Poor mobs led by a few middle class intellectuals begin to massacre the rich and seize their property to distribute...

But you described capitalism.

Evil on the part of the middle class leaders, neutral on the part of the mobs.

What this guy said. It's all about perspective unless the alignment system is rooted in your setting's cosmology.

If that's the case, look to your setting's cosmology: is the order the mob is destroying divinely ordained? Is the mob divinely ordained? Ordained by which gods?

Murdering the rich is always a Good act. People don't get rich by not being Evil themselves.

Yeah, all those capitalist reeducation camps and capitalist loyalty officers executing people are such a bummer.

i mean the whole alignment chart is wavy anyway since good and evil are fairly subjective (not as in "everyone disagrees" but as in "nobody can completely agree" on what good/evil are).

in dnd I'd call it chaotic good since dnd seems to care so little about you murdering people. in the one ring i'd call it evil. in apocalypse world i'd call it an afternoon.

I'd describe the movement itself as chaotic, more than I'd describe it as Good or Evil. Depending on the nature of the rich in the region/setting, it could be justified, or unjustified. I'm not going to tell the men who break their backs harvesting food everyone needs for five cents a day that they shouldn't be angry.

But once you get to 'massacre', which connotes something merciless and indiscriminate, THEN your're getting into Chaotic Evil territory. Good, or even Neutral people would've settled for exile, or maybe making peace with the wealthy on more beneficial terms than there were before. Granted, the latter would've required the middle class and poor people to be in a position of strength to push these changes, which could involve military action. Good intentions isn't enough to make an action 'Good'.

3edgey5me

What if you're massacring Nazis?

Always good in every case.

Killing evil creatures isn't an evil act in and of itself.

What do you call the capitalist prison system? I see people laboring for pennies per day

>prison
Punishment for causing harm to other citizens.

>Poor mobs led by a few middle class intellectuals begin to massacre the rich and seize their property to distribute among the poor in the name of fairness

Evil, because the bureaucracy that will be made to distribute wealth will actually make it even more unequal.

Yeah, if only there was some way for them to have avoided the fate they suffered. Too bad it's pretty much arbitary who goes to prison and who doesn't.

please google "prison industrial complex"

>trusting Google
It's almost like you have mental issues. Oh wait, you do.

Questions like this is why I much prefer the pure law/chaos alignment, without good/evil being a measurable scientific truth. Cosmic Entropy and Cosmic Order are ultimately definable... yeah the average peasant might CALL the things that are moderately aligned with Cosmic Order "good" and that same peasant might CALL the things that are moderately aligned with Cosmic Entropy a "evil," but go too far down either rabbit hole and you soon become sufficiently alien that terms like "good" and "evil" no longer apply.

To look at your example, it's definitely chaos aligned, as it's tearing down organized structures and contributing to the net-entropy of the universe, but as for good and evil, most of the peasants would likely call it good, while the nobles would call it evil, but ultimately, like in real life, good and evil is an ethical judgement call, not a number that can be read on the paladin's tricorder.

TLDR: if you're going to use alignments at all, use OLD alignments; the inclusion of good and evil into the system was a mistake.

At their worst, a capitalist prison in the west is only going to be better than the communist gulag.

Communists are not people, so it's Neutral at best.

Keeling Nazis is always good, which is why Pulp Fiction is so much fun.

No. If you want to argue a point, do it yourself.

meant for

Hey all you /pol/ shitposters, and notoriously easy to troll fa/tg/uys

Daily reminder of th Global Rules.. though it's becoming more than daily these days. If you want /pol/ to stop shitting up our board, instead of taking the bait every time, sage once, and report.

>Inb4 le "everything I don't like is /pol/" meme
Nope, there are lots of things I don't like that aren't /pol/ like 3.PF for example, so not everything is /pol/... but this shiftest of a bait-thread most definitely is.

If you want to actually discuss the alignment system, that's a shitstorm that actually belong here, but this crap does not. Even liberal/pol/ needs to go, because it's still /pol/

>You will not post any of the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?"), anthropomorphic ("furry") or grotesque ("guro") images, post number GETs ("dubs"), or loli/shota pornography.

Nothing there about keeping /pol/shit in /pol/. Considering that the thread OP was about a societal event in a fictional setting, it would seem appropriate to approach it in the framework of established societal models. What you're doing there is precisely what you claim to not be doing: labeling things that aren't /pol/shit as /pol/shit.
If you want to discuss the alignment system and only the alignment system, then don't include anything in the OP that could be interpreted as an invitation to discuss a more popular topic. If, on the other hand, you want to discuss the alignment system and how it would apply to larger scale society instead of just individuals, but don't want any mention of real life political systems, then you're shit out of luck, this is Veeky Forums after all.

you too.

Exactly.
Leave /pol/, tumblr, /leftypol/ or whatever political shit out of Veeky Forums.

...

I agree with your sentiment, but just like you need to remember to limit tiers when playing 3.PF, you need to remember to sage when posting things like this.

You're the one trying to force your opinions on what's /pol/shit and what isn't. Maybe you should go back.

Initiating the murder and theft of anybody is inherently an evil-aligned act.

Obvious bait

>le "but the REAL biggotry is when you're not pen minded to /pol/ bullshit" meme

You have your containment board.

You know where to go.

As for alignments, including good and evil was not a good idea, and was just a move to pacify people who wanted it to feel less Vance/Howard/Barsoom, and feel more Tolkien. Overall a loss that's hurt the zeitgeist of fantasy

It's 2 different acts

>Murdering people for their class status
Evil, even if these are greedy exploitative fucks, murdering people like this is evil

>Distributing the kingdoms wealth to improve the wellbeing of the poorest
Evil, you have brought about the downfall of society as lazy peasants now see no reason to work as the state will support them.

>Any and all mentions of politics in any form must happen in one specific board and nowhere else, even if it would be on topic.
You're trying to fit in way too hard with all that "yeah, I belong here, I hate 3.PF and all that". Literally the epitome of "How do you do, fellow fa/tg/uys?"

The inclusion of good and evil was flawed in their naming. They were objectively defined moral quantities in the game, but in real life they aren't, leading to confusion over what constitutes as lawful good or true neutral, for example. Just naming them differently would've improved their inclusion significantly.

>Yeah, all those capitalist reeducation camps
television and advertising

Would helping slaves escape be an evil act then? Doing so does essentially count as theft according to the laws of a slave society. And murder, well that usually implies an unjustified, unprovoked killing, but I don't think the use of deadly force when necessary to oppose evil is itself an evil act. Good is more than the absence of evil action and intent, it requires proactively fighting against evil, and sometimes does require doing what would be an evil act if it were performed on innocents.

>Evil, you have brought about the downfall of society as lazy peasants now see no reason to work as the state will support them.
The definitions of good and evil don't address "society". All that matters is justice and freedom for individuals.

Society aids individuals more than Anarchy ever would

>Murder and theft are good if you're poor

>mob mentality in particular makes it hard to pick out who exactly is a cold-blooded murderer out of a riled up crowd.
Just look for the guy in the middle. Or, if he's smart, look for the guy in the middle who is quietly trying to leave.

In which case a society is only Good if it actually does benefit individuals. Society itself is neither Good nor Evil, its existence has zero morale value by itself, only the consequences of its existence can be Good or Evil.

>Doing so does essentially count as theft according to the laws
>according to the laws

Wow. It's almost like you accidentally pegged freeing slaves as a Chaotic act, not an Evil one.

ITT
>Any sort of sticky situation makes it hard to recoconsile the 2-axis, 9-box allignment system
>/pol/ leaks

Oh look, this thread again... and again... and again....

What makes murder and theft of monsters Good, then?

Oh look, it's user being a smug prick rather than hiding the thread or contributing to it, again.

The person I was replying to claimed that "theft" is inherently evil. I'm basically pointing out that such actions fall on the law/chaos axis because there simply isn't a universal definition of "theft".

Nothing. Unless the monsters have been killing innocents, anyway, as monsters are wont to do.

My bad. Leaped before looking.

Honestly, this question is probably somewhat beyond the scope of the Dungeons and Dragons alignment system.

I think we can agree that it's a chaotic act. The question is, "When you can perceive only two plausible futures, indefinite suffering or revolution, what should you do?" Human beings have never worked out a good answer to that one.

>The person I was replying to claimed that "theft" is inherently evil. I'm basically pointing out that such actions fall on the law/chaos axis
Essentially, if you're looking for universal definitions (pic related, we all know you are) then basically EVERY action fits better on the law/chaos axis better than it does on the good/evil axis.... that's why the game originally didn't HAVE a good/evil axis, just a law chaos one. This is one of the only ways D&D alignment actually makes any sense when even the slightest bit of stress is applied.

How did the rich people acquire their propriety is the true question, did they actually provide a service or create wealth that was so necessary to society that it cannot function without them?
Did they just hoard wealth like dragons by using fear and violence to get their way like the soviet governement in 1930s?
Did they enslave the population and made sure that no meritocracy would be in put in place to make sure they'd always be in charge and to prevent social movement up and down the status ladder to be a thing?
Do they actually wish to redistribute wealth in a fair way or will they do like every other society and distribute in an efficient way so that the system doesn't collapse and that people don't have to suffer more attrocities?
Depending on the answer to thoses question it's either chaotic evil to do such a thing of lawful good, god knows there's very steps in between robespierre and robin hood but thoses really do matter.

Alignments are bad and you should feel bad about using them.

>Remember, however, that goodness has no absolute values. Although many things are commonly accepted as good (helping those in need, protecting the weak), different cultures impose their own interpretations on what is good and what is evil.

>Evil is the antithesis of good and appears in many ways, some overt and others quite subtle. Only a few people of evil nature actively seek to cause harm or destruction. Most simply do not recognize that what they do is destructive or disruptive. People and things that obstruct the evil character's plans are mere hindrances that must be overcome. If someone is harmed in the process... well, that's too bad. Remember that evil, like good, is interpreted differently in different societies.

So according to AD&D, depends on the society

If you are going to use alignments don't bring any story more complex than stereotypical good vs evil. The alignment system crumbles into dust the moment that you add any sort of real life or moral complexity.

>The alignment system crumbles into dust the moment that you add any sort of real life or moral complexity

Or you get Paladins actually using smite evil on each other, and it works, because from one Paladin's point of view, it's the Paladins that are evil.

Also sand

Does Revolutionary France bring any bells? Because that's exactly what it was.

>a revolt that came literally out of a famine and the lack of control over the governement
>literally priding itself over rejecting the authority of the church and literally killing all rich n obles in sight, vandalizing all religious statues, stealing the church and any rich noble goods and riches.
>muh capitalism
Capitalism wasn't even an ideology back then the right to entrepreneurship was literally for city-folks only most of the time, that or nobles. Literally sans cullotes are just fucking people sick of feudalism and state instated classes that would prevent social mobility up and down the social ladder.
It's literally not for unfair distribution of wealth since the very concept of distribution of wealth at the time was technically impossible, there was fucking none inside France after a bad harvest, bankruptcy and texile industry failing due to colonies lost in the seven years war.
The philosophy of 1700s "Enlightements" is to bring more freedom to the people, to abolish serfdom and to do away with noble oppression. Ideologies shared with Communist.
The only thing they shared with capitalism was the core belief that freedom to invest and meritocracy would overall bring about a more sane society and that's literally about it.
They're closer to anarchists trying to form a governement that govern less stupidly than capitalists trying to seize money from people who are innocents.
It's literally the bougoisie with the mandate of the people taking over and becoming themselves the nobles but originally it was just to instate constitutional monarchy and when the nobles and monarch decided to supress and kill them all they straight up created a republic and started executing nobles.
The reign of Terror in France is about neither of theses ideologies, it's just a huge fucking revolt to kill the governing class because they fucked up, It wasn't as much of a capitalist revolt as a political purge ochestrated by radicals and the people.

Republicanism (and liberal humanism), user. Not communism.

Communism adopted the red flag of republicanism, and you might say that communism develops on a lot of republicanism's ideals, but they're different popular ideologies from different times.

Remember, it's only evil if you kill the ones that can't defend themselves.

Similar to Thailand but replace the "middleclass" with the rich/new money and "the rich" with the royalty/elite/old money.
The poor are chaotic evil, the rich are neutral evil and the royalty/elite/old money are lawful evil.

Nazis typically are able to (barely) fight back, so it's technically not a massacre.
Technically.

Anyone making more that 10,000 Ankh-Morpork pounds a year is considered capable of defending themselves, or at least employing someone who can protect them.

The rich are always able to defend themselves.
Technically.

Expanding beyond law, neutral, and chaos was a mistake.

You'll understand eventually.

what do you suggest they be named?

Not him but
>Good = Ideal
>Evil = Pragmatic
So a Paladin would be Lawful Ideal since they strive to be the best person they can be while an Assassin would be Neutral Pragmatic since their job is to kill their target, regardless of how they might make them look in the eyes of others.

Also, it's much easier to chart out how ideal or how pragmatic someone is than to quantify how good or evil someone is.

>it's much easier

Easier still, is to grasp that "fairness" does not exist in natural law, but is a rhetorical fiction used for rabble-rousing by malicious "community organizers." Those gifted at creating wealth are not inherently "evil," and billions of people of modest means have lived long, happy lives without private planes. Conversely, mass murder is, historically, considered tres gauche and a social faux pas.

tl;dr: Evil. And declasse.

Conservatives like to condemn the people who are non-lethally going after Nazis right now, so they'd probably not support massacring nazis either.

Killing for material gains can never be good, user

>murder
Yes

Good

Since the basic question will inevitably slide us into /pol/ territory, then it depends if the rich were paying their fair share of the tax burden.

Heh, but really, the question is pretty useless if we don't know the circumstances, and that means asking some questions about the world building.

If we're looking at a Gilded Age-like setting, where the poor are working like slaves for pennies in unsafe and inhospitable conditions, and the rich are actively doing what they can to not give a shit about their fellow citizens across social classes, then yes, it can reasonably be construed as a good action.

Then again, if you make this an empire that's on its last leg, and a few misguided intellects are rousing the population into a frenzy and assigning blame to the people who, by circumstance of birth, have some better conditions, then it's a tragedy story without any good guys.

By the standards of today's political discourse, they make the Nazi's look like good guys.

Not ideologically, of course. Antifa hate everybody that's not communist. Liberal, conservative, cuck, Nazi, you name it.

The difference is that, while "Far Right" ideologies makes it much easier to self-radicalize, elements of Antifa actively support bringing violence into political discourse, non-lethal or no. Nazi's today don't openly support violence, while Antifa made Richard Spencer famous for being the guy who got sucker punched on camera.

Nazis were always the good guys

I like to think of alignment in D&D as a framework that deities set for their followers. When a being ascends to deity status it creates a moral framework e.g. "sacrificing minority for the sake of majority is good" or "taking a person's life if always evil". The good/evil tint is relative and may change as pantheon changes. This relates to PS:T's "thinking into matter" where belief could change reality, which is cool IMO.

In other words, alignment (aka morality) reflects the "consensus" among Gods of the same alignment - which is subject to change if a rogue deity with a different view becomes powerful enough.

Depends on how well the poor are treated. If they're just rioting because they can, it's evil. If there's a famine going on and the rich are responsible for the poor starving, neutral. If there's a famine that the rich aren't responsible for, but the poor need food and the rich aren't giving, it could be argued to be either and the movement will likely contain elements of both. But it will always be chaotic.

>Killing for material gains can never be good, user
If you're selectively killing evil people and the material gains keep the poor masses from starving, I think you could make a good case for it.

Which are voluntary or easily ignored, unlike the prison camps where people were sent to work themselves to death in the cold wastelands because they smiled at a joke about plumbing in the Kremlin

>being this naive

>not using Good or Evil
>but still using 9-point alignment
You dumbass.