A eulogy for Alignment in CRPGs

[DraQ]

TBH mondblut's

This still doesn't answer the main question what is alignment system good *for*?

is still one of the more convincing arguments for alignment system ITT, but that's merely due to the fact that crappy alignment system was used as a basis of Planescape cosmology and sort of grandfthered in. That still doesn't make it good, though.

 

[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.

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

Lambchop19 You are mistaken. If a Paladin were to break from the established and recognized governance to remain faithful to their vows, then they are behaving in a Neutral Good manner. Your getting caught up in the ambiguity between which "order" is more significant, when neither is. They might be attempting to maintain a code of conduct (lawful), but they are still rescinding a legitimate oath of fealty (chaotic). This kind of action is plainly Neutral Good. One act, unless absolutely tremendous, doesn't change a character's alignment. If this behavior becomes consistent though, they will be NG over time. If that lord were the source of the code, say, the leader of that Paladin's order, then they might just skip right through NG to CG.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

God damn, someone call a doctor, this amount of asspain surely indicates severe colorectal hemorrhaging. These poor fellows are surely at risk of bleeding out.

"I THINK X"

"I disagree. I find your reasoning overly simplistic and flawed."

*nuclear butthurt commences*

Lambchop19 You are mistaken. If a Paladin were to break from the established and recognized governance to remain faithful to their vows, then they are behaving in a Neutral Good manner. Your getting caught up in the ambiguity between which "order" is more significant, when neither is. They might be attempting to maintain a code of conduct (lawful), but they are still rescinding a legitimate oath of fealty (chaotic). This kind of action is plainly Neutral Good. One act, unless absolutely tremendous, doesn't change a character's alignment. If this behavior becomes consistent though, they will be NG over time. If that lord were the source of the code, say, the leader of that Paladin's order, then they might just skip right through NG to CG.

In a setting where a mortal can DIRECTLY COMMUNE WITH THEIR DEITY, a Paladin sworn to a deity has ZERO obligation to do a damn thing another mortal tells them to do unless the deity expressly tells them to do so. This is a non-conflict. No deity in their right mind would hold disregard of mortal law in favor of obedience to divine dictum against any agent of said deity.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Lambchop19 You are mistaken. If a Paladin were to break from the established and recognized governance to remain faithful to their vows, then they are behaving in a Neutral Good manner.

Paladin's Handbook. Look up the Expatriate kit. It specifically says they're still Lawful Good and explains why.

The idea is that the government in this case would be in violation of the law in the Paladin's eyes. While it may sound close to neutral good, it isn't.

There are consequences to their character for this though. Often times they become bitter and disillusioned. And many in authority will no longer trust them.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

Lambchop19 You are mistaken. If a Paladin were to break from the established and recognized governance to remain faithful to their vows, then they are behaving in a Neutral Good manner.

Paladin's Handbook. Look up the Expatriate kit. It specifically says they're still Lawful Good and explains why.

The idea is that the government in this case would be in violation of the law in the Paladin's eyes. While it may sound close to neutral good, it isn't.

There are consequences to their character for this though. Often times they become bitter and disillusioned. And many in authority will no longer trust them.

THIS JUST IN: LAMBCHOP ADMITS EVEN INTERPRETATION OF LAW IS SUBJECTIVE

Seriously, you lackwits wallow in the same subjectivity you claim to loathe, but you screech "MY SUBJECTIVITY IS OBJECTIVITY BECAUSE REASONS." Fucking absolute brainlets. If the alignment doesn't change for as drastic an act as "fuck your interpretation of the law, mine is better" then it's meaningless anyway. You even acknowledge that a Paladin following a code that demands he flout the laws of the land he is currently in would be better modeled via REPUTATION TRACKING.

Cry yourself to sleep tonight, you mental midget, you have just punched yourself in the face and handed me a KO. Good day sir, YOU LOSE JUST LIKE YOU ALWAYS DO.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

You both don't understand. If the Paladin were to seek remedy through the court, equivalent royals, church, or populism--that would be lawful. If they break from the authority of the recognized ruler/laws and go their own way, they are performing a chaotic action. This is neutral because you're premise has two sources of authority--governance by the lord (legal) and moral by their code (ecclesiastic). They are breaking a legitimate oath (chaotic) to maintain another legitimate oath (lawful). That makes the action Neutral Good.

Don't ignore the neutral alignments!

PS Shitty Kitty Paladins don't have access to the Commune spell, so they'd still have to go to the church (another authority) to get answers that way.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Lambchop19 You are mistaken. If a Paladin were to break from the established and recognized governance to remain faithful to their vows, then they are behaving in a Neutral Good manner.

Paladin's Handbook. Look up the Expatriate kit. It specifically says they're still Lawful Good and explains why.

The idea is that the government in this case would be in violation of the law in the Paladin's eyes. While it may sound close to neutral good, it isn't.

There are consequences to their character for this though. Often times they become bitter and disillusioned. And many in authority will no longer trust them.

THIS JUST IN: LAMBCHOP ADMITS EVEN INTERPRETATION OF LAW IS SUBJECTIVE

Are you still here, Skyrimtard?

In nearly every post, I've talked about subjectivity. But subjectivity isn't relativity or an excuse to eliminate (sorry, "streamline") systems so that you can be the head of every guild in the game in complete contrast to your character sheet.

Once again, you've given me a perfect analogy with your lazy argument:

Yes, interpretation of law is subjective. We see that even in today's legal system. Yet we don't eliminate all laws and have judges rule solely on their opinions because of this.

Now go ahead and come up with whatever bad faith argument or one line insult you have in response to this. You already unmasked yourself when you said numbers didn't matter in an RPG.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

You both don't understand. If the Paladin were to seek remedy through the court, equivalent royals, church, or populism--that would be lawful. If they break from the authority of the recognized ruler/laws and go their own way, they are performing a chaotic action. This is neutral because you're premise has two sources of authority--governance by the lord (legal) and moral by their code (ecclesiastic). They are breaking a legitimate oath (chaotic) to maintain another legitimate oath (lawful). That makes the action Neutral Good.

Don't ignore the neutral alignments!

This implies that divine dictum and mortal governance operate on anything CLOSE to the same level. They do NOT. If my deity, to whom I have pledged sword and soul, says "Their interpretation of the law displeases me, and you will deliver to them my law on the tip of your tongue or the blade of your sword" I'm not gonna tell the deity "But surely their law is as good as yours!" Are you actually mentally deficient?

Are you still here, Skyrimtard?

In nearly every post, I've talked about subjectivity. But subjectivity isn't relativity or an excuse to eliminate (sorry, "streamline") systems so that you can be the head of every guild in the game in complete contrast to your character sheet.

Once again, you've given me a perfect analogy with your lazy argument:

Yes, interpretation of law is subjective. We see that even in today's legal system. Yet we don't eliminate all laws and have judges rule solely on their opinions because of this.

Now go ahead and come up with whatever bad faith argument or one line insult you have in response to this. You already unmasked yourself when you said numbers didn't matter in an RPG.

Cry some more for me, you ego-abortion.

 

[DraQ]

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.

Basically:
> argues for the inherent merit of alignment system
> decries 1/3 of it as shit

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.

It is a viable (and consistent) cop-out, but consider this:
It makes an alignment system even more useless than it is by default.

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.

That's why I proposed triangular (LG, LE, C, except changing good-evil axis to avoid clusterfuck of mixing moral, value and ethos judgements into one dysfunctional pie of derp) alignment as a possible refinement of 3x3 one. I didn't do it earnestly, because I'd still consider it useless by the virtue of being alignment, but it would be better.
The distinction between CE and CN is pretty useless, because it's hard to make effective rulings against CN being effectively CE for the randumbs, and pure CG is arguably not possible because it requires paying at least some respect to the moral law.

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.

And then you have deontologists.

 

[BING XI LAO]

You both don't understand. If the Paladin were to seek remedy through the court, equivalent royals, church, or populism--that would be lawful. If they break from the authority of the recognized ruler/laws and go their own way, they are performing a chaotic action. This is neutral because you're premise has two sources of authority--governance by the lord (legal) and moral by their code (ecclesiastic). They are breaking a legitimate oath (chaotic) to maintain another legitimate oath (lawful). That makes the action Neutral Good.

Don't ignore the neutral alignments!

I don't think choosing between two Laws is Neutral - the motive for breaking one is a lawful motive, if they're in conflict.

 

[thesecret1]

I see a lot of arguments about how to tell if an acion is lawful/chaotic and how it makes sense with the mechanics, but I don't think many people address the elephant in the room, which is that it's basically unplayable with real people. You won't find two people with the same opinion on what things are good and what things are evil. If you then proceed to rule that a thing they disagree on is one or the other, the person who gets ruled incorrect will immediately butthurt. A lot. If politics get involved ("he misgendered me, so he is EVIL aligned" and similar bullshit), then you are sitting on a nuclear payload of butthurt just waiting to blow. Hell, the fact that discussion about alignment is probably the most commonly discussed (and probably the most controversial) topic on any PnP forum in existence should hint one that it's not a very well designed system.

I like the mechanics it brings and I like the general idea of it, but that hardly matters when in actual play, it becomes the 'instant drama' button

 

[Shitty Kitty]

And then you have deontologists.

Or as most people with more than two braincells to rub together for heat call them, "idiots".

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

You both don't understand. If the Paladin were to seek remedy through the court, equivalent royals, church, or populism--that would be lawful. If they break from the authority of the recognized ruler/laws and go their own way, they are performing a chaotic action. This is neutral because you're premise has two sources of authority--governance by the lord (legal) and moral by their code (ecclesiastic). They are breaking a legitimate oath (chaotic) to maintain another legitimate oath (lawful). That makes the action Neutral Good.

Don't ignore the neutral alignments!

Paladin's Handbook 2E:

Expatriate

Description: Like the Errant, the Expatriate has no permanent home, wandering from place to place in search of adventure and acceptance. However, the Expatriate is a nomad by circumstance, not choice. A warrior in exile, the Expatriate has renounced his allegiance to the officials or institution that originally granted him his paladinhood. His government or church may have become corrupt, his superiors may have betrayed their commitment to lawful good principles, or he have may have been dismissed for political reasons. In any case, his disillusionment is complete. He now makes his own decisions.

There are two points in his career when a paladin may become an Expatriate:

1. He may become an Expatriate at 1st level, taking this kit just as he would any other. Presumably, the character was unaware of the corrupt nature of his government or church while being trained, discovering the truth shortly after taking his Oath of Ennoblement. Alternately, a political coup may have occurred early in the character's career, replacing a lawful good regime with an evil one.

2. A character with another paladin kit may abandon it when his superiors betray him or some other dramatic event occurs that prompts him to renounce his fealty. The character may either become a standard paladin (described in the "Abandoning Kits" section later in this chapter) or—with the DM's approval—he may become an Expatriate, retaining his current level (a 3rd-level Errant who renounces his fealty becomes a 3rd-level Expatriate).

The new Expatriate keeps all of his equipment and proficiencies, but drops the Special Benefits and Hindrances associated with his previous kit; he acquires the Special Benefits and Hindrances of the Expatriate kit instead.

Requirements: Standard.

Ministration: Independent.

Role: Though still lawful good, an Expatriate distrusts most formal institutions, including lawful good governments and organized religions. He obeys the dictates of his conscience and his deity only, remaining skeptical of all self-proclaimed and elected authorities. Though courteous and respectful, he no longer automatically follows the orders those holding positions of power. He weighs each request against his own principles, agreeing to a mission or favor only if completely convinced of its merit.

Expatriates are often moody, cynical, and bitter. An Expatriate may feel his good name has been permanently tarnished, a condition he struggles to correct by volunteering for demanding, even dangerous, missions. He remains loyal to his lawful good comrades but resists close friendships. He has little patience with most neutral characters, finding their lack of commitment insipid and contemptible. He crushes his enemies without remorse.

Few governments or churches trust Expatriates enough to hire them as mercenaries. Therefore, Expatriates must rely on treasure or tournament winnings to make a living.Symbol: If an Expatriate carries a symbol of his former government or church, he defaces it with slashes or scratches to proclaim his independence.

Secondary Skills: Armorer, Farmer, Fisher, Forester, Groom, Hunter, Leather Worker, Miner, Scribe, Trapper/Furrier, Weaponsmith, Woodworker/Carver.

Weapon Proficiencies: Any.

Nonweapon Proficiencies: Any.

Armor/Equipment: Standard.

Bonded Mount: Any.

Special Benefits:

Self-Reliance: An Expatriate comes and goes as he pleases, subservient to no one. He has no edicts to follow, other than those imposed by his deity or his own principles.

Reaction Bonus: An Expatriate remains a hero to the peasants and other oppressed people of his homeland, who admire him for his integrity and sterling character; from all those not associated with the officials of his former government or church, he receives a +2 modifier to his reaction rolls. To commoners of other lands familiar with his reputation, he also receives a +2 reaction modifier. Additionally, he will be given food and shelter from all commoners whose modified reaction is Friendly. This courtesy extends to any companions, so long as he vouches for them.

Special Hindrances:

Self-Reliance: Independence also has its drawbacks. As with the Errant, the Expatriate has no government or church to provide loans, supplies, or support. He may build a stronghold if he saves enough money, but he isn't eligible for property grants, charters, or benefices.

Reaction Penalty: Elite NPCs are reluctant to associate too closely with an Expatriate,fearing they might invite the wrath of the Expatriate's former government or church. Therefore, sensing the Expatriate's discomfort and distrust, all characters in positions of power suffer a –2 modifier to their reaction rolls.

Fugitive Status: Officials of the Expatriate's original government or church consider him an embarrassment at best, a traitor at worst. An Expatriate is constantly hunted and harassed by his ex-employers, who may seek to punish, arrest, or even execute him.

Obligations of Fealty Once a paladin pledges fealty to a particular patron, he's bound to that patron indefinitely. Should his king engage in evil activities, or his church become corrupt, the paladin may be forced to pledge fealty to another patron; the Expatriate kit (see Chapter 4) describes one possible consequence. Normally, however, a paladin's patrons never change.

Renouncing Fealty

Once a paladin discovers that his church or government has become neutral or evil,
he may immediately renounce his pledge of fealty without penalty. From that point on, he
is not obligated to follow their edicts. He must discard symbols representing a renounced
church or government. He must also give up equipment that the church or government
has loaned or given to him.
A paladin who renounces his church must immediately pledge fealty to one of the
following:
• A new lawful good church.
• A lawful good philosophy.
• The set of principles represented by the renounced church before it became neutral
or evil.
A paladin who renounces his government has several options:
• He may continue serving in the same society. However, he is now obligated to obey
only the edicts of his faith (and any other nongovernmental individuals or institutions to
which he has pledged fealty).
• He may relocate to a different land, pledging fealty to a new lawful good
government.
• He may become an Expatriate (see Chapter 4).

Alternatives to Churches

Whereas most paladins pledge fealty to churches, others may opt to serve a sect. Like
churches, sects are religious organizations that worship one or more gods, but they tend
to be smaller and more secretive.
Most sects usually begin as an outgrowth of an established church. A sect leader and
his followers separate from the church due to disagreements with church leaders or
because of a contradictory interpretation of religion doctrine. If a sect flourishes and
grows, it may eventually become a church itself.
Some sects organize themselves around a single leader who has developed his own
set of religious principles. These may not have any formal ties to an organized faith; in
fact, some do not recognize the authority of other religious leaders. They often spring up
spontaneously, lasting no more than a single generation.
Some paladins avoid associations with any type of organized religion, instead
choosing to venerate a philosophy, a belief system based on intellectual concepts rather
than supernatural entities.

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

So, reading especially the highlighted bits, you can see that while this is similar to a Neutral Good character's belief that X organization or law isn't necessarily what is right or wrong, it doesn't mean that the Paladin is assuming that laws are meaningless and that good depends on his own judgement alone.

It also has profound consequences for his character and reputation, so it's not something that should be done lightly, but only out of necessity.

This is yet more evidence that alignment isn't a straightjacket meant to lock your character into a role like a robot, but a set of characteristics to define them and give them shape.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

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

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

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

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

DraQ Acknowledging the existence of alignments which can correctly classify an action doesn't make the alignments meaningless. It means the alignments do actually serve a purpose. It validates them. Nothing about it is a cop out.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

DraQ Acknowledging the existence of alignments which can correctly classify an action doesn't make the alignments meaningless. It means the alignments do actually serve a purpose. It validates them. Nothing about it is a cop out.

It makes alignment like a circular human centipede of bowdlerized tard-level philosophy.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

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

Renouncing fealty isn't necessarily breaking an oath.

Fealty

In feudal times, fealty referred to the relationship between a warrior and his lord. A warrior swore allegiance to a lord in exchange for protection, support, and property. The
lord, in turn, could count on the warrior for military duty and other services. Both the lord and the warrior scrupulously honored this agreement.

Perfidy, the breaking of the promise by either party, was considered a treacherous breach of faith.

This book takes a broader view of fealty, defining it as loyalty not only to a lord but to any lawful good government, religion, or philosophy. For convenience, we refer to the recipient of a paladin's loyalty as the patron.

Regardless of who—or what—functions as the patron, fealty gives the paladin a sense of belonging to something greater than himself. Fealty also sets the criteria for a paladin's moral code; in essence, the patron establishes the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. However, although the patron provides the basic moral code, it is ultimately the paladin who is responsible for and bears the consequences of his actions.

Fealty has obligations for both parties.

If one party does not uphold their obligations to the other, the contract is broken. If it is the authority that breaks this contact, the Paladin need only make it official by renouncing his oath. He has broken nothing, it was the authority who broke their end of the deal.

If a government, for example, is entrusted by the Paladin to be the arbiter of Right and Wrong, and yet betrays that obligation by acting unscrupulously, the Paladin may nullify his oath "without penalty" per the rules.

Granted, subjectivity still applies. Hence the Expatriate kit as a "potential consequence" of this action. He will likely be distrusted and even hunted for some time because of this, but he is still Lawful Good and need not even confess to a cleric for atonement.

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

I've quoted you word for word the rules here. If you disagree with them, fine, but you're not playing D&D you're playing your own homebrew (or else some modern D&D abomination I'm not familiar with).

 

[DraQ]

DraQ Acknowledging the existence of alignments which can correctly classify an action doesn't make the alignments meaningless. It means the alignments do actually serve a purpose. It validates them. Nothing about it is a cop out.

Mechanics is a tool. Tools solve specific problems. What problems alignment solves?

• It doesn't solve 90% of morally charged situations in TT, because they are bloody obvious to all involved.
• It doesn't solve remaining tricky 10% because it's too fuzzy and ambiguous - more so if it just plain refuses to solve them - and in the end DM and players are better equipped for solving them than simple formal system.
• It doesn't solve any morally charged situations in cRPGs because it's way too coarse and abstract to contribute meaningful rules that could be enforced by computer (unlike ethos and reputation).
  
• It doesn't assist cRPG character creation, because again obvious stuff is obvious and it's either useless or counterproductive for the rest.
  
• It provides some crappy spell and item mechanics that could just as well be handled by ethos systems.

It's just useless.
I guess if you want to play Planescape, having the entire setting built on top of alignment does hamper any efforts to just ditch the system, but otherwise?

 

[Shitty Kitty]

DraQ Acknowledging the existence of alignments which can correctly classify an action doesn't make the alignments meaningless. It means the alignments do actually serve a purpose. It validates them. Nothing about it is a cop out.

Mechanics is a tool. Tools solve specific problems. What problems alignment solves?

• It doesn't solve 90% of morally charged situations in TT, because they are bloody obvious to all involved.
• It doesn't solve remaining tricky 10% because it's too fuzzy and ambiguous - more so if it just plain refuses to solve them - and in the end DM and players are better equipped for solving them than simple formal system.
• It doesn't solve any morally charged situations in cRPGs because it's way too coarse and abstract to contribute meaningful rules that could be enforced by computer (unlike ethos and reputation).
  
• It doesn't assist cRPG character creation, because again obvious stuff is obvious and it's either useless or counterproductive for the rest.
  
• It provides some crappy spell and item mechanics that could just as well be handled by ethos systems.

It's just useless.
I guess if you want to play Planescape, having the entire setting built on top of alignment does hamper any efforts to just ditch the system, but otherwise?

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

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Mechanics is a tool. Tools solve specific problems. What problems alignment solves?

Definition.

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

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

More definition, within reason, provides a clearer picture.

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

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

 

[Shitty Kitty]

Mechanics is a tool. Tools solve specific problems. What problems alignment solves?

Definition.

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

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

More definition, within reason, provides a clearer picture.

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

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

"I want less pointless shit cluttering up my sheet" != "I want no numbers at all"

even then I have encountered games that don't even bother with numbers-for-numbers'-sake (or even NUMBERS AT ALL), that worked, were fun and still made more sense than your shitty grid

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Lambchop19 Nice references. I’ll be glad to have them when I go back to 1998 to play 2nd Edition, when they mattered. Are we going to start arguing about how Paladins can only be human, or not attain weapon proficiency beyond specialization? Otherwise, we’re just going to be debating purely because we aren’t defining terms. We both see the validity of the alignment system, so we’ve satisfied the intent of the thread as far as I am concerned. Others like Draq or Shitty Kitty have all the arguments they need to be convinced of its value or not. They clearly are not impressed.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Lambchop19 Nice references. I’ll be glad to have them when I go back to 1998 to play 2nd Edition, when they mattered.

Are we going to start arguing about how Paladins can only be human

Other races aren't even real people, bro.

Go ahead and pull out your own citations from your D&D manual of choice. (What's the last D&D with real alignments? 3.5E?)

Otherwise, we’re just going to be debating purely because we aren’t defining terms.

Well, I did more than cite the rules, I explained them.

A Paladin who renounces his oath for a valid reason isn't committing an unlawful act because the contract was already broken by his liege.

So whether you want to disregard the rules or not, it's still not chaotic or "neutral" as you call it.

Others like Draq or Shitty Kitty have all the arguments they need to be convinced of its value or not. They clearly are not impressed.

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

As is usually the case with moral relativists, they know that certain actions are wrong, but don't want to acknowledge it. So they decide to tear down the concept of right and wrong itself so they can ignore it.

All their arguments about alignments being "useless" or inaccurate are really just them being upset that alignments are there and might restrict them at all.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

You wear it well, Lambykins.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Lambchop19 You're arguing a rule system that was derelict over 20 years and 3.5 editions ago. So your accusation of me arguing for a different D&D game you've never heard of may be apt. Don't throw stones.