Somebody explain to me why alignment is "outdated."

see

>According to the people that popularized the system

Those would be the people who haven't been in charge of D&D for 30 years, right? It was mostly Arneson and Gygax's thing, and both were gone from TSR by 1987. D&D has had more "modern" rules for alignment (where alignment is the RESULT of your actions, not the cause) for significantly longer than not. Around three-quarters of its life, actually, ever since AD&D 2nd Edition.

In OD&D, B/X, and BECMI, alignment was LITERALLY just "Chaos or Law: which team are you on, if either?" That's it.

And even Gygax later came to regard two-axis alignment as a mistake.

>And even Gygax later came to regard two-axis alignment as a mistake.

Fucking wonderful, but I'm not some kind of Gygaxian worshipper. he did some pretty cool things. He also did some pretty bad things. Gygax wasn't the end-all be-all of D&D, his word is not absolute and hasn't been since he let TSR get bought out by the Bitch Who Shall Not Be Named and then walked out.

because "good" and "evil" are widely acknowledged subjective fallacies.

we used to have "elf slave wat do" and "kill orc babbies" threads left and fucking right back in the day which explicitly were shitting on alignment system being a spineless shitshow.

I think Gygax was awesome, though I liked most of Arneson's stuff better, honestly.

>(where alignment is the RESULT of your actions, not the cause)

Uh-huh. And I'm sure you've got an ironclad, entirely non-subjective system for determining which actions are Good and which are Evil. It's not like philosophers have been wrestling with that problem since the dawn of sapience, or anything. I'm sure a bunch of nerds pretending to be elves sussed it out, no problem!

Most D&D has pretty well defined Good and Evil due to gods n' demons and shit.

I like alignment. It's an easy indication of which character applications to ignore.

>The original alignment was about whether one was "aligned" with the cosmic forces of Chaos, those of Law, or neither.
I have never once played a game where that mattered.

>first post
>assblasted minmaxer who can't stand roleplaying a character

FUCKING KEK great work OP

Yeah I've never had more fun playing D&D than since we started rejecting all chaotic good characters. Fucking retarded cop-out alignment, good fucking riddance, learn to roleplay.

It's outdated because its become something it was never intended to be: Interpretive.

Original D&D was black and white when it came to alignment and what was 'good' and 'bad.' Things worked simpler in this sense because 'Chaotic evil sword' meant 'That's a bad guys sword' or 'thats a bad thing to do that bad people do'.

The descriptors were also used to sort of pair up things with your deities or alliance / faction groups as well as how people reacted to you - 'Chaotic evil' was for wandering nomads and beasts and mad man assholes and people would avoid your ass like the plague. 'Lawful evil' for evil organisations and 'Neutral evil' for the layers in-between - regardless they were all 'Bad' in the sense the were evil - they did evil things just in different ways.

Shades of good were vice versa to this and neutral was supposed to be the middle ground - with lawful neutral chaotic neutral intending to capture the various sides of the same coin. It was also meant to reflect on things like racial aspects like elves being whimsical and aloof, or dwarves being rigid and morality bound.

Then 3.X made alignment mechanical and the overall influx of new players brought with it a shitload of special snowflakedness where bullshit characters with concepts like "Garboni the Neutral Evil Bard" became mainstream as D&D parties went from generic swords and sorcery heroes to the manifestation of the fantasy equivalent of fucking Tumblr.

Also those guys who put chaotic evil on their sheets and basically spell out every reason I should reject their application.

>because "good" and "evil" are widely acknowledged subjective fallacies.

You can "regard" it however you like, but for the purposes of D&D, neither have ever been subjective. Two entire books were published that defined them: the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness.

In sum:

>Good
Helping others, charity, healing, personal sacrifice, worshiping good deities, casting good spells, mercy, forgiveness, bringing hope, redeeming evil

>Evil
Lying, cheating, theft, betrayal, murder, vengeance, worshiping evil gods and demons, animating the dead or creating undead, casting evil spells, damning or harming souls, consorting with fiends, creating evil creatures, using others for personal gain, greed, bullying and cowing innocence, bringing despair, tempting others (towards evil).

Each of those above has a paragraph or more of detail providing context. I could post screencaps of the entire sections if you like, or do you want to just accept that D&D has never featured subjective morality?

You don't like Jayne from Firefly?

Basically because it far over-simplifies moral issues

>Group so shallow that you can't handle chaotic evil characters.

Why even leave your xbox?

First, never watched the show.
Second, 99% of the time anyone who plays an evil alignment is just being an immature shithead.

>thinking that dividing all of morality into nine boxes is too restrictive makes you a bad roleplayer

>I can't handle any idea that challenges my preconceptions but to protect my fragile ego I pretend everyone else is the problem

>retarded minmaxer who can't fucking stand roleplaying a realistic character instead of using his character sheet as an extension of himself
>tries to pretend he's deep
and fails

Within the context of D&D, "evil" basically just means "selfish". Only in it for themselves. Pure Evil can still be convinced to help others and even put their lives at risk, but only if the reward is good enough.

Playing an Evil character just means admitting that you're going to be a mercenary and only in it for the gold/power/free iPads.

Simply put, its a rigid system for describing a subjective fluid concept.

It would be acceptable as a rule of thumb to easily broadly categorize people, factions or actions, if it weren't for the addition of mechanical enforcement. Spells that force alignment change, alignment based damage, alignment based classes, all forced a player to have to make sure they were a specific alignment and not shift out of it lest they be penalized. Creating a running argument in every group what constitutes what alignment.

If it weren't for the mechanical enforcement it would just be a broad category system for understanding in a general sense what a character or creature was all about.

>its a rigid system

If it was rigid, alignment change wouldn't be possible. But not only is it possible, the method for doing it is explicitly outlined in every DMG I've ever read.

>and that's how I justify doing whatever I want in character on a whim

kek, how pathetic

I wouldn't say it's outdated. It's just that after 40 years of study and a boom in tabletop game design, people better understand its narrative and mechanical implications.

Alignment can be great if you're playing a game about narrow moral archetypes and living up to them, but it doesn't say much about the character as an individual and can influence player behavior in unintended ways.

Except nobody does that. It's just pure bullshit crappy character design that ends with "But why are the guards arresting me? I was just doing what my character would do!"

>I was just doing what my character would do
One of those phrases that is 100% sure to never be true

Thank you for demonstrating why alignments are a shitty concept.

Political correctness. Or rather, the same process which brought about political correctness. Only for alignments.

It went from "You're a good guy who likes to follow the law" like a lot of us, who are sticklers to rules in real life to either "you may not act beyond the parameters of your alignment" or "you're a special snowflake who does not fit your alignment because although you're generally a law abiding person, you're also capable of jaywalking and therefore, you're all shades of gray of the rainbow".

Basically, people got too anal about it and are now trying to blame the system for being too simplistic. Not that it has to be the only system, or even if it's the best/good system. But people have made it worse than it is.

>Except nobody does that.

I do that, so, that's wrong. Sounds like you just have shitty players who would find a way to fuck up your game whether or not alignment was there.

I've seen people like this, but I don't understand how you got all that from . I understand the need to give characters a consistent sense of morality, but alignment tells you almost nothing about a character. I always just ask my players to describe their character's morality the same way they do the rest of their character's personality. So a player might write "My character is generally utilitarian, and has little respect for the law, honor, or ethics, but has a soft spot for children and will occasionally prioritize people they know over innocent strangers," rather than just "Chaotic Good".

Plus, there are so many conflicting interpretations of it, like whether Law refers to the literal law or a more general set of codified ethical rules, or whether someone who only cares about themselves and their friends/family is Evil, or whether it refers to intentions or actions, that it can easily lead to miscommunication and pointless arguments.

Pic related

Is this ironic? do you need a rule, called alignment, which is 9 options, to roleplay? that sounds more like rollplay

The only way alignment can be "outdated" is if the very first version of it can no longer be used to good effect.

The very first version of it had to do with being allied to cosmic forces of Law or Chaos. You were literally "Lawful" if you were an ally of a certain side, "Chaotic" if you were an ally of the other, or neither if you were neither.

Explain to me how that is inherently outdated and cannot have a place in a good RPG system.

The 10th doctor was really inconsistently written

Not really, he likes adventuring and saving people, can be extremely vindictive when provoked, has a guilt complex over his past, and changes his opinion on the laws of time over the course of his character arc.

>No second chances. That's the kind of man I am.
>kills dude
>kills lotsa people
>lets people die
>A MAN WHO NEVER WOULD

>From the very beginning there were better ways to represent morality, backstory, and personality than alignment.
In the very beginning it WASN'T morality, backstory, or personality. It was "us versus them" on a cosmic scale.
Read yourself some Moorcock.

Arneson liked throwing angry mobs at misbehaving players.
Gygax liked throwing bolts from the blue at misbehaving players.

Arneson also wrote more interesting content.
On the other hand, Arneson was way into high-legality.

>Original D&D was black and white when it came to alignment and what was 'good' and 'bad.'
Original D&D was Law and Chaos when it came to alignment. Mindflayers were part of Law.

So Stockholm syndrome and abusive relationships are "good" Stephanie Meyers please go

Different user here. I'm interested, post it. Please and thank you.

He always gave them the option to turn away though. Even going so far as to offer to find most of the species a new home if they just stopped trying to fuck over earth. He only killed them after they told him to fuck off. Honestly 11 is the only one from nu who that inconsistent on the whole killing vast swathes of people thing.

Fair enough. Gimme a few moments to get some screen caps together.

Not even that. Alignment should only serve as a two-word description for the other players of how they can expect your character to act, the general vibe he gives off. That's it.

Its not just DnD though, look at palladiums alignments they tried to be mire diverse than god evil neutral. But often Id find my self picking any hard boiled type char to be aberrant. Not because I thought the char evil just that keeping your word to a pack of vampires was retarded, not torturing someone for the missile codes was silly and stealing from some one I hate or was at war with seemed ok to me.
Same with anarchist, Following laws in a post apocalyptic setting seemed silly when 5 meters off the road fucking Trex and demonic slavers were roaming around. Its not that I wanted to go around punching babies and stealing bread from poor people.

My problem is PC's are often Saving The World(s) in which casevyou gotta break a few eggs type deal.
If I want fighting Interdimensional forces of evil and untold hoards of raging undead I might think about getting a warrent to kick a door and search for a clue.

Suppose you engage in a lot of lying, cheating, theft, betrayal, and murder, but it's all aimed at achieving a greater good. Your motivations are selfless and your actions genuinely do help a lot more people than you hurt. Are you good or evil?

Right, here we go.

Exalted: 1/4
Vile: 0/5

Right, here we go.

Exalted: 2/4
Vile: 0/5

You might be able to perform evil acts to achieve good ends, but that doesn't change that you, yourself, are knowingly performing evil and therefore you, yourself, are evil. Not to mention that any good you do will be irrevocably tainted by evil, which might corrupt it into something less than what you intended. Which, again, is an actual thing that can be measured in D&D. It's not abstract, it's tangible.

Exalted: 3/4
Vile: 0/5

Exalted: 4/4
Vile: 0/5

Exalted: 4/4
Vile: 1/5

Exalted: 4/4
Vile: 2/5

Exalted: 4/4
Vile: 3/5

Exalted: 4/4
Vile: 4/5

Lawful, chaotic and neutral are interesting.

but trying to define good and evil is just dumb.

Exalted: 4/4
Vile: 5/5

>Because Veeky Forums are A) Hipsters and B) Fucktards who think alignment is a straitjacket that dictates your every action rather than general disposition.

It is. It dictates how you should behave. If you don't follow it then you going outside your alignment.

Also what you think is good or evil doesn't meant others see it in that light.

Also humans aren't automatons that go down narrow straight path.

Alignment is bad and you should feel silly for defending it. There are better and simpler ways than using alignment.

>It dictates how you should behave.

No, it doesn't. How you behave dictates your alignment. Why in God's name do people not realize this? It's only been stated in every Player's Handbook since 2nd Edition came out in 1989 - nearly thirty years now.

> Somebody explain to me why alignment is "outdated."
People brought in the problems of moral relativism into the objective cosmic morality system.

Sorry. Can't hear you over all these well thought-out definitions.

Nice dubs tho.

Thank you user.
I'd mostly given up hope on Veeky Forums. Least some people around here get it.

> How you behave dictates your alignment.
Not the guy you responded to, bu the way it dictates your alignment is completely arbitrary and dependent on the DM. In the end, you are subject to DM's whims of what he considers lawful, chaotic, good or evil.
Just saying.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism#Criticism

There you go, pseud.

>widely acknowledged
>a minority of philosophers believe it

Jesus Christ you're such a cringeworthy fucking fedora dude, please just off yourself.

The best alignment system is Lamentations of the Flame Princess which takes the "side you're on" treatment above to its logical conclusion.

Alignment is your position in the cosmic flow or whatever you'd call it. It doesn't dictate your actions or morality whatsoever. Even someone like the Joker would be lawful if creating disorder and chaos was his cosmic destiny. And chaotic characters have the opposite of destiny: complete, vertiginous, terrifying freedom. Nothing you do matters.

But 99% of people aren't lawful or chaotic, and being exposed to magical events and the like can change your alignment.

Explain the origin and nature of good and evil without resorting to unfalsifiable assumptions or is-ought.

Since you're here posting on Veeky Forums instead of being the greatest philosopher since the Greeks, I'm gonna guess you can't.

>this entire thread

D&D alignments are fine in the standard D&D settings. Where Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are literal cosmic forces trying to get mortals to align with them. You can disagree with the heavens about what really is the right thing to do, but if you want to be on their team you have to play by their rules.

You just shouldn't try to use D&D style alignments in settings that don't work that way.

>No, it doesn't. How you behave dictates your alignment. Why in God's name do people not realize this?

>Also humans aren't automatons that go down narrow straight path.

to quote you: Why in God's name do people not realize this?

If you use alignment you go down rigid path.
If you decide your actions to dictate your alignment then you are jumping around and you have no specific alignment. And then there is no need for alignment.

like every alignment thread in history. People are still trying to defend this shit.

>"aligmentfag" talking about roleplaying
This made no sense even as a bait and you know it.

>If you use alignment you go down rigid path.

No, you don't. If you roll up a Chaotic Good character, but then act more Lawful, then your alignment may shift, per DM discretion, though the DM should always warn you when your alignment is starting to shift.

>And then there is no need for alignment.

Excepting for game mechanics that depend upon it. I actually as a DM once ran into this exact situation - one of my players was playing a Lawful Neutral samurai. However throughout the entire campaign he'd acted kind, put himself in danger to protect innocents, was charitable, and in all other ways behaved like a Good person, which I pointed out to him. So towards the end of the campaign I told him his character's alignment shifted to Lawful Good. I gave my reasons, and the player accepted it.

...final boss of the campaign was a Blackguard and, thereby, had Smite Good. Mwuahahahaha.

>then you are jumping around and you have no specific alignment

Someone who keeps jumping from one alignment to the next is most likely Chaotic Neutral.

>Evil
>murder
So all PCs are evil by proxy?

Murder is not the same thing as killing. It's defined here:

>No, it doesn't. How you behave dictates your alignment
If you're a paladin it doesn't.

So,here you have it.This is why people don't use alignments. Because objective morality turns roleplaying into grindfest.

Vlad the Impaler is seen in Romania as a hero and one of their greatest rulers. We don't need to point out in what light he was seen by ottomans. You can't slap a twodimensional alignment and make this work. You will get many contradictions.

Also adventures are going around killing other sentient beings. They are only doing it for profit. With that kind of logic every adventurer is neutral evil.

If you're a Paladin you - the player - have made a conscious choice to play a character who follows a specific alignment (properly, Lawful Good) dogmatically. You don't get to complain, any more than a Catholic priest gets to complain that he doesn't get to have sex without breaking his oaths.

Reminds me of vampire the masquerade humanity rules. With the way it was described every players is around humanity 2-3. best case scenario humanity 4. And they should start at humanity 7.

>You can't slap a twodimensional alignment and make this work

You can, and it does.

>They are only doing it for profit.

Maybe you're an asshole like that, but not every character adventures simply for their own benefit. And, Hell, my character only took two lives between levels 1 and 8; one was an accident, and one was in self-defense while saving a village from marauding cultists.

Humanity in WoD isn't based on whether or not you perform given sins, but rather, whether you recognize that they're sins and that you shouldn't have done them and feel remorse.

Having said that, yeah, it kind of backfired. The intent was a system that represents a character's slow decline into monstrosity; the reality is that it gives players a mechanical point at which their characters no longer feel bad about killing people.

>Maybe you're an asshole like that,

and maybe you are deluded. I don't care about your single campaign that (I highly doubt) had high moral standard. D&D is about group of fuckers who decided to go around killing brigands and other sentient beings to get their stuff. You can tell yourself you are doing it for your family, your country or whatever. That doesn't change the way the game was made. I bet those brigands, enemy soldiers, orc, gnolls etc. have some reasons why they are fighting that doesn't necessarily differ from yours but they for some fucking reason have Evil alignment while you have good alignment. And then we go back to "alignments are arbitrary" and why use the useless system like that.

>D&D is about group of fuckers who decided to go around killing brigands and other sentient beings to get their stuff

Okay, Gary Gygax's Long-Lost Son, whatever. Clearly 'm not going to get through to your 70s-era, basically-a-video-game take on D&D, so I'm just out now.

Alignment used to back up a class, a character's story, or the way a player would roleplay that character's actions. Now, everyone thinks it's too restricting and specific and can change on a whim, so instead of playing with the simple rule or changing the system, everyone just ditched it.

>Palladium Alignments

I love good old Kevin's rant about "No Neutrals! REEEEEEEEEEE!" in every one of his books.

take care. latch on simple stuff. It is hard to make counterargument on harder parts.

>I bet those brigands, enemy soldiers, orc, gnolls etc. have some reasons why they are fighting that doesn't necessarily differ from yours but they for some fucking reason have Evil alignment while you have good alignment.

You clearly showed me error of my ways and how alignment actually work.

What if you're doing good for evil reasons? What if you're doing good, but the end result is net evil?