Altruistic-Egoistic

>Altruistic-Egoistic
>Rational-Emotional
>Lawful-Chaotic.

What alignment system for general roleplaying help do you use, if any at all?

I prefer playing actual characters instead of cardboard cutouts.

>Lawful neutral
>Snooze zone
Jaded head-hunters who follow the word of the law, dispatching anyone for their lord, enemy or friend... Yeah, total goody-two-shoes.

mine worked pretty great since the new alignment axises in the OP are not encumbered with classical RPG tropes, and i am more on the side of "use it to remember who your character is, even after one month of session brake" anyway.

They didn't say they were Goody-Two-Shoes. They said they were boring.

>doggirls a best
>bunnygirls a best
>catgirls a best

The only good alignment axis.

They aren't boring, though. I don't understand this meme about lawful being dull. Well, I suppose I do--often people play it poorly. But has nobody really tried to live by an rigid ethical code for a period of time? I don't mean a vague "do what is good" ideal. I'm talking about a "You can never lie to a person, period, no matter what" sort of deontological framework.

An inability to lie is many things, but "boring" is not among them.

The point was that playing Alignments at all is fucking boring, you autistic grognards. Hence the part about wanting to play "actual characters" instead of "cardboard cutouts".

Alignments need to die and stay die. They're an autistic attempt at simplifying all the complexities and subtleties of non-autistic human behavior into a neat little grid of 9 stereotypes that all suck and 3 of which don't reflect how sane mentally-functional people behave ever.

I don't disagree. But I don't think LG is any more deserving of contempt than the others.

There is no reason to ever play with alignments, the only purpose they ever serve is for the DM to go "HURRDURR, YOUR CHARACTER CAN'T DO THAT!"

you seem aight

Catgirls a best

>CN is automatically edgy
A free spirited individualist, the kind of person who would quit their job to go adventuring in the first place, is edgy?

See like all the other people who completely missed the point.

as someone who put action before alignment since day 1, i disagree.
however, breaking previously established alignment too severely (lawful good murdering out of spite or fun for example or random acts of charity as an evil guy), you get a mental breakdown penalty until alignment finally changes, alternatively a split personality penalty if you swing around like crazy

>catgirls
0/10 disgusting heretic would smite again
doggirls a best

>That DM detected
>"YOU HAVE TO PLAY WHAT THE RETARDED ONE-DIMENSIONAL TROPE SAYS OR ELSE YOU GO INSANEEEEE!"

Changing the alignment of a shit roleplayer is not how you deal with a shit roleplayer. Kick them from the group. All you're doing is exactly what the guy said and using alignments as a way to punish your players for not playing the way you want them to play.

the point is that making a Character that is either good or bad is already bad writing. Real characters are like onions.

>severe violation

how i said, action is before alignment when i GM. i usually allow a stepping radius on the axis, but going against the principle of your character's personality in a way that is the absolute opposite or being literaly the lolrandumb boogieman is most likely a symptome of mental confusion or an inner conflict of said character.
Also does motivation/goals matter for me at least as much as the action resulting from it.
The actions i said i enforce in my previous post are actually an exception from the usual flow of the game, but i encourage to pull a change of character through by making penalties less heavy up to being insignificant if the player really means it. but anyone taking rapid changes of heart too lightly can go fuck themselves, as they are bad for the entire group.

>Words
>"So yeah, basically it's a "change of heart" if a character is too complex to play a alignment square and I'm gonna punish them for it."

...

>attention span of a fruit fly
>dares to reply again

>What alignment system for general roleplaying help do you use, if any at all?
Pic related.

>dares
Oh boi, we got an internet tough guy here, gettin all assblasted over reputation on a fucking ANONYMOUS IMAGE BOARD.

did your mrs.teacher already make you read your pensum of words for today or what?

>Someone disagrees with me, they must be baiting and also retarded, even though literally noone agreed with me the first time I posted my bad ideas.

Good job kiddo.

>tfw when playing a kinky chaste cute paladin

>The pain it is to use math to correctly represent a curve in a 3D graph
No, thank you, sir, but No.

...

You can use as many fancy words as you want, but at the end of the day you're still basically trying to defend the fact that you punish players based on alignments.

I said this earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating. If a player is being a shit roleplayer, kick them out of the group. Trying to change their alignment and "punish" them is just petty, vindictive, and the kind of shit a bitchy highschool girl would do. Grow some balls.

swap madman and energetic, "madman" sounds like more of an inbetween of "bro" and "party guy" than "energetic" does.

The alignment system started with what? Good, neutral, evil? In a system made for stereotypical heroic adventuring? It kinda implied that players were good (heroes and hero allies), most people were neutral (NPC cannonfodder) and the enemy was always evil (guilt free loot pinhatas).

Then came the more "advanced" editions where everything is more complicated, because that is always better. Now we have detailed micro-alignments with codified instruction packages which are all supposed to be viable for player characters. Good is now "I-am-the-law", "what-is-a-law" and "fuck-the-law". Neutral is no longer neutral and instead you have "I-am-forced-to-be-here", "Switzerland" and "BATSHIT-CONTRARIAN". Meanwhile it is no longer sufficient to be evil to be on everyones kill-list; no, you now have to make consious choices to be a certain kind of friggin' evil! If you perform just the right rituals you may end up with either "reasonably-evil", "boring-evil" and "disney-villainy".

All in all the system went from a slightly tongue-in-cheek way to attach filter tags for spell effects to a rigid thinking "you are playing your character wrong" code block.

Why would you even need the bloody thing? Since when is "I am lawful good!" a better motivation to run into the burning orphanage than "I prefer my orphans unburnt, or at least medium rare."?

>saving images with an iFunny watermark

For God's sake, man, have some pride.

I just use it as a system for making sure the party is somewhat of the same philosophy/objective at character creation.
I like my player parties to somewhat agree on the theme of the party before the campaign so we dont end up with constant justification for pvp throughout the campaign.

Not squirrelgirls

That's a shit system. You're a bad DM.
Alignment shouldn't have any penalty with changing, that's fucking stupid.

>dogfags
>pride

Everything after Lawful-Chaotic as abstractions of a being's disposition towards the cosmic conflict was a mistake.

The problem isn't the alignment system, the problem is autismos who play the alignment instead of the character and then go on to say how bad alignments are.

CUTE - MEAN
PURE - LEWD
SOLO - TEAM

MPT a best

>They're an autistic attempt at simplifying all the complexities and subtleties of non-autistic human behavior into a neat little grid of 9 stereotypes
No, they're not.

>not CPS

...

CPS is gonna think we suck tho
MPT is gonna try and make us better

Edumacate yurselfs.

She looks like she's melting.

>not CLT

>Alignment needs to go and stay go
Alignment has no mechanical function and can be completely ignored in 5e if I remember right.
It seems like they were mostly replaced by the trait/bond/flaw/ideal system, which gives a lot more narrative freedom AND has a mechanical benefit (GMs are encouraged to award inspiration if players are true to their characteristics). I wouldn't be surprised if 6e drops alignment altogether in favor of this new system.

>What alignment system

Khorne
Nurgle
tzeentch
slaneesh
undivided

It is referred to as the character's "alignment" after all.

I think it has to do with the "absolute madman" meme.

There's literally nothing wrong with alignment now that it's completely divorced from mechanics.

You can play a fucking Tiefling Paladin who builds homes for orphans and donates his wages to charity and still be Chaotic Evil on your sheet for all it matters in 5e.

>b-b-but muh DEEP COMPLEX MORALLY GREY CHARACTER
>YOU'RE RESTRICTING MY CREATIVITY REEEEEE

Protip: you cannot come up with a character that does not fit into the traditional 2 axis D&D alignment grid.

If I were to include one, it would be something akin to the Elric series or Three Hearts and Three Lions where your "alignment" was just an allegiance to a cosmological force.

Yes I can. Just because you're a mongoloid with no creativity doesn't mean everyone else is.

Here's your (You), though, since that's all you wanted.

Alignment works, but it's not enough. It only describes two aspects of a character.
It's like trying to describe your character's appearance by listing only your hairstyle and eye color. Yes, everyone has a hairstyle and eye color, but you need more than that to describe a person's appearance.

>CN
>Not "normal human"

following their desires even if it means breaking the law but not actively trying to affect the happiness or lives of others? edgy? what are you smoking?

I decided to DM a campaign where none of my players got alignments and instead simply reacted to what I put in front of them for the first ten sessions, then based on their responses to this and actions they took I have them alignments. This was the same group that were all CN lolrandumbs last year and now they all have actual characters to play.

Less experienced players look at Alignment and say "would my character do this? They're lawful good after all..." instead of realizing that character comes before alignment. It really has no place in current editions except as a shorthand for remembering how NPCs I've created will act.

>Altruistic-Egoistic
>Implying that egoism can't allow for altruism

Seriously though, it's in your best interest to act in the best interests of others, the vast majority of the time.

>this vague shitty system for explaining all human behavior by stripping them of nuance can explain all human behavior after you strip them of nuance

Oh wow really? I never noticed

>explaining all human behavior
>applies to balrogs, dragons, pegasi, and unicorns
Ha...hm...

It started with law, neutral, chaos. It was supposed to restrict you once in a while.

Who the fuck would design a slide like that?

Chirst remember when Desden Codak was fun?

no

not really but that comic in particular was always amusing

Best one is
>Slutty-Faithful
>Degenerate-Pure

I remember the one with that weird alternate universe where the Permian extinction never happened, was actually kinda creative

found it, aside from the self indert element I don't see how alternait prehistory fiction is worth mocking though

Nice-normal-mean
Tool-dude-bro

good-evil and even then only if being good or evil has any actual effect. Outside of that I generally just leave hints that specific groups fear or hate specific or all of the PCs.

...

Just a single axis of Lawful-Chaotic.
On occasion I'll denote things as definite Evil, mostly things like Liches and Beholders.

MLS Masterrace reporting in

>Using alignment systems

Why are you such a plebeian?

Why did you oust yourself as a shit writer?