Dnd alignment Table

Swap Valve and Blizzard and this would work.

to be fair, it looks like this chart is pretty old

...

Is that why Majesty gave them stereotypically gay voices?

>paying taxes is good
>collecting taxes is evil
>altruism is good
>selfishness is bad
>created by (((Mike Mearls)))

imagine my shock

...

Why do people have such problems with the evil alignment?

Randoid kys pls.

Because fundamentally there is no real evil. Even bad people think they're doing something good, even if "good" is something selfish and comes at the expense of others. So when people RP evil what they really want is to be an edgy asshole and it results in varying amounts of cringe and unfun

Well people generally play it badly because they either don't know any better (edgelords, lolsoevulz, etc) or because they want to be disruptive shitlords and fuck with other players.

Another part of it is a problem with intepreting alignment in general: there are many players who think you have to go all out with an alignment in every aspect of your character or else you're not 'roleplaying your alignment' properly. This is the same reason we get Lawful characters who won't budge a nanometer on their principles and are totally OCD orderly in everything they do - sure, that is A lawful character, but you don't always have to go to the extremes of the alignment to be an example of that alignment.

>Because fundamentally there is no real evil

...

You could have Evil in a fantasy setting if you based it off theological and mythological conceptions of evil

So it sounds like more a problem with individual players rather than the alignment itself.

What about undead/outsiders/monsters etc? Are they deserving of the evil alignment in settings where they are antagonists?

Wouldn't it be more fedora tier to say there's no good? Just think about all the "evil" shit in history. It was almost always done for the advancement of a people, or for science etc etc. People have causes that they think are worth killing or dying for and they kill or die for them. Even random crazies who shoot up a place have an internal justification for why they think random people deserve to die.
But when people RP they just want to be the edgelord and do "evil" for the sake of it, which is just unrealistic and cringey

There something in Calvinist theology about all evil being derivative of good impulses, basically all evil is just twisted and disproportionate good drives

Well no, this is what I'm saying. As part of the game it is a fundamental requirement for evil to exist, for bad people to do bad things for the sake of being bad. It's why basically all evil creatures are incomprehensible fiends and creatures of myth, whereas while good has shit like unicorns and certain dragons. most of it's deities are humanoid, and the heroes of tales are humanoids. Because realistically if we examined why an actual person did something "evil" they wouldn't consider themselves or their actions to be evil, they may even consider them to have been a good thing.
So it is a problem with the alignment more than anything. Evil doesnt exist, evil alignment is stupid, so when people want to play evil it's always ridiculous.

Ok faggot, answer this:

Is Hitler evil, and why or why not?

That's a sadly realistic chart, and illustrates a problem with people, not with the alignment system.

I've met some spiteful and cruel people who's only motivation was that they enjoyed hurting others, they're rare but they do happen, it's hard to make them interesting characters though

>Another part of it is a problem with intepreting alignment in general:

This. From what I've noticed from peoples horror stories about Evil or Chaotic characters is that it seems as though these problem characters were created with these alignments as their focus. Rather than creating a character, and seeing which if the 9 boxes they fit in best, they looked at the 9 boxes and picked traits in one of those boxes to build their character around. A character that's created solely to behave in "edgy" ways, but has to justify their behavior after the fact, is going to be a bad character.

Ok maybe LE should say
>Fills personal coffers with tax money

I think you're off-piste, gentlebeings. DnD has an objective, non-consequentialist morality system. The only argument to be had when it comes to alignment is over interpreting what's written about it in the rulebook. It doesn't matter what you or some theologian think because it doesn't apply in the case of alignment. Morality in DnD is built into the physics of the setting. Not even just the metaphysics - you can literally be 'charged' with evil just by being from an evil plane, or from worshipping an evil deity.

No, because evil doesn't exist.

He killed people sure, but so do lots of rulers. He didn't even kill as many people as Stalin or Mao or ancient rulers, so it's not like what he did was some unprecedented act.
He did what he did for the betterment of his people, Germany was suffering after WW1, other nations had been very harsh on them and it had led to economic crisis and despair in his nation, he believed he had the answer to the problem and rose up. Theres a reason he was widely popular. And he did cause great leaps in infrastructure and technology in his nation. Had he have won people wouldn't remember him as an evil man at all, if bad actions lead to good results we consider them to be good actions. "History is written by the victors"

Theres entire papers written on these subjects in history, I can't believe you'd be unaware of these sorts of discussions

Another problem is that DnD fluff doesn't make sense within a world with objective morality, Orcs have this whole noble savage thing going on but worship a god who is objectively evil

Morality is objective in Calvinist theology to though, I'm more interested in stealing from it to better describe what morality is like in DnD

>I've met some spiteful and cruel people who's only motivation was that they enjoyed hurting others
Maybe on the surface. But look deeper and you'll find theres more to it. They may believe others deserve to suffer as they have suffered, a sort of revenge on society, to them what they do is justified by what was done to them. Now if we write a story in which our main character has been unfairly oppressed, and rises up to tear down the system, or seek revenge on those who hurt them, we have the typical plot line for someone we'd consider Chaotic Good. In their own minds what they're doing is right, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

>you can literally be 'charged' with evil just by being from an evil plane, or from worshipping an evil deity.
Sure but that's the point, the in game system of good and evil does not reflect reality, so inevitably attempts to live up to an unreal standard are cringe worthy and stupid

Also, Paladins can fall for not slaughtering baby orcs, yet the race is listed as Evil and according to Volo's guide Orcs will still come off as aggressive even when taught limited empathy.

So come on fellas, either it's objective morality or it isn't, don't half-and-half us and then punish us when we try to make sense of it all.

I guess you could fluff Orcs as similar to other humanoids in that they have a capacity to choose between good and evil, but then suddenly adventures run out of ethical enemies to fight

Exactly. Plus why the fuck would anyone with arcane knowledge worship dark gods when they know that their soul will just end up on some lower plane likely to be eaten by a fiend? It's not like they can't seek power and immortality from good gods

The dark gods help evil people for free since they make the world the worse place, of course that isn't official just something I homebrewed

Sure but then it's the same problem as literal deals with the devil, if you know the devil exists, then you can reasonably assume god exists, so why would you ever sell your soul to the devil?

What a misinterpretation!

Boethius argued evil didn't exist as a self-sufficient quality. Instead he said it was the absence of good.

The problem with that is that Orcs are naturally inclined to be evil in some capacity, which kinda throws out the whole "capacity for good and evil" shtick. Even then, why not have them be naturally neutral if it all boils down to a culture thing?
What makes it worse, a lot of the evil deities in D&D barely offer you anything better than what a good/neutral aligned god would offer. Like what's the point of being an evil sack of shit if there's no power to equal the price of tainting your soul?

Might as well just be a necromancer since it offers all the benefits of being an evil cleric with the added bonus of not being locked to just necromancy as a school of magic.

>Even then, why not have them be naturally neutral if it all boils down to a culture thing?
Somewhere on /pol/ an Orc refugee meme was just created

Because you're a sick fuck who couldn't get into heaven if he tried and the dark gods willl give you a cozy afterlife for being one of the few people that will actually worship them, they're very lonely and affectionate

...

...

>When you're so obtuse and autistically stuck in your head that you can't discern obvious b8

It all comes down to a mix of cultural values and perspective full stop.

Lawful Good is Superman. Defends the weak, protects the defenseless, and follows the law as much as the situation allows.

>B-but if you're Lawful, you can''t be a vigilante!
Bullshit. Lawful is a code of honor.

Chaotic Evil is definitely the Joker. I mean he's basically the quintessential CE archetype. Neutral Evil could be Xanatos?

I'd put Batman as way more NG with a lean on Lawful than Chaotic. CG for a superhero would probably be more along the lines of Catwoman on a good day, or the Hulk. Someone who just doesn't give a fuck about laws and rules and doesn't have any personal code more complicated than "Don't make people sad".

...

Most everyone has some form of a code; an essential modus operandi that informs their decisions. To be lawful is to attempt to comform to systems that match your code or values, or to mold your code to fit said system's values. To be chaotic is to seek to tear down systems that do not coincide with your code or values. Either you're working within the status quo or trying to change it. That's it.

...

Change selfish to indifferent
Change ruthless to selfish

Nah. Human beings are, by nature, selfish. Evil isn't merely: "fuck you, I'm looking out for number one". That's Neutral. Evil is more than just self-interested; It's ruthlessly self-interested.

It depends on the circumstances under which you would fuck someone over and lengths you would go to get something you want

Yes, selfish as in self interest to the detriment of all else is what I meant.

To say everyone is selfish by nature is true, but you have to put that into some context because we possess reason as well as instinct. Resisting that base selfish nature to put others above ones self is generally what is meant by kindness and compassion. On the other hand, a willingness to openly fuck anyone and everyone over for ones own benefit alone is generally considered mean, by familiar standards.

So while the default position is to think only of ones self, but the very existence of morality suggests a modifier. And giving in to that base id and taking as much as you can is no longer neutral selfishness, but reasoned and calculated greed.

No person over the age of 5 is only selfish in that purely neutral, instinctual sense outside of reflex action. We take too many factors into account. Taking fewer things into account when making decisions implies indifference. So that chart would be better off assuming what I meant by selfish, rather than basic individual rationality.

>valve
>good
>Nintendo
>good
>blizzard
>not evil
>activision
>not evil

>Paladins can fall
No.

I'd say that neutral means that while you aren't going to hurt innocent people, you also aren't going to sacrifice a lot to help others

...

...

elaborate on the evils, I don't know the name of a single one of those birds

if only the name of the file had information about the contents of the image

Goose, cuck, seagull

swap the goose with the seagul

Canadian Goose; Cuckoo (that bird feeding it is being tricked); Seagull.

They're all complete shithead birds.

Read the filename.

chaotic evil is the joker, neutral evil is that one drifter that likes to use enchantments/drugs to get towns to tear themselves apart, cant remember his name

>Altruism isn't good
>Selfishness isn't bad
Maybe in real life where everything is grey, but if we're talking about fantasy roleplaying games with things like "alignments" this is a weird stance to take.

That said the tax part is dumb. Funny, but dumb.

but why are they evil, come on guys, you know what I asked

If I didn't know the name of course I don't know how they behave.

very aggressive dickish bird

kills eggs of other birds and implants own eggs so other bird can raise young for it

I dunno why gulls. Gulls are bros.

t. south coast -> mid-west user

Sounds fine but that seems more aloof or indifferent to me than overt selfishness, but that's just my two cents. I'll quit bugging you with semantics since I don't really disagree anyway.

Penguins rape children. Young penguins and I think even the young of other species.

Also are seagulls only CE because they shit on cars when you're parked at the beach all day?

I remember a sea lion raping a penguin in a .gif

was weird

Never let anyone tell you nature is ethical

Nothing wrong with putting a little special sauce on your meal.

I've never eaten cum, how does it taste?

Everyone is evil at this point

Nature don't give a single fuck. That's why it gets on my nerves in stories when you have nature coming to the aid of the nature loving heroes. Nature would be just as likely to fuck them as the evil industrialist villain. More likely, actually.

Only story I can think of where nature directly saved the day for the good guys that I liked was the end of Jurassic Park, because it was pure coincidence and it just as easily could have backfired hard.

What happened in Jurassic Park? I literally can't remember.

It works in fantasy where nature is literally a living spiritual force

It tastes like kinda like snot. Bland. The texture stands out more than the taste.

I'm bluffing, but am I right?

Feeling it on my hand it has the same consistency but it probably tastes different but I'm not willing to test it

No.

There are a lot of problems with the OP's pic, including it being made by mearls, but of all the problems you could find in it
>Altruism is Good
>Selfishness is Bad
Is not one of them. Altruism is good... like... by definition, and selfisness is bad... like... by definition. That's like taking issue with water being wet?

Lets open the worm can.

Why is selfishness bad?

youtu.be/gTWo9oLJOWk?t=106

It's a little silly how the Utahraptors decided to attack the tyrannosaurus rather than run away or go for the easier prey, but whatever, they were all fucked up from that frog DNA.

The point though is that T Rex did not arrive to save them, it showed up because it was hungry. It couldn't have possibly given less of a shit about Grant and co. That's the wild nature I prefer to see.

It's canonically evil in DnD, if we're talking real life it gets a bit more complicated

>Because realistically if we examined why an actual person did something "evil" they wouldn't consider themselves or their actions to be evil, they may even consider them to have been a good thing.
If you wouldn't let it be done to yourself, it's not a good thing.

Oooh, I thought you were saying the T Rex died because of nature, and I couldn't remember that

>"Would I have sex with me?"
>"Fuck yeah I'm awesome!"
>Guess its time for rape then

Your logic is flawed

In any logical, ethical, or metaphysical system, you are going to need at-least one given. It is indeed difficult to come up with a given for an ethical proof that everyone can agree on, but "generating net-negative human happiness and longevity" (I.E. selfishness) as a negative and "generating net-positive human happiness and longevity" (I.E. altruism) as a negative is rather hard to argue with.

It depends on what you mean by selfishness. Under what context and to what extent is it being employed? To say all selfishness regardless of context is universally justified is as silly as saying that selfishness is universally evil. Lets employ some nuance, apply some context, and therein may we find common ground...or argue more, ha, who am I kidding? All we do on this site is pretend like there's an objective truth to every little stupid thing.

The golden rule is flawed personally, I just consider any enforcement of your will on another human being wrong

Ehh, that's a very broad statement. So keeping babies alive is wrong? Or are they not human, or..?

>I just consider any enforcement of your will on another human being wrong
That's autistic. The mentally ill cannot understand slitting his wrists is bad. So you have to force him with one of those crazy people sweater to make him not kill himself.

Similarly, with your inbred logic, the one that goes on a rampage outside could not be put ever in jail, because that's imposing the will of someone on him against his will.

So in your absolutely moronic world view, everyone but the strongest would die. You would be one of the first victims since you probably wouldn't even defend yourself since constricting the attacker would be enforcing your will against him.

Stupid evil is best though