic says nothing of what you're saying.
Lol stealing others right to divine penance for your own self righteousness is not lawful good. Lawful maybe, but good no. Also lots of cultures still practice mutilation as a form of punishment and every one that does is a shit hole turns out turning people's weakness into lifetime traits actually tends to frick societies up.
>pic
Anglos are objectively evil so I don't know why he use that as an example.
>torturing rapists and murderers is… le bad!
Torturing anyone is evil.
ANYONE.
Who cares what some homosexual says on some random forum?
>some homosexual
moronic or just underage?
both
I'm highly proficient at rapeing people.
Positive for allowing more choices, negative for restricting said choices.
First you try with good (mercy, help, compassion)
If that doesn't work you go for the lawful (punishment, retribution, destroy them)
There I just fixed the problem and you are now a true LG
>
i am not Interested in boys with Wings or looking cute
succubi can turn into anything (You) like
even weird shit like furry, floor tiles or anything else really
>succubi can turn into anything (You) like
>floor tiles
so the Guy who faps to Tiles here finally has a waifu who can fulfill his desires?
What if I turn into a horse. Will she take my giant horsewiener in her human succubus form?
>horsewiener
Too small
Succubus can take it so yes.
>Where my Neutrals are?
We too cool for these fools that think in black and white.
When is Grey morality ever done well? It comes off more as having no serious conventions.
If it's something like you do have a moral code buy to others it seems random would be better
my favorite gray morality choice was in tactics ogre where people with their brains rotted by d&d couldn't even tell what route they were on
for me, it's chaotic lawful
The fact Seelah and Lann are Lawful means the whole system shouldn't be taken too seriously. Seelah in particular is the iconic Paizo paladin; supposed to be an ambassador of the class and the way she acts she'd be skirting between Chaotic and Neutral.
I'm not going to argue about Seelah again, but why the frick wouldn't Lann be lawful?
Nta but without looking at the alignment chart I was of always assumed neutral good. I would of never guessed lawful
Sure, if you only played the prologue
I never utilized him after the prologue
Even then you should still have seen him wanting criminals hanged while giving zero fricks about mercy
Truth be told i don't remember that, so I will take your word on it.
It's part of his council meetings, Arue is the one who advocates for mercy, Woljif advocates for using those criminals yourself, and Lann just goes "just execute them bro"
He is very much for his tribe and then the crusade as an extension of it, but people outside of that can fricking suck it.
And in council event he's A-Ok with a bit of hanging for thieves and other traitors. I agree he's more good than evil but neutral is fine
The first time you meet him his whole arc is rebelling against his tribe chief.
How the frick is he rebelling? Late on he outright want Sull to keep being chief because he doesn't think he has what it takes to be one.
Him wanting to CONVINCE Sull to go to the surface is another thing entirely. Wenduag is the one who rebels, Lann doesn't.
but Lann is literally lawful, have you seen his suggestions on the crusade table? dude calls for executions and imprisonments more than Regill
>Paladin LARPers literally believe that slaughtering anything or anyone you consider evil is the righteous thing to do.
Why are they like this?
>Why are they like this?
They are looking for justifications to sate their bloodlust/sadism, inflate their egos and be self-righteous about it.
hellknights unironically fit people like those more because they don't realize it's much more about the chaotic aspect than the evil one (proof of that is Regill getting loved by every LG larper)
Warhammer memes bleed too deep into their brains.
Unironically I think they don’t understand settings though, kinda like how in that universe yeah it is lawfully good to nuke a planet of innocents to circumvent how chaotically evil things can go
honestly who cares about Alignment autism, all the people in this Shithole of a website are CN tards who Larp as a LG murderhobo
4chins is a place populated by CN or LN morons and ruled over by Lawful evil jannies. prove me wrong.
I can't. You're correct.
not true, in rpgs I'm LG and I try to do the good aspects first always, including mercy, forgiveness and helping. If I don't see true repentance or a complete lack of understanding on those I'm helping, I destroy them because letting them live would bring more evil than good
Yeah hello based department, you will wanna talk with this guy
Honestly this is the only true way to play LG. Judge Dredd version of "LG" is way more LN or LE than anything.
I'm NG larping as CN though
why can't i play as a Lawful Neutral Iomedae worshipper but somehow Lann can worship her and stay LN monk?
You can....
All dieties in pathfinder can be worshipped by a character of their alignment or one step away
but you cannot Worship Iomedae as a LN guy in this game. you can only be LG or NG
Yes you can, literally every inquisitor you met is LN
okay i am dumb, i thought you couldn't. sorry for my moroneness and ignorance
Your own screenshot literally, blatantly, and inarguably proves you wrong. How are you this moronic
Should I play kingmaker before wrath of the righteous?
yes. it has less stats bloat but it's tutorial is shit compared to Wrath and doesn't teach you anything about the various systems in this game
Yeah, you may get overwhelmed with the mythic system in WOTR so Kingmaker is the better starting point. Also Kingmaker isn't as good so it's better to start off with that.
No. You can play WoTR first. Both games have a completely different setting + cast
That's the basic rule for core deities yes. For others it can get kinda weird.
For instance Arazni is Neutral evil but can be worshiped by chaotic good characters and specifically forbids lawful/chaotic evil worshipers.
None of the weird ones are options by default though of course.
>here's your next hidden romance bro
I wish.
is this everyone official?
not everyone, only core pantheon
there are dozen minor gods
good lord no
Alignment was always a shitty mechanic. That's why nearly every game that had it has gotten rid of it.
Scenario: Slavery is legal
Lawful Good: He will petition for slavery to end. When he's not petitioning, he will travel around, buying slaves and then freeing them.
Neutral Good: At night he smuggles slaves out of their plantation. At daytime, he petitions for slavery to end
Chaotic Good: He murders the slave owners and destroys the laws and law enforcers that uphold it.
Chaotic Neutral: He doesn't care. Butnif you try and enslave him, he'll fricking murder you
Lawful Neutral: "What's wrong with slavery? It's legal."
Neutral: "Damn, slavery is kinda fricked up....but it's not my problem"
Lawful Evil: He owns 100 slaves and he's looking to buy more
Neutral Evil: He buys 10 slaves, and then he takes them to his basement to perform illegal experiments
Chaotic Evil: He murders the slave owner, and then as the slaves cheer and thank him, he kills the slaves too for the lols
You wrote all that shit just to be wrong, dumbass.
He’s really not that wrong
Lawful Good: He will petition for slavery to end. If the slaver doesn't agree or repent to the errors of his ways, he will be destroyed
>If the slaver doesn't agree or repent to the errors of his ways, he will be destroyed
That's not Lawful Good. That's Chaotic Good.
If the laws of the good deity you serve doesn't condone to slavery (which I think there are no good deity who does) His law is more important than that of men, hence it wouldn't matter if slavery was "legal"
What if he doesn't serve a deity at all?
Also Lawful Good always follows the law of the place you are in. No law is greater than any other law.
>LG
>doesn't serve any deity at all
No such thing
it is a thing tho
You know alignment exists outside of Pathfinder right?
pfffft
no it doesn't
and? being a Atheist doesn't mean you can become a paragon of justice and honor and the defender of the universe
lel
Atheism is literally the deity of redditors
>not mindlessly follow any god
>you're le redditor
It's really amusing how passive aggressive and hypocritical religiousgays are even thought their religion would expect them to behave completely differently.
This religious vs athetist rhetoric is just so tiring.
but in Golarion Atheism makes sense because anyone can become Near-deity tier if they study or practice hard. iirc a wizard made a entire country start worshipping him as a Deity just by using Overwelming presence and even gave out domain powers.
>but in Golarion Atheism makes sense because anyone can become Near-deity tier if they study or practice hard
You say this as if it was a common thing
Not to mention, that by becoming a deity yourself, you're basically proving that wrong
by becoming a Deity i am proving that Gods are nothing but powerful individuals who doesn't deserve worship and that everyone should strive everday to become better themselves rather than rely on some Sky daddy or mother who doesn't give two shits about you
>You say this as if it was a common thing
yes. in Pathfinder a Lvl 20 character is literally demi-god tier in terms of power. 20 Wizards can create entire armies and make demi-plane filled entirely with hot Outsider babes. 2-Sorcerer with Dragon bloodline are nearly indistinguishable from real powerful Dragons. lvl 20 Cleric and Paladin are so connected to their god that the gods would revive them or just pluck their soul and make him his own personal angel. 20 fighter or monk can simultaneously fight 20 demons without getting tired and will win too.
>anyone can become Near-deity tier if they study or practice hard.
Or you can become a deity by getting shitfaced and accidentally making it through the god maze.
>You say this as if it was a common thing
It kind of is.
God, Pathfinder is such a shit setting.
Makes sense, the entire system caters to atusits who prefer planning out bit characters they'll never use over actual roleplaying.
>all the Gods who completed the starstone test were humans
Elf, Oread, Kitsune, Teifling and Assimar bros....
Only humans allowed.
Frick off, you Romance of the Three Kingdoms knock-off.
one Extra feat is that overpowered. no Furry or Knife ear can compete with the indomitable human spirit.
not even just that, Irori and even Nethys were also humans. honestly you should have a nice day if you were born anything else than a human
>iirc a wizard made a entire country start worshipping him as a Deity just by using Overwelming presence and even gave out domain powers.
how can Martialkeks even Compete against us spell-casting chads?
Absolute moron.
Uh not every LG is a paladin
>Also Lawful Good always follows the law of the place you are in. No law is greater than any other law.
Literal moron understanding of lawful vs chaotic. A lawful person acts predictably according to their own code of ethics. A chaotic person does whatever feels right at the time. That's all it is.
tell that to Hand of the inheritor who does raids to free slaves from both Hell and the Abyss
And what does your "lawful good" character do when law enforcement come for him? Does he demand they repent or be destroyed too?
I tell them that my deity laws are the only ones that matter, and if they only follow the laws of men who are wrong and choose to defend them, they are just as guilty
That's not Lawful Good. That's Lawful Dumbass.
then you're lawful neutral
Ok, so we now have a "lawful good" running around slaughtering guards and militia men for daring to stop him?
>if they only follow the laws of men who are wrong and choose to defend them, they are just as guilty
Isn't that just an open licence to kill anyone who disagrees with you?
>f the slaver doesn't agree or repent to the errors of his ways, he will be destroyed
That's not lawful
It might not be good but there's nothing inherently chaotic about murdering someone for not doing what you want them to do. As long as you enforce your will consistently.
>there's nothing inherently chaotic about murdering someone for not doing what you want them to do
You are delusional.
Inflicting harm on others for not following your code is lawful evil. Inflicting harm on anyone who might be around because it's fun is chaotic evil. Forcing someone to give up slavery or die because it's your mission in life to exterminate slavery is definitely some flavor of lawful even if not lawful good.
>Forcing someone to give up slavery or die
Because slavery is legal, it is not lawful to do this.
Lawful the alignment has literally nothing to do with the laws of the land.
Having a lawful alignment means you respect the laws of the land even if you disagree with them.
It absolutely does not. It implies you have your own code that you make decisions by and you are loathe to deviate from it.
No it doesn't. That is not what lawful means.
this is a beautiful demonstration of why the alignment system is shit. well done anons
What's the point of chaotic good then?
Lawful good characters don't have to respect laws that don't benefit the common good.
Lawful evil characters don't have to respect laws that don't benefit them personally.
Though both would prefer to change the laws through legal means if possible.
Wrong on both counts.
>Lawful characters don't have to follow the law
This is stupid. What makes them different from a chaotic character?
Lawful characters believe that societal order that sacrifices individual liberty is best overall. Chaotic characters believe that individual liberties that sacrifice societal order is best overall. Lawful characters will go against laws that they believe run counter to societal order. And lawful characters who go against laws that they believe run counter to societal order can clash with other lawful characters who go against laws that they believe run counter to societal order, over which laws and why. One lawful character might believe that having a ruling class is beneficial to order and disagree with attempts at lawful democracy. Another might believe that having a ruling class benefits those individuals at the expense of the greater whole, and would go against lawful aristocracies. Though any attempts at changes to the law, up to revolution if needed, would be measuring with the potential greater harms of their actions.
You have no idea how alignment actually works.
Wow, i guess a paladin has no way whatsoever of opposing the evil overlord, since he makes the laws.
that's why paladin follow a code of their personal deity anon
>of their personal deity
You do know Paladins have never needed to worship a god in any version of D&D to get their powers, right?
The only one that came close was 4e where you severed a piece of your god's power at chargen but afterward you could forsake them and still keep the power.
that's moronic as hell. what's the point of playing the ultimate crusader of god Archetype if he doesn't worship a god or gets it's power from him
Because the Paladin is a crusade of a god, that's a war cleric. A Paladin is someone who saw darkness in the world and decided to personally fight against it. Some paladins do worship gods but a Paladin in D&D has ALWAYS pulled their power from platonic cosmic power of Good and Law, the same ones that the gods themselves draw from.
>isn't*
Fricking half-drunk typos
You're not a Paladin if you don't worship a diety who blesses you with divine power.
If you're just a guy fighting evil, then you're simply a figher.
"Whether sworn before a god's altar and the witness of a priest, in a sacred glade before nature spirits and fey beings, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness, a paladin's oath is a powerful bond." - DnD 5e
And it's the same in literally every edition. You literally lose your powers if you disobey your diety
See
You have NEVER had to worship a god in D&D to be Paladin, you simply have to have your own righteous cause and then the cosmic font of powers of Good and Law bestow them upon you just as how they bestow power onto the gods themselves.
Actually crack a rulebook open.
most Mary sue shit i've ever heard if it's true. Pathfinder honestly does it better than because all the powers come directly from a god than your own
Pathfinder (the setting) is actually garbage tho.
some things are bad but i honestly think it's a okay Setting
>You do know Paladins have never needed to worship a god in any version of D&D to get their powers, right?
???? A Paladin is a holy warrior who gets their powers from a god. You cannot be a paladin without a god backing you
>Paladins have never needed to worship a god in any version of D&D
lmao moron
>t. morons that have never actually read the rulebooks and only look at memes
Wow. You have trouble reading, huh? It says a Paladin need not devote themself to a SINGLE deity. Meaning, that you can worship multiple good gods and be a paladin.
No god = no divine power
So you're moronic and missed the line "devotion to righteous is enough" followed by the final sentence talking about what happens IF they worship a god?
To continue, in 5e you CAN choose to be tied to god to get your powers but you can also choose to simply have your character fully draw their power from their oath. Throughout the later sections it specifically goes into that either a god may send you on a mission or you are granted divine power by your own oath your swore to yourself.
Literally nobody cares about nu-WotC shit.
>in 5e
who cares lol
Okay morons.
I don't have my D&D Rules Cyclopedia in front of me but to be a paladin you had to act as a personal retainer for a clerical order but nowhere does it say you need to actually worship their god.
Also in Pathfinder 1e it outright says you don't need to worship a god to be a paladin.
>Also in Pathfinder 1e it outright says you don't need to worship a god to be a paladin
Don't listen to these fricks. They only get their pathfinder knowledge from the video games.
>Also in Pathfinder 1e it outright says you don't need to worship a god to be a paladin.
you are telling me becoming a LG for that paladin dip was for nothing?
>paladin dip
what for
CHA to saves and Smite evil
When pathfinder mentions Divine power there are three different things they're talking about.
Direct quote from the books:
>Clerics, druids, experienced paladins, and experienced rangers can cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells, and the divine forces of law and good power paladin spells. Divine spells tend to focus on healing and protection and are less flashy, destructive, and disruptive than arcane spells.
Divine can come from three fonts, the Divine gifts of gods (Clerics), the Divine majesty of Nature (Druids, Rangers), or the Divine forces of Law and Good (Paladins).
People who think you NEED to worship a god to play paladin never fricking read the books and likely were taught that via 'deus vult' memery or people who also hadn't read the actual fricking rules.
so what you are saying is that i can be a Atheist Paladin?
you can but in terms of setting its a bit impractical
how would one learn to be a paladin without a holy order
Yes.
So why do the all of the dnd games force you to worship a god?
Because there is a difference between the setting agnostic D&D Ruleset and the D&D Ruleset adapted to run inside a specific setting.
It's like saying why can I play GMOD and spawn whatever the frick I want but when I play on a specific server they limit what I can and can't do.
You can't really be an atheist in D&D if gods are openly present unless you're pulling the "umm the gods aren't actually gods" baby-tier argument.
Paladins are about fighting Evil and opposing injustice and the like. You could easily run a campaign as an antitheist where you're challenging the gods since you believe they have created harmful broken systems. But that makes you an antitheist paladin and not an atheist paladin.
>You can't really be an atheist in D&D
He means agnostic you autist frick.
He literally said atheist you fricking moron. And everything that holds for atheist holds for agnostic in D&D, everyone knows for a fact the gods are very much real unless you live under a rock.
Unless you're playing in a setting that specifically has no access to other planes of existence or clerics it's nigh impossible to be an agnostic or atheist.
In d&d agnostic means they don't worship any particular god.
You autist frick.
>I'll just change the word agnostic to mean alatrism
Okay, moron. You got a source for your bullshit?
Every Pathfinder and d&d game that lists "agnostic" under faith.
Weird, I just went through the entire 3.5 PHB and Pathfinder 1e core and the word agnostic doesn't appear once in either of them.
Weird how you claim they're there but they aren't. Almost like you lying out your ass?
Agnostic is literally a meme term that has no purpose other than avoiding the stigma of being an Atheist.
>Hey anon is the sky blue?
>Well golly gee it looks blue but I can't prove that my eyes aren't broken and it's actually red and everyone else is also insane so I guess we can't really know for sure I am very smart
Just stop. You objectively, factually have to worship a deity to be a Paladin. This is true in D&D, and it's true in Pathfinder.
>BUT MUH PAIZO SAID
Paizo removed all references to slavery from their books.
>Y-You just have to despite the fact the books directly say you don't.
>Y-You just need to accept the meme as a fact!
You're actually moronic, D&D has NEVER required you to directly always worship a deity to be a paladin, it has been an option as a means to get your powers but it has NEVER required it.
You are powered simply by your oath, your cause and because of this the fonts of cosmic power fill you with the ability to pursue Lawfulness and Goodness in the pursuit of smiting evil.
No one has been able to point to a piece of the rules that say you MUST worship a god that doesn't actually say you MAY worship a god or simply follow your oath.
>D&D has NEVER required you to directly always worship a deity to be a paladin
Yes, it has. You should probably go back to your 5E sanitized books, with all the racial traits eliminated.
I literally brought evidence from BECMI, 3.5, PF1 and 5e that all say Paladins don't need gods.
Please provide even one single core rulebook source that says Paladins MUST worship a god. Because everything in the core rules for each of those that I've found has said the exact opposite.
Not that anon, but the atheist paladin thing, while technically OK according to at least the more recent rule books, doesn't really work in practice. Where is the magic coming from if not a god or gods? If you were born with it you're a sorcerer and if you learned it on your own you're a wizard. An atheist paladin or cleric is like a warlock without a patron.
>the divine forces of law and good
How do you not see that this is just a (really bad) ex post facto attempt to justify the existence of atheist paladins that still fails to do so? Do you know what the word divine means?
So you think all rangers and druids have to worship gods for power too?
First of all, their description isn't clearly dancing around the word god but still fumbling into describing the power source as divine. But yes, for all intents and purposes they are. Just specifically nature gods/spirits.
All of these classes are externally granted their power. So where is the paladin's coming from? What is it that's deciding to cut them off when they break their oath? The word divine itself refers to something related to a deity. And the divine force in question is clearly sentient with a will. That's a god.
The most charitable interpretation that can possibly exist that doesn't involve a direct connection to a deity is that the power is granted by a servant of a deity like an angel or something.
A lawful good character could strike down unjust laws to replace them with just ones.
A chaotic good character would destroy a tyrannical system entirely and assume that the good nature of the common folk would lead them to act in the best interests of Good.
That's fair interpretation. I'm just opposed to the idea that the average LG character, especially Paladins, would become the Punisher and going around killing evil doers just because they're evil.
so if Iomedai took a walk into a place she is allowed to enter and see innocent kids getting murder in cold blood by soldiers following the "law of the land" aka the law of some burocrats or dictator, she would just say "shame, not my problem tho"?
that's not very good
I don't even know who Iomedai is.
But if they were being executed by the law it would not be lawful to intervene.
pic from Op is literally from pathfinder, isn't that the game we discussing? Dnd to say the least
No we are discussing alignment.
What alignment are nazi hunters? Going to third world countries to imprison 80 year old men?
LE or perhaps LN if assuming good intentions.
What if your deity is pro-slavery?
than its not good, the argument was about LG not LN or LE
Slavery is not morally bad.
if it is not bad why do you have to force the other person moronic? if it wasn't bad the person would choose to do it without you forcing, in which case he would be a slave only in name, he is just choosing to serve you for free
So by your measure, warfare is inherently evil?
not if you acting out of defense or to protect good innocents from an attacking perpetrator
Like I said, you are an idiot that doesn't know how alignment works.
what's the problem? don't have more relativism to throw my way?
I don't see a point in further arguing with someone that doesn't understand that slavery isn't inherently evil.
nta but it isn't and you can't to prove otherwise
>it isn't
So we agree that slavery is not inherently evil.
yes
War is good, if you disagree, you're a pussy
Spikes on armor is inherently evil. I don't make the rules.
it's a part of who we are tho.
>give person choice of being slave or living in detroit for the rest of their life
>they choose to be your slave, but not truly for free
>you did not force them as you gave them a choice
wala
he is choosing to serve you and getting something out of it, he is not a slave, he is a employee (and his payment was moving out of Detroit)
Real slaves aren't working for free either though, food, shelter, clothes, and even low rate healthcare services aren't free.
ok but is he choosing to have all of those in exchange for his work? he is not a slave
is he forcefully working for you instead of having the option to leave? he is a slave
What if I create a race of incredibly adorable catgirls that will guro themselves if they are not enslaved against their will? Do you want adorable catgirls to claw at each other's stomachs, spilling their catgirl guts all over the floor? Would slavery in this situation be morally evil?
This presumes slavery, one of the oldest human social conventions, is evil by nature.
Is it not evil to kill a kind slave owner that is beloved by his slaves for his altruism?
Given that even Haitian slaves thought the ultimate leader of the Haitian Revolution was a bit chaotic for doing just that (though really the guy was simply violent and just really, really, really hated the French) I agree. A lot of former slaves would pretty much tell the kinder owners that if they heard gunshots to run and the former slaves would close their eyes and count to 10 in the meantime (until said violent leader found out and visited executions personally)
Why is there always that autist that comes in with their
>ummm akshually not all slavery is evil 🙂
Sure moron, but the majority is, and that's how it is portrayed in this game too
>but the majority is
Prove it.
I agree that the alignment system is defective, and there is much more fun and precise moral/value systems out there in the world of the ttrpgs that can actually help characterizing a pc and driving an interesting plot forwad.
My example of preference is the Pendragon system: the many values and vices of typical medieval literature are paired with a series of directed scores called passions, that embody the strong feelings and ideals of a character. So for example, I can be a lustful, brave and merciful knight that has a passion score for love(family) and loyalty(lord), but also hate(saxons) and fear(bears)
What makes it interesting however is the fact that specific circumstances in a campaign force the player to do either trait or passions rolls, which decides how his character will act in reaction of it. A lusful character will tend to think with his dick even when the player doesn't want to (because he will usually pass those rolls), brave characters will also keep risking their lives with no apparent again and merciful characters will need to pass a difficult check if they want to execute that hated enemy begging for mercy.
Is a very simple yet effective way to tie personality and roleplay with the most crunchy aspects.
What did the bears do to you anon
>Why yes I'm a Crusader Kings player, how did you know?
Based.
So I'm not the only one who noticed those personality traits were blatantly CK
>morality
>alignment discussion
>nobody ever brings up tradition
Alignment doesn't work.
Your average Drow would be Lawful/Chaotic Evil to anyone from the surface. But what about in Drow society where what they do is accepted? Would they be considered Lawful Neutral?
What if the Drow is a follower of Eilistraee ? They want to dismantle Drow society, which would be considered Chaotic Evil by Drow, but Chaotic Good by surface dwellers.
Then you have Vhaeraun, who wants to overthrow Drow and make it an egalitarian society, but then also wants to rule the world, but also wants to work together with elves on the surface instead of killing them.
That's not how it works, alignments are universal, they don't change depening on perspective
Who gets to decides what is objectively good and moral then?
The creators of the setting.
Kind of like how God literally decides what is moral and what is not in real life.
The universe
No one. That's why alignment doesn't work.
t.
the society the character finds themselves in
The dungeon master and whoever created the setting
Again it’s why a lawful person in one setting can nuke a planet of innocents when that wouldn’t fly in another
Lawful good*
Whoever is the strongest and most capable of enforcing their will and ideals onto the society at large
Isn't DnD "good" and "evil" straight up objective? Killing unarmed prisoners is "evil" even if the subjective rules of your society says it's required.
There is no such thing as moral relativism in DnD. Good and Evil are objective and measurable using magic.
Not in the latest version of d&d. Alignment is purely cosmetic in 5e.
>5e
nobody cares about that pozzed garbage with their wheelchair meta
why bring it up like it has any relevance
Because no one plays any other version of d&d still.
Anyone that like 3.0/5 is playing Pathfinder and no one ever played 4e.
>"don't do that"
>why
>"would you want someone to do it to you?"
why do people act like this makes sense
Since when is "treat others how you would like to be treated" controversial?
i would like random women to shove their breasts in my face, why won't they let me shove my breasts in theirs??
Do you often find it difficult for you to imagine hypotheticals where you are someone else, anonymous?
For example, how would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning?
>For example, how would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning?
I literally read a green about this earlier today, small world
>I can twist this to be bad
>Aha see applying a bit of doubt makes me philosophically correct
>Even though I got the main point wrong
I'd grant you your wish anon, but I'd also turn all women into 1/10 pure aboriginals.
I didn’t actually realize how moronic their post was until you just pointed that out. It was just another shitty post my eyes glazed over
Not everyone deserves the same fate they inflict on the those that deserve it, after all.
Literally 100% of all people in this thread, in every thread, and in every conversation ever had on the subject, cannot even start by defining what "Evil" and "Good" mean when it comes to mechanical alignment arguments.
Literally all of you in this thread think "Evil" means the same as the dictionary definition of the word "evil". Because you're fricking moronic.
>evil doesn't mean what it actually means; it means what I say it means
wow riveting argument, moron
Black person, "Evil" with a capital E is a mechanical definition. Thank you for proving my point to every possible decimal. Your brain is mush, you don't understand basic human concepts. Nothing you have ever said or thought has value and everyone who knows you, hates you.
For the purposes of determining a fictional character's alignment in a setting with defined "good" and "evil", "evil" means literally anything the creator of the setting wants it to mean.
>but then couldn't some amoral fricktard create a pants on head world where kicking puppies is "good"?
Yes. And it would have no bearing on other settings with alignments or real life.
I mean, yes you can just handwave away the underlying concept by saying that TTRPGs are based on ad-hoc fiction and thus everything supporting all mechanical definitions is, by definition, relative and subject to the whims of the writer. You can absolutely say that.
It doesn't really affect the fact that there still has to be a mechanical definition and it has to be one that is objective within the contest of the ad-hoc created fiction, otherwise it'd be like having posted speed limits on a road except everyone from the car makers to the cops all are allowed to invent their own metrics to measure you by.
>begins both sentences with "Literally"
Yeah and I'm sure a zoomertard such as yourself is going to enlighten us any moment now.
Evil is things I don't like. Good is things that I like. Simple as
From my point of view, evil is things I like!
Then you could be an unethical hedonist and you're self fulfillment is the higher good.
> killing these people makes me happy
Thus you are achieving good
>and in every conversation ever had on the subject, cannot even start by defining what "Evil" and "Good" mean
Good = Altruistic. You place the needs of others over your own.
Evil = Selfish. You place the needs of yourself over others, even if that means fricking over other people
Neutral is a balance. They may have empathy, but no enough to go be a hero. And they may be selfish, but not enough to royally frick over someone for their benefit. Think of them as the "fence sitter", or the average joe alignment
what if you act altruistically by fricking over another group of people? Say, exterminating some orcs to protect humans living in the same country
Depends heavily on the context. A Good character will try to persuade the orcs first or try to resolve it without resorting to murder, but he might be pushed into killing the orcs nonetheless depending on the circumstances.
A Neutral character won't care about full-on genocide, just as long as some good is done for someone and it aligns with his own personal worldview.
Evil might accept the job if the coin is good, but he might just as well betray the humans if orc coin is better.
>Literally made because tabletop autists who had been playing large scale military games were incapable of understanding they might have different motivations and ethics from their characters.
>most complex form of roleplay the time required phoning a premium line and jerking off furiously.
>Class restrictions also existed basically to stop first wave D&D players, who were extreme fricking munchkin rules wankers from doing stupid shit. (They kind of had to, since D&D was very players/DM adversarial and you had shit like temple of elemental evil just to slow the morons from speedrunning your fricking campaign)
>The idea is so basic, so entry level it is the ultimate low-hanging fruit that everyone both immediately understands.
>But it's related to an extremely nuanced aspect of the human condition that philosophers argue about and have argued about since at least earliest written record.
I hate alignment systems. I fricking despise the shitty 9x9 alignment grid meme that as soon as someone posts one everyone argues about because it turns out you can't fricking classify a single living person as just "Super mean"
But most off all, I fricking hate self-insertinggers
So just play a game that doesn't have alignment.
90% of tabletop games don't have it.
Will Paizo force Owlcat to adopt 2E because of the OGL debacle? it seems to much likely to me
We tried a trial run of 2e and it just seems kinda meh. As a spellcaster main especially I feel like I might be disadvantaged at later levels. Maybe i'm just too stuck in my ways.
Aren't Marital now OP thanks to some very OP feats, reduced Feat tax and trap feats and the best class is Fighter because of it's +2 to hit that scales with Level? i know 1e best class was Oracle and Wizard
Yeah that's my concern with 2e. My usual DM is a fighter main who min-maxes his encounters to be able to easily beat the AC of the tankiest character in the group and that's probably why he's so optimistic about 2e
alignments were originally made just to prevent the evil knight Murdericus from equipping good "aligned" weapons, holy swords etc. it has gotten terribly out of hand since
>Unlike most living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit.
>When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don’t work on an outsider. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life.
how do you impregnate one then?
also doesn't it also mean that succubi are incredibly filthy disgusting prostitutes
>how do you impregnate one then?
By putting penis inside vegana and cumming inside
What kind of moronic question is this
what "vegana", moron? you're cumming in a condensed ball of energy.
Are you fricking stupid? Literally boot up the game and go kill a demon, watch them explode, watch their blood and their gore, their organs
This is the equivalent of saying that humans can't get pregnant because hey they're made of atoms
Dumb moron
what game Black person? we are talking about the setting here and demons are not the only outsiders
I didn't even mention the game anywhere in my posts yet you foam on the mouth shilling wotr
stop huffing your own farts for a split second
You literally mentioned succubi
>demons are not the only outsiders
Of course they aren't, and there are other outsiders that may not be able to get prengnat, hell, angels don't even have genders. It depends, Ragathiel is son of a devil and an elemental for example
Either way, even if only demons could get pregnant, the "condensed ball of energy" logic is still moronic, that's my point. It doesn't matter if their bodies are made of souls, they're still bodies, with organs, which may or may not include reproductive organs
by fricking them normally. Some Outsiders can get pregnant tho like Azata or even some Angels iirc. Succubus on the other hand can get Pregnant and will make a Alu fiend
>even some Angels
by some you mean empyreans? afaik most angels are literally made of light and their equipment are parts of their bodies
sorry i meant to say can't, Azata and Angels can't get Preggo
how did aasimar came to be then?
>have no concept of gender
>can produce offspring
Assimar is Human female X Azata/angel male/female
>how did aasimar came to be then?
Magic.
Tieflings and aasimars can exist simply by having close contact with outsiders, it doesn't necessarily have to include sex
They "taint" (or bless) your bloodline, and several generations later an aasimar/tiefling can be born
aaaah makes sense
People thinking alignments are supposed to represent ACTUAL good and evil ruined it.
It's only meant to be a quick way to reference whether your character is heroic or villainous.
In our games we don't really put too much thought into it. It's pretty much just gives us a general idea of how we should RP our characters. I last played a NE loot hungry sorcerer who disregarded everyone that wasn't useful to him and actively tried to convince other party members to do morally questionable things for his own benefit.
It was fun.
The only problem with alignment is they decide to make objective "good" and "evil" and even "law" instead of making it something like a two-axis Light-Dark/Order-Chaos or Magic's colour wheel, especially when they introduced alignments having objective extraplanar counterparts. Most arguments about alignment boil down to arguing what's morally good or evil, or stuff like saying being lawful means you have to follow every law and being chaotic means you have to disobey every law, or other stupid shit like that.
this entire thread should be moved to /tg/ tbh. mods should do there job for once
kys GankerBlack person
stop being a Aeon and doing it for free
If pathfinder's pantheon was real 99% of people would worship drama, shelyn or pharasma let's be honest
*Desna
Fricking autocorrect
I will Worship Irori because i am on that Sigma grindset
Frick that I'll worship Lamashtu, shapeshift into some kind of beast and have sex with cute cultist girls in large depraved interspecies orgies.
You guys are being edy/hipsters
Irl you'd workshop the goddess of love and beauty, the goddess of freedom and adventure or literally the one who judges your soul,handles the soul of your children and is incredibly powerful
I'd accept the god of alcohol too if European, literally encountered people praising Bacchus irl
>green faith is edgy/hipster
you are a moronic Black person
>I'd accept the god of alcohol
no wonder
who else would elevate recreational intoxication to absolute
You're naive or you have autism and cannot comprehend how other people think. If there were actual real gods that provably exist and represent different domains like in Pathfinder people might unironically worship a lot of the gods you might consider evil or weird especially if there is a very real personal benefit to doing so.
Not gonna lie bros, I would simp hard for Iomadae.. short haired tomboys got me thinking unwise
She will never let you have sex with her anon. She's probably still a virgin too.
>she never gonna have sex with you
YOU DONT KNOW THAT! maybe I could become the next hand of the inheritor and convince her of true love...
>she's probably a virgin
Don't do this to me...
you have to be Righteous and good to become someone like Handbro and because you browse Ganker you are neither and will never become one
I'm both
>browse Ganker
So? is not about where you go, is about if you remain good going there. The hand could visit the abyss but he would remain good
>I'm both
Doubt.jpg. no one sane or good browses this hive of scum and villiany.
>is about if you remain good going there
i am sure Pic related also said the same thing to herself but look how she turned out. you are or will become just like us Anon
if i Worship Nocticula when she becomes the redeemer queen will she give me a Redeemed succubus if i become her Cleric or champion?
Green Faith is based.
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Party on, Uncle Ted, party on.
i will Worship Norgorbor because he is a fellow professional like me
no the Dominant gid in Earth will be asmodues.
TTRPG expert here
D&D's alignments were always shit, there's a reason why most systems didnt adopt something similar
also HYTNPDND?
I'm going to join a D&D game for the first time next week, any dos/donts?
also what alignment would a peasant character who got caught for poaching be (although he only did it because of bandits stealing all his food)
What game edition?
Probably true neutral. Just doing what he needs to survive. Possibly leaning chaotic neutral because he resorts to poaching instead of relying on communal aid.
Poaching is fine for a chaotic good.
Depends on other factors. That tidbit alone only says nonlawful.
That description could be any of the alignments, though it steers away from Lawful.
Theoretically he could still be Lawful with a good justification, but if you're new to it, I wouldn't bother trying that.
They're good shorthand if you aren't moronic.
It's only a blight due to DnD being so dominant really.
If people played different pnp systems more often, then they could actually internalize the meaning of alignments instead of treating them as rigid, defined structures.
>If people played different pnp systems more often, then they could actually internalize the meaning of alignments
No they wouldn't because most games don't use alignment systems.
I mean indie ttrpgs that focus on narrative roleplaying rather than number crunching.
I prefer number crunching personally, but you can't crunch the concepts of morality and ethics.
Both indie and mainstream ttrpgs don't use alignment.
Games that actually use alignment are getting rarer and rarer because its an outdated mechanic.
why do you think someone's experience with a ttrpg that doesn't have alignments is completely irrelevant to their feelings toward alignments?
Also, DnD's monopoly is growing lately, so even if alignments are rarer per ttrpg, they aren't on a per-game-played basis.
Alignment in current d&d is cosmetic and does not affect gameplay in the slightest.
The ~~*wizards*~~ of the coast are doing their best to kill it and everything else interesting, hope you gays will be happy when it's all turned completely soulless.
Its already completely soulless.
Its been soulless for decades.
The 80s was the best time for ttrpgs.
>Realize that to achieve the greatest good, one can't let themselves be bound by laws and must take self-righteousness to the extreme
>This gets you put in Chaotic Good
>Have to share it with nothing but wanna be anarchist kids
its all so tiresome...
i think you will be NG unless you think Good should be extended to people who only i like
Does the laws of Heaven really forbid a lawful angel to break the laws of some land if he is there? Like a angel would really watch a innocent worshiper of Iomadae herself get tortured in front of him if a dictator of some land created a law for that and just say "not my problem"? If thats the case than I may have to reconsider my alignment, this shit isn't good
yes and no. Hand doesn't want to break the laws of Alushinyrra(lmao) but also says that he used to fight slavers of the abyss and even go to hell to bully devils but that's probably done Anonymously instead of drawing too much attention on him
>Hand doesn't want to break the laws of Alushinyrra
That's out of pure pragmatism. The only thing keeping every demon in the city from just attacking you on sight is their adherence to Nocticula's rules and he knows that. Instead it's just like, every 20th demon or so.
Depends on why the angel is there. They aren't really allowed to just randomly interfere in random mortal on mortal conflicts.
That has literally nothing to do with alignment, no outsider can do that
Alright let me rephrase. Imagine a LG human paladin of Iomadae went there and it happened in front of him on a small remote location (I'm not saying he should pick a fight with an entire country because of its different laws) 2 random guys torturing a innocent kid who worships Iomadae because the law of the country allows it. He would just pass by and say "it is what it is"?
The paladin would be well within his alignment and rights to stop them. For one, alignment describes behavior and preference. A LG character can act Chaotically. But opposing evil laws is neither Evil nor Chaotic. Lawful just describes that he believes in order, structure, tradition, and oaths conceptually. If he were Chaotic, he would hold more value in freedom, individuality, and progress.
People that say a LG character can't violate the laws of the land he's in are complete and utter morons that don't understand how it works and think alignments make you a robot. Not to mention how stupid it is. LG means you're a person that likes order and laws and tries to help people. You might value law more than good, or vice-versa, but you don't violate your alignment to act against one in favor of the other.
I thought this was the case but there are several people on this thread (or just one adamant moron) who insists that a paladin wouldn't break the laws of the place he is in regardless of how evil they are
Yeah, and everybody that says that is a fricking moron that has no idea what they're talking about. Case closed.
You should read the story of the angels going to Soddom in Genesis.
They were ready to get buttfricked to death by a mob just because that's the etiquette in the town they went to.
Lawful good isn't for everybody.
this
the whole worldwound business is an exception precisely because demons are breaking the status quo
usually they don't interfere
If stopping the torture of a worshipper of Iomdae requires his pointless sacrifice in the vain effort to stop it then no.
He would probably work within the system to try and take control of the government or organize an eventual coup, or if that's impossible build a resistance network and eventually lead a revolution. That would be the smarter LG thing to do.
Coups and revolution is not LG.
Why? The LG character would be working to change the law in an evil country. A chaotic character would disregard the law completely, whether it's good or evil.
Circumventing the law to change the law is not lawful.
LG has to work within the system to change the law.
What if the system is beyond fixing?
No system is beyond fixing.
>No system is beyond fixing.
>Looks at china
hmmmmm
Like other anon said. Perhaps it's just not possible for that LG character to be able to make changes within the system. It may be that the only way to change the law is through revolution.
My example with this would be the Rebellion in Star Wars. Mon Mothma for example is my idea of a LG leader character.
Mon Mothma was CG. Not LG.
And if a LG cannot change the laws through the system they leave.
Yeah frick off you're moronic. Mon Mothma created the New Republic after they won. They didn't leave it as some kind of anarcho state which would be the typical Chaotic thing to do.
>if you create a government you have to be LG
You are the moron here.
I genuinely thought the "good" aspect came first and a paladin wouldn't care to act accordingly to the law of a evil place just because he happens to be there, I thought he could genuinely smack a evil motherfricker directly in the mouth instead of filling up papers to try and change the law (lmao)
You would be wrong.
There's a reason no one actually plays LG in tabletop. Because its way too restricting.
then what would a guy who did that be? neutral good or chaotic good?
Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. Lawful Good IS a murderhobo alignment
The paladin who wrecks a place because he didn't like the laws there?
He'd be chaotic good.
The two most liberal people In my tabletop group almost always play LG lol. One of them is a Paladin gay but at least i'm fairly certain he doesn't self-insert since he only plays as male dwarves or human females.
"Lawful" doesn't literally mean the written law. It can, and there is usually a correlation. But it's actually about strict adherence to a code. A character that strictly follows the precepts of an outlawed religion is lawful.
>"Lawful" doesn't literally mean the written law
Yes it does.
>But it's actually about strict adherence to a code
And if that code is "I must rape every woman i see" would they still be LG?
>And if that code is "I must rape every woman i see" would they still be LG?
Then that would be lawful evil.
Not lawful good.
>its lawful to break the law
And that is why we call you moron.
>break the law
if women have no rights it's not technically breaking any law
As long as he adhere's to his code. He still being lawful.
Now if he were to go against own code many times.
Then he's just chaotic evil and not lawful evil.
What if his code is to destroy any lawful society and make an anarchist state in its place?
That's an interesting one. I think there's a real life equivalent exactly like that.
true neutral Lawful Chaotic evil
Yeah it would be lawful for as long as lawful societies exist.
Once the person fulfills their code. They no longer have the code to go by until another lawful society pops up.
Lawful during the journey. Chaotic once there's no lawful society.
Queen of hatred seems to be a good example.
Absolutely fricking moronic.
Well either they turn chaotic or they commit suicide once they destroy all lawful societies.
The only remaining lawful person left would be you that followed the code to destroy all societies.
So either suicide, become chaotic or another lawful society quickly pops up in that scenario
If the law is unjust, yes. You're too focused on the "Law" part. Another word used for translating the alignment chart is "Loyal". Lawful/loyal characters value and gain strength (physical, magical or mental) from something bigger than themselves that they will not negociate on.
if the rulers of the land the paladin lives pass a law that every man needs to rape little boys on sight, would the paladin just try to move out somewhere else with his eyes closed along the way so he doesn't look at any little boy?
yes
Then I came to the conclusion lawful is genuinely fricking moronic
>lawful is genuinely fricking moronic
Just like Samjo
don't know what a paladin would do, but I would move in and open little boy brothel in ancient greece aesthetic
That depends entirely on what the paladin's code is. Typically they are devout members of a religious order whose stance on raping little boys would not change regardless of what any state said. So, assuming that religious order was opposed to boy rape, they would probably all get together and go on a crusade to destroy whoever is responsible for the law.
No, that would be lawful evil (and stupid evil), although that's where you get into arguments. Lawful vs chaotic is pretty straightforward. Most everyone can wrap their head around "do you follow a strict set of rules or do you just do whatever you feel like?" Even you understand and are just being an argumentative homosexual.
Good vs evil is where the controversy always lies. People can (usually) agree that really extreme things like rape and murdering innocent people are evil. But even something like torture can get muddy if the victim is themselves an evil piece of shit who is withholding information that could save innocents. There's just too many conflicting philosophies on how to define good and evil. This is why these things typically end up being handled outside of the alignment system. You torture a bad guy and the common people probably don't care, but members of a religion that prohibit torture under any circumstances (and their god or gods) will be displeased.
>Lawful vs chaotic is pretty straightforward
No it isn't.
Otherwise this thread wouldn't be at 370 posts.
I addressed that specifically.
that's why you become a CG angel and don't give two shits about the laws of whatever LE you are in
>LG has to work within the system to change the law.
No, this is moronic. Lawful v Chaotic is Deontology v Utilitarianism. A LG character doesn't have to obey the laws of society, they have to obey their moral principles (internal laws).
>A LG character doesn't have to obey the laws of society
Wrong.
wrong. the Lawful part of him would prevent him from doing that
>b-but i will ignore it for just this once
than you aren't lawful, you are Neutral or Chaotic good
>wrong. the Lawful part of him would prevent him from doing that
>>b-but i will ignore it for just this once
>than you aren't lawful, you are Neutral or Chaotic good
A lawful character doesn't obey every law. That would be impossible, due to all of the conflicting laws which exist. They obey their own laws, often derived from an organization, a society or a religion.
For example, let's say the party needs an Elvish speaker to translate a tablet which is essential to completing a quest. The nearest Elvish settlement is thousands of kilometers away, but the party encounters a group of slavers who traffics exotic slaves. The slavers offer the party an Elven slave who is capable of translating the tablet.
A LG character would refuse to buy the slave, even if slavery is legal. This is because according to his moral principles, engaging in slavery is wrong under any circumstances.
A CG character might buy the slave, have the slave translate the tablet and then free them. This would mean that the tablet was translated, and that a slave was freed which are both good things according to the CG character.
>A lawful character doesn't obey every law
Yes they do. Stopped reading there. You are an idiot.
>Tfw not LG because I live in a medieval era setting and I can't afford all the law books of the lands I go through to purge evil in the name of truth & justice
>Have to beg magistrates on the street for a quick legal crashcourse on what the local positions are for murder, adultery, ans women reading
In medieval times you did not need law books.
You think the current US law system was how it was 1000 years ago?
Medieval society absolutely had laws and these were written down and passed on, do you think they just kept all their legal codes in their head?
>Yes they do. Stopped reading there. You are an idiot.
You are the idiot. "Lawful" refers to internal laws. It's literally impossible to follow every law, a lawful character only needs to obey the laws they respect.
>then he is CG and not lawful
SA
>literally what a LG who doesn't want to break the laws would do.
No, a LG character would believe that engaging in slavery is evil, no matter what the circumstance is. A CG character would be willing to engage in slavery in purpose of a greater moral goal.
>"Lawful" refers to internal laws
We've been over this a million times.
No it does not.
A LG Paladin is in Region X.
According to Kingdom Y, Region X is a rightful part of their empire and is under their legal jurisdiction.
According to Kingdom Z, Region X is actually a part of their empire and is under their legal jurisdiction.
A wayward traveler notices the Paladin and asks him which Kingdom is he's in. How does the Paladin answer?
>You're not from this land? INVADER!
Then he beheads him
>How does the Paladin answer?
How the frick should I know, I'm just visiting.
hellknights shit and piss on your local laws moronbro
>A lawful character doesn't obey every law.
then he is CG and not lawful
>A CG character might buy the slave, have the slave translate the tablet and then free them. This would mean that the tablet was translated, and that a slave was freed which are both good things according to the CG character.
literally what a LG who doesn't want to break the laws would do.
You're Neutral Good
>medieval fantasy setting's morality is the exact same as the modern liberal american morality system
Huh well what do you know about that?
Do you have an actual argument to explain this claim or is it just /misc/tardation?
What about the 9-way system is "exactly the same" as modern systems of morality?
>modern systems of morality?
Most ttrpgs do not have systems of morality in their mechanics.
>most
name 5 that have more than 10 players worldwide (so no shit like gurps)
I can get 5 different games just from whitewolf.
>VtM
one, four to go
Werewolf, Hunter, Changeling, Mage.
Happy?
clown
take the L and don't post ever again
>Oh my god I can't believe most games don't use alignment systems
>No morality system in Hunter
So you're moronic?
There is no alignment in Hunter.
it's a clown
stop replying
what does that have to do with the claim I'm refuting here
?
I've unironically never once got anything from being nice to people.
The issue is that morons project their own understanding of what Good/Evil and Law/Chaos means when in reality it's Law/Chaos is Authority vs Freedom and Good/Evil is Selfless vs Selfish.
Someone who uses the system for their own gain is LE but someone who does everything they can to help others (even at their own expense) within the confines of a system is LG, they will also push for a better system.
From what I read the sodomites were going to attempt to frick the angels.
But I'm pretty sure it wouldn't of ended well for them considering the whole recent nephilim incident.
Good chance they would've gotten nuked or killed on the spot if it weren't for Lot delaying the inevitable by being a decent person.
I don't get it what other games have alignments spread into?
I'm pretty sure the lawful part of allignment isn't just laws of the land.
It can also be following your own strict set of codes.
Such as lawful evil for example.
You value courtesy and treat those higher in hierachy even if they're outsiders with the utmost respect.
While those that are lower if they don't show respect to you. You execute or maim them for their lack of respect.
Evil ways of enacting their code.
Here's your fricking LG poster boy.
If you don't know how to roleplay something with a LG character, just ask yourself "What would Vimes do?"
If you don't know if an action would pull a character towards LG or not, then ask yourself "Is this something Vimes would do?"
Alright I cracked open the 3E handbook for good alignments.
Neutral Alignments
And evil
see this is what I don't get, by that description there is no fricking way a LG would watch good innocent people get tortured in front of him just because they pass a local law that allows that, and then try to ask pretty please to the rulers and see if they can change the law
The ugly truth is that most of the DnD video game adaptations fricked up.
Keldorn from Baldur's Gate 2 is "Lawful Good" but he sees no problem in genociding evil races
Ekun from Kingmaker is "Lawful Good" but he sees no problem in genociding Trolls, down to the literal children
By pnp terms, these psychos should actually be lawful evil.
God I loved that nig Ekun. Got him that oversized bow from the troll dungeon and literally could not find him anything better in the rest of the game.
Trolls are evil by nature.
Executing troll children is a good act that will prevent them from eating people in the future.
No, anon. Putting an entire race to the sword is not good.
>race is created by an evil god for evil deeds
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T KILL THEM BECAUSE... BECAUSE IT'S AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS! EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT HUMAN!
see
Whether or not genociding evil races is good or evil is the single biggest argument about alignment. And it always will be because we have no real world frame of reference for a sapient species that will always, predictably be evil.
Pretty sure some anons were discussing the israelites just earlier in this topic.
I'm not a big fan of the israelites and even I acknowledge that not all of them are evil. You can't drown a israeli child and be 100% certain you prevented a monster from reaching maturity. But you can say that about squishing an illithid tapdole.
That's because this is a game you play with friends and the only people who argue this much about alignment are autists.
>Whether or not genociding evil races is good or evil is the single biggest argument about alignment
There's no argument, anon. Every single dnd game has outliers from the "evil" race.
Baldur's Gate: Viconia
Kingmaker: Nok-Nok and Regongar; and the reformed Kobloids
WoTR: Arueshale
Planetscape Torment: Falls From Grace
Both Nok-Nok and Regongar are evil tho.
Imagine looking at Nok-Nok and thinking
>NOOOO HE'S LE HECKING EVIL HE HAS TO DIE
That IS something you can do. His alignment is listed as evil.
But i liked his damage numbers too much to not use him.
Nok-Nok wants to sacrifice Linzi to Lamashtu, he's definately chaotic evil.
Nok-Nok has a crush on Linzi, he's just tsundere
He's misguided. You can steer him towards a hero route, where he tears down Lamashtu statues
Their race and alignment is evil, but there actions aren't evil.
That's because you control their actions.
And they still try to do evil things. Especially if you put them in council positions.
>Nok-Nok
>Council
I haven't played in a while but i'm pretty sure there was a council position you could give him.
I wish
>we have no real world frame of reference for a sapient species that will always, predictably be evil.
Hahaha.
You may resist this, but the children of Israel are the original model of "objective evil", as seen in their roles as vampires, corrupt politicians, and shady merchants in fantasy settings.
Only recently has that changed.
You're confused about what evil is because evil has won.
>sapient species that will always, predictably be evil.
How does sapience compute with some kind of gene-deep predilection for evil? How does one entire race of goblins or dark-skinned elves just collectively decide, yup, we're straight up going to be EVIL and make ourselves the target of everyone else?
That's kind of where the argument comes from, isn't it? That surely they aren't ALL bad. But then what if they are? Lots of things in these games don't operate the same way as in our world. In a universe with actively present deities, including evil ones, is it really that much of a stretch to potentially have an intelligent race that was created/corrupted by an evil god who are now hard coded to be evil themselves?
Then there's the cases of biologically dictated evil. The illithid life cycle and diet pretty well dictate that they behave in a way that every other creature would see as monstrously evil. Same with goblin slayer rape goblins. But then that too raises the argument of whether or not behaving as your biology dictates is evil or is just an unfortunate confrontation of creatures trying to survive.
>In a universe with actively present deities, including evil ones, is it really that much of a stretch to potentially have an intelligent race that was created/corrupted by an evil god who are now hard coded to be evil themselves?
Not at all, but from my admittedly shallow understanding of the lore, I can't think of too many examples of that for intelligent (sapient) species. Even the universally hated drow are not obligated to worship evil deities even if the Lolth and Shar ones can get particularly nasty.
You're right and that further complicates things. I don't know if drow have ever been truly universally evil, and they at least haven't been for a while. So it's easy to point to them and say that obviously it's wrong to exterminate an evil race because they aren't always all evil. But then there's shit like illithids that, as far as I'm aware, are always evil without exception. Can the moral arguments against genociding the drow or bugbears really be extended to every circumstance?
what's wrong with genocide
nothing
evil races must be purged
>no fricking way a LG would watch good innocent people get tortured in front of him just because they pass a local law that allows that
>Keldorn from Baldur's Gate 2 is "Lawful Good" but he sees no problem in genociding evil races
All "lawful" means is that they generally follow tenets they're taught and rarely compromise.
It's the "good" part that justifies a compromise in that case. If you ask a crusader, there's nothing inherently evil about genocide if it's used against an evil race, and they would happily take a justified opportunity - even if their tenets normally don't permit it - because the good thing to do is to destroy evil at any opportunity.
If they were "neutral", they would absolutely not budge on the law since they have no reason to compromise regardless of what goes on in front of them. Evil race? If they follow the law, they have any reason to exist as any other.
If they were "evil", they would adhere to their tenets, but take occasional justified liberties for the sake of oppressing good. Evil race? Maybe the law can bend a little in their favor when they break a law or two, or they have special laws that indemnify them of any crime.
Have none of you homosexuals ever done any roleplaying?
Alignments are a useful roleplaying tool. If it gets in the way, you're playing the wrong character.
AHEM
I think the alignment system and its consequences have been a disaster for roleplaying.
(refuses to elaborate)
(leaves)
God I wish they had called Lawful alignment Order in order to avoid these "lawful means always following the laws of the land no matter how fricked the country" morons.
Order is a copout answer. If you're ignoring the laws of the land to fit your own code, then you're chaotic.
A "chaotic" person isn't some schizo who makes their decisions based on coin flips. They're simply a passionate individual who follows their moral compass (and thus "code) or lack of
Order implies that you're willing to impose on people's personal freedoms because you value keeping society ordered more than you value people's inherently chaotic freedoms. Most important to both the lawful good and lawful evil characters is making sure everything stays stable.
I think it's a damn briliant idea. For fiction and fictional characters at least.
Look here is the alignment in the nutshell.
The Law and Chaos axis were just factions from RPG's war game roots. Neutrals in this this context are opportunists. Once the game became about small parties instead of armies, the Good and Evil axis has been added and has been given more importance.
>implying real life isn't using a more moronic system
I wish that we could just say that we are voting for the Lawful Evil party.
>Keldorn from Baldur's Gate 2 is "Lawful Good" but he sees no problem in genociding evil races
>Ekun from Kingmaker is "Lawful Good" but he sees no problem in genociding Trolls, down to the literal children
That is being true to the original intent of the alignment. Also, it is based. Capeshit has rotten people's brains.
>paladins don't have to follow a God
>they can get their morals from a personal code of conduct
>except that personal code of conduct also doesn't matter because they need to follow the law of the land regardless of how evil it is
If there is one thing I got from this discussion is how fricking useless paladins are. You might as well just be a cleric or a hellknight
yeah paladins are pretty fricking garbage
that personal code of conduct also doesn't matter because they need to follow the law of the land regardless of how evil it is
see
The problem is frickwits kept trying to force morally grey bullshit into D&D and they were basically forced to casualize it because of people wanting "muh good Lich"
Black person baelnorns and archliches existed since 2e
good lich is based
good necromancer is possible
cope
seethe
dilate
>dilate
Ironic
>NNNOOOOO USING SKELETON CHAFF IS ... LE EVIL!!!
>WHY WOULD YOU ROB THOSE PEASANT LEVVIES FROM THEIR CHANCE TO BE A CANNON FODDER YOU HEARTLESS BASTARD
Lorewise Necromancy is evil because it tortures souls and brings negative (death) energy into the world. Good Necromancers are a cope because why wouldn't they just use golems instead of corpses? The answer is because Necromancy is more efficient, less expensive, and requires less power to do. This means that, necessarily, there is something at play that makes raising the dead different than just animating an object like making a golem or casting Animate Object. And that something is probably using the soul of the dead person, which is pretty fricking evil.
Every argument for a Good Necromancer can instead be made for a Golem Master without the asterisk of it probably torturing innocent souls and having corpses walking around.
how is that torture exactly? dhampir and other evil-touched don't seem to be in perpetual agony...
Because their souls aren't being enslaved to pilot a skeleton against their will. It varies by setting, of course, but you always have to ask the question of why they don't just use golems. And the answer is always that it's easier and cheaper, which raises two questions:
>Why is it easier?
>Why would you take the easier and cheaper route when there's a probably better option?
The answer to the first depends but it probably is that there's some mechanism that makes animating the dead easier than something else. Probably the soul. The answer to the second depends but it's usually because you're being an edgelord contrarian trying to prove that necromancy isn't actually evil while ignoring all of the reasons it's considered evil instead of just making a bunch of wood or clay dudes.
How evil necromancy is depends entirely upon what necromancy actually is within the setting. If it involves enslaving a soul then it really is pretty evil. If it's just magically puppeteering a corpse then it's still kind of weird that you'd choose corpses instead of mannequins or suits of armor or something but it's still only desecration of corpses at worst. Although that can still be kind of bad if certain funerary rituals are actually relevant for a person's afterlife and messing with their body impacts that.
>How evil necromancy is depends entirely upon what necromancy actually is within the setting. If it involves enslaving a soul then it really is pretty evil.
Unless you are the author's pet in weird gaytheist power fantasy.
God that show was such garbage.
WYNBAL
Do you ever model your character after an existing one?
What would be Geralt's alignment in Pathfinder?
He should be lawful neutral but he can't help being neutral good
>What would be Geralt's alignment in Pathfinder?
Depends are you playing him as a selfish dickass or someone that actually cares about the common man?
Depending on how you play him he's somewhere in the NG-LN-NE trifecta.
I always found it lame that only LG gets a special kBlack person.
D&D already fixed that.
In 5e a paladin can be any alignment.
Where are my fellow unrepentant CE Gankerros at
So we reach a consensus then? a LG character is not actually forced to go along with laws that goes against good and can choose to act to protect people even if that breaked evil laws
>So we reach a consensus then?
>Ganker
>ever reaching a consensus on anything
If they swear to uphold/follow the laws of a country and then they break the law of that country, they are not lawful, if they never swear to follow those laws, then theres no alignment problem if they break them
I don't have any issues one way or the other with alignment charts as a mechanic. The only thing I hate is that every normalgay frickstick moron uses it to create image macros without having any fricking idea what any of it means. The images always invariably boil down to "lawful good = thing I like, chaotic evil = thing I don't like, true neutral = thing I don't have strong feelings about."
yes, it's the most moronic concept in ficition that was ever conceived
the problem isn't that it assumes that there is some objective good and evil because while there isn't, people almost universally agree that some things are evil or good even if it's purely subjective and can even contextualize actions that are usually good or evil into the opposite depending on the circumstances
the real problem with this moronic chart is that it assumes that the characters are unbiased and act according to some perfect moral compass that applies to everything equally
a paladin will smite a heretic but will hesitate or outright not do that if it's his colleague which makes him a true neutral and don't try to argue that this isn't the case, most people in real life act that way and any well written character will act like a real person that that universe would act and not according to what plot wants them to do
the average person will obey laws because it's pragmatic but will break laws when it's not and there's no penalty so does that make them chaotic neutral?
how do you classify a massively xenophobic leader that wants to genocide other nations but is otherwise a benevolent leader to his people? lawful good, lawful evil or neutral?
how about a person who cares for his friends but will not hesitate to kill random fodder that gets in his way? chaotic evil or neutral good?
the moral compass is moronic because morality to a large degree is circumstantial and people are very biased and not consistent in their views almost at all
because this moronic concept got so popular we get characters that are one dimensional because they have to be if we want to classify them using this dumb system that did irreparable damage to all of fiction and it makes sense how little sense it makes in real life when you consider it was made by autistic social outcasts