A eulogy for Alignment in CRPGs

[gurugeorge]

The good/evil axis in these games is fairly clearly defined and you'd probably get pretty solid agreement on it with most people. I don't think there's any culture on earth that would say that selfish pursuit of your own goals regardless of the effect it has on others is good, or that defending the innocent, etc., is bad. Those are two "things" (patterns of behaviour) that are characteristic of what human beings do, and one is generally condemned and the other generally approved of.

Ok, there situation:
"Alien race opened portal in your world in attempt to make a colony there since their world overpopulated and establishing portal taken so much energy - they had to consume the only gas giant in system. They not expected to find any sentient life and developed life at all. They cannot live in the same atmosphere as native races of your world, they will need to use atmospheric weaponry to change your world into nice, cozy, radioactive and toxic den - just like their home planet. This is the last saving grace of alien species, but it would bring sentient races and animals of your world into extinction. Your character (paladin btw) stand before device that can close portal and should make a decision. This would be last chance to make difference, because road here was dangerous (other members in party died after rockfall) and later aliens will update their security protocols, so no member of other race would use such device."
Looking forward to your explanation how paladin will be able to commit genocide of whole race without losing his powers (alignment LG btw) or even worse being damned to rot in Hell after death.

The Paladin isn't "committing genocide," he's preventing a genocide from being committed by the aliens. The aliens are in charge of ALL the bundles of causality that are causing the problem. That the Paladin's action results in the alien race's death is entirely the consequence of their own choices and actions - a) they are at fault for letting their situation get as shitty as it was, and b) they should have selected their system with more care and attention.

Flip it around the other way and think of an alien paladin with our portal. Would you have the slightest bit of sympathy for us so cavalierly treating an alien solar system like that, based on our mere "expectation?" Would you morally blame the alien Paladin?

 

[Silva]

Alignment never made any sense beyond a moronic, infantile christian-american moralistic logic for 6 years olds and adult retardos. Gary Gygax didn't have a clue on how those things work in real life and it shows. You want moral values and personality gamified, take a look in the likes of Pendragon, Runequest, Fate, Smallville, Masks, Dogs in Vineyard, etc.

 

[GarrisonFjord]

(without having read the whole thread yet)

My interpretation (influenced by the original BG manual?):
Most "real life" humans would qualify as True Neutral.
(Not as in druidic "strive to balance the world around me",
but as in "could not care less about the world around me".
Which may also qualify as Chaotic Evil (or Unaligned).)

All other alignments are stylized/archetypes/caricatures.
Which works great with everything else in a fantasy setting.
So I fail to see the issue: it's just one more set of rules.

 

[Gargaune]

It is pertinent to look at what alignment is as a mechanic. As a guideline and abstract representation of action tendencies, it really stays out of the way. As a mechanic, it intervenes only in a handful of places, but when it does, consequences are... complicated. First, Clerics and what spells they have. Seems simple, you get to choose your spells and deity, and you could even have a Cleric of an Evil deity that isn't himself evil. That's easy. That is, until for story reasons a Clerics changes deity, or changes alignment in such a way that his deity removes his power. That's a harsh consequence, and there isn't any way to deal with it in the rules. So alignment there seems to have interesting character development opportunities, but instead leads to nowhere mechanically. So it only works if the character remains mostly the same in regards to his faith. Alignment works best as long as it remains static, rather than dynamic.

Second, you've got Paladins. Gotta be lawful good, or lose all your powers. That's the mechanic. It's a fucking harsh mechanic, and nothing tells you what is sufficient for such a fall. Sure, it's up to the GM and depends on the story, but most GMs aren't good or wise. But should it really be up to the GM where the player takes his character RP-wise? That will surely lead to heated debates.

[...]

EDIT: I realize I'm talking about alignment from the point of view of PnP, and the thread is about cRPGs. It might be a bit less problematic in a cRPG since the way the world works is set, and opportunities for dynamic alignement changes aren't really present / designed for.

As far as P&P goes, I did give some consideration to the effects of "falling" classes and the advice I gave my players was not to worry about it and play their characters the way they felt it made sense. As DM, you can always tinker with difficulty and fast track class or deity conversions to accommodate your players' skills and party composition. You bring up a very good point on the problems posed by abilities like Detect Evil, but I'd rather jettison one or two uncooperative spells than an entire facet of character progression.

But yes, the focus of my argument here is strictly on Computer RPGs. You can make stuff up on the spot at the table, but videogames need predefined systems and the loss of Alignment has significant adverse ramifications. As for the potential severity of falling, I'm not overly concerned in the scope of an incremental system where you can clearly see which direction you're heading in. Just as an example, if I recall correctly, the original NWN literally warns you when you're starting to drift towards an incompatible progression path.

This is why:

Remind me to give you a rating next year.

Friendly Grammar tip
It’s a eulogy.
You determine the correct article based on how the word sounds—not based on how it’s spelled. The word “eulogy“ starts with a y sound.
yoo-lu-jy

Well, that's embarrassing. I did mistakenly pronounce it as "an eulogy", but now that you mention it I see you're correct, it's a "you" sound, of course.

 

[oldmanpaco]

Well that's van Cleef from all three movies. I actually think Tuco is more CNl than the CN guy. He at least shows remorse when he visits his brother.

There's four Van Cleefs in the image.
Van Cleef was present only in second and third movies.

Am I missing something?

IDK man I did a goolge search and picked the one that had Clint Eastwood as NE. Didn't really look into it that deep.

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

The Paladin isn't "committing genocide," he's preventing a genocide from being committed by the aliens. The aliens are in charge of ALL the bundles of causality that are causing the problem. That the Paladin's action results in the alien race's death is entirely the consequence of their own choices and actions - a) they are at fault for letting their situation get as shitty as it was, and b) they should have selected their system with more care and attention.

Flip it around the other way and think of an alien paladin with our portal. Would you have the slightest bit of sympathy for us so cavalierly treating an alien solar system like that, based on our mere "expectation?" Would you morally blame the alien Paladin?

Ironically I would feel sympathy in both cases (shit happens with everyone), but in both cases I would be like: "Sorry mates, tough luck, see you in better world" and close portal. However with alignment system it's not about my sympathy or my opinion, it's about how DM/game code will decide my fate and if in case with DM I can bargain or plead - code of the game don't give a shit. Just look at examples that rusty_shackleford brought:

Main issue with alignment is that it's the designers enforcing their moral standards on the player.

e.g., Bartholomew Delgado in Kingmaker is Lawful Evil. Yet nothing he actually did indicated such. You encounter him conducting experiments on a troll to understand how their regeneration works and apply it to normal people or somesuch.
I saw absolutely nothing evil in what he was doing at all, but apparently the designers did. Who knew Owlcat had PETA employees?

As my character was neutral good, I saw the potential of being able to heal the sick and wounded in my barony far outweighing whatever possible harm experimenting on a troll(who are actively invading my land and eating my people) may be causing.

Btw it's not only one example in game.
There even more examples, among them is absurd one when sparing life of a troll chieftain and making his people serve your kingdom is considered as evil. Apparently experimenting on trolls in attempt to save your people or accept trolls into society is more evil than genocide of these trolls.
If we follow Owlcat's logic in my example - main character is fucked no matter he doing.

 

[Silly Germans]

I think the D&D alignment system works best if you are creating exaggerated characters that fit into a stereotypical "black and white" fantasy world. You can make good games within that framework but it has it's limits. Multilayered, complex characters wouldn't fit into that system or force you to bend and stretch it so it becomes meaningless or incoherent. I also don't remember any game where it has ever played an important role gameplay-wise, except class restrictions. Perhaps a different line of dialogue once in a blue moon, but that was it. Take the Infinity engine games as example, you can pretty much play your character the way you like, irregardless of the alignment that you picked. I don't think that any of these games would change notably if you dropped the whole alignment system.

 

[Harthwain]

And we're left with a question - why? Why did Alignment have to be tossed to the wayside?

Probably because having a mechanic penalizing character development (paladin stopping being Lawful Good) leads to stagnation of characters. People knowing how the system works are more inclined to maintain the status quo no matter what in order to keep their alignment bonuses, rather than taking the penalty, even if it'd make sense story-wise. At this point it's more a G than it's an RP. So in order to stimulate the role-playing aspect of the game, the alignment is being shown the door. Also because it's easier to get rid of something than to rework it in a meaningful way.

That said, I'd argue that losing the alignment mechanic doesn't have to mean no consequences for players' actions. At the end of the day it's up to GM to decide whether or not any given character's actions are corresponding with their chosen values or not. You don't really need alignment system to be specifically in the game for that - just throw in a bunch of exp as a reward to encourage players to being true to their characters, including the moments when they are starting to doubt themselves.

 

[Chippy]

What was wrong with alignments? They summarized a character measurably and realistically to the amount of time you spend with them, and (apparently) the amount of time developers can write them. What more do people want? PARAGRAPHS of philisophical bullshit detailing shades of grey and how nuanced people really are?.

Seems like people want their cake and to eat it without it being high in soy and making them too much of a storyfag too.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

(paladin stopping being Lawful Good)

5E allowing paladins of any alignment is an absolutely terrible decision made by people with zero understanding of what a paladin actually is.
Somewhere along the line the understanding of what a paladin is was lost(insert ultima joke.) In fact, they've got it completely backwards which is how we've gotten into this mess.

They aren't simply clerics with another name, and they don't even necessarily have to follow a single or specific deity. Paladins are champions of order and good, any special powers or anything else they have simply follow from this -- this is where they've got it backwards in modern games.
This is part of the description of the Paladin in the AD&D 2E PHB

The paladin is a noble and heroic warrior, the symbol of all that is right and true in the world. As such, he has high ideals that he must maintain at all times. Throughout legend and history there are many heroes who could be called paladins: Roland and the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, and Sir Galahad are all examples of the class. However, many brave and heroic soldiers have tried and failed to live up to the ideals of the paladin. It is not an easy task!

Lawfulness and good deeds are the meat and drink of a paladin. If a paladin ever knowingly performs a chaotic act, he must seek a high-level (7th or more) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess his sin, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably.

The only mention of religion in the entire description of Paladin is with regards to tithing, that's it. You must tithe to a lawful good religious organization, you do not have to pick any specific one. The Complete Paladin's Handbook further expands upon this to any institution the paladin believes is Lawful Good, not necessarily religious. (I picked the 2E description because I liked the wording better, the AD&D description is pretty similar btw.)

So therefore we must discuss how a paladin gets his divine powers if he is not necessarily a particularly devout follower of any single deity like a cleric is (but is religious to some degree.) The same explanation for this can be used to show why a paladin is not a cleric and what the difference between a cleric and a paladin is:
A cleric chooses the deity they worship, and a deity chooses their champion. The paladin is one who is so righteous and noble that a deity of good non-chaotic nature chose them to be their champion.
Following this, we can say that all paladins must be Lawful Good because that is the definition of a paladin. A champion of some other aligned deity would be something else entirely, and the idea that they'd still be a paladin gets the entire thing backwards.

This is not to say that a paladin can't be a devout follower of some specific deity, simply that there is no hard requirement that they must be(refer to Chapter 8 of The Complete Paladin's Handbook.) Here's an interesting idea for a character: a paladin who is a follower of one deity but a champion of a separate (similarly non-chaotic good) deity.

 

[gurugeorge]

The Paladin isn't "committing genocide," he's preventing a genocide from being committed by the aliens. The aliens are in charge of ALL the bundles of causality that are causing the problem. That the Paladin's action results in the alien race's death is entirely the consequence of their own choices and actions - a) they are at fault for letting their situation get as shitty as it was, and b) they should have selected their system with more care and attention.

Flip it around the other way and think of an alien paladin with our portal. Would you have the slightest bit of sympathy for us so cavalierly treating an alien solar system like that, based on our mere "expectation?" Would you morally blame the alien Paladin?

Ironically I would feel sympathy in both cases (shit happens with everyone), but in both cases I would be like: "Sorry mates, tough luck, see you in better world" and close portal. However with alignment system it's not about my sympathy or my opinion, it's about how DM/game code will decide my fate and if in case with DM I can bargain or plead - code of the game don't give a shit. Just look at examples that rusty_shackleford brought:

Main issue with alignment is that it's the designers enforcing their moral standards on the player.

e.g., Bartholomew Delgado in Kingmaker is Lawful Evil. Yet nothing he actually did indicated such. You encounter him conducting experiments on a troll to understand how their regeneration works and apply it to normal people or somesuch.
I saw absolutely nothing evil in what he was doing at all, but apparently the designers did. Who knew Owlcat had PETA employees?

As my character was neutral good, I saw the potential of being able to heal the sick and wounded in my barony far outweighing whatever possible harm experimenting on a troll(who are actively invading my land and eating my people) may be causing.

Btw it's not only one example in game.
There even more examples, among them is absurd one when sparing life of a troll chieftain and making his people serve your kingdom is considered as evil. Apparently experimenting on trolls in attempt to save your people or accept trolls into society is more evil than genocide of these trolls.
If we follow Owlcat's logic in my example - main character is fucked no matter he doing.

I'd agree that some of Owlcat's decisions are questionable, but that's just because they're tying themselves up in knots trying to be politically correct and not-racist (Troll = "noble savage," similarly to how Orcs, who were formerly a bloodthirsty lot barely capable of any civilized behaviour at all, have become like these noble American Indian clones over time in many games).

If what you're saying is that not having an alignment system would obviate questionable stuff like that, then so far I guess I agree, but I don't think it's a problem with the alignment system per se. The matrix is a decent way of exemplifying the characteristic or habitual behaviour of characters - and it's not as if it can't change, as behaviour changes.

 

[Harthwain]

5E allowing paladins of any alignment is an absolutely terrible decision made by people with zero understanding of what a paladin actually is.

True, but if you lose benefits of being a paladin for not having a very specific alingment, then you have no business being a paladin in the first place. So you either stick to it, forever, or pick a different class. To me a paladin being forced - by circumstances - to find loopholes in order to do the right thing is much more interesting concept than a straightforward, classic paladin. The latter is more suited to be an NPC material rather than someone a player should be playing as (unless his sole purpose is to be pain in the ass).

 

[Gargaune]

Probably because having a mechanic penalizing character development (paladin stopping being Lawful Good) leads to stagnation of characters. People knowing how the system works are more inclined to maintain the status quo no matter what in order to keep their alignment bonuses, rather than taking the penalty, even if it'd make sense story-wise. At this point it's more a G than it's an RP. So in order to stimulate the role-playing aspect of the game, the alignment is being shown the door. Also because it's easier to get rid of something than to rework it in a meaningful way.

Call it a matter of perspective, but I'll reiterate that I think constraints play an important part in defining and roleplaying a solid character and having a mechanical framework helps to enforce commitment to a concept or to generate a character arc. And adjusting variables such as individual alignment definitons or penalties (e.g. falling from Lawful Good in NWN meant you could no longer progress as a Paladin, but you didn't lose your existing abilities) is preferable to tossing the whole system out.

That said, I'd argue that losing the alignment mechanic doesn't have to mean no consequences for players' actions. At the end of the day it's up to GM to decide whether or not any given character's actions are corresponding with their chosen values or not. You don't really need alignment system to be specifically in the game for that - just throw in a bunch of exp as a reward to encourage players to being true to their characters, including the moments when they are starting to doubt themselves.

My argument regards CRPGs in particular, I've already stated that where P&P is concerned the presence of a DM can fill in the Alignment gap, but that's not the case with videogames. To quote what I said to Bester:

No, my overarching argument is that Alignment creates systemic material consequences for moral choices, you have systems-driven interplay between narrative roleplay and class, equipment and combat components in videogames. I've already explained that you can create similar (and arguably more impactful) effects "by hand", as RPGs without alignment typically do, but these setpieces incur a linear development cost and will therefore be far fewer and farther in between.

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

I'd agree that some of Owlcat's decisions are questionable, but that's just because they're tying themselves up in knots trying to be politically correct and not-racist (Troll = "noble savage," similarly to how Orcs, who were formerly a bloodthirsty lot barely capable of any civilized behaviour at all, have become like these noble American Indian clones over time in many games).

If what you're saying is that not having an alignment system would obviate questionable stuff like that, then so far I guess I agree, but I don't think it's a problem with the alignment system per se. The matrix is a decent way of exemplifying the characteristic or habitual behaviour of characters - and it's not as if it can't change, as behaviour changes.

I disagree, even if trolls were, well, classic trolls - these fuckups bound to happen, just because alignment system is mess on it's own.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

Paladins being sworn to an alignment instead of a deity's ideals is silly anyway. They're basically the sword-arms of their god in the mortal realm, and a convincing case could be made that they would need to be Lawful/Orderly due to them being bound by a certain code, but I could easily see Hextor, Bane, St. Cuthbert, Helm, etc. having their own breed of "Paladin" directly in line with their alignments. The use of Paladin as a blanket term for this is also unhelpful, as it stands to reason that each god is going to have a name for their sword-arms that is much more pertinent than the increasingly generic term "Paladin". The irony of this all is that "Paladin" historically referred to something much more specific (see the story of Roland).

 

[Lady_Error]

Does Planescape still have alignments? Seems kind of central to that setting, considering the different planes reflect different alignments.

Also, FFS, why aren't there more games in the Planescape setting???

 

[Shitty Kitty]

Does Planescape still have alignments? Seems kind of central to that setting, considering the different planes reflect different alignments.

Also, FFS, why aren't there more games in the Planescape setting???

By now I'm pretty sure the Planescape setting is effectively dead. I don't think it got any updates for the past 2 versions of D&D, though I could be wrong.

 

[Goose]

I'd agree that some of Owlcat's decisions are questionable, but that's just because they're tying themselves up in knots trying to be politically correct and not-racist (Troll = "noble savage," similarly to how Orcs, who were formerly a bloodthirsty lot barely capable of any civilized behaviour at all, have become like these noble American Indian clones over time in many games).

If what you're saying is that not having an alignment system would obviate questionable stuff like that, then so far I guess I agree, but I don't think it's a problem with the alignment system per se. The matrix is a decent way of exemplifying the characteristic or habitual behaviour of characters - and it's not as if it can't change, as behaviour changes.

I disagree, even if trolls were, well, classic trolls - these fuckups bound to happen, just because alignment system is mess on it's own.

You're blaming the hammer instead of the handyman.

Why should the whole alignment system be thrown out the window because you or the author interpret things differently? Anyone who uses the excuse that game devs will insert their retarded values into it are missing the fact that they're going to do that anyway, regardless of an alignment system. Again it's not the fault of the tool.

It's a guide line not a doctrine, and by playing the game you accept the DM/Developers interpretation, don't like it? DM yourself. Or ask for better writers who aren't Chaotic Good hipsters.

 

[Ismaul]

Also, FFS, why aren't there more games in the Planescape setting???

Planescape has been merged into the main implicit setting. It no longer exists as a separate thing.

One of the issues with PS was that it consisted of worlds that are just not very fun for adventuring. For example, you had one plane for each element: plane of fire, of water, of air, etc. Practically, what good does this do for your game? "Hey let's go the the plane of fire and burn to death!" And if you managed to bypass that limitation, what sort of adventuring is there to be had there? All creatures there must natively survive extreme burning, breathe and feed on fire, so you got what, fire elementals? It's just not a fun place to adventure in, quite homogeneous. It makes little sense too: how is there fire without air?

Planescape tried to make a plane for each abstract aspect of the world, but while it seems to make sense in a "universal harmony"/ platonist way of thinking, it has next to no value in play. Hey there's a plane for each alignment! So that means the alignment planes are very homogeneous. It's fun when you look at the whole, but going there and adventuring is just impractical / limiting. I mean sure you can manage some adventuring, but it's really going to be about plane-hopping, not staying in a plane for long, because they feel like just a gimmick. The interesting aspect of Planescape is more about the whole structure than the individual planes, yet adventuring happens in individual ones.

So 4E tried to bring the idea of plane-hopping to the base game, and make the different planes areas that you can have fun adventuring in, because they're not just one-trick-poneys. For example, they merged the elemental planes into the Elemental Chaos, a place where the elements are bare, raging, and always shifting. You can have your "purely fire" place without having the whole plane be like that. It's a more dynamic place, with an interesting story: it's a remainder of the raw elements that were use in the creation of the world. There's also more than one type of creatures that live there, so encounters aren't just "oh yay another fire elemental pack". Plus, it's also the gateway to the Abyss, makes for a fun and hazardous decent.

You've still got sort of Alignment-based domains (the Astral Sea where gods each have their own domain), so you can still have that type of adventure, but they're not metaphysically tied to an alignment, so it's less rigid (though you could house-rule such a thing if you want it). And there's still Sigil, the city of doors, to tie it all and hop between planes. It's really the metaphysical underpinning of the planes that have been removed to make it more dynamic and more usable in play.

Plus, they added 2 mirror worlds to the natural world: the fey/magical world and the world of the dead (purgatory plus), which you can access rather easily from the natural world, even by mistake. That makes for some interesting dimension-travelling accessible from low-level, and makes for quite interesting possible scenarios: children-stealing fey invading in the natural world, travelling to the world of the dead to resurrect someone or kill a necromancer, etc. I used this a lot in my own campaign.

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

Or ask for better writers who aren't Chaotic Good hipsters that cater to blue hairs.

Wait, you trying to prove that alignment system is good and working as intended, yet you insulting people by comparing them to hipster writers that cater to blue hairs just for picking chaotic good alignment?
So, Chaotic Good are inferior, because this alignment for you associated with blue hairs that want to take personal freedoms away (despite chaotic good being about personal freedom), ok, what next? A true neutral are boring? A neutral good without personality?
And so on, until it will turn out that every alignment is shit, that makes the whole process of picking alignment as questionable endeavor.

I don't understand why anyone need special label as if society does not enforce enough on you(or invent on fly like retards with their retarded pronouns). And apparently I among few who don't need crutch (more like shackles) such as alignment to play character efficiently.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

I agree with what you want to say, but it's not that simple. It comes from two main sources: battle of the five armies in the Hobbits (faction affiliation) and from Moorcock/Poul Anderson (i.e. Law & Chaos as metaphysical category of cosmic organisation).

But in any cases, it had nothing to do with good and evil and I feel it's one of the worst design by Gygax.

In original Dungeons & Dragons, with its one-axis three-alignment system, Law and Chaos were effectively synonymous with Good and Evil. This was made especially apparent in Gygax's mentions of anti-clerics, using the term "evil" to describe them, and in his inclusion of the word "evil" rather than "chaos" in several spell names and descriptions. As for the literature from which Law and Chaos stemmed:

• In Poul Anderson's novel Three Hearts and Three Lions, Law is identified with human, Christian civilization in contrast to the sinister, inhuman, elves lurking in the shadowlands.
• In Michael Moorcock's Elric stories, the lords of Chaos are depicted as cruel, inhuman, and generally evil, whereas the lords of Law are relatively benevolent and benign.
• Tolkien's Battle of the Five Armies in The Hobbit saw a coalition of dwarves, humans, and elves defeat orc/goblin armies, a victory for good, or at least neutral, forces against evil.

However, Gygax soon decided to complicate matters with his two-axis five-alignment system published in The Strategic Review #6 (February 1976), which created separate good/evil and law/chaos axes (the possible alignments were LG, CG, CE, LE, and neutral). This five-alignment system was incorporated into 1977's Holmes Blue Book D&D, but the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook written by Gygax and published the next year turned it into a nine-alignment system (adding LN, NE, CN, and NG). Although Gygax provided explanations for his conception of law versus chaos, the initial interpretation of predictability versus randomness lacked the intrinsic importance of good and evil, and the definitions of law and chaos soon became muddled with multiple themes, such as organization versus individuality or the artificial versus the natural. This was the fundamental flaw in the two-axis alignment system that persisted through both editions of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, and it even affected the later versions of non-advanced D&D, which maintained a three-alignment system but became inconsistent in interpreting law & chaos as meaning good & evil or something else.

 

[Goose]

Or ask for better writers who aren't Chaotic Good hipsters that cater to blue hairs.

Wait, you trying to prove that alignment system is good and working as intended, yet you insulting people by comparing them to hipster writers that cater to blue hairs just for picking chaotic good alignment?
So, Chaotic Good are inferior, because this alignment for you associated with blue hairs that want to take personal freedoms away (despite chaotic good being about personal freedom), ok, what next? A true neutral are boring? A neutral good without personality?
And so on, until it will turn out that every alignment is shit, that makes the whole process of picking alignment as questionable endeavor.

I don't understand why anyone need special label as if society does not enforce enough on you(or invent on fly like retards with their retarded pronouns). And apparently I among few who don't need crutch (more like shackles) such as alignment to play character efficiently.

What?

 

[Corvinus]

Brethren, the problem is simply that alignments doesn't fly in 2020. Attention spans are too short, intellects are too regressed and globalist propaganda too overwhelming!

To alleviate this problem, I preset to thee a simpler system, using the three original D&D alignments as a foundation; Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic.

A character my choose to be:

[Based] Implies honourable, decent beliefs, such as having ethics and morals based on traditional values. Religion, nationality, self-sacrifice and kalinism come first. Such a character will not question the right to exterminate around 25 million people, but instead understand that by no right can they be allowed to live.
[NPC] Implies a lack of agenda. The character has no beliefs of his own, and those that he wears to fit in are dropped at the moment they become a burden. Non-player characters and decline enablers are typically of this alignment.
[Pozzed] Implies an overall societal net loss just by existing. Such a character is the epitome of weakness, avarice, stupidity, deceit, and cowardice, going out of its way to celebrate such vices as virtues at every turn. Believes that there are non-isometric games in the Fallout series.


Alternatively, one could simplify alignments even further with this bifurcated system:

[Chad] Implies being awesome, successful, hung like a horse, and best at everything. Needs 100% less experience to gain a level.
[Virgin] Implies fedora, t-shirt and battle-ready katana. Such characters may claim to have mastered the blade, when they in fact have but mastered failure. Can never go beyond first level, regardless of experience.

 

[Faarbaute]

Modern people dont like beeing judged by or held to any objective standards, even fictional standards.

 

[Joseph Stalin]

What the hell is OP talking about? The alignment system has been put to any usage in a handful of RPGs thus far - Planescape: Torment; Neverwinter Nights (both), Icewind Dale II, Pillars of Eternity (both) and Pathfinder (both). And it was Pathfinder: Kingmaker who was the first to actually implement story choices exclusive to different alignments. If anything, the idea itself is undergoing a Renaissance.