A eulogy for Alignment in CRPGs

[Shitty Kitty]

Trolley problem is fundamentally anti-roleplaying. It is the CYOA book of moral thought experiments.

"CYOA is fundamentally anti-RP"

excuse me what

 

[Tygrende]

Lawful Good: Chooses not to intervene, as killing an innocent is breaking the law

What law are we talking about? Because most legal systems today employ the doctrine of necessity. Both actions is this case would be entirely legal.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Trolley problem is fundamentally anti-roleplaying. It is the CYOA book of moral thought experiments.

"CYOA is fundamentally anti-RP"

excuse me what

Presenting someone with a list of limited options to choose from and telling them to pick one is not roleplaying.
If the trolley problem was in Fallout, you'd have a multitude of ways to solve it combining player agency with the character's skills and equipment. Maybe you'd blow up the tracks using dynamite, maybe you'd hack the terminal, etc.,
If the trolley problem was in a digital CYOA(you know what I'm referring to here,) you'd simply be presented with a list of options and choose the one you like that's also not greyed out.

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

The trolley problem is a utilitarian brainwashing mechanism and a false dichotomy. Your intervention is murder and playing God.

That said, I will answer it seriously:

Lawful Good: Chooses not to intervene, as killing an innocent is breaking the law, unless of course there is a law that states he must intervene for some reason.
Neutral Good: Sees himself as an author of good and the law as a suggestion. He will likely choose to redirect the train to kill fewer people, though may also choose to remain neutral, depending on his character and how much he values neutrality (or how high his wisdom stat is).
Chaotic Good: Will either do what neutral good did or kill the fat man.

Lawful Neutral: Same as Lawful Good, but will see the situation as nature taking its course.
True Neutral: Will either do nothing (remaining neutral), or else redirect it to the fewer number of people and then make sure an equal number from the other group die - depending on whether or not he's a balance fag.
Chaotic Neutral: Flips a coin.

Lawful Evil: Same as Lawful Good, but but out of either malice or a lack of valuing human life.
Neutral Evil: Probably saves them by killing the fat man so that he can claim to be a hero.
Chaotic Evil: Kills the fat man and then kills everyone else.

So, a character that supposed to be Good will just watch people killed by trolley instead of stop this fucking shitty trolley? What the fuck is wrong with you? These characters will probably fail, but to not try at all? Wtf...

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The trolley problem is a utilitarian brainwashing mechanism and a false dichotomy. Your intervention is murder and playing God.

That said, I will answer it seriously:

Lawful Good: Chooses not to intervene, as killing an innocent is breaking the law, unless of course there is a law that states he must intervene for some reason.
Neutral Good: Sees himself as an author of good and the law as a suggestion. He will likely choose to redirect the train to kill fewer people, though may also choose to remain neutral, depending on his character and how much he values neutrality (or how high his wisdom stat is).
Chaotic Good: Will either do what neutral good did or kill the fat man.

Lawful Neutral: Same as Lawful Good, but will see the situation as nature taking its course.
True Neutral: Will either do nothing (remaining neutral), or else redirect it to the fewer number of people and then make sure an equal number from the other group die - depending on whether or not he's a balance fag.
Chaotic Neutral: Flips a coin.

Lawful Evil: Same as Lawful Good, but but out of either malice or a lack of valuing human life.
Neutral Evil: Probably saves them by killing the fat man so that he can claim to be a hero.
Chaotic Evil: Kills the fat man and then kills everyone else.

So, a character that supposed to be Good will just watch people killed by trolley instead of stop this fucking shitty trolley? What the fuck is wrong with you? These characters will probably fail, but to not try at all? Wtf...

Yes. Not because LG are adverse to killing though.

As I have pointed out at times, a Paladin might well execute a group of captives after they have converted from their former (Evil) alignment to Lawful Good, for that act saves their sould, prevents them from slipping back into error.

His actions would willingly lead to the death of an innocent.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

Trolley problem is fundamentally anti-roleplaying. It is the CYOA book of moral thought experiments.

"CYOA is fundamentally anti-RP"

excuse me what

Presenting someone with a list of limited options to choose from and telling them to pick one is not roleplaying.
If the trolley problem was in Fallout, you'd have a multitude of ways to solve it combining player agency with the character's skills and equipment. Maybe you'd blow up the tracks using dynamite, maybe you'd hack the terminal, etc.,
If the trolley problem was in a digital CYOA(you know what I'm referring to here,) you'd simply be presented with a list of options and choose the one you like that's also not greyed out.

Nothing about the trolley meme as presented forbids you from putting a twist on it to bring it closer to your ideal, there isn't a fucking Meme DM that is going to say "NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT" and if there were you'd laugh in his face anyway

 

[Tygrende]

As I have pointed out at times, a Paladin might well execute a group of captives after they have converted from their former (Evil) alignment to Lawful Good, for that act saves their sould, prevents them from slipping back into error.

How far can we take this concept of preemptive killing to prevent evil? Is a a paladin that kills all people preemptively before they have a chance to slide into error to begin with also fine? If not, why?

 

[Shitty Kitty]

As I have pointed out at times, a Paladin might well execute a group of captives after they have converted from their former (Evil) alignment to Lawful Good, for that act saves their sould, prevents them from slipping back into error.

How far can we take this concept of preemptive killing to prevent evil? Is a a paladin that kills all people preemptively before they have a chance to slide into error to begin with also fine? If not, why?

ORC BABY DILEMMA 'ERE WE GO

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Is a a paladin that kills all people preemptively before they have a chance to slide into error to begin with also fine? If not, why?

If you can rationalize it as such and your DM agrees with your interpretation.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

Is a a paladin that kills all people preemptively before they have a chance to slide into error to begin with also fine? If not, why?

If you can rationalize it as such and your DM agrees with your interpretation.

Man almost sounds like it's a very subjective thing that you get someone to agree with

Objective-morality advocates on suicide watch.

 

[Tygrende]

If you can rationalize it as such and your DM agrees with your interpretation.

So basically, any character of any alignment can do anything they want if they spin it right and the DM agrees. This definitely makes aligment look like an useful and meaningful addition that RPGs simply cannot do without.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

So, a character that supposed to be Good will just watch people killed by trolley instead of stop this fucking shitty trolley? What the fuck is wrong with you? These characters will probably fail, but to not try at all? Wtf...

If your character is a fatass, you could take the fat man's place and roll yourself in front of the train. Better?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

As I have pointed out at times, a Paladin might well execute a group of captives after they have converted from their former (Evil) alignment to Lawful Good, for that act saves their sould, prevents them from slipping back into error.

How far can we take this concept of preemptive killing to prevent evil? Is a a paladin that kills all people preemptively before they have a chance to slide into error to begin with also fine? If not, why?

ORC BABY DILEMMA 'ERE WE GO

It's not much of a dilemma but a misunderstanding.
If a paladin's personal code is such that orcs are always evil, then there is no issue with killing evil even if it is an infant. Would it cause a paladin to fall? I'd definitely go with 'no' as a DM as long as it followed the previous point. Lawful good is not lawful nice. There are plenty of LG(or similar) deities in the D&D multiverse pantheon that would agree with killing the orc baby that would choose said paladin as their champion.
We just have to look at The Triad for an example of three gods who would likely all view the situation differently despite all being LG. Torm would undoubtedly favor killing the orc baby, and Ilmater would oppose it. Tyr could possibly go either way.

If you can rationalize it as such and your DM agrees with your interpretation.

So basically, any character of any alignment can do anything they want if they spin it right and the DM agrees. This definitely makes aligment look like an useful and meaningful addition that RPGs simply cannot do without.

Alignment is a tool for both the DM and the player. The problem with cRPGs is that you can't present your case or reason with the DM.

 

[Desiderius]

I always liked alignment. Fuck your opinions on what *should* be chaotic or lawful, good or evil, these are objective, measurable forces and there isn't any arguing with them. These are merely the names by which we understand these forces, we did not invent them and they aren't byproducts of our imagination like moderntards think actual morality is.

What's the objectively correct solution to the trolley problem for each alignment?

Get out of your head and into the arena.

 

[Desiderius]

What's the objectively correct solution to the trolley problem for each alignment?

The trolley problem is a utilitarian brainwashing mechanism and a false dichotomy. Your intervention is murder and playing God.

That said, I will answer it seriously:

Lawful Good: Chooses not to intervene, as killing an innocent is breaking the law, unless of course there is a law that states he must intervene for some reason.
Neutral Good: Sees himself as an author of good and the law as a suggestion. He will likely choose to redirect the train to kill fewer people, though may also choose to remain neutral, depending on his character and how much he values neutrality (or how high his wisdom stat is).
Chaotic Good: Will either do what neutral good did or kill the fat man.

Lawful Neutral: Same as Lawful Good, but will see the situation as nature taking its course.
True Neutral: Will either do nothing (remaining neutral), or else redirect it to the fewer number of people and then make sure an equal number from the other group die - depending on whether or not he's a balance fag.
Chaotic Neutral: Flips a coin.

Lawful Evil: Same as Lawful Good, but but out of either malice or a lack of valuing human life.
Neutral Evil: Probably saves them by killing the fat man so that he can claim to be a hero.
Chaotic Evil: Kills the fat man and then kills everyone else.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43595/morality

Morality
BY MATTHEW ARNOLD
We cannot kindle when we will
The fire which in the heart resides;
The spirit bloweth and is still,
In mystery our soul abides.
But tasks in hours of insight will'd
Can be through hours of gloom fulfill'd.

With aching hands and bleeding feet
We dig and heap, lay stone on stone;
We bear the burden and the heat
Of the long day, and wish 'twere done.
Not till the hours of light return,
All we have built do we discern.

Then, when the clouds are off the soul,
When thou dost bask in Nature's eye,
Ask, how she view'd thy self-control,
Thy struggling, task'd morality—
Nature, whose free, light, cheerful air,
Oft made thee, in thy gloom, despair.

And she, whose censure thou dost dread,
Whose eye thou wast afraid to seek,
See, on her face a glow is spread,
A strong emotion on her cheek!
"Ah, child!" she cries, "that strife divine,
Whence was it, for it is not mine?

"There is no effort on my brow—
I do not strive, I do not weep;
I rush with the swift spheres and glow
In joy, and when I will, I sleep.
Yet that severe, that earnest air,
I saw, I felt it once—but where?

"I knew not yet the gauge of time,
Nor wore the manacles of space;
I felt it in some other clime,
I saw it in some other place.
'Twas when the heavenly house I trod,
And lay upon the breast of God."

 

[Goose]

As I have pointed out at times, a Paladin might well execute a group of captives after they have converted from their former (Evil) alignment to Lawful Good, for that act saves their sould, prevents them from slipping back into error.

How far can we take this concept of preemptive killing to prevent evil? Is a a paladin that kills all people preemptively before they have a chance to slide into error to begin with also fine? If not, why?

ORC BABY DILEMMA 'ERE WE GO

What dilemma?

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

"Ah, child!" she cries, "that strife divine,
Whence was it, for it is not mine?

Typical broad laying about all day and wondering why men work.

 

[Desiderius]

"Ah, child!" she cries, "that strife divine,
Whence was it, for it is not mine?

Typical broad laying about all day and wondering why men work.

Epitome of CG

 

[Desiderius]

Good makes, evil takes.

LE with lawyers, CE with women

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

Yes. Not because LG are adverse to killing though.

His actions would willingly lead to the death of an innocent.

Technically if LG will do nothing it would be ACTION TOO (therefore it's his fault anyway if innocent will be killed), so even if murderous trolley will kill ALL fucking people on track it would be more fitting for character to try to stop the trolley than just fucking watch and mumble to himself how good boy he is for watching people die. Paladinб who will talk about his ideals and then mentions how he left innocent to die (without even attempt to save them), will not be taken seriously at all by normal people. This much simpler than dilemma with portal and yet alignment system fails, ffs.

If your character is a fatass, you could take the fat man's place and roll yourself in front of the train. Better?

Look, I think all your "horonary" badges could be replaced with one big "DUMBFUCK" because it's more fits your intellectual level. We talking about D&D characters and not your cuckold fantasies about being naked and helpless, so casters will have their spells and martial classes will have their weapons (or even without weapons they will have their physical prowess), so decision to not intervene depends only on moral views of your party and no character that stand for "all good and righteous in this world" would just stay and watch murder unfolding.

 

[Üstad]

For example, a lawful evil character could be a knight who does good

Alignment system has nothing to do with what you think only what you do, this is why it's flawed to the core. It's for simpletons or for the games who does not take themselves seriously, as for proof look at the most alignment based RPGs, there no fleshed out realistic characters but only subtypes, not only subtypes it's the caricature of the subtypes, i.e Pathfinder Kingmaker.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Look, I think all your "horonary" badges could be replaced with one big "DUMBFUCK" because it's more fits your intellectual level. We talking about D&D characters and not your cuckold fantasies about being naked and helpless, so casters will have their spells and martial classes will have their weapons (or even without weapons they will have their physical prowess), so decision to not intervene depends only on moral views of your party and no character that stand for "all good and righteous in this world" would just stay and watch murder unfolding.

It's the trolley problem, not a D&D campaign.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Technically if LG will do nothing it would be ACTION TOO (therefore it's his fault anyway if innocent will be killed), so even if murderous trolley will kill ALL fucking people on track it would be more fitting for character to try to stop the trolley than just fucking watch and mumble to himself how good boy he is for watching people die. Paladin who will talk about his ideals and then mentions how he left innocent to die without even attempt to save them will not be taken seriously at all by normal people. This even worse than dilemma with portal ffs.

The dilemma is a false dichotomy, therefore the least bad thing he could do is nothing.
And actually, I disagree that he'd do nothing. He'd likely show humility at his inability to help and pray to his deity for intervention.

Spoiler

Of course, I completely reject the 5E depiction of a paladin -- their powers don't even come from a deity. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Goose]

Look, I think all your "horonary" badges could be replaced with one big "DUMBFUCK" because it's more fits your intellectual level. We talking about D&D characters and not your cuckold fantasies about being naked and helpless, so casters will have their spells and martial classes will have their weapons (or even without weapons they will have their physical prowess), so decision to not intervene depends only on moral views of your party and no character that stand for "all good and righteous in this world" would just stay and watch murder unfolding.

It's the trolley problem, not a D&D campaign.

This is what you get for even entertaining the trolley question.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

Look, I think all your "horonary" badges could be replaced with one big "DUMBFUCK" because it's more fits your intellectual level. We talking about D&D characters and not your cuckold fantasies about being naked and helpless, so casters will have their spells and martial classes will have their weapons (or even without weapons they will have their physical prowess), so decision to not intervene depends only on moral views of your party and no character that stand for "all good and righteous in this world" would just stay and watch murder unfolding.

It's the trolley problem, not a D&D campaign.

Yeah because a D&D campaign has never had moral dilemmas