Is there any sign more obvious that a player is going to be That Guy than refusing to pick an alignment for their character?
"I don't want to pick an alignment"
"Why?"
"Uh... so I can do whatever I wan- wait I mean because alignments aren't realistic"
If you hate using alignment you are chaotic evil in real life. You don't have to be a murderer to be a spastic little shit who thinks that being bad is fun.
Nobody loves alignments more than that guy; he can abuse them to justify his bullshit.
I'm afraid I have to tell you that you may be that guy.
>"Uh... so I can do whatever I wan-
You can do whatever you want anyway, it's just that if you continuously do things more in line with an alignment other than what's on your character sheet, then you're going to shift towards that.
Actions inform alignment, not the other way around. When creating your character, the alignment you write down is a statement about how you intend to play the character (the same way your race and class are), but it's not a straitjacket - you can play the character a different way if that's better for you. And then your alignment will shift, and that's all.
>Is there any sign more obvious that OP is a faggot than by making shitty bait
>"I don't want to make a thoughtful post"
>"Why?"
>"Uh... because I want attention without exerting effo- wait I mean because, no wait I'm just a sack of shit"
>That Guy
>loves roleplaying mechanics
Um... try again sweetie
Abusing them.
You never heard, "I'm just playing my alignment!?"
That isn't an abuse of the alignment system, that's an abuse which he's trying to justify with the alignment system.
You might as well have him say "but that's what they would do in this time period!!!" and then say he's abusing history.
Alignment isn't meant to be used to justify bullshit, it's meant for guidelines as stated in Using alignment for that bullshit purpose is abuse of alignment.
So now the subject of any lie a liar tells is what is allowing the liar to lie?
"but I just did it because I was hungry!" = abusing hunger?
"But it's what my alignment says" isn't an excuse because actions inform alignment, not the other way around.
The proper phrasing is "but it's what my character would do".
This 100%.
You can do whatever you want in game, your alignment will simply shift along with your actions.
It's absolutely okay to let someone start the game with no alignment and then observe how his character acts in game, to then decide which alignment most fits that character.
I'm afraid that you're That Guy in this case, OP.
Well, no, a character should always start with an alignment so as to satisfy certain gameplay mechanical effects for which alignment is important (this is more necessary in earlier editions, but it still pops up from time to time even in 5e). If a player isn't certain how they want their character to be from the get-go, they should default to True Neutral.
>true neutral is in the middle of the alignment spectrum so choosing it means that you didn't choose anything yet
Wow when will wotc shit leave?
The purpose of hunger is to compel you to eat food. If you eat a shit instead, then yes, that might be considered an abuse of hunger.
That's not how True Neutral works.
If my player isn't sure yet how his character will act, I'll let him play for a while and then decide, and if one of the alignment-related mechanical problems arise I'll rule something out because I'm not a shit DM.
It's not in the middle, it's apart from the good-evil and law-chaos spectrums.
So if someone has no idea about what alignment should be, I think it's decent advice to say they're amoral or apolitical for the time being.
You think there's somewhere else they should default to? Like I said, a character needs an alignment for gameplay purposes in most editions of D&D. Until a player knows for sure, True Neutral seems like the best option.
> I'll rule something out because I'm not a shit DM.
I will guarantee you that whatever it is, it'll be mechanically identical to the character being True Neutral anyway.
I'm not saying that it's how True Neutral works. I'm saying that until a player knows for certain what they want their character to be, True Neutral is the best option.
They should default to the alignment their character is taking at character creation and then they should roleplay it.
If they are incapable of roleplaying an alignment besides "my alignment is whatever I'm doing at the moment lol!" they are trash and not welcome in the game.
>true neutral
>amoral
>apolitical
Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Is that how you live your life? You chose an axiomatic and moral axis and then you've always acted 100% in accordance with that ethos? Or do you kind of just do whatever you want and try to stay to what you think is ok?
Yes. Sorry degenerate, human beings are moral creatures.
What does that mean? And by this, am I to assume that you're lawful good? And that you, therefore, never break the law, never speed or lie, declare the money you pick up off the street as taxable income, etc?
>degenerate immediately tries to attack my morality instead of defending his own
so THIS is the power of nihilistic delusion brought on by cultural marxism!
Why are animals TN? Because they're precisely half good and half evil?
>animals
>true neutral
Look again
So...yes? I...am to assume you're lawful good? And obviously no, you don't act lawfully all the time, or you'd have defended yourself, as you point out. So I win. Thank you.
Have you even played before 4th ed.?
You're being purposely obtuse. He's not saying TN means amoral and apolitical. He's saying amoral and apolitical means TN. Learn to read, learn to think.
>degenerate blathers a bunch of nonsense and then says "I win"
Wow, the chess playing pigeon strikes again!
the fuck are you even going on about? We're not even actually discussing any real person's alignment. The scenario is just:
>Player: I don't know what alignment I want my character to be.
There's any number of reasons why this could happen - for example, the character has been made quickly to replace a previous one that has died, so there wasn't much time for any kind of deep backstory.
As a DM, until the character is more developed, I'd stick the nascent character in True Neutral. Then as the player roleplays, his character may or may not change from True Neutral based on what he plays. He might even just stay in True Neutral, and there's nothing wrong with that, either.
No edition was specified in OP. In 3rd Edition and before, as well as Pathfinder, animals were in fact True Neutral. The concept of "unaligned" is new, starting with 4E.
It's also worth noting that in 4E it was possible for sapient beings to be Unaligned as well, whereas in 5e Unaligned is reserved strictly for creatures of animal intelligence. So Unaligned doesn't even mean the same thing in the two editions that it's actually part of.
>they actually invented "unaligned"
Let me guess, it's an optional rule for player characters too now? Or is that going to be in 6th edition here in 2019?
OP, we've established that you're that guy long ago, you don't need to keep using such low quality bait.
Do you always get this mad, or just when your argument is this poorly constructed?
If I remember correctly, 4th ed had unaligned in the middle of the lawful good to chaotic neutral spectrum.
>pigeon spraying shit all over the chessboard long after everyone has decided to ignore it until it goes away
Well, hopefully someone was fired for that decision, but considering the fact that wotc is proven to be full of literal sexual deviants and other evil people I doubt it.
The best part about evil people is that they constantly push their evil ideology into every single thing they do but they maintain that they are the only people who don't have any belief structure.
I was only talking to you, and you /obviously/ haven't decided to ignore me just yet. I don't think anybody else really needed the concept explained. It's pretty easy to grasp for everybody else, buddy. You're the only one still struggling with what I'm trying to explain to you.
>PTTTTTTBBBBBBBBBBBBBSQUAWKSQUAWKSQUAWK
To chaotic evil, you mean?
I wonder, do you think your responses sound less stupid because you greentext them?
Asking out of curiosity: does general humanity tend towards True Neutral in your games? I generally see campaign societies default to Lawful Good.
>BPTTTTT
>TTTTTPBT
>SQUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWK
I'd be interested to see if you - or, well, somebody else, obviously - could actually present a defense of your argument.
I...this is truly the best thing that's ever happened to me. To actually have my opponent, when faced with my argument, just devolve into angrily squawking at me like he doesn't understand the language, so terribly is he outclassed, is truly wonderful for my ego. You can keep that up as long as you like.
>pthbt
>BRAAAAAAAP
>squelch
Yes, looked and confirmed it's lawful good, good, unaligned, evil and chaotic evil.
As a reminder, you are trying to argue the position that I am a degenerate, immoral member of a failing society, and you are its moral center and upright heart.
>PTTTTTTBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Yeah 4e was trash
Also I believe you meant to assert that alignment is fundamental and formative, that people (or characters at least) never act outside its constraints.
>pthbt
I guess he read CN as chaotic stupid.
I just want to make absolutely sure that those arguments are clearly seen to be associated with your particular level of dignity and sophistication.
>brppptTTPPPPPPPPT
Let's try to decide which of us, exactly, is degenerate!
I think it can be argued that chess playing pigeon doesn't have the capacity to be degenerate, all it can really do is shit and squawk while everyone continues to ignore it.
So then, the person who started by trying to make a point, and then degenerated into bird noises and name-calling, I think he's the degenerate. If you know of any pigeons who can play chess, I'd argue they are evolving.
Still failing to see how any of that is relevant or supports your point of view in any meaningful way, but I'm proud that you're back on English.
>squawking continues
All alignment posters must hang.
>Let me guess, it's an optional rule for player characters too now?
Do you have mild dyslexia? I'm honestly asking, because I explained in the very post you quoted how Unaligned worked, and the context makes it perfectly clear as to what it means. So I'm genuinely curious if you have some form of dyslexia.
I mean, either that or you're just not reading before responding.
Also, what do you mean by "they actually invented unaligned"? Unaligned was introduced in the 4E PHB, back in 2007. That makes it ten years old at this point. It's been around for about a quarter of D&D's total existence (presuming we use 1975 as the first publication of D&D). Arguably the concept goes back even further, with the "Allegiances" of d20 Modern and the fact that your character could be literally unaligned, i.e., not have an Allegiance (and monsters in d20 Modern, including animals, rarely had Allegiances, either). That would make it date back to 2002, meaning the concept has, in the context of d20-based games, been around for a third of D&D's total lifespan.
In my games, humanity taken as a whole doesn't tend towards any alignment. However, the vast majority of people have a practical limit on how far they're willing to go.
A Good person isn't expected to abandon his family and travel to Uganda to help fight AIDS, for example. He has personal responsibilities at home, and probably doesn't have the skill set or natural ability required to help out much anyway. A Good person is, however, expected to do what he can to the limits of his ability to achieve Good, such as donating to charity or working to increase awareness of the AIDS epidemic.
Likewise, Evil doesn't necessarily mean hand-chafing villainy as you contemplate taking over the world, nor does it even mean killing people. Evil is usually as simple as just not caring about other people and only looking out for yourself and your own advancement. Ebenezer Scrooge is a perfect example of "mundane" Evil.
It does indeed
damn, i can't believe that bait is that weak in 2017
...
All pigs must die.
A scathing rebuttal, sir.
Ah, yeah, basically level 0 alignment. That makes more sense than, "Humanity is devoutly Lawful Good," or whichever else as case may be.
I have no connections save for my firends and myself, I think extremes of morality are for fanatics and cultists, and the big brother mindreading thoughtcrime bullshit that is paladins makes me uncomfortable.
I am true neutral.
It is a beautiful thing, yes.
No you aren't. You are neutral evil.
Yeah, it's often a cheesy cop-out for players who just want to run wild.
With better players there can be good reasons to start out without an alignment and develop it as you play, with emphasis on the "develop" part.