Alignments suck, we all know alignments suck, having people with a little nametag that says "hello, I'm evil" is dumb

Obviously communism doesn't work IRL at all, but the principle that you use your earnings to look after others is what I'm going for here.
Of course, none of these equalities are perfect because D&D is a fucking game with super simplified worldviews. Any attempt to garner deeper meaning about it is worth as much time as using Monopoly to model Wall Street.

>>Left = Have your labors taken at gun point = Selfless

Technically, Communism is Selfless as the self is obliterated by the State. It is not selfless in the moral sense, it utterly immoral.

>literally defining rainbow-haired progressivism as DnD's version of Good

Whatever drugs you're on, I want some. Sidenote, yours is going to be the post that ruins this thread, I guarantee it, and all because you couldn't keep your "muh right side of history" retardation in your overstuffed sweatpants.

>wanting to reenfranchise impoverished people
>not selfless
try harder

Perhaps I should have said Socialism instead of Communism.

>Obviously communism doesn't work IRL at all, but the principle that you use your earnings to look after others is what I'm going for here.

Except that that's inherently apolitical. It's FORCING others to hand over their profits to those who haven't been as successful or lucky that defines leftism, not charity. There is nothing moral in altruism at the point of a bayonet, at least in Western and Semitic thought.

OP ruined the thread by posting it

This is an alignment thread, there's nothing to ruin in the first place

>making "good" and "evil" objective factions is dumb
I don't disagree with you, but that's how DnD works, and it's the only thing that makes the setting unique

Remember that in this world, Good and Evil are objective forces that can be measured as easily as one measures heat or entropy. They are only tangentially related to the moral stances that we consider to be good or evil.

Good and Evil are treated no differently in DnD. Being Good and being Evil are both perfectly valid moral outlooks for mortals. Both options have gods and afterlives and philosophies and all the other things you need rom an alignment. This is why you can have whole nations of Evil beings, something that just would not work in our world.

Personally, I really like how DnD implies that Good ≠ good, and Evil ≠ evil. It's a unique detail that exists in literally no other setting.

The two axis political spectrum is literally worse than d&d alignment at representing its subject

Far worse

Reenfranchising them with your own surplus is arguably laudable even if it only provides temporary relief compared to, say, opening up a factory and hiring all of the local poor and paying them a fair wage with generous benefits. Reenfranchising them with someone ELSE's property, however, is theft plain and simple.

>Wanting to re-enfranchise impoverished people by de-enfranchising successful people.
>Not wanting them to build their own successful communities and give them a sense of pride and ownership for their work

At least try.

>He's a Libertarian Paladin of St. Ronald Paul
>She's a Social Democrat Monk of Grandmaster Sanders
>Together they fight government encroachment onto citizens' rights

I'd fucking watch it.

The main problem with the alignment system isn't that it's inaccurate (although that's true), it's the fact that it's guaranteed to result in retarded arguments about what it means. Your system makes that even worse because people have a lot more personal investment in politics than they do in abstract ideas of "good" and "evil".

Same thing. Government in business.

this

Yes you should have. Marx fucked up socialism and stunted its growth for 100 years. It is laughably behind other political theories in terms of development.

>muh bootstraps
>the battlecry of every failed cuckservative fiscal policy ever

It wouldn't have helped in the slightest. Socialists are just Communists who've never had to work in the fields or factories.

You're talking about a specific edition as though it informs every edition before or since. Please stop being an autist. 3.5 is dead. It's dead, unmourned, and its grave has been pissed on until it became a foetid swamp with a lone rotted marker shaped like an ivory tower as its only sign of ever having existed.

>Remember that in this world, Good and Evil are objective forces that can be measured as easily as one measures heat or entropy. They are only tangentially related to the moral stances that we consider to be good or evil.

Then there is no point in calling them Good or Evil at all.

>and it's the only thing that makes the setting unique

When I think of things that make DnD unique, I don't think of spergy nerds' attempts to quantify morality, I, and I would hazard most people, think of things like owlbears, dragons denoted by scale color, paladins with their holy smite ability, and various stuff about the way magic and magic-users in DnD work (like certain famous spells and the different schools of magic and the difference between Wizards and Sorcerers).

It made America very successful until the importation of millions of "tired, poor, huddled masses" expecting a handout and the transformation of black culture into part of the gibsmedat class made bootstrap-lifting taboo.

This. Every Socialist I know is an effete Eurocuck or a sheltered college student who wants to play "moderate" too much to call himself a Communist while surviving on daddy's paycheck.

It's really funny that people will defend the rich's right to their money even when choking on their own blood.

>moderate right paladin

Bottom line is majority of socialist types have no real means to compete in the free market. They have either studied and worked towards an industry that is over saturated, niche or just plain unprofitable or have not been equipped with the right mindset and skill set in which to compete.

Thus their answer is to turn to the Government to provide them with the things they are unable to obtain in the free market by themselves.

There has always, and always will be, people vastly more wealthy than yourself. But the free market provides every opportunity for you to join the highest levels of wealth and success anywhere in the world to this point now.

Take PBS, they say cutting funding will destroy them. Take their product to the free market. If people enjoy it, approve of it and desire it, you will make money and the company will grow. If you must be forced to rely on handouts and tax payer money you do not have a product that is wanted, desired or enjoyed.

Wait, this dude was chilean?

When I said unique, I meant "cliché." DnD started the trope of colour-coded dragons and smiting paladins, but that's all been copied. this shit hasn't

This is not something that is unique to 3e. There have been Outsiders fighting proxy wars on the Prime Material in every edition of DnD (The Temple(s) of Elemental Evil is a good example of this).
Also, enough with the Ivory Tower meme. Monty Cook made that shit up as an excuse for his inability to design a good game system.

There is a point to calling it Good and Evil. Tangential relation does not mean complete seperation. Angels are still gonna be good and charitable beings (to our mortal perceptions) most of the time, it's just that they'll have no qualms about slaughtering to the last Goblin women and children who will one day aid the forces of Evil.
This is because they are almost lovecraftian beings who are literally the physical manefestation of concepts; the higher-dimensional code of the universe that has manifested as a 3-dimentional being in physical space.

No, that is the flag of Texas. The Chilean flag has a blue corner, not a blue stripe.

Objective Alignment was only a major setting point in 3e-3.5e.

Also, other stuff having been copied doesn't matter. It's still DnD's. Other games having white or blue dragons that breathe ice or lightning doesn't mean that's not an iconic DnD thing.

You're choosing the shittiest, dumbest part of a shitty, dumb edition and touting it as defining DnD because making Good and Evil into team jerseys is easier for your deformed autist mind than actually analyzing complex issues of morality that have evaded humanity's smartest exemplars of philosophical thought for thousands of years. You're also injecting a fat load of headcanon in there given that a lot of Outsiders were pretty straightforward and non-Lovecraftian.

>forgive Monte Cook

Never~

Why everyone forget the glorious FATAL alignment system

I quite like that actually

>having people with a little nametag that says "hello, I'm evil" is dumb.

No it's not.

It's great for classic black-and-white fairy tale games. And we all love that shit, don't we?

Anyone trying to apply alignments to morally grey and ambiguous games is a fucking idiot.

Well, in case you didn't notice: It's the D&D alignment system with new names.

That's a crock of shit. Show me where 3.5 touted objective alignment that other editions didn't.

It's iconic, but could you really claim that it's "unique" anymore?
Regardless, we're arguing over semantics here.

I'm avoiding it because dealing with alignment in a normal way means that it can't fit in a 3-by-3 chart. I don't want my character's reasonable and nuanced morality to be constrained to a stupid chart, but I still need to have the chart if I want to use a big chunk of DnD's rules and setting. By divorcing the concepts of Alignment and morality, I get to keep the best of both.
And Outsiders were always lovecraftian. They live immortal lives without eating or sleeping or breathing in worlds where everything is infinite and distance is meaningless. They are not flesh and blood.

Nigger I never told you to forgive Monte Cook. Don't do that.
I told you not to BELIEVE Monte Cook, because he's a bad liar and won't take responsibility for his mistakes. His whole argument is basically "Ha ha, I made 3e bad ON PURPOSE!"

Alignments suck, right? Wrong! Alignments are great, you suck!

And that is why America is the best place in the world, instead of a borderline-third-world country where poor people all think they're about to get rich by their hard work alone, reject charity because "muh socialism!", and are one accident or illness away from personal bankrupcy.

This thread sucks big hairy balls.
I won't even bother replying to bait.

wwops

>Right = Capitalist = Keep what you earn = individualist
>Left = Communist = Share your cash = collectivist

As bad as alignments are...
I'd rather have strictly enforced alignments in my games than allow anyone to poison them with /pol/ shit.

It is not sharing, it is taken. By force.

Would you say taxes, too, are taken from you by force?

What if we just, I dunno, described our characters' personalities with words?

What happens if you stop paying them?

And because of this, taxes are a bad thing?

Never said they were good, nor bad. My point was it was taken by force. If you refuse to pay what others deem you should give them, you are threatened with jail, fines and further force up to and including death if you continue to refuse.

The only good-aligned political system is anarchy.

Any laws being imposed upon you are evil. Let people decide for themselves - they know better than some government high up in its ivory tower.

You are no longer welcome in the society that you should pay taxes to. Taxes are basically a fee for living in a society.
Feel free to find an uninhabited island/planet/asteroid/underwater cave without any infrastructure and live without paying taxes there.

So why do we hate those who pay the highest fee to live in the society they directly help build? And why do we give a free pass to those who pay the least or nothing and detract from the society they live within?

>mfw this entire thread
Stop trying to impose morality on the social contract. It's a tool of mankind, and can be used for good or evil.

This. Any of the four corners can be good, and were probably made with good intentions, but they are mostly used for evil anyway because humans as a whole are selfish fuck-ups.

99% of the unemployed means nothing. 99% of 10 is 9 people, for them 9 we can pay them to dance for our amusement.

Because the state is a non-profit that is trying to get as many people as possible to use its services. This is true even for ethnostates, as their goal is "enforce the social contract of X group of people."

The way to get the most people to take part in the non-profit's services is for those who can afford to pay more than those who cannot.

Machines are ensuring we need to do less and less work by the decade.

What would you say we should do to the 99% of the unemployed, say, hundred years into the future? What should we do to all the non-robot "lazy bastards" who can't find work because turns out they don't need to work? Should we just throw them all out of the society and leave it to the robots and the one percent?

That's both.

>he thinks hte inherent nature of Man is evil
gay

>Because the state is a non-profit

>alignments AND politics

Look, the ONLY thing you have to do if you want to have functioning alignment is to alter it to fit your campaign world. That's it. Is it a world where the theme is good vs evil? Then make it that. Is it about nature vs nurture? Then make it that. Is it about tomatoes vs bananas? Then fucking make a tomato and banana alignment system. That's it. That's all there is. Now stop making fucking threads about it yes, I know that won't happen.

>murdering anyone without consequence

>good

Okay buddy.

You know perfectly well that's not what anarchy means.

If your definition is "any rules imposed whatsoever" that's exactly what it means.

Not that guy, but you seem to think that "no rules = no consequences", which is simply not true.

If you murder someone, the neighbors won't need any rules or laws to beat the shit out of you.

That is nobody but young college students definition of anarchy. No, or limited, Government interference in lives of people.

It means murder is legal as long as youre bigger than the other guy, yes. Without a rule consequences are completely arbitrary and meaningless.

You never had any limitation on them doing that because they hate your skin colour either.

Because then you're bringing politics into things. Better to go with the MTG colors, since none of them are strictly good or evil and don't have as many connotations.

If yiure going the "full retard/ancap" version it means you die whenever the local warlord decides he wants your harem of poly wives, bitcoins or drug paraphernalia.

The concept of legality loses its meaning in the anarchic world, because there are no laws to enforce. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue.

How is that different to the law now? If you get caught with a harmless substance, there is disproportionate force applied to you, if you are caught with the means to defend yourself against anything you are dealt with far great force.

Put it this way, the closer you are to government, the more accountable it is.

This is happening now, laws are being selectively enforced.

Right. Nothing is illegal so the only thing stopping anyone from being killed is arbitrary sentiment of neighbors. And it's not like lynch mobs were ever a problem.

As opposed to now when the only thing stopping anyone from being killed is arbitrary sentiment of some lord, mayor, president, or tyrant?

>the only thing stopping anyone from being killed is arbitrary sentiment of neighbors
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting upon the dinner menu.
Freedom is the well-armed lamb challenging the results of said vote.

this

>if you are caught with the means to defend yourself against anything you are dealt with far great force
Only in states like Commiefornia. Most parts of the US are fine with gun ownership, though you're still probably going to get yourself killed if you try to wave a gun around while being arrested.

Not an argument.

Theres a reason "rule of law" is a thing.

That version of "Freedom" is one well armed wolf and how ever many lambs he can eat regardless of votes.

While I love deeply my adopted country of the US, that is rare and unheard of in the rest of the West.

>That version of "Freedom" is one well armed wolf and how ever many lambs he can eat regardless of votes.

Until he meets another wolf who's less inclined on eating lambs. A sheepdog, perhaps.

Then maybe the wolves and the sheepdogs all agree that it's better for everyone if they all tried to get along and not fuck around so much.

>Drug laws being ignored
>Immigration laws being ignored
>Riots, assaults, attacks, violence, incitement and worse all being ignored for blacks
>Same for liberals and antfa

After 3.shit you're free of having a "big chunk" of DnD's rules and setting tied to objective alignment. Paladins don't even need to be LG anymore.

Everything else in your post is spergrage and you should go take your meds.

Its cute that you imagine one well armed guy with arbitrary power will be totally uncorrupt with no checks and balances but a government that actually has accountability can't be trusted.

it would be more efficient to use their brainpower/bio-energy to power the robots

So the Matrix but if you're rich enough you can pay to not be a bio-battery

One well-armed guy has a whole lot less power on his fingertips than a president of just about any country, and he will personally know his neighbors instead of sticking himself into a manor with no one normal to interact with. Also he's generally fat and lazy and loses breath when he so much as climbs upstairs.

He's much less likely to start shit.

>It's cute that you think putting people who's private connections, favors, networks and obligations in charge of anything is better than a man who has been int he public light for the majority of his life.

Right, there are no historical examples of local well armed gangs behaving badly.

So, how many times have the local police randomly raped and beaten you personally?

And your government is keeping them perfectly in check right now.

Again, anarchy doesn't mean a lack of consequences.

In fact, in this particular instance, the cop is far more likely to get more than a paid vacation or some shit.

>This is happening now, laws are being selectively enforced
that's just human nature though. Laws only have power inasmuch as people choose to follow them.

>all politics are /pol/

That's how the nazis win.