A eulogy for Alignment in CRPGs

[Commissar Draco]

A lawful/orderly person can be defined in a number of ways according to their own source material

There is a room with a child, a man walks in and proceeds to horribly torture it before finally smearing it's remains all over the walls while screeching "FUCK EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE FUCKFUCKFUUUUUUUUCKKKKKKKKKKK". The man knew for a fact this child would have solved every problem in his world/society without any negative repercussions whatsoever. The man was in full controll of his mental faculties etc.

Was the man:
A - Chaotic Evil
B - Lawful Good
C - That's Just, Like, An Oppinion, Man

Correct answer is that child deserved it cause once its grandpa said nigger, and Yes throwing away alignments? Are faggots of the Cucks can even get lower? True they made no sense half of time in modern games like Saying that there are no place for man eating invading trolls in my Barony labelled as Lawful Evil but I can't see how it wont got worse from this Comrade.

 

[Trashos]

I like alignments when you can do whatever you like, but your alignment shifts accordingly, and there are specific consequences for each alignment. For example, I was very happy with alignments in Kingmaker (as compared to other games, I do not mean that in Kingmaker they are absolutely perfect).

I would not necessarily want alignments in all RPGs. But I do not see how settings full of paladins, priests and thieves can be as awesome without alignments, personally. This is a big loss.

On the issue of hard-to-navigate nuances, the obvious solution is to label them all as Neutral (with no alignment shift or very minor shift), and enforce significant alignment shifts only on extreme decisions.

Debating whether something is this-or-that alignment was also part of the fun. No fun allowed anymore, I guess.

PS. It does not escape me that, somewhere down the line, Math's turn is coming.

 

[Sarathiour]

No he's not trying too hard. If alignment can be known using a spell, such a "parlor trick" would be extremely valuable to vet people, build alliances, lead investigations. A prime tool for politics. You can bet your ass people are going to use that shit. They go to even greater lengths IRL, using all possible ways to harvest your info and extrapolating from that.

As a wizard, if you want to be highly valuable and get a paying job working for a noble or a guild, or if you want to be a step ahead from your enemies, or if you want to use magic subtly in a social setting, it makes a lot of sense to study up on metamagic ways to alter spells.

And about that idea that you're wasting a high level spell slot. Well, you're thinking about typical adventuring player characters going dungeoneering or some such, needing to be ready for combat. But for court intrigue, which many NPCs in the world do, and PCs can too, it can be pretty good. And memorized spells can be changed, they're only for a day. Metamagic feats aren't a waste since they can be used for other spells too.

What you are failing to grasp is that you are in a world where magic is a fact admitted by most, if not all political entity. Corollary, any kind of spy, ambassador or advisor worth is salt also know about first circle spell ,and would take measure against it IF , and only IF , having their alignment known would hinder them in any way. Because you're also oblivious that most of the time you will only have "neutral" something as a result.

Don't get me wrong, court intrigue can be a really interesting setting, with lot of possible clever use of metamagic feat to alter spell. Know alignment is just not one of them, because if you get busted by such a parlor truck, you're the kind of guy who would send non-crypted report using the public wi-fi of the embassy.

 

[Drowed]

Again, you guys are focusing on whether or not the GM has an agenda, or whether or not the GM is able to read the players' minds... And all of this is completely and utterly irrelevant. The DM is the one who is the link of the players to the reality of the game's universe. For all practical purposes, the DM can even overrule a decision or description of a player, if he so wishes.

He can make factual statements about the characters' internal reality, such as "you (aka, your character) felt fear," or "you felt repulsion," or whatever else he wants. He can even determine that your character didn't make a certain action based on the characteristics described in his sheet - for example, in Gurps 3rd there is the advantage Common Sense (10 points). This is an advantage that, at the time I was playing, was very recommended by our GM for all beginners. When the characters were going to do something obviously idiotic (either in context, or in general), the GM would simply narrate something like "when you were about to do X, you suddenly felt it would be a bad idea because Y might happen, and your hand stopped for a few moments".

Obviously a good GM won't abuse that power or use it arbitrarily - but again, the GM is literally the reality of the game world itself, while he is also the judge. His "powers" go far beyond simply responding passively to what players say.

So, knowing what the player thinks or doesn't think about any topic is completely irrelevant if the player doesn't expose his thought. If you tell the GM that your character lied, and the GM says that he lied, for all intents and purposes within the game world he lied. And that's it, no matter what you think or feel about it. The player may have a different idea inside his head, but the player and the character are different entities. What the character thinks is not what the player thinks, and vice versa. The reality of the game world is separated from the "real" world, this is obvious to anyone who already plays/played tabletop RPGs. Something analogous to this is when in a CRPG you have a dialog option with a [lie] tag, or something. If you clicked on this option, it doesn't matter if you, sitting on your sofa, changed your mind or have another goal. At that moment your character lied, this is an absolute fact within the game world.

So this point is irrelevant, you may question the usefulness of alignment in CRPG, and that's a valid question to make. But not by this approach. Knowing or not what the player is thinking is completely indifferent and irrelevant to the issue.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

A lawful/orderly person can be defined in a number of ways according to their own source material

There is a room with a child, a man walks in and proceeds to horribly torture it before finally smearing it's remains all over the walls while screeching "FUCK EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE FUCKFUCKFUUUUUUUUCKKKKKKKKKKK". The man knew for a fact this child would have solved every problem in his world/society without any negative repercussions whatsoever. The man was in full controll of his mental faculties etc.

Was the man:
A - Chaotic Evil
B - Lawful Good
C - That's Just, Like, An Oppinion, Man

Most commoners around him who learn of what he did are going to definitely interpret it as an Evil action, assuming their values generally go something like "don't fucking murder kids, and especially don't torture and murder kids that have done absolutely nothing wrong and have great potential". If the man was part of a doomsday cult or something and just took out the kid that was going to grow into the man that thwarts their plan, members of that cult are going to view it as a positive thing, and according to their code of "bring the world to an end, let nothing stop us" it would probably fall into their "law". This guy gets a reputation as being a horrible harbinger of horrible things amongst the goodly citizenry and a man who helped bring the ultimate plan to fruition amongst the doomsday cultists (who, in their probably-twisted sense of morality and ethics might deem the end of the world or a slide into greater societal decay as a kind of mercy or necessity).

Meanwhile, the universe itself wouldn't reasonably give a fuck as it's impassive, the deities that might observe this or learn of it will form their opinions based on their ethos, and Raziel is probably going to murderfuck this dude personally because his big thing is "don't fucking hurt kids, assholes".

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

So you admit DM can't know what we think only knows what we do.

You think it’s some kind of revelation that DMs aren’t psychic?

This is why you pick your alignment. It informs the DM (or the game) what kind of character you are and how you think.

Because your actions alone don’t explain why you did something. Which is what I’ve been repeating for pages now.

Again only knows if we make it blatantly obvious.

So?

How do you think a reputation system is going to work? You’re going to be making a reputation for yourself based on “making it obvious” anyway and the game is going to judge you for it.

The difference is that alignment adds a further description of your character (who they are on the inside and how they see the world) for the game/DM to react to.

Removing the alignment system is just dumbing down the game because you the player don’t understand how to use it.

"Ugh I'm giving this party only for entertaining myself not for my companion Ekundayo!!!!" (neutral evil)

Just look at this sentence and laugh. This not even evil, this should be just combined efforts of low intelligence and diplomacy, just look at this wtf?

And this would be an example of poor writing and game design. Not every line of dialog or quest needs a +/- to your alignment.

Now compare this crap with Age of Decadence. Word of Honor (you can gain word of honor only to trick for bigger gains in future) body count, prestige amongst certain guilds, loyalty, combat, these are things we need in future RPGs.

lol, yeah, the entire world knowing you’re a liar based on a stat, great example.

Again, you’re taking about reputation.

You still clearly don’t get that alignment isn’t reputation. It isn’t meant to be like reputation.

It isn’t meant to be simplistic like light side/dark side points in KOTOR or Renegade/Paragon points in Mass Effect either.

It’s a description of who you are inside and how you relate to the world in terms of good and evil and chaos and order. You don’t need to tell the DM anything more than that because it explains your character’s outlook (in general).

I’ve quoted the player’s handbook, I’ve repeated it multiple times, but it doesn’t seem to sink it.

You don’t need to pick the neutral evil option. In fact, if there even is a “neutral evil option” in a game, since you seem to be hyper focused on games and not actual D&D (even though they are merely approximations of D&D with the devs’ own adaptations), it should be a special option designed to reflect your unique outlook, not an evil option to give you more dark side points. Something that would be invisible or greyed out for other alignments.

If you want “evil points” it should be specific situations that test your morals. Like Anomen’s decision to kill that merchant’s daughter in revenge. Or the hell trials at the end of BG2, again, to use a game as an example.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

For all practical purposes, the DM can even overrule a decision or description of a player, if he so wishes.

If the DM is an asshole, he can make your character into a faggot who gets killed by a random falling anvil.

Does that prove we don’t need hitpoints because the DM can kill us at any time for any reason?

Does a bad game having bad hit point design mean that no game needs them?

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Math's turn is coming.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/21/seattle-schools-math-is-racist/

 

[Shitty Kitty]

I like alignments when you can do whatever you like, but your alignment shifts accordingly, and there are specific consequences for each alignment. For example, I was very happy with alignments in Kingmaker (as compared to other games, I do not mean that in Kingmaker they are absolutely perfect).

I would not necessarily want alignments in all RPGs. But I do not see how settings full of paladins, priests and thieves can be as awesome without alignments, personally. This is a big loss.

On the issue of hard-to-navigate nuances, the obvious solution is to label them all as Neutral (with no alignment shift or very minor shift), and enforce significant alignment shifts only on extreme decisions.

Debating whether something is this-or-that alignment was also part of the fun. No fun allowed anymore, I guess.

PS. It does not escape me that, somewhere down the line, Math's turn is coming.

This shit is philosophical and is therefore already a particular brand of bullshit. Anyone who argues against math is a retard and arguing against math isn't a philosophical stance, it's retarded. Conflating the two (math and philosophy) is also retarded and plays right into those idiots' hands. Good job.

For all practical purposes, the DM can even overrule a decision or description of a player, if he so wishes.

If the DM is an asshole, he can make your character into a faggot who gets killed by a random falling anvil.

Does that prove we don’t need hitpoints because the DM can kill us at any time for any reason?

Does a bad game having bad hit point design mean that no game needs them?

Hitpoints ARE a retarded system and things like Wounds are possibly marginally better. Why the fuck would a level 20 wizard with the same CON score he had at Level 1 have significantly more hitpoints than at level 1? It might be a necessary abstraction in some sense, but you damn well know there would be better ways to handle it.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

This shit is philosophical and is therefore already a particular brand of bullshit.

Which is the real crux of your problem with the alignment system: you’re a relativist who doesn’t like the idea of good and evil being spelled out.

And that’s fine. Play fallout or age of decadence if you want a morally relativistic game world.

But in most fantasy settings, the idea of good and evil is integral.

And if you don’t like it, well, that’s just your opinion man.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

This shit is philosophical and is therefore already a particular brand of bullshit.

Which is the real crux of your problem with the alignment system: you’re a relativist who doesn’t like the idea of good and evil being spelled out.

And that’s fine. Play fallout or age of decadence if you want a morally relativistic game world.

But in most fantasy settings, the idea of good and evil is integral.

And if you don’t like it, well, that’s just your opinion man.

And it being "integral" to the setting makes the subjective opinions of the world creator into false objectivity. If you had a DM who argued that anti-Semitism was objectively evil, I bet you'd have a shitfit and walk away from that table in thirty seconds flat.

 

[Drowed]

If the DM is an asshole, he can make your character into a faggot who gets killed by a random falling anvil.

Yes, he can. And indeed he would be an asshole.

Does that prove we don’t need hitpoints because the DM can kill us at any time for any reason?

No, neither does that prove that we do need it. That's a tangential point. You guys are using the fact that GM isn't able to read minds as a factor that is related to alignments, and it is not. The competence or incompetence of the GM, or his (lack of) telepathic powers has no relation to whether or not alignments is a good game mechanic. There are hundreds of arguments that can be made to exemplify this, but this is not one of them because this one is stupid and completely unrelated. The player's mind and the character's mind are not the same thing.

I can't dumb things down any further. This is not a difficult point to understand.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

NOTE: Not Raziel, Zaphkiel. Though Raziel would probably join in on that for his own reasons.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

GM isn't able to read minds as a factor that is related to alignments, and it is not.

No, we don’t. That’s not the point of alignments. You could simply explain your character’s motives to the DM or the game world. This is a shorthand because “well, he’s basically a good guy but he doesn’t believe in laws and shit and sometimes he breaks the law, but he doesn’t want to break the law he just doesn’t feel it’s as important as doing the right thing” is a lot harder to say over and over than “Neutral Good”.

There are hundreds of arguments that can be made to exemplify this, but this is not one of them because this one is stupid and completely unrelated. The player's mind and the character's mind are not the same thing.

And I’m not saying they are.

I can't dumb things down any further. This is not a difficult point to understand.

Ok, moron.

 

[Trashos]

This shit is philosophical and is therefore already a particular brand of bullshit. Anyone who argues against math is a retard and arguing against math isn't a philosophical stance, it's retarded. Conflating the two (math and philosophy) is also retarded and plays right into those idiots' hands. Good job.

You are assuming that the mob or even the common folk will make the same distinction that you are making. Good luck.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

This shit is philosophical and is therefore already a particular brand of bullshit. Anyone who argues against math is a retard and arguing against math isn't a philosophical stance, it's retarded. Conflating the two (math and philosophy) is also retarded and plays right into those idiots' hands. Good job.

You are assuming that the mob or even the common folk will make the same distinction that you are making. Good luck.

It doesn't matter what distinction they make, I'm assuming (perhaps mistakenly) that you're marginally intelligent enough to realize that giving them the ground of "math can be considered philosophically" is absolutely and abjectly retarded. Quit doing their work for them. The premise that math can even be approached on philosophical grounds is so wholly erroneous that it must be summarily discarded by anyone with even the faintest understanding of how math works.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

EVIL: LAW VS. CHAOS
©Gary Gygax

The DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE contains a fairly detailed section regarding the various alignment characteristics. On reflection, however, I began to wonder if enough had been said about the different approaches to evil. Now, if one clearly defines the lawful evil and the chaotic evil characteristics, the neutral evil path becomes evident as the middle road between the two opposite approaches to the precept of banefulness. Considering the confusion regarding alignments, it cannot but help to say a few more words on the subject.
For those of you who have not as yet read the DMG, evil is typified by the desire to advance self over others, by whatever means are possible, and always by the foulest of means possible — and more on that later. Whatever causes the most harm is typically the most desirable course to follow. Pain and suffering are meat and drink to the creatures of evil. Slavery and oppression of all weaker creatures are considered as natural, for these exist only to serve and satisfy the demands of the stronger.

Lawful evil believes that the only way to impose the tyranny of their alignment over all creation is to follow an ordered course of action. Their evil society is rigidly structured, each being knowing its place and cruelly dominating all beneath this station, while being just as bullied from those above. Each creature in this hierarchy strives to follow the orders from the stronger most painstakingly — both to avoid punishment and in hopes of bettering its position in the order. To those beneath each is as harsh and cruel as possible: fearful of failure in its tasks, of being replaced by an underling. The evil ends desired might be better obtained by actions which are actually less vile than other options, but the order of lawful evil will generally perceive the most useful course rather than merely the most baneful in the short term. Hell and its environs hate chaotic good most vehemently, for they see threats there to both the structure of their social system and their proposed course. What worse than both total freedom and happiness brought about only by individual achievement and character? Therefore, lawful evil would certainly not hesitate to ally itself with virtually any other cause if this helped to abridge the scope and influence of those creatures typifying the chaotic good. Similarly, a devil would attempt to influence and possess principally those humans who were powerful and influential leaders of ordered communities, organizations, and states, i.e. lawful individuals not already committed to evil ends.

Chaotic evil certainly has the common denominator of banefulness with those creatures who follow the ordered path of woe. They likewise oppress and enslave, torture and kill for the pure pleasure of seeing suffering and death. But while lawful evil sees these activities as part of the structured course towards a world ruled by evil, those of chaotic evil alignment see such activities as an end in themselves. While the weaker chaotic evil creatures fear and often hate the stronger, they are ruled by them only insofar as the reach of the stronger extends — and possibly only as long as the stronger has interest in so doing. The individual evil is more important than the collective one. Let each evil being do its best to spread evil and chaos, and the ultimate result will be a cancerous spread of the alignment. Order is next to good in undesirableness, so lawful good is the antithesis of chaotic evil. Yet creatures of this alignment will not long associate to combat their hated foes, except lesser creatures under the leadership of some mighty demon or in extreme situations where the very structure of chaotic evil is threatened by some great coalition of good. A demon is not interested in ruling nations but in spreading evil as it alone sees fit. Therefore, possession by a creature of chaotic evil is typically of an unstable individual who will run amok for short time, or of some singular figure who will be in a position to send out many such individuals.

The differences in tendencies and philosophies are reflected in the personal involvement of devils and demons in the affairs of the Prime Material Plane. The rulers of the Planes of Hell (devils) will seldom involve themselves in worldly affairs directly. Archdevils operate through their organizations to influence the course of events on the Prime Material Plane. Because of the strict order that devilkind adheres to, intervention of even lesser devils is rare, as the rulers make pacts with, humans and other agents. These arrangements assure that lawful evil is spread upon the Prime Material Plane, even though the Tiers of Hell are smaller than the Layers of the Abyss, for example, and there are far fewer devils than there are demons. While there is rivalry betwixt the Dukes of Hell, it is a prescribed and ordered contest wherein the rivals recognize limits and the need for mutual cooperation in order to insure that their collective realm remains strong and inviolate.

The very nature of demonkind, however, dictates a far more direct involvement in activities on the Prime Material Plane. Lacking extensive organizations, each demon lord must become personally active if he or she desires to meddle in the affairs of humankind, etal. It is not making a virtue of necessity on the part of demons to point out that they prefer such personal involvement. Thus, this or that demon lord will be encountered in material form, directing the activities of whatever group of followers he or she has gathered to spread disorder and woe upon the earth. Each powerful demon (and there are scores and scores of them) competes bitterly with all others in a deadly rivalry for supremacy — both in the Abyss and on the Prime Material Plane. The chaotic nature of demonkind dictates that mutual cooperation is unlikely at best, and any alliance between two demon lords will be one of mistrust and betrayal, doomed to a very short lifespan.

Neutral evil, as typified by daemonkind, follows the middle course between the rigidly ordered society of the Nine Hells and the anarchy of the Abyss. Yet this alignment has neither the organizational capability of lawful evil nor the great multitudes of chaotic evil, so all told it is weaker than either. The flexibility of neutral evil creatures enables them to survive and remain relatively free of rule by either Hell or one or more demon lords. The daemons and other inhabitants of Hades (and Gehenna and Tarterus as well) will as often as not become personally involved in activity on Prime Material Plane if they see it as gainful to their power and prestige or particularly enjoyable. In like manner, they will join in diabolical or demonic enterprises to further their ends, evil and personal.

Lawful evil has more common cause than those of lawful neutral bent than it does with demonkind, just as chaotic evil has more fellowship with chaotic neutrality than it does with Hell. Both alignments, the chaotic and the lawful evil, despise those who take the neutral course, seeing this as fence straddling, so to speak. The demons are too disorganized to enslave these creatures, however, while Hell desires a buffer and uses daemonkind as tools as well. For their part, daemons play off the Abyss against lawful evil to insure their freedom, power, and continued importance.

In summation, lawful evil, through its orderly arrangement and structure, wields great influence throughout the Prime Material Plane, even though devils seldom take a personal role, and the number of the dwellers in the Nine Hells is not overwhelming. Chaotic evil, on the other hand, while represented by a far greater number of powerful creatures taking a direct part in the affairs of the world, has no greater influence or power — perhaps less even — because of animosity between demons and the chaotic tendencies which preclude organization and assurance of purposes carried out by lesser beings under direction. Hell works carefully to bring its evil yolk over all the world, while demonkind attempts only individual forays to aggrandize some lord or other, increase the fame and glory of a particular prince or princess of the Abyss, or merely to bring a few decades of foulest pleasure.

The lawful evil character, then, is bound to follow a course which is strictly ordered. The path he or she follows is one of evil, but also one which attempts to bring formal rule to the world under the auspices of Hell. The character must obey and strive for the purposes of lawful evil — furthering his or her own position in the process, of course. Those of you who have read Fred Saberhagen’s CHANGLING EARTH will recognize that the Emperor John Ominor ruled a lawful evil realm — although he apparently served no diabolic master.

In contrast, the chaotic evil character serves only him or herself, but always towards evil ends. But the chaotic evil character recognizes no master, save out of fear and necessity, and even in the event that such recognition is necessary, he or she will always strive to gain the upper hand and dominate. If lawful evil can be likened to a mountain chain, with the highest peaks being the Dukes of Hell, and the lowest foothills the menial servants, then chaotic evil is a series of islands and islets in a vast sea — numerous but connected only tenuously by underwater ridges.

The lawful evil character will certainly cooperate with others in order to extend the sway of his or her alignment — seeking advantage by lies, trickery, and deceit while adhering to the letter of the bargain, naturally. The chaotic evil character will rule but seldom cooperate for long. As soon as he or she sees a possible advantage accruing through abandonment or betrayal — or perhaps simply because he or she has grown tired of the pact — the chaotic evil character will be true to the precept of his or her alignment!

Players can assume the role of a good or an evil character without undue difficulty, but in my experience the orderly or disorderly tendencies are another matter altogether. Law and chaos seem to be more ingrained in the actual personality of a player, and these bents are thus not as easily acted out. While you, as DM, will order the NPCs of lawful, neutral, or chaotic evil alignment, your players will tend to assume alignments which actually fit their personalities as respects order versus anarchy, so you must observe such activities quite closely. It is common for players to seek the best of both worlds by claiming the benefits of one alignment while using the processes of the other in order to gain power. Thus, a player might well claim to be lawful evil in order to receive the assistance of an archdevil, and thereafter blithely go about setting up a totally independent and free-wheeling empire of evil which has nothing to do with the aims of Hell. Such liberties cannot be allowed....

- Dragon Magazine #28, August 1979

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

For those of you who have not as yet read the DMG, evil is typified by the desire to advance self over others, by whatever means are possible, and always by the foulest of means possible — and more on that later. Whatever causes the most harm is typically the most desirable course to follow. Pain and suffering are meat and drink to the creatures of evil. Slavery and oppression of all weaker creatures are considered as natural, for these exist only to serve and satisfy the demands of the stronger.

Lawful evil believes that the only way to impose the tyranny of their alignment over all creation is to follow an ordered course of action. Their evil society is rigidly structured, each being knowing its place and cruelly dominating all beneath this station, while being just as bullied from those above. Each creature in this hierarchy strives to follow the orders from the stronger most painstakingly — both to avoid punishment and in hopes of bettering its position in the order.

Players can assume the role of a good or an evil character without undue difficulty, but in my experience the orderly or disorderly tendencies are another matter altogether. Law and chaos seem to be more ingrained in the actual personality of a player, and these bents are thus not as easily acted out. While you, as DM, will order the NPCs of lawful, neutral, or chaotic evil alignment, your players will tend to assume alignments which actually fit their personalities as respects order versus anarchy, so you must observe such activities quite closely. It is common for players to seek the best of both worlds by claiming the benefits of one alignment while using the processes of the other in order to gain power. Thus, a player might well claim to be lawful evil in order to receive the assistance of an archdevil, and thereafter blithely go about setting up a totally independent and free-wheeling empire of evil which has nothing to do with the aims of Hell. Such liberties cannot be allowed....

Consequences could be enforced even without alignment changes in this situation by the DM setting up a contract which will require the player to behave in a certain way or make certain decisions or else face dire problems later on.

The consequences of lying to your DM might be more severe anyway though...

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

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.

Lost debate? Are you first time on Internet or retarded? I think it's second, because only retard would draw conclusion that someone loves minorities just because they don't like shitty alignment system. Your other "arguments" don't make sense either, you are just draw assumptions about my (and others) role playing experience out your ass, otherwise you would look like idiot even in own eyes, let alone normal people.
And I actually love derogatory words and use them on regular basis, it's just I did not insulted anyone in my first post in this thread, yet swarm of consumerist whores that threat d&d as religion did not passed up opportunity to start their posts with pittyful attempts to devalue one's opinion through insults (otherwise you and other cocksuckers don't have any arguments).
Why I care about alignment?
1) Because every god in D&D should have their own holy book with rules and restrictions clergy and worshipers, same goes for monks and their code of conduct and not crammed into one shitty tile on 9x9 spreadsheet of shitty tiles.
2) I play mostly the same CRPG as other people, you imbecile. And every time when there would be a game D&D with similar approach to alignments as PF:KM, I will be like "Damn, this shit makes no sense, good thing that my char ain't paladin, otherwise my walkthrough would be screwed" (btw it does not matter fanatics from which side of political spectrum would do writing with usage of alignments- everyone will suffer)
3) Alignments have almost magical ability to make many situations in D&D predictable, because alignments bear enormous bag of cliche.

Anyway, I think you are mentally ill and continuing discussion with you is pointless, since you really think that you can win debate on Internet.
So you can take breath, drink you medicine and tell your doctor that you are won, may be you will get chocolate medal for your efforts.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Gastrick]

Lost debate? Are you first time on Internet or retarded? I think it's second, because only retard would draw conclusion that someone loves minorities just because they don't like shitty alignment system. Your other "arguments" don't make sense either, you are just draw assumptions about my (and others) role playing experience out your ass, otherwise you would look like idiot even in own eyes, let alone normal people.
And I actually love derogatory words and use them on regular basis, it's just I did not insulted anyone in my first post in this thread, yet swarm of consumerist whores that threat d&d as religion did not passed up opportunity to start their posts with pittyful attempts to devalue one's opinion through insults (otherwise you and other cocksuckers don't have any arguments).
Why I care about alignment?
1) Because every god in D&D should have their own holy book with rules and restrictions clergy and worshipers, same goes for monks and their code of conduct and not crammed into one shitty tile on 9x9 spreadsheet of shitty tiles.
2) I play mostly the same CRPG as other people, you imbecile. And every time when there would be a game D&D with similar approach to alignments as PF:KM, I will be like "Damn, this shit makes no sense, good thing that my char ain't paladin, otherwise my walkthrough would be screwed" (btw it does not matter fanatics from which side of political spectrum would do writing with usage of alignments- everyone will suffer)
3) Alignments have almost magical ability to make many situations in D&D predictable, because alignments bear enormous bag of cliche.

Anyway, I think you are mentally ill and continuing discussion with you is pointless, since you really think that you can win debate on Internet.
So you can take breath, drink you medicine and tell your doctor that you are won, may be you will get chocolate medal for your efforts.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

Yeah, often one side looks worse in arguments on the internet. I was drawing the conclusion from your point 3), are you blind or something? I wasn't quoting your experience specifically there, just what their statements imply about them if they made them in a good state of mind or thought it over.
Good to know that you don't have a problem with derogatory words. Looking at your next sentence it seems you don't like them when directed at yourself, only when you use them.
2) So you're going to play with people on the codex?
3) You don't like alignment because it shows that you aren't a good person.
I think you are an overly-sensitive internet tough guy. You clearly said earlier that you won when you said that people who support align have zero arguments, your lack of self-consciousness is worse than I thought.
I'm not really interested in discussing with you further as well.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

A lawful/orderly person can be defined in a number of ways according to their own source material

There is a room with a child, a man walks in and proceeds to horribly torture it before finally smearing it's remains all over the walls while screeching "FUCK EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE FUCKFUCKFUUUUUUUUCKKKKKKKKKKK". The man knew for a fact this child would have solved every problem in his world/society without any negative repercussions whatsoever. The man was in full controll of his mental faculties etc.

Was the man:
A - Chaotic Evil
B - Lawful Good
C - That's Just, Like, An Oppinion, Man

Most commoners around him who learn of what he did are going to definitely interpret it as an Evil action, assuming their values generally go something like "don't fucking murder kids, and especially don't torture and murder kids that have done absolutely nothing wrong and have great potential". If the man was part of a doomsday cult or something and just took out the kid that was going to grow into the man that thwarts their plan, members of that cult are going to view it as a positive thing, and according to their code of "bring the world to an end, let nothing stop us" it would probably fall into their "law". This guy gets a reputation as being a horrible harbinger of horrible things amongst the goodly citizenry and a man who helped bring the ultimate plan to fruition amongst the doomsday cultists (who, in their probably-twisted sense of morality and ethics might deem the end of the world or a slide into greater societal decay as a kind of mercy or necessity).

Meanwhile, the universe itself wouldn't reasonably give a fuck as it's impassive, the deities that might observe this or learn of it will form their opinions based on their ethos, and Raziel is probably going to murderfuck this dude personally because his big thing is "don't fucking hurt kids, assholes".

I'll just put you down for "C" then.
Whoops, you lose Thanks for playing!

 

[Shitty Kitty]

I'll just put you down for "C" then.
Whoops, you lose Thanks for playing!

cool story bro

choices are shit, you're probably a shit DM too

 

[Cleric of Asmodeus]

Most memorable CRPG experiences of last year for me have been Kingmaker and Disco Elysium, which either have had heavy traditional alignment or an even more invested and experimental approach, respectively. Wrath of the Righteous is doubling down with the mythic stuff. For devs, seems to be thriving. Maybe it's an issue on Critical Role or something?

 

[HeatEXTEND]

cool story bro

You botch a question a feral child could answer with a bunch of trite, overly long and uncalled for exposition, then continue to call my DMing into question. Very nice

 

[Shitty Kitty]

cool story bro

You botch a question a feral child could answer with a bunch of trite, overly long and uncalled for exposition, then continue to call my DMing into question. Very nice

My points still stand, suck a cock