A eulogy for Alignment in CRPGs

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

I wouldn't trust current game devs with a proper D&D alignment system.

“Lawful Good” transsexual paladin orc.

Yeah, maybe you’re right...

 

[Goose]

You're getting that anyway, with or without alignment.

 

[mondblut]

Hey, that looks familiar...

D'oh!

 

[NJClaw]

Here we are grieving for the loss of alignments in CRPGs, but have they ever served any purpose whatsoever in any videogame in the history of humanity?

In almost any game I can think of, alignments are just pairs of words that say which items you can or cannot equip. "Ooooooh, you are a good guy, you definitely can't use that magic flail!" and "Ooooooh, no no no, you are not good enough to wield that sword" are not enough to justify alignments' existence in RPGs. Instead of checking if the player said "yeah, this character is good" during character creation, check if he actually acted according to the moral alignment of the item.

Maybe sometimes the game will be incredibly daring and link the effect of a spell to the alignment of your companions. Again, do we really need an entire descriptor on every character just for that? Sometimes we get a "now you fucked up" scripted event that changes our alignment from good to evil because we did something wrong, then nothing changes and the game plays out exactly as if the change never happened.

At their best, alignments in videogames do nothing, and at their worst they gate dialogue choices according to arbitrary, nonsensical, and inconsistent interpretations of what each alignment means. Like in Kingmaker, where you can negotiate peace between two factions only if you are neutral. I mean, why? If I'm LG/CG and value life over everything else, why can't I try to avoid bloodshed if possible? If I'm LE, why can't I try to play both factions?

 

[BING XI LAO]

Only in regards to deities and even then not necessarily. The PoE system of linking personality traits to deities works just fine and is much more intuitive (e.g. it is much easier to define what constitutes a cruel or aggressive act rather than an 'evil' one), thus also reducing the issues some players take with the representation of the D&D both in tabletop and computer RPGs.

Moral relativism has really done a number on the brains of today's youth, lemme tell ya. So basically because "good" and "evil" are politically charged, they just want us to use different words?

Nah, moral absolutism has done a number on yours. The issue is that people today do not have a shared outlook on morality (although many elements do overlap for the majority of people), so it is harder to codify good and evil without having parts of the playerbase annoyed that it is not representative for their own moral compass. And that's why a lot of devs portray good and evil as stupid good and stupid evil respectively (e.g. BG, KotOR), since your average player gets it and can play along even if it finds such a portrayal as being a caricature of the two and thus less enjoyable than a more mature characterization. For a more nuanced portrayal though, you end up frustrating people since the ties between choice and alignment often aren't intuitive.

The game's mechanics shouldn't be altered to fit the mores of a decadent retarded fanbase, ideally. We are Codexers discussing the ideal ruleset for a game, so why should we have any respect for the demoralised, uncultured, degenerate views of modern Western youth?

For example, the players in a D&D group I'm with right now are playing Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Good characters, which broadly reflect their outlook on society or morals.
But what are those outlooks? IRL, the Chaotic Neutral player is a philosophical nihilist - if nihilism isn't evil I don't know what is. The Chaotic Good player is a faggot who takes 'poppers', a type of drug that makes it easier for men to fuck him in the ass. Another typically Chaotic Neutral player I know IRL is an apathetic glutton who likes to play the fool and 'humourously' derogate himself, sad! These alignments (specifically the chaotic non-evil ones) are fake and gay, they're also the kind of mindset which takes issue with objective moral judgements of course.

These guys are harmless and even well-intentioned as individuals, but societally, culturally they are part of a Chaotic Evil movement. They can only be considered better than Chaotic Evil if you ignore their duty to God, the ancestors and the race, and the monarch.

Nah, moral absolutism has done a number on yours.

If morality isn't absolute, it's not morality. The whole point of morality is to determine right and wrong, so if your moral system can't do that without first accounting for a bunch of contingencies and the particular situation, then that moral code is simply incomplete.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Only in regards to deities and even then not necessarily. The PoE system of linking personality traits to deities works just fine and is much more intuitive (e.g. it is much easier to define what constitutes a cruel or aggressive act rather than an 'evil' one), thus also reducing the issues some players take with the representation of the D&D both in tabletop and computer RPGs.

Moral relativism has really done a number on the brains of today's youth, lemme tell ya. So basically because "good" and "evil" are politically charged, they just want us to use different words?

Nah, moral absolutism has done a number on yours. The issue is that people today do not have a shared outlook on morality (although many elements do overlap for the majority of people), so it is harder to codify good and evil without having parts of the playerbase annoyed that it is not representative for their own moral compass. And that's why a lot of devs portray good and evil as stupid good and stupid evil respectively (e.g. BG, KotOR), since your average player gets it and can play along even if it finds such a portrayal as being a caricature of the two and thus less enjoyable than a more mature characterization. For a more nuanced portrayal though, you end up frustrating people since the ties between choice and alignment often aren't intuitive.

The game's mechanics shouldn't be altered to fit the mores of a decadent retarded fanbase, ideally. We are Codexers discussing the ideal ruleset for a game, so why should we have any respect for the demoralised, uncultured, degenerate views of modern Western youth?

We shouldn't, but we aren't the ones designing today's CRPGs.

Nah, moral absolutism has done a number on yours.

If morality isn't absolute, it's not morality. The whole point of morality is to determine right and wrong, so if your moral system can't do that without first accounting for a bunch of contingencies and the particular situation, then that moral code is simply incomplete.

I agree. That was a response to Lambchop19's accusation of me being a moral relativist (which I am not, but was merely making a descriptive statement in regards to the existence of moral plurality in contemporary society).

 

[BING XI LAO]

Here we are grieving for the loss of alignments in CRPGs, but have they ever served any purpose whatsoever in any videogame in the history of humanity?

KotoR games where it has a relationship with force powers. More evil = more lightning!
Age of Wonders where there are Holy Woods and Cursed Woods, which deal damage only to troops of the opposed alignment.
Would be pretty cool to see an RPG with law vs chaos inbuilt to its weapons and armour, with NPCs like that entropic golem in the siege tower in Planescape.

 

[BING XI LAO]

The game's mechanics shouldn't be altered to fit the mores of a decadent retarded fanbase, ideally. We are Codexers discussing the ideal ruleset for a game, so why should we have any respect for the demoralised, uncultured, degenerate views of modern Western youth?

We shouldn't, but we aren't the ones designing today's CRPGs.

Increasingly, I'm not the one buying them either

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Here we are grieving for the loss of alignments in CRPGs, but have they ever served any purpose whatsoever in any videogame in the history of humanity?

KotoR games where it has a relationship with force powers. More evil = more lightning!

KotOR on the other hand also had one of the most over the top portrayals of stupid evil in CRPG history.

 

[BING XI LAO]

You can have a Druid who believes in hugging trees and feeding bunnies or you can have an edgy boi Shadow Druid who lights a village on fire to protect the grove from encroachment. Both can be true neutral. They just have different methods for preserving the Balance.

I don't get why Druids are restricted from being Neutral Good or Neutral Evil. Clearly they shouldn't be either Lawful or Chaotic, since nature has aspects of both Law and Chaos, but what does Good/evil matter to Nature?

 

[Heroic Liberator]

You can have a Druid who believes in hugging trees and feeding bunnies or you can have an edgy boi Shadow Druid who lights a village on fire to protect the grove from encroachment. Both can be true neutral. They just have different methods for preserving the Balance.

I don't get why Druids are restricted from being Neutral Good or Neutral Evil. Clearly they shouldn't be either Lawful or Chaotic, since nature has aspects of both Law and Chaos, but what does Good/evil matter to Nature?

I think that it's a remnant of the hermit trope, of druids being antisocial hippies wanting to be left alone to smell the daisies.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Lambchop19 You're inadvertently making DraQ's arguments for him. With the Expatriate you've demonstrated a lawful class that doesn't have to recognize any authority other than their own. That's the very essence of CG. That class renders the lawful aspect meaningless by prioritizing the second half of the alignment over the first. It's in direct contradiction with the way both Neutral Good and Chaotic Good are defined. Paladins can't just go their own way, adhering to their own ethics and remain lawful. They have to seek remedy within the system, while abiding the system.

Characters who believe in law maintain that order, organization, and society are important, indeed vital, forces of the universe. The relationships between people and governments exist naturally. Lawful philosophers maintain that this order is not created by man but is a natural law of the universe. Although man does not create orderly structures, it is his obligation to function within them, lest the fabric of everything crumble. For less philosophical types, lawfulness manifests itself in the belief that laws should be made and followed, if only to have understandable rules for society. People should not pursue personal vendettas, for example, but should present their claims to the proper authorities. Strength comes through unity of action, as can be seen in guilds, empires, and powerful churches. ~ Players Handbook 2E

One of the requirements of the paladin class is to belong to a lawful good organization or philosophy. How exactly is he supposed to do that when his liege becomes evil?

By seeking remedy through equivalent or comparable authority. This could be through the church, some kind of founding myth that is the basis for the lord's authority, or through another noble or royal. The lawful aspect can't just be discarded by a paladin any more than the good can. They are two halves to the alignment. One is not subtext to the other. For a class that is an embodiment of an alignment, this matters entirely.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Haven't read the wall of text about the expatriate, but the lawful aspect is still maintained through his adherence to the tenets of his deity, same as a lawful good cleric.

 

[Johnny Biggums]

Replacing alignment with a reputation system encourages players to think about character morality in terms of personal/group advancement, politicking, and virtue signalling, rather than in terms of values, beliefs, and formative psychological traits. I agree that this can reduce bickering at the table but it's bought with an increase of banality. Not to get too autistic here but I wonder if an alignment system that used moral foundations theory instead of more loaded terms like good and evil could reduce bickering while conserving some kind of alignment system.

 

[DraQ]

Alignment systems don't deserve an eulogy. They ought to be shot in front of a ditch.

The only person who ought to be shot in front of a ditch here is you.

This thread in a nutshell.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

You're inadvertently making DraQ's arguments for him. With the Expatriate you've demonstrated a lawful class that doesn't have to recognize any authority other than their own.

No, I’m not making his argument for him. You clearly don’t understand what his argument was to begin with.

This is a special case where an authority has specifically BETRAYED its mandate.

I’ve cited multiple sources within the paladin’s handbook on this. If you don’t like it, feel free to write the author and begin a multi-page debate with him.

That class renders the lawful aspect meaningless by prioritizing the second half of the alignment over the first. It's in direct contradiction with the way both Neutral Good and Chaotic Good are defined. Paladins can't just go their own way, adhering to their own ethics and remain lawful. They have to seek remedy within the system, while abiding the system.

Again, no. The paladin still has to have an external code he adheres to of some sort. Without a strict code to fervently adhere to, he has no powers and his class no longer functions.

I specifically cited a passage proving this, since I knew it would come up at some point:

Any philosophy serves as an acceptable alternative to an
organized religion, so long as it meets these qualifications:
• It presents a logical and self-consistent interpretation of the universe.
• It demands lawful good behavior of followers.
• It's broad enough to form the basis of the paladin's ethos.
Paladins who follow a philosophy may worship privately or in small sects. Meditation may substitute for prayer. A hill blanketed in violets may function as a shrine. A book of
poetry may take the place of a holy text.
Regardless of whether a paladin has faith in a religion or philosophy all work the same way in the context of the game. A paladin's devotion is sufficiently intense to attract the magical energy necessary to cast spells and give him his special powers. As with a lawful good religion, a lawful good philosophy requires strict adherence to a set of lawful good principles, characterized by the strictures and virtues of the paladin's ethos.

So the Expatriate Paladin isn’t going to be without some lawful obligations, he can’t be a paladin without them as he’d have no class powers, he’s just not going to serve a particular organization while doing so.

By seeking remedy through equivalent or comparable authority. This could be through the church, some kind of founding myth that is the basis for the lord's authority, or through another noble or royal. The lawful aspect can't just be discarded by a paladin any more than the good can. They are two halves to the alignment. One is not subtext to the other. For a class that is an embodiment of an alignment, this matters entirely.

While this is another possibility, it is not the only possibility.

Again, per the rules for the class and not the kit, he’s permitted to renounce an oath once the one he made the oath to has betrayed its principles. One example that’s specifically given is a coup. It’s retarded to assume a lawful good paladin will just sit there like a robot and say “yeah, sure I’ll murder those kids for you, m’lord. after all, I swore an oath to the kingdom before you murdered the previous king and took it over.”

Characters who believe in law maintain that order, organization, and society are important, indeed vital, forces of the universe. The relationships between people and governments exist naturally. Lawful philosophers maintain that this order is not created by man but is a natural law of the universe. Although man does not create orderly structures, it is his obligation to function within them, lest the fabric of everything crumble. For less philosophical types, lawfulness manifests itself in the belief that laws should be made and followed, if only to have understandable rules for society. 2. A character with another paladin kit may abandon it when his superiors betray him or some other dramatic event occurs that prompts him to renounce his fealty. The character may either become a standard paladin (described in the "Abandoning Kits" section later in this chapter) or—with the DM's approval—he may become an Expatriate, retaining his current level (a 3rd-level Errant who renounces his fealty becomes a 3rd-level Expatriate).

The new Expatriate keeps all of his equipment and proficiencies, but drops the Special Benefits and Hindrances associated with his previous kit; he acquires the Special Benefits and Hindrances of the Expatriate kit instead. People should not pursue personal vendettas, for example, but should present their claims to the proper authorities. Strength comes through unity of action, as can be seen in guilds, empires, and powerful churches. ~ Players Handbook 2E

I find it ironic that after all this time you’re quoting the player’s handbook. Didn’t you say it was outdated? I guess you’re just one of those people who can’t handle being proven wrong.

Again, what you’re quoting has nothing to do with corrupted authorities or oaths of fealty to them.

The passage taking about reporting things to the proper authorities is in relation to personal vendettas (ie, no murders or extra-legal vengeance), not the corruption of an entire institution.

Here, let me quote it with a different emphasis:

People should not pursue personal vendettas, for example, but should present their claims to the proper authorities.

Oops, there goes your argument lol

In this case, it’s assumed there are no proper authorities to present his claims to. The authority is what’s corrupted beyond repair.

Think about it: would you make yourself into a hunted exile, distrusted by elites everywhere, if all you had to do was write a complaint letter and fix everything? Get real, bro.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Alignment systems don't deserve an eulogy. They ought to be shot in front of a ditch.

The only person who ought to be shot in front of a ditch here is you.

This thread in a nutshell.

Pretty much, since you’ve presented no valid arguments as to why alignment should be eliminated and since it’s a bunch of greedy old suits at WotC with no understanding of why the alignment system was important that want to eliminate it.

Just add an idiot in the background cheering that he can finally be the leader of every guild in Skyrim without his character sheet pointing out how stupid that is and it will be complete.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Haven't read the wall of text about the expatriate, but the lawful aspect is still maintained through his adherence to the tenets of his deity, same as a lawful good cleric.

Yeah, basically, but the guy just can’t let it go. He has to be right.

Even if I showed him a passage in every player’s handbook in every edition, signed by the authors and Gygax himself saying “Lambchop19 is right, quit dicking around.”, he’d just roll his eyes and start talking about medieval feudalism or dismiss them all as outdated boomers.

Everything is a deflection, an excuse, or an attack based on age and it’s all because the guy has some concept that Lawful Good has to be Stupid Lawful Good 100% of the time.

 

[DraQ]

Alignment is like having a set of Allen wrenches in IMPERIAL in your toolbox, when you're a fucking auto mechanic that works on European imports.

More accurately alignment is like like having wrenches made of soft rubber. There are some bolts you can technically tighten with them, but at that point you might just as well do it with your fingers.

If you want to express specific restrictions - say for serving specific god, being part of given knightly order or even wielding particular artifact, use precise language of a specific ethos system. If in a cRPG, then track them using a reputation one.

Shitty Kitty His premise didn't include a diety's command. He merely said a Paladin broke his oath of fealty to maintain his code of conduct. Furthermore, Paladins don't have access to the commune spell. If he wanted to ask his god, he'd still have to seek out another source of authority. No part of his premise was about seeking out authority.

I also didn't say this one act would change his alignment--on the contrary. I said that the act if breaking an oath to a recognized authority in order to uphold a separate ethos is a neutral action. Singular.

If you guys can't comprehend how breaking an oath is a chaotic action, I'm not sure we have anything to discuss. Even if its done for the purposes of upholding some other order, it would then become a neutral act. You're reeaaally overcomplicating things and basically putting neutral and chaotic choices in such a narrow frame as to be nearly non-existent.

I guess you now get to experience the usefulness of alignment systems first-hand.

How can you ever hope to get on the same page regarding good and evil if you can't even agree on whether "neutral" means net zero shift on particular axis (your meaning) vs shift towards the center?

Definition.

If I say a shape has 4 corners and define them, you have a box. Maybe a misshapen box at best, but still a box.

If I say it has 4000 corners, suddenly I can shape an entire face.

More definition, within reason, provides a clearer picture.

I can work with that. It happens to illustrate perfectly well why alignment systems are useless garbage.
DnD alignment is just those four corners - good luck making a face out of that.

It also overlooks the important point:
It's not system's job to decide whether or not player's character makes sense as a character (as in 'person'), nor to decide what player character would do. Systems should only determine how world reacts to that - and only if there is no GM that would actually do that better.
For a cRPG systems must recognize important distinction - PC is backed in real time by a human brain, NPCs are not. Some systems can be agnostic to that - typically stuff that deals with material (and magical) reality - the world and characters' bodies. Others can't afford to, including most systems dealing with characters' mental state and motivation - unless it can be neatly boxed in (so you can have eloquence stat determining what happens in dialogue, or willpower determining whether a character will flinch or drop weapon when injured in combat, submit to magical mind manipulation or cave in when tortured) - those systems should be NPC side only, optimized for that and not actually part of RPG systems in traditional sense just shaders aren't even if they are used in a cRPG.

Alignment serves as a datapoint to define morality and outlook. Is it 100% needed? Nope. And neither are most stats. Not even reputation.

Except reputation is clearly needed. It's easy to show what is it for (in cRPG at least, in TT you can and arguably should do without) - without reputation the world has no way of tracking nor responding to player's prior actions. Faction reputation is a reputation, so is crime system or disposition.
Alignment? No one so far has made a convincing argument regarding what is it for, that wouldn't be readily dismissed by it being handled much better by another system or even no system at all.

But the more stats you remove, the more you're just playing pretend, which is what you and that shitty guy seem to want.

More ice? You were actually lucid for a moment there.

 

[DraQ]

Because as they've revealed multiple times itt, they are arguing in bad faith. They don't like rules that restrict them from playing pretend. Shitty has said repeatedly that even a system without numbers at all would satisfy him and DraQ is a fan of Skyrim and any other walking simulator Bethesda poops out, so he just wants to be the head of every guild simultaneously.

And this is why you are hard to take seriously.

You make up some delusional bizzaro universe mental image of your opposition and stick your head so far up your ass that you literally disappear in there like an inverse fucking Ouroboros.

Some fun little facts regarding my preference for bethpizda walking simulators or whatever else:

• I consider Oblivion to be inexcusably shitty.
  
• I haven't even bothered to touch bethpizdian fallouts. They are unfixably shit, at least 3 is, I haven't paid attention afterwards.
  
• I consider (unmodded) Skyrim borderline good for what it is, and consider its factions existing in isolation one of its biggest failings, although it actually does have mutually exclusive factions and choices
  
• Morrowind and Daggerfall both made heavy use of faction reputation systems.
• Morrowind had mutually exclusive factions and some choices dealing with inter- (and intra-) faction conflicts.
  
• I've always loved world reactivity and mutually exclusive content.
  
• I've always cherished consequences, both narrative and systemic.
  
• Feel free to look any of those up if you don't believe it.

So, tl;dr is that if you stop lashing out, shut the fuck up, let the butthurt recede and start actually responding to actual people instead of your pain induced hallucinations of them, you might even take part in some actual discussion instead of being butt (heh) of a joke.
Yes, I know that in the bizzarro world beyond the magical portal in your ass there exists a bizzarro DraQ who loves oblivion and hates having to make choices in a genre that has choice - whether mechanical or narrative - as its main selling point, but the DraQ here in the real world does not. So time to emerge back into the real world and tackle fucking reality - especially that judging by your posts you're running out of air in there.

 

[Atlantico]

edit: thinking further about this, people who are autistic have a difficult time to empathize and understand how other people feel and how they approach the world on a fundamental level.

- this is just part of autism, nothing they can do about that -

However, this means that to people who are afflicted with severe autism (and let's face it, DraQ is clearly on the spectrum), alignments are meaningless. Alignments are describing things they don't see or understand themselves.

Alignments are roleplaying tools, for the player to use, to give the character they are playing depth. But again, now I could just as well go LALALALA to the autists, because they don't understand what the hell I'm talking about because first they have to define what is "good" and what is "evil" and what is "lawful" and "chaotic" (ignoring neutral, probably) and then using those definitions to make decisions.

It's so dumb to read the autistic drivel, but I guess they can't help themselves. Understanding and empathizing with other people is a blind spot to autist. They simply can't. And with that, on to the insulting of the autists:

So you spam with "negative" ratings (which not even counted as negative on site) everyone who disagrees with your arrogant opinion and he is opinionated?

I was reading through this trainwreck of a thread, and skimming your mediocre posts, which were nothing but a sycophantic echo of the mega-sperg posts of DraQ

Now, if you think "negative" ratings are important, you may be autistic. If you think negative ratings aren't actually negative because Dark Underlord didn't define them as negative, you are autistic.

Anyway, I maybe insulted someone in this thread, but only real idiot here is you, who deserve to be laughed at. You can do a fine service to yourself though, by putting me in ignore list if you can't handle my opinion without heart attack.

Newfag dumbfuck opinions are very important to me. By that, I mean I really genuinely care what you think.

Thanks for sharing, and conceding the argument. Dumbfuck.

Replace "autism" with "butthurt" and you're right.

So you'd prefer do be described as being mega butthurt and ignorant. It's much the same, butthurt is downstream from autism.

Although I guess mistaken with regards to the person.

Wow, that's some tortured logic.

Yes, yes. If someone disagrees with you they must surely not understand you.

No, you just don't understand what the fuck you are sperging about. There's nothing more to be said about that, it's just really stupid to watch.

I've never seen anything like this IRL.

There's nothing more to comment on, the rest of your post was incoherent drivel, tbh.

 

[DraQ]

You're inadvertently making DraQ's arguments for him. With the Expatriate you've demonstrated a lawful class that doesn't have to recognize any authority other than their own.

No, I’m not making his argument for him. You clearly don’t understand what his argument was to begin with.

This is a special case where an authority has specifically BETRAYED its mandate.

I’ve cited multiple sources within the paladin’s handbook on this. If you don’t like it, feel free to write the author and begin a multi-page debate with him.

That class renders the lawful aspect meaningless by prioritizing the second half of the alignment over the first. It's in direct contradiction with the way both Neutral Good and Chaotic Good are defined. Paladins can't just go their own way, adhering to their own ethics and remain lawful. They have to seek remedy within the system, while abiding the system.

Again, no. The paladin still has to have an external code he adheres to of some sort. Without a strict code to fervently adhere to, he has no powers and his class no longer functions.

I specifically cited a passage proving this, since I knew it would come up at some point:

Any philosophy serves as an acceptable alternative to an
organized religion, so long as it meets these qualifications:
• It presents a logical and self-consistent interpretation of the universe.
• It demands lawful good behavior of followers.
• It's broad enough to form the basis of the paladin's ethos.
Paladins who follow a philosophy may worship privately or in small sects. Meditation may substitute for prayer. A hill blanketed in violets may function as a shrine. A book of
poetry may take the place of a holy text.
Regardless of whether a paladin has faith in a religion or philosophy all work the same way in the context of the game. A paladin's devotion is sufficiently intense to attract the magical energy necessary to cast spells and give him his special powers. As with a lawful good religion, a lawful good philosophy requires strict adherence to a set of lawful good principles, characterized by the strictures and virtues of the paladin's ethos.

So the Expatriate Paladin isn’t going to be without some lawful obligations, he can’t be a paladin without them as he’d have no class powers, he’s just not going to serve a particular organization while doing so.

By seeking remedy through equivalent or comparable authority. This could be through the church, some kind of founding myth that is the basis for the lord's authority, or through another noble or royal. The lawful aspect can't just be discarded by a paladin any more than the good can. They are two halves to the alignment. One is not subtext to the other. For a class that is an embodiment of an alignment, this matters entirely.

While this is another possibility, it is not the only possibility.

Again, per the rules for the class and not the kit, he’s permitted to renounce an oath once the one he made the oath to has betrayed its principles. One example that’s specifically given is a coup. It’s retarded to assume a lawful good paladin will just sit there like a robot and say “yeah, sure I’ll murder those kids for you, m’lord. after all, I swore an oath to the kingdom before you murdered the previous king and took it over.”

Characters who believe in law maintain that order, organization, and society are important, indeed vital, forces of the universe. The relationships between people and governments exist naturally. Lawful philosophers maintain that this order is not created by man but is a natural law of the universe. Although man does not create orderly structures, it is his obligation to function within them, lest the fabric of everything crumble. For less philosophical types, lawfulness manifests itself in the belief that laws should be made and followed, if only to have understandable rules for society. 2. A character with another paladin kit may abandon it when his superiors betray him or some other dramatic event occurs that prompts him to renounce his fealty. The character may either become a standard paladin (described in the "Abandoning Kits" section later in this chapter) or—with the DM's approval—he may become an Expatriate, retaining his current level (a 3rd-level Errant who renounces his fealty becomes a 3rd-level Expatriate).

The new Expatriate keeps all of his equipment and proficiencies, but drops the Special Benefits and Hindrances associated with his previous kit; he acquires the Special Benefits and Hindrances of the Expatriate kit instead. People should not pursue personal vendettas, for example, but should present their claims to the proper authorities. Strength comes through unity of action, as can be seen in guilds, empires, and powerful churches. ~ Players Handbook 2E

I find it ironic that after all this time you’re quoting the player’s handbook. Didn’t you say it was outdated? I guess you’re just one of those people who can’t handle being proven wrong.

Again, what you’re quoting has nothing to do with corrupted authorities or oaths of fealty to them.

The passage taking about reporting things to the proper authorities is in relation to personal vendettas (ie, no murders or extra-legal vengeance), not the corruption of an entire institution.

Here, let me quote it with a different emphasis:

People should not pursue personal vendettas, for example, but should present their claims to the proper authorities.

Oops, there goes your argument lol

In this case, it’s assumed there are no proper authorities to present his claims to. The authority is what’s corrupted beyond repair.

Think about it: would you make yourself into a hunted exile, distrusted by elites everywhere, if all you had to do was write a complaint letter and fix everything? Get real, bro.

Pssst. You know what does it mean that a character is lawful?

They observe a specific ethos.

With ethos system you can even tell what it is.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Except reputation is clearly needed.

Nope. It isn't. You could replace it with individual influence modifiers. Same essential outcome.

Reputation, ie, a universal number representing either the player's overall reputation or faction level opinions of the player, aren't needed.

How can you ever hope to get on the same page regarding good and evil if you can't even agree on whether "neutral" means net zero shift on particular axis (your meaning) vs shift towards the center?

There are two different things being discussed here. One is the value of an action, which we both agree is chaotic, but which he mistakenly called neutral and didn't want to simply admit, and the other is the alignment of the player, which again, we both mostly agree on, but which he thinks should force the paladin to stay with his liege no matter what or else he's committing a chaotic act.

It's the value of the act we disagree on, not alignment.

And True Neutrality as an alignment would ultimately be the net zero and net zero is functionally the same as a shift toward the center, as in order to have net zero, you would have to shift off of and toward the center repeatedly, unless you took no actions at all, so I'm not sure where you're thinking the contradiction is.

I can work with that. It happens to illustrate perfectly well why alignment systems are useless garbage.

Lol, no, but go on.

DnD alignment is just those four corners - good luck making a face out of that.

Except it isn't. There are 9 points and variations within those points.

Remember that I said more definition "within reason". Within reason because there comes a point where there's too much detail to keep track of. Can you track your character's every action AND thought? Of course not. It's silly to even try.

Alignment is an approximation. A tool to approximate the alignment of a character. Like those personality spectrum memes. You don't need to have 4000 datapoints, if 9 will suffice.

What you're doing here is admitting that more data is better and then saying that because you can't have 4000 datapoints, you might as well have none and just track reputation instead of reputation and personality.

Congratulations, you've defeated your own argument again.

It's not system's job to decide whether or not player's character makes sense as a character (as in 'person'), nor to decide what player character would do.

And that's not what the system does. The system just defines the character at a given point. Alignments can change.

Again, there's nothing stopping even a paladin from taking a willfully evil action. There's nothing stopping the character from suffering from psychological issues either. Temporary insanity, a fit of rage, mind control. All of these things are specifically mentioned in the handbooks. There are consequences for these things, but they can happen.

Again, you keep thinking that alignment controls the player. It doesn't. The player controls alignment.

What you're really upset about though is this:

It's not system's job to decide whether or not player's character makes sense as a character (as in 'person'),

Alignment doesn't decide if your character doesn't make sense, but you do when you look at your character sheet and see "Lawful Good" while you're trying to become the head of the Dark Brotherhood.

It also does the one thing that you hate more than anything: it keeps you from having your cake and eating it too.

You can't be evil and good. You can't be lawful and chaotic. You can be neutral, but that's not the same as being one of the extremes either.

You hate such definition because it restricts you from doing whatever you want, whenever you want. Because you don't want to actually roleplay, you want to amuse yourself.

All of your arguments are in bad faith because this is your real motive.

Some fun little facts regarding my preference for bethpizda walking simulators or whatever else:

Bro, you can claim to hate Bethesda walking sims all you like, but it's an awfully big coincidence that you love Bethesda games and want a system exactly like they have.

So, tl;dr is that if you stop lashing out, shut the fuck up

Yeah, you're clearly not upset or lashing out yourself.

 

[DraQ]

So you spam with "negative" ratings (which not even counted as negative on site) everyone who disagrees with your arrogant opinion and he is opinionated?

I was reading through this trainwreck of a thread, and skimming your mediocre posts, which were nothing but a sycophantic echo of the mega-sperg posts of DraQ

Now, if you think "negative" ratings are important, you may be autistic.

Well, you've clearly put a lot of effort clicking so many times, so I guess they are important to you.

But, guess what?

Spoiler

BRRR

Although I guess mistaken with regards to the person.

Wow, that's some tortured logic.

You are clearly a very smart and erudite person seeing how "tortuous" is not part of your vocabulary.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Pssst. You know what does it mean that a character is lawful?

They observe a specific ethos.

With ethos system you can even tell what it is.

You don't know how to form a sentence.

I discussed above why this is wrong. We're disagreeing on the value of the action, not alignment. You can't even follow our conversation.

Learn to read. Learn to write. Get back to me.