Tell me fa/tg/uys, why aren't you playing the best alignment or your system's version of it?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Lawful Good is the Best Alignment
Tell me fa/tg/uys, why aren't you playing the best alignment or your system's version of it?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Chaotic Good beats Lawful Good any day
How so? Chaotic good is just for neo-marxist LARPers who want to act like burning down the village makes them good guys. Actually, all Chaotic alignments are for some flavor of frickwit; the orignal alignment system of only Law vs. Chaos had it right. You are a demon if you support Chaos actively.
Meds
Okay pesud
Law is about being constantly cucked by sophists, bureaucratic nonsense and tradition getting int he way of what needs to be done.
>who want to act like burning down the village makes them good guys
Of they're evil villages, yes.
Chaotic Good breaks the alignment system. Everyone makes the other alignments moronic to accommodate CG.
>It is THE adventurer's alignment. Lawful is a lackey's alignment, if not in title, then in expectations. It is the alignment of principled losers who let villains go because it is a lesser evil, a constant pact with the devil.
Nah, you can kill a hundred orc babies and still be LG.
Alignments are all bad.
>Alignments are all bad.
Alignments are bad and pointless in trad games where they're supposed to reflect a character's ethos, morality, beliefs, or behavior.
They work as intended in old-school games, where they function as factions. (Like Alliance vs Horde in WoW.) But that requires an open table campaign with multiple, opposed parties all operating within the same campaign milieu.
If you're playing a typical trad campaign with one fixed group running one fixed party of the same PCs, session in, session out, alignment serves literally no purpose.
> Law vs Chaos
Is basically:
> Order vs Freedom
Which boils down to:
> Collectivism vs Individualism
Which basically means:
> Society's values or your own code of honor, A person status or raw skills
I can't play "lawful" anymore.
>Society's values or your own code of honor
Once you stop navel gazing and learn to look beyond yourself, you'll realize that it's not just you obeying your own code of honor, but encouraging everyone to obey their own codes of honor, whatever they might be.
Chaos is great in a Lawful Evil place, but awful in a Lawful Good place, and both great and terrible anywhere there's a mix of the two.
> Once you stop navel gazing and learn to look beyond yourself, you'll realize that it's not just you obeying your own code of honor, but encouraging everyone to obey their own codes of honor, whatever they might be.
Yes. And?
> Chaos is great in a Lawful Evil place, but awful in a Lawful Good place, and both great and terrible anywhere there's a mix of the two.
I disagree. Chaos (or as I see it, individualism) is great everywhere. If it is a lawful good place, it'll push me to collaborate and help, even as I avoid some of its trappings. If it is Lawful Evil, it'll push me to resist its influence and support those who do (although not necessarily sticking my neck out for no reasons). Or at least, it'll push me to leave or find like-minded people.
It is THE adventurer's alignment. Lawful is a lackey's alignment, if not in title, then in expectations. It is the alignment of principled losers who let villains go because it is a lesser evil, a constant pact with the devil.
>Chaos is individualism
Chaos may be Individualism to you, but Chaos doesn't cate about you as an individual. You're just another grain of sand in the blender.
>Law is for lackeys
Yes, the best lackeys are Lawful. How many Chaotic hirelings have to steal your stuff or backstab you because they too, see Chaos as Individualism, and their interests are more important to them as individuals than yours.
>implying Lawful lets villains go
Lawful punishes villains.
Really, it seems like you've played with, or at least bought into, the 'Lawful Stupid' mentality.
And Lawful Good means making tough choices. If a law is not good, it is not Lawful. If a good is not law, then make it so.
But I get it; Lawful Good is hard. Chaos is easy.
Lawful characters, no matter good or evil, are as useless as a butter knife against the Gordian Knot of corruption and bureaucracy. There is nothing they can do, end of story, no options. Chaotic-aligned characters can actually do something; good ones will blackmail the noble or bureaucrat with evidence of a mistress, while an evil one skins his wife living and tells him his son is next.
It is Lawful to remove obstacles that impede Law.
Corruption is inherently Chaotic, and therefore opposed by all Lawful characters.
Beaurocracy is a form of law, so any Lawful character will attempt to ensure that the law is Lawful, and correct the failings as they find them.
The Gordian Knot was solved following the law. Either by appealing to the higher laws, in the popular 'cutting the gordian knot', or by removing the lynchpin, which is more of a literal interpretation of undoing the knot.
>corruption is chaotic
tell that to lawful evils
the fact of the matter is you're wrong. it's chaotic to have revolutions. real change doesn't happen spontaneously, it happens from outside the law.
>lawful people make sure it doesn't happen again
FALSE
except there is good and evil. mutual aid is a factor of evolution. complete dominance isn't, and complete dominance leads to imbalances in ecosystems
Lawful characters are more familiar with the law, and are able to correct it with greater efficacy than chaotic characters thanks to that knowledge and experience.
Like, who would you go to if you had a toothache?
The guy who went to school to learn about teeth, had to pass strict examinations and obtain a license in order to prove he knew what he was doing, and has mandated equipment specifically designed for the task at hand, or the guy with a baseball bat?
> You're just another grain of sand in the blender.
Someone never dealth with the actual law. It cares that you're in the blender.
> How many Chaotic hirelings have to steal your stuff or backstab you because they too, see Chaos as Individualism
Have you tried having matching interests? Backstabbing is far more common when striving for status, something an orderly society seeks, rather than personal skills, something a chaotic society seeks.
> Lawful punishes villains.
By definition, Laws protect villains. By codifying punishments, you try to appease and pacify those who would seek justice. And you allow loopholes. How many a corrupt noble has found himself bailed out for a reason or another? Doesn't happen when the person that hired you to correct a wrong simply requires the head of the criminal.
> A law might not be lawful
First, I do not see how a law *can* be good. Even laws about the obvious stuff (e.g. Murder is illegal) usually either delays justice, or lets the perpetrator go with a punishment far less severe than the crime.
Either way, feel free to disobey it and fight the guards. Or try to defend your case in a court of laws made of very bribe-able individuals, or simply individuals who respect status and authority before your individual common sense. I might help you if I respect you as an individual.
> Really, it seems like you've played with, or at least bought into, the 'Lawful Stupid' mentality.
Law, as a concept, has to be somewhat applicable and understandable for all. That means a common denominator. That means idiots have to be able to understand it, to a certain level. It is thus striving, by definition, to be stupid.
I'm quite pleased that this post lives on more than a decade later. However, I'm not really sure that the low-functioning people of post-2014 such as can actually be helped by it.
Because every time I do, I seem to spend the time tard wrangling and being the one person to get shit done, so the rest of the PC's can have their romp time acting without inhibition or fear.
These are incredibly bad takes, and they only get worse the more I read.
>Law is at its basest, a codified written set of social agreements that we all agree to follow by living and existing in the area they apply to.
>To make sure we're fair, we write them out, but this inevitably leads to issues so we have systems of discretion in place for it, also in said written law, which cuts down on those issues.
>Punishment is divided into corrective and vindictive. Corrective fixes the issue, vindictive satiates the masses. That's why punishments tend to be gentler when they can, because unless you go to cruel and sadistic ones like cutting off hands for stealing or nailing ears to posts and requiring they pull themselves away (things we try and be better than, and even then, which rarely work), harsh or uncaring punishments don't really do any corrective work. If anything, the opposite occurs. Ergo punishment is a balance between trying to find something to correct the offender, and yet enough to make the family stop shouting.
>99.9% of laws are lawful and good. It's just writing social ideas down isn't easy like that, it's why lawyerspeak exists. The art of absolutely specifying everything exactly.
>Agents of the law, often police, suck. This is due to burnout. Most if asked, would say they care, but with the subjects and numbers they deal with desensitization is quite literally required to function. A Cop will not break his back to get your TV back to you. He will do what he can, but he won't see it as anything important.
>But if you're still under the absolute delusion that law is designed to be stupid, walk into a lawfirm and sign up. Clearly it pays so incredibly well, for a job that's just checking such a stupid-by-design rulebook.
>Or try to defend your case in a court of laws made of very bribe-able individuals
It's surprisingly hard to bribe the people actually handing down judgements directly. Mostly because law workers are paid a shit ton of money already.
Compare this to the middle aged folks running for president who make almost four times less per year than the loser 19 year old who plays mario on stream for a living.
>Law, as a concept, has to be somewhat applicable and understandable for all. That means a common denominator. That means idiots have to be able to understand it, to a certain level. It is thus striving, by definition, to be stupid.
>By definition, Laws protect villains. By codifying punishments, you try to appease and pacify those who would seek justice. And you allow loopholes.
You just said two contradictory things, but one of them has merit.
>By definition, Laws protect villains.
There are examples of this in very real, and even literal ways. American Corporations frequently set up headquarters in states with favorable taxing policies, and others find loopholes in tax policies that allow the corporation to outright avoid tax. A Korean law was put into motion that banned a scientific practice... For any institute that hadn't already been doing it for at least a year and had two or more papers published. It just so happened that only one institute had been doing said practice for more than a year and had two papers published. A law made specifically to let one institute keep doing what they were doing.
But-
>How many a corrupt noble has found himself bailed out for a reason or another?
- This one isn't so much law protecting the individual, but the individual having both the wealth to hire a good defence lawyer, and the smarts to shut the frick up and let said lawyer do the talking.
>By definition, Laws protect villains.
No, laws ensure that victims don't become villains themselves. Before codes of law were implemented, what you had was extreme punitive measures. Someone stole your cow? You rape their wife. Someone raped your wife? You kill them. Someone killed your brother? You wipe out their family. It's the entire reason that "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was considered kind and merciful when first enacted, because otherwise settled societies would wipe themselves out.
Having laws ensures that people don't start long-lasting feuds that harms everyone around them, settling grievances in a controlled, deliberate, and fair manner. A few criminals evading justice is far superior to crime being part of everyone's daily lives.
I do not see a problem with vindictive cow-stealers, and those who protect them, being wiped. Sure it us a tragedy in the here and now, but it roots out the cause of the problem.
Good catch. Thanks. I was wrong. I suppose laws have two layers, the one that is commonly applied and the one that is selectively applied.
> This one isn't so much law protecting the individual, but the individual having both the wealth to hire a good defence lawyer, and the smarts to shut the frick up and let said lawyer do the talking.
The very concept of capturing him to be brought to court in the first place was him being protected by the society. The other anon's cow-stealing brother's killer would face less harsh punishment than his victim, if only via delayed execution.
>I suppose laws have two layers, the one that is commonly applied and the one that is selectively applied.
Both of those are the same layer.
>"Sovereign is he who decides on the exception."
The layers are in societies perception of the law, not in the law itself.
>Someone never dealth with the actual law. It cares that you're in the blender.
It is because I've dealt with the law that I know it doesn't care.
I can also make a case against Good (a.k.a. Altruism) if you want, although I do not go so far as to defend literal evil.
And here, let's just say that "ending up better equiped to fight evil" and "living to fight another day" plays a big role when choosing who to help and whether to body shield for an innocent, the archetypical heroic sacrifice.
>Chaos is individualism
O I am laffin
All of my characters are lawful good because all of my characters are ontologically-good, for there is no perspective that they could wholly know except their own, and thus that one is surely correct.
On occasion, there are some disputes about this. However, some incisive rhetoric - or an equally-incisive blade - is typically enough to quell any naysayers.
There is no good/evil axis. The overarching dulaistic conflict of the world is between the Prince who rebelled against the Creator, killed Him, and took over and enslaved His world under totalitarian reign VS the Beast who is the embodiment of primordial emptines, endlessly fighting to destroy everything living that observes and thinks about it so that it may return to nonexistence.
So there's not even an order/chaos acis because the chaotic faction wishes to even destroy chaos itself.
Alignment is a dumb outdated system designed as a crutch for people who have no idea how to construct a character with a personality beyond a handful of myers-briggs-esque tropes.
>Wan Piss
You know this show is for moronic Japanese children right?
The most moral alignment is obviously Neutral Good - but Lawful Good moves the game forward even better.
Neutral Good is the best alignment. Just do good. It doesn't matter if it's Lawful or Chaotic. Even bothering to concern yourself with whether a decision is Lawful or Chaotic is stupid, just make whatever decision is the most Good. This isn't complicated.
Stay true neutral friend. Nature heals everything, and even your good intentions will lead to destructive ambition. It is better to recognize the dangers of civilization as well than to simply repel evil.
The Law VS Chaos argument is stupid anyway. You need people of both sides to make the world a better place. Chaotic people challenge the unjust, Lawful people make sure it doesn't happen again.
>Luffy
>not Chaotic Good
No wonder hasbro doesn't put rules in their "rulebooks" anymore, none of you read them. 5e is whatever shit you illiterate weebs decide it is this week. They'll probably just get rid of the Evil alignments in D&Done.
It's just some reaction images, anon. No one is claiming he is any alignment.
sorry bro but Chaotic Neutral is the best alignment. i can think with my dick and kill anyone i don't like without having to worry about some gay ass code of honor
>stand for nothing
>act surprised when you fall
why would i fall lol? why would a guy who believes his moral and ideals fall?
I dont run games with alignment.
You know what i think? i think that Lawfull Good, Neutral Good, and Chaotic good people should just come together and Stop all the baddies
Congratulations, you've just discovered neutral good.
>why aren't you playing the best alignment or your system's version of it?
I am playing the best alignment: Chaotic Neutral.
Why? Because I would much rather leave the alignment box on my character sheet blank, but for some reason, the rules want me to put one of nine combinations of two words into it, and I'm following those rules because the DM won't let me play in the game if I don't.
...which is, in its own way, a microcosm of the problems with alignment as a concept, because people generally act out of self-interest and a complicated, often contradictory or hypocritical, personal morality that they've constructed from their prior experiences and what they've been taught. A D&D-style alignment system doesn't reflect that very accurately, and I'd prefer to not have to deal with it. (And since alignment doesn't serve a mechanical purpose in D&D now, there's absolutely no reason to.)
So I might be chaotic, but I'm going to fill in that box on my character sheet because I want to play the game, and I have to comply with the rules in order to achieve my personal objective. I also have that usual "don't rock the boat" pack animal social instinct and "don't make things more difficult for other people than you have to" level of empathy non-sociopaths do, so I'm not gonna start an argument with my DM about filling in that box, because it would make me feel bad to create more of a headache for them.
"Chaotic Neutral" goes in the box because it allows me to play the character according to their desires and their personal ideas of morality, without anyone being able to tell me that it goes against what's in the box.
>why aren't you playing the best alignment
Because you don't play alignments, you play characters. The fact that you even think in terms of "playing alignment" shows me that you don't actually understand alignment at all, which is surprising given how absolutely fricking basic it is.
>Why aren't you playing a character that is the best alignment
Don't be a Black person about this, they mean the same thing. One is a shortening for brevity's sake.
It absolutely does not mean the same thing, because there are a lot of people that really do treat alignment as prescriptive, and absolutely do think that people of a given alignment must adhere to some check-list of behaviors that they associate with a specific discrete alignment.
Most fantasy protagonists are Neutral Good, Frodo, Jon Snow, Rand Al-Sneed etc. I can't really think of a Lawful Good fantasy protagonist.