A eulogy for Alignment in CRPGs

[DraQ]

Goddamn you guys have stamina to discuss all this shit at length.

Me, I'm too old for this shit. That's my alignment.

Which is why 4E with its "Unaligned" alignment was a pretty good idea. Works well too for non-moral creatures such as animals.

Killing alignment with fire is an even better one.

Also lol, "good" and "4E" in one sentence.

 

[Shadenuat]

Bless Against Orcs, Bless Against Goblins, Prayer Against Goblins - man, your games would be an uproar at the parties

It's not in particular far from how Witcher works for example.

Or allow casting protection if you have a piece of what you want to be protected from, for example. All this i has your lock of hair I curse u is very standard mythological thing.

 

[DraQ]

Bless Against Orcs, Bless Against Goblins, Prayer Against Goblins - man, your games would be an uproar at the parties

It's not in particular far from how Witcher works for example.

Or allow casting protection if you have a piece of what you want to be protected from, for example. All this i has your lock of hair I curse u is very standard mythological thing.

Sympathetic magic is indeed also a good idea.

 

[Sykar]

It's easier to tell the game "Greedy characters in your party demand more gold than usual and ask for a rise more often, and are much more likely to leave you if you fail at that". It's not the alignment system per se, but it does give characters reasons for performing an action. And the whole purpose of the alignment system is, essentially, "X does Y, because Z", so at this point the key lies in creating proper triggers which give feedback to the other in-game systems.

It's also easier said than done. It works in crusader king because the game is a lot about management . I vaguely remember gaining some kind of tag in POE depending of my action, but don't remember them having consequences. DAO also tried something with some kind of influence bar, where you gain or lose influence with character depending on your choice, but it did not work really well.
I'm dubious, but would like to see a game where such thing could been implemented successfully.

Well the gifts completely undermined it. Regardless what you said to a character just give them a couple of gifts and you could bang them anyway.

 

[Sarathiour]

Well the gifts completely undermined it. Regardless what you said to a character just give them a couple of gifts and you could bang them anyway.

Gift was indeed the biggest grip, half of your relation with npc was determined by a mini-game designed for 5 year old : guess the right present that each character want for X-mas !

I won't install the game again just to check, but if i remembered right, one of the other problem was that you could be completely inconsistent in your decision, and npc won't care 90% that you are making a 180° on a choice.

 

[Sykar]

Exactly. The idea was actually interesting but Bioderp in their usual pandering to their retarded fanbase which pretends to like choice but not harsh consequences for bad ones just had to undermine their own idea and made it completely fubar.

 

[BING XI LAO]

Lawful vs Chaotic is a clear, solid axis, applicable to pretty much any situation. I like having a second alignment axis to go with it.

But what is Good vs. Evil specifically? The problem with defining it as altruist vs. selfish is that this has too much overlap with law and chaos.
Chaotic Altruism doesn't work, you just get ripped off by people who don't give a shit (hippie communes all failed). Lawful Selfishness feels like a compromise where every action is either Lawful or Selfishness, very rarely both. Someone who benefits from the law by obeying the letter of the law but doesn't honour the spirit of the law, isn't really being Lawful, they're at most refraining from being Chaotic.

What is the point of Good, or Altruism, if not to help build and preserve things which are greater than yourself? But how is that not a Lawful aim?
And what is Evil, aka malice or selfishness, if it isn't a deviation from that Lawful aim, i.e. towards Chaos?
Aren't Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil fake news?

 

[DraQ]

Atlantico Let's soothe your pain:

Also, I know you're , you can stop hitting that button.

 

[Atlantico]

Atlantico Let's soothe your pain:

So this is what happens when the perfect storm of autism and ignorance converges in the same person. Mega autism meets mega ignorance.

Oh boy.

You don't understand what D&D alignment is, what its purpose is or why it's even there - but you sure as shit have an opinion on the matter. For no reason, because you don't fucking get it.

People are laughing *at* you and your dumbass and ignorant personal interpretations of perfectly understandable game mechanics and rules.

Lambchop19 clearly understands what the D&D alignment system is and so does Zed Duke of Banville and so do I, because we've clearly actually fucking played and DM'd (and understood what we're doing).

Unlike your overly opinionated self.

How about you just stop pontificating on a topic you simply don't understand in the first place? Too much to ask for, no doubt.

It seriously blows my mind that you can blather so much about a topic you don't understand. A-mazing.

 

[Sarathiour]

Lawful vs Chaotic is a clear, solid axis, applicable to pretty much any situation. I like having a second alignment axis to go with it.

But what is Good vs. Evil specifically? The problem with defining it as altruist vs. selfish is that this has too much overlap with law and chaos.
Chaotic Altruism doesn't work, you just get ripped off by people who don't give a shit (hippie communes all failed). Lawful Selfishness feels like a compromise where every action is either Lawful or Selfishness, very rarely both. Someone who benefits from the law by obeying the letter of the law but doesn't honour the spirit of the law, isn't really being Lawful, they're at most refraining from being Chaotic.

What is the point of Good, or Altruism, if not to help build and preserve things which are greater than yourself? But how is that not a Lawful aim?
And what is Evil, aka malice or selfishness, if it isn't a deviation from that Lawful aim, i.e. towards Chaos?
Aren't Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil fake news?

Good/evil is a bit more than just altruist vs selfish, even if it's a good starting point. The weird thing with alignment is that it's not about the result of your action, but the intention and the way to of doing it. Chaotic Altruism could failed most of the time, it's beside the point. Chaotic good is about the individual being the greatest thing. They don't despise law, but just see it as useless. Which is dumb, but that's beside the point.
Law/Chaos is a better individual axis than evil/good, the superposition of both aim to add a bit of nuance to the mix, while keeping it relatively simple.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

If it's ambiguous, highly nuanced, or relative on either axis, it's neutral. Almost every argument about alignments can be resolved by acknowledging 5 of the 9 alignment choices.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

What is the point of Good, or Altruism, if not to help build and preserve things which are greater than yourself? But how is that not a Lawful aim?
And what is Evil, aka malice or selfishness, if it isn't a deviation from that Lawful aim, i.e. towards Chaos?
Aren't Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil fake news?

A chaotic good character might rob a wealthy merchant who had been oppressing the people and give to the poor.

A lawful evil character might sue a good character for his wealth, but wouldn’t actually want to rob him unless he could get away with it legally somehow.

It all comes down to how they see and interact with the world around them.

Just because a thing is lawful doesn’t make it good and just because a thing is evil doesn’t make it chaotic.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Lawful vs Chaotic is a clear, solid axis, applicable to pretty much any situation. I like having a second alignment axis to go with it.

But what is Good vs. Evil specifically? The problem with defining it as altruist vs. selfish is that this has too much overlap with law and chaos.
Chaotic Altruism doesn't work, you just get ripped off by people who don't give a shit (hippie communes all failed). Lawful Selfishness feels like a compromise where every action is either Lawful or Selfishness, very rarely both. Someone who benefits from the law by obeying the letter of the law but doesn't honour the spirit of the law, isn't really being Lawful, they're at most refraining from being Chaotic.

What is the point of Good, or Altruism, if not to help build and preserve things which are greater than yourself? But how is that not a Lawful aim?
And what is Evil, aka malice or selfishness, if it isn't a deviation from that Lawful aim, i.e. towards Chaos?
Aren't Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil fake news?

In original D&D, with a one-axis three-alignment system, Lawful alignment was essentially good and Chaotic alignment was essentially evil. Gygax even used the word "evil" rather than "chaotic" for various spells (detect, protection from, and so forth), both for magic-users and for clerics, while clerics of chaotic alignment were described as evil anti-clerics who had certain spells with reverse effects (e.g. cause light wounds rather than cure light wounds) and who lacked the ability to turn/destroy undead with holy symbols.

When Gygax created a two-axis alignment system, first made public in an article in the sixth issue of The Strategic Review, Good versus Evil was now presented as a vertical axis, with Law versus Chaos remaining as the horizontal axis. It became necessary to define Law and Chaos in such a way that they were orthogonal to Good and Evil while still being fundamental to characters' behavior, and Gygax interpreted the two as a conflict between uniformity/predictability/order and irregularity/randomness/anarchy. He even stated later that in his experience with players he found that good and evil were less ingrained in the players' own personalities than law and chaos.

2 Axis 5 Alignment System

Gygax expanded this into a two-axis, nine-alignment system for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, but the meanings of Law and Chaos quickly became blurred, with multiple distinct interpretations being melded together to varying degrees in the different alignment combinations. For the purposes of an individual campaign, it's best to choose a clearer definition of a Law & Chaos axis that holds to one distinct interpretation that is particularly significant to the campaign setting. For example, one might identify law with human artifice and identify chaos with inhuman nature, which could correspond to particular factions that players might combat or ally with, at various times.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

If it's ambiguous, highly nuanced, or relative on either axis, it's neutral. Almost every argument about alignments can be resolved by acknowledging 5 of the 9 alignment choices.

Not always. It’s not about categorization so much as it is about character design.

A lawful good character can begin down a path that may lead to what some might see as evil, but is still technically lawful good. I think I talked about this in my how to make a genocidal racist paladin post in the BG3 thread. :3

Or he might take an action that can be perceived as chaotic, like renouncing his fealty to his liege, while still remaining lawful good.

There’s room for nuance in all the alignments, but not so much so that you get to this shades of grey moral relativism bs where everything becomes a utilitarian mind game.

 

[BING XI LAO]

What is the point of Good, or Altruism, if not to help build and preserve things which are greater than yourself? But how is that not a Lawful aim?
And what is Evil, aka malice or selfishness, if it isn't a deviation from that Lawful aim, i.e. towards Chaos?
Aren't Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil fake news?

A chaotic good character might rob a wealthy merchant who had been oppressing the people and give to the poor.

A lawful evil character might sue a good character for his wealth, but wouldn’t actually want to rob him unless he could get away with it legally somehow.

It all comes down to how they see and interact with the world around them.

Just because a thing is lawful doesn’t make it good and just because a thing is evil doesn’t make it chaotic.

I can buy Lawful Evil I guess. Because what they're supporting, the societal structure, could be stagnant and worse than just letting people do their own thing - ie North Korea.
But the Chaotic Good character who robs a merchant to hand wealth out to the poor? Does that even exist? Does it still come out as good once consequences are properly accounted for? How often does a revolution turn out for the better in history - almost never, and how many peasant rebellions have succeeded?

I wouldn't say that lawful things must be good, or that evil things must be chaotic.
However, I do suspect that good things must be lawful, and that chaotic things must be evil. Basically this:

 

[Poseidon00]

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

*illegible butthurt screeches*

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?
You call someone as dumbass, yet you have a heart attack combined with ass hurting diarrea, when someone says something different from your agenda and this results in retroactive rating spam. What next, you will dig up all our posts and rate them?
If you think ratings can convince/silence someone - you gravely mistaken. Normal people will continue to upheld their beliefs unshaken and definitely not leave codex, because some retard like you.
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.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

But the Chaotic Good character who robs a merchant to hand wealth out to the poor? Does that even exist?

Robbin hood.

Does it still come out as good once consequences are properly accounted for?

in some cases, probably.

Like I said, the motive being good doesn’t mean the outcome will be good.

Shadow Druids can be true neutral, but they can often use evil actions as the means to their goal of neutrality.

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

I can buy Lawful Evil I guess. Because what they're supporting, the societal structure, could be stagnant and worse than just letting people do their own thing - ie North Korea.
But the Chaotic Good character who robs a merchant to hand wealth out to the poor? Does that even exist? Does it still come out as good once consequences are properly accounted for? How often does a revolution turn out for the better in history - almost never, and how many peasant rebellions have succeeded?

I wouldn't say that lawful things must be good, or that evil things must be chaotic.
However, I do suspect that good things must be lawful, and that chaotic things must be evil. Basically this:

But with your attitude you have proven that alignment system does not work in favor of D&D. I mean if there situation when one player picked CG character and other called called him "cringy retard" -there conflict in group, which can lead to many negative situations that otherwise could be avoided if there wasn't any alignment system in place (ofc it would not happen if people respected each other choices, but your attempt on insult of other alignments proves that it isn't always the case and arrogance prevail common sense in some people).

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

But with your attitude you have proven that alignment system does not work in favor of D&D. I mean if there situation when one player picked CG character and other called called him "cringy retard" -there conflict in group,

Why is conflict a bad thing? Is it not realistic?

Are you saying two people with good goals can’t conflict on methodology?

I want everyone to have healthcare. I want to do it with better insurance and limiting government intervention in the market. Some socialist wants the same thing, but he wants to tax the country to create socialized medicine.

Same goal with two different methods based on two different outlooks. Conflict ensues.

negative situations that otherwise could be avoided if there wasn't any alignment system in place

You don’t have to know someone’s alignment to disagree with their methods or goals.

(Which might lead you to ask why there are alignments at all, in which case, refer to my other posts itt dealing with that exact question.)

 

[BING XI LAO]

But the Chaotic Good character who robs a merchant to hand wealth out to the poor? Does that even exist?

Robbin hood.

Maybe I'm stretching things to fit my autismo here, but the Robin Hood legend has him being the rightful inheritor of the lands, stolen by the Sheriff; AND has him as a supporter of the rightful king against an usurper. So there are strong Lawful elements there.
Edit: actually those lawful elements may've been added centuries later, nevermind.

Does it still come out as good once consequences are properly accounted for?

in some cases, probably.

Like I said, the motive being good doesn’t mean the outcome will be good.

Shadow Druids can be true neutral, but they can often use evil actions as the means to their goal of neutrality.

Without going full utilitarian, I do think you need to have a reasonable expectation that your Good-intended actions will actually result in Good outcomes. If someone think they're making the world a better place, but actually makes it worse, past a certain point I don't think they're Good.

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

Why is conflict a bad thing? Is it not realistic?

Are you saying two people with good goals can’t conflict on methodology?

I want everyone to have healthcare. I want to do it with better insurance and limiting government intervention in the market. Some socialist wants the same thing, but he wants to tax the country to create socialized medicine.

Same goal with two different methods based on two different outlooks. Conflict ensues.


You don’t have to know someone’s alignment to disagree with their methods or goals.

(Which might lead you to ask why there are alignments at all, in which case, refer to my other posts itt dealing with that exact question.)

I meant conflict IRL at the table between players, not characters. Conflict between characters can naturally happen with alignment or without and it's fine (and can be quite entertaining) as long as they don't sabotage DM's work and result in rockfall.

 

[BING XI LAO]

But with your attitude you have proven that alignment system does not work in favor of D&D. I mean if there situation when one player picked CG character and other called called him "cringy retard" -there conflict in group, which can lead to many negative situations that otherwise could be avoided if there wasn't any alignment system in place (ofc it would not happen if people respected each other choices, but your attempt on insult of other alignments proves that it isn't always the case and arrogance prevail common sense in some people).

I sperg and shit-fling insults on Codex so I don't have to in real life, or in D&D sessions
But Chaotic Neutral characters are pretty infamous for being the bane of D&D sessions, in terms of ignoring logic, storyline, or whatever else in favour of lolrandum.
Lawful characters generally have an in-setting code to follow, Evil characters want to grow in power and kill shit, these are both good for adventuring parties - their identity, their agenda. Chaotic Good, Chaotic Neutral, Neutral Good? Kinda lame.

 

[DraQ]

Atlantico Let's soothe your pain:

So this is what happens when the perfect storm of autism and ignorance converges in the same person. Mega autism meets mega ignorance.

Oh boy.

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

Although I guess mistaken with regards to the person.

You don't understand what D&D alignment is, what its purpose is or why it's even there - but you sure as shit have an opinion on the matter. For no reason, because you don't fucking get it.

Yes, yes. If someone disagrees with you they must surely not understand you.
Ever ventured outside of whatever echo chamber/safe space spawned you?

People are laughing *at* you

*Chimps* are *shrieking* at me.
But guess what? I don't give much fuck about opinions of butthurt chimps.

and your dumbass and ignorant personal interpretations of perfectly understandable game mechanics and rules.

Understandable doesn't imply useful.
Consider your own person.

Lambchop19 clearly understands what the D&D alignment system is and so does Zed Duke of Banville and so do I, because we've clearly actually fucking played and DM'd (and understood what we're doing).

I don't recall Zed Duke of Banville asking for a proxy to speak on his behalf, much less an angry retard as one.
For now I consider Zed's points to be sufficiently rebutted, but I will happily consider his future points (more so if he doesn't just quote people).

But you know what's the main difference between Zed and yourself?
Zed doesn't seem to ash the same rating over the entire length of the thread even on posts that happen to not even be particularly relevant to the contested topic (and hard to find particularly disagreeable if only for their relative lack of substance - I mean seriously, going into a fit over "Sympathetic magic is indeed also a good idea. "?).

And you know what can be said of a person who mashes for someone's every post he might find in an overlong thread while also restricting access to their own profile (what's the matter? afraid of big mean derg coming in and making fun of your inadequate wee-eee and/or intellect?)?

Spoiler

An insecure, easily butthurt moron incapable of thinking for himself or even bearing the thought of someone else not agreeing with them.

And you know what we used to do with those on the 'Dex about a decade ago?

Spoiler

We gave them all the rope they needed and then kept them around until they've run out of entertainment value.

And you know what's the best course of action for you right now?

Spoiler

1. Apply ice.
2. GTFO of this thread on a column of superheated steam.

 

[BING XI LAO]

I think those good vs evil descriptors strengthen the case that there's too much overlap between good/law and chaos/evil.
For example, being Honest and Sincere is lawful. You can be pretty vicious while telling the truth, and if you want to be nice 100% of the time, you'd have to lie or deceive quite often.
And the Evil descriptor of 'Mischievous' is clearly a Chaotic adjective.
Edit: fuck, didn't I make this exact point on this forum 18 months ago?