A eulogy for Alignment in CRPGs

[DraQ]

You could try using your post as a sleeping aid. I couldn't even make it beyond the last line quoted.

Another classic telltale sign of autism is the tendency to take everything literally, due to an inability to discern meaning in a text normal people would easily understand.

You mean like having difficulties grasping deadpan sarcasm?

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

You clearly don’t know English well enough to comment on the definitions of English words.

Yeah, because all countries write their laws in English first...
Maybe my English isn't ideal, but alas I have more rights to comment on definition words than you do, at least until you learn about existence of other countries.
Remarks on grammar = you have nothing to say about topic. Not saying that you lost an argument (Internet arguments never end), but you definitely cornered and trying to weasel out of situation.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Yeah, because all countries write their laws in English first...

The ones that matter do.

Maybe my English isn't ideal, but alas I have more rights to comment on definition words than you do, at least until you learn about existence of other countries.

Other countries exist? Really? Oh wow. Well, I guess I know about their existence now that you’ve told me, so now I can comment.

Maybe, comrade, (and I’m assuming you’re some sort of slav because articles seem hard for you) you should shutsky upsky about languages you dontsky understandsky. Do that be makingks sense to you?

 

[HeatEXTEND]

philosophy

There he goes again

purporting to be intelligent

dude you're a goddamn gem, don't ever leave

 

[Silverfish]

I would never want to DM for a hyper-sperg who would write option 2 when he could simply write option 1 without giving me the full Sonichu backstory of his special snowflake character.

Say what you will, I'd love to DM a game and tell one of the players that he'd successfully zapped to the extreme.

ha yes, the infamous LG wealthy slave smugler

No, it's okay. He only deals in elves.

 

[Atlantico]

You mean like having difficulties grasping deadpan sarcasm?

"You could try using your post as a sleeping aid. I couldn't even make it beyond the last line quoted."

Are you claiming that was deadpan sarcasm?

Now that's deadpan sarcasm! (though quite accidental, I'm sure)

I mentioned before that autism does not equal intelligence, and certainly not wit - trying to peddle dad jokes as "deadpan sarcasm".

Good grief, you are one retarded motherfucker, without an ounce of self-awareness.

Not to put too fine a point on it; you're more of a Baldrick than a Blackadder.

 

[Silverfish]

Not to put too fine a point on it; you're more of a Baldrick than a Blackadder.

I had a whole thing ready to go, but then I realized you didn't mean that Blackadder.

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

The ones that matter do.

Other countries exist? Really? Oh wow. Well, I guess I know about their existence now that you’ve told me, so now I can comment.

Maybe, comrade, (and I’m assuming you’re some sort of slav because articles seem hard for you) you should shutsky upsky about languages you dontsky understandsky. Do that be makingks sense to you?

Wait, you think you have any expertise or even right to decide, which countries matters and which not? What an arrogant cunt you are. You are not a God, nor anybody in position of power to decide that. I bet you some lowly loser in your country and this forum the only place that accept you, because in others you are mocked and laughed at. And before mocking somebody's language you should at least lurk about it. Because right now your feeble efforts look embarrassing.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

The ones that matter do.

Other countries exist? Really? Oh wow. Well, I guess I know about their existence now that you’ve told me, so now I can comment.

Maybe, comrade, (and I’m assuming you’re some sort of slav because articles seem hard for you) you should shutsky upsky about languages you dontsky understandsky. Do that be makingks sense to you?

Wait, you think you have any expertise or even right to decide, which countries matters and which not? What an arrogant cunt you are. You are not a God, nor anybody in position of power to decide that. I bet you some lowly loser in your country and this forum the only place that accept you, because in others you are mocked and laughed at. And before mocking somebody's language you should at least lurk about it. Because right now your feeble efforts look embarrassing.

Dude, he's a Naziboo who likely thinks his failures are the result of a shadowy religious/ethnic cabal stepping on his shriveled nuts constantly. I can't think of a single nation on the face of the planet where he'd be anything but a loser. Probably even gets laughed out of his Goebbels fanclub for being a degenerate who hides away in fruitless pastimes and never gets anything done.

I've already belabored my points as much as I really care to - alignment is not helpful, not intuitive, neither particularly clear nor especially broad, can easily be supplanted by more robust systems or discarded entirely, communicates little of import to anyone and is the last stand of the mental midget murderhobo powergamers who want to pretend they have a really good reason to smite/steal/seduce but really just want to count numbers and amass imaginary points to fill the gaping void of nonachievement in their lives.

 

[Atlantico]

I've already belabored my points as much as I really care to - alignment is not helpful, not intuitive, neither particularly clear nor especially broad, can easily be supplanted by more robust systems or discarded entirely, communicates little of import to anyone and is the last stand of the mental midget murderhobo powergamers who want to pretend they have a really good reason to smite/steal/seduce but really just want to count numbers and amass imaginary points to fill the gaping void of nonachievement in their lives.

Though you cannot understand this system, it doesn't mean you're right. It just means, you don't understand why you're wrong.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

I've already belabored my points as much as I really care to - alignment is not helpful, not intuitive, neither particularly clear nor especially broad, can easily be supplanted by more robust systems or discarded entirely, communicates little of import to anyone and is the last stand of the mental midget murderhobo powergamers who want to pretend they have a really good reason to smite/steal/seduce but really just want to count numbers and amass imaginary points to fill the gaping void of nonachievement in their lives.

Though you cannot understand this system, it doesn't mean you're right. It just means, you don't understand why you're wrong.

OK retard

 

[PapaPetro]

The Alignment debate was always a metapolitical one: the push for the normalization of moral relativism, moral nihilism, and hyper-liberalism.

Maybe when dealing with normal people. But in most of the arguments itt, relativism has been a diversionary argument used in bad faith by people who either don’t understand the alignment system or don’t want an alignment system because it limits their ability to larp.

It's a microcosmic discussion talking about a larger societal one; hence why I labeled it as a metapolitical. Talking about alignment strickly in gaming, the discussion questions if morality & ethical choices should be absolutely modeled in a game world. This reflects a larger question on if morality & ethics absolutely exist in the real world.

This leads to metaethical problems between real and hyperreal worlds (like games and fiction).
Is it evil to say that orcs are metaphysically evil?

The greatest trick Gruumsh ever pulled was convincing Men that they were the real evil ones.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

I have never seen Orcs written in a fashion that implies they're anything but habitually bellicose and desirous of the conquest and enslavement of other beings, as a general rule. This is the epitome of a strawman. No one's taking your ugly green bags of XP away.

Holy shit, the pearl-clutching.

 

[Ninjerk]

I have never seen Orcs written in a fashion that implies they're anything but habitually bellicose and desirous of the conquest and enslavement of other beings, as a general rule. This is the epitome of a strawman. No one's taking your ugly green bags of XP away.

Holy shit, the pearl-clutching.

Sounds like something an orc would say.

 

[Silverfish]

Sounds like something an orc would say.

"My fellow Dwarves"

 

[Storyfag]

I have never seen Orcs written in a fashion that implies they're anything but habitually bellicose and desirous of the conquest and enslavement of other beings

Bitch please, are you for real? I'm not sure, but I think the decline of properly evil Orcs any Evil Overlord would enjoy commanding into noble savages (uuurgh) started with WarCraft III. It went downhill from there.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Dude, he's a Naziboo who likely thinks his failures are the result of a shadowy religious/ethnic cabal stepping on his shriveled nuts constantly.

Lol what failures? And I’m Jewish.

PS: you lost the argument long ago and keep flinging insults. Your kind ends up tagged pretty quick. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

This leads to metaethical problems between real and hyperreal worlds (like games and fiction).
Is it evil to say that orcs are metaphysically evil?

No, because orcs are monsters. There may be an orc of good alignment, just as it’s slightly possible that even a mind flayer might be of good alignment and decide to subsist on a “vegan” diet of only animal brains, but it’s extremely unlikely.

Just because one orc is good among 10,000 doesn’t mean you can’t say orcs are evil. Just like just because one human among 10,000 might be missing a limb, doesn’t mean you can’t say humans have 4 limbs.

I discussed something similar at length in my post in the BG3 early access thread on the possibility of a racist, genocidal paladin.

 

[Please No]

The Alignment debate was always a metapolitical one: the push for the normalization of moral relativism, moral nihilism, and hyper-liberalism.

Good, perhaps it is time to grow up.

 

[DraQ]

Sure it is. For example Atlantico has earned a reputation of a butthurt retard with me ITT.

Ok, still not reputation. Reputation is judged by groups of people, not individuals.

Consider an individual a group of 1 if it helps you.

If I don't I am certainly abstracting and need faction reputation to fill the gaps.

Nope. Just need individual estimations per character. We've been over this. It helps, but isn't strictly necessary. That doesn't mean it needs to be removed though, which was my point.

It doesn't need to be removed because it serves a useful purpose.
Individual estimations don't matter shit if you can't model information spreading by individual character interactions because most of those are abstracted away.

It is reputation. In the eyes of local law.

Nope. It's what level they are supposed to pursue you. Reputation has to do with your character in general. They could know you as a good man, yet still receive orders to pursue you.

If it walks like reputation and quacks like reputation it is a reputation.
And it actually touches another reason why faction reputation is needed - it separates individual experience from faction's "official" politics. If sufficiently developed it can lead to interesting scenarios - like a guard you have helped in the past (saved their or their family member's life, for example) my risk life and career helping you - preferably in covert manner - if you are a wanted man.

All of this is obvious. You should know it. That's why I assume you're arguing in bad faith.

Not so obvious if I can easily rebut it. I tend to not argue in a bad faith.
I even described a way of convincing me:
Demonstrate example of alignment use that would not be possible (or feasible) with a different system, that doesn't in itself detract from storytelling/worldbuilding/gameplay.

You don't understand the point of abstraction.

I understand it perfectly. That's why I don't want to remove the alignment system.

You don't. An abstract system is only justified if it serves a purpose. Otherwise the ultimate abstraction is preferable - which is just throwing shit away. Abstraction means removal (of concrete detail).

Shitty keeps making shitty examples instead of using abstractions he clearly hasn't even bothered to read or understand and we all see the result: "hurr durr the cleric of myrkul lawfully kills children for the greater good, therefore he is lawful good! I know adjectives! Alignments are unnecessary!"

Shitty actually demonstrates better judgement than me in this case, not wanting to put any more effort into this.
But you'd do better if you actually read Shitty's examples instead of trying to construct a shitty strawman out of them (which is definitely arguing in bad faith ), because they do a pretty good job showing how alignment descriptor effectively says nothing meaningful about character (which is only to be expected as per pigeonhole principle).

I'm arguing to not pretend to have a system if you actually don't.

But fine, want your dick drawings, have your dick drawings - here's your "system":
On character generation you are offered a text box in which you can enter a short bio of your character. Once entered it remains visible on the character sheet.
There, you can even put "8=============D" in there if you want.

And your DM will just mark you Chaotic Neutral in his notes and subtract a point from your INT score lol

And that's great - it works just as well as it ever will. It still does the job with live DM and no longer pretends it does without one.

You said that already. You haven't said how without breaking a thousand more important things mostly involving player agency.

Here we are back at your not-so-secret desire to larp and be the head of every guild in Skyrim.

Walking Simulator mentions + 1.
Cut this shit, your obsession is unhealthy.

How about breaking already mentioned expatriate character concept just because it didn't occur to devs to allow lawful character that specifically rejects one ethos?

Rules are going to mean you can't do everything you want whenever you want. Tough, I know. Please collect your participation trophy elsewhere.

I can do whatever I want unless something stops me. This something must be external to my, and by extension my character's intent.
Meanwhile alignment tries to make it so I can't *want* whatever I want.

That's the whole point: the system is too broad strokes - you make it ineffectual or actively harmful, there is no happy middle ground. And due to the way it's all-encompassing and interacts with alignment targeting magic it leaks information that breaks all sorts of interesting storytelling regardless of the rest of the implementation, so even if it's ineffectual, it's still not harmless.

"THE SKY IS FALLING! THOUSANDS OF THINGS WILL BREAK! IT WONT WORK! IT ISNT A REAL SYSTEM! IT DOESNT EXIST!"

Bro, the system worked fine for years.

"Indeed". The "system" "worked" "fine" for years.

Some people didn't understand the concept, but they learned. The issue was that new players were confused by it.

Oh please. You'd have to have the intellect of an amoeba to not understand or be confused by DnD alignment system.
And Atlantico seems to be a big fan of it anyway.

What *some* people *do* notice is all the cracks, flaws and ultimate pointlessness of the system.

Bean counters in management and marketing got involved and now we have it dumbed down to literal relativism. "Lawful Good DOES what most PEOPLE CONSIDER good." Now that's a real disaster. Provably, since they are phasing it out and didn't even want it in BG3.

Well, that's obviously incorrect and even Shitty would disagree with you, since he's tried to describe character motives multiple times (and failed to do so better than the alignment system).

Shitty has used alignment system to show how it doesn't really add anything meaningful to character description.
You can't demonstrate things about alignment system without using alignment system - duh.
Other than that, discuss Shitty's posts with Shitty Kitty .

Anyone can define character motives with out without an axis. It's just the axis systematizes it and makes it easier. That's important to have in a game played by more than one person for the same reason dice, hitpoints and specific spells are important - to keep everyone honest and playing the same game by the same rules.

And that's why there is so much problems communicating even simple concepts between alignmentfags in this very thread.

People's opinions don't account for who the character is within.

They don't need to. They account for how people react to a person, that's enough to let the game do that.
Who the character is within is solely a business between the PC and their player.

In settings that are often focused on good vs evil like most fantasy, that's pretty important.

Most fantasy, like most everything, is shit.

Inside of PC's head (with very few exceptions you can track objectively) is off limits to your mechanics, inner workings of the world and NPCs are off limits to the player.

You say this and then you say:

But you can still use ethos to govern reputation with gods or whatever forces provide divine magic (also possibly other kinds of magic) - except this time you can make sure player is on the same page as you regarding what will make their paladin fall and stuff like that.

Which would call for an alignment system.

It wouldn't. You break ethos -> you fall. It's as simple as that. You can segment ethos and put in more granularity if you want more granularity (for example for your expatriate kit).
Basically you treat this as reputation with god(s). There is a reason why RL religions tend to codify specific dos and don'ts instead of 9 boxes on two axes.

Ethos makes for a fine interface between stuff hidden from the player and stuff hidden from the mechanics (or DM) - and like any good interface it also serves as a means of clear, unambiguous communication - something alignment does not and cannot do due to being sophomoric philosophical bullshit.

And this inability has been amply illustrated in this very thread by no one else than alignmentfags themselves, trying - and failing - to get on the same page regarding whether or not rejecting one ethos in favour of another is chaotic, lawful or neutral (and what 'neutral' even means in this context) or whether Expatriate kit makes sense within alignment system.

Meanwhile, a live GM wouldn't have a problem understanding the concept of an expatriate paladin and making it work in their game even without "help" of alignment system, while an ethos and reputation based system would have no problem accepting a character that rejected one of two conflicting codes, nor consequences of it applied via reputation.

You are trying to argue for mandating the use of square bicycle wheels regardless of whether or not someone even owns a bicycle - that's about the extent of alignment's usefulness.

Nice bold text. Magpie wouldn't even agree to use 2nd Edition rules for ages, so we already wouldn't have been playing D&D together since he thinks "outdated" (better) rules aren't worthwhile.

He and I both agree that breaking an oath is a chaotic act.

What he disagrees with me on is that renouncing a betrayed and therefore non-binding oath was a lawful act.

I don't give a fuck.
The important part is that alignment doesn't prevent such disagreement.

Are you saying that because one sperg thinks rolling a 20-sided die is unfair, that means D&D will never work and is a broken system?

The dice serve clear purpose as RNG.

A computer would have even less problem with this, since egos and emotions don't get involved and they just follow the rules.

Computer doesn't understand alignment because it involves intuitive human concepts.
Computer can't and won't do alignment properly for the similar reasons why computer can't and won't do INT properly.

I refuse your solution because your solution is of dubious value to put it charitably.
And I explain it. In detail. Repeatedly. While providing an alternative devoid of crippling flaws. Which you refuse because of what exactly?
Should I doubt your sincerity or intellect?

"CRIPPLING FLAWS! I AM BEING CHARITABLE HERE! ITS SO BROKEN! IT NEVER WORKED! IGNORE ALL THE YEARS OF FUN YOU HAD PLAYING THE GAME!"

Stop being butthurt and answer the question asked.

BG2 example has nothing to do with alignment system. It's a hand-scripted questline (so not systemic by default) and it would have worked the same without relying on alignment.

Incorrect. The point is that it showcased a datapoint shift. All alignment shifts in games without DMs are scripted, so that's a non-argument.

The point doesn't involve anything systemic, so it's irrelevant for alignment as system.

And no game will, for the reasons I explained above.

"It can't be done perfect so it must not be done at all."

More like "it provably can't be done remotely well".

I'd prefer devs try and fail than quit and dumb things down.

I'd prefer devs try and fail doing something they might succeed at.
That's the distinction between "hard" and "folly".

I think even BG would suffer loss without alignments. Certainly Planescape would.

Planescape has alignments built into the cosmology. They are effectively physical places.
You can't make use of Planescape setting without them no matter how shitty they are as a concept.
And yet, the best use of alignment in PS:T was its deconstruction.

Here's an idea: if you don't like it, play a game without it rather than arguing every game remove it.

This is a thread dedicated to alignment in general. It's a fitting place to discuss why it's a shitty concept. No need to get all butthurt and defensive about it.

 

[DraQ]

I have never seen Orcs written in a fashion that implies they're anything but habitually bellicose and desirous of the conquest and enslavement of other beings

Bitch please, are you for real? I'm not sure, but I think the decline of properly evil Orcs any Evil Overlord would enjoy commanding into noble savages (uuurgh) started with WarCraft III. It went downhill from there.

TES Orcs are the best Orcs.

I have never seen Orcs written in a fashion that implies they're anything but habitually bellicose and desirous of the conquest and enslavement of other beings, as a general rule.

My dick is a spear, your argument is invalid.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

It doesn't need to be removed because it serves a useful purpose.

So does alignment.

Individual estimations don't matter shit if you can't model information spreading by individual character interactions because most of those are abstracted away.

Not all interactions factor into alignment. Alignment isn’t reputation, it’s internal, not external. Only certain events need affect it and be modeled. We already went over this.

Shitty actually demonstrates better judgement than me in this case, not wanting to put any more effort into this.
But you'd do better if you actually read Shitty's examples instead of trying to construct a shitty strawman out of them (which is definitely arguing in bad faith ), because they do a pretty good job showing how alignment descriptor effectively says nothing meaningful about character (which is only to be expected as per pigeonhole principle).

It’s only a strawman if it doesn’t represent his argument. Otherwise, it’s simply mockery and you’d be lying if you said both you and Shitty aren’t engaging in that.

The point is that his descriptions don’t represent the alignments. He simply used adjectives to make it sound like they did.

An actual LG mage, for example, would not “advocate judicious (meaning “in good sense”, but I guess shitty thinks it means “legal”) use of magic”. He would seek that magic only be used within the law and actively try to stop illegal use of magic. He would also be part of or found some institution related to stopping evil use or forms of magic.

These are all things a LG mage might do, but these are all actions and not beliefs.

The fact that Shitty relates LG to the class only just shows that he doesn’t understand what alignments mean or what they are for.

What if the LG mage didn’t do any of these things because there are no laws in his land relating to magic, nor are there enough mages for him to form an institution? How will you know he’s Lawful Good?

You would have to say that he believes that a strong and orderly society with a well-organized government can make life better for the majority of people. That he feels that laws should be obeyed and enforced. That when people obey the law, the whole of society prospers. His motive in believing this is that the majority of people will be benefitted by this, thus accomplishing good.

You could say all of that, you could word it in different ways, or you could simply say he’s “Lawful Good”, because that’s what Lawful Good is defined as.

It’s a shorthand. So some moron doesn’t waste everyone’s time with his useless fan fiction backstory and description that players don’t want to sit through, doesn’t really describe his character’s motives and that the system (ruleset or computer) itself would never understand anyway.

And that's great - it works just as well as it ever will. It still does the job with live DM and no longer pretends it does without one.

No, as I just demonstrated, a bio doesn’t explain alignment. It explains what happened to the character and what he’s done, but not his motives and outlook. It would easily lead to arguments over character motives based on the bio and it’s impossible to account for within a system.

Your idea of using alignment systems purely for interactions with deities also can’t be done with a bio.

A bio is less useful than an alignment system and yet you want it included and alignment gone.

Walking Simulator mentions + 1.
Cut this shit, your obsession is unhealthy.

How about breaking already mentioned expatriate character concept just because it didn't occur to devs to allow lawful character that specifically rejects one ethos?

If you’ll quit quacking like a duck, I’ll quit calling you one.

And there is nothing preventing a Paladin or any other Lawful Good character from committing a chaotic act. The whole reason there are penalties for doing so for a paladin shows the devs not only knew they could, but planned for it.

The reason the Expatriate doesn’t have to take a penalty is because he hasn’t committed a chaotic act, since the contract was nullified by his liege when he either betrayed his principles or forced the Paladin from his service. You’ll note that there are only specific circumstances where the player may take the kit. Outside of those circumstances, it’s a willfully chaotic act or possibly even an evil act. The Paladin risks losing his class.

This is all black and white and covered in the rules. It’s a non-issue unless you think you know better than the rule book and if that’s the case, you’d probably be better off with your walking simulator, since no one wants to play with someone who can’t agree to follow the rules of the game.

I can do whatever I want unless something stops me. This something must be external to my, and by extension my character's intent.
Meanwhile alignment tries to make it so I can't *want* whatever I want.

What you want shouldn’t come into play at all. It’s what your character wants.

People like you are why the Player’s Handbook specifically advises against picking an alignment that doesn’t match your personality and play style. Because they knew someone like you would be too childish to role play. You’ll just end up either having it changed by the DM later on, or else complaining that the system is stupid and useless because “lol I’m lawful good and I killed a bunch of villagers and nothing happened”, if the DM doesn’t.

One again, you’ve proven you just want to play a sandbox game like Skyrim and not an RPG where you actually are encouraged to “play a role”.

And btw, you can do whatever you want. The game won’t stop you. The DM won’t stop you. But a good DM will give you consequences, especially if you’re a paladin who decides to massacre a village, and a bad DM doesn’t mean the system is broken, it means the DM is bad at enforcing it.

I don't give a fuck.
The important part is that alignment doesn't prevent such disagreement

It does if you abide by the rules. As I said, it’s a self-solving issue. Only someone who won’t follow the rules will argue with it, since it’s spelled out clearly. If they do, they have no business playing, since they’ll also complain about other rules and ruin the game for everyone. Sorry, not gonna let you reroll every time you fail. Suck it up or quit.

The dice serve clear purpose as RNG.

Alignment serves a clear purpose of defining character motives and worldview. That doesn’t stop whiners from complaining about it and saying it shouldn’t exist though, does it?

Stop being butthurt and answer the question asked.

I answered it the first time. You provided no alternative because what you want requires an alignment system. Reputation alone doesn’t suffice.

You basically end up with what you hated in Baldur’s Gate where evil party members hate you for having a good reputation, even if it serves their best interests.

Not only could a paladin join the assassin’s guild if he’s not widely known enough as a hero, but an assassin couldn’t, if he maintained too high a reputation.

It also leads to the exact kind of evil/good cookie cutter characters you mistakenly claim the alignment system leads to. Your Paladin must always have a high reputation at all costs, your assassin must always be hated by all. No nuance like a paladin exiled or accused unjustly, or an assassin who maintains a perfect reputation in order to hide his illicit activities.

You are arguing for the kind of broken system you claim to hate.

The point doesn't involve anything systemic, so it's irrelevant for alignment as system.

It classifies Anomen based on the alignment system. How is it supposed to be more systemic than that? Is there some computer program or math you think this needs to be run through? If it were a PnP game, it would work exactly the same. “Anomen’s alignment has changed. I’ve updated his character sheet.” The end. What are you taking about? Are you saying spells or weapons specifically affecting chaotic neutral beings won’t recognize that he’s chaotic neutral now? Or are you complaining that it didn’t work by him being given a specific number of “dark side points” visible to you (which isn’t part of D&D or the alignment system)?

I'd prefer devs try and fail doing something they might succeed at.
That's the distinction between "hard" and "folly".

You’re saying a relatively simple system is impossible to do well. That’s the only folly I see here.

The reason it hasn’t been done well, as I said, is because devs have either tried too much or too little reactivity. Assuming that means it will never be done well is illogical. Clearly a balance can be achieved if two extremes can.

Planescape has alignments built into the cosmology. They are effectively physical places.
You can't make use of Planescape setting without them no matter how shitty they are as a concept.
And yet, the best use of alignment in PS:T was its deconstruction.

Except it didn’t deconstruct them, it explained them.

Literally the ENTIRE GAME of PST was about my argument: alignments are belief systems. If you change your beliefs, you change your alignment. Not actions. Not backgrounds (since TNO had plenty of background, but it didn’t matter since he had forgotten it). Beliefs.

This is a thread dedicated to alignment in general. It's a fitting place to discuss why it's a shitty concept. No need to get all butthurt and defensive about it.

And again you revert to taunts in lieu of a valid argument. You demanded an answer of me, so I’ll ask you to answer: why not simply play another game or use another ruleset rather than advocate that a ruleset remove alignments?

 

[Atlantico]

What *some* people *do* notice is all the cracks, flaws and ultimate pointlessness of the system.

Though you cannot understand this system, it doesn't mean you're right. It just means, you don't understand why you're wrong.

 

[DraQ]

It doesn't need to be removed because it serves a useful purpose.

So does alignment.

You keep repeating that but so far have failed to demonstrate it.

It's really simple:
"Alignment system allows me to do X which I couldn't do with any other system or without and which is actually worth doing (because of Y)."
There. Now you just need to find X (and Y if it's not clear enough).
Some non-examples:

• Detect evil - yes, you need alignment for that, but it's not worth doing because all it does is preventing interesting storytelling and players from having to put effort into discerning other characters' motives. Also stuff like all flavours of mindreading spells does that better without requiring alignment or breaking stuff detect-evil does.
  
• Protection from evil - more nuanced protection spells are actually both more interesting mechanically and flavourful than blanket ones.
  
• Fall mechanics - not only you can have it without alignment, but ethos system allows communicating clearly and unambiguously what is expected from player's paladin in order for them not to fall.
  
• Communication of character motives and expected behaviour - alignment actually prevents effective communication in this regard as seen in this thread.

Individual estimations don't matter shit if you can't model information spreading by individual character interactions because most of those are abstracted away.

Not all interactions factor into alignment.

We were talking about reputation system. Faction reputation allows you to abstract away many gameworld details - such as NPCs actually talking with one another and moving across geographical distances.

It’s only a strawman if it doesn’t represent his argument. Otherwise, it’s simply mockery and you’d be lying if you said both you and Shitty aren’t engaging in that.

The point is that his descriptions don’t represent the alignments. He simply used adjectives to make it sound like they did.

An actual LG mage, for example, would not “advocate judicious (meaning “in good sense”, but I guess shitty thinks it means “legal”) use of magic”.

It doesn't represent his argument if you didn't even get his argument.
Advocating code of conduct consisting of magic not being used rashly in order to prevent harm is very much LG thinking - "hey I have this rule that will make things better".
You are just assuming that everyone but you doesn't know WTF they are talking about, then pretending that you know what they were trying to say (and were obviously wrong about) and try fighting that construct you've made.
It's strawmanning, in a stupid way too.

These are all things a LG mage might do, but these are all actions and not beliefs.

Actions are observable, beliefs aren't. In particular PC's beliefs in a cRPG are unobservable even if you have mechanics specifically for observing beliefs and that makes this mechanics an inherently failed one.

The fact that Shitty relates LG to the class

He does? I mean apart from the way it is already related to the class in DnD - paladin must be LG, IIRC monks cannot be chaotic (which makes sense - as far as alignment can - because the class is based on discipline and ascetism).
He simply provides several different, quite sensible character concepts matching LG alignment and notes that this LG descriptor doesn't actually add any extra information to those concepts.
Which is only to be expected:
Abstraction only makes sense in as much as it allows to abstract (it's in the name, FFS) things away. Alignment is supposed to be an "abstraction" for things that need to be tracked in detail during gameplay anyway. Being LG doesn't allow player to omit all the ways they are actually being LG, so alignment isn't an actual abstraction, just completely pointless wankery of having spurious shit on the character sheet.

And since Shitty Kitty 's actual point went over your head earlier, the following part is no longer relevant.

And that's great - it works just as well as it ever will. It still does the job with live DM and no longer pretends it does without one.

No, as I just demonstrated, a bio doesn’t explain alignment.

Great, then fill in your motivation too/instead - GM might still use that, computer still won't care.
Same difference.

A bio is less useful than an alignment system and yet you want it included and alignment gone.

I want it included because you can't let go of "MUH SYSTEM" even if it's completely pointless and even harmful - demonstrably so.
Although admittedly being able to add a description to your character sheet can be handy.

And there is nothing preventing a Paladin or any other Lawful Good character from committing a chaotic act. The whole reason there are penalties for doing so for a paladin shows the devs not only knew they could, but planned for it.

Unless the chaotic act is actually supposed to be lawful but the system - being alignment dumbfuckery - is not sophisticated enough to recognize that.

The reason the Expatriate doesn’t have to take a penalty is because he hasn’t committed a chaotic act

He might have because the system fails to understand the difference and communicate this. A problem an actual system, like ethos based, wouldn't have, being able to specify "you do this, this or this and you'll have to atone, this, this or that and you fall" at fucking chargen.
That's precisely one of the failings of alignment system.

This is all black and white and covered in the rules. It’s a non-issue unless you think you know better than the rule book and if that’s the case, you’d probably be better off with your walking simulator, since no one wants to play with someone who can’t agree to follow the rules of the game.

Walking simulator mentions + 1.

I can do whatever I want unless something stops me. This something must be external to my, and by extension my character's intent.
Meanwhile alignment tries to make it so I can't *want* whatever I want.

What you want shouldn’t come into play at all. It’s what your character wants.

My character wants what I want them to want. Problem?

People like you are why the Player’s Handbook specifically advises against picking an alignment that doesn’t match your personality and play style.

Looks like sensible advice. With a good GM playing against your RL personality will make you uncomfortable, unless your RL "alignment" is "psychopathic".

Because they knew someone like you would be too childish to role play. You’ll just end up either having it changed by the DM later on, or else complaining that the system is stupid and useless because “lol I’m lawful good and I killed a bunch of villagers and nothing happened”, if the DM doesn’t.

If you killed a bunch of villagers for lulz then you obviously weren't LG to begin with. That only exposes the impotence of alignment system - it doesn't do fuck about tracking motivation which is the one job it has.

One again, you’ve proven you just want to play a sandbox game like Skyrim and not an RPG where you actually are encouraged to “play a role”.

Walking simulator mentions + 1.

Should I make a counter gag, like Civvie?

Ironically enough, there are mods for the walking simulator mentioned that actually implement an ethos based system (for example for religion).
Jelly much?

It does if you abide by the rules.

Rules only matter as much as they can be enforced.
If it cannot be enforced, it's void.
This applies to alignment, INT stat and so on.
Don't codify what you cannot enforce, especially in a cRPG - at least in TT GM can rocksfall a blatantly uncooperative player.

Alignment serves a clear purpose of defining character motives and worldview.

And fails at it for reasons above.

*snip*

Forum software shat on the part of the post that was here, TBD later.

This is a thread dedicated to alignment in general. It's a fitting place to discuss why it's a shitty concept. No need to get all butthurt and defensive about it.

And again you revert to taunts in lieu of a valid argument.

It's a valid argument. Talking about why and how alignment is broken is appropriate for an alignment-oriented thread. Going all defensive and wanting people to leave Britney alignment alone is acting butthurt. Walk. Quack. Duck.

You demanded an answer of me, so I’ll ask you to answer: why not simply play another game or use another ruleset rather than advocate that a ruleset remove alignments?

Because it's a thread about alignments. Why don't you leave this thread if it hurts you emotionally and go play something with alignments?
Are we supposed to put up "Trigger Warning: People Shit on Alignment Here"?
Of course, if you can take the heat, do stay and discuss!!

P.S.
Iggy binned Atlantico for being a noisy nuissance.
Do let me know if he accidentally does something funny.

 

[Atlantico]

Iggy binned Atlantico for being a noisy nuissance.

Oh no. How will I sleep tonight?

Another telltale sign of autism is the inability to face adversity and wanting to cuddle up in your own personal safe space.

DraQ's character sheet for the Codex:

• Autistic - check
• Leftist - check
• Liberal - check
• Atheist - check
• Midwit - check
• Sodomite - check
• Incel - check
• CDPR fag - check
• Insufferably smug about all of the above - youbetcha

Apart from the CDPR fagginess, this oddly applies to Scruffy the shithead janitor.

What a coincidence!