Why do people don't understand this?

...

What about the alignement of a slave liberator in a society where having slaves is lawful?

ITT : /pol/acks

Isn't this just the 4e square?

>this is what LG actually believes.
Anarchy is the most free society.
Chaotic = freedom
Freedon =/= evil

By its very nature, society requires order to function.

Implying a chaotic character would even care about society. A confederacy or tribalism could also be chaotic.

I think this one is better beacuse it's esentialy the same as before but with less nebulous language.

A confederacy or tribe is still a society.
You know, even low technology societies have laws

Chaotic evil because slavery is a prerequisite for civilisation

4e didn't use a square, they used a line
Lawful Good - Good - Unaligned - Evil - Chaotic Evil

>muffled Hoooii in the distance

Some faggot theory:
If you'd change "Lawful" and "Chaotic" to "Collectivism" and "Individualism", plus "Good" and "Evil" to "Altruism" and "Egoism" - would the chart keep its (core) meaning?

You're contradicting yourself.

lets say you are in a tribe as a visitor.
canibalsim or human sacrifice is normal here to appease the gods or whatever.
The law here would see it as neccesary for you to participate in those activities.

Finally, a chance to use this.

I thought Veeky Forums of all boards wouldn't have to have it explained to them that alignments aren't relative terms, and that Lawful doesn't refer to the law of the land.

Please, noone take this bait. Don't let my sacrifice be in vain. Goodbye.

But what you are implying is these would be more evil yet a communism would be more good.

You're welcome.

A person who runs 4 red lights to get someone he doesn't know to the hospital before the bleed out from a stabbing wound is Chaotic Good. A lawful good approach would be to perform first aid and life preserving on site till an ambulance could arrive.

Because it's wrong and extremely open ended chart that NEVER worked and never will work, serving also almost no real purpose other than being pointless rule bloat.

>i am smarter than the law
>i am too lazy and selfish to think about society
t. pride, sloth and probably others

their law is false then and as lawful good it must be replaced with the true one

The people who make the law are sick to the core, I suppose you believe it is okay to fuck children if you are rich

Since I am also good, no. They must stand fair trial

Nice is different than good, something every rpg player should understand before attempting to define alignment.

Nah, he didn't.

Yea. I think that's a good way of putting it, though lawful often has to do with having principles and sticking to them I kind of hate that because chaotic good people stick to their principles all the fucking time, that's what makes them good.

I suppose the law/chaos spectrum could be defined as like... How predictable a person is, or loyalty to ideals? Maybe how changeable you are. Contrarian? Principled and... Flux? kind of works.

Altruism and selfishness are definitely better than good and evil. Motive matters in alignment more than actions.

yeah this is what I use

>peaceful
>anarchy
Libertarians are subhuman scum.

A lawful good character opposes order that does not promote good.
A lawful evil character opposes order that does not benefit him.
Only a lawful neutral character believes order is a good and desirable in itself

The system has its flaws but it's not complicated.

Law/Chaos has always been
Follows Rules/Cheats

The problem mainly comes from the fact that anything can be a 'law' and by naming it 'Lawful' people intentionally misunderstand it just to be cunts. A Lawful person reads the rules of the game and if they have a problem with them either doesn't play or wants an agreed upon house rule change. A chaotic person thinks you collect money for free parking and he swears that is totally a rule.

Your own fault for visiting this tribe.

What's the best way to play Chaotic Neutral without being lolsorandum wacky?

There is no state in communism

With exception to egoism being evil, yes. Evils less of a philosophy and more of a criminal disregard for society, for example LE might be a sociopath and CE a psychopath. The evil part is sort of a testament to their dysfunction and ruthless selfishness. Also egoism is inherently individualistic, they are very similar. Collectivist Egoist makes no sense.

Freedom is evil when not tempered by law and obligation.

I guess you missed this cancer then?

>Communism
>good

>commies actually believe this

Why do some use adverbs instead of adjectives?

Someone who values freedom over the well-being of others (and their own), and has nothing but contempt for people who let themselves be controlled in exchange for safety or any sort of benefit.

...

Open any marxist books and you'll understand

Selfish opportunist who doesn't get wrapped up in other people's shit unless it benefits him

You are technically correct. However, it's been shown to be an inherent risk of socialist revolutions that the 'Vanguard' government assumes more-or-less permanent control. The means of avoiding this occurrence and transitioning from Capitalism to total Communism have either not been discovered, or haven't been successfully applied on a larger scale.

Personally, I'm much more a fan of directly forming collectives out of people who actually want to participate in them, no matter how much smaller they would be by comparison to a socialist state.

What distinguishes Selfish from Ruthless, though? It's a start, but it's still vague.

It only works in settings built with consideration for it, where each alignment's place is defined. Are they a collection of opposing cosmic forces only vaguely describable by their namesakes? Are they legitimate descriptors for morality and ethics in the context of the world? Are they just esoteric metagame statistics that might never come up? Sometimes you just want to do away with it and write your own alignment table/circle/pentagram/hypercube/dodecahedron/potato/tomato representative of the major conflicts in your campaign.

I know exactly what that faggot Marx said, and it's nothing more than an excuse (that wasn't REAL communism) whenever communism goes tits up.

If you unironically believe in dialetics, you should gas yourself.

Because even the books that were supposed to be teaching them what each one really meant were lying to them. The only true definitions are in the 1e DMG

>Can I borrow five dollars?

>Kind: Sure, no need to repay, it's just five fucking dollars

>Selfish: Sure, but I want fifteen back by Friday, deal? Alternatively, no. Alternatively, yes, but only because you're a friend.

>Ruthless: *Beats the shit out of you and takes five dollars off of you*

Wouldn't that mean they'd have contempt for agriculture? They're letting their movements be controlled by the location of stationary food sources. Come to think of it, nomads and pastoralists are also controlled by the changing locations of their food sources.

No one is free, for all are slaves to the whims of Nature.

Maybe something like a regular tree would be neutral?
It's not good or evil, it just does tree stuff.
It's not lawful or chaotic, it just does tree stuff.

Then what did he said?

It's for people with no real motives who just take life as it comes. Whether that's because they're bankrupt on ambition (and thus content) or they've realized their existence or even all of existence is pointless (and thus left in despair), it's where all the people who don't really have a REASON to be are.

This is actually a thing:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness_to_experience

>loaning a friend five dollars is selfish

It's selfish because it's ONLY done because that person is someone you know and like, rather than a stranger. It implies that your altruism is limited to those who are already positive factors in your life. "Selfish" isn't just "me," it's also "us" as opposed to "them." Someone Neutral Selfish will still help out the rest of the party, but on personal grounds rather than out of any actual attachment to the quest. "These are my dudes," so to speak.

And of course, you can't have an "us" without a "them."

That's not the same thing. At all.

>loaning a friend with interest
>not selfish
Oy vey.

If everything is Lawful Good then there's only one square. Additionally I get the feeling he's going for a "everyone is good in their own mind, maaaan" interpretation of alignment which is not a contradiction but still wrong and useless.

It would fit the idea of 'neutrality', which is what the word 'selfish' is being used to represent. The two have different connotations, for sure, but for the purpose of this conversation, let's say that this is that.

If you're giving five dollars with the expectation that you'll just get it later, it's not necessarily Good-with-a-capital-G. Just a business transaction if anything else. But that can tip over into selfishness if your interest rate is 300%, especially if this is a friend. Usury is bad.

A 'Good' or 'Nice' thing to do would be to just forward the five bucks. Maybe not the most pragmatic choice, but that's part of what made it a (really minor) Good thing to do. There's a (little) sacrifice there. This isn't to say that you have to do this every time to the point you're being fleeced, but a friend should generally be willing to help a friend with little shit like that.

Oh wait, just contradicted myself. A person obviously doesn't need to be a friend to make giving them five dollars a potentially good thing. It'd be even better if you were willing to help a stranger, like a beggar, or some other down-on-their-luck type.

Well in this case it's not that abstract, it's being controlled by people specifically.

It's not the same thing, but people with high openness lean towards those values.

In you example kind is equal to generous (you could be refusing in a kind matter), selfish isn't saying anything and ruthless is beeing cruel in the edgy kind of way.

It's basically the same problem as with the original projected on something else. You have two opposites and something meaninless in the middle to buffer the extremes.
Everything except a perfect match for the extremes is debatable and unclear even if every definition is perfectly understood.

Unironically AnCaps

They don't want to participate in society unless it suits them and their interests at the time. While simultaneously not being willing to actively destroy the lives of others to achieve their goals, they also won't help people who've gotten themselves into a pickle.

TL:DR people who want freedom for its own sake, regardless of the drawbacks.

I just use
Lawful
Neutral
Chaotic
As my alignment system. It's up to you for how your character plays within those bounds. An evil character can still certainly exist, and evil entities exist, but that's a title someone EARNS rather than is born with.

Alignment is a cancer that has spread throughout the entire hobby. It has metastasized in the minds of people who refuse to leave it behind, even as the rulesets slowly do, and ruined generations of players and DMs.

And it does this by deviously substituting its own terms for preexisting ones. Genociding a village of raider people isn't good, but it is Good. And then this subtle switcheroo occurs in the minds of people also, and endless debates are had about alignment categories using terms originally used for morality, except alignment isn't about morality at all. It's about a battle royale of cosmic essences that seek to perpetuate themselves at the expense of their counterparts.

obligatory

No, different kinds of Lawful Good with different cultural backings. Good is what everyone is striving for, but the target means to that good is different. Everyone operates by their own worldview and logic to deal with it and are operating within their perception of lawfulness.

Chaos is just used to describe alien behavior patterns of other cultures. Evil is used to describe a good that harms a certain perspective rather than aid it.

This malicious confusion of terms then implies a setting and influences the actions, thoughts and decisions of characters, even if the actual setting doesn't have alignment planes and all that bullshit at all.

There are multiple ways, depending on the aspect you want to focus on.
The important thing is to focus on the difference between chaos and order.. I mean lawfulness. And avoid anything "good" or "evil".

You might value your personal freedom over everything else. Or you really hate the limitations of authority in general.
That can mean you are an anarchist rebel or a happy go lucky opportunist or simply a criminal.
Or maybe you just have a terrible orientation, a bad memory, liking the ladies or whine too much to care for what is right or just beeing messy?
You could even see a barbarian as chaotic simply by the fact that he rejects the shackles of society.

You have to see chaos more as the opposit to law, order and authoritarianism as beeing just random for the sake of beeing random.
It's about opportunities and freedom vs safety and culture.

Lawful Good. But your Lawful Good definition doesn't behave like society's typical lawful good, nor does it present clear benefits.

Alright so instead of a grid, how about multiple scales?

>Pacifist / Violent
>Altruistic / Selfish
>Honest / Dishonest
>Friendly / Mean
>Outgoing / Shy
>Prudent / Adventurous
>Ambitious / Content

Idk, you don't want to have too many of course. It's just to give an at a glance idea of who your character is. B

...

...

>ancoms and lolbershits
>good
>the right
>chaotic

Lawful Good is played too often as Angel Hitler. All those Paladins that just murder, shun and report anything that isn't as holy as them...

I wouldn't automatically assume trustworthiness of such a character. NG, sure. But LG is a coin toss.

Right, so the exact misunderstanding of the alignment system I was talking about.

>Angel Hitler
Why be redundant, user?

>Putting Good/Evil on the authoritarian/libertarian axis

Same reason as why people dont get quantum mechanics. It is at odds with everyday human experience.

It's because most people are brainlets.

Which is the reason why people refer to "the current model of what we've observed about quantum mechanics" as "quantum mechanics" and think the two are interchangeable.

Quantum mechanics cannot be simplified to be understandable to brianlets, D&D can drop brainpower demanding mechanics and concepts.