What is the easiest allignment to play and which is the hardest

Every alignment could be the hardest or the easiest for you to play.

The real challenge is coming up with a clear idea of what an alignment means for you and sticking to it

The hardest alignments start at "LG" and then get easier as your travel diagonally towards CE.

Lawful and Good is the antithesis of a strong dungeon-crawling party because you're killing, stealing, and only helping people on the assumption that there's compensation to cover the risks of life and limb.

Evil is a bit easier because you have more wiggle room as far as what's acceptable and LE tends to be the easiest of the evil alignments to gel with the rest of the party.

Neutral is "eh" the alignment, allowing you to ignore one axis (or both) in favor focusing all your energy towards being one alignment but the issue is that doing so tends to create alignment-stupid characters.

Chaotic is the easiest because it means that you can say or do whatever you want, whenever you want, and if you die, you can just reroll another character. I've literally never seen a chaotic-alignment character not end up becoming a disruptive ass with a low half-life and probably never will.

You seem to forget that Robin Hood stole from an evil tax goverment official, which made people poor by overtaxing them.

Stealing from a good rich guy even if to give to the poor is an evil action.

You're supposed to play a character, not an alignment. You understand that, right?

>Stealing from a good rich guy even if to give to the poor is an evil action.
Says a Lawful person. A Chaotic person would probably disagree.

Changing Law and Chaos to Lawful and Chaotic was a mistake.

It's evil. You are deliberaly hurting someone who didn't do anything wrong just to benefit another person. How do you know he wasn't saving for example for a very expensive cirurgy?

>You are deliberaly hurting someone who didn't do anything wrong just to benefit another person.
It depends a bit on how rich they are and how much you're stealing, but we make decisions everyday based on incomplete information. This can come down to breaking into the chemist at night to get the medicine to save a child's life. A life is saved; a window's broken.

I would argue that, in most cases, a Lawful person sees this as Evil (you're hurting somebody by taking what belongs to them), a Chaotic person sees it as Good (fuck the rules; they're getting the money to the people who really need it), and a Neutral person sees it as Neutral (you're hurting one guy, but you're helping another who needs it more desperately).

Except that alignment isn't subjective in DnD. And you cannot do something evil (hurt an innocent) and justify with a good cause (help an innocent).

>And you cannot do something evil (hurt an innocent) and justify with a good cause (help an innocent).
Doing something minorly evil moves you a little bit towards evil. Doing something majorly good moves you more towards good. Net result: you move towards good.

>I played too many Fallout games
No user, this isn't how it goes. A good person won't consider doing something evil, not unless he has no choice besides doing it. A good person will always search first for another way to fulfill what he wants to do.

>A good person won't consider doing something evil
Maybe if they're the very embodiment of all that is good and holy, but this is in the same category with a Lawful person never telling a lie. Good people consider doing selfish things all the time, and sometimes they actually do them too. Nobody's perfect.

>Chaotic Good since you aren't bound by the law

Making it quite difficult.

Law's are a combination of social contracts, moral codes, agreements, traditions and common sense rulings that give society grounding. The reason for this is that most the population aren't edge lords, golden knights, madmen or lone wolves. They are just regular people who want to live undisturbed and get on with shit. For the large part, the populace of a civilization obeying the decreed law isn't an issue as long as its not interfering with day to day life. This is because its a mutual, tacit agreement between everyone that you aren't going to cause them trouble and they won't cause you trouble.

Being someone who lives against that tacit agreement and actually thriving is difficult because laws are enforced regardless of how much you buy into them or don't - and individuals who see you disregarding them aren't exactly going to want to be near you or trust you because your a liability / threat. Add to that you push an ideological angle and you'll actually cause a great deal of trouble for things like codes and rules and laws that people follow but conflict with you 'good' ideology.

The easiest alignment is probably Lawful Neutral. How you should behave and act is largely guided for you and you aren't tied to any cosmic ideology. Do what is expected and you'll probably come out even at the end.

The hardest is Chaotic Evil. Because you are actively trying to disregard laws and at the same time promote evil - which tends to tread on many basic foundations and agreements in society which are already in things like...laws.

I like to think of alignments more in terms of what it means the character COULD do, rather than what it means they must do at all times.

In general, what your character is capable of doing gets more restrictive in the upper left and less restrictive as it moves to bottom right.

There is no single action that a Lawful Good character can do that a Chaotic Evil couldn't also do if he felt like it. There's a whole fucking lot of shit a Chaotic Evil character can do that LG just can't.

Save children from a burning orphanage? Yeah, a CE character with the proper motivation (he grew up there and it was the only place anyone ever treated him well, he's being paid, one of his numerous bastards is inside)

Killing someone who looks at you funny? Or murder for money? Being the guy who sets fire to an orphanage? Can't exactly justify those as LG in any reasonable way

An Evil character has the freedom to do whatever he wants in any given circumstance in a way that a Good character doesn't. That can frequently (and with shitty role players only) involve doing really messed up evil shit, but you don't HAVE to always act like a monster if you don't WANT to. Evil is tempting for a reason, and should have more inherent reward than being "good" because if being good got everything done in just as timely a manner as Evil with no downside then Evil people would just act Good because theyre not stupid. Like in bioshock doing the evil option to little sisters makes zero sense because you end up being an asshole AND getting less rewards AND getting a worse ending. If harvesting sisters was the ONLY way to get the best shit and upgrades, not doing it made the game a ton harder, and you didn't see measurable benefits for freeing them until you got the nice ending, that'd be a lot better moral dilemma.

Easiest is Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. Just run around and try to help people. It's okay if the net effect is negative, it's the thought that counts! Also, good doesn't have to be nice. It's oaky to kill torture and steal as long as you're doing it to evil people. Hell, if you're Chaotic Good you can get away with doing crazier stuff like raping people as long as the victims evil and deserved it, like they raped someone else first and your rape was to avenge their earlier crime rape. People often forget that being good doesn't mean you have to be nice, sometimes good people do nasty things for the greater good.

Lawful Neutral isn't too hard either because you can do morally gray things like burn down villages or kill children if you feel it's your obligation, like The King ordered you to execute these child soldiers in front of their mothers and then execute the mothers and you might think that's a bit too harsh but loyalty to your king and country is more important than things like morals and wha you think personally is good or evil. Only thing is, if you go by a command ethics system, like whatever your king or your god says is what you do, you're putting a lot of extra power in your GM, and you're easily manipulated if said king or god is mind controlled or you're tricked with an illusion of them.

Hardest to play is probably anything evil, but especially Lawful Evil. Evil generally doesn't gel well with being in a group of adventurers. If you're all looking out only for yourselves it's a bit hard to justify joining together unless it's some kind of Legion of Doom scenario where the good guys trying to keep you down are so strong you HAVE to work together to keep the forces of Good from thwarting you all. And being evil generally gets you in trouble with the locals too, so if you're a bunch of well known outlaws you might have a hard time walking into an inn just to get a rest for a while because they all fear and sort of hate you and might call the cops.

>Except that alignment isn't subjective in DnD.
Yet we have this same argument every other week.

A lawful good won't plan to tell a lie. He may tell a lie on impulse and feel bad about it afterwards, or he may tell a lie because he didn't found another way, but someone good or lawful don't plan to do something evil or to break the law willingly.

Because people are unable to read?

No, because alignments aren't, and haven't been, fucking subjective at all. At best, you could argue that shit like positive/negative energy is objective but even then, huge difference between that and alignments as a whole.

I contend that Lawful Evil is the easiest Evil to adventure with provided that the rules the Lawful Evil person abides by are very clear. I.e. never tell a lie, never steal from an ally, etc.

Your standards are ridiculous. Everybody in your universe would end up being neutral, because they have to be the perfect, unwavering embodiment of the extremes to qualify for any of the other alignments. A lawful good guy is probably going to dislike telling lies more than other folks, but there are a lot of facets of a person's character, and even lawful people can have one somewhat chaotic trait, just like a good person can have a somewhat evil trait (as long as these things aren't too extreme).

>I haven't read the materials, the post
Go back to debating if genocide is evil.

>not doing premeditated bad things means you are Jesus
A lawful person, someone who respects laws and norms isn't going to wake up and say 'you know I would like to lie today'. A lawful good person will only lie in a impulse or if in a situation they believe there is no other choice.

Let me go with a more simpler example: a good person don't go 'I think I will commit murder today'. Ie: lawful or/and good people don't premeditate going against their alignments.

a LG person would think, "I will commit murder against the heathen jihadists in the name of King and Country,". His actions are Lawful (his King declared war after all) and Good (protecting innocent civilians).

Any alignment can think, "I will commit murder today," depending on the situation and still be well within their alignment.

So what alignment is a character that believes in the redistribution of wealth by force, acquiring coin by stealing from the rich (whether they are deserving or not) and giving it to the poor and down-trodden, because they believe that they need that coin more immediately than the rich do?

Good doesn't enjoy killing, it does because it's necessary. Go read your alignment books for example if it's okay to go killing orcs who haven't done anything.

Chaotic Neutral at best.

Chaotic Evil.

Knowingly stealing from anyone regardless of their alignment is chaotic and evil.

An act can have several different connotations depending on intent, even if it leads to the same outcome, which makes alignments subjective by default.

If you don't believe me then answer this question. If I stumble upon a woman being raped in an alley and I saved her because she was physically attractive to me, and I used the rescue as a means of convincing her to leave her abusive husband and this eventually leads to a happier and more fulfilling life for her, what alignment would this act fall under?

No it doesn't dumbass, in DnD genocide is evil. Go read your fucking books.

>Good doesn't enjoy killing, it does because it's necessary

Protecting yourself and your country from violence and death is pretty necessary, bud.

I'd like to ask a question that doesn't deserve it's own thread.

>Be DM
>Party facing group of people under charm spell
>Fight begins, remind players of the knock unconscious option.
>Remind them these are innocent people under charm spell
>They begin knocking people out, however Unlawful Good ranger decides to kill one
>Party warns him not to do that
>He continues to kill when able, no reason given.

The players and some NPCs now see him as irrational, unpredictable and a murderer, but do I gotta force an alignment change? One of his bonds is to make peace around his home, which he's also going against.

What do about players acting out of their alignment?

Yes. He is literally evil.

You can only use self defence as an justification if they were actually attacking numbnuts.

Make him fall to at least neutral, he is killing people that he knows that is innocent just because it's easier.

Chaotic Good, Chaotic Neutral, or Chaotic Evil, depending on the particulars.

Answer the question posed here >If I stumble upon a woman being raped in an alley and I saved her because she was physically attractive to me, and I used the rescue as a means of convincing her to leave her abusive husband and this eventually leads to a happier and more fulfilling life for her, what alignment would this act fall under?

no... the sacreans have to die before they get a chance to pillage my home and innocent women.

>user answer my gotcha question pls

No user, you cannot invade an orc city and start killing orcs because they may attack a city.

Wait, why am I debating with you? Go read the book of Exalted Deeds.

The fact that a "gotcha" question exists proves how alignment cannot be objective.

I hope you know that.

Except by the fact resource books clearly define how characters should act?

God himself has killed more people throughout the old testiment than Satan has throughout the whole bible.

So under your criteria of genocide = evil, how do you define God in this scenario?

Also, referencing source material that is refuted by its own material isn't going to do a whole lot to help your case. You might as well reference a book that you wrote explaining why you're right.

>in DnD

>Also, referencing source material that is refuted by its own material isn't going to do a whole lot to help your case.
Which book has released changing how a good character should act in DnD?

>Book of Exalted Deeds
You mean the book that's dedicated to the goodest of the goodest of the goodest, sir?

Orcs are Evil. Killing Evil is Good. Slaying those Orcs is Good.

Evil characters work fine in a group so long as there aren't any anti-evil characters in said group. Just like how good doesn't have to be nice, evil doesn't have to be mustache-twirling. Similarly, good doesn't have to be anti-evil and evil doesn't have to be anti-good. Your evil character could be the guy who gets results regardless of method, the guy with his own agenda who isn't afraid to use a few people along the way, the guy with some inner demons he may or may not give into, or just the guy who really likes killing but likes getting paid for it even more.

>overtaxing
>didn't do anything wrong

And murder can be right even though by definition it means to wrongfully kill.

>that pic
that's perfect; it has exactly the same meaning as the alignments as they are, but now retards will understand it
totally using it

First, it's to help composing and roleplaying a good character.

Second orcs aren't inheriently evil. They are evil because of their societies so no, you aren't justified in killing them without reason.

I think you should follow the conversation before posting.

This might be the best retooling of the alignment grid I've ever seen.

There's also this.

>Which book has released changing how a good character should act in DnD?
You still never answered the question user. Under the criteria that genocide = evil, how do you define God in this scenario?
>inb4 gotcha question
If alignment was truly objective, there'd be "gotcha" questions at all because such questions would already be answered and there'd be no need for a debate.

But let's face it, we both know that you're up against a wall, so you'll never answer the question because there's no way you can do so without proving that alignment is subjective by default.

>They are evil because of their societies

You can't use subjective morality in a game based on objective morality. Monster Manual says Evil. They are Evil, it does not matter the cause.

>You mean the book that's dedicated to the goodest of the goodest of the goodest, sir?

While it is dedicated to that, it does spend time defining what does and does not constitute Good in the context of D&D. That you haven't bothered to read it is your fault, not mine. A PDF of it is floating around somewhere on Veeky Forums, I'm sure.

>Second orcs aren't inheriently evil. They are evil because of their societies so no, you aren't justified in killing them without reason.
Beyond the fact that their society glofifies and condones the rape and murder of sentient creatures just because they're weaker than them?

If this were a human society, there'd be no compunctions about firebombing them off the map to protect the lives of everyone else around them.

>there'd be
should be
>there wouldn't be.

Neutral Good best alignment

Either orcs are always evil by nature (which means that it's objectively okay to genocide them to protect good-aligned races) or orcs can be evil if they're raised to be (meaning that it depends on circumstance, making their alignments subjective), so which is it?

But, y'know, you've already lost so I don't expect you to answer the question, your silence is proof enough.

>pls answer my scenario even through we are talking in DnD

In DnD there is no good deity who would do genocide. You would know that if you actually read the books.

If you actually paid attention, they were Evil because those were exactly Orc raiders. And second, Evil means that a good deal are evil and not all of them.

And that wouldn't be good. Good would be trying to reeducate them into being better people.

>it's a only two ways fallacy
Orcs are evil because they were raised evil. That doesn't change that evil acts in DnD are clearly listed on the books and are objective.

Have you got it now or you want me to draw it?

Hang on, new user here. God in the Bible is difficult because we're talking about a book written over the course of millennia by dozens of people with different goals reinterpreted and rewritten an unknown number of times. But I'll give it a try based on what I remember from when I last read the Bible

First, is God Evil according to D&D? Let's consult the Book of Vile Darkness.

>Lying
Not in the sense BoVD means.

>Cheating
I don't recall God cheating in his bet with Satan over Job. In fact he is a deity of his word for the most part.

>Theft
God does not steal and in fact specifically speaks against it.

>Betrayal
God never breaks his word once given, and looks very poorly on being betrayed himself.

>Murder
God murders countless thousands of otherwise innocent Egyptians.

>Vengeance
Specifically, "revenge at any price". Again, God demonstrates this quite a bit.

>Worshipping Evil Gods/Demons
Obviously God does not do this himself. He also commands his followers not to do it, but more out of possessiveness of worshippers: "I your Lord am a jealous god."

>Animating the Dead/Creating Undead
Not that I recall.

>Casting Evil Spells
Difficult to tell as all the magic God uses could be any number of different spells.

>Damning/Harming Souls
Extensively. God damns a lot of people, with his criterion being simply "if they don't worship me, they're damned."

>Consorting with Fiends
Well, he made a bet with Satan over Job, but then it's debatable Satan counts (Hebrew mythoi has Satan as an angel in Heaven who serves God and is an adversary of Man, not God).

>Creating Evil Creatures
God created everything, and therefore created evil creatures.

>Using Others for Personal Gain
Not that I recall.

>Greed
God is jealous and demands that no one worship any God but him.

>Bullying/Cowing Innocents
While Pharaoh was not innocent, the various Egyptians who suffered because of God's actions were.

>Bringing Despair
SEE 10 Plagues

>Tempting Others
Not that I recall.

I really like how the good/evil axis touches on something that's frequently overlooked: narrowness of concern. However, I don't think it's strictly accurate as presented. I think an evil person can care about more than himself. You can have the genocidal dictator who cares about his ethnic group and wants to exterminate another. You can have the guy who will arrange an accident to get the organ transplant his wife needs to survive. You can can have the murderous gang member who would lay die his life for his crew. And then you can have the guy who's only out for himself and everybody else be damned. But acknowledging the issue of there being an inside group and an outside group when it comes to morality is an important matter that doesn't get discussed enough.

Thanks! I had struggled a bit about how to frame law vs. chaos when it came to following the rules, and it occurred to me that while the laws of the land could be arbitrary and vary from place to place, the concept of honor is much more consistent and fundamental to the morality of a culture. I will say that I'd rather not have "neutral" in there, but I couldn't come up with a better term (that wouldn't seem like it's modifying the second axis, like "middling kind"), and "altruistic" is probably a better fit than "kind", but is a bit too clunky to say.

>In DnD there is no good deity who would do genocide.
So God is evil then?
>And second, Evil means that a good deal are evil and not all of them.
So their alignment is subjective?
>Good would be trying to reeducate them into being better people.
Even when objective alignment states that they are evil creatures by default?

>God in the Bible is difficult because we're talking about a book written over the course of millennia by dozens of people with different goals reinterpreted and rewritten an unknown number of times.
Exactly, you can't map down a complex being down to a 3x3 grid and yet have an objective alignment system that still allows you to define what is or isn't good or lawful or whatever.

>So God is evil then?
I'm not interested in real life theology. We are talking in DnD, stop trying to move goalposts.

>So their alignment is subjective?
Are you braindead? Seriously, what part of 'evil' doesn't mean 'all of them are evil' didn't you get?

>Even when objective alignment states that they are evil creatures by default?
Yes, if someone evil can be regenerated it's the objective of good to regenerate that person. You are only justified in killing it in self defense.

Right, God hits quite a few of the "Evil" checkmarks in the BoVD (Murder, vengeance, damnation/harming souls, creating evil creatures, greed, bullying/cowing innocents, bringing despair). Let's see how he does with Good.

>Helping others
Not really. God is primarily concerned with his own worshippers and his Chosen People. Several times he directs those Chosen People to go to war with other people. Likewise, until the Messiah was born, God made no special effort to spread His message to other parts of the world beyond Israel.

>Charity
God does not demonstrate charity himself. He helps those who are performing tasks for him, but never goes out of his way to help others. Jesus Christ, on the other hand, does.

>Healing
Healing magic involves positive energy and so is closely linked to Good. However God does not often heal people, although Jesus does.

>Personal Sacrifice
God? Never. Jesus? His very life, though one has to question how much of a "sacrifice" it is given that Jesus knew with 100% certainty that he'd be back within 3 days and better than ever.

>Worshiping Good Deities
No, but only because gods don't worship other gods. God discourages the worship of other gods in his followers, even Good ones.

>Casting Good spells
Same problem as Casting Evil Spells, above.

>Mercy
Not really, no. Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is fairly merciful.

>Forgiveness
God? A few times, but he doesn't make a habit of it and actually has a policy of damning people unto the seventh generation and all that. Jesus, on the other hand, is literally all about mercy.

>Bringing Hope
Yes, but only for his own chosen people.

>Redeeming Evil
I actually can't think of a single instance of this in the whole of the Bible, although Jesus seemed to think it was possible.

PERSONAL CONCLUSION:
In D&D terms, God comes across as Lawful Evil. However, Jesus Christ comes across as Lawful Good.

Wow, I've heard a lot of stupid shit but this thread takes the cake

Robin Hood is like the iconic of the Chaotic Good. His band gives the people back their positions that were taken from them by an illegitimate government.

A Lawful Neutral character might see it like that, but a Lawful Good character would merely give a light reprimand, and make reparations by morning, mending the window and compensating the cost of the medicine. On the question to be Lawful or be Good, Good will generally win out, at least if the player is genuinely playing LG, and not a sanctimonious LN.

Lawful Good is simultaneously incredibly easy to play and extremely difficult, depending on the campaign. You know precisely what you must do, follow that standard of ethics that is set forth by your patron and society. At the same time, laws are made by mortal men, and sometimes it is necessary to willfully ignore them lest a more important law be broken.

And of course, there's the rub. Even Paladins aren't expected to act in a 100% LG manner, 100% of the time. PCs are allowed to err, to make a mistake in judgement, as long as they are trying to hold up the standard and do their best to fix their mistakes when they do slip up.

No, you can't, because you are unwilling to compromise and find a "best fit", as well as likely forgetting that alignment can shift over time so it doesn't matter if something isn't a perfect fit because that just means that it has a potential for change.

I, personally, am able to map down a complex being into a 3x3 grid and yet have an objective alignment system that allows me to define what is or isn't good or lawful (though law/chaos is more about personal opinion due to a book on them never being published).

I did so here: I have an amended version of this, but it's longer and more involved. Pic related.

>So God is evil then?
Pretty clearly, yes. At least as one of a pantheon of deities. As the one and only omnipotent, omniscient deity? Well, everything he does is righteous because he did it, and all things flow from him. Or at least that's the argument. But taken on their own, some of his actions and demands would clearly bury the needle on the evil-meter if performed or demanded by anybody else. What was the thing about killing babies? No, not that one. The other one. No, not that one either. The one with Moses.

Yes, that what I said. Robin Hood stole from an evil douchebag because he was taking stuff that wasn't his, not just because he was rich.

>No, you can't, because you are unwilling to compromise and find a "best fit", as well as likely forgetting that alignment can shift over time so it doesn't matter if something isn't a perfect fit because that just means that it has a potential for change.
If it can change then doesn't that make it subjective?
>I, personally, am able to map down a complex being into a 3x3 grid and yet have an objective alignment system that allows me to define what is or isn't good or lawful
So does that mean that God is evil or not?

>I'm not interested in real life theology. We are talking in DnD, stop trying to move goalposts.
Answer the question sweetie.
>Are you braindead? Seriously, what part of 'evil' doesn't mean 'all of them are evil' didn't you get?
So they are subjectively evil.
>Yes, if someone evil can be regenerated it's the objective of good to regenerate that person.
If you have a man who murdered hundreds of innocent people, but he laid down his weapon and said "I surrender," does this mean that his life should take precedence over his victim's family receiving justice?

>God is primarily concerned with his own worshippers and his Chosen People.
In the Old Testament he's downright racist like that. He's picked one cultural-ethnic group that he's championing, and he's down with slaughtering anybody who happens to be standing in their way. In the New Testament, he tends to be a bit more accepting, and is willing to look out for everybody who worships him. Maybe. Depending on your beliefs concerning predestination and shit, he may be arbitrarily sending people to hell, regardless of their actions.

>If it can change then doesn't that make it subjective?

No. What is and is not evil or good or lawful or chaotic is objective (in Dungeons & Dragons). However, your alignment is the result of your choices, not the source of them. A Good person isn't such because his alignment forces him to act Good. Rather, he acts Good and so his alignment is Good. But something might happen that lead him to act differently, and the result of that is he shifts (to Neutral or Evil).

>So does that mean that God is evil or not?

How about you try reading the post where I answered that question exactly, which I went to the trouble of linking for you already. You moron.

>...in your methods

>answer my question, even through it has nothing to do with it
I will answer it when God becomes part of DnD.

>So they are subjectively evil.
Ah, and humans are neutral so they are sujectively neutral.

Are you retarded?

>If you have a man who murdered hundreds of innocent people, but he laid down his weapon and said "I surrender," does this mean that his life should take precedence over his victim's family receiving justice?
You probably mean revenge, and revenge is evil. A good person wouldn't kill him, they would help him see the error of his ways and then take him to whatever authority to decide his fate.

>What is and is not evil or good or lawful or chaotic is objective (in Dungeons & Dragons).
So wouldn't that mean that certain actions would always be good/evil/neutral/lawful/chaotic, regardless of circumstance?

Like if killing a sentient being was always lawful/good/evil/etc. then you could make an argument for objective alignment. However, the reality is that you can't, because it's dependent on circumstance, making it subjective to the variables that lead to that action taking place.

Like I said, I do have an updated version.

It's still fucking wrong.

>I will answer it when God becomes part of DnD.
Cool, you admitted that you have no argument, baby steps user, I believe in you.
>Ah, and humans are neutral so they are sujectively neutral.
If alignment is objective then they'd be objectively neutral.
>You probably mean revenge, and revenge is evil.
This isn't revenge though, justice is meant to see that those who committed a crime feel justice on behalf of those that they've wronged. It's no more evil to make someone pay someone back for property damage.
>A good person wouldn't kill him, they would help him see the error of his ways and then take him to whatever authority to decide his fate.
You realize that the authorities in this case would just execute him for his crimes anyways right? Even in our modern justice system, murdering someone responsible for the death of hundreds would be an appropriate use of the law. Rehabilitation is no longer on the table.

>I'm retarded and I can't into DnD alignments
They are objective because the books clearly shows how a good and an evil character should act.

It's not 'killing is subjective because it depends on circumtances', because the circumtances you are allowed to kill are clearly listed in the books.

Easiest I would say is a tie between neutral good and neutral evil

While I do have an issue with some of the examples of people for each alignment (starting with the very first antagonist, who is clearly Lawful Neutral and not Lawful Good), I quite like outlook summary for each individual alignment. I still say that the size of the "in group" that a person cares about is going to vary even within a particular alignment, though the trend is definitely going to be towards a shrinking group as you move towards evil.

>Cool, you admitted that you have no argument
Are you retarded? What part of God doesn't exist in DnD so it doesn't fucking matter did you miss?

Unless you want to be a fucktard and apply morality from a RPG system in other, completely different things.

>If alignment is objective then they'd be objectively neutral.
Yes, humans are generally objectively neutral. That's the point, the majority of humans are neutral.

>This isn't revenge though, justice is meant to see that those who committed a crime feel justice on behalf of those that they've wronged. It's no more evil to make someone pay someone back for property damage.
Except that killing someone won't bring anyone back. Especially someone who just gave up and is at your mercy.

>You realize that the authorities in this case would just execute him for his crimes anyways right?
Not the call of a good person.

> Even in our modern justice system, murdering someone responsiable for the death of hundreds would be an appropriate use of the law. Rehabilitation is no longer on the table.
It's up to the gods to decide if he is no longer worth rehabilitation, not you.

>making it subjective to the variables that lead to that action taking place.

I think we have different definitions of "subjective". When talking about subjective morality, generally I understand it to mean that it's based on the mindset of the person going in: a person might be raised to think goblins are evil and so slaughter any goblin he comes across because he thinks it good, even ones that are no threat to him or anyone else (RE: Nojheim). However, the action is NOT Good and never will be, and the person is Evil for his actions regardless of the fact that he genuinely considers himself Good.

Fuck Goblin Slayer.

Yet you go on about how you shouldn't kill evil creatures on the off chance that they're only *mostly* evil, okay.

>If you have a man who murdered hundreds of innocent people, but he laid down his weapon and said "I surrender," does this mean that his life should take precedence over his victim's family receiving justice?

Yes.

There are a few exception, but in general most LG characters will accept surrender as an option, no matter how wicked the individual is.

That doesn't mean stupid though. A paladin or cleric would probably bring the criminal before a tribunal by his order, with those families as witnesses, and then the criminal would be executed. Less religious focused characters would probably turn him over to the Law of the land, or if the criminal was a tyrant, then allow the people that the tyrant ruled over decide his fate.

Of course, a GM may turn that into an angry mob, but then a LG character would be honor bound to ensure that it was Law, not vengeance, that dictated the murderer's fate

The Book of Exalted Deeds explicitly lists mercy, forgiveness, and redeeming evil as being Good. So of course slaughtering creatures you think are evil without giving them any mercy or forgiveness or trying to redeem them isn't Good.

>Yet you go on about how you shouldn't kill evil creatures on the off chance that they're only *mostly* evil, okay.
Point me in the book of Exalted Deeds, or even better the vanilla DnD book where it says a good character is allowed to go murderhoboing orcs and goblins.

>Yes, humans are generally objectively neutral. That's the point, the majority of humans are neutral.
Which comes down to the same issue. If most humans are neutral, why aren't they forced into being TN by default if alignment is truly objective?
>Except that killing someone won't bring anyone back.
Try telling that to the victim's families, I'm sure they'll understand.
>It's up to the gods to decide if he is no longer worth rehabilitation, not you.
Actually, it'd be up to the authorities to decide that, and most authorities would call you out for not lynching him sooner. Or are you going to disobey the laws of the land just to save an evil person who has no plans on truly going straight?

If alignment was objective, his actions would still be good because he's both saving people from goblins and riding the world of a race of CE monsters who murder-fuck everything around them until they're put down.

that chart is wrong, on so many levels