Have you ever seen alignments being used in non-retarded way?

I'm with you. I liked the OD&D single axis Law-Neutral-Chaos alignment, where you were picking a side in a cosmic war, but ever since AD&D added the Good-Neutral-Evil axis there's been this growing tension between the idea of alignment as a cosmic force (with mechanical backing) and alignment as a simple descriptor of character actions. 5e has finally stripped out all the mechanical parts and made alignment into a limp noodle that serves no purpose at all.
I mean, I guess it's handy for DMs to remember what an NPC is likely to do, but it's very limited in that regard and not terribly helpful -- I'd rather use English, and write stuff like "greedy" or "vainglorious" on an index card than try to remember what flavor of "chaotic neutral" this guy was supposed to be.

The entire Monster product line belongs in Chaotic Evil

>the official drink of edgy middle schoolers and cholas
>all of them taste terrible
>absolutely terrible for you

>he doesn't sip

LE and NE don't make any sense.
Well spoken.

>a limp noodle that serves no purpose at all.
>what is roleplaying

Roleplaying is a thing that doesn't need an "alignment" indicator on your sheet to happen. If you have to look at your sheet to remind yourself of what your character would do, then something is wrong.

>LE and NE don't make any sense.

NE is easily explained in light of his viewing pity as something of a vice; he considered pity to be a contemptible thing to feel.

Have you ever seen Nietzsche used in a non retarded way? I'm not busting his philosophical chops, but when he has been used OUTSIDE of philosophy, has it ever made any sense?

>alignments are personality
This is the retarded way to use alignment.

If you need alignment to roleplay your character than you're automatically a shit roleplayer by default. You can screech autistically about how that isn't so but that's the reality of the situation.

No he's saying the concept of God (or a particular concept in this case) has died and has bettered man. So if there's a benevolent higher power wouldn't it want the betterment of man?

What no one understands is that alignment is really meant for the bad roleplayers who want a quick summary of how their character thinks and acts.

Alignment is not a roleplaying mechanic, it's a roleplaying inhibitor.

But then why not just replace alignments with "personality" or some shit?

He's saying God literally died of pity. We made him cringe so hard it gave him a divine aneurysm.

Will you kill an innocent person to achive/get what you want?
Yes-->Evil
No-->Good
Depends/maybe-->Neutral

Do you have a moral code or adjust to the laws of the local society?
Yes-->Lawful
No-->Chaotic
Depends/maybe-->Neutral

If the presence of the alignment mechanic has any effect on your roleplaying, for good or ill, that's either a sign that you're playing a bad edition or are a bad roleplayer.

>If the presence of the alignment mechanic has any effect on your roleplaying, for good or ill, that's either a sign that you're playing a bad edition or are a bad roleplayer.

Then it doesn't need to exist. It is literally pointless. You have just explained perfectly why alignment should be removed from D&D. It serves no mechanical or roleplaying purpose, and by your own words, if it does, you are a bad RPer.

So 5e just keeps alignment as dead weight. Which is stupid. So it's a bad rule and should be removed.

Ever since 4e, WotC has been TERRIFIED of changing anything about the way that D&D works, lest the 3aboos screech autistically and complain on their forums about how it's "not muh D&D."

So even though it serves no purpose, we still have alignments, we still have caster supremacy, and we still have trap options, because that's what makes it D&D apparently.

>answering "yes" and "no" to an "or" question
Im chuckling

>In other words it's just an outdated legacy mechanic that has no reason to exist besides nostalgia.
>Oh wait, you described the entirety of Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition.
Fuck me, he's right.

>Ever since 4e, WotC has been TERRIFIED of changing anything about the way that D&D works, lest the 3aboos screech autistically and complain on their forums about how it's "not muh D&D."

It has nothing to do with 3aboos and everything to do with D&D's identity. Changing D&D to improve it, has already been done better, by game designers with much more talent than Merals and his crew. They know they can't compete, so they don't try. It's a smart move on their part, because D&D is a shitty game and fixing it means destroying what makes it D&D. It's core identity lies in its shittiest mechanics, like alignment. I'd call AC a shitty mechanic, but it is actually pretty decent at what it does despite not being the standard "lol armor as DR" shit that most people are used to. Hit dice? that's full fucking retarded. Does anyone even roll for monster hp anymore outside of OSR games? Not to mention the D&D skill system has ALWAYS sucked. D&D 5e has a "good" skill system because it entirely removed the skill system. The game is just heaps of shit upon shit. Don't blame 3aboos, because 4aboos are the reason we still have healing surges, and AD&D grognard fucks are the reason we have feats as an optional rule, because forcing them in the game might hurt their faggy feelings even though most of them still play AD&D anyway. Every time I see an interview where some grognard beardfuck rambles about how D&D 5e "reawakened his interest in the game" I wish cancer on the old twat.

I like using alignments purely for mechanical stuff, like spells. Say the universe has determined that a spell is Evil-aligned and thus it is easier to cast the spell when you yourself are Evil or the thing you are using it for is.
Of course, since people are living and thinking things, whether they count as Evil depends on their own opinion. Especially nice if you use abrahamic mythology with the original sin (only beings with the power to discern Good and Evil can determine that for themselves, everyone else defaults to their race's standard).

The important thing is that nobody is forced to do things that may or may not apply to the labels 'Good' or 'Evil,' you just incentivise it slightly.

...

>Of course, since people are living and thinking things, whether they count as Evil depends on their own opinion.
You realise this would make Hitler Good and a battered woman Evil?

That's what makes it perfect. If you tell anybody, especially here, that anybody is 'objectively evil,' it will end in a riot. The system is so obviously incomplete that there's no room left to argue.
To still make it interesting, there are the mechanical effects. Hitler would have problems casting a bunch of murder-related spells because the universe says they're Evil, but he thinks himself Good. The battered woman gets bonuses to cast a curse of revenge because the spell is Evil, and so she thinks she is.

D&D's "identity" began and ended with 3.PF.

In earlier editions, the mechanics were rough around the edges but they still made sense for the sort of game that TSR wanted to create. Combat was lethal, so characters didn't receive a lot of HP and there were ways to bypass different armor types. Magic was powerful, but it also had a shitload of roadblocks that prevented mages from just ending encounters without the aid of a martial to protect them. etc. etc.

Then 3.PF came out, everyone and their grandma played it, and now whenever people think "D&D" their initial thoughts are on the way that 3.PF handled its conventions.

4e was WotC's attempt to fix most of 3.PF's bullshit but then the 3aboos screeched and jumped ship to PF, even though PF somehow made 3.5's problems WORSE!

Then we get to 5e, that's so safe and non-threatening that nothing stands out and everyone loves like because it's flavorless rice that's so rules-lite that you can "make it anything you want."

That's literally fucking retarded.

Hitler could use any murder spell he wanted under the caveat that beings he was murdering were evil and deserved to die for corrupting the government and leaving his people to rot.

On the other hand, a battered woman would end up in a feedback loop where she can get revenge because she's using evil spells but the only reason she's evil is because she believes she's evil which is what allows her to get revenge by casting evil spells.

What happens if we're talking about a child with low self-esteem? Is he suddenly evil because he wants the bullies to stop taking his lunch money?

God, you're stupid.

>God, you're stupid.

That's... my point, in fact. Or rather, that's the sentiment I want from my players - the system that is part of the universe is not something that works with human morality.
Hitler has problems casting spells that are Evil 'by definition,' spells the universe/God tags as Evil (like murder-curse). If he finds a spell the universe/God thinks is Good that still kills jews (probably something God taught Solomon), he could use that better.
And the woman gets bonuses to her casting if in that moment, she believes her using of that curse is immoral, exactly.
The child may still think of himself as Good or Evil independet of low self-esteem, and he doesn't 'become' a good person or an evil person by doing so.

What's stopping Hiltler from just dominating the jews and forcing them to walk into the ovens? It's not like mind-control is listed as evil by the universe in spite of the implications.

So why are there "Evil" spells at all under this system? Wouldn't Hitler consider casting Adolf's Greater Gas Cloud a Good thing too, seeing how it aligns with his ideology perfectly?

Wouldn't the most truly evil people, in fact, be the most Good under this subjective alignment system, every single time? You can only commit real atrocities if you can justify them to yourself.

Objective alignments may be problematic but subjective alignments are completely unworkable.

The axis, hopefully. Also the fact that he is not a smart man. Having to find a way around spell restrictions is something casters may have to deal with, yes.

The spells have alignments because they don't exist for beings with a morality that isn't exactly God's - that is in my setting, at least. Essentially, the alignment of the person depends on the person (unless they don't have the original sin, like angels), but the spell's alignment depends on the unverse's/God's whim. What is an atrocity and what is not is judged by God if it is a spell (not the specific use of a spell or the occasion or what it is used for - only the spell itself), but if it is what a person does, people have to judge like in real life.
After all, subjective alignment is how our world works, right? How spells are classified is basically a curveball. It's like what people in biblical ages thought was good and evil.

>The axis, hopefully. Also the fact that he is not a smart man. Having to find a way around spell restrictions is something casters may have to deal with, yes.
If he's capable of casting spells, at least one of his mental stats would be high enough to let him get around the spell restrictions. Hell, Hitler would probably be a Sorcerer or a Bard considering how good his charisma was to sway an entire country into amassing systematic genocide.

Even regular D&D has entire Evil societies where Evil acts are considered "good" with a small g. Same how in real life different societies have different values. There's just no underlying framework to objectively align them with Good or Evil (as far as we can tell). But if there is, like the universe or God telling you something is Evil, then it's hard to maintain that you're actually still Good when the universe itself objects to that.

You're all wrong, the best way to do this is to remove neutrality, refine definitions, and add even more alignments. The best way is to make things way more complicated.

Neutrality is stupid, especially how it's defined in D&D. True neutrality is basically just a weird pseudo-lawful. So get rid of it. Instead of neutral each character leans toward one axis more than the other. So an LG character can be LLG or LGG.

Law: External. My moral code comes from an external, objective source. Anyone who doesn't live the way I live is capital-W Wrong and in need of correction.

Chaos: Internal. My moral code comes from within me and is not objective. I might clash with people who disagree with it, chaos isn't relativism, but I don't ascribe metaphysical Truth to my morals.

Good: Protective. Power should be used to help those without power.

Evil: Abusive. Those with power can use it as they please, those without power are to be used.

----------

LLG is a crusader who seeks out and punishes those who harm innocents without mercy. A vengeful paladin is LLG.
LGG is a protector who aids victims and shows mercy on evildoers. A local cleric is LGG.

CCG is a free spirit who thinks people should do their own thing as long as it doesn't harm others. A kind wanderer is CCG.
CGG is selfless and goes out of his way to help other people without expecting them to follow his particular morality. A woodland healer is CGG.

LLE is iron-fisted, abuses the weak, and would see his mandate enforced worldwide. A slaver lord is LLE.
LEE is a social darwinist who sees oppression as the natural order of things. Altruism is unnatural and wrong. Ayn Rand is LEE.

CCE is selfish and abusive and takes what he wants from those who can't stop him. A ruthless street thug is CCE.
CEE is malicious for its own sake and not a realistic alignment for a sane human. A night hag is CEE.

Don't actually use this.

I think the nine-square alignment grid is basically a simplification of what would in "reality" be a continuous spectrum. Your sub-categorisations could still fit into it somewhere. One Lawful Good doesn't have to be the other. Neutral is just there to capture those parts of the spectrum that don't lean strongly towards one side in particular.

I like your interpretations of both axes, however.

Okay, I am convinced, my BBEG is Mind-Control Hitler.

I always thought adventurers could use a little more destiny-defiance. Things like an objective morality pushed on you by the universe/game system are things to be overcome. I like that, though it is ultimately my own taste.
tl;dr Tell the universe it is wrong about Good and Evil.

Breaking objective morality could be the basis of an epic quest in defiance of the gods, I guess.

I remember learning once about an anthropological distinction between shame societies, and guilt societies. Quoted from wikipedia because I am lazy:

>Shame is a reaction to other people's criticism, an acute personal chagrin at our failure to live up to our obligations and the expectations others have of us. In true shame oriented cultures, every person has a place and a duty in the society. One maintains self-respect, not by choosing what is good rather than what is evil, but by choosing what is expected of one.

>Guilt is a feeling that arises when we violate the absolute standards of morality within us, when we violate our conscience. A person may suffer from guilt although no one else knows of his or her misdeed; this feeling of guilt is relieved by confessing the misdeed and making restitution. True guilt cultures rely on an internalized conviction of sin as the enforcer of good behavior, not, as shame cultures do, on external sanctions. Guilt cultures emphasize punishment and forgiveness as ways of restoring the moral order; shame cultures stress self-denial and humility as ways of restoring the social order.

I thought these mapped rather well to D&D's Law-Chaos axis and Good-Evil axis, respectively. Lawful people are all about maintaining their honour, fulfilling their obligations, taking their rightful place in society or the natural order of things. Good people have a strong moral compass, a conscience that drives them to do the right thing. Chaos and Evil are simply the absence of either one of those. Of course, in real life these also exist on a spectrum, or in mixed forms, as in the familiar alignment grid.

In brushing up on this shit I also stumbled upon a third classification, that of a fear society, but this doesn't seem to have as much academic backing and seems to be an addition to the anthropological model by Christian missionaries, who hold that societies respond to sin either with shame, guilt, or fear (again, on a spectrum). Where people in guilt societies strive for innocence and people in shame societies strive for honour, so people in fear societies strive for power, which represents freedom from fear and the ability to instil fear in others. Again, I'm not sure about the scientific backing for this, but I think this sort of society could fit neatly in the CE corner of our alignment grid.

That is, from what I gather a fear society is a sort of "might makes right" kind of deal where hierarchies are fragile and based on who holds the power at the moment. Kinda like how the Monster Manual describes the Abyss.

I also quite like this exploration of "real" alignments:

easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html

Idk why you expected a fa/tg/uy to go on Veeky Forums

Is that the Sipsons?

Oh look, it's one of those people.