In my mind most human beings would be lawful neutral as we rarely go out of our way to do good in the world.
Fuck that chaotic neural, most people don't go out of the way to do good, and have very little in the way of forethought as to how they will respond in extreme situations.
I don't think this has much to do with chaotic vs neutral. Most people have a pretty entrenched respect for authority and a desire for law and order, which imo makes them lawful.
You don't sit and say weather theft is a universal no go, you judge based on the situation weather or not you are willing to steal. The motivations behind that choice determine the moral fiber of your character. Robbing an evil tyrannical duke so as to fund an orphanage? Good. Robbing the king in a way that hurts few people, because you take little and his fortune is so vast, so you can get paid? neutral at best. Robbing an old lady so you can use the magic ring she didn't know she had so you can use it to start a war? Evil.
I think this is too simplistic and not applicable across different scales and settings.
It's supposed to be a gross simplification of a highly complex and long running debate called philosophy
Well this is a weird essay this kid wrote. Has stuff about how a lack of diversity in computer science is because white males are "the only race" that sits in front of a computer all day while "other races" go outside and try to help the world.
You don't sit and say weather theft is a universal no go, you judge based on the situation weather or not you are willing to steal. The motivations behind that choice determine the moral fiber of your character. Robbing an evil tyrannical duke so as to fund an orphanage? Good. Robbing the king in a way that hurts few people, because you take little and his fortune is so vast, so you can get paid? neutral at best. Robbing an old lady so you can use the magic ring she didn't know she had so you can use it to start a war? Evil.
I think this is too simplistic and not applicable across different scales and settings.
Almost as if
Alignment systems are stupid and discussions about them are doomed to have forty years of baggage of player interpretation and personal anecdote making the entire subject pointless
Alignment systems are fun and discussing alignment systems is fun and trying to talk about general guiding principles of human behavior is fun
But see above disclaimer on only ever having slapped alignments on characters descriptively after/during a campaign, as well as trying to define what it means at different scales, rather than using a poorly defined concept of alignment as an uncompromising guide to roleplaying
Steam, LoL: credeiki
+1
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
meanwhile Dennis is lawful evil, always trying to get people to sign contracts etc so he is justified in his nefarious deeds
But he is also constantly breaking the law, lying, violating contracts, and acting out his bizarre impulses and storms of rage.
Obviously Always Sunny characters are far too rich and complex to be contained within these silly alignments, except charlie who is obviously the purest chaotic neutral
Well this is a weird essay this kid wrote. Has stuff about how a lack of diversity in computer science is because white males are "the only race" that sits in front of a computer all day while "other races" go outside and try to help the world.
That's uh...very strange phrasing there kiddo.
You should ask them to cite sources.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Arch my nephew, who is 2, saw a big beetle the other day and called out to my brother (his dad). My brother grabbed a tissue and my nephew yelled "daddy no!" thinking my brother intended to squish it, and instead pointed to the door.
So my brother gently picked the beetle up, took it outside as my nephew watched, and let it go
my nephew clapped and was happy and went to go watch cartoons meanwhile my brother was shot to death in PUBG because he had got up from his computer to see what his son was yelling about
I call it "Never Have Kids."
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I would be interested in playing a D&D game that treated Law and Chaos the way Gygax and Arneson used them (which is to say, the way Michael Moorcock used them) - as active metaphysical forces in the world with their own agents and agendas rather than simply as a measure of your dude's compliance to local customs
Also applying D&D alignments to real people and real world situations is bound to get offensive and stupid
This is a Cassandra truth and nobody is going to listen to me but I'm going to say it anyway
If you must persist in this foolish alignment conversation, if you don't restrict it to talking about rangers and paladins and the ethics of killing goblins you're in for a bad time, [chat]
don't listen to me if you want, I'm not your real dad*
I would be interested in playing a D&D game that treated Law and Chaos the way Gygax and Arneson used them (which is to say, the way Michael Moorcock used them) - as active metaphysical forces in the world with their own agents and agendas rather than simply as a measure of your dude's compliance to local customs
Its easier to just say Chilli than chilli con carne con frijoles.
I also think it is totes adorbs how texans go full-on controlling on what a chili is - much like how the french say there is only one way to make an omelette or a bechamel.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+3
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
meanwhile Dennis is lawful evil, always trying to get people to sign contracts etc so he is justified in his nefarious deeds
But he is also constantly breaking the law, lying, violating contracts, and acting out his bizarre impulses and storms of rage.
Obviously Always Sunny characters are far too rich and complex to be contained within these silly alignments, except charlie who is obviously the purest chaotic neutral
I think he might be the only one that could be aligned good. He doesn't really do much in the way of self interest ... mostly because he has so little self-esteem and probably doesn't even think he deserves good to come his way ... and makes most of his choices based on what's best for the waitress and Frank, and is usually one of the first people to feel a tinge of discomfort when something is obviously bad.
The problem is that he is too stupid and / or high to be able to correctly analyze the situation
Its easier to just say Chilli than chilli con carne con frijoles.
I also think it is totes adorbs how texans go full-on controlling on what a chili is - much like how the french say there is only one way to make an omelette or a bechamel.
You don't sit and say weather theft is a universal no go, you judge based on the situation weather or not you are willing to steal. The motivations behind that choice determine the moral fiber of your character. Robbing an evil tyrannical duke so as to fund an orphanage? Good. Robbing the king in a way that hurts few people, because you take little and his fortune is so vast, so you can get paid? neutral at best. Robbing an old lady so you can use the magic ring she didn't know she had so you can use it to start a war? Evil.
I think this is too simplistic and not applicable across different scales and settings.
Almost as if
Alignment systems are stupid and discussions about them are doomed to have forty years of baggage of player interpretation and personal anecdote making the entire subject pointless
Alignment systems are fun and discussing alignment systems is fun and trying to talk about general guiding principles of human behavior is fun
But see above disclaimer on only ever having slapped alignments on characters descriptively after/during a campaign, as well as trying to define what it means at different scales, rather than using a poorly defined concept of alignment as an uncompromising guide to roleplaying
I find it generally coalesces in a character towards the end of its run. Like after a while i figure out what my alignment is given past performance and what i think the character's philosophy is moving forwards.
Like after a while you realize your pirate king monk is probably lawful evil, and you just start to swing into it.
I wish certain RPGs were less insistent on calling the lizardmen a different race from the white people who are considered a different race from the black people in the setting because that is just weird.
0
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
I would be interested in playing a D&D game that treated Law and Chaos the way Gygax and Arneson used them (which is to say, the way Michael Moorcock used them) - as active metaphysical forces in the world with their own agents and agendas rather than simply as a measure of your dude's compliance to local customs
Reminds me of Ultima's Order and Chaos
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
I would be interested in playing a D&D game that treated Law and Chaos the way Gygax and Arneson used them (which is to say, the way Michael Moorcock used them) - as active metaphysical forces in the world with their own agents and agendas rather than simply as a measure of your dude's compliance to local customs
one of the better part of the planes in old D&D/AD&D and then perfected in planescape, was the personification of those concepts.
The blood war, and how archons and baatezu would work together because their adherence to the force of law was more compelling than their good or evil intentions... modrons being the physical embodiment of neutral machinery...
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Posts
I don't think this has much to do with chaotic vs neutral. Most people have a pretty entrenched respect for authority and a desire for law and order, which imo makes them lawful.
I shoot the hostage
Nobody has a gun to their head forcing them to participate in the alignment discussion
Or any other discussion
It's supposed to be a gross simplification of a highly complex and long running debate called philosophy
The REAL alignment system should have just been a collection of personality disorders.
That's uh...very strange phrasing there kiddo.
Alignment systems are fun and discussing alignment systems is fun and trying to talk about general guiding principles of human behavior is fun
But see above disclaimer on only ever having slapped alignments on characters descriptively after/during a campaign, as well as trying to define what it means at different scales, rather than using a poorly defined concept of alignment as an uncompromising guide to roleplaying
chaotic full
But he is also constantly breaking the law, lying, violating contracts, and acting out his bizarre impulses and storms of rage.
Obviously Always Sunny characters are far too rich and complex to be contained within these silly alignments, except charlie who is obviously the purest chaotic neutral
You should ask them to cite sources.
Oh god.
Chaotic OCD.
I call it "Never Have Kids."
pleasepaypreacher.net
This is a Cassandra truth and nobody is going to listen to me but I'm going to say it anyway
If you must persist in this foolish alignment conversation, if you don't restrict it to talking about rangers and paladins and the ethics of killing goblins you're in for a bad time, [chat]
don't listen to me if you want, I'm not your real dad*
*so far as I know
Nah we are winners, the race was already won.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Heh.
Moorcock
According to this essay, yes.
I also think it is totes adorbs how texans go full-on controlling on what a chili is - much like how the french say there is only one way to make an omelette or a bechamel.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I think he might be the only one that could be aligned good. He doesn't really do much in the way of self interest ... mostly because he has so little self-esteem and probably doesn't even think he deserves good to come his way ... and makes most of his choices based on what's best for the waitress and Frank, and is usually one of the first people to feel a tinge of discomfort when something is obviously bad.
The problem is that he is too stupid and / or high to be able to correctly analyze the situation
Not so much chili, way more for brisket
I find it generally coalesces in a character towards the end of its run. Like after a while i figure out what my alignment is given past performance and what i think the character's philosophy is moving forwards.
Like after a while you realize your pirate king monk is probably lawful evil, and you just start to swing into it.
Reminds me of Ultima's Order and Chaos
*shht*
I'm trapp*shht*
bring me *shht*
red page
one of the better part of the planes in old D&D/AD&D and then perfected in planescape, was the personification of those concepts.
The blood war, and how archons and baatezu would work together because their adherence to the force of law was more compelling than their good or evil intentions... modrons being the physical embodiment of neutral machinery...
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
On average, this thread was careening by at warp 3.4
@Quid will create the new thread
@syndalis is backup