A eulogy for Alignment in CRPGs

[rusty_shackleford]

Look, I think all your "horonary" badges could be replaced with one big "DUMBFUCK" because it's more fits your intellectual level. We talking about D&D characters and not your cuckold fantasies about being naked and helpless, so casters will have their spells and martial classes will have their weapons (or even without weapons they will have their physical prowess), so decision to not intervene depends only on moral views of your party and no character that stand for "all good and righteous in this world" would just stay and watch murder unfolding.

It's the trolley problem, not a D&D campaign.

Yeah because a D&D campaign has never had moral dilemmas

If a DM ever gives you a dilemma and tells you to pick from two choices, punch him

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

For example, a lawful evil character could be a knight who does good

Alignment system has nothing to do with what you think only what you do, this is why it's flawed to the core. It's for simpletons or for the games who does not take themselves seriously, as for proof look at the most alignment based RPGs, there no fleshed out realistic characters but only subtypes, not only subtypes it's the caricature of the subtypes, i.e Pathfinder Kingmaker.

Incorrect. It's a definition of how your character thinks.

http://orbisrpg.co.uk/Planescape/players_handbook.pdf

Alignment--a factor in defining a player character that reflects his basic attitude toward society and the forces of the universe. Basically there are nine categories demonstrating the character's relationship to order vs. chaos and good vs. evil. A player character's alignment is selected by the player when the character is created.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=95

Source Core Rulebook pg. 29 1.1
Alignment can change during play as a character’s beliefs change, or as you realize that your character’s actions reflect a different alignment than the one on your character sheet. In most cases, you can just change their alignment and continue playing. However, if you play a cleric or champion and your character’s alignment changes to one not allowed for their deity (or cause, for champions), your character loses some of their class abilities until they atone (as described in the class).

https://4thmaster.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/alignments-add-2nd-edition/

Player’s Handbook, page 46
The character’s alignment is a guide to his basic moral and ethical attitudes toward others, society, good, evil, and the forces of the universe in general. Use the chosen alignment as a guide to provide a clearer idea of how the character will handle moral dilemmas. Always consider alignment as a tool, not a straitjacket that restricts the character. Although alignment defines general attitudes, it certainly doesn’t prevent a character from changing his beliefs, acting irrationally, or behaving out of character.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Look, I think all your "horonary" badges could be replaced with one big "DUMBFUCK" because it's more fits your intellectual level. We talking about D&D characters and not your cuckold fantasies about being naked and helpless, so casters will have their spells and martial classes will have their weapons (or even without weapons they will have their physical prowess), so decision to not intervene depends only on moral views of your party and no character that stand for "all good and righteous in this world" would just stay and watch murder unfolding.

It's the trolley problem, not a D&D campaign.

Yeah because a D&D campaign has never had moral dilemmas

If a DM ever gives you a dilemma and tells you to pick from two choices, punch him

And conversely: if someone gives you the trolley problem and instructs you to come up with your own solution, up to and including using magic spells or super strength to derail the train or whatever, he hasn't given you the trolley problem at all.

 

[Poseidon00]

If a DM ever gives you a dilemma and tells you to pick from two choices, punch him

In a world where people can go back and forth in time, the dead can rise again, we know for a fact about the afterlife, gods can easily intervene in mortal events and often do, magic exists, etc., the moral dilemma that surrounds the trolley problem ceases to make sense.

This is why I refused to entertain the distilled retardation that is the trolley problem applied to DnD.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

Look, I think all your "horonary" badges could be replaced with one big "DUMBFUCK" because it's more fits your intellectual level. We talking about D&D characters and not your cuckold fantasies about being naked and helpless, so casters will have their spells and martial classes will have their weapons (or even without weapons they will have their physical prowess), so decision to not intervene depends only on moral views of your party and no character that stand for "all good and righteous in this world" would just stay and watch murder unfolding.

It's the trolley problem, not a D&D campaign.

Yeah because a D&D campaign has never had moral dilemmas

If a DM ever gives you a dilemma and tells you to pick from two choices, punch him

Better to come up with a third or fourth and argue with him until he flips the table. No need for physical violence there, not much satisfaction in beating up a fat neckbearded Pillsbury Doughboy anyway.

I cast magic missle at the trolley.

The trolley was enchanted with missile reflection. Roll your damage.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

This is why I refused to entertain the distilled retardation that is the trolley problem applied to DnD.

The trolley problem is itself distilled retardation designed to FORCE you to think in utilitarian terms.

The average person will never in his life have to consider whether to save one group of deaf, dumb, blind people or another, or whether or not to murder a fat man to do it either.

It's designed to make you open to murdering people "for the greater good", nothing more.

If you see the kind of scum roaming our streets and setting fire to buildings and forests in the name of "equality" or "social justice" or whatever, you'll begin to understand just what the real endgame for such a question is.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

This is why I refused to entertain the distilled retardation that is the trolley problem applied to DnD.

The trolley problem is itself distilled retardation designed to FORCE you to think in utilitarian terms.

Oh.

So it's just like the 3x3 alignment grid then.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

This is why I refused to entertain the distilled retardation that is the trolley problem applied to DnD.

The trolley problem is itself distilled retardation designed to FORCE you to think in utilitarian terms.

Oh.

So it's just like the 3x3 alignment grid then.

Nice try.

No, it isn't.

As I just proved above, the alignment system is designed as a guide for your character to help you roleplay.

Your lawful good paladin probably isn't going to suddenly decide to murder a bunch of schoolkids in exchange for a fat sack of gold and your DM can gently remind you of that.

 

[Ismaul]

Trolley problem is fundamentally anti-roleplaying. It is the CYOA book of moral thought experiments.

"CYOA is fundamentally anti-RP"

excuse me what

Presenting someone with a list of limited options to choose from and telling them to pick one is not roleplaying.

Ah yes but presenting 9 alignment options and telling people to pick is true RP.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Trolley problem is fundamentally anti-roleplaying. It is the CYOA book of moral thought experiments.

"CYOA is fundamentally anti-RP"

excuse me what

Presenting someone with a list of limited options to choose from and telling them to pick one is not roleplaying.

Ah yes but presenting 9 alignment options and telling people to pick is true RP.

Yes? They're just general categories.
Torm, Tyr, and Ilmater are all of the same alignment yet have very different views.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

This is why I refused to entertain the distilled retardation that is the trolley problem applied to DnD.

The trolley problem is itself distilled retardation designed to FORCE you to think in utilitarian terms.

Oh.

So it's just like the 3x3 alignment grid then.

Nice try.

No, it isn't.

As I just proved above, the alignment system is designed as a guide for your character to help you roleplay.

Your lawful good paladin probably isn't going to suddenly decide to murder a bunch of schoolkids in exchange for a fat sack of gold and your DM can gently remind you of that.

What if they're orc schoolkids?

 

[Goose]

This is why I refused to entertain the distilled retardation that is the trolley problem applied to DnD.

The trolley problem is itself distilled retardation designed to FORCE you to think in utilitarian terms.

Oh.

So it's just like the 3x3 alignment grid then.

Nice try.

No, it isn't.

As I just proved above, the alignment system is designed as a guide for your character to help you roleplay.

Your lawful good paladin probably isn't going to suddenly decide to murder a bunch of schoolkids in exchange for a fat sack of gold and your DM can gently remind you of that.

What if they're orc schoolkids?

May Torm guide your blade.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Yep. Lawful Good doesn’t determine good and evil himself. He depends on a code, a higher power, a religion, or the law itself.

 

[Üstad]

Incorrect. It's a definition of how your character thinks.

Yeah, good luck dungeon master reading my mind unless I made what I think blatantly obvious the game simply wont and cant give a shit about it. This is why reputation system is simply better, if I save some pilgrims from bandits only for fame purposes dumbfucks of super righteous anger should like me, who the hell cares about extremely simplistic version of morals, just make it about how you known regardless of your exact motives.

 

[Gastrick]

The trolley problem is itself distilled retardation designed to FORCE you to think in utilitarian terms.

The average person will never in his life have to consider whether to save one group of deaf, dumb, blind people or another, or whether or not to murder a fat man to do it either.

It's designed to make you open to murdering people "for the greater good", nothing more.

If you see the kind of scum roaming our streets and setting fire to buildings and forests in the name of "equality" or "social justice" or whatever, you'll begin to understand just what the real endgame for such a question is.

They can't even get the utilitarian part right, considering Blacks make up 13% of America, Fags make up 2% and Trannies make up less than 0.01% yet their interests are supposed to be the more important than the average person's.
Unfortunately, living in a Democracy is enough for most people to think in utilitarian terms and even on this site, sales figures register as important.

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

They can't even get the utilitarian part right, considering Blacks make up 13% of America, Fags make up 2% and Trannies make up less than 0.01% yet their interests are supposed to be the more important than the average person's.
Unfortunately, living in a Democracy is enough for most people to think in utilitarian terms and even on this site, sales figures register as important.

What niggers/trannies/fags have to do anything with our discussion? Did your poor nut sized brain got over by our "complex" discussion and this retarded nonsense is your mechanism self-perservation from complete meltdown? Wtf...

So far alignment supporters demonstrated:
1) child like naivety in views on world (muh good vs evul)
2) Attempts to diminishing any arguments by using derogatory lexicon towards question itself (they decided to dismiss whole "trolley question", because "it's false dichotomy" even though it's not up to them to decide false it or not; at least not until they will prove that trolley problem is false, instead of avoiding previous question) or someone who ask question instead of answering ( "Oh, you are disagree with my views on part of RPG system?You are SJW!" - most common attempt to avoid discussion, because otherwise their ignorance and lack any knowledge on matter will be exposed)
3) Blaming existence of people, who started to ask questions instead of being sheep brought on slaughter (questions like "why the fuck we even should use retarded alignments in first place?") on social groups which don't care about rpgs like black people (who rarely plays games, let alone cares about D&D), some kind of secret organizations (ah, conspiracy theories, classic scape goat of losers) and so on and so forth.

Ofc there some people who is doing a bit more reasonable debate,I think,, like rusty_shackleford (never thought I'd call F76 player as person capable to a reasonable debate lol) and few others, but with them (as soon as someone uttered "I don't like alignment system") a bunch of lunatics showed up and started slinging shit all over the place.
I know it's codex and I should being used to it, but common...

 

[Shitty Kitty]

It just blows my mind how "2 choices is bad RPG. 9 choices is great RPG." Someone called it 9th grade philosophy, the trolley scenario. What does that make 3x3? 10th grade philosophy?

"BUT TYR, TORM AND ILMATER ARE DIFFERENT BUT SAME ALIGNMENT"

Yeah, and it's almost like their alignment is abstract stupidity that no follower would give a shit about compared to their ideals, philosophies and tenets of faith. Fuck knows if I were playing a cleric of Tyr and someone came up demanding my favor and that of my deity because they said they were Lawful Good, I'd ask them what that had to do with anything much less Tyr's favor. Are you committed to the ideal of justice? Are you pursuing a heinous criminal? What is it you want from Tyr, exactly, and why does your alignment have anything to do with it?

The alignment is redundant at best.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Yeah, good luck dungeon master reading my mind unless I made what I think blatantly obvious the game simply wont and cant give a shit about it.

You're talking about a video game vs a real dungeon master.

A real dungeon master can simply ask you. A game is a bit more tricky to deal with and should really be paired with a reputation system (not replaced by one, as you suggest).

This is why reputation system is simply better, if I save some pilgrims from bandits only for fame purposes dumbfucks of super righteous anger should like me, who the hell cares about extremely simplistic version of morals, just make it about how you known regardless of your exact motives.

The game can know your motives by your alignment and/or you the player can tell the game with dialog options etc.

Ambiguous decisions can have less of an impact on your alignment. Decisions that are blatantly evil can have a greater impact.

 

[Gastrick]

What niggers/trannies/fags have to do anything with our discussion? Did your poor nut sized brain got over by our "complex" discussion and this retarded nonsense is your mechanism self-perservation from complete meltdown? Wtf...

So far alignment supporters demonstrated:
1) child like naivety in views on world (muh good vs evul)
2) Attempts to diminishing any arguments by using derogatory lexicon towards question itself (they decided to dismiss whole "trolley question", because "it's false dichotomy" even though it's not up to them to decide false it or not; at least not until they will prove that trolley problem is false, instead of avoiding previous question) or someone who ask question instead of answering ( "Oh, you are disagree with my views on part of RPG system?You are SJW!" - most common attempt to avoid discussion, because otherwise their ignorance and lack any knowledge on matter will be exposed)
3) Blaming existence of people, who started to ask questions instead of being sheep brought on slaughter (questions like "why the fuck we even should use retarded alignments in first place?") on social groups which don't care about rpgs like black people (who rarely plays games, let alone cares about D&D), some kind of secret organizations (ah, conspiracy theories, classic scape goat of losers) and so on and so forth.

Ofc there some people who is doing a bit more reasonable debate,I think,, like rusty_shackleford (never thought I'd call F76 player as person capable to a reasonable debate lol) and few others, but with them (as soon as someone uttered "I don't like alignment system") a bunch of lunatics showed up and started slinging shit all over the place.
I know it's codex and I should being used to it, but common...

It was related to the post I was responding to, threads don't need to always stay on topic and rarely do. Lol, why do you think I had a meltdown?
So far alignment-haters demonstrated:
1) lack of any table top roleplaying experience or even second hand knowledge.
Like the idiot posts, "You have to talk it over with your DM?" "What happens when the trolley scenario comes up?"
2) Don't like derogatory words? Faggot. I guess you are still butthurt about the various political comments.
3) Muh poor minorities
You lost the debate, try to lower your narcissism and look at things objectively. Look at it again as well for shit flinging.
Why do you care so much about whether there's alignment or not anyway? People who like it are going to use it regardless of what you say.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

It just blows my mind how "2 choices is bad RPG. 9 choices is great RPG." Someone called it 9th grade philosophy, the trolley scenario. What does that make 3x3? 10th grade philosophy?

"BUT TYR, TORM AND ILMATER ARE DIFFERENT BUT SAME ALIGNMENT"

Yeah, and it's almost like their alignment is abstract stupidity that no follower would give a shit about compared to their ideals, philosophies and tenets of faith. Fuck knows if I were playing a cleric of Tyr and someone came up demanding my favor and that of my deity because they said they were Lawful Good, I'd ask them what that had to do with anything much less Tyr's favor. Are you committed to the ideal of justice? Are you pursuing a heinous criminal? What is it you want from Tyr, exactly, and why does your alignment have anything to do with it?

The alignment is redundant at best.

Again, alignment is a general guide and not a straightjacket. It's just a tool for the player and for some world reactivity - like not being able to pick a class or wield an item.

It doesn't lock people down to behavior patterns or shoehorn them into the sorts of stereotypes other itt have complained about.

If they do, they aren't being used correctly.

Good examples in BG would be Keldorn or Anomen. Keldorn will have his wife executed if you let him, but this is a lawful act and doesn't change him fundamentally because it doesn't go against the tenants of his faith. Anomen will murder a man's daughter, changing his alignment because in passing this point of no return, he has changed his outlook completely. How he sees the world is forever changed and therefore so is he.

Kingmaker wasn't too bad in this regard either, in that it took numerous choices to change your alignment. This is more for player reactivity and feedback though. In a real game, you the player or the DM would be the ones changing your character's alignment to reflect a change in your attitude/persona.

An evil character who suddenly finds that he cares about people enough to give his life for them might have an alignment change. An evil character who saves a town for the reward shouldn't.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

It just blows my mind how "2 choices is bad RPG. 9 choices is great RPG." Someone called it 9th grade philosophy, the trolley scenario. What does that make 3x3? 10th grade philosophy?

"BUT TYR, TORM AND ILMATER ARE DIFFERENT BUT SAME ALIGNMENT"

Yeah, and it's almost like their alignment is abstract stupidity that no follower would give a shit about compared to their ideals, philosophies and tenets of faith. Fuck knows if I were playing a cleric of Tyr and someone came up demanding my favor and that of my deity because they said they were Lawful Good, I'd ask them what that had to do with anything much less Tyr's favor. Are you committed to the ideal of justice? Are you pursuing a heinous criminal? What is it you want from Tyr, exactly, and why does your alignment have anything to do with it?

The alignment is redundant at best.

Again, alignment is a general guide and not a straightjacket. It's just a tool for the player and for some world reactivity - like not being able to pick a class or wield an item.

It doesn't lock people down to behavior patterns or shoehorn them into the sorts of stereotypes other itt have complained about.

If they do, they aren't being used correctly.

Good examples in BG would be Keldorn or Anomen. Keldorn will have his wife executed if you let him, but this is a lawful act and doesn't change him fundamentally because it doesn't go against the tenants of his faith. Anomen will murder a man's daughter, changing his alignment because in passing this point of no return, he has changed his outlook completely. How he sees the world is forever changed and therefore so is he.

Kingmaker wasn't too bad in this regard either, in that it took numerous choices to change your alignment. This is more for player reactivity and feedback though. In a real game, you the player or the DM would be the ones changing your character's alignment to reflect a change in your attitude/persona.

An evil character who suddenly finds that he cares about people enough to give his life for them might have an alignment change. An evil character who saves a town for the reward shouldn't.

It is an extraneous layer of abstraction. "Doing good makes you good" is a tautology, a waste of breath. A reputation system would both be more complex and more freeing, and as a reputation system the 3x3 is remarkably ineloquent. Would a character in-world ever utter the words "You are lawful good!" to describe another character? Of course not. They'd say "You're the man who saved the village of Bumfuckistan from a band of organized thugs!" or "You're the man who saved my dog from that burning house!" Those acts would give you a reputation - saving the village would likely curry the favor of gods like Helm, Torm, Tyr, and Ilmater among others and probably make you a lot less popular with Banites (especially if the Banites were the ones who sicced the marauders on the village). It might even have interesting effects on your relations with followers of other gods of slightly different bents, like the keepers of that shrine to Chauntea in Bumfuckistan. All this is nuance that is washed away in the 3x3 and chances are a good RP just ignores the damn thing anyway.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

It is an extraneous layer of abstraction. "Doing good makes you good" is a tautology, a waste of breath.

Again, for the third time now, you're completely wrong.

Doing anything doesn't make you anything. The alignment system is to define who your character is in his attitude and how he relates to the world, not what they do.

A reputation system does the opposite. It tracks what you do, not who you are.

It's like you're sitting there screaming "a garden hose doesn't bake cakes adequately!!!" over and over.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

It is an extraneous layer of abstraction. "Doing good makes you good" is a tautology, a waste of breath.

Again, for the third time now, you're completely wrong.

Doing anything doesn't make you anything. The alignment system is to define who your character is in his attitude and how he relates to the world, not what they do.

A reputation system does something completely different.

It's like you're sitting there screaming "a garden hose doesn't bake cakes adequately!!!" over and over.

And you think a 3x3 grid based on 4 poles is sufficient to describe a person's attitude and relation to the world? Really? It's inadequate even for THAT. Your attitude and relation to the world should be evident through your actions. I suppose you believe everyone who comes up to you and says they're "anti-badguy", too.

 

[Alienman]

You can have both. Like in Pathfinder, I can't remember any point where I was judged on the alignment I was, it was my actions that defined what people thought about me (my character that is).

 

[Shitty Kitty]

You can have both. Like in Pathfinder, I can't remember any point where I was judged on the alignment I was, it was my actions that defined what people thought about me (my character that is).

Then why retain that fixture? If you're mapping reputation, alignment becomes borderline meaningless (or worse, fourth-wall breaking meta-gaming bullshit).